3 ms·

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 weal

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
      I will be curious to see what happens to families living in RVs.
      - taeric 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
        I can't believe you actually had to explain this to someone on HN
        gnicholas 4y 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.
        4y ago
brokenmachine 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
You think The people will demand to pay more to subsidize the rich. I love your optimism and altruism
copperx 4y 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 4y 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...

tobyjsullivan 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    I will be curious to see what happens to families living in RVs.
    - taeric 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
        I can't believe you actually had to explain this to someone on HN
      - gnicholas 4y 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.
        4y ago

brokenmachine 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago

You think The people will demand to pay more to subsidize the rich. I love your optimism and altruism

copperx 4y 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 4y 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...