Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Netflix to Raise Ad-Free Subscription Prices Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're paying for Netflix with your astronomically priced T-Mobile plan. I only pay $10/line/mo on a Verizon MVNO.
Netflix 20 years ago: "Join Netflix to get rid of expensive cable movie channels and ditch the commercials!"
Netflix today: "I wish there was a system where we charged people monthly to surf our content, we could raise the prices anytime, and that allowed us to also make money off these new things called ads. What would you call a service like that?"
Netflix today: "I wish there was a system where we charged people monthly to surf our content, we could raise the prices anytime, and that allowed us to also make money off these new things called ads. What would you call a service like that?"
We canceled Hulu, and we'd cancel Netflix if it wasn't free with our cellular company. The moment they don't pay for it, it's gone. I don't see the value in paying cable-money in order to have a splintered, streaming experience. I'd rather just get cable and have it all right there in front of me... inconvenient or not.
If someone shoplifts food, they are removing the food from the store and therefore noone else can get that food, when someone downloads a copy of a movie or tv show they are still available, nothing has been stolen, it is an easier way of sharing, just like back in the day if someone copied a VHS tape for another person which everyone that had VHS tapes has done, that is not stealing, please know the definition of words before making a comment
I wouldn't call it "free" as you are paying for it, at least to some degree, as part of the T-Mobile plan price.
Exactly no one forced the customer to go there. Just like NF customer need to take a stand and cancel and feedback
We are the opposite with VZW. NF was cancelled long ago, but still only $10 for D+ Bundle. If that ever changes they will be gone too
I still consume a ton of Netflix. I just sub to other sites only as needed and cancel. Netflix is the only one I consistently go back to. I cancelled Hulu, Max, Paramount/Showtime. I only sub to those for specific shows. Once done, I cancel. Same with Disney +. Amazon I don't stream as much, but I buy stuff consistently enough to keep it. So Netflix still provides value to me for now. But with that said I'm not tied to it by loyalty, lol. Only in so that they still provide me value.
I think this is a moment that Apple has been waiting for.
Since we’re obviously going back down the same well worn path it’s evident that the next step is the mega bundle. Disney and Apple are already driving towards it by rolling live sports into their services. Next we’ll see a wave of “want to stop the subscription bloat? Check out Apple Bundle 1! Includes live sports, local TV, Netflix, Disney +, Max and Peacock all for one low price!”
Since we’re obviously going back down the same well worn path it’s evident that the next step is the mega bundle. Disney and Apple are already driving towards it by rolling live sports into their services. Next we’ll see a wave of “want to stop the subscription bloat? Check out Apple Bundle 1! Includes live sports, local TV, Netflix, Disney +, Max and Peacock all for one low price!”
I saw Disney advertising a new more ad-free bundle pricing today as a FYI via email.
Note the Hulu partnership ends in 2024 for DisneyComcast. Parts of Hulu will likely get absorbed between the two as it ends. Disney will just enable Star in the states finally.
Exactly. We’ll see a period of consolidation too. Hulu is the first to go. Some of the others will follow.
True. But food is a tangible good. A movie is a non-tangible good. The value is in the intellectual property, not the physical thing.
Furthermore, as someone already pointed out to you, the absence of the item is a CONSEQUENCE of the fact that it’s been STOLEN from the store. The significant factor is that you didn’t PAY FOR IT, not that it’s gone.
Incorrect. You’ve stolen the royalties that the content creators are owed. Distributing someone else’s intellectual property deprives the owners of the compensation they deserve. That’s theft.
The fact that it’s easy doesn’t magically render it legal and victimless.
Gonna guess you’re in your 20s.
Here’s the skinny: dual cassette VHS machines were an extremely niche product and practically no one had two VCRs to link up for copying purposes.
So no, “everyone that had VHS tapes” did not do that. In fact almost no one did that.
It is literally stealing by any definition.
Last edited:
You are incorrect on every point you made
By the way you didn't need a dual VHS player to make a copy and plenty of people had more than 1 VHS player
If that was true you’d demonstrate why instead of just shouting at the wind.
Everything I said is true, correct and factual. You’re attempting to justify straight up theft with arguments that don’t make sense and ignore the actual definition of the words you’re using. Not to mention your wild fantasy about everyone copying and sharing VHS tapes. That never happened.
1) No, they didn’t. For the vast majority of the life of VHS the players were so expensive that people generally owned only one, if they owned one at all. Many people simply rented one when they wanted to watch a movie.
2) People recorded movies off of TELEVISION and shared the tape with friends, but that is not the same thing as you’re claiming.
The fact is that you made that up. There was no wide spread copying of commercial VHS tapes for private redistribution.
The personal attacks aside, no. That isn’t my position. My position is that you made up the idea that everyone was copying and sharing VHS tapes. That isn’t true. If it was you’d prove it. But it isn’t so you can’t. The end.
Yes i will get in my time machine and go get that proof for you, you wait here I will be right back
This applies double to music streaming. It's just not a profitable business model. For anyone. It's bad for musicians, bad for artists, bad for companies
I think the iTunes Store model was probably the way to do it, but I'm open to new ideas too
Definitely a grey area. It was public OTA, so I can kind of see the argument for allowing copying, but I never did that either. If someone wanted to watch something I had recorded, they watched with me on my machine and TV.
I go so far back my first VCR was a Sony betamax machine with a *wired* remote. I remember paying a lot of money for it too!