Hemi88: I guess this means an end to changing dns for us catalogue just had a look at the couple devices setup with custom dns and says location is Washington

Why? Why can't your home address be in Washington? Perhaps you opened a NZ account when you were here and then moved to Washington and so that is now your IP?

How are NF going to define what is the home IP address?

lchiu7:

 

Hemi88: I guess this means an end to changing dns for us catalogue just had a look at the couple devices setup with custom dns and says location is Washington

 

Why? Why can't your home address be in Washington? Perhaps you opened a NZ account when you were here and then moved to Washington and so that is now your IP?

 

How are NF going to define what is the home IP address?

 

I’d imagine the issue will be around switching regions. One minute your 65” TV is in Auckland, and 5 minutes later it’s in Washington. 

imagine the issue will be around switching regions. One minute your 65” TV is in Auckland, and 5 minutes later it’s in Washington. 

Hemi88:

imagine the issue will be around switching regions. One minute your 65” TV is in Auckland, and 5 minutes later it’s in Washington. 

Yeah that’s what I was thinking because my phone and tv are on Nz region while Apple tvs are set to us there is only a couple shows we watch on us region might be easier to find elsewhere and put all devices back to Nz

I’d just leave it and see what happens.

Paul1977:

 

I can’t find the post now to quote you; but you’d said something about this change not making Netflix more difficult to use, therefore no justification for anyone to resort to piracy. I agree, but the comments about people going back to piracy are more about the current state of the streaming marketplace overall.

 

Assuming you’re happy to subscribe to all the streaming services available in NZ; it’s fragmented, difficult to keep track of, and (in NZ) you still can’t get all the content you may want. On top of that, the content you can get is often in lower quality than it was produced in - Neon is max 1080p and stereo sound, TVNZ+ is also 1080p max, and most other services only offer their own original content in 4K HDR (the rest is, you guessed it, 1080p).

 

People didn't like an 'evil' Sky type monopoly because it was 'expensive' (they were getting ripped off etc) and didn't give them a choice to have less content for less money. Along came Netflix, then Disney, Paramount and all the other services, all with a bit of content each. Funnily enough that is how the market works, and strangely enough, by the time you add them all up, it's expensive, because to have unlimited access to all the content, means that whatever the total fee you pay is, it has to cover all costs and profits from everyone involved from the guy who changes the toilet rolls in the actors caravan, to the CEO of the studios. You can't have your cake and (legally) eat it too. 

 

I think people would be far more accepting of the change if Netflix were honest and just said “In the past we were fine with password sharing (and even encouraged it), but we are needing to change this policy to remain viable in a rapidly changing market”. But instead they spin it as if people were “confused” about the rules and they need it explained to them, or that people have been wilfully breaking the rules; but that’s not the truth. The truth is Netflix encouraged it and used it as a selling point, and have now decided they can’t afford to do that anymore. Just own it.

 

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. No matter how Netflix pitched this, people were going to be upset and threaten to leave, threaten to steal, it happens every price increase, every term change. People are over-entitled and despite having gotten a free ride for a long long time that they should have been grateful for and accepted would eventually end, are carrying on like spoilt kids. Netflix were probably OK with password sharing on a small scale, because it may have encouraged growth etc etc, but because people abused it on a large scale, it became a serious impact on their resources and or profit. 

I am not a genuis, but even without it being spelt out directly, I had no trouble understanding sharing meant within your household, or perhaps even direct and immediate family. There is no universe I'd consider it reasonable to interpret it as my uncles ex girlfriends, flatmates fiancess sister should be sharing my account.  No-one honestly does. 

Anyways this has all been really interesting, but no new ground has been covered in 4 pages or more. I've stated my position, seen not a single valid argument to change, and will not be responding further to these parts of this discussion as there really isn't anything to be gained. I guess we will have to see how the implementation is handled, what the actual impact is, and whether despite the gnashing of teeth and predictions of they won't, Netflix is still around in a year.

People expecting to get something that someone else paid for... well I never! What was that famous quote about running out of other peoples' money again?

networkn:

 

People didn't like an 'evil' Sky type monopoly because it was 'expensive' (they were getting ripped off etc) and didn't give them a choice to have less content for less money. Along came Netflix, then Disney, Paramount and all the other services, all with a bit of content each. Funnily enough that is how the market works, and strangely enough, by the time you add them all up, it's expensive, because to have unlimited access to all the content, means that whatever the total fee you pay is, it has to cover all costs and profits from everyone involved from the guy who changes the toilet rolls in the actors caravan, to the CEO of the studios. You can't have your cake and (legally) eat it too. 

 

For me cost isn’t the issue, as I thought I made very clear. The problem is having to manage 5+ different streaming services, some of which won’t even run on all devices. And then often getting lower quality than what was produced, or still not being able to access certain content at all. This isn’t having your cake and eating it too.

Neon (which I pay for) is the only legal way to watch The Last of Us in NZ, but it’s only 1080p stereo (and even the 1080p streams on Neon look rough to me). If I chose to download a pirated copy I could get it in 4K Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos sound. I can understand why people might choose to download a pirated copy, not to save money, but because it’s the only way to watch it as intended.

Some sort of umbrella streaming service that you then add Netflix, Amazon, Disney, etc as subs to that presents all the content seamlessly would be the best solution (as long is it provides content in the highest quality available); and it would need to be able to add subs of all the services or it defeats the point. The Amazon Prime US service does this in a limited fashion, but has too many services it doesn’t partner with.

networkn:

 

I am not a genuis, but even without it being spelt out directly, I had no trouble understanding sharing meant within your household, or perhaps even direct and immediate family. There is no universe I'd consider it reasonable to interpret it as my uncles ex girlfriends, flatmates fiancess sister should be sharing my account.  No-one honestly does.

I’d imagine the vast majority of out-of-household password sharing would be with immediate family members such as parents who would otherwise not subscribe, that’s certainly what posters in this thread are concerned about. The uncle’s ex-girlfriend would be a relatively fringe case.

Since the plans all have limited streams I have a hard time believing many are sharing willy nilly with casual acquaintances. I’d be very surprised if 80%-90% of non-household password sharing wasn’t with immediate family (or possibly couples that don’t yet live together).

Paul1977:

 

For me cost isn’t the issue, as I thought I made very clear. The problem is having to manage 5+ different streaming services, some of which won’t even run on all devices. And then often getting lower quality than what was produced, or still not being able to access certain content at all. This isn’t having your cake and eating it too.

 

Neon (which I pay for) is the only legal way to watch The Last of Us in NZ, but it’s only 1080p stereo (and even the 1080p streams on Neon look rough to me). If I chose to download a pirated copy I could get it in 4K Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos sound. I can understand why people might choose to download a pirated copy, not to save money, but because it’s the only way to watch it as intended.

 

Some sort of umbrella streaming service that you then add Netflix, Amazon, Disney, etc as subs to that presents all the content seamlessly would be the best solution (as long is it provides content in the highest quality available); and it would need to be able to add subs of all the services or it defeats the point. The Amazon Prime US service does this in a limited fashion, but has too many services it doesn’t partner with.

 

Fair enough. End of the day many if not all complained about a Sky monopoly. (although technically incorrect) We want competition. We now have it. While it would be convenient to conglomerate all the services into one platform, its not really needed. I use an ATV4. The cops are there, chose one to watch Last of Us, Star Trek Discovery etc. Easy. I have to go to a YouTube app so who cares of its TV3, Netflix, Amazon, etc?

But from this thread its not about convenience, its about cost, so conglomeration doesnt cover that. 

Paul1977:

 

networkn:

 

I am not a genuis, but even without it being spelt out directly, I had no trouble understanding sharing meant within your household, or perhaps even direct and immediate family. There is no universe I'd consider it reasonable to interpret it as my uncles ex girlfriends, flatmates fiancess sister should be sharing my account.  No-one honestly does.

 

I’d imagine the vast majority of out-of-household password sharing would be with immediate family members such as parents who would otherwise not subscribe, that’s certainly what posters in this thread are concerned about. The uncle’s ex-girlfriend would be a relatively fringe case.

 

Since the plans all have limited streams I have a hard time believing many are sharing willy nilly with casual acquaintances. I’d be very surprised if 80%-90% of non-household password sharing wasn’t with immediate family (or possibly couples that don’t yet live together).

 

I think @networkn quoted 30% or thereabouts?  I could be wrong. No it wont be casual acquaintances, but siblings, kids, partners of them

When I go to Briscoes once a year sale and buy a kettle, its mine. My kids, or wife pr MIL can use it. Its a household item. I guess I could loan my kettle to the kids and their partners...

Paul1977:

 

I’d imagine the vast majority of out-of-household password sharing would be with immediate family members such as parents who would otherwise not subscribe, that’s certainly what posters in this thread are concerned about.

 

If they would not otherwise subscribe, what is the issue? If they enjoyed it they can subscribe. If its not that important they wont, no issue. If they in fact do like it, then subscribe. When I buy a T shirt I pay for it. If the parents bought a T shirt, do they pay for it to not? 

tdgeek:

Paul1977:

I’d imagine the vast majority of out-of-household password sharing would be with immediate family members such as parents who would otherwise not subscribe, that’s certainly what posters in this thread are concerned about.

If they would not otherwise subscribe, what is the issue? If they enjoyed it they can subscribe. If its not that important they wont, no issue. If they in fact do like it, then subscribe. When I buy a T shirt I pay for it. If the parents bought a T shirt, do they pay for it to not? 

Paul1977:

The issue is that they enjoy it enough that they like having it, but not enough they’d be willing to pay for it. So who’s benefitting from preventing sharing? Netflix get no extra revenue, the paying customer is disappointed he can no longer gift a stream to his parents (and may downgrade to plan with fewer streams), and the parents can no longer watch. No winners.

Obviously this isn’t the only situation, but it won’t be uncommon.

Analogise that to a kettle at Briscoes. A TV series and a kettle are the same. They require costs to manufacture, and they create a profit, and that results in a retail price. I cant go to Briscoes and buy a kettle for $99, and get a couple free for my parents and kids. Even though a TV series is "invisible", its the same issue. 

tdgeek:

Paul1977:

The issue is that they enjoy it enough that they like having it, but not enough they’d be willing to pay for it. So who’s benefitting from preventing sharing? Netflix get no extra revenue, the paying customer is disappointed he can no longer gift a stream to his parents (and may downgrade to plan with fewer streams), and the parents can no longer watch. No winners.

Obviously this isn’t the only situation, but it won’t be uncommon.

Analogise that to a kettle at Briscoes. A TV series and a kettle are the same. They require costs to manufacture, and they create a profit, and that results in a retail price. I cant go to Briscoes and buy a kettle for $99, and get a couple free for my parents and kids. Even though a TV series is "invisible", its the same issue.