Netflix is different now – and there's no going back(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Netflix is different now – and there's no going back
https://www.theverge.com/24051687/netflix-ads-password-sharing-wwe-changes
71 コメント
Now that we’re past the prestige TV era and back to regular 90’s TV writing quality, it isn’t like there are must-see-tv events on streaming services, like a shared societal experience a la Game of Thrones. It is so easy to switch and catch up later.
I’ve canceled most of my streaming services other than Hulu with Disney at this point. The reason I haven’t canceled Hulu with Disney is that I’ve shared the password with a family member who likes it. “I have to coordinate pulse-width-modulation on my subscriptions” is the only stickiness that these services actually have at this point, I think.
OTOH, Netflix is still in business, so maybe I’m wrong. Shrug.
I’ve canceled most of my streaming services other than Hulu with Disney at this point. The reason I haven’t canceled Hulu with Disney is that I’ve shared the password with a family member who likes it. “I have to coordinate pulse-width-modulation on my subscriptions” is the only stickiness that these services actually have at this point, I think.
OTOH, Netflix is still in business, so maybe I’m wrong. Shrug.
This seems like the obvious and sensible thing to do. If this is too much for people, the next best thing is to just stick to one. For me this is Netflix, but the day they start showing ads at the price I'm paying, is the day my subscription count goes to zero.
I've had trials on all the others, and they just don't interest me. Some are actually bad, like Apple TV+'s interface and frankly boring content, or Amazon Prime's paid content inside an already paid for service. Netflix has always stood apart in terms of quality (in all areas), but it's already pricey.
I've had trials on all the others, and they just don't interest me. Some are actually bad, like Apple TV+'s interface and frankly boring content, or Amazon Prime's paid content inside an already paid for service. Netflix has always stood apart in terms of quality (in all areas), but it's already pricey.
I am definitely not going back, but it's only slightly related to the sharing crackdown. I paid for my own subscription, but don't want them tracking where I watch from. Their job should be simple: send me the data for the video I want to watch. Anything beyond that is an overstep.
Maybe but Netflix has an incredibly low churn rate. I think it was under 3%. While the other services are like 6-8%. I’d think people will keep Netflix as the default and rotating through others as a secondary content source.
Netflix… I feel a little resentful about all the shows I loved that they cancelled. That’s my only real complaint.
Although, come to think of it, the worst ads are product placement, and to be fair those are pretty egregious (7-11 anyone?)
Although, come to think of it, the worst ads are product placement, and to be fair those are pretty egregious (7-11 anyone?)
The Subway and Honda product placement in Community was perfectly done. You almost question whether it was product placement at all.
https://i.redd.it/7izx4m9d0oy81.jpg
Also the Snapple product placement in 30 Rock.
https://youtu.be/tLovOweVuT4
https://i.redd.it/7izx4m9d0oy81.jpg
Also the Snapple product placement in 30 Rock.
https://youtu.be/tLovOweVuT4
Also Burger King for arrested development: https://www.looper.com/1211032/is-arrested-developments-burg...
I was watching Netflix family Robinson but in space and stopped after an episode that was basically and ad for oreos.
Product placement can be done well, but 90% of everything is crap.
Product placement can be done well, but 90% of everything is crap.
I do feel this is one of those "I don't like Netflix anymore so it must be dying" I see ZERO metrics to support Netflix is dying. If anything Netflix is doing better then others.
Netflix is extremely strong, and even more so out of North America. They have a fantastic regional catalogue, massive anime department, produce shows for all age groups, and their shows constantly do well regardless of what people think.
Netflix is extremely strong, and even more so out of North America. They have a fantastic regional catalogue, massive anime department, produce shows for all age groups, and their shows constantly do well regardless of what people think.
Yeah I personally thought their crackdown on account sharing might backfire, but there has been no sign of that at all, and I guess as long as most people don't end up hopping between services, as long as they can be the best streaming service they may continue to succeed as other services falter.
Plus, if they can outlast the other streaming services (which are losing money) and those fail, it might get cheaper for them to license non-original content again.
So they may actually be in a pretty good position.
Plus, if they can outlast the other streaming services (which are losing money) and those fail, it might get cheaper for them to license non-original content again.
So they may actually be in a pretty good position.
How is it different now? Just because they introduced an ad-free tier to price discriminate? They basically did the exact same thing with that qwikster manuever, decoupling DVD and streaming in order to charge more overall. Any online service that can make money by decoupling premium features and charging for them will simply do so.
The game was always profitability, they just had their eye on marketshare gains earlier.
The game was always profitability, they just had their eye on marketshare gains earlier.
On the tech side, is it still a FAANG company ie a reputable place to work with good compensation?
I feel like Netflix is still being included in FAANG because otherwise it would become a slur. Other than that I don't get why we still value it so high in the tech world
I always wonder why Netflix not Microsoft is included? FAAMG would be strange though.
> I always wonder why Netflix not Microsoft is included? FAAMG would be strange though.
Because by the time the term was coined, Microsoft was a slow-turning behemoth that had shed a lot of talent to help create the internal engineering cultures at the non-Apple others.
Apple doesn't really belong in FAANG either, but at one point including Apple made it seem cooler.
Because by the time the term was coined, Microsoft was a slow-turning behemoth that had shed a lot of talent to help create the internal engineering cultures at the non-Apple others.
Apple doesn't really belong in FAANG either, but at one point including Apple made it seem cooler.
In France we actually use GAFAM, so we include Microsoft but not Netflix
They sure know how to present themselves authoritatively at tech conferences. Maybe that's it.
[deleted]
Apple doesn’t even fit in there, it is a devices company first. AINA: Apple, Intel, Nvidia, and AMD, these companies actually design physical things that have to deal with the hostility of the real world, IMO they are much more impressive.
Of course 3/4 lean on TSMC for the hardest part, so…
Of course 3/4 lean on TSMC for the hardest part, so…
I think the FAANG acronym was created originally to distinguish companies that paid really high salaries for tech. And for a while (if not still true), they paid the highest.
“FAANG” is a term that was coined in 2013 by CNBC personality Jim Cramer to describe the most prominent companies in the tech sector.
They are definitely still paying FAANG salaries: https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Facebook,Netflix&trac...
Their reputation might not be quite as stellar as it once was, but afaik nowhere near enough of a drop to overcome the fact that they've made a lot of top-tier hires and are still paying top tier comp - I think they're still a very desirable place to work and have on a resume.
Their reputation might not be quite as stellar as it once was, but afaik nowhere near enough of a drop to overcome the fact that they've made a lot of top-tier hires and are still paying top tier comp - I think they're still a very desirable place to work and have on a resume.
Sure, but they are much smaller than the real "big tech": Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft. They are also still mono-product unlike the big tech that span multiple domains.
It doesn't make much sense to make a group of big tech companies with Netflix and leave out Microsoft.
It doesn't make much sense to make a group of big tech companies with Netflix and leave out Microsoft.
They’re also the easiest to abandon of all of them (for their customers) as there’s no real pain or lock-in.
Amazon might be second easiest if you aren’t using AWS.
Amazon might be second easiest if you aren’t using AWS.
Oh, yes, I completely agree Microsoft should be in “FAANG” (and that acronym is outdated).
But for the question of whether Netflix's compensation and reputation are still at that level - reputation maybe is debatable, comp is definitely still there.
But for the question of whether Netflix's compensation and reputation are still at that level - reputation maybe is debatable, comp is definitely still there.
They are still offering fully remote engineering roles, so that's a huge plus. Not sure if it's bait and switch like Meta's advertised "remote" roles though.
Netflix is a dying mall where all the prestigious chains are closing down and getting substituted with dollar stores and cheap gift shops. Sometimes a big youtuber does an event there, attracting a few children, but then everything goes back to being depressing
That is a good description, that's exactly what it feels like. There's a few hold outs from "the good time", they still have Star Trek and a few other shows they managed to get long term deals on or a show where they somehow formulate a decent story for a season, but overall it's starting to feel pretty off brand.
If you really want Star Trek, Paramount is a better choice.
Reminds me exactly of this every time I go to an Apple Store. And Netflix will have a few Apple Store shows, but they’re far between.
Will a competitor now offer a fully ad-supported free tier? Or at that point are we just streaming YouTube content?
I would be interested to have curated streams of content from YouTube that has been found to be, by some metric (or some critic), top-shelf content.
Just as an example, I consider Pete Beard's entire channel to be a first-rate history of the golden age of western illustration:
https://www.youtube.com/@petebeard/videos
Click on any video, I think you'll be impressed.
I would be interested to have curated streams of content from YouTube that has been found to be, by some metric (or some critic), top-shelf content.
Just as an example, I consider Pete Beard's entire channel to be a first-rate history of the golden age of western illustration:
https://www.youtube.com/@petebeard/videos
Click on any video, I think you'll be impressed.
Didn’t Hulu used to do that in us?
The article says that it’s one of the few “must-haves”. Not true. I removed it from our household and it won’t be coming back. This product is addictive and it has a negative impact on the quality of life.
It's arguably the least relevant streaming platform these days. We primarily keep our subscription due to the few shows our kid watches from time to time.
Netflix can produce absolutely gorgeous shows, but they lack either the ability or the will to produce anything with with a good story. On top of that they are no long able to buy any good content.
As for pushing ads... Nope, I've spend the past ten years mostly ad free, I'm not going back. Whenever I do see ads on TV, when visiting family I feel assaulted. The cuts and the messaging feels like it's actively trying to hurt my brain.
Netflix can produce absolutely gorgeous shows, but they lack either the ability or the will to produce anything with with a good story. On top of that they are no long able to buy any good content.
As for pushing ads... Nope, I've spend the past ten years mostly ad free, I'm not going back. Whenever I do see ads on TV, when visiting family I feel assaulted. The cuts and the messaging feels like it's actively trying to hurt my brain.
[deleted]
What entertainment do you endorse?
Obviously, there are more wholesome activities, such as reading books, spending time with family and friends, volunteering, helping other people, or writing code just for the fun of it. :-) But sometimes you just want to zone out. I buy tons of staff on Amazon and Amazon Prime is, unfortunately, a must-have for me. They have less free selection than Netflix, which is already less addictive. You could rent or purchase movies that you like. It's more expensive, but that the whole point: it's less addictive and one should not be doing too much of it. Netflix is like the bottom of the barrel, NPC activity. Hard to find any redeeming qualities in it.
Yeah it’s different.
They used to offer discs in the mail from an absolutely huge library of content that just kept growing.
It’s the only time I used them. As soon as they stopped that I canceled.
Now they just stream from a much smaller library of content where stuff disappears over time. No interest in that.
They used to offer discs in the mail from an absolutely huge library of content that just kept growing.
It’s the only time I used them. As soon as they stopped that I canceled.
Now they just stream from a much smaller library of content where stuff disappears over time. No interest in that.
Even without the huge library discs in the mail had a big advantage over streaming: recent movies.
To offer a movie as part of their subscription a streaming service has to have permission from the studio. Generally only one streaming service has that permission.
With discs no studio permission is required, as long as the rental service doesn't want to make their own copies. If they just buy retail copies and rent those out it is covered by the first sale doctrine.
With discs then all I would need is a subscription to one disc based service, like Netflix used to offer, and my recent movie needs would be covered.
There is an alternative that is kind of like the streaming equivalent of Netflix's old mail order DVD business for those whose ISP is Comcast if you have been a Comcast customer long enough.
Comcast has a rewards program, with the rewards based on how long you've been a customer. One of the rewards is $1 movie rentals. Once a week they make this available on their rewards site. If you claim it that week you can rent any one movie that weekend that they normally rent for $5.99 or less for $1.
To offer a movie as part of their subscription a streaming service has to have permission from the studio. Generally only one streaming service has that permission.
With discs no studio permission is required, as long as the rental service doesn't want to make their own copies. If they just buy retail copies and rent those out it is covered by the first sale doctrine.
With discs then all I would need is a subscription to one disc based service, like Netflix used to offer, and my recent movie needs would be covered.
There is an alternative that is kind of like the streaming equivalent of Netflix's old mail order DVD business for those whose ISP is Comcast if you have been a Comcast customer long enough.
Comcast has a rewards program, with the rewards based on how long you've been a customer. One of the rewards is $1 movie rentals. Once a week they make this available on their rewards site. If you claim it that week you can rent any one movie that weekend that they normally rent for $5.99 or less for $1.
Once Netflix and Amazon actually figure out discovery, it will get even worse for the also-rans
I want to pay per show. I don't need access to all their collection.
You want to pay per show, and assume that would make you pay less over all. Maybe even simplify your experience. Assume that Netflix wants you to pay more and work backwards to explain why this hasn't happened, or what the actual implementation of this would look like.
Be careful what you wish for. They'll grant this, at $4 an episode.
It's interesting how the economics of this play out. There are many shows that are available to buy per episode on iTunes, Amazon, YT, etc. Do they make more money than they might from licensing to streamers? There are perhaps network effects to being on a streaming platform but industry folks often complain about the low returns from being on streaming.
Isn't that something that you already can do in Prime, Apple TV and google movies?
Same price for all shows? prices? Should price depend on the number of episodes? What if you paid for a show but after the first two episodes decide it isn’t for you after all?
Subscription makes everything so much simpler for everyone involved.
Subscription makes everything so much simpler for everyone involved.
DVDs exist. This hypothetical is answered.
This is a genuine question, but would you really?
The reason I ask is that 20 years ago the refrain was, "I don't want to pay for a collection of channels on cable. I want to be able to pay per channel." That way you could decide to get ESPN and CNN without having to pay for the Hallmark Channel and Disney. Fast forward 20 years and now we are kinda subscribing per-channel and people don't like that either - because, of course, a channel often has lots of stuff we don't want that we think we're paying for.
The problem is that whether you watch 2 shows or 20 shows, it mostly costs Netflix the same (modulo some residuals and bandwidth/hardware costs). They've already paid to make the show.
Looking at Apple TV, buying the complete series of Better Call Saul would be $100. Looking on Amazon, you can purchase by season at $18-24 per season. We're talking about around $90/mo to subscribe to Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, Paramount+, Max, and Apple TV+ so you could purchase around 4-5 shows per month buying a-la-carte. Movies might become another matter since they're usually $20, but maybe movies aren't something you'd want to rewatch much so renting for $5 would make sense.
I think some of this might come down to whether you're an individual or a family. If you're an individual, 4-5 shows per month would probably be around 40-50 hours of content each month. However, I think a lot of people watch more than that since it comes out to less than 2 hours per day. I guess the questions in my mind are things like how much you watch and whether you think $20 for a season of tv is a fair price (or what you think a fair price would be).
A lot of the time, I find the response to be that people still want access to all the content they like, but they want it at a lower price. The idea is that they think they're paying for things they aren't watching - and they don't want to pay for the stuff they don't like. But it doesn't really work that way. If a company has created 10 shows, they need to get the same amount of money from their customers regardless of whether you watch 2 of them or 10 of them. You might say, "let people who watch 7 of them pay more than me since I only watch 2." That's certainly a form of fairness, but it's hard to really price things that way.
I think paying per show (or paying more for watching more) is an untenable position for content creators because it means that you won't try something new. "If you start streaming another show, that's another $x," really pushes people away from watching your content - which doesn't help you at all. You still have to pay to make the content. People aren't likely to pay for a show without getting into it first. It's hard enough to get people to take a chance on a new show even when it's free (or included in a price people are already paying). If they need to spend money to try out a new show, most shows would never catch on. We all complain about great shows getting canceled. That happens because they couldn't get enough people to watch it even when it was free (or included in a price people are already paying). If they had to convince people to put out money before even knowing if it were good, that would make the problem so much worse.
We see (and discuss) these kinds of monetization issues all the time. How do you get people to pay for content? We've seen browser-plugin based stuff where a site might get compensated from a fee you've paid based on what you're reading. But again we have a key thing there: you don't pay more to read more, it just gets spread more thinly. We've seen things like subscription-blogs/newsletters, but it's hard to get people to pay $x for a single creator.
The problem is that it's hard to get people to give you money for unknown items. It's a lot easier to get them to give you money for a few known items that come packaged with a bunch of unknown items which they might end up liking even more than what initially drew them to your service.
The reason I ask is that 20 years ago the refrain was, "I don't want to pay for a collection of channels on cable. I want to be able to pay per channel." That way you could decide to get ESPN and CNN without having to pay for the Hallmark Channel and Disney. Fast forward 20 years and now we are kinda subscribing per-channel and people don't like that either - because, of course, a channel often has lots of stuff we don't want that we think we're paying for.
The problem is that whether you watch 2 shows or 20 shows, it mostly costs Netflix the same (modulo some residuals and bandwidth/hardware costs). They've already paid to make the show.
Looking at Apple TV, buying the complete series of Better Call Saul would be $100. Looking on Amazon, you can purchase by season at $18-24 per season. We're talking about around $90/mo to subscribe to Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, Paramount+, Max, and Apple TV+ so you could purchase around 4-5 shows per month buying a-la-carte. Movies might become another matter since they're usually $20, but maybe movies aren't something you'd want to rewatch much so renting for $5 would make sense.
I think some of this might come down to whether you're an individual or a family. If you're an individual, 4-5 shows per month would probably be around 40-50 hours of content each month. However, I think a lot of people watch more than that since it comes out to less than 2 hours per day. I guess the questions in my mind are things like how much you watch and whether you think $20 for a season of tv is a fair price (or what you think a fair price would be).
A lot of the time, I find the response to be that people still want access to all the content they like, but they want it at a lower price. The idea is that they think they're paying for things they aren't watching - and they don't want to pay for the stuff they don't like. But it doesn't really work that way. If a company has created 10 shows, they need to get the same amount of money from their customers regardless of whether you watch 2 of them or 10 of them. You might say, "let people who watch 7 of them pay more than me since I only watch 2." That's certainly a form of fairness, but it's hard to really price things that way.
I think paying per show (or paying more for watching more) is an untenable position for content creators because it means that you won't try something new. "If you start streaming another show, that's another $x," really pushes people away from watching your content - which doesn't help you at all. You still have to pay to make the content. People aren't likely to pay for a show without getting into it first. It's hard enough to get people to take a chance on a new show even when it's free (or included in a price people are already paying). If they need to spend money to try out a new show, most shows would never catch on. We all complain about great shows getting canceled. That happens because they couldn't get enough people to watch it even when it was free (or included in a price people are already paying). If they had to convince people to put out money before even knowing if it were good, that would make the problem so much worse.
We see (and discuss) these kinds of monetization issues all the time. How do you get people to pay for content? We've seen browser-plugin based stuff where a site might get compensated from a fee you've paid based on what you're reading. But again we have a key thing there: you don't pay more to read more, it just gets spread more thinly. We've seen things like subscription-blogs/newsletters, but it's hard to get people to pay $x for a single creator.
The problem is that it's hard to get people to give you money for unknown items. It's a lot easier to get them to give you money for a few known items that come packaged with a bunch of unknown items which they might end up liking even more than what initially drew them to your service.
Isn't this the natural lifecycle of public companies, or companies with lots of investor ownership? You have to keep growing even after you've reached the apex of what your original vision could possibly have produced. It's just a rule. So, you add lower-priced or free tiers to bring in new customers, and make it cost more money to have the same experience on the pay tiers. You expand into new geographic areas. Most companies would have created a second product and used the first as a channel to drive people to it by now, but I guess Netflix's move was to close off account sharing. Innovation!
But the key thing is that even after your product is "done", you have to keep changing it anyway, to make it look like progress. It goes without saying that all this stuff usually makes the product worse. I'm surprised the word 'enshittification' didn't show up in this article.
But the key thing is that even after your product is "done", you have to keep changing it anyway, to make it look like progress. It goes without saying that all this stuff usually makes the product worse. I'm surprised the word 'enshittification' didn't show up in this article.
> You have to keep growing even after you've reached the apex of what your original vision could possibly have produced. It's just a rule. So, you add lower-priced or free tiers to bring in new customers
Netflix states that it wants to entertain the world: https://about.netflix.com/en#
There are hundreds of millions of people who are not subscribers yet, mix of content and price for the most part.
Netflix states that it wants to entertain the world: https://about.netflix.com/en#
There are hundreds of millions of people who are not subscribers yet, mix of content and price for the most part.
It's kind of funny to me that for the 2016 highlights they say
> Netflix expands to 130 new countries, bringing the service to members in more than 190 countries and 21 languages around the world.
(Emphasis mine)
Saying how many specifically would be too controversial for them :-)
> Netflix expands to 130 new countries, bringing the service to members in more than 190 countries and 21 languages around the world.
(Emphasis mine)
Saying how many specifically would be too controversial for them :-)
Companies used to become bluechips, where most of their value came from the constant dividends.
This being the only lifecycle for them is a very recent development. We are at the first generation of companies born with that attitude.
This being the only lifecycle for them is a very recent development. We are at the first generation of companies born with that attitude.
> Last year, the company said it already saw a higher revenue per customer on its ad-supported plan, as opposed to its $15.49 ad-free plan, which means its $11.99 per month basic plan likely isn’t doing much for Netflix’s bottom line. During an earnings call this week, co-CEO Greg Peters said the company’s top priority in its advertising business is “scale.” To Netflix, that means “making the ads plan more attractive” and “shifting our plans and pricing structure and other places where we think it’s appropriate.”
The enshittification has begun...
The enshittification has begun...
I’m not sure what the deal is with Netflix’s video quality these days, but it’s utter shite.
Are you talking about their 1080p quality or their 4K quality?
Netflix has done a lot of work on better compression via optimized shot-based encoding for 4K: https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for.... The highest 4K bitrate now averages around half of what it used to be (8Mbps rather than 16Mbps), but Netflix does encode highly complex 4K video at higher bitrates (even if they're higher than the previous 16Mbps).
However, there have been complaints about this. Whether it's people actually noticing a quality difference or just feeling like they do, I can't say. I don't personally notice details that small in video.
Maybe it's other changes you're noticing. I believe Netflix has started rolling out the AV1 codec for compatible players.
Netflix has done a lot of work on better compression via optimized shot-based encoding for 4K: https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for.... The highest 4K bitrate now averages around half of what it used to be (8Mbps rather than 16Mbps), but Netflix does encode highly complex 4K video at higher bitrates (even if they're higher than the previous 16Mbps).
However, there have been complaints about this. Whether it's people actually noticing a quality difference or just feeling like they do, I can't say. I don't personally notice details that small in video.
Maybe it's other changes you're noticing. I believe Netflix has started rolling out the AV1 codec for compatible players.
I don't buy their numbers, they're a prime example of lying with statistics. Their averages might be good enough, but it's always the edge cases that stand out and make all the difference. Their dark scenes in particular are full of compression artifacts that ruin the premium experience they're trying to sell. This was back in late 2020.
More worryingly, if their metrics show that video quality barely improves past whatever bitrate they're serving now, then their metrics must be completely wrong.
I'm not paying for that, especially with how they often fail to deliver 4K in the first place through their native apps. I could never get my 4K stream working on a Windows 10 machine at the time, so I switched to the high seas which does so perfectly.
I rarely watch any of their original shows anymore for other reasons (their tendency to abruptly cancel shows for one), but the video quality difference between Netflix and HBO/ATV+ is staggering.
More worryingly, if their metrics show that video quality barely improves past whatever bitrate they're serving now, then their metrics must be completely wrong.
I'm not paying for that, especially with how they often fail to deliver 4K in the first place through their native apps. I could never get my 4K stream working on a Windows 10 machine at the time, so I switched to the high seas which does so perfectly.
I rarely watch any of their original shows anymore for other reasons (their tendency to abruptly cancel shows for one), but the video quality difference between Netflix and HBO/ATV+ is staggering.
At some point Netflix started to compress really dark scenes to be bands instead of gradients - which wouldn't have been that much of an issue, but it also happened when the movies started to do a lot more with dark scenes.
Netflix has among the lowest 4K quality among services though.
Compared to AppleTV+ and Disney+ and HBO MAX.
Compared to AppleTV+ and Disney+ and HBO MAX.
Indeed it is. I'm on the lowest tier, and every time the scene goes even slightly dark, the large square blobs creep into the scene behind the perfect-clarity characters. It's beyond annoying
Are you watching on a platform that doesn't support its higher DRM, perhaps?
Highest tier Netflix. Apple TV 4K / older Samsung Plasma 1080p in perfect shape. All the other apps video quality is fine. On Netflix it’s just dreadful most of the time, only sometimes is it ok/acceptable.
I’m currently in a temporary place— but it was the same crap quality a few months ago on the other side of the country, with a different internet provider, and an LG C1, native TV app or Apple TV, made no difference— utter crap (HD or 4K didn’t matter- the 4K HDR/DV was just a different flavor of badness) whilst all the other apps were perfectly OK.
I’m currently in a temporary place— but it was the same crap quality a few months ago on the other side of the country, with a different internet provider, and an LG C1, native TV app or Apple TV, made no difference— utter crap (HD or 4K didn’t matter- the 4K HDR/DV was just a different flavor of badness) whilst all the other apps were perfectly OK.
So weird! Where I live (West Coast), Netflix consistently has the highest quality for me. Sorry it sucks for you :(
I suspect with Netflix’s recent crackdown on sharing, this will get much more common and their recent gains in membership will reverse.
They just don’t have that much good stuff coming out, nor do many of the services.
Currently really enjoying Hulu on their 1.00/month plan from Black Friday. Many many shows and movies we’d not seen.