Netflix’s Grandfathered Subscribers to See Monthly Price Increase From $8 to $10 for HD

[Makosuke]

It would be an interesting social experiment to do a poll of how many grandfathered $8 users claim they will cancel their subscription over the $2 increase and compare it to the actual percentage that do cancel.

I could of course be wrong, of course, but I'm willing to bet the former is a substantially higher percentage than the latter.

Personally, I have a Hulu subscription (way better anime offerings, and my wife mostly watches TV shows, not movies).

 

[2010mini]

I only watch NFL and NCAAF. I watch NBA only during the Semi's or Finals.

Well I tried......

 

[Marrakas]

Netflix is at the mercy of content providers and their regional distribution restrictions.

Well, the fact is that netflix is charging people outside the US more money for less content, which means 1 of 3 things is happening.

1. Content providers charge more for the same content outside the US, which if it's the case I'll rather start pirating then paying a premium just because of my location.

2. Content providers charge the same, but netflix will rather line their pockets than provide us with equal amount of content for our money.

3. Content providers charge the same, but countries outside the US subsidize the content in the US catalogue.

In any case I don't feel like supporting this businessmodel any longer. And I would gladly pay even $50 a month for a streaming service with a large unrestricted library.

 

[Zwhaler]

Not a huge deal financially, but I might still cancel before the rate increase out of principle. I don't use it very much. Family members do but they also have Amazon Prime and Hulu.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

$9.99 now -> $14.99 later -> $29.99 much later. When cable companies are gone and online streaming are the last remaining choices, well see prices rise to todays cable prices.

This is something many seem to miss. They blindly believe that Netflix can continue using up to 70% of all internet bandwidth at peak times, keep investing over $1 billion a year in original content, and continue expanding their catalog, while keeping the price the same. It's just not going to happen.

The more they get you hooked on their service, the more they can increase the price. When you get hooked on their original series and can't get it anywhere else, how much will they be able to charge you to watch? At least with shows on CBS, ABC, etc, you can watch them a number of different places, from free to numerous paid options. With Netflix originals, you can't get them anywhere but by paying Netflix for them.

Kill the competition with cheaper offering, get the subscriber numbers up, create original content they can't get anywhere else and get them hooked and now you can charge what you like.

People also never factor in the price they pay for internet access. They justify it as "I already need it for my computer." but the truth is, without Netflix, 99% of users could drop either to tethering plans for far less or no home cable internet/fiber. The price you pay to have internet at home is part of the price you pay for Netflix as you can't have Netflix without it.

 

[69Mustang]

Well, the fact is that netflix is charging people outside the US more money for less content, which means 1 of 3 things is happening.

1. Content providers charge more for the same content outside the US, which if it's the case I'll rather start pirating then paying a premium just because of my location.

2. Content providers charge the same, but netflix will rather line their pockets than provide us with equal amount of content for our money.

3. Content providers charge the same, but countries outside the US subsidize the content in the US catalogue.

In any case I don't feel like supporting this businessmodel any longer. And I would gladly pay even $50 a month for a streaming service with a large unrestricted library.

Content providers don't charge the same for their product worldwide. No company does, including Apple. Nothing is going to change with that. So if that's the business model you're no longer supporting, you basically won't be buying anything. That $50/mth unrestricted library? Pipe dream not based in reality.

Specifically, your #2: If that's what they were doing, they're doing it wrong. Netflix's net profit margin has averaged 2.5% over the past 5 years. Pretty hard to line pockets with 2.5%.

 

[Plutonius]

For the amount I use it, I'll switch to the SD.

Personally, I have a Hulu subscription (way better anime offerings, and my wife mostly watches TV shows, not movies).

I have an annual Funimation subscription ($5 / month) and and annual Crunchyroll subscription ($5 / month) for my anime fix. You can watch Crunchroll for free but, I find it's worth paying just to get rid of the advertisements.

I have netflix streaming but rarely use it.

 

[AleXXXa]

We live in the UK and use a VPN to access US Netflix. If we can longer access US Netflix, due to VPN blocking, they'll have 1 less paying subscription.

Netflix US doesn't have all content Netflix offers. For example Canada has a better movie library, imo.
Use something like http://smartflix.io and you'll have access to the all the movies and tv shows available.

 

[pat500000]

Who use Netflix ?

 

[SlipperySlop]

This is something many seem to miss. They blindly believe that Netflix can continue using up to 70% of all internet bandwidth at peak times, keep investing over $1 billion a year in original content, and continue expanding their catalog, while keeping the price the same. It's just not going to happen.

The more they get you hooked on their service, the more they can increase the price. When you get hooked on their original series and can't get it anywhere else, how much will they be able to charge you to watch? At least with shows on CBS, ABC, etc, you can watch them a number of different places, from free to numerous paid options. With Netflix originals, you can't get them anywhere but by paying Netflix for them.

Kill the competition with cheaper offering, get the subscriber numbers up, create original content they can't get anywhere else and get them hooked and now you can charge what you like.

People also never factor in the price they pay for internet access. They justify it as "I already need it for my computer." but the truth is, without Netflix, 99% of users could drop either to tethering plans for far less or no home cable internet/fiber. The price you pay to have internet at home is part of the price you pay for Netflix as you can't have Netflix without it.

This analysis is completely flawed. I have high speed internet for many reasons and had it long before I started Netflix streaming. "99% if users..." Oh please. This is such an obviously ludicrous exaggeration as to be an embarrassment.

Using your rational, we should see all other streaming services die and Netflix charging $80 a month minimum. Absurd.

 

[S.B.G]

Who use Netflix ?

I use Netflix, a lot.

 

[slu]

I do not expect anything to be free, and like I said, I'm happy to pay more, as long as I'm getting more/better service/product. In this case, I am not. I can also understand a "slight" increase as time goes on for the same service, but a 25% increase to keep what I already have and have been paying for a long time is just a slap in the face. Yes, it is small, but as a percentage, it is not. It just is not standard for an increase to exceed even 10%. Cost of living is a mere 3%.

If they raised rates 1% or 2% a year, people like you would complain about them "nickel and diming" you to death. This service has been around for several years with no price increase and this increase was announced two years ago. Don't like it, cancel.

 

[Ursadorable]

I'm not concerned about paying an extra $2 more per month since I don't subscribe to cable TV which costs many many times more. What does concern me however is the ban on VPN's. If I was to lose access to the US streams, I would most likely cancel my account shortly thereafter.

This month my favourite music streaming service DI.fm pulled a dirty trick of only allowing streaming from their website and mobile apps. As a long time subscriber to their premium service, I quickly cancelled my account when I lost the ability to stream from my Bose Soundtouch.

The MPAA/RIAA fail to realize they tighten their grip, the more their industry will suffer with lost revenues. People will only put up with so much before finally saying fsck it.

 

[69Mustang]

This is something many seem to miss. They blindly believe that Netflix can continue using up to 70% of all internet bandwidth at peak times, keep investing over $1 billion a year in original content, and continue expanding their catalog, while keeping the price the same. It's just not going to happen.

The more they get you hooked on their service, the more they can increase the price. When you get hooked on their original series and can't get it anywhere else, how much will they be able to charge you to watch? At least with shows on CBS, ABC, etc, you can watch them a number of different places, from free to numerous paid options. With Netflix originals, you can't get them anywhere but by paying Netflix for them.

Kill the competition with cheaper offering, get the subscriber numbers up, create original content they can't get anywhere else and get them hooked and now you can charge what you like.

People also never factor in the price they pay for internet access. They justify it as "I already need it for my computer." but the truth is, without Netflix, 99% of users could drop either to tethering plans for far less or no home cable internet/fiber. The price you pay to have internet at home is part of the price you pay for Netflix as you can't have Netflix without it.

I don't think anyone missed that. More like they ignored it because it's 1. extreme hyperbole and 2. not based on anything factual.
"...$9.99 now -> $14.99 later -> $29.99 much later. When cable companies are gone and online streaming are the last remaining choices, well see prices rise to todays cable prices."
In what realistic world are cable companies gone? Not one we live in today, tomorrow, or the near future. Especially since the cable companies own a crap ton of the content we consume. There's so much wrong with both hypotheses. Kill the competition? What, everyone's all of a sudden only going to watch Netflix original programming to the exclusion of everything else? Doesn't seem a likely scenario. Fanciful scenarios should not be the basis for anyone's arguments. $10 to $30 based on no cable companies... yeah, that's fanciful.

"...but the truth is, without Netflix, 99% of users could drop either to tethering plans for far less or no home cable internet/fiber."
More extreme hyperbole. Why anyone uses 99% in their arguments is beyond me. Netflix typically accounts for approx. 36% of downstream internet traffic (the absolute largest by a far, far, far margin). 36 ain't close to 99. Believe it or not people use the internet for things other than Netflix. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts people spend a heck of a lot more time on Youtube and Facebook than Netflix.

edit: I conflated 99% of users with 36% of internet bandwidth usage and formulated an argument based on that bad math. Yikes. The underlying argument without the bad math is still the same. Internet usage is not Netflix dominated. Bandwidth maybe. Traffic? No way, no how, no where.

 

[MrXiro]

Not really gradfathered now, is it?

The price increase was 2 years ago. They announced a 2 year grace period to current members back then... I don't understand why everyone is crying... if you paid attention none of this is a surprise.

At least they're not double dipping with Ads like Hulu Plus and then "offering" us commercial free for 4 bucks more.

 

[pat500000]

I use Netflix, a lot.

Well I don't know about you...I don't think 9 bucks a month for limited selections are worth it.

 

[C DM]

Well I don't know about you...I don't think 9 bucks a month for limited selections are worth it.

What's limited for some might be more than plenty for others.

 

[ewkid]

Still a great deal for someone like me that likes to watch TV series. My kids watch a lot of stuff on it too.

 

[Makosuke]

Who is the non-HD plan for? Is someone out there rocking an SD CRT tv with a media streamer attached?

People who don't care or are more price-sensitive than quality-sensitive, of whom there are more than you'd think.

My mom has a 1080p TV, but I often find her with the SD version--a postage-stamped one at that, since it's showing up as letterboxed 4:3 on a 16:9 TV--of a channel that's also available on her cable plan in HD. She cares little enough that it's not even worth channel surfing to the HD version to her.

I'm quite certain my mom would get absolutely no added benefit from an HD Netflix plan versus an SD one, and she is not a unique market segment.

Even among the younger crowd with better eyesight, lots of people just watch video in a non-fullscreen window on a laptop, so they get absolutely nothing out of HD either.

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if people who get worked up about low-compression 1080p and 4K are a significant minority, in the same category of people who insist on uncompressed FLAC audio when the large majority of people are happy enough with 128K MP3s.

I have an annual Funimation subscription ($5 / month) and and annual Crunchyroll subscription ($5 / month) for my anime fix. You can watch Crunchroll for free but, I find it's worth paying just to get rid of the advertisements.

I occasionally watch stuff on Crunchyroll, but probably 90% of what's there is available on Hulu within a week or two, and my wife wouldn't get anything out of it, so I can't justify the added expense. Funimation I'm as likely to buy it on BD when there's a sale if the show is actually worth watching, since their prices are so low. Hulu is a nice compromise solution that has lots of anime as well as giving my wife US TV so we don't need to get cable. (Irony: I'm American and only watch anime, she's Japanese and only watches US TV.)

I've also been really disappointed with the quality and reliability of Crunchyroll's free streams (compared to Hulu's much smoother free service), so I'm skeptical that I'd be happy with the better resolution on the paid version.

 

[pat500000]

What's limited for some might be more than plenty for others.

What's limited is actually limited.

 

[C DM]

What's limited is actually limited.

And yet plenty of people find a lot of things of interest to watch. So while a generic statement is true, it doesn't mean that there can't be a lot for someone to be interested in.

 

[pat500000]

And yet plenty of people find a lot of things of interest to watch. So while a generic statement is true, it doesn't mean that there can't be a lot for someone to be interested in.

What's limited is limited. If you have one tasty apple, it's still one tasty apple.

 

[C DM]

What's limited is limited. If you have one tasty apple, it's still one tasty apple.

Except that's an apples vs oranges type of comparison: you have 1% of oranges that are out there, that 1% represents 483,201 of all oranges--seems like that's plenty for quite a while, even though it's still limited to just 1%.

 

[pat500000]

Except that's an apples vs oranges type of comparison: you have 1% of oranges that are out there, that 1% represents 483,201 of all oranges--seems like that's plenty for quite a while, even though it's still limited to just 1%.

I don't know how 1 apple turned out to be an orange when it's clearly an apple. One movie is one movie. If you say 1 movie equals to 1000 movies...well...I don't know how you did you calculation.

 

[C DM]

I don't know how 1 apple turned out to be an orange when it's clearly an apple. One movie is one movie. If you say 1 movie equals to 1000 movies...well...I don't know how you did you calculation.

So, you are trying to imply that Netflix has 1 movie?