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

Netflix is on Fire

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 164 posts

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#131

Post by EthanHeilman »

buro9 wrote: post #77

Netflix has it easy on content production, all they need do is fill evening TV viewing for a younger generation, and content that can be put in front of children. They do not have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content, Netflix is all killer no filler in terms of content production. And it turns out, that that's only a few hundred hours of TV per viewer per year, many of whom belong to those same sma…

According to this[0] Netflix has 65 million subscribers who watch 100 million hours of Netflix a day, which works out to around 1.5 hours of Netflix per day per subscriber.

In 2014 [1] people in the US watched an average of 2.8 hours of TV per day.

I think you make a good point but it leaves me asking is filler important and if so why? Are viewers going to watch filler if they don't find anything good on Netflix? My guess is that live events like sports and news are the two elements of TV which Netflix can't replace.

[0]: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/netflix_statistics-fa...

[1]: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#132

Post by mike-cardwell »

wyager wrote: post #124
mike-cardwell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feb 2015 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659 "The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said." "The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead." Yeah. So if enough people decide they don't need or want the BBC so they're not paying for it, it will hit a threshold where they just…

Maybe this is just a cultural thing, but is that not messed up? It seems wrong, or at least very wasteful, to force people to pay for state-produced entertainment. Even the current TV licensing scheme is bad, because it assumes you watch BBC content if you have a TV.

The majority of the public like the content the BBC produces. They don't think any further than that.

Yes, it is messed up.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#133

Post by rileymat2 »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #123
krautsourced wrote: post #103

It should however also be noted that the people who rate stuff on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes (namely, people who go on the Internet to look at movie reviews, discuss, rate etc.) are also probably most of the target audience for streaming services in general. While "Big TV" also caters for the older demographic, people who like reality tv (yes, apparently they do exist, I don't know...) etc., which still make up probably…

I don't think the entire massed effort of the entire entertainment industry for all time can provide 6 hours/day of "stuff that is not shit." Roughly 6 hours/week is close to doable for the current industry if they don't make too many mistakes. Reality TV began with GenX/millenials (MTV in the '90s with The Real World) and I'm not familiar with people older than that who watch that. I say that; I'll watch Counting Ca…

Did reality TV begin with Real World on MTV? What about shows like "Cops"? I think that predates Real World.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#134

Post by crdoconnor »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34
fredley wrote: post #8

Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License. I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you…

The BBC's big threat just now is probably not the Internet, but the current Government. It's already lost £.75bn of its budget, and some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

>some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

Friends of Rupert Murdoch.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#135

Post by twic »

dagw wrote: post #108
mitchty wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know how to parse that last sentence. What is the logic (or lack thereof) there? I don't keep up with what the BBC gets done to it by the UK government.

Basically it's a principle argument around the role of government companies. Should government companies compete directly with local private companies in non-essential sectors? There are already lots of british companies producing popular entertainment shows, why should they have to compete against the government that is also supposed to support them. How would you feel if your taxes went to finance your direct compe…

I know this is the standard argument against state participation in the economy, but in the particular case of the BBC, i have never heard this argument seriously presented.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#136

Post by delecti »

wtbob wrote: post #107

I wonder how much of Netflix's success is that its show are good, and how much is that they are easy to watch. Anytime I want to, I can go to Netflix and watch any episode of their shows. I ca watch the first season; I can watch the intervening seasons; I can watch the current season. There are no blackouts; there are no embargoes. I can binge-watch if I want, or I can pace myself, at my pace. Compare that to the big…

Netflix is super cheap, and obscenely easy. It's more difficult to pirate than to watch something on Netflix, which should really be the goal of any service.

For me, it's almost entirely that it's easy. Aside from Daredevil and a handful of their comedy specials, I haven't watched any of their produced content, and I'd be just as satisfied if it didn't exist.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#137

Post by twic »

mitchty wrote: post #90
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC's big threat just now is probably not the Internet, but the current Government. It's already lost £.75bn of its budget, and some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

I really don't know how to parse that last sentence. What is the logic (or lack thereof) there? I don't keep up with what the BBC gets done to it by the UK government.

The BBC is the only widely-consumed source of serious political journalism in the UK that is not controlled by a plutocrat. Naturally, the Conservatives want to destroy it.

Not that the last Labour government were very keen on it!

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#138

Post by criddell »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #125
criddell wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials The last time I looked, the commercial free version of Hulu still had commercials for some shows. Has that changed?

I haven't seen any commercials since I started paying $11.98/month, a plan that they say is "No Commercials."

This page:

  http://www.hulu.com/help/articles/52427902
says some shows still have commercials:

Grey’s Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl and How To Get Away With Murder

It also says shows available for next-day viewing will still have commercials.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#139

Post by delecti »

rileymat2 wrote: post #133
ArkyBeagle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the entire massed effort of the entire entertainment industry for all time can provide 6 hours/day of "stuff that is not shit." Roughly 6 hours/week is close to doable for the current industry if they don't make too many mistakes. Reality TV began with GenX/millenials (MTV in the '90s with The Real World) and I'm not familiar with people older than that who watch that. I say that; I'll watch Counting Ca…

Did reality TV begin with Real World on MTV? What about shows like "Cops"? I think that predates Real World.

I feel like it's worth distinguishing between reality TV with a consistent cast like Real World, and those without like Cops, which is almost more like a documentary in that sense.

I'm not sure how I'd make the distinction clear though, because stuff like "Ghost Hunters" feels a lot more like the Real World kind, despite being (ostensibly) more like a documentary.

Re: Netflix is on Fire

#140

Post by pdappollonio »

criddell wrote: post #115
mark_l_watson wrote: post #15

We are huge Netflix fans (my wife and I have our own streaming accounts, which is stupid now since they offer family options for separating play lists). That said, I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials, is also a fine product and Hulu is owned by the large network stations. We get Amazon Prime free shipping via my brother's business so we have not signed up ourselves and don't get the free Amazon P…

> I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials The last time I looked, the commercial free version of Hulu still had commercials for some shows. Has that changed?

There are a few shows that large cable companies wants to have with ads. But it's minimal. I think one of them is "Once upon a time".
Post reply on HN