Netflix hints at password sharing crackdown as subscribers fall | Hacker News Reader

Netflix hints at password sharing crackdown as subscribers fall

bbc.co.uk

54 pointsContrarianBrit126 comments

Open articleView on HN

They're losing subscribers, because of multiple reasons, most of which are their own fault:

- Subscription prices keep rising, and they were already very high.

- Libraries decreasing as they lose the licensing to other streaming services.

- Originals are hit and miss, mostly miss, and get cancelled constantly after 1 season.

- Crackdown on VPN and password sharing.

- COVID lockdowns are mostly over in Europe, US and Canada.

-Libraries outside the US are a fraction of the size of the US library, some legitimately have less than 10% of its content, while asking for the same amount of money.

- More competition than ever, and it's only growing.

Increasing the sub prices and cracking down further, isn't going to bring in more customers on an already diluted competitive market.

Also on the password sharing specifically.

We pay for 2 or 4 simultaneous streams on Netflix. It doesn't matter if I'm at home streaming, while someone 15min away from me is also streaming it on the same account. I paid you for the connections, you shouldn't tell me who can use them or from where.

> Originals are hit and miss, mostly miss, and get cancelled constantly after 1 season.

The latter thing is precisely what causes the most "misses". Hard to get invested even despite minor issues when you know it will get cancelled anyway. Also means no one will produce or buy merch aside from coffee mugs, further cutting into profits.

> Libraries outside the US are a fraction of the size of the US library, some legitimately have less than 10% of its content, while asking for the same amount of money.

I believe that only mandatory licensing laws will solve that issue. Particularly Disney... it's time someone finally steps in and either breaks them up or forces them to license their content to competitors. The level of control this company has over the most popular/profitable entertainment brands (MCU, Star Wars, Avatar) is just insane - they own everything from the core IP over studios to distribution, and I would not be surprised at all if they'll announce to buy up AMC and other regional cinema chains.

I wonder how many people on HN would be okay if the government forced open software to be licensed for use in a way that was contrary to the way that authors wanted?

Would regulation also set prices for how much license holders can charge? Should the latest Marvel movie be licensed for the same amount as an indy film?

We're already having precedence for enforced FRAND licensing with patents relevant for standards (particularly in the telephony, networking and codec world). It should not be too hard to adapt these as regulations for the media world, especially when anti-trust regulations come into play - and given how much control Big Mouse has, it's time to do so.

Alternatively, break up Big Mouse or force them to divest from certain assets to make sure there is room for healthy competition. Currently, Big Mouse can pump out massive amounts of work that drown out indy filmmakers - people only go to cinemas four, five times a year, and when all of that is reserved for the MCU and Harry Potter (which is about the only major franchise that Big Mouse does not yet own) and cinemas are forced to extend runs for their movies despite almost no audience left simply because Big Mouse demands it by threatening to cut off cinemas from future blockbusters, who is left to watch movies by other studios?

The government doesn’t “force” patents to be under FRAND. Companies “voluntarily” put their patents under FRAND to be included in standards.

There are plenty of successful indy film houses that have better ROIs than Disney and get widespread circulation. The two that come to mind are Blumhouse and Tyler Perry.

This isn’t the 50s. There are plenty of more profitable ways to distribute movies than the theatre - streaming, distributing via VOD, etc.

My local theatre always has at least three non mainstream foreign language films.

I would also add that competition by now has voice and subtitles in local languages for users outside of US, which is a huge + in case you have kids who want to watch some movies, shows or cartoons.

> Libraries outside the US are a fraction of the size of the US library, some legitimately have less than 10% of its content, while asking for the same amount of money.

What regions do you mean? In Eastern Europe I have popular shows like "The Office" and "Friends" in my Netflix, for example, that are not available to the US customers.

Add to that region locking.

As a consumer, it's immensely frustrating that a global service needs to maintain geofencing to satisfy the bazillion content contracts. This is an artificial scarcity.

Example: in the US, Better Call Saul season 1-5 is on NF. Season 6 is on NF in many countries, but NOT in the US -- presumably an embargo for AMC.

Splitting series across platforms is such a shitty, anti-consumer maneuver. It forces people to either hop services, in and out of contract, or just pirate and be done with it.

They have people lined up to pay for the product and they can't deliver it without hurt.

Region Locking isn't NF's fault. Different people own different seasons of shows, and some won't sell to NF.

What I understood, it is very often the rights to the music that makes it so fragmented.

I believe that's true of pre-2000 content. Modern produced content is better about bundling all the streaming rights into acquisition so it's less of an issue.

> This is an artificial scarcity.

This is a foolish truism.

(1) Intellectual property creates an intentional natural monopoly over the rights to sell that good. That's the whole point of a copyright. Thus, by design, they can make it as scarce as they want.

(2) Since the good is digital, the good is, by definition, non-rival in economic terms (i.e. consumption by one consumer does not prevent simultaneous consumption by other consumers).

Thus, ALL digital intellectual property is "artificially scarce" unless it is made totally freely available on the internet.

However, the entire point of a copyright is to enable the content creator to get maximum value for their product (obviously subject to competition with other products).

This is handled through distribution deals AND price discrimination. If Netflix had to make ALL content available EVERYWHERE for the monthly SAME PRICE, then most of the world would suffer. By being able to charge different amounts for different content, they are actually resulting in less dead-weight loss compared to normal monopolistic pricing (which again, the copyright grants a monopoly).

> Splitting series across platforms is such a shitty, anti-consumer maneuver

You could analogize this to "not releasing a movie for streaming at the same time as it is released in theaters is such a shitty, anti-consumer behavior". You aren't wrong that is true, ceteris paribus (i.e. with other conditions remaining the same). BUT you are ignoring that producer revenue effects of this simultaneous release. If a movie cannot force customers who have the highest demand to go to the theater first and pay a premium and then release it for home streaming, they would make substantially less money. That would (and is) totally devastating the film industry (currently) as they cannot afford to produce a big blockbuster.

James Cameron summed this up well when reflecting on if the Avatar sequels (which were green-lit before the pandemic) will end up making any money: "The big issue is: Are we going to make any damn money?" Cameron says of his planned sequels. "Big, expensive films have got to make a lot of money. We're in a new world post-COVID, post-streaming. Maybe those [box office] numbers will never be seen again. Who knows? It's all a big roll of the dice."[1]

Similarly, TV distribution follows a model of first-run distribution paying the highest price for the exclusive rights within a certain market.

I totally get (and agree) that it is incredibly frustrating to have this kind of system. The problem is that, by design, these copyrights are monopolies. And if you don't enable some kind of price discrimination when you have a monopoly, then the incentive of the monopolist is to charge the HIGHEST price / most exclusionary set up so that they can get the maximum profit, at the expense of substantial dead-weight loss. Using things like the time-value of money to separate your customers into a cohort that doesn't want to wait and will pay and one that is willing to wait for the content to come to streaming months later is quite effective.

So my question to you if -- how would solve this otherwise given the monopolistic nature of copyrights AND ensure we don't have a substantial decrease in available content? This question deserves serious attention by the entertainment industry. The music industry basically had piracy annihilate artist revenue from record sales 20 years ago and then they settled on a system that seems great to customers (i.e. virtually all music is available on any single streaming service) however it has created a situation where artists make virtually no material income from streaming and make most of their income from live concerts. That seems like a bad outcome for the artist. Basically their monopolistic rights to their copyright were shattered by a standardized pricing scheme for streaming.

The difference -- music is extremely cheap to make and can be made by the band themselves at home. Sure, plenty of video content for things like tiktok or youtube can be done that way as well. But movies and higher production value TV shows absolutely cannot. They require several hundred people to be paid wages for specialized roles to make.

[1] https://ew.com/movies/james-cameron-teases-avatar-sequel/

It's not artificial. Different regions have different licensing. You could find Big Bang Theory in other regions, for example, which is only on HBO here in the US. It's not like Netflix can just post it.

In this Q1, they lost 700k subscribers in Russia. Without that they would have had positive growth.

From shareholder letter PDF: https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2022/q1...

> The suspension of our service in Russia and winding-down of all Russian paid memberships resulted in a -0.7m impact on paid net adds; excluding this impact, paid net additions totaled +0.5m.

Yes, but they forecast growth of 2.5m and analysts were expecting 2.7m - 3.0m, so 200k is still a big miss, albeit only a single data point at this stage.

True, but it's an enormous miss. If they missed the projections by a few hundred thousand, there wouldn't be as much of a panic. But they only got 8%-11% of the subscriber growth they projected, depending on whether you account for the Russian business wind-down--that's not a trivial miss.

And as others have pointed out, part of the problem that companies like Netflix are going to encounter is the result of the long-running erosion of worker pay (while corporations have had years of record profits), coupled with sudden and rapidly rising inflation. This is going to cause a serious lack of available cash for households to spend on anything that isn't critical--like 37 different streaming services.

The first part, Netflix can't do anything about other than ensure that they pay their workers fairly. But streaming has been an area of increasing specialization, rather than service consolidation. And that causes problems for Netflix as they continue to lose portions of their catalogue to others like Disney, Hulu, Apple, etc., as they start their own services.

Users are either going to just cancel, or will start "service hopping" (where they pay for one service for a month, cancel/suspend that service, then go to another) to be able to watch the shows they want. And that will represent a significant revenue loss to the entire segment, and ultimately force contraction.

This is good list. I'd also call out the common complaints I see about the recommendations.

Further, it seems like there are a number of people unhappy with the homepage UI, which may be tangentially associated to recommendations. When the same things keep getting recommended in multiple categories for several months, it gives the impression the library is even smaller than it actually is.

Personally, in terms of UI, especially regarding player functionality, I would take Netflix over Hulu and HBO Max every time. But, I am slightly bitter about them replacing the 5 star rating system with a two star system and now a 3 star system.

The most annoying part of the UI for me, and netflix isnt alone in this, is that the last thing I was watching is not the most easily accessible content after i sign in. I have to scroll down through 2-3 categories to get to "continue watching" . . it's like something out of a comedy skit

Am I crazy, or should it be expected behavior that if I click nothing but "ok / enter" after opening the app that I should end up on the last thing I was watching?

Also it's always making noise or doing something and the only way to shut it up for a minute is to play something and pause it

You should really try Amazon Prime Video on Android TV; you'll learn to appreciate Netflix, a LOT at that... Netflix is definitely guilty of mishandling "continue watching" though, not even showing everything I've watched recently while insisting on keeping things I haven't touched for months easily accessible. The noise thing, I believe, has to do with your settings though, because the only thing I hear, other than what I'm watching, is the app opening sound with the NF logo.

> insisting on keeping things I haven't touched for months easily accessible

I think this highlights their entire UI goal design i think. They constantly pressure you to watch new things. They want to inflate their unique viewer counts on as many shows as possible. They want to hook you on something new before you finish what you're watching.

>The noise thing, I believe, has to do with your settings

makes sense, ill check it out. maybe there is a setting in there for continue watching priority too

How about it recommending shows/movies you’ve already watched? Or not allowing the auto-removal of items from your list after you’ve watched them?

Good point, the My List functionality is really annoying without the auto-removal. It's very cumbersome to remove items from the list on mobile so I end up with a list of mostly watched items with a sprinkling of things I may want to actually watch now. Not very useful.

There's some logic behind non-automatic removal: you get reminded about new seasons for things on your list. If you remove something and there's a new season, you will not be notified about it.

> Further, it seems like there are a number of people unhappy with the homepage UI,

One thing I really dislike about the homepage UI is where it plays videos (w/ audio at full volume) when you hover over things.

That autoplay thing actually sped me up on the homepage. I tried to find something to watch faster so random videos would stop screaming down my speakers. Now that I think about it, that might be the intended effect.

Bah. Better off without all that. I just download movies now, it's a lot easier (and cheaper too, judging by Netflix's current prices).

Yes! That’s really annoying. I’m pretty sure I watch Netflix less because of that “feature” -- browsing for new shows is just too stressful.

I haven’t unsubscribed yet, but if we wanted to downsize, Netflix would likely be the first to go.

> We pay for 2 or 4 simultaneous streams on Netflix

I was under the impression that you're paying for "household access", up to a limited number of simultaneous streams; where household means the people that live with you. Does the agreement wording you accept when you sign up say otherwise?

my household is in the metaverse, we share a common chatroom

Convert to Judaism and then your "private space" can be all of manhatten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

TIL there is a fishing line encircling all of manhatten that costs "between $125,000 and $150,000 a year to maintain"

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci...

Would agree. Heck Netflix is one of the few services I still have, and that is mostly because I let others use it. They even removed Star Trek:TNG (while i was mid binge) last month. That was the first time actually using the service in a while.

> They even removed Star Trek:TNG (while i was mid binge) last month.

Why isn't this phrased as "Paramount pulled ST:TNG (mid binge) last month to drive people to Paramount+"

If you want NF to retain ST, advocate people don't sign up for Paramount+. If it fails, they'll go back to licensing their content to everyone.

This is honestly the first time I'm hearing of Paramount+. Can't predict too much of a success for them if they already launched but with this little noise about it.

They've pushed it in the US. Maybe you're outside the US?

I started to write something explaining why I hear about them but since I want them to fail I don't want to advertise any good things they have.

Yep, I'm in Europe. Probably not available here even so that'd explain it!

>- Originals are hit and miss, mostly miss, and get cancelled constantly after 1 season.

This is the big one for me. TV people used to hit it big when their show got enough episodes (usually 100 i think) to go into syndication. Obviously with a global streaming service buying your show, that isn't possible. So to compensate and compete for shows Netflix gives show runners a guaranteed two seasons up front, with escalating payments for each season after that. Basically Netflix bakes rising cost for its shows in to the contracts.

Couple that with a practice of making decisions about shows based on early numbers (how many people watch the show in the first week, maybe two, of release) and we end up in the situation where, I'm pretty sure Netflix is cancelling shows a couple of weeks after release because the early numbers don't predict enough viewers to justify the expensive later seasons.

When streaming first started becoming a thing, I thought Netflix had the content business locked down. A streaming service can service the long tail. It doesn't need to worry about sweaps. It has repeat syndication built in. A show that has a slow burn would fit nicely because it will always be picking up new viewers as new people discover it, which is great for subscriber retention because people like finding new (to them) shows to watch.

But it seems like I thought the opposite of the people running Netflix. It weirds me out that Disney is the service with the best long tail catalogue. Disney have been doing this sort of thing for a long time and the difference is pretty clear.

I think the biggest reason they are losing subscribers is they have reached near 100% market penetration.

(1) There are 75 million Netflix subscribers in the US and Canada [1] (2) Netflix alleges that 30 million subscribers in the US and Canada are sharing their accounts with another household* [2] (3) There are 133 million households in the US and Canada [3], [4]

Thus, if those 30 million shared US/CA accounts are added to the 75 million current subscribers, you reach 105 million. That is almost 80% of all households. It is unrealistic to go beyond 90% of households. Thus, they NEED to stop password sharing to prevent cannibalization within the US.

* A note: that sharing isn't always with ANOTHER household. It could be multiple members of the same household.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250937/quarterly-number-... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/19/netflix-warns-password-shari... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+households+in+us&o... [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+households+in+cana...

Seems like they're introducing an ad-supported plan now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31090319

> -Libraries outside the US are a fraction of the size of the US library, some legitimately have less than 10% of its content, while asking for the same amount of money.

I already suspected this but I just checked and you're absolutely right. US Netflix is between 6000-7000 titles, while Israel Netflix is around 1000. And yet subscriptions cost even slightly more -- $19.99 for 4K vs ₪69.90 ($21.17).

It's almost entirely Netflix originals here, with some other network shows here and there, and a few cult favorite shows & movies. There's a few outliers in "stuff available here but not in US Netflix" like Friends but that's probably because there's no HBO Max here, I suspect they'll take Friends back once they launch.

For me, Netflix needs higher quality content.

More creative risky shows like the OA, Altered Carbon, Love, Death & Robots, Black Mirror and more old HBO style content… quality vs factory cookie cutter produced stuff trying to satisfy the lowest common denominator, because then you will satisfy no one.

Maybe they have good shows I just don't know about. Their recommendation system seems to be crap. I browse for 20 minutes and then give up frustrated, because I can't find anything interesting.

Today I was looking to downgrade my plan. Basic only gives you SD quality, which I'm OK with but only allowing one device at a time is taking the p!ss.

It's getting too expensive for what it is.

So rather than downgrading I'm now thinking about cancelling. If their Basic plan would support 2 concurrent devices then I'd stay.

Well done Netflix.

> Maybe they have good shows I just don't know about. Their recommendation system seems to be crap. I browse for 20 minutes and then give up frustrated, because I can't find anything interesting.

I have the exact same experience. I've been using Netflix for years and years so they should now know pretty darn well what I like. I wanted to start a new series but couldn't find anything that isn't basically junk rated. Next step I subscribed to Disney+.

If they continue to exercise their “creativity” like they did in Altered Carbon 2 and Witcher 2, they might as well not bother.

I’ve switched to HBO MAX at 6 euros / month. I am happy for now.

+1, some good stuff over there, all the HBO classics and new movies are available quite soon after release - watched the new Batman yesterday, about to rewatch The Wire. Also the new platform is really improved in terms of usability, it the old HBO GO service which HBO MAX replaced was really bad with buffering and "adaptive" quality which somehow was always 480p for me. Now it's crisp and nice.

Re: Altered Carbon. How come the first season was awesome and got me to read the books. The second season was so bad I stopped watching it after a few episodes.

And yes, I just checked and I had the Premium plan. Just downgraded to standard.

Indeed, well done netflix.

I'm assuming by 'Dark Mirror' you mean 'Black Mirror', and not 'Dark'? Well, Black Mirror was actually created by Charlie Brooker and his production company Endemol for Channel 4 in the UK and simply bought by Netflix once it was already a hit.

Part of the issue is that many of what Netflix calls "Originals" are the opposite of that and I think it can be confusing for viewers when you throw them into the same bucket as the actual Netflix productions such as The Crown, Stranger Things, Ozark, etc. These are the risky shows, because they had to go out on a limb to green-light them, whereas many of their other "Originals" are actually just acquired and existing successful franchises.

Ha, yes - thanks for the correction. Updated.

Good point. A lot of the best Netflix content is stuff they've bought from the UK that they rebrand as "Netflix Original" in the US.

Yeah, I see these rebrands in Netflix Israel too. Snowpiercer is a "Netflix Original" despite being a TNT show. Then there's "DC's Titans" (DC/HBO Max), "Crashing" & "Derry Girls" (Channel 4), "Champions" (NBC cancelled show), etc.

The OA was excellent series and it's a shame that they cancelled it after the second season. Indeed, Netflix could really benefit from releasing smarter shows.

It used to be that if you wanted to watch a movie, you opened up Netflix. Nowadays you can't find what you want to watch on there, so people go to the places that do; Amazon Prime allows you to watch pretty much any movie (although often at a rental fee, which is a different discussion altogether), and the Disney empire has bought up tons of movie publishers and is putting all of them onto their streaming platforms.

Netflix pivoted to producing their own content years ago, seeing the contracts they had for other parties' films not get extended because they were building their own platforms. It's been hit and miss, mostly miss, but I'm assuming there's something for everyone, enough to keep people subscribed. But it's all very formulaic; they make something for every genre (from Attenborough nature documentaries to Scandi crime drama, via stupid game shows to Indian musicals) and see what sticks.

The number of things I still watch on Netflix can be counted on one hand. We rarely sit down to have a browse too, so I wouldn't know their current not-netflix film offerings either.

There has never been a time that Netflix streaming had more than a sliver of popular movies. Especially since the original deal with STARZ was over.

That's a phenomenon I've noticed, too — people seem to be doing less doomscrolling on Netflix compared to when it was less ubiquitous.

Now they can just listen to the conversation at lunch at work, or the radio, and "know what to watch".

>It used to be that if you wanted to watch a movie, you opened up Netflix.

I don't recall Netflix ever having a good movie catalog for streaming. It's TV catalog used to be amazing though, but that was because they were essentially the only person paying for rerun rights to shows that weren't popular enough for syndication.

They used to have a “so bad it’s good” catalog. I remember watching abjectly terrible movies from Netflix in college with my roommates that were hilarious. Now the catalog is just bad.

> Netflix needs higher quality content.

They got cheap when it comes to both licensing others' stuff and producing their own. It look a while for it to catch up to them.

Maybe they looked at the utter crap that gets millions views on YouTube. The difference is that YouTube is free. Nobody pays for hours of some narcissistic asshole spewing political outrage porn, repetitive cheap animations, or someone lighting their balls on fire.

Occasionally there is really good content on YouTube. I've noticed that Amazon has been picking it up.

>Basic only gives you SD quality, which I'm OK with but only allowing one device at a time is taking the p!ss.

Really? There's only one of me but I've had 1080p+ TVs for something like 20 years now. SD is complete BS for any modern content.

I don't watch on big screen - mostly on a laptop or iPad, hence why I don't mind SD. I'm probably an edge case.

Providing it's encoded well I can't see much difference between 576p and a source 1080p bluray, but I don't imagine Netflix SD is using anywhere near enough bitrate to be comparable to that.

Streaming companies just can’t help themselves. There’s Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount+, Hulu, ESPN+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, and I think Peacock (for now?).

The industry self-own is hilarious. It’s easier to just pirate or rent than deal with this many random services.

And Netflix just keeps dumping out algorithmically generated focus grouped content. There is plenty of good content on Netflix but not enough to justify a monthly costs. Most of what I actually want to watch is spread out across a dozen different services.

And now Netflix wants to try and kill one of the last things that kept me as a customer. If I share the account I can stomach the costs. If I have to pay for the full account by myself, I’m canceling.

Perhaps Netflix should focus on partnerships and bundles. Ads, any ads at all, is an instant dealbreaker for me.

I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious. Presumably, these companies are taking this approach because they realized they stand to make more money by creating their own streaming service and leveraging their catalogs than outsourcing them.

Those that stay in business are presumably making quite a lot of money. The only people getting "owned" here are consumers.

As you pointed out, consumers will feel the brunt at first, but when there's another economic event that tighten everyone's wallet, then some of those consumers, little-by-little, will return to piracy permanently, unless there's a single service to go to (basically music streaming now).

It's clever too. There are some more tech-minded and risk-aware folk who can turn to copyright infringement via torrents, but those are a negligible minority. The days of widespread 'piracy' practices by every next household are long gone. There are some who can manage cleverly hopping from subscription to subscription to get varying content (three months Netflix, then three months Disney+, etc.), but those too are too few for the streaming companies to care about.

For now the bulk of their customers will pick one or more services, and subscribe for longer periods (years often). And unlike cable, people don't pay a huge lump sum each month, but an increasing number of small-ish fees each small enough not to be too critically evaluated by subscribers when reviewing their home finances. It will probably stay like this for quite a while.

A shame. I really would have liked a way to fairly pay for any content at all via a single subscription.

Pretty much describes me. I get a handful of services. It's more content than I remotely have time to watch. I can't really be bothered spending more or chasing down torrents for some other random show; it's just not really something I care enough about. Would a single streaming service be better? Probably. But I wouldn't pay a premium for it. After all, I dropped cable entirely and while I'd like real-time TV now and then, that like isn't enough for me to pay for it.

I'm not sure I agree on the piracy front. Everyone I know who's young enough to have been college aged since about 1998, knows exactly how and where to turn. This is an age bracket running into early-40s now.

I think what's stopped more and more people from piracy has been all-you-can-eat subscriptions. Not that they can't, or won't, but that spotify + netflix took care of a huge portion of consumption.

From this perspective, taking more and more things off the menu has a huge potential to turn the tide. This show's only on Disney, that show's only on HBO - and HBO isn't available here. This season's on netflix but next season's on prime ..

>I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious.

It's hilarious because it's a retreat to the model we had before Netflix disrupted television with streaming. Now we're back to disparate channels and bundles.

And it's a self-own because consumers don't want this, and will take the path of least resistance. There is no reality where consumers will pay for a dozen streaming services. Pirating will pick up again and then someone will come along to try and consolidate or disrupt and the cycle will continue.

I imagine pirating is going to see a massive resurgence in the next 3 years.

The software around pirating has gotten so good, it's nearly as good as apps like Netflix & HBO Max now.

You also have some seedbox services that locally cache frequently downloaded torrents on a file level, so if you "download" them to your box/account, they just instantly appear. Essentially a Netflix-style service powered by piracy.

This seems quite risky. Legally, how does this work??

In The Netherlands & Spain, you're allowed to pirate for personal use. But it is still illegal to DISTRIBUTE copyrighted work.

I'm curious how companies doing this don't get sued into oblivion. That seems like a clear breach of the law, and it's for profit.

I am thinking that when there are so many streaming services, maybe subscription is the wrong model? Maybe an on-demand plan like $0.50/hour (can also vary by content) would be better for customers?

And their obsession with "streaming exclusivity" means they launch in maybe 8 countries around the world and refuse to sell broadcast rights to the rest. Only way I could watch The Flight Attendant (HBO Max) a year ago was pirate it.

> The streaming giant estimates more than 100 million households are breaking its rules by sharing passwords.

Someone elsewhere rephrased this as

"Netflix estimates that 100 million households don't think Netflix is worth its price."

which I think is very apt.

It's not clear your logic actually follows, presumably some fraction of those 100M would pay if sharing passwords wasn't an option.

But how many people will stop paying because they only keep it for their parents, partners, or friends? This could easily result in less subscribers.

If Netflix were so sure about the benefits of blocking password sharing, they could've done this years ago. Arguably many people subscribe to the comparatively very expensive UHD plan because they can share passwords with up to 3 people.

It could, but I think at this point they'd rather have 10 million more subscribers than 100 million account sharing customers.

It will result in less subscribers, at least this subscriber will cancel.

I imagine you're probably right but I don't think it'll be the case for me. I upgraded because my parents and in-laws were using it on occation so I needed more concurrent streams on my package. If they crack down, I'll downgrade immediately and I doubt my parents and in-laws would want to start paying for it, they only use it on rare occasations it just so happens that tended to cross over with me and my wife who are heavy users.

I think they'd probably get a net loss from me and my family if they cracked down.

They have more competitors than ever before.

They raised prices.

They planned to crackdown on their subs.

They do crackdown on vpns.

They haven't made the 'black ukrainian falling in love with trans russian soldier' movie yet.

Netflix is going to lose a ton more subs until they make that movie.

Hahah

That movie would be a hit!

They put the UK prices up on a family account up from £12 to £14 in March 2021, and now again to £16, from next month. I.e. 30% over 14 months.

In the interim content I appreciate has got ever scarcer - when it comes to that, I'm willing to be patient, a little, on account of Covid-caused production delays - but coupled with incredible price rises and complications for other users on this account? And everlasting UI headaches (having to hunt for something just to resume watching it; difficulty hiding recommendations I don't appreciate)? Forget it.

Don't complain in Switzerland we have the most expensive price (24.9CHF or about 26.7$) and we have the smallest catalog and no local content...

Still we pay bottom "yearly cost in relation to GDP per Capita"

Source

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/countries-netfl...

Um… I pay for screens. As long as my account is within that screen limit it shouldn’t matter who is using it.

Exactly!

This has been talked about for a while now, and I've never seen an explanation of what 'the rules' actually are - it's implied that it's supposed to be per 'household' (but obviously travelling is allowed) but then it says some of this is 'legitimate' being between 'family members'; so two related households are fine?

Honestly, it should just be that it's limited to people you're comfortable sharing the password with (total control of the account!) and the number of screens on your plan, as it is. I used to share with family and upgraded the plan when we used it more and found two concurrent streams wasn't enough.

You really pay for nothing.

They could remove all the content you are interested in overnight and you'd have absolutely no recourse other than stop paying next month.

One of the things that goes unmentioned in these articles is the absolutely horrible UX in the app--why does every movie I consider have to start playing at 110dB as soon as I browse to it? I have to steel myself to open the AppleTV app (or mute my TV) to browse through their collection. Then there's the horrid algorithmically-generated posters for each movie...

Netflix UX is not perfect but it’s probably the best in the business

Yeah, I thought browsing / discoverability on Netflix was terrible until I tried to use Apple TV+; just like I thought the UI on Apple's Music app was terrible until I tried to use Spotify. Why do modern media companies seem to try to compete for the interface which makes it hardest to find and consume their media?

It's unbelievably terrible. But the default behavior can be changed.

https://techwiser.com/how-to-turn-off-autoplay-on-netflix/

I wouldn't be surprised if more people are starting to rotate between streaming services. All of my favorite content that used to be on Netflix is now split between several services (Netflix, Hulu, Peacock, Disney+). At one point I paid for all of them, but I found myself only having the time to use 1-2 per month. Some I wouldn't touch for months but was still paying for.

Now I pay for 2 services/month, watch something new, and then the next month rotate my subs to something else.

Keeps the content fresh and price down.

They're simply too expensive for what you get unless you have 10 hours a day to watch TV/movies and you like everything on the platform. I was tired of throwing away money.

Inevitably that will lead to cable style 24 month contracts.

Logically, yes. But I don't see that ever working again. At most they may offer "discounts" for people that lock into long term commitments (ie prepay for a year for small discount, like what many SaaS companies already do), but no consumer is ever going to put up with that type of contract again.

If they try it, I'm gone.

It will be interesting to watch Netflix pivot from a media company to an ad tech company. Maybe Netflix will do a documentary on it.

Honestly, I share with my Mom but she would never pay for her own account anyway. I don't use Netflix much myself so I'd probably cancel if my mom can't use it.

It sounds like you might as well just gift your mother a subscription and not use one yourself.

Covered directly or indirectly in these articles in the past 24 hours:

Netflix loses subscribers for the first time in 10+ years (cnbc.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088353 - 218 points - 16 hours ago – 333 comments

Netflix Officially Adding Commercials (popculture.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31092126 - 54 points - 10 hours ago - 50 comments

Netflix shares drop 26% after it loses 200K subscribers (apnews.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31089802 - 44 points - 14 hours ago - 25 comments

Sounds like a great way to reduce subscribers even quicker!

Yeah, I'm getting "the whippings will continue until morale improves" vibes from this.

They probably have better data on why they are losing subscribers than I do, and presumably they can see things like an IP address used by one subscription, then that subscription being cancelled, then the same IP address being used by a different subscription. But …

I have subscribed to Netflix for nearly twenty years, since it was a DVD delivery service, and I am very close to cancelling my subscription because they simply don't deliver good content. The presence of the red N in the corner of a video is a signal that the show or movie is probably garbage, and almost everything has that red N; the stuff that doesn't is typically middle- or lowbrow filler content.

Now, part of that is not Netflix's fault: there is a paucity of stuff worth watching in 2022 compared to decades past. There is no Parks & Rec, no Office, no Castle, no Monk, no Psych, no Bones, no light-hearted, innocent fun. At least, none that I have seen. For Pete's sake, we live in an era which managed to ruin Star Wars!

Still, their Netflix original content could be much better than it is; it is still for the most part bargain-basement stuff. Why subscribe to Netflix when I can read a book instead?

Light hearted fun: Upload (Amazon), Space Force (Netflix), Mr. Mayor (NBC). All involve Parks and Rec, Office and 30 Rock creators.

Losing subscribers? How about we crack down on users and raise prices!

Genius

Netflix streaming has such absolute garbage movie selection compared to Netflix DVD service, Amazon Prime Video, and Youtube.

I don't understand why that is.

With all their wealth they should be able to at least compete on movie selection with the other major streaming services. But instead they are many times worse.

Because the owners of those movies now have their own streaming services. Netflix can't stream what they don't own or are able to license.

Amazon now owns MGM so that means over time the majority of MGM movies will only be on Prime.

What about FOX, Universal Studios, and all the other studios out there?

MGM is just one of many.

It also doesn't explain why YouTube has a magnificent movie selection compared to NetFlix streaming. If your theory was correct then Amazon would be the only one with a great selection, but it's not.

NetFlix's DVD service is also fantastic. It's just their streaming service which sucks.

Fox is Disney. Universal is Peacock. My only opinion on YouTube having a great selection would be they have Google money and / or they aren't counted as competition just yet.

I'm sure they'll hint at it but if they're doing it then they're truly desperate. Certainly they know better than most that people willing to tolerate sharing an account aren't going to pay for a subscription when they get kicked off.

yep can confirm. Not gonna pay 15 bucks/mo or whatever, and most of my "household" isn't gonna either ;)

This isn't going to result in a huge increase in Netflix subscribers. The reason that people share passwords is because somebody wants access but doesn't want to pay. Eliminate the password sharing is a reasonable business action from Netflix so that they are not providing additional infrastructure demands to support non-paying customers. But I would suspect that only 10-20% of those people sharing passwords will result in new subscriptions if they find ways to accurately block them. The rest will just abandon the platform, because it was never something that they were willing to pay for in the first place.

Amongst the streaming services I use which is a couple, Netflix has objectively the lowest quality content apart from a few they really put effort into for ex Seinfeld

Just not sure if its worth it if it wasn't shared a bit

Recent subscription price increase with no noticeable increase in content quality or availability, I am in Denmark, makes me reconsider my netflix subscription. Although I do need to watch Better Call Saul so they have me for that long.

Probably not related to password sharing at all and I do not think it is likely to increase subscriptions.

I will probably never pirate again, but I am considering getting out of streaming services and just put the money towards patreons of internet creators I like instead.

Netflix hints at .. fall

The moment this touches my subscriber experience I am resigning. I currently buy the 2 screen subscription and live in 2 places in the world. The convenience of not having to manage my media is what makes Netflix worth it. As soon as it won't, it isn't.

Too many cancelled shows. How many netflix shows makes it past 3 seasons or lucky enough to conclude definitively in recent years? Maybe try adopting 16 episode mini-series format like Korean TV. Incidentally the one segment my friends hold onto Netflix for.

Already downgraded my Netflix account this year because the quality and selection has fallen off a cliff. Next step will be to cancel it outright. It's becoming increasingly clear which direction Netflix is headed and it's not a good one.

I share a Netflix account with 3 other people.

We’re on the biggest plan. Would not even consider subscribing if I had to pay it alone.

Sharing keeps me subscribed. Often I don’t watch something on Netflix for weeks - but cause I only pay 1/4 I don’t mind.

Same; we're only holding out for some upcoming seasons of shows we follow (I think Stranger Things is a subscription seller for them, for example), the rest... I only hold onto the account because my parents have it on their TV and ipads and make frequent use of it, and a friend makes occasional use of it as well.

Meanwhile, we use someone else's Amazon Prime and Disney+ account. I think Amazon already cracked down on things a bit because most content just says it's not available in my region (while still offering it for rent). Disney+ isn't being difficult yet because they know they have a good chance of becoming the biggest streaming platform.

Given how Netflix' stock price took a hit, I wouldn't be surprised if they get bought up by Disney in a few years.

Would be nice if Netflix had an easy way to migrate profiles between accounts. People move and situations change. Some might consider a new account if it were possible to migrate a profile.

Netflix is testing the extra family member at 2$ more per month over here in Peru and they do have a feature to migrate a profile to a new account.

The decisions these execs are making are clearly idiotic, even to the layman.

They are trying to extract maximum shareholder value, when they really need to leave their magic money making machine alone.

It's the equivalent of a politician blaming the press when things go south. Maybe stop wasting the military budget of a medium-sized country on poorly-curated content.

the content really has gotten pitiful; I use netflix, hulu, hbomax and amazon prime (and honestly mostly watch free content on youtube) - netflix is my last choice when trying to find something to watch - and yes, I share the account with my adult children.

If they crack down on sharing, count me in as another lost subscriber - seems they are biting the hands that feeds them with this move - reeks of desperation.

With our family we use Netflix > Disney+ > Prime Video > Apple TV.

(I dont have a Taiwan CC for HBO, and Hulu isn't available outside of the US)

They A/B test everything so if they do this (highly doubt they will) it likely works

Also hinted at ad supported tier. Probably roll those out together

Then get acquired within a decade.

all the subscription-based and Saas ecosystem about to crumble as inflation around the world demands that people cut back on spending. We shoudn't have let google+fb steal the entire advertising pie for themselves

Anyone else tired of the greedy cash grabs? If they haven't figured out a sustainable model to run their business without punishing the consumer of media, I no longer want to be their end product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com