J. Allen wrote:
He's way late
No, the post was from the 14th; I
was late. Coulda been clearer there.
Mike Ram wrote:
J. Allen is right, a lot of the anger was in response to the way Netflix handled it, as if they were "rewarding" people by splitting the plans (and not offering a combined plan with a discount).
I don't get that last part at all. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Netflix currently charges as low a price as they can, but it's a combined service, which many people don't want. So they split the services into two maximally-cheap services. By wanting a discount for the combined package, you're either telling them to lower their previous earning baseline or to charge the single-service people more
in order to make the double-service deal look a tad better by comparison.
Mike Ram wrote:
This will be a $6 (60%) increase for people who enjoyed a service which seemed like a perk, yet is now a large additional cost with no discernible increase in quality.
See what you said there? "Seemed like a perk." That's exactly what Lasalle was talking about. The studios want in on the action, and Netflix's expenses go up. They're not going to badmouth the studios for it to the public, though, because they want to keep cutting the best deals they can with them - so that they can save their customers money
To summarize: the complainers wanted a discount on the combined package, and thus for the single-service people to pay more for no good reason, and
they wanted Netflix to risk making us all
pay even more by antagonizing the studios - and all because they've gotten used to their "perks".
Well, sometimes perks go away. That's just life.