If I pay for something, I want to own it. Revocable-access[1] subscription-based services are just a form of rent-seeking, and I'm deeply concerned about how this affects our society. As such, I'm not a direct customer[2] of Netflix and likely never will be.
That said, I think it's important to acknowledge when people you disagree with do good stuff--this is how we make sure that our disagreements are based on principles and logic rather than grudges.
Of the subscription services out there, it's my impression that Netflix is one of the best. They avoid a lot of dark patterns, and this latest action of not charging customers who don't watch is a very upstanding action, especially since it cuts into their profits in a really direct way.
There are still complaints I have about Netflix[3], but the real heart of the issue is that this cannot last forever. There's simply too much counter-incentive for a company to walk away from a revenue stream like this. And with a subscription business model, there's nothing to keep them honest, because Netflix has all the control.
[1] This is a term I'm basically inventing on the spot, based on something I've been thinking about lately. Physical print newspapers were subscription based but they weren't revocable-access: you received the newspaper on subscription, but once you received it, you owned it. This differs fundamentally from web-based subscriptions. With web-based subscriptions, if you let your subscription lapse, the site revokes your access to content which you previously had access to.
[2] Most people around me have Netflix subscriptions, so I end up watching a lot of Netflix with people, despite not having an account myself.
[3] a) Patterns that manipulate dopamine response. b) Glossing over credits so content creators don't get credit. c) Monopolistic practiced with regard to tethering content creation and content distribution together.
> Physical print newspapers were subscription based but they weren't revocable-access: you received the newspaper on subscription, but once you received it, you owned it. This differs fundamentally from web-based subscriptions. With web-based subscriptions, if you let your subscription lapse, the site revokes your access to content which you previously had access to.
But with online subscriptions, you also gain access to historical content: if you sign up for a traditional newspaper, you don't immediately gain access to previously published papers, only those published subsequent to your subscription. Modern online subscriptions are more similar to traditional libraries, providing access to historical as well as future content. Presumably this is a major factor why Netflix and other services insist on calling their collections "libraries", despite being otherwise dissimilar. I think it's an interesting question though: would people pay for a Netflix subscription that provided irrevocable access, but only to current and future content? I would say probably not: a significant portion of the value proposition of Netflix is due to their historical content: "you can watch anything you want" (that we have), regardless of when it was published. Would you pay for this service?
Well, I only brought up physical print newspapers to explain what "revocable access" means, not to make any sort of argument. Arguments by analogy aren't valid logic anyway.
Non-revocable-access subscriptions are, in my opinion, just a convenience layer around the ownership model. The man function of these subscriptions is automating the buying of something you buy on a regular basis anyway. There's an element of vendor lock-in in some models, but not all.
There are plenty of examples of the ownership model gaining access to an extensive archive: it used to be that you could buy the Criterion Collection on DVD, for example. Presented this way, however, it becomes immediately obvious that people don't actually want to pay for the entire archive, at least not at the price the owners of the archive wanted to sell it at. You don't want the entire Netflix archive, you only want a few movies and shows from it. The primary problem here is that archive contents are massively overpriced: nobody wants to pay $8 for every DVD in the Criterion Collection. In an ownership model you have to let people pick and choose the parts of the archive they want and buy only those, or if you're selling the entire archive in one chunk, the price per-unit has to be low enough to justify making the buyer pay for vast swaths of content they don't actually want.
Steam does a good job with this: they generally price their older games at a price that people are actually willing to pay, and their bundles tend to be intelligently grouped so that if you're interested in one of the bundled games, you're probably interested in at least a few of the others.
> Glossing over credits so content creators don't get credit.
FWIW, Netflix gives the producer of the content the choice on whether that happens or not. So it's the producers who are actually choosing to skip the credits, not Netflix. Netflix just gives the option.
> Monopolistic practiced with regard to tethering content creation and content distribution together.
Netflix would rather not do that. Remember, they started as a DVD service. The nice thing was that because of Fair Use, they could have any movie the want on the service. If streaming worked the same way, and they could just buy "retail" copies of movies and stream them, they would be much happier.
They only shifted to the content creation model because they had to, because it was cheaper than licensing someone else's content.
It's nothing novel. It's like a concert ticket entitles you to a 3 hour subscription to an event that you don't get to keep, and a movie ticket means you get to sit in a place for 90 minutes. The event happens and then it's gone. Only your memory remains. You don't get to keep your seat.
That said, I think it's important to acknowledge when people you disagree with do good stuff--this is how we make sure that our disagreements are based on principles and logic rather than grudges.
Of the subscription services out there, it's my impression that Netflix is one of the best. They avoid a lot of dark patterns, and this latest action of not charging customers who don't watch is a very upstanding action, especially since it cuts into their profits in a really direct way.
There are still complaints I have about Netflix[3], but the real heart of the issue is that this cannot last forever. There's simply too much counter-incentive for a company to walk away from a revenue stream like this. And with a subscription business model, there's nothing to keep them honest, because Netflix has all the control.
[1] This is a term I'm basically inventing on the spot, based on something I've been thinking about lately. Physical print newspapers were subscription based but they weren't revocable-access: you received the newspaper on subscription, but once you received it, you owned it. This differs fundamentally from web-based subscriptions. With web-based subscriptions, if you let your subscription lapse, the site revokes your access to content which you previously had access to.
[2] Most people around me have Netflix subscriptions, so I end up watching a lot of Netflix with people, despite not having an account myself.
[3] a) Patterns that manipulate dopamine response. b) Glossing over credits so content creators don't get credit. c) Monopolistic practiced with regard to tethering content creation and content distribution together.