Netflix is starting to raise prices in some countries as growth spurred by its crackdown on password sharing starts to fade.

The film and TV streaming giant said it had already lifted subscription fees in Japan and parts of Europe as well as the Middle East and Africa over the last month.

Changes in Italy and Spain are now being rolled-out.

In its latest results, Netflix announced that it had added 5.1 million subscribers between July and September - ahead of forecasts but the smallest gain in more than a year.

  • kenjen@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    日本語
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Netflix is good streaming Gets expensive and sharing increases Banish Sharing and can’t get more users Raises prices and won’t get new users.

    They would have been better off lowering the price by 10-20% after carrying out the ban to pick up many of the users they lost.

      • Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I feel like this has been the case for everything the past few years. Grocery prices seem to be following the same trend

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Companies will charge what the market will bear. If Netflix increases prices and lowers quality and people keep paying the higher price for lower quality, then Netflix will keep doing it. It’s up to consumers to not pay for enremovedtification in order to stop it.

  • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    I was celebrating the signup / binge / cancel pipeline, but now I’m realising: a next step they could use to prevent that would be putting caps on your watch time, like “you only get 20h of content a month” or something.

    Wouldn’t be a surprise to see this. I’m callin it now lol

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    5 days ago

    See, the problem with publicly traded corporations is, they’ve got to constantly not only be making as much money this year as they did the previous year, but they’ve got to increase shareholder value, which means, raising prices, or reducing the product to save costs, we have termed that last bit enremovedification. I mean, they don’t HAVE to, but if they choose not to, the board of directors will push for a change in CSUITE personnel, and those removeders are raking in the big bucks, and really really like their 3rd vacation homes in Aspen, so you pay more, or you get less, and sometimes you pay more AND you get less. And the beat goes on.

    • NotAnArdvark@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      5 days ago

      I don’t see what would be wrong with a world where businesses just satisfied themselves with providing employees with a reasonable living, contributed to the communities they were in, and provided a good or service that was needed. Sitting under a tree and reading a book sounds better than watching the world burn in your name-brand clothes and 5 bedroom 2.5 bath house.

        • DdCno1@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          In the real world, communism also suffered from the mandated growth problem, as well as a long list of other issues that some people still like to pretend solely exist under capitalism and some serious problems that are exclusive to this system. Yes, it is actually bad, with and without Cold War propaganda making it sound both worse and better than it actually was. It failed everywhere for a reason.

          This doesn’t mean that there aren’t real issues with capitalism as well. So far, the best system we’ve come up with as a species is heavily regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets. Not perfect, but nothing is on this rock.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            So far, the best system we’ve come up with as a species is heavily regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets

            And for quite a lot of human history the best system we had come up with was Feudalism, until we started doing something better.

            Just because Capitalism is the best we’ve come up with so far doesn’t mean we should just accept it, or that 1000 years from now people won’t look at the Capitalism with the same disdain we look at Feudalism.

            • DdCno1@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              There’s a reason I said “so far”. I’m open to the idea that there might be newer and better systems in the future. So far though, they haven’t been invented yet.

    • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      5 days ago

      I mean, they don’t HAVE to, but if they choose not to, the board of directors will push for a change in CSUITE personnel

      If the board doesn’t maximize profit, the shareholders can sue them, so functionally they do have to.

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Publically traded companies only exist because capitalists willed it so. Capitalism will always seek the path to greatest profits for the capitalist class with little to no regard for the consequences of that

    • megopie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Plenty of privately owned companies do the same things so I don’t think it can be chalked up to an issue with publicly traded companies.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        The minor difference is private can choose what they want to do. public has a fuduciary duty to increase value

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          That’s generally false. But even if it’s true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they’re legally rock solid.

          In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

        • megopie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          public companies do not necessarily have a Fiduciary duty to the shareholders, let alone one to increase value. Any that they did have (based on the laws and how they are incorporated in a given jurisdiction) would also be applicable to a private company. Private companies also have shareholders, the shares are just not traded publicly.

          You’re probably thinking of the theory of “Shareholder Primacy” but that is a theory not a legal reality, although some insist it is based on a questionable interpretation of the precedent set by dodge vs ford motor company.

          Public companies can be run in what ever way the board/shareholders see fit.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s all about who owns it and is sitting on the board.

        Bunch of old money type people? They don’t care too much about a bad year, more important to weather the storms and keep the generational money intact.

        Venture capitalists? Jack Welch this dogremoved company and get us some short term gains!

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      TBF small businesses do this too on average. There’s some that don’t, but then there’s also some that straight up do crime, usually against employees.

      To solve this, you either want a well-regulated market, or no market (however that would work).

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    They cancelled one too many shows we liked a long time ago and we swore off Netflix for life. Never going back. If they ever make another good show I will wait awhile to see if they cancel it or ruin it before I go get it from somewhere else. They burned a lot of their old loyal customers that made them a success and now they have to acquire new customers faster than they lose them which isn’t sustainable.

  • souperk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 days ago

    Friendly reminder that the high seas are always an option. Download stremio, install the torrentio addon, and you are good to go.

    • DdCno1@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      Only use torrents if you know what you’re doing. In the developed world, this usually ends with a very expensive letter in your mailbox.

    • shatterling@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Absolutely my dude, stremio is fantastic. The only reason I still have Netflix is for my youngish kid and I haven’t found parental options for stremio yet

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    Netflix’s content has gotten so much worse too. I don’t think there are many people left that have a subscription for more than one or two shows. And this seems to be a trend across all the different apps. Makes me glad I set up automatic torrenting for everything I’m interested in, and all it costs me is $5/month for Proton VPN

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t know about you but content has gotten better for me.

      Ranma 1/2, Squid Games, Super Mario Bros Movie, new season of Arcane. I felt like every 1-2 months, there was always something interesting.

      Also note that I don’t pay for Netflix. I do own stock.

      BUY MORE NETFLIX SUBSCRIPTIONS…

    • Retiring@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      For added convenience, skip the VPN and get a seedbox. If you consider the cost savings in hardware you spend even less.

      • li10@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, Lemmy loves to talk about how this won’t work and they’ve moved to Plex, but overall it’s been working great for Netflix.

        Eventually the bubble will burst and people will start to drop Netflix, but that’s a way off.

        • Kichae@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days ago

          The price is still elastic because many people have another streaming service they can drop. But as they all raise prices, they’ll all be whittled down to just one. And then possibly none.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 days ago

      About once a year, we get a Netflix subscription for about two months. Catch up on everything we want to watch, then cancel it.

      After 6 months, Netflix forgets about you. Does that mean we count as a new subscriber every year? How many people like us are inflating their new subscriber number?

      • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Obviously Netfilx wants to tell the stock holders how many “new subscribers” they have every quarter. Nobody stopped to think what those numbers actually mean.