Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix is on Fire

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#31

Post by Gigablah »

StevePerkins wrote: post #17
stonogo wrote: post #9

What is the purpose of this article? Was it really some random person SO EXCITED about a video streaming company? I struggle to find a thesis here. Do people need an entire essay that just says "Netflix is making money and producing content"?

Three-day holiday weekend. There are currently two separate posts on the front-page about 1999's "Age of Empires 2" being a nice video game.

Yes, when people return from their holidays we'll go back to our regular schedule of marketing blog posts disguised as technical articles.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#32

Post by petepete »

tylermauthe wrote: post #25
fredley wrote: post #8

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?

Only if the screen has a tuner and aerial I think; a monitor wouldn't require one.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#33

Post by quarterto »

tylermauthe wrote: post #25
fredley wrote: post #8

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?

Only if you're going to watch live TV on it. Doesn't matter where it comes from (iPlayer live or a bit of wire on top of your house).

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#34

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

fredley wrote: post #8

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's big threat just now is probably not the Internet, but the current Government. It's already lost £.75bn of its budget, and some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#35

Post by soylentcola »

brownbat wrote: post #21

They spent the last 10 years conducting massive studies of what people like to watch. 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 publ…

Sure, but you'd think that with all of the market research done by TV and cable over the past several decades (and it's not as if Comcast and Time Warner don't track what people watch on their digital cable services) they'd have some inkling as to what's currently in demand and what may be underrepresented.

Perhaps it's just more efficient for Netflix to commission content or buy it and then distribute it themselves. The on-demand model means no concerns about finding the right timeslot and that's something even NBC has to deal with despite their Comcast ownership.

Or maybe as the newcomer, they have to take more risks whereas the older networks are more risk-averse. Right now Netflix reminds me of nothing so much as it does HBO. It's got older movies and content that it's licensed from others and it's got its own content that often seems less concerned with getting the broadest and widest appeal.

Netflix streaming is basically the evolution of premium cable and all they really did differently was jump straight to online-only delivery.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#36

Post by DanBC »

petepete wrote: post #32
tylermauthe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you had to pay the tax for any screen, regardless of where the content comes from?

Only if the screen has a tuner and aerial I think; a monitor wouldn't require one.

No, you're wrong. A person using a laptop to view live tv on eg BBC iPlayer would need to be covered by a licence.

The licence is needed for any "live broadcast tv". The equipment used is not relevant; and the source of the signal is not relevant. So someone in England watching French satellite TV still needs a licence.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#37

Post by CydeWeys »

kriro wrote: post #24

It'll get interesting when they make the first play for sports rights. Not because I think it's necessary or anything but that would be a pretty strong signal for the general audience that the paradigm has shifted. I think streaming quality isn't quite there yet but there's plenty of not super premium content they could try.

It turns out that my interest in sports did not exceed my hatred of cable companies. I canceled cable and don't watch nearly as much live sport coverage as I used to. Every so often I'll catch something in a bar or go to a friend's place to watch the Super Bowl, and that's it.

Point being, I don't think live sports is enough for cable to survive on. Once that's all that cable is good for, I think an increasing number of people will simply give up on sports, especially at $100+/month.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#38

Post by CydeWeys »

je42 wrote: post #14

In addition to it; netflix actually knows that when you watch a series you don't care about already seen episodes. Good old TV never really labeled episodes correctly and is a pain to use when you are just interested in the next you haven't seen. In netflix it is painless. Yes, the feature is simple, but still I value it every time i can just watch the next episode ( or pick up where left in the middle of the episode…

Not only that, Netflix even does a decent job of handling multiple people watching the same series at different points, even on the same virtual account.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#39

Post by [deleted] »

Gigablah wrote: post #31
StevePerkins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three-day holiday weekend. There are currently two separate posts on the front-page about 1999's "Age of Empires 2" being a nice video game.

Yes, when people return from their holidays we'll go back to our regular schedule of marketing blog posts disguised as technical articles.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#40

Post by cm2187 »

Don't know if the catalogue is the same here in the UK than in the US, but in the UK Netflix is only good for TV shows. The movie offering is very light. The other thing is the lack of offline viewing, which is useful when travelling.

The media industry is so backward. I can't believe most of them still live in the 90s and these problems haven't been solved yet.

Post reply on HN