Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney just announced they lost $1.1 billion on its streaming business in a single quarter.

The free ride is over (unless you sail the high seas)
Or your cell phone provider is subsidizing it for you.
 
But if they have fewer eyeballs will it be more difficult to get good content? I guess what I don’t get is why does it matter whether the content is streaming from the same ip address or not? A stream is a stream right?
In terms of how I personally think services should work, I'm actually in full agreement that it shouldn't matter where the streaming is from, only the number of streams--if I'm paying for 2 simultaneous streams, it should not matter what IP address they're going to.

If Netflix doesn't think they can make a profit allowing 4 streams for the price, then they should reduce the number of streams, not try to shame users because of who, specifically, those streams are being watched by. Apple, for example, is quite vague about what constitutes a "family" for their sharing plans, mainly restricting the total number of people and how often people join and leave.

However, as far as eyeballs go, Netflix currently isn't at all advertising-based, so why would the number of viewers have anything to do with their ability to get good content? It is 100% down to how much money they spend on content, not how many people actually watch it. Indeed, leaving aside that they need to keep customers happy and watching, the less people watch the more profit Netflix makes and/or the more they have to spend on content, since it reduces bandwidth and IT costs.

Phrased differently, the number of people who watch a show on broadcast TV or on any ad-supported streaming service is directly proportionate to the amount of money that show earns. But once Netflix has spent the money on a show, that's it--the only value it has is the abstract ability to keep customers from cancelling their subscription, or to entice new customers to subscribe who otherwise would not have.

I learned today that that actually has a great impact on how they report their financials, as they amortize the cost of content in interesting ways.
 
So what? What does it matter whether the streams are coming from a single address or not? Because Netflix now thinks if my mom and sister weren’t using my login they’d pay for the service themselves? Haha, not quite. They just won’t watch.

That's the idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GizmoDVD
Definitely. We got memberships cards in the mail lately, but otherwise, I'm pretty much taking stuff from the mailbox to the garbage
Likewise, a friend's son is deployed in the Marines, but still stateside. However, his residence is still my friend's, as they've got no permanent address. Should they (the son) be denied access or charged extra, for serving in the military? I mean, I guess if Netflix really wants to go down that extreme road, fine. But they'll lose subscribers.
 
That really isn't fraud. Their mailing address is the same household. My daughter's income tax stuff got mailed to my home. It didn't get mailed to her dorm. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

If they are LIVING in your house that's fine. If they are NOT LIVING in your house, you're violating Netflix's terms and conditions.

LIVING vs. NOT LIVING in your house.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
 
As soon as they give my elderly parents any trouble with using my account, it's canceled. Instead of one paying customer sharing with his old parents who very occasionally watch, they will have one less customer.

Crime, "fraud" or not (won't someone please protect the poor mega-corporations?), I don't care. It's not worth paying for a new user to have my mom watch some British indie movie once a month on an account that goes underused.

There's better stuff out there. I'll renew for a show if (and that's a BIG "if") they can entice me, but that's it.

Also, they should add a new category: "recently canceled."
 
This, and also credit card companies.

I would not subscribe to Netflix or AppleTV, personally, but get both for free from T-Mobile, and while I did have a Hulu subscription I didn't get Disney+ until American Express subsidized it for the same cost I was paying.
Neat, I never knew CC gave you that. We have D+ Bundle through VZW, so maybe I should peruse some CC perks
 
If they are LIVING in your house that's fine. If they are NOT LIVING in your house, you're violating Netflix's terms and conditions.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
JFC dude. Okay. If you can't understand the concept of someone going to college or being deployed in the military, but still has their residence/household listed as the same as the account holder's for everything (not just Netflix), I don't know what to tell you.
 
In terms of how I personally think services should work, I'm actually in full agreement that it shouldn't matter where the streaming is from, only the number of streams--if I'm paying for 2 simultaneous streams, it should not matter what IP address they're going to.

If Netflix doesn't think they can make a profit allowing 4 streams for the price, then they should reduce the number of streams, not try to shame users because of who, specifically, those streams are being watched by. Apple, for example, is quite vague about what constitutes a "family" for their sharing plans, mainly restricting the total number of people and how often people join and leave.

However, as far as eyeballs go, Netflix currently isn't at all advertising-based, so why would the number of viewers have anything to do with their ability to get good content? It is 100% down to how much money they spend on content, not how many people actually watch it. Indeed, leaving aside that they need to keep customers happy and watching, the less people watch the more profit Netflix makes and/or the more they have to spend on content, since it reduces bandwidth and IT costs.

Phrased differently, the number of people who watch a show on broadcast TV or on any ad-supported streaming service is directly proportionate to the amount of money that show earns. But once Netflix has spent the money on a show, that's it--the only value it has is the abstract ability to keep customers from cancelling their subscription, or to entice new customers to subscribe who otherwise would not have.

I learned today that that actually has a great impact on how they report their financials, as they amortize the cost of content in interesting ways.
This will backfire on them. And even though they’re not ad based you would think they (or the people selling them content) would care about eyeballs because they want people watching (and talking about) their content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
In terms of how I personally think services should work, I'm actually in full agreement that it shouldn't matter where the streaming is from, only the number of streams--if I'm paying for 2 simultaneous streams, it should not matter what IP address they're going to.
Though this indeed isn't their ToS, I completely agree with you.
 
So Netflix’s business plan is to have fewer people watch their content. And then watch as good content goes elsewhere.
And then more will cancel, and they will thing raising the price and poorly cutting costs will help, but actually more will cancel until NF goes the way of BB and the Dodo
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN
JFC dude. Okay. If you can't understand the concept of someone going to college or being deployed in the military, but still has their residence/household listed as the same as the account holder's for everything (not just Netflix), I don't know what to tell you.

It really boils down to understanding the concept of Living or Not Living in a single household.

Pretty simple.
 
Arguing T&C is kinda ridiculous considering Netflix wasn’t/isn’t enforcing them.

And now they are because Netflix is losing revenue they're entitled to. Which results in subscription increases others who who choose to be ethical have to bear.

I get it many people like free stuff.
 
If they are LIVING in your house that's fine. If they are NOT LIVING in your house, you're violating Netflix's terms and conditions.

LIVING vs. NOT LIVING in your house.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
but the college student 3000 miles away is totally going to move back with mom and dad forever!
 
You wouldn't share a movie ticket but you do share a book or dvd.

Single address ? Not every person/family fits into a nice little neat single address box: people living out of rv/van or someone travelling all year for work, kids of divorced parents, kids at college, family that lives on the road and use individual phone plans so essentially have no wifi to make the default location.

It just goes on and on.

You buy bread at the store and you can eat it or donate it or share it or throw it away. It's your bread now, you do whatever you want. Yet with software they keep using it to make things worse than better. The ******tification continues.

Netflix had ample time to deal with the issues in their industry and the CEO's did nothing. They didn't focus on adapting to competitors like Disney etc. they didn't focus on customer retention after the complaints of shows being cancelled early or just not having movies/shows that last more than a small window of trending. But they'll spend time/resources trying to define your "family/household" and tell you what to do with the product/service agate you've paid for its use. Just bloody rubbish !

Apologies, rant over.

Anyway, see what Cory Doctorow has to say:

 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.