Netflix deathwatch.

[techs]

Netflix could easily add a Random button.

You mean I would have to push a button?

I'm out.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

:hmm: I wonder how that will work for sports programs. Not very well I would guess. :biggrin:

I know for MLB you can pay $100 a year and be able to watch any game on demand from the last 3(i think) years. As well as tune in to any live game there is. I imagine that the NFL, NHL, and NBA won't be far behind.

 

[Ksyder]

Whats sad is all of the parents pleading for shows to come back in the comments so they can silence their screaming kids. Buy some fucking dvd's or something if you don't want cable.

And in that same vein, I formally request that No Reservations please be brought back. Thank you.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The media companies don't have a choice. If they fail to give users the content in the way the users want to consume it the users will find their content though less than honest means.

I am not saying that online distribution is going away, I just think it will become more fragmented and expensive.

So instead of $10 a month to Netflix and Hulu each, cord cutters will have to pay something like $7 (or whatever) bucks a month to Fox's portal, NBC's portal, Paramount's portal, etc. Add in your cable provider forcing you on the more expensive internet service because even though the basic plan is fast enough you are running over their "cap," and suddenly we are back to paying what we almost pay for cable today.

And that is the point. Content providers don't mind doing a la carte. They mind accepting revenues that would be a fraction of what they get from TV advertisers today if their main distribution platform is online.

The market will shift and eventually they will start having to provide more efficiently produced content and deal with lower margins, but they aren't going to accept that fate without a fight. In the meantime until they read the writing on the wall the consumers are caught in the middle.

 

[poofyhairguy]

There are tons of older 1960s, 1970s and 1980s movies that could be added to netflix. Stuff that is difficult to find even on ebay or amazon.

How much could it cost to add movies to netflix?

Old crappy movies cost almost nothing. But that isn't going to drive subscriptions.

What drives subscriptions are recent TV shows and recent popular movies. The syndication rights for these programs cost FAR more.

 

[Texashiker]

Old crappy movies cost almost nothing. But that isn't going to drive subscriptions.

What drives subscriptions are recent TV shows and recent popular movies. The syndication rights for these programs cost FAR more.

I would like to watch clockwork orange, caveman, jaws, quest for fire,,, from time to time.

The john wayne selection on netflix sucks big time. How many older aged subscribers is netflix missing out on because of it?

 

[techs]

I am not saying that online distribution is going away, I just think it will become more fragmented and expensive.

So instead of $10 a month to Netflix and Hulu each, cord cutters will have to pay something like $7 (or whatever) bucks a month to Fox's portal, NBC's portal, Paramount's portal, etc.

I don't see that. "Aggregators" like Netflix will still be the first choice of many people who don't want to have to pay separate bills to NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, The History Channel, SYFY, etc every month. Plus the variability of content would make it pricing variable. Say NBC had a bunch of disliked shows this coming fall(hard to believe). Would NBC have to drop the price 42 cents? Or would people just cancel until new shows started?

The overhead of managing subscriptions for each channel or network plus the changing value of programming as each network introduces new shows, cancels old ones, would just be too much. Using an aggregator like Netflix will always have large advantages over going it alone.

 

[sourceninja]

I am not saying that online distribution is going away, I just think it will become more fragmented and expensive.

So instead of $10 a month to Netflix and Hulu each, cord cutters will have to pay something like $7 (or whatever) bucks a month to Fox's portal, NBC's portal, Paramount's portal, etc. Add in your cable provider forcing you on the more expensive internet service because even though the basic plan is fast enough you are running over their "cap," and suddenly we are back to paying what we almost pay for cable today.

And that is the point. Content providers don't mind doing a la carte. They mind accepting revenues that would be a fraction of what they get from TV advertisers today if their main distribution platform is online.

The market will shift and eventually they will start having to provide more efficiently produced content and deal with lower margins, but they aren't going to accept that fate without a fight. In the meantime until they read the writing on the wall the consumers are caught in the middle.

It will be a balance of cost vs convenience and everyone has a break point. For example Hulu is on the bottom of my list and I no longer pay money for hulu. Why? Because of commercials. I am not going to pay to watch commercials. So instead of using the hulu app in my tv and paying their fee, I hooked a computer to my tv and I use a browser.

I might be willing to pay up to $20-30 per season of a show if I know the content and the number of episodes I'll be receiving. To get me to put that out you are going to need places like netflix to recommend and introduce me to a show.

Personally, I hope the future of TV is shows like Chug (insert product placement here http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/chug/chug-an-international-drinking-show-with-zane-lamp ). Community supported and provided direct to consumers.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I don't see that. "Aggregators" like Netflix will still be the first choice of many people who don't want to have to pay separate bills to NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, The History Channel, SYFY, etc every month.

Sure CONSUMERS might prefer a single source, but content providers sure don't want that. They all watched how the music industry post-napster got consolidated around iTunes, and they won't let Netflix turn into the next iTunes with all that leverage against them.

Hulu was the best chance for something like that- it was owned by the media companies themselves. But that is flopping because they can't play nice with each other.

Now could I see the different services coming together to offer a single bundle price to access many services, or even device makers like Roku cutting a deal for a bundle package, but the days where the actual content is available through one portal is numbered until the industry consolidates into a single media company.

Plus the variability of content would make it pricing variable. Say NBC had a bunch of disliked shows this coming fall(hard to believe). Would NBC have to drop the price 42 cents? Or would people just cancel until new shows started?

Thanks to consolidation, the media companies own a lot of content to keep users paying year round.

For example, a NBC portal would not just be NBC shows. It would also be SyFy shows, USA Network shows, Telemundo shows, Universal Picture movies, and the Golf Channel. And NBC is a pretty small fish, if we are talking ABC then that means the entire Disney catalog.

Those who can't compete with their libraries will acquire more through mergers.

The overhead of managing subscriptions for each channel or network plus the changing value of programming as each network introduces new shows, cancels old ones, would just be too much. Using an aggregator like Netflix will always have large advantages over going it alone.

This is not really a lot of overhead. Sure its more hassle for consumers to deal with multiple providers, but the providers don't care if it means higher prices. What iTunes charges for episodes is more like what they expect to get paid. Unless Netflix goes to a $60 a month plan it will be hard to be the single portal like they have been.

 

[Markbnj]

Sure CONSUMERS might prefer a single source, but content providers sure don't want that. They all watched how the music industry post-napster got consolidated around iTunes, and they won't let Netflix turn into the next iTunes with all that leverage against them.

I agree they don't want it. For the major media companies and cable networks (often the same company now) streaming media online is currently a defensive tactic. They aren't embracing the new reality, they're trying to hold on to the old as long as possible. Comcast's xFinity is a great example, promising lots of great content and flexible viewing options, but really delivering a lot of teasers and promos and trying to gate you into special streaming and premium channel subscriptions. And all of it delivered over a platform that still isn't anywhere near as capable as Netflix's is.

I think the tipping point will be when streaming aggregators like Netflix can bring a bigger market and more money to the table in competition for the best and most sought-after content creators. Once that happens those assets should gravitate to the streamers, not the old closed network providers. I'd happily pay twice the $7.99 I pay Netflix now, if it will help that event occur sooner .

 

[poofyhairguy]

I agree they don't want it. For the major media companies and cable networks (often the same company now) streaming media online is currently a defensive tactic. They aren't embracing the new reality, they're trying to hold on to the old as long as possible.

Exactly. Netflix/Hulu was an experiment that got too successful. They never intended for Hulu to be the transition away from broadcast television- it was supposed to be an additional not a disruptive revenue stream.

I think the tipping point will be when streaming aggregators like Netflix can bring a bigger market and more money to the table in competition for the best and most sought-after content creators.

I just don't see that happening for a while. It will take more disruptive forces (user generated content maybe) to drag down the media companies to the point where Netflix is the best option financially.

Even if Netflix charged twice as much, the content producers are still getting maybe 1/10 of what they get from OTA television advertisers. Look at crazy iTunes pricing for an idea of what the content would cost if the internet was the primary distribution scheme. Neflix would be like $70 a month.

TV and movies are a different ballgame. Movie studies have the movie "experience" to fall back on. This is why they push IMAX, 3D, and HFR. This is also why they have gone all-in on making huge $100+ million budget blockbusters and fewer "indie" flicks (and less movies overall). Movie studios are making back their money in the theater, so they can chose to let syndication rights for Netflix and even Redbox stay cheap for promotional purposes. When every big movie is a sequel, Netflix is actually helping you promote if they can watch the previous movie in the series online before they go to the theater for the new one.

TV is a completely different story. The model is set around making your money back on the first airing, kinda like the movies, but nowadays DVD sales are a big part of what defines a hit (look how they brought family guy back).

What I can see happening in TV is that there will be a few elites where you just pay monthly for high quality content from that provider (HBO is pretty much there), and everything else production-wise will be crap in comparison with a heavy emphasis on what can be done cheaply (HELLO even MORE reality TV and talent competitions).

The upside is that maybe in the long run nerdy shows that won't work in the current model will be winners in the future one due to loyal viewers that pay. The downside is that the TV producers will fight for their margins till the last second they can, and that means growing pains for all of us.

 

[JamesV]

I would like to watch clockwork orange, caveman, jaws, quest for fire,,, from time to time.

The john wayne selection on netflix sucks big time. How many older aged subscribers is netflix missing out on because of it?

Quest for Fire is on Netflix right now...

I love Netflix, and agree it's a bargain. The only reason I have cable at all, is for my aunt; the $60 a month for BASIC digitial and remote and box is theft compared to the $15 I spend a month on Netflix.

The selection does stink at times, especially all the rip-off films like Transmorphers, but I've watched many movies and documentaries that were great, that I never would have seen otherwise. The four gems a month I find are worth the price by themselves.

 

[Texashiker]

Quest for Fire is on Netflix right now...

They must of just added it because I had to order the DVD from amazon.

 

[sourceninja]

I found this article to be on topic http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/646c5796-c880-11e2-acc6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2UiSMPfsJ

 

[Doppel]

A year back I was hating on netflix, now I watch it freaking constantly. Either it's better or I am one fickle little bitch. Probably some of the former and a lot of the latter.

 

[RedRooster]

A year back I was hating on netflix, now I watch it freaking constantly. Either it's better or I am one fickle little bitch. Probably some of the former and a lot of the latter.

It takes a real man to admit that. :biggrin:

 

[randomrogue]

I stopped watching regular television a little over 10 years ago. The future is broadband provided content.

 

[WT]

I've only recently sub'd to Netflix (last October) so I missed out on the whole price rising and Qwikster stink, and so far I am enjoying the selection (I also have the DVD plan, so I can fill in the older missing titles as I see fit).

What I don't like is the fact that there are not profiles available to select from, so what I watch and what my kids watch are not lumped together. I get annoyed when I log in and see "Saved By the Bell' and 'H20' on my recently watched list, and it offers me more of the same. I understand that they used to offer profiles but do not any more.

What I want:
-> Dad's profile - recently watched - 'War of Arrows', 'Man from Nowhere'
-> Kids profile - 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua', 'Adventures of Tin Tin'.

Is that too freakin' much to ask to offer separate viewing profiles ?? It would greatly help find movies without making a total wreck of the taste profile for my account.

 

[Red Storm]

The one thing I hate about Netflix is the terrible UI. No matter what device I'm using it on be it a phone, tablet, laptop, or on the Apple TV, the interface just sucks.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The one thing I hate about Netflix is the terrible UI. No matter what device I'm using it on be it a phone, tablet, laptop, or on the Apple TV, the interface just sucks.

The Wii one is the best one.

 

[hasu]

Netflix is the future of television. Cable/sat providers are the ones on deathwatch.

Like AOL for internet?

 

[RedRooster]

Like AOL for internet?

Everyone knows there's always something better coming around the corner.
Cable had a nice 20 year run, their window is closing.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Way premature.

Why do chicks keep saying that to me?

 

[Vic Vega]

OP got tired of political trolling and moved on to this?

 

[Markbnj]

Cable had a nice 20 year run, their window is closing.

Make that something like 60 years.