nerdrage’s Techdirt Profile

nerdrage

About nerdrage




nerdrage’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 19th, 2021 @ 10:18am

    this is priceless

    Cue world's smallest violin.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, okay if I share "Bloof's" or &

    I'll bet Netflix has that situation covered in their TOS so go read it and don't ask us.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re: To paraphrase Harvey Dent…

    If you define being greedy and profit-driven as "corrupt," then I hate to break it to ya: all corporations are corrupt. Stop giving them money if this bothers you. Make your own clothes, grow your own crops. You want "corrupt," the clothing and agriculture industries are two of the most abusive around. Netflix is a fluffy bunny compared with them. And don't get me started on big pharma. Better make your own medicines too.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:23am

    Re: this has nothing to do with the MPAA

    I know why this happened. Some minion at Netflix thought "hey I can look good to the boss by squeezing a little more profit out of subscribers." Netflix runs tests like this all the time. They tested their shuffle feature, found that it was successful and rolled it out to the whole subscriber base. Now they're cracking down on pw sharing as a test.

    They can see if they are making more or less money with the test group compared with the control group. Depending on the results, they will roll it out or cancel it entirely. I bet it works and they roll it out to the whole population, and the person who thought of it gets a raise or maybe just to keep their job. Netflix is notorious for being rough on employees who don't perform.

    "It's because if there was no piracy, they wouldn't consume the content at all."

    Nope. It's been well documented that pirates are heavier-than-average media consumers, including paying for Netflix, Disney etc. If they couldn't pirate media, they wouldn't stop paying for what they already pay for (why would they?) and possibly pay for more. Why not crack down and see if you can get them to pay for more?

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: pw sharing is trivial

    Compared with the bigger issues Netflix faces, I don't see pw sharing as being a very important factor. More of a side experiment Netflix is running to see if they can squeeze a little more profit out of subscribers.

    But the big issues revolve around competition and expansion. Disney can wield big brands like Star Wars and Marvel while Netflix doesn't have that option, how big of a problem is that for them in the future? What about markets like India where ARPU is rock bottom, how do they deal with markets like that?

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:15am

    Re: not so much

    I've worked for companies pre-IPO and they act just as greedy before the IPO as after. People don't found companies as charities unless it's planned to be a nonprofit all along.

    Pre-IPO, the focus is on pleasing the initial investors and launching a successful IPO to pay them off. Private or public, corporations always have investors who provide funds with an eye towards profit. The IPO just opens the investment up to a larger group of greedy shareholders.

    I doubt that there was any time in Netflix's history when they were materially less greedy and profit-focused than they are right now.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:10am

    Re: when was Netflix ever friendly?

    Netflix has always been focused on profit, like all other corporations.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:09am

    what's the big deal?

    Netflix is just running an experiment to see if cracking down on pw sharing makes them more money than it loses. Depending on how this turns out, they will continue it or not.

    It's cute seeing people rage about how "corrupt" this is. This is just business as usual and Netflix has never been non-corrupt in this regards. It has always been a greedy, profit-hungry corporation just like all the rest of them.

  • Mar 15th, 2021 @ 2:04pm

    definitely beats cable

    Sure the streaming options are better than cable but I just wonder how many of them will be viable businesses vs being acquired by more successful streamers. HBO Max will probably make it. I don't think Peacock will. Maybe it will limp along with older or cheap programming. Reality TV & the like.

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 10:24am

    fair is fair

    If some guy with a gun stops me for speeding, I generally will maintain a polite attitude. This rule obviously would apply only to white people anyway. Black people who mouth off to cops generally end up in the morgue so perhaps it's only fair white people should have to mind their manners too?

  • Mar 6th, 2021 @ 8:37am

    Re:

    I'd call it BS but that's the wrong gender.

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re:

    They only get a synergy if they pivot some paradigms fast enough.

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 10:33am

    Re: semantics

    Pay TV is just industry jargon for cable. Streaming is usually called SVOD or (if ad supported AVOD).

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 10:31am

    I tat I taw a copyright lawyer

    Why hasn't Warners sued Twitter for infringing on their Tweety Bird trademark?

  • Feb 23rd, 2021 @ 12:09pm

    Facebook, not the most evil of them all?

    Everyone is so used to Facebook being evil that it's confusing when they're not the most evil in any given situation.

  • Feb 2nd, 2021 @ 11:33am

    the problem with social media

    The social media business model is this: users are the product, to be sold to customers (advertisers) who provide the funds to keep the business going.

    So that's the fundamental issue. Products don't have anonymity. Products can't expect to be treated like human beings. If you object to being treated like an inanimate object, then get off social media and stick only with services where you pay a subscription so you know that you are the customer, not the product.

    Anybody who uses Facebook, Instagram, etc is either clueless or willingly putting themselves into a situation where they will be treated with no respect. I don't use social media at all (well okay YouTube but I don't really count that, it's more like free low-grade Netflix) and I'm surviving just fine.

  • Feb 2nd, 2021 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Apple I can see...

    Apple is banking on innovation to keep them ahead of the pack and that requires investment. For example, supposedly subscriptions are now the big thing as a new business model for them, but with AppleTV+, their attempts at news, etc, they have a ways to go. If they want to make this work, they'll need to invest heavily in it.

    But Colgate...? Are there huge new developments in toothpaste that require investment?

  • Feb 2nd, 2021 @ 11:27am

    Re: yep Netflix

    Netflix has been famously (infamously?) in debt up to its eyeballs but just recently finally announced its cash flow is positive. This shouldn't have bothered investors because the reason they borrowed is that streaming is in its land-grab phase. Lock in subscribers now all over the world and most of them won't bother to cancel. Netflix's brand is now equivalent to streaming, it's the default service. That will pay dividends for decades.

    This is a good example of "smart debt," where you have an actual plan to capitalize on that debt. As for AT&T, they have "dumb debt" (DirectTV - why buy any business in secular decline?) and "maybe okay debt" (Time Warner, assuming they can turn their HBO Max debacle around).

  • Jan 13th, 2021 @ 10:51am

    no pun intended, honest!

    "I had to pay some kid in the Ukraine $750 so I could access my own genitals" is a new wrinkle many hadn't seen coming.

    But I'm pretty sure Philip K. Dick wrote a story about that.

  • Jan 12th, 2021 @ 12:48pm

    this is so simple...

    Free speech is a government thing, not a corporate thing. Governments protect free speech simply by not squelching it. And that's all free speech is. Governments not doing something.

    Corporations have no role in this. They produce "speech" or acquire it by some means - hire a director to make a big budget movie, allow a President to start an ongoing Twitter rant - and then they sell tickets to the movie or get advertisers to pay them for the huge page view numbers that ensue.

    They don't care if the speech is good or bad or right or wrong. They just want to make money off it. When the director becomes unpopular or the President becomes toxic and starts to scare advertisers or threaten to get the company into legal trouble, then they kick them to the curb.

    The director and the President were just workers creating products for them to sell. If the product is no longer profitable, the worker gets fired. People keep on not understanding that when you post something on social media, you are making a product for a corporation to sell and not cut you in on the profit.

    Maybe if you're on YouTube and very successful, you get a small % of ad revenues, but that's it. You're basically an unpaid employee. Corporations boot employees, paid or otherwise, all the time. And employees have no expectations of free speech when on the job.

More comments from nerdrage >>

.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it