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

Netflix now bigger than HBO

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#121

Post by __david__ »

sneak wrote: post #62
tnuc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones. Is there anyone on hn who hasn't checked out Game of thrones?

I don't like the genre (fantasy), and I don't like soaps. "OMG, $x is fucking $y!" isn't my idea of entertainment unless $x and $y are people I know personally.

Well, I wouldn't call it either a fantasy or a soap. It's more about politics than almost anything else. The fantasy parts are much more restrained than I expected when I first started watching (seriously, pretty much nothing fantastical happens from after the first scene of the first episode until the last episode of the first season).

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#122

Post by mbesto »

donohoe wrote: post #18
quaunaut wrote: post #5

I keep seeing qz.com linked here: Is there a bloody reason that the page doesn't go completely to the right side, so I can use my bloody mousewheel without my mouse being over the content?

Browser & OS plz

Just some feedback. Your whole website is straining. I actually noticed my head (not just my eyes) moving back and forth left and right to see what else is on the site.

I can see how the responsiveness would work well on mobile devices, but it's painful to discover content on the site via a laptop. The content itself is OK since you have a fixed width.

TL;DR - The website is very difficult to enjoy because of the design.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#123

Post by lostlogin »

sharkweek wrote: post #108
thezilch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Netflix has churn; I'm sure they have clients that turn the service on for only a few months of the year; I'm NOT sure that is the majority, which is what I assumed you and I were referencing when quoting "people." I'd literally pay 3-4x as much for the non-original content. Again, that is only 6-16hrs of content Netflix has to serve up, that is only remotely interesting. The convenience and paying for the b…

I don't even think the 8 bucks a month savings would ever be worth the hassle to subscribe/unsubscribe on any regular basis. That's a brilliant pricing structure; one I never pay any attention to. They easily could get more out of me a month for the amount of value I get from it (and likely even more than that number if the quality of their unique content continues to shine).

This so very much. I find myself looking at software services, and apps, and saying $10? No way. But I'll buy a coffee or 2 a day without blinking. What's wrong with me/people? Why is stuff that's not physical so worthless?

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#124

Post by tracker1 »

kevinconroy wrote: post #100
filmgirlcw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, by consistently I mean without churn. See, what happens with Netflix, HBO, Showtime -- even regular cable -- is that subscriber churn happens. It's often cyclical. One of the reasons HBO staggers its release schedule for its programming is to try to get people to pay year-round (it's also why they introduced HBO Go -- in essence they gave up their home video revenue, or greatly limited it -- in exchange for keepi…

Even originally programming won't stop churn entirely. The originally programming is meant to pull in new subs and keep current subs engaged at higher levels so that they are less likely to churn. If you want to cancel your subscription for whatever reason already, it may not matter if they have 100 original series, you'll still cancel. It's all about increasing the lifetime value of each subscriber. One way is to ke…

You know what keeps me as a Netflix customer was how easy it was to cancel. A few years back, before online streaming, I just wasn't keeping up with the disks.. so I decided to cancel. No phone queue for an hour, no muss, no fuss, just cancelled online. I seem to remember getting maybe one email a month, not two or more a week... And when they added the online streaming, I came back.

I only use it a couple times a month, I find it hard to actually browse their catalog, but they do an okay job of suggestions. And I can usually find something interesting in a pinch. Most of all, I'm paying to keep them around, because of how good the experience was when I did cancel.

Contrast this to XM, when I had 3 radios, and only wanted to cancel one. Took three phone calls, with hold times of over 40 min each, to be mysteriously disconnected when they couldn't convince me to keep service on a radio in a car I no longer had. After that, I cancelled the whole thing.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#125

Post by lostlogin »

ericclemmons wrote: post #98
david927 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched the first episode and honestly didn't find it interesting.

I'm with you. The language didn't seem fitting, and if I remember correctly, it was a bit incestuous.

A bit. Repetitively. The teenage-boy-director style of boob/arse shots a a touch over the top at times too.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#126

Post by tracker1 »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #58
chatmasta wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's stopping Netflix from replicating this success? To what extent is the success of HBO purely a function of the capital they invest? i.e. what non-financial assets does HBO provide that contribute to the success of its shows? What does HBO bring to the table that Netflix can't?

Two things: Scale -- HBO is significantly larger when it comes to production capacity. HBO can also have far more shows in production at one time. That scale is partially a product of capital, but also one of point number 2: Experience -- This one can't be underestimated. HBO first started toying around with original content and series in the early 1990s but it wasn't until Larry Sanders that the show really started…

I usually think of the comedy specials as HBO's original content, going back to the 80's even. Given how successful LouisCK has been, it could be an opportunity to take this jewel from HBO in the near term. As shows like last comic standing have shown is that there are a lot of comedians out there that are very entertaining, the production costs can be relatively high quality, and low cost. Building out that area could be really good for Netflix, which already has a lot of older stand up content.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#127

Post by djhworld »

aidos wrote: post #35

I'm really cheering for Netflix. Outside of the US (I'm in the UK) people have complained about a lack of content but I'll pretty much give all my money to the people who bring back Arrested Development.

I'm a UK netflix user too, it's pretty great.

I wish HBO would offer a similar service to non-US citizens

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#128

Post by henrikschroder »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #102
ignostic wrote: post #79

The figures don't include pirating. If HBO had been smart enough to launch and promote HBO GO as a stand-alone service, pirating would be lower and streaming/revenue/official viewership would be higher.

Stand by for a deluge of replies explaining exactly how HBO is making more money by refusing to take peoples' money. I know, I know, I don't get it either.

That's because the cable bundling agreements they have make them obscene amounts of money. Those people are overpaying for the service, and that makes them more money than opening up HBO Go would.

It's not hard to understand, they're not idiots at HBO, they crunched the numbers and figured out how to get the most money.

In the future, there will be a tipping point when enough people have tired of "cable teevee" that the numbers will fall the other way, and when that happens, they'll leave the cable companies behind and push as hard as they can on HBO Go globally. They're already testing the waters and rolling out the infrastructure for it.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#129

Post by yoshizar »

The number of subscribers seems to be a total apples to oranges comparison, given the extremely different channels Netflix and HBO get customers.

If I could pay Netflix prices for HBO Go, I would do it in a heartbeat. But there's no way I'm going to buy a TV and pay +$100/month for cable to become an HBO subscriber.

Because of their different business models, you'd think that the only metric they should be measured on is revenue vs. revenue. To compare subscribers seems like sensationalism and poor logic.

Re: Netflix now bigger than HBO

#130

Post by dagw »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #22
malkia wrote: post #11

My wish is NetBO = NetFlix + HBO - then I can forget about cable provider. But as others are pointing out - it would be bad for competition.

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…

HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model.

They seem happy to offer such subscriber models outside the US, so they're obviously not refusing to think about it. I'm sure they think about it very much every day and have complete plans to roll out such a service in the US as well the second it makes financial sense.

Post reply on HN