Netflix says strict new password sharing rules were posted in error

Posted:
in General Discussion
New Netflix rules that would have enforced a limitation on users' sharing passwords are reportedly a mistake and don't apply in the US -- for now.

Netflix logo
Netflix logo


Netflix has long been planning to cut down on password sharing, or letting friends share one paid account. It already added a feature where subscribers could effective eject other people from their account.

The company appeared to go further, however, with the inclusion in its help pages of a new set of rules.

Broadly, anyone at a subscriber's physical address could continue using the service. But the paying subscriber would have to confirm every 31 days that a user away from their residence -- such as at college -- was part of the household.

Now, however, those rules have been removed from Netflix's help pages. According to The Streamable, Netflix says it was all a mistake -- for the United States.

"For a brief time yesterday, a help center article containing information that is only applicable to Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru, went live in other countries," a Netflix spokesperson told the publication. "We have since updated it."

So these rules are in place, just in those countries. But Netflix estimates that 100 million users are not paying, and it is also losing subscribers, to the tune of 200,000 in just the first quarter of 2022.

Consequently, Netflix has said it will end password sharing in early 2023. So whether this was a mistake or it was some test of public response, these rules or similar ones are likely to be coming soon.

Separately, as another part of attempting to stem the loss to non-paying subscribers, Netflix launched a new, lower-cost $6.99/month Basic tier with adverts, in November 2022.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    A lot of these high-profile ‘mistakes’ lately. First PayPal, now this.
    I wonder - if like PayPal - they’ll just stuff it back in once the public excitement dies down?
    MasterBathingBearwatto_cobraJaiOh81
  • Reply 2 of 16
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Any idea how Netflix intend to enforce strict password not sharing policy ? People have many devices that they use for Netflix streaming and expect to work when the device is used remote location or on the go ?
    watto_cobraFileMakerFellerCluntBaby92JaiOh81
  • Reply 3 of 16
    "In error" is the new beta testing of potentially bad ideas that then soon morph into gaslighting the slightly less bad idea that's still terrible.
    MasterBathingBearwatto_cobracgWerksFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 4 of 16
    It’s funny how Apple and Google are evil for charging for their hosting the App Store and building a huge worldwide network to support it, from which many developers who complain about it became millionaires, yet streamers charging 5-15 dollars a month for their service and taking a cut of the profits from the film makers is perfectly fine.  
    Madbumwatto_cobraFileMakerFellerchiazeus423JanNLCluntBaby92
  • Reply 5 of 16
    ... it seems pretty simple to me - until granular 4K pricing options per user (4 minimum here) is offered at a price that is rational for such is the issue for Netflix simply structural and incentivizing sharing to the user 'capacity' being paid for ... ?
    edited February 2023
  • Reply 6 of 16
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    The practice of charging a premium for screen resolution is outdated. The fact that that is packaged with the only real multiple-user option is ultimately what's causing Netflix their problems. Most new TVs are 4K UHD devices. A major content provider shouldn't be charging a premium just to get full-resolution content for a 'normal' TV. 

    So given the obnoxiousness of paying extra just to get the full- technical quality content considered routine by every other streaming provider, it adds insult to injury that they want to restrict who can use the three extra streams included in the package-deal subscription price. 

    Netflix could solve their problems by including 4K UHD at all levels, and price their subscription tiers purely based on number of simultaneous streams allowed, without regard to where those streams are accessed. 

    What will it cost them in labor and operational expenses, along with public ill-will, just for them to police who gets to use the extra streams in the 4K UHD tier? Why should it matter whether it's someone in the same physical house, a kid at college, a mother-in-law down the road, or a sub-let to a friend who wants to split the cost?
    williamlondonwatto_cobrah2pFileMakerFellerchiaCluntBaby92OferStrangeDays
  • Reply 7 of 16
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    BirderGuy said:
    It’s funny how Apple and Google are evil for charging for their hosting the App Store and building a huge worldwide network to support it, from which many developers who complain about it became millionaires, yet streamers charging 5-15 dollars a month for their service and taking a cut of the profits from the film makers is perfectly fine.  
    Exactly. But you are assuming our politicians have working brains 
    williamlondonwatto_cobraFileMakerFellerzeus423CluntBaby92
  • Reply 8 of 16
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,804member
    Spotify and Netflix will never be profitable in any significant way. However, the managers who run the company will get rich. The financial wizards will in the future make a suggestion that Apple should bail out one or both.
    edited February 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 16
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    They must have more data than just username/password and IP address. It seems like they’d have some kind of device info, and likely a bunch of other data. Couldn’t the actual app even generate some kind of unique ID?

    A simple solution would just be to have a base price, and then charge a bit more for each additional ‘viewer’ added to the plan. Then whatever that number is, is the max simultaneous streams associated with that account. Who cares where they are or who they are? They could all be at the same house, or each in a different city. A family of 5 could pick a 3x subscription, and maybe they’d be fine if all 5 couldn’t be on at once, while another family would buy 5x.

    Are they just making this way too hard?
    FileMakerFellerroundaboutnowmuthuk_vanalingamCluntBaby92
  • Reply 10 of 16
    Translation: Coming soon to an America near you. 
    zeus423cgWerksCluntBaby92
  • Reply 11 of 16
    wood1208 said:
    Any idea how Netflix intend to enforce strict password not sharing policy ? People have many devices that they use for Netflix streaming and expect to work when the device is used remote location or on the go ?
    From what I understood, when it detects you signed in from a new IP address it will send you an OTP that you have to enter in, much like two-factory authentication.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    doggonedoggone Posts: 377member
    Two factor verification is reasonable. Other services do that.  Since Netflix allows multiple users then there will need to be the option to provide the mobile # of every user.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    OferOfer Posts: 237unconfirmed, member
    AppleZulu said:
    The practice of charging a premium for screen resolution is outdated. The fact that that is packaged with the only real multiple-user option is ultimately what's causing Netflix their problems. Most new TVs are 4K UHD devices. A major content provider shouldn't be charging a premium just to get full-resolution content for a 'normal' TV. 

    So given the obnoxiousness of paying extra just to get the full- technical quality content considered routine by every other streaming provider, it adds insult to injury that they want to restrict who can use the three extra streams included in the package-deal subscription price. 

    Netflix could solve their problems by including 4K UHD at all levels, and price their subscription tiers purely based on number of simultaneous streams allowed, without regard to where those streams are accessed. 

    What will it cost them in labor and operational expenses, along with public ill-will, just for them to police who gets to use the extra streams in the 4K UHD tier? Why should it matter whether it's someone in the same physical house, a kid at college, a mother-in-law down the road, or a sub-let to a friend who wants to split the cost?
    Well-said! Agree 100% on all of this!
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 14 of 16
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    AppleZulu said:
    The practice of charging a premium for screen resolution is outdated. The fact that that is packaged with the only real multiple-user option is ultimately what's causing Netflix their problems. Most new TVs are 4K UHD devices. A major content provider shouldn't be charging a premium just to get full-resolution content for a 'normal' TV. 

    So given the obnoxiousness of paying extra just to get the full- technical quality content considered routine by every other streaming provider, it adds insult to injury that they want to restrict who can use the three extra streams included in the package-deal subscription price. 

    Netflix could solve their problems by including 4K UHD at all levels, and price their subscription tiers purely based on number of simultaneous streams allowed, without regard to where those streams are accessed. 

    What will it cost them in labor and operational expenses, along with public ill-will, just for them to police who gets to use the extra streams in the 4K UHD tier? Why should it matter whether it's someone in the same physical house, a kid at college, a mother-in-law down the road, or a sub-let to a friend who wants to split the cost?
    These sound like some great ideas for an entrepreneur to start a new video streaming business. But until someone steps up and creates such a business that follows your or anyone else’s logic we’re left with a choice of whether to stick with Netflix’s business as is and follow their rules and terms of service or institute Plan B, kick them to the curb.

    It’s their business and they own it. What they should or shouldn’t be doing is entirely their choice. We can make suggestions to Netflix just like can make suggestions to our neighbors on how they should raise their kids. Good luck with that. Neither of them are in any way obliged to listen to any of what we suggest.

    I too find it disingenuous that Netflix implicitly encouraged account sharing to build their subscriber numbers and company value and later reneged on the practice. Maybe there’s a legal way like a class action to force them to grandfather in free sharing for those who signed up for Netflix during Netflix’s “permissive” period of time? But trying to tell them how to run their business is a dead end strategy unless you’re a stockholder or willing to build your own business to take them down in the competitive marketplace with what you believe is a better alternative. 
  • Reply 15 of 16
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,844member
    AppleZulu said:
    The practice of charging a premium for screen resolution is outdated. The fact that that is packaged with the only real multiple-user option is ultimately what's causing Netflix their problems. Most new TVs are 4K UHD devices. A major content provider shouldn't be charging a premium just to get full-resolution content for a 'normal' TV. 

    So given the obnoxiousness of paying extra just to get the full- technical quality content considered routine by every other streaming provider, it adds insult to injury that they want to restrict who can use the three extra streams included in the package-deal subscription price. 

    Netflix could solve their problems by including 4K UHD at all levels, and price their subscription tiers purely based on number of simultaneous streams allowed, without regard to where those streams are accessed. 

    What will it cost them in labor and operational expenses, along with public ill-will, just for them to police who gets to use the extra streams in the 4K UHD tier? Why should it matter whether it's someone in the same physical house, a kid at college, a mother-in-law down the road, or a sub-let to a friend who wants to split the cost?
    Please stop making sense.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,844member
    dewme said:
    AppleZulu said:
    The practice of charging a premium for screen resolution is outdated. The fact that that is packaged with the only real multiple-user option is ultimately what's causing Netflix their problems. Most new TVs are 4K UHD devices. A major content provider shouldn't be charging a premium just to get full-resolution content for a 'normal' TV. 

    So given the obnoxiousness of paying extra just to get the full- technical quality content considered routine by every other streaming provider, it adds insult to injury that they want to restrict who can use the three extra streams included in the package-deal subscription price. 

    Netflix could solve their problems by including 4K UHD at all levels, and price their subscription tiers purely based on number of simultaneous streams allowed, without regard to where those streams are accessed. 

    What will it cost them in labor and operational expenses, along with public ill-will, just for them to police who gets to use the extra streams in the 4K UHD tier? Why should it matter whether it's someone in the same physical house, a kid at college, a mother-in-law down the road, or a sub-let to a friend who wants to split the cost?
    These sound like some great ideas for an entrepreneur to start a new video streaming business. But until someone steps up and creates such a business that follows your or anyone else’s logic we’re left with a choice of whether to stick with Netflix’s business as is and follow their rules and terms of service or institute Plan B, kick them to the curb.

    It’s their business and they own it. What they should or shouldn’t be doing is entirely their choice. We can make suggestions to Netflix just like can make suggestions to our neighbors on how they should raise their kids. Good luck with that. Neither of them are in any way obliged to listen to any of what we suggest.

    I too find it disingenuous that Netflix implicitly encouraged account sharing to build their subscriber numbers and company value and later reneged on the practice. Maybe there’s a legal way like a class action to force them to grandfather in free sharing for those who signed up for Netflix during Netflix’s “permissive” period of time? But trying to tell them how to run their business is a dead end strategy unless you’re a stockholder or willing to build your own business to take them down in the competitive marketplace with what you believe is a better alternative. 
    Nah. The public outcry of customers to businesses is exactly how messages get across. People complain, generate negative buzz, and if it’s ignored grow unsatisfied. I’m sure anyone can think of an example this. New Coke?
    cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.