Netflix splits DVD and streaming business into separate companies, adds games

Outfitter03

Good article on the blundering decisions made by this company in the last 6 months. Maybe they will reward the CEO with a $50,000,000 bonus and send him packing?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/298681-netflix-redux-is-it-ever-ok-to-fire-your-customers

Demiurge

Keiko wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong also, Demi, but two increases up to 60% in a year seems pretty steep, IMO. As far as their streaming service, which is mediocre at best, will be offering less now since they're losing their contract with Starz and Disney. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other at this point. Before all this, I thought it was a decent service at a decent price. For some, that's still the case. For me, I opted to cancel and move on.

Well, the cancel part you got down, but not the moving on.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Nice that you like to see a US company fail

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

Netflix is realizing that while streaming might be the future, DVDs are the present. Actually, today's paper had a good article on how ISPs are charging, or will start charging, for bandwidth usage. This will decrease streaming use, especially when the consumer has to decide between Internet ****, or reruns of I Love Lucy.

Not to mention that the device you use to stream Netflix and that devices inter-phase can vary greatly. This is an area Netflix and others have no control over. I get so sick and tired of people complaining about the poor quality of Netflix streaming. It's because the device and set-up you are using is less than optimal. Get a new device or a better set-up. I get HD quality picture and whatever the top level audio they provide. I use a ROKU HD box, so I have no issues streaming. I understand for many the limitation is them not streaming in 5.1, etc. That is a legimate gripe if they expect to phase out physical DVD's and just go with streaming, but I assure you that is coming.

So I for one am glad they conceded to the pressure and didn't spin off the DVD division. Not to mention I am enjoying the CEO make an **** out of himself with all the missteps. I did some investigating and even at $15.98/month it's still about the best deal going if you never want to leave your house and always have something to watch at a moments notice and not have to return anything on a schedule. I have adjusted to the price increase and will re-evaluate in March or whenever the STARZ contract is up.

H9

SolidSqual

heiney9 wrote: »

Not to mention that the device you use to stream Netflix and that devices inter-phase can vary greatly. This is an area Netflix and others have no control over. I get so sick and tired of people complaining about the poor quality of Netflix streaming. It's because the device and set-up you are using is less than optimal. Get a new device or a better set-up. I get HD quality picture and whatever the top level audio they provide. I use a ROKU HD box, so I have no issues streaming. I understand for many the limitation is them not streaming in 5.1, etc. That is a legimate gripe if they expect to phase out physical DVD's and just go with streaming, but I assure you that is coming.

So I for one am glad they conceded to the pressure and didn't spin off the DVD division. Not to mention I am enjoying the CEO make an **** out of himself with all the missteps. I did some investigating and even at $15.98/month it's still about the best deal going if you never want to leave your house and always have something to watch at a moments notice and not have to return anything on a schedule. I have adjusted to the price increase and will re-evaluate in March or whenever the STARZ contract is up.

H9

Interestingly, I just returned a Roku XD because the Xbox360 and PS3 picture quality is fat superior. You should check it out if you haven't already.

Mike

AsSiMiLaTeD

Uh yeah, that's what your comments pretty much indicate...

mantis

SolidSqual wrote: »

Interestingly, I just returned a Roku XD because the Xbox360 and PS3 picture quality is fat superior. You should check it out if you haven't already.

Mike

The xbox360 is probably the best Netflix streamer aside the Apple TV2. The Apple Tv is faster and has a beautiful interface. I do however really like the xbox360's interface. Both are very nice.
The Ruku Sucks ****. I didn't like that interface at all for anything. It's clunky and very dated looking. Most Blu ray players I don't care for as well as a Netflix streamer.

Rivrrat

This whole split thing was barely a blip on my radar, in fact I thought it made good business sense. However the amount they raised their fees was and still is an issue with me, and it's an issue I'm still deciding on.

I can guarantee if we decide to cut back on our multimedia subscriptions, Netflix will be the first to go.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Keiko wrote: »

Whatever! If they fail, it's because they cut their own throats.

I'm not disputing that

mantis

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

You guys not receiving emails need to check your spam settings then. Everyone I know has received an email. I HIGHLY doubt they're 'picking' on people and not sending them emails, its much more likely an issue on your end.

Yep They where going right in the trash , thanks I didn't even think of that.

kuntasensei

BlueFox wrote: »

Netflix is realizing that while streaming might be the future, DVDs are the present. Actually, today's paper had a good article on how ISPs are charging, or will start charging, for bandwidth usage. This will decrease streaming use, especially when the consumer has to decide between Internet ****, or reruns of I Love Lucy.

Yeah, people don't realize that the new net neutrality rules passed by the FCC basically open things up for ISPs to charge per-use on bandwidth or have tiered services. That handy streaming service on our freely open internet pipe will take a major hit when heavy Netflix users are paying twice as much for internet. What was once a nice bonus will then become a major expense, and Netflix is one of the primary reasons this is going to happen.

disneyjoe7

mantis wrote: »

The xbox360 is probably the best Netflix streamer aside the Apple TV2. The Apple Tv is faster and has a beautiful interface. I do however really like the xbox360's interface. Both are very nice.
The Ruku Sucks ****. I didn't like that interface at all for anything. It's clunky and very dated looking. Most Blu ray players I don't care for as well as a Netflix streamer.

I don't care for XBox interface, since you need to be a Xbox Live Gold member to make it work.

kuntasensei

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I don't care for XBox interface, since you need to be a Xbox Live Gold member to make it work.

Yeah, but in fairness, why would you not be an Xbox Live Gold member? Especially considering this:
http://majornelson.com/2011/10/05/xbox-360-teams-up-with-entertainment-leaders-to-transform-tv/

heiney9

Why would I pay Xbox to stream? My ROKU looks fantastic, the interphase works as it's supposed to and I've never had a lick of trouble beyond an occasional ISP issues and an occasional Netflix issue, just like the internet going down or a router needing to be reset, etc.

I love my ROKU and will continue to suggest it for those of us who have no desire to use a gaming counsol, since I'm not into gaming at all.

H9

kuntasensei

heiney9 wrote: »

Why would I pay Xbox to stream? My ROKU looks fantastic, the interphase works as it's supposed to and I've never had a lick of trouble beyond an occasional ISP issues and an occasional Netflix issue, just like the internet going down or a router needing to be reset, etc.

I love my ROKU and will continue to suggest it for those of us who have no desire to use a gaming counsol, since I'm not into gaming at all.

H9

No one was saying that YOU should. But for people who already own an Xbox 360, it ain't too shabby... especially with everything coming in November's dashboard update. And the interface aside, your Roku box won't do Comcast Xfinity or AT&T's Uverse streaming, which is going to be a nice addition for 360 owners, along with the many other channels of content coming after the dashboard update. And you can't search that content with your voice like 360/Kinect owners will be able to. Just sayin'... There are reasons for those of us who already have the system for gaming. :cheesygrin:

disneyjoe7

Not that I don't or wouldn't play games on a xbox, I find it makes a very nice Media Extender for WMP which I use just for tv. Since the WMP can stream Netflix for $0.00 I have trouble paying for it on a second tv.

BTW sucks also since Wii can stream Netflix for free also, where you need to pay year after year to do it. Sucks Sony I say.

heiney9

kuntasensei wrote: »

No one was saying that YOU should. But for people who already own an Xbox 360, it ain't too shabby... especially with everything coming in November's dashboard update. And the interface aside, your Roku box won't do Comcast Xfinity or AT&T's Uverse streaming, which is going to be a nice addition for 360 owners, along with the many other channels of content coming after the dashboard update. And you can't search that content with your voice like 360/Kinect owners will be able to. Just sayin'... There are reasons for those of us who already have the system for gaming. :cheesygrin:

I agree if you own and Xbox definitely take advantage. As far as Comcast or Uverse, I have no interest in it. I have all the Dish on-demand, Hulu and Amazon streaming which I have never used with the ROKU. Too many choices and not enough time. I can barely keep up with my DVR interests let alone all the other sources of material out there.

But I agree, if you have a game counsol take advantage.

H9

Outfitter03

SNL skit that didn't make the time cut this week on Netflix.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/netflix-apology/1359563

praedet

I don't understand when it became a negative for people to actually learn from their mistakes in the US. The modern environment dictates, don't make a mistake ever, and if you do, ignore it and keep making the same mistake. If you actually change due to new information that was not available at the time, you are obviously stupid or incompetent.

Ignore the price increase for a minute. For whatever reason the CEO/company thought a name change/split was best for the company and users. The users disagreed. So, the CEO/company said, "Thanks for your feedback, we will go with what you want so that you are happy."

Seriously, that is the sign of a bad CEO/company?

BlueFox

praedet wrote: »

I don't understand when it became a negative for people to actually learn from their mistakes in the US.

When companies quit focusing on their customer and their employees, and instead started focusing on their stock price and Wall Street ANALysts, is when American business started it's decline. As long as companies hire MBAs, and try to please ANALysts instead of their customers, they will fail. Of course, the executives and the ANALysts will have extracted as much as they can from the company before they drive it out of business.

praedet

So, they did something they thought was best, for whatever reason, learned that the customers didn't like it, and corrected that decision. That is bad?

You can make this out to be us vs. them as much as possible, but pick any decision made in public these days. You will be crucified if you make a decision and change that decision in the future because the data that you had was wrong or incomplete. This is just one example.

Moreover, do you truly think that making money for a company has nothing to do with making its customers happy? It doesn't matter who makes the decisions and how you decide to capitalize their title, if a company continues to make decisions solely based on profits and pisses off their customers, that company, as well as the folks that made the decisions, goes away...

AsSiMiLaTeD

The reversal just shows a lack of commitment to a decision I guess. I'm happy with the move personally, but get why people question his judgement when he wavers on decisions like that.

Take Apple, for instance. People have been pressuring them for years to include Flash support on their products, and they've continually resisted, citing reasons that I don't agree with. But in interviews and such, Jobs basically said "Suck it, if you don't like it go buy something else, but we think our product is good enough that you'll still buy it, so we'll see you in line at the Apple store". That approach is going to alienate some people, but they're still fairly successful.

I can actually see the argument both ways, where standing your grand and listening to customers are both good decisions, and am glad they reversed it. One thing you can't argue though, looking at their stock clearly the changes over the last few months have been all bad and they need a new CEO

exalted512

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

they need a new CEO

I'll volunteer. I'll even take half of what the current CEO is making.
-Cody

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

When companies quit focusing on their customer and their employees, and instead started focusing on their stock price and Wall Street ANALysts, is when American business started it's decline. As long as companies hire MBAs, and try to please ANALysts instead of their customers, they will fail. Of course, the executives and the ANALysts will have extracted as much as they can from the company before they drive it out of business.

If you think any major public company in the entire world is doing things for the warm fuzzy customer or employees, and not to make money (stock price / wall street analysts) you're even more delusional than you sound. Some are just better at it.

ryanjoachim

Keiko wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong also, Demi, but two increases up to 60% in a year seems pretty steep, IMO. As far as their streaming service, which is mediocre at best, will be offering less now since they're losing their contract with Starz and Disney. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other at this point. Before all this, I thought it was a decent service at a decent price. For some, that's still the case. For me, I opted to cancel and move on.

I don't have any hard numbers in front of me, but isn't that kind of increase exactly what cable (and a lot of power) companies have been doing for years? Not saying it's a good thing, just that it seems to be common practice nowadays.

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

If you think any major public company in the entire world is doing things for the warm fuzzy customer or employees, and not to make money (stock price / wall street analysts) you're even more delusional than you sound. Some are just better at it.

DUH. Learn how to read. That is what I said.

Now this part is delusional. No employee of any public company should be compensated in any manner with stock. No stock options, no employee stock purchase plan. If they want their company's stock then they need to buy it with their own money. They need to focus on their customers, and employees, not on somebody who bought a piece of paper.

The only time a company gets anything from a stock sale is when it does an IPO. After that, it is just one fool buying a piece of paper, and trying to sell it for a higher price to a bigger fool. The company gets nothing from these sales, yet they spend countless man-hours every quarter kissing ANALysts butt.

Having executives compensated with stock is the single biggest cause of the decline of American business. Instead of focusing on what is good for the customer they are focused on themselves.

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

DUH. Learn how to read. That is what I said.

Now this part is delusional. No employee of any public company should be compensated in any manner with stock. No stock options, no employee stock purchase plan. If they want their company's stock then they need to buy it with their own money. They need to focus on their customers, and employees, not on somebody who bought a piece of paper.

The only time a company gets anything from a stock sale is when it does an IPO. After that, it is just one fool buying a piece of paper, and trying to sell it for a higher price to a bigger fool. The company gets nothing from these sales, yet they spend countless man-hours every quarter kissing ANALysts butt.

Having executives compensated with stock is the single biggest cause of the decline of American business. Instead of focusing on what is good for the customer they are focused on themselves.

1. Your spelling / capitalization of analysts is not clever.

2. While it's true that the price of stock is in many ways arbitrary, that's irrelevant. Owning stock in a company means that you are part owner of that company. Executives are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to do what is in the best interest of the stockholder, whether they are stockholders themselves or not. Your statement that "the only time a company gets anything from a stock sale is when it does an IPO" is... misleading at best, because it assumes a company exists in a vacuum, or is some kind of sentient being. When a "company" does an IPO, all it means is that the owners are selling a portion of their company away, and thus that same portion of control is sold away. The company now becomes, essentally, all of those stockholders. It only exists to make those people money (or, more accurately, increase the value of what they own).

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

1. Your spelling / capitalization of analysts is not clever.

Are you an ANALyst? You sure are trying to justify their parasitic, useless, existence.

The company now becomes, essentally, all of those stockholders. It only exists to make those people money (or, more accurately, increase the value of what they own).

And that is exactly what is wrong with American business. Frack the customer. Frack the employees. Frack society. The company only exists to make money the royal stock holder.

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

Are you an ANALyst? You sure are trying to justify their parasitic, useless, existence.

Not even close. I work with computers and have no connection to the "business" world. I'm just not 4 years old.

And that is exactly what is wrong with American business. Frack the customer. Frack the employees. Frack society. The company only exists to make money the royal stock holder.

It's called "business", not "fairy tale and lolipop land."

A business doesn't have to become public and have stockholders. There are plenty of businesses that stay private. But I hate to break into your fairy tale world, but they are just trying to make money too. If they're not, they're likely not still in business. The folks who want to make people happy don't start businesses, they become teachers or nurses or go feed babies in Africa. If you start a business, you're doing it to make a profit. There are way more effective ways to improve the world (or, at the very least, you could be Bill Gates, and spend 30 years milking billions from the world only to give it all back).

Feel free to start a business that is not designed to make money, but rather to make customers and employees happy. No one is stopping you. Or just make outlandish blanket statements about businesses that mostly make no sense.

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

Feel free to start a business that is not designed to make money, but rather to make customers and employees happy. No one is stopping you. Or just make outlandish blanket statements about businesses that mostly make no sense.

Are you sure you aren't 4 years old? Your reading comprehension skills are at that level.

Where did I say a business should not make money? Answer: no where. I said a business should put the customer and employee first, not some ANALyst. Make a product people want (the hard part), put the customer first, treat your employees fair, and you will make tons of money. Pay your employees a decent salary with bonuses from your profit. Anything left over reinvest in the business for the future. Pay taxes to help the society that provides you with transportation infrastructure, fire, police, and other services. Then if there is any excess money you cannot get rid of then pay a dividend to the stockholders. If people have a problem with that business plan then fine, do not buy the stock.