backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by Hieyeck.. on Sep 21 at 8:22 AM

Netflix splits its streaming, DVD businesses; Qwikster to add video game rentals

It's been a rough few months for Netflix. The company saw massive backlash when it decided to raise the prices of streaming + DVD plans. Netflix was once again in the hot seat when Starz decided not to renew its distribution deal, which means that streaming customers will lose out on Disney and Sony content when the current deal expires in February 2012.

Netflix knows that it has a PR nightmare on its hands, and CEO Reed Hasting apologized for the debacle in a blog post Sunday night:

I messed up. I owe everyone an explanation.

It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology...

I want to acknowledge and thank our many members that stuck with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly. 

Now, Netflix is making yet another change that is sure to ruffle a few feathers. Hastings announced this that Netflix will spin-off its DVD-only business into a new company called Qwikster

"So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are becoming two quite different businesses, with very different cost structures, different benefits that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently," said Hastings. "We chose the name Qwikster because it refers to quick delivery."

Qwikster will be headed by current Netflix DVD guru Andy Rendich.

The streaming service will still be called Netflix and both will be completely independent. That means that you will need a separate account for each, you will be billed separately for each, and reviews written for one Netflix content will not show up on Qwikster (and vice-versa). Likewise, Netflix pricing will remain the same at $7.99 for its streaming-only plan. Qwikster will retain the current DVD-only pricing of $8.99 for a single DVD out at a time, $11.99 for two DVDs and so forth.

This change will allow both companies to focus on their strengths, but it makes management on the customer's end even more complex. 

"Some members will likely feel that we shouldn’t split the businesses, and that we shouldn’t rename our DVD by mail service," Hastings added. "Our view is with this split of the businesses, we will be better at streaming, and we will be better at DVD by mail."

If there is one positive to come out of the deal, Qwikster will now have the option to rent Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 games for an additional fee (similar to the way Blu-ray movies are handled currently).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This just makes me all the more certain...
By Creig on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
By 0ldman on 9/19/2011 8:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing...

It is becoming less fun and more of a pain in the ass.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By FITCamaro on 9/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Da W on 9/19/2011 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, short of piracy, Netflix is the cheapest way to watch movies.

From a company perspective, it makes perfect sence since the streaming aspect has MUCH HIGHER margin than the DVD by mail aspect. They want to get rid of it and keep the high profit part. Buisness is buisness. And, i'm still waiting for somebody ot offer a better alternative.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 1:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
So which is it.
Has the expense of streaming increased so much that rates had to rise 60%? or are margins higher with streaming? One of those statements is false.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Labotomizer on 9/20/2011 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't change the fact that, for the money, Netflix is by far the best deal out there. I didn't use the DVD service anyway, I'd rather go to Redbox and pick up a Bluray if the movie isn't there to stream. For $8/month I get unlimited streaming of every movie in their library. That is an insanely good deal considering the alternatives. I could pay $5/movie and get 1.5 movies through On-Demand. I could pay $1/movie and see 8 movies total through Redbox, as long as I actually got it back the next day (which rarely happens). Every service besides Netflix wants to charge on a per movie basis. Considering the use I get around my house from it, especially for my daughter who just discovered Ren and Stimpy, it is easily the best $8/month I spend. That's the price of a combo and most fast food places these days!

I don't understand the backlash. Netflix has gotten big and the content providers are trying to squeeze more money out of them. Starz wanted them to charge on a per movie basis, or additional money just for their service, and they refused. They offered them $300 million/year. Where do you think that money comes from. DVD delivery is more expensive for the delivery of the movie, cheaper for the licensing. Content providers are still incredibly anal about the idea of streaming a movie over the internet and because of that Netflix pays more per movie to offer it to the providers. Sure, delivery costs go down, but overall it's likely break even. Especially for high volume users like myself.


By thurston2 on 9/20/2011 11:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For $8/month I get unlimited streaming of every movie in their library.


You can't stream every movie in their library.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By room200 on 9/19/2011 9:08:56 AM , Rating: 1
You're the moron that pisses me off the more than anyone here. You always talk about "free market this", "free market that". Isn't one of the principles of the free market to offer a product at a price people are willing to pay? I'm not willing to pay, so I cancelled my account. I really don't give a shit how much their "content" costs are. That's between them, their providers, and their shareholers. Netflux isn't concerned about not making money; they're concerned about making HUGE money and want to pass it on to the consumer. When they start to care about what it costs for me to take care of my family, I'll start to care about the cost of their content. I'll speak on behalf of all of us who decided Netflix wasn't worth it when we cancelled; FITCamaro, you can bite me.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By paydirt on 9/19/2011 9:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? You're complaining about something that costs $8/month?


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By room200 on 9/19/11, Rating: -1
By Mortando on 9/19/2011 12:42:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Who's complaining? I didn't complain one bit. I made a decision.

Lol, you must have learned that technique from my ex.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By room200 on 9/19/2011 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, seriously. You guys act as if we owe these companies our business. We don't. I haven't looked back since I cancelled, haven't missed them, and I haven't complained about their price increases. I'm replying to FITCamaro. Why do you find it so difficult to believe that other people don't find the same value in a product that you find?


By thurston2 on 9/20/2011 11:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
They are corporate whores.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Hiawa23 on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By room200 on 9/19/2011 10:53:10 AM , Rating: 4
hate to break it to you, but most company's that you buy product from cares not what it cost you take care of your family.

Actually, that was my point. I was throwing that talking point back in the faces of those who always preach that crap here. But if you notice, many posters here keep talking about what the content cost Netflix; my point is that THAT isn't my concern. I know that Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint all have costs to run their businesses, but that doesn't concern me. My point is how much is each going to charge for a service that I want?

Can I afford the price increase of Netflix? Yes. Is it worth it to me? No. I didn't use the service that much anyway. Is it worth it to others? Yes. Then they should keep the service. I'm not advocating that anyone should cancel Netflix based on MY personal choice.


By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Netflux isn't concerned about not making money; they're concerned about making HUGE money and want to pass it on to the consumer.


Um, ya... right. You must be from bizzaro world. Netflix actualy did the opposite of what most companies would have done. They only passed a portion of the cost to the consumer. Remember, their content costs when up 10x but only increased prices by 2x if that. That doesn't sound like they are trying to rob your pockets while having their foot on your neck holding you down.

I don't care for big businesses, but the only thing Netflix has done wrong is not convey the situation correctly to their customers.


By StanO360 on 9/19/2011 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
You may have made the rational choice for yourself, I don't begrudge you that at all. But "greedy" implies they're ripping people off, they clearly are not. My guess is that they have been losing money to dominate the market and now are trying to make money.

In most businesses "greed" is not an option, competing is the only option. Netflix made movies a commodity and it will forever be a thin margin business (great for consumers bad for Netflix/Blockbuster/Amazon etc. I realize you made a free market choice (and a good one for your family), I may make it too. But that's no reason to smear Netflix.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By FITCamaro on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
By ClownPuncher on 9/19/2011 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
Is there any guarantee they will increase content with the price hikes?


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just that they are trying to purchase more content, but they are also trying to stay afloat.

Their current content will cost them 10x as much next year. How can a company not raise prices when their costs went up so quickly?

I also believe that those content providers are fighting tooth and nail to extort as much as they can from Netflix. Just look at Starz. Netflix offered them almost a half a billion dollars and they still walked. I don't understand exactly how Starz will make up for this loss but they wanted more money.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 1:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody knows what their costs are.

Their licensing costs might have gone up from $0.05 per month to $0.50 per month. That is only one component of their costs of doing business. Verizon paid $10B for more spectrum three years ago and they actually DROPPED their prices shortly after.


By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 3:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your example is possible. I will say, though, that having "Verizon" and "dropped their prices" in the same sentence sounds so otherworldly to me since they are by far the most expensive wireless provider by a long shot.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 11:24:37 AM , Rating: 1
Are you really that stupid? The cost to Netflix from the content providers has increased by 10 times. Yes, that is a 1000% increase in their cost. Are you really complaining about a 100% increase?

Exactly how is a company gonna offer you the same $1 burger when the hamburger costs 10x as much as it did last year?


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By room200 on 9/19/2011 9:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
They may not be able to. So, I'll stop eating their burgers until another burger joint comes along who can offer me what I want for a price that I'm willing to pay. Free market, right?


By sigmatau on 9/19/2011 10:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Free market? LOL! You really believe that? So tell me, when 5 people control the hamburger market and won't allow anyone to buy hamberger any lower, how long will you wait? Infinity is a long time buddy.

You really think the content providers will reduce their prices? Starz walked away from hundred's of millions of fees. They wanted way more. There is no such thing as a free market except in books.


By thurston2 on 9/20/2011 11:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FITCamaro, you can bite me.


I'm sure he would if there was a big brown log hanging out of your ass.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Dr of crap on 9/19/2011 9:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
While I understand your statement, their streaming content is crap.
Unless they increase what is available or change/put them on some kind of a rotation schedule, Netflix streaming customers will continue to jump ship.
I've been thinking of quiting streaming just for that reason.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Hiawa23 on 9/19/2011 10:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
While I understand your statement, their streaming content is crap.
Unless they increase what is available or change/put them on some kind of a rotation schedule, Netflix streaming customers will continue to jump ship.
I've been thinking of quiting streaming just for that reason.


They should jump ship, the selection is terrible for streamin if you look at new movies & shows like me, so we agree. Like I said I canceled the streamin service, for the very reason, & if they are splitting the business to show that physical media is the dinosaur, then like I said open up streamin with all the movies that we can get from the physical media side, & do away with the 30day rule on some new releases. $14.99 is still the best value for me, but Netflix is heading down the Blockbuster road.


By CityZen on 9/19/2011 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
I bet Blockbuster is smiling in its grave :)


By jjmcubed on 9/19/2011 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your personal attracts really do take away from your arguments. These types of personal attacks that aren't delt with, really do diminish the credibility of Dailytech in general.


By room200 on 9/19/2011 9:04:17 PM , Rating: 1
How is their content cost ANY of our business? If they can't provide the content we want, then if they lose enough customers, they'll either lower their prices, or they'll collapse, right? Soon enough, another company will come along and take their place. Free market, right?


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By quiksilvr on 9/19/2011 8:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
...What? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea how much licensing costs are to stream movies? It cost them upwards of a BILLION dollars just to get streaming rights for the selections they have now. And their profit margin is ridiculously low for DVDs when compared to streaming.

Well over half of their customers purely stream. The whole point of the price hike and this splitting of the company is to turn people away from DVDs, increase demand for streaming and convince greedy MOVIE COMPANIES to be more realistic with their streaming licenses and have more selection for the consumers.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Hiawa23 on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
By paydirt on 9/19/2011 9:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
In order for them to license for streaming the good stuff, it would cost a lot more per month.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By quiksilvr on 9/19/2011 9:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Good lord man. The first point I made was the insatiably high streaming costs. I even fully capitalized the word "billion". Do you need a frigging picture? It's expensive to stream!

Here's a visual representation of how expensive it is:
http://gotgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dr-e...


By Ringold on 9/19/2011 10:08:17 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly, and you dont mean bandwidth either. And the movie industry seems to view streaming over the internet as a mortal threat to their very existence, so that Netflix has been able to get what they have out of them impresses me. Business equivalent of negotiating nuclear disarmament practically.

What people should really rail against is the content creators and providers that, like the music industry, is having a hard time figuring out how to adapt to change. Attacking Netflix is shooting the messenger.


By icemansims on 9/19/2011 10:09:36 AM , Rating: 3
Yup, and you know what's going to happen? You're going to see a bump in piracy if you keep making content too expensive/unavailable. The MAFIAA better be ready to answer for it more than the pirates themselves given they're driving out of business the one company that was allowing them to make SOME profit.
Torrents incoming.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/19/2011 8:53:43 AM , Rating: 5
Greedy?

The initial licensing deal that Netflix signed with Starz cost $30 million. Netflix offered them $300 million and Starz STILL walked.

Costs are skyrocketing.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Solandri on 9/19/2011 9:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
I think this may be a strategy to counter that. As Netflix was originally structured, they could subsidize streaming costs with DVD rental revenue. Clearly they don't think Starz's package was worth more than $300 million given how many of their customers utilized streaming. Clearly Starz thinks it is worth more.

By separating the two divisions of the company, they make it clear to the studios that any negotiated streaming licensing fee has to be less than the streaming revenue minus costs. They cannot subsidize the streaming service with revenue from the DVD service.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By FITCamaro on 9/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 1:20:50 PM , Rating: 3
But the point is incorrect. Netflix has said AGAIN and AGAIN that they are moving to streaming because the margins are much, much, much better due to the high cost of mailing DVDs. If anything, streaming has been supporting the DVD business.

All I know is that the movies I want to watch are NOT available on streaming, but are on DVD. So I guess I will be a Kwikster customer going forward.

What Netflix doesn't understand is that ANYBODY can stream. They currently hold a dominant position because they can provide both a vast catalog of disks as well as streaming if you have to watch something now (or are catching-up on old TV). By breaking the businesses in two they are doubling-down on stupid. Expect Amazon, Hulu, or Google to steal their streaming crown in 2012.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Solandri on 9/19/2011 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Netflix has said AGAIN and AGAIN that they are moving to streaming because the margins are much, much, much better due to the high cost of mailing DVDs. If anything, streaming has been supporting the DVD business.

You're assuming there are as many streaming customers as there are DVD customers. The margins may be better on streaming, but the vast majority of their revenue can still be due to DVD rentals if there are a lot more DVD customers than streaming customers.

The hearsay I've read says that of Netflix's nearly 22 million customers, about 21 million of them request DVDs, but fewer than 2 million of them stream.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By SRHelicity on 9/19/2011 5:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix just revised downward their subscriber projections. The current estimated breakdown as is followed:

DVD-only: 2.2 million
DVD + Streaming: 12 million
Streaming-only: 9.8 million

The number of streaming-only subscribers is several times larger than that of DVD-only subscribers. In other words, ~21.8 million subscribers stream through Netflix, and "only" ~14.2 million people receive a DVD through Netflix.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/15/netflix-releases-...


By Solandri on 9/19/2011 6:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected then. Thanks for the info.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/19/11, Rating: 0
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 2:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide documentation of actual streaming costs.

All we know is that they had a deal for all of Starz content for a miniscule $30M for three years. Even if it costs $1B/year for ALL content that is easily paid for since streaming-only user fees earn them over $2B.


RE: This just makes me all the more certain...
By Hiawa23 on 9/19/2011 9:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
WTF! What is netflix attempting here? Can anyone explain to me why they are doing this? Is one portion losing money & pulling down the other? I have been a subscriber to Netflix since day 1, & when they announced the price increase I decided to go with just DVD/Bluray rentals, & cancel streamin, as the selection wasn't good, & I rarely watched it, as I watch more current & new releases & any movie that is streamed if I want to watch it I can just rent the bluray or dvd copy, but what is this going to do for Netflix? How does splitting into what seems like 2 company's will do & why? Netflix BR/DVD rentals are still the best value to me, but why are they doing this? Why change the name?


By paydirt on 9/19/2011 9:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't personally know why they changed the name (it seems like a bad idea). But since your Watch Instant Queue is different than your Rent Queue, it's not a big deal. Separating the reviews is a pain.

It's possible they are selling the mail rental business. What is known is that they are changing their strategy for the mail rental business by adding video game rentals and choosing to market the mail rental business again (which apparently they had stopped doing)


By nafhan on 9/19/2011 9:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Curious what you're doing as an alternative. Redbox? Torrents? Hulu? Blockbuster? Cable? As far as I can tell... there's still nothing out there that's as functional, cheap, and legal - even after this.

Not defending this change. I think it's perplexing and annoying.


By tekzor on 9/19/2011 11:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that netflix wasnt ready to plunge into streaming AND dvd rentals.
So now we get a poor excuse letter to make us feel better.
At least give the current users some perks in order for them to stay on.


Qwikster?
By Willhouse on 9/19/2011 9:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a fan of this new companies' name, Qwikster. Couldn't they go with Netflix-D and Netflix-S or something? Anyway, I'm definitely dropping streaming when this comes about. I don't have time to look for items I want to see and then go to another site to see if they are are available to stream. Not to mention streaming is still inferior to DVD-viewing at the moment.

Also, will they be transferring our queues?




RE: Qwikster?
By VoodooChicken on 9/19/2011 12:47:59 PM , Rating: 3
Calling anything -"ster" does not project a positive image (shyster, huckster, trickster, napster...). Personally, I would have called it Mailflix (unless that's already taken) so that it's obvious which company offers which service.


RE: Qwikster?
By Netscorer on 9/19/2011 3:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
Netflix is clearly preparing Qwikster as an independent separate entity that would be easy to spin off and then sell to the third party. This is why name can not remind of Netflix and movie queues would be completely separated. My guess, Netflix would try to move itself out of mail business within the next 12-18 months, while it still can. Because with the way the internet streaming is going, the traditional distribution models for entertainment (TV, mail) are quickly becoming obsolete.


RE: Qwikster?
By priusone on 9/19/2011 5:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, traditional distribution models are changing, but with bandwidth caps and HD media both becoming more prevalent, it will be interesting to see what happens.


RE: Qwikster?
By Hieyeck on 9/21/2011 8:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
Bandwidth caps? What 3rd world country do you live in?


RE: Qwikster?
By idiot77 on 9/20/2011 1:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
1. quickster
Being able to get girls in the sack quick.
Did you see that quickster in action? It only took him 5 minutes to get that girl to his bedroom.

Nice.....


RE: Qwikster?
By danjw1 on 9/19/2011 6:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
There are new devices (ie Roku 2) that allow 1080p and 5.1. I am sure it will be highly compressed, but it may well be better then DVD.


RE: Qwikster?
By hyvonen on 9/20/2011 2:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
PS3 already has 1080p/5.1 Netflix streaming, and picture quality is vastly superior to DVD (if you have a good ISP).

It can't compete with BluRay, of course, but overall Netflix HD is pretty damn good (now with subtitles!).


RE: Qwikster?
By abscode on 9/19/2011 9:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Was a member since 2004. I didn't like price increases but I found them acceptable. Two separate sites? FU, Netflix. I just cancelled.


Seriously...all this rage over 8 bucks?
By ramuman on 9/19/2011 12:32:03 PM , Rating: 4
It's the cost of a 6 pack and you guys complain?




By thurston2 on 9/19/2011 8:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should raise it to $16, it's only the price of a case.


By room200 on 9/19/2011 8:54:23 PM , Rating: 1
And yet if the price of postage goes up 3 cents, some of you will be bitching about how the gov. doesn't work and we need to privatize the postal service.


CEO suffer brain damage?
By michal1980 on 9/19/2011 9:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
for a company that seemed to be well run; recently Netflix has become increasingly stupid.




RE: CEO suffer brain damage?
By borismkv on 9/19/2011 6:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, it could be worse. They could be pulling an HP.


Um... Did I miss something?
By icemansims on 9/19/2011 10:01:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Likewise, Netflix pricing will remain the same at $8.99 for its streaming-only plan.

$8.99 for streaming?
Did I miss another price bump?
I thought they were both going to be $7.99 last I checked.




RE: Um... Did I miss something?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/19/2011 10:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my bad. Fixed :)


RE: Um... Did I miss something?
By icemansims on 9/19/2011 10:07:28 AM , Rating: 1
No sweat.
I thought I might have missed it. Another stealth bump wouldn't have surprised me.


Multiple streams...
By kb9fcc on 9/19/2011 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 4
So, all that smoke last week about only getting access to multiple streams was to have either have a multi-DVD package or pay for additional streaming accounts becomes moot. Now with two "completely independent" companies if you want multiple streams get ready to cough up an extra $7.99 each, period.

For those claiming how expensive it is to stream, really? Billions? Are these numbers coming from the source that the motion picture industry quotes the bogo-billions that piracy is costing them? Right. It's greed, pure and simple. Hollywood has finally noticed Netflix came up with a successful business model, and they want their cut, NOW, and Netflix seems to be caught in the cross-hairs. (Is Redbox next?)

I'm done with Netflix/Qwikster. The price increases were bad enough, but it's obvious now, by the CEO's own admission, that the company is mismanaged. It's one thing to restructure or raise prices, etc., it happens. But this "lack of communication" of one unpopular change after another dribbling out over weeks at a time, some of which contradict what just transpired, is a clear sign that management at Netflix has lost it's way and has no clue how to successfully run the company anymore. It would be comical if I didn't use and actually (used to) like the service they provided.




"not our intent"
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/19/2011 8:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah right. And how long does it take to unload a few million shares of stock? This whole company is looking increasingly dirty. It is blatantly obvious what they were biding time for. This company's executives have almost certainly committed acts which should invoke the wrath of the SEC if not the FBI.




By ketchup79 on 9/19/2011 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think the spinoff was in the works all along. I think the price hike was so that both parties could operator each service on their own.




Sleight of hand
By ctodd on 9/19/2011 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
This looks like an attempt to kill DVD without killing the Netflix brand. Once they split it off into two, people will associate Qwikster to DVDs and ultimately its failure. I expect they will drive it into the ground in about a year. How can they compete as a seperate buisness with Redbox. I see a lot of people loosing their jobs soon.




Meh...
By Breathless on 9/19/2011 11:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Enough is enough. I just canceled my DVD plan.




Rising Costs
By btc909 on 9/19/2011 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
The only "mistake" this D-Bag made was not milking the price increase. The price increase should have been gradual over several years. AKA several years ago to start. The million + customer base loss in 2011 would have been far less if this was started in say 2009. With Netflix being able to offer 300 million for STARZ to stay, it's obvious Netflix has the cash to spend. Come on Redbox it's now time to make a big jump. $1 streaming rentals.




Poop
By Stuka on 9/19/2011 1:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not gonna call them greedy or evil, but misguided. The price increase was absurd because it essentially doubled the price of streaming for 1/10 the amount of content as DVD. If anything, introduce streaming only at $5 and bump DVD up to $10. This new decision is just bizarre. He apologizes for wronging splitting the services, then immediately splits them into seperate companies. We couldn't have done this all at one time? I am seriously considering cancelling, not because I feel I'm getting raped, or because the product is lacking, but simply because I don't find their practices reasonable or well thought out and I wish to flex my vote as a consumer against their recent actions. At the end of the day, I don't need their service, so I suffer none by walking away. Worst case, I'm back with them in 6 weeks. But by then, their market reports are gonna show drastic changes due to all the others who dislike their actions. So, we'll see what happens.




What's with the CEOs lately?
By mac2j on 9/19/2011 7:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Who are these morons?!?!?

Did he go to some "How to alienate your customer base and drive your company into the ground" workshop with HP CEO?

I wish I could set up a parameter on eTRADE so that every time this guy opens his mouth in public it automatically puts in a short-sell order on Netflix.




What an epic, colossal, mistake
By tayb on 9/19/2011 8:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
I received this email at 6:00AM this morning and even in my half-awake state I was completely shocked and dumbfounded. The jolts to the brain just kept coming the more I read.

Netflix thinks it is BETTER for their customers that they now have to manage two different websites and accounts? As compared to the previous way where it was ONE website and ONE account? Hey I'm instant streaming on Netflix let me just go ahead and update my DVD Queue..... oh wait, now I have to go to qwikster and log in.

Not only that but this "apology" was anything but. It was a statement on the short term plans of Netflix.

I'm staying on streaming because I enjoy the service for that "I want to watch something" itch. Right now I'm going through Avatar: The Last Airbender which is nice because I don't have to buy and/or wait for the DVDs. I was looking for a reason to jump back on the DVD bandwagon but this is most definitely not IT.

"Hey angry customers. Please come back. We've diluted and overcomplicated our business in an attempt to bring you back!"

Fail Netflix. Epic fail.




By Lord 666 on 9/19/2011 7:36:24 AM , Rating: 1
Microsoft, Apple, or Google?




What Pissed Me Off...
By Arsynic on 9/19/2011 8:54:22 AM , Rating: 1
The streaming service has a gimped selection. The reason people payed a couple of dollars extra per month was to supplement the dismal streaming selection. I can get basic cable for what I pay for Netflix.

I guess the greed and utter stupidity of these companies is making it hard to cut the cord so to speak. Maybe that's what the movie and TV stations want.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki