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

181–190 of 256 posts

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

#181

Post by adjkant »

makecheck wrote: post #61

Companies focus on buying content while ignoring the quality of the broadcast experience. I am tired of competitors that skimp on this. Netflix doesn’t shove ads in your face, works on every platform and almost never has mysterious transmission failures. And now they have excellent content too. They have figured out so much more than some of the last-century providers.

Hulu is the worst goddamn experience, not even just because of ads, but the entire platform is so buggy and fragile. The Netflix playback experience is somehow still highly underrated. Amazon got the playback experience right pretty quick as well - I really want to know what is stopping Hulu.

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

#182

Post by freeone3000 »

macspoofing wrote: post #125
DrJaws wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some poeple will just go back to p2p and there is nothing they can do.

I think you'll find avenues for piracy are going to be limited. Even now piracy isn't quite the same as it used to be.

You're right, instead of getting a XDCC link from a listserv, you now buy a modded HTPC off Craigslist. It's way easier to pirate things now.

People are pirating music. Off youtube. ACCIDENTALLY. To the point where there's an elaborate automated filtering system. It's not even viewed as piracy!

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

#183

Post by petre »

MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

They will bundle Internet subscriptions with cable plans. UPC already does that.

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

#184

Post by esturk »

rayiner wrote: post #49
sosborn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Off to a torrent site or asking around to see if someone has rips or a box set. The other option is to just not watch it.

The down voting you’re getting is emblematic of the entitlement mentality among tech folks when it comes to content. There is no right to consume entertainment someone else produced for free. If you don’t like the terms on which they’re selling the fruits of their labor, don’t buy it.

There's a public library system that gives everyone in their city the entitlement to do so. There's nothing you can do or say to stop it too. It will be bought once and watched over 100+ times.

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

#185

Post by hakfoo »

consumethreads wrote: post #67
MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

"We want an on-demand nexus." up until a point ... HBO has been all about the entire pipeline from its inception because it feels (and has proven) that its content alone is good enough for it to be purchased a la carte. Netflix and all others see this and say ... theres a business model here. Fastforward 20 years, creating good content is cheaper. There are more film grad students to make the supply cheaper. Add to t…

"We want a hub but well take what we can get as long as the content is good."

I'm not sure. Convenience seems to trump content in a lot of markets. If you have a solid baseline level of content, the best experience wins.

In that regard, a fragmented market could cause the entire streaming model to-- well perhaps not collapse, but fail to flower fully.

Cable says "Yeah, you're spending $80 per month, but there's one consistent UI, one login, one bill."

Streaming with one service like pre-fragmentation Netflix, says "You're spending $10 per month, getting a modest content pool, and it's all still pretty easy to use."

But how will people respond to "You're spending $50 per month, get a fairly broad selection of content, but it's all scattered across a bunch of services which behave subtly differently and have to be managed independently?"

They might well respond by going back to the less-hassle cable option, or just shed services til they get to something that feels manageable-- one or two services, maybe paying for a month of something else to binge its signature show once a year. Netflix and HBO might kick out enough big draws to justify subscribing year-round, but will a low-budget or niche player?

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

#186

Post by chrismcb »

MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

Instead of stealing" it, you could have just rented it. There was a time if you wanted to watch a show you went down and rented it.

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

#187

Post by scrumption »

adventured wrote: post #144
lovich wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers aren't an undifferentiated mass either. Why are paying customers sitting through 5 minutes of FBI warnings in front of DVDs because some other people pirate? These arguments go both ways but a large portion of this forum seems to only view it from the companies perspective

> Why are paying customers sitting through 5 minutes of FBI warnings in front of DVDs because some other people pirate? It's not your product to design, in this case you don't get to decide how it's presented. You also don't get to decide the design of iOS, or how Apple designs its next processor, or what color Stack Overflow's logo is, or the design of Wikipedia, or what resolutions YouTube offers, or what algorithm…

Just like you don't get to decide if I download it for free or not, lol.

But for your information, I can and do run userscripts, custom ROMs, jailbroken firmware etc to change the exact sort of thing you spent the second half of your post talking about. You sound like you have a very boring consumerist relationship to technology and the opposite of a hacker ethos.

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

#188

Post by wvenable »

makecheck wrote: post #61

Companies focus on buying content while ignoring the quality of the broadcast experience. I am tired of competitors that skimp on this. Netflix doesn’t shove ads in your face, works on every platform and almost never has mysterious transmission failures. And now they have excellent content too. They have figured out so much more than some of the last-century providers.

Amazon prime shows ads for other prime shows occasionally and it just pisses me off. I'm seeing less of them, so maybe they got the message.

Prime is also very much a superficial copy of the Netflix interface.

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

#189

Post by ponchotek »

geodel wrote: post #166
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about a situation in which a consumer would be happy to pay full price to watch content, but they are prevented entirely by a service provider? For example, suppose where you live there is a monopoly ISP-cable conglomerate, you cannot afford to move away, and you are literally unable to consume from any other ISP / cable level provider. For some content, like watching European soccer in the US, this…

> Telling the consumer to just not watch seems morally hollow in that specific case Seems like big word for something which is not food, water, life saving drug or some such. Now people are free to consider entertainment as basic human right. But similarly other powerful people/institution feel free to take away more fundamental things from helpless people. From where I am, government is more than happy to offer free…

It's not just entertainment. I live in New Zealand and have very limited (1 satellite tv provider and a few streaming services) choice in what news and documentaries I can legally watch. If I wanted to watch an interview on MSNBC my there is no legal way to do so and I would have to stream it illegally. Same case for many HBO documentaries.

I see this as a limiting factor on freedom of speech that will only continue to get worse if the market is further fragmented.

Post reply on HN