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

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#121

Post by ownagefool »

scriptdevil wrote: post #68
sbarre wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they totally realize it, but it's not something a front-line support agent can really do anything about, so why get into that conversation with a customer who won't care about the why and will just see it as a crappy experience (which it totally is)!

If this was possible, I would get a friend of mine in USA to pay for my account. People complain about piracy in India and do not understand that torrents and streaming sites are currently my only source for good TV series. I am readily willing to pay even $40 a month for such a service.

You simply need to sign up and consume netflix using a VPN which terminates in the US and thus they'll see you as a native US user.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#122

Post by PhasmaFelis »

gregpilling wrote: post #75
genmon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left.

And by "left", you mean that Clarkson got canned for punching out a guy because he didn't like his catered dinner, after being warned repeatedly for starting fights and making racist remarks on camera.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#123

Post by ArkyBeagle »

krautsourced wrote: post #103

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…

I don't think the entire massed effort of the entire entertainment industry for all time can provide 6 hours/day of "stuff that is not shit." Roughly 6 hours/week is close to doable for the current industry if they don't make too many mistakes.

Reality TV began with GenX/millenials (MTV in the '90s with The Real World) and I'm not familiar with people older than that who watch that. I say that; I'll watch Counting Cars now and again. Reality TV represents a trade of quality for volume. Us boomers endured dreck like "Dallas".

I think the future is in nonfiction. I am biased to like things like BookTv. The costs are relatively low, it's got a pretty high hit rate ( some subjects will simply not engage some people ) but it's not really media any more. Add some "media" to it and you get the execrable TED talks.

I can't see that supporting much in terms of ad revenue. But it might stream on some sort of modest subscription basis.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#124

Post by wyager »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #119
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…

Maybe this is just a cultural thing, but is that not messed up? It seems wrong, or at least very wasteful, to force people to pay for state-produced entertainment. Even the current TV licensing scheme is bad, because it assumes you watch BBC content if you have a TV.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#125

Post by mark_l_watson »

criddell wrote: post #115
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?

I haven't seen any commercials since I started paying $11.98/month, a plan that they say is "No Commercials."

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#126

Post by ArkyBeagle »

yalogin wrote: post #96

Why is the argument framed as Netflix against the other TV companies? That is wrong. I don't think people care who makes the show as long as its good and available/accessible. They will all change one way or the other. Their viability in the long run will depend on how good their online offerings are. We are still in the nascent stages of this. The big issue here is the service providers like Comcast will be relegate…

Comcast will have to be reorganized as purely a pipe provider. It won't survive as it is. It's not clear that DSL will not then eclipse cable altogether.

As it is , they feed a lot of cash to local stations and ESPN. Those probably won't survive at all, unless as some sort of premium online content.

HBO/SHO?: Who knows?

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#127

Post by potatolicious »

wyager wrote: post #124
mike-cardwell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe this is just a cultural thing, but is that not messed up? It seems wrong, or at least very wasteful, to force people to pay for state-produced entertainment. Even the current TV licensing scheme is bad, because it assumes you watch BBC content if you have a TV.

It might be a cultural thing - I grew up in Canada where there's a similar setup for the CBC and I largely think it's fine.

One of the important things to note is that the US absolutely dominates world media, from TV to movies to music to everything else. For countries that are linguistically compatible (UK, Canada, Australia, etc) this is extra-true. You get into a weird situation where the bulk of the entertainment being consumed by the populace is foreign-made, and there's increasingly less room for expressions of local culture.

The funding of the CBC in Canada for example is less about making you watch the CBC but more about state funding to create local arts and culture in an environment where foreign culture dominates. It's about making sure "Canadian TV" and "Canadian music" even exists (sorry about the Bieber).

I can't speak for the BBC, but it's also important to note that unlike public broadcasters of the US like PBS, the CBC is not a giant money pit. It creates programs that are highly successful, generate revenue, and have viewership competitive with major American programs. The CBC is a mainstream cultural institution in a way that the PBS can only hope to be, so it's not as if taxpayer money is being spent to create shows nobody watches.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#128

Post by hackerboos »

wtbob wrote: post #107

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…

I'm a prolific pirate. The Amazon offerings as pointed out by the author (Transparent, High Castle..) sit on my HTPC - downloaded from torrents because Amazon's streaming services are not offered here in Canada so how else would I get them.

I haven't pirated any Netflix shows because it's simply too cheap and too easy to just do it legit.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#129

Post by davnicwil »

tomjen3 wrote: post #112
davnicwil wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you can't. For certain english-language shows, the walking dead is an example, you can only choose between native regional language subtitles with that menu - there is no off option!

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#130

Post by davej »

guiomie wrote: post #106

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 whi…

The author is simply highlighting the disconnect between critics ratings and audience ratings for Netflix shows.
Post reply on HN