Netflix says users can cancel service if HBO Max merger makes it too expensive
-
KTHNXBYE
-
They are just like us, they are born, they die, they pay taxes…oh wait.
Please do read that as sarcasm. These turdlike meat bags (I won’t call them human) just view others are numbers. ‘Enough squeezed humans/others/numbers’ means a bigger yacht and more bragging power at the country club.
They need shaming at worst, dragging out in the street is better
I can't resist the humour inherent to the fact that they refuse to pay tax, and also desperately are seeking immortality. Death and taxes are the quintessential unavoidable things! They are tilting at a windmill, and they want to cast us as their Rozinante.
-
I fucking hate this capitalist, anti-consumer hellscape. I stopped watching Netflix because I loathe their “multi-screen writing” policy. I don’t want my dollar supporting that and if we roll all the services into one voting with your wallet becomes practically impossible.
Yo Ho Ho!
-
What has Netflix enshittified?
Their content.
I'm not sure that's really enshittification. It's not so much a way to deteriorate the service to make money as it is an attempt to accommodate the habits of the viewers. I totally agree that we're getting super bad content that's only mildly entertaining if you're doing 2-3 other things while watching, but that's the demographic they believe they have.
-
I'm not sure that's really enshittification. It's not so much a way to deteriorate the service to make money as it is an attempt to accommodate the habits of the viewers. I totally agree that we're getting super bad content that's only mildly entertaining if you're doing 2-3 other things while watching, but that's the demographic they believe they have.
They consider their product to be "Second Screen," which mean it is meant to be consumed while you are on your phone. Matt Damon recently talked about the rules of making a Netflix video, and one of them is that you have to repeat your plot objective several times, so the people who are "watching" while on their phones will get it.
They also mandate the use of certain cameras and lenses and other equipment, to ensure that their productions have a similar look across the platform.
They have lots of other rules that compromise quality and artistic integrity in favor of branding and profit.
That all counts as enshittification to me. It sure isn't good for the future of film as an art form.
Also, enshittification is not in spell check.
-
I do, because historically I want to support the people making content I love.
However, the distribution channels and situation is nearing abysmal quality while gobbling up more and more money. So long term... I dunno... I only maintain 2-3 streaming services at a time, and one is CBC, which I won't be dropping.
that's the fun part, basically none of the money you pay actually goes to the people who made the thing.
like 95-100% of the money that the crew of a movie or TV show makes is paid to them during production. There might be a handful of crew, typically writers, actors, and directors who get residuals, but that's typically a very small fraction of the total amount they got paid.
Your money goes to the studio who produced the film/show in order to recoup their investment. and in my experience, the studio doesn't actually give a shit about the creatives who made the thing you love. They'll get rid of them for someone cheaper at the first opportunity, and a lot of them are trying to get rid of them for AI right now.
-
I have a budget I set and I spend across a couple creatives and media companies, but they are direct payments tonth creatives themselves. I have no issues paying for people to create works.
But such a microscopic portion of any streaming service payment, coupled with deeply toxic, dark patterned business models, not to mention how the business structure has distorted the model for creative works.
I have views on property rights that I know aren't the most popular on a dot world or even some of the more radical instances. I know a few share it, but I know most don't, but I genuinely don't believe in copyright.
Copyright (and patent law) is deeply flawed and has been abused far beyond its original intent.
I would very much like reform.
-
- The quality of writing/content
- Pumping anything and everything out leading to dropping shows
- the loss of some providers and franchises
- the tactics around sign in and users
- streaming quality
- adverts
These were standard and they compromised…unless pay more. They are still making money. They can still afford to employ talent and pay wages. They can still choose to be fair to their employees and customers. But no. Give less, remove features, raise prices is the approach they repeatedly take.
If I bought a dvd its didn’t come with a ban on sharing it. They have conditioned lots to think this is acceptable. It’s not you are the customer. You give them money and it’s still not enough for them.
Netflix doesn't really control the content that other creators allow on their service, so point 3 is moot
-
I do, because historically I want to support the people making content I love.
However, the distribution channels and situation is nearing abysmal quality while gobbling up more and more money. So long term... I dunno... I only maintain 2-3 streaming services at a time, and one is CBC, which I won't be dropping.
This 100%.
It has been a weird journey for me, from "Netflix is elevating all of these great comedies!" To Netflix is buying competitors to keep every creator vulnerable.
That said, Dropout, Nebula and Curiosity Stream all seem pretty ethical toward creators. I think the combination of all three costs less than Netflix. (Though I've been on the Netflix boycott for awhile now.)
Also, I can't get over Dropout's ad series encouraging users to share a password to let someone try DropOut. Boss move.
-
They consider their product to be "Second Screen," which mean it is meant to be consumed while you are on your phone. Matt Damon recently talked about the rules of making a Netflix video, and one of them is that you have to repeat your plot objective several times, so the people who are "watching" while on their phones will get it.
They also mandate the use of certain cameras and lenses and other equipment, to ensure that their productions have a similar look across the platform.
They have lots of other rules that compromise quality and artistic integrity in favor of branding and profit.
That all counts as enshittification to me. It sure isn't good for the future of film as an art form.
Also, enshittification is not in spell check.
Every broadcaster and platform has a list of approved cameras, and always has done. That isn’t enshittification, that’s ensuring technical quality.
As to a house style, again that is longstanding and common. ABC, for example, favours pastel colours for sets and costume. This goes back to Technicolor and their visual control from the 1930s. Nothing new.
-
that's the fun part, basically none of the money you pay actually goes to the people who made the thing.
like 95-100% of the money that the crew of a movie or TV show makes is paid to them during production. There might be a handful of crew, typically writers, actors, and directors who get residuals, but that's typically a very small fraction of the total amount they got paid.
Your money goes to the studio who produced the film/show in order to recoup their investment. and in my experience, the studio doesn't actually give a shit about the creatives who made the thing you love. They'll get rid of them for someone cheaper at the first opportunity, and a lot of them are trying to get rid of them for AI right now.
Netflix don’t do residuals.
-
I do, because historically I want to support the people making content I love.
However, the distribution channels and situation is nearing abysmal quality while gobbling up more and more money. So long term... I dunno... I only maintain 2-3 streaming services at a time, and one is CBC, which I won't be dropping.
This was exactly the way I thought of my spending habits for a long time. Then a few years ago, Netflix prohibited password sharing, a soft feature they had specifically encouraged in the past, with the explicit purpose of desperately generating additional revenue as other growth streams plateaued. When most users just kind of accepted it, the dam broke and all the other services followed suit.
That was the final straw for me, on top of the proliferation of dedicated per-studio services, price hikes, and pricing tiers that created needless feature lock-outs. As a consumer I get dicked around in every sector in which I'm forced to participate, but this is one sector where I have an option to withdraw from the dicking.
-
What has Netflix enshittified? Ad supported viewing is a completely different tier and arguably they have provided even more value by bundling in mobile games that are completely ad and micro transaction free. Price increases don't even count as enshittification.
Is it irony to quote all the enshittification steps and then demonstrate you know nothing about enshittification by saying they're good things?
If they were value-added features, we could opt-out and pay the same (plus inflation) without them. None of the extra shit has any value to my house, for instance.
-
Personally I cancelled both of these services. Services just got worse and cost more, I can't imagine a merger is going to make that situation any better. I have CBC and I kept Paramount because it was 50% off annually for black friday and I enjoy Star Trek. The rest I either find other means to watch or happily do without.
-
Too late, I cancelled Netflix years ago.
-
Is it irony to quote all the enshittification steps and then demonstrate you know nothing about enshittification by saying they're good things?
If they were value-added features, we could opt-out and pay the same (plus inflation) without them. None of the extra shit has any value to my house, for instance.
I never implied they're good, I implied it's not enshittification. There's a difference.
If they were value-added features, we could opt-out and pay the same (plus inflation) without them.
This doesn't even make sense because they were added to your account at no charge. That means they would actually have to decrease the price if you want to exclude them.
-
I actually love the "watch free" channels on my TV. It's full of obscure stuff like 1970s gameshows, This Old House episodes, random old weird direct-to-video movies.
-
This was exactly the way I thought of my spending habits for a long time. Then a few years ago, Netflix prohibited password sharing, a soft feature they had specifically encouraged in the past, with the explicit purpose of desperately generating additional revenue as other growth streams plateaued. When most users just kind of accepted it, the dam broke and all the other services followed suit.
That was the final straw for me, on top of the proliferation of dedicated per-studio services, price hikes, and pricing tiers that created needless feature lock-outs. As a consumer I get dicked around in every sector in which I'm forced to participate, but this is one sector where I have an option to withdraw from the dicking.
However the netflix share went up up up after the change cause they made more money because people kept buying their service anyways. We tend to live so much in a bubble, i cancelled too, but people accept too much shit.
-
I actually love the "watch free" channels on my TV. It's full of obscure stuff like 1970s gameshows, This Old House episodes, random old weird direct-to-video movies.
Pluto has two channels just fot Star Trek and TNG
-
Netflix doesn't really control the content that other creators allow on their service, so point 3 is moot
They kind of did though. When Netflix decided to produce their own content, studios understood that Netflix would prioritize it's own content in the algorithm so they all scrambled to make their own platforms.
If Netflix had been content staying a distributor, we'd all still have everything available all on the one app.
