Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

exstreamist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 462 posts

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#191

Post by JohnTHaller »

scarface74 wrote: post #169
JohnTHaller wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a television but it's never used as a 'television'. It's a screen with an Xbox connected on which I have Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, and games.

So instead of watching content provided by the major networks over Coax delivered to you by one of the major ISPs, you watch content over TCP/IP brought to you by one of the major ISPs owned by the same content providers. Hulu is 30% own by Fox, Disney, and Comcast and the other 10% is owned by Time Warner. You're still watching content on your television, over a wire, brought to you by the major content providers. W…

No Commercials: I don't see them. That's one of the biggest things about 'cord cutters'. You can't reach them with TV commercials. So, advertisers have to figure out another way to 'reach' me.

No Schedule: I watch what I'd like to when I'd like to. I never care what's 'on TV' or when something is scheduled. I watch things when I'm in the mood to and have the time to. The idea of specific weeknight lineups or specific programs bringing an audience to another seems silly and quaint.

No Access to Cable-Only Programming: I have no access to cable-only programming. If you lock your content down to your cable TV channel and your app that requires me to login with my cable account, I can't see it. And, no, I'm not going to pay $50 a month to get cable to see your TV show.

A majority of the time, if I'm sitting on the couch, I'm playing a game, watching YouTube, or watching a movie. So, yes, there's a pretty big difference between a typical TV watcher and a cord cutter in terms of advertiser reach, access to content, dollars spent, and schedule. As more folks take this approach, more of the industry has to adjust to keep pace.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#192

Post by devmunchies »

scarface74 wrote: post #132
wu_tang_chris wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frasier

Didn't Frasier have a laugh track? I can't watch anything with a laugh track.

Yes. I tried watching it after moving to Seattle (cliché, I know), but couldn't bear it because of the laugh track.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#193

Post by drdrey »

scarface74 wrote: post #169
JohnTHaller wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a television but it's never used as a 'television'. It's a screen with an Xbox connected on which I have Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, and games.

So instead of watching content provided by the major networks over Coax delivered to you by one of the major ISPs, you watch content over TCP/IP brought to you by one of the major ISPs owned by the same content providers. Hulu is 30% own by Fox, Disney, and Comcast and the other 10% is owned by Time Warner. You're still watching content on your television, over a wire, brought to you by the major content providers. W…

You really don't see a difference between linear tv programming with 25% ads and on-demand ad-free streaming?

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#194

Post by nuclearchicken »

noam87 wrote: post #103
33degrees wrote: post #38

I wonder how many hours of commercials a year are watched in homes where ipads are the main source of entertainment; I’d wager it’s up there with regular television.

considering YouTube makes me watch 25 seconds of advertising for a 40 second video... could be a lot.

uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes, Privacy Badger. You are not obligated to watch ads. Don't fall for the lie. Your computer, your rules. Google are already rich enough.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#195

Post by alsetmusic »

jjeaff wrote: post #117
nostrademons wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect regular programming isn't getting dumber, the alternatives are just getting smarter. When I look at the crap I watched as a kid in the 80s (which included a good amount of 70s reruns), basically all broadcast TV today is far superior. But the competition for broadcast TV isn't "no competition" now, it's the Internet, and computer games, and Netflix. The entertainment industry has been blown wide open by the…

One thing that is certain is that there are more commercials now. If you watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory sans commercials, you will notice that it is only 17 minutes long! And that includes the 60 second intro. So 13 minutes of commercials for 16 minutes of actual content. No chance I'll be going back to regular TV.

> One thing that is certain is that there are more commercials now. If you watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory sans commercials, you will notice that it is only 17 minutes long! And that includes the 60 second intro. So 13 minutes of commercials for 16 minutes of actual content. No chance I'll be going back to regular TV.

I get my episodes of BBT from iTunes. You’re correct that BBT episodes are shorter than most other mainstream shows (at least in my own library). They are often only about 18-19m, other episodes reach 21-22m as well. I don’t see any below 18m in the past four seasons and stopped searching beyond that. Alternatively, most of the half-hour shows I watch are consistently about 20-21m, so BBT is definitely providing less content overall.

As for the assertion of 1m intros with BBT, that's 3x longer than reality. I scripted simple controls for controlling iTunes via my phone so that I wouldn’t need to reach for my kbd or trackpad. I set the FWD time to 30 seconds and the BACK time to 10 seconds. Jumping ahead by 30s is appropriate for most shows that I watch, whereas BBT requires me to also jump back by 10s (it has a 20s intro).

Few sitcoms still have 1m or longer intros. New Girl is about 5s, down from around 30s when it started. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia dropped from 1m to 30s. The Sarah Silverman Program dropped from 22s to 17s in 2010. I see the overall trend for typical broadcasts as gradually reducing intros (excluding shows on HBO, etc; those still have very long intros but also no commercials).

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#196

Post by drdrey »

aviv wrote: post #69

Every minute a kid watches a stupid Netflix kids show is a wasted minute they can be stimulating their brain positively instead of numbing it with manufactured industrialized content. Having said that my kids do get a couple hours on the weekend and it's actually fascinating to see what happens when they put the iPad away. It's almost like they need a half hour or so to re-adjust to real life after all the stupid con…

No offense but you sound like my aunt who would tell me all the time that video games would make me stupid. But I wouldn't be working in tech today if it wasn't for my passion for video games.

(note: I also limit screen time for my kids)

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#197

Post by cik2e »

hristov wrote: post #4

Sounds great but the sad reality is that Netflix shows have commercials inside of them. I was really excited about this netflix show "love" until the macdonalds product placement inside of it just made me sick and i stopped watching it. I haven't been watching much original netflix shows since then, but whenever i feel like peeking into a new show i notice product placements pretty soon.

Real life has product placement every time you go outside in civilization. I'm getting upset about you guys getting upset over something so trivial.

Edit: read further down and I have to say that I've never seen (or noticed) anything so blatant as characters going on about features of a car. That would indeed be frustrating.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#198

Post by aviv »

drdrey wrote: post #196
aviv wrote: post #69

Every minute a kid watches a stupid Netflix kids show is a wasted minute they can be stimulating their brain positively instead of numbing it with manufactured industrialized content. Having said that my kids do get a couple hours on the weekend and it's actually fascinating to see what happens when they put the iPad away. It's almost like they need a half hour or so to re-adjust to real life after all the stupid con…

No offense but you sound like my aunt who would tell me all the time that video games would make me stupid. But I wouldn't be working in tech today if it wasn't for my passion for video games. (note: I also limit screen time for my kids)

No offense but you went from consuming video games that make people stupid to producing video games that make people stupid and that's a success story?

That's like my kids getting a job at the production company of Dora The Explorer and me thanking all the 980 hours a year on average they wasted on TV consumption.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#199

Post by AjithAntony »

guitarsteve wrote: post #164
scarface74 wrote: post #129

Cue the "I don't even own a TV crowd".... 97% of American Households own a television. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03televisi... Then right behind them the "I don't subscribe to cable crowd and I don't understand why people do" 75% of households still have cable or satellite. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/a-stunning-number-of-ameri... And I'm one of the 25% that don't subscribe to cable but…

I'm not sure if it's significant to the statistics, but Comcast has always given me an internet+cable package for cheaper than the internet by itself. So for my household, the cable box is just a big electronic coupon.

Yeah. For years, whenever the promotion ends, I ask for internet-only, and they counter with a discount if I keep cable tv. I'm certain they are doing this to artificially prop up the cable subscriber numbers. Content notwithstanding, the basic-basic tv service is so bad. You have to use their digital adapter becuase all the channels are encrypted and the picture is so bad becuase it is standard def coming over the analog input. The digital conversion happened 10yrs ago, why are they still expecting people to pay extra for HD? And even when you do pay for the HD service and special set-top box, the UI is terrible, and they compress the streams so it is not even the full quality anyway.

Re: Kids in ‘Netflix Only’ Homes Saved from 230 Hours of Commercials a Year

#200

Post by svantana »

sigzero wrote: post #6
hristov wrote: post #4

Sounds great but the sad reality is that Netflix shows have commercials inside of them. I was really excited about this netflix show "love" until the macdonalds product placement inside of it just made me sick and i stopped watching it. I haven't been watching much original netflix shows since then, but whenever i feel like peeking into a new show i notice product placements pretty soon.

ALL shows have product placement. Some more blatant than others. You can't get around that.

...unless you live in basically any western country (except the US) that have high quality Public Service TV, where commercials and product placement is not allowed.
Post reply on HN