Slashdot Mirror


Netflix To Lose 1 Million Subscribers

tekgoblin writes "In light of the recent price increase at Netflix, it made quite a few subscribers mad. Netflix expects to lose around 1 million total subscribers in the short term after the price changes (which split off separate subscription plans for streaming video and DVD rentals). On top of the price increase, Netflix will lose their contract with Starz in February, which will cost them around 1,000 total streaming titles from their collection."

56 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. What do they expect? by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well really, what the heck did they expect? The e-mail they sent out about splitting up the streaming and dvd mailing services was ridiculously patronizing.

    I mean, I would have been a lot more okay with things if they'd just been straightforward and said "look, the people we get our content from are raising the prices on us, we need to charge you more to cover it". That's fine, that I can understand.

    Instead, those assholes decided to pitch it as some sort of super awesome deal, where instead of being forced to pay for streaming and dvd mailing together, you're now paying for them separately! It's great! So much better than the old deal! And you, the consumer, are such an idiot that you're not even going to notice that the price of your plan increased significantly, doubling in some cases! (if you're like me and you were on the 1 dvd + streaming plan).

    Do they not have any sort of market demographics at all? Do they have no idea the kinds of people that subscribe to their service? We're more likely to be early adopters, for goodness' sakes; we're not going to appreciate being talked down to like we're children who can't do math.

    And look, I do appreciate Netflix - as convenient as Redbox is, it doesn't quite have the selection. It's just, reading that goddamn e-mail about the new plans left such a bad taste in my mouth I couldn't stand giving them money any more.

    1. Re:What do they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought they did pitch a super awesome deal.

      I had been paying $16 a month for a couple DVDs and streaming, but I never really streamed much content. I would if I was bored and had nothing else to do but overall the streaming selection was too thin. After the announcement I moved to DVD only and now pay $12. I like having the option of de-coupling the streaming, especially in light of the impending price increase for streaming (via the studios).

    2. Re:What do they expect? by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      The only negative to Prime (I have a free one year shipping only student Prime account) is that there's no app on PS3 for watching Amazon videos. They have Netflix, Veo, Hulu Plus, but no Amazon.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:What do they expect? by Githaron · · Score: 2

      I did the reverse. I dropped the DVD plan. I never got around to mailing the things out and I don't want to have to guess what I will be in the mood for a few days ahead of time. I just wish they do a selection overhaul. They are running our of stuff that I am interested in watching. I would actually be willing to pay between $30 and $50 dollars a month but they would have to start releasing everything within a few months of it coming to DVD and never get rid of the content that they add. I would also want TV episodes to be added within a week of their original air dates. I haven't watch TV on TV in ages.

  2. Linux client by utkonos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps if they had a client for linux, there would be some amount of offset due to incoming subscribers. If there were a player, I would be fine with paying their new price for service on linux. The only computers I have run either linux or FreeBSD, so there are no options for netflix for me at the moment.

    1. Re:Linux client by grommit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Haha, no they wouldn't. A good portion of Linux users would bitch about how the client isn't completely open source. Netflix may get a couple thousand extra subscribers if they made a linux client but nowhere near enough to cover the 1 million they are estimated to lose due to the price increase.

    2. Re:Linux client by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only computers I have run either linux or FreeBSD, so there are no options for netflix for me at the moment.

      I take it you don't own a television then, right? Because a Roku is dirt cheap and simple to operate (and linux based ftw). Plus with all the private channels it's really handy.

      If the Linux-owning crowd is small, the linux-owning crowd that doesn't have a TV has to be even smaller. That's not to say it's invalid, just that here might be more Amiga users still around.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Linux client by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah. For Apple.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but Netflix probably is looking at all those HTML5-only iThings and thinking it could make a tidy profit from them.

      Linux, not so much.

    4. Re:Linux client by icebraining · · Score: 2

      No, for Linux.

      (Yes, I know ChromeOS is a specific distro, but it's a chrome plugin as a Linux .so library, so the chances it'll run on other distros are pretty high)

    5. Re:Linux client by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I'll bet you a dollar that it won't run without special [DRM] hardware.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. I was one by DogDude · · Score: 2

    I dropped the streaming service. The selection is so bad, it's really not worth even $8 a month to me. I'd gladly pay significantly more if the selection was significantly better. I hope they can get their licensing issues worked out!

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  4. Re:WHAT??!?! by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I ditched them for Blockbuster and I'm happy with the service. I'm paying a bit more because I hadn't been getting Blurays, but for the money I'm getting Blurays and games as well. Seems to take the same amount of time to return discs as I was with Netflix.

    I have to admit that I get a lot of satisfaction out of their share price dropping by fully half since they announced the price hike. It's amazing to me that they thought that they could make that comment about it being the price of a couple lattes during a period where there's a lot of people who are really hurting for work. Especially without even bothering to roll out anything new to justify the price hike.

    Worse still was the comment later that it wasn't to pay increased licensing demands.

  5. Re:Link bait? by hedwards · · Score: 2

    The problem is that Netflix was the leader in the industry and had mostly run the competition out of business. This particular misstep was ill timed as Blockbuster isn't yet out of business and there are several other providers of streaming media that are needing customers to get started.

    Driving a million customers into the hands of the competition at this stage is really bad for them. OTOH, it's really good for the consumers as there are still other options available.

  6. Pricing games and post cancel charges oh my! by teambpsi · · Score: 4, Informative

    I tried changing my bank account info and when I called to ask them to reverse a pending charge on the wrong/old account I was told that I would have to close/cancel my service with them, and then restart service at a new higher rate!

    So I cancelled. Completely.

    Now I have to play the "contest the charge on the credit card game" even though I cancelled on the 9th the charge still showed up on the 11th.

    You'd think they would be doing anything to just maintain their current customers, but evidently not.

    Say hello to RedBox !

    --

    Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
    1. Re:Pricing games and post cancel charges oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now I have to play the "contest the charge on the credit card game" even though I cancelled on the 9th the charge still showed up on the 11th.

      What game? If your credit card company doesn't immediately say, 'yes sir, we'll remove the charge and block these guys from charging you again' and then deal with netflix directly from that point on if netflix complains, you need to get a non-crappy credit card.

      Credit cards side with the customer ALWAYS. Sometimes unfairly so for the merchants, but that's still better than the alternative.

  7. Re:Link bait? by morari · · Score: 2

    That's me. I dumped the streaming service. I very, very, very rarely used it to begin with. It was bad enough when they [i]raised[/i] my price the first time in order to cover other people streaming all of the content they wanted. Now I only pay for the number of discs I want, and it's about the same price I was paying years ago.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  8. Re:WHAT??!?! by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Streaming library does suck, but it isnt like Starz was putting out the latest in greatest. In fact they have not updated in a while.

    Out of 1,000 movies, a good 70% of them are old black and whites, or westerns, crap I could care less about. Another 20% is kids movies, and out of the left over 10%, well... I watched all the good ones I wanted to.
    But I do watch some of the series they have on there... Firefly (rewatch that alot), Scrubs (rewatch), Star Trek series (Watching Enterprise now), Law&Order CI (watching), etc.

    That makes it kinda worth it. They have a few more months before I decide to drop them.

  9. What kind of future can Netflix streaming have? by HumanEmulator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's tough to be the middleman... Netflix stands between the consumers and the content providers, but streaming video is rapidly becoming a commodity, so no doubt the content providers will get greedy and decide they want to own the whole thing end to end. I'm sure they'll ignore the amazing feat Netflix has accomplished (namely getting people to pay for streaming content online) and attempt to set up their own sites with onerous terms (pay-per-view with 24 hours to start) and high monthly rates, then be all surprised when no one signs up and start claiming piracy is destroying their business.

  10. Re:Link bait? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    I wonder how many of the people who stayed just picked a cheaper subscription option that didn't include streaming?

    1) Bait 2) Switch 3) ??? 4) Profit!

    I went streaming only; the physical media via mail doesn't really appeal to me anyway.

  11. It makes a lot of sense by Atmchicago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they lose customers, but get more money per customer, it can work to Netflix's advantage big time. Their costs are mostly on bandwidth, and if they lose 1 million customers, that's 1 million fewer people to feed data to. That amounts to major cost cutting, so even if revenues drop a little but are offset by lower costs then they win.

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:It makes a lot of sense by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Netflix does not have competitors.

      All the cable company and sat company offerings are super expensive. In so many cases you are literally paying over a $100 per month for a package and plan that allows you the privilege of spending even more ridiculous amounts renting movies for 24-48 hours.

      The aforementioned bullshit takes the crown, but then there are their competitors which provide you with the illusion of ownership with DRM'd systems. Blockbuster is a competitor physically and now with streaming as well. However, their pricing plans are hysterical. Same offer to "own" a DVD for $15-$30. Streaming "Rentals" are in many cases more costly than it ever was to rent them physically.

      Amazon is basically Block Buster's Bullshit Online(tm). Renting a TV Show for $2? Really? Same thing with the movie rentals. Unlimited Amazon Prime has nothing really good for selection. Netflix beats them hands down in that department. If you want commercial free current TV show episodes, sure you're fine. I kind of find it hard to be a competitor though if you are spending over $100 per month on show rentals because you are really into several weekly show. Prime is just being pronounced with the "bs" silent.

      Redbox is convenient, but it is like the radio. Only the best (paid) get played and you have limited options. They also make their money on you forgetting to return it, which is why they are priced well at a $1. Seriously, if you are lazy, overworked and tired you would probably think, "Fuck it. It's a $1. I spend more at Del Taco everyday". They are coming out with streaming, but Netflix is pretty fast. Not to mention queued. It's hard to call Redbox a real competitor right now. Closest too it, certainly.

      The rest are a bunch of websites like Hulu who deliver advertising laden worthless crap that often force you to install so much DRM infrastructure in your computer, calling it "your" computer is like a farcical play where you are the king of the idiots, but don't know it.

      Nevertheless, Netlfix is going to die. Precisely, because it has no competitors at this point.

      All the market share that Netflix has destroyed, and revenue grabbed, in the cable and sat networks, which affected the content producers as well, and the advertisers which are none to happy right now, did not earn Netflix any friends. When you can't tell a cable TV network from a content provider you are really fucked on Netflix's flip side which is eating the fuck out the bandwidth everywhere for free, and those are pretty much the exact words from the executives. Seriously, ISPs just love it when they are overselling by 50-100x and you cause them to actually have to start delivering on promises. It's like a run on the banks and they don't have the cash on hand. They have been messing with ISP and backbone provider profits for quite some time.

      Big Content is not happy. They could not forsee Netflix becoming what it is, and they were in their experimental phase with licensing for streaming. They have realized they have to do so period. Much like movie companies realized they have to distribute R5 releases to Russia almost right after the movie hits theaters to compete with the pirates. So they became more cooperative figuring they were going to at least make some money, rather than no money. Plus, who knows how this will work out.

      Nobody on the content side wants Netflix to continue on the streaming. DVD is a different story entirely, as most people can only rent a certain amount of DVDs each month which allows for a regular profit. Unlimited streaming is the opposite, as Netflix will never pay what they can get from Blockbuster, Amazon, or Hulu. Cable and Sat markets are the super premium bonuses.

      Price goes up? Who gives a shit. Not by much. Still the best bang for your buck short of out and out piracy. Nobody talks about their TV and Movie selection right now. Pretty extensive and unlimited.

      When Netflix stops having s

    2. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Helios1182 · · Score: 2

      eating the fuck out the bandwidth everywhere for free, and those are pretty much the exact words from the executives.

      Free bandwidth? Netflix is paying for hosting and bandwidth. The customers are paying their ISP for bandwidth. It is being paid for on both sides.

  12. Netflix won't let me re-up my stash by organum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've tried repeatedly to restart my subscription, since the DVD-only option is very appealing. But they don't even offer it. (No lie.) I don't see streaming as a viable option for many years, so it's back to the public library for me.

    1. Re:Netflix won't let me re-up my stash by organum · · Score: 2

      They didn't seem to need me to call when I signed up in the first place. An offered option shouldn't be hidden or require negotiating a maze of circuitous channels. What a bunch of knuckleheads!

  13. Re:WHAT??!?! by KingMotley · · Score: 2

    Odd because my plan dropped significantly, enough that I switched to the 5 out at a time plan, which BB doesn't even offer. How the blockbuster streaming working for you btw?

  14. Re:Link bait? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2
    I dropped the DVD portion as I'm usually too busy trolling slashd... developing FREE software, so the DVD tends to sit around for a week or two before I get to it. $2 for 3-4 movies a month is fine, $8, no thanks.

    I'm not impressed with the streaming movies, but the documentary/history selection keeps me entertained.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  15. Re:WHAT??!?! by artor3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure they didn't want to hike their prices. But the studios that provide the movies and TV shows demanded huge (like, order of magnitude) increases in their cuts. Netflix had a choice: close up shop, or raise prices. In the end, they may go under either way. That is the studios' goal, after all. They want to control distribution.

  16. Re:WHAT??!?! by hmckee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Also went to Blockbuster. We only use Blu-Ray and DVDs (no games or streaming). Netflix took so long to send us new releases (spent 2-3 weeks in the "Long Wait" queue) that my wife would usually rent from BB. We have a BB store within 10 minutes and now that they've gone to unlimited envelope exchanges in store, we are MUCH happier than we ever were with Netflix. Plus, BB gets new releases a week or two before Netflix.

  17. Article and summary imply incorrectly by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

    Netflix is not saying that they will be losing 1M of their existing customers. Rather, they're altering their guidance for the next quarter by 1M subscribers, which is an important distinction, since it more or less halves the impact from what most people here seem to be thinking. Previously, they had been expecting a decent growth of 400K in the upcoming quarter, but now they are projecting a net loss of 600K in the quarter, hence the 1M number. Yes, it's bad, but it's not as bad as losing 1M of your current customers in addition to however many potential customers you'd lose as well.

    The article and most of the other blogs are glossing over this detail, but numbers are always important.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-20110916,0,5009354.story

  18. Re:1000 good titles lost... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    Remember that Starz is really just a middleman, not a content creator, and that the content they have can be purchased directly from the owners, very likely for cheaper than what Starz wanted to charge Netflix for the upcoming year. Starz' content is definitely good, but there are already rumors that Netflix is inking deals with several of the content owners that provide content to Starz. The actual impact on the Netflix catalog could be negligible still, despite how it sounds now.

  19. Let's do some math by Rinisari · · Score: 2

    Let's assume 25M subscribers at the standard DVD + Streaming plan, which I believe was $11/mo. We can chop off a few zeros and still get the same effect, so let's do that and keep our math simple.

    25 * 11 = 275

    I think the cheapest is now $16 for both, so let's figure out what they'd be making if everyone who stayed kept the same plan at the higher rate.

    24 * 16 = 384

    Let's derive a quick formula.

    (24 - x) * 16 + x * 8, where x is the number of people who choose DVD /or/ streaming.

    24 * 16 = 384 = (24 - 0) * 16 + 0 * 8

    Now, let's solve for 275, to assume they'd be making the same amount.

    275 = (24 - x) * 16 + x * 8

    I put this into my handy equation solver because I'm too lazy to work it out in my head and can't find paper/pen...

    x = 109/8, or 13.625.

    Netflix could go down to 10.375M users of the DVD+streaming, and have 13.625M users of one or the other and still make the same amount of money.

    Methinks Netflix did their math beforehand. They're going to be making bank, and savvy shareholders are buying now on this dip on bad news. Happens every time. Netflix is here to stay, for as long as the content owners will allow it to exist.

  20. Re:1000 good titles lost... by Anarchduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could just do what millions already know. To get true HD quality with total portability. AND

    an unmatched selection of titles ....

    Including the newest titles anywhere...

    use BITTORRENT !!!

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  21. Re:WHAT??!?! by hedwards · · Score: 2

    Netflix doesn't have a streaming plan. At least not one that can accurately be called one. I rarely if ever used it as the selection was so poor. It was overpriced at $2 a month and it's even more overpriced at $8. For that I can get hulu or rent a couple movies online from Blockbuster.

  22. Not a SINGLE shift in streaming+dvd customers? by Nalez · · Score: 2

    I find it quite interesting in the netflix prediction:
    Prior to model change:
    Streaming only: 10,0m customers
    Streaming+DVD: 12.0m customers
    DVD Only: 3.0m customers

    Post-implementation of the new pricing model, Netflix expects the customer base break-out to be:
    Streaming only: 9.8m customers
    Streaming+DVD: 12.0m customers
    DVD only: 2.2m customers

    So let me get this straight - the price for streaming+dvd is at least doubling - and Netflix is not expecting that customer count to go down at all. Instead, they are expecting a net loss on the two plans they are creating to make things better - instead of a net loss on on the plan that is going up 100% for many customers.

    1. Re:Not a SINGLE shift in streaming+dvd customers? by thebrieze · · Score: 2

      This is not "before price change" vs "after price change".. This is "earlier projections for after price change" vs "new reality based projections for after price change" An important distinction because we do not know the break down of numbers before the price change announcement. Also for everyone running the math assuming everyone was on the $11 option, there were a very large number of early subscribers who were on netflixes $20 3 DVD (or 2 DVD with Blu Ray) plans who decided DVD's were just not worth it, and decided to downgrade to the $8 plan. It would be interesting to compare the average revenue per customer is before and after the announcement.

  23. After I cancelled with Netflix by mykos · · Score: 3, Funny

    I switched to their competitor who has more content and better prices!

    1. Re:After I cancelled with Netflix by Legion303 · · Score: 2

      Your sarcasm detector is broken.

  24. Re:Link bait? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    We also went streaming only. If Netflix doesn't have something I want to see, I can usually find it on a different service like Vudu.

    I'm wondering if 1 million lost customers might ultimately help Netflix when negotiating for streaming rights. The copyright owners have an unrealistic (IMHO) idea of what their movies are worth and now Netflix has hard data to show that a significant number of customers will not pay more.

  25. May have caused revenue to go up. by pavon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Netflix did better than I thought they would. They only lost 4% of their subscribers over this, and it looks like their revenue is going to go up. Pretending that everyone was on the cheapest plan, they used to have 25 million subscribers paying $10 a month for $250 million/month. Now they have 21.8 million paying for streaming and another 14.2 million paying for DVD, each at $8 a month for a total of $288 million/month. Since the price of the larger plans didn't change as much as the cheapest one, I think it is safe to say that they will be making more money when this is done than they did before.

    Suppose they had given a $2 discount for people on both plans, like I thought they should. They would have increased revenue further by doing that if everyone stayed, and 2.6 million more people decided to go with both plans, or alternately if the same number left but 4 million decided to have both plans. Of course, that doesn't consider increased costs of both plans.

    1. Re:May have caused revenue to go up. by OnionFighter · · Score: 2

      This is a great point. They can actually make more money off of the fewer customers. What they should actually be worried about is the perception of the loss and the apparent stock decrease it is causing.

      Still, I think they could have managed this a lot better. I'm one of the people who canceled.

    2. Re:May have caused revenue to go up. by pavon · · Score: 2

      You are making a poor assumption. Not everyone is going to automatically subscribe to both.

      I'm not making that assumption. RTFA, it says exactly how many people opted to subscribe to both vs just one or the other.

  26. Re:This is the problem of being pioneers on someth by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    No kidding. That email was a spin-fest from the beginning and the executive team should be roasted about it at the next shareholders' meeting. It insulted the hell out of customers. If they had said something like "yes, streaming has gotten a lot more expensive for us to do, if you want to do it you're going to have to pay more - a lot more," then customers would not have been happy - but they wouldn't have been condescended to like a group of fourth graders. (Hint to fourth-graders: they're treating you badly because you're too young to be able to fight back. They're bullies. Remember that when you grow up - people who bully kids are, without exception, assholes. As a corollary, be kind to the teachers who treat you like a young, unwise, but nonetheless real and valuable person, because they're actually looking out for you.)

  27. Losing neflix would be a loss to us all by katarn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't be too hard on Netflix; It seems they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The studios let them get by on table scraps before because they didn't see them as a serious revenue source, and saw them as just an opportunity to pick up minor bits of revenue which they wouldn't otherwise collect. Now Netflix has everyone's attention, and the studios are going to want the full slice of the pie. Analysts predict that Netflix licensing is going to increase from $180M to 1.98B in the next few years. With that looming over Netflix, they must be desperate to find a strategy to cope. If the studios get their way and Netflix goes down or concedes to their desired licensing, then we all lose and we end up paying $60 to $120 per month like we pay for cable instead of $8 / month. Personally I just have the Netflix streaming service and no DVD. I don't care about the DVDs, but I wish they streamed more videos. It would be nice to have Netflix under Linux though, so I wouldn't have other options than my console.

    1. Re:Losing neflix would be a loss to us all by timeOday · · Score: 2
      I disagree, everything you said makes me think we should be hard on Netflix, and cancel in droves, to send the message to the IP holders that the market will not bear the price they hoped. They are going to keep raising rates until they find the ceiling, so the sooner that happens, the better.

      Also, $60/mo for cable for $8/mo for netflix is misleading, since you have to buy the Internet connection (from the cable company, in my case) to have netflix in the first place. Netflix streaming is more comparable to adding HBO to your cable plan.

  28. Wait...you think they're doing it wrong? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So according to TFA, Netflix had 12 million people paying $10/month for streaming+DVD. Those 12 million people will now pay $16/month. That's an extra $72m/month.

    10 million (like me) are streaming only at $8/month. They're losing 200,000 of those, or $1.6 million/month.

    3 million get the DVD only plan. They're losing 800,000 of those. I don't know what the average DVD only customer pays, but let's be generous and say it's $20/month. This'll cost Netflix $16m/month. They're still $55 million/month in the black.

    So you're all saying Netflix has done something really stupid because they're...making more money?

    Netflix has pissed people off simply because people don't want to pay more, not because the service isn't worth it. I get TONS of value for my $8/month. I may get around to adding the DVD bit for those shows I can't stream because another $8/month is peanuts. I spend more than that for one movie ticket. I spent more than that on lunch today. But somehow I'm supposed to be all outraged that a service I actually like wants me to pay that much to watch movies all month long. I just don't see it. Sorry.

  29. tell the rest of the story by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, so they lost 1,000,000 of 25,000,000 that are ditching NetFlix. But what I want to know is how many that were paying $9.95 before said "screw it" and just reduced their payment to $7.99, taking only one of the two services, hopefully DVDs by mail. And overall how did this price increase affect their gross and net income.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  30. #DearNetflix by Vegeta99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You certainly made the "short list" of features that led to me giving up my Linux install and my wonderfully uber-compatible XBMC installation. In fact, you were the most important factor leading to the change. The fact that XBMC and MythTV work together as well as the Bundys when it comes to broadcast televison, well, now that I think of it, that's the only other reason. Rest assured, you were the reason for the switch.

    Now, Microsoft made $50 on the transition; I'm a student. And Windows Media Center is pretty damn good, once sufficiently beaten into submission. I have it now as compatible with videos as XBMC, with metadata collection and display almost as good. However, you guys were nice enough to build an add-in to WMC, cool. $8 a month is pretty awesome for HD movies to just be THERE. Schweet.

    However, that just ain't the case. Even though I'm a lucky bastard and can pull down about 3MB/s (and yes, I mean a little over two 1.44MB floppy disks, or maybe 0.0001 Libraries of Congress), "HD Video" just won't play. I don't use quotes for effect, I use them because that's what you call it, I can't get your player to cough up any information about what the hell resolution, frame rate, color profile, or codec. It skips and sputters, surely because Silverlight 4 isn't hardware-accelerated - but Silverlight 5 just isn't there either.

    Now, I can: 1. Minimize WMC. 2. Start Firefox. 3. Go to your website. 4. Log in (WMC is logged in separately). 5. Go to My Account. 6. Click Video Steaming Settings (or whatever the hell it is) 7. Change the rate to 1GB/hr. and 8. Click Next. This gives me a 404 error, but it's been changed. 9. Return to WMC, completely stop the movie, and restart. Then we have video. I can't change that shit in the WMC client. That's cool, but it's not HD. Can I get a discount?

    Now, I'd be cool with the fact that my HTPC (which is otherwise quite capable of 1080p, thankyouverymuch) isn't getting HD content, because I could at least have that thing playing and use another device, like my iPhone. Now, I was paying for the ability to stream HD to one device, and I wasn't getting that. I can't give you numbers for sure because your client is so locked down. However, I'm pretty sure that the SD-only stream my HTPC receives plus the mobile video on my iPhone still isn't the resolution I was paying for, but that's now blocked.

    Can I have my money (and time) back?

    (P.S. Dear Slashdot: You owe me karma back from the Google+ post. How the HELL did that end up there?)

    1. Re:#DearNetflix by gblues · · Score: 2

      #firstworldproblems

  31. Streaming customers... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    Are getting screwed. I like the option of getting a DVD for a show that wasn't available via streaming. But when the price changes came, I decided I used streaming more than the real video service, so I opted for the streaming only at 8 bucks a month. Now they are losing stars, which means I am not essentially paying the same for a greatly reduced service.

    I have seen the value acquired for the dollar spent on netflix rapidly diminish over the past several months. I'll probably end up canceling entirely and go back to waiting for a service to come along that does streaming right.

    ( note: I'm not entirely blaming netflix here, they're the middle man and have to play games with the content holders, who we all know are bastards. Doesn't change the end result however. )

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  32. It's all my fault. by adolf · · Score: 2

    My wife (who is homebound due to a workers comp issue) watches Netflix streaming. A lot.

    She complains continuously that they do not have the latest releases available to stream, but then she finds herself a new (to her) TV series and watches that.

    And when I say "watches," I mean "vigorously consumes". She starts from episode 1, and goes until she reaches the end.

    She uses up to about 450 gigabytes per month of bandwidth doing this, by my measurement.

    So, as saddened as I am that Netflix's new pricing scheme has finally come to shove, I am moreover disheartened that I have allowed such a travesty to fester to such an extent that it affects all of us.

    I would like to take this opportunity to apologize. I am unreservedly sorry for my wife's behavior and any impact that it may have upon you and your family.

    -adolf, #21054

  33. Re:Link bait? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

    Heck, the linked article even includes a set of charts showing where Netflix plans to lose customers. Yes, Netflix will lose 200K streaming only customers and 800K DVD only customers. On the other hand it expects to have roughly the same amount of users that use both services (12 million). The difference, of course, is that now these 12 million customers (roughly half of Netflix's users) will be paying twice as much as they were previously.

    And somehow the idiots on Wall Street think that this is a *bad* sign. Netflix just doubled the revenue that it extracts from nearly half of its userbase. The cost to the company was less than 5% its userbase, and 8 out of 10 of the customers Netflix lost were the DVD-only customers that are more expensive to service anyhow.

    It almost makes me want to rush out and buy stock in Netflix tomorrow. Eventually the boneheads that do financial reporting are going to do the the math, and realize that the folks running Netflix are *much* smarter than they are.

  34. Re:WHAT??!?! by esocid · · Score: 2

    So your plan is to go to the store that was so behind the curve, they went bankrupt, were bought by MAFIAA studios, and now aim to shut out competition by pulling releases? I'd like to see how satisfied you are when Netfilx shutters, and BB raises prices with no benefits to users.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  35. Re:Link bait? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    It isn't offensive and unless you know the backstory it does sound idiotic. Way back in the '90s, Blockbuster was very powerful and dominated my local market. They treated customers very poorly back then. They screwed me with bogus fees a couple of times and I finally vowed to never do business with them again.

    These days I have an unbelievable number of options for entertainment, so the loss of Blockbuster doesn't worry me at all and in fact I'm happy to see them go.

  36. Re:WHAT??!?! by overlordofmu · · Score: 2

    I watch documentaries and foreign films. I did a comparison (searching for favorite titles) and could not find what I wanted on Blockbuster but they were available on Netflix.

    If Blockbuster would carry long-tail title, they might get my business. In the meantime, Netflix is the only way for me to see the films I want to see. No brick and mortar store rents them in my area (read: anywhere in Iowa) and Blockbuster doesn't even have them with the shipped disk method.

  37. Re:Link bait? by Jibekn · · Score: 2

    20 years ago, blockbuster tried to bill me over 100$ in late fees, plus the 'cost' of the VHS which they claimed was 49.99.

    This was after I called them the day I rented the movie and informed them that I was sorry but my pet damaged the VHS tape. 2 months later I got the bill for almost 200$ in the mail, I called their manager, basically told them they were fucking dreaming if they were ever going to even see me again, let alone pay this invoice, if they wanted me to pay the standard 24.99 retail of the fucking movie THAT THEY WERE SELLING FOR THAT PRICE, I would, but until I got a correct invoice, as well as a written apology from a blockbuster executive, they would not receive a single cent from me, and I would tell everyone I know this story whenever blockbuster was brought up.

    I kept my word for 20 years and single handedly stopped hundreds of people from patronizing blockbuster. I am proud to think I helped play a part in that company's downfall.

    I'm guessing you're not old enough to have seen the mass overcharges that blockbuster tried to pull in the 90's when they had a near monopoly. I haven't forgotten, nor will I.

  38. Re:WHAT??!?! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

    I remember how they would open a store across the street from an established, successful, large catalog independent video store and try to drive them out of business. If that didn't work, they would offer increasingly outrageous sums to buy them out. Once that was done they would operate the store long enough to sell all the movies and then board it up.

    It made me sad to see so many good stores with personality driven bankrupt to feed the blockbuster machine. I took great pleasure in watching blockbuster go bust.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!