Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:11AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the streams-of-cash dept.

Netflix said Monday it added some five million new subscribers over the past three months as profits doubled, in a quarterly update that sent shares of the streaming video giant higher.

California-based Netflix ended the third quarter with more than 104 million paid subscribers, with international memberships hitting 52.7 million and overtaking the number of US subscribers.

Net profits meanwhile jumped to $129 million, more than double the figure from the same period a year ago for the video giant known for "House of Cards," "The Crown" and other original shows that are part of its library.

Revenues in the quarter rose 30 percent from a year ago to $2.98 billion, Netflix said.

"We are growing nicely across the world and are on track to exceed $11 billion in revenue in 2017," a letter to shareholders said.

Streaming has entered its profit-maximization period. For audiences, has the bliss point already been passed?


Original Submission

Related Stories

Netflix Beats Wall Street Expectations on Subscriber Growth, Reaches $100 Billion Market Cap 7 comments

Netflix has continued to add millions of new subscribers, even after it raised prices:

Netflix Inc snagged 2 million more subscribers than Wall Street expected in the final three months of 2017, tripling profits at the online video service that is burning money on new programming to dominate internet television around the world.

The results drove Netflix to a market capitalization of more than $100 billion for the first time. Shares jumped 9 percent to over $248 in after-hours trading on Monday after rallying throughout the month and rising 53 percent last year.

The company has signed up more than half of all U.S. broadband households and is building its customer base in 190 countries by spending billions on programming.

Netflix picked up 6.36 million subscribers in international markets from October through December, when it released new seasons of critically acclaimed shows "Stranger Things" and "The Crown" as well as Will Smith action movie "Bright." That topped Wall Street expectations of 5.1 million, according to FactSet.

Along with 1.98 million customer additions in the United States, the company ended the year with 117.58 million streaming subscribers around the globe, despite a price hike in October.

From a Bloomberg op-ed: "The rapid pace of subscriber additions is impressive, but so is the amount of cash going up in flames."

Also at USA Today and The Street.

Previously: Netflix Has More Subscribers Than Major Cable Providers in the U.S.
Disney to Break Away From Netflix With its Own Streaming Service
Netflix Adds 5 Million Subscribers, Doubles Profit


Original Submission

Netflix Raises Monthly Prices on All of its US Plans; Here's How Much You'll Pay 40 comments

Netflix raises monthly prices on all of its US plans; here's how much you'll pay

Your Netflix subscription is about to get pricier. ‬

‪The popular streaming service announced that it will raise prices across its U.S. plans for new subscribers on Tuesday, and for existing users over the next three months. ‬

‪Netflix's most popular plan, previously $10.99 a month for two HD streams, will rise to $12.99. The cheapest $7.99 non-HD plan will now be $8.99, while the premium option that allowed four simultaneous streams in 4K will rise to $15.99 per month from $13.99. ‬

Netflix is raising the rates to fund its push into original programming. It was reported by The Economist last year that the company was spending between $12 billion and $13 billion on original programming in 2018, releasing popular films such as "Bird Box" and "Roma" as well as new seasons of TV shows like "13 Reasons Why," "Orange is the New Black" and "Marvel's Daredevil."

Related: Netflix Adds 5 Million Subscribers, Doubles Profit
Netflix Beats Wall Street Expectations on Subscriber Growth, Reaches $100 Billion Market Cap
Video Streaming Services set for Cambrian Explosion


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:23AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:23AM (#583860)

    Total that seems low someone is not telling the truth

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:29AM (#583861)

      They have raised the subscription price repeatedly. If they reserve some of the money they get instead of spending it on new content, that explains how profits could double.

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:00AM (5 children)

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:00AM (#583866)

      Err sothe only had 5 milliom subscribers\?

      No, you're conflating profit and revenue.

      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:46AM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:46AM (#583885) Journal

        No, you're conflating profit and revenue.

        Speaking about conflation
        (that's like inflation, only with confusion instead of, right? - grin- )

        TFS quote:

        California-based Netflix ended the third quarter with more than 104 million paid [sic] subscribers

        Paying subscribers? Paid subscriptions? That is normal, as-expected.

        Paid subscribers [wikipedia.org]?
        I'd like that, thank you, how can I become one?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:54AM (3 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:54AM (#583887) Journal

          Paid subscribers?
          I'd like that, thank you, how can I become one?

          You need to internalize the lessons of Netflix's House of Cards until you can apply them on the job [thehill.com].

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:06AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:06AM (#583891) Journal

            Doh... paid in rubles?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:03AM

    by looorg (578) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:03AM (#583890)

    But how do they count subscribers? I always find that an interesting question, if it's magazines or video games or netflix. After all Netflix has a binge-watching-content model. You watch that ONE (or more) shows that you just have to see and then what? Do you stay subbed for another year just waiting for the next season or do you unsub after having watched what you wanted to watch and then resub again next year when the next season comes along? While a sub is a sub are they constant-subs or periodical-subs? There is somewhat of a difference money wise if I sub for a month and watch until my eyes bleed or if I'm a full-year sub.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:54PM (14 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:54PM (#583964)

    Continue sucking it.
    -Netflix

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @04:48PM (13 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @04:48PM (#584007)

      Yup! Netflix has really gone south but most of that is because all the publishers think they can get more money by locking down their content. The #1 benefit to Netflix? NO ADS! If I pay any money at all I don't want to see ads, and it looks like an entire generation is being raised that way. Good luck you soul sucking marketing vampires.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:01PM (12 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:01PM (#584010)

        Well, Ads Ads Ads Ads Show and Ads doesn't have much ads in it...

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:56PM (11 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:56PM (#584027)

          Streaming videos started with just 2 or maybe 3 commercial breaks, and those breaks were very short. Now they are long and there are 4-8 breaks. Why must everything good be ruined? Goddamn money greed.

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday October 18 2017, @06:14PM (10 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @06:14PM (#584033) Journal

            Advertising ruins everything it touches [soylentnews.org].

            I will tolerate EITHER Ads or a Paid Subscription. NOT BOTH. Not now. Not ever. And I'm leaning to paid subscriptions because of ads. Hopefully all this mention of ads doesn't stress out your ad blockers.

            Advertising destroys every medium in which it is used. Ever.

            I'll start with Radio and not comment.

            TV had a tolerable number of ads. Somewhere during the golden age of TV the ads got more and more. And the quality of ads went way down. It used to be that the ads were somewhat entertaining. Then more and more ads. Lower quality programming.

            People fled to cable. The promise of cable was no ads. That illusion didn't last long. But it was tolerable. And programming content was superior. And included the network TV channels if you needed to see a program on network TV. Then the ads got worse. The content got worse. More and more time was spent on ads, and less on content. It got so bad that after an ad, when the content resumed, there would be more ads walking out onto the show you are watching, obscuring things, sometimes important things.

            People fled to internet TV. Some of it has ads, some does not. Hulu offers ad free for a higher price, which I'm willing to pay. Netflix is free of ads. When they started considering ads, I wrote them about how this is a slippery slope. Netflix has not put in ads, yet. I also suggested if the did introduce ads, have a higher priced ad-free tier. HBO, Starz and Amazon Prime are free of ads.

            Now YouTube has ads. It was okay at first. Now it's getting intolerable. They push YouTube Red. But their ads have gotten so bad, I may just forego ever getting YT Red because I find the ads so offensive.

            The web. No ads at first. It was about information. Then ads came. And came and came and came. And ad / malware networks. Then sites where an article was one paragraph per page, and each page had that one paragraph surrounded in dozens of blinking flashing dancing animated seizure inducing ads. And deceptive ads that try to look like an OS window warning you of something. And the advertising networks, and even host web sites were complicit in this. So I have no sympathy for sites complaining about ad blockers. If a site isn't usable with an ad blocker, I never go there again. No site has or ever will have anything valuable enough to overcome this. And since I won't go there, I won't find out even if they did. And I don't care.

            Ads are a blight on our cities. And even the countryside. Miles and miles of billboards along roads. It's disgusting.

            These people know no bounds. Absolutely none. Phones, tablets, personal computers all spy on us now for the sake of ads! Our cars spy on us for ads. Smart TVs spy on us for ads. IoT devices spy on us for ads.

            Once the technology is available, these people will lobby to require ads on the inside of our eyelids. Yes really. Mark my words.

            --
            This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
            • (Score: 2) by black6host on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:11PM (2 children)

              by black6host (3827) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:11PM (#584059) Journal

              I'm getting a feeling you don't like ads. :)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:39PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:39PM (#584081)

                No no, ads themselves are just objects. It is the people behind them that deserve all the "credit".

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:29PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:29PM (#584115) Journal

                I didn't mind them in a more civilized time. Now there is no limit to how far advertisers will go. No depth they won't stoop to. Ads are omnipresent. I expect advertisers to try to put mandatory ads into your private spaces (eg, the walls in your home, car, etc) and on the inside of your eyelids once the technology is available.

                --
                This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
            • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday October 23 2017, @07:31PM (6 children)

              by Pino P (4721) on Monday October 23 2017, @07:31PM (#586504) Journal

              I'm leaning to paid subscriptions because of ads.

              How many different domains are in your web browser's history for the past 30 days? Multiply that by $4 per domain-month and you'll see how much you'll likely end up paying on top of your Internet access subscription.

              The web. No ads at first. It was about information.

              Who pays to house and feed those who create and organize said information?

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 23 2017, @08:36PM (4 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 23 2017, @08:36PM (#586557) Journal

                When I wrote I lean to paid subscriptions, I was thinking along the lines of Netflix. I pay for a subscription and will not tolerate ads. I have given up on cable tv. I have a Hulu subscription also because ads have become intolerable.

                I have recently become acutely aware of some news sites that block articles after so many, and require a subscription. I have become aware of them that I now avoid clicking their links ever. Hey, I don't have to visit their site. They can't make me.

                Although I have used Soylent for some time now since discovering it, it occurs to me that I should strongly consider subscribing. But I would point out that there were always groups of people who out of their own desire and out of their own pocket built communications platforms. The BBS's of old come to mind.

                The web. No ads at first. It was about information.

                Who pays to house and feed those who create and organize said information?

                Those who provided the information paid for it at first. Universities. Students. Faculty. Before the World Wide Web (WWW) the Internet actually existed and was useful. The WWW simply made it much easier to both publish and consume information. It wasn't until later that the ads started appearing. And, as always, came the worst lowest basest behavior of the advertisers. "Punch the monkey" ads. Etc. "Your machine has been infected . . . click here now!" Etc. In fact, a huge amount of real information is still completely free with no ads. (And I'm not thinking of Wikipedia.)

                I need a manual for a FizzBuzz model 203. The manufacturer is happy to provide it online without ads. (Other than possibly for their own products, usually.)

                The "information" you speak of is more like entertainment or infotainment. And they can keep it. Other information is provided freely by providers of products in order to facilitate the use of those products. Such as micro controller boards, compilers, etc. Or shopping sites to sell you something. Some of them want to facilitate your discovery, selection and purchase of items. Others want to try to push irrelevant stuff in your face that you neither asked for, needed, nor wanted.

                If you're thinking about ads for FaceTwit, I have no comment since I don't have any FaceTwit.

                My bottom line is that advertisers have failed to police themselves. I will only touch on the subject of Spam, which does not pay for anything you are using. It is a pure parasite. Effective SPAM legislation was proposed in the 1990's (long after email spam started) and the Direct Marketing Association (who dumps tons of paper into your postal mailbox) got it killed. Ads always end up destroying whatever they touch.

                Maybe you can find a way to fix that if you're such an advocate of ads. I think the world is better without them. If I'm looking for home siding, I can find providers of that quite easily.

                --
                This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
                • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:01PM (3 children)

                  by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:01PM (#586825) Journal

                  Who pays to house and feed those who create and organize said information?

                  Those who provided the information paid for it at first. Universities. Students. Faculty.

                  But other than students and faculty, how are enough other people willing to pay for high-speed access at home to an Internet of primarily academic interest? Funding infrastructure for wired home Internet access requires some scale in the fraction of residences that subscribe, and I don't see demand for university-maintained resources alone providing sufficient economies of scale. Case in point: Despite availability of ISDN, home broadband didn't become common until the "entertainment" sites had become established.

                  Do you also want to go back to the days when only university computer labs were connected, and people lost access once they graduated?

                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:09PM (2 children)

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:09PM (#586855) Journal

                    You're conflating two different things.

                    I don't need a high speed internet to read information. But I am willing to pay my ISP to build out its infrastructure in order to watch Netflix, Prime, HBO, Starz, Hulu, YouTube, all of which (except YouTube) that I subscribe to BTW. But this is veering into the net neutrality subject and big ISPs wanting to extort Netflix to pay them for my end of the connection.

                    So I am using "entertainment" "sites". But not some major newspapers for example. Other than YouTube (which I mostly watch on my living room TV), I don't use a web browser (except YouTube) to watch video -- which is the biggest bandwidth user.

                    The university only internet is a red herring. Obviously I don't want that. But that has nothing to do with advertising. I pay for my ISP. I pay for sites I like. I won't go to ad sites if my adblocker doesn't work. What's the problem you are trying to create? If ad sites want to block my ad blocker that is their decision. And I am free to decide not to come back. I don't see a problem here.

                    --
                    This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:02PM (1 child)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:02PM (#587563) Journal

                      I don't need a high speed internet to read information.

                      You do when the information includes photographs or instructional videos.

                      I pay for my ISP. I pay for sites I like.

                      So what do you do when you see a summary of an article, where the summary is on one of the "sites [you] like", but the full article isn't? For example, a subscriber to SoylentNews might see a link to an article on WSJ, which is not included in a subscription to SoylentNews. Do you start another subscription to the site hosting the full article?

                      I won't go to ad sites if my adblocker doesn't work. What's the problem you are trying to create?

                      The problem is that "ad sites if my adblocker doesn't work" is likely to grow soon to encompass a large fraction of the web, such that sites that require a separate subscription and/or require cross-site tracking make up at least six of the first ten results from a web search for a particular query.

                      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:02PM

                        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:02PM (#587780) Journal

                        So what do you do when you see a summary of an article, where the summary is on one of the "sites [you] like", but the full article isn't?

                        This is increasingly common. Most of the time, the article is not something important enough to unblock the ads -- which definitely means it is not important enough to subscribe to.

                        The problem is that "ad sites if my adblocker doesn't work" is likely to grow soon to encompass a large fraction of the web

                        I'll live. I lived decades of my life before the web, before smart phones. I was happy and productive. I spent eight years of the 1980's not watching any TV -- none, zero. Starting in '89, I heard of various TV shows on Usenet that I had never seen. In the '90's my spouse wanted TV, and I saw more references to "old" '80's TV shows that I had never watched.

                        I strongly suspect if what you say is true, then there will be a growth of free sites. Sort of like how Open Source was the antidote to the stranglehold of the Microsoft monopoly in the 80's and 90's. At the time, it seemed like the stranglehold would never be broken. But in the open source world you could always see continuous steady progress.

                        --
                        This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 23 2017, @08:53PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 23 2017, @08:53PM (#586566) Journal

                Thank you for putting the idea in my head, but I just got a subscription for Soylent. Thinking of maybe swag too.

                --
                This Christmas season is the most likely to see Missile Tow instead of large artillery pieces being toed.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:27PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:27PM (#584196)

    Subscribe if you think you can get your subscription fee's worth of entertainment. Imaginary money is subsidizing a lot of original programming for you to enjoy. Do not invest. You are buying into a $84.4B market cap stock with only $2.7B in current stockholder equity, bad cash flow, net revenue not worth mentioning and an increasingly crowded competitive environment dominated with much larger players with bigger stacks of cash to burn buying original programming. Like most .com types they haven't made money in the past, don't make money now and it doesn't look likely they will make enough in the future to justify the insane valuation of today. Strictly being traded on the greater fool theory of investing that works great until one day it doesn't. Don't be that guy holding it when it doesn't.

(1)