Folks:

Obviously on-line web-streaming is the future, whether it is routed through your PC; laptop; tablet; cell devise; or a smarter television, (is Apple working on one of these?); or a combination DVR, DVD, CD, web-streaming devise that needs to be conglomerated, (is Apple working on one of these, too....hmmmm?).

Clearly, everything is changing related to media and in your relation to your selected media. This killed Borders and Blockbuster. This has the print, music and film industries in a constantly changing set of knots. The previous formats are rapidly changing. If I were to bet I would say that Apple is on the right path to take it all over, and I mean pronto. Didn't you ever see that James Bond movie with the crazed media mogul, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies)? If you took the basic octopus nature of Rupert Murdoch and blended in the gee whiz technology of Steve Jobs it would describe the evil character in this movie.

I mean, everything today is starting to look like a rerun of Star Trek, circa 1966, (the last millenium, folks). Our phones; the tablets; the books and information availability whereever you have access to a screen; the changes to medical procedures, especially limb replacement....everything technological, but as Spock would say, it seems illogical as much of it is not human potential driven....but rather seems to be driven by blind avarice, and as we know this is often adverse to the proper care and feeding of the people needed by the greedy and powerful, (like those strange floating guys with the really big heads, or the ones that had evolved to only brains).

Live long and prosper....so you can keep paying through the nose for all of this stuff!

It wouldn't have been a bad move if they had EVERYTHING available for on-line streaming but they don't.

I tried to find "Romancing the Stone" since it was on TV and I didn't want the commercials but they don't even have movies from the 80s on streaming. From the 80's!!!!! That's almost a 30 year old movie!

@ Steve-2570999 - You hit the nail on the head!

Netflix Streaming (which is what they should have named it by the way, Netflix and Netstream not that stupid qwikster) by itself doesn't warrant an independent $7.99 + tax

And I think, the CEO is still missing the point which is that it's not about how fast or not fast you make a change, it's about: you can't raise prices for a product YOU DON'T YET HAVE and expect to keep your core sales base.

I personally let go of the streaming bc I can find better options on other sites (for free). When Netflix gets their streaming inventory up, I'll revisit.

Well said!!

I was on the basic plan and my rate went up 60%... I then dropped netflex's

My rate went from $9.99 per month - one DVD out, unlimited streaming - to one DVD out per month for $7.99 and unlimited streaming for $7.99 per month. The new total of $15.98 per month is exactly a 60.06% increase in price. If you need help with the math, grab a calculator and type in 15.98 divided by 9.99, and you will get the answer. Check your facts before you post - the journalists who write these articles do.

Backcountry - Most people had the $9.99/mo plan. Which now is $16. even Netflix themselves stated it as a 60% increase. If you're silly enough to pay $24 thats your issue. I have a 2 day turnaround on shipped DVD's, why would I need more then 2 out a time. You should be mad at yourself for wasting money.

Just because your rate didn't go up 60% doesn't make it BS. For anyone using the streaming + 1 DVD plan, yes, their rates did go up 60%.

Backcountry - your reading comprehension blows.

newsflash, everyone but you is aware that not everyone got the 60% hike in price.

I wonder, if you had been one of the people who experienced the 60% price hike, would you have thought "well, but not everyone else did, so this isnt so bad"?

So do you think Backcountry is a bit saddened by being proved wrong by the entire internet? I doubt she will be back on here to admit her mistake.

so wait....they justified the rate increase because it was part of the bigger plan to separate out the two companies: streaming and DVD rental. Now that this is no longer the"bigger plan", where is the justification for the rate increase?

My DVD of The Fighter was here for Saturday night. We downgraded to one movie at a time because of the price gouging by Netflix. But after the DVD proved faulty once again this week and we were left with a blank screen, I have decided to cancel altogether. When I reported the nonplayable DVD, of course, Netflix sent an apology email and said they would mail the next movie in my queue immediately. That didn't fix Saturday. I am tired of this "the customer is always expendable" attitude.

I very much doubt online streaming is the future, and I challenge anyone who says it is. The streaming selection -- not just at Netflix but at all streaming services -- is terrible: A few old movies, box office flops, and stale tv reruns. If streaming is the future, I guess there must not be any new movies in the future...

My wife and I were on the streaming and dvd plan then we changed to just have the streamed media. We both knew that Netflix didn't provide all of their content for streaming. I went to look for Star Wars and it isn't available! Seriously?! Because instances like this happen quite often We are thinking about going to a different provider.

Ok Netyflix split and increased my rate, I then dropped the DVD (quikster) to lower my rate. so now they merge the two together again and increase my rate again seems to me they really want that increase bad and I don't want to give them that much in that short amount of time, I can not justify a 60% increase over nite, now if they were to make small increases as they improve services over time that would be acceptable why should I buy something I don't have yet. and like some post have pointed out there are allot of free services out there that I can change to. so why should I bother with Netflix at all. their CEO needs to get of the drugs.

High speed internet access is just not wide spred enough for streaming to take over the entertainment industry the way so many people seem to think it is. You still have the 40% of the population that lives in rural areas and can't even get high speed unless they want to pay incredibly high prices for the inferior service that is satellite internet or pay 50-70$ for moble broadband with a 5gig a month cap, 5gigs a month for 60$, thats crazy. What ever happened to obamas plan to get highspeed to rural areas? I still havent seen it. Unless you live in a large city with multiple IPs competing you are screwed. Personaly I feel that internet access should be ran and provided by the government but with the way the post office is going and the fact that half the population wants to dismantle the government, I don't see that happening. Too bad.

So where did U get your degree in math Mr On The Contrary? Try the new rate of 15.98 minus what you were paying of 9.99 which would equal 5.99 more than what you were paying divided by the old rate of 9.99 and that will equal .60 and after moving the decimal point to the right two places would be 60% exactly! Remind me to never let you do any of my finances with your math skills.

Nevertheless my increase from $20 to $24 is 20%. The question was what is Netflix total increase across all customers - not just the bottom feeders.

The new total of $15.98 per month is exactly a 60.06% increase in price. If you need help with the math, grab a calculator and type in 15.98 divided by 9.99, and you will get the answer. Check your facts before you post - the journalists who write these articles do.

I'm going to try both caps and bold since some of you can't seem to see past your nose. THE PRICE WENT UP FOR SOME PEOPLE BY 60% BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS A 60% PRICE HIKE.

Do you people honestly not understand that if, hypothetically, HALF of their customers had a 60% price hike that would only ammount to 30% OVERALL.

It's not a 60% price hike unless it is 60% for everybody, durrrrrrr.

@Eltex

So do you think Backcountry is a bit saddened by being proved wrong by the entire internet? I doubt she will be back on here to admit her mistake.

A- He, not she.

B- I didn't make a mistake, will you come back to admit your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of basic math?

@Steve:

Re:"Romancing the stone" - it used to be available on streaming, I've watched it there, but not anymore. Blame the studios for lack of choice.

Cameron Ford wrote:

I very much doubt online streaming is the future, and I challenge anyone who says it is. The streaming selection -- not just at Netflix but at all streaming services -- is terrible

I'm satisfied with the $7.99 streaming-only deal at NetFlix, only because I had little time in the past to watch TV series like 30 Rock and The Office, and now I can watch them without commercials, in mini marathons when I like. So for someone like me, NetFlix is great. I've also found good movies and documentaries there, so $7.99 is more than worth it.

That said, to say streaming of all movies in the future will never happen doesn't seem correct to me. Once they get the logistics of it all sorted out, it will be much easier to deal with than a physical product, for both manufacturer and consumer. Everything is going digital. Books, music, apps, etc. It's just a matter of time, but if 10-20 years from now you can still buy physical copies of music or movies in stores, I'd be very much surprised.

I wonder if this turnabout was due to greater than expected subscriber losses.

I think the reason for this was people complaining that they now would have to go to two different sites to search for a movie. With one site, people can search for a movie and find out if it is available on-line, on DVD, or both with a single search. Also, by keeping the two together it make it look like both libraries are bigger because you will get fewer searches where the title is not found. This way even if the title is only available in one form or the other it still shows up as being found. It somewhat masks the anemic streaming offerings by showing all the DVD availability in the same search. It also helps to persuade people to subscribe to both when they see the broader selection available to them that way. Of course it will also save the company money by not having to maintain two different sites.

The management of Netflix has shown that they are completely inept. Even with this reversal, they are unlikely to undo all of the damage that has been done to the brand image with all these machinations.

I can tell you why there is a problem with scarcity of movies. Hard Drive space and conversion time! These movies have to be placed on a hard drive that is not gigabytes or terabytes but based on pedabytes, hundreds of thousands of pedabytes. It really comes down to those two variables not to mention the politics between the brick and mortar stores, kiosks and the studios who are trying to appease them all. Just an insider view on the situation for those that didn't know the facts!

The name Quickster sounded like a scam artist...I was turned off from the beginning and cancelled altogether.

I agree 100% percent, not just 60%. Have the board and ceo become completly mental, if they are not careful they will run this company into the ground and somebody else, like blockbuster or redbox will come in and swoop away all of netflixs gains. I have been a user for a year now and I got alot of friends and family to sign up for it. Now most of them have left because of all this drama and nonsense going on. How can the people running this company be so stupid.

I don't think it's the executives who are unstable, just the video market at this point in time. If every movie, TV series, or documentary ever made was available for streaming on NetFlix, I'd happily pay $20 for that. But they have to deal with the studio politics of which movies can be streamed, and which ones can't... and the differing costs involved for each. The system is just a mess right now, and that's what's causing the problems and confusion for the execs. That said, yeah, this could have been handled better. But when working in developing industries, there are always issues that arise.

Well, Netflix and I had a beautiful relationship for a couple of years, but I have been betrayed by them and no matter how much they beg for forgiveness now, it will never be the same.

I think the original plan was to dump DVD altogether- but the outcry was too loud, so they came up with that ill-conceived Quikster web idea.

Netflix lost me on the first move- BEGGING me to come back! Then abandoned the split move- but still kept the 60% price hike!!

Sorry Netflix- you lost me for life.

They were not moving too fast, they were just moving into the wrong direction. Too bad they can't tell the difference. I think that dropping DVD/BluRay would be a big mistake. The picture quality from streaming is not anywhere close to BluRay. It's good enough for TV shows and cheap comedies but you miss something for good movies.

@truth: Although it's true that BluRay has better quality than DVD (or streaming), it's also true that before BluRay, people were just fine with movie quality. Before HD TVs, people were fine with quality. Back when it was VHS, people were fine with quality. 25 years from now, when BluRay is a thing of the past, people will be saying that BluRay quality is "bad".

Unless you have a bad connection, streaming quality is perfectly fine for watching movies. Sure, it's not BluRay quality, but so what? Heck, if you go to a movie theater, your quality is worse than streaming with a good connection because they still use reels at most theaters. And I think a lot of people would agree that going to a movie theater for a good movie is worthwhile regardless of the image quality compared to BluRay.

In any case, regarding this move, it was the right thing to do. Unless they get more streaming content, dropping physical media is not smart. And that would have been the eventual plan with Qwikster... get it to be a separate entity and then sell it when the time is right.

Personally, I use the streaming only plan because I'd often have a DVD sitting around for weeks before getting around to watching it and that is a waste of money regardless of selection. With streaming, I often pull it up on the computer to watch something. There are definitely not enough choices and I really wish there was a filter for date so I could hide all of the 60s/70s content without having to mark them all as "not interested." But I can easily watch a lot of TV series that I like and there are still a lot of good movies on there. I may be running low on movies after all this time, but I still find some here and there that are worth watching, or watching again.

Qwikster was a stupid name, too; they should have gone with something like Quikflix.

How do successful companies lose touch with reality? It's called "shareholders and profits". The second a company goes public, they forget about customers, and focus on profits. Customer satisfaction is always secondary to profits and shareholder happiness.

Lisa, you have hit on the one non-reported and quietest aspect of our economic problems: the shareholders. Now we know why they all flew to "gated communities" in the '90's! (We should baracade them in there and not let them out! Sell them food at the gate at inflated prices and make them pay quadruple for electricity, landscaping, and wine!)

Do you have a 401K, own a mutal fund, even have a regular pension plan? Then you're a shareholder. Everyone has a stake in Wall St, not just the misnamed "fat cats." I'm a shareholder and I don't live in a gated community. Most people I know are shareholders and few of them make more than $100K.

That aside, Netflix upped their prices so they could afford to buy more streaming content. It backfired because that content isn't yet available. Big mistake.

And I'm glad they're not creating a whole new website/billing system. DVDs are the best current technology until everyone has broadband sufficient to support high quality streaming and we're a LONG way off from that!

This whole debacle reminds me of BofA and their stupid, jerky $5 fee for debit cards too. How do successful companies that bring in the big bucks just lose touch with the reality of we the people?

I'm sorry but it isn't just the companies that have "lost touch". We bitch and whine until the government imposes hoards of new regulations and then we bitch and whine when the companies affected try to pass the cost of those new regulations on to the people who wanted them in the first place.

Those of you who constantly bitch about the evil corporations that care about nothing but profit need to stop supporting all of those evil corporations. But wait, how would you get on-line to bitch then? You'd have no phone, no computer, no major appliances, no TV, and I hope you enjoy eating only food that is grown locally. Yeah, those nasty big corporations make my life so horrible...oh, wait.

But here's the problem with that model, AG999 -- you're not even robbing Peter to pay Paul, you're robbing Peter to pay Peter. How much sense does that make?? We all pay more for products and services up front with the promise of profit sharing as a "shareholder" on the other end. But none of us are getting rich off of it at the percentage that comes to us. The only ones getting rich are the big stake holders (the already wealthy who can afford to invest large amounts) -- not the little fies with a few shares here and a few shares there as part of 401K/mutual fund/pension plans. But, yes, more often than not there are modest gains in such plans, so that we can all feel like we're getting something good out of it in the long-run and keep the system afloat. No wonder our economy is so screwed up if the model you just outlined is really the best option!

Lisa, you have hit on the one non-reported and quietest aspect of our economic problems: the shareholders.

Is there anyone who is doing better than you that you don't blame all of the problems of the world on? Do you actually believe there is a boogieman around every corner? Now everyone with some sort of retirement fund is also a part of the problem. Give me a break.

AG999, I'm so glad you explained the concept of a shareholder. I get so tired of people bitching about a company making profits and pleasing shareholders. Most shareholders are just regular Americans like you and me.

For example, Dems love to take shots at Exxon for their huge profits (which are mostly profits from sales in other countries) and bowing to shareholders. However, did you know that the retirement plans for teachers are hugely invested in Exxon? So, while Dems "support" unions, they try to destroy the profit that actually goes into funding these plans. It's all populist rhetoric that if people thought for 2 seconds and pieced things together, they would realize how illogical and incoherent a Democratic message actually is. All they say is "we're for the people", and people believe them.

We bitch and whine until the government imposes hoards of new regulations and then we bitch and whine when the companies affected try to pass the cost of those new regulations on to the people who wanted them in the first place.

So true. People complain to Washington about a business. Washington, instead of saying, "Well, why are you doing business with them?", says, "Yeah, we'll stick it to those greedy bastards". Washington also realizes that "sticking it to those greedy bastards" means sticking it to the people who are complaining. Any new regulation or taxes cost money. As consumers supply a business with money and workers earn it away, any regulation or taxes causes higher prices and/or lower wages and/or fewer jobs. Then people bitch about how they're getting screwed even more, and instead of viewing Washington as making the problem worse, they still view them as making the problem better.

THEN, Washington passes more regulations and uses the tax code as a penal code, and the problem gets even worse. Except now, the small businesses can't afford to comply and go out of business by disappearing or being bought out by a bigger business. Then, the problem gets worse because now you have not only extra-oppressive regulation driving up prices and driving down wages, but also a lack of competition which doubles the problem. Yet people STILL look to Washington to put more regulation and taxes on those evil businesses.

The best way to not get screwed by a bad business is to not do business with them, not to get Washington to change bad business behavior. That makes about as much sense as sending Ted Bundy to Jesus camp.

The drive towards profits has ruined many a product over the last few years. Examples:

Chips Ahoy: Have you seen how small the cookies have gotten? The should be categorized as mini-cookies these days. You can also throw in candy bars and anything put out by Hostess.

Quaker Instant Oatmeal: I used to love having the Maple & Brown Sugar packets. But over the last year or so, they've changed the formula to get rid of much of the brown sugar. As a result, they've made the stuff pretty close to inedible. They say it's to "improve" it into something healthier, but it's clearly about money. Thus, they turned a devoted fan like me into someone who will save some money and buy a generic brand.

Reed Hastins is the "stupid" person who made the decisions.. he wont step down from his own company.

I'm just wondering why you think that would be worth anything. The company would still function much the same way regardless. Decisions in large companies are very rarely made by a single person. Various people in multiple departments usually make suggestions and provide data and then the person or people in charge make a decision based on that information. If the information is bad, it really doesn't make sense to blame the person who acted on it. Putting another person in charge won't change the data they will be acting on.

...before he raised the prices 60%.

What he should have realized is that if he raised prices by 60% for a SMALL NUMBER of customers the lemmings would throw a hissy fit and try to claim everyone's fee went up by that much.

.

Reed Hastings is dumb as a marble. He obviously thought that he was "Super Smart" he is 'Super Stupid" They need to wack him.

Backcountry are you Mr. Hastings? You've been supporting this 60% price hike for most of the board now. Maybe you should actually read some responses to your comments. As for the death of Quickster I'm happy I called netflix about it the day they announced it. From what I can tell there was a pretty concerted effort to get the idea dropped as the complaint receivers were under direction to report directly to their supervisor.

Backcountry are you Mr. Hastings? You've been supporting this 60% price hike for most of the board now.

First, I'll point out again that my increase was only 20%, we didn't all get a 60% hike. Second, correcting misinformation spouted by morons is not the equivalent of "supporting" anything.

Generally because they a) are tall, b) deliver lines of BS convincingly, c) are ruthless cutthroats always looking for a back in need of a knife, or d) all of the above.

One really needs to wonder how such grossly incompetent people become head of large companies.

I agree, just look at what a disaster Netflix has been overall. Just because a guy can turn a novel idea into a multi-billion dollar company in 15 years doesn't mean he's "competent". <end sarcasm>

As I pointed out above, decisions are rarely made by one person. Changes in large companies come about by the recommendations of people in multiple departments along with various data to support their suggestions. Even when the idea comes from the top, there is usually a request for data to see if it is a good idea or not before it is implemented. If the decision maker receives bad data, is it really their fault? Or is it the fault of the people who provided the data?

And those billions weren't enough, Backcountry, were they? They needed to increase their prices by 60% and, in the process, ruined a perfect service model; the same one that led tho their meteoric rise. The fact that they backpedaled shows that their customers weren't happy with that decision. Or are those customers only right when they agree with you?

And those billions weren't enough, Backcountry, were they? They needed to increase their prices by 60% and, in the process, ruined a perfect service model; the same one that led tho their meteoric rise.

I guess you missed the story about Starz trying to bump their contract with Netflix from 30 million a year to 200 million per. So Netflix is looking at a 660% increase in their cost to provide streaming video and people like you are whining about a max, 60% increase.

What you apparently can't grasp is the reality that once a business starts to make billions then everyone else want's a bigger piece of the pie. If you can't understand that outside influences can force a company to alter it's service model then maybe you should not comment about things that are over your head.

I wish it were that easy. I keep trying to buy only Made in the US or at least not Made in China, but it has become very difficult. Even stuff that's Made in the US sometimes contains parts Made in China. On the upside it keeps me from spending, because if it's frivolous, e.g., Christmas decorations or something else I don't absolutely need, then I just don't buy anything at all if I can't find something made here in the US.

Is the Three Stooges available on streaming?? At least you could watch comedic genius instead of the CEO masquerading as business genius.

Netflix is going into trouble waters. Their CEO changes his mind weekly on MAJOR biz initiatives. Knucklehead.

Wait until 2012 when Netflix renegotiates their streaming rates. They are going to get HAMMERED by the studios--then see what they do with rates.

This stock is only going to go down, down, down. They had a great idea which now invites competent and able competition.

At least you could watch comedic genius instead of the CEO masquerading as business genius.

I don't know if he's a genius but he did turn an idea into a billion dollar company in just 15 years. Not exactly what I'd call an idiot even if I don't think much of what he's doing lately.

Wait until 2012 when Netflix renegotiates their streaming rates. They are going to get HAMMERED by the studios--then see what they do with rates.

So you understand what the root of the problem is but you're still going to blame it all on the CEO? Be careful who YOU are comparing to The Three Stooges.

Very true!

Nice guys and gals still finish last at the office - Being too altruistic can be perceived as a sign of weakness, one study shows

msnbc.msn.com/id/44817059/ns/business-careers/#.TpMtO5sUqso

No wonder I am still being overlooked...while the mean folks have a shot at it!

How are they screwing their customers? It's $20 a month for unlimited streaming and two DVDs at a time. I know that the streaming isn't optimal, but it's not completely terrible. It's mostly bad because the movie companies won't let Netflix stream their movies, NOT because of Netflix. And if you wanted all this unlimited streaming of everything, you would pay EVEN MORE.

I have watched a bunch of tv shows that I would have never seen otherwise. And the two DVDs...I mean, I can get upwards of 20 dvds or more a month (I don't get that many). Even if I just get 7 or 8, it's STILL cheaper than going to the video store and having to choose from new releases and crappy old movies. The selection Netflix has is MASSIVE.

It's like you guys feel entitled to being able to watch whatever movie you want whenever you want for free. Gain some freakin perspective. This company built this great service to make money. If $20 per month is too much for you, then you probably shouldn't be worried about how Netflix chooses to do business in the first place. You don't need to watch movies to survive.

Matt, who said anything about free? I'm not asking for free, but I am asking for the people to whom I give my business to respect me. We just had a price increase in February. In order to have another just a few months later I would have expected a solid explanation of why, which was not given. There was a severe failure to do market research and effectively communicate. If Netflix thinks it's a good idea to insult its customers then Netflix should have just learned a valuable lesson, although I kind of doubt it. Also, in these tough economic times it cannot be overestimated how little money people have to spare. Just because a few dollars don't mean anything to some of us here, they're the difference between bus fare or not being able to get to your job for others. For me Netflix was the last luxury I allowed myself. "Was" being the operative word.

Just because a few dollars don't mean anything to some of us here, they're the difference between bus fare or not being able to get to your job for others

And isn't that exactly what I said? If you might not be able to afford the bus fare tomorrow, I have no sympathy if you are paying for Netflix...even if it were $1/month.

I could pay the 60% price increase, but that's not the point. The point is that it was a 60% price increase, when we just had a price increase and like NFIL said, they don't respect their customers. I dropped them.

Matt, I never said free either. You just sound like an ass.

Reed Hastings, the co-founder of Netflix is also the one in charge today. So you're saying the same person is a genius and a moron? Also, as others have pointed out, the 60% increase was only valid for certain customers. Others saw a much lower increase or even a decrease. The actual average increase is probably around 35% (just a guess as I haven't seen official numbers on this).

Plus, now Selah Vee is going to pay more for the same services elsewhere...or less for far less services. I agree the Qwickster thing was dumb, but businesses like people make mistakes. I'm glad to see they decided to nix the idea.

Don't you guys remember New Coke? That was crazy stupid, but does it make Coca-Cola an overall terrible company? Geez.

hmm, watch hulu for free and get current episodes days after air or pay the 9 dollar fee and watch old episodes with those new episodes then supplement with redbox or pay 17 dollars for Nexflix get substandard glitchy streaming and a DVD. Doesn't take a whole lot to make that decision. The only advantage Netflix had over Hulu was commercial free but when said service freezes for 5-10 minutes at a time or forces you to reload every 20 minutes.

Frank- Can you get those guys to open in my neighborhood?

Nice store, but their selection is most likely far less than Netflix's DVD selection (or any of their competition). With Netflix, I may not get a credit for a damaged disk, but I can get a replacement usually within a day, or two days at the most (not counting Sunday). Might not be as convenient and I agree that browsing in person has its appeal, but in the end, I prefer having a larger selection and even with the price increases, unless you don't watch many movies, it's usually still cheaper to use Netflix than to rent through a normal store.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I might... maybe rent a movie every other month. Just not a lot I want to see.

Maybe, but I wouldn't choose Dish unless I had absolutely no other choice.

One word - VUZE!