5 ms·

Netflix: Love is sharing a password (2017)

82 points by elashri 4y ago

ninju 4y ago
How times have changed https://time.com/6223415/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown/ https://time.com/6223415/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown/
FalconSensei 4y ago
The reason I share password is just because there's no way to get full-hd (let alone 4K) for a 1 screen plan. I have to pay for 2 screens to get 1080p, and for 4 screen to get 4k. If someone in my family is paying for 4 screens, we should be able to use it with 4 people, right?
- Gollapalli 4y ago
  Haven't subscribed to Netflix for a few years now (issues with their content). What is this about paying for screens? Don't you just have access to their service once you pay for it?
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    "Four screens" means you can run four streams concurrently.
  - zerocrates 4y ago
    Their higher tiers increase both your maximum streaming resolution and the number of simultaneous streams you can do.
- iamchp 4y ago
  Totally agree. There should be a cheaper option of one-screen 4K and without the games. I don't understand why I need to pay for the games that I don't want to play.
  - arglebargle123 4y ago
    Think of the shareholders!
  - FalconSensei 4y ago
    Oh yeah, totally forgot about the games. Instead of renewing shows, just dump money into games for you VIDEO STREAMING service. Because of course!
  - jerojero 4y ago
    Think of the people who would be interested and who would be able to play 4k. Do they have money? Absolutely. To stream 4k you need a good internet connection and good equipment. With this in mind, it completely makes sense to charge the most for 4k. Someone that cares is more than wealthy enough to pay for it. Having a 4k 1 person plan would be a loss of profits.
    - noahtallen 4y ago
      You can stream 4K on common network connections (20mbps), and 4K TVs are cheap. While I agree that it’s premium, just because many people don’t notice the quality difference, the real problem is the competition. Disney Plus, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime (and even Peacock!) have 4K HDR on their basic paid plans. Netflix is drastically behind here.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  What would you pay for a one screen, 4K plan? $15?
  - KMnO4 4y ago
    In 2015, I would have been all over that. But with every media company wanting their piece of my wallet, I have a hard time justifying paying for Netflix on its own. Part of the appeal of sharing your account is that it brings the effective cost closer to $5/mo/person at most. Or, what most people I know do: one person pays for Netflix, one for Disney+, one for HBO, etc. Even if I can get a single screen 4K plan for say, $10, there’s no way I’m paying $50 for 5 different services for just myself.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      Thanks. That’s a bit different than the other user’s reasoning that the single screen plan ought to support 4K, since the single screen 480p plan costs $10/mo, twice what you’re willing to pay for a service. You valuing access around $5/mo suggests Netflix’s experimental pricing of $3-4/mo per shared login might be dialed in, though.
  - FalconSensei 4y ago
    I would say that, the 1 screen plan should support full HD, and the 2 screen plan should support 4k, as current price. They can save money by not spending in games. C'mon, we are in 2022, no one wants to pay to watch 720p
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Yeah, I keep wondering about this business model choice too. Netflix is the only major streamer left at this point charging for HD and 4K as separate tiers. The other major streamers do sometimes tier on simultaneous screens, and often refer to higher tiers as "family plans". Netflix is at least unintentionally messaging at this point that "only families want or need higher quality streams" and that is a very weird mixed message in the current streaming market, especially now with their slowly increasingly more hostile messaging that they are tired of people sharing passwords (because the shareholders demand account growth in a saturated market with a much-increased field of competitors).
  - dixie_land 4y ago
    for that matter we should stop calling 1080p HD :( on a mordern display 1080p content are visibly pixilated
    - FullyFunctional 4y ago
      I'd love it if we could just go back to the sane convention that calls a spade a spade. Eg, it's 120 V and 240 V, not "standard-volt" and "super-volt". USB is participial farcical with their ever laughable naming schemes. At least Ethernet is reasonably sane. (And don't get me started on how 4K is a blatant lie as it's really 3860-px wide. 2160p is also ok. Real 4K is a thing, but not consumer).
      - noahtallen 4y ago
        4k being 3860px thing doesn’t even matter. It’s still 4x the pixel count vs 1080p and looks excellent. The real quality problem is bitrate, not raw resolution. A 1080p Blu-ray looks absolutely amazing on a 4K TV. Low-bitrate 4k looks like dogshit. I’d be ok with Netflix’s 1080p if the compression wasn’t so poor on some titles!
- matt-p 4y ago
  They also allow 5 profiles. I don't know why one person would have more than a single profile. What the actual plans seems to be is to keep multiple profiles and multiple streams but insist that users of a plan are "in the same household" which is totally nuts and the most cable/broadcast TV way of thinking possible. Presumably they will fingerprint each client and ensure that these clients are "normally" coming from the same location or even IP. Totally mad, will end in tears .
- meinersbur 4y ago
  4k on Netflix isn't worth the additional cost. Only Netfix' own productions are 4k, and the additional resolution is consumed by an excessive amount of artificial film grain.
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Their pricing model is problematic for most households. For such a brilliant company I, for the life of me, can’t understand the arguments for not having a single screen, 4k at a lower price type model.
- jerojero 4y ago
  I'll explain it to you. 4k requires relatively expensive equipment and relatively expensive internet connection. So the reasoning is as follows: What's the average income of people interested in 4k streaming? The answer is "of our subscribers they tend to be on the higher end of the spectrum" then why not upcharge them given that they are in the segment that's both interested and wealthy enough to pay for it. 4k 1 screen would have to be cheaper than the current 4k 4 screens, therefore you'd be losing money because a portion of people in that wealthy segment would be effectively downgrading their plans. The alternative point of view is "how many people wealthy enough and interested in 4k do not have a Netflix account?" I would assume they probably think most everyone in this segment does have Netflix. These are probably the kind of people that have all streaming services. If you look at Netflix strategy they're not trying to capture more people from the top; as they already have them. They're trying to capture low income people and so it makes much more sense for them to offer cheaper plans with ads rather than cheaper "premium" plans. Hope that makes sense.
vsskanth 4y ago
I never understood the password sharing problem. You can have max 4 streams at a time. And people are paying for it. What they do with it is not a concern for Netflix. They need to either change it to a different unlimited streams but 1 location plan, or create a new higher tier stream anywhere but Max 4 plan
- joecot 4y ago
  The reason is they want to bundle stream quality to stream quantity to keep squeezing subscription money for features you don't use. I share my account because 4k streaming is locked behind their Premium tier, 4 simultaneous stream account. I pay double the price in order to get 4k streaming. If they don't want me to share my account, I'd be happy with a 4k quality, 1 stream quantity account, at a lower price. They don't want to do that. When they keep the pricing the same and now try to charge me for account sharing, I'll just cancel. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926
  - gary_0 4y ago
    Ah, bundling shenanigans, just like the cable companies. Although I guess Netflix became a cable company the minute they started doing streaming: same business model as HBO, just over the Internet. But now they're no longer special in that regard.
- brocket 4y ago
  Also why are they even encouraging password sharing? Spotify family plan model makes much more sense, each member of the family plan has their own account with separate login. No more risks of oversharing the password or wondering who changed something.
  - sahila 4y ago
    That is interesting and I wonder how you prevent password sharing. What comes to mind is using Google / Fb accounts for sign in instead of a separate Netflix sign-in. Whenever it's the former, I won't share with others but the latter I have no issues sharing since it's a single use account.
dbttdft 4y ago
Well, that's one tiny step forward from "you can't share your account because I said so how dare you even think of such a thing you should be cancelled" (not even ranting about Netflix specifically, just all the companies in general that do this).
oriettaxx 4y ago
and the fake 'your password is wrong'? pathetic!

82 points by elashri 4y ago

How times have changed https://time.com/6223415/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown/ https://time.com/6223415/netflix-password-sharing-crackdown/

FalconSensei 4y ago

The reason I share password is just because there's no way to get full-hd (let alone 4K) for a 1 screen plan. I have to pay for 2 screens to get 1080p, and for 4 screen to get 4k. If someone in my family is paying for 4 screens, we should be able to use it with 4 people, right?

Gollapalli 4y ago
Haven't subscribed to Netflix for a few years now (issues with their content). What is this about paying for screens? Don't you just have access to their service once you pay for it?
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  "Four screens" means you can run four streams concurrently.
- zerocrates 4y ago
  Their higher tiers increase both your maximum streaming resolution and the number of simultaneous streams you can do.
iamchp 4y ago
Totally agree. There should be a cheaper option of one-screen 4K and without the games. I don't understand why I need to pay for the games that I don't want to play.
- arglebargle123 4y ago
  Think of the shareholders!
- FalconSensei 4y ago
  Oh yeah, totally forgot about the games. Instead of renewing shows, just dump money into games for you VIDEO STREAMING service. Because of course!
- jerojero 4y ago
  Think of the people who would be interested and who would be able to play 4k. Do they have money? Absolutely. To stream 4k you need a good internet connection and good equipment. With this in mind, it completely makes sense to charge the most for 4k. Someone that cares is more than wealthy enough to pay for it. Having a 4k 1 person plan would be a loss of profits.
  - noahtallen 4y ago
    You can stream 4K on common network connections (20mbps), and 4K TVs are cheap. While I agree that it’s premium, just because many people don’t notice the quality difference, the real problem is the competition. Disney Plus, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime (and even Peacock!) have 4K HDR on their basic paid plans. Netflix is drastically behind here.
1123581321 4y ago
What would you pay for a one screen, 4K plan? $15?
- KMnO4 4y ago
  In 2015, I would have been all over that. But with every media company wanting their piece of my wallet, I have a hard time justifying paying for Netflix on its own. Part of the appeal of sharing your account is that it brings the effective cost closer to $5/mo/person at most. Or, what most people I know do: one person pays for Netflix, one for Disney+, one for HBO, etc. Even if I can get a single screen 4K plan for say, $10, there’s no way I’m paying $50 for 5 different services for just myself.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    Thanks. That’s a bit different than the other user’s reasoning that the single screen plan ought to support 4K, since the single screen 480p plan costs $10/mo, twice what you’re willing to pay for a service. You valuing access around $5/mo suggests Netflix’s experimental pricing of $3-4/mo per shared login might be dialed in, though.
- FalconSensei 4y ago
  I would say that, the 1 screen plan should support full HD, and the 2 screen plan should support 4k, as current price. They can save money by not spending in games. C'mon, we are in 2022, no one wants to pay to watch 720p
WorldMaker 4y ago
Yeah, I keep wondering about this business model choice too. Netflix is the only major streamer left at this point charging for HD and 4K as separate tiers. The other major streamers do sometimes tier on simultaneous screens, and often refer to higher tiers as "family plans". Netflix is at least unintentionally messaging at this point that "only families want or need higher quality streams" and that is a very weird mixed message in the current streaming market, especially now with their slowly increasingly more hostile messaging that they are tired of people sharing passwords (because the shareholders demand account growth in a saturated market with a much-increased field of competitors).
- dixie_land 4y ago
  for that matter we should stop calling 1080p HD :( on a mordern display 1080p content are visibly pixilated
  - FullyFunctional 4y ago
    I'd love it if we could just go back to the sane convention that calls a spade a spade. Eg, it's 120 V and 240 V, not "standard-volt" and "super-volt". USB is participial farcical with their ever laughable naming schemes. At least Ethernet is reasonably sane. (And don't get me started on how 4K is a blatant lie as it's really 3860-px wide. 2160p is also ok. Real 4K is a thing, but not consumer).
    - noahtallen 4y ago
      4k being 3860px thing doesn’t even matter. It’s still 4x the pixel count vs 1080p and looks excellent. The real quality problem is bitrate, not raw resolution. A 1080p Blu-ray looks absolutely amazing on a 4K TV. Low-bitrate 4k looks like dogshit. I’d be ok with Netflix’s 1080p if the compression wasn’t so poor on some titles!
matt-p 4y ago
They also allow 5 profiles. I don't know why one person would have more than a single profile. What the actual plans seems to be is to keep multiple profiles and multiple streams but insist that users of a plan are "in the same household" which is totally nuts and the most cable/broadcast TV way of thinking possible. Presumably they will fingerprint each client and ensure that these clients are "normally" coming from the same location or even IP. Totally mad, will end in tears .
meinersbur 4y ago
4k on Netflix isn't worth the additional cost. Only Netfix' own productions are 4k, and the additional resolution is consumed by an excessive amount of artificial film grain.

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

Their pricing model is problematic for most households. For such a brilliant company I, for the life of me, can’t understand the arguments for not having a single screen, 4k at a lower price type model.

jerojero 4y ago
I'll explain it to you. 4k requires relatively expensive equipment and relatively expensive internet connection. So the reasoning is as follows: What's the average income of people interested in 4k streaming? The answer is "of our subscribers they tend to be on the higher end of the spectrum" then why not upcharge them given that they are in the segment that's both interested and wealthy enough to pay for it. 4k 1 screen would have to be cheaper than the current 4k 4 screens, therefore you'd be losing money because a portion of people in that wealthy segment would be effectively downgrading their plans. The alternative point of view is "how many people wealthy enough and interested in 4k do not have a Netflix account?" I would assume they probably think most everyone in this segment does have Netflix. These are probably the kind of people that have all streaming services. If you look at Netflix strategy they're not trying to capture more people from the top; as they already have them. They're trying to capture low income people and so it makes much more sense for them to offer cheaper plans with ads rather than cheaper "premium" plans. Hope that makes sense.

vsskanth 4y ago

I never understood the password sharing problem. You can have max 4 streams at a time. And people are paying for it. What they do with it is not a concern for Netflix. They need to either change it to a different unlimited streams but 1 location plan, or create a new higher tier stream anywhere but Max 4 plan

joecot 4y ago
The reason is they want to bundle stream quality to stream quantity to keep squeezing subscription money for features you don't use. I share my account because 4k streaming is locked behind their Premium tier, 4 simultaneous stream account. I pay double the price in order to get 4k streaming. If they don't want me to share my account, I'd be happy with a 4k quality, 1 stream quantity account, at a lower price. They don't want to do that. When they keep the pricing the same and now try to charge me for account sharing, I'll just cancel. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926
- gary_0 4y ago
  Ah, bundling shenanigans, just like the cable companies. Although I guess Netflix became a cable company the minute they started doing streaming: same business model as HBO, just over the Internet. But now they're no longer special in that regard.
brocket 4y ago
Also why are they even encouraging password sharing? Spotify family plan model makes much more sense, each member of the family plan has their own account with separate login. No more risks of oversharing the password or wondering who changed something.
- sahila 4y ago
  That is interesting and I wonder how you prevent password sharing. What comes to mind is using Google / Fb accounts for sign in instead of a separate Netflix sign-in. Whenever it's the former, I won't share with others but the latter I have no issues sharing since it's a single use account.

dbttdft 4y ago

Well, that's one tiny step forward from "you can't share your account because I said so how dare you even think of such a thing you should be cancelled" (not even ranting about Netflix specifically, just all the companies in general that do this).

oriettaxx 4y ago

and the fake 'your password is wrong'? pathetic!