461–470 of 548 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
Their DVD service may still exist, but my DVD player does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
That was my thought as well.. no, it isn't instant gratification, but it does have value... I wonder how legal a dedicated feed rental system would be. Effectively, you rent a movie (as available) and someone puts it into a drive in a data center, that is then played for you directly, with the software interface controlling playback... you then click "return" when done watching... maybe a bonus for early returns (vs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a customer, I don't care. Tone note: I don't mean that snarkily, sarcastically, or dismissively, I simply mean that, I don't care. Or if you prefer, I can't care; there's nothing I can do to fix it short of what I just did. It really is bizarre to me how protective the entertainment industry can get of its content, in a context that I am paying for it (in fact I buy the Hulu non-commercial plan, upon which they ma…
The problem is, the whole way licensing is conceived in this industry is not for any individual property to individually generate an income. That's not good enough for studios or networks. They perceive some tremendous added value in the portfolio of shows or movie properties they have to offer. Consumers, of course, don't give a shit about this, as evidenced by their willingness to jump out of cable-land for anythin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.
The other option is not watching the films -- this would prevent consuming a good without paying for it.
In the economic sense consumption means a resource is used and cannot readily be re-used at its original quality. Copying a file does not deprive anybody of anything, I cannot even see a reasonable argument when the case involves a market where the good is not even offered for sale.
TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…
People may spend more time binge watching TV than watching films on Netflix. But they should be concentrating on customer satisfaction, not racking up viewers. My girlfriend already jokes that if you search for a film on Netflix they realise and immediately remove it. Then you get the dreaded "Films related to X" search result. It's really really bad if Netflix gets a reputation for having a small catalogue, even if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm... there are about 100 services that will rent/sell you a movie online. I use Amazon for all my movie rental needs. Works great.
Could you recommend some that have deep catalog? I find the that iTunes and Amazon don't have anywhere near the deep catalog that I once enjoyed at my local video store. For a real film buff being able to go rent F. W. Murnau's "Noseferatu", Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" or Polanski's "Knife in the Water" was really important to me and something I took for granted. Almost every large city had a least one such fil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.
"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.
"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their DVD service may still exist, but my DVD player does not.
DVD players are cheap, so that's an easily solved problem.
How is Netflix able to get rights to send physical media, but not stream? It seems to me that literally the only real difference is physical media means there is a limit on number of concurrent viewers.