• Kekzkrieger@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Their subscriber rate goes up anyway, so they dont care.

    Most of the people are to lazy or dont care enough to vote with their wallet unfortunately

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I went to get a new phone plan and one of the plans I looked at has Netflix included. Am I counted as a subscriber if it comes bundled with something else I need, but never use Netflix?

      • Kekzkrieger@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        yes you are because the plan has some sort of arrangement with netflix whwre they probably get a reduced price, but still counts you as a subscriber

    • Barsukis@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yep. I used to share my account with my family before Netflix’s password sharing crackdown. When they did it, I deleted my account day 1.

      My dad and my sister just resubscribed separately. Unfortunately, a net win for them. Efectively +1 user. Just one example, but I’m betting this worked for many more of their users.

      • graymess@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yep. If you judge how Netflix is doing by Lemmy/Reddit comments alone, you’d think they’d be hemorrhaging subscriptions. But nah. They’re pulling records of money with these policy changes and price hikes. Turns out people just pay up.

        • Mkengine@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Which is good, they still produce a few good shows per year, so be glad that enough people are throwing their money away so that you can pick their fruits.

      • Mkengine@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I understand wanting them to go bankrupt (or be punished some other way) for their business practices, but they still produce a handful of good shows per year, so is it so bad that someone pays them for it? Be glad that enough people are throwing their money away so that you can pick their fruits. Maybe some day it’s too expensive for your dad and sister and then you are there to show them a better way.

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You’re not gonna like this but that is voting with your wallet! They are voting yes since they are paying for it. The truth is, we are in the minority. The majority still finds Netflix affordable.

      • Mkengine@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        But is that so bad? Someone has to pay for the content they produce. Just not me.

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    For a streaming platform to be actually useful it needs to be a almost monopoly like steam. Netflix had a chance but missed the spot, due to the greed of Studios. So it’s back to fractured marked until someone comes with a fresh idea of how to distribute video.

    • Dasnap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      TBH Steam feels like a ticking timebomb. At some point Valve is going to get a new shite CEO or something and everyone will go “oh…”

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Little unfair to say they “missed” anything when they can’t control what studios do with their licenses.

      I still see people occasionally complain that Netflix “got rid” of stuff, like the Office. There’s a lot of shitty things you can blame Netflix for, but that isn’t one of them.

      It’s also not new. HBO, Showtime, Stars, etc all had rotating on-demand catalogs for years before Netflix, with content appearing briefly before being removed, and no one thought that was odd. I never once heard anyone suggest HBO was shit because Austin Powers or whatever was taken off it. It came with the understanding this content was not permanently available.

      Part of it is that people had a bad understanding of what Netflix was, and assumed it would be a permanent replacement for a personal collection. That was always a foolish mindset.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Little unfair to say they “missed” anything when they can’t control what studios do with their licenses.

        Little unfair of your to leave out:

        due to the greed of Studios

        Wich makes clear, I don’t blame netflix.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Netflix started out as a blessing. That’s why I bought a subscribtion intially. Nowadays they’ve been screwed over as much as I have and they suck as much as every other service, but I’m sticking with Netflix. It is the most convenient method for my kids to watch their stupid cartoons and I also get to enjoy something every once in a while. I’ve tried others, but it’s not worth it.

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d never subscribe to Adobe. I love Figma, but if Abobe takes over Figma and applies it’s usual tactics, I’m never using Figma again.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, it doesnt have to be. Look at Spotify vs Apple Music, vs tidal etc. full catalogues at all of them. It’s the business model that needs to change.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Good point, I think it might have to do with the way music is differently licensed. You will often have a “monopolistic” rights management organization like BMI in USA whereas rights for video and games the rights management lies more with the overarching productions companies.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure why there are always monopoly apologists popping up in these. You know Netflix isn’t any less greedy than the studios, right? A private monopoly isn’t a good thing.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Why are you that antagonizing?

        A private monopoly isn’t a good thing.

        Most times. But for media, people want to have all their media in one place for a cheap price - so far only monopolistic or oligopolistic services were able to provide that. It worked quite well for games and in some form for music (you will often have single right management companies in the music industry - like BMI in USA or GEMA in Germany). But in general, I would agree that monopolies (outside natural monopolies and those should be run by the state) are unfavorable for the customer.

        • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s an alternative. Because of exclusivity deals, you think a monopoly would be good for users, but with a monopoly then the company could charge $200/month because customers literally have nowhere else to go. A better system would be significantly reduced exclusivity so that 1st party media is the only exclusive content. This way, there would be more than 1 or 2 options, but way fewer than what we currently have, and the 5 or so companies remaining would compete based on their own original content, customer service, quality of service, and UI. Streaming apps with only one or two interesting pieces of original content could license out to all of the remaining few streamers and shut down their dead app. I know the quality dropped like a fucking rock, but a few years back people were excited to be subscribed to Disney+ for Wandavision and The Mandalorian. 5 years ago, people were excited to be subscribed to Netflix for Stranger Things and Orange is the New Black.

          I was frustrated af a few nights ago trying to find X-Men First Class. Days of Future Past is on Max. X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand, the 3 Wolverine movies, X-Men Apocalypse, and X-Men: Dark Phoenix are all on Disney+. So where the fuck are X-Men 2 and X-Men: First Class?! To watch the X-Men movies (which are all from the same studios), paying for 2 streaming services isn’t enough?!

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            and the 5 or so companies remaining would compete based on their own original content

            I don’t see how this is any better, since if you want a specific show produced by a specific company you would still need to subscribe to their service, kind of the same problem we having right now.

            Again, I’m not arguing for monopolies in general. But with media it’s what customers want - a single service they can access all the media they want, with reasonable prices or a subscription model.

            • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I have two possible solutions then, each with their own drawback.

              Solution 1 is to nationalize media. The closest realistic thing is something we already have: libraries. The drawback is that content is massively limited and it’s pretty inconvenient, but the cost is bundled in with other nationalized services like firefighters and the postal service.

              Solution 2 is piracy. The drawback is that it’s illegal and you risk prison time and huge fines, but the cost is either free or relatively cheap in exchange for less chance of getting caught, and the selection of content is damn near everything. There is quite a bit of work at the onset, but it is reasonably convenient to enjoy.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                I like them both. But also non commercial piracy - or how we used to call it back in the days: sharing, should not be illegal in the first place.