Live data from Hacker News

Netflix now bigger than HBO

qz.com

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't any video services do it? Licensing issues.

I don't think so. The same issues would be there for music, but those apps all offer it. As long as you can only watch it from within their app (so they can keep stats), it shouldn't matter whether it's online or offline.

Licensing for video and music is not the same.

However, it is the same in that if you're ever wondering why a music or video content app doesn't do something, the answer is always "licensing."

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#42

Netflix really needs to implement an offline mode for its mobile apps. The vast majority of the times I'm watching something on my phone, I don't have a WiFi connection or the connection is too slow to stream an HD video (like on a plane, at the gym, in a car, etc.) I'd love to be able to download something at my home and watch it in offline mode later. Both Rdio and Spotify do this for music. Why doesn't any video s…

iTunes movie rentals does do this.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#43
post #42

Netflix really needs to implement an offline mode for its mobile apps. The vast majority of the times I'm watching something on my phone, I don't have a WiFi connection or the connection is too slow to stream an HD video (like on a plane, at the gym, in a car, etc.) I'd love to be able to download something at my home and watch it in offline mode later. Both Rdio and Spotify do this for music. Why doesn't any video s…

iTunes movie rentals does do this.

Yes, but obviously I'm wanting a streaming service to offer it.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#44
It's great that Netflix finally beat HBO's subscriber figures but given that subscriber figures are cyclical (though HBO's have evened out now that HBO Go is out -- which incidentally was largely the impetus behind HBO GO, to curb subscriber churn during period's when new series aren't on), it'll take consistent effort and good programming for Netflix to remain in this position.

The problem is, that strategy takes money. And that $8 a month per household is probably half of what HBO is getting per household for its 29m subscribers (plus what they get from home video, licensing and international).

Netflix has pivoted from trying to be cable to trying to be HBO. That's all well and good but let's not try to spin this as how cord-cutting is "winning." It's not. If cord-cutting was winning, Netflix would have had more subscribers than HBO quarters ago. Instead, Netflix's next big strategy is to get bundled WITH cable providers (which incidentally is a smart approach and could be what really lets Netflix's subscriber base balloon).

HBO, Netflix and Showtime require original content to really push the needle. HBO has an advantage of having spent the last 20 years (since Larry Sanders, really) cultivating the best showrunners and writing talent that have in turn, brought in some of the best programming in the history of the medium.

Moreover, HBO has a financial advantage in that they make most of their original series in-house. Netflix does it two ways. They fund series outright like House of Cards and Arrested Development (but to be clear, 20th Century Fox still produced and owns the video and syndication rights to AD) or they acquire the first-run rights (Lillyhammer, Tom Fontana's Borgia). Even in the cases where they do fund the development, a secondary production company usually still does everything -- it's not in-house. HBO, by virtue of being a subsidiary (and the most profitable subsidiary) of Time Warner, has access to Warner Bros. Television, which cuts down on a lot ancillary costs before it comes time for distribution.

It'll be interesting to see if Netflix can afford to acquire or do full-contracts with certain production companies and creator shingles to get rights to future projects. Alan Ball has a longstanding deal with HBO and David Milch has a semi-exclusive with them too.

TL;DR This is great for Netflix, but all it really does is make them a real contender as a premium content network. It doesn't impact HBO's current economics or have any impact on the realities of running a content business. Which is basically that good shit is expensive.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#45

I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5).

Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absolutely HBO quality and would likely have been an HBO show if Netflix hadn't outbid by such an absurd amount (granted it was the right strategy to make but I get why HBO didn't match)).

Aside from Arrested Development, however, nothing on their current slate looks like it will rise above Starz quality. And that's a problem if you expect people to consistently pay $8 a month.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#46
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just released another Netflix-original series, Hemlock Grove. After watching through it, I'm not that impressed. The reviews I've read also seem to be on the negative side.

Having watched both, well all three of Netflix's original series. I'd have to say House of Cards was the best, Hemlock was alright, a bit gruesome at times and Lilyhammer was... no comment.

I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes of lilyhammer

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't any video services do it? Licensing issues.

I don't think so. The same issues would be there for music, but those apps all offer it. As long as you can only watch it from within their app (so they can keep stats), it shouldn't matter whether it's online or offline.

It's absolutely licensing.

When content is licensed, there are different licenses that are distributed based on who pays and what the service is:

* First-run -- you get to broadcast it first * Syndication -- you get to broadcast second * Digital -- you can also show the product on a digital platform (this was how Netflix was able to do their loophole with Starz back in the day, Starz sold the digital license and streaming license to Netflix because the content owners hadn't specified that such a license was unable to be resold or relicensed -- that' since changed and now it's an extra fee if you want to do that like EPIX does) * Digital streaming -- can be streamed but not watched offline * Rental -- traditionally DVD/Blu-ray * Digital rental -- iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc. -- includes offline

Netflix would have to pay significantly more for its content to offer an offline mode. Even HBO, who owns most of its original content -- doesn't do offline because again, the costs would be exorbitant.

EDIT: To be clear I'm not being all-inclusive, as JFB points out below me, there are even nuttier licensing schemes too. And this is before we even talk about international, where you typically have different agreements with every. single. territory.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#49
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBO has a bullheaded insistence on distribution through cable operators, though. I can watch Netflix without a cable connection but HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. It's reminiscent of Sony's attempt to keep their content studios and product groups under the same tent. Any company whose business model is based on running unstoppable forces into immovable objects is always go…

It's not exactly a bullheaded insistence. They're owned by Time Warner Cable.

I believe you're mistaken; the Time Warner that owns HBO is not affiliated with TWC anymore.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#50

I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.

That becomes the question. The problem is that their current production slate indicates that they maybe have one -- maybe two -- standout shows to do a year. HBO typically has 4 (right now that would be Game of Thrones, Girls, Boardwalk Empire and True Blood with The Newsroom being an easy slot for #5). Right now, Netflix's original programming track record is really spotty aside from House of Cards -- which is absol…

I'm pretty sure people consistently pay $8/mon, despite the original content. You literally need only stay out of my way, be easy to use on multiple devices, and only entertain me 2-4hrs/mon to keep me coming back.
Post reply on HN