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

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#71

Post by nebulous1 »

While I think it's pretty f*ing obvious that traditional TV channels are going to be in a lot of trouble in the years to come, I couldn't verify his statement that "Netflix now produces 3 of the top 5 rated video series according to Rotten Tomatoes". I did find the exact list he posted under "Top TV Comedies"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/#

Also, on their "Top 10 TV Shows 2015", I only see two Netflix shows in places 8 and 9 on the list.

Netflix do produce some top quality shows, but the aren't currently killing it as much as the author claims.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#72

Post by corin_ »

facetube wrote: post #64
quarterto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&bl... : "1.3 Note also that “received” means receiving a TV programme as it is being broadcast on TV. It does not include receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

On-demand elements of iPlayer don't need a license, watching live channels on iPlayer does however. Also the case with non-BBC servies such as ITV Player, 4OD, etc.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#73

Post by IMTDb »

chris_wot wrote: post #62
revelation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, you can get around those restrictions quite easily.

Or you can torrent it quite easily and don't pay a dime. The point is : if I have to do illegal stuff (getting around geoip is against TOS) and start installing software, search on the internet for a tutorial to learn how to watch my stuff, I might as well look for "House of cards torrent", it's faster and cheaper. I can pirate any music I want, yet I pay Apple Music $10/month to get it because it's easy, the UI is nice, everything is in there, and the service "just works". If I have to install a VPN, to change my IP so that the service I am paying will let me watch a show they are producing, something is broken. Period. Fix it or I'll pirate it.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#74

Post by ryanwaggoner »

nebulous1 wrote: post #71

While I think it's pretty f *ing obvious that traditional TV channels are going to be in a lot of trouble in the years to come, I couldn't verify his statement that "Netflix now produces 3 of the top 5 rated video series according to Rotten Tomatoes". I did find the exact list he posted under "Top TV Comedies" http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/# Also, on their "Top 10 TV Shows 2015", I only see two Netfl…

Unless I'm missing something, your link does match his list, but it's labeled "Top TV Shows on RT", not comedy. Most of those shows are definitely not comedy.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#75

Post by gregpilling »

genmon wrote: post #27
SyneRyder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

BBC income last year... From the license fee, £3.7B GBP; from commercial activities, £1.0B GBP. Details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/repo... 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,…

Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left. They went to Amazon, to produce an original auto tv show there.

from here: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/panic-at-the-bbc-as-...

"Maintaining an international foothold is vital for Top Gear, which is the BBC’s biggest global brand with sales of the TV show, DVDs, books, live shows and other merchandise worth more than £50 million ($101 million) a year. BBC sources fear Evans is a complete unknown outside the UK. Top Gear’s former three stooges are settling in well at Amazon."

"Clarkson, Hammond and May may no longer be on Top Gear, but they are still vying for the same viewers. While Top Gear’s schemes play out in public, they are busy preparing their new rival big-budget show for Amazon — and crowing about how little interference they get from their latest masters. Along with the lack of outside pressure, the team also has cash, and lots of it, with a budget reported to be at £4 million ($8.1 million) an episode — ten times that of Top Gear’s."

So the BBC will be losing all that Top Gear money too.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#76

Post by towb »

jerf wrote: post #10
towb wrote: post #2

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…

It's clearly a step up from 1080p at a distance of about 3,5 - 4 meters at least. But then, a lot of it is the difference of a 5 year old 40" vs. a new 55" tv.

The beginning of "Narcos" is filmed from a helicopter down on some streets in a city, that was the first thing I ever saw in UHD, pretty cool! Now I've gotten used to it haha

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#77

Post by buro9 »

Netflix has it easy on content production, all they need do is fill evening TV viewing for a younger generation, and content that can be put in front of children.

They do not have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content, Netflix is all killer no filler in terms of content production.

And it turns out, that that's only a few hundred hours of TV per viewer per year, many of whom belong to those same small demographic groups that share great overlap in interest.

BTW, I'm really glad they turned down Top Gear whilst at the same time producing shows like Jessica Jones. One seems so dated and a decade ago whilst the other feels now or from the future.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#79

Post by sbarre »

toyg wrote: post #69
sbarre wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really copyright law, or is it business-driven content deals? Content publishers make separate deals with distributors (cable & satellite) along their service-area borders, and can therefore sell the same content multiple times over to different regions, most likely charging pricing based on income levels and audience size, etc.. And no doubt a lot of these deals are exclusive, or at the very least timed exclus…

Ostensibly, this market fragmentation was forced by legislative fragmentation. However, excuses are wearing thin: the EU market, for example, is now unique, if distributors actually wanted it to be. But they don't. Because distributors are the fat middlemen without a real future in the digital economy, so they'll try to squeeze every last drop of cash before they're forced out, exploiting every monopoly and every loo…

That's my point..

Publishers want the status quo because they make multiples of licensing income on the same content, and established distributors want the status quo because they fend off competition (and lock in their customers) from new global competitors who have better business models.

I can see why content producers may want these new deals, to get better control, but don't count on anyone else in the gravy train media chain to do anything other than fight new models tooth and nail until the bitter end.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#80

Post by refurb »

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…

My comment is only tangentially related to yours, but I thought it might be helpful/entertaining.

Back in the early 90s (~25 years ago) i got my first unix account that had access to the INTERNET! I could have nicely formatated text (via html) sent to my computer running Lynx. That alone was amazing.

The my brother brought home a movie on a CD-ROM. Barely watchable video quality. The i read about the "future" and how eventually you could have a movie streamed to you when you wanted to watch it! Give me a break, that's technically impossible.

And here we are today!

Post reply on HN