Live data from Hacker News

Netflix kills Qwikster

allthingsd.com

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#101
post #13

Wouldn't market questionnaire testing of just 100 people saved them this expensive juggling act? Anyway, I fear streaming price increases next year for sure as all the media outlets start to gouge netflix and they pass it on. Best thing netflix can do is make sure consumers know which distributors are purposely giving them horrible contracts and that it's not netflix's fault.

>Wouldn't market questionnaire testing of just 100 people saved them this expensive juggling act?

Probably would've killed the ipad, too.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#102
post #19
post #5

While this rights the ship, Netflix made the colossal mistake of rocking the recurring-billing boat. Smart businesses know that when you've got a customer setup for recurring monthly billing, there's a certain percentage of these customers who will continue to pay even though they're not actively using the service. Part of it is laziness of figuring out how to cancel. Another part is the thought that they may someday…

We switched to the streaming-only plan before our billing cycle and have been happy ... We weren't good at quickly watching the DVDs and returning them anyway plus we saved a buck a month. How did other HNers respond to the price hike? I would expect this group to be dominated by streamers anyway.

I went to DVD-only. Partly it was the occasionally crappy streaming experience for my own viewing (most of my machines run Ubuntu; I've a dedicated Win7 laptop that is perhaps underpowered for Netflix streaming). Too much pausing and image freezing while sound continued.

The biggest streaming issue was that I often watch movies with subtitles because a friend is hard of hearing. Subtitles were a grossly unreliable feature; they would appear at odd times, often in a big rush, making them useless.

(This when watching a movie via the Wii.)

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#103
post #19
post #5

While this rights the ship, Netflix made the colossal mistake of rocking the recurring-billing boat. Smart businesses know that when you've got a customer setup for recurring monthly billing, there's a certain percentage of these customers who will continue to pay even though they're not actively using the service. Part of it is laziness of figuring out how to cancel. Another part is the thought that they may someday…

We switched to the streaming-only plan before our billing cycle and have been happy ... We weren't good at quickly watching the DVDs and returning them anyway plus we saved a buck a month. How did other HNers respond to the price hike? I would expect this group to be dominated by streamers anyway.

The price hike wasn't a big deal for us. It's still well worth it with our viewing patterns.

DVD service is still valuable because there's literally no other way of watching movies that aren't available for streaming anywhere, Netflix or otherwise (which add up to a depressingly large amount). However, I am looking into Redbox as an alternative (which I wouldn't have done had Netflix not segregated their service...)

Streaming, despite the recent poor selection, pays for itself easily in the few TV series that we watch and are available. Spending $20 to buy a series on DVD or Amazon streaming vs a Netflix streaming subscription is a no-brainer.

If it ever happened that none of the series we wanted to watch were available on Netflix, we'd probably cancel (and renew if we found one we did want to watch.)

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#104
post #99
post #5

While this rights the ship, Netflix made the colossal mistake of rocking the recurring-billing boat. Smart businesses know that when you've got a customer setup for recurring monthly billing, there's a certain percentage of these customers who will continue to pay even though they're not actively using the service. Part of it is laziness of figuring out how to cancel. Another part is the thought that they may someday…

The most convincing explanation of their actions I read was essentially: 1. they made streaming a free add on to DVDs to get people using the service, which resulted in streaming becoming popular. 2. The media owners started to (or perhaps always had) cut their deals with Netflix on a per subscriber basis rather than per view. So Netflix was paying the networks for everyone who subscribed, including evyone who only w…

I think they were paying a flat amount for an up to X million subscribers, not a per subscriber fee. Then they got close to the cap and needed to remove the people from the cap that weren't really using it, but the contract counted everyone that had access. It's pretty much the same thing though.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#106
They were just too ambitious is all. Hastings knows that streaming is the future, and he went into startup mode to try to turn his ship in that direction. The two problems are customer expectations and movies studios demands.

Customer expectations are a bitch because people believe $10 is the right price for Netflix and $16 is outrageous, even though this is a fraction of the cost of all traditional options. Now that expectations are set, price hikes just enrage people. But for a good selection of streaming content, people are going to have to be enraged for a while. We already saw what happened to Hulu. The reality is that studios are not going to let their revenues be decimated just so that we can live in our utopian future of streaming anything we want for $10/month. That is such a kick in their gut that they will be willing to spend the money to all build their own shitty services that fail over the next 4-5 years, put up with rampant piracy, and take any number of viewer-hostile actions all to avoid accepting Netflix's vision. Eventually I believe the market will cut them down to size, but getting everything you want is going to cost more than $10/month.

I give Reed Hastings a lot of credit for trying to bring the future faster by focusing on streaming, but he overplayed his hand. Netflix's clout comes from its user base size and the fact that it's DVD business is unassailable by big media. They're not going to be able to throw their weight around on streaming deals, and studios will be dragging their feet anyway. The smart thing to do is to focus on streaming and always be aware that it's the future, but keep DVDs as a value anchor so customers can justify the mediocre streaming selection.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#107
post #82
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an ATV2 for streaming movies from the mac and netflix streaming. The xbox360 only plays games and occasionally plays DVDs - I think I rented a movie a few times from xbox marketplace and it worked fine. I thought about getting a ps3 for the BRD functionality and games, but at this point I don't want to deal with any physical media. Even if the 1080p is better, I've never looked at the movies streaming through…

I've got a PS3, specifically for Blu-Ray, but I rarely use it for that any more. I use it for Netflix, and at this point any number of devices could handle that. If I were buying a Blu-Ray player again, I'd probably buy something else. I got a first-gen, when the PS3 was still the cheapest. But now it's not, and I don't game, and having to use a dedicated Bluetooth remote is annoying. Also there's no Amazon Prime app…

You're probably right about 720 vs 1080. You've go to be pretty close to see the difference on a 46" screen. I believe I read that someone with 20/20 vision has to be closer than 8 feet to see the difference on a 50" screen.

If I was building a home theater setup with a huge projector (or giant LCD), dolby digital (7.1 now?), etc... then of course I want the best quality in everything I can get. A friend of mine has one of these setups and it is amazing.

The above is quite different than the family room TV though. I've seen BRD quality on my 46" TV and yes I can see the difference, but I have to look for it. It's been my opinion for awhile that picture quality and sound at 720p or 1080p streamed is mostly 'good enough' and people now want convenience.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#108
> And that price hike is what kicked off the company’s tumble from a peak of $300 a share.

Nonsense. Losing 1M out of 25M customers while increasing profit does not translate to loosing $200 from a $300 share price.

This bad news is nothing more than an excuse for insiders to sell shares that they otherwise would not be able to do.

There are more problems deeper inside.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#109
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty little secret is that most of these channels are very cheap. The only expensive ones are ESPN and other sports programming. People who dont watch sports subsidize those that do.

We've been without cable TV for years. Any time I talk to people about cutting their cable TV the only objection is live sports.

I went off cable a year ago. The only thing I miss is ads for upcoming movies. Weird, right? Everything else I want I can get online, but I had come to depend on ads to tell me when a good movie was coming.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#110
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty little secret is that most of these channels are very cheap. The only expensive ones are ESPN and other sports programming. People who dont watch sports subsidize those that do.

We've been without cable TV for years. Any time I talk to people about cutting their cable TV the only objection is live sports.

It's interesting to see the differences between major sports. It's trivial to replace your cable TV with online viewing for baseball, but impossible for american football.
Post reply on HN