Good news, everyone! Netflix jacking prices again!

Archinerd · Post by **Archinerd** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:55 am

Odin wrote: I will say that if I were still a DVD and Streaming customer, this change, on top of the price increase, would tick me off. One of the nice, convenient things about Netflix was that everything was in one place, and that ratings and suggestions for movies applied equally to both media.

You bet it does. I was holding on because even with the price increase I decided this was still the best value for me. Now that my queue is going to become twice as much work to manage I don't see much to keep me as a dvd subscriber. There's nothing quite like an apology coupled with a further reduction of service.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:01 pm

theohall wrote:The flaw with RedBox - limited selection. You can't get many TV series that Netflix - oops, Qwikster - offers.

That, and you have to leave the house. I like having a government employee in a snappy uniform deliver my movies. Plus I like Netf- erm, Qwikster's DVD queue, rating, and history.

I'm glad they spun it off...the price should stay flat or even decline while streaming just keeps getting more and more expensive.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Also, this name change move, ESPECIALLY the separate ratings functions move, is to me, very obviously a FOR SALE sign,

That was my first reaction. I don't really care which capitalists I'm enriching as long as the service and price remain the same...but after a sale, they will not.

"Qwikster" brings to mind a mashup of Nestle Qwik and Napster (as dbt said). And I'm a little bummed that Netflix won't offer hybrid plans anymore. I liked having the option to add streaming again some years down the line if I ever own a TV that's on the internet. I don't want separate companies -- the integration lets me keep track of what I've seen, how well I liked it, and what's coming up in the future (regardless of delivery medium).

Smoove_B wrote:
Our local library

Socialist.

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:11 pm

Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:
Not by Freezer-TPF- wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things

Uh, please don't misattribute someone else's quote to me.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:37 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:
Not by Freezer-TPF- wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
Uh, please don't misattribute someone else's quote to me.

Everyone, Freezer TPF did not say this!

Sorry, just a mistake on my part.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:40 pm

Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things

/shrug. It's still what it sounded like from the CEO's letter. I have no idea what paperwork he filed with whom when.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:07 pm

Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things

They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.

September 15th, 2011

Dear Fellow Shareholders,

Two months ago we took a big strategic step by separating streaming and DVD-by-mail into two distinct services, and we now have more visibility into our expected Q3 2011 results. Our financial guidance for the quarter is unchanged, as is our international subscriber guidance. We are, however, lowering our domestic subscriber estimates as reflected in the graphic below.

Despite the guidance revision, we remain convinced that the splitting of our services was the right long-term strategic choice. The strategy behind the split of our services is four-fold:

(1) to create a dedicated DVD rental division that takes pride in great execution and maximizes the opportunity for disc rental over the coming decade;

(2) to enable us to improve our global streaming service even more rapidly, because it is not meshed with a domestic DVD business;

(3) to enable us, with the growth in revenue, to license more streaming content and thereby improve our streaming service even more;

(4) to remain very price aggressive, with $7.99 per month for unlimited streaming of a huge library of TV shows and movies, and $7.99 per month for unlimited DVD rentals, 1 out at-a-time.

We know our decision to split our services has upset many of our subscribers, which we don’t take lightly, but we believe this split will help us make our services better for subscribers and shareholders for years to come.

We look forward to sharing more with you in October.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:47 pm

Some more info on what's going on financially:

Very few people understand the key underpinning of the Netflix “original” business model — a 1908 Supreme Court Ruling known as “first sale doctrine.” From Wikipedia:

“The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained.”

Because of the first-sale doctrine, any DVD reseller, including Netflix, can basically buy a DVD at WalMart, and turn around and rent it to someone else the very same day. The content owners have absolutely no control over whether the copy can be resold or rented. Period. As such, Netflix has the ability to rent (via DVD) any movie which has ever been sold on DVD, and its costs are relatively fixed as a result of the retail price of the actual DVD. In some ways, it is a perfect storm.

Fast forward to digital streaming and all bets are off. More specifically, the first-sale doctrine does not apply. That’s right. For DVDs, Netflix’s rights are unlimited and its costs are constrained. For digital, its rights are constrained and its costs are unlimited. In the absence of the first-sale doctrine, Netflix must negotiate each and every title, and the price of the right to stream that digital title is up to the whim of the content owner. For many titiles, you cannot even obtain digital rights, because they can’t find all the people the need to release the rights to do so.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:52 pm

That piece is out of date. The first sale doctrine may have been the early rule, but remember the 30-day delays all came out of agreements with the studios as a way for them to try and soak the DVD sales market before allowing Netflix to rent them. Netflix could have stood its ground in that regard, but the studios would have made damned sure they made their displeasure known when it came to the negotiating about streaming rights.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:53 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:That piece is out of date. The first sale doctrine may have been the early rule, but remember the 30-day delays all came out of agreements with the studios as a way for them to try and soak the DVD sales market before allowing Netflix to rent them. Netflix could have stood its ground in that regard, but the studios would have made damned sure they made their displeasure known when it came to the negotiating about streaming rights.

30 days.... pffft.... Who has to have it the day it is released??? That is just silly (or unnecessarily pretentious).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:55 pm

My post or those contracts?

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:57 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:My post or those contracts?

Referring to folks who can't handle a 30 day wait based on the 30-day delay contracts thing. Definitely not your post.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:07 pm

Thanks. I and my 500-disc queue agree with you on the absurdity of fussing over a 30-day delay.

My main comment was about the author of Pyperkub's article doesn't seem to be up to speed, as Netflix hasn't been able to WalMart the discs on release day for over a year.

And now I've left a comment on the article to that effect. Ought to be interesting to see what kind of replies I get from the 'Net at large.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:09 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.

Right and it says nothing of splitting the company into two companies. My point is that if was going to happen we would have heard of it in the news because of the required regulator filings.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:16 pm

Grifman wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.
Right and it says nothing of splitting the company into two companies. My point is that if was going to happen we would have heard of it in the news because of the required regulator filings.

But Odin's interpretation isn't out of line and the information that let him to it was provided to shareholders/SEC before customers. Separating the name, services, and website is the first step. Whether they go futher and split-off Qwiskster isn't announced but it's certainly being speculated, and not just by Odin.

Are they split currently? No. And yes, that would require a filing.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:16 pm

Grifman wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.
Right and it says nothing of splitting the company into two companies. My point is that if was going to happen we would have heard of it in the news because of the required regulator filings.

Ah ha! They say splitting their "services," not splitting the company.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:07 pm

They do mention having a separate CEO for Qwikster, though.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:27 pm

Zaxxon wrote:They do mention having a separate CEO for Qwikster, though.

And tellingly...

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:31 pm

10 things to remember about Netflix while scratching your head about Qwikster.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:49 pm

If nothing else comes of it, and Netflix folds, at least it has shown a strong market for at-will programming as opposed to the traditional system.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:54 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.
Right and it says nothing of splitting the company into two companies. My point is that if was going to happen we would have heard of it in the news because of the required regulator filings.
But Odin's interpretation isn't out of line and the information that let him to it was provided to shareholders/SEC before customers. Separating the name, services, and website is the first step. Whether they go futher and split-off Qwiskster isn't announced but it's certainly being speculated, and not just by Odin.

Are they split currently? No. And yes, that would require a filing.

I'm not saying they aren't going to split the company or that people can't speculate. My point is that no split has been announced, and that if they were splitting, they wouldn't announce via a corporate blog but by the required regulatory process. That's all.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:55 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:If I read the CEO's message correctly, I'm interpreting this as a corporate split, where they'll each be separate companies.
Uh, I doubt this given all the regulatory/SEC filings that would have been required first. You tell your customers this before you tell your investors? A corporate blog is not how you normally announce such things
They submitted an 8K to the SEC on Thursday.
Right and it says nothing of splitting the company into two companies. My point is that if was going to happen we would have heard of it in the news because of the required regulator filings.
But Odin's interpretation isn't out of line and the information that let him to it was provided to shareholders/SEC before customers. Separating the name, services, and website is the first step. Whether they go futher and split-off Qwiskster isn't announced but it's certainly being speculated, and not just by Odin.

Are they split currently? No. And yes, that would require a filing.

Thanks, Lawbeef. Much more artful and informed than I could have put it.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:41 pm

The Oatmeal's take on the name change.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:00 pm

Unfortunately, Netflix streaming will still be inferior to disc-based content until they can stream all their movies in HD, in their proper aspect ratio, with 5.1 sound.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:13 pm

pr0ner wrote:Unfortunately, Netflix streaming will still be inferior to disc-based content from an A/V perspective for some titles until they can stream all their movies in HD, in their proper aspect ratio, with 5.1 sound. From a convenience perspective, Netflix streaming has bested disc-based content for years.

FTFY.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:43 pm

That ftfy is a shame, really.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:45 pm

pr0ner wrote:That ftfy is a shame, really.

To each his own.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:48 pm

pr0ner wrote:Unfortunately, Netflix streaming will still be inferior to disc-based content until they can stream all their movies in HD, in their proper aspect ratio, with 5.1 sound.

Any new stuff that I'm interested in has come down as HD. In 5.1? Not sure but it sounded good to me. They do say 1080i and 5.1. Better than any DVD I'm aware of.

But most of the stuff I watch on there is TV and documentary so I'm not overly concerned with PQ.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:10 pm

Why all this talk about DvDs? I thought BluRay was going to replace them?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:14 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Between that and the godawful cable lineup Comcast gives to tiny towns

Maybe Comcast's deal for the Xbox360 will be better.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:24 pm

Smoove_B wrote:The Oatmeal's take on the name change.

Ah-ha, Friendster. Add that to Napster on the list of lame names that Qwikster reminds me of.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:09 pm

pr0ner wrote:Unfortunately, Netflix streaming will still be inferior to disc-based content until they can stream all their movies in HD, in their proper aspect ratio, with 5.1 sound.

At the right price, a lot of that doesn't matter.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:56 pm

Grifman wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Unfortunately, Netflix streaming will still be inferior to disc-based content until they can stream all their movies in HD, in their proper aspect ratio, with 5.1 sound.
At the right price, a lot of that doesn't matter.

But it should. Especially with so many people here predicting the end of physical media. What's the point of eliminating physical media if streaming (or direct downloads) can't provide the movie as the director intends?

On that note, it's good that Netflix is losing Starz, as from my recollection, any movie that was a "Starz Play" looked and sounded awful.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Any new stuff that I'm interested in has come down as HD. In 5.1? Not sure but it sounded good to me. They do say 1080i and 5.1. Better than any DVD I'm aware of.

Unfortunately, a lot of HD is HBO style HD - it's chopped to fit a 1.78:1 screen instead of showing the full 2.35 (or 2.39 or 2.40):1 aspect ratio on movies shot or presented in that format. Annoying.

Overall, though, I find it strange that, on a forum of gamers with cutting edge gaming rigs wanting the best graphics and video possible for their games, they don't care that their what their movies look like.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:06 pm

pr0ner wrote:Overall, though, I find it strange that, on a forum of gamers with cutting edge gaming rigs wanting the best graphics and video possible for their games, they don't care that their what their movies look like.

I don't think anyone said that they didn't care. Of course I'd prefer everything come down in 1080p with 7.1 surround. We'll get there. And it will be glorious.

In the meantime, as with all things in life, there are tradeoffs to be made. The ability to watch any (and as many) of the multi-hundred items in my queue, whenever I want, in whatever order I want, from wherever I want is a positive thing. In my opinion, it's worth more than selecting the one item I want, waiting 1-2 days, watching it in slightly higher quality, and sending it back. YMMV.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:14 pm

I've got a pretty nice TV for its age. It's a Toshiba 55" rear-projection TV, and I paid extra for the "Cinema Series" model because the picture was noticeably better. With that said, even on demo/display TVs at the store, I can discern no significant difference between Blu-Ray and Standard definition movies. It's also pretty rare for me to complain about the sound in a movie I'm watching, with the exception that I get annoyed when the sound effects and/or music are significantly louder than the dialogue (forcing me to constantly turn the volume up and down to hear the actors without waking up the kids). I'm just not sensitive enough to notice the difference. I suppose I might if they were side-by-side, but it never happens that way in my house. Consequently, I don't feel strongly about it in my DVDs and streaming video service. If everything works smoothly and isn't too badly pixilated, I'm pretty happy. I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans are more in line with me than with the high-end audio/video-philes.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:18 pm

Zaxxon wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Overall, though, I find it strange that, on a forum of gamers with cutting edge gaming rigs wanting the best graphics and video possible for their games, they don't care that their what their movies look like.
I don't think anyone said that they didn't care. Of course I'd prefer everything come down in 1080p with 7.1 surround. We'll get there. And it will be glorious.

In the meantime, as with all things in life, there are tradeoffs to be made. The ability to watch any (and as many) of the multi-hundred items in my queue, whenever I want, in whatever order I want, from wherever I want is a positive thing. In my opinion, it's worth more than selecting the one item I want, waiting 1-2 days, watching it in slightly higher quality, and sending it back. YMMV.

except your selection is limited, and will take years for it to catch up. I cancelled the streaming for that reason alone.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:23 pm

No, my selection of the multi-hundred items in my queue is not limited.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:32 pm

Zaxxon wrote:No, my selection of the multi-hundred items in my queue is not limited.

Winky icons aside, of course it is. It's just that you (like many people) are more than satisfied with the alternatives. For my part, I can find many, many things on Instantwatch that I'm willing to watch. It's just not usually the stuff I most WANT to watch. That's a big difference, and makes it hard to justify things like price increases and other changes in service.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:38 pm

What you said and what I said are two different things. My selection amongst my queue is *not* limited. Whether I include a winky icon or not.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:05 pm

Zaxxon wrote:What you said and what I said are two different things. My selection amongst my queue is *not* limited. Whether I include a winky icon or not.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood the distinction there. Carry on.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:55 am

pr0ner wrote: Overall, though, I find it strange that, on a forum of gamers with cutting edge gaming rigs wanting the best graphics and video possible for their games, they don't care that their what their movies look like.

Movies have never been about PQ for me. More about plot/character/humor/etc than how they look. Which is probably how the majority of people feel but I'm probably in a minority where the quality of sound and picture, so long as it isn't absolutely terrible, doesn't detract at all from my enjoyment.

Of course my last rig was current gen -1 and PS3/360 graphics still impress me.