Slashdot Mirror


Most Netflix Customers Don't Realize Prices Will Increase Next Month (time.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Millions of Netflix customers are about to start paying more to stream their favorite movies and TV shows -- and chances are, they don't even realize it. In May 2014, Netflix raised the price of its standard streaming plan for new subscribers, to $9.99 a month. However, the price hike did not apply to existing customers, who were grandfathered into their current rates of $7.99 a month for a two-stream, HD plan, Business Insider reported. Unfortunately, the good times are about to end for this customer base, which analysts estimate at about 17 million people, or 37% of Netflix's U.S. subscribers. In May, all grandfathered customers will be required to fork over $9.99 to continue to watch Netflix. Even worse, about 80% of those who will be affected by the price increase did not realize it was coming, according to research from JP Morgan.

213 comments

  1. first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah!

  2. Danger Will Robinson! by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Holy shit, after two years they plan on charging customers $2 more per month!

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They should take that $2 price increase and apply a $2 discount to their shrinking DVD subscription library. There's less content, so I should pay less.

    2. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I mean I get it's news, but we're talking about $24 every year. That's less than a single parking ticket or 2-3 drinks at a show. For... how many hours do I spend on Netflix? I don't have the faintest idea. It's hundreds per year, at least...

    3. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In absolute terms, it's not much, but it's a 25% price hike. I'd be quite annoyed to find prices for anything going up by that much in a single jump.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      well - I for one completely forgot about the grandfather thingy. Been using Netflix for a short while - ~6 years, so I'm part of the grandfathered price.

      Now that I'm reminded - I recall them saying the price was only guaranteed for the next 2 years.

      Hopefully the "family" plan will be better. My wife has her own basic subscription too (she used to be a DVD only person until we got married and I bought her an iPad). I think we could save a buck by combining. eh. She likes the independence and a buck is worth that.

    5. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They could have raised it by less at a time, over 2 years. But instead you get the lower price for those whole 2 years.

    6. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20%.

    7. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you're just finding this out it's on you, you've had two years to get used to the idea, i knew it was coming, and am fine with it, it's still well worth it, as the total cost (for a year) is what i was paying for cable (for a month). Also the only thing i give two shits about is the absolute terms, i don't care what percentage it is, or what it looks like.

    8. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's better than that.

      Netflix started its service in 1997 as a DVD-only service. They originally added streaming for $1 per hour, including a top-tier $16.99/month plan still available in 2007 for 17 hours per month. In 2008, Netflix went to a $7.99 streaming model; and in 2011, they raised their streaming service to $8.99/month and then $9.99/month.

      Let's ignore that Netflix $9.99/month unlimited streaming is more service for 53% of the dollar price of their 2007 service.

      In 2008, Netflix allowed unlimited streaming for $7.99/month at a median income of $52,050. In 2014, it was $53,650, a 3.07% increase. That means $8.23 would be price parity; Netflix seems to be more expensive now. That's in terms of median income, not per-capita.

      On the other hand, the per-capita GDP was $48,400 in 2008 and $53,00 in 2013. That's a 9.5% increase, making a fair Netflix price $8.75/month. That's a more correct measure, but still falls short.

      That means Netflix is charging more for the same service, so long as it supplies the same service per individual--same amount of streaming, same simultaneous streaming, same amount of content to manage, etc. If they're supplying more, consuming more bandwidth per subscription, or otherwise delivering a better service in 2015 than they did in 2008, then of course the price is up. It's a 25% price increase.

    9. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Current price is 8 dollars rounded.
      New price is 10 dollars rounded.

      Your 20% is if you look back; for the people currently paying 8 dollars they now have to pay 2 dollars more, and 2 dollars is 25% of 8 dollars.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, after two years they plan on charging customers $2 more per month!

      And here we have the tiny little myopic view of a tiny little millennial from his tiny little bedroom in his tiny little house looking out his tiny little window onto his tiny little world.

      Since its likely Mom that is paying the bill anyway, I guess you didn't notice that is a 25% increase for about 25% less product from Netflix. Their available selections have been shrinking. So paying more for less. For some reason I don't like that.

    11. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, after two years they plan on charging customers $2 more per month!

      That's not the point. For $7 a month with a vastly larger library, you used to get DVDs in the mail and stream up to four simultaneous programs. blu-day added a buck I think. Then they forked disc and streaming, charging for each, then they halved streaming, then the price went up, then they halved streaming down to one, or pay more to keep the two. Guess what happened next? The price went up, and then again, and in the meantime, the library went down to about 15% of what it was, and it's been shrinking since.

      As predicted many years ago, these streaming options, and Netflix isn't alone, we cable-cutters will end up paying just as much as cable days down the line unless we cut the streaming. Personally I'm not overly bothered. Went through the same shit with satellite, too.

    12. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an outrage!

      -Entitled Slashderpster.

    13. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They originally added streaming for $1 per hour

      They originally added streaming for free (or at least no extra cost) for disc subscribers. You were just limited in how many hours you could use it. It wasn't available to non-DVD subscribers initially. And then they removed the hours restriction to make it unlimited for no extra cost. They weren't available as separate subscriptions until after all that.

    14. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you think you should pay less because you're still using an obsolete system that's fading away, stop paying them. You're not entitled to a rate-cut, and shouldn't be wasting resources shipping plastic discs when even old people are able to stream their media now.

      If you're not happy with NetFlix, and are fixated on plastic discs, there are competing services for technology-limited people. This is all on you.

    15. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 2

      Even so, in the big picture Netflix is insanely cheap. The opposite extreme is online dating services who want 20 bucks a month to serve tiny JPEGs, text messages, and mobs of hired fake users who chat but disengage when its time to meet up. As an alternative to a $150/mo cable bill it really rocks.

    16. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Or, less than a Latte at your coffee shop.

      This reminds me of when I sold computers and stuff in the early 90s, and people would drive 90 Miles (literally) to save $5 on a printer ($500 one). Which was more than the profit on those. But they would invariably forget the Cable (Parallel ) and come in to the store go get one. We sold those for $14.95 each, and got them in bulk for around $.75 each.

      People know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Bitch as much as you want, none of that is relevant to what exists on the market today. $9.99 is still a damn good deal compared to the other options currently available. This will be the first price increase I've had from them in the 6 years I've been subscribed. It could probably go up to $14.99 before I would consider looking at other options. It's still far far far away from current cable TV prices, and I'm in Canada where we now have the government mandated $25 "skinny" tv packages that are just shit - if netflix removed 75% of their content it would still be better than skinny tv packages.

    18. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1, Troll

      they've also removed a LOT of content in those two years....so frankly maybe even less content overall than they had then, although i can't go back and count every single addition for every subtraction. They removed Miami Vice, Knight Rider, a bunch of Law & Order stuff, the Mission Impossible movies, Rambo movies, Rocky movies, a bunch of kids stuff (Sesame street etc)... to review it even closer to can go to Whats On Netflix

      A lot of those shows come on regular tv often but they have removed a LOT of 70s-80s shows/movies that a lot of people watched regularly and the main reason I even joined Netflix ..before marriage and kids b/c it was just so much cheaper than going out and paying an insane amount of money for just one season of a tv program.

      The other thing is, is that they STILL have not improved their user interface. There still isn't an way to search a list of movies that are new, old, popular or just look at all of the movies in an alphabetized list. Basically you have to know what movie you want to watch, search for it and then hope that its there. Thats a pretty epic fail. So yeah, I think $2 extra a month is pretty ridiculous when they haven't even made any improvements on that front either.

    19. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      You do know netflix has streaming services too, right? I would even go so far to say I haven't used the "disc" rental feature in 5 years....

    20. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Cito · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thing is since 2008 Netflix streaming titles have shrunk by 53%

      And the once epic Anime section all gone but a few.

      Because once they got popular and net neutrality debated "fast lanes" and filtering Netflix, to try and kill it 15 studios pulled all their content off Netflix

    21. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bored · · Score: 1

      here still isn't an way to search a list of movies that are new, old, popular or just look at all of the movies in an alphabetized list.

      Back in the DVD days they had options like that, they removed them when they started to settle all the law suits they were fighting with the movie studios. Those options never appeared for streaming probably for the same reasons they removed them for DVDs...

    22. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by j-beda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hopefully the "family" plan will be better. My wife has her own basic subscription too (she used to be a DVD only person until we got married and I bought her an iPad). I think we could save a buck by combining. eh. She likes the independence and a buck is worth that.

      I don't know what "independence" she might be enjoying that is not available in a single subscription - the online stuff can be segregated into different "profiles" (or whatever they might be called) so your "My Little Poney" viewing habits do not pollute her "Serious Cinema" choices. As I recall from our days of DVD Netflix - there are similar features for ordering disks. You could alway cancel your subscription and ask to join her's - give her all the control.

    23. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2

      That's interesting, some of the content you say they removed is available, right fucking now, on the canadian netflix. Anyhoo, it's not really netflix who is at fault for the lack of content, you can thank the insane copyright and licensing laws, and only those laws. I'm still paying, and I'm getting my 9.99$ worth every single month. The content not available to me via netflix legally can always be obtained elsewhere. It really depends on how you consume media, netflix doesn't fit everyone. And after reading the rest of your comment I do have to ask, in all seriousness, where the fuck do you live? Netflix has a shit load of ways to find movies, including "popular" "trending" and any other way you can describe a movie "exciting movies" "old movies" so honestly, i'm at a loss to figure out what the fuck service you actually have, cause it doesn't sound like netflix. It sounds like popcorn time.

    24. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Ha! I remember back then when it was a thing to save money by buying your computer stuff from Chen's Shady Gray Market Computer Shoppe, or from a computer swap, and paying cash. So I'd literally ride the bus with $1,500 cash in my pocket, all basically so I could avoid paying sales tax. And half the time the stuff you'd get would be junk -- like a motherboard that advertised it could hold X amount of RAM, only you'd find out after the fact that your OS couldn't access that much RAM. Or a video card that supported some crazy, wild hi-res mode that no games used.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    25. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I've never met a less condescending person in my life.

      Did you know some people can't have high speed internet because they are in a rural area?

      Stop condescending people with your limited knowledge of the world and start learning something useful.

    26. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to complain about this. Netflix is still charging less for an entire month of streaming service than what Comcast charges for a single DVR cable box rental.

    27. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      In business for profit, increasing prices by 25% with a move that might only cause 5% of subscribers to even _think_ about cancelling... yeah, this was inevitable. That, and blowing all the money on creating their own content. Who was it that said "to make a small fortune in Movies, start with a large one."

    28. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot that high-speed broadband connections exist everywhere, and nobody has to rely on slow dial-up connections in rural areas...

    29. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Not everything in Netflix is in their online catalog.

      I admit I don't get discs as often as I used to, but occasionally that's still the only way to watch one of their movies.

    30. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Some films they offer are available only on DVD, not streaming. I've encountered several that I wanted to watch but couldn't because I don't pay extra for their DVD subscription service.

    31. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It would have been several smaller jumps, but their generous "grandfathering" rules spared people.

      Admittedly, the percentage is big, but the dollar amount is small, and even after the hike the whole Netflix bill is still less than adding a channel to most cable services.

    32. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't think it is worth even $2/month, but my wife loves it for the series. Although, she just walks away from pretty much any movie we try to watch together on it. I have plenty to watch with scraping sites into an RSS feed like CBS and HULU. I can't do that with Netshit. I can't tell it I've watched this so never ever show it to me again.

    33. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streaming service also has less content than when it was 7.99

    34. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I watcher Terrorists starring Sean Connery and some movie with Kevin Costner flying an F-14 for the first minute and you thought, sweet top gun knockoff, but it was actually a decent movie where he steals a drug lords girl and such. But you're right, it was free.

    35. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by torkus · · Score: 1

      Their streaming library sucks these days too...at least for me.

      Somewhere between 25 and 50% of the time I go looking for a movie I can't find it. It's handy to stream TV shows...if they're on there. Otherwise I find "alternate" means of watching the content I want.

      2 bucks...even 10 bucks is chump change. I'd be happier if they charged 25 and actually had all the movies I want.

      What I won't do is sign up for 5 different streaming platforms, each with a separate app and login, separate payment, intermixed catalog with no way to know which has which. I'm not a prolific TV or movie watcher by any means...but it's literally a case of 'please take my money for what I want' and I can't get it. One streaming service to rule them all is needed...

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    36. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by torkus · · Score: 1

      And this explains the fundamental flaw of perspective and why reports suck!

      $2/month extra charge added for entertainment...people shrug and don't notice.

      25% rate increase with lots of bold and exclamation points...makes headlines.

      I'll probably be cutting off my netflix TBH. I don't watch it often and their catalog has lost a lot of things I want in the last year or two. or three. I'm lazy with these cancellation things.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    37. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      uhhh yeah there is "popular" and "trending" but its just a very small subset of all the movies that are out there. Right now I am logged in, I see:

      Animation, Trending Now, Reality TV, Dramas, Because you watched, family features, crime, horror..etc etc.. and those are layed out horizontally for you to scroll through. But all those movies are just a subset of all the movies that they actually provide. For instance i see the category, Crime Thrillers. If you scroll you might see 50 different things to choose from.. but I am sure that they carry more than 50 movies that fall under that category. It would be better to just be able to search ALL movies under Crime Thrillers instead of just being able to see a small subset. (assuming there is more, which I sincerely hope so)

    38. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      True. That raises questions about rent-seeking; Netflix asserts the studios have been rent-seeking by charging more per title, while ISPs have provided favorable access by placing Netflix source nodes inside their networks (reducing peer-to-peer infrastructure cost).

      Even the major broadcasters (e.g. SBGI) are now getting into producing their own shows; while Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and YouTube have been heavily advertising in-house productions to avoid licensing fees and attract an audience to exclusive content. Considering the start-up cost, letting a professional studio and media delivery market sell you the content should reduce costs; why is everyone standing up their own?

      Their shrinking ability to provide service undermines my economics arguments; and I always lean heavily on macroeconomics, leaving market behaviors to sort themselves out. My arguments will hold perfectly and Netflix or a Netflix-like service will become objectively cheaper over the course of decades; but over several years? The market economics will bounce things up and down. I concluded that Netflix appears to be charging more for the same service unless a bunch of other conditions are true because there are gaps in my analysis of the market, and because it appears to be objectively true; I'm not about to override what's going on between one day and the next by claiming multi-decade macroeconomics prove that could never happen.

    39. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      If you think you should pay less because you're still using an obsolete system that's fading away, stop paying them. You're not entitled to a rate-cut, and shouldn't be wasting resources shipping plastic discs when even old people are able to stream their media now.

      If you're not happy with NetFlix, and are fixated on plastic discs, there are competing services for technology-limited people. This is all on you.

      Until the wannabe streams are anywhere near the quality of disks (BDs, not DVDs) then I'll consider switching. Until then, you can watch your pixelated Dolby Stereo 3 Mbps streams. To get anywhere near BD quality with Dolby Atmos / DTS:X quality, you're going to need a stream somewhere above a combined 15Mbps at a minimum. No one is streaming anywhere near that, not even those supposed 4K streams. To get a semblance of what's happening, take a 20MB photo of a city scene with a tree and flowers and cars and convert it to a 100KB JPEG, and then take a lossless CD rip of something interesting with wide dynamic range and convert it to a 64Kbps audio stream. Those would be the rough comparisons of what the streaming companies are doing to your video and audio.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    40. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      i dont understand - why would a lawsuit prevent them for having all their movies available sorted alphabetically? (dvd or streaming). i don't see why the studios would want to prevent someone from finding one of their movies more easily, in that way...

    41. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by xrobertcmx · · Score: 2

      Some of us still prefer the mail order blu-ray/dvd service. Be it annoying caps some internet providers impose, the lack of decent broadband in many rural, urban, and American communities.

    42. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      "Oh no, they raised the price of crack!" you are probably more likely to hear this complaint.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    43. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I use both.

      Why?
      Because there is a boatload of films that aren't streamable. Actually most of what you can stream on NF is absolute crap. The real gems are still on optical media. If you're ok with just streaming then you're ok with Redbox.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    44. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy a Latte at your coffee shop. That's a bad comparison.

    45. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1
      Great post BTW.

      why is everyone standing up their own?

      I wonder about this all the time...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    46. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Two whole dollars. Maybe I'll reconsider and go back to paying $80 again, if only I could figure out how to uncut this cord.

    47. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can call me old fashioned but i like to watch my movies on that DVD yeeaah

    48. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Lattes are dumb. These sorts of comparisons on the other hand are ridiculously. Different markets, different amount of consumption, different uses, it just doesn't make sense to compare that way. Some people may shun the $8 latte because for that low a price it's probably not high brow enough for them, others will buy 30 lattes a week but only have to pay Netflix once a month, some people may think $8 for a latte is far too expensive when you can make coffee at home for a few cents, and so forth.

      I remember when people used to say things like "that's no more expensive than your cable bill", and then over time so many people felt that was way too expensive and cancelled the cable bill altogether.

    49. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      CBS gives you 5 episodes of a show for free; but if you subscribe you get 7! Wow, two extra episodes. Clearly CBS has their finger on the pulse of penny pinching Americans.

      All these other wannabe streaming services haven't quite figure it out. We want one subscription with a large variety, not 10 different lackluster subscriptions that cost more combined than the original satellite or cable plans.

    50. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      Thats fair enough, but the person I responded too thought ( or alluded to thinking) netflix was a disc only service and its not.

      I do agree that most of the online content is crap, it was good at one point when they had BBC shows and more independent stuff. When I first joined 5 years ago they had the original old boy, let the right one in, dr.who, red dwarf and more older 4 star movies available to que digitally. Even forgotten stuff like hardware was digitally available.

      I've been giving real thought to dropping them, but it seems like all these companies take turns on what movie/tv rights they purchase any given year.

    51. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's what my original content about rent-seeking was: Netflix asserts everyone is shoving their blood-tentacles down any hole from which they smell money. $1,000 per 100,000 users licensing deal? Oh you have 1,000,000 users? $25,000 per 100,000 users is our fee for the next contract!

    52. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's more that they're competing in a market where technology allows them to mutually compete, and this is the painful growth phase. This is technological growth in adolescence.

    53. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, $10/month for a huge number of shows with full seasons and all seasons, a huge number of movies of all varieties, and as an optional extra a decent number of original programming (never the thing I much care about), it doesn't seem like a bad deal and certainly nowhere near going back to paying as much as cable. The few things I am missing are small, and at that point I start worrying that $10/month is for just one single show. (plus many of the other streaming services have really horrible user interfaces, unable to remember what you've seen or not, lower quality, etc)

    54. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, maybe two years ago, DVD by mail brought in more revenue and had a much higher profit margin than streaming.

      If Netflix were to kill it, their stock would drop to $10 because that is what their streaming is worth to the company.

    55. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Netflix lost a lot when they lost the contract to all the various discovery channel's stuff.

      They did bring in a lot of BBC stuff like David Attenborough's awesome nature documentaries.

      As for original stuff, adding 2 seasons to The Killing was dumb. The first season of Daredevil was awesome, haven't seen season 2 yet. Jessica Jones had potential but got tedious really quickly. I loved how neither felt like comic book shows.

      They have a great selection of excellent older movies and since it has been at least 15 years since I have seen a movie in the theaters worth watching I don't feel that their lack of newer movies is a negative.

    56. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The competition is pretty bad though. One company offers most everything for $10. A few competitors also over most everything for $10, the areas that they don't overlap are in the margins. The problem is with all the other competitors offering almost nothing for $8-$10, and are completely oblivious about how bad they look. They think that their own programming is so stupendous that they're overvaluing it, they're probably not even realizing how badly they're doing in the competition. It's possible that they could make more money by licensing Big Bang Theory to Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon rather than having their own flailing streaming service.

      Part of the problem I suspect is that Netflix is competing as an alternative to a generic cable provider (even today their original programming is just a sideline). But I think HBO, CBS, and others are compete as content creators. Different sorts of things altogether.

      Sure we wanted ala carte cable services for a long time. But reasonable ala carte. So if our cable said we could have the basic service for $50 a month but it doesn't have CBS, or we could also get CBS for $60 month, most reasonable people would say no as the extra $10 isn't worth it for such a limited offering. But if they got CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX for $60 a month more people would consider it. No one ever pays for those on cable though, everyone gets those broadcasts channels more or less "free" as part of the lowest of the low entry level packages. That makes the $10/month price for CBS ridiculously expensive, and I haven't even pointed out how most of it is crap anyway. For that much money I would want ALL back episodes of ALL series they have. (just like airline flights, if we have to pay to get a pillow instead of having it included in the package then most people would not opt in)

      This reminds me so much of growing pains in the recording industry. Reluctant to realize that the music industry had changed, out of touch with the market, overvaluing their own importance, and so forth. For example, the average listener also changed to want more current singles for just a few plays rather than wanting full albums. The problems were not around new technology per se but problems in understanding the market and providing what market wanted.

    57. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i didn't realize they streamed 7.1 lossless audio and 50+mbps video.

    58. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      They let you travel on the bus's roof back then?
      Why can't we have good things.

    59. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these other wannabe streaming services haven't quite figure it out. We want one subscription with a large variety, not 10 different lackluster subscriptions that cost more combined than the original satellite or cable plans.

      So you are in favor of a monopoly from the sounds of your own words?

      Interesting.

    60. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they've also removed a LOT of content in those two years....so frankly maybe even less content overall than they had then, although i can't go back and count every single addition for every subtraction. They removed Miami Vice, Knight Rider, a bunch of Law & Order stuff, the Mission Impossible movies, Rambo movies, Rocky movies, a bunch of kids stuff (Sesame street etc)... to review it even closer to can go to Whats On Netflix

      A lot of those shows come on regular tv often but they have removed a LOT of 70s-80s shows/movies that a lot of people watched regularly and the main reason I even joined Netflix ..before marriage and kids b/c it was just so much cheaper than going out and paying an insane amount of money for just one season of a tv program.

      You are somehow absolutely certain that Netflix removed that content as compared to the license holders of the content not wanting to renew their license with Netflix for what is generally economic reasons? How do YOU know?

      Also consider the fact that Netflix does gather stats on what people watch. There is an article on ArsTechnica about that and "Game of Thrones". Perhaps the stats that Netflix gathers tells them when content in their catalog isn't making money for them and so Netflix concludes they will not relicense that content?

      Said another way, why should Netflix relicense content that costs them more than what they estimate they collect in "viewship"? Just because YOU want to watch ancient TV episodes? Really?

      Think about Netflix' budgeting problem this way. They have to find ways to license content at the lowest price while obtaining content that the largest audience wants to watch. I say "license" because Netflix does not own a lot of the content in their catalog. Yes, they likely own the content that they produced, but not content produced by others. That means content is in the catalog as long as Netflix has a license for it. So any content in the catalog has to be "profitable" for Netflix; it has to have lots of viewers relative to the cost to obtain the content.

      So in the case of older content, it could also be the licenseholders are finding better deals elsewhere, like those "rerun" TV channels, which can partially or completely pay for the content licenses with advertising.

      The audience for older content is bound to decrease over time as the original target population for it gets older, tastes change, etc. I suspect that it is very rare for large scale audiences to redevelop around old content.

    61. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good comparison. Millions of people are quite happy with a 4 inch 6-bit screen and DAB audio though...

    62. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are irrational actors here on the supply side and the demand side. Licensing by geography rather than some other segment is insane, so that's irrational on the supply side.

      On the demand side, people forget to cancel, or they buy and don't watch; both irrational.

      Until you've taken out those factors you won't be able to model anything.

    63. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't pay that much for renting DVRs because they shopped around and found it was the best deal. They pay that because Comcast has a monopoly or near monopoly on cable service in many areas, and forbids you from using your own equipment. Comparing anything to a price arrived at by figuring out how far you can push consumers with little-to-no choice isn't a great idea. If the Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC) proposals get any traction, I doubt those ridiculous rental fees will survive. No one thinks that renting an obsolete technology set top box at $230/yr makes sense when a Roku costs a fraction of that once. You'd save money even if you replaced it every year with the latest box.

    64. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ^some^many. It's very annoying and increasingly we're not finding desired titles. I suspect the original content is the only thing keeping them afloat. I would otherwise cancel.

    65. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has the luxury of broadband access. You'd be surprised how many in the US have either dialup, crappy overpriced cell service, or no Internet access as option. For all those folks getting a DVD in the mail is the only reasonable means of watching movies.

    66. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      s/many/most/ Really, there's a huge disparity in title count.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    67. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Agreed! It sucks how companies start with a good thing then get greedy and entropy sets in. And their website has always sucked!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    68. Re: Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less != more.

    69. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this idea?

      Create a TV package that includes the OTA channels, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, plus five channels of your choice for whatever amount seems reasonable.

    70. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Like I said: nothing new.

    71. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Yes - but it goes beyond that little Profile (my account is used on the AppleTV so Kiddo channel is under mine).

      Notification emails go to her, changes are in her control, whatever is there...she never needs to ask me to change anything. My wife always points out the second-class woman world to me.

      We worked for the same company - (met and got married). She called to change her name - but since I made more I was the account owner (men always make more)....and she wasn't allowed to update her profile with her new (legal) name --- they had to ask ME if it was okay for her to make this change.

      Many other things are like this for her. Only one controller allowed - and usually the man. So - if having her own account for Netflix provides 100% control ... it's worth a $1.

    72. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Yes - but it goes beyond that little Profile (my account is used on the AppleTV so Kiddo channel is under mine).

      Notification emails go to her, changes are in her control, whatever is there...she never needs to ask me to change anything. My wife always points out the second-class woman world to me.

      We worked for the same company - (met and got married). She called to change her name - but since I made more I was the account owner (men always make more)....and she wasn't allowed to update her profile with her new (legal) name --- they had to ask ME if it was okay for her to make this change.

      Many other things are like this for her. Only one controller allowed - and usually the man. So - if having her own account for Netflix provides 100% control ... it's worth a $1.

      Then give up your account! Save the $1! Be the "second-class-spouse"!

      For the future, put all account possible under a "non-gendered" name like "Chris Smith" and just each of you pretend your name is "Chris" when you call them.

      I am good at telling people how to live their lives. Maybe I should go into politics?

    73. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      tee hee -- Or a priest.

      Geez - it's a no win situation. If I had to ask her to make changes she'd ask "am I your secretary?!"

      nope - if a $1 buys a happy marriage I'll go without the expensive coffee.

    74. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Geez - it's a no win situation. If I had to ask her to make changes she'd ask "am I your secretary?!"

      nope - if a $1 buys a happy marriage I'll go without the expensive coffee.

      I have not changed anything since we opened the account a few years back, certainly nothing that needed to be changed by phone. You do have a shared password file, don't you? What, you don't trust the love of your life? :-)

      That reminds me, I should make sure my spouse knows where to find the password to the PW safe in case I kick the bucket unexpectedly.

    75. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a menu at the top of the page (on their desktop site at least) from which you can choose from all of the different genres available, and it will show you everything they have belonging to that genre; just keep scrolling down in web 2.0 fashion and you can see everything.

  3. 80% seems low by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> 80% of those who will be affected by the price increase did not realize it was coming

    80% sounds low. I didn't know about it until I read about it on SlashDot, and that hardly ever happens!

    However, it's still less than the $40-50/month I used to pay for cable and I watch more stuff...so I'd expect a couple more annual increases as time goes on.

    1. Re:80% seems low by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I didn't know about it until I read about it on SlashDot, and that hardly ever happens!

      Yup. Netflix hasn't said anything about it. What they HAVE been doing is telling people their current rate "is guaranteed through" whatever date.

      I think I may compare my Netflix list with what's available on Hulu. There seems to be a lot of overlap, and Hulu has a much bigger catalog of TV shows. No point in paying for two services if I can cover it with one.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:80% seems low by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      You and all six of your friends who watch Hulu can do that...

      No, seriously, they will lose some subscribers by doing this, but nowhere near 20%

    3. Re:80% seems low by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      And Hulu will charge you to watch shows with ads no thank you.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:80% seems low by torkus · · Score: 1

      Same here...and your cable sub was cheap!

      My internet costs more than that ... mainly because I'm too lazy to call and "cancel" to get them to reduce the rate.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    5. Re:80% seems low by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Hulu has an ad-free subscription now for a few bucks more per month. I signed up after this became available. My only real complaint is that for some reason they insist on pasting annoying watermarks in the corners of the video streams. It apparently doesn't bother some people, but for some reason it tends to really distract me.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. Price Increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say what???

    1. Re:Price Increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What.

    2. Re:Price Increase by tom17 · · Score: 2

      Say What again!

  5. Netflix by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    2 years ago, Netflix sent out an email explaining all of that, and avoided a backlash. I thought is was reasonable that they would wait two years to increase the cost to current customers, and in doing so gave me a lot of time to decide what, if anything I would do.

    This isn't a story. If anything it was one of the first times that Netflix changed things the right way for once.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Netflix by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      I either didn't know, or had sufficiently forgotten it to make it seem like I didn't know! :)

      Truth is, TV streaming services <= 9.99/month are probably fine with me, unless they are utter crap. After that, I start paying attention and asking myself if I really want it. I hope they don't increase the price for a long time after this hike.

    2. Re:Netflix by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Yup. I remember the original notice. I hadn't realized it's been two years though.

      It's not the price hike that bothers me so much though, after all inflation is a thing. But the shrinking content library is what may drive me away eventually. Every time I hop on Netflix to watch an episode of a show that used to be there but they dropped, notice that something has disappeared from my "watch later" list without my having actually watched it, or I see one of those "Netflix is dropping these show/movies. Better watch them before the end of the month" articles... THAT'S when I question whether or not it's worth it to keep my membership.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      users are still going to rage like nothing else. facebook, twitter, you name it, it's going to rage hard. "ZOMG NETFLIX JACK MY RATEZ BOYCOTT NOWZ"

      boo, hoo, friggin, hoo.

    4. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They thought they avoided a backlash. They deal with the public, and should have known that stupid people would go berserk no matter what they do, not that they can do anything about that. Dealing with the public sucks.

    5. Re:Netflix by Luthair · · Score: 1

      They should be sending out reminders though, I doubt very many people put it on their calendar or realize that 2-years has elapsed. Though that may be Netflix's plan, have the price increase disappear in credit card statements.

    6. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall ever being contacted by them 2 years ago. I'm not even sure if Netflix has a current e-mail address for me. I do remember reading about it in the news back then and I saw this story on another site a couple days ago.

      I'm not going to get too upset.

  6. Funny use of "most" by CrankyFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the good times are about to end for this customer base, which analysts estimate at about 17 million people, or 37% of Netflix's U.S."

    Last official member numbers from Netflix were 74M customers (end of 2015). That means that 22% of the customer base is impacted (or 37% of Netflix's US customer base. Whether you choose to look at the 22% (since article title talks about "most Netflix customers," not "most US Netflix customers"), or the 37% number, neither represents "most."

    It'd be far more correct to say that most Netflix customers for whom prices are finally going up don't realize it's going to happen.

    Kinda wonder how many of them will care ...

    1. Re:Funny use of "most" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting

    2. Re:Funny use of "most" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda wonder how many of them will care ...

      Probably more than will even notice. For most, it's just a monthly charge to their credit card. So first these customers would have to actually look at their bills (rather than just blindly paying it as many do). Then they'd have to look at it and not just say "oh yeah, netflix...we subscribe to that" but actually think about "is that the correct amount? no it was less than that last month".

    3. Re:Funny use of "most" by phorm · · Score: 2

      Oh noes, that means I'll have to pay $120/yr for Netflix, which may be slightly more than a month of cable or satellite service (and minus the commercials). I guess I'll take the other $1000 and buy the stuff that's not available on Netflix

    4. Re:Funny use of "most" by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Honestly I would not have noticed unless I was comparing recent and old credit statements. When I first read this article I thought I was paying 9.99 already, because it seems completely reasonable. I had forgot exactly how ridiculous the gap between Netflix and traditional TV service is.

    5. Re:Funny use of "most" by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1
      Don't worry, even those numbers are too high. According to TFS:

      Even worse, about 80% of those who will be affected by the price increase did not realize it was coming, according to research from JP Morgan.

      It really should be 18% of Netflix customers or 30% of US Netflix customers, don't realize their prices will increase. So, yea, "most"...

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  7. EVEN WORSE by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    Even worse ... Netflix grandfathered in all these old customers at a time when it didn't have a large and growing library of exclusive content that is winning critical acclaim left and right.

    Netflix ... the 80s schoolyard crack dealer of internet streaming. FOR SHAME!

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:EVEN WORSE by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> when it didn't have a large and growing library of exclusive content that is winning critical acclaim

      Netflix's original content (including and especially current "House of Cards") is for shit.

      I signed up for the "video store on demand" quality, especially the all-you-can-eat, kind-of-watch-it-in-the-background while my kids eat cereal, I work on taxes, etc.

      They're opening the door to competitors who just do the "old Netflix" if they keep it up with their current "let's make original content" kick.

    2. Re:EVEN WORSE by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Netflix grandfathered in all these old customers at a time when it didn't have a large and growing library of exclusive content that is winning critical acclaim left and right.

      You omitted the part where they've also been losing third party content left and right... and THAT's actually the content I care about.

      They keep recommending their self-produced stuff to me, and somehow it's always "best guess" rated 5 stars. Then I watch it, and it's more like 2-3 stars - it's not all that good. But I'm sure they can hunt around and find "critics" who will like almost anything.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:EVEN WORSE by omnichad · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're opening the door to competitors who just do the "old Netflix" if they keep it up with their current "let's make original content" kick.

      They're doing their own original content because licensing costs are going WAY up from when they first started. A competitor can't do what Netflix did at the prices Netflix charged anymore, because the content owners are asking for more money now.

    4. Re:EVEN WORSE by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Same old story when something niche goes mainstream - they start catering to the masses instead of the original niche. You may hate House of Cards, but a hell of a lot of other people seem to like it (haven't watched it myself).

    5. Re:EVEN WORSE by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I too am also puzzled by the supposed acclaim of the Netflix Originals. For me I was able to get into Kimmy Schmidt & Bojack S1 but the rest have been an utter waste and I'd rather they took the 100 million they used for House of Cards and spent it on existing content.

    6. Re:EVEN WORSE by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Or refusing to license at all. There are several entire catalogs that cannot be purchased for streaming.

    7. Re:EVEN WORSE by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      That rating isn't a best guess, it's the average rating of viewers that watch similar content to you. Personally I've loved some of the series and disliked others. I think Longmire is fantastic (well up until the end of last season where it went off the rails).

      The problem Netflix has is there are some studios that won't sell their content for streaming and there are others that refuse to sell it to netflix because they have their own cable enterprise. This was the huge danger of allowing content delivery to own content creation. We used to have laws against this to prevent this very problem.

    8. Re:EVEN WORSE by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      That rating isn't a best guess, it's the average rating of viewers that watch similar content to you.

      Netflix itself uses the term "best guess" when referring to that feature. And I don't have this problem with their third-party offerings - with those, the proffered "best guess" ratings are usually quite accurate.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:EVEN WORSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)#Critical_response

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black#Reception

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbreakable_Kimmy_Schmidt#Reception

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_None#Critical_response

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(TV_series)#Critical_response

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Jones_(TV_series)#Critical_response

    10. Re:EVEN WORSE by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      Just like how, once upon a time, there was the SciFi channel that ran reruns of classic science fiction TV shows and movies. Eventually they migrated to mostly original content - which was almost entirely unwatchable crap.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  8. Probably not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty disappointed in the direction Netflix is going. Yes, I like that they don't have commercials. However, there are a lot of shows that have disappeared from Netflix. The justification for the rate increase is paying for the rights to stream content. Yet there's less content than ever to stream. And there's a nasty side effect from cord cutting. Right now, I can get just about any channel there is and watch it on cable, with one (quite high) monthly bill. It's all in one place, and I'm only paying for that content once. Bet for streaming, Netflix has some content, Hulu has some additional content, CBS has their own streaming service, BBC wants to launch their own service (which is why Doctor Who got pulled from Netflix and Hulu), and Amazon Video has still other content. And then there's live sports, which aren't available through any of them, but tend to be quite expensive (ESPN, I'm looking at you). Instead of paying one bill to watch stuff, I have to subscribe to a lot of services, which is complicated and expensive. And they still don't cover watching live sports, which I care about. If Netflix is raising prices while they remove content, and they're not sending reminders to users about it, I might just have to drop them. By the way, it's pathetic that there are lots of shows that nobody has streaming rights for in the US. When you play the game of everyone wanting their own streaming service and make some content completely unavailable, you drive people to piracy.

    1. Re:Probably not worth it by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The justification for the rate increase is paying for the rights to stream content. Yet there's less content than ever to stream

      The only thing surprising about that is that the rights-holders let it go for so little the first time around. It will lose its value over several years until it's almost as much as cable. DVD/Blu-Ray rental should rightfully make a comeback now for the more obscure content or the more expensive content. However, Netflix sold off a huge amount of their back catalog.

      Also, Doctor Who went to Amazon. Netflix just lost the bidding war.

    2. Re:Probably not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctor Who used to be on Netflix and Hulu, so it's available in fewer places than it used to be. My understanding was that this was a prelude to BBC launching their own streaming service. Also, there's not as much Doctor Who content; for example, classic Doctor Who (which I prefer) isn't on Amazon Video. I just checked. Plus, that underscores my point about streaming. Instead of subscribing to one service at a little higher rate and getting a huge library of programming to watch, I have to subscribe to multiple services. That $10/month is deceptively low because there's lots of content that's not available on Netflix, it doesn't include current seasons of shows they're not producing, and they simply don't have any sports. You have no choice but to go elsewhere and pay more money for that content. If I could get everything in one streaming service, I'd happily cut the cord right now. But we're actually moving farther away from that happening.

    3. Re:Probably not worth it by rhazz · · Score: 1

      It's all in one place, and I'm only paying for that content once.

      Sure, but you're probably paying 5 times the amount or more for that. Is "all in one place" worth that? You could subscribe to Hulu, Amazon, AND Netflix ($7.99, $7.99, $9.99) and still save a good chunk compared to your TV package. If you can't remember which of 3 providers carries an exclusive show you want to watch, then I can't imagine how you remember what TV channel your shows are on. On sports you're right, mostly because it is a demand for very specific live content and the rights-holders have been able to hold on to their dated business models. I imagine sports is one of the main things keeping traditional TV packages afloat right now.

      If Netflix is raising prices while they remove content, and they're not sending reminders to users about it, I might just have to drop them.

      I see it as ending a temporary discount that was explicitly noted as being temporary at the time it was given to existing customers. Given that 75% of the user base is paying the 9.99 rate already, it's hard to really whine about this since the service is obviously worth that amount to the majority of users. I agree they probably should remind people about the increase, but that is still a month away, maybe it will still go out.

    4. Re:Probably not worth it by rhazz · · Score: 1

      If I could get everything in one streaming service, I'd happily cut the cord right now. But we're actually moving farther away from that happening.

      That's because the rights-holders want to extract more money from you under the old models and are fighting the shift tooth and nail. The only reason we've seen any modernization at all is because of disruptive streaming companies taking a piece of their pie.

    5. Re:Probably not worth it by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who is for dolts who can't read and can't follow complex plot lines. I will not miss it if it ceases to exist right this instant. But... if it WAS a show I followed I'd probably be a little concerned that I can't legally view it on my current subscription. But see, you fall into the trap of blaming netflix for the retarded licensing laws they are HELD TO. Doctor who is a prime example of why there's a massive problem. Why can't that IP be provided to all of the competitors? Because people are dumb, and would actually go subscribe to that new service for that 1 show, so it makes the producers more money, they can start a bidding war. Who benefits? They do. Who loses? we do, and all of the other streaming services do. But it gets better, if we did have a 1 stop shop for this stuff, the very same people you be bitching and moaning about a monopoly. You simply can't win under our current copyright and license agreements. Jesus just last year I witnessed a show get released to netflix.ca, spammed to me via netflix and email, then it was pulled because the US netflix was supposed to have it for 2 days before it showed up on the canadian one. That's the fucking insanity they, and we, are up against. No single company can do this, and now that you can spin up an entire datacenter in 4 hours on various platforms like azure and AWS, every content owner has the ability to start their own streaming service. And they are. Remember when you could watch snl clips on youtube? exactly

    6. Re:Probably not worth it by Albert71292 · · Score: 1

      I dropped Netflix a few months ago, for a couple of reasons. One was that they weren't keeping a lot of the classic TV I like (don't care for most of the newer shows or their "Netflix Originals"). The other was I don't like how they started shrinking the closing credits into a small box on the Roku without an option to turn that "feature" off by default. Annoying to have to grab the remote at the end of a show or movie to enlarge the credits.

      --
      "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
  9. Still a better deal than cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lets see:

    Cable:
    cheapest cable package: $25.00/Mo [average]
    Cable Box Rental Fee: $8.00/Mo
    Commercials: Free, 40% Commercial to content ratio included FREE!
    Infomercials: FREE
    Stale / Static commercial laden content: INCLUDED
    Rating Content: NO
    Watching Later: NO
    Device Shifting: NO - Requires another cable box
    Cable Box purchase: $200-$400 for all the stale static commercial laden content you can stomach

    Netflix:
    Subscription: $9.99
    Commercials: NONE
    Infomercials: NONE
    Stale / Static commercial laden content: NOT INCLUDED
    Ratings: INCLUDED
    Watching Later: INCLUDED
    Device Shifting: INCLUDED
    Number of "free" screens: 2
    Netflix Box Purchase: as low as $35.00 one time fee

    So, they can increase the price, I'll still pay.

    1. Re:Still a better deal than cable by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      But you get much better value for money from cable! All those free commercials!!!!!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Still a better deal than cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually a pretty damn inaccurate assessment of cable. Prices are much too high, but there are a lot of good things. First, you neglected to mention the big difference in the types of programming available. I really like watching sports, which simply isn't available on Netflix. ESPN is way overpriced, but there are quite a lot of sports channels, and I get most of them. I have a number of options for watching content later. One is to record it to DVR, which costs about $12 per month. But, I also have an EyeTV box, which allows me to record analog HD and watch it later. There's also a lot of on demand programming, which generally has about as many commercials as the $8 Hulu subscription. I don't think it's generally possible to purchase your own cable box, though there are limited options that involve a cablecard and a device like an HDHomeRun. That doesn't have the on demand content, but it has many of the functions of a box and is $110 on Amazon right now. There's also a lot of programming that simply isn't available on Netflix, meaning that you'd need to subscribe to other streaming services that raise your overall price. Cable has plenty of problems, but your assessment is pretty biased against it.

    3. Re:Still a better deal than cable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      A 60 minute show is 45 minutes of content; a half-hour episode is consistently 22.5 minutes. That's 25% commercial-to-content ratio.

      If your TV wasn't from 1990, you wouldn't need to rent a cable box. It also wouldn't be all fuzzy and flickery. A new such TV costs less than that cable box you cited.

      For Netflix, your CPU/GPU/OS may not be enough. $150 Windows purchase, a $300 monitor, and an $800 PC purchase not included.

      Most of us have the TV/decoder or the PC already, so we don't count those things. I use an HDTV as a computer monitor, so I avoid the split cost and save physical space in my house.

    4. Re:Still a better deal than cable by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      Your definition of "free" is broken.

    5. Re:Still a better deal than cable by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

      are you stupid? every cable TV provider has On Demand as part of the sub and most channels have apps on mobile and streaming boxes that support most providers allowing you to watch a show anytime you want

    6. Re:Still a better deal than cable by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If your TV wasn't from 1990, you wouldn't need to rent a cable box.

      What...your TV has a CableCARD slot and your cable company hasn't moved to switched video?

    7. Re:Still a better deal than cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watch netflix on a $35 box I purchased. It also lets me watch hulu, youtube, and many other services. I didn't need a $150 windows purchase, or a $300 monitor, since it plugs into the HDMI port all my monitors/tv's have.

      Netflix runs on phones, tablets, and even a $125 cherry-trail based wintel box.

      it beats the $200-$300 cable box, that lets me watch stale, static, commercial laden content, without rating it, or watching it later, or pausing it.

      why own a $35 box when you can pay $12 to rent a box that has 1/4 of the features and never own it!

    8. Re:Still a better deal than cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your TV wasn't from 1990, you wouldn't need to rent a cable box. It also wouldn't be all fuzzy and flickery. A new such TV costs less than that cable box you cited.

      Are you implying that modern TVs are capable of decoding scrambled digital cable signals (like Nagra2/3 that are used by modern cable providers). Sorry, but you sure don't know what you are talking about.

    9. Re:Still a better deal than cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your TV wasn't from 1990, you wouldn't need to rent a cable box.

      What...your TV has a CableCARD slot and your cable company hasn't moved to switched video?

      Correct. Still enjoying the shit out of my Sony XBR1 TV on Comcast.

    10. Re:Still a better deal than cable by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      For Netflix, your CPU/GPU/OS may not be enough. $150 Windows purchase, a $300 monitor, and an $800 PC purchase not included.

      If you can't figure out how to use Netflix without a $1250 computer, you probably don't belong on Slashdot.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    11. Re:Still a better deal than cable by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up: hilarious.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    12. Re:Still a better deal than cable by supremebob · · Score: 1

      What cable provider do you have? All of the cable providers in my area scramble their signal, so you NEED a cable box to watch anything. That ClearQAM signal converter in your TV is useless on most modern cable systems.

    13. Re:Still a better deal than cable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Your TV doesn't already support ATSC?

    14. Re:Still a better deal than cable by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Your definition of "free" is broken.

      Your sense of irony is broken!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. I'm okay with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're less than a pack of cigarettes and I've gotten way more enjoyment out of their original programming than I ever have with $100+/month cable packages. If the increase means they can keep up the good work or license additional franchises, bring it on.

    1. Re:I'm okay with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're less than a pack of cigarettes and I've gotten way more enjoyment out of their original programming than I ever have with $100+/month cable packages. If the increase means they can keep up the good work or license additional franchises, bring it on.

      To each his own, I guess.

      "Marco Polo" was damn good its first season - the "Kahn" (Benedict Wong) was on "The IT Crowd" and it was a trip seeing him play such a serious part. But I don't care for their other content. 'House of Cards" is way to dark and cynical for me - I get enough of that in real life.

      Netflix' other content, aside from a pretty good documentary section, is mostly 'B' movies and crappier. They now have soft/medium core porn - "Love",the "Nymphomaniac" movies (total crap), and some others that are more PG-17 or whatever.

      Either way, I am underwhelmed by Netflix content and I have better sources. My local library has better content than Netflix.

  11. And we'll all happily pay it... by jasno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to continue to have access to their mediocre collection of content.

    Hulu Plus with adblocking is far and away a better return on investment... that said, I cut the cable, so I'll happily throw $10 at them so I can keep myself busy browsing their catalog for something to watch. That activity alone eats up hours of my time every month.

    On an unrelated note... Does anyone else feel like we should be able to pay for access to content separately from the UI? I know solutions like TiVo allow you to search multiple content providers, but you still have to use a different user interface for each provider. I'd rather have a single UI(don't mind paying for it) and just pay Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, etc for access to their content. I don't need 5 streaming apps, each with it's own quirky UI.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      On an unrelated note... Does anyone else feel like we should be able to pay for access to content separately from the UI? I know solutions like TiVo allow you to search multiple content providers, but you still have to use a different user interface for each provider. I'd rather have a single UI(don't mind paying for it) and just pay Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, etc for access to their content. I don't need 5 streaming apps, each with it's own quirky UI.

      Roku has a pretty good "universal" search... I could see a day when a Roku (or someone) could have a universal UI. I can understand that each streaming service likes to have you at "their" channel, but probably they could all come to some arrangement.

    2. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Hulu Plus with adblocking is far and away a better return on investment

      Or, you could just pony up the extra $4/month for the ad-free version of Hulu.

    3. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by jasno · · Score: 1

      D'oh sorry, that's what I meant. Definitely worth the $14.99 or whatever it is they're charging me. Vastly better content library than Netflix.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      busy browsing their catalog for something to watch. That activity alone eats up hours of my time every month.

      On an unrelated note... Does anyone else feel like we should be able to pay for access to content separately from the UI?

      Yeah, some company should collect a vast variety of programming from many different providers and let you access it from one place. They could sort the content into "channels" so you'd have a general idea of where to find what you're looking for. That would cut down on your browsing time. Also to simplify things further they could consolidate the billing so you don't have to pay 5 services, just one monthly bill and you'd get access to everything. There are probably economies of scale with that so you might even get a bunch of extra stuff thrown in as well. Seems like that business model is more or less what you're looking for.

      Surprised no one offers that to you....

    5. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Does that better content library include older shows? I'd heard that Hulu's main advantage was in more current shows (most of which suck), and NF had as much or more older stuff.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:And we'll all happily pay it... by Albert71292 · · Score: 1

      Does that better content library include older shows? I'd heard that Hulu's main advantage was in more current shows (most of which suck), and NF had as much or more older stuff.

      Hulu is great for older shows. In my queue, I currently have shows like Green Acres, Family Affair, The Addams Family, The Incredible Hulk, Lou Grant, the original Battlestar Galactica, Space:1999, The Merv Griffin Show, The Dick Cavett Show, Car 54 Where Are You?, CSI:Crime Scene Investigation, CSI:Miami, Dark Shadows, My Favorite Martian, The Lone Ranger, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Mister Ed, Night Gallery, The Outer Limits... just to name a few.

      --
      "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
  12. Still worth it by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still way cheaper than cable TV which not only costs more out of pocket, it has tons of brain-rotting commercials.

    1. Re:Still worth it by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      Still way cheaper than cable TV which not only costs more out of pocket, it has tons of brain-rotting commercials.

      Hey its commercials or moonshine.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Still worth it by th3rmite · · Score: 1

      It's not cheaper up here in Alaska where the local Internet monopoly GCI charges $135/month with a 300GB cap.

  13. trying to convince wife to cancel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most of their streaming service is just crap with some pretty good documentaries.

    They took Doctor Who off. The Bond films and new Star Treks are come and go and there are no Star Wars or Indiana Jones. And none of the Pixar blockbusters.

    The stuff we really like are freely available on PBS' streaming channel and my library and of course, over the air PBS. Once a month they add something that's worth seeing - again. Marco Polo is a great series, but to buy s subscription just for that?

    As it is now for $120 per year, I can get our favorite series on DVD - like Foyle's War and Downton Abbey and get other things a la cart from Amazon - $120 goes pretty far for our viewing habits. Although having to buy a streaming version of Star Wars Ep IV for $19 is just ridiculous. Why can't I rent it for $2.99? Is Disney that much of a bunch of money grubbing assholes? (That was accidentally rhetorical.)

    Anyway, I'll get what's reasonable and the rest I can easily do without. That's something these media companies need to understand, I do not need them or their content.

  14. Question is how fast the next increase follows. by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things with any cloud-based service (video streaming, AWS, etc.) is that prices are artificially low right now. AWS, Azure, Google Cloud etc. are practically giving away capacity to get companies hooked on their services. At the same time, all the VC-funded startups are subsidizing this cloud build-out so they can continue operating. Netflix and Hulu are pouring money into original content to get more eyeballs a la 1999.

    The thing to consider is how fast the price on all these things will go up when Social Mobile Streaming Bubble 2.0 pops. I think this entire market is being propped up by the bubble and will have to come back to Earth sometime. Video streamers are going to have to increase their prices or not offer as much expensive content for the same price, and cloud providers are going to have to cut back on the freebies and crank up their rates.

    1. Re:Question is how fast the next increase follows. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They're making insane profits and they're giving it away? Sounds to me like prices are market-corrected for competition.

      Note: I am not a theory-of-value economist, and don't try to predict the correct price of goods and services; I simply point out that the price is above the cost, including cost of risk, and so it seems nobody is undercutting their costs as a loss-lead strategy. This looks like the normal market behavior of various economic factors pushing price toward costs, allowing technological growth to reduce the cost of goods and services.

    2. Re:Question is how fast the next increase follows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      AWS, Azure, Google Cloud etc. are practically giving away capacity to get companies hooked on their services.

      I don't know about the others, but AWS is very profitable to Amazon (just in case you missed the news):

      Amazon on the whole is famous for operating with razor-thin margins, but AWS is making a good profit. AWS had $7.9 billion in net sales in calendar year 2015 with an operating income of $1.9 billion, according to the company's latest earnings statement. Revenue and profit accelerated toward the end of the year, with $2.4 billion in sales in Q4 and $687 million in operating income. AWS would just need to boost sales to $2.5 billion a quarter to hit $10 billion in 2016.

    3. Re:Question is how fast the next increase follows. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      All the cloud companies are making MAD profits on it. Once the reach a certain size they gain leverage on pricing of hardware, software and internet delivery. Amazon like Google is buying their own dark fiber links, building hardware and deploying their own custom software. Once the data center is deployed their ongoing costs are essentially power and labor and the power costs are being purchased up front in the form of solar arrays that offset the entire power cost often onsite. You have a large cost deploying the data center but you can amortize that away to avoid taxes and then you get to sell access to that hardware for years.

      Google, Amazon and MS are making billions on their cloud operations.

  15. Only $59.99 more to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Direct TV wanted no shit $69.99/month from us. That was 6 years ago. I have never regretted cutting the "cord" in favor of Netflix.

    1. Re:Only $59.99 more to go by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Yep, still beats the hell out of Comcast or any other cable subscription.

      It is worth it for the lack of ads on kids programs alone. While I am probably a terrible, no good, very bad parent for letting my kid watch TV at all, I really want to keep the ads away from him while he is still far from being a critical thinker. I've probably saved a ton from not having my arm twisted into buying all sorts of toys and sugary cereals he would be begging for after watching "normal" TV.

    2. Re:Only $59.99 more to go by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      A year ago, Time Warner Cable wanted us to go from paying $87 a month to $117 a month. This wasn't for any new services (we'd actually be getting less), but this was their "great deal that'll keep you subscribed." Despite their promises that this was a $157 value, I wasn't biting. We cut cable and went to $35 a month Internet. With the savings, we signed up for Hulu and bought some VOD episodes from Amazon/Google. (We were already Netflix/Amazon Prime subscribers so that was a wash.) We still wound up saving about $65 a month.

      Even if Netflix increases their price by $2 every year, they'll still be cheaper than cable.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Only $59.99 more to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I will NOT pay to watch ads, ever. Hulu pissed me off. I can't wait for the studios' dinosaur model to crash and burn.

      Posting AC as I've moderated.

  16. So? by macaddict · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's still far cheaper than paying the cable company for 200+ channels I don't want. And if a $2/month increase means Netflix can finance more of its own shows, I'll happily pay it. Daredevil and Jessica Jones alone are well worth an extra $24/year for me.

    1. Re:So? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      After cutting cable, we decided that - in addition to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu - we'd buy some full-season shows on Amazon VOD/Google Play that we couldn't get elsewhere. The price of buying a season of a show varies, but it typically costs about $30. $120 a year for Netflix essentially equates to 4 seasons of programming. (4 seasons of 1 show, 1 season each of 4 shows, etc.) So Daredevil and Jessica Jones alone make up half of Netflix's value. We also like Kimmy Schmidt so that's 75% of Netflix for us. Add in the old shows that by boys have discovered (my oldest is on a Pee Wee's Playhouse kick) and past seasons of shows I didn't watch but decided to because they're on Netflix, and it's a much better deal than cable.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  17. True story... by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    True story ... I kinda forgot that Netflix was only charging me $7.99. I thought the price was ten bucks.

    My bad.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:True story... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      True story ... I kinda forgot that Netflix was only charging me $7.99. I thought the price was ten bucks.

      Exactly. For those people who have been longtime Netflix users, I really don't care. I was on the 3-DVD-at-a-time plan back when I think it was $19.99/month. Then it was $17.99. Then, I think it was $12.99 or something. Then they split streaming and DVDs at some point, and it went down to $9.99 or $7.99 or something.

      Whatever. I've been used to paying Netflix up to $20/month for more than a decade. The streaming selection isn't terrific, but it's much more convenient than mailing the DVDs, and $10/month is still well worth it to me... much more so than paying maybe 10x that much for a cable package with a bunch of crap and commercials I don't want.

    2. Re:True story... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      I've been with NF since 2002 or so.
      To me all this hand wringing is comical.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  18. I knew about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was clearly pointed out. However... Due to them dropping BBC content, they no longer interest me and I'll be canceling my subscription.

  19. I won't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use the original mail-the-dvd plan, at 5 bucks a month. I simply don't spend enough time watching to justify the streaming subscription, and the selection is much larger.

  20. Is this accurate? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    Well, I didn't entirely remember the two-year delayed increase for grandfathered customers until I read through this post... but upon reflection, I did indeed read about this, two years ago when it was originally announced. The problem is, when I read about it then , the price increase was supposed to be from $7.99 to $8.99 for existing customers. So which is it, really? Did plans change at some point, or did someone get their facts wrong?

    1. Re:Is this accurate? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I just took a look at my Netflix subscription.

      It reads: Your price is guaranteed to remain $8.99 through at least October 8, 2016 so long as you stay a member.

      I have been paying $8.99 for at least the last year. So the price hike is $1/month for me and doesn't take affect until at least October...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Is this accurate? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

      ... It reads: Your price is guaranteed to remain $8.99 through at least October 8, 2016 so long as you stay a member. ...

      I think I've been a member longer then you. Mine reads, "Your price is guaranteed to remain $7.99 through at least May 9, 2016 so long as you stay a member."

  21. Xfinity TV Go; ESPN; C-SPAN by tepples · · Score: 1

    Cable:
    Watching Later: INCLUDED - Xfinity TV includes a selection of videos on demand at no additional charge
    Offline Device Shifting: INCLUDED - Comcast has been advertising that unlike satellite, the Xfinity TV Go app allows downloading DRM copies of on-demand shows to watch later on iPhone, iPad, Android devices with Google Play, and Fire tablets.
    Live sports: INCLUDED - ESPN, TNT, TBS, NBCSN, FOX Sports, and regional channels
    Live politics: INCLUDED - C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News Channel

    Netflix:
    Subscription: $9.99 plus your ISP's surcharge for not subscribing to the pay TV bundle
    Offline Device Shifting: NO
    Live sports: NO
    Live politics: NO

    1. Re:Xfinity TV Go; ESPN; C-SPAN by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I don't think sports channels would be included in a $25/mo package. Also is live politics really a thing?

    2. Re:Xfinity TV Go; ESPN; C-SPAN by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the sports.
      The Cable/SAT stranglehold over sports is loosening.
      I give it five years and we'll be able to stream any sport event we want, WITHOUT those Cable/SAT douchebags.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  22. Personal consideration by CamachoForPresident · · Score: 1

    As a long time Netflix user I'm thinking long and hard about the $10 per month increase. I was already thinking about cutting it off at $7.99 per month. I'm always combing through the bottom of the barrel for something to watching from Netflix. Their UI is intentionally horrible to produce the illusion that they have a lot of content. Netflix is a giant library of B movies and shows that were from the 80's and 90's. They started venturing into animations and now old sitcoms. Netflix used to have one or two decent titles that I'll finish watching on the weekends and the account collects dust for a few months. These days every time I open up Netflix it's like how many more hours am I going to spend looking through the titles for something new. There are other things Netflix does that I don't appreciate. I've been bitten many times where I'm watching a series and Netflix decides to pulls it without warning. Their recent crusade with VPN has been fairly disruptive to my work flow. If I have to pick Netflix versus keeping VPN, it will be VPN. I will likely just go buy an antenna to watch public TV for the latest shows. It's all the same to me anyways. TV serves as background noise to help me do work. That is the only value Netflix really brings.

    1. Re:Personal consideration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will likely just go buy an antenna to watch public TV for the latest shows.

      In case it helps ... following yet another price increase by our local cable company, we cut cable TV recently.

      I choose not to setup a MythTV/etc myself (but hey, by all means go that route if you want to tinker). Instead we bought

      • Clearstream 5V (in the attic! - depending on your circumstances you may be able to get by with a cheaper one)
      • TabloTV OTA DVR (incl $150 extra for lifetime program guide)
      • High capacity external USB drive
      • Roku 4

      This was fairly expensive (~$800), but with the saving from the cable I'll break even in several months, as the above has a monthly cost of $0. In terms of what we get ... whilst the channels are obviously more limited than what we had with cable the user experience has been stellar. I love the DVR user interface(s) - generally I schedule recordings from a PC (which I can do remotely), and use the Roku app to watch on a TV.

      The rig has some minor annoyances wrt channel surfing (slow to switch live TV), but we're just changed our viewing habits & pretty much never watch live TV anymore. We could work around that by plumbing the antenna direct to the TV too, but it simply has not been worthwhile to do so.

      Anyway, other than being a customer I have no association with any of the companies whose products I've mentioned, but I'm a bit of an evangelist for TabloTV because I like it so much.

  23. Just keep on ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... sending the DVDs to my mailbox. Thanks.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Just keep on ... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What DVDs? I still have a disc subscription and now most of them are either Very Long Wait or no longer available.

    2. Re:Just keep on ... by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      ... sending the DVDs to my mailbox. Thanks.

      Same here. I used to subscribe to their streaming service, but their movie selection is tiny. The snail-mail service has MANY more movies to choose from.

    3. Re:Just keep on ... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      There are people who go just streaming and are ok with that...

      That really scares me.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  24. Just found out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found out through /. ....just now. :-) Still happy to pay it. And agreed with the other post about cable TV and the ads....unbearable.

  25. Piracy still wins, and not just on cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have accounts on AHD, HDB and PTP.

    I can search for a movie or TV series and instantly get a well-curated page listing many details, including links to IMDB, screenshots, even some promo material. There are user reviews available as well as subtitles for multiple languages for a lot of releases.

    When I grab something, it typically maxes my 500 mbps downstream fiber line. I'm watching the 25gb blu-ray rip in less than 10 minutes without worrying about a streaming service having problems.

    The legit services just refuse to compete, and I'm not talking about them having their hands tied with licensing agreements and such. I'm willing to pay a lot of money for a legit service as good as AHD, HDB and PTP, but the legit players STILL don't understand what consumers want.

    1. Re:Piracy still wins, and not just on cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

    2. Re:Piracy still wins, and not just on cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you liked it.

  26. So, net win for Netflix by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No live sports, no live politics, no C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News. Definite advantage over cable!

    1. Re:So, net win for Netflix by tepples · · Score: 1

      No live sports, no live politics, no C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News. Definite advantage over cable!

      That's fine if you live alone, not so fine if you happen to live with somebody who demands those channels.

    2. Re:So, net win for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you live alone AND demand those channels? Where does that leave you?

    3. Re:So, net win for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably outside Slashdot's core demographic.

    4. Re:So, net win for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No live sports, no live politics, no C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News. Definite advantage over cable!

      Excatly! I don't like those anyway and given the choice to pay for them all just to get what little I DO want, I choose to get netflix instead.

    5. Re:So, net win for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, or if the other person wants to watch sports.
      But it's an advantage if you can convince people you live with not to waste time watching sports (I do like sports, but it takes a lot of time to watch).

    6. Re:So, net win for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No live sports, no live politics, no C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News. Definite advantage over cable!

      You just did!

  27. Penny wise by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    I have had Netflix for almost 4 years. I don't see why $2/month is a big deal. Help me fix my $170/month cable TV + Internet + Showtime suite.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  28. Less content streaming too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a myriad of recent articles, there is less content available to Netflix subscribers than a few years ago

  29. "Even Worse" by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's $2 extra a MONTH. Get a grip people!!!

    I'd gladly pay double the current price for Netflix.

    P.S. for those that complain Netflix doesn't have too many big movies, get the Starz direct app.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"Even Worse" by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      I'd gladly pay double the current price for Netflix.

      Don't say that out loud please, they might hear you!

  30. I want my two dollars! by haggie · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Netflix. You just made me think about your price and that means I'll cancel when the price goes up.

    Nothing on Netflix that I can't Torrent and the Netflix recommendation engine is so horrible that it never suggests a movie that I am interested in seeing.

    1. Re:I want my two dollars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you go to jail for being a dirty thief!

  31. Sony TVs with the PS3 UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather have a single UI(don't mind paying for it) and just pay Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, etc for access to their content.

    Me too, and that's why I liked the Sony TVs with the PS3-style UI. Hulu, Netflix Amazon, Crackle all have to route their video through Sony's servers to your TV and that lets Sony box them all into a single UI.

    Reviewers, tech sites and (I think) even slashdot always pan that approach because it prevents you from getting the latest 'shiny' being pushed by the app developers because how can you drive ad impressions if your site doesn't denigrate anything that's a femtosecond behind.

    1. Re:Sony TVs with the PS3 UI by jasno · · Score: 1

      Hey cool I'll have to check that out! IMHO, despite making money implementing the various UI's on various platforms(I'm an embedded sw guy), I would much prefer a 3rd party UI to unite everything.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
  32. Time Magazine, So Relevant! by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    "Most Slashdot Readers Don't Realize Time is Still Putting Out Content" would be a better headline.

  33. It's not Netflix vs Cable by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    The problem is, Netflix doesn't replace cable. I'm not saving $90 a month having NF, I'm adding their $9.99 to my existing bill. That said, NF is still more than worth the price.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:It's not Netflix vs Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your fault for not canceling cable. I did and save $110 a month.

    2. Re:It's not Netflix vs Cable by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      So far, NF isn't quite good enough (or cable hasn't quite p*ssed me off enough) to cut the cord. I've thought about it, and maybe one day I'll do it, but so far I haven't.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:It's not Netflix vs Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, Netflix doesn't replace cable. I'm not saving $90 a month having NF, I'm adding their $9.99 to my existing bill. That said, NF is still more than worth the price.

      Um, you're doing it wrong? You seem to have forgotten the cutting the cable part of cutting the cable?

      I am saving $90/month not having cable. I got tired of 200 channels of crap I had to pay for just for the 3 channel I did want. And 30%+ time wasted on commercials. (I am from the era when cable TV promised to be commercial-free, since you were after all paying for it already...) And almost half of the non-commercial time is repetitive cut shots and recaps.

      There's some great entertainment out there. But that old subscription delivery model is far too expensive and time consuming for what you actually get. Netflix, redbox at the grocery store a few times a month, an occasional box set of a worthy series... you get great value and minimal time or money spent on it.

      Apologies if you actually enjoy what you get from your cable company. Hey, somebody out there was watching honey boo boo. I heard about from south park...

  34. Who cares? by kuzb · · Score: 2

    It's still pretty good value for what you're getting. I have no problem with this.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  35. Washington Journal continues by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't think sports channels would be included in a $25/mo package.

    Xfinity Digital Starter TV service and comparable "expanded basic cable" packages from other cable providers include some sports programming, such as ESPN, NBCSN, and the matches that TBS and TNT show. More expensive packages include more sports programming, but expanded basic still includes some. And with the bundle discounts, I imagine that adding Xfinity Digital Starter TV to your existing Xfinity Internet service is only $25/mo more.

    Also is live politics really a thing?

    Yes. C-SPAN hosts a call-in show every morning titled Washington Journal. And on legislative days, it leads straight into a live stream of the U.S. House of Representatives. C-SPAN2 shows the Senate floor, and C-SPAN3 usually shows some committee.

    1. Re: Washington Journal continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel bad for those poor folks that have to screen the call-ins: "When are they gonna impeach Obummer!?" "Why do politicians accept large bribes, er donations?" "How does giving up freedom stop the terrorists?"

  36. 2 bucks by Danathar · · Score: 1

    if you can't afford an extra 2 bucks a month you shouldn't be paying for netflix to begin with.

    1. Re:2 bucks by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. There is some price $N for every person where (a) having a Netflix account is worth $N/mo and (b) where having a Netflix account is not worth $(N+2)/mo.

      Technicalities: (a) There are 200 such prices, given a granularity of 1c in the price. (b) The price exists for everyone, but it need not be positive.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  37. My Netflix subscription went down in price... by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    I reduced my disc rental plan to the "once every 2 weeks" plan for $4.99. Never even realized it was an option until I took a look at my subscription a few weeks ago. I've been a subscriber since 2001.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  38. If Netflix keeps doing things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...like providing excellent original programming, providing tools to manage bandwidth utilization, and giving customers two years notice of price increases then maybe all the moronic submissions like this one will stop.

    But probably not.

  39. Fuck Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm already paying $12 per month and I don't use the service.

    Hey, NetFlix, your revenue is about to drop!

  40. Count me in on the "I didn't realize" bandwagon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been a customer since the DVD era, but when they went to streaming and then split into streaming and DVD with a raised price, I just chose to stick with streaming.
    That was ostensibly a price increase, but I ended up just keeping the amount I was paying before with a reduction in service.
    It was a bit of a pain because there was so much that simply is not available by streaming.

    Not terribly bothered by the increase since all things go up a bit over time. This is the first time in a decade I have really had an increase.
    Still... I didn't know about it.

  41. Never mind by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    Their IP block seems to be working, so I have cancelled them anyway efter having paid for their services since 2012.
    What they offer here, is not worth it. It's strange that it is the documentaries that I miss. They should be cheap to license I would guess?

  42. Go Plex by sremick · · Score: 1

    (Used disc market + Plex) > Netflix

    Selection of stuff you actually want, better quality, better UI, no monthly fees, no arbitrary deletion of tons of good content every month.

    1. Re:Go Plex by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have no such market near me and when I do get into one I find that I have excellent taste; all the movies I want are priced very near to new prices.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Go Plex by sremick · · Score: 1

      You don't have access to eBay and Amazon?

    3. Re: Go Plex by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You don't have access to eBay and Amazon?

      So, not only do I have to worry about disc damage, but I also have to wait, and for what I spend for Netflix, I can watch one or two movies per month? Pretty crap deal there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Fuck NetFlix by drew_92123 · · Score: 1

    Charging more and giving customers less while making up excuses... that's the sign of a desperate and dying company folks.

    Time to cancel your subscriptions and move on to bigger and better things.

    1. Re:Fuck NetFlix by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm open to suggestions.

      (I've been a Netflix customer for 15 years)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  44. whining americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of the world is already on around 9 dollars. Stop whining you yanks.