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

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#111

Post by jameshart »

RottenHuman wrote: post #50
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 con…

"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"

"The international community" does get together and try to hammer out frameworks of copyright and tariffs which harmonize regulation globally. That's where large chunks of things like the TPP and the TTIP come from, and all the internet-melting complaints about the harmonization of copyright laws and the ability of american corporations to enforce copyright laws on australians and the like. But that's what you're asking for - 'why can't everyone just get together and sort out international copyright law so the media industry can come out of the 90s.' They're trying, but you won't like it when they do.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#112

Post by tomjen3 »

davnicwil wrote: post #104
ctz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vi…

Netflix allows you to turn of the subtitles in the UI. I have highlighted the relevant button in this screen shot (http://i.imgur.com/2jnxTJJ.png). This is from the Danish netflix.

Unfortunately they do not allow you to turn on English subtitles, and their translation is incredibly poor.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#113

Post by tomjen3 »

thomasahle wrote: post #66
Zekio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly in some countries such as Denmark, there are some TV licensing fees you can't stop paying, because you can access the content online... Even if you never intend to use it.

Just the national broadcasting though, which is not much different from how you pay for highways, even if you don't have a car.

Dane here. I pay about half of what the biggest channel package costs in mandatory license fees every month, and it is a very poor offering.

Netflix is only 80kr, or about 12 dollars, whereas I pay almost 30 dollars for the tv fees. I watched about 10 minutes of broadcast tv last year but many hours of netflix. I don't get why I should be forced to pay for something that doesn't produce any value for me.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#114

Post by lostcolony »

buro9 wrote: post #77

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 sma…

Who -does- have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content, exactly? Because broadcast TV is what gave us 'reruns' in the first place. All -they- have to do is fill evening TV viewing (and even then only a couple time slots on a couple days; the rest they can, and do, leave to reruns). The need for content production is no different. The benefit to Netflix is that it's on demand, so they aren't -limited- to that 24 hour block. Other TV studios, to air something, have to free up their schedule; Netflix just adds it to their catalog.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#115

Post by criddell »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #15

We are huge Netflix fans (my wife and I have our own streaming accounts, which is stupid now since they offer family options for separating play lists). That said, I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials, is also a fine product and Hulu is owned by the large network stations. We get Amazon Prime free shipping via my brother's business so we have not signed up ourselves and don't get the free Amazon P…

> I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials

The last time I looked, the commercial free version of Hulu still had commercials for some shows. Has that changed?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#116

Post by [deleted] »

dagw wrote: post #108
mitchty wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compe…

[deleted]

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#117

Post by hellbanner »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #98
mitchty wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Government have made the BBC cover the cost of free TV licenses, which means their budget for actual content is now £750m smaller. And there has been the suggestion that the BBC be banned from making entertainment programmes like The Voice , which would ensure the company is less popular with the public and less likely to garner sympathy in future.

"There has been the suggestion".. by whom?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#118

Post by zymhan »

chucky_z wrote: post #102
AznHisoka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> who uses the internet

Which skews your sample.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#119

Post by mike-cardwell »

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…

Feb 2015 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

"The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said."

"The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead."

Yeah. So if enough people decide they don't need or want the BBC so they're not paying for it, it will hit a threshold where they just start charging everyone.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#120

Post by facetube »

corin_ wrote: post #72
facetube wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that was my read of it as well, although honestly that distinction seems like it'd be an enforcement nightmare. Just figured a link to the official policy would be useful to someone.
Post reply on HN