5 ms·

>just like Netflix. Eventually, we will have to pay a lot of money and still have ads too. This doesn't match reality. The "standard with ads" plan is $8.99 to

by gruez 7mo ago

>just like Netflix. Eventually, we will have to pay a lot of money and still have ads too. This doesn't match reality. The "standard with ads" plan is $8.99 today, a dollar more than the ad-free "streaming only" plan launched in 2011. However factoring in inflation, the ad-free plan from 2011 would cost $11.74 today, which means the ad supported plan is still cheaper, even ignoring the price hikes.

ceejayoz 7mo ago
At the same time, they keep hiking the other tiers, and cracking down on password sharing or kids off at college. These need to be factored in as well.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >they keep hiking the other tiers That's why I compared against the 2011 prices. The ad-supported plan is still cheaper. >cracking down on password sharing or kids off at college Doesn't password sharing affect ad supported plans too? It basically has no effect on the comparison because it makes both the ad supported and non ad supported plans cheaper.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    The crackdown on "your kid's in a dorm, you can't share the account" is intended to get that kid to buy a second account. The ad tier is cheap so they can say "well switch to the cheap plan" when someone complains about the hikes.
cryptonym 7mo ago
By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50% Ad supported plan can be a way to justify price hikes. Maybe it does match reality.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50% You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing that price hikes haven't occurred. In fact I specifically acknowledged them. I'm only making the narrow argument that despite implications to the contrary, the ad supported plan today is cheaper than the paid plans. In other words the implication that "we're paying more and still have ads" is false.
  - cryptonym 7mo ago
    They didn't say "we're paying more and still have ads". They said they would have to pay a lot to still get ads. Maybe it's not your reality, you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap. It might be different for someone else.
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap I mean, if you're so fervently against ads to the extent that paying a single cent is "a lot", then I suppose it's true, but it's highly subjective. By most reasonable comparisons (ie. ads vs non-ad price today, ads vs historical ad price), it's not "a lot".
      - queenkjuul 7mo ago
        It's "a lot" more than I've ever remotely considered paying to be advertised to, I'll say that
neves 7mo ago
Tell "doesn't match reality" to cable television. All channels ended having ads. This is Capitalism in a American society that is looking more of a plutocracy than a democracy.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
  Please for the love of all that is holy stop with the completely false outdated meme that “at one point cable didn’t have ads” Cable was first introduced as a means to get over the air channels for remote places that couldn’t get a signal to get network tv. These channels always had ads. Then came the “Superstations”. They were local independent ad supported channels like TBS in Atlanta and WGN in Chicago that went national. They always had ads. Then the early cable channels like ESPN, the precursor to Lifetime, CNN etc and they always had ads. The other early cable channels were trying to sell ads to advertisers from day one but they didn’t have enough viewers. Yes channels that you paid extra for like HBO didn’t have ads and still don’t.
  - neves 7mo ago
    In Brazil cable started not having ads. Don't take USA for all the world
    - raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
      A quick bit of Googling shows that by the time cable got to be standardized with anything worthwhile in Brazil, ads came along with it. Before then it was mostly premium channels that also don’t and never had ads in the US.

by gruez 7mo ago

ceejayoz 7mo ago

At the same time, they keep hiking the other tiers, and cracking down on password sharing or kids off at college. These need to be factored in as well.

gruez 7mo ago
>they keep hiking the other tiers That's why I compared against the 2011 prices. The ad-supported plan is still cheaper. >cracking down on password sharing or kids off at college Doesn't password sharing affect ad supported plans too? It basically has no effect on the comparison because it makes both the ad supported and non ad supported plans cheaper.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  The crackdown on "your kid's in a dorm, you can't share the account" is intended to get that kid to buy a second account. The ad tier is cheap so they can say "well switch to the cheap plan" when someone complains about the hikes.

cryptonym 7mo ago

By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50% Ad supported plan can be a way to justify price hikes. Maybe it does match reality.

gruez 7mo ago
>By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50% You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing that price hikes haven't occurred. In fact I specifically acknowledged them. I'm only making the narrow argument that despite implications to the contrary, the ad supported plan today is cheaper than the paid plans. In other words the implication that "we're paying more and still have ads" is false.
- cryptonym 7mo ago
  They didn't say "we're paying more and still have ads". They said they would have to pay a lot to still get ads. Maybe it's not your reality, you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap. It might be different for someone else.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap I mean, if you're so fervently against ads to the extent that paying a single cent is "a lot", then I suppose it's true, but it's highly subjective. By most reasonable comparisons (ie. ads vs non-ad price today, ads vs historical ad price), it's not "a lot".
    - queenkjuul 7mo ago
      It's "a lot" more than I've ever remotely considered paying to be advertised to, I'll say that

neves 7mo ago

Tell "doesn't match reality" to cable television. All channels ended having ads. This is Capitalism in a American society that is looking more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
Please for the love of all that is holy stop with the completely false outdated meme that “at one point cable didn’t have ads” Cable was first introduced as a means to get over the air channels for remote places that couldn’t get a signal to get network tv. These channels always had ads. Then came the “Superstations”. They were local independent ad supported channels like TBS in Atlanta and WGN in Chicago that went national. They always had ads. Then the early cable channels like ESPN, the precursor to Lifetime, CNN etc and they always had ads. The other early cable channels were trying to sell ads to advertisers from day one but they didn’t have enough viewers. Yes channels that you paid extra for like HBO didn’t have ads and still don’t.
- neves 7mo ago
  In Brazil cable started not having ads. Don't take USA for all the world
  - raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
    A quick bit of Googling shows that by the time cable got to be standardized with anything worthwhile in Brazil, ads came along with it. Before then it was mostly premium channels that also don’t and never had ads in the US.