6 ms·

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

by oefnak 3y ago

gnicholas 3y ago
That's not what GP said. GP complained about having to pay as if there were multiple households benefiting, when it's actually just one household, albeit a wealthy one. If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. I would assume it's not their intention to try to "go after" this segment and make them pay more (since it's a small portion of their users, and the revenue opportunity is small), but they've undoubtedly thought about this possibility and the unfairness it creates.
- tobyjsullivan 3y ago
  To be fair, this seems like a very convenient redefining of "household". If a household can, quite literally, span two houses (and states!), then what does household actually mean? Edit: double checked and Netflix today is clear that plans are for a single "household". No idea if that language has changed over time but I vaguely recall them always referring to multiple "devices", not people.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    According to a dictionary, "household" means: > those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family; also: a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling [1] It seems more focused on the family unit rather than where they're located. If a household goes on vacation, are they not still a household when they are at their hotel? Why is it different if they're at a condo, which they own? Disclosure: not that it matters, but I do not have a second home. 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/household https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/household
    - taeric 3y ago
      I'm curious how you read that and don't see the words "roof" and "same dwelling"? Because... that seems far more focused on where they are located than not? Only thing it is excluding is multiple family units all living in a shared building are not one household.
      - ChoGGi 3y ago
        I will be curious to see what happens to families living in RVs.
        taeric 3y ago
        Apologies for missing this. I'm not clear what you mean. They already have the worst services of any "household" you can imagine. Such that I don't see it changing much?
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        Oh, I absolutely see that limitation. But as I mentioned in my example, a "household" does not cease to exist when it leaves that shared roof. The group is defined based on where they live, regardless of whether they are together at any given moment, or if they are under a different roof together (and whether that different roof is part of a hotel, condo, or vacation home).
        taeric 3y ago
        It totally ceases when you leave the shared roof. Is why me and my siblings shared a household with our parents, but don't share one now that we have moved out.
        doubleg72 3y ago
        I can't believe you actually had to explain this to someone on HN
        gnicholas 3y ago
        OP referred to an intact family unit that has multiple homes. They are still a household because, unlike your example, the are still intact. It's obvious that once you move out permanently, you're not part of the household anymore. But the original examples, and all of mine, refer to temporary relocations of an intact family unit.
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  >If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. Not in the poor houses, and the rich ones would pay anyway because they're rich and price inelastic. So I doubt there'd be a revolt.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    I would hypothesize a revolt for two reasons. First, it would violate people's general sense of fairness that a product is being sold at different prices to different customers. Wealthy people (who are perhaps above-average in terms of retention) would leave to go to other services that they perceive to be fairer. Second, it would be difficult to avoid overinclusive/underinclusive issues. For example, someone who lives in a studio apartment in a zip code with many large expensive homes would feel they are being clumped with people who are not like them. Is it hypothetically possible to avoid these outcomes? Sure, but it would take a ton of work, and would likely outweigh the benefit of differential pricing.
- zaphirplane 3y ago
  You think The people will demand to pay more to subsidize the rich. I love your optimism and altruism
- copperx 3y ago
  > If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. Revolt? Price discrimination is illegal.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Tell that to the California power companies: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/income-based-electric-rate-system-proposed-by-california-energy-companies/ https://californiaglobe.com/articles/income-based-electric-r...
mathgeek 3y ago
Your comment adds nothing useful to the discussion, as GP never said it was a matter of cost. I am in the same boat and it’s about convenience and/or the loss of what we currently have. Netflix both raised prices and reduced what you get.
- Firmwarrior 3y ago
  Yeah, it's not a matter of angry feelings, it's just a cost-benefit analysis I'm guessing they aren't actually going to put this into action in the USA, but we'll see how it goes I'd personally be fine with paying for 5 different streaming video services, but my wife is too frugal and makes me cancel one when I start another.. presumably a lot of people are in the same boat, and would look at this as a good opportunity to try out Disney+, HBO Max, etc
  - _zzaw 3y ago
    Just curious, what makes you think they won't do it here? I think they're 100% greedy enough to do it here. And at that point, I'll cancel. I've already kind of accustomed my parents to it by reminding them that it takes them half an hour to find anything that they even want to watch on Netflix.
    - Firmwarrior 3y ago
      I just think they'll play around with it in smaller regions to see the effect and run a cost-benefit analysis before they risk angering their primary money maker
- zaphirplane 3y ago
  I disagree, if cracking down on friends and different households sharing passwords means I get it cheaper than I’m ok with that. Their implementation allows people to use their tablet / phone / setup box/ streaming device in multiple locations. Since the technology isn’t available to cater for people living and paying for multiple house holds the options are everyone pays extra or the very very few people that can afford it or an anomaly pay extra To be frank for the case of someone living 6 months here 6 months there They can sign-up and cancel cause it’s a month by month subscription
parsimo2010 3y ago
A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? No, it’s clearly supposed to be that one account covers multiple people. GP is fine to complain whether they have enough money for two houses at once. What about kids who have divorced parents and stay at a different house on the weekend? Do they need to get two separate accounts because “their parents can afford two houses?”
- astura 3y ago
  >A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? Like cable, internet connection, or Costco membership - it's per household not per family.
  - parsimo2010 3y ago
    The addition of "household" is a new addition they made, likely coupled with this change in direction about password sharing. The word household does not appear in archived versions of their page discussing streaming plans. 2017 (https://archive.is/KFZtP https://archive.is/KFZtP) "No matter which plan you choose, you can install the Netflix app on as many devices as you want, and enjoy as many TV shows and movies as you want, anytime, anywhere." In 2017, not only were they not talking about households, they were explicitly bragging about how you can watch on any device in multiple locations, which conflicts with the concept of a household they are pushing now. 2021 (https://archive.is/OzbRU https://archive.is/OzbRU) "The plan you choose will determine the number of devices that you can watch Netflix on at the same time. With all of our plans, you can download the Netflix app on all your favorite devices and watch unlimited movies and TV shows." But now in 2023 (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926) "As a Netflix member, you are charged monthly on the date you signed up. A Netflix account is for people who live together in a single household. Learn more about sharing Netflix."
  - 3y ago

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

by oefnak 3y ago

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

That's not what GP said. GP complained about having to pay as if there were multiple households benefiting, when it's actually just one household, albeit a wealthy one. If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. I would assume it's not their intention to try to "go after" this segment and make them pay more (since it's a small portion of their users, and the revenue opportunity is small), but they've undoubtedly thought about this possibility and the unfairness it creates.

tobyjsullivan 3y ago
To be fair, this seems like a very convenient redefining of "household". If a household can, quite literally, span two houses (and states!), then what does household actually mean? Edit: double checked and Netflix today is clear that plans are for a single "household". No idea if that language has changed over time but I vaguely recall them always referring to multiple "devices", not people.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  According to a dictionary, "household" means: > those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family; also: a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling [1] It seems more focused on the family unit rather than where they're located. If a household goes on vacation, are they not still a household when they are at their hotel? Why is it different if they're at a condo, which they own? Disclosure: not that it matters, but I do not have a second home. 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/household https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/household
  - taeric 3y ago
    I'm curious how you read that and don't see the words "roof" and "same dwelling"? Because... that seems far more focused on where they are located than not? Only thing it is excluding is multiple family units all living in a shared building are not one household.
    - ChoGGi 3y ago
      I will be curious to see what happens to families living in RVs.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Apologies for missing this. I'm not clear what you mean. They already have the worst services of any "household" you can imagine. Such that I don't see it changing much?
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      Oh, I absolutely see that limitation. But as I mentioned in my example, a "household" does not cease to exist when it leaves that shared roof. The group is defined based on where they live, regardless of whether they are together at any given moment, or if they are under a different roof together (and whether that different roof is part of a hotel, condo, or vacation home).
      - taeric 3y ago
        It totally ceases when you leave the shared roof. Is why me and my siblings shared a household with our parents, but don't share one now that we have moved out.
        doubleg72 3y ago
        I can't believe you actually had to explain this to someone on HN
        gnicholas 3y ago
        OP referred to an intact family unit that has multiple homes. They are still a household because, unlike your example, the are still intact. It's obvious that once you move out permanently, you're not part of the household anymore. But the original examples, and all of mine, refer to temporary relocations of an intact family unit.
brokenmachine 3y ago
>If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. Not in the poor houses, and the rich ones would pay anyway because they're rich and price inelastic. So I doubt there'd be a revolt.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I would hypothesize a revolt for two reasons. First, it would violate people's general sense of fairness that a product is being sold at different prices to different customers. Wealthy people (who are perhaps above-average in terms of retention) would leave to go to other services that they perceive to be fairer. Second, it would be difficult to avoid overinclusive/underinclusive issues. For example, someone who lives in a studio apartment in a zip code with many large expensive homes would feel they are being clumped with people who are not like them. Is it hypothetically possible to avoid these outcomes? Sure, but it would take a ton of work, and would likely outweigh the benefit of differential pricing.
zaphirplane 3y ago
You think The people will demand to pay more to subsidize the rich. I love your optimism and altruism
copperx 3y ago
> If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. Revolt? Price discrimination is illegal.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Tell that to the California power companies: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/income-based-electric-rate-system-proposed-by-california-energy-companies/ https://californiaglobe.com/articles/income-based-electric-r...

mathgeek 3y ago

Your comment adds nothing useful to the discussion, as GP never said it was a matter of cost. I am in the same boat and it’s about convenience and/or the loss of what we currently have. Netflix both raised prices and reduced what you get.

Firmwarrior 3y ago
Yeah, it's not a matter of angry feelings, it's just a cost-benefit analysis I'm guessing they aren't actually going to put this into action in the USA, but we'll see how it goes I'd personally be fine with paying for 5 different streaming video services, but my wife is too frugal and makes me cancel one when I start another.. presumably a lot of people are in the same boat, and would look at this as a good opportunity to try out Disney+, HBO Max, etc
- _zzaw 3y ago
  Just curious, what makes you think they won't do it here? I think they're 100% greedy enough to do it here. And at that point, I'll cancel. I've already kind of accustomed my parents to it by reminding them that it takes them half an hour to find anything that they even want to watch on Netflix.
  - Firmwarrior 3y ago
    I just think they'll play around with it in smaller regions to see the effect and run a cost-benefit analysis before they risk angering their primary money maker
zaphirplane 3y ago
I disagree, if cracking down on friends and different households sharing passwords means I get it cheaper than I’m ok with that. Their implementation allows people to use their tablet / phone / setup box/ streaming device in multiple locations. Since the technology isn’t available to cater for people living and paying for multiple house holds the options are everyone pays extra or the very very few people that can afford it or an anomaly pay extra To be frank for the case of someone living 6 months here 6 months there They can sign-up and cancel cause it’s a month by month subscription

parsimo2010 3y ago

A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? No, it’s clearly supposed to be that one account covers multiple people. GP is fine to complain whether they have enough money for two houses at once. What about kids who have divorced parents and stay at a different house on the weekend? Do they need to get two separate accounts because “their parents can afford two houses?”

astura 3y ago
>A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? Like cable, internet connection, or Costco membership - it's per household not per family.
- parsimo2010 3y ago
  The addition of "household" is a new addition they made, likely coupled with this change in direction about password sharing. The word household does not appear in archived versions of their page discussing streaming plans. 2017 (https://archive.is/KFZtP https://archive.is/KFZtP) "No matter which plan you choose, you can install the Netflix app on as many devices as you want, and enjoy as many TV shows and movies as you want, anytime, anywhere." In 2017, not only were they not talking about households, they were explicitly bragging about how you can watch on any device in multiple locations, which conflicts with the concept of a household they are pushing now. 2021 (https://archive.is/OzbRU https://archive.is/OzbRU) "The plan you choose will determine the number of devices that you can watch Netflix on at the same time. With all of our plans, you can download the Netflix app on all your favorite devices and watch unlimited movies and TV shows." But now in 2023 (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926) "As a Netflix member, you are charged monthly on the date you signed up. A Netflix account is for people who live together in a single household. Learn more about sharing Netflix."
- 3y ago