If they wanted to start producing 3D content and charging extra for that, I'd see the reason but I'd balk at them charging more for delivering the same 2D content to a new system.
I wouldn't expect a Vision Pro app delivering a 2D content experience to be dramatically more expensive to build and maintain than their vast array of apps for set-top boxes, hotels, streaming sticks, or the Meta Quest they've already supported but not charged extra for. Why would they draw the line here?
Companies often charge as much as they think customers will pay, regardless of costs. Apple's RAM upgrade prices are a prime example. But I doubt that Netflix would do it on this occasion.
I wouldn't expect a Vision Pro app delivering a 2D content experience to be dramatically more expensive to build and maintain than their vast array of apps for set-top boxes, hotels, streaming sticks, or the Meta Quest they've already supported but not charged extra for. Why would they draw the line here?