Netflix's New Chapter • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#201

Post by tzs » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:17 PM UTC

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #121

no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

Unlike netflix, Disney+ has a good incentive to never become profitable. It pays enormous licensing fees to its parent company. This means the profits flows to there, and they don't pay a cent of taxes. Now you are going to say, but doesn't "The Walt Disney Company", the parent of Disney+, then pay all the taxes? No, because this company is located in Delaware, which means it's virtually exempt of taxes as long as it…

That might make it virtually exempt from Delaware taxes, but what about Federal taxes?

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#202

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #167

horsawlarway wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lost me this year. I had been a subscriber for 12 years. Between the ads and the complete inability to let a show run more than 2 seasons unless it's a global hit... I'm no longer interested. I've had a kid - and my viewing habits have changed. I can't always watch a show right when it drops. The reality of my life is that I have other things going on, and I rarely have 10+ hours of uninterrupted time. But now..…

> complete inability to let a show run more than 2 seasons unless it's a global hit It just needs to be a slight success. If the show is cheap to make they'll keep it running forever. The only things that seem to get canceled are expensive or complete failures. I'd be interested if you have any examples that this doesn't ring true for. > My take is that Netflix is hot fucking garbage at determining the quality of the…

> Most TV shows are canceled very few keep going forever.

I don't expect them to go forever - I expect them to END. Ending is a (hugely) different proposition than being canceled.

A show that wraps up the plot (even if not executed particularly well) is a-ok.

A show that starts a story and then dies is not.

One of them has value in watching, one is a complete waste of time.

I also don't really care how they work out the budget - A show getting a mini-series as the final season because they don't want to invest in a full one? Fine - just resolve the fucking plot.

Personally - I don't even care if the show is only one season (or two) as long as it wraps up. What I do mind - quite a bit - is the start of a story that we know will never end.

If netflix wants to be so axe-happy, that's fine. Buy freaking mini-series and wrap them in a season.

Or set a more strict budget if the creators want to run multiple seasons.

My whole point about them being garbage at this is that I don't really care all that much how the wrap their shows. I just want a story to consume.

Personally - I really think production budgets are set far too high in an attempt to make them global hits, and it's really, really not panning out for them.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#203

Post by joncrane » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:20 PM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #6

jedberg wrote: post #3

Netflix only lost to Blockbuster because Blockbuster didn't believe in online anything strongly enough to properly fund it. Blockbuster had the better network and better penetration, and even had equally good technology. But corporate didn't want to fund them to hire the next set of engineers they needed. Blockbuster would have won if their board had been just slightly more forward looking. And Netflix knew it.

Isn't this the Sears case again? They were the veteran incumbent with a mountain of experience in the industry, but turning a corporate ship on a dime seems to be impossible. I guess that manifests as a form of "corporate didn't believe in..." or "didn't invest in the engineering" as you say.

Kodak is another great example.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#204

Post by chadlavi » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:20 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #165

no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

The tech part of streaming no longer matters and Netflix is in serious trouble due to their lack of quality content. I'm no fan of Disney, but you have to give it to Bob Iger. He just paid out the nose to buy every piece of valuable IP: Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, Fox, even Jim Henson. The amount of content they now own is insane. Everything from Sunny in Philadelphia to the Muppet show to Alien to Avatar to The Simpso…

I agree with you, but don't underestimate how many people just want to leave The Office or something similar running in the background for hours and are willing to pay Netflix for that.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#205

Post by madeofpalk » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

rcme wrote: post #157

madeofpalk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of the... 'opportunity cost' of not licensing out content that otherwise would have went to Netflix, ABC, whoever. If previously Disney made Daredevil and 'sold' it to Netflix for $1m (hypothetically), but now you're holding that back to stream yourself, you've got to account for that missing $1m somehow.

No you don't. You don't normally include opportunity cost on your balance sheet.

Depending on how org and financials are structured Disney+ may need to purchase Daredevil from the other part of Disney for $1m, which is recognising that opportunity cost.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#206

Post by ben7799 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #189

gumby wrote: post #18

I had never heard this part about Blockbuster: > Blockbuster ... started with Blockbuster Online, an entity that was completely separate from Blockbuster’s retail business for reasons of both technology and culture...a test version went live on July 15, 2004 — the same day as Netflix’s quarterly earnings call Blockbuster really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The corporate incentives had become completely b…

One thing that wasn't mentioned was that Netflix has a monstrously large catalogue at the time, and the user ratings and content recommendations made their offering extremely sticky. Switching to Blockbuster's competing service was a bit painful because you'd lose all your movie ratings, often stretching back years to the DVD-by-mail era. While Blockbuster could acquire brand new streaming subscribers by pricing thei…

Most of us weren't Netflix customers yet at the time this was going on.

Whatever the case I was an active in-store Blockbuster customer at the time their stuff started to launch and I never had an inkling they were doing anything online.

It was only a couple years later I remember trying the Netflix DVDs in the mail service. I don't remember actually subscribing till I moved into my current house in 2010. When we moved in there was no video rental store in town.

2004 was a long time ago! I remember 100% I was still going to the neighborhood Blockbuster in 2004.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#207

Post by chadlavi » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

xwolfi wrote: post #154

no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

Is HBO max that big? I only hear about it from time to time, it feels very English-language. I have 2 netflix subs I share between my Chinese and French family and I admit Disney+ has a huge advantage for kids stuff I couldnt get anywhere else, so they'll likely last.

Unclear what the perception of HBO is outside the US, but HBO is historically _the_ prestige television brand, and now they have a pretty good catalog of stuff that wasn't originally on HBO as well. It seems like Warner is hell-bent on ruining HBO Max though.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#208

Post by auggierose » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #175

twblalock wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The services definitely know about this and to a large extent they build it into their model. Every subscription service has a churn model being accounted for. The services also know that the only thing they can do about this is release enough new content to keep users engaged, or bundle the subscription with other ones.

Or rotate what parts of the library are available each month.

Or each day! And we are back to where we started.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#209

Post by ben7799 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #110

JackFr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also if you’re not into superheroes and Star Wars, despite it being Disney there’s not a ton there.

Even if you are, there's the chance that the glut of the content coming out causes fatigue. I used to really look forward to new Star Wars things because it didn't come out super frequently (a new trilogy of movies every few decades, a TV show here and there), but it was enjoyable. Then they started coming out with a new movie and multiple TV shows year after year, and it just wasn't good enough to justify going out…

Totally.. Disney has completely missed the fact that a big part of the pent up love of some of these franchises had to do with people having to wait their entire childhood for a new release. I went to ROTJ for my 7th birthday party. There was no more new Star Wars content till I was 22!

Now there is so much you need to pay attention or you'll miss it. People get sick of drinking out of a firehose.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#210

Post by runako » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #77

matwood wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good summary. Couple notes/IMOs... HBO Max is great, but it's tied to a terrible management/company anchor. Rumor is now they are going to drop the trusted HBO brand smh. Netflix is well positioned, but a player like Disney is also setup to acquire other streamers as they fall over from cost structure issues. I think we're about to see mass consolidation. Finally, I'm kind of sad that I think the content 'golden era'…

HBO max doesn't even have every HBO show, they dropped west world from the platform.

This decision would be enough to cancel my HBO subscription, but apparently it's bundled into our cable package so I don't directly pay for it anyway.

HBO has broken the core contract of branded services (i.e. you get access to everything they make), making the value of a subscription much more difficult to understand. I can go back and watch 7 seasons of Arli$$ from 1996, but not the West World episodes released last year?

I will say I am curious how they plan to market a service where you can't use recent hits in your advertising, because they are no longer available...