Netflix is starting to raise prices in some countries as growth spurred by its crackdown on password sharing starts to fade.

The film and TV streaming giant said it had already lifted subscription fees in Japan and parts of Europe as well as the Middle East and Africa over the last month.

Changes in Italy and Spain are now being rolled-out.

In its latest results, Netflix announced that it had added 5.1 million subscribers between July and September - ahead of forecasts but the smallest gain in more than a year.

  • megopie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Plenty of privately owned companies do the same things so I don’t think it can be chalked up to an issue with publicly traded companies.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      The minor difference is private can choose what they want to do. public has a fuduciary duty to increase value

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s generally false. But even if it’s true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they’re legally rock solid.

        In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

      • megopie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        public companies do not necessarily have a Fiduciary duty to the shareholders, let alone one to increase value. Any that they did have (based on the laws and how they are incorporated in a given jurisdiction) would also be applicable to a private company. Private companies also have shareholders, the shares are just not traded publicly.

        You’re probably thinking of the theory of “Shareholder Primacy” but that is a theory not a legal reality, although some insist it is based on a questionable interpretation of the precedent set by dodge vs ford motor company.

        Public companies can be run in what ever way the board/shareholders see fit.

    • Ragnarok314159
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s all about who owns it and is sitting on the board.

      Bunch of old money type people? They don’t care too much about a bad year, more important to weather the storms and keep the generational money intact.

      Venture capitalists? Jack Welch this dogshit company and get us some short term gains!