Live data from Hacker News

Netflix and the Future of Television

newyorker.com

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#31

Netflix has little chance in the UK so long as they have such a dismal choice of content.

This hasn't been the case for a long time, although for some reason it remains a common misperception. I think it's mainly a marketing problem because people are always reading comments like this online, or hearing about such-and-such series that "is on Netflix" but disappointingly isn't currently available in the UK, while simultaneously being unaware of all the content that is available in the UK but not in the US.

For example, Netflix UK has the first 2 Hobbit movies, Pixar's Up, the original Danish versions of The Killing and The Bridge, all of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, 24 and The Shield - none of which are currently available in the US. There's a load more I can't remember off the top of my head. The UK also got Breaking Bad a few hours after it was aired in the US, whereas US customers had to wait several months, presumably due to an exclusivity deal with AMC.

Obviously the UK also gets all the Netflix original content. Occasionally a new season will launch a few months ahead in the US, but that's not really a big deal. I can only assume this is done for same marketing reasons that blockbuster movie launches are typically staggered worldwide.

There are a small number of US shows like 30 Rock and Better Off Ted that I wish were on the UK service, and Star Trek DS9 is conspicuously absent, but that list is much smaller than it was 2 years ago.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#32
I would not be surprised if eventually Netflix is forced to charge different rates to customers based on their ISP and the amount of shakedown they are forced to pay for interconnect agreements. It is easy to imagine a base rate of $8 for Netflix and a $4 Comcast network fee.

After all if Netflix must raise rates to cover these new costs it seems it would be in their best interests to educate their customers in hopes of driving lobbying efforts to force common carrier legislation on ISPs.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#33
post #12
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.

> 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 try…

> Where is their own content DRM-free?

What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure? Why add even more to the cost of in-house content for DRM?

> Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen.

That someone is consumers, not Netflix. And given that the overwhelming majority of consumers don't care about DRM, Netflix has little incentive to care about it also - they have enough to worry about with their content well drying up, and I doubt they are keen on exacerbating that problem by telling their partners to license their content DRM free. Short of either the government stepping in and mandating the end of DRM, I don't think will ever see DRM go away (not to say it won't be hopelessly broken).

All that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons - it would allow them to distribute on Linux and most likely simplify parts of the content delivery chain. For Netflix they have no reason to be against DRM free content, but a ton of reasons to not be actively against DRM.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#34
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why? How much revenue do the teams and leagues get from TV per-viewer now? Why couldn't they get more by cutting out the middlemen (cable companies and TV networks) and just get subscription fees directly from viewers, and ad revenue directly from advertisers?

The NFL's US TV deals, when put together, are for 7 billion a year. The ads themselves are not all managed at the highest level: There are national ads, regional ads, local ads... A big part of what a TV network does is manage the ads themselves.

While a large majority of the fans have broadband, they don't necessarily have something connected to the TV that will output the NFL streaming apps to their living room. There's also no proof that advertisers would pay the same rates for ads than they do for over the air TV.

Handing out the rights to TV stations also has all kinds of other advantages. You don't have to pay the TV stations to advertise the games. There is all kinds of content in said stations that could also be considered advertising: A team will be covered more in the channel that also carries the games than in one that does not. If you have an NFL app as the way to show the games, now you are the one paying the TV stations so that they cover your stuff. The NFL might get a bigger share of the pie, but other people are a whole lot less interested in helping the NFL grow its fan base. And yeah, the moment you start offering all games online bypassing live broadcasts, without at least a modicum of an attempt of blacking out regular TV broadcasts, the networks will balk at you, so if a pro sports league wants to move to online, they have to either only show content that the local TV stations do not want, or go all in, because the TV networks are not going to be happy competing with the league directly with the same content.

Good luck keeping an attempted switch secret too: To move broadcasts inhouse, a league would either have to purchase new equipment and crews, from the engineers at the stadium to the commentators, or to downright poach them, neither of which is easy to do.

So even if it's theoretically possible they'd make more money online, the risks and the political costs of doing such things are tough. We've seen how a player strike harms a sport's financials. A failed move online would be just as big, if not worse, and completely self inflicted.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#35
post #12

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. 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 try…

> Where is their own content DRM-free? What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure? Why add even more to the cost of in-house content for DRM? > Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. That someone is consumers, not Netflix. And given that the overwhelming majority of consumer…

> What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure?

They gain more trust by showing that it's not their intention to use DRM. Since they don't, they are viewed as liars when they claim that they don't want to use it. And they very well can be liars. Let them prove their intentions with actions rather than with empty words.

> That someone is consumers, not Netflix.

No, that's false logic. Users of course should push for it too. But you can't compare the scale. Individuals voting with their wallets are less visible to publishers than distributors voting with theirs. GOG already demonstrated it. And that actually feeds the cycle. Once some distributor breaks the wall of stupidity by making some DRM-free deals with publishers, then more users start supporting them from those who care about buying it DRM-free.

The bottom line, Neflix are not interesting in fighting that fight. They oblige insane publishers willingly and their claims that they "have no choice" don't sound sincere.

> Netflix has little incentive to care about it also

That's exactly the point. So they can't claim that they don't like it. In the best case they don't care, and in the worst they prefer using it even for their own content and push for that garbage into HTML standard. Incentive for caring about it should not come from estimating how many users care about it.

> ll that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons

That's what they say, but no one is inclined to believe them when they don't do it for their own content as above. There is no technical reason for them to use DRM where publishers don't demand it. And when they are the publishers themselves it means they demand it themselves too.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#36
post #18
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big national sports would incur a drop in revenue if they switched to that now. But that will change, and is probably already changing fast. If at some point sports became the only thing on traditional TV that most care about, I suspect they would be less likely to spend anywhere near as much money for the hundreds of bundled channels they value at zero.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#37

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…

The first p-2-p HD live TV service will be treated like BT was originally, a mortal threat to the industry.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#38

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…

What bothers me is that we'll likely never see an API for all this content. TV software is spectacularly awful. Netflix is merely mediocre, which makes it feel like pure awesome compared to the piss-poor UIs that TV users are familiar with.

of course, content wins so the interface is bottom priority. But without an API, there is no way for a 3rd party to provide a better layer over the content.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#39

Netflix has little chance in the UK so long as they have such a dismal choice of content.

This is sadly also true for the Nordic countries. There's a bunch of contenders in the streaming business and huge pushes for cable-TV from the major broadband providers. The sad part is that most services are utter crap and suffer from huge technical problems, consumer unfriendly subscription models, horribly implemented localisation and a serious lack of content. Netflix is reasonably good and their own series are more or less worth the 8€ subscription fee. Finnish Netflix compared to the US version costs 25% more for It isn't too difficult to access the US version of Netflix, but doing so reliably requires a VPN connection which I am not willing to pay for. And it's technically equally illegal as the piratebay and more of a hassle to get it to work with my chromecast/plex/xmbc.

This is sadly a really old problem. Noone is currently selling film/TV-series content to a reasonable price that could even look at competing with the piratebay/piratism. Heck, todays services can't compete with piratism from ten years ago.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#40
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…

Nice to hear from a dissent perspective on this matter. Though it certainly begs the question; in what way is Comcast being innovative? Xfinity X2 seems to be imitating more than anything. I would not be so critical if it weren't for their obvious disinterest of innovation.
Post reply on HN