Netflix deathwatch.

[poofyhairguy]

Ask the content providers that came back to Netflix with even sweeter deals after they realized that by cutting ties to Netflix was a bad idea how they feel...

Sure, provide a link where that happened.

Because I can provide many links to prove my point- as Netflix's original deals expire they will lose a good chunk of their mainstream content.

In fact, May 1 was called 'Streamageddon' day "resulting from expired licensing deals with MGM, Warner Bros., and Universal that cost the online service access to several James Bond movies, Adaptation, Cruel Intentions, and Reality Bites, among hundreds of others."

http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/05/01/netflix-content-streaming/

And what is Time Warner doing with the content THEY pulled form Netflix?

Most of the today’s departed content was old Warner Bros. films, some of which will eventually gravitate to Warner Archive Instant

Just like I said. Providers, one at a time, will pull content from Netflix and steam it themselves.

Anyone of these idiotic ”analysts” can put out a fluff piece for you to link to,

How about actual news where Netflix is losing content, like I linked.

Anyways, NFLX will be the uniter of all things streaming, take that to the bank.

If you really believe that the media industry will allow another iTunes to be created knock yourself out, its your money to invest and lose.

 

[jman19]

Yes and no. The reason why TV works is because surfing is a decision-free activity. Surfing Netflix involves the choice of clicking on something. It sounds trivial, but it's the same reason car radio still exists when there's Spotify, MOG, MP3's, etc. - the major draw of radio is that it's so accessible, just flip the channel until you find something you like. Same with television. When Netflix offers some sort of IPTV feature like that, where you can just flip through stuff, I think even more people will switch over.

It really is a matter of opinion - but there is so much crap on TV, and the interface for searching from most providers is so clunky and slow that I almost never bother surfing anymore. It's a total waste of my time.

 

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...g-service-for-movies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Warner Archive Instant, a Streaming Service for Movies

The debut last month of Warner Archive Instant, a new streaming video service from Warner Brothers, stimulated some strong reactions on Internet movie discussion sites. Costing $9.99 a month, $2 more than the established services, and with an initial inventory of only a few hundred old movies — many of them in black and white and some (shudder) even without spoken dialogue — what kind of Netflix killer was this supposed to be?

Not a very good one, obviously. But that was never what George Feltenstein, Warner’s senior vice president for theatrical catalog marketing and the driving force behind the initiative, had in mind.

“As a consumer who has a houseful of old movies on discs and still can’t get enough,” Mr. Feltenstein said in a phone interview, “my needs were not being met by the mainstream services. The kind of movies I wanted to watch weren’t there. I thought a lot of people would be like me.”



Yeah, I'm guessing Netflix isn't broken hearted about this.

 

[SSSnail]

Disney.

Anyways, it's the classic ”junks in my attic” syndrome, the problem with some of the contents providers is that they think their craps worth more than they do, and eventually will realize that it's better to get something than nothing for their junks.

They all think they can spin up a streaming business as ubiquitous as Netflix, lol. The only one has deep enough pocket to try is Amazon, how are they doing?

BTW, not only NFLX is becoming a content provider, they're also becoming a content delivering entity.

Tell you what, short the stock, put money where your mouth is.

 

[RedRooster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...g-service-for-movies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Warner Archive Instant, a Streaming Service for Movies

The debut last month of Warner Archive Instant, a new streaming video service from Warner Brothers, stimulated some strong reactions on Internet movie discussion sites. Costing $9.99 a month, $2 more than the established services, and with an initial inventory of only a few hundred old movies — many of them in black and white and some (shudder) even without spoken dialogue — what kind of Netflix killer was this supposed to be?

Not a very good one, obviously. But that was never what George Feltenstein, Warner’s senior vice president for theatrical catalog marketing and the driving force behind the initiative, had in mind.

“As a consumer who has a houseful of old movies on discs and still can’t get enough,” Mr. Feltenstein said in a phone interview, “my needs were not being met by the mainstream services. The kind of movies I wanted to watch weren’t there. I thought a lot of people would be like me.”



Yeah, I'm guessing Netflix isn't broken hearted about this.

Hahaha, I never heard of that one. Ouch.

 

[techs]

Disney.

BTW, not only NFLX is becoming a content provider, they're also becoming a content delivering entity.

This. I am wondering when original content creators will start marketing their original programming to Netflix? They could get paid by number of viewers, etc. Because Netflix has a virtually unlimited ability in the number of things they can offer at one time, carrying even very niche original programs would be easy.

Basically turn around the Arrested Development, House of Cards idea and let someone else make the show, but "air" it on Netflix.

Stuff like 'Pioneer One' which was made by donations was ok, but with just a little bit of money could have been much better. Netflix could become, in effect, a network by showing stuff that pays the creators each time its viewed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Yeah, I'm guessing Netflix isn't broken hearted about this.

None of these individual services are actual competitors to Netflix. Most will fail.

But every time a content provider pulls content from Netflix to "give it a go" at competing with Netflix, the service is harmed from a consumer standpoint.

The advantages for Netflix is that there is so much content out there they can keep shuffling chairs on the Titanic for at least 18 months, and (as I said previously) the fact that movie studies might accept less than tv studios sooner due to the fact they have the box office as a revenue source.

We will see if that is enough, I don't think it is.

 

[techs]

None of these individual services are actual competitors to Netflix. Most will fail.

But every time a content provider pulls content from Netflix to "give it a go" at competing with Netflix, the service is harmed from a consumer standpoint.

The advantages for Netflix is that there is so much content out there they can keep shuffling chairs on the Titanic for at least 18 months, and (as I said previously) the fact that movie studies might accept less than tv studios sooner due to the fact they have the box office as a revenue source.

We will see if that is enough, I don't think it is.

The sheer number of television shows, and episodes, just sitting on the shelves doing nothing is staggering. Even the syndication market is dying. Many shows that used to be shown time and time again are now on Netflix and not on cable. Clearly that's because the content owners are making more money on Netflix than on syndication.

A movie or tv show is earning money monthly when its on Netflix. Instead of just sitting in some archive.

 

[Markbnj]

This. I am wondering when original content creators will start marketing their original programming to Netflix? They could get paid by number of viewers, etc. Because Netflix has a virtually unlimited ability in the number of things they can offer at one time, carrying even very niche original programs would be easy.

Basically turn around the Arrested Development, House of Cards idea and let someone else make the show, but "air" it on Netflix.

Stuff like 'Pioneer One' which was made by donations was ok, but with just a little bit of money could have been much better. Netflix could become, in effect, a network by showing stuff that pays the creators each time its viewed.

Firefly!

 

[poofyhairguy]

Disney.

If I was Netflix I wouldn't count on Disney. Known to be a backstabbing company and they have some of the smartest streaming guys in the business over at ESPN to leverage.

Anyways, it's the classic ”junks in my attic” syndrome, the problem with some of the contents providers is that they think their craps worth more than they do, and eventually will realize that it's better to get something than nothing for their junks.

I agree with you this is the long-term answer, but I disagree that A: They will reach that logical conclusion of the true value of that content within 5 years and B: When they finally do that Netflix will be the one to take advantage at that time.

I feel Netflix is a lot like Vonage. They paved the path, experienced the growing pains, and showed everyone how to do it. Now the content providers themselves will copy Netflix and enough will be successful that Netflix won't have as much amazing content it has now.

They all think they can spin up a streaming business as ubiquitous as Netflix, lol. The only one has deep enough pocket to try is Amazon, how are they doing?

Most of these media companies are huge with tons of resources and a lot of vanity. I think they have to fall completely flat on their face before they will accept that Netflix can do it better than they can. I think some will succeed.

BTW, not only NFLX is becoming a content provider, they're also becoming a content delivering entity.

If Netflix can create some really good content then all bets are off because they don't need anyone else's content then.

 

[RedRooster]

Firefly!

I think Arrested Development has taught us the cult series is never as good the second time around. Futurama the exception.

 

[Markbnj]

I think Arrested Development has taught us the cult series is never as good the second time around. Futurama the exception.

Yeah, I'm sure they couldn't even get everybody for Firefly. Would love to see a reboot though.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think Arrested Development has taught us the cult series is never as good the second time around. Futurama the exception.

Family Guy taught me that.

 

[SSSnail]

Dude, NFLX has way too much contents to care now, contents from places you've never even heard of, because that's how far reaching it has become. The providers they're ”losing” now is just for renegotiating contracts.

And I hate you for making me post seriously for a bit, that's not my purpose here.

 

[SSSnail]

Dude, NFLX has way too much contents to care now, contents from places you've never even heard of, because that's how far reaching it has become. The providers they're ”losing” now is just for renegotiating contracts.

And I hate you for making me post seriously for a bit, that's not my purpose here.

 

[techs]

If I was Netflix I wouldn't count on Disney. Known to be a backstabbing company and they have some of the smartest streaming guys in the business over at ESPN to leverage.

Disney could be the exception and actually make it on their own as a streaming site if only because of its "kid" friendly reputation. I could see parents paying 10 bucks a month for Disney for the kids.

However, they are the only one with a unique enough presence and a large enough library. Even then, they would have to cannibalize their currently running tv shows to keep the kids interested month after month.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Dude, NFLX has way too much contents to care now, contents from places you've never even heard of, because that's how far reaching it has become. The providers they're ”losing” now is just for renegotiating contracts.

The quantity of the content isn't what matters, its the quality.

There are tons of children's programing on there, yet some parents are still flipping out that Dora is gone.

Plus my main point from the start was that Netflix's content was at a high point in 2012, because going forward they will lose more and more mainstream tv shows and movies.

And I hate you for making me post seriously for a bit, that's not my purpose here.

 

[poofyhairguy]

However, they are the only one with a unique enough presence and a large enough library.

I don't know, Fox has a lot too.

EDIT: And I could see a few medium-sized ones paring up. Say Comcast and CBS. The point is that 90% of the content won't even be in two services going forward like we had with Hulu/Netflix. You will need like 5 subscriptions in 5 years to get the same content that was on those two.

 

[SP33Demon]

Netflix is a behemoth that won't be dethroned anytime soon. Just get used to it.

 

[SSSnail]

Disney could be the exception and actually make it on their own as a streaming site if only because of its "kid" friendly reputation. I could see parents paying 10 bucks a month for Disney for the kids.

However, they are the only one with a unique enough presence and a large enough library. Even then, they would have to cannibalize their currently running tv shows to keep the kids interested month after month.

Yeah, and even Disney saw the writings on the wall, and gave Netflix the key to their kingdom.

 

[techs]

I don't know, Fox has a lot too.

EDIT: And I could see a few medium-sized ones paring up. Say Comcast and CBS. The point is that 90% of the content won't even be in two services going forward like we had with Hulu/Netflix. You will need like 5 subscriptions in 5 years to get the same content that was on those two.

The Fox library is still just a tiny fraction of what Netflix has. And if you are going to sign up for a service would you pay 8 bucks for one that is huge or one that is relatively small? In a couple of three months you can go thru the Fox library and then be back on Netflix.

The fact is that to compete with Netflix you have to get a huge amount of content. And it has to be appreciably better than Netflix. And the competitor would have to pay more than Netflix to get it. So, the new service has to cost more than Netflix. A lot more.

Netflix is in the drivers seat. They could easily charge a buck more a month than they do and lose very few people but they are still trying to add new subscribers.

I look at it like premium cable channels. They are aggregators like HBO, Starz, etc. The few ones like Turner Classic Movies are tiny compared to them.

In the end it may be that some movies go to Hulu, some to Netflix, some to Amazon at first. The a few months later they appear on the other services.

 

[Pantoot]

They could easily charge a buck more a month than they do and lose very few people but they are still trying to add new subscribers.

I agree, they could, but in my opinion there are a huge number of people who pay netflix that don't really use it anymore. Reminding them that they are paying every month (by sending them a notice of the price change) might just be all the motivation that this horde needs to cancel.

I don't know the numbers, but my guess would be that their retention got better with the streaming model, since nobody had the same three dvds sitting on their counter for months at a time - constantly reminding them they are paying for a service they don't use.