Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickthegreek | Hacker News Reader

The plan that offers UHD also offer multiple screens. It it is a legitimate way for customers to pay to stream multiple things at the same time. So while it costs around the same as the HBO plan, it offers something that some other services do no. Apple TV+ allows family sharing, but I dont know about Disney+.

View on HN

Netflix’s multiple screens implementation makes it everyone has access to everyone else’s profile. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together, but I can see how that can cause fewer possible subscribers if people start sharing.

>. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together

Spotify does that and it's a complete deal breaker.

I want to log in to all my home devices _once_, with a single account. Not continuously log out and log in and try to type complex passwords with a remote control. I mean, I can't even play different songs on different Google Homes or different TVs with Spotify, unless I sign in with different account on each - and then each device is stuck with a specific set of playlists. Horrible.

Netflix's system has worked out brilliantly for us - we have half a dozen TVs, and any member of the family can watch anything they want on any TV with their own preferences and profiles with minimum hassle.

I understand why Google works that way since the login is tied to gmail and chrome browser history, but I’m not sure about Spotify. They have a popular Facebook integration but I don’t know if you can get any private info out of the Spotify account.

I find that we rarely share devices, even TVs. I AirPlay things if I’m in a common room and it’s too much work to search it.

There are lots of systems that let multiple users sign in and switch without re-entering credentials. Game consoles are a good example.

When's the last time you used Spotify? Honest question, because that's the exact opposite of how Spotify works. You can be logged into as many devices as you want with the same profile, you just can't play simultaneously on each device without setting up profiles. I love that implementation, because it means I can seamlessly transition a song i'm playing on my phone over to another device with the app controls.

Every day.

Again, the use case is different.

What you describe: If you are an individual, ability to login same profile on many devices is sufficient (both netflix & spotify do this).

I'm talking about family use-case with multiple devices.

With Netflix, my wife, myself, our kids, anybody, can click a profile button on any of our devices (TV, tablets, phones, etc) and simply continue watching what they were watching, get their recommendations, etc. Crucially, they can watch different stuff at the same time on living room TV and basement TV, with no hassle.

I have opened support cases and there is currently no way I'm aware of to do that with Spotify. I have Google Homes in all the rooms, and I want to seemlessly play different stuff in different places. To do that, I have to create as many accounts as there are devices (that's a LOT!), AND each device is now locked in to their playlist/song/etc.

The underlying difference of paradigm is: 1. Netflix - single account with multiple soft profiles. You can watch as many streams on same account as you paid for, hassle free

2. Spotify - multiple accounts loosely linked solely for purpose of billing. Each account can not stream multiple places. So if you want to stream something on three devices in parallel, you have to a) Create three accounts; b) log in separately with those accounts in each device. What when I have dozen devices? (4-6 Google Homes, 6+ tablets and phones)? It is now insane to do anything.

Basically we now exist as isolated islands and have given up on listening to music in kitchen and family room at the same time. This is awful.

FYI, the "Standard" Netflix plan offers 2 simultaneous streams in HD for $12.99 per month in the US. The "Premium" plan offers 4 simultaneous streams in UHD for $15.99 per month.

But anyway, I only have one screen, so it's still the case that Netflix charges considerably more just to receive UHD content. As price discrimination goes, that's a pretty scummy way to do it. They've shot and produced this content in UHD, yet they give a much lower quality version to their base customers. I know they have every right to do that, and it might make business sense for them (since people with UHD TVs probably have more disposable income), but it has always felt scummy to me.

Netflix's costs are higher for UHD streaming: storage, bandwidth, production, et cetera. What's scummy about it?

In my view, the "native" format that they produced the content in is the format they should be delivering by default (if supported by the viewer's setup). Of course I recognize that people will disagree, after all, UHD Blu-rays also generally cost more than 1080p Blu-rays. But of course, UHD Blu-rays aren't backwards compatible with standard Blu-ray equipment, so it doesn't feel like an artificial limitation simply for the purpose of price discrimination. This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality.

> This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality.

Almost every other video service globally does, and of those you mentioned Prime's pricing is mostly based on shipping, Apple TV+ at this point is effectively a PR campaign and not a proper service, and Disney+ is running at a massive loss leader to build share.

Netflix isn't charging a sustainable amount of money as it is. You should probably think of it less as charging more for UHD as offering a crazy discount for lower content quality.

Storage and production costs for something available in UHD are the same regardless of whether someone streams a downscaled version. Storing multiple resolutions (assuming they do that rather than downscaling live from the stored highest-res or making the client do it) is where additional costs for more versions would show up.

You need to store downscaled versions anyway for low-bandwidth clients. However, with UHD you also have to store the UHD version, in addition to all the small ones. You also need more storage not just in your own DCs but also in those cache boxes you have at every major ISP; then there's the peering costs for transmitting those UHD videos, etc.

It’s common practice for the online video rentals (many different providers including Google and Amazon) to charge more for HD. In reality the marginal cost of providing digital content is almost zero, so there is never going to be “cost-plus” pricing. They are always going to charge whatever the market will bear. Price discrimination allows more value-conscious customers to get content at a lower price than they would otherwise.

They're offering better quality for a higher price. I don't understand why that's "scummy". It's the most honest way to price something.

You could just watch it in regular quality - it's not that bad. Either you feel UHD is worth the extra $3/month (honestly a pittance compared to the price of a UHD TV) or you do not.

Disney+ allows streaming to up to four devices simultaneously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com