My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
There is such an plan. It's the "Basic". Only allow for 1 stream at a time. "Standard" allows 2 streams at a time and "Premium" allows 4 streams at a time. And they are all priced accordingly. But no HD with the Basic. (At least the last time I checked.)
This still doesn't address sharing an account, as some can still use the same account in a different household, just not at the same time.
BTW- a "household' as defined by Netflix is ...... all persons living under one roof, using the same IP address to access Netflix. It doesn't matter the relationships between all the persons. IT IS NOT defined as ........ all the members a family, no matter where they are living.
Netflix only track the IP address for devices like a TV. They do not track the IP address of mobile devices as they know mobile device moves around.(Though Netflix do know the IP address being used.) So all one would have to do to share an account is to access the account on a mobile device. This is why Netflix do not support AirPlay on Apple devices nor Lightning to HDMI adapters to stream to a TV. (I think Netflix works with a USB C to HDMI on Android devices. But not sure if you get full resolution on the TV.) But one can stream Netflix from a laptop (or computer) to a TV, using the an HDMI cable and/of adapter from the laptop (computer). Even on a Mac. It still counts as a stream.
Assume this will be based on IP addresses? My daughter is in another state and is sharing our family account. I’ll be moderately annoyed if we have to pay extra for her.
Netflix does not have a family account plan. Are you self-labeling your Netflix account as a "family" account?
The fact that you can create multiple profiles and can have concurrent streams does suggest that it is a family account.
Assume this will be based on IP addresses? My daughter is in another state and is sharing our family account. I’ll be moderately annoyed if we have to pay extra for her.
Netflix does not have a family account plan. Are you self-labeling your Netflix account as a "family" account?
The fact that you can create multiple profiles and can have concurrent streams does suggest that it is a family account.
No, 3 college roommates living together can each create profile in one "household" account. (5 profiles is the limit on each account and none of the profiles have to be of persons that are related.) Most do not consider 3 roommates, a "family". Not even the US Census. A "family" are persons that are related by marriage or blood. But the 3 roommates are consider a "household", since they are all living under one roof.
One can have 2 "families" living in 1 "household". Under Netflix, all the members of both families, can share one account (and create the max of 5 profiles). So long as they are all watching on a TV that is in the same household as the account holder.
A son in college and living elsewhere is still a member of your family but no longer part of your household. But he can use your account when he's visiting and while staying in your house. The same is true if you have a friend that lives in another State and is staying with you when in town. He (and his family) can watch Netflix in your home, using your account.
It's not the sharing of 1 account, between members of the same "family" or "household" that matters, it's the sharing of one account between people in different "households" that matters. Even if the people living in the different "households", are "family" of the account holder.
In actuality, with Netflix, you are not suppose use your Netflix account outside your household, unless it's on a mobile device or computer. But Netflix don't seem to mind, so long as it's not happening consistently and specially if it's not happening consistently with a concurrent stream at home.
Step 1: Let the account owner know when someone hacks your account and is streaming for free!!!! This would appear as account sharing but is not. I did not even know someone was streaming on my account until I streamed the next day and the language was changed and several user types were added! There is no way I found to track this or lock it down.
It just came to me on how this might have happened and it might have been your fault (or the fault of the person you might have been sharing your account with).
I have bought many used BluRay players from Goodwill and the Salvation Army. And with more than a few of them, it was still logged into Netflix, when accessing Netflix on the player. Many owners that use the Netflix app on a BluRay player do not realize the BluRay player retain the log in (even after being disconnected). This way one don't have to log in every time. This is also true with smart DVD players, smart TVs, along with external TV boxes. Any device one can use to log on to Netflix. It seems most of the time, one has to reset the device back to "Factory" to get rid of this feature. And if you're lucky, it's some where in the "settings" menu. Otherwise it's some not so intuitive method like holding the power button down while pressing the play button 3 times or pressing two of the buttons while power on the device or unplugging the device and holding the power button down while plugging in the device.
So if you or some one to were sharing your account with, donated such a device without resetting it to "Factory", then that might have been how some one "hacked" into your Netflix account. But they still can't change the password, unless they know the password. Which is why you can change the password and force the device to log off. This way it takes the new password to log back on.
Netflix and others need to come up with a scheme similar to the legacy newspapers online access: create a limited number of free connections with a discount for new accounts and a reward for the account sharing the info.
I know there will be a lot of whining about this plan. But Netflix (and eventually others) have to do this. Too many are sharing with others outside of their households. Had a cousin that shared the account with her daughters when they went off to school. Who shared it with their friends and/or S/Os. My cousin wound up locked out of her own account. She had to call CS, reset the password and won't share her account with anyone now that the daughters have moved out.
Long live OTA & Freevo
I remember when the huge fights were against time shifting. Now streaming platforms are trying to fight location shifting.
Family units are fluid & (see: US divorce rate over past 50-60 years) locationally complex. If i am paying for a certain number of concurrent uses, eff off Netflix about trying to define my family structure & location.
My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
...
Charge each user of a stream. If your account has four streams you pay four times $X then who cares who is using them. Fifth person tries to sign on, they can't. One price per stream.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats. The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
Like I said when they raised the subscription price yet again, Netflix is playing chicken with subscribers to see how far they can push it before they lose customers. I’m never supportive of scammers and freeloaders but the fact is that Netflix allowed and implicitly encouraged account sharing (probably to boost market share) put themselves in an awkward position. It created an implicit contract that they are now reneging on after seeing the impact it was having on their bottom line.
At the end of the day, nobody truly “needs” Netflix. It’s a discretionary purchase and one that can easily be put aside entirely or replaced with another brand of discretionary service that provides similar mental and emotional stimulation. Nothing to lose a minute of sleep about or, god forbid, whip out the victim card. It’s simply not that important.
My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
...
Charge each user of a stream. If your account has four streams you pay four times $X then who cares who is using them. Fifth person tries to sign on, they can't. One price per stream.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats. The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
That' not right. When you rent 1 car, all your passengers have to go where you go. And in most cases, only you can drive the car, unless you pay extra for another driver. But there is still only 1 car. That's would be like having 1 stream and all your guest sitting on the sofa in front of the TV, have to watch what you watch and someone else can only watch what they want to watch, after you're done.
But if you pay for 2 streams, someone on the sofa (like your son) that don't like want you're watching, can go watch something else in another room that have a TV. Or go to a friends home and watch something else on a mobile device or computer logged on to your account. What your son is not suppose to do, is log on to his friend's TV, with your account.
Paying for 2 streams would be like you renting 2 cars. But when you pay for 2 streams, it's not twice as much. When you rent 2 cars, it would most likely be close to double the cost of renting 1 car. That would be like paying for two 1 stream accounts.
My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
...
Charge each user of a stream. If your account has four streams you pay four times $X then who cares who is using them. Fifth person tries to sign on, they can't. One price per stream.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats. The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
That' not right. When you rent 1 car, all your passengers have to go where you go. And in most cases, only you can drive the car, unless you pay extra for another driver. But there is still only 1 car. That's would be like having 1 stream and all your guest sitting on the sofa in front of the TV, have to watch what you watch and someone else can only watch what they want to watch, after you're done.
But if you pay for 2 streams, someone on the sofa (like your son) that don't like want you're watching, can go watch something else in another room that have a TV. Or go to a friends home and watch something else on a mobile device or computer logged on to your account. What your son is not suppose to do, is log on to his friend's TV, with your account.
Paying for 2 streams would be like you renting 2 cars. But when you pay for 2 streams, it's not twice as much. When you rent 2 cars, it would most likely be close to double the cost of renting 1 car. That would be like paying for two 1 stream accounts.
Yes, the rental car analogy is not 100%...
But, in the end, the passengers' use of the vehicle are not dictated by the rental company, rather the driver (ostensibly the one paying the fee) dictates the use .
I could rent (or lease) one car & utilize it for transportation of all my neighbors & their families. I can meet a portion of their transportation needs with my access to a vehicle.
If it traveled @ the speed of light, i could zip them around to college, vacation trips, a tent in the woods on the Appalachian trail, etc. So yes, there are limitations to an analogy using 100+ year old technology.
Netflix is the one allowing multiple concurrent streams per logged in user. If they switch to a hardline stance of geo-blocking/device blocking, etc. it will be at their own competitive peril.
Assume this will be based on IP addresses? My daughter is in another state and is sharing our family account. I’ll be moderately annoyed if we have to pay extra for her.
Netflix does not have a family account plan. Are you self-labeling your Netflix account as a "family" account?
The fact that you can create multiple profiles and can have concurrent streams does suggest that it is a family account.
No, 3 college roommates living together can each create profile in one "household" account. (5 profiles is the limit on each account and none of the profiles have to be of persons that are related.) Most do not consider 3 roommates, a "family". Not even the US Census. A "family" are persons that are related by marriage or blood. But the 3 roommates are consider a "household", since they are all living under one roof.
One can have 2 "families" living in 1 "household". Under Netflix, all the members of both families, can share one account (and create the max of 5 profiles). So long as they are all watching on a TV that is in the same household as the account holder.
A son in college and living elsewhere is still a member of your family but no longer part of your household. But he can use your account when he's visiting and while staying in your house. The same is true if you have a friend that lives in another State and is staying with you when in town. He (and his family) can watch Netflix in your home, using your account.
It's not the sharing of 1 account, between members of the same "family" or "household" that matters, it's the sharing of one account between people in different "households" that matters. Even if the people living in the different "households", are "family" of the account holder.
In actuality, with Netflix, you are not suppose use your Netflix account outside your household, unless it's on a mobile device or computer. But Netflix don't seem to mind, so long as it's not happening consistently and specially if it's not happening consistently with a concurrent stream at home.
None of that should matter. Their current system pretty tightly limits the number of streams available per account. A single person who buys the premium account in order to access 4K video is also paying for four streams. If there's only one person using that account, Netflix does not rebate the three unused streams. Why should they care where the second, third or fourth stream gets used? It comes with the account. The current system requires very little policing, and doesn't irritate customers. The proposed system will require checking IP addresses, locations, and communicating alerting customers that they're going to charge extra for the kid watching while away at college. Imagine how that's going to be received by a person paying $20/mo. for premium to get 4K, Netflix telling them that while they have three extra streams available but unused, they'll nonetheless have to pony up extra because Megan wants to watch on an AppleTV in her freshman dorm room.
Netflix will find out that they'll make more money leaving things well enough alone while periodically pushing out price increases for all accounts, rather than nickel-and-diming over the sharing of accounts.
Seriously, with the options of only one (SD), two (HD) or four (4K) concurrent streams allowed for any account, how much "loss" could they actually be experiencing? Anyone sharing only as many streams as they have available is only using what they've paid for. Telling those folks they'll now have to cut grandma off or pay extra will cause many to cancel entirely, because no one likes to be told they can't use what they've paid for based on a technicality. Anyone who has shared more credentials than available streams will be bumping up against others using all their streams, and will thus reel those credentials back in. Either way, only the subscribed number of streams is ever played concurrently. If they've shared too much but aren't bumping into others on the over-shared account, those folks definitely aren't using the service enough to warrant paying extra, and will just cancel their subscription altogether, if challenged.
Assume this will be based on IP addresses? My daughter is in another state and is sharing our family account. I’ll be moderately annoyed if we have to pay extra for her.
Netflix does not have a family account plan. Are you self-labeling your Netflix account as a "family" account?
The fact that you can create multiple profiles and can have concurrent streams does suggest that it is a family account.
No, 3 college roommates living together can each create profile in one "household" account. (5 profiles is the limit on each account and none of the profiles have to be of persons that are related.) Most do not consider 3 roommates, a "family". Not even the US Census. A "family" are persons that are related by marriage or blood. But the 3 roommates are consider a "household", since they are all living under one roof.
One can have 2 "families" living in 1 "household". Under Netflix, all the members of both families, can share one account (and create the max of 5 profiles). So long as they are all watching on a TV that is in the same household as the account holder.
A son in college and living elsewhere is still a member of your family but no longer part of your household. But he can use your account when he's visiting and while staying in your house. The same is true if you have a friend that lives in another State and is staying with you when in town. He (and his family) can watch Netflix in your home, using your account.
It's not the sharing of 1 account, between members of the same "family" or "household" that matters, it's the sharing of one account between people in different "households" that matters. Even if the people living in the different "households", are "family" of the account holder.
In actuality, with Netflix, you are not suppose use your Netflix account outside your household, unless it's on a mobile device or computer. But Netflix don't seem to mind, so long as it's not happening consistently and specially if it's not happening consistently with a concurrent stream at home.
None of that should matter. Their current system pretty tightly limits the number of streams available per account. A single person who buys the premium account in order to access 4K video is also paying for four streams. If there's only one person using that account, Netflix does not rebate the three unused streams. Why should they care where the second, third or fourth stream gets used? It comes with the account. The current system requires very little policing, and doesn't irritate customers. The proposed system will require checking IP addresses, locations, and communicating alerting customers that they're going to charge extra for the kid watching while away at college. Imagine how that's going to be received by a person paying $20/mo. for premium to get 4K, Netflix telling them that while they have three extra streams available but unused, they'll nonetheless have to pony up extra because Megan wants to watch on an AppleTV in her freshman dorm room.
Netflix will find out that they'll make more money leaving things well enough alone while periodically pushing out price increases for all accounts, rather than nickel-and-diming over the sharing of accounts.
Seriously, with the options of only one (SD), two (HD) or four (4K) concurrent streams allowed for any account, how much "loss" could they actually be experiencing? Anyone sharing only as many streams as they have available is only using what they've paid for. Telling those folks they'll now have to cut grandma off or pay extra will cause many to cancel entirely, because no one likes to be told they can't use what they've paid for based on a technicality. Anyone who has shared more credentials than available streams will be bumping up against others using all their streams, and will thus reel those credentials back in. Either way, only the subscribed number of streams is ever played concurrently. If they've shared too much but aren't bumping into others on the over-shared account, those folks definitely aren't using the service enough to warrant paying extra, and will just cancel their subscription altogether, if challenged.
It's like this. Do you think it's ok for you to order 1 soda at a fast food diner that offers free refill and split the soda with three friends you're with when you sit down at the table and then go get a free refill? And you get a free refill 3 times during your meal together? You rationalizing .... after all, how much can it possibly cost the fast food diner, it's only soda ..... doesn't make it right. So if every customer started doing this, then the diner will have to raise the cost of soda for everyone, even the customers that don't need a refill or customers that can't get a free refill because they're taking out their order.
For most diners, it's the sale of the high profit margin sodas and fries, that pays for the hamburger. If all the customers only order a hamburger, the diner would lose money. So if your three friends only ordered a hamburger and you paid for the 1 soda with free refill and got enough soda for all your friends, then diner lost money on the burgers they sold to your friends.
Here's where Netflix will lose more money than you think. Suppose with a $20 premium account with 4 4K stream, 4 different households (or friends) got together and split the cost. That comes to $5 per person/ month, for 1 4K stream. How is Netflix suppose to convince customers to pay $9.99 a month for 1 stream at SD? Or even customers to pay $16 a month for 2 HD stream? The customers paying for 2 streams (that only need 1 stream) might as well find some one to split the cost with and only pay $7.50 a month for 1 HD stream. And in reality, when you split the 4 stream or 2 stream account among 4 or 2 people, each of them have the capacity to stream the max of the account. It a depends on how many of the others are streaming at the time.
If too many Netflix customers that are paying for 2 or 4 streams, start sharing their accounts with other households, then the customers that will get screwed are the customers that need 2 or 4 streams. This because the price of 2 or 4 streams will increase due to Netflix losing customers that should be paying for an account. Or Netflix will go a'la carte with streams and video quality and it'll end up costing more for 2 HD streams or 4 4K streams, than when it was bundled. Just like taking advantage of the free soda refill at the diner.
But I do agree that Netflix should offer a 1 stream HD between $10 and $16 and a 2 stream 4K o ar 3 stream HD, between $16 and $20. The Basic 1 SD stream is really meant for mobile. With a mobile device, one don't really notice the difference between SD and HD when watching the movie. But they will notice the amount of data being used to stream the movie and battery life. SD is only .35GB per hour, while HD is .7GB per hour and 4K is 7GB per hour.
Back when unlimited broadband home internet was expensive, I knew two co-workers that were next door neighbors and one of them subscribed to unlimited broadband and then ran an ethernet cable from his router to this co-worker's router next door. Wasn't more than 30 ft. And they then split the cost of the service. Most of the other co-workers thought that was clever. But none of us thought that the internet provider wasn't losing money because the service being paid for was unlimited anyway, so it made no difference.
Now of days, one can easily do this wirelessly. So would you think the internet providers wouldn't be losing much money, if every subscriber starts sharing their accounts with their next door neighbors? Even if one don't have true unlimited data, the standard plan usually comes with 500 GB of data/M, before throttling or extra charges. So your thinking is that if you only need 200GB a month, you're paying for 300GB/M that you are not using, so it should be ok for you to let your neighbor use them up for you, right?. You don't think the internet provider is losing money on this because you could have used up all 500GB, without your provider receiving any more money anyway?.
In San Francisco, every household must pay for garbage pick up service. Two homes next to each other can not share one trash receptacle. Even though the standard trash receptacle is 32gal, if one household of 4 needs 25Gal and next door only have a single person living there and only need 5Gal, they can not share one receptacle and pay for one service pick up between them. The garbage service would lose too much money if they allow households to do this. (Plus the trash company pay off the local politicians, to enforce such a rule.) Even if you rationalize that it's the same amount of garbage, they are driving by every household anyway and they would only need to empty one receptacle instead of two. (There is a senior discount for over 65 but the receptacle is only 15Gal.)
My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
...
Charge each user of a stream. If your account has four streams you pay four times $X then who cares who is using them. Fifth person tries to sign on, they can't. One price per stream.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats. The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
That' not right. When you rent 1 car, all your passengers have to go where you go. And in most cases, only you can drive the car, unless you pay extra for another driver. But there is still only 1 car. That's would be like having 1 stream and all your guest sitting on the sofa in front of the TV, have to watch what you watch and someone else can only watch what they want to watch, after you're done.
But if you pay for 2 streams, someone on the sofa (like your son) that don't like want you're watching, can go watch something else in another room that have a TV. Or go to a friends home and watch something else on a mobile device or computer logged on to your account. What your son is not suppose to do, is log on to his friend's TV, with your account.
Paying for 2 streams would be like you renting 2 cars. But when you pay for 2 streams, it's not twice as much. When you rent 2 cars, it would most likely be close to double the cost of renting 1 car. That would be like paying for two 1 stream accounts.
Yes, the rental car analogy is not 100%...
But, in the end, the passengers' use of the vehicle are not dictated by the rental company, rather the driver (ostensibly the one paying the fee) dictates the use .
I could rent (or lease) one car & utilize it for transportation of all my neighbors & their families. I can meet a portion of their transportation needs with my access to a vehicle.
If it traveled @ the speed of light, i could zip them around to college, vacation trips, a tent in the woods on the Appalachian trail, etc. So yes, there are limitations to an analogy using 100+ year old technology.
Netflix is the one allowing multiple concurrent streams per logged in user. If they switch to a hardline stance of geo-blocking/device blocking, etc. it will be at their own competitive peril.
That's still not quite right. If the car rental agency say that you can't drive the rental car into Mexico without additional insurance, then you can't drive the rental car into Mexico without paying for the extra insurance, even if you are covered by your own auto insurance. With most rental cars, only the person renting the car can drive it. Unless one pays extra for another driver or at the least, any other drivers must be named on the rental agreement, before you signed it. If your next door neighbor is not on the rental agreement, you can not let him/her drive the rental car and not even allow him/her to drive it with you as a passenger.
There are rules that must be followed when you rent a car and you agreed to those rules when you signed the agreement (lease). No different than the rules Netflix subscribers must follow, that they agreed to them when they open an account. It doesn't mean that you have to always follow those rules and you might get away with it when you don't, but you can't complain if you get caught. The rules are based on how Netflix interprets them. Not how you think it aught to be.
Assume this will be based on IP addresses? My daughter is in another state and is sharing our family account. I’ll be moderately annoyed if we have to pay extra for her.
Netflix does not have a family account plan. Are you self-labeling your Netflix account as a "family" account?
The fact that you can create multiple profiles and can have concurrent streams does suggest that it is a family account.
No, 3 college roommates living together can each create profile in one "household" account. (5 profiles is the limit on each account and none of the profiles have to be of persons that are related.) Most do not consider 3 roommates, a "family". Not even the US Census. A "family" are persons that are related by marriage or blood. But the 3 roommates are consider a "household", since they are all living under one roof.
One can have 2 "families" living in 1 "household". Under Netflix, all the members of both families, can share one account (and create the max of 5 profiles). So long as they are all watching on a TV that is in the same household as the account holder.
A son in college and living elsewhere is still a member of your family but no longer part of your household. But he can use your account when he's visiting and while staying in your house. The same is true if you have a friend that lives in another State and is staying with you when in town. He (and his family) can watch Netflix in your home, using your account.
It's not the sharing of 1 account, between members of the same "family" or "household" that matters, it's the sharing of one account between people in different "households" that matters. Even if the people living in the different "households", are "family" of the account holder.
In actuality, with Netflix, you are not suppose use your Netflix account outside your household, unless it's on a mobile device or computer. But Netflix don't seem to mind, so long as it's not happening consistently and specially if it's not happening consistently with a concurrent stream at home.
None of that should matter. Their current system pretty tightly limits the number of streams available per account. A single person who buys the premium account in order to access 4K video is also paying for four streams. If there's only one person using that account, Netflix does not rebate the three unused streams. Why should they care where the second, third or fourth stream gets used? It comes with the account. The current system requires very little policing, and doesn't irritate customers. The proposed system will require checking IP addresses, locations, and communicating alerting customers that they're going to charge extra for the kid watching while away at college. Imagine how that's going to be received by a person paying $20/mo. for premium to get 4K, Netflix telling them that while they have three extra streams available but unused, they'll nonetheless have to pony up extra because Megan wants to watch on an AppleTV in her freshman dorm room.
Netflix will find out that they'll make more money leaving things well enough alone while periodically pushing out price increases for all accounts, rather than nickel-and-diming over the sharing of accounts.
Seriously, with the options of only one (SD), two (HD) or four (4K) concurrent streams allowed for any account, how much "loss" could they actually be experiencing? Anyone sharing only as many streams as they have available is only using what they've paid for. Telling those folks they'll now have to cut grandma off or pay extra will cause many to cancel entirely, because no one likes to be told they can't use what they've paid for based on a technicality. Anyone who has shared more credentials than available streams will be bumping up against others using all their streams, and will thus reel those credentials back in. Either way, only the subscribed number of streams is ever played concurrently. If they've shared too much but aren't bumping into others on the over-shared account, those folks definitely aren't using the service enough to warrant paying extra, and will just cancel their subscription altogether, if challenged.
It's like this. Do you think it's ok for you to order 1 soda at a fast food diner that offers free refill and split the soda with three friends you're with when you sit down at the table and then go get a free refill? And you get a free refill 3 times during your meal together? ...
That'a not the right comparison. You're buying into the false premise that this is an "unlimited buffet," and I'm cheating by paying for one person and then giving away food that I didn't pay for by inviting several others to grab a plate. That's not what this is at all.
The better analogy is this: The fast food diner menu offers a single, plain hamburger for $5, two cheeseburgers for $10 or four cheeseburger meals with fries and drinks for $20. Anyone who wants the full meal has to pay $20 for four of them. You, your lovely spouse and two delightful kids come in, you order the $20 package to go and everything's great. You pay the $20, no questions asked.
Next, I come in with my lovely spouse and my cousin Eddie. I order the exact same $20 deal, hand over a $20-bill, and say, "four cheeseburger-fries-and-a-drink meals, please."
The casher stops me, points at Eddie and says, "Wait a minute. Who's that guy?"
"That's Eddie," I reply.
"Does he live with you?"
"Absolutely not," I say. "He lives in an RV parked in the driveway. I wish he didn't."
The cashier frowns. "Who's that?"
"That's my spouse," I say, wondering what this is all about.
The cashier leans forward on the counter, her eyes narrowing. "Who's the fourth meal for? Where does that person live?"
"It's for my mother-in-law. She lives in the house next door, which is more than close enough. What's this all about?"
The cashier leans back, crosses her arms confidently, and says, "No, this isn't going to work. You can't use the four-meals-for-$20 deal for all these people." She grins, knowingly. "Because of your living arrangements, I could charge $20 for you and your spouse, and then get $20 each from your mother-in-law and Eddie over there, if everybody wants a cheeseburger, fries and a drink. But I'll be nice and make you a deal."
The cashier is still grinning, but her eyes don't look very nice at all. "Here's what I'll do. Instead of charging $60 for what is clearly threehouseholds, I'll charge you the $20 for you and your spouse, plus $5 each for the other two, as add-ons. At only $30, that's half price! Plus, if those two came in and paid $5 separately, all they'd get is a plain hamburger. I'm being very generous, don't you think?"
"No, I don't think so," I say, to round out this little parable. "The full price you referenced would be $60 for a dozen cheeseburger meals, only in our situation, you'd keep eight of the meals we paid for and could sell them to someone else for even more money. You're offering me, because you asked questions that are none of your business, 'half price' of $30, but you're still keeping two cheeseburger meals, and we still leave with only four. For $30. The last group paid $20 and got four full meals for it. Charging me $10 extra for the same thing is not being 'very generous.' If I want the full cheeseburger-fries-and-a-drink meal for the spouse and myself, you charge a flat $20 for four of them. I should be able to take all four and give the other two meals to whoever I want."
So I canceled my order and we left, and the fast food diner lost $20 because they greedily thought that by pretending that something is a buffet when it really isn't, they could've made $60 for $20-worth of food.
My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.
Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.
...
Charge each user of a stream. If your account has four streams you pay four times $X then who cares who is using them. Fifth person tries to sign on, they can't. One price per stream.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats. The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
That' not right. When you rent 1 car, all your passengers have to go where you go. And in most cases, only you can drive the car, unless you pay extra for another driver. But there is still only 1 car. That's would be like having 1 stream and all your guest sitting on the sofa in front of the TV, have to watch what you watch and someone else can only watch what they want to watch, after you're done.
But if you pay for 2 streams, someone on the sofa (like your son) that don't like want you're watching, can go watch something else in another room that have a TV. Or go to a friends home and watch something else on a mobile device or computer logged on to your account. What your son is not suppose to do, is log on to his friend's TV, with your account.
Paying for 2 streams would be like you renting 2 cars. But when you pay for 2 streams, it's not twice as much. When you rent 2 cars, it would most likely be close to double the cost of renting 1 car. That would be like paying for two 1 stream accounts.
Yes, the rental car analogy is not 100%...
But, in the end, the passengers' use of the vehicle are not dictated by the rental company, rather the driver (ostensibly the one paying the fee) dictates the use .
I could rent (or lease) one car & utilize it for transportation of all my neighbors & their families. I can meet a portion of their transportation needs with my access to a vehicle.
If it traveled @ the speed of light, i could zip them around to college, vacation trips, a tent in the woods on the Appalachian trail, etc. So yes, there are limitations to an analogy using 100+ year old technology.
Netflix is the one allowing multiple concurrent streams per logged in user. If they switch to a hardline stance of geo-blocking/device blocking, etc. it will be at their own competitive peril.
That's still not quite right. If the car rental agency say that you can't drive the rental car into Mexico without additional insurance, then you can't drive the rental car into Mexico without paying for the extra insurance, even if you are covered by your own auto insurance. With most rental cars, only the person renting the car can drive it. Unless one pays extra for another driver or at the least, any other drivers must be named on the rental agreement, before you signed it. If your next door neighbor is not on the rental agreement, you can not let him/her drive the rental car and not even allow him/her to drive it with you as a passenger.
There are rules that must be followed when you rent a car and you agreed to those rules when you signed the agreement (lease). No different than the rules Netflix subscribers must follow, that they agreed to them when they open an account. It doesn't mean that you have to always follow those rules and you might get away with it when you don't, but you can't complain if you get caught. The rules are based on how Netflix interprets them. Not how you think it aught to be.
Fine. I will leave it at the simple root of the issue.
I am paying for 3 concurrent streams Netflix telling me i cannot utilize all of them. Period.
I don't think this could help Netflix because most people use the accounts by sharing. If they remove other person's access then people will move to pirated sites because they don't want to spend their money directly on Netflix. If this happens then maybe Netflix face a critical loss due to lack of users. But they should take action to those who use VPN or hack the profiles.
Comments
There is such an plan. It's the "Basic". Only allow for 1 stream at a time. "Standard" allows 2 streams at a time and "Premium" allows 4 streams at a time. And they are all priced accordingly. But no HD with the Basic. (At least the last time I checked.)
This still doesn't address sharing an account, as some can still use the same account in a different household, just not at the same time.
BTW- a "household' as defined by Netflix is ...... all persons living under one roof, using the same IP address to access Netflix. It doesn't matter the relationships between all the persons. IT IS NOT defined as ........ all the members a family, no matter where they are living.
Netflix only track the IP address for devices like a TV. They do not track the IP address of mobile devices as they know mobile device moves around.(Though Netflix do know the IP address being used.) So all one would have to do to share an account is to access the account on a mobile device. This is why Netflix do not support AirPlay on Apple devices nor Lightning to HDMI adapters to stream to a TV. (I think Netflix works with a USB C to HDMI on Android devices. But not sure if you get full resolution on the TV.) But one can stream Netflix from a laptop (or computer) to a TV, using the an HDMI cable and/of adapter from the laptop (computer). Even on a Mac. It still counts as a stream.
One can have 2 "families" living in 1 "household". Under Netflix, all the members of both families, can share one account (and create the max of 5 profiles). So long as they are all watching on a TV that is in the same household as the account holder.
A son in college and living elsewhere is still a member of your family but no longer part of your household. But he can use your account when he's visiting and while staying in your house. The same is true if you have a friend that lives in another State and is staying with you when in town. He (and his family) can watch Netflix in your home, using your account.
It's not the sharing of 1 account, between members of the same "family" or "household" that matters, it's the sharing of one account between people in different "households" that matters. Even if the people living in the different "households", are "family" of the account holder.
In actuality, with Netflix, you are not suppose use your Netflix account outside your household, unless it's on a mobile device or computer. But Netflix don't seem to mind, so long as it's not happening consistently and specially if it's not happening consistently with a concurrent stream at home.
I have bought many used BluRay players from Goodwill and the Salvation Army. And with more than a few of them, it was still logged into Netflix, when accessing Netflix on the player. Many owners that use the Netflix app on a BluRay player do not realize the BluRay player retain the log in (even after being disconnected). This way one don't have to log in every time. This is also true with smart DVD players, smart TVs, along with external TV boxes. Any device one can use to log on to Netflix. It seems most of the time, one has to reset the device back to "Factory" to get rid of this feature. And if you're lucky, it's some where in the "settings" menu. Otherwise it's some not so intuitive method like holding the power button down while pressing the play button 3 times or pressing two of the buttons while power on the device or unplugging the device and holding the power button down while plugging in the device.
So if you or some one to were sharing your account with, donated such a device without resetting it to "Factory", then that might have been how some one "hacked" into your Netflix account. But they still can't change the password, unless they know the password. Which is why you can change the password and force the device to log off. This way it takes the new password to log back on.
Long live OTA & Freevo
I remember when the huge fights were against time shifting.
Now streaming platforms are trying to fight location shifting.
Family units are fluid & (see: US divorce rate over past 50-60 years) locationally complex.
If i am paying for a certain number of concurrent uses, eff off Netflix about trying to define my family structure & location.
This is, in fact, how Netflix charges - an amount of $$ per month gets you a certain number of simultaneous streams @ a certain quality level.
Why does Netflix need to make themselves the arbiter of family & existence locations as well?
I rent a car with 4 passenger seats.
The rental car company doesn't dictate to me who is allowed to sit in them.
At the end of the day, nobody truly “needs” Netflix. It’s a discretionary purchase and one that can easily be put aside entirely or replaced with another brand of discretionary service that provides similar mental and emotional stimulation. Nothing to lose a minute of sleep about or, god forbid, whip out the victim card. It’s simply not that important.
But if you pay for 2 streams, someone on the sofa (like your son) that don't like want you're watching, can go watch something else in another room that have a TV. Or go to a friends home and watch something else on a mobile device or computer logged on to your account. What your son is not suppose to do, is log on to his friend's TV, with your account.
Paying for 2 streams would be like you renting 2 cars. But when you pay for 2 streams, it's not twice as much. When you rent 2 cars, it would most likely be close to double the cost of renting 1 car. That would be like paying for two 1 stream accounts.
Yes, the rental car analogy is not 100%...
But, in the end, the passengers' use of the vehicle are not dictated by the rental company, rather the driver (ostensibly the one paying the fee) dictates the use .
I could rent (or lease) one car & utilize it for transportation of all my neighbors & their families.
I can meet a portion of their transportation needs with my access to a vehicle.
If it traveled @ the speed of light, i could zip them around to college, vacation trips, a tent in the woods on the Appalachian trail, etc.
So yes, there are limitations to an analogy using 100+ year old technology.
Netflix is the one allowing multiple concurrent streams per logged in user.
If they switch to a hardline stance of geo-blocking/device blocking, etc. it will be at their own competitive peril.
Netflix will find out that they'll make more money leaving things well enough alone while periodically pushing out price increases for all accounts, rather than nickel-and-diming over the sharing of accounts.
Seriously, with the options of only one (SD), two (HD) or four (4K) concurrent streams allowed for any account, how much "loss" could they actually be experiencing? Anyone sharing only as many streams as they have available is only using what they've paid for. Telling those folks they'll now have to cut grandma off or pay extra will cause many to cancel entirely, because no one likes to be told they can't use what they've paid for based on a technicality. Anyone who has shared more credentials than available streams will be bumping up against others using all their streams, and will thus reel those credentials back in. Either way, only the subscribed number of streams is ever played concurrently. If they've shared too much but aren't bumping into others on the over-shared account, those folks definitely aren't using the service enough to warrant paying extra, and will just cancel their subscription altogether, if challenged.
For most diners, it's the sale of the high profit margin sodas and fries, that pays for the hamburger. If all the customers only order a hamburger, the diner would lose money. So if your three friends only ordered a hamburger and you paid for the 1 soda with free refill and got enough soda for all your friends, then diner lost money on the burgers they sold to your friends.
Here's where Netflix will lose more money than you think. Suppose with a $20 premium account with 4 4K stream, 4 different households (or friends) got together and split the cost. That comes to $5 per person/ month, for 1 4K stream. How is Netflix suppose to convince customers to pay $9.99 a month for 1 stream at SD? Or even customers to pay $16 a month for 2 HD stream? The customers paying for 2 streams (that only need 1 stream) might as well find some one to split the cost with and only pay $7.50 a month for 1 HD stream. And in reality, when you split the 4 stream or 2 stream account among 4 or 2 people, each of them have the capacity to stream the max of the account. It a depends on how many of the others are streaming at the time.
If too many Netflix customers that are paying for 2 or 4 streams, start sharing their accounts with other households, then the customers that will get screwed are the customers that need 2 or 4 streams. This because the price of 2 or 4 streams will increase due to Netflix losing customers that should be paying for an account. Or Netflix will go a'la carte with streams and video quality and it'll end up costing more for 2 HD streams or 4 4K streams, than when it was bundled. Just like taking advantage of the free soda refill at the diner.
But I do agree that Netflix should offer a 1 stream HD between $10 and $16 and a 2 stream 4K o ar 3 stream HD, between $16 and $20. The Basic 1 SD stream is really meant for mobile. With a mobile device, one don't really notice the difference between SD and HD when watching the movie. But they will notice the amount of data being used to stream the movie and battery life. SD is only .35GB per hour, while HD is .7GB per hour and 4K is 7GB per hour.
Back when unlimited broadband home internet was expensive, I knew two co-workers that were next door neighbors and one of them subscribed to unlimited broadband and then ran an ethernet cable from his router to this co-worker's router next door. Wasn't more than 30 ft. And they then split the cost of the service. Most of the other co-workers thought that was clever. But none of us thought that the internet provider wasn't losing money because the service being paid for was unlimited anyway, so it made no difference.
Now of days, one can easily do this wirelessly. So would you think the internet providers wouldn't be losing much money, if every subscriber starts sharing their accounts with their next door neighbors? Even if one don't have true unlimited data, the standard plan usually comes with 500 GB of data/M, before throttling or extra charges. So your thinking is that if you only need 200GB a month, you're paying for 300GB/M that you are not using, so it should be ok for you to let your neighbor use them up for you, right?. You don't think the internet provider is losing money on this because you could have used up all 500GB, without your provider receiving any more money anyway?.
In San Francisco, every household must pay for garbage pick up service. Two homes next to each other can not share one trash receptacle. Even though the standard trash receptacle is 32gal, if one household of 4 needs 25Gal and next door only have a single person living there and only need 5Gal, they can not share one receptacle and pay for one service pick up between them. The garbage service would lose too much money if they allow households to do this. (Plus the trash company pay off the local politicians, to enforce such a rule.) Even if you rationalize that it's the same amount of garbage, they are driving by every household anyway and they would only need to empty one receptacle instead of two. (There is a senior discount for over 65 but the receptacle is only 15Gal.)
Then you have this ....
https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130872&page=1
There are rules that must be followed when you rent a car and you agreed to those rules when you signed the agreement (lease). No different than the rules Netflix subscribers must follow, that they agreed to them when they open an account. It doesn't mean that you have to always follow those rules and you might get away with it when you don't, but you can't complain if you get caught. The rules are based on how Netflix interprets them. Not how you think it aught to be.
The better analogy is this: The fast food diner menu offers a single, plain hamburger for $5, two cheeseburgers for $10 or four cheeseburger meals with fries and drinks for $20. Anyone who wants the full meal has to pay $20 for four of them. You, your lovely spouse and two delightful kids come in, you order the $20 package to go and everything's great. You pay the $20, no questions asked.
Next, I come in with my lovely spouse and my cousin Eddie. I order the exact same $20 deal, hand over a $20-bill, and say, "four cheeseburger-fries-and-a-drink meals, please."
The casher stops me, points at Eddie and says, "Wait a minute. Who's that guy?"
"That's Eddie," I reply.
"Does he live with you?"
"Absolutely not," I say. "He lives in an RV parked in the driveway. I wish he didn't."
The cashier frowns. "Who's that?"
"That's my spouse," I say, wondering what this is all about.
The cashier leans forward on the counter, her eyes narrowing. "Who's the fourth meal for? Where does that person live?"
"It's for my mother-in-law. She lives in the house next door, which is more than close enough. What's this all about?"
The cashier leans back, crosses her arms confidently, and says, "No, this isn't going to work. You can't use the four-meals-for-$20 deal for all these people." She grins, knowingly. "Because of your living arrangements, I could charge $20 for you and your spouse, and then get $20 each from your mother-in-law and Eddie over there, if everybody wants a cheeseburger, fries and a drink. But I'll be nice and make you a deal."
The cashier is still grinning, but her eyes don't look very nice at all. "Here's what I'll do. Instead of charging $60 for what is clearly three households, I'll charge you the $20 for you and your spouse, plus $5 each for the other two, as add-ons. At only $30, that's half price! Plus, if those two came in and paid $5 separately, all they'd get is a plain hamburger. I'm being very generous, don't you think?"
"No, I don't think so," I say, to round out this little parable. "The full price you referenced would be $60 for a dozen cheeseburger meals, only in our situation, you'd keep eight of the meals we paid for and could sell them to someone else for even more money. You're offering me, because you asked questions that are none of your business, 'half price' of $30, but you're still keeping two cheeseburger meals, and we still leave with only four. For $30. The last group paid $20 and got four full meals for it. Charging me $10 extra for the same thing is not being 'very generous.' If I want the full cheeseburger-fries-and-a-drink meal for the spouse and myself, you charge a flat $20 for four of them. I should be able to take all four and give the other two meals to whoever I want."
So I canceled my order and we left, and the fast food diner lost $20 because they greedily thought that by pretending that something is a buffet when it really isn't, they could've made $60 for $20-worth of food.
Fine.
I will leave it at the simple root of the issue.
I am paying for 3 concurrent streams
Netflix telling me i cannot utilize all of them.
Period.