Netflix is vastly bigger, granted, so who knows what machinations are afoot for them. But it is certainly believable to me that a company could choose to do something explicitly anti-greedy.
Not saying they can't occasionally make altruistic decisions like this, just that more people's interests are being weighed.
I think it's become common because the average public company CEO tenure has fallen by 50% over the same period that their compensation has gone up 10x. Now it's in their strong interest to juice the quarterly numbers and not worry about anything particularly long term, because that's going to be the problem of some other sucker. And similar incentives apply all down the executive hierarchy. The faster people move around, the easier it is to make bonus-related metrics go up even if it harms things a few years down the line.
Props to Netflix for unsubscribing users who don't use the service.
When I hear sob stories about how #{big_number}% of people can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, I'd love to know how many of those people would easily have $500 in savings if they cancelled all their unused subscriptions and stopped buying a new smartphone every year.
With economic gap between poor and richer, it is quite easy for one segment not to worry about subscriptions and for another to not have money.
Anecdotally, programmers and other well paid people I know areally waaay more likely to buy subscriptions then people I know who don't have money.
The people who buy new phone every year are also incredibly rate among those I know - not even rich people do it.
[Edited]
This is sort of like the fact that strict border controls encourage undocumented immigrants to stay once they've passed the border once.
Many people give money to ensure that a service is available when they need it.
Netflix, as a service, takes ~10 minutes to set up. This might be the case for a software suite like CC, where you might need to download a massive amount of data, or other software where you pay annually or enter into some kind of contract, but Netflix is strictly monthly and easy to sign up for by design.
I also run a business designed to be used in the moment when an author is struck with inspiration. It takes less than a minute to upgrade or downgrade (and some users choose to only upgrade for hours at a time each month with no penalty, aka a month of subscription time sometimes lasts a full year), but when I experimented with automatic downgrades to those who hadn't signed in all month I got complaints that they "weren't able to just log in and use the service they paid for".
Could just be a notice thing (improving messaging to more reliably let users know they've been downgraded), an option (letting users opt-in/out of automatic downgrading), or have other solutions (maybe refunding instead of downgrading?), but it does seem that at least some users like to feel like they're paying for something to be "at their fingertips" when they need it.
That seems like the right way to go.
I'm pretty sure that's just the absurd HN take on the "duty of loyalty", not an actual fact.
Also, if you absolutely need a pessimistic reason, I imagine it would avoid headaches with customers complaining (regardless of who's right).
There ARE industries that survive on the, "One loud sign-up multiple silent payment extractions," model; everyone hates them and they have to ju~st skirt regulations to get by ("I'm sorry, we didn't receive your cancellation, please fax it with proof of necessity, last month's payment is still due.").
This same dynamic plays out with any service that sells you long-term self-improvement but is burdensome to use. Exercise tracking apps, diet tracking apps, health-conscious meal kits, subscription lessons for music or foreign languages, etc. There are shadier examples for sure, but it’s not always cut-and-dry evil.
Honestly I could see this being an honesty test class action at some point.
The standard, from In Re Walt Disney, is that business decisions aren’t reviewable unless “the exchange was so one-sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration".
In, Shlensky v. Wrigley, the Chicago Cubs’ were sued for refusing to install lighting for nighttime games: their president believed baseball was best as “a daytime sport." This is absurdly nebulous (and kind of bizarre), but the Cubs nevertheless won.
That decision was based on Davis v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co, which says “the directors are chosen to pass upon such questions and their judgment unless shown to be tainted with fraud is accepted as final. The judgment the directors of the corporation enjoys the benefit of a presumption that it was formed in good faith, and was designed to promote the best interests of the corporation they serve.”
It is probably true that this policy earns Netflix some intangible goodwill. It might plausibly make them more money. However, even if it didn't, it would still be within its rights to implement such a policy.
(The reason is that the courts don't want to get involved in the minutae of running private companies. They'd rather you just update your company bylaws.)
However, shareholders, or most famously private equity (PE) companies, may pressure mgmt. to adopt certain policies and goals, and use their voting shares to encourage or even enforce that.
see the references in this post: