40 ms·

Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

• rrr83 4y ago
  As someone already said = 'Netlfix doesn't cost money it cost your TIME' , so better live without it?
• foxyv 4y ago
  I'm honestly a little surprised at how little backlash Netflix has gotten for this. They seem to be doing great despite treating their users like poop. Then again, the competition isn't that much better either.
• _chu1 4y ago
  Back to piracy
• calme_toi 4y ago
  https://archive.ph/eaSRg https://archive.ph/eaSRg
• not_your_vase 4y ago
  Okay, but 6-700k of this million were not paying users, but password-borrowers.
  • The_Colonel 4y ago
    Still a significant loss. Netflix expected more paying customers from this step, not less.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • wartijn_ 4y ago
      They still expect more paying customers from this step. > Last week Netflix missed expectations for new subscribers in the first quarter, but the company said that the password-policing plan and a cheaper streaming version with ads will accelerate growth in the second half of 2023. They’ve ran test in a couple of countries. Maybe an initial drop in subscribers followed by an increase is in line with their expectations.
  • pokepim 4y ago
    They are probably going back to torrenting and similar. When disney was slow to rollout in some countries my friends did not want to wait for Mandalorian to drop with Disney plus over there in Europe. They just downloaded it for free and did not even need to sign up for disney when it came one year later. If the streaming companies start to provide subpar and cumbersome service and charge hundreds of dollars for it per year I can see people going back to proven and free ways that were very popular 15-20 years ago
    • pdimitar 4y ago
      Why was this comment dead? Since when are HN comments policed for the word "torrent"? Vouched it so it's visible. It also makes a valid point, torrenting is definitely a reality and denying it will not make it go away.
      • kalleboo 4y ago
        Looks like all the comments this user has posted for the past month have been killed
        • pdimitar 4y ago
          Now that you mentioned it, I went and checked and it became much weirder.
  • hackernewds 4y ago
    So they lost 300k users and also lost 700k promoters of the service. At the cost of scaled server costs?
    • dspillett 4y ago
      With energy prices shooting up, that scanned server cost is more significant now than it used to be, and per-user bandwidth costs don't drop forever due to economies of scale, so there may be more cost efficient promotion methods than 700,000 non-paying users. There was a study a while back (can't find it ATM, I'll have another look later) that suggested those using other people's accounts were more likely to be heavy users in terms of bandwidth than average, so perhaps this sort of thing has been factored in to the plan. Having said that, I can't imagine they expected 300k dropping their account now they can no longer share it. Perhaps there are a lot of friend groups clubbing together to share the cost of subscription services like Netflix.
      • nsteel 4y ago
        > per-user bandwidth costs don't drop forever due to economies of scale, Can you explain why? I'd have thought they absolutely do and on top of this their caching strategy becomes even more effective.
        • dspillett 4y ago
          > Can you explain why? Bandwidth isn't an infinite resource. It effectively is up to a certain scale and with a few caveats (the costs are not consistent globally) but I'm sure Netflix is beyond the scale where it can be assumed to be and at that point they will be bidding against other big users for peering priority. With a dedicate server I have some stuff on I can upgrade to 10gbit unmetered for a lot less than 10x the cost the current 1gbit unmetered link (in my case neither dedicated, but 1-shared-to-10-shared will likely scale in cost similarly to 1-dedicated-to-10-dedicated). With another where I have a total bandwidth cap not a speed cap I could likely extend that cap relatively cheaply. At the scales required by a small company, even one running SaaS services, the same is usually true. But at Netflix's scale a small percent increase in any particular locality is still a huge amount of extra to ask for, and it might not really be available (it could be allowed to eat into slack for a short time, this is one of the reasons why networks are provisioned for more than 100% of expected use, but if the extra is needed permanently then infrastructure upgrades may be needed). They can get around lack of cheap bandwidth by instead temporarily increasing compression rates (this will in fact happen automatically, as dropping overall bit-rate is supported to deal with congestion at the level of a user's connection and that will kick in due to congestion elsewhere too) but this will be easily detectable by some users (particularly those with huge screens and great eyesight) who will compare the quality with other streaming content providers and talk about the difference which may affect future sales. > on top of this their caching strategy becomes even more effective Caching in terms of keeping data geographically spread will reduce international bandwidth needs, and ISP-level caching through their local boxes will help considerably again (and get more effective as more users join from the same ISP), but there will always be an amount of traffic that needs to travel costly routes (the ISP level caches will only be large enough to support the best caching candidates, like new high-profile shows, a small proportion of the whole catalogue, and many ISPs do not have that facility at all).
  • ragebol 4y ago
    I wonder how much this affects the public not talking about the shows and this leading to less engagement. And thus snowballing into even less users, as there is less people to promote shows etc.
  • vivegi 4y ago
    That may very well be. But now, their engagement metric on hours viewed [1] is going to drop like a brick and the analysts who started tracking that for the past several quarters will be scratching their head. [1]: https://top10.netflix.com/ https://top10.netflix.com/
  • progx 4y ago
    But 1 User is (probably) a Premium user. If you remove 3 users, the Premium user could downgrade to Normal. Personally i share with 3. The 3 watch from time to time Netflix, they will not buy an account, only 1 oder 2 Month a year. If these 3 go, i can downgrade my package to 13 Euro (in Germany) and i will only order it 3 - 4 Month a year. Currently i pay every month 18 Euro. The time changes, Netflix is not the only player on the market, we can choose now from many.
  • ghosty141 4y ago
    Many people share the cost so did DID lose paying users since for many paying the whole subscription price is not worth it alone.
  • commitpizza 4y ago
    My brother pay for a "multi-device" account. When they introduce this and the family get cut off he will most likely unsubscribe in time or downgrade to a personal account.
• rickdeckard 4y ago
  Worth to note: Not 1M _PAYING_ users (THAT would be interesting news). They lost 1M users who watch Netflix according to an external household survey
  • readthenotes1 4y ago
    1/3 of those million were paying customers tho.
    • rickdeckard 4y ago
      Yes, but the bigger picture is much more interesting IMO, as Spain has become a highly-competitive market for VoD, is overly saturated with suppliers and we're in a recession year with rising cost of living. Put into context of the same source's (Kantar) report from end of last year on Spain's VoD consumption, it would be much more interesting to know 1.) how many paying subs each of the providers lost explicitly, and 2.) whether the ~1,3M spanish households which access 6 or more (!!) VoD-services have reduced their "portfolio" Kantar[1]: - By September 2022, the number of households that used at least one video streaming service in Spain reached 66%, 12.4million households. - VoD-enabled households accessed on average 3.3 different video streaming services, with 11% of households accessing 6 or more different VoD services. - 2.7% of Spanish households took out a new Subscription Video on Demand (SVoD) service in the last three months. - 23% of those planning on cancelling at least one SVoD service in the next quarter are doing so to save money, the #1 reason. [1] https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/technology/newly-launched-service-shows-spanish-streaming-market-to-be-hyper-competitive https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/technology/newly-launched...
      • kmac_ 4y ago
        And that opens another risk for Netflix. Paying users that canceled will be more eager to check the competition, and migrated user is harder to regain. Anyway, the catalogue is so fragmented that cyclic migration makes sense.
        • 4y ago
• CGamesPlay 4y ago
  "Market research group Kantar decided that Netflix should consider 4 people sharing 1 paying account as 4 users"
  • camillomiller 4y ago
    They are, as you can have up to 4 different sub-accounts sharing the main account. It’s literally correct.
• esskay 4y ago
  Not really that surprising is it? I'm waiting for the day they send me the inevitable notice to pay more, aka the day I cancel Netflix. They could get away with this if their offering was substantially better than the competitors but thse days it's not. Pumping out complete crap like 'The Floor is Lava' and the 9 millionth cake contest isn't what built their massive customer base. These days when a new hyped show comes up its often not even worth watching until you know for sure it's not already been axed, having left the show on a cliffhanger.
  • shever73 4y ago
    This was my main problem with Netflix and why I cancelled it a year or so ago. When I realised we often couldn’t find anything we were bothered about watching, it just became a waste of money.
  • guiriduro 4y ago
    If they were smart they'd realise they could launder their overall viewer figures in the stockmarket and (ponzi-style) have the latest shareholders pay them* for inflated 'low rent' users instead of scaring away those users and trying to turn a profit on a shrinking viewer population tolerating higher fees. * via SBC with SP maintained by higher viewer figures.
  • pjc50 4y ago
    Netflix axing incomplete shows has become like Google killing products: people are starting to become aware of it, and that puts them off picking up new products. It's also self-sabotaging behavior from the point of view of a back catalog. If people know in advance that a show had an unsatisfying ending, they're not going to recommend that people go back and watch it. But then Netflix and everyone else seems to treat shows as disposable these days, as if nothing mattered six months after it came out. Yet people still talk about The Wire (first broadcast 2002)
    • TheAceOfHearts 4y ago
      This happens with a lot of modern media. There's a lot of indie authors that keep starting new series which get dropped or continue getting written based on sales. But once you know an author is prone to dropping a series without finishing you stop picking up their books. It's actually really frustrating to see an author continue starting one new series after another rather than finishing any of their existing works. It's probably not as fun or exciting, but it feels like an integral part of bulding trust. If I'm going to get emotionally invested in a series I want it to have a real ending. In Japan it's very common for a series to get a single anime season, but if you're really invested in the story you can continue reading the light novels. But if a story is a Netflix Original, there's no source material you can turn to when the series gets cancelled.
• teruakohatu 4y ago
  > The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password > Subscription cancellations in the first quarter tripled compared to the previous period, according to Kantar’s research. Of all remaining Netflix subscribers in Spain, one-tenth said they planned to unsubscribe in the second quarter. So they lost 300,000 paying users whom they think will come back, but 10% of existing users plan on leaving despite Netflix investing in Spanish content. I think the issue is that people who are paying for an account they are sharing are likely to keep the account active so their family members can continue watching, even if they are also using a competitor. When the family are cut off, they cancel.
  • The_Colonel 4y ago
    > I think the issue is that people who are paying for an account they are sharing are likely to keep the account active so their family members can continue watching. When the family are cut off, they cancel. That's the case for me indeed. I myself basically stopped watching Netflix, somehow the content doesn't do anything for me anymore. But I shared my account with family and they watch it. If this gets to us, and I'm the only one who can watch it, I'm for sure cancelling. The family members with whom I'm sharing the account are very unlikely to get their own account either. (Sharing accounts is a great form of stealth giving to family members who would otherwise not be able to afford such "luxuries". It's much easier to say "hey, I got one free account on my Spotify plan, would you like to use it? Otherwise, it will go to waste" as opposed to awkwardly offering money directly)
    • alexdunmow 4y ago
      Interesting you say that the content doesn't appeal to you anymore. I feel the same way. My observation is that, for the most part, most of Netflix's original content is reality TV and comedy specials. They don't even seem to be bothering to create great content like Stranger Things anymore. We are at the enshittification of Netflix stage.
      • therein 4y ago
• seri4l 4y ago
  I always thought these types of services didn't go after account sharing as a form of flexible pricing. The users who are OK paying $10/mo pay that. The users who wouldn't pay $10 share an account and get a slightly less convenient service. Are their profit margins so tight that a 1:2 paying non-paying user loss ratio is a net win?
  • bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    probably it's stupid on their part, but on the other hand users cost them money too. If you have two users on one account - one watching from 8-12 in the morning, and the other from 4-10 in the evening, if you get rid of one of them you are streaming 4 hours less for the same price. So I guess this kind of thing must also affect their calculations on this matter.
• mkl95 4y ago
  This trend may be masking the fact their Spanish originals are overall pretty poor. In my opinion, Money Heist is the only high quality Spanish show they have produced. These days their non Spanish output is not that good either, though. Netflix should study World of Warcraft's player exodus after 2009 or so, as an example of what happens when you offer too much low quality content to the masses.
  • mejutoco 4y ago
    IMO this is what happens when you create data-driven series. Being a good producer of shows is a different business than being a tech company. Plus losing the old catalogue rights that they got for cheap. Once other companies saw it was viable they were not interested in selling the rights for cheap. On the other side, every time I use another streaming service (channel4, any German tv, even hbo) the basic player experience is much worse than netflix. I will miss them but, like Blockbuster, it is a matter of time.
  • yazzku 4y ago
    Are you Spanish? I find the Spanish content pretty good, it's the woke American shit that they force into the platform that is a bore to watch, like the Nth heroine who just so happens to be a black woman. Maybe make it a guy from Kansas for a change? Of course, you might have a different opinion.
• gcatalfamo 4y ago
  From the comments in this thread, many are not understanding that password borrowers are typically contributing to the account owner's monthly subscription, and many account owners, when faced to the full price of the subscription will eventually unsubscribe as well. 5€ month for what Netflix has to offer is one thing, 18€/month, for many, becomes an instant no-deal.
  • cactusplant7374 4y ago
    Not according to Netflix: > We see a cancel reaction in each market when we announce the news,” Netflix said in its first quarter earnings release on April 18, expecting the dip to be momentary before users that didn’t pay start signing up for their own accounts. “In Canada, which we believe is a reliable predictor for the US, our paid membership base is now larger than prior to the launch of paid sharing and revenue growth has accelerated and is now growing faster than in the US,” Netflix said.
    • gcatalfamo 4y ago
      Europe is culturally VERY different from US and Canada. Although you may be right, I would never expect Netflix to admit my thesis, even if well known around here.
  • danpalmer 4y ago
    Do you think most sharers are contributing to the price? I really don’t think that’s the case. I’ve never heard of anyone charging family members for access to their Netflix account. There might be some friend groups who split the cost of an account between them, but I suspect far more common is that parents have an account that kids (who might be independent adults) use, couples who don’t live together sharing passwords, or more well off siblings letting less well off siblings use their account.
    • gcatalfamo 4y ago
      >> Do you think most sharers are contributing to the price? All of them? Certainly not. Many? Yes. >> There might be some friend groups who split the cost of an account between them, but I suspect far more common is that parents have an account that kids (who might be independent adults) use, couples who don’t live together sharing passwords Yes, but although we don't have details on demographics, in Europe it is widely "accepted" (for lack a better word) that many friends, relative and even acquaintances share an account and its costs. I don't have number so consider it totally anecdotical, but it is honestly common sense, especially in southern and eastern Europe. (I am from Italy, FWIW) edit: this is also true for Spotify Family accounts. Agains TOS? Sure. Do they do it anyway? Yes.
• vivegi 4y ago
  Boo hoo. $NFLX brought in customers with the Sharing is Caring campaign. If at that time they patted themselves on the back for customer growth, they should hold themselves responsible for the about face and customer exodus when they have changed their stance to Sharing is a crime.
  • lnenad 4y ago
    I mean even if they drop subscribers their usage costs should drop as well so it might balance out in the end profit wise.
    • tommit 4y ago
      I doubt these two scale linearly, otherwise how would they make money? Also, I could imagine that the people that want their comfort show to be running in the background 24/7 are the ones that won't cancel their subscriptions. It's the occasional watcher that will most likely deem netflix worthless to them, so their subscriber to usage cost ratio might even worsen. I'm just guessing here though, obviously.
      • lnenad 4y ago
        I definitely agree, it all depends on their profit margin correlation to their infra cost. For a normal SAAS I'm assuming it's not very strong, but for a video streaming business, I think the cost is much higher and therefore a lot more highly correlated. We also need to take into account the reasoning behind this decision. They're also removing multiples of users but losing only one membership so it's even more skewed towards being even. In the end, I'm assuming this is a calculated decision from their end, so they should have the numbers, if they're skewed in their favor they'll proceed, if not, they can always backtrack and not release this in the US, which I think is why they're releasing to smaller markets first.
        • tommit 4y ago
          All good points, especially the one vs many membership to viewers ratio. You're probably right (at least I hope so) that someone will have run the numbers. I guess we will see.
• AraceliHarker 4y ago
  Netflix’s current plan makes people pay for four devices even if they only want to enjoy 4K videos by themselves. That creates an incentive for them to share their passwords and split the costs with others. Wouldn’t it be more effective to limit all plans to one device and tier them by quality? That way, password sharing would be less appealing.
• streakfix 4y ago
  Let me add a couple 100 more to that count. Did you know that netflix doesn't support resolutions higher than 720p on windows/linux? You could subscribe to the 1080p plan (like me) and the players will stream 720p videos to you with no indication whatsoever. The only way of checking the netflix video resolution is `document.querySelectorAll('video')[0].videoWidth`. There are FF extensions but they don't work for every title. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 I only noticed when I got to the third act of annihilation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsJgceM0KI&ab_channel=PrimeClips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsJgceM0KI&ab_channel=Prime...
  • ptspts 4y ago
    On Windows, the standalone Netflix app and Netflix in the Edge browser support 4K resolution.
    • itslennysfault 4y ago
      Any idea why Edge? It's a chromium wrapper. Do they add some specialized codec or something?
      • gondaloof 4y ago
        Yes. Chromium and “Edgium” add a lot of their own closed-source services before releasing package. One example is that “Translate website” toolbar that Chrome has, which sends the entire content to Google’s servers using their own API key. That’s not present in the Chromium source. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/8/18300772/microsoft-google-services-removed-changed-chromium-edge-browser https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/8/18300772/microsoft-google-...
  • ptspts 4y ago
    Also the software restrictions on the linked Netflix page seem to be arbitrary. When I download a movie in a DRM-free .mkv file, I can play it in all my browsers, all media player apps (typically VLC and MPV), and the HDMI version doesn't matter.
  • 4y ago
• swe_dima 4y ago
  An unplesant surpsise I got from Netflix is when I went to a vacation to Thailand and got welcomed with "you can't watch it here" screen. Customer support told me I can only watch Netflix in the country I purchased it from. This was not my first trip so must be a new development.
  • devoutsalsa 4y ago
    I haven’t experienced this yet. I’ve got a USA subscription, currently watching in Tunisia.
  • GordonS 4y ago
    I got this with Amazon Prime in Thailand recently too. Incredibly annoying - what does it matter where I stream from?!
    • Rufbdbskrufb473 4y ago
      I imagine they're trying to prevent the reverse, purchasing a cheap subscription in a developing country to use when you actually live in a more expensive country.
      • GordonS 4y ago
        They know I live in the UK though, I have a UK-based history with Amazon going back 10+ years.
    • CubsFan1060 4y ago
      I believe they need a license to stream in different countries. If they don’t have a license to stream in Thailand I don’t think they will let you watch there.
      • GordonS 4y ago
        Regardless, it certainly "feels" unfair. I did try using a UK-based IP too, but that didn't work (it was a data centre IP, so I guess they block them all).
• MadSudaca 4y ago
  It's funny. Right now I have access to around 5 streaming services while I only pay for 2. My girlfriend's friend has access to Netflix, my sis HBO. I provide access to Disney+ and Prime to my family. I used to get YT premium from my sis's boyfriend, but they detected I'm not in the family household and they kicked me out. If it wasn't because other people use my accounts (and I use theirs), I wouldn't be paying for disney+ or A. Prime. Maybe other people are in the same situation as me. There's a tenuous balance in the streaming service subscriptions thanks to the fact that people can share their accounts. If they close the door to account sharing, maybe the subscriptions will start falling like domino pieces.
  • dmix 4y ago
    > I used to get YT premium from my sis's boyfriend, but they detected I'm not in the family household and they kicked me out. I'm surprised you achieved that at all. Google accounts are locked down hardcore... As it should be My gf wanted me to share my ChatGPT plus account but I signed up via Gmail and it was impossible. All of these sites can easily lock it down but choose not to. We're probably living in the Golden era. Although I still think Netflix's multi location accounts are far more expensive than their utility. And I fully see Netflix as an essential service but spending $35CAD/m is a serious consideration when I already buy 4 streaming devices that will very likely result in $18/m max if I pull the trigger.
    • dom96 4y ago
      Funnily enough creating a service that allows ChatGPT to be shared seems rather easy to build.
      • epolanski 4y ago
        Good luck monetizing it or even post the source code on GH and not be legally bullied..
    • finnish-food 4y ago
      “ living in the Golden era.” If you actually lived in a Golden Era entertainment would be free, quality, and meant to enrich the people instead of advertise and moralize to them. I really don’t understand how a DVD collection is an “essential service” either. Or why you would effectively choose not to look at your watching statistics and then simply buy the media you watch the most. https://www.ebay.ca/itm/134503468553 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/134503468553 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/285243804109 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/285243804109 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/145050977289 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/145050977289 Why not just buy what you like?
• sgsag33 4y ago
  I guess the business opportunity is to offer a cheap extension to share the account with 3 more concurrent devices for an increase of only 50%. Dang°!
• febeling 4y ago
  I’m always puzzled how they manage to publish posts like this leaving out the denominator completely
• alkonaut 4y ago
  How do they detect account borrowing? only through simultaneous use? When I pay for the service I expect some low number of simultaneous clients (say 2-4) to be able to stream. Obviously sharing my password means sharing that quota and if the number of concurrent streams is 1 then the password isn't shareable at all. What I don't like though is when there can only be a fixed number of authenticated devices, whether they are ever used or not. Once you have logged in to N devices (5, for one service I subscribe to) you can't log in to a sixth. Even if the first 3 are phones that are on the bottom of the ocean. At that point you need to call customer support to clear your authenticated devices. Hassle. What kind of crackdown did they pull here? in legal terms only? Or in number of concurrent streams? or in number of authenticated devices?
  • nprateem 4y ago
    Probably geo IP and calculating feasible travel times. E.g. if 2 clients connect that are 50 miles away within 5 minutes creds are obviously being shared.
    • alkonaut 4y ago
      That would give way WAY too many false positives. If I'm watching on the bus while my wife watches at home it would trigger. Similar if we have 2 homes etc. It would also rule out anyone using VPNs etc. Seems like a complete no-go and would see a huge chunk of paying users go simply because the product is now much worse for people who are not sharing accounts. That just can't be it.
      • nprateem 4y ago
        They probably also fingerprint devices as well and correlate those times the devices are in the same area, etc. With user agents/device IDs, IPs and time you can work out quite a few relationships.
        • alkonaut 4y ago
          If I'm ever blocked on some fuzzy reason I'd leave the service in a heartbeat. If they have clear rules then at least I can somehow learn to avoid the traps, such as having to connect from an IP or having a specified number of devices. But if I can get kicked out of the service right before/in the middle of a game, then I'd quit my subscription in a hurry. They just can't use some method similar to how financial fraud is detected. But while fuzzy rules don't fly, I can't see any rigid rules that also wouldn't be a hassle for paying customers.
• dschuetz 4y ago
  I don't really care about Netflix anymore, or any other streaming service. I subscribe for a month, watch any new shows or movies I like, cancel and move on. All of my devices are 4K+HDR capable, I don't know why "up to 4 devices" is even relevant anymore if you can't share the account with anyone else. My family? Living elsewhere. Now that there are dozens if not hundreds of streaming services offering exclusive content there is no paying customer growth possible anymore. What are they counting on? That consumers will pay for more than one subscription on different platforms? While they essentially only watch one at a time? How stupid is that!
• formvoltron 4y ago
  no tenemos dinero en Espana.
• santialbo 4y ago
  I'm one of those users. Went back to Plex and private files.
• Jenk 4y ago
  Netflix have really dissapointed me. I've been a subscriber since before streaming, and have even been content paying the subscription fee during the "breaks" of not using their service for up to months at a time because I so badly want(ed) them to succeed. I also understood the difficult situation they were facing when the producers of content were makkng ridiculous demands on their distribution, or worse, just pulling their content because they were opening their own service or some fuckhead like Murdoch threw money at them to keep an exclusive lock on it. Their streaming model of watching on-demand (i.e., not a weekly release, here's the whole show to watch at your own pace) and their investment in shows that were not the usual low-brow trope-laden predictable shit meant I was actually excited when a new show was announced. My favourite TV-watching moments have been getting lost in shows like Narcos, The Ozarks, or even the seemingly polarising Orange Is The New Black. Now I log in and see nothing but nostalgia tv, trash telly like Love Is Blind, or inexplicably 1/3 of my screen is listing mobile games that Netflix think I would be interested in. .. and I'm genuinely concerned shows like The Diplomat are just going to leave us all hanging. Meanwhile the other streaming services are at least as bad, but typically worse.
  • rerx 4y ago
    Compared to competitors, Apple TV+ currently appear to put much more emphasis on quality over quantity in their original content. I really enjoyed some shows like Severance, For All Mankind, Trying, Acapulco, Foundation. It reminds me of the time when Netflix Originals stood for content to be excited about. What they don't have is a back catalog of licensed films and shows included with the flat rate offering (they all cost an extra fee).
    • circlefavshape 4y ago
      FWIW I thought Foundation was incredibly poor
      • jackmott42 4y ago
        I know some people are really irritated by how it differs from the book, but I really enjoyed it, especially "The Empire". I kinda want the bad guys to win, lol
• commitpizza 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • nemo44x 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • dymk 4y ago
      Most of us don’t care
      • Loughla 4y ago
        Seriously. It doesn't matter that scooby doo is different or the little mermaid is different or that any thing is different. What matters is that we have ONLY REMAKES and REMIXES and REHASHES instead of new content. Woke or not, I just want to see something original instead of dug up oldies. I learned in this thread that apparently there's a remake of Perry Mason? Did that need to be a thing??
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    What kind of woke crap? I don't really understand the definition, but that's because it is US identity politics and nobody wants to define it apparently. But maybe from afar you have a particular definition?
    • drexlspivey 4y ago
      Like when you change the gender/race of literature/historical characters to hit a diversity quota or when there is a whole carousel of movies with the genre “Black History Month” which is a US thing. That kind of stuff
      • rootusrootus 4y ago
        That seems like a better point -- at least, the part about changing the gender/race/etc of a real (or perhaps mythical, but well established) person. Although I gotta say, I sure did enjoy Hamilton in spite of the wild disregard for trying to make the actors resemble the people they were portraying. Certainly more solid than what I usually hear from local people, which tends to just be complaints that a minority position was represented at all, even if it is an entirely new character. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
• stuaxo 4y ago
  They say the dip is temporary until users get their own passwords, but is that the case ? If people were sharing the cost,maybe they won't come back.
• hurril 4y ago
  I can understand the outrage over content, wokeness, the direction, etc. But being angry over having to pay for services rendered? Come on. Don't use Netflix (or the alternatives) as a comfy Piratebay. Get it together, we're not children.
  • hurril 4y ago
    Fascinating to get downvoted for saying: pay for things you use. I hope you're proud of yourselves. My salary comes from people that buy product from my employer. What you're saying is that I should work for free for you guys. (No, I do not work at either of the streaming services.)
    • pjc50 4y ago
      Downvote is for using "woke" as a slur.
      • hurril 4y ago
        No, it is not. It's using woke in its actual definition do describe a set of considerations and changes that lots of people don't appreciate. Compare with: right-wing, left-wing, christian, etc. Woke. I don't want HBO Max to become right-wing or christian. Or woke.
    • poorlyknit 4y ago
      > pay for things you use. The problem isn't paying for Netflix, it is that their earlier "love is sharing a password", "sharing is caring" etc. campaign made it seem like password sharing is sanctioned and therefore included in the price. I understand that people are upset now that Netflix have changed their stance without changing the price. Also I think the downvotes are because of your tone, e.g. > you're saying is that I should work for free for you guys is unnecessary hyperbole.
  • pdimitar 4y ago
    Or the value proposition under the new conditions for many users is simply not there? Paying $X per month and allowing family and friends to watch is both convenient and cheap enough so it doesn't bother you. It's like paying for electricity in a family house. But when you are forced to be the only user of your paid account you evaluate if the cost for using a service 5-10 hours a month is truly justified. Degrading people as "children" is not an interesting analysis. It's obvious that Netflix made their bed by flirting with users that like account sharing (long ago). It will not be easy to take that away now.
• ricardobayes 4y ago
  We have in Spain our own state-funded "Netflix", with on-demand free watching, not even an account required. https://www.rtve.es/play/ https://www.rtve.es/play/
  • dysoco 4y ago
    And they have "Saber y Ganar" which is the best quiz show ever!
• Proven 4y ago
  If you lose users (and costs) but not customers, that's not so bad.
  • cynicalsecurity 4y ago
    You can also anger users which will destroy their loyalty. And without their loyalty, there will be no profit. Part of the fun experience of using Netflix was account sharing with your friends. It was a social aspect that contributed and encouraged keeping the subscription. Without it, using it alone is getting really boring.
    • Proven 4y ago
      [dead]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Netcob 4y ago
  The only reason I still have a Netflix account is that I was sharing it with my parents. Now I'm simply not watching Netflix anymore, and frankly the quality of the shows has been waning enough that I think I can get a subscription for one month once a year and catch up on everything that is worth watching. Ideally shows that were allowed to be completed instead of getting canceled on a cliffhanger. If my parents decide they had enough as well, there goes that subscription.
• LightHugger 4y ago
  netflix scammed me early on in their development before it was a household name, by requiring someone to pay for a subscription to redeem a gift subscription. I bought a gift sub from them that was unredeemable by their nonsense rules, basically. As a result, i simply acquired everything i would have watched on netflix elsewhere instead. They've lost years of revenue from me for one month's stolen sub fee. Did they forget that piracy is a service problem? This is just going to have the same effect
• iamsaitam 4y ago
  The movie "The Green Knight" came into Germany's Netflix recently. An English movie about an Arthurian legend and you can only watch it in German without any subtitles. Ludicrous. Can someone shed some light on the regulations in practice regarding subtitles? As an expat living in Germany, there's plenty of times that the offerings have no subtitles in English and are dubbed. Do they have to pay more license fees to include English subtitles?
  • tommit 4y ago
    This frustrates me to no end. I haven't encountered the issue of having German audio only, but so often there are no English subtitles and it drives me mad.
  • OJFord 4y ago
    That seems weird, I have no idea of the answer, but in the UK there's typically several audio options and several subtitle options. Stuff that's surely pretty niche in the UK even (i.e. would be surprising that they paid extra for it) like French-dubbed/subtitled originally-Hindi films.
  • rerx 4y ago
    It's strange that Netflix would do that. In Germany, they pioneered consistently offering original audio. (For instance, Amazon Prime Video was available earlier than Netflix here, and originally most of their catalogue was dubbed to German exclusively.) Plenty of services where you can rent this movie also offer it in English (OV): https://www.werstreamt.es/film/details/2097679/the-green-knight/ https://www.werstreamt.es/film/details/2097679/the-green-kni... So it may very well be some weird licensing deal where they only get to offer this specific film for streaming without a surcharge if they stick to dubbed audio.
  • jfengel 4y ago
    If it helps... you're not missing much. The movie is incoherent even in English, and a deep understanding of the source material. It's a fascinating and beautiful artistic experiment, but I don't think it's a successful one. A viewer might well enjoy it better without dialogue, because the dialogue doesn't really make it any clearer.
• rerx 4y ago
  Meta question: Why has this submission moved off the front page so quickly?
• pjmlp 4y ago
  What a surprise, and Spain won't be the only one to go down.
• rcarr 4y ago
  It’s funny that a lot of these comments seem to be kids paying for the subscriptions of their parents. The boomers really are masters of dining out for free.
• traveler01 4y ago
  At this point it kinda looks like Netflix directors are purposedly trying to kill the company. No way these people can be this bad at managing a company.
• gandalfian 4y ago
  Will this mean future Netflix only works for people with a permanent home broadband service with a fixed ip address to identify as their home? I mean if you use mobile internet for your broadband, hidden behind cgnat and school or public wifi networks how will they differentiate between you and someone freeloading off your account?
• cynicalsecurity 4y ago
  Okay, I can share a DVD with my friends or neighbours, but I can't share my account? How does this make any sense?
  • VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
    Do Netflix shows come on DVDs?
  • deltree7 4y ago
    You can share the password to all 8 Billion people on earth, but not the DVD. Geez
    • jackson1442 4y ago
      netflix still has stream limits based on your pricing plan, so even if you share the password with 8 billion people only 1-4 can use it at a time
  • joshiee 4y ago
    Maybe the idea is like how you can't go to a buffet and share food with someone who hasn't paid the entry fee
    • rg111 4y ago
      But you can't eat the same food twice. But you can watch the same video twice. With food, atoms move irreversibly in one direction. With video, there is no such constraints.
  • fuj 4y ago
    [dead]
• lofaszvanitt 4y ago
  Big money in creative industries lead to less creativity and enjoyment.
• NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  You know how to make account sharing really onerous? Mandatory MFA (and don't allow sane solutions like TOTP or U2F enrollments). Or, you could mandate that every account must use a SSO identity service, like Google/FB/Amazon/Twitter. Then small-time account sharers would need to consider whether they should give away keys to the kingdom as well.
• geodel 4y ago
  Perhaps Netflix is finally coming to conclusion that they can't keep increasing prices for honest users forever so as not to anger sharers and free riders.
  • lnxg33k1 4y ago
    It's like one of Murphy's law that in any conversation there must always be those who side with the big corporation hurt by the peasants
    • geodel 4y ago
      More like side of what I really felt. But it is kind of Murphy's law that on any topic some one will claim "Anti corporatism is the logic in itself"
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    If you're paying for a plan with 4 concurrent streams, how is it dishonest to share it with 3 other people?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• TheRealPomax 4y ago
  Do you really lose users if they're not paying for their own password? Sounds more like they regained some bandwidth in Spain.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• luckydata 4y ago
  They never had those users to begin with.
• racl101 4y ago
  Wish there was a streaming service that specialized on old shows like: - The Jeffersons - All In the Family - Good Times - Cheers - Seinfeld - Three's Company - The A-Team - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) etc. It would be the 'one streaming service to rule them all' for me.
  • icar 4y ago
    You might want to check FilmIn, maybe they offer content more of your liking.
• goodluckchuck 4y ago
  I am offended by Netflix’s constantly moving goalposts. I paid extra for multiple users, that wasn’t enough. I pay extra for additional screens. Now they have the gall to suggest I haven’t paid “password sharing.”
• papito 4y ago
  So it lost users, not paying customers. I don't see how that's bad for Netflix. Everyone is in a tizzy about not being able to use a product for free. Pay for your shit. Netflix owes you nothing. I feel strongly about it - and I don't even have a product to sell.
• Patrol8394 4y ago
  The only reason I still pay for the most basic Netflix subscription is my kids, otherwise I would have cancelled it.
• jokoon 4y ago
  Spotify, Netflix and co. really put a dent in the availability of illegal downloads, to a point where most users would pay to use them, but they must be careful how hard they want to squeeze people. Also it becomes difficult for users to pay for more than 1 or 2 things, monthly.
  • ricardobeat 4y ago
    Unfortunately they put a dent on the availability of legal content too, in the past few years, by becoming producers and pushing media conglomerates off their platform. Which makes pirating an attractive proposition yet again.
• gnicholas 4y ago
  Losing 1M users is not good, but isn't the real question how many accounts they lost? > The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research, which is based on surveys of household streaming habits. This makes it seem like they lost 333k customers. I don't know how many customers they have in Spain, but that sounds like a lot. But what does it mean to be "using someone else's password"? Does that include me, using my wife's password? I feel like more clarity is needed.
  • biztos 4y ago
    Apple, Google and Amazon would seem to have a big advantage here in doing Family Accounts. By putting someone "in your family" you at least feel like you're giving them access to a lot of stuff, so you probably don't do it with friends as much. Plus there is some unique tracking by account even if it's just an email address. I never tried it but I would assume I can't be in multiple "families" at the same time on Prime or iStuff. Whereas if you're just Netflix, and the only reason I use you is to stream Netflix, what is the barrier to handing out my password?
    • gnicholas 4y ago
      Good point — if NFLX wants to cut down on password sharing, maybe they should make it so that anyone with the password can order premium PPV content. That would make people think twice before giving out their passwords!
      • homero 4y ago
        Yeah Google makes you share access to a credit card so you'll never add randoms
        • bombolo 4y ago
          or your children
• spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Netflix has the crappiest content of all the major streaming services. The Originals all seem like they were picked by combining a random array of keywords. They haven’t even had any major hit since Squid Game. They need to take a leaf out of HBOs book and hire some top tier writers and give them all the freedom.
• diebeforei485 4y ago
  The binge-watching model of releasing all episodes at once is a bad idea.
• NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago
  Piracy is alive and well. I wonder why people pay for so many streaming services...
• liorben-david 4y ago
  Curious how views on the Password policing differ by culture
• dcow 4y ago
  What I truly don’t understand is why everyone decided they needed their own streaming platforms. What’s the strategy there? Why does Disney need to invest resources into Disney+ when they can just sell the rights to their content to one or two Streaming platforms and make more money? Did they think it would be cheaper to build their own platforms? Same for all the others. Who cares if Netflix owns the streaming user-base if you’re still making more money off the content? Is there some user data play I’m not aware of?
  • gnicholas 4y ago
    > Why does Disney need to invest resources into Disney+ when they can just sell the rights to their content to one or two Streaming platforms and make more money? I think they assume they can make more money doing it themselves. They can probably generate more revenue, but the question is whether they end up ahead after accounting for the cost of creating and maintaining the platform.
    • nicce 4y ago
      Based on the amount of originals Netflix has produced, the revenue should be more than enough for creating and maintaining the platform.
  • coolspot 4y ago
    Well, if everyone uses Netflix and content owners don’t have their own platforms, then Netflix can twist their hands to get better deals on content, because they are the only game in town.
  • erehweb 4y ago
    Disney is very protective of its brand, so having its own platform makes it very easy to control how its content is distributed / recommended / categorized. Plus they get to see micro details on how people engage with it - is there a spot in a film that is too tense, and kids stop? Or where action flags, and people take a break?
  • nmz 4y ago
    Considering how many companies Disney has been acquiring. It is absolutely the right choice.
• jupp0r 4y ago
  https://archive.is/eaSRg https://archive.is/eaSRg
• say_it_as_it_is 4y ago
  That's a job well done, isn't it? Cutting 1 Million free riders from the platform will make the company more profitable as there are costs associated with each stream.
• WalterBright 4y ago
  Comcast has thousands of movies on demand. But the list of them they show me is always the most popular, so I just see a handful of them. Other services do this, too, like Netflix. For crying out loud, Comcast showed me The Lost City as the first one for about 6 months. Clue: If I don't watch the popular shows you show me month after month after month, show me something from deeper in the catalog! Or even just throw up random ones.
• pier25 4y ago
  Netflix really messed this up. They shouldn't have tried to tackle password sharing. Instead they should have enforced concurrent streams and let people pay for more concurrent streams. Psychologically it's very different and people paying for the premium plan of 4 streams would probably not be affected.
  • alexfromapex 4y ago
    I feel like lots of companies make this mistake of not valuing the customers over shareholders. This is a fatal mistake.
    • BLO716 4y ago
      Well, the Netflix content is not going to get any less palatable because their business model works.
  • waboremo 4y ago
    Exactly! But that's just how it goes. Once leadership identifies a problem, it takes a lot to dissuade them. They saw password sharing as a fixable problem, an area of loss revenue that they had to do something about to counter the metrics of stagnating subscriber growth. Very little would change that, even though your approach would prove to be quite beneficial
    • willis936 4y ago
      They envision the back pats they'll give themselves for the success of their great idea, but not the fallout of their terrible idea. Sycophants should never be given authority.
    • smcl 4y ago
      I wonder if those responsible will take this as a lesson learned, or will brush it off as “well they wouldn’t have paid anyway”
      • scotty79 4y ago
• lambic 4y ago
  I cancelled my account last month, mostly because they were incapable of dealing with the fact that my IP address is not near where I live.
  • mordae 4y ago
    Looking forward to that as well. I use a large scale FTTH provider with multiple virtual operators, some of whom (like the one I use) have their gateway elsewhere.
• mordae 4y ago
  Every 24 hours, my stream quality resets to 520p. Then I reset ESN and it goes back up to 1080p... for another 24 hours. Kodi plugin. I pay the UHD tier, by the way. The second they ask about possible account sharing, I am canceling.
• mariojv 4y ago
  Regardless of the decision on password sharing, I hope they create a way to port a profile into a new account. I wouldn’t want to lose my saved movies and viewing history if forced to switch accounts.
• troupe 4y ago
  It would really help if the headline differentiates between a "user" and a "customer." If a bunch of people who had someone else's password are no longer able to watch Netflix, that is probably what Netflix wants. If millions of customers have cancelled their subscriptions, that is not what they want. The article makes it sound as if there were 660k people who are no longer watching on someone else's account and 330k customers who have cancelled. Not sure if that is a big deal to Netflix or not without more historical data.
• londons_explore 4y ago
  I think they would have done well to allow many people to share an account, but require all users watch the same thing at the same time, and play and pause in sync. The fact you're sometimes being forced to watch something you didn't really want to watch, and forced to negotiate with your friend/neighbour over when exactly toilet breaks are going to happen, would lead to lots of users deciding it isn't worth the hassle and they'll subscribe themselves.
• BLO716 4y ago
  So basically they saved money on streaming bills, reduced "ghost" numbers from the bottom line, and maintained probably about the same level of equity. What's the problem here?
• medellin 4y ago
  Been using netflix for 12 years now. If they roll this out for me i will instantly stop using it. I pay for 4 screens not because i use it but because i set it up for my parents and wifes parents who just don’t understand how that all works. Additionally i have a house in two countries and if they make that a pain in the butt for me I’m done as well. I’m paying for convenience I already know how to pirate all of this for free if they want to push me back that way. Netflix knew this was happening and it’s why they introduced number of active screens. Now they aren’t happy with revenue and need to move the goal posts and paint people using the platform as intended previously as lazy or freeloaders.
  • skeaker 4y ago
    Yep, they're forgetting that convenience is really all they offer to an individual customer. Pirating a show is still very easy, and if you want to support the creators of the show, buying their box set off of Amazon or whatever other storefront isn't too hard and cuts out the middleman. The only reason I tolerate their skimming from the people that actually create the content I watch is that it makes the process of both watching the content and supporting the creators of the content totally painless. As soon as pirate then buy boxes becomes easier again, that's what I suspect a lot of people will go back to.
• jacobobmateos 4y ago
  Poco me parece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8-0XZXaJDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8-0XZXaJDQ
• jacobobmateos 4y ago
  Poco me parece https://youtu.be/R8-0XZXaJDQ https://youtu.be/R8-0XZXaJDQ
• ho_schi 4y ago
  Netflix: ”You get two parallel streams with your family. Family means trust and password sharing.“ Customers: “Farewell pirating. We pay a fair flat and it is automatically shared between Netflix and artists. Great!“ Netflix: “We increase the flat permanently. And we have now competitors and doesn’t over anymore all relevant content (e.g. Star Trek Picard, Expanse, Disney). How about ruining it and blocking family members with heuristics, geoblocking, per-device-checks and so on?“. Customers „I’m done.” THE END We accepted and used the fair system. And you tease us with DRM? And HDCP? Increasing rates? And now you block our family members? I wouldn’t be surprised if artists (filmmakers, musicians…) create a common fair streaming platform. Let us name it “United Artists“ ;)
  • webmobdev 4y ago
    According to a TF article in 2012 - https://torrentfreak.com/top-bittorrent-countries-in-the-world-top-torrent-towns-in-the-uk-120917/ https://torrentfreak.com/top-bittorrent-countries-in-the-wor... - Spain was one of the top 10 countries of torrent downloaders. Is there any statistics of torrent users (by country) for 2023? It will be interesting to see if those million outraged spanish Netflix users have now turned to torrenting Netflix shows.
    • bragr 4y ago
      Are torrents even the primary methods of piracy now? That's an actual question: I get the impression that a lot of piracy has switched to grey market file hosting and streaming sites, but I don't have the perspective to say if that's accurate.
      • mig39 4y ago
        My impression is that the tech-savvy people still use torrents, but nowadays they share these torrents with their less savvy group using things like Plex (and Plex alternatives). That's what I've witnessed with my Portuguese and Spanish friends anyway. Extended groups who depend on one or more sources of "private Netflix (ie: Plex)".
• nottorp 4y ago
  Yep, great move. You subscribe to a service with declining quality out of inertia. Sometimes you find some stuff to watch. Then they suddenly ask to almost double what you pay them. You could pay, or you could reconsider why you're paying them at all...
• the_gipsy 4y ago
  In Spain piracy is technically illegal but so far the MPAA equivalent could not successfully sue common citizens for pirating. As far as I know at least, perhaps there have been some isolated cases. I have always been downloading pirated content, and still do for content that is not on one of my 3 streaming services, without worry, just the technical hassle.
  • tough 4y ago
    I once won a lawsuit against the MPAA in Spain. AMA lol FWIW YMMV and laws change so I wouldn't advise anyone running such a service from spain doxxed. But using it? It's not germany where predatory lawyers will try to sue you out of torrenting ubuntu or whatever
    • ramesh1994 4y ago
      Was it for seeding/hosting torrents or from just downloading them? How long did the whole thing take to play out? I've always assumed that consuming torrents has been low stakes to the point where its not worth any enforcement
      • tough 4y ago
        They go after the site operators if they can. In my case It was link sharing, no torrents, and at that time that didnt constitute -public publishing- as the link linked to some 3rd party host, and it was also user generated content. FWIW they've only won some fringe cases where they scared the person into accepting the charges. But Im not 15 anymore and wouldn't risk it tbh
        • the_gipsy 4y ago
          Yea the key point is link sharing. Spanish torrent sites have been closed down on ISP level and sued on the grounds of profiting from ads.
• sitkack 4y ago
  Make your bed, sleep in it. This is effectively a price increase, not stopping thieves. It is just that NFX doesn’t actually know their own product.
• alerighi 4y ago
  Of course. Around 10 euros that divided by 4 means 2.5 euros a month per user (or 2 divided by 5, it's unlikely that 4 people are watching at the same time) is a fair price, the cost of 2 coffee, you say screw it I pay so I can just take my remote and watch whatever I want. Reason why they made success. For more than that, for example you have to pay a full subscription of 10 euros, you consider going back to pirating. By the way I'm in favour that Netflix enforces this policy: so people will start pirating again, and we will see coming back forums that share torrents like it was back in the day. I think that when we realize that this day with gigabit fibre connections that are the norm and that contrary on when Netflix came out that you needed to leave the computer running all night to download a movie we can download a 4K torrent in a matter of minutes all these streaming companies will fail for good.
  • decafninja 4y ago
    I don't miss the days of torrenting. The thing that still stands out in my mind is having to slog my way through tons of pornographic advertising and popups to find a single actually working torrent link.
    • BrandoElFollito 4y ago
      If you automate it right, you never see these. Look at the *arr services that help a lot with that.
    • system2 4y ago
      I've been using the internet for over 30 years. Last 20 years I do not remember seeing a single ad. How do you even download torrent? The torrent sites are just texts based magnet links.
    • bazmattaz 4y ago
      I torrent all the time. Those types of websites are long gone and these days as blockers in browsers block all other ads on torrent sites. I pay for Netflix and Prime but torrent all the US content because they’re not available in my country. If they were available for a fair price maybe I would stop torrenting but they’re not
• jeffrallen 4y ago
  No, they are losing them because of crappy content. I only stay subscribed to keep my kids from watching advertisements.
• bmikaili 4y ago
  Of course people are moving to piracy. No one wants to subscribe to 5 services á 10 bucks to view all their shows. This is gonna blow up sooner or later.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    I mean 5 services at $10 bucks is still much cheaper than people were paying for cable TV for a long time.
• gnicholas 4y ago
  I wonder if this will cause some people to actually share accounts more than before, not less. For example, I pay for my own account, despite my brother asking me to share with him (we're both employed and in our 40s, and I feel like we should pay our own way). He eventually set up an account and shares with our parents. So between us, we are probably paying about $40/mo for Netflix. With this new system, I might decide that I should jump onto my family's account for $5.99 or whatever, since this type of sharing is now blessed by Netflix. That would cut their revenue from our family to $32 (an extra $6 for my parents and me) from $40.
• aurizon 4y ago
  This is the movie studio/streamer endgame. Netflix validated the concept and was able to get short term licences while the traditional movie studios watched these licences run out. Netflix now must create new content and compete with the old(and dated content as well as the new stuff from studios and others. Seems logical to get rid of the free loaders. Not sure how they fight copy streamers of their content unless them embed a steganographic ID in whatever they stream and scan streams for that ID and cut that subscriber off = lots of detailed work, but it could probably be botautomated - except for private streams that can not be automated via FTP etc - that would also have a subscriber cost as well. Netflix is facing an existential threat IMHO, so they need to limit free loaders AND create new content AND defeat ripoff streamers- a true challenge. I am content to pay Netflix...
• Tycho 4y ago
  The only reason I don’t cancel my Netflix is because between a few households, we get just enough viewing out of it to keep the subscription. Prime, Apple, Disney and Sky have got better content. (Actually, I just remembered that my Netflix is now bundled with Sky, so I guess I’ll be keeping it for that reason.)
• system2 4y ago
  Netflix sucked after Hulu and other streaming services pulled their own network shows from it. They tried to create algorithm based shows which they were extremely predictable and sucky. Sorry to see netflix go down like this but for the last 5-6 years it was unbearable. Mediocre normie shows.
• charlie0 4y ago
  The question no one is asking, how much money are they saving by kicking out the moochers? I'm not surprised if a significant number of Netflix users are sharing their accounts with others. If this move ends up saving them money, then... sucks, but it's understandable. The big problem here is they've trained users they can get away with this until recently, hence all the complaints.
  • zerocrates 4y ago
    I don't think this is primarily about saving money on licensing or bandwidth or whatever. It's more about what percentage of the accounts that are sharing will pay for an extra user, or will have one or more of the ejected users get their own subscription, and whether that added revenue comes out to more than the loss from people just dropping the platform.
• the_af 4y ago
  Well done, españoles! I hope we Argentinians also have the strength to say F-U to Netflix over their dumb policies. From TFA: > "Globally, more than 100 million people use an account they don’t pay for, according to Netflix." "They don't pay" is one way to see it. Another way to look at this is that a group of people (wider than Netflix would like) are paying for these accounts. This used to be a cool feature of Netflix! They shouldn't take it down (within reason), otherwise downloading pirated shows becomes way more attractive once again.
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  If Netflix was struggling to be profitable, I might understand. But they're really just upset that their increase in profit YoY is not doubling fast enough. So I cancelled. Plex is great.
• 12907835202 4y ago
  I don't understand why people are in such uproar over netflix pricing. $10 a month is an incredible price for what you get. There's not alot you can do for $10 these days. You can barely grab lunch in lots of places. And you're talking about a whole month where many people use it for hours every evening? Imagine Netflix was $1 or $2 to unlock for 24 hours. I think alot of people would consider that fair. Many would pay the same to tip to someone who took 30 seconds to serve them let alone a couple of hours of entertainment. But then that can easily escalate to $30-60 a month without batting an eyelid. If you barely watch Netflix at all, maybe less than 5 times a month, then $10 might seem excessive. But then are those people the ones putting in the effort for a Plex server? Presumably it's not worth the effort either.
  • seb1204 4y ago
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My view is that there is less and less stuff on Netflix that interests me. Shows that I liked in the beginning usually turn into the typical American never ending twisting drag out. There are weeks where I don't use it at all. While 10$ is not much for some it can be a lot for others. E.g. youth unemployment and job security are big challenges in Spain from what I've heard. I'm not justifying the password sharing. I think it is wrong to assume that all users can be converted to paying customers.
  • Havoc 4y ago
    > There's not alot you can do for $10 these days. You can barely grab lunch in lots of places. You’re likely in a high cost of living location. 10 usd goes far in large parts of the world
• that_guy_iain 4y ago
  Netflix’s subscriber count has been going down for a while. It spiked during Covid because people had to stay home and just watch netflix. With inflation, etc it’s very much possible that is just the number they would have lost anyways. In fact, we don’t know if the password change reduced this number because of some people bought one after sharing.
• rogers18445 4y ago
  I don't understand what people are doing to be able to assert that a streaming service is more convenient than piracy. For me, piracy is more convenient than streaming by a significant margin. Visit one of the very public torrent sites such as rarbg, search or browse for something of interest, copy magnet URI, switch to terminal window, type aria2c "[magnet uri]". Just minutes later have the file in working directory. Now you can play it with MPV and have instantaneous seeks and no garbage web players.
  • bazmattaz 4y ago
    Sounds like a lot more steps than clicking play on a web app. You also have to do that for single episode of a new tv show as it gets released as opposed to clicking play on a web app
  • riley_dog 4y ago
    Wait until you discover the *arr apps...
• roody15 4y ago
  They will lose me as well if they try it here in the US. I pay for multiple screens for a reason.. if they try and restrict this to specific devices and locations … value proposition changes and I am out.
• kderbyma 4y ago
  There are a lot of people who know what to do to fix this and turn around the entire situation and make everyone happier. Netflix refuses to hire those people and instead finds the exact opposite kind of person....
• greenonions 4y ago
  I'm really hopeful that Netflix implements password policing in the US, so that I have an excuse to stop paying for my in-laws to use it.
• t0bia_s 4y ago
  How about limiting content view only with user verification by surveillance through camera on device? You never know how many family members watching!
• BowBun 4y ago
  > “In Canada, which we believe is a reliable predictor for the US, our paid membership base is now larger than prior to the launch of paid sharing and revenue growth has accelerated and is now growing faster than in the US,” Netflix said. Seems like it's going according to their plan. People are free to cancel, but it looks like they ran the numbers and people are willing to pay.
• AkshatJ27 4y ago
  Netflix is only slightly more convenient than piracy. If they push too hard, many people will take the other route.
• wkat4242 4y ago
  I'm in Spain and I heard of others that are cancelling. I'm sharing a family member's account from the Netherlands and it's still letting me share :P But once the ban hits the Netherlands too I'll just switch to piracy again. Netflix was good while it lasted but it's over now. Even after this they will want to keep increasing revenue so they will keep adding more barriers. It's the typical platform enshittification, once they reach market saturation there is only the way downhill for the customer. The others are subsidising their offers now to gain marketshare but once they gain a foothold they will do the same.
• miked85 4y ago
  I don't think Netflix even has the content anymore to justify the cost. I cant imagine the password sharing restriction will help them.
• 1letterunixname 4y ago
  What happens when companies try to squeeze customers, layoff employees, and assume they're amazing while delivering less cool, less value, and threaten the bargain that was already established.
• ladyanita22 4y ago
  It's important to consider Spain is a wage-constrained country, so our disposable income is not comparable to that of the average American, German, Britton or French. These moves have a greater impact on us vs. the rest of the developed world.
  • titaniczero 4y ago
    10% of the population in spain was using netflix before this, as a reference 12% in germany, not that much difference. We'll see, but I think it has more to do with the decline in quality of the content and people sending a message than anything else.
• freetanga 4y ago
  The upside is people are realizing this is disposable income, and in face of though Economic times, they can ditch subscriptions. Before Netflix was a staple, now people in Spain are either using more Amazon or Disney (both cheaper) or binging Netflix one month (or going back to torrenting / IPTV) I think Netflix opened Pandoras box with this decision. They made clients aware they can live without it.
• pharos92 4y ago
  Assuming $20/month, that's just under a quarter of a billion in lost revenue.
• sneed_chucker 4y ago
  I guess this is the business equivalent of "you catch more bees with honey"
• switch007 4y ago
  It’s 2023. Companies: you’ve raised prices, made service worse, reduced customer service. If you continue to penny pinch, it really doesn’t take much for me to cancel and never come back. You’re not a landlord or an energy provider: I don’t need you. Screw your greed.
• wtcactus 4y ago
  Sincerely I left Netflix at the start of the year due to their apalling content, not really due to the password sharing policy (which was also applied where I live). A couple of my friends did it for the same reason. It was not enough that they are just putting out low value productions, but they also feel the need to lecture me in every show about their radical political ideas. I can't even name a really good series that came out on the past 2 years from Netflix, while on HBO and Prime, at least there were some really good ones.
• JustLurking2022 4y ago
  The dumbest part of this is that they're doing it at a time I've never cared less about Netflix content - they lost a lot of the best reruns and only put out 1 decent show every couple years. Even though this doesn't affect me, I still question why I still have Netflix.
• nmeofthestate 4y ago
  Tesco loses a million "users" over "checkout avoidance" policing. There's a concern that word of mouth recommendations of Tesco Finest products will take a hit as a result of the measures.
• fennecfoxy 4y ago
  Everyone getting angry at Netflix but not the real source of all the problems; the suit&tie media execs who are forcing these companies to shake their hands for exclusive deals, and pocketing fat wads of cash from these contracts. Even before streaming, this has always been an issue and it ties in with the ludicrous amounts of money paid to movie stars, the cost of which is carried onto us consumers; and yet people blame movie theatres for the ludicrous prices, how fucking shortsighted - do people even think at all? Why the hell is RDJ making 40M for a Captain America movie? Why is Will Smith being paid 40M for King Richard? Why Did Johnny Depp get a 35M wad for Pirates? Sure these actors are all skilled professionals, but do we honestly believe those amounts are okay? It's clearly all of our collective, consumer faults at the end of the day; story of human history.
  • NickC25 4y ago
    > do people even think at all? No, they don't. Man is smart, people are dumb. That said, actors get paid because they employ good negotiators. RDJ took a huge risk pinning a great deal of his career on the Marvel movies back when it was a very niche movie, much like Sir Alec Guinness did with Star Wars. That said, some of the amounts entertainers make is absurd - top athletes make stupid money too, but at least their prime earning years are significantly shorter than actors or musicians. Entertainers also make a ton because the people paying them also make a ton, and those people can afford to lobby for IP protection (see: Disney) and utilize "creative" accounting strategies such as Hollywood Accounting and collectively, we don't do anything to combat such blatant fraud, because it keeps the circuses coming, and politicians cannot disrupt the bread, nor the circuses, unless they wish to get voted out.
    • fennecfoxy 3y ago
      Big name actors end up doing movies that flop all the time and it doesn't affect their career, they just pocket the cash and move on. But yeah you're right, it really comes down to consumers and they way that we consume. If people are willing to pay $15 for a movie ticket then companies will charge $20 and people are oblivious to the fact that it could cost $1.
• NickC25 4y ago
  Netflix created its own demise, and I think that's been obvious since they started creating, and then cancelling, shows left and right with no ending. I understand content creation is HARD. Like, really hard. I get it. But their strategy in recent years has been "take aim at dartboard, throw, but as soon as something potentially veers off course, even slightly, run and pull the dart out of the air before it hits the dartboard." They produce and cancel so much content before the content is mature that it turns people off. Keep in mind Netflix originally grew because they had all the content, and now everyone worth watching has their own platform.
  • _fat_santa 4y ago
    I can't help but draw parallels from how Netflix manages their content to how Google manages their products. I listened to a podcast where they explained the economics of why Netflix is doing this and it's basically because they have to pay fees to keep the show up. This causes a similar pressure that seems to felt inside of Google, if something is not a smash hit right out the gate, kill it. But as we saw with Google, this is not a viable long term strategy, you save money in the short term, but in the long term people stop using your products / watching your shows because it might be gone tomorrow so why bother.
    • NickC25 4y ago
      I think their hangup is, because they have SAG/Unionized actors/actresses, that they actually have to pay higher fees per each subsequent season (season 2 actors get paid more than season 1, season 3 actors get a bump from season 2) so eventually all but the most hyper-profitable shows get cancelled, and even then, some of the most popular ones still get cancelled because said show eventually becomes unprofitable after season 5 or 6 even if like 75% of the entire customer base is watching the show. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Netflix's addiction to data and revenue optimization becomes their demise. I think with the money they have, Netflix should try producing a show that has 1, or 2 seasons, and has a concrete ending with little to no room for another season....and see how it does. People will invest time into something that they know has a definitive ending....but won't if they know the show might be canned and the story is left on a cliffhanger.