Netflix raises prices as password boost fades
Netflix raises prices as password boost fades
The streaming giant will charge subscribers more in some countries to fuel growth.
Netflix is starting to raise prices in some countries as growth spurred by its crackdown on password sharing starts to fade.
The film and TV streaming giant said it had already lifted subscription fees in Japan and parts of Europe as well as the Middle East and Africa over the last month.
Changes in Italy and Spain are now being rolled-out.
In its latest results, Netflix announced that it had added 5.1 million subscribers between July and September - ahead of forecasts but the smallest gain in more than a year.
You're viewing a single thread.
See, the problem with publicly traded corporations is, they've got to constantly not only be making as much money this year as they did the previous year, but they've got to increase shareholder value, which means, raising prices, or reducing the product to save costs, we have termed that last bit enshitification. I mean, they don't HAVE to, but if they choose not to, the board of directors will push for a change in CSUITE personnel, and those fuckers are raking in the big bucks, and really really like their 3rd vacation homes in Aspen, so you pay more, or you get less, and sometimes you pay more AND you get less. And the beat goes on.
I don't see what would be wrong with a world where businesses just satisfied themselves with providing employees with a reasonable living, contributed to the communities they were in, and provided a good or service that was needed. Sitting under a tree and reading a book sounds better than watching the world burn in your name-brand clothes and 5 bedroom 2.5 bath house.
That sir, is communism. And we all learned from 80s action movies that communism is bad.
In the real world, communism also suffered from the mandated growth problem, as well as a long list of other issues that some people still like to pretend solely exist under capitalism and some serious problems that are exclusive to this system. Yes, it is actually bad, with and without Cold War propaganda making it sound both worse and better than it actually was. It failed everywhere for a reason.
This doesn't mean that there aren't real issues with capitalism as well. So far, the best system we've come up with as a species is heavily regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets. Not perfect, but nothing is on this rock.
So far, the best system we've come up with as a species is heavily regulated capitalism with strong social safety nets
And for quite a lot of human history the best system we had come up with was Feudalism, until we started doing something better.
Just because Capitalism is the best we've come up with so far doesn't mean we should just accept it, or that 1000 years from now people won't look at the Capitalism with the same disdain we look at Feudalism.
There's a reason I said "so far". I'm open to the idea that there might be newer and better systems in the future. So far though, they haven't been invented yet.
I mean, they don't HAVE to, but if they choose not to, the board of directors will push for a change in CSUITE personnel
If the board doesn't maximize profit, the shareholders can sue them, so functionally they do have to.
Specifically, the Board and thus the CEO must maximize company VALUE not profit.
There are other ways to increase company value that do not necessarily result in Q/Q / Y/Y profit increases.
But in the 1970s you get a guy named Milton Friedman who comes along with the concept of shareholder value in a 1970 essay for The New York Times, entitled "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits".[5] In it, he argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders.
So there's been a lot of argument against it since esp as of late, but the economic hegemony still adheres to Friedman's economic principles.
There are other ways to increase company value that do not necessarily result in Q/Q / Y/Y profit increases.
Can you name some examples? I'm not very familiar with economics.
A bigger market share (or just market size if it's something new-fangled) at the expense of current profit, because that can turn into future profits. See most modern tech companies, which make a loss but still have value. For example, Uber just made a profit for the first time, and since they're everywhere that's a great position for a shareholder. People bought in in the past in hopes that this would eventually happen.
OP is a little off, BTW. US law - and it's probably the same elsewhere - says that the C-suite has to work in the interests of shareholders, who they represent as fiduciaries. It's just that there's only a few things a million APPL shareholders have in common, so in practice that interest is value and dividends. In a privately-owned company other things might factor in, for better or for worse.
IANAL
TBF small businesses do this too on average. There's some that don't, but then there's also some that straight up do crime, usually against employees.
To solve this, you either want a well-regulated market, or no market (however that would work).
Plenty of privately owned companies do the same things so I don’t think it can be chalked up to an issue with publicly traded companies.
The minor difference is private can choose what they want to do. public has a fuduciary duty to increase value
That's generally false. But even if it's true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they're legally rock solid.
In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.
public companies do not necessarily have a Fiduciary duty to the shareholders, let alone one to increase value. Any that they did have (based on the laws and how they are incorporated in a given jurisdiction) would also be applicable to a private company. Private companies also have shareholders, the shares are just not traded publicly.
You’re probably thinking of the theory of “Shareholder Primacy” but that is a theory not a legal reality, although some insist it is based on a questionable interpretation of the precedent set by dodge vs ford motor company.
Public companies can be run in what ever way the board/shareholders see fit.
They legally don't. It's just expected.
It’s all about who owns it and is sitting on the board.
Bunch of old money type people? They don’t care too much about a bad year, more important to weather the storms and keep the generational money intact.
Venture capitalists? Jack Welch this dogshit company and get us some short term gains!
Publically traded companies only exist because capitalists willed it so. Capitalism will always seek the path to greatest profits for the capitalist class with little to no regard for the consequences of that