this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
317 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
59039 readers
3640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That proves their recent moves are not perceived by people as unfair, contrary to what "the common web" said
Yeah I guess. It's very shocking to me, but people have spoken...
You can't trust people. People listen to Cold Play and voted for the Nazi Party.
People. What a bunch of bastards.
What's wrong with Coldplay?
Nothing, I think the point is that people will listen to a band that may have left of center sensibilities (I don't know about Coldplay in particular) then vote the opposite. A great example is the video of the old white couple, wearing thin Blue line flags, dancing to Killing In The Name Of by Rage Against The Machine.
Ben and Jerry's "Coldplay's Pretentious Vanilla"
Bland, self important and boring
If you gave humanity the ultimatum that they can continue paying what they're currently paying, or subscribe to nothing for a year but be rewarded with the same price to access all movies and tv series ever created, via a single service, for the rest of their lives... I'm willing to bet more than 2/3 of the human population would cave and re-subscribe within a couple of months.
Because they made the cost of adding a household less than the cost of two accounts, then banked on the fact that people wouldn't want to "screw over" whoever they were sharing a password with. It was a good business strategy, if shitty consumer practice.
I'd agree, though I wonder how much of this is how appealing consumers find the competition? None of them seem to be making major inroads at the moment. The biggest competition is also raising prices, nullifying the competitive penalty Netflix would face from that move.
It just proves that avergae people want their TV and don't give a fuck about how much it costs.
My wife is a perfect example: We leached off my mom's Netflix for years. I don't really care, we have Plex that I manage and Netflix blows, so it's all her. Mom ended up cancelling with the latest price hike. Brother and I took bets. My wife lasted 36 hours before making her own account. I lost my bet.
Same here. I set up a Servarr stack and showed everyone in my house how to use Jellyseer to pick shows. I set up Jellyfin on all of their devices as well as the common TV. It works wonderfully well and they can download anything.
So what do I see when I look over their shoulder to see what they're using? Netflix and Prime Video. SMH.
Yup, happens every time. Even with everything working and that my wife can pick her own shows to automatically download, I think it's the waiting that does it, because God forbid you have to wait 5-10 minutes. Also too, I can see the appeal in browsing someone else's library and watching something on a whim.
Yes, and I think there is some inertia and cognitive load at play. Going to Jellyseer to find a show, figuring out what's good, committing to the download, waiting for the download and then switching over to Jellyfin is a bit more cognitively involved than the basically mindless browsing you can do on Netflix. I see it with my kids with Tiktok as well. Tiktok looks even more passive with the algorithm just feeding you non-stop, constantly varying content.
Agreed. I'm not really one for much TV or movies anymore, though when I am, I know exactly what I want to watch. I also tend to watch things I've already seen before as background while I'm doing something else. But I know there are plenty of people that when they get home, they just want to zone out, and that mindless browsing, plus content they've never seen before available instantly certainly could have that appeal.
People will pay for things that they perceive to be unfair deals.
They upset and turned away people who were not willing to pay. Not a big loss. In the meantime they added tons of people who would pay if given a small push.
I have never really been sure how exactly “the internet” thought they would be punished for this move. It seemed kind of bullet proof to me. Like, sure you’re leaving and never coming back, but you were not really a paying customer and never would be.
Didn’t read the article but I wonder how many people will now sub for a short period and cancel.
Like say you have a group of 3 and 1 person subbing indefinitely before and now there might be 3 people subbing for 2-3 months each. For a period of a year that’d be 12 months vs about 9 months.
So right now they might have increased their subs and revenue but it might change over a longer period of time? Or maybe people are just too lazy and will keep their subs. Who knows.
This doesn't prove anything. Netflix can project whatever they want. It takes time for their shitty decisions to affect them.
How many of these subscribers are bundles and in emerging markets? Netflix doesn't reveal such details.