Aussies have spoken, and the results are not looking good for Netflix. A new report reveals why users are turning to streaming competitors.

200,000 users abandon Netflix after crackdown backfires::Aussies have spoken, and the results are not looking good for Netflix. A new report reveals why users are turning to streaming competitors.

    • @WhatAmLemmyEnglish
      12•1 year ago

      I’d be willing to allocate $100 a month for life, if I could watch all content I want instantly. Instead they all scrambled to create multiple competing services with different UI’s, and often none of them even host the shit I want to watch, completely remove, or replace originals with modified “rewritten history” versions anyway.

      Instead they get nothing from me and I sail the high seas, paying the same amount of money to computer hardware manufacturers and other internet services. If the majority did the same, they’d change their business models, but consumers are idiots.

        • my_hat_stinksEnglish
          9•1 year ago

          Having everything you want in one place isn’t a monopoly unless everything you want is only in one place.

          Streaming is on-demand TV sans ads, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there.

            • @abhibeckertEnglish
              0•1 year ago

              Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month.

              You might have had that in the US, but in my country there has always been protections against monopolies in the TV industry and therefore we had (still have) several competing networks, some paid, some free with ads, all about the same size, and 99% of content was exclusive to one network. A few shows would be available on two but not many.

              It wasn’t too bad, because there was enough free/ad supported content that paying to get a little bit more was a luxury which could easily be avoided. And it was closer to $50/month (US) to have everything here

              With the new generation more content than ever is locked behind a paywall there are so many services if you wanted everything you’d pay far more than $100. I think I have 20+ streaming services on my TV. Nearly all of them (including Netflix) don’t have an active subscription.

            • @bigschnitzEnglish
              0•1 year ago

              Which… gets back to cable. A decade or so ago? Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month. Get premium cable to get most channels and then spend extra for HBO or sports or whatever. And comcast and verizon both had a lot of VODs available too. Many of which didn’t even have ads. And the rest? you DVR it and then fast forward through the ads when they show up (… which is better than hulu). REALLY like movies? Get cinemax too.

              You’re projecting an American perspective, but I suspect you’re talking to an Australian.

              Cable in Australia has always been considerably more expensive than in the USA, and includes considerably less content. Except for movies, it was also never available adfree. It was changing in the last 5 years when I left the country, but it wasn’t even close to competing with the likes of Netflix on price or service and I don’t think there was any ad free option (despite the dramatically higher cost to consumer) - there was a whole media oligarch conspiracy to sink the national broadband upgrade because they knew they had the market cornered with their monopoly and streaming would disrupt that.

        • @abhibeckertEnglish
          0•1 year ago

          No - what they’re asking for is how it already works with music streaming services. Where there’s no monopoly.

          You can choose basically any streaming service and you get basically every recording ever published.

    • @just_change_itEnglish
      0•1 year ago

      The ad supported bullshit: isn’t this the majority of new subs for netflix and those companies who have ad supported tiers?