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

Netflix Flexes

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 177 posts

Re: Netflix Flexes

#51

Post by adwf »

jdietrich wrote: post #46
adwf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think a Disney streaming platform should scare Netflix that much. You can get the entire classic Disney DVD back catalogue for ~£200, why would parents buy a streaming service for £10-20/month for years on end? And that's the whole classic catalogue - when you bear in mind that kids will happily watch the same old Frozen DVD over and over again, I don't see it as a huge compelling offering. Even addi…

Disney are much, much bigger than you seem to think. They own Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. They already own a large chunk of the US cable TV market, including ABC and ESPN. They have just gained regulatory apprival to buy 21st Century Fox. They aren't newcomers to streaming, because they have a 30% stake in Hulu, which will increase to 60% after the Fox deal is completed. They also own BAMTech Media, which pr…

The sport is probably the most interesting out of all of those mentioned. There will always be a market for sports subscriptions, so they could have a very competitive offering there that Netflix aren't even involved in.

Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. I'm still not seeing it. Two or three movies a year that I can pick up on DVD/Bluray cheaper. And that's if they're even worth buying on DVD after having watched them once in the cinema. Marvel movies have been wearing fairly thin, and Star Wars is showing similar fatigue.

I'm not saying they won't have a big market, Disney are huge afterall. I'm just saying that I really don't see them as strictly a direct Netflix killing competitor. They're in a slightly different game, content-wise, and Disney's biggest enemy will be itself.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#52

Post by dasil003 »

Having dedicated nearly a decade of my life to a startup competing in this space, the OA is right about Netflix's superior strategy when it comes to user experience and content production. Netflix surged ahead of the pack because they focused relentlessly on the quality of the streaming experience while all the legacy players were focused on deal-making. In other words, while Netflix was building a solid video delivery platform, the rest of the industry was fumbling around with biz dev deals like TV Everywhere that have a very low UX ceiling in the best-case scenario.

However that's the past now, and the OA is missing a few trends:

First, Netflix will not maintain its UX lead at the same level for long. Video streaming like all technology is commoditizing, the experience will get better and better from non-tech companies. Meanwhile Netflix is continuing to plow down this path of algorithm-driven engagement and ramming stuff down people's throats with auto-play, bad search, and other dark patterns. Given the current cultural zeitgeist (eg. Facebook backlash), this isn't going to end well if they don't change course.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that Netflix has a long way to go on the production side. There's a lot of volume of Netflix productions, but not a lot of quality. This is where the OA underestimates Disney—their content is way broader and better than Netflix, and people care a lot about that.

Netflix's experimental Interactive content and Reed Hasting's comments about Fortnite also give me pause. This is typical SV-style next-big-thing thinking, but it also represents taking the eye off the ball. Video games are video games, Netflix doesn't know shit about them, and if you ask me they are better off focusing on their core competency versus trying to build a moat with a gimmicky concept.

5 years ago I would have said Netflix has a better chance at becoming a great producer than Disney has at creating a great streaming experience, but now I'm not so sure.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#53

Post by justsomedood »

adwf wrote: post #49
untog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney owns ABC, Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm. Not mention ABC Family and existing Disney cable channels. Between those assets they could make a very compelling streaming service. Something Netflix knows well since they were leaning hard on Marvel shows for a while.

Marvel and Lucasfilm are still very much in my "I've already got the DVDs" territory. The Marvel TV shows never really lived upto the hype for me and if Disney need to PG'ify everything, they'll have a hard time. I'm probably underestimating some of the Disney kids TV shows that I've never heard of, but are they even on Netflix right now? Isn't Disney just going to cannibalise their own existing TV market?

The Disney kids TV shows are on Netflix right now, yes. There are a lot of those shows that appeal to toddlers up to the tween age ranges. They have a very large amount of content besides just movies

Re: Netflix Flexes

#54

Post by lsc »

FreeKill wrote: post #41
2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

What I also find interesting is the fact that Netflix doesn't necessarily even need the "flex" to succeed. Their push on bird box could have failed miserably, and they really wouldn't have suffered greatly, whereas Disney's push of A Wrinkle in Time probably hurt, since the movie ultimately flopped and their only chance to recoup costs was after the huge investment. Netflix's goal is quite distinct from much of its c…

Yeah... I mean, when this switch occurred (away from having a wide selection of classics towards being more of a cable channel with their own custom content) I canceled my subscription.

I switched to amazon video... I can't say I'm always thrilled with the video quality, but amazon video usually has what I want to watch, and they make watching it low effort (They usually charge me a few dollars to watch it, but if I'm going to take two hours to watch something, a few dollars is the least of the cost.)

I mean, one could argue that I'd be better served by the netflix disk service, but I can't reliably predict what I'm going to want to watch ahead, and I don't have a convenient device for watching disks in the gym. (I know they exist, and I used to have one. But the kindle fire is a lot more convenient.)

Re: Netflix Flexes

#55

Post by monetus »

ajcodez wrote: post #47

Netflix should create less content, not more. I find it low quality and will discount titles with Netflix logo that otherwise look interesting. I’m also a Mubi and Amazon Prime subscriber. It’s surprising to hear the original content is working for the company.

I don't see how they could pursue anything but that considering how they probably won't be able to license the shows of other streaming services.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#56

Post by magicalhippo »

iambateman wrote: post #2

I’ve said this before, but I expect Netflix to continue to flex their muscle until they have an average subscription cost of $35-40/month. There’s so much room in the entertainment market for them to save customers $50/mo, offer them more, and increase their revenue.

I doubt that. Keeping subscription cost low means people will not view it as a huge expense and are much more likely to keep the subscription rather than cancel it, even if they use it very little.

There's a line though, where it moves on over into the high-enough-to-notice expense category, where people will be much more inclined to cancel if they're not using it significantly. If Netflix had cost me $20 or more a month, I would have cancelled it long ago, and only subscribe for a month a year to binge.

I'm betting Netflix want to stay in that first category for as long as they can.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#57

Post by adwf »

justsomedood wrote: post #53
adwf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marvel and Lucasfilm are still very much in my "I've already got the DVDs" territory. The Marvel TV shows never really lived upto the hype for me and if Disney need to PG'ify everything, they'll have a hard time. I'm probably underestimating some of the Disney kids TV shows that I've never heard of, but are they even on Netflix right now? Isn't Disney just going to cannibalise their own existing TV market?

The Disney kids TV shows are on Netflix right now, yes. There are a lot of those shows that appeal to toddlers up to the tween age ranges. They have a very large amount of content besides just movies

Thanks for the info, had a quick look but couldn't work out which were Disney.

So it really becomes a question of whether people are buying Netflix just for their kids content and will cancel one for t'other if Disney pull all their content, or whether they're happy to buy both.

If they only want to buy one, then maybe they'll switch.

If they're happy with both, then it actually helps Netflix bottom line as they no longer have to license expensive movies from Disney.

It's a balancing equation between whether the people they lose outweigh the licensing costs for Disney. Which is exactly the same situation they've always been in anyway competing with traditional cable offerings.

I see a challenge, but not a considerable Netflix killer like some people try to make out.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#58

Post by monetus »

beerlord wrote: post #33
shmerl wrote: post #26

Netflix gradually turned from bad to worse. First they pushed DRM into HTML standard. Then they joined the MPAA cartel. Nothing good should be expected on that trajectory.

0.01% of customers care about that and less than 1% could even decipher those acronyms.

That is not a measure of moral good or bad. It sucks that it doesn't matter.

Re: Netflix Flexes

#59

Post by [deleted] »

baxtr wrote: post #32
2bitencryption wrote: post #25

My takeaway from Bird Box is that if Netflix wants to make any of their original content one of the most-watched media events of the year, they can do it, regardless of the quality of the content itself. All it takes is for them to slip it in to people's "custom, curated" lists at a higher frequency, and maybe do a little subtle social-media engineering on Reddit/Facebook, and bam: instant box office smash of a deriv…

Yes, I agree, but you can’t do that too often. People will eventually stop trusting your recommendations. I experienced something similar with their B-series that they highly promote. I stopped after watching 1-2 episodes. Now, I don’t even care to start anymore.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix Flexes

#60

Post by bilbo0s »

misterprime wrote: post #38
jVinc wrote: post #21

My takeaway from Birdbox is the old adage: "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." Sure it got tons of views because of all the advertisement and the tons of focus on viral media advertisement on every single platform. But the reaction from people watching it before me when asked if it was good was "Well I mean, I did watch it to the end, but i…

For me it was: "Cool, this is some decent new content from something I was already paying for." Perhaps if I wasn't already a subscriber and the social media hype led me to subscribe I would be disappointed, but for an existing subscriber? I'll keep my auto-renew going.

This is so true it hurts.

It's like you're a mirror of myself:

Price going up? mmm... I don't know if I want to pay that...

Wait...

What? Decent new content?

Well, guess I won't unsubscribe. Still cheaper than cable!!!

Post reply on HN