TLDR:

Current ad free plans for Disney+ and Hulu are now raising $3 more on October 12. Both becoming $13.99 and $17.99.

  • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, the Netflix password sharing crackdown was a vote put on the users to decide if it’s a good thing to do or not.

    And it appears that the results are good, since they are reporting subscriber growth and more revenue. Now every other service will follow because, otherwise, they’d just be wasting untapped profits.

    I don’t like this profit maximization companies are trying to do, but one thing is clear: people prefer to pay more for the extra convenience than to stand their ground in their principals.

    Even if people like us stand our ground, most won’t even care (I can see it in my personal relationships as well).

      • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, and in cases where there is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly of a product it becomes really exploitative.

        But in this case in particular, I’m gonna have to say it’s the fault of the users.

        They chose to pay more for a worst product that had already been declining in quality steadily, when there are tons of other streaming services with good content.

        • AndreyAsimow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess that is the fault of not being aware of alternatives, or brand royalty.

          Average Users just want to be comfortable with watch they already have and don’t want to hassle to learn new habits.

          Disney simply chose to skip the voting and went straight to forbid password sharing. They are hoping for gaining new customers like Netflix .

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that is why we need a new corporate contract where the betterment of its employees, communities and it’s services/products is a corporations goal not endless growth for the sake of profit.

        • AndreyAsimow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately they are pushed by the investors to focus on generating profit for them.

          If I would give money to someone to make more money. I would expect more and more not less or a fix amount.

          • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the corporate contract changes then the expectation of investors would have to change as well. Changing the corporate contract is fundamental to changing nearly everything. What’s even better is that no one can argue it’s “evil socialism/communism” because it just isn’t but it still affects sweeping positive changes.

            • AndreyAsimow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whit this the company might risk the chance to loose some of their biggest investors, who are keeping the company alive.

              The implementation of such change would take years to slowly modify and chisel as much money-loosing-holes as possible.

              Plus there would be board meetings where the company have to come up with a short term plan to Convince every money oriented board member that the new corporate contract will shovel money to the business. It is not easy, trust me.

              They can’t afford to loose money first to gain money years later.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just still relatively cheap. I don’t know anyone who has more than 4 streaming services (although I am sure there are some) at once concurrently, that’s still cheaper than the average cable bill ($83).

      • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still, if you were sharing with 3 friends before, it’s a 4x price spike for you.

    • Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And I’m still paying less (although the margin is smaller now) than when I had to choose a cable tv package. Even with inflation.

      A la carte channels are what we wanted for 50 years and this is pretty close. Don’t get me wrong, I pirate everyday because fuck’em, but it’s better than cable.