Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix To Lose 1 Million Subscribers

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the abandon-ship dept.

Businesses 349

tekgoblin writes "In light of the recent price increase at Netflix, it made quite a few subscribers mad. Netflix expects to lose around 1 million total subscribers in the short term after the price changes (which split off separate subscription plans for streaming video and DVD rentals). On top of the price increase, Netflix will lose their contract with Starz in February, which will cost them around 1,000 total streaming titles from their collection."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WHAT??!?! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416302)

Please no! This can't be true!!!

Netflix loses a million subscribers?!
No! My world is at an end!!!

Re:WHAT??!?! (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416326)

Considering this myself, or at a minimum dropping to a disc only. Their streaming library has sucked of late. I've used it too infrequently to merit the price increase.

Re:WHAT??!?! (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416388)

I ditched them for Blockbuster and I'm happy with the service. I'm paying a bit more because I hadn't been getting Blurays, but for the money I'm getting Blurays and games as well. Seems to take the same amount of time to return discs as I was with Netflix.

I have to admit that I get a lot of satisfaction out of their share price dropping by fully half since they announced the price hike. It's amazing to me that they thought that they could make that comment about it being the price of a couple lattes during a period where there's a lot of people who are really hurting for work. Especially without even bothering to roll out anything new to justify the price hike.

Worse still was the comment later that it wasn't to pay increased licensing demands.

Re:WHAT??!?! (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416538)

Odd because my plan dropped significantly, enough that I switched to the 5 out at a time plan, which BB doesn't even offer. How the blockbuster streaming working for you btw?

Re:WHAT??!?! (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416654)

Netflix doesn't have a streaming plan. At least not one that can accurately be called one. I rarely if ever used it as the selection was so poor. It was overpriced at $2 a month and it's even more overpriced at $8. For that I can get hulu or rent a couple movies online from Blockbuster.

Re:WHAT??!?! (2, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416574)

I'm sure they didn't want to hike their prices. But the studios that provide the movies and TV shows demanded huge (like, order of magnitude) increases in their cuts. Netflix had a choice: close up shop, or raise prices. In the end, they may go under either way. That is the studios' goal, after all. They want to control distribution.

Re:WHAT??!?! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416636)

That's really not true. According to Netflix, the reason for the price hike has nothing to do with licensing fees. Which makes me wonder what precisely it is that they're needing the money for.

Re:WHAT??!?! (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416704)

I think they made that comment before they lost their sweet heart deal with Starz.

Re:WHAT??!?! (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416760)

"That's really not true. According to Netflix, the reason for the price hike has nothing to do with licensing fees. Which makes me wonder what precisely it is that they're needing the money for."

Or Net Neutrality laws allowing mega telecoms to double dip. My hunch is AT&T and Verizon did the same thing it did to Netflix as it did to Google, "Pay us double or we will deprioritize your packets and ruin streaming for your customers!"

Netflix had to raise rates to pay for this. Isn't corruption lovely and buying off politicians lovely?

Does anyone have any links as I would like to prove this in order to put Net Neutrality back into law? This is a serious problem and of course Netflix is a service that can't be deprioritized one bit as it streams compared to other sites that would just load longer.

Re:WHAT??!?! (4, Interesting)

hmckee (10407) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416584)

Also went to Blockbuster. We only use Blu-Ray and DVDs (no games or streaming). Netflix took so long to send us new releases (spent 2-3 weeks in the "Long Wait" queue) that my wife would usually rent from BB. We have a BB store within 10 minutes and now that they've gone to unlimited envelope exchanges in store, we are MUCH happier than we ever were with Netflix. Plus, BB gets new releases a week or two before Netflix.

Re:WHAT??!?! (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416702)

Hurting for work but able to waste money on lattes and netflix.

Re:WHAT??!?! (3, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416424)

Streaming library does suck, but it isnt like Starz was putting out the latest in greatest. In fact they have not updated in a while.

Out of 1,000 movies, a good 70% of them are old black and whites, or westerns, crap I could care less about. Another 20% is kids movies, and out of the left over 10%, well... I watched all the good ones I wanted to.
But I do watch some of the series they have on there... Firefly (rewatch that alot), Scrubs (rewatch), Star Trek series (Watching Enterprise now), Law&Order CI (watching), etc.

That makes it kinda worth it. They have a few more months before I decide to drop them.

Re:WHAT??!?! (-1, Offtopic)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416724)

>the latest in greatest
>crap I could care less about
Please, stop posting.

Re:WHAT??!?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416334)

Maybe not a world-ending result (especially since it was very predictable), but there is a side to be concerned about as a consumer: If Netflix is seen as weak by the movie/content industry, each company will try to play hardball and eek out a little more profit. Which either means higher prices for Netflix subscribers again, or lower selection. Losing Starz by itself isn't a huge deal, but I really don't want to see things get so fragmented that in order to have a good selection of content, I have to subscribe to 4 different services because each one of them managed to land the exclusive rights to this company or that company. Pain in the ass.

Re:WHAT??!?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416576)

"I have to subscribe to 4 different services because each one of them managed to land the exclusive rights to this company or that company. Pain in the ass."

Translation: "I have to give them more money because they told me I had to. I'm on four subscriptions now and they want me to buy a 5th Whaaaaaaa Whaaaaa!"

Don't fucking buy it then you tool. We here don't care about your problems here and you just look dumb.

Re:WHAT??!?! (0)

MichaelKristopeit409 (2018828) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416692)

who is "We"?

you're exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

haha who cares. America is dead fuck you all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416304)

Just saying. Die in the fire faggots.

Re:haha who cares. America is dead fuck you all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416382)

I love the fall when the faggots are on the fire and the crisp autumn air on your back as you warm yourself by the fire invigorates and refreshes body and soul.
America may be dead, but who cares when you can roast sausages and potatoes in a cast iron pan on the dull red coals.
Ah... when the fire burns low, to toss on another faggot and watch the flames rise up to consume it... the yellow light dancing in your girlfriends face as she smiles tenderly...
Die America, die... for tonight nothing matters

in lighter news (0, Troll)

planimal (2454610) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416316)

i don't care. i spend my time being productive. not watching tv designed for retards

Re:in lighter news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416350)

Yes, making stupid (and poorly written) blog posts about your superiority is clearly productive. I guess pushing the shift key also takes up too much of your valuable time?

Re:in lighter news (0)

planimal (2454610) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416672)

you being mad is not proportional to my level of caring.

Link bait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416318)

While losing a million subscribers is generally a bad thing... I would think they will be doing fine with the other 24 million of us.

Re:Link bait? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416330)

I wonder how many of the people who stayed just picked a cheaper subscription option that didn't include streaming?

1) Bait
2) Switch
3) ???
4) Profit!

Re:Link bait? (2)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416420)

That's me. I dumped the streaming service. I very, very, very rarely used it to begin with. It was bad enough when they [i]raised[/i] my price the first time in order to cover other people streaming all of the content they wanted. Now I only pay for the number of discs I want, and it's about the same price I was paying years ago.

Re:Link bait? (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416450)

I wonder how many of the people who stayed just picked a cheaper subscription option that didn't include streaming?

1) Bait 2) Switch 3) ??? 4) Profit!

I went streaming only; the physical media via mail doesn't really appeal to me anyway.

Re:Link bait? (2)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416710)

We also went streaming only. If Netflix doesn't have something I want to see, I can usually find it on a different service like Vudu.

I'm wondering if 1 million lost customers might ultimately help Netflix when negotiating for streaming rights. The copyright owners have an unrealistic (IMHO) idea of what their movies are worth and now Netflix has hard data to show that a significant number of customers will not pay more.

Re:Link bait? (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416552)

I dropped the DVD portion as I'm usually too busy trolling slashd... developing FREE software, so the DVD tends to sit around for a week or two before I get to it. $2 for 3-4 movies a month is fine, $8, no thanks.

I'm not impressed with the streaming movies, but the documentary/history selection keeps me entertained.

Re:Link bait? (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416340)

While losing a million subscribers is generally a bad thing... I would think they will be doing fine with the other 24 million of us.

No kidding. You don't even have to do the math to find out that after the new price change the loss of 1 million subscribers will still result in them earning more money total than before. Also it's expected that they would have to charge more for an increasingly expensive service to host.

Also, the prices for Streaming AND DVDs have gone up. If you do one or the other, you actually save money now.

Re:Link bait? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416398)

The problem is that Netflix was the leader in the industry and had mostly run the competition out of business. This particular misstep was ill timed as Blockbuster isn't yet out of business and there are several other providers of streaming media that are needing customers to get started.

Driving a million customers into the hands of the competition at this stage is really bad for them. OTOH, it's really good for the consumers as there are still other options available.

Re:Link bait? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416744)

Blockbuster could be free and I still wouldn't do business with them. Watching all the Blockbuster stores in my area close over time has been pretty satisfying.

You're right that there are lots of other great options though. Other than Netflix, in the past year I've rented from RedBox a few times (including some games), from Directv, and from Vudu.

What do they expect? (4, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416322)

Well really, what the heck did they expect? The e-mail they sent out about splitting up the streaming and dvd mailing services was ridiculously patronizing.

I mean, I would have been a lot more okay with things if they'd just been straightforward and said "look, the people we get our content from are raising the prices on us, we need to charge you more to cover it". That's fine, that I can understand.

Instead, those assholes decided to pitch it as some sort of super awesome deal, where instead of being forced to pay for streaming and dvd mailing together, you're now paying for them separately! It's great! So much better than the old deal! And you, the consumer, are such an idiot that you're not even going to notice that the price of your plan increased significantly, doubling in some cases! (if you're like me and you were on the 1 dvd + streaming plan).

Do they not have any sort of market demographics at all? Do they have no idea the kinds of people that subscribe to their service? We're more likely to be early adopters, for goodness' sakes; we're not going to appreciate being talked down to like we're children who can't do math.

And look, I do appreciate Netflix - as convenient as Redbox is, it doesn't quite have the selection. It's just, reading that goddamn e-mail about the new plans left such a bad taste in my mouth I couldn't stand giving them money any more.

Re:What do they expect? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416348)

I thought they did pitch a super awesome deal.

I had been paying $16 a month for a couple DVDs and streaming, but I never really streamed much content. I would if I was bored and had nothing else to do but overall the streaming selection was too thin. After the announcement I moved to DVD only and now pay $12. I like having the option of de-coupling the streaming, especially in light of the impending price increase for streaming (via the studios).

Re:What do they expect? (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416772)

Exactly the same here. Even though I have a 12 Mbps connection, streaming from nflx always sucked, the resolution was poor and there were no subtitles. So... the decoupling is a great deal for me.

Re:What do they expect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416366)

You know who does have a good selection. Amazon.

Been buying a ridiculous amount of DVDs on that site. You know who else has a ridiculous amount of DVDs? The local library. Free...

Are they for real?...

Re:What do they expect? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416756)

If you are a Prime customer, you can also stream a bunch of movies from Amazon.

I have no interest in buying physical media anymore though. The last of my modest collection was donated to Goodwill last year. The library is a nice idea, unfortunately my local library isn't very local and there are lot more choices for movies that don't involve a 25 minute drive across town.

It makes a lot of sense (5, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416452)

If they lose customers, but get more money per customer, it can work to Netflix's advantage big time. Their costs are mostly on bandwidth, and if they lose 1 million customers, that's 1 million fewer people to feed data to. That amounts to major cost cutting, so even if revenues drop a little but are offset by lower costs then they win.

Re:It makes a lot of sense (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416540)

Yes, but that's 1 million people that are probably moving to competitors and 1 million people that are likely spreading ill will about Netflix as well. A million people even if it is only 4% of the customers is still a lot of people and certainly greatly increases the likelihood that potential new customers are going to come into contact with an dissatisfied customer.

Re:It makes a lot of sense (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416554)

I used almost no bandwidth. I got one dvd at a time and very rarely watched streaming video on my phone. The new price plan was much more expensive for the same service and streaming to 'devices' was an added charge. No thanks. Account closed.

Re:It makes a lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416592)

This is where you're wrong. I had DVD + Streaming at ~$10/mo. I'll now get rid of one of the plans and go down to ~$8/mo. How are they getting more?

I also don't agree that any company would want to have less customers to save on costs.

May have caused revenue to go up. (3, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416718)

Netflix did better than I thought they would. They only lost 4% of their subscribers over this, and it looks like their revenue is going to go up. Pretending that everyone was on the cheapest plan, they used to have 25 million subscribers paying $10 a month for $250 million/month. Now they have 21.8 million paying for streaming and another 14.2 million paying for DVD, each at $8 a month for a total of $288 million/month. Since the price of the larger plans didn't change as much as the cheapest one, I think it is safe to say that they will be making more money when this is done than they did before.

Suppose they had given a $2 discount for people on both plans, like I thought they should. They would have increased revenue further by doing that if everyone stayed, and 2.6 million more people decided to go with both plans, or alternately if the same number left but 4 million decided to have both plans. Of course, that doesn't consider increased costs of both plans.

Right on the mark. (1)

invictus (83837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416478)

This comment hits the mark right on the head.

It was bad enough before how much content was actually available to stream versus by mail, especially compared to (not really competing, I guess alternative is more apropos) services e.g. XBL. Now that service is losing even more titles due to licensing issues with Starz. What terrible timing to try and spin a price increase as something consumers actually want, when the service you're charging more for is actually LOSING VALUE. This makes no sense on the face of it, especially in today's atmosphere of belt tightening and budget trimming.

I spent 10 minutes looking for my old login information just to see if I had mod points to promote this comment, alas I had none.

Re:What do they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416488)

Like most people, I didn't read that email. All I care about is that now DVDs are extremely expensive. I did keep the Instant service -- so they've won with me, in that now they're getting $8 a month from me instead of $20 a month. Higher margin, I'm sure, and lower profits and gross income.

Re:What do they expect? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416548)

Well it was an awesome deal for me since I never used their streaming anyhow, so I didn't like having to subsidize it through my subscription, and my DVD-only sub decreased in price.

Re:What do they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416620)

+1 or Like or whatever

Re:What do they expect? (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416640)

According to the blurb, they expected to lose 1 million subscribers.

Re:What do they expect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416790)

No the real assholes are the megaTelecoms who claim they own the internet double dipping due to lack of net neutrality.

They tried to bring down Google and trippled their bandwidth charges if they wanted good latency. My guess is they threatened Netflix and forced them to pay double for the same service or else streaming wouldn't work anymore.

Your ISP is the one forcing you to pay more. Not netflix.

This is the problem of being pioneers on something (1)

pietromenna (1118063) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416328)

I believe this is the risk of being pioneers on something, they inventing this tv streaming service and the dvd rental... Then suddendly the market you invent changes, and as you are the pioner you do not have examples to follow on your way to avoid sotck price to drop in your segment as well as a complete study on how your consumers will behave before the options you give.

Re:This is the problem of being pioneers on someth (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416428)

Where they really fell down was how they tried to sell it to the customers. It's pretty well established that during a down economy you don't raise prices if you can help it, you definitely don't raise prices by +60% and if you have to do that then you certainly don't make condescending comments about how it's only the cost of a couple lattes. Lattes are much less elite than they used to be, but they're still significantly more expensive than the alternatives are.

I might have gone along with it had they been honest about it rather than them making condescending remarks implying that they didn't need or want my business.

Re:This is the problem of being pioneers on someth (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416632)

I might have gone along with it had they been honest about it rather than them making condescending remarks implying that they didn't need or want my business.

All the smart people, especially in a "down" economy, are downloading the content for free via torrent. If there's any message behind Netflix' recent announcement, it's that people are either too ignorant or too cowardly to avoid being robbed blind by the content creators. Netflix are simply using the drug pusher model known since the dawn of time: get people hooked with too-good-to-be-true services and/or pricing, then shit on their customers' chests when critical mass is reached and the mainstream content monopolies no longer have give a shit about public opinion to survive. Distractions and other vice stock always does well in bad economies.

And, for the record, Netflix streaming still doesn't support Linux. Imagine the glee I felt when I received a 6-month subscription to Netflix as a gift from a well-meaning but ignorant family member, only to realize that it would not work without a pirated OS install or other unnecessary virtualization hacks. Imagine how disappointed I was thinking, "Man, I would totally pay for this long-term if it just supported my Linux OS."

Oh, well. Back to the torrents.

Re:This is the problem of being pioneers on someth (2)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416738)

No kidding. That email was a spin-fest from the beginning and the executive team should be roasted about it at the next shareholders' meeting. It insulted the hell out of customers. If they had said something like "yes, streaming has gotten a lot more expensive for us to do, if you want to do it you're going to have to pay more - a lot more," then customers would not have been happy - but they wouldn't have been condescended to like a group of fourth graders. (Hint to fourth-graders: they're treating you badly because you're too young to be able to fight back. They're bullies. Remember that when you grow up - people who bully kids are, without exception, assholes. As a corollary, be kind to the teachers who treat you like a young, unwise, but nonetheless real and valuable person, because they're actually looking out for you.)

Linux client (3, Interesting)

utkonos (2104836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416346)

Perhaps if they had a client for linux, there would be some amount of offset due to incoming subscribers. If there were a player, I would be fine with paying their new price for service on linux. The only computers I have run either linux or FreeBSD, so there are no options for netflix for me at the moment.

Re:Linux client (5, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416416)

Haha, no they wouldn't. A good portion of Linux users would bitch about how the client isn't completely open source. Netflix may get a couple thousand extra subscribers if they made a linux client but nowhere near enough to cover the 1 million they are estimated to lose due to the price increase.

Re:Linux client (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416514)

They're working on an HTML5 client. Just so you know.

Re:Linux client (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416666)

And besides Linux users already have HBO Go which is a much better service and comes free with your cable HBO subs. That's the right way to do things ;-)

Re:Linux client (1)

dballanc (100332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416448)

That is true for me as well. I gave the trial an attempt once and canceled when I found out it wouldn't work on linux. Then a friend reminded me the ps3 was an option... and I subscribed for a month only to fire up the ps3 and find out they'd been hacked and I couldn't install netflix so I cancelled again. It's just not worth a third time, especially after the recent changes.

Re:Linux client (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416498)

They couldn't get a linux client out no matter what they wanted to do. Linux suffers from development hell where there is no standard development environment. No standard toolchain version and no standard c libraries. Every distro decides on the version they're gonna use. That's why you can't develop on one distro and expect it to work on another without compiling for that distro. And how many distro's of linux are out there?

The only reason they got one on a set top box that runs linux is because they control the development environment. They essentially tell the user this is the distro of linux you are going to use. Now granted they could do that with Ubuntu, but then users who use fedora or debian would bitch. Yeah you wanted choice, well this is what you sacrificed to get it.

Re:Linux client (2, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416522)

The only computers I have run either linux or FreeBSD, so there are no options for netflix for me at the moment.

I take it you don't own a television then, right? Because a Roku [] is dirt cheap and simple to operate (and linux based ftw). Plus with all the private channels it's really handy.

If the Linux-owning crowd is small, the linux-owning crowd that doesn't have a TV has to be even smaller. That's not to say it's invalid, just that here might be more Amiga users still around.

Re:Linux client (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416656)

I'm pretty sure that it there were a Linux client, Netflix would pick up at least 27 or 28 new subscriptions. Maybe up to 30, but that's being pretty optimistic.
Of course, that's assuming there is both a Gnome client and a KDE client, as well as maybe an Emacs Lisp client to grab that last 1 or 2 subscribers.

If they really want to make inroads into the Linux userbase, they ought to figure out how to get Richard Stallman to write a manifesto calling for a Free Software Netflix client. If they could do that, then it probably wouldn't be more than 20-30 years before all Linux users could easily compile their own mostly-working Netflix client.

I mean, assuming the code wasn't abandoned and then rewritten more than twice before release. Otherwise it might take a little bit longer. But it would be totally worth it to have a Free-as-in-speech Netflix client.

Re:Linux client (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416676)

But I also run Linux, and I wouldn't become a Netflix subscriber. I'd bet they've done a cost-benefit analysis of porting their player to Linux, and decided it wasn't worth it.

1000 good titles lost... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416358)

Starz makes up a big portion of the GOOD options on netflix. I'm probably dropping my service for the blockbuster equivalent if I can get more choice.

The price increase would be fine if I got more in streaming... instead I just get more useless strange crap made in backyards.

Re:1000 good titles lost... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416432)

I did that for similar reasons. Granted the likelihood of Starz being dropped wasn't yet known, but I've found Blockbuster to be a good buy. Although, possibly not if you don't have a Bluray player and don't play video games. So far I've saved enough borrowing Assassin's Creed Brotherhood to more than make up for the cost of service.

Re:1000 good titles lost... (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416624)

Remember that Starz is really just a middleman, not a content creator, and that the content they have can be purchased directly from the owners, very likely for cheaper than what Starz wanted to charge Netflix for the upcoming year. Starz' content is definitely good, but there are already rumors that Netflix is inking deals with several of the content owners that provide content to Starz. The actual impact on the Netflix catalog could be negligible still, despite how it sounds now.

Re:1000 good titles lost... (4, Insightful)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416646)

You could just do what millions already know. To get true HD quality with total portability. AND

an unmatched selection of titles ....

Including the newest titles anywhere...


Re:1000 good titles lost... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416782)

Starz makes up a big portion of the GOOD options on netflix.

No they don't. None of their stuff was HD. It all had long-ass, annoying "STARZ IS AWESOMESAUCE!!!1!" intro/outro animations, and I never saw anything on its list I wanted to watch...

I was one (2)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416376)

I dropped the streaming service. The selection is so bad, it's really not worth even $8 a month to me. I'd gladly pay significantly more if the selection was significantly better. I hope they can get their licensing issues worked out!

Re:I was one (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416480)

Yeah. I'm getting to the point where I've watched all of the good movies. I've watched a lot of old ones again too. The other day I looked for the movie Excalibur which was made in 1981 and they didn't even have that for streaming, it was DVD only. WTF? The movie is 30 years old. Once I catch up on Breaking Bad, I don't know what else to watch.

Re:I was one (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416658)

How about going outside you faty amerikan greaseball loser?

Pricing games and post cancel charges oh my! (4, Informative)

teambpsi (307527) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416404)

I tried changing my bank account info and when I called to ask them to reverse a pending charge on the wrong/old account I was told that I would have to close/cancel my service with them, and then restart service at a new higher rate!

So I cancelled. Completely.

Now I have to play the "contest the charge on the credit card game" even though I cancelled on the 9th the charge still showed up on the 11th.

You'd think they would be doing anything to just maintain their current customers, but evidently not.

Say hello to RedBox !

What is better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416406)

Hulu? any others?

Re:What is better? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416550)

For streaming you might also want to check out Crackle. It's ad supported, but the ads seem to be infrequent enough as to make it a reasonable proposition. Also, Amazon Prime is worth a look, but they have a small catalog IIRC.

Streaming titles at Netflix (1)

srk (49331) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416412)

I am more concerned about Netflix loosing streaming titles than the price hike. Out of about 50 titles in my instant queue only 5 or 6 are available for streaming and the number is in fact decreasing. If Netflix looses more streaming titles then I will probably switch to DVD-only plan or go to DirecTV/Blockbuster.

Re:Streaming titles at Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416546)

LOSES. Christ, it's not difficult.

Streaming only (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416418)

I am trying to stay. I like my streaming only subscription in spite of the limited selection. If they would license more stuff for that, and honestly push that I'd be willing to eat a price increase. Right now at $8/mo it's a bargain, let loose the first run movies and TV, and they could double my price. That would still beat the hell out of TWC or Uverse. Even figuring in part of my ISP fee (a higher speed connection because I knew I wasn't going to be getting a cable package) it's way better (for me) than cable. Oddly that net connection is thru TWC, their net service is good, their cable service sucks.
I don't want/need nor will I use the DVD plan. waiting on a single disc wtfever on that shit...

Netflix To Lose 1 Million Subscribers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416438)

OK, how the fuck is this "News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters"?

Seriously, most of the people here pirate their entertainment, so this doesn't mean anything.

Re:Netflix To Lose 1 Million Subscribers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416556)

in case you hadn't noticed, slashdot has gone to complete shite.

Re:Netflix To Lose 1 Million Subscribers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416622)

Agree... any suggestions for an alternative? Somewhere like old slashdot?

What kind of future can Netflix streaming have? (4, Insightful)

HumanEmulator (1062440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416442)

It's tough to be the middleman... Netflix stands between the consumers and the content providers, but streaming video is rapidly becoming a commodity, so no doubt the content providers will get greedy and decide they want to own the whole thing end to end. I'm sure they'll ignore the amazing feat Netflix has accomplished (namely getting people to pay for streaming content online) and attempt to set up their own sites with onerous terms (pay-per-view with 24 hours to start) and high monthly rates, then be all surprised when no one signs up and start claiming piracy is destroying their business.

Re:What kind of future can Netflix streaming have? (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416706)

Streaming is new (for Netflix) and they were successful when they were DVD-only, so who knows.

Re:What kind of future can Netflix streaming have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416732)

Thinking about it, they were right all along: Piracy is destroying the business. What no one realized is that the wrong people were called "pirates", when it's the content providers who are the pirates really. Hand over all yarr doubloons you bloody consumer scallywag!

It is the future.. people just expected too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416460)

Netflix sees that the dvd mail-order program is a thing of the past and will die out (especially since you have teh redbox competition in every neighborhood).

The future of tv is streaming. They've built up a base who are used to it now, and are letting the others stay if they want, or move on. Smart move.

The analysts keep saying that blockbuster and amazon are the competition, but the fact is that netflix apps are on every tv and blu-ray player out there. Every time Walmart gets someone to try streaming from their site, the new customer also goes over and tries out Netflix too.

So Starz thinks their product is too good for the masses to watch. Fact is, I dropped the Starz service when I went to "Digital Economy" class and I never missed it.

I enjoy digging through the older content, and for new stuff I still will either buy the dvds or rent them through redbox (never rented through Netflix.. the idea of waiting for a disk to come in the mail seemed stupid to me all along).

In the long run, the content providers will need to get involved or be left behind with content they can't get anyone to watch thorugh the compeition.

expects (1)

binarybum (468664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416494)

If they expect to lose this many customers, they must also expect to gain enough of a profit margin from the price hike that they can afford to lose this many customers. It's not like they're standing under a bridge and expecting it to fall on them - they are electively changing the prices. This is assuming that a rabid monkey hasn't taken over the management of Netflix, which is not an unreasonable hypothesis given their bizarre adherence to their horrendous new interface despite an overwhelming sentiment of repulsion from their user base.

    The idea of even offering plans that are essentially equivalent to cutting a video store in half arbitrarily is so viscerally unappealing - it is just a setup for competitors to step in. The sooner the better - good riddance netflix.

Netflix won't let me re-up my stash (3, Interesting)

organum (210431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416526)

I've tried repeatedly to restart my subscription, since the DVD-only option is very appealing. But they don't even offer it. (No lie.) I don't see streaming as a viable option for many years, so it's back to the public library for me.

Re:Netflix won't let me re-up my stash (1)

hmckee (10407) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416606)

I think you need to call them to get the DVD only option.

Re:Netflix won't let me re-up my stash (2)

organum (210431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416726)

They didn't seem to need me to call when I signed up in the first place. An offered option shouldn't be hidden or require negotiating a maze of circuitous channels. What a bunch of knuckleheads!

Sounds like a win for Netflix (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416568)

So they increased their prices by 60% and didn't lose even 10% of their subscribers? They win. Maybe they should raise the rates again.

Article and summary imply incorrectly (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416590)

Netflix is not saying that they will be losing 1M of their existing customers. Rather, they're altering their guidance for the next quarter by 1M subscribers, which is an important distinction, since it more or less halves the impact from what most people here seem to be thinking. Previously, they had been expecting a decent growth of 400K in the upcoming quarter, but now they are projecting a net loss of 600K in the quarter, hence the 1M number. Yes, it's bad, but it's not as bad as losing 1M of your current customers in addition to however many potential customers you'd lose as well.

The article and most of the other blogs are glossing over this detail, but numbers are always important.,0,5009354.story []

Re:Article and summary imply incorrectly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416778)

OTOH, it's exactly as bad (for now) as losing 1M customers instantaneously, in addition to the projected growth, and may be even worse if some of that 1M was in fact slowed growth instead of just cancellations (as future quarters will see the same growth reduction.

I don't see why anyone would take it to mean what you claim it implies -- maybe you're the only one who misunderstood?

I'm not saying anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416600)

I'm on the $4.99 plan where you get 1 disc at a time, two per month. I joined in 2007 when they offered one hour of streaming for each dollar spent, so I get 5 hours of streaming/month (they later lowered it to 2.5 hrs/month for the $4.99 plan, I think.) I have received absolutely no correspondence about the changes. They are shipping my next DVD tomorrow and charging me $5. I'll happily continue with this as long as they'll give it to me. Posting anonymously because...well...if I'm not supposed to get this I don't want anyone putting two and two together.

Not As Bad As I Thought (1)

tgeek (941867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416604)

Considering that it seems like at least 20 million people were swearing up and down they'd cancel when this rate change took effect, 1 million doesn't seem so bad. OK, it does seem pretty bad. However, I think the much bigger problem is their loss of content (Sony, Starz and whoever else is next) and the soaring licensing fees for the content they do have.

I like the idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416608)

I really like the idea of Netflix, but they just can't seem to pull it off yet. The selection is horrible and I have to strain to find something to watch. They have a disproportionate amount of bad titles and don't get enough good ones in to keep my interest. I'm tired of spending so much time trying to find something I like. I had cut cable for these type of services, but now I think I'm going to cut them to go back to cable. I hoped they could do it, and I know someone will soon, maybe even Netflix, but it's quite abysmal atm. Them raising the price was for sure the cut-off. Maybe another company can do it better?

Netflix: leverage your catalog by CURATING better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416630)

I've been a big fan but the streaming service, loved being able to use my Wii+TV screen, and iPhone in bed. But after less than a year the streaming library feels *way* too limited. It's like what cable TV feels like: there's nothing on worth watching. Loss of Starz is a part of that, but even with Starz I've already seen most of what is worth watching -- that I know of.

Here's a suggestion for Netflix: do a better job of helping me find good stuff and maybe I'll stay. The automatic recommendations don't seem to be narrowed enough to my interests, but what could work instead is user-made lists like on Amazon or some other form of human curating.

Example: there's lots of anime in the streaming library. The teeny-bopper stuff I won't care for, but some of the other stuff I really really dig. Help me find that!

Another example: there are many old films that are considered classics by film buffs. I might like to explore those, but I need a list to work from.

In real life, it was film buffs who introduced me to Jackie Chan, Akira, the styles of individual directors like Sam Raimi or Hayao Miyazaki, genres that I didn't know about, etc. If Netflix had more coherent curating of their existing library I would extract more value from it.

Re:Netflix: leverage your catalog by CURATING bett (1)

tgeek (941867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416762)

I agree with you there. The Netflix recommendation system has to be one of the most confounding things about the service. For example, I generally dislike George Clooney and his films, so I consistently rate them low - as in 1 or 2 stars. Every time I do, the recommendation system whirs and clicks and comes to the conclusion that I didn't like that film because I HAVEN'T SEEN ENOUGH Clooney films and proceeds to start recommending a stream of Clooney films! And it's not just Clooney - it seems like a great deal of the time when I rate a movie, I'm liable to get recommendations for either similar titles to something I rated poorly, or something wildly unrelated -- like "You enjoyed Terminator so here's a recommendation for Spongebob Squarepants". WTF???

Let's do some math (2)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416638)

Let's assume 25M subscribers at the standard DVD + Streaming plan, which I believe was $11/mo. We can chop off a few zeros and still get the same effect, so let's do that and keep our math simple.

25 * 11 = 275

I think the cheapest is now $16 for both, so let's figure out what they'd be making if everyone who stayed kept the same plan at the higher rate.

24 * 16 = 384

Let's derive a quick formula.

(24 - x) * 16 + x * 8, where x is the number of people who choose DVD /or/ streaming.

24 * 16 = 384 = (24 - 0) * 16 + 0 * 8

Now, let's solve for 275, to assume they'd be making the same amount.

275 = (24 - x) * 16 + x * 8

I put this into my handy equation solver because I'm too lazy to work it out in my head and can't find paper/pen...

x = 109/8, or 13.625.

Netflix could go down to 10.375M users of the DVD+streaming, and have 13.625M users of one or the other and still make the same amount of money.

Methinks Netflix did their math beforehand. They're going to be making bank, and savvy shareholders are buying now on this dip on bad news. Happens every time. Netflix is here to stay, for as long as the content owners will allow it to exist.

Welcome News From the Future | 15/09/2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416664)

Over the past year Netflix lost an astounding 80% of their customers and 90% of their stock value. Due to monthly losses well into hundred of millions of dollars and a total loss of $8 billion Netflix has announced they will be liquidating all of its assets. One month after the investigation was launched Netflix entire board was formally charged on numerous counts of fraud and insider trading.
Furthermore, the investigation led to further investigations into Microsoft and Facebook which revealed not only more insider trading and fraud, but also murders of several whistle blowers. From these findings the US Justice Dept. the board from both corporations have been formally charged The fraud and insider trading. The board from all three corporations have been charged with 20 counts of murder in the first degree. As a result of these charges and their ties to Microsoft and Facebook the charters to these corporations and others tied into the two have been officially revoked by order of the Securities and Exchange commission.

Not a SINGLE shift in streaming+dvd customers? (2)

Nalez (556446) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416678)

I find it quite interesting in the netflix prediction:
Prior to model change:
Streaming only: 10,0m customers
Streaming+DVD: 12.0m customers
DVD Only: 3.0m customers

Post-implementation of the new pricing model, Netflix expects the customer base break-out to be:
Streaming only: 9.8m customers
Streaming+DVD: 12.0m customers
DVD only: 2.2m customers

So let me get this straight - the price for streaming+dvd is at least doubling - and Netflix is not expecting that customer count to go down at all. Instead, they are expecting a net loss on the two plans they are creating to make things better - instead of a net loss on on the plan that is going up 100% for many customers.

Might be a first step in gaining millions more! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416688)

Splitting DVD and streaming will hopefully allow Netflix to open up to the rest of the planet to the streaming option. I'd happily pay double what they are asking for a service like Netflix.

After I cancelled with Netflix (3, Funny)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416708)

I switched to their competitor who has more content and better prices!

Re:After I cancelled with Netflix (1)

organum (210431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416786)

Yeah, me too. I don't really consider the public library a competitor, but they do have better quality content, overall.

Losing neflix would be a loss to us all (3, Interesting)

katarn (110199) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416766)

Don't be too hard on Netflix; It seems they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The studios let them get by on table scraps before because they didn't see them as a serious revenue source, and saw them as just an opportunity to pick up minor bits of revenue which they wouldn't otherwise collect. Now Netflix has everyone's attention, and the studios are going to want the full slice of the pie. Analysts predict that Netflix licensing is going to increase from $180M to 1.98B [] in the next few years. With that looming over Netflix, they must be desperate to find a strategy to cope. If the studios get their way and Netflix goes down or concedes to their desired licensing, then we all lose and we end up paying $60 to $120 per month like we pay for cable instead of $8 / month. Personally I just have the Netflix streaming service and no DVD. I don't care about the DVDs, but I wish they streamed more videos. It would be nice to have Netflix under Linux though, so I wouldn't have other options than my console.

starz only had 1000 streaming titles!?!?!?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416776)

So it seems a good amount of what I stream has the starz tag on the cover, which surprises me since they only offer 1,000 streaming titles.


You have got to be fucking kidding me, starz turned down 300M in licensing fees for those 1,000 titles!?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT!?!?!?!?!?! You're telling me that three hundred fucking thousands dollars PER FILM was not good enough for starz?!?!? Does not compute!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?