Netflix, Hulu may have to wait 4 years for TV shows

[13Gigatons]

http://www.fox10tv.com/story/30437561/time-warner-ceo-signals-delays-for-dc-shows-on-netflix-hulu

Fans of superhero shows based in the DC Comics universe like "The Flash," ''Arrow" and "Gotham" might have to wait a lot longer for past seasons' episodes to come to Netflix and Hulu. Jeff Bewkes, the chief executive of DC-owner Time Warner Inc., told analysts on a conference call Wednesday that the company is considering whether to let online services like Netflix have its shows several years after they first air, rather than one year later. He said that could mean more older episodes are available on-demand to traditional cable customers.

Withdrawing shows from online services would make traditional cable and satellite TV packages more attractive. Time Warner is focused on "delivering even more value to consumers, especially those who subscribe to the traditional bundle," Bewkes said.

So I guess piracy will make a big come back?

 

[Captante]

Although in a sense I can't blame them for trying anything to save their dying business model, all this will do is make people hate them even more and provide more motivation for Netflix etc to supply the content themselves.

 

[TwiceOver]

Meh, since cutting cable our tv watching has dropped dramatically. We have so many shows to catch up on as it is.

 

[purbeast0]

smart move on their part IMO. of course people will complain because they get less shit for free when they want it. entitlement mentality doesn't surprise me though, everyone thinks they deserve everything for free/cheap as shit.

 

[sdifox]

Lulz shows are on torrent basically right after it airs. And this will help them make more money how?

 

[Red Storm]

The only result from a move likes this would be me forgetting about these shows because they take forever to show up in my streaming services, and by then I won't care to watch them.

Oh and it will push more people to pirate.

 

[Anubis]

Lulz shows are on torrent basically right after it airs. And this will help them make more money how?

99% of people don't know what a torrent is

 

[lupi]

And yall are talking about the minority otherwise they wouldn't be doing this.

 

[Ackmed]

99% of people don't know what a torrent is

USA has about 320 million people. The most pirated movie last year was downloaded 30 million times. Some episodes of TWD and GoT were downloaded 48 million times. Your numbers don't match up.

 

[sdifox]

99% of people don't know what a torrent is

unless 99% of people are over 40, your numbers are way off.

 

[NoCreativity]

smart move on their part IMO. of course people will complain because they get less shit for free when they want it. entitlement mentality doesn't surprise me though, everyone thinks they deserve everything for free/cheap as shit.

How is anyone getting shit for free? Netflix/hulu pay to have the shows available and people pay for netflix/hulu.

Captante hit the nail on the head. They are trying to save a dying business model and it won't work.

 

[purbeast0]

How is anyone getting shit for free? Netflix/hulu pay to have the shows available and people pay for netflix/hulu.

Captante hit the nail on the head. They are trying to save a dying business model and it won't work.

i guess you missed the "cheap as shit" part i wrote. netflix and hulu are cheap as shit compared to cable.

 

[Red Storm]

i guess you missed the "cheap as shit" part i wrote. netflix and hulu are cheap as shit compared to cable.

Depends how you look at it. They are "cheap" if you consider cable as normal. I and many others consider cable to be expensive for what you get, so it's not Netflix that's cheap, it's cable that's expensive.

 

[Anubis]

USA has about 320 million people. The most pirated movie last year was downloaded 30 million times. Some episodes of TWD and GoT were downloaded 48 million times. Your numbers don't match up.

sure slight exaggeration, point is still true, also DL numbers are not US limited and are offset by people like me who 1) Pays for HBO and 2) still downloads GOT and 3) owns them all on BR

 

[purbeast0]

Depends how you look at it. They are "cheap" if you consider cable as normal. I and many others consider cable to be expensive for what you get, so it's not Netflix that's cheap, it's cable that's expensive.

cable is expensive AND netflix is cheap.

 

[vi edit]

i guess you missed the "cheap as shit" part i wrote. netflix and hulu are cheap as shit compared to cable.

Thing is that those shows listed are free OTA as it is. You don't even need cable for them. Fox, CW...all free with an antenna if you want it.

I would like to see every major content provider sit down in a room with Netflix, wear their big boy pants, act like civilized adults and figure out some way to come to an agreement.

Let's all pretty much agree that Netflix is the primary distribution model for just about anything streaming and get that out of the way. It's a household name and accounts for an overwhelming percentage of 'Net traffic at night.

Ok now that's out of the way...figure out some sort of tiered pricing model that doesn't fuck over the consumer *OR* the content providers and keep everyone happy.

Netflix basic: $9 a month
Netflix with all HBO access: +$10
Netflix with Fox library: +$5
Netflix with NBC library: +5
And so on....

End this insanity of trying to build up all your own silos and let wallets really do the voting. Aggregate out your data and figure out what is really watched based upon analytics netflix can provide easily and not go off some archaic survey where people have to fill out a piece of paper and send it back in.

Use that to really see what people like and let true demand drive pricing.

 

[NoCreativity]

i guess you missed the "cheap as shit" part i wrote. netflix and hulu are cheap as shit compared to cable.

Nope, didn't miss it.

But I agree that people can't complain about moves like this when they are getting it for cheap.

It doesn't matter though because it won't have the desired effect of increasing subscribers. People who are paying ~$10-20/month for streaming services aren't going to shell out 2-3X as much money or more for cable.

 

[Insomniator]

I'd like to welcome my old friend Bittorent into the family! How ya been pal?

 

[purbeast0]

Nope, didn't miss it.

But I agree that people can't complain about moves like this when they are getting it for cheap.

It doesn't matter though because it won't have the desired effect of increasing subscribers. People who are paying ~$10-20/month for streaming services aren't going to shell out 2-3X as much money or more for cable.

then why did you ask me how are people getting shit for free?

and as someone else mentioned, the shows mentioned are OTA so they don't have to pay 2-3x as much as the sub fee. they are free as is.

 

[Genx87]

These morons nearly 20 years after Napster showed up are still fighting what the market wants.

 

[n7]

Idiotic decision-making by out-of-touch execs.

 

[SunnyD]

cable is expensive AND netflix is cheap.

Let's see...

I pay $88.xx/month (inc. taxes/fees) for cable + (75Mbps) internet from Comcrap.

If I were to 'unbundle' and go internet only I'd pay:

$78.95 + taxes and fees (75Mbps, $66.95 for 25Mbps)
+ $9.99 for Netflix

Total would be $88.94/month.

Add in Hulu for more "TV" content at $7.99/month and Amazon prime at ~$8.25/month to fill in some content gaps and I'm now paying a total of:

$105.18/month

I save exactly how much by cutting the cord again?

 

[NoCreativity]

then why did you ask me how are people getting shit for free?

Because you said people are getting free shit?

smart move on their part IMO. of course people will complain because they get less shit for free when they want it. entitlement mentality doesn't surprise me though, everyone thinks they deserve everything for free/cheap as shit.

and as someone else mentioned, the shows mentioned are OTA so they don't have to pay 2-3x as much as the sub fee. they are free as is.

Exactly. OP's article states this move is being contemplated because they think it will make traditional cable/satellite packages more attractive (i.e. add subscribers, i.e. people paying 2-3X or more money than they already do). Which is why I agree with Captante that this is just grasping at straws to keep a dying business model afloat for a little longer.

 

[twinrider1]

Meh, since cutting cable our tv watching has dropped dramatically. We have so many shows to catch up on as it is.

But eventually you'll catch up. This is my concern for Netflix and it's kind. They're starting to develop original programming, but they are dependent upon the networks and Hollywood for most of their content.
There will come a point when most people will have watched most of the old programming that they want to see...and demand will shrink.

 

[purbeast0]

Because you said people are getting free shit?





Exactly. OP's article states this move is being contemplated because they think it will make traditional cable/satellite packages more attractive (i.e. add subscribers, i.e. people paying 2-3X or more money than they already do). Which is why I agree with Captante that this is just grasping at straws to keep a dying business model afloat for a little longer.

they are getting shit for free - OTA or via torrenting.

and/or getting it cheap - netflix/hulu