Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

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.

12 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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)
    4. 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)
    5. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.