Slashdot Mirror


Netflix To Raise Prices By 13% To 18% (cnbc.com)

Netflix is raising its U.S. prices by 13 percent to 18 percent, its biggest increase since the company launched its streaming service 12 years ago. From a report: Its most popular plan will see the largest hike, to $13 per month from $11. That option offers high-definition streaming on up to two different internet-connected devices simultaneously. Even at the higher price, that plan is still a few dollars cheaper than HBO, whose streaming service charges $15 per month. The extra cash will help to pay for Netflix's huge investment in original shows and films and finance the heavy debt it has assumed to ward off rivals such as Amazon, Disney and AT&T. This marks the fourth time that Netflix has raised its U.S. prices; the last hike came in late 2017. But this is the first time that higher prices will hit all 58 million U.S. subscribers, the number Netflix reported at the end of September.

228 comments

  1. If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only there were a way to pay for original programming by using advertising or something. That way, everybody could have all of these TV "networks" piped into their homes for a low cost fee and maybe even pick and choose "plans" that suite them as a mix and match of the "channels" with shows they like to watch. It should really keep the cost down vs having to pay $15 to all these separate streaming services ... oh wait

    1. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fuck advertisers. They should all be round up and gassed. The ad industry is a plague on society.

    2. Re:If only ... by I75BJC · · Score: 2

      Well, how funny? I choose streaming to avoid the commercials. a 20-22 minutes show takes 30 minutes to watch on Network TV. Cheap on cost but Not on my time. Streaming permits more time -- 8 to10 minutes each show to do what I want. Now NetFlix price increase with its degradation in show quality is an issue for me. BTW, all the Network TV that I have seen in the last 5 years is low quality. Streaming brings better quality and less time loss.

    3. Re: If only ... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Right because cable TV is totally free by using advertisers to pay for the shows.

      Using advertisers just mean you get paid twice. And the people who watch the ahows have to pay twice. (Time and Mone y)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even after this increase, the cost of ad-supported TV networks is an order of magnitude higher than the cost of internet + netflix.

    5. Re:If only ... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Streaming brings better quality and less time loss.

      So does piracy. Every incremental price increase makes piracy look like a better deal. Netflix better be careful about finding that sweet spot and staying within it.

    6. Re:If only ... by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      I choose streaming to avoid the commercials. a 20-22 minutes show takes 30 minutes to watch on Network TV.

      It's like when your significant other makes an extravagant purchase, and focuses on how much was saved due to the item being on sale...

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called divide and conquer cobra commander or should I say dumbass. If they raise prices on segments of customers using packages to clarify what you are buying and not making things unfair or illegal price discrimination they can roll out any size price increase over a period of time and not even need the high powered consultants. I always liked the fact that Netflix websites are always up unlike a lot of these retarded articles

    8. Re:If only ... by atrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeash, you cable TV trolls just never stop do you.

      #1: Advertising is absolute shit, I'd sooner not watch anything than go back to being brainwashed by ad networks
      #2: Cable TV is broadcast on it's schedule and that's it. Miss a show/forget to DVR it? Too bad, so sad - better hope they decide to re-air it at a later date and time. Streaming let's you pick anything from the library to watch whenever and wherever you want it.
      #3: Cable TV is f'ing expensive, and most people are paying for high speed internet service regardless of whether they want video entertainment to watch or not.
      #4: Signing up for multiple streaming services is no different than deciding you want to pay for HBO, and Cinemax, and Showtime, and Starz, and etc. Except that most streaming services also offer huge libraries of other content, not just original content.
      #5: You want ad supported streaming? Guess what, that exists! You can watch stuff on Hulu, Crunchyroll, Funimation, and I'll bet several other streaming services for free if you're willing to sit through some ads.

    9. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it's back to piracy and shutting down Netflix. Piratebay and chill for me.

    10. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix lost its appeal quite a while ago. Their originals have not been that great and their selection is not growing.

      I killed my account ages ago and there are a lot of streaming options available for individual rentals/free programming.

      Between prime, YouTube, free models and the occasional rental I have a lot of viewing options.

      Honestly, I get more entertainment out of the dozen YouTube creators I watch regularly then anything else. I even managed to run into one and had a good conversation about life.

      Anyone else have some YouTube channels they really enjoy?

    11. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you're addicted to TV doesn't mean the rest of us have to pay for this hot garbage. Thank christ on a popsicle stick.

    12. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people dig piracy so much? The quality of the recordings is often not very good, you have to go to shady websites to find the links, and I've yet to find a bootleg site where one can watch a preview of the content beforehand. I happen to like Netflix's content. I also like that I can pull it up quickly and easily on darn near every electronic device that I won with very little forethought. I like the suggestions that it makes for me. That, and I don't have to establish some sort of security routine just to watch an episode of a television show. Don't forget to update all your virus definitions, establish a vpn, and spin up a virtual machine just to watch a re-run of Saturday Night Live.

    13. Re:If only ... by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 2

      You're so right. I absolutely love to have my precious limited time interrupted by unskippable advertising in the middle of quality programming. Please, let me pay 5 times more to have feed after feed of crappy ads for products that I don't care at all about. As long as Netflix continues to provide an ad-free on-demand experience, I'm TOTALLY cool with paying $13...$15...hell, even $20/month.

    14. Re:If only ... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Netflix is raising its U.S. prices by 13 percent to 18 percent, its biggest increase since the company launched its streaming service 12 years ago.

      Streaming brings better quality and less time loss.

      So does piracy. Every incremental price increase makes piracy look like a better deal.

      My Plex lifetime account is looking better and better. Oh, and the OTA recorder that also strips commercials isn't bad, either. Wish it did TiVo though, and set markers and not actually delete them (since sometimes it gets it wrong.)

      Piracy? Oh, you mean stealing (Imaginary) Property? Why the shows are right on cable/streaming where they've always been, although I'm actually watching (and renting and buying) more anime/manga from ShoenJump, HiDive, and others. The jury's still out on FUN vs CR/VRV though.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    15. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Hulu? Those fuckers put MORE ads into shows than there is on network TV. They even put multiple multi minute ad breaks in fifteen minute shows, which have no freaking commercial breaks on network tv in the first place. Fuck that shit.

    16. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hulu has the minimum number of ads required for its partners to stay in business

    17. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is English not your first language?

    18. Re:If only ... by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      Piracy is great as long as you avoid the cam rips. BR rips, DVD rips, OTA rips, Stream rips... as long as you're 1080+ at a good bitrate, you're often getting better quality than netflix. (4+gb per movie, 1+gb per episode, etc)

    19. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely sure what your point was since cable TV does not fit that description.

    20. Re:If only ... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      Nah, I like my content without advertising - I'll happily pay the extra. I have faith that Netflix will spend the additional revenue wisely. Hell though I obviously don't WANT a price increase they could easily double the price and it'd still be worth it to me.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do people dig piracy so much?

      Because it is free.

      shady websites

      The torrent trackers aren't "shady". At least no more than mainsteam sites like NBC.com. In reality the torrent sites probably have less advertising, less cross site tracking, bug you less to give them your location, show notifications, etc.

      watch a preview

      Why do you want to do that? It is like asking for a sample at an ice cream store where everything is free. If you have concerns about quality, read the comments and download the most promising 5 copies to preview, then watch the one you like best. The really low quality ones tend to be the "still in theaters" handheld camera movies, which you can't get any other way anyway.

      some sort of security routine

      If you don't route most or all of your internet traffic through a proxy, you are making a mistake.

      virus definitions

      If you get a virus by downloading a movie, you are beyond saving.

    22. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have an account if T-Mobile wasn't picking up the tab. The price keeps going up even as the selection keeps getting smaller. Increasingly, they aren't carrying anything that I'm interested in and yet the price keeps going up and up and up.

      YouTube as you note is free and has a massive amount of content that I do watch. If I want to, I can pay to get rid of the ads, but increasingly those ads are in the videos themselves, so there's not much point in paying to avoid ads that are still going to be there.

    23. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not that folks dig piracy that much, it's that the other options are so bad. A large amount of content is just not available or requires that you subscribe to a half-dozen different streaming platforms to get everything you want. Some of it is on Bluray or DVD, but not all of it.

      In short, this happens in large part due to greed and incompetence on the part of the content owners. They seem to think that we all have infinite money and could buy copies of all this stuff. The reality, is that they might be able to convince some people to buy, but that's a much smaller market as you have to make choices, I have money for one DVD, which one do I buy? In which case they get a bit of money for one, and nothing for the others. If you're talking $10 for a disc and 20 discs, that means that their value isn't anywhere near $10 each, it's closer to 50 cents each. And for streaming, it's quite a bit less than that as you can lose access at any time and have fewer uses for it.

      But, they keep acting like all those streaming movies are just as valuable as the copies they sell.

    24. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I am the odd one out. I really don't care about Netflix Originals. I don't really care about any brand actually. That was the point of Netflix - it aggregated brands together. I only have Netflix for their back catalog of TV shows and movies. Lately the ones I care about have all been disappearing. Psych, Leverage, Star Trek (TV), Eureka, etc. all gone. I haven't watched it in months but haven't been successful convincing my wife to cancel yet. Maybe the price increase will let me get it canceled. For now we have been making do with Prime streaming (has Star Trek at least). Although on the advertisement stuff - TiVo has me covered there. Most things I can just hit the skip ads button. For those that don't allow it there is the fast forward. You can still watch say Big Bang Theory in 20 minutes that way.

    25. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The only reason I started using them was they were cheap and had a good selection. Now they are so hell bent on this original programming and dumping truckloads of cash into it. Guess who they are offsetting that cost with? The masses of idiots.

    26. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....not to mention... I never relied on Netflix anyway. Torrents, NAS and Kodi no limits build and Over the air for locals. Cost=hardware only. No recurring subscriptions.

    27. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the assholes should get more variety of ads. Unskippable Hulu commercial breaks, where it is the same fucking commercials every single god damn break just ensures I will never buy from the company doing the advertising.

    28. Re:If only ... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I choose streaming to avoid the commercials. a 20-22 minutes show takes 30 minutes to watch on Network TV.

      If only there were some sort of ... let’s call it a Video Recorder for Digital content, or VRD for short ... that would let a person easily skip those commercials!

      Hmm, maybe there’s a business idea lurking there somewhere.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. Again and again this happens and you have to sit through it with no HBO and no Cinemax. Aww. Here honey, have a grape. Oh the grapes are crushed under your show

    30. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were a way to pay for original programming by using advertising or something. That way, everybody could have all of these TV "networks" piped into their homes for a low cost fee and maybe even pick and choose "plans" that suite them as a mix and match of the "channels" with shows they like to watch. It should really keep the cost down vs having to pay $15 to all these separate streaming services ... oh wait

      Before I cut cable, I checked my bill. It wasn't even CLOSE to $15 a month.

    31. Re:If only ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      My Plex lifetime account is looking better and better. Oh, and the OTA recorder that also strips commercials isn't bad, either. Wish it did TiVo though, and set markers and not actually delete them (since sometimes it gets it wrong.) Piracy? Oh, you mean stealing (Imaginary) Property? Why the shows are right on cable/streaming where they've always been, although I'm actually watching (and renting and buying) more anime/manga from ShoenJump, HiDive, and others. The jury's still out on FUN vs CR/VRV though.

      Plex rocks. And honestly, Plex is good for those movies and shows you might want to see more than once, or the DVR features (OTA) and snip that cable $100/month drain. (they say it's only $50/month, plus the sports fee, plus the second tv fee, plus the third tv fee, plus DVR fees, per TV, plus.....)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    32. Re:If only ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kids barely watch Netflix even when it's available - YouTube has far more interesting and entertaining content, with zero direct fees.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    33. Re:If only ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, you mean stealing (Imaginary) Property?

      Oh, you mean copying data without permission?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    34. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

      I prefer to watch movies without a constant barrage of advertisement interrupting me to tell me what I should buy, where I should eat, what I should wear and how I should vote.

    35. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #4 - that would be fine if there were only 4, 5 or even 10 or 12 streaming services and that would be it. But where we're headed is dozens or hundreds. And even if I've got the money to pay for so many, I don't want the headache of managing the accounts.

      Minimum they should be doing something like you can get it as an add on for the one (or all) of the "big name" streamers, which Amazon does do that with some speciality streamers, but would be good if it was standardized.

    36. Re:If only ... by Mousit · · Score: 3, Informative

      #2: Cable TV is broadcast on it's schedule and that's it. Miss a show/forget to DVR it? Too bad, so sad - better hope they decide to re-air it at a later date and time. Streaming let's you pick anything from the library to watch whenever and wherever you want it.

      Streaming has been integrated with cable for a long time. First it was called "on-demand" and today that is available on virtually every cable service at almost all price tiers. However it's even been expanded such that a huge number of television networks (both broadcast and cable-only) have their own streaming services that are available at no extra cost to cable subscribers (and are often ONLY available to cable subscribers, not sold direct, which is why they don't get any press like these standalone services). That includes not just the existing on-demand stuff, but also location-agnostic streaming through their apps on mobile devices, and via boxes like Roku and FireTV and all that. NBCUniversal just announced they are also launching a streaming service, and said it will also be no extra charge to cable subscribers (or you can pay $12/mo for it alone, which I think is an absurd price).

      So no, by and large you are not beholden to a broadcast schedule.

      To be honest, I think it's this sort of integration that may even save cable. Why pay 18 different streaming services a separate monthly fee, when you can pay one cable bill and still get access to most (admittedly not all) of those? And with the prices of the streaming services going the way they are, together they're going to end up costing as much as, if not more than, that "f'ing expensive" cable bill anyway.

    37. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TiVo: https://sourceforge.net/projec...

      You can configure to run on a schedule to downloads recordings off the TiVo, and then cut commercials, re-encode, and move to a Plex library location.

    38. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? It's not 2009 anymore - why are you downloading torrents? I will admit that Kodi isn't quite as seamless as Netflix, but the options are far superior.

    39. Re:If only ... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      You forgot to say that Netflix doesn't try to force you to get useless channels like "shopping network" and "QVC" and justify it by saying "it's what the market wants."

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    40. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, donâ(TM)t look now but Plex has advertising. Emby is the new Plex.

    41. Re:If only ... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      If you're streaming shit using a PC, I recommend installing a plugin that lets you watch shit at higher speeds. I typically watch at 1.5x or so. But you can watch at whatever speed you want. No, it doesn't ruin things. You quickly get used to it. Anything at 1x seems glacial to me now. Even at just 1.25x you save 20% of your time. There are plenty of plugins available, and they work with tons of sites.

    42. Re: If only ... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? It's not 2009 anymore - why are you downloading torrents? I will admit that Kodi isn't quite as seamless as Netflix, but the options are far superior.

      Uh, torrents mean you get a proper, clean, high quality rip/encode. Kodi plugins mean you connect to some source 8000 miles away, that may or may not be up, that may or not be decent quality, that may or may not be fast enough to actually watch the thing. Or your plugin is torrenting anyway but you just don't know it.

    43. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No -- instead they have these things called "NetFlix Originals" that they flog at every opportunity.

    44. Re:If only ... by DaveSewhuk · · Score: 1

      DirectTV streaming is shit. You are forced to watch "the embedded commercial", what feels like a 1000 times without the ability to skip. By this I mean each show will have one or two commercial segments. These identical commercials are forced, without fast-forward, to be viewed at least 5-10 times during the show. Can't finish the show, you are forced to watch it all over again, including "the commercial" 5-10 times to get to the spot you got interrupted at. I make a note to never use that sponsor for the rest of my life!

    45. Re: If only ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Ummm, donâ(TM)t look now but Plex has advertising. Emby is the new Plex.

      Don't know what *Plex* advertising you're talking about. If you think OTA advertising in the DVR is a problem, that's just the price you pay for OTA. Same with any online streaming service.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    46. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. The only reason I started using them was they were cheap and had a good selection. Now they are so hell bent on this original programming and dumping truckloads of cash into it. Guess who they are offsetting that cost with? The masses of idiots.

      I'm not convinced they are hell-bent on original content; many providers (such as Disney) are creating their own streaming services and not licensing to Netflix anymore. Netflix is forced to create original content to have a large enough library to maintain subscribers. Also, subscribers want quality content which costs more to produce. I have been mostly impressed with Netflix original content.

      My cable provider charges $6 to rent a movie for 48 hours or $20-30 to purchase it, Purchasing a movie from the cable provider is the same cost as buying a DVD or BD, and renting is about the same as Red Box for 2 days. If I watch 3 movies per month on Netflix, it is cheaper than renting those same movies from the cable provider. Someone else mentioned that Netflix needs to find the sweet spot and not charge so much they will lose tons of subscribers.

    47. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? It's not 2009 anymore - why are you downloading torrents? I will admit that Kodi isn't quite as seamless as Netflix, but the options are far superior.

      Kodi is for streaming your own rips onto your network. You must acquire your digital content somehow before Kodi can stream it.

    48. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, that's even with the paid version of the service. I considered paying for the service, but that just allowed me to view on a TV, the ads were still there.

    49. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose streaming to avoid the commercials. a 20-22 minutes show takes 30 minutes to watch on Network TV.

      It's like when your significant other makes an extravagant purchase, and focuses on how much was saved due to the item being on sale...

      No it's like when you are older and have more money than time and wish to trade.

      Typically when you are younger you have more time than money and wish to trade.

      Nothing wrong with having both options available and guess what - they are! No need to disparage the option you are not interested in.

    50. Re:If only ... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I second this, wholeheartedly.
      I'm sick of seeing endless commercials and crap programming from cable. The ratio of program material to advertisements is approaching 50/50 on many stations. On top of having to watch all the commercials, we're still paying on average over $100 month for cable. It's double jeopardy.
      I was slow to adopt streaming but I don't regret it paying for it; unfortunately, I still have cableTV as well for now, but I'm trying to convince my wife we don't need it any longer. She's convinced streaming and Internet programming will be slower, (I have about 300MB download speed with Xfinity, I think not) but what is digital cable, really? Ever since TV went digital (Comast anyway) there's an annoying delay when you change channels that analog never had. Overhead and metadata, I assume.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    51. Re:If only ... by anegg · · Score: 1

      And even cheaper and still legal: shut it all off. The justification that illegal actions are ok because legal actions cost "too much" ignore the fact that (legal) inaction is even cheaper. Unless health/life/safety factors are at play, justifying illegal activity on an economic basis is highly questionable.

    52. Re:If only ... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If only there were a way to pay for original programming by using advertising or something.

      Make no mistake... advertising is coming. But what you don't realize is any price decrease when advertising is added will be temporary, and in no time, it will be back to $15 streaming with advertising.

    53. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1: Advertising is absolute shit, I'd sooner not watch anything than go back to being brainwashed by ad networks

      If you get brainwashed by ads, you have much worse problems than the rest.

      Fact is, almost all of these services are slowly turning in to Cable shitclones doing the same shitty things.
      It's why I take no part in it.
      I support what I want, not what others want. I don't care about others (arguably shit) tastes. (see Netflix Originals "brainwashing" shows, yeah, na, they can keep that shit)

      I would rather watch ad-infested shit if it cut out supporting crap shows made for the lowest common denominator and to push stupid agendas.

    54. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people dig piracy so much? The quality of the recordings is often not very good, you have to go to shady websites to find the links,

      You are 10-15 years out of date. TV/movie piracy gets you tied-for-the-best quality, and doesn't require going to any shady websites at all.

      I've yet to find a bootleg site where one can watch a preview of the content beforehand

      Huh. Well, ok, if that's a killer feature for you, then don't pirate. For the other 99%, though, it's not part of the decision.

      You know what I do to preview? Let my automated setup get the first episode. Then watch the first few minutes and press Esc to make the preview stop.

      and I don't have to establish some sort of security routine just to watch an episode of a television show. Don't forget to update all your virus definitions, establish a vpn, and spin up a virtual machine just to watch a re-run of Saturday Night Live.

      Wow. Yeah, you really need to catch up.

    55. Re:If only ... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      DirectTV streaming is shit. You are forced to watch "the embedded commercial", what feels like a 1000 times without the ability to skip. By this I mean each show will have one or two commercial segments. These identical commercials are forced, without fast-forward, to be viewed at least 5-10 times during the show. Can't finish the show, you are forced to watch it all over again, including "the commercial" 5-10 times to get to the spot you got interrupted at. I make a note to never use that sponsor for the rest of my life!

      That's the way it is for "on demand" thing. Some shows may include short ads here and there, and some don't have any ads at all. At least this is from my experience with Fios.

    56. Re:If only ... by WindowsStar · · Score: 2

      Plus they have gone overboard. 10 minutes of program, 8 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of program 8 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of programming 8 minutes of commercials and 6 minutes of show, then you get the end of your show with the beginning of the next show in two boxes while you have ads all around the boxes. If that isn't bad enough you get 1/3 bottom screen ads while you are watching your program and miss important parts of the show or if there are subtitles you cannot see them. This is why services like NetFlix have taken off.

    57. Re: If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Gillette ad was great, despite all the troglodytes who hated it and thought it was an attack on men.

    58. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Netflix is still a great deal. Even without their original programming it still feels better than any other service. At $13 it's the same price as Amazon Prime monthly and provides more content (not counting the all the stuff Amazon that requires an additional payment or its premium channels). Feels better than Hulu too. And at that point, no other pay streaming service is worth bothering with.

      And $13 a month is a huge bargain over the typical cable subscription cost. Anyone complaining about the rise in cost here needs to put it in perspective.

    59. Re: If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They lost programming through no fault of their own. They still have a great selection, it's just not as great as it was. Their original programming does help to offset that. If Netflix only offered the dribs and drabs that content owners allowed, it would have faded away. As it is, there is more stuff Netflix offers on my watch list than I will ever be able to catch up on.

      As far as legal and ethical options, I think it's the best one out there and despite the price increase is still an amazing bargain.

    60. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right and that would cost around $200 more per month causing a nationwide boycott of cable thus creating a demand for a streaming service that would only cost $10.

    61. Re: If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Individual rentals are incredibly overpriced I feel. Especially for movies, but even for tv series to charge $2 or $3 for a single 45 minute episode is absurdly high. If I watch more than an hour a week then Netflix is cheaper.

      I found Prime to be much inferior to Netflix. Less content seems comes with Prime than Netflix, unless you're counting premium channels or those shows that require an additional payment on top of the Prime subscription. The only real reason to stream with Prime is if you're already a Prime member (which I'm not because I rarely buy stuff online).

      Youtube can be an occasional diversion, but the interfaces really suck and the vast majority of content is all about wannabe entrepreneurs trying to make money off of advertising. So every video feels like it starts and ends with someone begging you to subscribe and click on the link, and far too many of them feel like a video version of click-bait. The only thing really worth seeing there is Seagulls Stop That Now.

    62. Re: If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's what annoys me about Youtube - adblock stops all ads with Youtube on my computer. But streaming it to my TV I see the ads again. I tried some adblockers in my router but they don't seem to work. I find it absurd that before I watch a movie trailer I have to see a different movie trailer - that is, watch an ad before I can watch the ad.

    63. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      As long as you can avoid the attention of law enforcement also. I remember a boss who used to bitch a couple times a year whenever his fake satellite smart card would be wiped and he'd have to buy another one on the black market. He just looked at me funny when I suggested subscribing legally instead.

    64. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But Netflix, even at the new $13/mo price, is still a great bargain. Compare to a typical $100/mo cable bill.

    65. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Which is still against the law in most countries and comes with criminal penalties. Saying it's not "stealing" is disingenuous.

    66. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Agreed. So much piracy is justified in these ways, with an implication that because the cost is high that they must find other ways to get it. That rational works for food, but not for optional luxury activities like watching Game of Thrones.

    67. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But honey, the helicopter was half-price today only! Although with Netflix you get tons more content than Network TV, the only snag is that it's not as current. Not having advertisements is just the frosting on the top.

    68. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what a VPN is for.

    69. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are/were hundreds of streaming options already. The snag is that when you analyze them there really are only about 5 of potential interest to any one person. So Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, which cover most everything. Anything beyond that is typically for more specialty content - pbs, Acorn for british stuff, Crunchy Roll for Anime, etc.

    70. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to pay for the Internet connection. Netflix isn't an ISP.

    71. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wha'ts funny is that I get internet through AT&T. Occasionally services that require a subscription allow me access because they think that I have a U-Verse television service...

      The problem with your logic is that most people cut the cord to cable in order to save money. Most cable services are very expensive, probably averaging $100/month in many locales. Whereas you can get a lot of useful content with only one service, or go with two services if you want to splurge. Going for 18 different services is too many.

      Part of the tasks one does when cutting the cord is to also cut back on the amount of television they watch. Don't expect to cut the cord and get exactly the same content that you used to get. You will actually get more content over all, it just won't necessarily have all the shows you previously watched on a regular basis. The easiest way to do this is to realize that you can afford to wait a year to see the next season of your favorite show. Otherwise if you need the same content then you'll find yourself justifying paying the extra $90 just for some silly sitcom you like.

    72. Re:If only ... by Mousit · · Score: 1

      The problem with your logic is that most people cut the cord to cable in order to save money. Most cable services are very expensive, probably averaging $100/month in many locales. Whereas you can get a lot of useful content with only one service, or go with two services if you want to splurge. Going for 18 different services is too many.

      Well, keep in mind the increasing fragmentation in the streaming market. So sadly, you're not getting as much useful content from one service as you used to, like Netflix here losing the entire Disney/Marvel/Pixar catalog (well most of it; they do have some Marvel TV production deals that stay). Nonetheless, I do understand what you mean and I don't disagree with that.

      Part of the tasks one does when cutting the cord is to also cut back on the amount of television they watch. Don't expect to cut the cord and get exactly the same content that you used to get. You will actually get more content over all, it just won't necessarily have all the shows you previously watched on a regular basis. The easiest way to do this is to realize that you can afford to wait a year to see the next season of your favorite show. Otherwise if you need the same content then you'll find yourself justifying paying the extra $90 just for some silly sitcom you like.

      That's fair. I didn't mean to imply the only choices were all or nothing. I was merely trying to go a bit more "apples to apples" comparison of having all the content of a cable subscription versus these streaming services. By all means, if you only want to watch Marvel stuff say, then cut the cord and just subscribe to Disney+ and be done with it. I do not begrudge anyone that. :)

    73. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Very* old, pedantic take which relies on the dictionary not having more than one meaning for the words 'steal' and 'property' like it currently does.

    74. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KODI sucks now that it has STOPPED PLAYING MPEG files ON LINUX

    75. Re: If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found that most if not all of the movies that Youtube is now streaming, and I don't mean the pirated crap uploaded by Youtube "content creators", are movies that have no "revenue life" left in them.

      The Youtube movies probably could not make a penny:

      - being sold to TV for airing

      - being sold to cable for limited duration airing

      - being rented via Redbox or Netflix DVD service

      - being given away to charities for silent auction nights!

    76. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is still against the law in most countries and comes with criminal penalties. Saying it's not "stealing" is disingenuous.

      Because it isn't stealing, since the original owner has lost nothing physical.

    77. Re:If only ... by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      A TV antenna of course! :-)

    78. Re: If only ... by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      The IS YouTube Premium. Plus, you don't have to specifically subscribe to that; I actually paid mostly for the Play Music subscription because I use Play in my car through Android Auto quite frequently. Got YouTube Premium as a bonus and found I rather like not seeing ads. There is also some original programming there which is sometimes decent, and I like being able to download videos to my phone in particular so I can watch YouTube on flights (I fly a LOT for work so I have ended up with quite the library on my phone!)

      I do get it; it's another streaming service to subscribe to but I find all my entertainment is taken care of between YT Premium, Amazon Prime (I got it for the shipping... video was a bonus again) and Netflix. Then I have all my DVD's and Blurays long-since ripped to a Plex server; thanks to years of purchases I have more viewing material than I can ever realistically watch.

    79. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VPN's aren't challenging. They're easy.

      Here's what you do; set up Deluge on a Raspberry Pi connecting to your media library on the back end through NFS or whatever. VPN client on that and then use Sonarr and Couchpotato to do the searching for you (for bonus points, use Jackett to proxy those connections to make sure they're secure) and voila; one complete torrent solution that's mostly invisible to law enforcement.

      For more bonus points, create an open WiFi SSID on its own VLAN, put your RPi on the VLAN and have a good firewall set up to manage the VPN connection for you. Route your traffic through the Netherlands and even if by some chance law enforcement finds you (HIGHLY unlikely) then the burden of proof is upon them to prove that you were the one doing the torrenting, and not some schmo living in a neighboring house or apartment leeching off your "accidentally" opened wifi.

    80. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guys, look, it's the pot calling the kettle black!

    81. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All piracy ought to be justifiable by the godawful "FBI Warning!" screens on DVDs. I'm already paying an arm and a leg for it; I have to endure a worse experience than the pirates, too?

    82. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Advertising works. That's why it's so awful. People that say "I just ignore the ads" are fooling themselves.

    83. Re: If only ... by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      I agree. The only reason I started using them was they were cheap and had a good selection. Now they are so hell bent on this original programming and dumping truckloads of cash into it. Guess who they are offsetting that cost with? The masses of idiots.

      They're going hard after original programming because they get dicked over by the media cartel. Streaming has taken the power away from DVD distributors like Netflix, and given viewing controls back to the media rights holders. Not surprising, the "golden age of Netflix" DVD system from a decade ago, where you could get almost anything you wanted for a reasonable price just in one place, is gone. Instead, the streaming market is Balkanized, requiring you to sign up for four or more services to (legally) watch the shows you want, each of which costs as much or more as Netflix did in their prime.

      I don't blame Netflix for this. They're getting fucked, repeatedly, by the media companies who have long wanted to put Netflix out of business. Netflix's only defense is to create original programs that they control and can guarantee won't disappear the next time Disney or Sony decide to pull their offerings from rival services.

    84. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but how many people just have Netflix and none of the other streaming services?

    85. Re:If only ... by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      I choose streaming to avoid the commercials. a 20-22 minutes show takes 30 minutes to watch on Network TV.

      It's like when your significant other makes an extravagant purchase, and focuses on how much was saved due to the item being on sale...

      My time is far more valuable these days. I have really tired of the incessant advertising and how much of our time is wasted on it.

    86. Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people dig piracy so much?

      Because if you want to use your own equipment and software which ultimately answers to you, piracy is the only game in town.

      TV and movies aren't sold in a standard format, for any price. No matter how much money you pay, it still has DRM. So if you're not pirating, I guarantee you're running proprietary software. And if you're running that kind of stuff on your own equipment, then you have an un-auditable computer. That's crazy. It was crazy in 1999, so it's 10x crazier now.

      BTW, your take on the downsides of piracy is .. I don't want to say hilarious, but it's apparent that you haven't actually tried it yet. Do you need some help getting started?

    87. Re:If only ... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Does it work with mpv/mplayer? VLC? What standards does Netflix support?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    88. Re:If only ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I dunno. It works with Apple TV, Roku, Firestick, Chromecast, web browers, etc. It probably works on more things than youtube.

    89. Re:If only ... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Streaming brings better quality and less time loss.

      So does piracy. Every incremental price increase makes piracy look like a better deal. Netflix better be careful about finding that sweet spot and staying within it.

      Even more so, every additional streaming service with a smaller selection of content makes piracy a better deal but Netflix has no control over that.

    90. Re:If only ... by mlush · · Score: 1

      From my limited watching of (I think it was) Crunchyroll, they only seemed to have 2-3 ads to play so each adbreak was a repeat of the last one. This got old very quickly bad ads are annoying but endless repeats make it unwatchable.

  2. Such a huge $2 price hike by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Drethon · · Score: 1

      This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

      That is like my cable plan's monthly increase... /s

    2. Re: Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh Netflix got an offer for a subsidy to offset that increase a long time ago. I think they didnâ(TM)t apply because they figured their customers would just eat it. Oh well

    3. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If your other goods or services (e.g. broadband) went up by 13-18%, I'm sure you'd complain too.

      "It's only $2" is the refuge of a person with $2 to spare and expecting everyone else to ALWAYS have $2 to spare, on top of whatever they are paying for everything else. That's $2 a month, which is worse. You're now inching towards cable/satellite bills.

      I stopped my Netflix. It was my only "TV" for about a year. But then I realised that all the "unique" content I didn't really care about, all the existing content I could just buy or watch for free on broadcast, and then they started getting finicky over how many devices, talking about adverts, etc.

      I refuse to pay more than a token, throwaway payment for something that is just visual entertainment. I have Amazon Prime because it actually saves me money on delivery enough to justify itself, and then I get "free TV" on there too. I had Netflix because it was cheap and I could watch a lot of things. Once I'd watched those things, I didn't really care to pay for them continuously, and a lot of them came on Amazon Prime anyway.

      Now my TV is actually a Raspberry Pi with a DVB adaptor. It costs me nothing, streams to my laptop, my phone, etc. and I can VPN in to watch it too (which bypasses a load of regional nonsense when I go on holiday). And I don't have a big box on the wall wanting to talk to everything.

      It takes a lot to make me cut a service that I'm already signed up to. But I did it before Netflix raised prices in my country. They're going to struggle if they keep doing that.

      In rise with inflation, or give me something more for the money.

    4. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      $2 increase and they are cutting most of the best shows. Daredevil, Luke Cage and Iron Fist already cancelled, The Punisher and Jessica Jones probably will be too after their next seasons air.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I'm still thinking they just did that in anticipation of Disney playing hard ball with the marvel properties which were already pretty pricey. I don't mind the increase if it is able to fund new content I'm interested in.

    6. Re: Such a huge $2 price hike by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Uh Netflix got an offer for a subsidy to offset that increase a long time ago. I think they didnâ(TM)t apply because they figured their customers would just eat it. Oh well

      The customers usually eat it one way or another... paying up front is often cheaper than having to pay later to cover funding with interest. Though not sure how the subsidies would be handled with this...

    7. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      You have a VERY limited scope of focus...I mean, if all you care about is superhero shows, that's fine. There is a LOT more content on Netflix.

    8. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's only $2" is the refuge of a person with $2 to spare and expecting everyone else to ALWAYS have $2 to spare, on top of whatever they are paying for everything else.

      If one has $11 to spend on something superfluous like Netflix, but also somehow doesnt have $13 to spend on it, then i'd say one never really had $11 to spend in the first place. One would have bigger worries than "TV".

    9. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It is certain, it had to do with requirements Disney put on the deal.

    10. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

      No. But 18% is.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    11. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's enough to make me cancel; I don't watch it much anyway and was already contemplating doing so, but an extra $2 a month isn't worth it. All of my bills are going up; each one by a small amount, in aggregate I just can't afford it and some stuff needs to be cut. Can't really cut electricity or internet, etc, so Netflix is a good candidate.

    12. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

      Darn. Here I thought I'd just Chill going forward...

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    13. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair it is a diminishing catalog of things to watch - and now an increasing price. As those two things go in opposite directions you will see it start to take a toll on subscribers. They are about to lose what they have left of the Disney catalog. They have been cutting out many other items to save money to spend on making their own shows that many subscribers don't care about at all. So combine the smaller catalog and the higher price - and yes, it becomes a story.

    14. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

      I see you've taken the boiled frog approach. At what point does the continuous slow increase in price to justify the constant production of content no one wants while at the same time gutting the movie library available start being dramatic to you? Are you happy for a $2 price increase for every 200 movies removed from the library?

      Netflix seems to forget the reason it exists is because people were fed up from every fucking cable company locking down and producing its own content.

    15. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a Disney thing, not a Netflix thing. Disney announced over a year ago they're going to withdraw from Netflix and run their own streaming service (with Blackjack and Hookers I assume.) One assumes Netflix is already out looking for similar sources of content. In fact, I know they are, because they've picked up all DC Universe's original content for streaming outside of the US (they can't get rights in the US, because DC Universe doesn't want Netflix as a competitor, for obvious reasons), and they also co-fund the Arrowverse shows now.

      So, couple that with the additional original content they themselves are making, and I doubt you'll get a net reduction in stuff. Me? I'm just disappointed the original vision of "A place where every movie except the latest stuff is online" has gone. But it's not bad as an HBO alternative.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netflix is getting more "expensive" dramatically slower than inflation. Increasing at the rate of inflation is not an increase. Netflix is objectively getting cheaper every year, even if the number increases. My cable bill was getting more expensive about 2x inflation.

    17. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's Disney's fault, but Netflix have to accept that the value of their service is diminished by the loss of several of their biggest and best titles. At least it is for me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      but Netflix have to accept that the value of their service is diminished by the loss of several of their biggest and best titles

      Nobody's saying otherwise. What I just pointed out is that Netflix can legitimately find other ways to fill the gap and thus preserve its value.

      And to be honest, that's how it should be. If Netflix's response to the removal of Disney titles was to cut prices instead of replacing it with content of equal or better value, then it'd probably lose all of its subscribers.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you get a job so you can do something worthwhile and stop stinking up the place here

    20. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Interesting interpretation of the term "best."

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    21. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by ranton · · Score: 1

      Netflix is getting more "expensive" dramatically slower than inflation. Increasing at the rate of inflation is not an increase. Netflix is objectively getting cheaper every year, even if the number increases. My cable bill was getting more expensive about 2x inflation.

      To be fair, Netflix has increased from $7.99 in 2011 to $12.99 today, so that is far faster than inflation. If Netflix streaming was increasing with inflation it would cost about $9.25 today.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    22. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd be fine with that, but I'm not really seeing this content. House of Cards ended on a bit of a damp squib, their original movies are extremely hit and miss and none have really stood out so far.

      Is there anything coming down the pipeline I'm missing? I guess they will get all the new Star Trek stuff outside the US... American Vandal and Castlevania are okay, as is that Marie Kondo thing, but I'm struggling to think of stuff that I'm looking forward to this year apart from The Punish and Jessica Jones, which are both presumably finishing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cheapest plan is only going up $1. The people who care about a dollar or two already have this plan. The people who don't care can pay another $2.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      This summary does a very good job at making a $2 per month price increase appear very dramatic.

      Well if you think that's dramatic, wait until you see all the crying, whaling, and gnashing of teeth some subscribers will be spewing onto social networks over it!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    25. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a dramatic increase when you consider the increased price for a decreased amount of content. They keep increasing the price of the service even as the amount of content decreases and the ability to find the content I want hasn't improved since they first offered streaming.

      So yes, it's a dramatic increase in price and there's no sign that the value is going to be increasing anytime soon.

    26. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by ranton · · Score: 1

      In rise with inflation, or give me something more for the money.

      Netflix is giving users far more for their money than they have in the past from a pure cost perspective, since they are spending far more on new content now than they ever had on licensing agreements.

      But just because they are spending more money doesn't mean they are spending it on things you care about. Netflix is bound to get more expensive in the near future because of their move into original content. All of the major streaming competitors, like Amazon and Hulu, are doing the same. The big players in the market have apparently determined there isn't enough money in just streaming licensed content, and/or there is inherently too much risk in relying on the content of others (like Disney).

      Cancelling your account because they no longer meet your needs is a personal decision, but Netflix is clearly providing more overall value today than they have in the past. Still doesn't mean they provide more value to you personally.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    27. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "If your other goods or services (e.g. broadband) went up by 13-18%, I'm sure you'd complain too."

      Not actually.
      This is the sort of smoke and mirrors of statistics, isn't it?
      I mean, when someone waves around a 15-18% increase, that sounds like a lot...but I don't spend RELATIVE (%) dollars, I spend actual dollars. So what impacts me isn't the relative increase, it's the absolute increase and no, $2/month really isn't much. I mean, people blow 3x on an impulse purchase of a Grande Orange Mocha Latte Frappucino without batting an eye.

      And I get it, if everyone is handing you $2 monthly increases, soon that's real money. And frankly, as one of the early-adopters of Netflix (I think I was a month 3 subscriber), I'm *finally* contemplating canceling just because they really don't have a ton of good content anymore and this might be the last straw.

      But let's not all shriek and get our panties in a wad because 18% OMFG!!!!. It's $2. It's not that much to most people, really. It still might be enough to drive them off but don't pretend it's more than it is.

      --
      -Styopa
    28. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if Netflix costs $10,000 per month. It's entertainment. Buy it if you want. Or don't.

    29. Re:Such a huge $2 price hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're complaining about the way House of Cards ended, after The Outing, then I assume you weren't around for the whole Firefly fiasco? I mean, come on, have some bloody perspective.

      IMHO the most shocking news in the past several months for the entertainment industry, as a whole, is that flaming turd Iron Fist got another season funded. Who the hell saw that coming?

  3. Well, hell! In that case, let's make it $5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your thinking is why the U.S. Government has 20 trillion dollars in recognized debt, and 200 trillion dollars in debt that it just pretends isn't there.

    You know what? Money matters.

  4. Bad by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    I joined Netlix because the price was more reasonable than cable.

    That price point seems to work for them because they are not only overtaking cable but they have money to create original content too.

    How long before Netflix becomes just as bad as cable?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How long before Netflix becomes just as bad as cable?

      Seems like a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. If, like me, you don't care that much about sports then Netflix is a very good option and still orders of magnitude more reasonably priced than cable. That and I don't have to deal with ads.

    2. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see... watch when you want, how you want. Download (where allowed) and take offline to watch on a plane, in the gym, etc. No ads. Ability to choose language when others are available. Built in closed captioning that looks neatly done, as opposed to cable where it often looks like it was translated by a non english speaker who took a few courses somewhere. $13. Ok selection isn't always great but I don't watch a lot of stuff, its an occasional thing for me, or I download and watch on my tablet while using the treadmill.

      Cable? $100/mo around the time I cut the cord, and that was in 2012 and it was just local + basic stuff. No premium channels at all. I can't imagine how bad it is now, and I don't think there was generally much on I cared about anymore. I mostly play games now for entertainment, much more engagement value. If I want to watch something, there's Netflix, Amazon and YouTube and 7 years on I've not looked back.

    3. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know that they ever will be, even if it became a premium service. With cable you're paying via the front-end (subscription, equipment, fees) and the back-end (ads & time). If Netflix price balloons out of control people will revert to illegal streaming or begrudgingly join one of the many other services out there that cost less
        on the front-end and more on the back.

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

      The slippery slope fallacy pertains to forming a logical argument. Since this is a computer / tech site, the best way to state this is that it is a "fallacy" because it doesn't adhere to strict logical standards. In other words if we increment x + 1 in a loop and start x at zero the fallacy would be, looking at the output, that after x (say 100) number of loops the computer can just assume the loop will keep going to 101 or 102 or 1,000. In reality we don't know if there is a stopping point or not so the computer program can't just assume that the loops continues. This doesn't mean the loops does not continue. It just means it is not a logical fact (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 type fact). That is what the slippery slope fallacy means. It means you can't state AS FACT that netflix prices will continue to rise. But we can be pretty damn sure they will.

    5. Re:Bad by Junta · · Score: 1

      Pretty quick...

      At the time I started with them, they had crazy amounts of third party content and very cheap prices. I think largely because the content owners weren't taking streaming seriously.

      Now as their third party catalog evaporates and their prices increase and their home-grown content is mostly not along the lines of what I'm looking for, it's rapidly losing it's appeal to me...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:Bad by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it is a fallacy or not. I just feel we are on our way to being boiled frogs here and I don't want to be.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Bad by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's what I mean.. Slowly it is becoming more expensive with less content, it's easy to look at your account one day and realize that you are paying for basically nothing. There has to be a line. The content on Netflix isn't THAT good. A lot of stuff that is good that I saw years ago and a lot of other stuff that never really made it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Bad by Rolgar · · Score: 2

      Actually, Netflix is running up a big debt creating new content. Their Balance sheet from 2014 and 2017 show they tripled debt from $5 billion to 15 billion. In the near future, something is going to have to change if interest rates go up and they start to lose significant profits to interest charges.

      Some options might include:
      Creating less new content, and hope people stay to watch old shows they've missed.
      Convince the people who make their shows to do so for less money. (this may work if they hire less known actors or actresses and play hardball on the salaries, and maybe go the BBC route of shutting down a show after a much shorter run before the actors get super expensive. But considering how many shows have gone to 1million/episode for extremely popular shows, it's probably pretty difficult to stop making a popular show, either because it's actually profitable, or there is some prestige value in having a top show for 5-10 years that millions love even if you only break even on the show the year that it airs.)
      Return to licensing content from other providers for cheaper than what they can produce similar work.

    9. Re:Bad by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Ok well, I guess it's a lesson to watch what you're paying from month to month and reassess what you are really getting from it. Seems like it has become a constant shell game.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Bad by eddeye · · Score: 1

      If, like me, you don't care that much about sports then Netflix is a very good option and still orders of magnitude more reasonably priced than cable.

      It's like that old saying. You get what you pay for.

      I hate cable and will be the first to stomp on its grave. But at this point Netflix's content is not worth the price. Netflix offerings are garbage:

      • It has few theatrical movies anymore.
      • The few good theatrical movies it does have - Marvel and Star Wars - are going away in 2019 for Disney's streaming service.
      • Instead we get crap like Will Smith buddy-cop with orcs and Sandra Bullock running around blindfolded. Utter garbage.
      • Half my suggestions are in a foreign language, with no indication or way to sort out the subtitled crap.
      • The only thing worth watching is the occasional documentary - which you can find direct on PBS or BBC.

      I understand why it happened. The greedy studios boxed Netflix out, hoping to run their own platform and keep all the juicy streaming fees for themselves. I would totally support a compulsory licensing scheme for video content similar to radio that lets any streaming service broadcast anything for a price.

      So it's not Netflix's fault. But the end result is that their content is now unwatchable garbage. RIP Netflix.

      The best deal right now is youtube tv. 40 popular channels including local networks and sports. Unlimited DVR ability. All for $40 a month. I think you can even add HBO or Showtime if that's your fancy.

      It's not perfect. Still has commercials, though you can FF through them. Doesn't have a full streaming catalogue, only what the channels broadcast. And it's significantly more expensive than Netflix. But at least it has good content. You get what you pay for.

      --
      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
  5. Students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HBO is $9.99 a month for students. I pay $0.99 a month for Hulu, and have directv deal to pay $30 a month for 60+ channels which includes HBO for $5 a month. I think directv is now $35 or $40 plus $5 for HBO. The only company that doesnâ(TM)t offer promos or deals is Netflix.

    1. Re:Students by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      My lord that sounds complicated.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that complicated. Hulu is a buck, and I can either pay $10 for HBO only or $30 for 60+ channels including HBO.

    3. Re:Students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HBO is $9.99 a month for students. I pay $0.99 a month for Hulu, and have directv deal to pay $30 a month for 60+ channels which includes HBO for $5 a month. I think directv is now $35 or $40 plus $5 for HBO. The only company that doesnâ(TM)t offer promos or deals is Netflix.

      Promos sucker dumbasses into paying less for the first year (or so) only to charge them a shitload for the remaining year, which is usually not optional unless you want to pay extra to cancel.

      Anyway, Netflix lets you watch what you want, when you want without having to DVR anything first.

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

      Isn't HBO $10/month for everyone through Amazon?

    5. Re:Students by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Hulu is $0.99 for you only because you got in on their "Limited Commercial Plan" promo for 12 months. When the 12 months ends the price goes to $7.99/month. And that includes commercials. Lots of commercials. I'd hate to see what the "Unlimited Commercial Plan" would look like.

  6. Binge/on-demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, cable ain't on-demand, and cable also controls the rate at which you can watch a show.

    So, I'm guessing Netflix could be 2x the price, and people would still find it more valuable than cable.

    1. Re:Binge/on-demand by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes and when there are on-demand shows on cable, the selection may be limited. For example only the current season of whatever show I'm watching. And the experience is less than ideal as there are embedded ads that can't be avoided. To ensure these ads are unavoidable, features like fast forwarding are disabled for the entire show and not just the ads. It makes the sure harder to watch and re-watch.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re: Binge/on-demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is cable not on demand? Even though I have a DVR, I donâ(TM)t know the last time I watched a live program or a dvrâ(TM)ed program. I just go straight to on demand. I donâ(TM)t watch sports at home, and they have a donâ(TM)t care about sports option. So bundling cable+internet and getting hbo for free because I have an Att cell, Iâ(TM)m out like $70ish a month. Which isnâ(TM)t even $10 more then the Internet only option. Iâ(TM)ve looked at a cutting the cord but I canâ(TM)t find a single uncapped, decent speed ,internet only plan that doesnâ(TM)t take me over the coals.

    3. Re: Binge/on-demand by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true, I know the cable box I got from my company is awful. I can't filter out channels in the guide that I don't get, the search is a terrible 'exact text on the title', it is slow as some pages take seconds to refresh. It hangs, sometimes ignoring the remote altogether until minutes later when it does all the buttons you pressed all at once. I have never looked at the on demand and I would never conceive the thought of doing so, since the portal I have to do it with is so inconceivably bad. Literally they could use a Kodi plugin and be miles ahead in technology.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Must be Apple's fault by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Many people are sure.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  8. Netflix plan since day one by fred6666 · · Score: 2

    Start with low prices, kill the competition, and then raise prices higher than the cable/satellite providers once they succeed. Typical drug dealer behavior.
    The only thing that amazes me is how many people didn't see this coming.

    1. Re:Netflix plan since day one by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Cable providers have been raising prices by 20-25% every year. They are the ones coming in at $45/month for the first year and then go to $150, then to $200 for a standard cable package.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Netflix plan since day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People see this coming, but they don't care. Frankly, they shouldn't yet. It's a price worth paying to avoid commercials, and we haven't even reached the, "Hmm...I don't know" price yet.

      If you wanted to buy a single on-demand video, it would cost as much or more than a full month of netflix. Even with the price hike, the cost of netflix still doesn't exceed the monthly cost of a cable box + random fees.

    3. Re:Netflix plan since day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Typical drug dealer behavior.

      Have you actually ever BOUGHT drugs? This never happens, except on TV.

      Or wait, were you talking about the legal drugs? Like the epi-pen? Then nevermind, it happens all the time. Move along.

    4. Re:Netflix plan since day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really. Why has my cable bill remained the same since I signed up for service four years ago? Maybe you should understand how deals work. When it says first year is $45/month and the second year it returns to the original price, it would do you one smart to look up the original price. How is this any different than a super market offering a buy one get one 50% off discount on 48ct eggs when you're a single person. You're gonna eat nearly 100 eggs before they expire? No. But its still a better deal than buying a single 12ct carton of eggs for 33% less. Oh but for a family of 5 it works out great. So does a $200/mo cable package. And if you don't think so, you don't have a home full of teenagers

      TL;DR: everyone is different, the people complaining are usually the people who are suckers. a new sucker is born ever minute

    5. Re:Netflix plan since day one by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      my cable bill surely hasn't increased by anywhere close to that amount over the years. It's more like 2-8% (more then inflation, though)

    6. Re:Netflix plan since day one by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      People see this coming, but they don't care. Frankly, they shouldn't yet.

      Yes they should. They should be glad when Netflix doesn't get show XYZ instead of ranting. It means someone else can offer it and there can be more competition.
      One must be a fool to think that Netflix can offer all shows and movies out there for $10-15/month

    7. Re:Netflix plan since day one by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You're lucky. I had a local TWC subsidiary which charged me $45 for years. Then TWC took over control of all it's local subsidiaries and they started with $15/month for the modem, then they didn't upgrade from the paltry 10Mbps to 15Mbps and then Charter merged with TWC and the 15Mbps was never going to become 100Mbps unless you accepted their new pricing structure which has increased year over year.

      During the 10-15Mbps years they were also pinching Netflix and YouTube (after "net neutrality" legalized preferential traffic) on the 15Mbps account or I would've kept the old pricing.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Netflix plan since day one by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      You give Reed Hastings way too much credit.

      When Coca Cola introduced, then withdrew, "New Coke," many suspected that the resulting success of Coke Classic was the original goal, and the "New Coke" was just a ruse. But Coca Cola executives were quoted as saying, "We're not that stupid, and we're not that smart." In other words, it just worked out for them, they didn't see it coming.

      Netflix started with a simple business model, shipping DVDs in those little red envelopes. Remember those? It worked wildly beyond their expectations. Now that they are king of the hill, they are starting to throw their pricing muscle around.

      No, I don't think there was some grand, sinister plan from the beginning. They just stumbled their way to this point.

    9. Re:Netflix plan since day one by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      from the beginning of their streaming business then

    10. Re:Netflix plan since day one by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      One must be a fool to think that Netflix can offer all shows and movies out there for $10-15/month

      You do? I don't know, that's exactly what they offered a decade ago. Then streaming came around, and the media companies were all "noooope! We're in charge now, rental prices need to triple. Just because."

    11. Re:Netflix plan since day one by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      it was a lot limited, only because of the delays of shipping meaning the actual number of movies you were able to watch in a month was very low
      and still they didn't have all shows and movies

  9. I'm this close to dropping it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two things I actually liked enough to watch, and stay awake for: Black Mirror and the Lost in Space reboot.

    Beyond that I can't get excited about any of their new content. Not sure it's worth $11/month. Definitely not worth $15/month.

    1. Re:I'm this close to dropping it by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Travelers and Salvation are also good, although they're not Netflix exclusives AFAIK.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  10. What about internationally? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    No mention of this is international, or just US. Prices listed are in USD, it seems.

    Any idea if this will affect Netflix in Europe? Well, not if, but when?

    1. Re:What about internationally? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      Looks like this will happen in Canada shortly too: https://www.narcity.com/news/n...

      The last increase in Ireland was in 2017, so I can only guess this will be a worldwide increase in the next few weeks.

    2. Re: What about internationally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always denominated in USD. If you are paying some fee purely inside another country it would be denominated in that currency. If in the odd case of the EU or APAC where the fee is routed up from one jurisdiction into another before the negotiated price goes to the US then it is on a case by case basis. Another example: suppose you have a subscriber in the US who watches a show produced in the State of California but with a script written in Germany but produced by a Chinese firm, then the fee goes to the US eventually but payments are made for IP, content, scripts, talent, and so forth in all these jurisdictions and netflixâ(TM)s Accounting department does all the calculations. Only when a partner or subscriber is doing a content deal entirely separate from Netflix do those people have to do their own royalty calculations and Netflix basically just sends a check for professional and content services. Companies like Netflix are always dealing with complicated scenarios and simplifying them for customers through monthly subscription fees, or what have you

    3. Re: What about internationally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also as a new media corporation Netflix is much more well-verses in content protection and author protection in the age of internet media than some of the more traditional companies. As a content producer can you get a better deal in theory from somewhere else? Of course, but you would need to take all these things into account and many of them are showstoppers for a lot of people for hundreds of reasons

  11. Less Content, Higher Prices by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    Who ever said competition was a good thing?
    Greedy fucks.

    --
    I tend to rant.
    1. Re:Less Content, Higher Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send them a message and cancel it.

    2. Re:Less Content, Higher Prices by suutar · · Score: 1

      the benefits of competition conflict with the benefits of the network effect. It doesn't help that the tendency for a given piece of entertainment to be on one or a limited number of services means that the services are not so much competing for the market as dividing it up.

  12. Netflix needs to clean house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cancelled my Netflix subscription several months ago. I'd had Netflix streaming since about early 2010.

    At first, it was GREAT. Lots of high quality content, and stuff I'd never see anywhere else. Very cool, high quality documentaries. The rating system actually seemed to work. Then, over the next few years it slowly but surely got worse. In late 2018 I feel myself wading through more and more and more garbage, and barely ever watching Netflix. I watched more from my DVR than Netflix! The S/N had ratio went down considerably since I first started. Netflix now reminds me of the dreck I was trying to get away from when I cancelled cable! So I dropped it. I don't miss it.

    So I (eventually) switched to Prime. So far so good. Prime seems to go after the more premium experience and curates it's content more. Netflix seems to just want to dump massive quantities of crap on the service, and make you figure out what you want.

    1. Re:Netflix needs to clean house. by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      So I (eventually) switched to Prime. So far so good. Prime seems to go after the more premium experience and curates it's content more. Netflix seems to just want to dump massive quantities of crap on the service, and make you figure out what you want.

      Well frankly, a service SHOULD have everything, and we have the choice about what we want to see. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and it won't ever be the case until there are enormous shifts in the marketplace .

  13. Beautiful spin, there by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    I don't recall the last time a summary on slashdot provided such generous spin to a company (happens all the time for politicians, of course). I'd ask how much Netflix paid for this but they're smart enough to realize that the dwindling audience on this failing website isn't worth investing in anyways.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  14. A slippery slope isn't a fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slippery slopes do exist; don't make the mistake of thinking that such an argument constitutes some kind of fallacy.

  15. What the market will bear by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If your other goods or services (e.g. broadband) went up by 13-18%, I'm sure you'd complain too.

    Happens all the time and about things I care about a LOT more than TV. Health insurance routinely increases by similar percentage amounts and the actual dollar amounts are FAR higher.

    "It's only $2" is the refuge of a person with $2 to spare and expecting everyone else to ALWAYS have $2 to spare, on top of whatever they are paying for everything else. That's $2 a month, which is worse. You're now inching towards cable/satellite bills.

    This is the US, i.e. the richest country in the world. Most of us really do have $2 to spare, even most of the less fortunate among us. If the $2 is a problem then perhaps you should reconsider paying $11 (or $13) a month to an objectively frivolous TV streaming service.

    Seriously, if it's a problem for a lot of their customers Netflix will have to deal with the loss. If their customers mostly don't care (as I suspect most won't) then it isn't really a problem. Expecting Netflix to just keep their prices static and let inflation eat away their profits endlessly is naive.

    I refuse to pay more than a token, throwaway payment for something that is just visual entertainment.

    That's reasonable. Many others are willing to pay more. Neither of you is wrong for doing so.

    1. Re:What the market will bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What people also need to realize is they're already paying far more than $2 a month to support companies (whose products they buy) deliver advertising to them. This price increase is a drop in the bucket.

    2. Re:What the market will bear by Njovich · · Score: 1

      This is the US, i.e. the richest country in the world.

      Not according to any relevant metric. In other news: American Football is not the most watched sport in the world and the US did not single-handedly beat the Nazi's in WWII.

    3. Re:What the market will bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should have said the "world series" - which -

      * isn't completed by any item outside of America.
      * 99% of the world couldn't give a fuck

    4. Re:What the market will bear by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      and the US did not single-handedly beat the Nazi's in WWII.

      No that was Captain America, though he is American.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  16. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The solution is simple:

    Advertising.

    Simple interrupt the program, for a few minutes, to show valuable informational content.

    Also, this whole "streaming" thing has to go. Simply broadcast on a set time, on a set day, to a set device, and people can watch it ot not.

    None of this "timeshifting" or "streaming stuff". TV does not revolve around you and accomodate you, you must accomodate tv.

    1. Re:Solution by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      What's sad is this is probably how a lot of cable/satellite execs actually think.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Solution by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Due to a lot of life changes in a small amount of time I actually missed out on the whole "timeshifting" era (as long as you don't count VCRs). I think I'm also a more casual pirate because of it: I don't hoard shows or movies like it seems many other people do.

  17. This is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix is still better in every conceivable way than cable, including price point.

  18. 18%? You're lucky... by gekko2725 · · Score: 1

    In Canada the increase this year for the standard plan (ie the bare minimum needed to get high definition content) jumped 27%. True, our dollar is at a deep discount but so is the content Netflix makes available up here. Good luck finding an episode of (the original) Magnum PI or a reasonably new movie release. By my math a Canadian subscription is worth about $5. In Canadian currency. That might sound harsh considering governments put regional restrictions and licensing on some content, but Netflix also deliberately hampers the efforts of people using VPN services and DNS-based redirects. Years ago the Rhinoceros party had a campaign promise of simply selling Canada to the US and giving every Canadian a million dollars. If it meant we got American content for music and streaming services I'd say go for it.

  19. Stop using to/from, it makes no sense! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

    Its most popular plan will see the largest hike, to $13 per month from $11.

    Who the fuck started this madness? You don't go "to B from A", you go "from A to B".

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Stop using to/from, it makes no sense! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      This format was selected to move the worst news closest to the front of the article. Headline writers do far worse things.

    2. Re: Stop using to/from, it makes no sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far out. What do you think of these prices if it was some other thing? Like Hulu or a content company like dreamworks or paramount?

    3. Re:Stop using to/from, it makes no sense! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Bullshit clickbait tactics like that just reinforce the meme that the editors are idiots.

  20. Less movies and shows for more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As channels and movies studios try to start their own streaming services netflix will have even less options and yet is going to charge more. After the movie industry divides up the market into different subscription services all wanting money I will boycott all streaming services.

  21. Re:18%? You're lucky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your currency is backed by maple syrup and beaver pelt reserves - what were you expecting?

  22. Stream non-original content? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Too bad that Netflix doesn't offer a streaming service that offers only non-original content, avoiding the cost of the "huge investment in original shows and films."

    1. Re: Stream non-original content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose Netflix can decide where to make its investments. All the rest of us do is pay the fees and maintain our internet connection and wait for the finales

    2. Re:Stream non-original content? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Didn't we see numbers a few years back, about how financing their own movies and shows was actually cheaper than paying up Hollywood to rent their movies and shows?

      There's also the bonus that if Netflix plays their cards right with the lawyers and the financing, it means they will never have to remove their own shows from their own librairies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Stream non-original content? by YourMissionForToday · · Score: 0

      At this point, Netflix is primarily focused on its own content. I'm sure this is cheaper for Netflix, but it's not good for customers. The UI is also terrible; not only does it push Netflix content over what you want to watch, it does a bad job of profiling users. I have to use instantwatcher.com to figure out what to watch because the UI hides everything I want to watch.

    4. Re:Stream non-original content? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...Didn't we see numbers a few years back...

      I don't know, did we?

    5. Re:Stream non-original content? by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      Financially that's all true and that's why they did it. While Netflix may see themselves as content producers, the problem is many of their subscribers see them instead as content delivery thus their originals may or may not be content that people actually want to watch.

      Or to put it another way, Netflix started as an alternative to video rental. Then they reinvented themselves and have had some success to the point that others now are trying to copy. So in a world where everyone wants to be a creator and no one wants to merely deliver someone else's content, where do you go to watch movies etc?

    6. Re:Stream non-original content? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I don't know, that's why I'm asking!!!1

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Stream non-original content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well??? Did we? I'm dying to know!!! (I'll keep refreshing the page)

  23. Re: 18%? You're lucky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing. I wrap myself in beaver. pelts. Too bad. You can wrap yourself in whatever you think will keep you warm and watch your own TV, eh?

  24. Re:18%? You're lucky... by gekko2725 · · Score: 1

    True, true. If I could pay for the service in maple syrup or surplus firewood I would not be so outraged. Maybe Netflix could extend an olive branch and film some originals up here. A 4K reboot of the Beachcombers? Or Justin Bieber as the King of Kensington? After all, the higher fees are supposed to support new programming...

  25. HD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in sweden and have the full HD package, but the past few month the quality have degraded ALOT, I recall when I started to use netflix and the image was so crisp it felt unnatural on the massive 46 inch tv. Now I mostly look on a 24inch monitor and it's basically the quality of a halfdecent divX movie around 2000 not to mention how bad it looks on my 65inch tv.
    After being a loyal customer for over 6years I now start to think about cancel the service due to imagequality.
    I even started to subscribe to a local alternative a few days back and while it didn't have as much content but the imagequality, my god what a difference

  26. You won't believe what headline writers do! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    This one simple trick will stop headline writers in their tracks!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  27. Old school snail mail by ArthurVandelay9092 · · Score: 1

    Stil havenâ(TM)t figured out how to return the streaming movies. The costs of 4 dvd per month isnâ(TM)t comparable with unlimited high definition streaming, yet the cost was higher almost fifteen years ago.

    1. Re:Old school snail mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stil havenâ(TM)t figured out how to return the streaming movies. The costs of 4 dvd per month isnâ(TM)t comparable with unlimited high definition streaming, yet the cost was higher almost fifteen years ago.

      Jesus! Fix your d@mn phone for g0dsakes!

  28. You can break even (and get even) by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    By canceling your Netflix membership for 3 months a year.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  29. It is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It'll cause a lot of folks to re-evaluate their subscriptions at a time when competition in streaming is heating up. I'm probably going to cut back or cancel the DVD plan I have as I just don't use it. This reminded me I need to do that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My media player with a 2 TB drive hookup along with the collection of DVD's I've ordered over the years remains at nearly a fixed one time cost over my life. Best of all if the Internet goes down it's still showing movies and TV shows with no commercials.

  31. Too much garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's never going to be a good value. 80% of their content offering is totally useless to me - wrong language, etc.

  32. Netflix...done by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I've never used it, but, unless you are into original content, a lot of people I know that use/have used it dropped it because after a year, there wasn't anything worth watching they hadn't already seen.

  33. Re:18%? You're lucky... by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, soon we'll have a new internet tax, I mean levy, to make up for the fact that Netflix doesn't pay its artists enough. Use over 15GBs a month, well you must be streaming and those artists need their paycheck increased.
    Don't like it, well here https://act.openmedia.org/noin...

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  34. I admit, I prefer cable by doubledown00 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I tried to cut the cord and didn't like it. For one, I wasn't saving much once the Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and ESPN subscriptions were priced in. For two between the previous services and an OTA it became a damn scavenger hunt to find which services had the stuff we wanted to watch.......just to then find out "Sorry, that's on Youtube" etc.

    After a couple months we tried a compromise by getting Directtv Now. The service its self isn't ready for prime time. The interface is buggy and on an Apple TV navigating the guide was an exercise in infinite scrolling. And in our market they didn't have local channels available so we still had to use an antenna.

    In the end we went back to a low tier cable subscription with a few streaming services to supplement. I paid up front for a Tivo with a lifetime subscription, rent a cable card for $5 a month, and have two tivo minis for other rooms in the house.

    At the end of the day cable "just works". I don't want to come home after a long day and putz around hopping from one service to another looking for something to watch. Yes, it's somewhat brainless.

    The thing about streaming services is that they are going to fracture more and more as time goes on. Various content holders are figuring out that they might as well set up their own distribution channels and pay themselves to show their IP. They tried this vertical integration back in the early 20th century by trying to run theaters too. Those efforts were slapped down as anti-trust violations. Today though, it would seem anything goes.

    We are in the process of trading all you can eat cable service for a series of smaller walled gardens.

    1. Re:I admit, I prefer cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to cut the cord and didn't like it. For one, I wasn't saving much once the Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and ESPN subscriptions were priced in. For two between the previous services and an OTA it became a damn scavenger hunt to find which services had the stuff we wanted to watch.......just to then find out "Sorry, that's on Youtube" etc.

      This is why Roku came with a search feature that would search the streaming services for you.

    2. Re:I admit, I prefer cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I got from reading your post is that, you sir, watch too much goddamned TV. Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and ESPN subs? A Tivo, a cable card, and 2 Tivo minis? Jesus Effing Christ.

    3. Re:I admit, I prefer cable by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      What I got from reading your post is that, you sir, watch too much goddamned TV. Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and ESPN subs? A Tivo, a cable card, and 2 Tivo minis? Jesus Effing Christ.

      Some day you may know the touch of a woman. If that happens and kids result, then this thread will have more relevance to you.

    4. Re:I admit, I prefer cable by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      I tried to cut the cord and didn't like it. For one, I wasn't saving much once the Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and ESPN subscriptions were priced in. For two between the previous services and an OTA it became a damn scavenger hunt to find which services had the stuff we wanted to watch.......just to then find out "Sorry, that's on Youtube" etc.

      This is why Roku came with a search feature that would search the streaming services for you.

      That's all fine and good but such a search assumes:
      1) That you already know what you're looking for, and
      2) That said content is available on a service that you have.


      I guess there are people out there always up to date on the newest stuff and always know exactly what they want to watch. Bully for them.

  35. This is why I pirate all their shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they suck ass and deserve it.

  36. Richest country = USA by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Not according to any relevant metric.

    You mean except for GDP and total wealth? Yes the US has more money as of 2019 than any other single country and has for quite some time. China will probably overtake the US in a few years but that is then and this is now.

    In other news: American Football is not the most watched sport in the world and the US did not single-handedly beat the Nazi's in WWII.

    Got any other fake and irrelevant strawmen you'd like to eviscerate?

    1. Re:Richest country = USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why would those aggregate measures be relevant to a question of whether individuals have $2 in their pocket?

    2. Re:Richest country = USA by Njovich · · Score: 1

      I think Netflix is going to need per capita money so the per capita figures may be more relevant. They probably won't be on board with sharing the account with all of the country. I guess you thought the 2 dollar rate increase could be split with all users? Sadly it's on an individual basis :-(

  37. And it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the beginning of the slow death spiral that leads to it's eventual irrelevancy. Then again maybe I am missing the point of Netflix. It was once a gateway into the cable-less world, wire-cutting if you will. It now seems it is just another media company, albeit with an early tech advantage.

    So here is my theory...
    In an attempt to get more subscribers the executives have allowed the management team to convince them that more original content is where they need to head.
    Unfortunately it costs a ton of money to be the original product slinger, especially in the video space.
    While the original content started out as cool with some good success it will very quickly consume more time, money and resources than they bargained for and instead of focusing on staying relevant with new licensing contracts and making use of other tech innovations they will pour their money down the drain attempting to regain that initial high of original content success.

  38. Netflix risk losing customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Netflix will find out how much value customers see in original content. I personally think the original content should have a additional charge for anyone wanting to watch that content. I know myself I watch less and less Netflix these days, and don't find a lot of their original content that good.

  39. What about DVD Plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We watch about as much on DVD as on streaming. Much wider variety of material too.

  40. kind of fucked up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its kind of fucked up that i in this backwater country get perhaps 1/6th of the selection ppl in US get. and i still have to pay the same..

    The last few months there have been absolutley nothing of interest on netflix.
    So bye bye to netflix and spotify goes on the same time. can pay 5bucks on a decent vpn instead...

  41. Might be worth going back to disc rental program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they have a lot more selection through dvd/bluray. I could probably setup a bluray ripper and watch them at my convenience and have better selection available.

  42. So the reason for using Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the cable company price hikes. Everything old is new again. How do you spell cable? N-E-T-F-L-I-X

  43. This should be a concern to cable cutters by mysidia · · Score: 1

    The industry is starting to catch up.... before it was just Cable video that was expensive,
    now streaming video is starting to get expensive.

    This is exactly how it happens.... small accretive price increases to suit the greedy publishers.

    I remember.... it doesn't seem too long ago when Cable TV was $15 a month for 50 channels Basic + Expanded.
    Boil the frog alive.... "Boil the frog alive".

  44. I don't understand the subject by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    When someone increase something by certain percent, then it should say up to a certain number, not to another percent. What does increasing 13% to 18% mean? 18% of what?

    1. Re:I don't understand the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA, the $8 plan is going up to $9 (12.5% increase), the $11 plan to $13 (18% increase), and the $14 plan to $16 (14% increase). So depending on your plan, you'll see a different % of a price increase.

  45. just cancelled by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    I just cancelled my subscription. that price hike was nothing but greed. they just stopped in-app purchases that saved them around 250 million dollars a year, they are losing disney shows, and too many show I am interested in is in another language. Just not worth it anymore. Fortunately some shows are on amazon prime and other streaming services.

    I decided to cancel now instead of waiting the three months current subscribers are getting at the old rate because I would either forget or decide to keep it - which is what netflix wants.

  46. That's the point of a-la-carte by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    Out of the entire "500-channel-universe" that people pay for on cable, most people only watch 4 or 5 channels heavily, the rest rarely. It's a different 4-or-5-channels for different people. Nobody denies that duplicating the entire "500-channel-universe" via streaming is very expensive. But getting your 2 or 3 or 4 favourite streaming services is usually a lot less expensive.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  47. Just canceled, but not just the price increase by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    I just canceled my account. The price increase is what triggered the thought to take the action. But price wasn't my major motivation. Rather, Netflix keeps dumping good content. The last several times I went to search for a specific movie or show, it wasn't there. Law and Order, NCIS LA, Murdoch Mysteries, Downton Abbey, to name a few.

    As for Netflix Originals, the only one that really got our attention was The Crown, but do we want to keep paying all year just for that March release? We've been watching Netflix less and less. Finally, we couldn't justify the cost and said good-bye.