SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the maybe-they-could-sell-blue-checkmarks-instead dept.
The plan is to try to force Netflix customers to pay an extra $2-$3 every month for service for any users using your credentials outside of the home. An accidentally leaked Netflix help guide last week indicated that users who don't log into their Netflix account in a 31 day period would face the new surcharges, something that didn't go over well with either users or celebrities that travel a lot.
The company was then forced to backtrack, stating the guides were posted in error, and intended for customers in countries like Chile and Peru where the crackdown had already launched. Those efforts, as we'd mentioned previously, were also reportedly a confusing mess for subscribers in those countries, who say it was never really clear how the inconsistently-enforced system actually worked.
Netflix is embracing the move because the company's growth has hit a wall internationally, forcing it to begin nickel-and-diming existing subscribers if Wall Street is to get its improved quarterly returns.
[...] The question then is: is that modest bump in revenue worth alienating and annoying your existing customers in a competitive streaming market? We're apparently going to find out.
To be clear, I still think Netflix has value at its current monthly rate, and many people who complain about the new rate hikes are lazy and likely won't cancel. On the flip side, this move remains the latest signal from the company that it's done with being innovative and disruptive and has, as publicly traded companies usually do, shifted toward nickel-and-diming and turf protection as it attempts to fend off competitors.
Previously:
Netflix Fights Password-Sharing With Test of $3 "Extra Member" Fee
Netflix to Start Testing Warnings for People Borrowing Login Info
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aafcac on Thursday February 09, @03:58AM (7 children)
They already were limiting how many simultaneous viewers could watch on an account at a time. What this says is that the extra screens you're forced to pay for if you want higher picture quality are a scam as you wouldn't be able to share the ones that are included in the more effective plans.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09, @11:38AM (6 children)
What I would really like to see, the industry will never do. I would like an alacarte system where your monthly bill ends up averaging the same, but you pay per show watched. I would gladly spring $1 per episode of Andor, and I wish they would have charged $0.25 per episode for Obi Wan Kenobi just so I could have had the excuse to stop watching that crap because it's not worth supporting. Oh, and while we are at it: there would be a streaming cost, say $0.20 per hour, and a ONE TIME license cost for every show you watch, as you watch it.
There is still a problem with shared accounts in that scenario, in the one time license fee, but as an occasional watcher, I really don't like supporting the avid streamers who run Fireplace in the home 80 hours a week.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 09, @03:15PM (1 child)
I don't want to pay per episode, per hour, or per X thing. You will definitely spend more money, if you have to pay alacarte for everything. Because I can guarantee you, those will all be rental prices. In the event that I got to pay once and never had to pay them again. I.E. Similar to GOG.com, I could possibly get behind that. (I forgot Amazon Prime rentals were a thing.) Otherwise, the system that you propose will only end up costing the average person more, in the long run. Sure, maybe not the person that only watches one show or will never watch more than 1 movie a week or maybe 2. Netflix offering a stream of a Fireplace that someone runs 80 hours a week, is Netflix's problem. Then again, perhaps that's literally all the customer uses it for. In which case, I would say that Netflix may be making out like a bandit. Also, your $1 per episode / $0.25 per episode are highly unrealistic for them to be charging.
Just look at the movie rentals on Amazon Prime. It's sort of the alacarte sytem you're looking for, except a lot more expensive than what you want.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09, @10:14PM
>You will definitely spend more money, if you have to pay alacarte for everything
As I said, the industry will never do it, too much greed involved.
With modern tech, they certainly could generate the same revenue from the subscribers by having the average bills the same - the problem for people who use the service a lot is: there are a lot of people who don't use the service much at all, so the heavy users will get heavy bills - making up for the light users who pay but get little service.
Just imagine if exercise gyms charged by actual usage to generate the same income they get from selling annual subscriptions to people who never show up!
Maybe something like a base $5 per month "customer charge" with usage on top? I mean, the real thing I am "after" with this is: rewarding "good" content and killing off the crap faster because it doesn't generate as much revenue.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Thursday February 09, @03:58PM (1 child)
Amazon already does something close to this. The prices are *slightly* higher, but there's for-pay stuff on their streaming service, even if you're already a Prime member. Enjoy!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09, @10:16PM
I am an avid Amazon user. They can take their prime subscription fee dreams of me and stick them somewhere deep, dark and damp. I've had two trial prime subscriptions over the years, I know what they've got, and I don't need that subscription crack in my brain, any more than I need a Costco or Sam's Club membership bill.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by owl on Thursday February 09, @04:18PM
This is exactly what the copyright owners want. However how they will want it to be will not align with what you think will come from this.
Except, the copyright owners will never go for such a low pay per view price. They will want to charge you something close to theater ticket costs, per viewer watching at the same time, for each viewing.
So if pay-per-view became the norm, prepare for paying $20 per person sitting in front of the screen at the moment for everything. And should you decide to re-watch X next week, prepare to pay $20 again for the privilege of watching it a second time.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 09, @05:25PM
What I would really like to see, the industry will never do. I would like an alacarte system where your monthly bill ends up averaging the same, but you pay per show watched.
So would they, but they know it would never work. It would cost most people a lot more than they're paying now and they'd never subscribe. You and they would both lose money.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience