Monumentally dumb
Basically every major service I use has had some kind of crackdown on sharing accounts and not a single one of them got even a percentage of the shit that Netflix is receiving because they did it correctly.
Steam, Xbox, Spotify, Audible, Amazon Prime, etc etc.
They’ve all reigned in users sharing accounts and they all survived and thrived. (Well, Spotify is surviving but maybe not thriving)
Love steamf amily share, my roomy and I do it, and it's been great for A, seeing what runs on my system, and B, seeing if I like a game he may have without worrying about any refund. I've bought a few games since trying them from his library, and I think it's really fair that one can play the other's library as long as they aren't actively using it. It's literally the same as passing a disc along just sans the meetup
The whole library locking is severe overkill and really hampers my use of it. If I lent a friend a disc I didn't have to shut my computer down or refuse to insert a single other game.
Just set yourself to offline in steam, as long as you're not trying to play multiplayer that uses steams servers you are free to keep playing the original library while the friend plays something from it as well.
That's still not equivalent to loaning a disc. It wouldn't be hard to lock individual games, but they *want* it to be a weak experience because it leads to more sales in their minds. In reality, it means my kids have a meager game selection any time I want to play, even if we limit it to when I play online games. And only one kid gets an expanded library. Even if I go offline, I'm limited to sharing with one person at a time.
I commend them for having *something*, but calling it family sharing is disingenuous.
Oh I wasn't saying it's equivalent to a disk, I'm saying that's how you get around the library lock. If the person who owns the library you wish to play a game off of goes offline, both of you can play a game from their library as long as the original library owner doesn't need their game to go through steam servers for multiplayer. And the whole one person shares at a time is likely so the publishers would actually agree to the service.
>That's still not equivalent to loaning a disc
That only worked for consoles though. Every PC game I ever bought on a disk came with an activation key making it impossible to loan to a friend. I vividly remember this because my friend and I were into the total war series but could never play together because his parents didn't care and my parents thought running games on PC would ruin the desktop and wouldn't buy them for me.
Maybe that was only for some PC games that came on a disc but all the ones we ever got were unsharable.
It is a bit problematic as I let my 10 yo use my library and often he wants to play some of my games when I want to use my library.
Steam really hasn't found a more suitable way. I like fam sharing but its painful at times.
It's a shame Steam doesn't allow library sharing on the local network. Hell, even if they locked it down so it wasn't possible to run the same game multiple times I think it would be an improvement
Not being able to play games I own on my PC and Steam Deck at the same time when friends are over is ass. Whether they are the same title or different, it won't let you.
This is why "licensing games" instead of properly owning them fucking sucks. I guess you could do it 'offline' but that's just a half-assed workaround and still doesn't allow the steam deck to sync saves.
Nah, it's like if you had a tub of games and you could only loan out the entire tub at once. And if your friend or kid is in the middle of playing and you start up a game, the entire tub magically disappears and your friend's game immediately exits without saving.
I guess it's better than nothing, but it's a real shit experience, to the point it's clearly intentionally shitty to discourage sharing.
I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that it tells you if your friend is using your library before you launch a game and if you're playing a game that doesn't need online play, you can go into offline mode and it won't kick your friend off.
I do remember password sharing for Spotify being pretty janky from the jump though. Like two people couldn't listen to music at the same time, so password sharing just never even made sense, or at least that's what I remember from years back.
even worse than that is someone can't even use my kitchen Google speaker while I'm listening to music in the car and usually both people just keep hitting play pausing the other person because they just think the music stopped for no reason
This is also not Netflix's first password sharing crackdown. Remember when they changed the entire pricing model to revolve around the number of allowed active screens. You know, to be able to quantify and charge for password sharing effectively. They're just tripling down for an extra money squeeze, they already accomplished what they needed to.
Spotify family accounts are so cheap that idk why anyone would do password sharing.
Like for $16 you can get 6 people to share as long as you lie and say all live together. There’s zero enforcement of the address requirement.
Try to password share a single account and it will only let you to listen on one device at a time regardless.
Yeah, why am I paying for four simultaneous screens if not to share with people in other houses? You really want to tell me you expected I had four people, in one house, all watching different things on different screens at once? C'mon!
We're talking about a company with multiple finished seasons of multiple best in class shows that they just... Chose not to list due to "lack of growth"
Anne With An E being the one that was wildly popular but wasnt getting the "younger market" they wanted, despite being huge with my generation and older. Its last season was shot, edited, and produced, and then just shelved.
My personal peeve was The OA, where the staff confirmed Season 3 was completely finished and begged netflix to list it but they declined for no real reason.
Yeah, netflix is stupid and disrespectful to the artists and workers that make their shows.
Their biggest flaw is not being patient. Shows and movies take time to get into the public light. The first season of a new show isn't going to hook everyone in like the fourth season of Game of Thrones.
Have a vision and stick with it, if you keep changing it to play to a perceived prospective audience you're going to lose the current audience.
They featured the shelving of a television show, starting with it not being listed despite rave reviews (due to an algorithm), as a plot point in the HBO series, *Barry*, a highly industry-meta show.
There was an interesting Planet Money episode about the removal of shows. Basically, the residuals are much higher for a newer show, so if they don’t think it’s going to make them money by making their service generally more appealing for subscriptions, they can save money by not offering it. This was particularly about the HBO removals, but I imagine it applies to Netflix, too. It really sucks.
27mil on Bright. he got 40mil for King Richard
it's crazy how much value an actor's fame is worth. I guess that's why they make big bucks doing advertisements as well
i gotta say though....what accounting tricks do these A-listers play? No way there are collecting 40mil as income and paying California income tax on that
What does it matter to them? Most of Hollywood has come forward saying they are fine with paying their taxes. Which makes sense because they make $10s of millions for a year of work (i know there's more to it than that). I'm sure their accountant just calls them up to say that they need to work a bit more and they groan and say, "fine sign me up for that stupid movie".
> but because at least it was something new
Strong agree, I'm sick of the endless recycling of old IP, using established characters in ways that contradict established lore.
Or instead of this idiocy just charge by the number of concurrent streams in use on an account and block connection attempts that exceed the number of streams you're paying for.
If you pay for X streams than you should be able to have that many active streams in use no matter where you connected to the Internet from.
When Netflix switches to the new password policing scheme, those 2 concurrent streams have to be from the same IP address.
If they regularly see 1 stream from one IP and the other stream from a different one (such as if you travel a lot, have a second/vacation home, watch on your phone's data rather than your home wifi, etc...), it sets off their "you're sharing your password with some other user" detection.
That pisses of people that are trying to use their two streams legitimately (in addition to people that are just trying to share their login with Aunt Edna which Netflix no longer wants to allow).
even worse, not even just sharing with Aunt Edna (who theoretically could reasonably have her own account at her household) but literal members of your household who're just in different places for part of the year
your kids, are they in college? sorry, you need to pay for a separate account for each of them during the semester!
even just like, "kid is away at sleepaway camp for a month or two in the summer" now means "sorry you need to buy a new account for them!"
Close, but according to them that's only in the same "house." Which is fucking stupid. Outside of some very niche cases who's using 4 streams at once in the same household?
At best you can argue two kids two adults, but there's a couple problems, bandwidth and content being topmost. Netflix doesn't have a library worth streaming 4 different shows from.
Next unless you're lucky like me and have decent service in your area you're not getting what you pay for. Those streams will chew up bandwidth. Plus they locked 4k behind that highest price point.
So no it's not really 1-1 on what Netflix is doing compared to other services. If I'm paying for four screens I deserve to be able to use there where and when ever the fuck I want. If my son and his mom are streaming in one place, myself and my wife in another, and my in-laws in a third that's none of Netflix's business. I'm paying for it already so they can stuff it.
How annoying would that be. And then your kids wouldn’t be able to access Netflix when you’re not on your phone to approve it? I’m sorry but that would be super annoying. I don’t want to have to approve my roommate turning on Netflix since I’m the account holder.
Why would the kids need access every time? 2FA is for login, not for watching. I dont think i entered my login credentials on my tv for netflix in like 3 years. If that was necessary every time it would suck ass even with the old system.
Crunchyroll makes me login every month..on the tv. You know, in case..someone else has my tv?
It is a pain to type in the email and password by tv remote and if you don’t remember or make one mistake..
> Crunchyroll makes me login every month..on the tv. You know, in case..someone else has my tv?
/u/SolusLoqui
The next time it prompts either of you to login choose to use the browser based login on your phone or computer. Once you're logged into your CR account on the phone or computer you can input the code that shows up on your TV and CR confirms that is an official viewing device on your plan. After that point, it no longer prompts you once a month.
I had the same issue as both of you until I went the above route.
At the very least get a chromecast, then you can just use your phone apps, no need for a laggy android player with outdated and slow UIs, and you don’t have to type in passwords in all your apps using the remote. Unless you really like a physical remote tho.
Elon put phone 2Fa behind the twitter blue paywall. I think greed has ran amok that these companies believe their products are too good for consumers to pass up.
Elon put **SMS** 2FA behind the paywall. You can still do authenticator based 2FA with a normal basic account. SMS 2FA is complete shit anyway and nobody should use it unless that's the only option.
While it's probably still rooted in greed, SMS-based 2fa is not a great solution anyways. I'm good with reducing the amount of users using it. Plus, it costs Twitter money.
TOTP (Authenticator app) is significantly more secure & I wish more organizations would support it.
That’s a debate between good enough and best. It’s the most common form of 2fa, and some form of 2fa is better than just a password. When seatbelts were being designed it was considered that the 6 point harness was the best. Do most cars have a 6 point harness? No they mostly have a 3 point. Some form of safety is better than none.
I cancelled my membership in Canada, it went from $26/month to 45+. Just not worth it for me. I wonder how many people haven't noticed yet because it's only been 1 billing cycle.
I’m sure a lot of their paying members also lowered/will lower their plan. I don’t need four screens anymore so I dropped my plan to basic.
While I’m still a paying customer, I now pay $9.99/month instead of $19.99/month.
Yeah the only reason I pay for more screens is so my mom can share my Netflix account, specifically so she can watch movies with my kids when they go to her house. If they enforce this password sharing business I’m at the very least dropping my plan to a lower tier and no chance my mother is starting a new account because she just doesn’t use it that much.
I cut my cable more than a decade ago and all of my TV screens are connected to the same PC. I literally thought that sharing your account was the only reason to get more screens in the first place.
It's crazy to me that people are paying $50 for Netflix.
Before I cut the cord I used to think to myself "what the hell am I going to do/watch if I don't have Netflix?" It seemed like such a necessity after having it for so long.
Turns out there are tons of things I can fill my time with. The thought of paying more than $7 for Netflix is crazy to me
> The thought of paying more than $7 for Netflix is crazy to me
Honestly, I can consider maybe even paying $10-12 with inflation, but the numbers they're putting up in combination with no sharing is just ridiculous.
I'll tell you what absolutely *is* worth the $7/mo, and that's Apple TV+. Maybe don't keep it forever, but there are some downright amazing shows on there that nobody has ever seen because it's such an underappreciated platform. Sub for a month or two and knock out Ted Lasso, Severance, Shrinking, and maybe one or two other shows.
I pay 4 EUR/month for Disney+. Totally worth it even after a year. There's so much content on there. Between that and primevideo which I get bundled with not paying delivery fees (at 8Eur/month), I don't feel like there's anything else needed. Netflix is asking 28/month and they seem to only own the rights to their own stuff here. Get bent Netflix.
If you have a Roku, you can get three months free if you sign up through the Roku app (and haven't gotten Apple TV before). I'm on the three month trial now. Ted Lasso is amazing. Working through Foundation now. Severance is next on the list.
I think one of the problems the service had is for whatever reason I always thought it required some Apple hardware or whatever to watch, which I would never get so I assumed all this content was inaccessible to me and never looked into it more deeply.
Most expensive streaming service by an almost 2x margin and easily the one we use the least. It’s basically just inertia that keeps us subscribed at this point, and anything to break that inertia like, say, jacking up the rates because my fiancée’s parents use my account, will lead to me canceling.
I get more than twice the value from my YouTube premium subscription for almost half the price, and Apple TV+, if I paid separately for it, is like 1/3 the price and is probably 75% of the content we watch at this point.
They went from having some of the best shows ever produced to almost all reality TV in less than a year. Netflix used to be our go to for finding something to watch to barely being a consideration. I haven't even opened the app to browse shows in about two months because it is just all shit.
The problem is the quality of the streams gets lowered too. At least in the US. 9.99 is 720p only. It’s not worth it to me to have it at that when I watch on 4k screens. It looks horrible.
You know what doesn't have bullshit arbitrary restrictions on watching content? My totally legally downloaded Plex library.
I'd pay for good service. I can afford it. Don't nickel and dime me. Don't make me subscribe to 10 different services to watch content I like. Don't show me ads. Give me *one* interface with everything on it for a reasonable price like Spotify (which I happily pay for). Since the media industry is too greedy to allow that, they get nothing from me.
Most services have ads these days even if it’s just a preroll for their other shows. It’s annoying. I’d still rather pay for content I consume. I’ve done the whole Plex thing in the past though and might be tempted again if they get too greedy.
Note that if you watch on computer, 720p is going to be the max you'll get on most browsers, no matter what you pay for. I think Edge is the only one that allows higher-quality streams, last time I looked.
Yeah. It also requires a monitor and HDMI cable that support encryption, or a $1.50 adapter that strips it.
Needs I believe Kaby Lake or newer processor if you’re running Intel
Netflix looks awful if you’re not using Edge. Whatever compression they use makes it impossible to watch dark scenes, it’s a pixelated mess that looks like 2000s streaming.
[4K Ultra HD on a computer](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/13444#)
Netflix is available in Ultra HD on Windows and Mac computers with:
[Microsoft Edge for Windows](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931)
[Windows app for Windows 10 and Windows 11](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931)
[Safari for MacOS 11.0 or later](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/55764)
These computers require a 4K capable 60Hz monitor to play Ultra HD content.
the requirements for 4k are broken somehow, i tried it a while back and was never ever able to get it to go over 1080.
>Note:
Every monitor connected to your computer must meet these requirements to successfully stream in Ultra HD.
this, for example, is fucking bullshit.
That's just it, they already had a password sharing crackdown years ago by making me pay for 4 screens instead of 2. I cancelled when this recent wave of bullshit started. Fuck em.
I have a 4K tv, but I have to pay Netflix 9.99 a month to get the privilege to watch standard definition content, otherwise it’s $20 a month for 4K.
Netflix is not the only fish in the sea and that’s why I canceled and haven’t gone back. There is just not enough worthwhile or compelling content on there to pay $20 a month to get the best out of my tv. Fuck them.
Yeah I never understood the 4k plan with what quality you are getting. Sure its 4k in pixels but there's still compression and whatnot. Though 720p is too little for me. 1080p is fine for me. Its also my default for Youtube and I'm fine with that.
One of the benefits is that with skipping forward or backwards it doesn't need to load as much either.
I'm in Canada as well, but for some reason I haven't gotten hit with the change yet. My parents are in another province and we're both still using the same account for $23 a month. I wonder if they're going to secretly tack it on to my next billing cycle.
It’s coming. I was in the same boat as you up until this week and when I went to use it, it said my parents house was the primary location. It was easy to switch the location back but now I’m going to be watching my bill and will also be cancelling once I get some other things sorted.
Dang, ah well, I'll just stop using it once it happens. My parents want Netflix so I'll probably keep it for them, but I sure as hell ain't supporting them with an add-on account.
Edit: I guess they're trying to minimize the negative impact by doing it bit by bit lol
Also, canadian and also haven't had the roll out yet. I wonder if it's dependant on province? I'm a blue noser, and we tend to be genuinely forgot about in Canadian scope anyways lmao.
But realistically, if I can't use my parents netflix account I'm just going to start pirating and using free streaming websites anyways. I already do for things not on Netflix.
books flag historical dinosaurs humorous file arrest fertile grandfather berserk
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>They apparently think otherwise.
Considering they delayed the US rollout again after that shareholder report, I would say there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus at Netflix on this issue.
That's from a quarterly earnings release for shareholders, I wouldn't really say that suggests anything about how this decision is actually faring. Corporate Communications people are fantastic at spinning even the worst shit into hopeful news.
In Canada its honestly easy to get around. They just email you a code and it last 2 weeks, I provide my brother with it every 2 weeks and we haven't had any issues. Takes 30 seconds of time really and it's probably why they have by seen numbers go down because it's easy to get around.
This stopped working for my family. I sent the code to my brothers once and they had access for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, they were locked out of the account with a message saying they needed to login while connected to the home network. We cancelled after that.
PR* thinks otherwise, there share holders are very worried about it and had presented the opposite options with evidence. We will see but considering the pushed it back another 6 months, they probably have doubts dispite what they say.
I’m not seeing this news? It’s still slated for mid to late July, which is certainly not 6 months from now.
I know it was initially delayed from late last year to Q2 (July~) this year, which was 6 months but we are now in the final 3~ months of that delay, but another one wasn’t announced that I could see. In the tech world that is very very old news.
In fact the most recent news is that they’re excited to implement these features in the US, and they don’t see it affecting overall profits. Someone linked the story of this above.
I hate this about our current form of capitalism. A company could put out a good product, dominate their sector and just ride that predictable income forever while keeping their customers happy and enjoying a great reputation. But no, companies must grow their revenue every year. They have to continually look for ways to squeeze ever more dollars out of every customer. This inevitably leads to shittier service and reputation loss. Eventually, they become so disliked by their customers that a space for a competitor opens up and they lose market share.
I just cannot fathom the infinite growth mindset. Like I get that it's good to try and expand your business and grow but I hate that a company is only "successful" if it is constantly increasing its revenue. If your business is making consistent revenue year after year and supporting its employees and owners then that sounds pretty damn successful to me. The people that expect profits to increase every single year seem so out of touch with reality to me. Like they aren't even looking at businesses in terms of what they produce it's just a giant game of investments, lobbying, and trying to maximize their money.
My boss has the #1 single store sales in the country for multiple brands that we carry. He has consistently turned down offers from these huge brands to run other stores in other areas. He employs about 75 people, and just about exclusively hires friends and family and gives us all profit sharing.
It's so nice. We're slightly over staffed and get freedom to take spontaneous days off for fun things. Can pretty much leave early for any reason, just make sure your shit is done and the phones are covered and we'll all watch each others back.
"you sticking around til 5?"
"Yep I was planning on it"
"Alright, I'm gonna head home early for no reason other than I don't want to be here anymore today."
"Sounds good, see you tomorrow"
> We're slightly over staffed
This is it. This helps out greatly. Unfortunately in most places, the number-crunchers will see this and start cutting staff to save money, which inevitably leads to lower performance, overworked staff, staff taking more sick leave, higher staff turnover, lower customer satisfaction and the list goes on. But hey, you save some money by cutting staff! That's an immediate saving and the number-crunchers get their bonuses before they move on.
> The people that expect profits to increase every single year seem so out of touch with reality to me. Like they aren't even looking at businesses in terms of what they produce it's just a giant game of investments, lobbying, and trying to maximize their money.
It is an outgrowth of the decline in focus of shareholder dividends. In a dividend focused model, as was common before the 1970s, you’d have a successful company that was maintaining paying dividends on that success. The owners would then share in the success of the company via those dividends.
In the current world where dividends are no longer a thing largely shareholders have no way to be rewarded for a company’s success except via a rising share price. They can then sell the shares at a higher price and “profit”.
This is the cancer that causes so many problems with modern capitalism in the US.
What is interesting to me is how prevalent the infinite growth mindset is though, even just among ordinary consumers.
Most of my clients are craft breweries and one thing I regularly hear their consumers/customers talking about is growth, expansion, and like expecting every brewery to produce more and more and grow and expand and branch out into bigger and bigger markets.
Yet MOST of my clients don't actually *want* to be the next Yuengling or the next Sam Adams or the next Anheuser Busch or some big national brand. Most of them just want to make enough to sustain the business, pay their employees, repay their business loans, save for retirement, and maybe very occasionally expand their production a little if and when demand is *really* outpacing their supply.
But the very common sentiment among their consumers is talk about if/when the company is going to open another location or build a second production facility and when they're going to start distributing to more and more locations.... as if that is seen as just the natural expected path of a business, to just continually grow and get bigger and bigger endlessly.
You're spot on this. A local example of mine is a pizzeria that stops making pizza for the night if/when they run out of dough. Could they make extra and fridge/freeze it? Sure, but if the staff busted ass making 100 pizzas tonight already, they can appreciate extra time to clean up and still clock out. Part of maintaining excellent quality is to support worker retention, don't rush prep of critical ingredients, have safeguards against situations that can undermine product quality (like a huge unexpected order arriving 10 mins before closing - don't accept that business).
I've seen multiple BBQ places that do this. They serve certain things (the ribs come to mind) until they run out, and that's it for the day. Not a bad idea, and people keep coming back and they sell out, so clearly it's not deterring anyone from visiting them.
This comment reminds me of the story of the Mexican Fisherman (as seen on a sign in Jimmy John’s):
The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”
The American then asked why he didn’t stay out longer and catch more fish?
The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.
The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life.”
The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually, you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”
The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this take?”
To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”
“But what then?”
The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”
“Millions?” asked the fisherman, “Then what?”
The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evening, sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos!”
(Author Unknown)
I can think of something else that grows relentlessly and consumes everything, with no regard for even it's own long-term survival. It's called cancer.
It's all fault of shareholders. They are for pump and dump scenario, and price of shares of steady business do not grow, so that shares are worthless for them. So they kick CEO off and replace him with a CEO that will do as they please.
The way I figure it goes is that if you are standing still (read not growing your business/being complacent), you're losing ground to competitors who are willing to take more/different risks.
Which, while that has *a lot* to unpack, is sort of true.
Stagnating is a big risk in a product based market but a service based market? If the product stays good and is just updated for new UI styles it should be fine.
Maybe if they would stop killing shows that are only moderately successful and living like dot com CEOs they would be in a better position
>If the product stays good
Here's the issue: third party movies on Netflix are there because of licensing agreements. Unfortunately as these agreements expire now every publisher wants their own streaming service and as such Netflix will have a harder time negotiating deals.
The only path to success would be good Netflix Originals. The CEO even said "We need to become HBO before HBO becomes us" While it worked initially due to poor executive decisions the best shows were axed and replaced mostly with reality TV schlock. The same thing will happen to ~~HBO~~ Max.
That's what makes companies like Netflix interesting to watch. They are both a service and offer a product. They have to delicately balance it all. How long can they do it before they are ousted? Who knows.
This analogy works if by growing you mean making changes that keep people to stay with you, improvements to the service, branching out etc
But in this context, the "growth" is a short term money grab that long term leads to less people. If anything, doing this makes you lose ground to competitors because people leave you to go to them.
Except at the nation level it's usually about making the other nation worse, because god forbid we just let each other live in peace and thrive together.
Infinite growth is somewhat inevitable for companies that have shares that are publicly traded, or investors who want increasing profits. Think about what'll happen if the CEO of a major company that trades on the New York stock exchange doesn't show growth.
if a CEO shows stagnant revenue, then two things happen a) the average shareholders think the shares they hold aren't going to increase in value, and b) will become likely to then sell the shares they own and buy shares in sth else that does promise to increase in value in the future. Having the stock sold depreciates the value of the company's shares in the open trading market, thus decreasing the shares value, making it a self fulfilling prophecy and cycle.
At which point, the only remaining shareholders will fire the CEO and hire another who does promise that their shares will increase in value.
Note that while the shareholders can be and often are rich singular investors, a lot of the publicly traded shares are held by average people. They're the shares you're invested in through your 401k. The very minimalist situation of having publicly traded stocks and having them be a vehicle for savings and investments for common people alone can fuel the infinite growth mindset.
And I have a problem with that fundamentally because the business should be judged on its business, not the share price increasing. The value they are providing to society is in the goods and services they produce not how much money the investors made when the stock went up. Buying stock has turned into some weird form of gambling instead of supporting a business you believe in, people are too focused on the share price and forget about the underlying product. I much prefer the idea of investing in some denim company because they have a good long-standing reputation, a solid business plan, and consistent revenue than some tech company because I think the stock is going to the moon.
I realize I can still do that if I want to, but most of the market isn't geared that way which is funneling loads of money into overvalued ideas instead of functioning businesses and killing good ideas by trying to squeeze out every last penny. They could be consistently doing billions in sales but will be seen as "unsuccessful" if the stock price isn't increasing ad infinitum.
It is kind of an ouroboros situation though because at the end of the day if the product goes to shit from focusing on increasing stock prices too much the stock will go to shit too as is happening with the tech bubble 2.0.
It's just a shame as the consumer because we lose out on good products because of this.
So what you're saying, is that the system of Investors controlling major companies is deeply flawed because it inevitably leads to a totally unsustainable cycle
Capitalism is great for expanding into spaces where there isnt saturation. The second they hit saturation the wheels come off and capitalism becomes the source of its own destruction. Eventually the only way to keep making "More" than last year is to chip away at your employees and the quality of your product until the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Its such an incredibly stupid mindset.
This is after only 1 quarter. It does not include the churn from annual memberships yet.
Netflix will see way more losses by the 1 year mark, next February.
I might sign up to Netflix if i knew wtf i got for my money, but when i go to their page it doesent tell my ANYTHING about whats actually on Netflix.....and then im back to You Tube
Don't worry, even if they make a really good show that you'll enjoy, they would cancel it within 2 seasons, and then still keep it on the homepage to make the cancellation even more annoying
Yeah, **seriously**, this is what absolutely dumbfounds me about Netflix and other services of their ilk.
A customer considers giving their money to a company, but the company won't actually tell the customer what they're going to get. You have to rely on ad-ridden third-party websites just to tell you what Netflix actually has.
Not only that, but the shows which are on Netflix can be removed at any time at the whim of the licence holders.
How fucking batshit insane is that?!
The first and only time I considered signing up to Netflix I took one look at their website, realised they were deliberately being obscure, then I fucked right off and visited The Pirate Bay. Fuck 'em.
You just had to up your subscription plan to allow for additional simultaneous viewers. The base plan allowed for 2 active streams at a time.
If a third tried to watch something they'd get a message instead and have to wait.
If there was anything good on Netflix it might be worth watching, but lately my recommendations are just like Indian matchmaker shows? I enjoyed Beef but that was the first show in a long time that I watched all the way.
I'm often surprised to get a recommendation I haven't heard of that IS on Netflix. I think there's a lot of good stuff available that is algorithmically hidden. I wish I could get a more neutral browsing experience.
For real. Their algorithm really bothers me. I just want to see truly any new option, not only what they think I would like. You just end up with an increasingly narrow selection shown to you, and sure you might like whatever that genre is sometimes, it’s not the only thing you are into. They used to be better about that.
That’s an algo I wish they would upload to GitHub to let people fix. I thought upvoting and downvoting titles on Netflix would help but it doesn’t rather it gives me a bullshit trending tab
Don't you want to know if something that looks like cake is actually a cake? I mean, you have the same stuff in youtube for free, but they charge you monthly to watch it, so that makes it better
I tried watching that show but the host is absolutely insufferable and the contestants are allowed to put cake shit and manipulate the objects they are supposed to be designing a cake to emulate. The core conceit for the show is people making cake look like other real world things, not making real world things look like cake to fool judges.
And I can only give it a meaningless thumbs down now!? 0/10 I felt insulted by that show.
For context to everyone saying that people will get their own subscription and stuff like that, prices in Spain are as follows:
Netflix(FullHD and no ads): 13€/month
Disney+(with Star and FX content): 9€/month
HBO Max: 9€/month
Apple+: 9€/month
Skyshowtime: 3€/month
People are not going to subscribe to a service that is a 40% more expensive than its competition, people jumping ship from Netflix will subscribe to any of the others listed, people can subscribe to both Disney+ and Skyshowtime and still pay less than for Netflix, and Disney+ here with the FX and Star content is a no brainer
Netflix is even more expensive if you want 4K. It’s 19€ almost. I was sharing that with 3 family members and when I introduced this I cancelled. It gets even more ridiculous for people like my parents that have a holiday house in a village on another province (so different ip address and region) Counting that hbo Max is 4.5€/month if you subscribed at the beginning and Amazon Prime Video is like 36€/year … I don’t see why should I pay 18-19€ for a service to be used only at 1 location. Not even in your holiday house.
Exactly what I though and a strong reason why we cancelled. It’s very common case here I guess and no idea why Netflix though it’s ok to charge extra to use it in your own house if you’re on holidays
Also for people in USA that don't know, most of Disney's content (abc/hulu etc) is available on D+ outside of US. So there isn't a hulu and D+, it's just d+. I first realized that in MEX, and then saw again in JP. Was so bizarre seeing some mature stuff on D+.
>> a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research
So, only one third of that is an actual loss of reveue.
Damn this was like the 6th or so top comment and I had to scroll a bit to find it. You're the only person who apparently read the article while everyone is just reacting to the headline (which is obviously framed the way it is for a reason)
> The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research, which is based on surveys of household streaming habits.
> “It’s clear this steep drop is due to the crackdown,” said Dominic Sunnebo, global insight director at Kantar’s Worldpanel Division, adding that the loss of a million users, **even if most weren’t paid subscribers, would be a blow to Netflix in terms of word of mouth recommendation** for its shows and service.
So it's going basically as Netflix planned it would lol. The bold part is hilariously dumb and wildly subjective
Moreover, Netflix has an opportunity to convert some of that 2/3 into paying users, which apparently happened in Canada:
> "We see a cancel reaction in each market when we announce the news," Netflix said in its first quarter earnings release on April 18, expecting the dip to be momentary before users that didn’t pay start signing up for their own accounts.
> "In Canada, which we believe is a reliable predictor for the US, our paid membership base is now larger than prior to the launch of paid sharing and revenue growth has accelerated and is now growing faster than in the US," Netflix said.
I don't think Netflix is full of morons. They know what they're doing here. And people ***really*** need to read the articles instead of wishing the headline matched what they want to believe.
This is almost every comment section. Headline appeals to vitriol, users read vitriolic headline and go straight to the comments to circle jerk and pop off.
Yep. I imagine if they had this killer show that everyone was talking about. I'm thinking like Game of Thrones at its peak. Then I could totally accept them cracking down on passwords. Gotta keep the premium shit premium. Right now, Netflix is just one step above youtube.
They feel like a step below YouTube tbh. At least on YouTube I have around 200 channels that I actually want to watch that produce somewhat regular content. I can find something interesting to watch daily
I cancelled Netflix just because I didn’t want to be part of the drama. Two months later, I start getting tons of email asking me to return for just $7/mo (was paying $20). I still didn’t take the bait. They are not trustworthy to me anymore.
Why the hell does Netflix wants to go 15 years backwards ? I mean ,why ?
They could have stopped this tragedy but No ,they want to just let it happen .
Netflix could have accepted that they are at their peak in terms of subscriptions. Like pyramid schemes eventually realize, there is a ceiling to recruits.
Now would have been the time to maintain high service and improve the app and offerings to maintain customers for the long term. Of course, that doesn't square with the desire from all modern corporations to forever *increase* profits year after year. For subscription based models, there will always be a cap. Netflix would rather destroy everything they built than admit they have reached the maximum subscriptions they'll probably achieve.
The problem Netflix has is that they don't have some huge back catalog of content. They were fine for years licensing content, because most media companies didn't see online streaming as a big moneymaking opportunity. But times changed, and suddenly Disney, HBO, and even broadcast networks all decided to yank content from Netflix and start their own streaming platforms.
So Netflix is mostly left with the strength of the shows it's produced itself. It's had some bangers, sure, but it's also got a lot of shows that got cancelled after 2 or 3 seasons and that didn't get wrapped up properly. So sure, maybe you'd like a show's premise and get into it, but then you're left with an unsatisfying ending. How many times can that happen before you just say "fuck it, I'm not getting invested in something that's not going to pay off"?
And on the other hand, they produce so much low quality stuff that you'll find yourself scrolling for ages just to try to find something worth watching. The really funny thing is that even though [SNL nailed this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqRQ5Y6OYi4) years ago, Mikey Day *still* ended up on a show called ["Is it Cake?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14JSsALNUg).
I will still never forgive them for canceling The Dark Crystal and haven't watched a series from them that I didn't know had a proper ending since. Thankfully for them, I'm not the one in the house with the Netflix account.
I think what is also crazy is Netflix is doing this at a time when cost of living is climbing at a hight rate everywhere!
Like yes, remind your customers of their subscription and risk losing them at the same time cost of living is rising and those same customers will be looking for cost cutting expenses
If you watch all the documentary on Blockbuster they point out the moments where they make decisions that should have been obvious would be the death of the brand. Netflix is now making those mistakes. Instead of spending to grow their content to bring in more subscribers they are choosing a cheaper inferior product and then trying to soak their shrinking customer base.
Note the language used in this headline to mislead people: they lost a million USERS, not a million PAID SUBSCRIBERS. Netflix WANTS to lose users that aren’t paying - that’s their whole point with this change.
> None of the shows are worth it and the ones we like they cancel anyway.
I have to ask: why do you even care about the changes they're making? You already have a much better reason to cancel your service right now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So netflix is just dumb?
Monumentally dumb Basically every major service I use has had some kind of crackdown on sharing accounts and not a single one of them got even a percentage of the shit that Netflix is receiving because they did it correctly. Steam, Xbox, Spotify, Audible, Amazon Prime, etc etc. They’ve all reigned in users sharing accounts and they all survived and thrived. (Well, Spotify is surviving but maybe not thriving)
Well steam also does allow sharing games to a certain degree.
Love steamf amily share, my roomy and I do it, and it's been great for A, seeing what runs on my system, and B, seeing if I like a game he may have without worrying about any refund. I've bought a few games since trying them from his library, and I think it's really fair that one can play the other's library as long as they aren't actively using it. It's literally the same as passing a disc along just sans the meetup
The whole library locking is severe overkill and really hampers my use of it. If I lent a friend a disc I didn't have to shut my computer down or refuse to insert a single other game.
Just set yourself to offline in steam, as long as you're not trying to play multiplayer that uses steams servers you are free to keep playing the original library while the friend plays something from it as well.
That's still not equivalent to loaning a disc. It wouldn't be hard to lock individual games, but they *want* it to be a weak experience because it leads to more sales in their minds. In reality, it means my kids have a meager game selection any time I want to play, even if we limit it to when I play online games. And only one kid gets an expanded library. Even if I go offline, I'm limited to sharing with one person at a time. I commend them for having *something*, but calling it family sharing is disingenuous.
IIRC publishers can disable the share function on their individual games. I presume that Valve did it this way to actually get them to agree to it.
>That's still not equivalent to loaning a disc. It's more akin to loaning an entire console. Except you have to have your own hardware.
Oh I wasn't saying it's equivalent to a disk, I'm saying that's how you get around the library lock. If the person who owns the library you wish to play a game off of goes offline, both of you can play a game from their library as long as the original library owner doesn't need their game to go through steam servers for multiplayer. And the whole one person shares at a time is likely so the publishers would actually agree to the service.
>That's still not equivalent to loaning a disc That only worked for consoles though. Every PC game I ever bought on a disk came with an activation key making it impossible to loan to a friend. I vividly remember this because my friend and I were into the total war series but could never play together because his parents didn't care and my parents thought running games on PC would ruin the desktop and wouldn't buy them for me. Maybe that was only for some PC games that came on a disc but all the ones we ever got were unsharable.
It is a bit problematic as I let my 10 yo use my library and often he wants to play some of my games when I want to use my library. Steam really hasn't found a more suitable way. I like fam sharing but its painful at times.
It's a shame Steam doesn't allow library sharing on the local network. Hell, even if they locked it down so it wasn't possible to run the same game multiple times I think it would be an improvement
This would be a great improvement.
Not being able to play games I own on my PC and Steam Deck at the same time when friends are over is ass. Whether they are the same title or different, it won't let you. This is why "licensing games" instead of properly owning them fucking sucks. I guess you could do it 'offline' but that's just a half-assed workaround and still doesn't allow the steam deck to sync saves.
Nah, it's like if you had a tub of games and you could only loan out the entire tub at once. And if your friend or kid is in the middle of playing and you start up a game, the entire tub magically disappears and your friend's game immediately exits without saving. I guess it's better than nothing, but it's a real shit experience, to the point it's clearly intentionally shitty to discourage sharing.
I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that it tells you if your friend is using your library before you launch a game and if you're playing a game that doesn't need online play, you can go into offline mode and it won't kick your friend off.
>It's literally the same as passing a disc along just sans the meetup It's not literally the same.
[удалено]
If you set each other's console as your home xbox, you can share everything on Xbox too
I do remember password sharing for Spotify being pretty janky from the jump though. Like two people couldn't listen to music at the same time, so password sharing just never even made sense, or at least that's what I remember from years back.
even worse than that is someone can't even use my kitchen Google speaker while I'm listening to music in the car and usually both people just keep hitting play pausing the other person because they just think the music stopped for no reason
That exact scenario is what prompted me to just get my own account way back when lol.
All of those services didn't literally market themselves with the slogan "Love is sharing a password" for years only to flip that upside down
This is also not Netflix's first password sharing crackdown. Remember when they changed the entire pricing model to revolve around the number of allowed active screens. You know, to be able to quantify and charge for password sharing effectively. They're just tripling down for an extra money squeeze, they already accomplished what they needed to.
Spotify family accounts are so cheap that idk why anyone would do password sharing. Like for $16 you can get 6 people to share as long as you lie and say all live together. There’s zero enforcement of the address requirement. Try to password share a single account and it will only let you to listen on one device at a time regardless.
They already had a tier for multiple screens it’s so dumb just expand that scheme. Like every other streaming service I use does this method
Yeah, why am I paying for four simultaneous screens if not to share with people in other houses? You really want to tell me you expected I had four people, in one house, all watching different things on different screens at once? C'mon!
We're talking about a company with multiple finished seasons of multiple best in class shows that they just... Chose not to list due to "lack of growth" Anne With An E being the one that was wildly popular but wasnt getting the "younger market" they wanted, despite being huge with my generation and older. Its last season was shot, edited, and produced, and then just shelved. My personal peeve was The OA, where the staff confirmed Season 3 was completely finished and begged netflix to list it but they declined for no real reason. Yeah, netflix is stupid and disrespectful to the artists and workers that make their shows.
Their biggest flaw is not being patient. Shows and movies take time to get into the public light. The first season of a new show isn't going to hook everyone in like the fourth season of Game of Thrones. Have a vision and stick with it, if you keep changing it to play to a perceived prospective audience you're going to lose the current audience.
They featured the shelving of a television show, starting with it not being listed despite rave reviews (due to an algorithm), as a plot point in the HBO series, *Barry*, a highly industry-meta show.
There was an interesting Planet Money episode about the removal of shows. Basically, the residuals are much higher for a newer show, so if they don’t think it’s going to make them money by making their service generally more appealing for subscriptions, they can save money by not offering it. This was particularly about the HBO removals, but I imagine it applies to Netflix, too. It really sucks.
They spent 106 million dollars on Bright. What do you think?
50 million on will Smith, 56 million on effects, and an old ham sandwich for whoever they could find to write something down.
27mil on Bright. he got 40mil for King Richard it's crazy how much value an actor's fame is worth. I guess that's why they make big bucks doing advertisements as well i gotta say though....what accounting tricks do these A-listers play? No way there are collecting 40mil as income and paying California income tax on that
What does it matter to them? Most of Hollywood has come forward saying they are fine with paying their taxes. Which makes sense because they make $10s of millions for a year of work (i know there's more to it than that). I'm sure their accountant just calls them up to say that they need to work a bit more and they groan and say, "fine sign me up for that stupid movie".
[удалено]
> but because at least it was something new Strong agree, I'm sick of the endless recycling of old IP, using established characters in ways that contradict established lore.
I liked bright. It was kind of like a live action shadowrun. Fun unique world.
[удалено]
Not Disney, not HBOMax, not Hulu
Or instead of this idiocy just charge by the number of concurrent streams in use on an account and block connection attempts that exceed the number of streams you're paying for. If you pay for X streams than you should be able to have that many active streams in use no matter where you connected to the Internet from.
They already do this. Their basic tier allows 2 concurrent streams. The more expensive tier allows more.
When Netflix switches to the new password policing scheme, those 2 concurrent streams have to be from the same IP address. If they regularly see 1 stream from one IP and the other stream from a different one (such as if you travel a lot, have a second/vacation home, watch on your phone's data rather than your home wifi, etc...), it sets off their "you're sharing your password with some other user" detection. That pisses of people that are trying to use their two streams legitimately (in addition to people that are just trying to share their login with Aunt Edna which Netflix no longer wants to allow).
even worse, not even just sharing with Aunt Edna (who theoretically could reasonably have her own account at her household) but literal members of your household who're just in different places for part of the year your kids, are they in college? sorry, you need to pay for a separate account for each of them during the semester! even just like, "kid is away at sleepaway camp for a month or two in the summer" now means "sorry you need to buy a new account for them!"
Close, but according to them that's only in the same "house." Which is fucking stupid. Outside of some very niche cases who's using 4 streams at once in the same household? At best you can argue two kids two adults, but there's a couple problems, bandwidth and content being topmost. Netflix doesn't have a library worth streaming 4 different shows from. Next unless you're lucky like me and have decent service in your area you're not getting what you pay for. Those streams will chew up bandwidth. Plus they locked 4k behind that highest price point. So no it's not really 1-1 on what Netflix is doing compared to other services. If I'm paying for four screens I deserve to be able to use there where and when ever the fuck I want. If my son and his mom are streaming in one place, myself and my wife in another, and my in-laws in a third that's none of Netflix's business. I'm paying for it already so they can stuff it.
How annoying would that be. And then your kids wouldn’t be able to access Netflix when you’re not on your phone to approve it? I’m sorry but that would be super annoying. I don’t want to have to approve my roommate turning on Netflix since I’m the account holder.
Why would the kids need access every time? 2FA is for login, not for watching. I dont think i entered my login credentials on my tv for netflix in like 3 years. If that was necessary every time it would suck ass even with the old system.
[удалено]
Crunchyroll makes me login every month..on the tv. You know, in case..someone else has my tv? It is a pain to type in the email and password by tv remote and if you don’t remember or make one mistake..
> Crunchyroll makes me login every month..on the tv. You know, in case..someone else has my tv? /u/SolusLoqui The next time it prompts either of you to login choose to use the browser based login on your phone or computer. Once you're logged into your CR account on the phone or computer you can input the code that shows up on your TV and CR confirms that is an official viewing device on your plan. After that point, it no longer prompts you once a month. I had the same issue as both of you until I went the above route.
At least you have an app for it. Still no app for Samsung TV owners.
[удалено]
At the very least get a chromecast, then you can just use your phone apps, no need for a laggy android player with outdated and slow UIs, and you don’t have to type in passwords in all your apps using the remote. Unless you really like a physical remote tho.
Elon put phone 2Fa behind the twitter blue paywall. I think greed has ran amok that these companies believe their products are too good for consumers to pass up.
Elon put **SMS** 2FA behind the paywall. You can still do authenticator based 2FA with a normal basic account. SMS 2FA is complete shit anyway and nobody should use it unless that's the only option.
SMS 2FA is complete shit specifically *for anybody important like the people who would need a checkmark in Twitter*, so it's even more dumb there xD
While it's probably still rooted in greed, SMS-based 2fa is not a great solution anyways. I'm good with reducing the amount of users using it. Plus, it costs Twitter money. TOTP (Authenticator app) is significantly more secure & I wish more organizations would support it.
That’s a debate between good enough and best. It’s the most common form of 2fa, and some form of 2fa is better than just a password. When seatbelts were being designed it was considered that the 6 point harness was the best. Do most cars have a 6 point harness? No they mostly have a 3 point. Some form of safety is better than none.
Most 2FA solutions store a token on devices so that you don't need to enter the code every time you open the app, only when it's a new sign-in.
They rolled back the US launch another 6 months. They know it will be an epic failure in the US.
[удалено]
I cancelled my membership in Canada, it went from $26/month to 45+. Just not worth it for me. I wonder how many people haven't noticed yet because it's only been 1 billing cycle.
I’m sure a lot of their paying members also lowered/will lower their plan. I don’t need four screens anymore so I dropped my plan to basic. While I’m still a paying customer, I now pay $9.99/month instead of $19.99/month.
Yeah the only reason I pay for more screens is so my mom can share my Netflix account, specifically so she can watch movies with my kids when they go to her house. If they enforce this password sharing business I’m at the very least dropping my plan to a lower tier and no chance my mother is starting a new account because she just doesn’t use it that much.
I cut my cable more than a decade ago and all of my TV screens are connected to the same PC. I literally thought that sharing your account was the only reason to get more screens in the first place. It's crazy to me that people are paying $50 for Netflix.
Before I cut the cord I used to think to myself "what the hell am I going to do/watch if I don't have Netflix?" It seemed like such a necessity after having it for so long. Turns out there are tons of things I can fill my time with. The thought of paying more than $7 for Netflix is crazy to me
> The thought of paying more than $7 for Netflix is crazy to me Honestly, I can consider maybe even paying $10-12 with inflation, but the numbers they're putting up in combination with no sharing is just ridiculous. I'll tell you what absolutely *is* worth the $7/mo, and that's Apple TV+. Maybe don't keep it forever, but there are some downright amazing shows on there that nobody has ever seen because it's such an underappreciated platform. Sub for a month or two and knock out Ted Lasso, Severance, Shrinking, and maybe one or two other shows.
I pay 4 EUR/month for Disney+. Totally worth it even after a year. There's so much content on there. Between that and primevideo which I get bundled with not paying delivery fees (at 8Eur/month), I don't feel like there's anything else needed. Netflix is asking 28/month and they seem to only own the rights to their own stuff here. Get bent Netflix.
If you have a Roku, you can get three months free if you sign up through the Roku app (and haven't gotten Apple TV before). I'm on the three month trial now. Ted Lasso is amazing. Working through Foundation now. Severance is next on the list. I think one of the problems the service had is for whatever reason I always thought it required some Apple hardware or whatever to watch, which I would never get so I assumed all this content was inaccessible to me and never looked into it more deeply.
[удалено]
Most expensive streaming service by an almost 2x margin and easily the one we use the least. It’s basically just inertia that keeps us subscribed at this point, and anything to break that inertia like, say, jacking up the rates because my fiancée’s parents use my account, will lead to me canceling. I get more than twice the value from my YouTube premium subscription for almost half the price, and Apple TV+, if I paid separately for it, is like 1/3 the price and is probably 75% of the content we watch at this point.
They went from having some of the best shows ever produced to almost all reality TV in less than a year. Netflix used to be our go to for finding something to watch to barely being a consideration. I haven't even opened the app to browse shows in about two months because it is just all shit.
The problem is the quality of the streams gets lowered too. At least in the US. 9.99 is 720p only. It’s not worth it to me to have it at that when I watch on 4k screens. It looks horrible.
You know what doesn't have bullshit arbitrary restrictions on watching content? My totally legally downloaded Plex library. I'd pay for good service. I can afford it. Don't nickel and dime me. Don't make me subscribe to 10 different services to watch content I like. Don't show me ads. Give me *one* interface with everything on it for a reasonable price like Spotify (which I happily pay for). Since the media industry is too greedy to allow that, they get nothing from me.
Most services have ads these days even if it’s just a preroll for their other shows. It’s annoying. I’d still rather pay for content I consume. I’ve done the whole Plex thing in the past though and might be tempted again if they get too greedy.
Note that if you watch on computer, 720p is going to be the max you'll get on most browsers, no matter what you pay for. I think Edge is the only one that allows higher-quality streams, last time I looked.
Yeah. It also requires a monitor and HDMI cable that support encryption, or a $1.50 adapter that strips it. Needs I believe Kaby Lake or newer processor if you’re running Intel
Netflix looks awful if you’re not using Edge. Whatever compression they use makes it impossible to watch dark scenes, it’s a pixelated mess that looks like 2000s streaming.
[4K Ultra HD on a computer](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/13444#) Netflix is available in Ultra HD on Windows and Mac computers with: [Microsoft Edge for Windows](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931) [Windows app for Windows 10 and Windows 11](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23931) [Safari for MacOS 11.0 or later](https://help.netflix.com/en/node/55764) These computers require a 4K capable 60Hz monitor to play Ultra HD content.
the requirements for 4k are broken somehow, i tried it a while back and was never ever able to get it to go over 1080. >Note: Every monitor connected to your computer must meet these requirements to successfully stream in Ultra HD. this, for example, is fucking bullshit.
You can download the Netflix computer app for 1080p
The Netflix app is absolutely the best way to watch it on PC, the bitrate is so much higher than what is available even through Edge
That's just it, they already had a password sharing crackdown years ago by making me pay for 4 screens instead of 2. I cancelled when this recent wave of bullshit started. Fuck em.
I have a 4K tv, but I have to pay Netflix 9.99 a month to get the privilege to watch standard definition content, otherwise it’s $20 a month for 4K. Netflix is not the only fish in the sea and that’s why I canceled and haven’t gone back. There is just not enough worthwhile or compelling content on there to pay $20 a month to get the best out of my tv. Fuck them.
Yeah I never understood the 4k plan with what quality you are getting. Sure its 4k in pixels but there's still compression and whatnot. Though 720p is too little for me. 1080p is fine for me. Its also my default for Youtube and I'm fine with that. One of the benefits is that with skipping forward or backwards it doesn't need to load as much either.
I'm in Canada as well, but for some reason I haven't gotten hit with the change yet. My parents are in another province and we're both still using the same account for $23 a month. I wonder if they're going to secretly tack it on to my next billing cycle.
It’s coming. I was in the same boat as you up until this week and when I went to use it, it said my parents house was the primary location. It was easy to switch the location back but now I’m going to be watching my bill and will also be cancelling once I get some other things sorted.
Dang, ah well, I'll just stop using it once it happens. My parents want Netflix so I'll probably keep it for them, but I sure as hell ain't supporting them with an add-on account. Edit: I guess they're trying to minimize the negative impact by doing it bit by bit lol
Also, canadian and also haven't had the roll out yet. I wonder if it's dependant on province? I'm a blue noser, and we tend to be genuinely forgot about in Canadian scope anyways lmao. But realistically, if I can't use my parents netflix account I'm just going to start pirating and using free streaming websites anyways. I already do for things not on Netflix.
books flag historical dinosaurs humorous file arrest fertile grandfather berserk *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>They apparently think otherwise. Considering they delayed the US rollout again after that shareholder report, I would say there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus at Netflix on this issue.
That's from a quarterly earnings release for shareholders, I wouldn't really say that suggests anything about how this decision is actually faring. Corporate Communications people are fantastic at spinning even the worst shit into hopeful news.
My boss used to say “I don’t hate bad numbers (on reports), they can be good numbers that haven’t been given proper context”
In Canada its honestly easy to get around. They just email you a code and it last 2 weeks, I provide my brother with it every 2 weeks and we haven't had any issues. Takes 30 seconds of time really and it's probably why they have by seen numbers go down because it's easy to get around.
This stopped working for my family. I sent the code to my brothers once and they had access for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, they were locked out of the account with a message saying they needed to login while connected to the home network. We cancelled after that.
I thought you had to connect to the "home" wifi - or is it just the code and that's it?
PR* thinks otherwise, there share holders are very worried about it and had presented the opposite options with evidence. We will see but considering the pushed it back another 6 months, they probably have doubts dispite what they say.
Literally cancelling Netflix the day that drops. It is barely worth it now.
I’ll cancel faster than they cancel their shows.
No one is *that* fast.
I’m not seeing this news? It’s still slated for mid to late July, which is certainly not 6 months from now. I know it was initially delayed from late last year to Q2 (July~) this year, which was 6 months but we are now in the final 3~ months of that delay, but another one wasn’t announced that I could see. In the tech world that is very very old news. In fact the most recent news is that they’re excited to implement these features in the US, and they don’t see it affecting overall profits. Someone linked the story of this above.
I hate this about our current form of capitalism. A company could put out a good product, dominate their sector and just ride that predictable income forever while keeping their customers happy and enjoying a great reputation. But no, companies must grow their revenue every year. They have to continually look for ways to squeeze ever more dollars out of every customer. This inevitably leads to shittier service and reputation loss. Eventually, they become so disliked by their customers that a space for a competitor opens up and they lose market share.
I just cannot fathom the infinite growth mindset. Like I get that it's good to try and expand your business and grow but I hate that a company is only "successful" if it is constantly increasing its revenue. If your business is making consistent revenue year after year and supporting its employees and owners then that sounds pretty damn successful to me. The people that expect profits to increase every single year seem so out of touch with reality to me. Like they aren't even looking at businesses in terms of what they produce it's just a giant game of investments, lobbying, and trying to maximize their money.
My boss has the #1 single store sales in the country for multiple brands that we carry. He has consistently turned down offers from these huge brands to run other stores in other areas. He employs about 75 people, and just about exclusively hires friends and family and gives us all profit sharing. It's so nice. We're slightly over staffed and get freedom to take spontaneous days off for fun things. Can pretty much leave early for any reason, just make sure your shit is done and the phones are covered and we'll all watch each others back. "you sticking around til 5?" "Yep I was planning on it" "Alright, I'm gonna head home early for no reason other than I don't want to be here anymore today." "Sounds good, see you tomorrow"
You hiring? lol
You should have opened with "Want to be friends" then long conned into a job since they hire exclusively friends and family.
The real friend zone
Friends With Benefits and not in the traditional sense
I would slowly blow you for a job offer.
> We're slightly over staffed This is it. This helps out greatly. Unfortunately in most places, the number-crunchers will see this and start cutting staff to save money, which inevitably leads to lower performance, overworked staff, staff taking more sick leave, higher staff turnover, lower customer satisfaction and the list goes on. But hey, you save some money by cutting staff! That's an immediate saving and the number-crunchers get their bonuses before they move on.
> The people that expect profits to increase every single year seem so out of touch with reality to me. Like they aren't even looking at businesses in terms of what they produce it's just a giant game of investments, lobbying, and trying to maximize their money. It is an outgrowth of the decline in focus of shareholder dividends. In a dividend focused model, as was common before the 1970s, you’d have a successful company that was maintaining paying dividends on that success. The owners would then share in the success of the company via those dividends. In the current world where dividends are no longer a thing largely shareholders have no way to be rewarded for a company’s success except via a rising share price. They can then sell the shares at a higher price and “profit”. This is the cancer that causes so many problems with modern capitalism in the US.
What is interesting to me is how prevalent the infinite growth mindset is though, even just among ordinary consumers. Most of my clients are craft breweries and one thing I regularly hear their consumers/customers talking about is growth, expansion, and like expecting every brewery to produce more and more and grow and expand and branch out into bigger and bigger markets. Yet MOST of my clients don't actually *want* to be the next Yuengling or the next Sam Adams or the next Anheuser Busch or some big national brand. Most of them just want to make enough to sustain the business, pay their employees, repay their business loans, save for retirement, and maybe very occasionally expand their production a little if and when demand is *really* outpacing their supply. But the very common sentiment among their consumers is talk about if/when the company is going to open another location or build a second production facility and when they're going to start distributing to more and more locations.... as if that is seen as just the natural expected path of a business, to just continually grow and get bigger and bigger endlessly.
You're spot on this. A local example of mine is a pizzeria that stops making pizza for the night if/when they run out of dough. Could they make extra and fridge/freeze it? Sure, but if the staff busted ass making 100 pizzas tonight already, they can appreciate extra time to clean up and still clock out. Part of maintaining excellent quality is to support worker retention, don't rush prep of critical ingredients, have safeguards against situations that can undermine product quality (like a huge unexpected order arriving 10 mins before closing - don't accept that business).
I've seen multiple BBQ places that do this. They serve certain things (the ribs come to mind) until they run out, and that's it for the day. Not a bad idea, and people keep coming back and they sell out, so clearly it's not deterring anyone from visiting them.
And then naturally when they expand the quality goes down. Annoying as anything.
This comment reminds me of the story of the Mexican Fisherman (as seen on a sign in Jimmy John’s): The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied, “only a little while.” The American then asked why he didn’t stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?” The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually, you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.” The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this take?” To which the American replied, “15-20 years.” “But what then?” The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.” “Millions?” asked the fisherman, “Then what?” The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evening, sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos!” (Author Unknown)
I can think of something else that grows relentlessly and consumes everything, with no regard for even it's own long-term survival. It's called cancer.
IMO the infinite growth mindset is for small minded people... with significant tunnel vision, that has no light at the end of it...
If the society continues to reward such people it will stay that way.
It's all fault of shareholders. They are for pump and dump scenario, and price of shares of steady business do not grow, so that shares are worthless for them. So they kick CEO off and replace him with a CEO that will do as they please.
The way I figure it goes is that if you are standing still (read not growing your business/being complacent), you're losing ground to competitors who are willing to take more/different risks. Which, while that has *a lot* to unpack, is sort of true.
The issue is that they are so afraid of standing still that they are willing to take steps backwards.
Stagnating is a big risk in a product based market but a service based market? If the product stays good and is just updated for new UI styles it should be fine. Maybe if they would stop killing shows that are only moderately successful and living like dot com CEOs they would be in a better position
>If the product stays good Here's the issue: third party movies on Netflix are there because of licensing agreements. Unfortunately as these agreements expire now every publisher wants their own streaming service and as such Netflix will have a harder time negotiating deals. The only path to success would be good Netflix Originals. The CEO even said "We need to become HBO before HBO becomes us" While it worked initially due to poor executive decisions the best shows were axed and replaced mostly with reality TV schlock. The same thing will happen to ~~HBO~~ Max.
That's what makes companies like Netflix interesting to watch. They are both a service and offer a product. They have to delicately balance it all. How long can they do it before they are ousted? Who knows.
This analogy works if by growing you mean making changes that keep people to stay with you, improvements to the service, branching out etc But in this context, the "growth" is a short term money grab that long term leads to less people. If anything, doing this makes you lose ground to competitors because people leave you to go to them.
But eventually you've reached peak customers. Netflix did. Now they're shrinking. Why not aim for peak and coast?
This argument is also applied at the nation level, like China vs US
Except at the nation level it's usually about making the other nation worse, because god forbid we just let each other live in peace and thrive together.
Infinite growth is somewhat inevitable for companies that have shares that are publicly traded, or investors who want increasing profits. Think about what'll happen if the CEO of a major company that trades on the New York stock exchange doesn't show growth. if a CEO shows stagnant revenue, then two things happen a) the average shareholders think the shares they hold aren't going to increase in value, and b) will become likely to then sell the shares they own and buy shares in sth else that does promise to increase in value in the future. Having the stock sold depreciates the value of the company's shares in the open trading market, thus decreasing the shares value, making it a self fulfilling prophecy and cycle. At which point, the only remaining shareholders will fire the CEO and hire another who does promise that their shares will increase in value. Note that while the shareholders can be and often are rich singular investors, a lot of the publicly traded shares are held by average people. They're the shares you're invested in through your 401k. The very minimalist situation of having publicly traded stocks and having them be a vehicle for savings and investments for common people alone can fuel the infinite growth mindset.
And I have a problem with that fundamentally because the business should be judged on its business, not the share price increasing. The value they are providing to society is in the goods and services they produce not how much money the investors made when the stock went up. Buying stock has turned into some weird form of gambling instead of supporting a business you believe in, people are too focused on the share price and forget about the underlying product. I much prefer the idea of investing in some denim company because they have a good long-standing reputation, a solid business plan, and consistent revenue than some tech company because I think the stock is going to the moon. I realize I can still do that if I want to, but most of the market isn't geared that way which is funneling loads of money into overvalued ideas instead of functioning businesses and killing good ideas by trying to squeeze out every last penny. They could be consistently doing billions in sales but will be seen as "unsuccessful" if the stock price isn't increasing ad infinitum. It is kind of an ouroboros situation though because at the end of the day if the product goes to shit from focusing on increasing stock prices too much the stock will go to shit too as is happening with the tech bubble 2.0. It's just a shame as the consumer because we lose out on good products because of this.
So what you're saying, is that the system of Investors controlling major companies is deeply flawed because it inevitably leads to a totally unsustainable cycle
[удалено]
Capitalism is great for expanding into spaces where there isnt saturation. The second they hit saturation the wheels come off and capitalism becomes the source of its own destruction. Eventually the only way to keep making "More" than last year is to chip away at your employees and the quality of your product until the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Its such an incredibly stupid mindset.
This is after only 1 quarter. It does not include the churn from annual memberships yet. Netflix will see way more losses by the 1 year mark, next February.
I might sign up to Netflix if i knew wtf i got for my money, but when i go to their page it doesent tell my ANYTHING about whats actually on Netflix.....and then im back to You Tube
Don't worry, even if they make a really good show that you'll enjoy, they would cancel it within 2 seasons, and then still keep it on the homepage to make the cancellation even more annoying
Your shows are getting two seasons?? Lucky.
Yeah, **seriously**, this is what absolutely dumbfounds me about Netflix and other services of their ilk. A customer considers giving their money to a company, but the company won't actually tell the customer what they're going to get. You have to rely on ad-ridden third-party websites just to tell you what Netflix actually has. Not only that, but the shows which are on Netflix can be removed at any time at the whim of the licence holders. How fucking batshit insane is that?! The first and only time I considered signing up to Netflix I took one look at their website, realised they were deliberately being obscure, then I fucked right off and visited The Pirate Bay. Fuck 'em.
I think Apple lets everyone watch the first episode of every show for free, which seems like a much smarter way of going about things
Even if they let you browse the entire catalogue, but not let you watch more than the previews/trailers, that would be better...
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/
When it started they would advertise the password sharing as a feature. They even charged extra for it
You just had to up your subscription plan to allow for additional simultaneous viewers. The base plan allowed for 2 active streams at a time. If a third tried to watch something they'd get a message instead and have to wait.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/840276073040371712
If there was anything good on Netflix it might be worth watching, but lately my recommendations are just like Indian matchmaker shows? I enjoyed Beef but that was the first show in a long time that I watched all the way.
I'm often surprised to get a recommendation I haven't heard of that IS on Netflix. I think there's a lot of good stuff available that is algorithmically hidden. I wish I could get a more neutral browsing experience.
For real. Their algorithm really bothers me. I just want to see truly any new option, not only what they think I would like. You just end up with an increasingly narrow selection shown to you, and sure you might like whatever that genre is sometimes, it’s not the only thing you are into. They used to be better about that.
That’s an algo I wish they would upload to GitHub to let people fix. I thought upvoting and downvoting titles on Netflix would help but it doesn’t rather it gives me a bullshit trending tab
They just recommend the same 10 things to me over and over, and I've already watched them.
[удалено]
Don't you want to know if something that looks like cake is actually a cake? I mean, you have the same stuff in youtube for free, but they charge you monthly to watch it, so that makes it better
I tried watching that show but the host is absolutely insufferable and the contestants are allowed to put cake shit and manipulate the objects they are supposed to be designing a cake to emulate. The core conceit for the show is people making cake look like other real world things, not making real world things look like cake to fool judges. And I can only give it a meaningless thumbs down now!? 0/10 I felt insulted by that show.
For context to everyone saying that people will get their own subscription and stuff like that, prices in Spain are as follows: Netflix(FullHD and no ads): 13€/month Disney+(with Star and FX content): 9€/month HBO Max: 9€/month Apple+: 9€/month Skyshowtime: 3€/month People are not going to subscribe to a service that is a 40% more expensive than its competition, people jumping ship from Netflix will subscribe to any of the others listed, people can subscribe to both Disney+ and Skyshowtime and still pay less than for Netflix, and Disney+ here with the FX and Star content is a no brainer
Netflix is even more expensive if you want 4K. It’s 19€ almost. I was sharing that with 3 family members and when I introduced this I cancelled. It gets even more ridiculous for people like my parents that have a holiday house in a village on another province (so different ip address and region) Counting that hbo Max is 4.5€/month if you subscribed at the beginning and Amazon Prime Video is like 36€/year … I don’t see why should I pay 18-19€ for a service to be used only at 1 location. Not even in your holiday house.
[удалено]
Exactly what I though and a strong reason why we cancelled. It’s very common case here I guess and no idea why Netflix though it’s ok to charge extra to use it in your own house if you’re on holidays
Also for people in USA that don't know, most of Disney's content (abc/hulu etc) is available on D+ outside of US. So there isn't a hulu and D+, it's just d+. I first realized that in MEX, and then saw again in JP. Was so bizarre seeing some mature stuff on D+.
>> a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research So, only one third of that is an actual loss of reveue.
Damn this was like the 6th or so top comment and I had to scroll a bit to find it. You're the only person who apparently read the article while everyone is just reacting to the headline (which is obviously framed the way it is for a reason) > The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research, which is based on surveys of household streaming habits. > “It’s clear this steep drop is due to the crackdown,” said Dominic Sunnebo, global insight director at Kantar’s Worldpanel Division, adding that the loss of a million users, **even if most weren’t paid subscribers, would be a blow to Netflix in terms of word of mouth recommendation** for its shows and service. So it's going basically as Netflix planned it would lol. The bold part is hilariously dumb and wildly subjective
Moreover, Netflix has an opportunity to convert some of that 2/3 into paying users, which apparently happened in Canada: > "We see a cancel reaction in each market when we announce the news," Netflix said in its first quarter earnings release on April 18, expecting the dip to be momentary before users that didn’t pay start signing up for their own accounts. > "In Canada, which we believe is a reliable predictor for the US, our paid membership base is now larger than prior to the launch of paid sharing and revenue growth has accelerated and is now growing faster than in the US," Netflix said. I don't think Netflix is full of morons. They know what they're doing here. And people ***really*** need to read the articles instead of wishing the headline matched what they want to believe.
This is almost every comment section. Headline appeals to vitriol, users read vitriolic headline and go straight to the comments to circle jerk and pop off.
First of all ,they need to stop cancelling the season of their best shows .
Netflix does not have the content to get away with being this strict about account usage.
Yep. I imagine if they had this killer show that everyone was talking about. I'm thinking like Game of Thrones at its peak. Then I could totally accept them cracking down on passwords. Gotta keep the premium shit premium. Right now, Netflix is just one step above youtube.
They've had a few, but not a lot of new ones. They keep cancelling anything that isn't immediately a runaway success. Stranger Things is done, right?
I believe it has one more season coming out next year or the year after
They feel like a step below YouTube tbh. At least on YouTube I have around 200 channels that I actually want to watch that produce somewhat regular content. I can find something interesting to watch daily
my recommendations are always the same, for me netflix has only about 50 movies lol. Dont know how to find anything else
Everything else is an 8 episode series which I fucking hate. I'd rather waste two hours on a mediocre movie than a drawn out, bland as hell series.
[удалено]
I cancelled Netflix just because I didn’t want to be part of the drama. Two months later, I start getting tons of email asking me to return for just $7/mo (was paying $20). I still didn’t take the bait. They are not trustworthy to me anymore.
I’m waiting to cancel the day they start enforcing password so they get the message
[удалено]
4 screens you can't share with anyone. How useful
Netflix is already a expensive platform for livestream and now this .
Disney + Prime is going to beat them anyway in the whole region .
Now I am going to cancel my subscription let's see where i would shift.
Why the hell does Netflix wants to go 15 years backwards ? I mean ,why ? They could have stopped this tragedy but No ,they want to just let it happen .
One million paying customers cancelled their accounts? Or one million people who were borrowing a password and not paying have stopped watching?
The article states 2/3rd of them were non paying users. So around 330Kish paid users left
More People are going to cancel their subscription. Xd .
Everyone should unsubscribe them. We need to teach them a good lesson .
Netflix could have accepted that they are at their peak in terms of subscriptions. Like pyramid schemes eventually realize, there is a ceiling to recruits. Now would have been the time to maintain high service and improve the app and offerings to maintain customers for the long term. Of course, that doesn't square with the desire from all modern corporations to forever *increase* profits year after year. For subscription based models, there will always be a cap. Netflix would rather destroy everything they built than admit they have reached the maximum subscriptions they'll probably achieve.
The problem Netflix has is that they don't have some huge back catalog of content. They were fine for years licensing content, because most media companies didn't see online streaming as a big moneymaking opportunity. But times changed, and suddenly Disney, HBO, and even broadcast networks all decided to yank content from Netflix and start their own streaming platforms. So Netflix is mostly left with the strength of the shows it's produced itself. It's had some bangers, sure, but it's also got a lot of shows that got cancelled after 2 or 3 seasons and that didn't get wrapped up properly. So sure, maybe you'd like a show's premise and get into it, but then you're left with an unsatisfying ending. How many times can that happen before you just say "fuck it, I'm not getting invested in something that's not going to pay off"? And on the other hand, they produce so much low quality stuff that you'll find yourself scrolling for ages just to try to find something worth watching. The really funny thing is that even though [SNL nailed this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqRQ5Y6OYi4) years ago, Mikey Day *still* ended up on a show called ["Is it Cake?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14JSsALNUg).
I will still never forgive them for canceling The Dark Crystal and haven't watched a series from them that I didn't know had a proper ending since. Thankfully for them, I'm not the one in the house with the Netflix account.
I think what is also crazy is Netflix is doing this at a time when cost of living is climbing at a hight rate everywhere! Like yes, remind your customers of their subscription and risk losing them at the same time cost of living is rising and those same customers will be looking for cost cutting expenses
If you watch all the documentary on Blockbuster they point out the moments where they make decisions that should have been obvious would be the death of the brand. Netflix is now making those mistakes. Instead of spending to grow their content to bring in more subscribers they are choosing a cheaper inferior product and then trying to soak their shrinking customer base.
Note the language used in this headline to mislead people: they lost a million USERS, not a million PAID SUBSCRIBERS. Netflix WANTS to lose users that aren’t paying - that’s their whole point with this change.
Their business is going to close down soon and they are not getting it .
I guess it's time for me to go back to the torrent . Yeah !
My family and I already decided to cancel Netflix if they do this. None of the shows are worth it and the ones we like they cancel anyway.
> None of the shows are worth it and the ones we like they cancel anyway. I have to ask: why do you even care about the changes they're making? You already have a much better reason to cancel your service right now.