Netflix Streaming Thread 2.0

[quote name='Soodmeg']Dude I have given up, its clear that people are making up their own rules in this situation. Maybe its beacuse I am the only one here who actually works in TV/Film/Broadcast Production so I know exactly how much everyone cost.

It doesnt matter that Sony, MGM, Maramax, Paramount, Starz etc etc all have different fees for licensing and they all seem to understand that this is the future and now want their cut so they raised the renew fees. I have no idea why people are not as pissed off or more at the people who actually control how much the content cost....IE the studios. Do you guys even understand how many different studios/networks they current have signed? Also and I guess no of you ever thought of how hard it is for a network like NBC to tell their sponsors, "yeah we made a deal with netflix so people can not see your ads that you pay us millions to air each year.

Netflix is doing a pretty damn good job of getting as much content while shifting through billion dollar politics that is Hollywood.

Netflix, buy more content people are pissed that their bill is raised slightly if Netflix didnt buy more content they would be pissed about that...if they didnt renew the current content they would be pissed about that. There is no win...

Yea Netflix is a evil corporate giant, who pockets billions of dollars a year while smoking on cigars in a gold plated office.[/QUOTE]

Haha..I've worked in film production/development/etc. too. You shouldn't be so narrow minded on that front. People shift careers all the time (I still have friends who are in the field/business 1 currently unemployed and 1 still making content (he directs/writes/produces low budget/indie stuff), etc. Anyway, I've never labeled Netflix as an evil corporate giant. Honestly, the only person I've seen make mention of that several times in this thread has been you. It's almost as if you work at one of their distribution hubs/Netflix or something.

*Note: added the extra etc. after I gave examples of my friends so it doesn't sound like I have just 2 friends working in the movie/film/entertainment industry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']Haha..I've worked in film production/development/etc. too. You shouldn't be so narrow minded on that front. People shift careers all the time (I still have friends who are in the field/business 1 currently unemployed and 1 still making content (he directs/writes/produces low budget/indie stuff). Anyway, I've never labeled Netflix as an evil corporate giant. Honestly, the only person I've seen make mention of that several times in this thread has been you. It's almost as if you work at one of their distribution hubs/Netflix or something.[/QUOTE]

He's just young and naive.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again...

1. A 60% increase isn't a slight raise.

2. They haven't officially announced adding any content concurrent with the price increase. They also haven't said it was necessary to keep content.

It's a PR nightmare for them. If they were going to increase prices that much they needed to couple it with a big announcement about new content, the return of Sony's titles, and any deals reached to keep other studio's content on streaming.

Make it clear why there's a price increase, and what us as customers are getting out of it. They did none of that so it just seems like a 60% price increase for the same old mediocre streaming they've offered for years.



I don't think anyone has really said that or really bad mouthed Netflix to that extent.

People are just grumpy that their plan increased 60% overnight--which is a hell of an at once increase in any bill--with no announcements about getting any thing more for the extra money.

As I said above, I don't care about Netflix's financial woes. That's their problem, and it's their stupidity for making such a strong push toward streaming without having the logistics worked out.

All I care about is getting a good value for my money. The new plan for disc and streaming isn't a good value for my money given the gap between my interests and their streaming selection.

If they want me to pay for streaming, the price needs to come down at least $3-4 OR content must improve and have a lot more recent, mainstream movies and shows. I'm not going to start paying more for the same service as I've not found the streaming selection anything worth paying for to date. Improve it dramatically, then the value equation changes and I'll reconsider.[/QUOTE]

You're basically talking to a wall at this point. I don't think he'll get it or understand. You've basically outlined all the points that keep getting brought up over and over and over again. Nice point on the "netflix is evil" comment. He's the only one who's said something like that and I just commented on it as well.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think anyone thinks that. People know prices need to go up. But $6 all at once WITH NO ANNOUNCED IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN CONTENT is what has people riled up. It's a big increase going from $9.99 to $15.98 for 1 dvd and streaming, and they haven't said anything about improving the service yet.

Plus, for me, I don't care if they improve streaming content. I was fine with it just being old movies, old tv shows, indie films, documentaries and foreign films personally.

Major major movies, especially those heavy on special effects etc., I want to watch in the best picture quality possible, so I would rent those on Blu-ray even if they were up on streaming. For me streaming was just a way to occasionally watch a documentary or some random older film or show where I don't really care about watching on Blu as I wouldn't want to "waste" a disc rental on it. So I'd be fine with content staying the same type of things it has been and prices staying down personally. Or increasing more gradually like a $1 or $2 every year or two.



They actually should, I read a good column on that yesterday. Just make their streaming service like an online Redbox and charge a dollar per movie (and a lower price per TV show episode).

Or at the least make that a plan option for people who don't use streaming enough to pay for unlimited streaming. I'd be happy to pay a buck here or there when I wanted to stream a documentary etc. But I pretty much never use streaming enough to pay for the unlimited plan since I rarely ever stream more than 1 or 2 titles a month.

So having a pay per title streaming option would be handy for me and a way for them to make some more money from people who won't pay for the unlimited streaming currently.





It's not a strawman. Some could afford it at $9.99 and thought that was a good value. At $15.98 for the exact same service it's harder for them to afford, and doesn't feel like a good value anymore.

It doesn't make Netflix evil or anything, but people have every right to be annoyed by the price change. It's not all that often that a bill jumps up 60% at once for the same quality service.




But that's not much help to people who do use both a lot, so moot point for them. $9.99 for both was a good value for such people. $7.99 for only one or the other isn't nearly as good a value.



Again, there hasn't been a single sign of improvement yet. The Sony movies aren't back on streaming or announced to be coming back. There's been no announcement of any new content period that I've seen.

There would be a lot less up roar if they announced a bunch of new content and improvements to the service at the same time the announced the price increase.

At least then people would feel like they were getting something more for their extra money.

It's not a sense of entitlement to feel a 60% price increase is too much when it's not coupled with a currently tangible increase in service quality. 60% is too much of a jump to not immediately get some improvements in return.



If they did that, then they need to be talking about it and telling us exactly what extra content we're getting so we can judge whether it's worth the 60% increase in our current plans or not.

If it's just increased costs from studios to keep providing the same type of content, then it's a moot point. I'm not willing to pay 60% more for the same type of content they've had on streaming up to this point. If they're actually expanding and getting more recent and more mainstream content, then that's a different story and I would consider keeping streaming.[/QUOTE]

See, you've basically repeated the same facts/info/understanding of the situation and yet he's still arguing.
 
[quote name='elessar123']As for the figures you accused me of making up, those are officially reported figures.[/QUOTE]

You used Netflix's 2010 net profit then added all the fees from 2011 AND in the future. You were too busy trying to be "right" you didn't calculate their growth since and essentially said they were broke. After paying what I'm sure is outrageous salaries and operating costs, 161 million is rolling in money. As for your WoW analogy? I'm surprised you didn't delete it. Like I said, it doesn't cost THAT much and was pretty stupid.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']Delete quickly![/QUOTE]

Why? 5 miles in one direction + 5 miles back in the opposite direction = 10 miles total, unless I'm forgetting to carry a decimal place or something.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']Why? 5 miles in one direction + 5 miles back in the opposite direction = 10 miles total, unless I'm forgetting to carry a decimal place or something.[/QUOTE]

He has to return the movie too.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']He has to return the movie too.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. Forgot to take into account returning the disc, but yeah, I just lop that on to my routine commutes to work/school/shopping/food/etc.. That's why I didn't even think about it. I'm still not going to delete as I feel I have nothing to hide.

[quote name='Scorch']Hiccup figured out how to do multiple quotes in one post! High five!! :D

I've been watching the Netflix stock for a few days. It's been hovering between 298 and 300 since the announcement, but since it opened this morning, it's tumbled down more than $12 a share. It's now sitting at $286, the lowest point it's been in a week. It's the biggest drop so far since the new price plans. It's still pretty good news, though, as it was about $245 this time last month.[/QUOTE]

Putting this right here just to throw it in randomly. Yup! Thanks Scorch! It still don't matter, my posts now look enormous because of the multi quotes.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']You used Netflix's 2010 net profit then added all the fees from 2011 AND in the future. You were too busy trying to be "right" you didn't calculate their growth since and essentially said they were broke. After paying what I'm sure is outrageous salaries and operating costs, 161 million is rolling in money. As for your WoW analogy? I'm surprised you didn't delete it. Like I said, it doesn't cost THAT much and was pretty stupid.[/QUOTE]

How is $161 million rolling in money, when ONE of the new contracts costs them $200 million more A YEAR?

I didn't once say they lost money. I've only said if they don't raise prices, they would.

Yes, in Q1, they had revenues of $705 million, a 30%+ increase in REVENUE over an average quarter last year. Their license costs, however, increased by hundreds of percents.

Revenue is not profit...

And the analogy was not stupid. You just failed to understand it, like everything else. The $2 million was equivalent to a licensing fee, just like the studios charge Netflix.
 
[quote name='elessar123']How is $161 million rolling in money, when ONE of the new contracts costs them $200 million more A YEAR?[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the obvious (9.6 million new subscribers and counting) AGAIN! You can't be helped, LOL! Netflix is spending $2 for every dollar they make, or CLOSE to it? If not, then you should just stick to doing Google searches on their earnings. Seriously, you act like you're on the inside and refuse to use common sense. Netflix isn't going to buy/renew a license that doesn't make sense to them financially. Content disappears on Instant Streaming all the time! A 161 million dollar deposit into what is essentially their Savings isn't alot of money to you? Sorry, not every company is Wal-Mart. Leave the analogies where you have people playing WoW at a million dollar loss for someone who knows how to use them. Netflix isn't a small-business owner hit by the recession.

smh

[quote name='elessar123']Yes, in Q1, they had revenues of $705 million, a 30%+ increase in REVENUE over an average quarter last year. Their license costs, however, increased by hundreds of percents.[/QUOTE]

Like who? They just renewed with NBC Universal YESTERDAY but the details are unknown! Hundreds of percent, you say? I see you're still making crap up!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/idUS224464931920110713
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again...

1. A 60% increase isn't a slight raise.

[/QUOTE]


no matter what percent you put on it, it is a few bucks. That is the very definition of slight. Percentage doesn't mean all that much.
 
[quote name='elessar123']How is $161 million rolling in money, when ONE of the new contracts costs them $200 million more A YEAR?[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the obvious (9.6 million new subscribers and counting/ an additional billion dollars) AGAIN! You can't be helped, LOL! Netflix is spending $2 for every dollar they make, or CLOSE to it? If not, then you should just stick to doing Google searches on their earnings. Seriously, you act like you're on the inside and refuse to use common sense. Netflix isn't going to buy/renew a license that doesn't make sense to them financially. Content disappears on Instant Streaming all the time! A 161 million dollar deposit into what is essentially their Savings isn't alot of money to you? Sorry, not every company is Wal-Mart. Leave the analogies where you have people playing WoW at a million dollar loss for someone who knows how to use them. Netflix isn't a small-business owner hit by the recession.

smh

[quote name='elessar123']Yes, in Q1, they had revenues of $705 million, a 30%+ increase in REVENUE over an average quarter last year. Their license costs, however, increased by hundreds of percents.[/QUOTE]

Like who? They just renewed with NBC Universal YESTERDAY but the details are unknown! Hundreds of percent, you say? I see you're still making crap up!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/idUS224464931920110713

[quote name='usickenme']no matter what percent you put on it, it is a few bucks. That is the very definition of slight. Percentage doesn't mean all that much.[/QUOTE]

You're out of touch with a considerable amount of their customers. Rich people do this all the time to a greater extent. I think polls have 41% of people cancelling on 9/1. Not saying they all will, but it shows the increase isn't slight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='usickenme']no matter what percent you put on it, it is a few bucks. That is the very definition of slight. Percentage doesn't mean all that much.[/QUOTE]

You're out of touch. Rich people do this all time.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']You're out of touch with a considerable amount of their customers. Rich people do this all the time to a greater extent. I think polls have 41% of people cancelling on 9/1. Not saying they all will, but it shows the increase isn't slight.[/QUOTE]

What polls?

Please don't tell me you're citing internet polls.
 
[quote name='elessar123']How is $161 million rolling in money, when ONE of the new contracts costs them $200 million more A YEAR?[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the obvious (9.6 million new subscribers and counting/an additional billion dollars) AGAIN! You can't be helped, LOL! Netflix is spending $2 for every dollar they make, or CLOSE to it? If not, then you should just stick to doing Google searches on their earnings. Seriously, you act like you're on the inside and refuse to use common sense. Netflix isn't going to buy/renew a license that doesn't make sense to them financially. Content disappears on Instant Streaming all the time! A 161 million dollar deposit into what is essentially their Savings isn't alot of money to you? Sorry, not every company is Wal-Mart. Leave the analogies where you have people playing WoW at a million dollar loss for someone who knows how to use them. Netflix isn't a small-business owner hit by the recession.

smh

[quote name='elessar123']Yes, in Q1, they had revenues of $705 million, a 30%+ increase in REVENUE over an average quarter last year. Their license costs, however, increased by hundreds of percents.[/QUOTE]

Like who? They just renewed with NBC Universal YESTERDAY but the details are unknown! Hundreds of percent, you say? I see you're still making crap up!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/idUS224464931920110713

[quote name='usickenme']no matter what percent you put on it, it is a few bucks. That is the very definition of slight. Percentage doesn't mean all that much.[/QUOTE]

You're out of touch with a considerable amount of their customers. Rich people do this all the time to a greater extent. I think polls have 41% of people cancelling on 9/1. Not saying they all will, but it shows the increase isn't slight.

[quote name='camoor']What polls?

Please don't tell me you're citing internet polls.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but it doesn't matter. People have been very vocal, poll or not. Don't say it's a slight increase is all I'm saying.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']Ignoring the obvious (9.6 million new subscribers and counting) AGAIN! You can't be helped, LOL! Netflix is spending $2 for every dollar they make, or CLOSE to it? If not, then you should just stick to doing Google searches on their earnings. Seriously, you act like you're on the inside and refuse to use common sense. Netflix isn't going to buy/renew a license that doesn't make sense to them financially. Content disappears on Instant Streaming all the time! A 161 million dollar deposit into what is essentially their Savings isn't alot of money to you? Sorry, not every company is Wal-Mart. Leave the analogies where you have people playing WoW at a million dollar loss for someone who knows how to use them. Netflix isn't a small-business owner hit by the recession.

smh[/QUOTE]

They reached 20 mil in January, and they have 23.x mil now. Where did you pull out your 9.6 million figure? I even gave you figures for how much increase in revenue they had first quarter.

And the point of the analogy is that they'd spend more money than they'd take in, not that it's a 2:1 ratio, you dumbass.

Your reading comprehension is apparently nil, because I've explained things more than once, and you're still refuting the same thing.

If every studio is charging them $50 mil a year instead of the $5 mil last year, then you're saying it doesn't make sense to renew financially, so they should drop all streaming? How does that make sense? And yes, that's what's been happening.

And yes, $161 million is a lot to me, but it's also less money than how much ONE deal is for Netflix this year versus last, and there are more than a dozen other studios who are going to charge them more.

For these large companies, it is very little money. I don't know how $161 million is a lot to you and me means anything. It's not like it's paid out to their employees. They have to spend it to grow business (or don't, and not).
 
[quote name='NSYNC']Fair enough, but it doesn't matter. People have been very vocal, poll or not. Don't say it's a slight increase is all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

The power of the internet! It got that coporation to do something that one time and stuff
 
I linked you an article and even bolded the part where they jumped from 14 million in 2010 to 23.6! That's a billion more they can spend now. Please go away! It's like you sat in the topic for 4 hours waiting to come at me with more stupid stuff.
 
[quote name='camoor']The power of the internet! It got that coporation to do something that one time and stuff[/QUOTE]

Huh? People aren't happy about a price increase and being vocal about it because it's slight? Also, what does your sentence have to do with anything?
 
[quote name='NSYNC']I linked you an article and even bolded the part where they jumped from 14 million in 2010 to 23.6! That's a billion more they can spend now. Please go away! It's like you sat in the topic for 4 hours waiting to come at me with more stupid stuff.[/QUOTE]

Right... Cept there's no link.
 
[quote name='elessar123']For these large companies, it is very little money. I don't know how $161 million is a lot to you and me means anything. It's not like it's paid out to their employees. They have to spend it to grow business (or don't, and not).[/QUOTE]

That's what they're calling NET PROFIT these days? Keep going...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='NSYNC']Huh? People aren't happy about a price increase and being vocal about it because it's slight? Also, what does your sentence have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]

Besides bringing back TV shows, can you name any significant things a corporation has done because of bitching on the internet.
 
We're getting off-topic. I'm talking about how people are reacting/voting to a "slight" $6 increase. That's all. I don't care how Netflix responds.
 
Haha, I knew it! Not even gonna read it ^^^ at this point.

"Netflix doesn't say explicitly how much it spends to license content for its streaming service, but the company said in a letter to shareholders that it expects those costs to "increase substantially" in the second quarter and beyond."

"For the quarter ended March 31, Netflix reported an increase in net income to $60.2 million, or $1.11 a share, from $32.3 million, or 59 cents a share, during the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 46% from a year earlier to $719 million."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285390659005866.html

Once you understand net income/profit, maybe you'll just drop the whole "licensing fee" argument.
 
There's really no point in continuing to argue about this.

Everyone has their own budgets and their own level of interest in tv/movies (and in the types of tv/movies on Netflix streaming) and that will determine whether one thinks the disc + streaming combo is worth it or not at the new price.

For me, with the amount of movies I watch a month and the current streaming content not being all that aligned with the types of things I watch, it's not worth it. I'll go to disc only, and maybe switch to blockbuster to avoid the 28 day delays etc. if the turn around time is the same and the selection of discs ok for my interests.

For others who stream a ton, and don't watch many discs, they can go streaming only. For those who use both a ton, it's still a good deal and and most will keep it.

It's really as simple as that. No sense arguing over it, and I regret wasting time contributing to the argument earlier. It really doesn't matter the reasons for the increase etc. All that matters is whether you think any of the new plans are personally a good value based on how much you use the service, your budget etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='NSYNC']Post #920 at 12:35 PM, LMAO! Reading comprehension, you say? How about you just try reading![/QUOTE]

So I'm supposed to re-read the entire thread every time I look in the thread? Your URL was obviously edited in after you posted it. Reading comprehension apparently means I have to step back in time and unread posts every time you edit one.

And judging by how many differences there are between my posts quoting you and their current revision, no wonder.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']That's what they're calling NET PROFIT these days? Keep going...[/QUOTE]

So if I company makes money in 2010, and spends it all in 2011, they have to go back and revise the net profit for 2010 to $0? WTF are you smoking?

[quote name='NSYNC']"For the quarter ended March 31, Netflix reported an increase in net income to $60.2 million, or $1.11 a share, from $32.3 million, or 59 cents a share, during the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 46% from a year earlier to $719 million."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285390659005866.html

Once you understand net income/profit, maybe you'll just drop the whole "licensing fee" argument.[/QUOTE]

So their revenue doesn't double, and their costs more than double, they're somehow making way more money?
 
[quote name='elessar123']And judging by how many differences there are between my posts quoting you and their current revision, no wonder.[/QUOTE]

Revisions now? You know and I know, that I just delete the one's you do quote (word for word I might add). No reason to occupy board space. I'm going to stop though because you're apparently pretty close to doing some "cleaning" yourself.
 
[quote name='elessar123']So if I company makes money in 2010, and spends it all in 2011, they have to go back and revise the net profit for 2010 to $0? WTF are you smoking?



So their revenue doesn't double, and their costs more than double, they're somehow making way more money?[/QUOTE]

My head hurts. Go wiki "net profit" or something.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']Revisions now? You know and I know, that I just delete the one's you do quote (word for word I might add). No reason to occupy board space.[/QUOTE]

At least you know your crap doesn't deserve to occupy board space.

And you first posted #920 at 12:04, and edited at 12:35. That's 31 minutes that, you know, I could have read it originally and not have gone back to read it again. Especially likely since it happens to be the last post on a page.
 
[quote name='elessar123']At least you know your crap doesn't deserve to occupy board space.

And you first posted #920 at 12:04, and edited at 12:35. That's 31 minutes that, you know, I could have read it originally and not have gone back to read it again. Especially likely since it happens to be the last post on a page.[/QUOTE]

Even though you didn't post until almost an hour later (which probably means you did see it), this is what your argument has come to. So sad. Continue telling me how Netflix isn't making more money than they did last year because of fees, LOL! Net profit/income = what again?
 
why are you guys arguing?

Netflix' cost are DEFINITELY going up for streaming content, hence the price hike.

it's not rocket science.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']why are you guys arguing?

Netflix' cost are DEFINITELY going up for streaming content, hence the price hike.

it's not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

I'm getting a good laugh, he thinks he knows what he's talking about. Simple. Everyone knows they're paying more, but elessar123 seems to think they're not making more.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']Even though you didn't post until almost an hour later (which probably means you did see it), this is what your argument has come to. So sad. Continue telling me how Netflix isn't making more money than they did last year because of fees, LOL! Net profit/income = what again?[/QUOTE]

They went from 13 million suscribers in January 2010, to 20 million suscribers in January 2011, gaining about 7 million suscribers. Revenues went up to $2.16 billion, and net profits of $161 million.

They went from 20 million suscribers in January 2011 to 23 million suscribers in July 2011. Revenues go up 34%. Assuming it remains true the rest of the year (unlikely), their revenue for 2011 would be $2.89 billion.

Cost of licensing in 2011 is going to cost $500-$600 million more than 2010. That means they would have $134-$234 million more revenue gross profit after the licensing increase in 2011, but tack on servers and bandwidth and other cost increases to support ~6 million more suscribers. Yea, they'll totally be making tons more.

Edit: Yes, I know, it's not gross profit either.
 
See what I mean? The articles I gave him about the 23.6 million subscribers are all dated before July, but he thinks they hit that number this month (which is probably more by now). Add that with the $$$ he's throwing around and it's too easy not to keep kicking him. He still doesn't understand net profit/income and is using the cost of servers in his equation, LMAO!
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']How about you both shut the fuck up?[/QUOTE]

Comparing your post count to mine, this would be too easy.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']See what I mean? The articles I gave him about the 23.6 million subscribers are all dated before July, but he thinks they hit that number this month (which is probably more by now). Add that with the $$$ he's throwing around and it's too easy not to keep kicking him. He still doesn't understand net profit/income and is using the cost of servers in his equation, LMAO![/QUOTE]

Every site, including all the finance sites, are still saying 23-24 million subscribers. Three months doesn't mean they automatically gained 3 million subscribers.

And seriously, you're the one that doesn't understand net profit/income. You can't get to net profit/income without subtracting the cost of servers from revenue, dumbass.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Every site, including all the finance sites, are still saying 23-24 million subscribers. Three months doesn't mean they automatically gained 3 million subscribers.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it's probably because they haven't released any NEW info.

[quote name='elessar123']And seriously, you're the one that doesn't understand net profit/income. You can't get to net profit/income without subtracting the cost of servers from revenue, dumbass.[/QUOTE]

Haha, I think you're starting to understand or backpedal. I can't tell at this point.
 
[quote name='NSYNC']I'm guessing it's probably because they haven't released any NEW info.



Haha, I think you're starting to understand or backpedal. I can't tell at this point.[/QUOTE]

Um, no I'm not. I've been subtracting from revenue since yesterday.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Now it's -$39 mil minus -$100 mil, or -$139 mil a year in the red.

Then add on increases for Sony, NBC, Fox, WB and all the other studios...

Yea, Netflix is rolling in cash.[/QUOTE]

This is what started it all.

[quote name='elessar123']How is $161 million rolling in money, when ONE of the new contracts costs them $200 million more A YEAR?

I didn't once say they lost money. I've only said if they don't raise prices, they would.[/QUOTE]

-139 million so far WITHOUT server and bandwidth expense, huh? You're not accounting for almost 10 million new subscribers and adding studio fees! How are they surviving? I think we're finally done here and I can delete my posts.

[quote name='elessar123']but tack on servers and bandwidth and other cost increases to support ~6 million more suscribers. Yea, they'll totally be making tons more.

Edit: Yes, I know, it's not gross profit either.[/QUOTE]

EDIT #1 (11:05 PM): LOL, you did add the new users (6 million atleast) on the server/bandwidth bill though.
[quote name='elessar123']For these large companies, it is very little money. I don't know how $161 million is a lot to you and me means anything. It's not like it's paid out to their employees. They have to spend it to grow business (or don't, and not).[/QUOTE]

NET PROFIT

[quote name='elessar123']Holy crap you're dense.

Fact: Netflix spent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question , if I change my plan to streaming only does my dvd queue get erased or will I just not receive anything from them? If it does get erased would it be restored if I were to add dvds back to my plan , or would I have to re-add everything I wanted to see back on my list?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And again, I'll re-iterate that I'd very much like an ala carte streaming plan where I could just pay $1-2 per movie I want to stream in addition to my disc rentals.

That would be a good value for me vs. paying a month fee for unlimited, and a way for them to make money from me and others who cancel unlimited streaming.[/QUOTE]

Do you use Zune Video Marketplace?
Their HD is quite superior to Netflix, almost indistinguishable from bluray.
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Question , if I change my plan to streaming only does my dvd queue get erased or will I just not receive anything from them? If it does get erased would it be restored if I were to add dvds back to my plan , or would I have to re-add everything I wanted to see back on my list?[/QUOTE]

When I have cancelled in the past and come back, my queue was the same as I left it. If that is any indication, they would still be there and just not send them.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']why are you guys arguing?

Netflix' cost are DEFINITELY going up for streaming content, hence the price hike.

it's not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

I wish they had come out and said this.

I see this whole debacle as a huge marketing fail for Netflix. The a la carte pricing is going to work out better for some, but for many it amounts to a price hike.

I'm wondering if the asshole studios put a condition in the contracts that silences Netflix from talking about the licensing. I have to give those greedy asshole studios credit for knowing how to stay out of the spotlight and have others do their dirty work.
 
[quote name='camoor']I wish they had come out and said this.

I see this whole debacle as a huge marketing fail for Netflix. The a la carte pricing is going to work out better for some, but for many it amounts to a price hike.
[/QUOTE]

It's definitely bad marking. The price hike would get a lot less backlash if they'd came out and put the blame on the studios AND made some clear statements about how they'd be improving the service going forward.

Otherwise, as you note, for those who use both streaming and disc rentals it does just feel like a price hike since they haven't done any of that.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Do you use Zune Video Marketplace?
Their HD is quite superior to Netflix, almost indistinguishable from bluray.[/QUOTE]

I haven't really looked into it as I figured it was like other pay per movie services and thus probably $3-5 per movie which is more than I'm willing to pay.

How's selection? I'm not much interested in paying per movie for new releases etc. as I'd rather just get discs from Netflix for those. I'd just be interested in paying a buck or two here and there to watch a documentary or something between discs rather than "wasting" a disc rental on those as I like to save those mainly for new releases etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top