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

Netflix and the Future of Television

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#11

Post by smacktoward »

timothya wrote: post #7
shmerl wrote: post #5

The future should be DRM-free. Netflix are not going in the right direction. GOG try to break that wall on the other hand. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. If Netflix didn't do DRM, then it wouldn't have any good content on it. As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.

This argument is increasingly less compelling as Netflix's focus moves away from streaming other people's content towards streaming its own original content.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#12

Post by shmerl »

timothya wrote: post #7
shmerl wrote: post #5

The future should be DRM-free. Netflix are not going in the right direction. GOG try to break that wall on the other hand. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. If Netflix didn't do DRM, then it wouldn't have any good content on it. As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.

> I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it.

Where is their own content DRM-free?

> As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it.

Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. Netflix clearly don't care to push for it in the least. So kudos to GOG for actually trying.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#13

Post by lotsofpulp »

davedx wrote: post #6

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched…

What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home, and I don't see them wanting to innovate that away. If anything, their R&D is probably in figuring out how to box out movie studios and other content providers like Netflix/Amazon Prime to make their own offerings more attractive.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#15

Post by VLM »

dublinben wrote: post #9
m4xm4n wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely due to the fact that as of yet, no one has found a particularly good way of monetizing torrents without alienating downloaders. Monetization is a necessity for industry adoption, so it's hard to tie the future of television to something like torrenting, unless there's a way for content creators & licensors to get paid.

Broadcast television has been given away for free since it's inception, and monetized with advertisements. I don't see why officially-sanctioned torrents couldn't do the same. Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes, and you'll outcompete the crappy scene releases that trickle down to public trackers.

"Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes,"

Another option: directors cut type content. So you get 2 minutes extra content of dubious quality, but there's a 10 second diet coke ad at the start. Well, you could try to find a torrent of the extra content without the ad, but its got slower seeds, so you're better off with the diet coke ad...

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#16

Post by VLM »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
davedx wrote: post #6

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched…

What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee.…

"Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability"

If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this.

Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#17

Post by shmerl »

smacktoward wrote: post #11
timothya wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. If Netflix didn't do DRM, then it wouldn't have any good content on it. As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.

This argument is increasingly less compelling as Netflix's focus moves away from streaming other people's content towards streaming its own original content.

It was always a fake excuse for Netflix. They bear the guilt of pushing this DRM garbage into HTML standard.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#18

Post by eropple »

baddox wrote: post #8
themartorana wrote: post #3

Sports - that's the ticket. Comcast remains relevant for two reasons in my mind - they provide high-speed Internet in a quasi-monopolistic fashion, and local sports broadcasting. (I live in Philly, the stranglehold on sports here is palpable.) That said, even sports apps are starting to show up on Apple TV and the like - it's just that right now, sports are attached to cable deals, much like HBO Go is attached to cab…

We're already seeing the beginnings of one possible solution to the "sports on TV" problem: e-sports and video game streaming. Right now there are several hundred thousand viewers on Twitch.tv, unless their viewer numbers are extremely inflated. Video game streams overwhelmingly tend to be free (with subscriptions to remove ads, unlock the highest video quality, or access previous video on demand). Many tournaments h…

No technical reason, but it'd probably be a pretty big drop in revenue.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#19

Post by lotsofpulp »

VLM wrote: post #16
lotsofpulp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee.…

"Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability" If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this. Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.

I think the cable companies right now enjoy a public perception that they are not just providing a dumb pipe, but they are adding value with the DVRs and HD, so they don't seem like the gas or electric or water provider. If they come to be viewed as infrastructure, then there might be a push to make them into utilities and regulate their prices, since they have a monopoly.

Additionally, offering different tiers and mixes of products allows business to create more opportunities for profit margin, but simplifying their business to just X amount of download bandwidth and Y amount of upload bandwidth for a flat price will remove their ability to obfuscate the value of what people buy. And they will have to work harder to justify increasing prices, whereas now, they can just blame it on the media companies, etc.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#20

Post by lukifer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
davedx wrote: post #6

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched…

What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee.…

> it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place

I worked for Comcast circa 2003, and it was the company's official policy that its broadband services were for "entertainment only", to skirt around regulatory issues and downtime liability. While it was a dubious claim even then, it's farcical to call broadband internet anything but a utility in 2014.

Post reply on HN