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

Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 256 posts

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#101

Post by erik_seaberg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #15
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But Devil's Advocate here... Aside from stack, whatelse does Netflix have going for it? Pre-internet Blockbuster had an overpowering / dominate "stack" and that was their downfall. If VR is the next progression in home entertainment, who is best poised for that? Who has the tech + creativity DNA?

> Pre-internet Blockbuster had an overpowering / dominate "stack" and that was their downfall. That is because the internet replaced them. Streaming is a direct replacement for video rentals. It's the exact same movie but you don't have to drive to the video store to get it. The industry itself doesn't go away. There isn't any apparent new distribution method that will do to the internet what the internet did to bric…

> drive to the video store to get it

… only to find that all the copies are rented for the weekend.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#102

Post by shmerl »

scarface74 wrote: post #94
shmerl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you subscribe to streaming services you aren’t paying for ownership, you are paying for access. I personally prefer to avoid DRMed services and buy DRM-free. It's reasonably good with music and games for example, but with films you barely can find anything that way. The reason for renting digital goods is usually presented as an option to get it for lower prices, even though there is no scarcity like with phys…

It’s not about “scarcity”. Content costs money to make. Should developers not get paid because once they create a piece of software it can be infinitely reproduced? How much would you be willing to pay for all the content you can get on Netflix, Hulu, etc.

> It’s not about “scarcity”.

Renting for physical goods has scarcity involved. To make a new item, you have constant expenses, thus when you rent it, avoiding that expense allows lower price.

With digital goods, you have fixed expense, which after it's paid off has no constant expense involved. So the above renting logic isn't applicable. The remaining reason for renting to be cheaper is artificial, i.e. its limited nature, that prevents you from making backups and etc. That crippling of the product makes it cheaper, but the whole crippling is artificial to begin with.

> How much would you be willing to pay for all the content you can get on Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Depending on the film, may be different prices. Definitely more for something I'd watch more than once.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#103

Post by scarface74 »

shmerl wrote: post #102
scarface74 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about “scarcity”. Content costs money to make. Should developers not get paid because once they create a piece of software it can be infinitely reproduced? How much would you be willing to pay for all the content you can get on Netflix, Hulu, etc.

> It’s not about “scarcity”. Renting for physical goods has scarcity involved. To make a new item, you have constant expenses, thus when you rent it, avoiding that expense allows lower price. With digital goods, you have fixed expense, which after it's paid off has no constant expense involved. So the above renting logic isn't applicable. The remaining reason for renting to be cheaper is artificial, i.e. its limited…

Does that mean every single software as a service company business model is invalid?

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#104

Post by axaxs »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #88
axaxs wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. TV for me is a nicety, I enjoy it from time to time. I'm already a bit putoff from having both Netflix and Hulu, forgetting which show is on which, two apps, etc. I have a feeling we're heading towards each player making their own ecosystem, apps, monthly charges. If/when that happens, I'll either not watch TV at all, or use the 'free' options widely available. I want to give them money, but not if it makes m…

>forgetting which show is on which On my Android TV device (Mi Box $60 at WalMart) if I search a show it aggregates results from all my apps so it doesn't even matter which app it's on I just click from the results and it opens what I want. Disclaimer: Not affiliated with anything I just mentioned just a happy customer.

Ohhh...that sounds like a nice feature! I'll research this thank you.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#105

Post by godelski »

consumethreads wrote: post #69
lovich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does any of this change the OP's point about fragmentation of the market? It does nothing to benefit the consumer, the competition is not lowering prices, so why would consumers not go back to piracy when it results in a superior product?

because we are not cheap and are ok with paying for a service. How cheap should it be. There will be no service that people will pay for if they pirate content. The service they want is a service where they dont have to pay. If you are pirating you are not a customer. Any business man should not be concerned with trying to gain your market, its not profitable.

> If you are pirating you are not a customer. Any business man should not be concerned with trying to gain your market, its not profitable.

A poor businessman. A good businessman sees the black market and determines if they can provide a similar service in the white market. Clearly there are consumers and they want something that they aren't getting already.

And in this case, things like popcorn time have a great interface and are easier than most streaming services.

People want to see new movies in their homes (and I always laugh at the "no movie should be reduced to this shrinks from theater screen to computer screen, because clearly people like it that way).

And people want to see population and good movies at the top of their lists, not problem garbage. There's a lot of people that complain about even Netflix because of this. Their recommendation engine isn't what it used to be.

There's a lot more reasons too. People pirate for many more reasons than because it's free, though that definitely is a big component. But people seem to be ignoring these other reasons.

There's a market, or two, here that aren't being served. A good businessman would serve them.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#106

Post by shmerl »

scarface74 wrote: post #103
shmerl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not about “scarcity”. Renting for physical goods has scarcity involved. To make a new item, you have constant expenses, thus when you rent it, avoiding that expense allows lower price. With digital goods, you have fixed expense, which after it's paid off has no constant expense involved. So the above renting logic isn't applicable. The remaining reason for renting to be cheaper is artificial, i.e. its limited…

Does that mean every single software as a service company business model is invalid?

> Does that mean every single software as a service company business model is invalid?

I'm OK with someone offering digital renting, if there is an option to buy the same thing (though I wouldn't use it if it has DRM). I'm not OK with it, if renting only is mandated.

Software as a service isn't exactly the same case as buying books, films, music, games and etc. For instance Web search is software as a service and I'm OK with it running remotely (though decentralized search is a way to improve it in theory). But when I listen to music and the like, I want to have a backup of it and run and use it on any device I want, and not on what some DRM authorized it for on condition of some existing account.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#108

Post by ryandrake »

rayiner wrote: post #39
Thriptic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be true if each of these services had enough unique content to stand on it's own. Netflix does, Amazon does, and HBO does if you take their entire historical cannon into account. The rest of the services (Starz, Cinemax, Hulu, Showtime et al) have 1-2 great exclusives and a bunch of old so-so content. I shouldn't have to pay for 5 additional instances of Netflix to get one instance of Netflix worth of qual…

If you don’t want to subscribe, then don’t. But these services are cheap compared to what they’re replacing. The average cable bill is over $100. These streaming services are the a la carte channels everyone was always saying they wanted in the bad old days when content was bundled together in cable packages.

What we have today is far from a la carte. Yesterday: if you want shows 1, 2, and 3, you have to purchase cable bundles A, B, and C, even if you don’t watch 99% of the content in those bundles, since the shows were spread across those bundles. Today: if you want shows 1, 2, and 3, you have to subscribe to streaming service A, B, and C. There is almost no difference, except now you’re paying three separate companies instead of one for 99% of content you don’t watch.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#109

Post by ryandrake »

rayiner wrote: post #48
Thriptic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these services are the same a la carte premium channels that already existed 10 years ago for roughly the same price (HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and Showtime). Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand.

It’s completely different now—they’re no longer tied to an expensive cable package with a bunch of other channels you don’t want.

Right. They are instead tied to slightly less expensive streaming bundles with a bunch of other content you don’t want. Completely different.
Post reply on HN