Comment by troupo

Comment by troupo 2 days ago

19 replies

View on Hacker News

I've worked in streaming. If you see a feature pulled, or announced and delayed, or announced and never shipped, 99.99999% of the time it's due to licensing. Every single permutation of any action that a user may find beneficial is covered by a different license with a different cost.

Oh. And ads. There's another can of worms if you need to serve ads.

In this case it could be that Netflix is an asshole. Or could be that they really could not figure out proper device attribution and ad reporting to the leeches that are the content owners and ad networks.

mingus88 2 days ago

I’m really leaning towards them being an asshole in this specific case.

Chromecast works in my EV for every other streaming app, so the licensing seems to be a solved problem for them. Netflix, however, never worked and my EV manufacturer had to release a support page specifically for Netflix not working.

I suspect this is just more account security. I remember paying $20/mo for a premium plan with a set number of screens on the contract…but one day their side changed and those screens had to be on my WiFi. I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change.

I cancelled Netflix after 15 years (DVD era) and have never looked back. Just hostile decision after hostile decision.

Reply View 4 replies
  • bsimpson 2 days ago

    Same. First, I kept my idle account for the recommendations. Then, I kept my idle account because my family used it (why Netflix ENCOURAGED when they added profiles).

    Then, some new, money-grubbing PM rolled in and decided to lock my parents out of my account. Okay, byebye Netflix! You jacked the price too high anyway.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • troupo 2 days ago

    > I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change.

    Even that often comes down to licensing. And it's as stupid as you describe it.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • ByThyGrace 2 days ago

      Does it maybe come down to changing licenses, as in a license expires and another is negotiated with different terms (to charge per household instead in the example above)?

      Reply View 1 reply
bri3d 2 days ago

I suspect this too; between licensing and ads I bet there's a "screen type" (mobile vs. fixed/TV) that needs to be "correct" for some contract reason, and casting is skewing their numbers enough that someone called them on it.

Reply View 0 replies
crazygringo 2 days ago

Thank you. The idea that this is due to ads makes complete sense, as there's a lot of indication that Netflix charges more for ads showing on a TV (more people likely to view) than on a mobile device (usually only one person).

The fact that casting is still supported for older Chromecasts only on ad-free plans makes this the likeliest explanation to me. Netflix doesn't want to be paid lower rates on ads that are actually getting shown on the TV.

Reply View 0 replies
buellerbueller 2 days ago

Advertising is a virus that invades and destroys every ecosystem it can.

Reply View 0 replies
LogicFailsMe 2 days ago

Don't build the Torment Netflix? These fundamentally anti-consumer moves are why it's called the Internet of sh**y things.

I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. But to be fair, all the streaming services are chasing the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. I canceled Netflix a while back. And I only watch prime video through an ad blocker on my PC now. Clearly I must hate freedom.

Reply View 10 replies
  • troupo 2 days ago

    > I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer.

    That's the thing though. Streaming services have very little say in how the content is licensed.

    > the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy.

    Those restrictions you're talking about? They literally come from licensing terms that rights owners impose.

    (Most) streaming platforms would gladly not spend a lot of time figuring the devices, what they are playing etc.

    Reply View 9 replies
    • LogicFailsMe 2 days ago

      My post obviously struck a nerve, but I would rather pay a higher subscription fee than experience a crappy customer experience. Ads are an exception here, if I'm paying, no ads, and also why I cancelled my NYT subscription long ago.

      However, that is not the storyline services like Disney and Netflix have been telling. They have gassed on and on about stopping piracy. 2 screens isn't piracy, it's any family with someone who travels or is away at college.

      The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. That would require spine so not expecting it, sigh. But they're sure happy to pick on sideloaders.

      Reply View 8 replies
      • troupo 2 days ago

        > The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders.

        How would you lock out rights holders who hold the rights to content to create such an official streaming API? Such an official API would have to abide by all the licensing rules rights holders impose.

        Reply View 7 replies