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 ledow on Friday February 10, @08:21AM (2 children)
"Some portion of those shared passwords will not sign up, they will just stop watching netflix for free."
And what do you think is in it for Netflix to allow that?
It's not just about INCOME, it's also about EXPENSES. Supporting lots of extra users that *aren't* actually paying for the service is a profit-hit too.
Netflix don't care whether or not you would become a customer... that's old PirateBay thinking. They care that you are freeloading on a service they have to spend money to provide, and they see nothing for it beyond "brand recognition", which is like trying to pay for your coffee by telling the cafe that you're an "influencer" and will give them airtime.
And contrary to the old RIAA/MPAA situation, Netflix *are* spending money for every stream you press Play on. Licensing, delivery bandwidth, storage bandwidth, etc.
Even the title looks like it was written by a Slashdotter of old (which is ironic, because I am one). "Netflix’s *Unnecessary* Password Crackdown"?
If Microsoft started "cracking down" on people using Office unlicenced, would that be seen as "unnecessary"? And with MS their costs *are* sunk into Office development already and one extra freeloader costs them nothing. That's not true of Netflix.
I don't care about Netflix. I had a trial once, never bothered to use it again, probably wouldn't ever pay to subscribe to such a service... Amazon Prime is the closest I get and I barely use the streaming stuff and it has almost no part in my decision making (and even then, next renewal is going up, so I'll rethink if I even bother then).
But suggesting that they doing this to try to force those freeloaders on their own customer's accounts to pay money is ridiculous. They're doing it to stop their costs of delivery being 2, 3 or 4 times more than they should be given that the account only has one paying customer.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Friday February 10, @05:25PM (1 child)
But, the service is already being paid for multiple screens. I'm some cases you don't even get the option of using for one screen only.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday February 10, @06:31PM
And there's only so many screens that a given amount of related people (e.g. a family) can use at one time from one location, or even on one wifi network.
Of course they're aggregating and expecting people to use their channels at times, but they're also stopping 1m "5 screen" users using 5m screens of bandwidth 24/7.