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.

131 of 228 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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?
    9. 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)

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.
    15. 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)
    16. 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)
    17. 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.

    18. 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?
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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!

    22. 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.
    23. 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.

    24. 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.
    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.

    31. 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.

    32. 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.

    33. 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.

    34. 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.

    35. 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.

    36. 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.

    37. 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.

    38. 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.

    39. 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.

    40. 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.

    41. 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. :)

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

      A TV antenna of course! :-)

    43. 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.

    44. 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.

    45. 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.

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

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

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    47. 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.

    48. 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.

    49. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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...

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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...
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.
    15. 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?
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. 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.'"
    19. 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.
    20. 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
    21. 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
  3. 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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Must be Apple's fault by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Many people are sure.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  6. 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 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)

    3. 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

    4. 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
    5. 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.

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

      from the beginning of their streaming business then

    7. 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."

    8. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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 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.

    2. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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 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
    2. Re:Stream non-original content? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

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

      I don't know, did we?

    3. 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?

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

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

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  15. 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.

  16. 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...

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

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

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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
  21. 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/
  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  26. 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 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 :-(

  27. 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".

  28. 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?

  29. 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.

  30. 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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 .