-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
EU Calls On Netflix To Switch To SD During Coronavirus (Update: Netflix agrees. YouTube too. See threadmarks)
- Thread starter Deleted member 4262
- Start date
- COVID
It's the only benefit so far.
Not so far it's not.
Then it's not live yet in the UK.It's the only benefit so far.
Not so far it's not.
They mentioned the UK in their statement
I pay for 4K Netflix , and I am okay with this. I got Prime as well so I can still enjoy movies in full glory.
jesus christ are you stuck in 2005?To all the European Netflix users out there: Welcome to my world
YouTube too
This is common sense. The internet infraestructure of every country in the world, including of course the USA, is not ready for a contingency like this. Wait for the USA to get on lockdown and then tell me about internet caps and such. We are literally talking about a situation in which everybody is confined in their homes using Netflix, videogames or whatever other internet app.
XBOX live was severely disrupted and Whatsapp is failing too. These systems are not ready for what is happening right now. All our internet operators are advising "responsibility" on the internet use (if that is possible) because they cannot cope with the huge increase of traffic.
XBOX live was severely disrupted and Whatsapp is failing too. These systems are not ready for what is happening right now. All our internet operators are advising "responsibility" on the internet use (if that is possible) because they cannot cope with the huge increase of traffic.
While I do not agree with the people complaining about the loss of resolution like it's the end of the world, I do agree that Netflix could temporarily make the 4K plan cheaper as long as they can't actually offer 4K. All over the world cinema/film subscription services and gym memberships get frozen because people literally cannot go to the gym and cinema, I don't think it's too much to ask that Netflix would lower the cost of a service they are not able to provide (4K video).
A lot of people don't actually give a shit about resolution.
The thing is that they still provide 4K video all the time and only lower the bitrate by 25% during peak times. People that pay for 4K still get 4K.
It feels like there are several people complaining that don't understand the difference between resolution and bitrates.
The switch has been made in Spain. Bitrate reduced in half, but manaining resolution/Dolby Vision/Atmos, etc. I bold that part, because people still think Netflix is going to stream in 240p or something like that.
(traduction: basically a picture from yesterday and one from today)
(traduction: basically a picture from yesterday and one from today)
In YouTube's case, they say they'll activate SD "by default", meaning that you could still change it to HD if you wanted, just that it won't automatically go for HD. At least that's how I understand it.
I think the thread title is also confusing thing, it states that a request was made to reduce the resolution to SD which Netflix has agreed to do, which isn't really the case.
i think 720p streams are fine especially the way i am observing it, most people watched stuff on their phones, laptops or tablets.
Meanwhile in Germany: Disney+ is launching soon and the biggest ISP is giving out 6 month subscriptions for free.
Hey, Hey Netflix has some good shows.
you should check The Dark Crystal <3
Imagine people deciding to go out and risk killing themselves and their family members because their video streams don't have enough pixels.
This thread is filled with the absolute worst takes. An embarrassing example of 1st world problems.
Honestly, the best case scenario is those that can't handle the burden of a bitrate drop cancel all together - this would provide the most bandwidth benefit.
Last edited:
4K at 7mbps might as well not be 4K though. The normal bitrate of Netflix is already low for 4K, let alone they half that.
Looks pretty shitty on a huge 4k TV, yes. And it's unnecessary at the moment.
I'm with you, it's just semantics right now. 4K at 512kbits wouldn't really be 4K.
Because there's a fucking pandemic that is killing people (and only getting to get worse in the West) and 4k streaming (or any streaming) is completely irrelevant.
Either cancel if you feel Netflix is mugging you or shut up, Netflix streamers are the new toilet paper hoarders.
If someone is throwing a fit in this timeline because "I don't get what I've paid for" or demands some of their 3€ back - then I guess semantics do actually matter.
Still can't believe that we're talking about a proportionate sum of maybe 15 cents in a month that people are getting riled on. Lucky us that we have no other issues.
Do Netflix and Youtube use the new AV1 codec yet? It uses less bandwidth for essentially the same perceived quality. Maybe it's time to accelerate their plans and roll it out as an opt-in feature for all their content.
Seems like a perfect compromise.
Instead of wanted 480p SD downgrade, broadcasters dropping bitrate in half, which should result in barely an inconvenience as far as the quality goes.
Instead of wanted 480p SD downgrade, broadcasters dropping bitrate in half, which should result in barely an inconvenience as far as the quality goes.
They're part of the consortium that's developing it, and are slowly starting to implement on their services, but there's little to no hardware decoding (and encoding) support yet, you need client devices to implement hardware decoding of the video format.
We'll have to stick to hevc/h265 and VP9 for the next two years at least
And thus the true face of capitalism is shown when it is the consumers who are held accountable and not the corporations.
It's reprehensible to suggest Netflix charges everyone the same lower flat rate but it's totally fine for Netflix to increase their profit margins by providing a cheaper, reduced service while still charging the same price.
Gotta think of those poor millionaires and billionaires who are totally feeling the economic impact, huh?
Ehhh, no. I think that prices should stay the same. Though maybe the techs that might have to venture out from their homes to make sure everyone continues to have the ability to watch the Great British Baking show and such (potentially in SD...Oh NO!), should be be paid extra.
Great, cancel Netflix then, Netflix isn't a right, go do something else. Those millionaires and billionaires lose money if everyone cancels.
But of course you're not going to cancel Netflix.
If you can't understand the extraordinary circumstances then I'm afraid you're beyond hope.
Oh I fully understand the extraordinary circumstances and I've said many times already - and I'm getting tired of repeating myself - that reducing the service is totally the right thing to do.
I just find it amusing you guys are putting the onus on us to bear the burden, so to speak, rather than the corporations. You're so defensive for them it's honestly hilarious and you're not the first, either. We had people coming forward and with similar opinions about carbon footprints and climate change just last year - where people such as yourself were saying it is ordinary people that should sacrifice for the "greater good" and not the corporations who can more easily afford it.
It's totally fine for corporations like Netflix and Amazon to profit off a pandemic but fuck Joe Public who is being told to pay more for less shit.
I really dont get what's wrong with the suggestion that Netflix should charge people in accordance with the service they receive. I mean, we're looking at mass unemployment and people being stuck in their homes for months, so why exactly is it so much to ask that Netflix dont charge customers for what they cant provide in that window?
Is Netflix's income seriously more important? You cant really talk to the extraordinary circumstances when the suggestion you're giving is the public should foot the bill for a company at a time where the public need it more than ever.
What little you've even given to your arguement is preposterous. If they cant charge that much for a lower quality usually what makes you think its appropriate during a crisis?
Amazon also doing it and the BBC, Disney also looking into it
www.theguardian.com
Amazon Prime Video to slow streaming to fight broadband overload
Exclusive: YouTube will lower stream quality to handle surge as people stay at home
www.theguardian.com
How many millions, tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions do you think Netflix is gobbling up by not charging a reduced rate for a reduced service? Doesn't the European economy at large desperately need that kind of money right now so that shops aren't closing, people aren't losing their jobs? It may seem like a small amount of money on a personal basis but that shit adds up fast.
It's a reduction in bitrate, not resolution. You may not even notice it.
Keep calm everyone.
If you're concerned, cancel your subscription now.
If you notice, for the remainder of your running subscription, an unbearable drop in quality, ask Netflix for an appropriate refund.
But consider: Your premium fee includes the following services: HD / UHD resolution and 2 / 4 simultaneous users. These remain untouched. Does your premium fee entitle you to a certain bitrate? I don't know, check your contract with Netflix.
Keep calm everyone.
If you're concerned, cancel your subscription now.
If you notice, for the remainder of your running subscription, an unbearable drop in quality, ask Netflix for an appropriate refund.
But consider: Your premium fee includes the following services: HD / UHD resolution and 2 / 4 simultaneous users. These remain untouched. Does your premium fee entitle you to a certain bitrate? I don't know, check your contract with Netflix.
You are losing out at around 20 cent for a single month, probably even way less. You should cancel your whole Netflix if those one-time 20 cents are too much to bear.