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

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#41

Post by lotsofpulp »

shmerl wrote: post #28
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.…

> It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home So why isn't it prohibited on the antitrust grounds? Or they can't be sustainable as separate companies?

Lobbying? There are probably a lot of entrenched interests that don't want the ISP/TV provider monopoly to go away. I guess for TV, there are actually 3 to 4 options available for most people (Dish Network/DirectTV/Cable/Fiber). But for broadband, there is usually only 1 option, or 2 if you're lucky, and they also happen to be selling you content.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#42

Post by aclements18 »

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…

For better or worse, the "someone" who will offer the bundle will likely be Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Their entire business model is based on bundling content to provide it at lower cost than an a la carte.

It's unlikely things will change for them just because they move away from a cable box to apps. In essence that is what they are already doing. Even today you need a cable subscription to access at least a third of the content on Apple TV.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#43

Post by Retric »

aclements18 wrote: post #42
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…

For better or worse, the "someone" who will offer the bundle will likely be Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Their entire business model is based on bundling content to provide it at lower cost than an a la carte. It's unlikely things will change for them just because they move away from a cable box to apps. In essence that is what they are already doing. Even today you need a cable subscription to access at least a th…

The problem with that argument is young people spend so much time online. So, it often ends up as a 90$ / month bill for 4-5 hours a week of entertainment. What's really missing IMO is leveraging the huge backlog of entertainment where Netflix only scratches the surface. Cable was great when there where few options for cheap mindless entertainment, but what people want in entertainment not just the NFL or the latest gossip.

So, I suspect long term we are going to see a push for more 'timeless' entertainment. You might only get 100k viewers this year, but if your still pulling 50+k viewers in 20 years that's a lot of revenue over time. Make a great cooking show and it's still worth watching even if it's 20 years old, a travel log of eating establishments ages poorly.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#44

Post by Zigurd »

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…

Real innovation would be maximum bits for minimum dollars. Otherwise you are just standing athwart innovation.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#45

Post by Zigurd »

Touche wrote: post #27
VLM wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Walmart isn't a dumb-pipe, for one. A dumb pipe would be electric and water companies, are those as profitable as cable companies?

For things like detergent, motor oil, and some categories of food, Wal-mart offers zero differentiation and lower prices. i really can't think of one thing where I think "Oh, I have to go to Wal-mart for that." The only reason is efficiency, and hence price.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#46

Post by Touche »

Zigurd wrote: post #45
Touche wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart isn't a dumb-pipe, for one. A dumb pipe would be electric and water companies, are those as profitable as cable companies?

For things like detergent, motor oil, and some categories of food, Wal-mart offers zero differentiation and lower prices. i really can't think of one thing where I think "Oh, I have to go to Wal-mart for that." The only reason is efficiency, and hence price.

None of those things constitute a "dumb pipe".

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#47

Post by Zigurd »

glomph wrote: post #22
dublinben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People would just release versions with the adverts cut. What do you think goes on with HDTV releases at the moment?

There are torrents of TV shows with the ads cut. That hasn't made a dent in broadcast TV.

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#48

Post by Zigurd »

Touche wrote: post #46
Zigurd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For things like detergent, motor oil, and some categories of food, Wal-mart offers zero differentiation and lower prices. i really can't think of one thing where I think "Oh, I have to go to Wal-mart for that." The only reason is efficiency, and hence price.

None of those things constitute a "dumb pipe".

I don't understand your assertion. Bodega vs. Stop & Shop vs. Wal-Mart to buy Tide detergent. Wal-Mart adds nothing to the product, but delivers it more efficiently. That is the definition of a "dumb pipe." Can you explain how that's not a dumb pipe?

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#49

Post by Touche »

Zigurd wrote: post #48
Touche wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things constitute a "dumb pipe".

I don't understand your assertion. Bodega vs. Stop & Shop vs. Wal-Mart to buy Tide detergent. Wal-Mart adds nothing to the product, but delivers it more efficiently. That is the definition of a "dumb pipe." Can you explain how that's not a dumb pipe?

Using massive scale and buying power to influence the price of a produce is adding something to the product. Can your electric company do that? No, they only delivery the product at it's market value.

Also, a pipe doesn't care what travels through it; does Wal-Mart sell every retail product in existence?

Re: Netflix and the Future of Television

#50

Post by jonathansizz »

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...

Why should the future of internet streaming be DRM free? If I purchase an ebook, I'm going to insist on DRM-free because it's my book and I want to be able to do whatever I like with it. But for streaming video I'm merely renting.
Post reply on HN