Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Netflix Loses 800,000 Subscribers After Qwikster Gaffe 325

bs0d3 writes "Netflix's video subscription service lost 800,000 customers in the third quarter, the single biggest loss in its history. Shares plunged by more than 25 percent in Monday's extended trading. Netflix is predicting that its combined loss of customers and European launch will push it into the red next year where it may stay for all of 2012, according to a letter to its shareholders (PDF)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Loses 800,000 Subscribers After Qwikster Gaffe

Comments Filter:
  • I didn't leave (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fortapocalypse ( 1231686 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:44AM (#37843308)
    While it was a big mistake, and I agree that someone should be fired, I think what they have been offering and would have continued to offer (even if at a higher price) is *much* less of a ripoff than cable and satellite. I've been very pleased with my family quitting cable T.V. and going with OTA T.V. and streaming Netflix and the major T.V. networks recent show via browser. I don't waste time scanning through the cable guide anymore to watch more T.V. than I should have anyway, and we don't have to deal with DVR issues.
  • On purpose? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by koan ( 80826 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:45AM (#37843328)

    Almost seems like some one purposely destroying a company, though for what reason I couldn't say.
    Just epic incompetence?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @09:54AM (#37843420)

    I would join Netflix, but they don't say how much it will cost! Yes, they say the price of "streaming" and the price of "1 DVD at a time". But where are all the other prices? Like for 2 or 3 or 4 DVDs at a time? They don't post those anywhere on their site. Why are they so secretive? I'm not going to sign up unless they say ALL of the prices up front! Would it really kill them to have a link to a "price list"???

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:18AM (#37843716)

    1) Netflix does not own any content.

    2) Netflix is one contract away from some other company ( I'd bet on Apple )
            delivering content in a way that most consumers are more willing to spend
            their money to access. You don't spit in the face of your customers in a public
            way and get loyalty afterward, not when the jungle drums have been replaced
            by the web and internet forums.

    Netflix is toast.

    Don't believe me ? Just wait and see.

  • Respect (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FunkyELF ( 609131 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:20AM (#37843746)

    I respect the fact that they go back on ideas that are bad.

    I remember when they were going to take away the ability to manage multiple queues. I used that all the time when I had room mates, and then with my fiancé back when I was getting 3 at a time. They got a lot of feedback and kept the multiple queues.

    I am probably going to discontinue my service anyway because of the lack of a Linux desktop client. It has been way too long. I shouldn't have to pay Microsoft or Apple just to watch Netflix.

  • by Beyond_GoodandEvil ( 769135 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @10:27AM (#37843804) Homepage
    I think Netflix needs some new leadership. Keep the streaming, lose the dumbass moves.
    Wow, some people just don't get it. What does the Netflix streaming service have? A brand name and some servers. That's it. Now what do the movie studios have? Content and branding. So why oh why would the greedy ass studios want to keep Netflix as the middle man in the streaming service game, why the only barrier to entry is the servers to push the data. Unlike Apple who sold the hard ware you consumed Big Media's wares on, Netflix doesn't make players/set top boxes/portable electronic devices. So again why would a Sony Entertainment division want to keep Netflix around as the toll collector on the great movie streaming highway of the future? Where's the value added step?
  • by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @11:28AM (#37844716) Homepage

    And that's why Warner Brothers is going to shoot itself in the foot. Again.

    The studios just don't get it - they think that the huge legal weapons they've managed to lobby for somehow will get people to send them money. However, to get people to spend money you have to sell them a PRODUCT that they're willing to pay for. People would be willing to pay for the movies, but the studios seem determined to make that so painful that people would rather buy it on a DVD or download it online or whatever.

  • by bev_tech_rob ( 313485 ) on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @11:37AM (#37844812)

    I don't see why the studios don't get together and implement a virtual theater where all their content is available. I go down to the local multiplex to view movies from every studio. I don't have to drive to the Sony Theater to see Sony productions, the Warner Theater to see Warner, etc.

    .. Because Netflix does that already, Mr. Obvious...

  • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@w o r f . n et> on Wednesday October 26, 2011 @12:03PM (#37845136)

    So again why would a Sony Entertainment division want to keep Netflix around as the toll collector on the great movie streaming highway of the future? Where's the value added step?

    The value-add is that the more services, the less control each service has. The movie industry, after seeing how iTunes has basically got the music industry by the balls, has decided the best way to prevent that is to ensure that there are several (not many, not one) services, each of which will have to beg and submit to get its content.

    Hence, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu and a few other sites.

    Steve Jobs basically did a coup against the music industry (where in the world would a Mac's (at the time) pathetic 5% marketshare be considered a positive selling point? Yet, the music industry was relieved it was to be Mac-only in the beginning). Of course, the iPod and iTunes Fairplay DRM basically ensured that Apple controlled the music industry. The endgame was Amazon was allowed to sell music DRM-free, and Apple renegotiated.

    The movie industry sees this as a far worse outcome - they would rather have people pirate their movies than be under the thumb of Netflix or iTunes or whoever becomes the dominant player. They want control.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can it be returned without a receipt.