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: 2) by aafcac on Thursday February 09, @08:23PM (2 children)
The $5 a night was probably not an issue, the copies they rented were likely expensive, as is the staffing and realestate. The issue they had was when they stopped charging late fees, you could keep the tapes long and pay for a shorter rental. This also meant that they needed more copies to cover the need.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09, @10:41PM
The real issue I saw "back when" was the content owners' greed: rental market tapes and DVDs selling for ~$100 per copy while they were "hot" which put a super-premium on end user's time holding said DVDs. At one point, we did "Redbox" to get the latest stuff, but returning that disc within 24 hours was a major PITA, even if you could copy it to a hard drive and watch (never rewatch, that would be illegal /duh) when you felt like.
One night, when returning a DVD at a Walgreens that I had no other business at, I noticed I was across the street from our local library branch.
Last night we watched Top Gun Maverick, borrowed from the library for free and with 7 days to return it.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday February 11, @03:09PM
The $5 a night was probably not an issue
Not when they were the only game in town and movies were over a hundred bucks each to buy back in the '80s, but a couple decades later when the Family Video literally across the street from Blockbuster rented 2 movies for 2 nights for $2 and Walmart sold that same movie for $5, that Blockbuster that still charged $5 didn't last long. Neither did any of the other Blockbusters in town.
That's a real-life example from right here in Springfield, with the real numbers. They were on 6th street as you came into town from the south. The Blockbuster closed a long time ago, I think the Family Video is gone now, too, but there's still a Redbox at the Walgreen's down the street. $1 a night, they make their money from late fees.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience