Technology

59106 readers

3835 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

955

200,000 users abandon Netflix after crackdown backfires (www.forbes.com.au)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.