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

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#101

Post by distances »

sandstrom wrote: post #23
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 think BBC (and it's siblings in other countries) will do well. 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.

I'd expect it's easier for BBC, since English content is probably easier to sell around due to the larger number of English speaking countries. Quite a many audiences aren't comfortable with subtitles, so dubbing is suddenly required for content originating from smaller language areas.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#102

Post by chucky_z »

AznHisoka wrote: post #46
zanny wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe those are the direct rottentomatoes.com "User" scores. So aggregated from a large population of users for rottentomatoes.com; I would consider that to be a pretty good representation of the average American population who uses the internet.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#103

Post by krautsourced »

It should however also be noted that the people who rate stuff on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes (namely, people who go on the Internet to look at movie reviews, discuss, rate etc.) are also probably most of the target audience for streaming services in general. While "Big TV" also caters for the older demographic, people who like reality tv (yes, apparently they do exist, I don't know...) etc., which still make up probably the majority of the viewers. Things will most likely change in the next decades, when the older viewers die out and a whole generation expects streaming and on demand and maybe even expect "stuff that is not shit" on TV - though I won't hold my breath for the latter.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#104

Post by davnicwil »

ctz wrote: post #53
alykhalid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix has a different catalogue for each country they serve.

I recently learned this first hand. Even more confusingly, your account is not attached to your country of payment but instead done by geoip, so travelling will mean you likely can't continue to watch the same series. This is a major ballache. Even netflix support don't realise this.

Another somewhat infuriating problem related to this is with subtitles, for certain shows. I believe this is due to licensing, and if it is, it's a really prime example of licensing rules having absurd consequences.

In another region, the shows in the language of the region where you pay come with subtitles in the region's native language(s) that can't be turned off in a pleasant way through the UI. It can be done via a hack where you can provide the player with your own custom, empty, subtitles file, but this has to be reloaded for each new episode / movie that you play. It took me a good while to figure out how to do this via forums, it's certainly not something Netflix suggest or encourage, or even seemingly acknowledge, in their help sections.

A related problem is that for shows not in the language of the region where you pay, there aren't any subtitles in your language, even though back in the region where you pay, that same show is available, of course with subtitles in your language.

I don't know if it's Netflix themselves, or draconian licensing conditions that lead to this absurdity, but I suspect the latter as with Netflix's own shows, the problem doesn't exist. It basically boils down to this: because I'm in a non-English region, I can watch a show in English but I'm not allowed to just understand it - I must watch it with subtitles! If it's a non-English show, I can watch it but I am not allowed to have help understanding it with English subtitles, even though they're obviously and trivially available. What is the point of these rules?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#106

Post by guiomie »

Marco Polo — 92% (Fun Fact: Critics rated it 24%. How’s that for incongruity?)

Narcos — 94% (Another crazy disconnect as critics only rated it 78%)

The author preaches shows produced by data driven companies, then when a rating data driven company has results he judges abnormal to his taste he insinuates something is wrong.

Personally, I found Marco Polo okay, the visuals are good, but the plot got boring after a while. I would not give it more than 50%. As for Narcos, 78% seems legit, I found the whole traditional drama show mixed with documentary interventions awkward. And would not give it more than 75%.

As for the article, of course linear TV is going to get disrupt. But I doubt Amazon or Netflix will get a monopoly. AMC and HBO will simply put their content online, and TV providers will make their revenue loss from linear TV on higher internet consumption.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#107

Post by wtbob »

I wonder how much of Netflix's success is that its show are good, and how much is that they are easy to watch.

Anytime I want to, I can go to Netflix and watch any episode of their shows. I ca watch the first season; I can watch the intervening seasons; I can watch the current season. There are no blackouts; there are no embargoes.

I can binge-watch if I want, or I can pace myself, at my pace.

Compare that to the big companies' offerings, where I may be able to watch every episode this season, but not get started by catching up on previous seasons (I know that they hope I'll pay up for boxed sets of those early seasons, but I'll just skip their shows altogether instead), or I may be able to wath previous seasons but not the current one, or (my favourite) I can watch previous seasons and recent episodes but not early episodes this season.

Why would I want to get involved with a show which is such a pain to watch?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#108

Post by dagw »

mitchty wrote: post #90
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really don't know how to parse that last sentence. What is the logic (or lack thereof) there? I don't keep up with what the BBC gets done to it by the UK government.

Basically it's a principle argument around the role of government companies. Should government companies compete directly with local private companies in non-essential sectors? There are already lots of british companies producing popular entertainment shows, why should they have to compete against the government that is also supposed to support them. How would you feel if your taxes went to finance your direct competitor?

Furthermore it creates a potential conflict of interest. Do you pass a law that benefits 'your' company over private companies? What about passing a law levels the playing field in a sector but will take profits away from the government?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#109

Post by justincormack »

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 will get to charge a license or subscription fee for non live, it is an accident of history and will change within a couple of years (along with charging for access to iplayer from abroad).

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#110

Post by wtbob »

revelation wrote: post #49
feld wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow, that's insane. Hopefully they won't enter that sort of deal in the future, since it basically destroys their entire value proposition.
Post reply on HN