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

Netflix's New Chapter

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 314 posts

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#211

Post by MisterBastahrd »

zamadatix wrote: post #11
no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?

I can watch Disney shows for a month, cancel for 4 months, and then come back and maybe have enough content for another month. We're talking one or two movies and a TV show. It's simply not enough.

Disney+ is also a very specific fan-oriented service. Don't like Star Wars or comic books? Not a child? Good luck finding something worth watching that isn't a documentary.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#212

Post by f38zf5vdt »

xrd wrote: post #9

The first time I've seen a well written critique of activist investors like Carl Icahn. He certainly scuttled any chance that Blockbuster had of succeeding. He's often right about small details when it comes to traditional companies and where to cut costs (as are many activist investors), but this story reads like he sabotaged Blockbuster when it had an actual substantial and viable chance to compete. I had not heard…

"Activist investors" engage in what will be considered a crime in the near future, which is purchasing shares to obtain board ownership -> take in obscene amounts of debt for stock buybacks -> dump shares and let the company fall into bankruptcy. I prefer their original name "corporate raiders".

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#213

Post by LarryMullins »

no_wizard wrote: post #44
viciousvoxel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW my understanding is that WB withholding the Looney Tunes backlog is entirely due to the fact that there's a lot of problematic (e.g. racist, sexist) material in there that they're understandably worried about. I completely agree with you otherwise.

Disney+ got around this problem by just adding disclaimers to the content. They did this for all their questionable content, and if people reported it (IE they missed something) they were quick to add it. It seems Disney+ isn't scarred by this at all (it definitely doesn't dominate the public conversation around it), so perhaps there is a lead in here?

According to Wikipedia, Disney+ has the edited 1948 version of The Three Little Pigs, but not the original 1933 version with a disclaimer.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#214

Post by gumby »

ben7799 wrote: post #206
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that wasn't mentioned was that Netflix has a monstrously large catalogue at the time, and the user ratings and content recommendations made their offering extremely sticky. Switching to Blockbuster's competing service was a bit painful because you'd lose all your movie ratings, often stretching back years to the DVD-by-mail era. While Blockbuster could acquire brand new streaming subscribers by pricing thei…

Most of us weren't Netflix customers yet at the time this was going on. Whatever the case I was an active in-store Blockbuster customer at the time their stuff started to launch and I never had an inkling they were doing anything online. It was only a couple years later I remember trying the Netflix DVDs in the mail service. I don't remember actually subscribing till I moved into my current house in 2010. When we mov…

> I was an active in-store Blockbuster customer at the time their stuff started to launch and I never had an inkling they were doing anything online.

In a comment in this thread, jonfw mentioned that Blockbuster was a franchise business, which I hadn't known. That would explain why the physical shops wouldn't advertise an online alternative -- it would have been a direct competitor.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#215

Post by adam_arthur »

paxys wrote: post #147
zamadatix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?

Disney's content library only appeals to very specific demographics. Mostly just kids and the Avengers/Star Wars crowd. Netflix has something for literally everyone.

Disney has a lot of adult content as well (via subsidiaries), but as far as I know they have pushed most of this to Hulu.

But yes, as a guy in his 30s, Disney+ provides nothing compelling to me. I do pay for Hulu though

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#216

Post by Fuzzwah »

zamadatix wrote: post #11
no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?

I have a pet theory, many families use D+ as a second streaming service mostly for the family content. Because of this there's no real concern about "profile contamination". So multiple profiles aren't needed for individuals who live in the same household. The profiles end up being used to share the account with other households.

A grandparents single account is used in the households of all their grandchildren.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#217

Post by lastofthemojito »

ghaff wrote: post #34
darth_avocado wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…

>You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. I suspect that, in addition to ad-supported tiers, we'll see more annual subscriptions or at least subscriptions where annual is sufficiently cheaper on a monthly basis that it's essentially an offer a lot of people can't refuse.

> I suspect that, in addition to ad-supported tiers, we'll see more annual subscriptions or at least subscriptions where annual is sufficiently cheaper on a monthly basis that it's essentially an offer a lot of people can't refuse.

I think they're already experimenting with things like that. I signed up for an annual subscription when Disney+ launched (I knew my wife and kid would love it) and when it came time to renew they offered a "Disney Drop Box" as a reward for signing up for another year. The box was a themed selection of Disney merchandise that they claimed was valued at ~$150, which is probably a stretch, but my kid loved it.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#218

Post by ben7799 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #64
me_me_me wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has massive range and tons of way to push their services onto users, and google+ failed miserably. Resources are not guarantee of success.

I'm convinced that what killed Google+ was their slow rollout, which was an absolutely bone-headed move that I'm really surprised a company like Google would make. Google+ was a social network. For a social network to have any value, you need your friends to be on it as well. By making it invite-only and throttling how many people could join, they guaranteed that most of your friends weren't there and COULDN'T be the…

Excellent point. It's easy to remember google stuff used to be limited and "cool" and it was desirable to get an invite.

G+ was around the time that started to swing around and people didn't think Google was so amazing or desirable.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#219

Post by jimjimjim »

WalterBright wrote: post #172
darth_avocado wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…

What I don't understand about the movie business is the cost of making them. The most important ingredient to the success of a movie is the plot. We've all seen low budget movies that made lots of money - because of the plot. Casablanca, Psycho, Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, Primer, ... Star Trek TOS was a very low budget affair, and produced excellent results, because they hired the best scifi writers. When they…

nah, you can't tell me that the transformers movies have plot and they raked in the money!

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#220

Post by mattkrause »

auggierose wrote: post #208
WalterBright wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or rotate what parts of the library are available each month.

Or each day! And we are back to where we started.

Hear me out: what if we had like...an hour block where EVERYONE streamed one of the same 15-20 shows at the same time?

Obviously, we'd also need to have a few random catch-up blocks for older shows, maybe in the mid-afternoon. Perhaps we could even do it over the air wirelessly, with no ISPs involved.

Post reply on HN