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

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#41

Post by petepete »

kriro wrote: post #28
k__ wrote: post #18

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…

Sky (in Germany) has a service called Go which streams to cell phones/tablets. They also have Anytime for the box. No need to watch at the time if you don't want to + you can always just record it and watch later. 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…

Sky UK has Go too, plus thousands of films available to stream, built-in catch-up TV and Sky Box Sets which has loads of programmes, from HBO, Disney, C4 and many others - all built into the Sky Box and accessible via the remote.

Truthfully, it's not as cost effective as Netflix, but hey, where else can I watch the Premier League and La Liga?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#42

Post by alykhalid »

cm2187 wrote: post #40

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.

Netflix has a different catalogue for each country they serve.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#43

Post by soylentcola »

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.

I'm sort of curious as to how well their infrastructure would handle something live as opposed to their current "asynchronous" stuff. It's not that you can't get live streaming sports now but I don't know enough about the actual content delivery system to tell whether they'd have to invest in the tech side as well as the content rights for something like live sports. I agree that it would be a great thing for them to try out with something people want to watch but maybe doesn't have the massive demand in the US (since that's their main base of ops).

Still, I wonder if it would really go over well because even for something less popular, they'd have to buy the broadcast rights and then people without Netflix (and potentially without the bandwidth to even get Netflix) suddenly can't watch their games. It would be like putting pro hockey or football/soccer (in the US) on HBO. Sure, those don't have the demand of NFL football or MLB baseball in the states but they have enough of a fan base who's used to watching on ESPN, etc that it may seem like an unwelcome paywall.

Honestly not really sure what sports would have both enough of a viewer base to be worth the effort and are underrepresented enough that fans would just be glad someone is giving them coverage.

I agree though. If Netflix has outdone cable by beating them to the trend of video-on-demand, they may eventually need to address those areas where cable and broadcast remain the norm. I suppose cable and broadcast could focus more on that live content and leave the rest to streaming companies but eventually the competition will come down to people only wanting to pay for one or the other.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#44

Post by jbssm »

cm2187 wrote: post #40

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.

Same in Portugal. The movie catalogue is severely lacking, most people just used the free month Netflix gave and then they canceled the subscription since there was not much point.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#45

Post by soylentcola »

CydeWeys wrote: post #37
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…

At least where I live, the cable companies are the only real option for broadband internet access so we're already paying Comcast for something. And once you are paying for internet access, cable TV is typically a lot less than $100/mo. The only reason we still have it is because internet access is $70/mo while internet plus cable (major channels in HD, minor ones in SD), plus HBO (main HBO channel in HD, secondary HBO channels in SD) costs $100/mo with their tuner/dvr rental.

So for a lot of people, they don't need to be worth $100+/month but they do need to be worth $30-ish per month. Whether they are is debatable but if anyone in your house still likes to "flip" channels and watch the latest cable/network TV, it's not always a done deal. If it were up to me, I'd ditch the cable TV because I hardly watch it and would spend less just renting "season passes" to the handful of shows I do.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#46

Post by AznHisoka »

zanny wrote: post #13
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"?

The point is more that Netflix is producing the best content, better than all the studios and HBO right now by user rating. I'd be very interested though in viewership numbers between prime time TV shows like Big Bang versus new series releases of House of Cards.

User rating according to whom? Is it all standardized?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#47

Post by rmc »

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 suspect the UK will do what Germany does, and charge all households a tax, regardless if you have have TV.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#48

Post by tkmh »

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 like this suggestion. I'm of course very much in favour of streaming as the primary mode of watching TV, but I'm very invested in seeing the BBC survive in a recognisable form into the future. Despite its considerable watering down of its original mission statement, the BBC still remains my best answer to the hypothetical "What's the best thing about being British?"

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#49

Post by revelation »

feld wrote: post #29
mbrutsch wrote: post #6

Sadly, half those shows are not actually available on Netflix.

What are you talking about?

Netflix has sold distribution rights abroad to some of their own shows such as House of Cards, then entered the market shortly after.

As a result, you can now subscribe to Netflix in these markets and not get access to their own programming. Yes, it is as terrible as it sounds.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#50

Post by RottenHuman »

cm2187 wrote: post #40

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.

>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.

Part of the problem is the broken status of international copyright law and the many incompatible local laws and regulations. If the international community could at least settle for an standard approach to digital distribution over the internet, the world would be a happier place for consumers.

Post reply on HN