[HN Gopher] Netflix loses subscribers for the first time in 10+ ...
___________________________________________________________________
Netflix loses subscribers for the first time in 10+ years
Author : gordon_freeman
Score : 156 points
Date : 2022-04-19 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Love Bridgerton. But most of what I watch is on Prime. Severance
| on Apple was just too dark. Stuff like Paramount I get through
| Prime too. HBO made half of a really interesting series and then
| just walked away.
| [deleted]
| rdiddly wrote:
| I'm one of the ones they lost. I suddenly noticed the experience
| is inferior. The search doesn't seem to even take into account
| the thing I typed in. Maybe it's just that they've been so
| utterly gutted by the loss of all the Fox content to Disney+,
| that they're trying to cover it up with "well we don't have that,
| but perhaps you would like..."
|
| Speaking of "perhaps you would like," what do you call it when
| someone flashes something poorly targeted, unwanted and
| irrelevant in front of your eyeballs and pushes it a bit too
| hard? I call that an ad. I'm paying for advertising. Or rather, I
| was.
| smm11 wrote:
| We got Netflix long ago to see movies we never caught in
| theaters. Now, it's nearly entirely Netflix productions, and
| we're not into that. So long.
| transcriptase wrote:
| If anyone from Netflix is lurking, I have a wild suggestion:
|
| If I've recently watched a movie or series, don't relentlessly
| show it in the "recommended-content-looping-screensaver". I know
| it exists, because I've watched it. And you know that too.
| [deleted]
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Amazon Prime does this as well. Wonder if the database server
| expense figures into the decision?
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| I'd like a quick and easy way to get back to "my list" and
| "continue watching" without having to page through the feed.
| Neither ever seem to be in a consistent place. (I have the same
| gripe with Amazon Prime).
| twblalock wrote:
| When they raised prices a few months ago, I saw it on the news
| and that reminded me that I was paying for a Netflix subscription
| I wasn't using. So I cancelled it.
|
| I bet a lot of other people did the same thing.
| emadabdulrahim wrote:
| The last good show I watched on Netflix was Mindhunter.
| revlolz wrote:
| I canceled after the price hike sharing charge wombo combo.
|
| Im pissing in the wind, but at some point you just have to go.
| pcurve wrote:
| fun facts: Netflix now has P/E ratio lower than Coca cola,
| proctor gamble, Walmart.
|
| In fact, it's barely half of Costco.
| eric4smith wrote:
| Most Netflix originals are unwatchable these days.
|
| It used to be that I'd binge most originals - but no more.
|
| Example is Altered Carbon. First season excellent. Next season
| almost unwatchable because of "the message" above story quality.
| Same with Witcher.
|
| I mostly keep it around for the "Netflix and Chill" dates.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| The Altered Carbon ordeal is interesting. Like you mentioned,
| everyone I know who watched it loved the first season and hated
| the second season. I thought second season was ok. Ok, then
| it's immediately cancelled, I'm guessing for lack of viewership
| after the first season (and man, if they maintained the first
| season it could've been such an epic 6 season show. There was a
| lot of story left to tell).
|
| But what's really interesting, maybe related to "the message"
| you mention, is that critics were the complete opposite of the
| audience and liked the second season even more! There was an
| article on HN recently about how critics seem out-of-touch with
| the audience. This was quite the glaring example.
|
| Season 1: 70% critics, 90% audience:
| https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/altered_carbon/s01
|
| Season 2: 81% critics, 37% audience:
| https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/altered_carbon/s02
| dudul wrote:
| Critics love shows/movies with The Message. It's more
| important than good writing to them.
| carlhung wrote:
| Netflix sucks. I just cancelled my account few days ago.
| Animats wrote:
| _In an effort to continue to gain share in the market, Netflix
| has increased its content spend, particularly on originals. To
| pay for it, it's hiked prices of its service. The company said
| Tuesday those price changes are helping to bolster revenue, but
| were partially responsible for a loss of 600,000 subscribers in
| the U.S. and Canada during the most recent quarter._
|
| Yeah, raise prices, sales go down. It works like that.
| icytrumpet wrote:
| I'm about to cancel for two reasons.
|
| 1. The auto-play preview feature is incredibly annoying and there
| is no way to disable it. If I want to watch a preview, I'll click
| the damn button. Let me read a description in peace.
|
| 2. The overt propaganda makes watching any new content all but
| impossible for me. It seems that this is not unique to Netflix,
| but they are the worst in my opinion.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Let's face facts, streaming video on the internet is really not
| _that_ hard or unique any more. It was only a matter of time
| before most other media companies offered their own streaming
| services.
|
| So what does Netflix have to offer that is unique in today's
| world of streaming? Not much.
| fullshark wrote:
| No commercials, which is why their strategy seems to be to
| become a commercial free basic cable.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Netflix builds the commercials directly into the content. Not
| that they are alone in this.
| paxys wrote:
| > Among other things, Netflix signaled that it will likely crack
| down on the sharing of subscriber passwords that has enabled
| multiple households to access its service from a single account.
|
| Can't wait to see how this goes down. Password sharing is an
| entire economy in itself, and it is understood that every product
| offering a subscription model has to abide by it. Younger
| consumers share phone plans, cloud storage, tv & music streaming
| and just about everything else. Netflix is in for a shock if they
| think everyone will just convert to paid if they block access.
| torstenvl wrote:
| There's a simple way Netflix can stop the bleeding.
|
| It isn't that difficult and doesn't involve any technical
| innovation whatsoever.
|
| _Just stop being assholes._
|
| They made record profits during the COVID era, seeing huge
| subscriber increases during lockdown and work-from-home.
|
| So they increased prices. And nickel-and-dimed customers. And got
| rid of the best parts of their catalog. And threw a fit about
| sharing passwords.
|
| Geez. Hey I'm stuck several states away from my family for two
| years but _God forbid_ we try to connect by sharing our movie and
| TV watch lists. Meemaw can 't watch Peppa Pig with her grandson
| in person, so we'd better watch out for her wanting to check out
| his Netflix Kids list and try to connect with what's interesting
| him.
|
| Netflix used to be great. Now they're just jerks with mediocre
| content that charge 3-4x what Discovery does.
| zethus wrote:
| My best guess is that the password-sharing crackdown is a
| response to slowed subscriber growth in an attempt to keep that
| growth at some astronomically high target. "Got rid of the best
| parts of their catalog" is definitely a subjective take. I'm
| going to assume you're referring to much of their licensed
| content which is a hard-to-scale problem unless you continue to
| throw money at it. One of Netflix's problems is that the
| profits it takes today doesn't get realized into "good content"
| until a much later date when production is wrapped and
| released.
| data-ottawa wrote:
| > Meemaw can't watch Peppa Pig with her grandson in person, so
| we'd better watch out for her wanting to check out his Netflix
| Kids list and try to connect with what's interesting him.
|
| That's something Disney and Apple are both embracing with
| shared viewing sessions. It's an excellent feature and it has
| been so much easier watching Disney content together than
| trying to count down and sync pause/play of content, so guess
| where we go when it's remote movie night?
| muttantt wrote:
| Everyone ran out of crap to watch on Netflix. This was
| inevitable.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Honestly I'm one free weekend from canceling it. Gonna go back to
| a pc under the tv. Just need the afternoon to find the best
| machine for plex.
|
| The selection of older content on Netflix is really weak on the
| whole and their original content is getting worse and worse.
|
| There is only so many times I can watch a mid-level 80 minute
| movie script be dragged out across 10 hours in series it really
| is awful tv and watching the writers struggle to spin tires to
| drag it to 10 hours is exhausting. Not to mention the executive
| meddling is extremely apparent in many of their scripts where you
| can tell whole sections were added at exec request because the
| story goes off at a tangent and then when it returns the stakes
| are exactly the same as before the tangent.
| dakial1 wrote:
| I have a friend who has a NAS server with plex running 8TB of
| movies/series/etc... and shares it with multiple other friends
| (he doesn't tell me how many, but my bet is that it must be at
| least 50). He has his own OTT, he doesn't charge anything, in
| case you are wondering...
| camel_Snake wrote:
| I'm this friend for my group, except no local hardware - it's
| a shared server in Canada (a seedbox, for those who want a
| term to google). I maintain the understanding with friends
| that it's a rotating library - you request something and it
| will get added. But it also gets removed when you're done, or
| when it's been sitting there for a few months unwatched.
| FooHentai wrote:
| I threw down the money for Plex lifetime pass after
| repeatedly keying in movies and shows on Netflix search, and
| not finding them. New stuff, classic stuff, it didn't matter.
| Always just some offbrand substitute junk coming up. Their
| catalog is very poor now, even compared to just a few years
| ago.
|
| I'm not playing the game of subscribing to different services
| just to get particular content, because I don't watch things
| often enough to justify the effort or cost. Plus this way all
| my physical media comes into the same library as rips, and
| PlexAmp is a pretty good music player, too.
| skeletonjelly wrote:
| Give (Plex alternative) Jellyfin a go as well!
| fullshark wrote:
| Your third paragraph is hardly unique to Netflix, all scripted
| serialized dramas seem to suffer this problem these days.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I've become a little tired of series with continuous plots at
| this point. It's really hard to create content for so many
| episodes that isn't repetitive, irrelevant to the main story,
| or hard to believe because of the piling up of coincidences.
| Then you often have implausible character changes and other
| typical series-but-not-movies problems piling up. It's an art
| form that seems very difficult to get right, and so it
| usually goes wrong.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Most? Maybe. Certainly not all.
| hirundo wrote:
| > There is only so many times I can watch a mid-level 80 minute
| movie script be dragged out across 10 hours
|
| Jack Reacher. 80 minutes would have been just right.
| hemreldop wrote:
| jbrins1 wrote:
| What is "feminist agenda trash" exactly?
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Pretty much every new Netflix show will have some
| combination of the following:
|
| - female characters are always independent, strong-willed,
| etc. Even if the story calls for someone that's the
| opposite.
|
| - male characters are either generic muscle or have some
| stereotypically negative quality like aggression
|
| - at least one main character is always black (and only
| black - don't even think about Asian or Middle Eastern or
| anyone that might look white), even if the story doesn't
| make sense
|
| - at least one main character is gay, queer, or trans, even
| if the story doesn't make sense. I live in an ultra blue
| city and the population here is not as LGBT as Netflix
| plots are. I don't really care that there are LGBT
| characters but when you shove it into every story plot it
| gets old.
|
| - every story line is about some part of the liberal
| political agenda, either gun control, universal healthcare,
| or immigration. Coincidentally every story features some
| Republican "coming to their senses" and "compromising" in
| order for whatever agenda item they're pushing to pass
| Congress.
|
| Especially the last one is super prominent. I'll give you
| an example: the show Madam Secretary started off as a show
| about the life of a former CIA analyst turned into
| Secretary of State, but by the last season it morphed into
| a political soapbox about women's rights, immigration, and
| healthcare spending. A second example: Designated Survivor
| started off as a show about what might happen if the US
| Congress was all killed in a terror bombing, but then
| morphed into a political soapbox about gun control.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Neither Madam Secretary nor Designated Survivor
| originated on Netflix.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Yes, that's why they started off good and later seasons
| went off the rails.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > at least one main character is gay, queer, or trans,
| even if the story doesn't make sense. I live in an ultra
| blue city and the population here is not as LGBT as
| Netflix plots are. I don't really care that there are
| LGBT characters but when you shove it into every story
| plot it gets old.
|
| Doesn't make sense?
|
| And being one of those things isn't shoving it into
| plots. If you have a typical number of main characters
| then it's really not notable for one to be LGBT.
| acchow wrote:
| > - at least one main character is gay, queer, or trans,
| even if the story doesn't make sense. I live in an ultra
| blue city and the population here is not as LGBT as
| Netflix plots are. I don't really care that there are
| LGBT characters but when you shove it into every story
| plot it gets old.
|
| The population where you are is likely just as LGBT but
| more in the closet.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| No no, they just haven't been convinced that they're part
| of the "community" yet.
| treis wrote:
| Ozark was the first Netflix series that sprung to mind
| and it has at best 1/5 of those.
| fetus8 wrote:
| PC under the TV is the answer, at least I think so. I built an
| ITX HomeTheater/Gaming PC last year (without a GPU initially)
| and have started to slowly unsubscribe from all the streaming
| services.
|
| Being able to just grab whatever movies I have in my list of
| things to watch, and play them, locally, without having to
| scroll through the apps has been quite the relief. Occasionally
| I use HBO Max still because it has some decent older movies,
| but I'm pretty much only using my HTPC now, and with Plex, I
| can watch my library across the network at home via Apple TVs
| in the bedroom.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Netflix' problem is that it's not indispensable. If Netflix
| vanished, people would find entertainment elsewhere, such as
| cable, YouTube, google, amazon, Disney, etc. Any major company
| like google or amazon can license content even at loss, so what
| advantage does Netflix bring.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| That's exactly why Netflix started producing their own content.
| bluWolf wrote:
| Good.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| Anyone have experience commenting on how total compensation and
| employee retention is handled when a company's stock becomes
| volatile? $NFLX has gone from ~679 > ~260 in the span of about
| 6mo. Anyone who got their RSUs last fall has seen their TC vastly
| cut, but Netflix is known for paying very well.
|
| My limited experience working at a public company has seen tons
| of employee turnover, especially in this extremely hot job
| market. I'm considering shopping around as well, but my TC has
| been going up through promotions, which relieve the pressure to
| look around a bit.
| [deleted]
| freyr wrote:
| Netflix pays cash. I believe employees can buy options at a
| discount, but RSUs are not part of their comp.
|
| If Netflix is like most companies, they'll start reining in
| spending. In fact, that's exactly what was reported a couple
| weeks ago: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/netflix-
| executives-hiring...
| Cyberdogs7 wrote:
| My understanding is Netflix does not pay in RSU's, they pay all
| cash. This has been one of their main draws.
|
| To answer your question, using Meta as an example, nothing
| happens. The employees are exposed to both the upside and the
| downside of RSUs.
| twblalock wrote:
| Actually some companies whose stock drops significantly have
| felt the need to issue more stock to employees to retain
| them. Doordash is a notable recent example.
| [deleted]
| drewg123 wrote:
| Netflix doesn't generally do RSUs for engineers (they might for
| execs, I don't know), so total comp for engineers is not
| impacted.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| Netflix is an outlier because they pay mostly cash. But I'm
| currently at a different company that had a huge stock dip, and
| during the perf review they gave top performers a huge stock
| refresher (enough to get them back to their original TC,
| sometimes more). And well, if you didn't get one, that's like
| the company saying you're worth X% less now.
| MBCook wrote:
| Let's review. Average quality has taken an absolute nose dive.
| There is so much garbage it's hard to find new/interesting
| things. They keep raising their prices. They charge a fortune
| extra for 4K when the other big streamers don't (they have more
| content, but see #1). They cancel stuff so fast it's not worth
| getting into. They refuse to integrate with Apple TV's "Watch
| Now" unlike everyone else.
|
| They act like they're "Netflix, king of the hill, above all
| others and different from wannabes". Like HBO vs basic cable.
| Like it's 2014 still and all the other services are jokes.
|
| It's not. The others have caught up in many ways, or surpassed.
| With MUCH better prices. And the Netflix crap ratio has gotten
| out of control.
|
| One huge hit every few years won't save you. Apple TV+ is firing
| on all cylinders. HBO Max, Hulu, and Disney all nice have
| originals and great back catalogs for nostalgia.
|
| If I could find Apple TV+ quality on Netflix I'd be happier. But
| I can't. And I pay 4x as much for that privilege thanks to 4K.
| selimnairb wrote:
| I can't remember the last time I watched something good on
| Netflix. Most of their "good" shows are good for a season or
| two, then seem to stall out. With the recent price increase, I
| dropped from the HD plan to the SD plan, as my wife mostly
| watches on her phone. So far so good.
| hammock wrote:
| Ozark, Bridgerton, Outlander, Peaky Blinders, Inventing Anna,
| You, Outer Banks, Riverdale, The Crown, Money Heist, Emily in
| Paris...
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I think Netflix has honed in on the "have something for
| everyone" strategy. Just about everyone has a show they
| like on Netflix, but for most people it seems like there's
| only a few. On your list I only liked Ozark and Money
| heist, plus Bojack. Meanwhile HBO creates a great show
| every year, and actually renews their stuff. Disney is a
| necessity for kids. Apple TV+ costs 25% as much. It really
| feels like netflix has diversified far too much, and now
| people are realizing that there are cheaper options that
| just make the stuff they like.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Squid Game and Tiger King (which has a second season right
| now BTW) were huge. Stranger Things was huge and keeps
| promising (but not delivering) a fourth season.
| MBCook wrote:
| There are some I like that are still on. But they're getting
| cancelled because they've run long enough that either the
| creator is done or they're not drawing necessary numbers and
| don't get renewed.
|
| But nothing new is replacing them. So over time Netflix is
| becoming irrelevant to me.
|
| I've subscribed since early 2000s pretty much non-stop. But
| I'm about to pull the trigger.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| A lot of people are complaining about the content, but what's
| so bad about the new content, relative to the other services?
|
| My biggest gripe is that've cancelled a lot of things without
| seeing them through to completion. Prime and SyFy have done
| this a lot too.
| ericmay wrote:
| Apple TV + is so underrated and under-talked about it's not
| even funny.
|
| Netflix still produces some interesting shows and I especially
| like the anime that they are bringing on like Thermae Roma
| (sp?) that was recently released. I don't think I'd ever see
| that on Apple TV + which is a big disappointment.
|
| But this is why I also don't invest in Netflix. Missed the boat
| on growing to get here.
| moistly wrote:
| > Apple TV + is so underrated and under-talked about it's not
| even funny.
|
| Is Apple TV different in the US than Canada? 'Cause either I
| am using it completely incorrectly or they don't have very
| much content up here...
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Foundation, Severance, Ted Lasso are some of the most
| acclaimed shows in recent years.And they secured the Best
| Picture Oscar in their second year, which Netflix still
| hasn't managed.
| MBCook wrote:
| They only have original content. There isn't too much, but
| the average quality is fantastic.
|
| They're doing the HBO thing but are only 2 years old.
| 14 wrote:
| Same question from me. I have been meaning to cancel it
| because the content is just lacking. What am I missing?
| lamontcg wrote:
| Don't think you're "missing" anything.
|
| I signed up for awhile and watched stuff like Ted Lasso
| and Foundation and it was good and then I cancelled.
|
| I'll probably sign up again next winter to watch whatever
| new content they've got (and rewatch Lasso) and then
| probably cancel again.
|
| It isn't a marriage, you can bounce in and out of it.
| Play the field.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Anime is the only reason I haven't cancelled Netflix yet.
| They added several Gundam shows out of nowhere. then they
| added Cowboy Bebop. Several other notable titles in there as
| well. The collection is still incomplete though, and as great
| as these shows are I'm getting tired of rewatching them.
|
| It's not their IP so one has to wonder how long it's gonna
| take before we see the obnoxious "last day to watch on
| Netflix" message.
| [deleted]
| drewg123 wrote:
| The Apple TV+ catalog is not very deep, but the quality of
| what they have is really good. It was easier to find
| something really good to watch on Apple TV+ than Netflix, and
| I think that's just a consequence of them having far fewer
| shows, but generally very high quality shows. Their catalog
| is so small that I'm out of things to watch.
|
| I never would have signed up for them if a subscription
| hadn't come free with my MBP. Now that the machine is a year
| old, the free subscription has expired, I cancelled it. I'll
| pick it up again in a few months when there are new seasons
| of what I watch.
| cromka wrote:
| > Apple TV + is so underrated and under-talked about it's not
| even funny.
|
| I think it's mostly because they compete with HBO and IMHO
| aren't really there just _yet_ , but definitely getting
| there.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I feel like HBO's quality trajectory is downward ever since
| ATT bought it and fired all the old HBO bosses that built
| their unique library. And now the HBO bosses are Discovery
| channel bosses, known for shitty "reality" shows about
| obese people and people with 10 kids or some other
| nonsense.
|
| Hopefully Apple TV+ can re-create some of that magic.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| HBO Max makes it easy to see which are the "HBO" shows,
| and which are the "Max" shows. Ignore the max ones and
| the quality is still there.
| acchow wrote:
| Give Euphoria a try
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| > They refuse to integrate with Apple TV's "Watch Now"
|
| They also refuse (or are unable) to add support on Apple TV for
| their interactive titles. I doubt anyone really cares, but it
| surprises me, and not in a good way, when I bump into it.
| zzleeper wrote:
| I got a year free of Apple TV+ with a new iphone, and I don't
| quite like it.
|
| Used it to watch Ted Lasso and Foundation, and the browser
| experience was _terrible_ for discovery and had lots of bugs
| and counterintuitive things. And it was Windows+Chrome, so no
| excuse for having such a terrible interface.
|
| Now I don't even care about it, and find it easier to just open
| netflix or youtube or something else rather than to waste time
| and brain cells dealing with their crap.
| MBCook wrote:
| I've really enjoyed the number of shows they have. I've never
| tried the browser. I always watch on my TV, and they have
| apps for basically every smart TV
| causality0 wrote:
| The UX is also pretty terrible. It takes like five button
| presses to resume what you were watching when it should take
| one, and the Android app infuriatingly maintains its own
| brightness slider so if you watch Netflix a lot you're
| constantly running into the screen being too dim or too bright.
| alexashka wrote:
| > Average quality has taken an absolute nose dive
|
| Sure, but that happened years ago.
|
| I don't think most people care about 20$ vs 10$ for a monthly
| subscription. For people who do care, they just pirate for 0$.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| You don't think people care about $120 a year? The average
| American can't afford a surprise $500 expense. Netflix is in
| most households in America. These aren't just white collar
| workers with money to spare. I think people are extremely
| price sensitive when it comes to entertainment.
| alexashka wrote:
| I do think most people don't care about 120$ a year _per
| household_ , yes.
|
| The people who _do_ care - they will pirate anyway. You don
| 't even have to pirate - aren't there just websites that
| play pirated content like it's youtube?
|
| Also, isn't youtube just free? Not having Netflix is not
| like not having a TV, it's more like not having the fancy
| cable channels package.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > I do think most people don't care about 120$ a year per
| household, yes.
|
| I really, really think you're wrong. The median household
| income in $67,521. That's not even close to "$120 isn't a
| big deal" territory, and half of households have less.
| More than half of American households have netflix, poor-
| ish people aren't just pirating the content. Smart TVs
| and chromecast like devices make pirating more difficult.
| Many people don't want to mess around with casting stuff
| to their TV from their computer.
| [deleted]
| hemreldop wrote:
| The underlying problem is Netflix shows are pure, feminist
| trash at this point that no one wants to watch. It's not
| realistic and no one is entertained or engrossed.
| Angostura wrote:
| Ah yes - Squid Game, Witcher, Stranger Things. All notable
| for meig 'feminist trash'. I think the chip on your shoulder
| is showing.
| usrn wrote:
| https://cloudflare-
| ipfs.com/ipfs/QmYqh8z4hoFhJPko6TvjBEWQqGZ...
| sdenton4 wrote:
| I think you completely misunderstand what they're trying to do.
| What you read as a proliferation of crap is really trying to
| find a 'big hit' in lots of small niches. Some niche hits will
| become crossover success stories, and draw people into new
| genres, etc. But others will quietly be classics in their small
| niche, often for being the first serious effort.
|
| Of course, Sturgeon's Law is still in effect, so 90% of
| everything will be crap. But producing non-crap for smaller
| audiences builds loyalty, which is worth something in the
| subscriber model.
|
| Or at least that's my read of their strategy. There's a real
| discovery problem that comes with it that I don't think they've
| solved. But overall it's an interesting approach.
| kemiller wrote:
| We love Great British Bake Off, but the proliferation of
| horrible knockoffs on Netflix is embarrassing. Just to name
| one example. They feel crass and paint-by-numbers. I
| appreciate it when these services take a risk on something
| weird, but this seems like the exact opposite.
| ghaff wrote:
| There was also this element of "We have all this data so we
| have an unfair advantage over all these studios with pitch
| meetings." And it seems as if they're just another studio who
| isn't really in a better position to predict breakout hits
| than anyone else.
|
| Of course, they also license content but that's just about
| spreading around the dollars from a bag of money.
|
| Personally, I find Netflix to be worth the subscription at
| the moment. But there are a ton of other streaming services
| and I'm not going to subscribe to them all. And, while I have
| gone in and out of Netflix' DVD service, the back catalog has
| sufficiently rotted I don't find it worthwhile.
| MBCook wrote:
| No, I understand that. It's the "throw it all the wall and
| see what sticks" approach. Network TV does it every year.
|
| But Netflix isn't trying as much stuff as network TV. They
| seem to be trying as much as all of cable.
|
| The problem is at a certain point you ruin all discovery.
| There is no way to find something new through serendipity.
| It's gone next week from the promotion so they can promote 8
| other new shows.
|
| But that means even if you find it and it's good it won't get
| and audience and will be cancelled. Unless it gets big from
| something outside Netflix (social media with Squid Game or
| some other popular but not mega hit shows) it's a goner.
|
| So... why even look at all that stuff? It's not worth it.
| bradleyankrom wrote:
| My biggest gripe isn't that they produce a ton of content
| that largely doesn't interest me - it's that they
| prioritize it in the interface and force me to wade through
| all of it in order to get to what I want.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I think you've hit the nail on the head with their strategy.
| The problem is that when 80% of the stuff they create is
| content that there is no chance I'd enjoy I'd prefer to just
| go to a streaming service that focuses on the content I want
| to consume. Netflix's strategy works when they have a tech
| advantage, but now that there are other players in the game
| Netflix is too expensive for the amount of content they
| create for each person to enjoy. They only way to justify it
| is to split between like 5-10 people imo, which they are
| trying to crack down on.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > They cancel stuff so fast it's not worth getting into.
|
| This is honestly the key for me. From Vulture's piece on the
| cancellation of Babysitters' Club (a good series, by the way):
|
| "As far as I can tell, everything Netflix does is based on how
| it's driving subscriber growth.
|
| The truth is that when your show does very well in North
| America, as ours does, as far as Netflix is concerned, pretty
| much everybody who's going to have Netflix [in North America]
| has it. They're looking to drive subscriber growth in other
| parts of the world where this IP doesn't have much
| recognition."
|
| https://www.vulture.com/article/why-the-baby-sitters-club-wa...
|
| If you're a subscriber, fuck you. Give us your money, shut the
| fuck up, you aren't getting any series you care about. You
| don't count for anything.
|
| Hence most series get one or two seasons, get cut of with no
| warning - a shitty way to treat the people working on them -
| leaving unfinished stories for viewers, because being a
| subscriber makes your opinion and interests worthless.
| [deleted]
| Sakos wrote:
| I seriously don't understand their strategy. While all their
| partners are pulling out to put their content on their own
| streaming services (and have been for _years_ ), Netflix is
| cancelling good shows left and right. It's like they never
| learned from Apple's long-tail App Store strategy. You _have_
| to cover even niche interests if you want to maintain a
| dominant position in a market like this. If there is ever a
| situation where somebody wants to watch something like x and
| you don 't have anything good to cater to that interest, you've
| _failed_ and you 're voluntarily giving up marketshare. Maybe
| not now, but down the road as your competitors catch up.
| mawadev wrote:
| I like to go outside and just look at a tree waving in the wind
| and feeling the ground with my bare feet sometimes. I couldn't do
| that a year ago freely, but now I can. Netflix can just freeze me
| in place, just like my 9-5 and then extract my hard earned money.
| No thanks boomers...
| SteveNuts wrote:
| It's probably time for them to cut back their aggressive push to
| create content and start spending it on external content
| contracts again. Focus on a few high quality originals rather
| than rapid fire as much crap content.
| cglong wrote:
| One of the perks you get with T-Mobile US is free (or heavily
| subsidized) Netflix. I suspect we're not the only ones who
| would've cancelled our subscription if not for this deal.
| [deleted]
| timmytokyo wrote:
| T-Mobile subsidizes Netflix. I was paying $3 per month for
| Netflix. This morning I got a text from T-Mobile warning me
| that they were about to start charging $4.50 a month. After
| getting the text, I thought about how often I watch Netflix and
| realized I haven't watched a single thing in the past month.
| Subscription is now cancelled.
|
| Price hikes, lack of quality content, and increased competition
| are going to hurt Netflix in the long run. I find myself
| watching quality shows on Apple TV+ and HBO Max.
| cglong wrote:
| I think it depends on the Netflix plan you choose; we picked
| the lowest level (SD resolution?) and it's free for us. Agree
| that the constant price increases is the last thing they need
| right now.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I think we will see a lot of bundling by media sellers to
| engage in price discrimination and price obfuscation. ATT
| unlimited mobile network plans can get you HBO Max thrown in,
| Amazon Prime includes Prime Video, Apple One bundles include
| Apple TV+.
|
| Different people have different amounts they are willing to pay
| for content, and there is zero marginal cost to serve it to
| them for the content's owner. The question is how can the
| content owner get the most each individual is willing to pay
| for the same content. Bundling it with infrastructure like
| mobile network is a good way, as well as subsidizing it with
| credit card offers, etc.
| 40acres wrote:
| I can't help but wonder if Netflix is considering going after
| password sharing. It may be a short term boost but at least then
| we can gauge the true subscriber base.
| cpp_frog wrote:
| If I recall correctly, they are planning/about to do this in
| Chile.
| paulpauper wrote:
| this must be so common
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Here are the key numbers:
|
| _EPS: $3.53 vs $2.89 expected.
|
| _ Revenue: $7.78 billion vs $7.93 billion expected.
|
| _Global paid net subscriber additions: A loss of 200,000
| compared with 2.73 million adds expected.
|
| _ Stock down 23% after-market
| belter wrote:
| Stock is down 42% since 3 Jan 2022
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| I wonder if Bill Ackman is having second thoughts about
| investing in Netflix during this time of its losing
| subscribers and slowing growth.
| belter wrote:
| Warren Buffet is considered the guru of investment, and was
| loosing money on IBM for a decade until he exited :-)
| drexlspivey wrote:
| He is probably going to buy more, Netflix is in deep value
| territory at $260 per share
| riffraff wrote:
| how is earning per share higher than expected while revenue is
| lower than expected? Did they do an unplanned buy back?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| They spent less than expected
| hammock wrote:
| Earnings is net income, not revenue
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| So raising prices of their subs offering did the trick in
| extracting more earnings out of declining revenue then?
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| People don't want to pay $15 a month to watch "fierce kweens" and
| drug documentaries.....
| freyr wrote:
| I'm currently subscribed to a bunch of streamers. I usually turn
| first to HBO or Hulu, then YouTube or Amazon Prime, then Apple
| TV+ (which has less content overall but really good shows
| lately), and finally Netflix as a last resort.
|
| In fact I rarely open Netflix unless I've already heard about
| something I want to check out. I really don't like wading through
| their recommendations.
|
| With the frequent price increases, it's getting harder and harder
| to justify.
| rvz wrote:
| I don't understand why this company is even part of "FAANG" in
| the first place as you can see it is nothing more than a side
| project of the likes of Apple, Amazon, Google, Disney etc.
|
| This company has been long heralded for its engineering,
| contraptions and its overall technology, but when it comes to
| competition, subscribers, pricing increases and its content it is
| not good enough and with the increase of prices on consumers
| everywhere, Netflix is one of the first unnecessary things that
| they will cancel.
|
| That is even before I even mentioned the competitors like Apple,
| Amazon, Disney, etc, eating their lunch as a side project.
| lordnacho wrote:
| I think it's because they're said to pay a heck of a lot of
| money to engineers. Perhaps they also have similar interviews.
| But the acronym seems to be employment related more than what
| the company actually does.
| Traster wrote:
| Well, there's a simple reason- FAANG was an acronym to describe
| a group of companies' stock market performance not their
| underlying value. Of course it's a ridiculous grouping -
| Facebook and Google are ad tech companies, Amazon is a
| logistics company, Apple is a hardware company and Netflix is a
| Hollywood studio .
| commandlinefan wrote:
| That and, if you took out the N, a lot of people would be
| uncomfortable saying it...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It is just a catchy pronounceable acronym made up years ago by
| a TV show host that stuck around because it is catchy:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-faang?op=1
|
| >FAANG actually began as FANG. The origin of the acronym has
| been attributed to Jim Cramer, the financial TV host and co-
| founder of The Street.com. Known for his slangy abbreviations
| and catchy phrases, Cramer coined the term in 2013 to represent
| four tech stocks with outsized market appreciation. Cramer
| believed that these companies belonged together because they
| are all high growth stocks that share the common threads of
| digitization and the web.
|
| >Cramer's original term was just FANG -- it didn't initially
| include Apple. The company joined the ranks in 2017, reflecting
| the growth of internet services (iCloud, Apple Music, Apple
| Pay) to its revenues. So the acronym became FAANG.
|
| >And it's remained so, even though Google's official corporate
| name is now Alphabet.
| jvolkman wrote:
| There's a new acronym - by the same TV host - that doesn't
| include Netflix: MAMAA
|
| https://fortune.com/2021/10/29/faang-mamaa-jim-cramer-
| tech-f...
| rvz wrote:
| Exactly. That is my point.
|
| They know that Netflix is a side project compared to the
| likes of the MAMAA companies: Microsoft, Apple, Meta,
| Amazon and Alphabet, where 3 out of 5 of them are already
| competing against Netflix through their own side projects.
|
| Netflix doesn't stand a chance if they continue to keep
| raising prices.
| gfody wrote:
| I wonder if Netflix would consider not charging you when you
| don't use their service. Then there would be no reason to cancel
| and your subscription payments could just resume whenever Netflix
| has content you're interested in. Netflix then would have a more
| natural incentive to focus on quality content as well.
| sp527 wrote:
| Charging you when you're not using it is literally what makes
| the business model work. There's a certain level of average
| utilization that, if achieved, would sink the business.
| mongol wrote:
| Really interesting idea. If I was analyst at Netflix, I really
| would like to explore that.
| drstewart wrote:
| I wonder indeed
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/netflix-auto-cancel-subscription...
| [deleted]
| zethus wrote:
| Not sure how that incentivizes them to produce higher quality
| content? The existing loop today is still for users to resume
| their billed subscription when something of interest is
| released.
| gfody wrote:
| I'm assuming that practically nobody actually cancels their
| Netflix whenever there's nothing to watch and resubscribes
| when there is and so they probably consider existing
| subscribers money-in-the-bank and mostly try to acquire new
| subscribers. If they were instead trying to get their
| existing subscribers to use the service every month then they
| should focus on content (not necessarily Netflix original
| content, maybe just buy a blockbuster now and then, w/e).
| jmyeet wrote:
| Straight up: it's too expensive.
|
| At $8-10/month it was an always have whether I watched it or not,
| particularly before all the "me too" balkanized streaming
| platforms limped into existence.
|
| I understand that in this changing world, Netflix needed to
| produce original content. IMHO how they went about it was
| completely wrong: they just threw money at the problem and that's
| just not a way to effectively create good content.
|
| A really hard problem to avoid is to have all your content feel a
| bit "same-y". Netflix has this problem. They have a proclivity
| for one-word names (some executive think sthey'l be easier to
| remember), for example. Your favourite restaurant can get this
| way too.
|
| Here's what they should've done: create studios to make
| independent localized content for particular languages. Have a
| studio in Spain (and probably Mexico) producing Spanish-language
| TV aimed specifically at Spanish speakers. The indepedent part
| cannot be ovverstressed.
|
| But here's where scale comes in: for content with wider appeal,
| you dub it and push it to a wider audience. Some of Netflix's
| most interesting content has been foreign language (eg The 3%).
| So Netflix is doing this to some degree but it's not their core
| strategy. Instead they're seemingly spending most of their money
| on big-budget productions. Movies in particular are a loser
| (IMHO). Theaters is what makes movies profitable.
|
| For some reason the voice actors that end up getting used for
| dubbing are (IME) universally terrible and it seems to be like
| the same 8 people. They're awful. This could be done so much
| better.
|
| The point here is that lower-budget locale-specific content is
| likely to be more appealing and what becoems popular is a good
| indicator of what might have wider appeal.
|
| But anyway, Netflix is now $15.50/month for HD (who is going to
| pay $9.99 for 480p?!?!? Or $20/month for 4K?!?!). That's more
| than HBO and HBO is still way better at producing original
| content and has a much deeper library of such content.
|
| Personally I'll now just sign up to Netflix for 1-3 months a year
| to catch up on things I care about instead of having it all the
| time.
| miohtama wrote:
| Remember times when one spent $15 on video rentals on a month.
|
| (Not sure what video rental prices were globally.)
| lbj wrote:
| Go Woke Go Broke, that's how it goes.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Netflix for me is the only decent one that always subtitled
| (closed captions to the US-entric folks) their output and they do
| put on some decent films now and then.
|
| But Amazon prime video? Fuck that and fuck the morons who add
| crud on their catalogue and don't even bother adding subtitles?
| Grossly insulting to an avid deaf viewer.
| belter wrote:
| The main problem of Netflix, more than competition, is quality of
| content.
|
| They need to think like a Hollywood studio, and less like a Video
| Supermarket. You need to be a Disney or PBS , Universal or MGM,
| and the subscribers will pay for high quality content.
|
| The only notable Netflix content seems to be the one purchased
| externally. Internally developed content, tends to follow a
| common amorphous pattern, that becomes very predictable as it
| gets extended into multiple episodes of the same script.
|
| They need charismatic movies and set free artists with risky
| content. Not 20 episodes of Ozark.
| thatnerdyguy wrote:
| Disney, Peacock and Paramount want a single spot to unify their
| content offering. HBOMax also kinda wants that, but also has
| enough HBO left to target "prestige" offerings. Apple+ is being
| Apple and directly targeting "prestige".
|
| Netflix isn't doing any of that. It isn't going for the best
| and brightest it's going for the best and brightest, and
| "murder shows", and crappy reality shows, and cooking shows,
| and, and, and: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/11561544/netflix-
| doesnt-want-t...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Agree and that crap is _popular_ at least here in America. I
| can't get people to watch Severance cause they gotta watch Is
| this cake.
| pcurve wrote:
| I feel there are plenty of good shows on Netflix.
|
| But the way their UI/UX is built, it is not conducive for
| exploring. They've taken so much control away from me. I have
| to rely on what IT thinks I should be watching.
|
| I know one of the reasons why they do this is because they
| don't want people to easily see and track of how small their
| content library is, and how frequently content disappears.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| I liked when they were a video supermarket, combined with their
| star system that had personalized recommendations based on what
| other people with your taste would recommend. Saw some wacky
| shit on my Netflix DVD plan.
| dannykwells wrote:
| This is _so_ true. We have Disney+, HBO, Apple, Netflix, and
| Hulu.
|
| Of those, the very clear ordering in terms of taste and vision
| is: Disney+, Apple, HBO >>>> HBO, Hulu.
|
| Apple is the most amazing one to me - they came from nowhere,
| and are bringing original content like CODA or Severance after
| only a few years.
|
| Maybe it's because Apple - the largest (tech) company on Earth
| still has at its core the idea of beautiful things designed by
| humans, and Netflix never has.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Apple is less rushed than most others. They don't need to win
| by yesterday. I think the same could be said for Amazon.
| They're not killing it like apple, but they are slowly
| building up a fairly decent collection of originals that
| doesn't feel as rushed as Netflix.
| [deleted]
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Just finished watching Severance and it was mind-blowing and
| very thought provoking (especially the season finale). I
| don't know why not more people are talking about it the way
| they did about Squid Game.
| belval wrote:
| Nitpick but CODA barely counts as original content. It's an
| American remake of a very popular French movie "La Famille
| Belier". The producers were even involved with both film.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Apple didn't even make CODA, they just bought its
| distribution rights after it won Sundance. Honestly, CODA
| did nothing for me. Derivative award season bait, felt like
| I was watching a fancy after school special.
| brimble wrote:
| Apple has been good at quality, but the quantity's still
| really low. I keep meaning to cancel because I go months
| without watching anything on it. Unfortunately for them, it'd
| be an _excellent_ one to start subbing just one month a year.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| While it has less quantity, Apple TV+ is also much cheaper
| at $5 per month.
| cruano wrote:
| And a lot of people got 1 year for free, more if you are
| a student
| what_ever wrote:
| It's been only 3 months free for a while now.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Netflix has successfully recreated the experience of going to
| the local video store in the late 80s/early 90s; So many videos
| of unknown quality, and I am unable to choose.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Your video store lacked a recommendation engine. IME, it
| completely transforms the discovery process. Look at a list
| of random content without a recommendation engine, and you
| may realize how accustomed you may have become - for me, 99%
| is laughably, depressingly, completely uninteresting.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Netflix had a good recommendation algorithm for their DVD
| catalog. Now they hide the fact that they mostly have
| mediocre 2-star content by making their system more opaque.
| pempem wrote:
| Totally agree! Yet I feel like netflix is continuously
| gutting its recommendation ability.
|
| -First the intersectional genres became harder to find, or
| create.
|
| -Then the reviews were wiped.
|
| -Then you see the same content you actually watched as
| recommended and often
| omgjustletme wrote:
| The video store had a recommendation "engine". It had
| people that worked there! Often times they had a employee's
| pick section. You could talk to an employee and they could
| help you out. After getting to know you, they would reserve
| new movies for you! I know it's crazy to think that a human
| being can compete with an algorithm. This was the video
| store experience you have missed and were unaware of.
| Thinking that "your way" is the only way is always wrong.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Looks like I'm not alone on this. The content is total crap
| these days. Most studios are moving their content to their own
| streaming service (see Marvel) and that's hurting Netflix even
| further. They also focus way too much on "binge" and kill
| quality shows that are not optimized for binge. I can binge
| only on shows that either have mastered the cliff-hangers or
| shows that run in the background. I don't and can't binge
| quality shows. So the way Netflix is optimizing for they'll end
| up with 24 style shows. I can't justify paying for it.
|
| (It doesn't help that they drag their customers into their
| fight with Apple by not integrating with Apple TV. Given their
| quality now I don't open Netflix by default and now that they
| don't integrate my global queue I legit forget to resume a
| show.)
| ra7 wrote:
| I have maybe subscribed to Netflix for 2 months in the past 1.5
| years. Their content is abysmal. I don't have numbers, but I
| wouldn't be surprised if HBO Max is eating their lunch as their
| catalog is top notch.
| brimble wrote:
| I have too many streaming services ("cancel Netflix" is on my
| todo, plus Amazon Prime) and HBO and Hulu both _crush_
| Netflix. They 're the two no-brainer general-purpose
| streaming services (Disney+ might compete for one of those
| slots, though, if you have kids--in which case you could end
| up with both your top-two mustn't-cancel streaming services
| being owned by Disney).
| jimbob45 wrote:
| > The main problem of Netflix, more than competition, is
| quality of content.
|
| How fair is that though? Who's to say that we wouldn't find the
| quality of content of CBS/NBC/ABC to be equally as bad if we
| had it comprehensively laid out in a nicely engineered UI like
| in Netflix? In the previous model, most of us didn't watch TV
| for huge chunks of the day and simply weren't around to see if
| the television was good during those chunks.
| siproprio wrote:
| Yeah, but Netflix movies really suck and at least in Brazil
| and other countries, their library is getting increasingly
| smaller, which causes the crappy originals to dominate. I
| mean, last month they were featuring a movie about f-cking
| hailstorms as the main attraction!
| hammock wrote:
| >They need to think like a Hollywood studio, and less like a
| Video Supermarket.
|
| Speaking as someone who knows Netflix producers, they very much
| do...
| patman wrote:
| Do what?
| hammock wrote:
| Think like a Hollywood studio
| everybodyknows wrote:
| So ... have they hit a dry spell, or is the problem systemic?
|
| Speaking as someone with the misfortune to still be holding
| the stock, down 25% after hours, right now.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| > They need charismatic movies and set free artists with risky
| content. Not 20 episodes of Ozark.
|
| Ozark seems like a directly bad comparison because it appears
| to be one of their last big content swings/risks (and is ending
| soon) from the first few years where they seemed to heavily
| curate their projects and who the creators were and who the
| talent were and give them enough seasons to tell the full story
| they were hoping to tell. (Ozark is one of the very few and
| seems one of the last to get its full number of seasons
| expectation and will get to tell a "complete story".) Ozark is
| not quite as successful as benchmarks like Breaking Bad or
| Better Call Saul, but it fills a niche and gambles on good
| talent pulling off a tough tightrope of "bad people doing bad
| things but you root for them in spite of themselves", which is
| still a very risky niche even with big "Prestige TV" breakouts
| such as the aforementioned benchmarks. (I've only finished the
| first season of Ozark because I have a hard time watching this
| "cringe" genre, but I recall it was very well made and I
| enjoyed it for what it was.)
|
| Since Netflix ordered Ozark they have indeed seemed to move
| their Originals content much more to a algorithm-generated
| "shotgun" approach: building lots of single season shows (or
| maybe if first weekend and only first weekend views are high
| enough, or so it seems, they will get two seasons) and
| seemingly designed overall to take fewer risks (on creators, on
| talent, on genres). There's definitely a lot extremely generic
| or at least extremely low risk programming coming out of
| Netflix's shotgun at this point. Some of it has still been
| _entertaining_.
|
| But calling Ozark out for being a product of the shotgun and
| "low risk" seems backwards when it seems so much more
| emblematic of riskier Netflix Originals projects than current
| ones.
| belter wrote:
| Agree Ozark is good quality. The comment was on the
| predicable pattern of it, high quality but predictable.
| omgjustletme wrote:
| You almost got the issue. The main problem with Netflix is they
| are no longer a video Supermarket, but instead a Hollywood
| Studio.
|
| Netflix was great for about 10 years when it's only competition
| was Hulu. Now everyone has yanked their content off of Netflix
| and put it on their own streaming platforms.
|
| When Netflix had ALL of the streaming videos, it was amazing,
| it was the Video Supermarket as you say.
|
| Now Netflix makes it's own content and I hear nothing but bad
| things from other people and my own experiences of their
| programming is that it's substandard to what they could get
| from other studios.
|
| They need to go back to being the #1 streaming content
| provider, not a movie studio.
| 988747 wrote:
| >> They need charismatic movies and set free artists with risky
| content. Not 20 episodes of Ozark.
|
| I think the exact opposite: Ozark was great, because it is
| basically a rip-off of Breaking Bad, which was made by a
| mainstream TV network (which has a lot of experience and
| research about what kind of stories people do like). The "risky
| content" from artists that were "set free" is a recipe for
| disaster: you spend a lot of money to produce a show that only
| appeals to some exotic audiences. Netflix has some examples of
| that. Only once in a while you'll hit the jackpot and have this
| risky content make you a lot of money.
| underwater wrote:
| The copycat model means watching Netflix is like walking into
| a Trader Joe's and finding their uncanny valley own-brand
| stuff.
|
| Netflix are going to end up with lots of content but very
| little original IP that people are seeking out.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Ozark is good, I love that show. But I do agree, in general,
| that the quality of their 95% of the content is crap and it is
| far below the level of Disney+ and even HBO.
| speeder wrote:
| For the genres I like Netflix is kinda a brand of content to
| actively avoid, their content is not just mediocre, but
| outright terrible, when you hear a beloved franchise will get a
| Netflix-made version you get sad.
|
| One of the issues is how much Netflix content just reflect
| whatever crap is a fad in California politics. I am not even
| from US, I don't want to hear about Californian political
| themes in the media I consume, SPECIALLY when it is a remake of
| something from a country that has nothing to do with California
| culture! (like... Japan, or Poland...)
| zdragnar wrote:
| I enjoyed some of their original content, some they took over
| they did an okay job of (though they have a habit of trying
| to convert an episodic series into a long drawn out movie,
| emphasizing the running plot too much). Some definitely
| wasn't good.
|
| That said, political content is pretty popular with a big
| chunk of their subscribers. The rest of us lose out because
| of it, unfortunately... I don't even know if I would call it
| political, more just forcing in bits of virtue signaling
| where it doesn't make sense.
| secondcoming wrote:
| > how much Netflix content just reflect whatever crap is a
| fad in California politics
|
| You're right, it's infuriating but not limited to Netflix
| unfortunately. Look at Picard... a total cringe-fest. That
| said, I did randomly watch an Israeli TV series about the
| lives of ultra-orthodox Jews, Shtisel, and despite the lack
| of CGI and all that, I found it an interesting watch.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > whatever crap is a fad in California politics
|
| ...what?
| Ankaios wrote:
| > One of the issues is how much Netflix content just reflect
| whatever crap is a fad in California politics.
|
| Affordable housing policy?
|
| High speed rail?
|
| Gas tax rebate?
|
| Netflix seems desperate for content, but I don't think
| they're _that_ desperate.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| > One of the issues is how much Netflix content just reflect
| whatever crap is a fad in California politics. I am not even
| from US, I don't want to hear about Californian political
| themes in the media I consume
|
| What are some examples of this? Of all the issues Ive seen
| people have with Netflix, this is definitely a very new one.
| recursive wrote:
| Not OP, but this may be an extrapolation from "Don't Look
| Up"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| _Don 't Look Up_ is obviously (intentionally heavy
| handed) political satire, but it's not at all particular
| to _California_ politics.
| [deleted]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| not the OP and not so much politics but I found it
| decidedly weird how _Sex Education_ which is set in a
| fictional town in the UK, is filmed in Wales, with an
| almost exclusively British cast is completely Americanized.
|
| As far as politics goes Bridgerton is probably the best
| example which has American racial and gender politics
| bolted onto some weird fairy tale version of the British
| aristocracy in the worst way imaginable.
|
| edit: another thing I just remembered, Netflix removed what
| is probably the best episode of Community from its catalog
| because of a blackface character, despite the fact that the
| character is explicitly used to address racism in the
| fantasy genre.
| DaltonCoffee wrote:
| There are a host of "woke" modern themes that find their
| way into western media in general. I sometimes wonder if
| the next star trek crew will be all David bowies and
| Barclays.
|
| Hard to say Netflix is worse for this than various other
| Hollywood studios tho.
|
| (to clarify in anticipation of downvotes, I welcome and
| enjoy some of the media about trans people etc, I am just
| answering your question, to elucidate this issue with the
| services' content that some people have. Definitely not a
| rare or new issue, I've been listening to people go on
| about it for years)
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| The thing that turned me off discovery was, why even go
| to the stars? You could have just stayed at home and been
| miserable there, instead.
|
| I would however, pay good money for "Star Trek: all David
| Bowie edition" where an entire starship is crewed with
| David Bowie clones.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| > There are a host of "woke" modern themes that find
| their way into western media in general
|
| I dont see how stuff like this is complained about
| though, especially since most shows dont actually have
| more than token representation anyway. Whats the actual
| complaint here? That the average cast of a show is
| slightly different now than it was 10 years ago? People
| complain about "woke" themes but I hardly see concrete
| examples of them, and explanations as to whats wrong or
| what should be done differently.
|
| And fwiw I think using Star Trek as an example since the
| show has historically been based on diverse groups of
| people.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| I don't think it's the identity of the characters per se,
| it's more subtle than that, a kind of fetishisation of
| identity?
|
| It sets up a dynamic where the actors can't just play a
| character - they are representing "their team" - a race,
| or a class. This is seen as a big responsibility, so
| everyone has to take themselves super seriously.
| undersuit wrote:
| I would say American media has always been California
| centric. The majority of screenwriters lived in CA near the
| majority of media studios and produced the majority of our
| media.
|
| The complaints about CA politics in Netflix are new
| complaints to me.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| How do people here see quality content (I happen to love the more
| innovativ and artistic stuff) without subscribing to all these
| different services?
|
| Netflix seems to have the best general collection for my tastes -
| genres, various countries, etc. I read about things on other
| services, but I am not subscribing to everything.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I subscribe (and immediately cancel) to everything.
|
| If I want to watch a show/movie (like Jackass Forever on
| Paramount+) I'll subscribe and then immediately cancel it. This
| gives me 1 month of the service. If I want to keep watching
| something on that service, I'll just resubscribe once it runs
| out.
|
| Some services like Netflix and Hulu, I know I'll get enough
| value out of them so I don't usually bother canceling.
|
| I hear friends complain about having to sign up for so many
| things to watch all the shows they want, but Apple makes this
| so easy I don't really think much about it. Back in the pre-
| streaming days most everyone wanted a-la-carte channels and
| that's exactly what we have now.
| dgeiser13 wrote:
| You might want to check out Kanopy.
|
| https://www.kanopy.com/
| haunter wrote:
| Torrent. Good private trackers have almost everything and you
| don't need Netlifx's AI (or Amazon, Hulu, Apple etc.) to tell
| you what to watch
|
| If I really like a movie I watch it in the cinema
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Torrents
| standardUser wrote:
| I have a friend in another state who is disabled and on a fixed
| income. He is the only person I share my Netflix account with.
| I'd be happy to pay something in order to share it with him. But
| I don't like that a household of 6 can pay $15 for the service,
| whereas two single person households are expected to pay $30 for
| the same service.
|
| Shouldn't the cost be per profile, not per distinct physical
| address?
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| It's just the easiest heuristic to minimize abuse. By the way,
| you can still access from different households in some
| countries.
| sillyinseattle wrote:
| A bit OT: Simple frequency counts (this page, @ 104 comments).
|
| Netflix -> 103 Apple -> 39 HBO -> 24 Disney -> 19 Amazon -> 14
| Hulu -> 5
| gregoryl wrote:
| They raised prices and have considerably less content in a market
| with more and more competition. No surprises!
| jeffybefffy519 wrote:
| Can Netflix improve their app: - their chrome cast connecting
| implementation is worse then all the others, it never auto
| connects and the UI is confusing around the state its in. - the
| "are you still watching dialog" is way too aggressive and
| generally buggy. If i resume a show from a day ago it doesnt
| reset the episode counter. So annoying.
| [deleted]
| reducesuffering wrote:
| 18.3 P/E ratio (~6% yearly real profits as opposed to -8% real in
| a bank account) going forward by today's earnings. High morale
| unparalleled technical talent in the market. Founder-led. COGS
| (cost of goods sold) approaches nothing as content library
| accumulates. No brainer buy.
| [deleted]
| lordnacho wrote:
| The way I see it, a family can only have a handful of
| subscriptions, and it might not just be streaming that is
| competing for that budget. Probably less than 5, maybe 3 on
| average, just based on what I hear from people.
|
| If you have kids, one of those has to be Disney. Somehow they
| make some great movies, with incredible longevity. Very good
| songs, and you might not know it but the songs are sung in dozens
| of languages, and translated well, by local stars. Good, modern
| storylines too, and nothing awkward. Plus your kids will want to
| watch the movies over and over, so Disney is a must have.
|
| If you're a sports person, maybe you go for Sky Sports or BT
| Sport or whatever the old dinosaur is in your country. It's
| expensive and you aren't going to watch all those games, but a
| fair few people will go for it.
|
| So what have you got left? One or two slots maybe? Between
| Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, that documentary one that
| doesn't spend enough on ads targeted at me, and probably some
| others.
|
| It's hard to see how to capture that last slot, for anyone.
| Amazon already has a foot in the door of course.
|
| So it's going to be a big dogfight in this space. You'll get
| occasional winners in terms of content but what could ever last
| as a permanent advantage?
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > a family can only have a handful of subscriptions
|
| My kids beg to differ.
| [deleted]
| li2uR3ce wrote:
| They lost 700,000 from Russia gained 500,000 elsewhere net
| -200,000. I don't know how much they normally gain but I suspect
| a lot are jumping to conclusions from the headline. Loosing
| Russia wasn't really a consumer choice type of thing.
|
| I do wish they'd pick up a few more good Sci-Fi shows and then
| cancel them to confirm my personal grudge. It's so hard to waste
| my time on today's Sci-Fi...get off my lawn, etc, etc.
| twblalock wrote:
| Blaming Russia's war in Ukraine seems to be the new excuse for
| everything.
|
| It's going to be mentioned in every earnings call from now on,
| and it's almost always going to be a bogus excuse.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| You think that blaming Russia's war on Ukraine for the loss
| of 700k subscribers _in Russia_ is a bogus excuse?
| karmakaze wrote:
| Sci-fi is in a bad state not just on Netflix but everywhere. I
| hoped arriving in the space age would mean more programming,
| but my fear of it becoming mainstream meaning that a sprinkling
| of science/space in the background of whatever drama, horror,
| thriller, etc becomes what's categorized as sci-fi. There's
| very little where science plays any meaningful part in the
| premise or plot.
| kuschku wrote:
| Sci-fi in books is doing quite well! Between Isaac Asimov and
| Alastair Reynolds there are 7 decades of high quality sci-fi.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| There's Dark and Altered Carbon Season 1. Everything
| Everywhere All At Once just came out in theatres and that's
| supposed to be crazy Sci Fi (not supposed to go in knowing
| much about it)
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Let's ignore their Russian subscribers loss for the time being.
| Analysts were expecting them to add 2.7m and they added 500K
| elsewhere (taking the number from your comment) so they are
| still way off and it proves that their growth is slowing at a
| rapid pace because of increasing competition from Apple,
| Amazon, Disney and HBO.
| li2uR3ce wrote:
| > taking the number from your comment
|
| From the article, fyi.
|
| > slowing at a rapid pace because of increasing competition
| from Apple, Amazon, Disney and HBO.
|
| I don't doubt that but I do suspect other services will see
| some slow down too as a result of general bullshit and
| uncertainty in the economy. It's never really just one thing.
|
| Then again...yeah Disney+ is a really good deal. And Amazon's
| numbers are inflated from other Prime stuff. I'm just an old
| man yelling at a screen from his arm chair because I can't
| trust anyone.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| "slowing at a rapid pace" makes no sense as a statement. Is
| their growth stalled?
|
| How can anything slow at a rapid pace?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > How can anything slow at a rapid pace?
|
| Rapid deceleration. Just because a car is still moving,
| doesn't mean it's moving as fast as it was 1 second ago.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Second derivative is negative
| Misdicorl wrote:
| Imagine a car slamming on anti lock brakes versus one
| coasting to a stop.
| altdataseller wrote:
| How much more growth can Netflix really muster? They really
| have penetrated most regions including APAC. Adding 500k is a
| major accomplishment when viewed thru that lens.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > Netflix previously told shareholders it expected to add
| 2.5 million net subscribers during the first quarter.
|
| It wasn't just the analysts. Netflix itself missed big in
| their forecast.
| EnKopVand wrote:
| I'm curious as to when the forecast is from. We missed
| our expected q1 target by quite a margin as well because
| the market, and I mean any market, has been hit by the
| war and the inflation.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| They also forecasted a global paid subscriber loss of 2 million
| for the second quarter.
| pcurve wrote:
| They're really lousy at forecasting.
|
| As recently as Feb., mgmt was forecasting 2.5 million growth.
| (much lower than 7 million consensus)
|
| I'm sure their inability to forecast isn't helping.
| [deleted]
| cwkoss wrote:
| I hope they expand their international catalog. 3%, Biohackers
| and Better than Us were all quite enjoyable and each had their
| own interesting cultural spins.
|
| 'Smoking' is really good (not sci fi, though, but I recommend
| it to everyone). Old Enough has been thoroughly charming as
| well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-19 23:01 UTC)