Netflix Testing Add-On Payment for People Who Share Accounts Outside Their Households

[AlexisV]

I had Netflix for a bit, but as soon as they'd make something decent they'd cancel it and never make a season 2. So I cancelled my subscription.

Now I just "acquire" programmes on the Mac and watch them on the Apple TV.

 

[mva68]

Perhaps this is the time for Apple to take over Netflix. Netflix is struggling, people don’t want to pay full price, and Apple TV+ can use some boost. Anyway we need consolidation in the streaming market, now to watch something interesting you have to have Amazon Prime, Disney+, Apple TV+, Netflix, HBO Max for a total of 350-400 dollar/Euro per year!

 

[cmcbhi]

You have to pay for your own ticket when you go to a movie theater, same should be here. Pay for the number of streams you have. Have a family pan, if you wish.
Just don't expect to have multiple aunts and uncles, your nine children two ex wives and yourself all streaming separately for the same price as me when NEVER stream more than one stream at a time. Don't be a parasite.

 

[SenorWhyMe]

cough Moviebox cough

 

[cmcbhi]

Except sometimes I’m there alone, or she is there alone, and possibly both locations would be streaming at the same time. Nothing nefarious, except we have to wait to see if Netflix wants to challenge folks with a tiresome money grab.

Easy-Peasy. You stream on your account, which you pay for, she streams on her account, which she pays for. If you want a "family" account and pay a little extra, say 50% for each linked stream, do so. But stop parasitizing on others who only want one stream at a time.

 

[BeefCake 15]

Why not just set active viewing limits and leave it at that, no need to complicate stuff with IP tracking....this is a sure way to increase rental rates from Tor.

 

[indychris]

That doesn’t sound like the definition of a household if they don’t live with the account holder.

Virtually ever entity I deal with considers my college kids as household members. Once they graduate, they are on their own and it's on them, but I don't need--and won't pay--extra charges for my kids to occasionally use our Netflix account while at school.

 

[Abazigal]

So is this Netflix way of saying 'we know you are sharing your account with someone outside your household and they are not paying for it'.

My guess is that Netflix defines family members as living in the same house, and their stats probably show a number of people streaming via the same account at different locations. I am not sure how they distinguish between say, someone watching Netflix while at work, or a teenager living in a dorm at university (or even studying abroad). Maybe they don’t, but it’s really no small secret that such a practice exists.

It could simply be the old “I will spam everyone with takedown notices and see how many pony up the cash due to a guilty conscience” shakedown.

 

[DaveN]

Don't you love how they call this a "feature"?

 

[ShrimpScampi]

The most ridiculous thing for me about Netflix is that you have to pay extra for 4k compared to their competitors. Add that to their increasingly low-quality catalogue, and I'm not sure it's even worth it as a subscription anymore.

 

[ipaqrat]

I own two homes. My wife regularly inhabits the farm raising horses, I commute to the city for half the week. We both run laptops. There's just no telling where/when we might pop up for a look. Hotspot in horse country, xfinity in town, cell phone waiting in lines... I must have 10 devices at my disposal in different places at different times of the week.

I suppose they've used AI pattern recognition software to establish a baseline behaviors for all of us users; then they minder daemon will cut us off for deviations that form a counter-pattern. They already lack human customer support, so the email telling that we ARE cut off will come from the CRM daemon, but it won't say WHY, because the algorithm isn't based on a policy; rather, it'll be a dynamic analysis (AI seeded, pruned and grown, probably "as a service" to transfer liability) engine that a human can't really understand in its operational form.

"Assaholic Intelligence" You hear it here first. Or maybe not first... seems like a pretty common concept, now I think about it. But I hear I'm down IQ from all the leaded gas in my old man's giant car back in the 70's. Uhhh huh huh... Can you tell?

 

[mclld]

What if a member identifies as a single household??

 

[svish]

Many will be unhappy with this move. Netflix is trying new methods to increase revenue.

 

[TroyBoy30]

good for them

 

[nburwell]

I really don't see this testing going anywhere. If it did, I could see a good amount of subscribers cancelling. Especially with the handful of other streaming services now available.

Granted my wife and I share my subscription and we both live in the same household, so I would think we wouldn't be subject to this extra charge -- should it be implemented.

 

[deeddawg]

Not really sure why it matters to Netflix whether the four or so people who might be using the same account are residing at the same address or not as long as someone's paying for the tier that allows that many screens to be using it at the same time. Why have the ability to institute multiple user profiles under the same account only to arbitrarily decide they have to be residing at the same address (physical or IP)? Why would they think doing so would be popular with anyone?

Consider the case of four friends living in different place, each wanting Netflix in HD yet being satisfied with one stream each.

If they each have a Standard subscription, Netflix collects 4 x $15.49 or $62 per month.

If they share one Premium subscription, Netflix collects $20 per month.

This is why it matters to Netflix.

 

[Umacga]

So what? Why does it matter? To you specifically? (it obviously matters to Netflix because they're trying to squeeze out as much money as possible. Yay capitalism)

5 screen limit=5 persons can watch at the same time.
Shared account among 5 people = 5 people watch at different times. If they don't watch at the same time, it could theoretically be the same person traveling and watching 5 times at 5 different places at different times for all you know. It becomes *one* entity watching.

Why does it matter where those 5 people physically are? Who they are?

At the end, 5 people watch, 1 person pays, either way.

I literally don't get it.

You literally don't? It seems pretty obvious from a business perspective. If I have a 4 screen account, its fairly unlikely everyone in my home will be using every stream at the same time. If I give access to the other 3 to other people, its much more likely that they'll all be used at the same time. Sure, you have a right to use all 4 personally in the household (under their TOS) but their business and traffic modeling surely figures they'll rarely be used at the same time if used as intended.

I don't care one way or the other about Netflix. My wife and kids watch it occasionally, and I've had it since long before it became a streaming service (I used it far more and got much more value when I used to get tons of DVDs every month); it'll probably be cut in my next round of "what services do we need to keep?" review. But I at least understand their rationale. Whether it ends up being a good business decision, who knows.

 

[Deguello]

Laissez-faire capitalism will ALWAYS move toward controlling the markets and eliminating consumer choice.

There are 12+ pages of people talking about alternatives, choosing not to subscribe, or choosing to subscribe to binge and then unsubscribing again. It’s hard to see much market control here.

 

[bmark]

Netflix is trying to increase subscriber growth and this strategy will backfire badly if implemented. They have already raised their prices numerous times for their mediocre content. If my kids didn't watch Netflix it would have been gone a long time ago.

 

[Deguello]

Consider the case of four friends living in different place, each wanting Netflix in HD yet being satisfied with one stream each.

If they each have a Standard subscription, Netflix collects 4 x $15.49 or $62 per month.

If they share one Premium subscription, Netflix collects $20 per month.

This is why it matters to Netflix.

Consider the case of four friends who think Netflix is worth $5 a month and can share the cost of a $20 subscription to get four streams, but none of whom would pay $20 a month individually. Netflix collects $0 rather than $20.

Netflix could get rid of the ridiculous quality-based tiers and price based on stream count and it would be a lot more straightforward all around.

I can share my youtube tv without this kind of headache and I can share my Apple TV+ with actual family (or with whomever I trust) regardless of location. Netflix is behind the curve here.

 

[deeddawg]

Consider the case of four friends who think Netflix is worth $5 a month and can share the cost of a $20 subscription to get four streams, but none of whom would pay $20 a month individually. Netflix collects $0 rather than $20.

Netflix could get rid of the ridiculous quality-based tiers and price based on stream count and it would be a lot more straightforward all around.

I can share my youtube tv without this kind of headache and I can share my Apple TV+ with actual family (or with whomever I trust) regardless of location. Netflix is behind the curve here.

I illustrated why it "mattered" to Netflix.

Personally I only have Netflix because I get the Standard tier at no cost thanks to T-Mobile.

 

[npmacuser5]

Want to lock more in, offer better discounts for annual billing. Cash upfront will do better than this approach. Setting a streaming budget by month/year the best options for us consumers. Define how much one can allocate to streaming services, than cancel and add as content changes meeting the budget.

 

[npmacuser5]

How about Karma Netflix. Amazon just bought MGM. A huge boost in content.

 

[vipergts2207]

Easy-Peasy. You stream on your account, which you pay for, she streams on her account, which she pays for. If you want a "family" account and pay a little extra, say 50% for each linked stream, do so. But stop parasitizing on others who only want one stream at a time.

Netflix are the ******s here. Why do you and I have to pay for the ability to have four streams when all we want is the 4K aspect? You ignore that they’re bilking you for a feature you don’t even want or need. And a tier that offers SD-only in 2022 is hilariously awful.

 

[rezwits]

I think they've priced themselved out of the market. The trick is to keep the price high enough to make money while not too high so you don't lose sales numbers. $20 a month just to watch on 4k and if you're still rocking a 1080P TV from ten years ago it's still $15.49. Even after the recent rate hike Disney+ is only going to be $8. That's $12 a month less than Netflix. People do Netflix because they can share the $20 a month bill but as a single user it's not worth it. Maybe if they went down to $10 a month it would be worth it.

Thing is they can never lower it really, they are too scared. It's like fast food places that try to get out of 2 for 1, or coupons. They struggle trying to get their price back into shape. If I were them, going forward, I would just leave the max at $20 and not raise it for like 3 years...