Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I used to do that, but now it's $18+ to watch without ads which is a bit much just for one title you're interested in.



In yesteryear, it was inconceivable to purchase a series to watch for a scant $18.


I bought the og battle star series on DVD for $90 in the early 00's. My parents bought most of the MASH seasons and they were a bit cheaper but they were still over $50 per season.

But they didn't charge you $18 a month to keep it in your library, it could just sit on a shelf.


That's purchasing, though. Using Netflix is very far from purchasing a media, it's barely renting


True, but you could rent 3 times for less than the price of the average box set.


Yet in the past, renting the movie you wanted to watch cost a scant couple dollars.

Netflix played a shell game with people's idea of value. A $18 Netflix subscription might seem not bad, it's less than an hour's work for most people! But that $2k a year?

How many people spent $2k a year buying and renting media? My family spent like $100 a year doing that.

The entire point of the subscription model is to take advantage of the way your brain processes value. I've given Spotify like $8k over the course of my subscription. I definitely do not regularly listen to $8k worth of music. If I cut off the long tail of the weird stuff I listen to, I probably listen to less than $500 of music in my lifetime, and very little of that went to the actual artists I like.


> But that $2k a year?

$18 * 12 = $216


In my defense, math is like, really hard.

I'm only a whole magnitude off!


Netflix is more akin to renting, though.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: