Netflix is Raising Its Prices, Again (mashable.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix is Raising Its Prices, Again (mashable.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday October 5, 2017 @03:00AM from the up-next dept.

Jason Abbruzzese, writing for Mashable: Get ready to pay just a bit more for your Netflix subscription. The streaming video service will be raising prices on its middle and top tier plans in the U.S. starting in November. Subscribers who currently pay for the standard $9.99 service will be charged $10.99. The price of the premium tier will rise from $11.99 to $13.99. Good news for people on the basic $7.99 plan -- that price is staying put, for now. The U.S.-only price hikes will begin to go into effect in November, varying depending on individuals' billing cycles. Starting on Oct. 19, subscribers will be notified and given at least 30 days notice about the increase.

196 of 277 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Still better than cable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Our family has the highest tier subscription, so that at any given time any of the 4 in our home can watch what they please. We're in Canada, and even though supposedly NF here is not "as good as" the USA, we're satisfied and find plenty to watch. It's still cheaper than cable, still ad-free, and makes us happy. No complaints from our four walls.
1. Re:Still better than cable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix shows have plenty of ads. Product placement is ads.
2. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Product placement does not pull you out of a show
  It doesn't take up much time, true, but it certainly does pull me out of the show quite often.
  There are numerous shows that I had to stop watching altogether because the product placement was far too disruptive.
3. Re:Still better than cable by Captain+Splendid · 2017-10-05 04:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It doesn't take up much time, true, but it certainly does pull me out of the show quite often.
  
  Yeah, how dare my favourite character take a swig from a red Coke can instead of a fuschia Cooke can. Took me right out!
  
  There are numerous shows that I had to stop watching altogether because the product placement was far too disruptive.
  
  Do tell.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
4. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary, the last six times I heard about a show and went to watch it on netflix, it wasn't available. I was hoping they could at least have How it's Made by Discovery channel but, nada.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
5. Re:Still better than cable by Binestar · 2017-10-05 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly enough, a lot of the old history channel stuff is up on youtube. I've been more and more been considering dropping my netflix account, since it's less than 10% of my watch time. I'm at about 60% youtube channels and 40% hulu. I don't think this price increase will cause me to drop it though, there are still netflix originals I enjoy.
  
  --
  Do you Gentoo!?
6. Re:Still better than cable by Luthair · 2017-10-05 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Opposite boat - the only reason I have a subscription is so my parents & sibling can use it. Would have cancelled several years ago otherwise, can rarely find anything worth watching.
7. Re:Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-05 04:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Do tell.
  Bones was a little egregious with their Prius placement.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
8. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, how dare my favourite character take a swig from a red Coke can instead of a fuschia Cooke can. Took me right out!
  Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. However, when most scenes contain a prominent product whose label is always facing me, that catches my eye. Worst of all is when the show pretty much comes to a screeching halt in order to do what amounts to an overt commercial
  
  Do tell.
  The most egregious was the show "Bones", which I really enjoyed overall, but the "stop the show to do a commercial" thing made it unwatchable. Cutting away to a real interstitial would have been far better.
9. Re:Still better than cable by UnknownSoldier · 2017-10-05 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  > It doesn't directly pull you out, but if you have ever taken a marketing class or worked in marketing it is very distracting.
  ^^ THIS.
  Almost as bad as the shitty laugh track
10. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I just can't watch TV on youtube. Too much effort to find episode by episode.. then the next one isn't there, etc.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
11. Re:Still better than cable by Captain+Splendid · 2017-10-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's Bones, so no great loss there. And as for prominent labels, meh. Fake brands take me out of a show/movie far easier than real ones.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
12. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's been around for at least as long as me, but it's only in the past five or ten years that it became actually intrusive.
13. Re:Still better than cable by Binestar · 2017-10-05 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree with this, but does the original air order matter for How it's made?
  
  --
  Do you Gentoo!?
14. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's nothing wrong with it if it doesn't bother you. Keep watching!
  There's also nothing wrong with the fact that it bothers me. I just won't be watching. No big loss, really.
15. Re:Still better than cable by spire3661 · 2017-10-05 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I love fake brands. Currently typing this on an 'Encom' labeled computer. My server is from Aperture Laboratories.
  
  --
  Good-bye
16. Re:Still better than cable by nomadic · 2017-10-05 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see one. And look, there's Magnetbox and Sorny!
17. Re:Still better than cable by nomadic · 2017-10-05 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh...citation?
18. Re:Still better than cable by AvitarX · 2017-10-05 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix is going the HBO model.
  It's approaching it in price ($14 vs $15 now for the premium, or $11 vs $15 for the standard).
  They're getting less and less of "things you've heard of" and doubling down on exclusive content.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
19. Re:Still better than cable by nomadic · 2017-10-05 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  In the early TV days the NEWS ANCHORS WOULD SHILL PRODUCTS DIRECTLY. There is no way that ANYTHING done on TV now even comes to close to that.
20. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the example I provided in an earlier comment disproves that: Bones did precisely this.
21. Re:Still better than cable by thegreatbob · 2017-10-05 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes the placements are relatively seamless, but all too often you're flung into a mystical world where it seems like everyone drinks the same brand of soda...
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
22. Re:Still better than cable by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Seems more like 3 or 4 minutes of commercial for every 5 or 6 minutes of show, at the least. It's getting pretty close to 50:50 on some channels. There's nothing like paying $120 a month for cable, when $50 of that is actually going towards watching commercials. I'm literally paying to watch commercials!
  I have to get the other half on board before I can cut the cable though.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
23. Re:Still better than cable by JackieBrown · 2017-10-05 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Chuck?
  But then, they were so blatant about it and it's fans where extremely appreciative of Subway sponsoring the show for more seasons, we were cool with it :)
24. Re:Still better than cable by JackieBrown · 2017-10-05 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  You begin to realize entire episodes have been created just to work in a specific series of product placements. p>
  
  That sound like real life. I'd disagree if I was not constantly witnessing people pay extra money for a T-shirt simply because it has a larger Nike logo.
  And listening to people complain that they can't wear that shirt to work. It's amazing how we pay to advertise for companies and will even create drama if we are no allowed to advertise for those companies (I'm wearing a Doctor Who shirt but that's different because it's cool ;))
25. Re:Still better than cable by JackieBrown · 2017-10-05 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to do that anyways. Where I live, timewarner services costs more without cable TV
26. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well the alternative is remembering everyone I have seen and regarding that some how, so yes.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
27. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well I tried getting into Nick Cage, but I found it incredibly slow moving for a superhero movie. Same with House of Cards, very slow. Orange is the New Black is ok, but another problem I have is that it costs around $400 to build a PC that can show HECV encoded video. I looked into an Android box that didn't suck and settled on a Mi Box but they don't ship to Canada. It seems any Android box I can get that's good is $250+ which defeats the purpose of getting an Android box. I don't have a laptop to dedicate to a TV right now.. these are all more issues with Netflix. I'm pretty sure I'll just cancel my membership to Netflix.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
28. Re:Still better than cable by Zephyn · 2017-10-05 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Word to the wise: If it asks you to download drivers for a Neurotoxin emitter, don't authorize it.
29. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  er i mean luke cage
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
30. Re:Still better than cable by Binestar · 2017-10-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  They need to have a season showing how to make something. A merlin engine for example, episode one starts with smelting the ore, episode 2 making the tools to make the tools, episode 3 is bolts and nuts, episode 4 is another piece. You miss episodes 5 and 6 and you're like where the heck did that piston ring come from?
  
  --
  Do you Gentoo!?
31. Re:Still better than cable by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the commercials have gone crazy! I've used a DVR for 15 years, but even then it's annoying to be into the show, and suddenly have to FF past some guy yammering about Cialis.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
32. Re:Still better than cable by tbannist · 2017-10-05 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, Luke Cage starts slow, but it eventually pays off. Don't forget it's a series, not a movie. The ending of The Defenders definitely left me wanting more (in the good way).
  House of Cards is always slow. It's a political drama and pretty much every major character is also a terrible person. I watch to see how everyone's meticulously laid plans are going to blow up in their own faces, often because of petty and foolish behaviour.
  If you like Orange is the New Black you might also like Wentworth. It's a more dramatic and less comedic take on a very similar premise.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
33. Re:Still better than cable by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Chuck?
  But then, they were so blatant about it and it's fans where extremely appreciative of Subway sponsoring the show for more seasons, we were cool with it :)
  It was funny in Chuck because it was so blatant. It became part of the joke.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
34. Re:Still better than cable by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes the placements are relatively seamless, but all too often you're flung into a mystical world where it seems like everyone drinks the same brand of soda...
  If it doesn't impact the story... I don't care. I hardly notice.
  Much rather that than an actual ad break.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
35. Re:Still better than cable by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix is going the HBO model.
  It's approaching it in price ($14 vs $15 now for the premium, or $11 vs $15 for the standard).
  They're getting less and less of "things you've heard of" and doubling down on exclusive content.
  Yeah. several times they've yanked away I've been half-way through watching. I get angry until I discover that it's on Hulu.
  Hulu has just about all the shows that Netflix doesn't have anymore. Netflix is becoming as you said "just original programming". Hulu is becoming what Netflix was.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
36. Re:Still better than cable by Isaac-Lew · 2017-10-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you've never been to Atlanta...
37. Re:Still better than cable by Quirkz · 2017-10-05 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought it was Sonopanic, Magmavox, and Sorry.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
38. Re:Still better than cable by Ksevio · 2017-10-05 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  The in-show ads were one of the reasons I stopped watching it. It was at the point that Bones would start spouting off Prius features and I could hit the "skip 30s" button and she would be just wrapping up about it.
  
  It's one thing to have a main character drive a car, it's quite another to have them discuss the top features for 30 seconds
39. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't -- I suspect that it would take you and I approximately the same amount of time to hunt one down, if it exists on YouTube, so I'll leave that to you.
  Besides, I've sworn off YouTube.
40. Re:Still better than cable by murdocj · 2017-10-05 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. If someone points it out I'll notice it, but a guy in the show taking a swig from a coke can just doesn't have any impact on me.
  I watched the new Star Trek pilot on CBS, first time I had watched network TV in a while, and talk about getting pulled out... felt like every 2 minutes they were cutting to a commercial. It really started to drive me crazy. I would much, much, MUCH rather have even the most blatant product placement than that.
41. Re:Still better than cable by Scarletdown · 2017-10-05 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  End of line...
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
42. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. If someone points it out I'll notice it, but a guy in the show taking a swig from a coke can just doesn't have any impact on me.
  But what about when the characters in the story stop doing story things to extol the virtues of some product for 30 seconds before starting again?
  That's what I'm talking about. I much prefer an interstitial to that.
43. Re:Still better than cable by murdocj · 2017-10-05 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've just never noticed in the middle of a space battle someone taking a long swig from a Coke and then talking about how amazing it is that Coke has been refreshing people since the late 19th century. Now again, I don't watch network TV so I wouldn't have seen it there, but I do watch shows on Netflix and I just haven't noticed it. The most I'll notice is when they zoom in on a car for about a second and you notice it's a Chevy or whatever, but that sure doesn't break the flow.
44. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  The most I'll notice is when they zoom in on a car for about a second and you notice it's a Chevy or whatever, but that sure doesn't break the flow.
  That sort of thing doesn't bother me at all.
45. Re:Still better than cable by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I'm watching more on Hulu these days than Netflix, and some of that used to be on NF.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
46. Re:Still better than cable by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you've ever driven with a self righteous prius driver, you'd understand how realistic it is.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
47. Re:Still better than cable by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I agree - products are everywhere you look, but now that one appears in a TV show, it's product placement and "ruins" the show. People love their crap and pay extra for shirts, stickers, etc., just to show it. But here's the thing - if you have to choose product placement or commercial break, which do you pick? And there's only one right answer.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
48. Re:Still better than cable by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've actually very disappointed with the lack of content on Hulu. Right when I signed up, they had all the new syfy shows, several major companies - including Turner Broadcasting had made heavy investments into it - Hulu is actually owned jointly by most of the big U.S. networks (Turner, NBC Universal, ABC/Disney, Fox - yet there's a ton of content from those networks that they don't show.
  When I joined, SyFy was touting Hulu as the way to watch their content online. Within a month after I subscribed, they pulled most of their content. Hulu is doing the same thing as Netflix - more and more exclusive content. And it's not all bad - I've enjoyed a lot of the Netflix and Hulu content, but it's not why I originally signed up. I'd pay double for Hulu and drop Netflix if that had more recent episodes of the shows I like - instead I have to wait for the next year to get full seasons on Netflix, if I get them at all. It's not a complain - it's just the way it is. If it bothered me that much I'd go back to DirecTV and DVR everything I wanted.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
49. Re:Still better than cable by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  My daughter is on her third run of Gilmore Girls, and my college aged son is binge watching Naruto. For that I'm going to be paying $16/month? Sigh.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
50. Re:Still better than cable by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hulu is pretty good for that, but there's too much missing to make it a suitable replacement. Still, I'm a patient guy, and I can wait for the full season of The Walking Dead. I don't HAVE to watch it now.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
51. Re: Still better than cable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: Take out the redundant 'self righteous' and you have reasonable witty remark
52. Re: Still better than cable by Brockmire · 2017-10-05 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Get a fucking DVR you cheapskate. I've had one since 2000.
53. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Personally?
  I choose neither. I just don't watch anymore.
54. Re:Still better than cable by Baleet · 2017-10-05 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  This gets voted Interesting?
55. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-05 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I looked into chomecast but it didn't work with Kodi. Only works with a few select apps so it's a no deal for me.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
56. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, believe whatever you want, but I'd point out that I'm hardly the only one in this thread that mentioned this. People also mentioned other examples from other shows. This isn't obscure stuff.
  For the record, what someone asked me is if I had a link to a YouTube clip handy. I don't (why in the world would I?)
  I have no idea if a relevant clip exists on YouTube or not, and I see no reason to spend a bunch of time looking for it when it's no more difficult for people who care to do the search themselves. This just isn't that important.
57. Re:Still better than cable by AvitarX · 2017-10-05 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  If Hulu had day after recent episodes from FXX and not just Fox, I'd be so happy.
  Hulu ad free has made regular on demand un usable for me.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
58. Re:Still better than cable by Kryptonian+Jor-El · 2017-10-05 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm literally paying to watch commercials!
  Well no, not really. If there were no commercials, you'd be paying more, as the networks would charge the providers more, who would in turn charge you more
  
  --
  All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
59. Re:Still better than cable by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-05 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped watching when bones went crazy about how she's so smart so she should be president or that she's so smart that she can be a great leader, all while doing the dumbest, cliche, narcissistic crap possible.
  So... you stopped watching after episode 1, I take it?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
60. Re:Still better than cable by fluffernutter · 2017-10-06 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Since you brought that up, I find that to be a general trend with TV shows. I used to watch Hot Rod Garage, in which they would work on a single car for several episodes. Or shows like This Old House, where they would focus on a single house for a whole season. Those kinds of shows are getting harder and harder to find. Fast N Loud discusses cars but they have three cars in and out in one episode, and you hardly see them working on it at all. I guess it's just a sign of the times with decreasing attention spans and all.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
61. Re:Still better than cable by cyberchondriac · 2017-10-06 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's a shill-esque way of looking at it, if you ask me. I think they're double dipping. A lot of these channels would be free over the air, paid for by their advertisements. Some wouldn't, yes, but I'm already paying a lot of money for a subscription. That's was supposed to cover all that, originally.
  There's no way Comcast requires $80 to $160 every month from every single customer just to cover the operational costs of maintaining the coax and fiber and procuring the programming and scheduling it. Cable boxes and routers are ultimately paid for the by customer as well.
  Profit is their prerogative like any other business, sure, but they've gotten sick with greed IMO.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
62. Re: Still better than cable by hackwrench · 2017-10-06 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Willy Wonka buried it.
63. Re:Still better than cable by PlaynBass · 2017-10-06 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  No more so than virtually ANY movie or TV show that uses all shiny new SUVs, pickup trucks, or new cars for any brand. At least with NF, you don't get the commercials, even with the basic plan. Unlike you get with Hulu. Not sure how the direct access plans of the major networks do it, but as I recall, they run commercials, AND charge you for the access.
  
  --
  PlaynBass
64. Re:Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-06 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... Netflix, watch shows a full season behind, after all the spoilers, but with no ads... Hulu, watch shows as they come out, before spoilers, but with ads.
  
  I guess it really depends if you think avoiding ads is worth potentially having your enjoyment of a show ruined before you even get to watch it. Netflix is great for re-watching, or catching up on a show that's been on the air for a while that you just haven't gotten around to watching, but Hulu is aimed at people who want to watch current episodes of shows and not just last season. Personally, I subscribe to both.
  
  Oh, and Hulu has an ad-free option. I don't watch enough for it to be worth it, but they do offer it.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
65. Re:Still better than cable by nomadic · 2017-10-06 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Did the Bones character turn towards the camera, hold up a Coke, and say buy coke?
66. Re:Still better than cable by JohnFen · 2017-10-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  There were a number of different instances, and they were all around selling some car (I forget which one). All the ones I saw involved the characters sitting in the car, stopping any story-related activities, then having one character express astonishment at some feature or another and the other one explaining it and how wonderful it it. This would go on for 30 seconds or so before the story resumed.
  That's just for Bones. Other shows have done similar things for other products.
67. Re:Still better than cable by eric_harris_76 · 2017-10-06 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes TBBT is too unsubtle. If "Product placement on Big Bang Theory" were a drinking game, I'd be drunk on my ass well before the end of the show, some episodes. But I'm kinda a lightweight.
  Sometimes a product mention almost seems like something the brand would pay to not see broadcast. "I want to be disappointed in the order George Lucas intended." "Not some fancy place like Olive Garden."
  Or maybe I don't fully understand marketing.
  
  --
  There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
68. Re: Still better than cable by Brockmire · 2017-10-06 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Royal Pains shilled for Microsoft and other things in the last season. They felt like impromptu infomercials. Room 104 is getting annoying with product placement. Subway in one, and I think 7-up in another. Though, the season started off good, but last few episodes sucked.
69. Re: Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-06 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Family Guy managed to fit it into the flow of the show and I almost feel like it would have been somewhat jarring had they made up a car for the bit. Bones straight up interrupted the flow of a conversation between Booth and Brennan to talk about how cool the tree-and-leaf fuel economy display was. It ruined the rest of that episode because I just couldn't pull myself out of the fog of disbelief and forget I was just watching a show.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
70. Re:Still better than cable by PlaynBass · 2017-10-08 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I supposed if I actually cared about getting everything immediately, that would make a difference. I don't care about the media hype that comes with most of these shows at all: it's all just to market ads that are trying to sell me stuff I don't want or need anyway. If I wanted to watch commercials, I'd watch the local on-air stations. I guess I'm just a Un-American anti-consumerist. Most people, if they really thought 2 seconds about it, really don't need 99% of the crap the ads are trying to sell us. The ads only try to convince us that we're losers for not caring about what THEY want to sell to us, instead of paying attention to making sure we have what we actually need. The so-called "entertainment" is nothing that special, either.
  
  --
  PlaynBass
71. Re:Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-08 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'll repeat, since you clearly missed it:
  
  Oh, and Hulu has an ad-free option. I don't watch enough for it to be worth it, but they do offer it.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
72. Re:Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-09 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Had you not kept going on about ads, perhaps your message would have been more clear?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
73. Re:Still better than cable by InfiniteBlaze · 2017-10-10 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, TBBT belongs in the TOILET anyway, so...
74. Re:Still better than cable by PlaynBass · 2017-10-13 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  You kept on about the ads! I kept saying I didn't like them but I also said that I wasn't interested in paying extra not to see them. I also said that none of the content was worth paying extra for to either get it immediately nor to avoid the ads. Let it go already! I've wasted too much time on this topic. Don't you get it? IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
  
  --
  PlaynBass
75. Re:Still better than cable by BronsCon · 2017-10-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yet you'll reply to this. And my next post. And the one after that...
  
  The whole while ignoring the fact that you're doing so under your own free will. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you reply.
  
  That said, I'll give you a reason to reply this time: please, explain to me how I "kept on about the ads". You were the first to mention ads re: Netflix vs Hulu and all I did was point out the difference in what the two providers offer and the fact that Hulu also offers ad-free service. That is what set you off on a tirade about ads and how people don't need 99% of what's advertised, completely missing my point.
  
  Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees, my friend. You're a prime example.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Less streaming content and higher price? by blahbooboo · 2017-10-05 03:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

So let me get this straight, they've already lost a lot of non-Netflix created content, will lose Disney in 2019, and now they're raising the price?
1. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Back to piracy I go.
2. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by stealth_finger · 2017-10-05 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So let me get this straight, they've already lost a lot of non-Netflix created content, will lose Disney in 2019, and now they're raising the price?
  They're just prepping you for once they finally get rid of net neutrality.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
3. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by blahbooboo · 2017-10-05 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  Some Netflix original content is quite good -- for example Narcos or the first 2 seasons of House of Cards. But the future is looking bleak when everyone wants to run their own streaming service.
4. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by wardrich86 · 2017-10-05 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And thus, they will end up destroying the only reason they (the brancher-offers) were getting money... and we'll wind up all going back to piracy. Things will end up so segmented that we'll be paying cable-level pricing to get access to 50 different streaming services. Fuck that.
5. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by sg_oneill · 2017-10-05 03:40 · Score: 2
  
  So let me get this straight, they've already lost a lot of non-Netflix created content, will lose Disney in 2019, and now they're raising the price?
  The problem is they need more money to keep stuff on their channel. This current craze of every cable vendor and their dog starting their own streaming service means content is getting more expensive to lock down.
  Nobody is winning out of this whole balkanization of the streaming scene.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
6. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by squiggleslash · 2017-10-05 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yup. Netflix is loss making, so the idea they might still need to raise prices while they offer a slightly worse service is not contradictory. The question is whether people are willing to pay more.
  My guess is yes. But I suspect Netflix would be more successful if they added as much content as possible and doubled their prices, rather than doing what they're doing. It's better to get people the product they want to pay for, and charge them what it costs, than to offer something half assed.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
7. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Anubis+IV · 2017-10-05 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yup, but it shouldn't come as a surprise, nor is it necessarily something to get worked up over.
  Netflix was considered an upstart company for a long time, with most of the studios and networks not recognizing how disruptive it would eventually become. As such, Netflix was viewed as yet another way to profit from back catalogs that otherwise weren't providing much value to their owners, so Netflix was able to secure a number of multiyear licenses from major organizations (e.g. Starz) for little more than a pittance. Fast forward 10 years and everyone has woken up to the fact that Netflix poses a major threat to the very foundations of the traditional television business model. They aren't willing to give away licenses to their old content for cheap, nor are they so willing to license recent stuff without ensuring that they receive hefty compensation.
  In response, Netflix only has two options: raise prices or reduce their catalog, and they've done both to varying degrees.
  What I've noticed recently is that Netflix seems to be procuring short-term licenses for big-name films, that way people can watch them as they hit the various services, but that these licenses seem to expire after a few months. Doing it that way lets the vast majority of people who were interested in that film watch it, without forcing Netflix to raise prices in order to keep those big-name films in their library in perpetuity. Likewise, they let older items expire, but most of them seem to return again a year or two later, as if at any given time Netflix wants their library to have about X items in it, but they renew licenses in a round robin fashion so that people have an opportunity to actually watch more than X items.
  For me, even with the price hike, it's still a great value proposition. With dozens of items currently in my queue and more being added on a regular basis, it may not have any particular thing I want to see at any given time, but it always has enough things I want to see that I'm never lacking for entertainment.
8. Re: Less streaming content and higher price? by spire3661 · 2017-10-05 03:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You need Win10(fully patched and current) + a Z270 motherboard AND a Kaby Lake processor to get the full Netflix experience on PC.
  
  --
  Good-bye
9. Re: Less streaming content and higher price? by spire3661 · 2017-10-05 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Same, but with a 1080ti.... :).
  
  --
  Good-bye
10. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by thegreatbob · 2017-10-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  If all it takes it ~$20-30 a year to tip you into bankruptcy, you're doing something wrong.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
11. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Albanach · 2017-10-05 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  I think we're already there:
  Netflix $10.99
  Hulu $7.99 ($11.99 without commercials)
  Amazon Prime $5.99
  HBO Now $14.99
  Starz $8.99
  BritBox $6.99
  Showtime $8.99
  You're now at $65/month before paying for cable internet and you don't have any sports, news or local channels.
12. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Gilgaron · 2017-10-05 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Do you watch enough TV that it is worthwhile to subscribe to all of those at once?
13. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by plague911 · 2017-10-05 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The problem was never the fact that aggregators were a bad thing, the problem was that they aggregation was incredibly consumer unfriendly. I like CNN, Comedy Central, HBO, and the sci-fi channel. I put NEGATIVE value on ESPN, Disney, and FOX yet their bundles were designed in such a way as to force me to pay for them.
14. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by nealric · 2017-10-05 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why would one subscribe to all of those services? Netflix and Prime are plenty for me with the occasional movie download from google play. I don't even view prime as part of my streaming service costs as I mostly use it for the shipping.
15. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by wardrich86 · 2017-10-05 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm outside the US, so I've got Crave and Netflix and that's it... and if it's not on Netflix, I probably don't watch it.
16. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by nine-times · 2017-10-05 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My guess is yes. But I suspect Netflix would be more successful if they added as much content as possible and doubled their prices
  It's not clear that they have that option. Content owners have been playing games with licensing for years, and if one thing is clear, it's that they don't want you to be able to subscribe to one service where you can get all (or "enough") of the content you want under one roof.
  This is what's going on:
  Company #1 has 5 pieces of content, which are A, B, C, D, and E. Company #2 have 5 pieces of content, which are V, W, X, Y, and Z. So Amazon licenses A, B, V, W, and X. Netflix licenses A, C, D, V, and X. Hulu licenses A, B, E, W, and Y. Everyone involved knows that you, the consumer, want all 10 pieces of content, so they're trying to get you to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Plus, you'll notice that only gets you A, B, C, D, E, V, W, and X. To get Z, you still have to buy it or pay for cable.
  And part of this whole scheme is that they're intentionally getting you to pay for each piece of content several times over. They justify their pricing because of all the content they have, even though there's an awful lot of overlap.
  And that's why content owners are never going to let Netflix have anything resembling a "complete library" of content. If they do that, then you'll only pay for that content once, and you'll be paying Netflix. Netflix will set the price and the terms. If they play a lot of games with exclusivity, then they can play the distribution channels off of each other, and get consumers to pay for most shows several times.
17. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Netflix is loss making, so the idea they might still need to raise prices while they offer a slightly worse service is not contradictory. The question is whether people are willing to pay more.
  My guess is yes. But I suspect Netflix would be more successful if they added as much content as possible and doubled their prices, rather than doing what they're doing. It's better to get people the product they want to pay for, and charge them what it costs, than to offer something half assed.
  Indeed. I'm considering dropping Netflix- not because their prices are going up... I was considering before I read that. I'm considering dropping because they don't have anything anymore. Hulu or Amazon Prime usually has what I want. Netflix rarely does... and when they do, you start watching a show only for them to yank it off the air when you're half way through a season. Might hang around to watch season 2 of stranger things and then can my Netflix subscription.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
18. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  It's till the best value for the dollar by far if you don't count ISP cost. These days the ISP is taken for granted. Even with a trivial price increase it still remains the cheapest legal service. Better offerings overall than other streaming services, minimal buffering delays because of adaptive streaming, and high quality of its own shows (I know they push these hard, but they're a tiny fraction of why people subscribe).
19. Re: Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Just get a TV?
20. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think the issue is that content owners want their own piece of the pie by offering their own service. They were perfectly happy to license all the content to cable and satellite providers. But they see Netflix profits and popularity and they try to get in on that, often with overpriced and underwhelming services (ie CBS).
  Trying to gain exclusive access to content, or grant it to a single party, is ultimately going to bring in fewer profits to the content owner.
21. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't consider Hulu or Amazon Prime, because I already have Netflix. It goes both ways, don't assume everyone is a cult member and already has Amazon so that Netflix is the add-on. Amazon and Hulu still have fewer offerings overall, and Amazon charges *extra* for the few programs I do want to see.
  But if you've got all three then drop at least one (probably hulu, it seems amazingly redundant except for a tiny handful of things).
22. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Follow-on here. I saw this same thing with DirecTV. Some channels would demand a big price increase and DirecTV would refuse, and there'd be a standoff. Most of the time the content provider would relent though. Now they're playing sort of the same game with streaming services.
23. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by losfromla · 2017-10-05 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I make do with the top three, don't need or want or have any use for the others. I am starting to become a little bored with netflix but I share the account with two other households and don't want to leave them high and dry.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
24. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny.
  This time last year I was pestering my wife that we should drop Hulu. She only wanted it for one show- she persuaded me to keep it. Now, after everything I watch getting dropped from Netflix (and then later finding that they're all on Hulu) I'm pushing the other way. Hulu has a much larger library of both new and old stuff than Netflix. I hate Hulu's UI- Netflix's is hard to beat, but Hulu seems to have a lot more content than Netflix and other than the Original Programming, Netflix doesn't seem to have much to offer anymore.
  Amazon for me is just a bonus. The wife has a student account, so we have the prime video there. It's usually the last place I check though because I hate how they mix the paid stuff in with the stuff I can actually watch.
  Since I don't pay extra for Amazon- and Hulu has a more complete library- Netflix is now the obvious one to drop.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
25. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I just have Netflix & Hulu (ad-free). I have Amazon, but I've never watched anything on it, and there's a good chance I'll dump it. If I finally cut the cable, I'd probably get HBO for GoT, but cut it during the off-season. I wouldn't need to replace everything on cable. There's plenty on just NF & Hulu.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
26. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I got Amazon for a deal, not because of the streaming. Based solely on the streaming, Amazon would be the first to get axed. Netflix would be #2. Hulu has the advantage of having current shows (the next day). Though, even having both of them, even after the price bump, is a drop in the bucket compared to cable.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
27. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by gfxguy · 2017-10-05 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  But that's way more than I ever had anyway - even before I cut the cable (or satellite, in my case), I didn't get premium content from HBO, Starz, Showtime, and I don't even know what BritBox is. I already had Amazon Prime for shipping, so I was going to have that anyway, and I already had Netflix. The only thing I added was Hulu. Both Netflix and Hulu have a lot of movies, so I don't know why I'd pay more for one of the other services except to get the most recent stuff and, frankly, on the occasional (once or twice a month, tops) we want to watch something new, we just pay for it on Amazon. So that's like another $8 - $10 month, I get a ton of movies, including a couple of new releases.
  The problem is, even without sports, news, or local channels, you're still missing a lot of the "good" network content, like recent episodes of AMC shows.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
28. Re: Less streaming content and higher price? by Brockmire · 2017-10-05 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Check out their original content from Amazon, first. I watch their original content more than Netflix.
29. Re: Less streaming content and higher price? by Brockmire · 2017-10-05 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Narcos is way better than Marco Polo, which I gave zero fucks when it was cancelled. They didn't manage their money very well and fucked themselves.
30. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  I may try Hulu, but so far I have 10 years of stuff I want to watch on Netflix before I run out...
  Only things I feel like I'm missing are Doctor Who (yanked from all services for awhile), maybe Seinfeld that I never watched, and Rick and Morty (possibly on Hulu??).
  Originally after cutting the cord I was going to get both Hulu for television series and Netflix for movies; but Netflix has plenty of TV series and I see more of those than movies. I'm also finding stuff on Netflix that are better than I expected.
31. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care so much that the shows are current or not. I can't keep up anyway, and I prefer binging a series all at once instead of the intended one week between episodes.
32. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  I may try Hulu, but so far I have 10 years of stuff I want to watch on Netflix before I run out...
  Only things I feel like I'm missing are Doctor Who (yanked from all services for awhile), maybe Seinfeld that I never watched, and Rick and Morty (possibly on Hulu??).
  Originally after cutting the cord I was going to get both Hulu for television series and Netflix for movies; but Netflix has plenty of TV series and I see more of those than movies. I'm also finding stuff on Netflix that are better than I expected.
  Amazaon Prime has Doctor Who (but not the latest) for free.
  I'm pretty sure Seinfeld is on Hulu.
  No idea about Rick and Morty; although, that's a current network show isn't it? So odds are, it's probably on Hulu.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
33. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by nine-times · 2017-10-06 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing my larger point, which is that this isn't just about making more money. Netflix could offer them more money than they currently make from all distribution channels, and a lot of content owners probably still wouldn't go for it.
  This is about control. When everyone watched cable, the networks and cable companies had control. You only had one choice in cable companies, and that cable company had to deal with the content owners. The cable company controlled what you saw, and the content owners controlled the cable companies. Now Netflix comes along to disrupt that, but if Netflix wins and gets access to everything, then both the cable companies and content owners lose control. Cable companies become dumb pipe ISPs (at best), and content becomes a commodity.
  In response, the cables companies are fighting net neutrality, so they can once again control what you can access. The content owners are playing games with distribution, propping up a bunch of competitors who only get partial libraries, because then they can exercise the control over Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/whatever the same way they used to control the cable companies. Meanwhile, some of the content owners are trying to have their own streaming service (Hulu itself was started by some of the major networks), so that they can retain control that way.
  Part of the problem with viewing the world through capitalist eyes is you start thinking it's all about money. It's not all about money. It's all about control. Money is just one way to control people.
34. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Darinbob · 2017-10-06 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon is a paid service, it's not at all free.
35. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by Riceballsan · 2017-10-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  What content are they losing... practically everything https://www.digitaltrends.com/... Basically 80% of what they are getting, is individual movies much of what they are losing is 4+ seasons of shows. Last batch of removals took out house, which was my wife's favorate (rewatch infinate times to get to sleep) series. Now there's basically nothing left. Admitted it isn't entirely netflix's fault, seems like everyone and their mother thinks they can run their own streaming site. at the rate things are going, it looks like streaming will lead to the al-a-carte that people wanted with cable TV. IE ideally each network will be be 5 a month or so. and you pay for the ones you want.
36. Re:Less streaming content and higher price? by DarthVain · 2017-10-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The way I see it they can justify it because of the Market. The Market being that everyone and his uncle are creating their own shitter streaming services, and charging about the same money for it. So they can basically point to a whole bunch of worse services charging about the same money and can they justify raising their price slight able because relatively speaking it is "worth" it. As I said I don't think this is anything that they have done, but rather their crappy competitors.
No way to win. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

We want one service that gives us access to all content.
But, we also want the price to be low.
As soon as there is just one service, the price will go through the roof. The more Netflix dominates, the higher its price.
Sucks.
1. Re:No way to win. by BorgDrone · 2017-10-05 03:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course there is a way to win.
  We want to subscribe to one service and get all content, we don't need (or want) that content to be exclusive to that service.
  So the solution is simple, forbid exclusivity and require content creators to provide their content to all services under identical terms. Then you have multiple services to choose from and all services can offer all content (if they want).
2. Re:No way to win. by tgetzoya · 2017-10-05 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  You have made Ann Rand spin in her grave.......maybe we can harness the energy to add competition to the market, it's what she would have wanted.
3. Re:No way to win. by houghi · 2017-10-05 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  They should also make them available for free via torrent. Torrent is a service, so people will have a real choice. Those who want to pay for it can and those who don't won't to pay for it won't have to.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
4. Re:No way to win. by nomadic · 2017-10-05 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  I knew we should have pinned her into the coffin with a stake through the heart.
5. Re:No way to win. by Firemouth · 2017-10-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  No way to win.
  The only winning move is not to play.
6. Re:No way to win. by dunkelfalke · 2017-10-05 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  she had a heart?
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
7. Re:No way to win. by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  In the past you could never subscribe to one thing and get it all. Netflix was great early because you got all the older content and you could watch it anytime. Ie, you want to watch a particular older movie and Netflix would have it whereas the cable service might have it in rotation once every two or three years. Sure, TV Land would show older TV shows, but just one episode a day and almost never in order.
  These days I see some streaming services still on a schedule - when I tried to watch someting for Adult Swim on the computer, it said "next showing at 11:00pm", making me wonder what was the point of even streaming? It's even worse than being on cable with a DVR or VCR. Other streaming services seem to offer only a subset of what they normally have, and dole it out a little bit at a time (ie even paid CBS service won't let you see an entire season at once). They just don't seem to see the value of what Netflix offers and aren't attempting to replicate it.
8. Re:No way to win. by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  IThese days I see some streaming services still on a schedule - when I tried to watch someting for Adult Swim on the computer, it said "next showing at 11:00pm", making me wonder what was the point of even streaming? It's even worse than being on cable with a DVR or VCR. Other streaming services seem to offer only a subset of what they normally have, and dole it out a little bit at a time (ie even paid CBS service won't let you see an entire season at once). They just don't seem to see the value of what Netflix offers and aren't attempting to replicate it.
  I have no interest in "Live Streaming" services. If I want live, I can get it on cable and use my DVR to pause, save, skip ads, etc.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
9. Re:No way to win. by nomadic · 2017-10-06 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well played, my friend, well played...
I guess they gotta start making money by jandrese · 2017-10-05 03:10 · Score: 1

Another year another 10% price hike. This is why I ditched my cable in the first place Netflix.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
LOL by p51d007 · 2017-10-05 03:11 · Score: 1

Typical drug dealer....get em hook for free/reduced price, then JACK up the price because they are junkies!
1. Re:LOL by martinfb · 2017-10-06 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Say hello (again) to capitalism at it's unfettered strongest!
  
  --
  
  Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Does anyone do basic? by taxman_10m · 2017-10-05 03:13 · Score: 1

Why?
1. Re:Does anyone do basic? by omnichad · 2017-10-05 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  1) The content variety was enormous compared to streaming.
  FTFY. It's not so much that their streaming catalog grew, but they are dumping all their discs. Many of my movies on my DVD queue are no longer available or "Very Long Wait" because there is only one copy floating around.
2. Re:Does anyone do basic? by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  My brother does the DVD-only. Wasn't so fond of the streaming, and can sub for one month onlly for some stuff (Stranger Things), and as for movies you get a bigger selection on DVD.
  Content owners don't have much ability to deny DVDs to certain companies; if they can sell to a rental service (Red Box, etc) then they have to sell to Netflix also.
Premium subsidizing basic? by zifn4b · 2017-10-05 03:19 · Score: 1

Why can't we both get a dollar subscription raise instead of one group of customers paying for the other? We all use the service and should support it.

--
We'll make great pets
1. Re:Premium subsidizing basic? by DarkOx · 2017-10-05 03:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Its called price discrimination. You create tiered offerings because you want to get charge the people the most who are willing to pay the most, while not being forced to turn away still profitable but lower contribution margin business.
  If you don't like it the correct way to protest is go down to the 7.99 tier. That is how you tell NetFlix you like the service overall but don't place the same premium on premium service that they do. If enough people do it; the result will be they either raise rates on the bottom tier to hit the revenue goals while making a perhaps slightly cheaper premium tier seem like a better decision at the margin for consumers, or go back to a single class of service.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2. Re:Premium subsidizing basic? by Baron_Yam · 2017-10-05 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think there needs to a split formula.
  Part of your fee should go to general content production. You're not going to willingly fork out for something you aren't going to see for the first time for another year or so, but when that year's up, you're going to expect something novel to watch. And having a diverse selection helps keep the content producer financially healthy so your preferred content remains available.
  Another part of your fee should be directed to more specific production - if all you watch is sitcoms, then that's the accounting bucket this should go into. I'm sure there's thousands of ways to slice this particular pie, but it can also be rendered down into a dozen major options.
  Finally, the last part of your subscription fee should go to the specific shows you watch. This last part could even be the dreaded 'pay per view', though I'd say it should be more like 'pay to unlock a particular episode for so long as you have a valid general subscription'. But that's a mouthful. Anyway, you'd get up to 'x' new episodes per billing period for your standard subscription, with the ability to buy a higher level package for the right to unlock further episodes.
  That way if you want to watch a drama, you're not funding a sport show. One fee for all, spread equally, just irritates people who don't want to be funding other people's expensive niche content.
And here I sit.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:26 · Score: 2, Funny

With my own library of movies and TV shows on DVD hooked to a media player for the TV paying nothing in subscription fees. Even when the Internet is down I still have TV. When the electric is done, I still have TV with battery power if I wanted. Cheers!
1. Re:And here I sit.... by DarkOx · 2017-10-05 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is many of us that have been around awhile have a good size library. The thing about my library is its mostly about sharing things I especially enjoyed with others. I very rarely plop down in front of any of that stuff on my own. "I have seen it."
  The trouble with your model is adding a single new item to your library costs 1/2 the price of month subscription to Netflix assuming you are buying off the used rack! You get what 4 hours of new (to you) content a month for $8? Not the model most of us want to use.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2. Re:And here I sit.... by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  But a single DVD often costs more than two or three months of Netfix, especially with the grandfathered Netflix price.
Good for Netflix by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but screw Netflix. I am not going to support one of the three companies who were the primary forces behind making the EME part of the HTML5 standard.
1. Re:Good for Netflix by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-10-05 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...but screw Netflix. I am not going to support one of the three companies who were the primary forces behind making the EME part of the HTML5 standard.
  Yeah, that was one of the reasons I canceled my Netflix a few months ago.
  I figured the family would watch Amazon Video instead, but really YouTube is the competition. We're all-Internet content now (not Hollywood/TV products) and don't miss the old stuff at all.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Good for Netflix by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  but really YouTube is the competition
  YouTube has the same problem as Netflix on this count.
  The three companies who forced the EME nonsense through were Netflix, Google, and Microsoft.
3. Re:Good for Netflix by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2017-10-05 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I had to look up 'EME'. Here is a reference, for other readers: Encrypted Media Extensions in the HTML5 standard
4. Re:Good for Netflix by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Is this what Netflix wants, or what the content owners demand? Probably a mixture of the two. But if a company wants to show Hollywood content, it is generally given pressure to support hollywood positions on IP.
5. Re:Good for Netflix by JohnFen · 2017-10-05 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Is this what Netflix wants, or what the content owners demand?
  Content owners demand DRM and Netflix has been going along with that demand for years -- I actually don't have an issue with that.
  Netflix (and Google and Microsoft), not the content owners, wanted EME specifically. I have a huge problem with that, and won't forgive any of them for pushing it through.
6. Re:Good for Netflix by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-05 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Is this what Netflix wants, or what the content owners demand?
  This would've been a legitimate question five years ago, but not so much any more. Netflix keeps shedding its third-party content in favor of its own, self-produced crap - so "Netflix" and "content owners" are now largely one and the same.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
7. Re:Good for Netflix by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  It shed a lot of third party content because content owners didn't renew the licenses. It is adding new content to make up for this. If they had been able to continue licensing on the original terms I think they may have just stuck to the basic model of being a content provider.
  Ie, Netflix used to have the Criterion Collection, lots of vintage movies. When the licensing agreement expired, they were pulled from Netflix and given to Hulu. Just like video games, Hollywood likes the broken system of having exclusivity deals. Netflix has also had access to back-catalogs from a lot of other content owners that also vanished when the original licenses expired. Netflix did not voluntarily give these away, it did not dump them in exchange for making its own content. It would certainly have wished to have both if it had the choice as losing the deals is a major loss for Netflix (as can be witnessed by everyone and their mother bitching about movies that are no longer on Netflix).
  Between five years ago and today, the content owners have realized that their back catalog content is actually worth something. And as Hollywood always does, when the licenses of something popular is up for negotiation, they play hardball. Netflix isn't as big as cable companies and can't fight back against this as effectively. Some content owners also want to create their own streaming services to get a piece of this new income source.
  If you really think Netflix is just screwing you because they're bad hombres, you really should learn more about the history here.
Re:The U.S.-only price hikes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 03:32 · Score: 1

Isn't Canada part of the US?
Those who think these low prices will remain by fred6666 · 2017-10-05 03:33 · Score: 1

are idiots. Netflix's business model is to be a dominant player, if not a monopoly. In a few years, they'll rise prices and if they do win their monopoly status, prices will be just as bad as cable.
1. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by jandrese · 2017-10-05 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Then we will need a new Netflix to eat their customers the way Netflix has eaten cable's customers.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
2. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by fred6666 · 2017-10-05 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. But some people get offended when someone else get [INSERT SHOW XYZ] instead of Netflix. As if they should be able to get all shows for that price.
  Some people are literally asking to be rapped and they don't even know it.
3. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by Gilgaron · 2017-10-05 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon is well placed with their service being bundled in with all the other Prime stuff. The next evolution of all of this will be when the streamers get pinched for cash and start licensing their original catalog to each other in syndication. Then it'll be a race to the bottom again.
4. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cable was chargine $80-$120. This price increase is only $1. Do you really think Netflix is going to bump up to $120? If they do, they'll be dumped in droves for whoever is cheaper. Unlike cable companies, there is actual competition again.
5. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's the only thing Amazon has going for them, the loyal-to-the-core Prime members who think it's "free". They don't offer nearly as much as Netflix, and those few high visible shows that people like to watch there often have a premium price above and beyond the monthly subscription. If they required a separate paid subscription even for Prime members then they'd have only a tiny sliver of the pie.
6. Re:Those who think these low prices will remain by fred6666 · 2017-10-06 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  There is. But some people wish there isn't. All those who complain because Netflix doesn't have show XYZ because it was "stolen" by competitor ABC.
Netflix library is fickle by sremick · 2017-10-05 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

When they stop removing as much as they add month to month, maybe I'll start caring about Netflix. Until then, I'll stick with Plex. Stuff doesn't disappear there unless I want it to go away.
You'd think Netflix has a limited number of hard drives or something and has to shuffle things around to manage space (I know it's a licensing thing, but it's still bullshit).
1. Re:Netflix library is fickle by omnichad · 2017-10-05 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  stop removing as much as they add month to month
  This is called budgeting. If they paid for more content, you would pay more. As it is, they are already getting higher fees from distributors and have to increase their subscription rates without adding content.
2. Re:Netflix library is fickle by cmseagle · 2017-10-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, what do you estimate it would cost you to stock your Plex library with licensed copies of the content you could access through Netflix at $11/month? How many decades will it take you to recoup that investment?
Compared to inflation by Solandri · 2017-10-05 03:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Netflix introduced the unlimited streaming plan at $7.99 in July 2011. (Their current $7.99 plan doesn't stream in HD, so the $9.99 soon to be $10.99 plan corresponds to their original $7.99 plan.)

$7.99 in July 2011 is equivalent to $8.68 today.

So bumping it up to $10.99 means it's increased by 1.27x the rate of inflation. Or an average annual increase of 5.5% vs the actual annual CPI inflation rate of 1.4% over the last 6 years.
1. Re:Compared to inflation by QuietLagoon · 2017-10-05 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...So bumping it up to $10.99 means it's increased by 1.27x the rate of inflation...
  Good analysis. Also, when I look at your analysis, I note that the Netflix library is becoming a shadow of what it had been. That makes the 1.27 times inflation number look even worse. Paying more money, and getting less product.
2. Re:Compared to inflation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  In 2011, when Netflix came out, ESPN alone was $4.69 of your cable bill. Now it's $7.21. That not only is a far larger increase in percentage terms (over 50% increase vs. under 40% increase for Netflix) but it's dang close to the same cost increase in straight dollar terms ($2.52 vs $3.00). Keep in mind also that is strictly for ESPN's main channel. Your cost for the ESPN block + Fox Sports block of channels is $10.92 per month.
  Now I don't have numbers, but it's pretty plausible that anyone short of the most fanatic of sports enthusiasts is going to get more out of their Netflix dollar per year than they get out of the cable sports channels, and the cost difference is only 7 cents.
3. Re:Compared to inflation by nomadic · 2017-10-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  They added a lot more original shows, which on average are better than the network shows.
4. Re:Compared to inflation by pnutjam · 2017-10-05 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  As long as you can get past the first episode's gratuitous nudity and or violence. They always seem to have some sort of mostly unrelated sex scene.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
5. Re:Compared to inflation by cyn1c77 · 2017-10-05 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix introduced the unlimited streaming plan at $7.99 in July 2011. (Their current $7.99 plan doesn't stream in HD, so the $9.99 soon to be $10.99 plan corresponds to their original $7.99 plan.)
  $7.99 in July 2011 is equivalent to $8.68 today.
  So bumping it up to $10.99 means it's increased by 1.27x the rate of inflation. Or an average annual increase of 5.5% vs the actual annual CPI inflation rate of 1.4% over the last 6 years.
  Right, but how much content have they actually lost access to since 2011?
  I would argue quite a bit since they let the Starz and other popular content deals expire.
  They have backfilled with less popular content and some of their own making, but as a subscriber, I would argue that their content is less appealing than it was 2011.
  Also, they have completely destroyed the usability of their website to accommodate this loss of content. Their "ranking" system doesn't actually show you others' ratings anymore, it shows you what THEY want you to watch. You can't easily sort out the available content by year or popularity. It's really hard to even get to the review section of each show. And while you do all this, there are 4000 animated trailers playing in the background, which attempt to induce a seizure so that you will stop trying to find good content and just watch what they tell you to watch.
  It wasn't like they accidentally lost this functionality either. They did it to force their less appealing content on you and try to hide the loss of their more popular content deals.
  I still think they provide a valuable service, but it is nowhere near as valuable as it used to be. This is due in part to mismanagement on their part but mostly to the greed of their content suppliers. The end effect to the user is still the same though. Lower quality content for more money, which will indeed drive many back to pirating.
6. Re:Compared to inflation by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  On Netflix? I must not be watching these shows. Stranger Things, Jessica Jones, Daredevil, could probably be on broadcast.
7. Re:Compared to inflation by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't "let" the deals expire, they had no choice. It takes two parties to make a deal and Starz did not want to make a deal.
8. Re:Compared to inflation by pnutjam · 2017-10-05 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Really?
  Although, I guess it skips most of the actual nudity.
  Super hero shows don't do it for me and I didn't really enjoy stranger things.
  Try Ozark, Narcos, & Marco Polo.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
9. Re:Compared to inflation by nomadic · 2017-10-06 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have little problem getting past nudity. Gratuitous violence might turn me off to a show, but I haven't noticed much of that in the shows I like.
Still beats cable by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 03:47 · Score: 1

Netflix is more than an order of magnitude better than cable even after the increase. Even if I needed 10 services to replace cable, I'd be ahead!

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
1. Re:Still beats cable by freeze128 · 2017-10-05 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  You still need to pay for internet in order to use it... so factor that into your budget.
  
  Or do you just get discs in the mail?
2. Re:Still beats cable by nealric · 2017-10-05 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  You still need to pay for internet to exist in the modern world. I wouldn't include it in streaming costs unless you are upgrading to a higher speed tier than you would have otherwise.
3. Re:Still beats cable by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you're Amish (or my mom), you'll need internet regardless of whether you use Netflix.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
4. Re:Still beats cable by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think most people these days have an ISP that can handle streaming, and they have that ISP and cable at the same time. Maybe those who had bundled services may not see as big a savings. But if they had a bundled service, and going to ISP only does not free up an extra $12 dollars, then they would be better off dumping that leech of a cable company.
5. Re:Still beats cable by dbeachy1 · 2017-10-06 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone would have Internet *anyway* even if they didn't dump cable TV, so as I see it, the cost of having Internet isn't a factor in paying for Netflix (assuming your ISP doesn't charge you by the GB, of course).
Counter-intuative by JBMcB · 2017-10-05 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

And movie companies forget the lesson of VHS over and over and over again.
Make stuff cheap. Sell it to everybody. Make tons of money.
I worked at a video store when VHS movies were initially $80 a copy for a few months, then went down to $25. This was purely to get money from the video rental stores.
Then Jurassic Park came out on VHS, and Spielberg had the brilliant idea to sell it for $20 right off the bat. Almost made the same amount of money that ticket sales made. Instead of selling a couple of million copies for $80 a pop, they sold ten million copies at $20.
It's almost as if there are demand/price curves that determine these things.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1. Re:Counter-intuative by tbannist · 2017-10-05 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Shocking, isn't it? You would think MBA degreed folk would know a thing or two about economics.
  Only if you've never met any...
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
2. Re:Counter-intuative by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Netflix after the price increase will still be very inexpensive, probably the best value out there for streaming. I give a larger amount per month to NPR. It's just a fraction of the cost of my ISP, a fraction of the cost of my phone service, and a very small fraction of a typical cable or satellite subscription.
  But I have learned that the less expensive something is, the more people complain if the price jumps marginally. If something is free and then later they ask for a few cents, people will complain the loudest. But if a cable subscription goes from $120/mo up to $125/mo, most subscribers won't even blink. Certainly the media won't be notified about that $5 increase and it won't be a Slashdot story. But a $0.99 increase on Netflix and people are talking...
3. Re:Counter-intuative by JBMcB · 2017-10-05 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the first was Top Gun in '87 (with the Diet Pepsi commercial); remembered that one cause I bought it. But it seems there were at least two before that one:
  ''Top Gun'' will cost $26.95, the lowest introductory price ever asked for a major movie on cassette. While other companies have just raised their prices from $79.95 to $89.95, Paramount has lowered its price from the $29.95 it charged for ''Beverly Hills Cop'' and ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''
  http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/15/arts/marketing-top-gun-cassette.html
  Not all movies were priced for rental. I'd guesstimate that 2/3 were priced for rental, with the rest for sell-through. But after the windfall of Jurassic Park, in about a year most movies were being priced for sell-through. I clearly remember in 1995-1996 seeing one new movie coming out for $60 a copy and thinking how weird it was, when just a couple of years before most movies came out at that price.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Go back to 2 streams and bypass the limit. by bryan314 · 2017-10-05 04:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you device supports downloading just download the program. It by passes the 2/4 streamming limit. You can download a show while other family members are watching the other streams. And watching downloaded programs don't count towards streams. Leave the 2 streams for devices that can't download. Learn this one when me and my kids were fighting over the 2 streams.
1. Re:Go back to 2 streams and bypass the limit. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2017-10-05 08:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Learn this one when me and my kids were fighting over the 2 streams
  Good idea. You're bigger than them though, so I don't see this as your problem.
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Affects only clients, unlike EME by zedaroca · 2017-10-05 04:03 · Score: 1

At least they are going after their own clients. They successfully lobbied for DRM on HTML standards, that fucked up the Internet for everyone.
Netflix is no better than any cable company pushing for censorship online. I already canceled them all.
10% increase in price is "just a bit more"? by QuietLagoon · 2017-10-05 04:19 · Score: 1

... Get ready to pay just a bit more ...

At what point does a 10% price increase be viewed as a significant price increase?
I ditched.... by MerlTurkin · 2017-10-05 04:49 · Score: 2

.....Netflix a long time ago. Not enough on it for me. I do like Hulu plus though.
Re:The U.S.-only price hikes by Talderas · 2017-10-05 04:50 · Score: 1

Only on Wednesdays and Saturdays if they end in a 7. It's an independent country all other days.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
My water by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-05 04:55 · Score: 1

My water bill has rose 30% in the time netflix last price hike.
Thats all.
meh by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-10-05 05:32 · Score: 2

Dropped netflix a couple of years ago. Just wasn't enough to justify even the $10.
Still have Amazon Prime. Not sure if I'd keep it just for either the free shipping or the Prime videos, but together, yeah. Love the eclectic mix of stuff I find to watch there.
Re:The U.S.-only price hikes by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-10-05 06:41 · Score: 1

Isn't Canada part of the US?
Shhhh... they're not supposed to know. They're supposed to go on thinking they're independent.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'm cancelling by TheCastro1689 · 2017-10-05 06:49 · Score: 1

Unless Netflix fixes it's voice control for Xbox One, if they don't, then I have no problem cancelling. The service is weak, almost all of their original content I don't really like or enjoy and they're cancelling Longmire which was the only one I really cared about watching. They've lost most of their CBS shows, all their Disney soon, and lots of other programs.
False by cmseagle · 2017-10-05 07:23 · Score: 1

You are wrong.
"Loss Making" implies that the company is losing money. According to this NY Times article , Netflix projected over $165m in profits in Q1 2017.
Re:Still no way to win. by losfromla · 2017-10-05 07:58 · Score: 1

Mainly because people have more important things they're concerned about like: good quality jobs, single-payer health care, education, net-neutrality, etc. Of all the things that people can get worked up about, this is probably the issue that is least important and relevant.

--
Only I can judge you.
Canada too by rnmartinez · 2017-10-05 08:16 · Score: 1

I can confirm that Canadians will be paying more but it is still a great deal - I just wish we could get a decent solution for UV movies here
Re:Pirate Bay by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 08:35 · Score: 1

Um, because it's illegal?
Re:And it's still proprietary by Darinbob · 2017-10-05 09:25 · Score: 1

If you're on a computer, you have to use goofy stuff to play any video. It's just more convenient for some services if a browser has those formats supported, whether it's flash, silverlight, html5, etc. Currently I thought Netflix moved away from Silverlight and can be supported natively in most major browsers, tablets, and phones. ALL the streaming services are using proprietary or patent encumbered formats. Sure, it's not a bad thing to demand open source compatible streaming only, but you may have a long wait.
But you'll do better on TV anyway. Any reasonably new streaming device or smart tv has Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube support already. And if you can watch on TV why would you want to degrade that to watch on a computer or phone?
Fast food of entertainment by geekymachoman · 2017-10-05 13:31 · Score: 1

Probably an unpopular opinion here... but I found netflix to be nothing more than McDonalds for entertainment.
I'm not in the US, so I don't know.. maybe your netflix is better ( geo targetting ) but what I have is bunch of crap tv shows and movies that are rated 4.x to 5.x on IMDB and a new movie / tv show here and there that's actually worth watching.
I only have it because they have subtitles and my GF finds it easier to follow with subtitles, and just this month I switched it to iflix (south east asian netflix with a slightly different business model (they rent out shows for 6-7 months for distribution) that charges $3 per month and I get more content + older tv shows and movies which I like to re-watch. It's the same shit ... but it's $3 dollars.
Still, I'm on a verge of shutting everything down and just giving up on modern day 'TV' entertainment. It's full of condescending political bullshit about feminism, LGBTQXYZwhatever, political correctness, etc. It's not entertainment anymore, it's slowly mutating toward some sort of brainwashing propaganda, and I just don't want that anymore.
I recently rewatched Back to the Future 1,2 and then by accident Demolition man... and man... I remember when I was kid how i hopped for the future, now that I'm living in it.. I would give anything to go back to those times.
Then I am raising my salary! by martinfb · 2017-10-06 04:52 · Score: 1

Sorry, dear clients. Big business need for more millions of dollars means I need to raise my rates just break even!

I get reasonable yearly bumps to keep in like with positive economy growth - 2%-4%. Yet 18% is nothing more than twisted capitalism.
Especially since there is less and less worth watching!

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Netflix costs the same as one Comcast âoefee by Karlt1 · 2017-10-06 06:51 · Score: 1

Netflix $10.99
Comcast
$10 âoeHd technology feeâ
$10 Each cable box rental
$5 Network Access Fee
$5 Sports Access Fee - not optional
Etc....
Seeya Netflix by BrinkeGuthrie · 2017-10-06 08:05 · Score: 1

there just isn't enough quality content to justify the cost. Croc Dundee, Robocop, Air Bud II,----come on, man.
perfect timing by KingBenny · 2017-10-07 01:01 · Score: 1

now the EU dug-up report showed the mean reason for movie piracy is price :D

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:And it's still proprietary by brantondaveperson · 2017-10-08 13:45 · Score: 1

Baked-in applications on an unmodifiable, non general-purpose computing device, like a TV or Xbox, or whatever, represents a very significant hurdle to new players in the marketplace. Where once the internet looked like it might be an accessible platform for new sellers of media content to be able to compete on a level playing field with the big boys, we are now obviously falling far short of that standard.
So, be very, very suspicious of any baked-in applications, or 'netflix' button on your remote control, or similar attempts by a company to solidify their position without necessarily being the best at what they do. There's probably a fancy word for it that I have yet to learn.
Re:And it's still proprietary by Darinbob · 2017-10-08 14:04 · Score: 1

Well, I don't have such a button, and Netflix so far seems to do what it does very well. But don't worry, there is plenty of competition still. I also see the top three plus youtube present on buttons for some players.