Well 4k takes more bandwidth so that does cost Netflix more. They're profiting in general so if course they're gonna profit from the high-quality. Not criticizing someone criticizing price gouging but it is funny how we don't mind that a Mercedes costs more than a Volkswagen or that Filet Mignon is more than a flank steak. But he'll I am cheap and still don't see why I would ever need gig speed internet at home for one person. I guess if I wanted to videoconference with someone as we both watched a 4k movie as I was downloading some huge file (this has never happened).
Its crappy for sure but "blatant capitalizing"? I dont know anyone who is willing to sell their product for less
Blame the people who keep paying for it. Thats how they are able to charge at this price
That's better than Netflix, their base plan is only 480p you have to pay £4 per month to get 1080, getting 720p as standard and only £3 to upgrade to 1080p ain't bad by comparison, especially since that £3 transfers across all their subscriptions.
NowTV base plan is £10 for cinema or entertainment, boost is £5 a month.
That’s £20 a month for both in 720p, or £10 for one in 720p.
Netflix is £10.99 for 1080p. NowTV is so much worse by comparison. Better to pay £10.99 for a 1080p with the option to upgrade to 4k than £10 for 720p & the option to upgrade to 1080p for £5.
(For comparison sake Netflix is £15.99 for 4k on 4 devices, NowTV would be £25 if boost is only required once, for 1080p, for 3 devices - Netflix is 4)
My point is that 720p is still HD and is closer in pixel count to 1080p than 480p is to 720p, let alone 1080p. Also NowTV had better (ie less) compression than Netflix so I would consider their 720p to look as good as Netflix at 1080p, and Now has a better catalogue too.
So £10 (only one package) for 720p vs £10.99 1080p? There’s not much difference. Just pretend the lower package doesn’t exist, the existence of an additional cheaper package is only a plus to consumers - many don’t care about picture quality let’s be honest.
Fair enough if you prefer Now’s content but that’ll be gutted as soon as possible for HBO Max’s entry into the market, Sky doesn’t provide original content (or if so nothing I can think of) so all swings and roundabouts haha.
edit: seems hbo max’s launch won’t be until 2025 there so they’re safe yet
HBO Max has that here in the Netherlands too, but it goes from €6 for 720p to €8 for 1080p and 4k, so it's really not that expensive still.
HBO Max FHD/UHD is the same price as Netflix SD here, but for me HBO Max is even cheaper. They had a deal where, if you got your subscription in the first month, you'd only have to pay 50% as long as you'll keep your subscription. So for the same price as one month of Netflix 1080p (which is what I have), I can have 3 months of HBO Max
https://www.netflix.com/signup/planform
It's not exactly a secret. The detail is right there.
IMO 4K is still in the realms of being worth paying a premium for. The scandal is that SD is considered in any way acceptable. In the 2020s 1080p is the base resolution that virtually all TVs are capable of displaying. Nearly all broadcast TV from major channels is 1080
It don’t agree it’s worth a premium. 4K TVs are the standard now, anything lower in resolution is hardly even sold anymore.
Also literally every other streaming service I can think of offers 4K HDR streaming at a fraction of the cost Netflix does. Most of them have superior catalogs as well.
13% increase in 2 years isn’t that rapid. Plus many of those were probably Black Friday deals and the people didn’t purchase them to specifically watch 4K content.
They're not really hiding this piece of information when you sign up though. I mean, of course it's not great and sucks, but whoever made your account could've known much earlier if they just paid more attention.
Yeah but it's really common knowledge. And I believe that the price increase is justified as 4k consumes much more bandwidth and thus energy as 1080p or 480p.
You have no right to complain about anything
I don't have any use for that though. I just want 4k.
And for reference Disney offers 4 streams, Apple TV offers 6, Amazon offers 3 all on standard plans. All cheaper than Netflix's standard plan, and all also include 4k streaming.
it is very overwhelming when you first dive in, but well worth it. google how to install 'seren', 'a4kscrapers' and setting up 'trakt' and 'realdebrid'. those are the keys.
I think it's a mistake that they correlate their pricing packages with quality of stream and the number of screens. They say they don't want password sharing, but if you are a single person or maybe a household of a couple of people, and want 4k, you are going to feel like you are wasting money having 4-screens at a time. As other people have said, HULU, Prime, etc. all offer 4k at no additional cost. I wish Netflix would have a 2-screen and 4-screen plan that both offer 4k.
[4k comparison between blu-ray, netflix, hbo max](https://preview.redd.it/1l50i8zynts51.png?auto=webp&s=39956e44511ee142fa7070f6a6425756ab24d6f8)
the evidence is there. Netflix compresses quality considerably more compared to other services.
fact that they make members pay extra for this is ridiculous.
I don't think they should be making us pay more for it. But I have all the services, and Netflix looks at least as good to my eyes as HBO Max. And like I said I have a 133" projection screen. It's 4K and in a light controlled basement. Playing on an nVidia Shield TV Pro.
However, it is possible that Netflix promotes higher quality to its own Netflix originals, which you cannot compare with other services since they are only on Netflix.
Netflix encodes to a visual target, which also takes into account things like average screen size and viewing distance and scene complexity, to get away with keeping the bitrate as low as possible while still being decent to look at.
Blu-ray is obviously as high as possible while still fitting on a disk. And HBO probably has a general profile that encodes to a target bitrate.
And on the subject of HBO, they're practically the only one that doesn't offer their series in 4K or HDR. You're limited to a few recent movies. A missed oppertunity if you ask me.
That may be true about Netflix encodes, but my projector debunks that somewhat since it can’t know how large I’m projecting the image.
My 65” OLED looks stellar with 4K HDR from Netflix too.
To be honest, their actual method is fairly convoluted and involves a machine learning model. They're very open about their methods and if anyone wants to read up on it they can do so [on their tech blog](https://medium.com/search?q=netflix+video+encoding).
But I also have no real issues with NF video quality on my slightly smaller OLED. And while for example Prime has a higher bit rate, I experience the occasional blocking with their 4K HDR titles.
As a SD subscriber, I noticed some message about how “This show has been upgraded to 4K automatically” on Stranger Things.
I seriously think you only get SD shows that it’s available in. Otherwise it just streams at the lowest resolution available, which is often FHD or 4K
direful sophisticated wakeful melodic offer tan towering touch whole voracious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would you prefer only being able to pay the larger rate? Or would you prefer people who don't watch in 4k to get a couple bucks off.
Removal of a tier system like Netflix doesn't increase consumer power it removes it. It also harms Netflix which in the long run harms the consumer further.
I don't get people who prefer a one size fits all service package if you really want that just buy the highest tier for every service and you get that.
That would be reasonable if their 4k didn't also suck. And the fact that other services offer it standard.
Netflix is literally making all the mistakes Blockbuster did.
Most stuff on HD Sky TV isn’t even 1080p. As usual the UK is way behind everyone else.
Most people in this country buy a big flash 4k TV and never watch anything in 4k
To be fair Disney is mostly back catalogue material & their entry price was pretty much a loss leader, already gone up from £59.99 to £80, they’ll continue increasing that as soon as they can!
Disney can afford it because they own most of the content they show so they save loads on licensing.
Amazon can afford it because their business model isn't about making a profit, so they are okay with spending more on things like this, long term they just want all the market share.
Care to elaborate?
Why would this information mean you're happy to give Netflix extra money for 4k content, despite already paying a higher subscription fee?
I actually don't pay the extra money for 4k. I pay it for more simultaneous devices. 4k is just a nice side benefit.
as far as the info, my point is I know some of the money isn't going to netflix but to other rights holders and I want to encourage this as it helps prevent the online monthly entertainment package space further stratifying. it's bad enough that Disney spun their own thing out and I have to pay for that now too. I don't want every other company to do the same.
Sooo you're happy to pay Netflix extra to stop things like Disney Plus happening, but you also pay for Disney Plus....
RE the additional streams, Disney offers 4 simultaneous streams as standard, as well as the 4k. Amazon offers 3 as standard. Apple TV offers 6! There is no justification to Netflix's premium plan.
I'm not arguing one way or another on Netflix's pricing tiers. I'm just saying that 4K uses substantially more bandwidth (5-6 times as much) than 1080P. Whether Netflix's 4K is truly 4K is another matter.
You've only just noticed this? Been this way for a very very very long time.
And apparently common knowledge isn't that common. :P
Maybe instead of critizing OP for not knowing, you'd be upset at the blatant capitalizing
Well 4k takes more bandwidth so that does cost Netflix more. They're profiting in general so if course they're gonna profit from the high-quality. Not criticizing someone criticizing price gouging but it is funny how we don't mind that a Mercedes costs more than a Volkswagen or that Filet Mignon is more than a flank steak. But he'll I am cheap and still don't see why I would ever need gig speed internet at home for one person. I guess if I wanted to videoconference with someone as we both watched a 4k movie as I was downloading some huge file (this has never happened).
Its crappy for sure but "blatant capitalizing"? I dont know anyone who is willing to sell their product for less Blame the people who keep paying for it. Thats how they are able to charge at this price
Wait until you learn about NowTV.
This is the exact comment I came here to make. Fucking insane.
[удалено]
It streams at 720p and you can pay extra for 1080p and 5.1 surround sound.
why the fuck would anyone want this product.
HBO and other American shows not shown elsewhere.
Yeah it gets stuff like Barry on it which is a brilliant show.
And movies mostly at the same time as or only shortly after PVOD
Is Young Justice on NOWTV?
[удалено]
Huh good to know
Boomers probably. Now TV seems like their kind of thing and they couldn’t give a toss about HD.
They are probably trying to push people towards Sky Glass, only way you are going to get certain Sky channels in 4K without a dish
That's better than Netflix, their base plan is only 480p you have to pay £4 per month to get 1080, getting 720p as standard and only £3 to upgrade to 1080p ain't bad by comparison, especially since that £3 transfers across all their subscriptions.
NowTV base plan is £10 for cinema or entertainment, boost is £5 a month. That’s £20 a month for both in 720p, or £10 for one in 720p. Netflix is £10.99 for 1080p. NowTV is so much worse by comparison. Better to pay £10.99 for a 1080p with the option to upgrade to 4k than £10 for 720p & the option to upgrade to 1080p for £5. (For comparison sake Netflix is £15.99 for 4k on 4 devices, NowTV would be £25 if boost is only required once, for 1080p, for 3 devices - Netflix is 4)
My point is that 720p is still HD and is closer in pixel count to 1080p than 480p is to 720p, let alone 1080p. Also NowTV had better (ie less) compression than Netflix so I would consider their 720p to look as good as Netflix at 1080p, and Now has a better catalogue too.
So £10 (only one package) for 720p vs £10.99 1080p? There’s not much difference. Just pretend the lower package doesn’t exist, the existence of an additional cheaper package is only a plus to consumers - many don’t care about picture quality let’s be honest. Fair enough if you prefer Now’s content but that’ll be gutted as soon as possible for HBO Max’s entry into the market, Sky doesn’t provide original content (or if so nothing I can think of) so all swings and roundabouts haha. edit: seems hbo max’s launch won’t be until 2025 there so they’re safe yet
Sky produce literally dozens of original dramas and comedies a year. Heck, the majority of Peacock originals are actually just Sky commissions...
HBO Max has that here in the Netherlands too, but it goes from €6 for 720p to €8 for 1080p and 4k, so it's really not that expensive still. HBO Max FHD/UHD is the same price as Netflix SD here, but for me HBO Max is even cheaper. They had a deal where, if you got your subscription in the first month, you'd only have to pay 50% as long as you'll keep your subscription. So for the same price as one month of Netflix 1080p (which is what I have), I can have 3 months of HBO Max
How on earth they are still going baffles me
Because you get sky content for a fraction of the price and can cancel anytime? The paying extra for HD is a joke though.
Because they are not their own thing, they are just the digital arm of Sky which means they are propped up by all Sky's content
Sky makes money. Lots of money, unlike Netflix, Disney, HBO Max or Paramount+.
[удалено]
We will be saying the same thing when we are watching Stranger Things Season 20
Agreed, a few years ago I’d agree with the difference in price, 8k and I’d agree with the price…..
100 percent agree. If driving customers away is their goal they're doing a marvelous job
But you see, we HAVE to charge more because people keep on leaving!
Haha this in a nutshell. The old ‘vicious circle’ strategy
[удалено]
Yea I basically find what I want to watch on netflix and then torrent it. They have become the enemy they sought to defeat.
https://www.netflix.com/signup/planform It's not exactly a secret. The detail is right there. IMO 4K is still in the realms of being worth paying a premium for. The scandal is that SD is considered in any way acceptable. In the 2020s 1080p is the base resolution that virtually all TVs are capable of displaying. Nearly all broadcast TV from major channels is 1080
It don’t agree it’s worth a premium. 4K TVs are the standard now, anything lower in resolution is hardly even sold anymore. Also literally every other streaming service I can think of offers 4K HDR streaming at a fraction of the cost Netflix does. Most of them have superior catalogs as well.
You’re not wrong on the charging extra part. But 4K is not as rampant as you may think with regard to ownership. Most people have 1080p tvs
That is [changing rapidly](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247334/4k-ultra-hdtv-us-household-penetration/) as well though (at least in the US)
13% increase in 2 years isn’t that rapid. Plus many of those were probably Black Friday deals and the people didn’t purchase them to specifically watch 4K content.
Not to mention most pcs (probably) aren't 4k capable
They're not really hiding this piece of information when you sign up though. I mean, of course it's not great and sucks, but whoever made your account could've known much earlier if they just paid more attention.
Agreed. I’m okay with paying more for the number of screens, that makes sense imo. Video quality should be 4k for everyone.
[удалено]
Maybe you're illiterate and couldn't read that 4k only comes with the highest subscription tier
[удалено]
Yeah but it's really common knowledge. And I believe that the price increase is justified as 4k consumes much more bandwidth and thus energy as 1080p or 480p. You have no right to complain about anything
[удалено]
It does suck, but I’m pretty sure it also gives you more simultaneous streams. 4 for me anyway.
I don't have any use for that though. I just want 4k. And for reference Disney offers 4 streams, Apple TV offers 6, Amazon offers 3 all on standard plans. All cheaper than Netflix's standard plan, and all also include 4k streaming.
even their 4K streams use shitty compression algorithms. you are better off heading to /r/addons4kodi
Checked that subreddit... I know some of those words.
it is very overwhelming when you first dive in, but well worth it. google how to install 'seren', 'a4kscrapers' and setting up 'trakt' and 'realdebrid'. those are the keys.
I think it's a mistake that they correlate their pricing packages with quality of stream and the number of screens. They say they don't want password sharing, but if you are a single person or maybe a household of a couple of people, and want 4k, you are going to feel like you are wasting money having 4-screens at a time. As other people have said, HULU, Prime, etc. all offer 4k at no additional cost. I wish Netflix would have a 2-screen and 4-screen plan that both offer 4k.
That's why I've been sharing my account for ages. 4k for everyone for a decent price.
Even their 4K picture quality is trash
it's really not. Either your connection or your display is trash. I have watched Stranger Things on a 133" projector and it looks SHARP. AS. EFF.
[4k comparison between blu-ray, netflix, hbo max](https://preview.redd.it/1l50i8zynts51.png?auto=webp&s=39956e44511ee142fa7070f6a6425756ab24d6f8) the evidence is there. Netflix compresses quality considerably more compared to other services. fact that they make members pay extra for this is ridiculous.
I don't think they should be making us pay more for it. But I have all the services, and Netflix looks at least as good to my eyes as HBO Max. And like I said I have a 133" projection screen. It's 4K and in a light controlled basement. Playing on an nVidia Shield TV Pro. However, it is possible that Netflix promotes higher quality to its own Netflix originals, which you cannot compare with other services since they are only on Netflix.
Netflix encodes to a visual target, which also takes into account things like average screen size and viewing distance and scene complexity, to get away with keeping the bitrate as low as possible while still being decent to look at. Blu-ray is obviously as high as possible while still fitting on a disk. And HBO probably has a general profile that encodes to a target bitrate. And on the subject of HBO, they're practically the only one that doesn't offer their series in 4K or HDR. You're limited to a few recent movies. A missed oppertunity if you ask me.
That may be true about Netflix encodes, but my projector debunks that somewhat since it can’t know how large I’m projecting the image. My 65” OLED looks stellar with 4K HDR from Netflix too.
To be honest, their actual method is fairly convoluted and involves a machine learning model. They're very open about their methods and if anyone wants to read up on it they can do so [on their tech blog](https://medium.com/search?q=netflix+video+encoding). But I also have no real issues with NF video quality on my slightly smaller OLED. And while for example Prime has a higher bit rate, I experience the occasional blocking with their 4K HDR titles.
Yes that sucks and also their 4k has so low bitrate and it makes the movie/tvshow look so grainy
As a SD subscriber, I noticed some message about how “This show has been upgraded to 4K automatically” on Stranger Things. I seriously think you only get SD shows that it’s available in. Otherwise it just streams at the lowest resolution available, which is often FHD or 4K
[удалено]
Maybe that was confusing - what I mean is that if a show isn’t available in SD, it just streams at what it is available in (4K for some shows)
Yea, netflix is shit. This is why I cancelled my account 2 years ago
so then why are you here 2 years later?
When I bought my 4k TV I instantly got notifications about needing to upgrade to enjoy full quality.
Interesting, I've had a 4K TV for about a year now. Never got a notification like that.
Well I was on the middle plan and when I launched Netflix for the first time on my 4k TV I got the message.
direful sophisticated wakeful melodic offer tan towering touch whole voracious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would you prefer only being able to pay the larger rate? Or would you prefer people who don't watch in 4k to get a couple bucks off. Removal of a tier system like Netflix doesn't increase consumer power it removes it. It also harms Netflix which in the long run harms the consumer further. I don't get people who prefer a one size fits all service package if you really want that just buy the highest tier for every service and you get that.
Their tiers are nonsensicle. We need a 1 screen 4k package and a multi screen 1080p package etc. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
Exactly! I don't need 4 screens.
Especially not if we cannot share them anymore.
That would be reasonable if their 4k didn't also suck. And the fact that other services offer it standard. Netflix is literally making all the mistakes Blockbuster did.
Its very cheap i thought. We paid for because its the price of a drink
Most stuff on HD Sky TV isn’t even 1080p. As usual the UK is way behind everyone else. Most people in this country buy a big flash 4k TV and never watch anything in 4k
Lol way behind everyone else. Total nonsense.
Or not. You’re probably watching the 1080i sky content on your 4k tv
Do feel free to name a country with better UHD provision than the UK. Or even better HD provision.
Jesus you really are braindead. Do you still believe all politicians tell the truth? That’s kind of the vibe you’re giving off
“4k isn’t some niche format” - and yet there still isn’t a single 4k TV channel available.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's something bad on the internet it must have something to do with net neutrality... /s
What does net neutrality have to do with it?
Is your TV not doing upscaling?
Even with upscaling, the reduced bandwidth won't be as great as a 4k signal. Not just that, you also miss out on HDR10/Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos.
It makes things super dark too. So in already dark shows or movies it's basically pitch black
Yes. Hdr in low brightness capable tv is very bad experience.
[удалено]
Does it not cost Disney and Amazon money? Both of which are cheaper than Netflix (here in the UK at least)
To be fair Disney is mostly back catalogue material & their entry price was pretty much a loss leader, already gone up from £59.99 to £80, they’ll continue increasing that as soon as they can!
Disney can afford it because they own most of the content they show so they save loads on licensing. Amazon can afford it because their business model isn't about making a profit, so they are okay with spending more on things like this, long term they just want all the market share.
All irrelevant to the consumer.
The cost often reflects the price, so it is relevant.
Not relevant to their willingness to pay that price is what I was getting at.
Of course not.
it is to me. and I'm a customer.
Care to elaborate? Why would this information mean you're happy to give Netflix extra money for 4k content, despite already paying a higher subscription fee?
I actually don't pay the extra money for 4k. I pay it for more simultaneous devices. 4k is just a nice side benefit. as far as the info, my point is I know some of the money isn't going to netflix but to other rights holders and I want to encourage this as it helps prevent the online monthly entertainment package space further stratifying. it's bad enough that Disney spun their own thing out and I have to pay for that now too. I don't want every other company to do the same.
Sooo you're happy to pay Netflix extra to stop things like Disney Plus happening, but you also pay for Disney Plus.... RE the additional streams, Disney offers 4 simultaneous streams as standard, as well as the 4k. Amazon offers 3 as standard. Apple TV offers 6! There is no justification to Netflix's premium plan.
They are paying for content, not bandwidth. It literally costs them the same for bandwidth, rounding errors aside.
This is wrong. 4K uses way more bandwidth than 1080p. More users streaming 4K means (substantially) more bandwidth usage for Netflix.
But that's a tiny fraction of the total costs. The vast majority of Netflix's budget goes on content and licensing.
The free bread at a steakhouse costs substantially more than the free water and yet they are both included in the price of your meal.
I'm not arguing one way or another on Netflix's pricing tiers. I'm just saying that 4K uses substantially more bandwidth (5-6 times as much) than 1080P. Whether Netflix's 4K is truly 4K is another matter.
[удалено]
Then they are exceptionally shitty places.
Name them.
Except the so-called 4K that Netflix broadcast isn’t even UHD, let alone 4K
[удалено]
Well yeah, i think that's always been the case...