200,000 users abandon Netflix after crackdown backfires::Aussies have spoken, and the results are not looking good for Netflix. A new report reveals why users are turning to streaming competitors.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Every time Netflix was in the front page of reddit, I’d check my Netflix stock.

      My Netflix stock keeps increasing. The first so called “massive exodus” took it from $140 to $220. It’s currently over $400.

      So… Yeah.

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Maybe. It’s just the start right? How many will keep those subscriptions? What about when they raise costs again? I’ve had a Netflix account for a really really long time. I was even grandfathered into a plan at one point. Eventually was forced into coughing up more and more money, getting less and less for it. It wasn’t just the password sharing. It was the way they keep running their business, and how it’s going across the whole streaming system. I cancelled my service a few days ago after over a decade of service.

      On top of this all: 🤬 ads. I’m so sick of being bombarded literally everywhere. From Products I buy and bring home, to being outside of the house. I’m sick of being a cash cow and getting ’trickle down’ wages and dealing with inflation. So yeah. 🖕 Netflix.

  • ensignrolaren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 years ago

    I canceled as soon as they said they were going to be cracking down, months ago. I pay for 4 screens, and on principle, I want to be allowed to use them without being nagged or scolded or banned. So if they don’t want my business on those terms, there are plenty of other streaming services with just as much content I like.

    • calypsopub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Same here. I was paying for four accounts, and it shouldn’t matter where they’re logged in. I haven’t missed it at all

  • Downcount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t care about Netflix password sharing policies. But I do very care about their content policy. I don’t even start a new show until I know they finished it without cancelling it half way through. I also do care about the fragmentation in the streaming industry. I’m not willing to buy me in in 5 streaming services just to view 5 different shows.

    Fuck you, I’ll go back to the bay.

  • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Who are these 50% of Aussies who think we need more locally produced content on streaming services? Our content sucks, who’s actually watching these Aussie dramas / series

    • Ryumast3r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Australian taskmaster is a treasure and there’s nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.

    • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Probably the same kind of people who make similar arguments about CanCon.

      There’s always been this tension between “We need a thriving TV and film industry in this country” and “Most of what we produce is garbage for the purpose of using government grants” here. Can’t help but wonder if it’s the same on your end of the planet (#justcommonwealththings).

      At least there are always a couple diamonds in the sludge, though (here, Schitt’s Creek, TPB, and I’m sure some others even though the other ones I think of are looong over)

  • JoJoGAH@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Aye, I left when they started up their bs in Canada. I will very grudgingly turn it on once Three Body Problem is out and then turn it right back off. Or even, if I can buy TBP from another streamer or DVD , I’ll wait and do that. This greedy crap from Netflix is personal to me. So sick of greed.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not even greed. It’s horrible mismanagement. They dug themselves a whole bunch of financial holes based on a false belief that they could continue seeing the same subscription growth without stopping to consider the possibility that there was a point at which they would inevitably plateau. And now they are scrambling to find ways to make up the shortfalls in their goals now that the plateau is in sight. Some genius executive thought cracking down on shared accounts would fix that. 😂

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

        Idk , I mean… unsustainable growth , to me, that’s the same thing as greed.

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    200,000 users is like a piss in the ocean for Netflix, especially when every other major streaming platform is also hiking prices, introducing ads and cracking down on account sharing.

    We are still far from the days of cable.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      The significance of this, in my opinion, isn’t that Netflix lost 200,000 users in Australia, but that for the first time Netflix has seen a decline of users in Australia. No more line goes up, oh no!

      Either way, this is probably less from password crackdowns, more people jumping to alternative streaming platforms.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Who does your post serve? It’s definitely meaningful, especially inn a relatively smaller population like Australia.

      Your post smells like piss.

  • Foam3477@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I am now happily sailing the seas. Guess who is the one that makes the content readily available

  • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    According to the chart it’s a loss of 3% of their total subscriber base. I highley doubt Netflix will bat an eye.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is for Australia. Unfortunately, last I read, you’re right about it helping their numbers globally, to the extent that Disney is looking into cracking down on sharing too. I did not get my own subscription. Most of their shows are dull to me, and the ones that I like often get canceled.

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Legally, it is not, but I get your sentiment.

      I would like to say piracy against the big guy also hurts the little guy making the content you like.

      I am all for pirating that scientific journal and that college book but there is a reason writers, artists, and the people making a shit amount of money for the work they put into the things we love.

      I won’t support something that hurts a regular person giving me the things I like to watch, but I get your sentiment.

      • JamesFire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        but there is a reason writers, artists, and the people making a shit amount of money for the work they put into the things we love.

        It’s because their contracts are exploitive, not because of piracy. Piracy is almost always done by someone who wouldn’t have paid (Whether because of lack of ability or choice) anyway. A large majority of people pirating can’t afford the content (Which means they wouldn’t have been a paying customer if pirating wasn’t an option), can’t get it legally (Which means they wouldn’t have been a paying customer if pirating wasn’t an option), wouldn’t have bought it anyway out of principle (Which means they wouldn’t have been a paying customer if pirating wasn’t an option), or (Mostly in the case of games) they’re trying it out to see if it’s worth it.

        This idea that everyone that pirates could and would buy it if pirating wasn’t an option is completely false. Most of them just wouldn’t consume the content if pirating wasn’t an option.

  • hamid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I ditched my account when they first started talking about this because I was only using it to share. I swapped Netflix for Criterion because I realized I’m just not in their market anyway

  • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Didn’t the analysis of europe and the US show an increase in subscriptions?

    Also:

    Telsyte notes there is also resistance to the new Netflix ad supported model, and concerns amongst consumers over the increase in cost of living. As living expenses balloon, the majority of video-on-demand users have accepted that streaming fees will too, according to Telsyte.

    Is almost definitely what it was. I know I cancelled my netflix a few years back because the price of everything kept going up. Now I get a month when there is sufficient new content to watch and then cancel it again.

    Which also aligns with

    That could signal comfort with a price increase. Half of those surveyed called subscription services ‘vital’ to meeting their entertainment needs. And they are budgeting accordingly. Telsyte says that on average, Aussies are now willing to allocate $36 per month to streaming services.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’d be willing to allocate $100 a month for life, if I could watch all content I want instantly. Instead they all scrambled to create multiple competing services with different UI’s, and often none of them even host the shit I want to watch, completely remove, or replace originals with modified “rewritten history” versions anyway.

      Instead they get nothing from me and I sail the high seas, paying the same amount of money to computer hardware manufacturers and other internet services. If the majority did the same, they’d change their business models, but consumers are idiots.

      • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean, what you are asking for is:

        1. A monopoly
        2. Basically Cable TV with an on demand catalog? Which has existed for at least a decade, if not two or three, at this point?
        • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          Having everything you want in one place isn’t a monopoly unless everything you want is only in one place.

          Streaming is on-demand TV sans ads, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there.

          • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Unless we are specifically saying that everything YOU want needs to be on a service and the moment there is an episode of yu-gi-oh that isn’t uploaded yet it is trash: Yeah, you basically do need media monopolies.

            Which… gets back to cable. A decade or so ago? Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month. Get premium cable to get most channels and then spend extra for HBO or sports or whatever. And comcast and verizon both had a lot of VODs available too. Many of which didn’t even have ads. And the rest? you DVR it and then fast forward through the ads when they show up (… which is better than hulu). REALLY like movies? Get cinemax too.

            And, barring “obscure” anime (which actually had a couple networks too), everything was there. Same with (actual) B-movie horror and the like.

            But people realized they could pay less for most of what they want with stuff like netflix. Which made it viable for smaller production companies to get widespread distribution.

            But… 100 bucks a month for the vast majority of media is cable TV.

            • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month.

              You might have had that in the US, but in my country there has always been protections against monopolies in the TV industry and therefore we had (still have) several competing networks, some paid, some free with ads, all about the same size, and 99% of content was exclusive to one network. A few shows would be available on two but not many.

              It wasn’t too bad, because there was enough free/ad supported content that paying to get a little bit more was a luxury which could easily be avoided. And it was closer to $50/month (US) to have everything here

              With the new generation more content than ever is locked behind a paywall there are so many services if you wanted everything you’d pay far more than $100. I think I have 20+ streaming services on my TV. Nearly all of them (including Netflix) don’t have an active subscription.

            • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Which… gets back to cable. A decade or so ago? Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month. Get premium cable to get most channels and then spend extra for HBO or sports or whatever. And comcast and verizon both had a lot of VODs available too. Many of which didn’t even have ads. And the rest? you DVR it and then fast forward through the ads when they show up (… which is better than hulu). REALLY like movies? Get cinemax too.

              You’re projecting an American perspective, but I suspect you’re talking to an Australian.

              Cable in Australia has always been considerably more expensive than in the USA, and includes considerably less content. Except for movies, it was also never available adfree. It was changing in the last 5 years when I left the country, but it wasn’t even close to competing with the likes of Netflix on price or service and I don’t think there was any ad free option (despite the dramatically higher cost to consumer) - there was a whole media oligarch conspiracy to sink the national broadband upgrade because they knew they had the market cornered with their monopoly and streaming would disrupt that.

        • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          No - what they’re asking for is how it already works with music streaming services. Where there’s no monopoly.

          You can choose basically any streaming service and you get basically every recording ever published.

          • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Music streaming services largely “work” because of how centralized all the record labels are. It is not a true monopoly but it has almost all of the same downsides. Independent artists/“smaller labels” more or less have to work tooth and nail to get themselves added to the various catalogs… often with considerably worse royalties.

            Spend some time researching “spotify alternatives”. Spotify, Apple, and Youtube all basically have the same catalog because they are the big three. There are slight differences, but none that most people care about. But once you start looking at that french service people like or other smaller services, you have MASSIVE gaps in the catalog.

            Which… is not too dissimilar from netflix/hulu/whatever. Those have more “exclusives” but you still have those bread and butter shows and movies that everyone has in their catalog. Or even in the video game space where gamepass/playstation plus are pretty similar.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The ad supported bullshit: isn’t this the majority of new subs for netflix and those companies who have ad supported tiers?