There might be some friend groups who split the cost of an account between them, but I suspect far more common is that parents have an account that kids (who might be independent adults) use, couples who don’t live together sharing passwords, or more well off siblings letting less well off siblings use their account.

All of them? Certainly not. Many? Yes.

>> There might be some friend groups who split the cost of an account between them, but I suspect far more common is that parents have an account that kids (who might be independent adults) use, couples who don’t live together sharing passwords

Yes, but although we don't have details on demographics, in Europe it is widely "accepted" (for lack a better word) that many friends, relative and even acquaintances share an account and its costs. I don't have number so consider it totally anecdotical, but it is honestly common sense, especially in southern and eastern Europe. (I am from Italy, FWIW)

edit: this is also true for Spotify Family accounts. Agains TOS? Sure. Do they do it anyway? Yes.

It is very common sense here to say "Ok, I'll cover Netflix, you'll cover Disney+/Spotify/other"

The moment when one of this services doesn't allow sharing anymore, this system will fall, and users will be incredibly more selective to what they will subscribe to.

I suspect this might be cultural, and not just at a country level. I wouldn't dream of charging a family member £5 a month for something, I'd either let them use it or not. But that may not be true everywhere. Between friends it makes a lot more sense, but as I said I've typically seen Netflix/etc shared in families not friends, probably because the lack of money changing hands makes it easier.

> We see a cancel reaction in each market when we announce the news,” Netflix said in its first quarter earnings release on April 18, expecting the dip to be momentary before users that didn’t pay start signing up for their own accounts. “In Canada, which we believe is a reliable predictor for the US, our paid membership base is now larger than prior to the launch of paid sharing and revenue growth has accelerated and is now growing faster than in the US,” Netflix said.

Although you may be right, I would never expect Netflix to admit my thesis, even if well known around here.

Instead, we pool accounts. If I wanted to, I can get Disney+ and regular TV, while I provide Netflix and Amazon Prime in return. If all else fails, there's a Jellyfin server that gets regular use.

Everyone pays full price, but everyone only pays for one service, maybe two. The fragmentation of services is the real killer here. This wasn't a problem back when Netflix first came here and basically offered everything there was to offer until then Disney clawed back a whole bunch of its properties. €18 for Netflix would be fine if you weren't also expected to pay €17 for Amazon Prime and €19 for Disney+ and €14 for Paramount Plus and €15 for HBO Max (only available on some ISPs).

I'd pay full price for a streaming service that had everything and I think many people I know would too. I'd even be able to look past the stupid 720p limit (I run Linux so I cannot be trusted with the noisy 1080p encodes). Instead, my workflow now comes down to "check Netflix, if not found, download torrent".

These companies could've had the Spotify of video streaming services, which basically ended traditional music piracy, but instead wound up burning their version of Spotify down for a short term profit.

Depending on the service/people sharing with, I personally witnessed both sharing costs of the single service and distributing full ownership among different services...

There are people who want to control all of them while absorbing costs, there are others who just want access.

Reminds me of old days when all we had was dialup and we would pool our warez downloads with the community. I send you Seasons 6 & 7 of Buffy and I get the latest Season of Stargate in return. All burned on CDs or DVDs shipped via post.

So while people here think they're doing this to their own detriment, their legion of scientists have already told them the end result which is obviously not detrimental or they wouldn't be doing it now.

You can't make reasonable conclusions during transients. Wait until things have settled before judging if the move was smart or not.

When they tried this in other countries, they saw a dip and then growth. According to their statements, a dip is part of their model.

And, as a scientist, you cannot build a model with a never-happened-before phenomena. Only "risk specialists", "risk engineers", etc. which are different names for BSers will even try to "predict" this.

How can one build a "model" with no x (password policing enforcement) and only y (stay or drop) is beyond me. If anyone does, I will show you an idiot/BSer.

I am sure this is a business decision. Or MLEs/Deep Learning Engineers are going beyond the capabilities of their fields.

Sure, you can predict if a user is going to drop if a show he was binging is going away or his watching pattern, time spent watching, etc. But to build models with password policing enforcement? Hah!

Trying to predict whether this decision is harmful in the long run is not in the realm of science, but of art, business, or bullshitting.

I don't know if NFLX did a smaller scale pilot study and tried to build a model, but that would be inadequate.

Note: Never worked for Netflix.