21–30 of 164 posts
If they weren't able to come up with some hits after that, then they weren't trying.
Somewhere behind the scenes, Netflix is applying sabermetrics to Hollywood.
Except it's worse than in baseball... Unlike Oakland, all their competitors (except maybe Amazon) can't just copy their approach, because all their data is private, not public.
And Netflix is the only source of UHD, at least in my parts of the world. Which made me pay them even more for that subscription now when I bought a UHD TV last week. Oh, and I just ended my good old regular cable subscription one month ago.
Out of curiosity, how good is the streaming UHD? I've always wondered how the tension between bandwidth consumption and "actually looking better than 1080P" would pan out. Last week with some Christmas funds we bought a 24" TV. Even at the point-blank range it is sitting at, 1080P isn't worth much so I got the nicer (and non-Smart!) 720P Samsung rather than the off-brand "we have 1080P!"-bullet-point-feature brand. W…
However, it's not that big a deal when watching from 5-6 meters.
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License. I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you…
They aren't burdened by paywalls or quarter-capitalism. As long as they do a good job (ensuring that the public want them funded) I think they'll be around.
In Sweden, SVT (public service channels) have done a good job providing all content online, on Apple TV, etc. It feels like they have a modern mindset.
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License. I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you…
And Netflix is the only source of UHD, at least in my parts of the world. Which made me pay them even more for that subscription now when I bought a UHD TV last week. Oh, and I just ended my good old regular cable subscription one month ago.
Out of curiosity, how good is the streaming UHD? I've always wondered how the tension between bandwidth consumption and "actually looking better than 1080P" would pan out. Last week with some Christmas funds we bought a 24" TV. Even at the point-blank range it is sitting at, 1080P isn't worth much so I got the nicer (and non-Smart!) 720P Samsung rather than the off-brand "we have 1080P!"-bullet-point-feature brand. W…
One major downside is that you can't stream 4K Netflix or Amazon to your browser so even on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor (or if you have a fancy 4k or 5k display) you won't get the option. It's only available on various streaming "sticks" or TV-based "apps" at the moment. As far as I know, it's only really meant as a roadblock to casual ripping of 4k content since it wouldn't be difficult to determine whether a viewer's computer had the proper hardware decoders to ensure smooth playback. Unfortunately for viewers, it means you can't get those higher quality streams without buying a device or using a "smart" TV. And last time I checked, there's no shortage of pirated 4K content out there. It's currently one of the only ways to do it if you don't want to rely on a Fire stick, another set top box, or some possibly-secured TV app platform. Not a huge deal on my 2560x1440 monitor since it's not too big and 1920x1080 looks fine. But I'm likely picking up a 4k TV in the next month thanks to a $500 gift card and wanting to game at those resolutions. It's a shame I'll have to either pirate 4k shows or plug in the ethernet cable to the TV when I want to stream legit.
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License. I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you…
The BBC has other sources of income too. Here in Australia, there is a ton of BBC content on Netflix Australia, which presumably Netflix paid the BBC for (eg River, for which Netflix acquired exclusive international streaming rights: http://deadline.com/2015/10/netflix-bbc-river-stellan-skarsg... ) In Australia, our ABC is funded directly out of general taxes, rather than an explicit TV License. I can imagine Britain…
The BBC is in a difficult bind. It can't charge for license-fee funded content in the UK where it's best known. And if it had to make all its income from its commercial arm, it would only make Doctor Who and Top Gear, none of the classical music, news, or drama that it's best at.
How the BBC is funded is intensely political, being argued a ton right now as the charter is up for renewal in 2016. The BBC in 2017 could be much smaller.
Mom: "We got Sky now, so many channels and we get the newest Soccer and Movies!" GF: "Oh nice... so where can I choose the movies?" Mom: "You select the movie channel at 20:15 and it shows it" GF: "What? I that's in four hours! Who pays a company to wait? This sounds like Netflix in bad to me..." Classic cable TV is basically dead. First Netflix&co had better airing times (on demand, haha) and now they invest in bett…
They've been pretty aggressive in rebuilding their platform content wise. If you use a regular cable (not wireless) the online archive is actually pretty big and they have all the latest blockbusters.
They even offer a DRMed download of content which I haven't seen on any other platform (quite convenient if you commute via train through low-bandwidth areas :D).
That being said...Netflix is awesome and they have excellent developers and understand software. Their original content is amazing, very bullish on them :)
Sadly, half those shows are not actually available on Netflix.
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License. I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you…
I thought you had to pay the tax for any screen, regardless of where the content comes from?
Source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one which I assume would have the broadest possible definition