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

Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

streamingobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 548 posts

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#441

Post by TallGuyShort »

afterburner wrote: post #438
TallGuyShort wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to work well for the Indie music crowd.

Doesn't the indie crowd also rely on word of mouth?

My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek - a reference to the stereotypical hipster who always has to have liked something before it was cool, and once it's cool they only like the older stuff (that you probably haven't heard of). In reality, I'm sure they do rely on word of mouth, or at least less mainstream, centralized-but-still-kind-of-centralized sources to aggregate and filter new stuff for what's good.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#442

Post by dwaltrip »

dflock wrote: post #309
hamax wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be ideal if they wouldn't have to spend time, but just because things don't work it doesn't mean you're now entitled to take something you didn't pay for. If the blender I bought doesn't work I should be able to take it back to store and get a refund. But just because I spent 30 minutes driving back to store, that doesn't mean I can just take another one from the shelves and walk out without paying.

Bits and atoms are not the same.

It's amazing that some still don't acknowledge this point. It's the difference between 99% (or higher) [1] profit margins and less than 10% profit margins, in the case of a kitchen blender.

Even more so, the 99% profit margin isn't the whole story, as torrents are arguably more efficient (by making use of spare bandwidth among the populace). The 1% marginal costs for legally downloaded media primarily exists only because of the company's need to tightly control distribution and charge for access. With torrents, this requirement disappears and the marginal costs drop even closer to zero.

[1] I'm only counting bandwith costs here, which seems to be at most $0.05 per GB. This is what Google charges for their CDN traffic, so their internal costs per GB must be lower: https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/cdn-interconnect#prici...

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#443

Post by bogomipz »

pkulak wrote: post #401
paol wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

Umm... there are about 100 services that will rent/sell you a movie online. I use Amazon for all my movie rental needs. Works great.

Could you recommend some that have deep catalog? I find the that iTunes and Amazon don't have anywhere near the deep catalog that I once enjoyed at my local video store.

For a real film buff being able to go rent F. W. Murnau's "Noseferatu", Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" or Polanski's "Knife in the Water" was really important to me and something I took for granted. Almost every large city had a least one such film nerd rental place. And now that video stores are gone there's just a void for so much of this content.

One beacon of hope though which is supposed to launch soon is a streaming venture by TCM and The Criterion Collection:

http://www.filmstruck.com/

I am really forward to this that and I hope its huge success.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#444

Post by nerfhammer »

SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

The content owners do want 10 different streaming services competing for licenses.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#445

Post by res0nat0r »

SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

The problem is that yourself and everyone else expects to have every movie ever made available for $10/month.

It just isn't financially possible. I'm sure Netflix could have a lot bigger permanent catalog, but you are going to be paying much more than what they charge now.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#446

Post by Nelson69 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #329
paol wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/

Is there anything that competes with that in terms of catalog? Redbox has replaced all the local rental places around here (Colorado) If something isn't streamed then dvd.netflix.com is the only option I know of.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#447

Post by dghughes »

SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

Someone needs to make a streaming streamer to stream Netflix, Hulu, etc. I guess Kodi addons are just that.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#448

Post by kodablah »

knotty66 wrote: post #306
ascagnel_ wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely not true. If you're looking for stuff that's popular here and now, you'll do fine (especially if you're a fan of Hollywood blockbusters). But as soon as you start looking for back catalogue stuff, you're in a mess of dead torrents and broken links. Want to find a mostly-forgotten science fiction movie from the mid-90s (in my case, Strange Days)? Two hours of hunting for a way of downloading it led…

I literally just opened The Pirate Bay, typed "Strange Days", and clicked the top result which has 20 seeds. Couldn't be easier... although maybe it is more difficult in your country, or with your ISP. https://pirateproxy.vip/search/Strange%20Days/0/99/0

This is actually a great example. There is only one torrent with more than one seeder referring to the movie (it has 17 seeders). So I am forced to use a single format to view the movie in, can't easily use an app to show it on my TV (key word being "easily"), can't choose subtitles for my language of choice, etc, etc. By accident you are making other people's point.

Were a more distributed, anonymous storage system to exist instead of on prioritizing seeding and recently used, larger catalogs and quality options might exist.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#449

Post by ghostly_s »

jerf wrote: post #254
pkroll wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that Hulu making the decision, or the content owners? I'm guessing they're going to keep making the wrong decisions, while the various services throw up their hands trying to deal with the insanity.

As a customer, I don't care. Tone note: I don't mean that snarkily, sarcastically, or dismissively, I simply mean that, I don't care. Or if you prefer, I can't care; there's nothing I can do to fix it short of what I just did. It really is bizarre to me how protective the entertainment industry can get of its content, in a context that I am paying for it (in fact I buy the Hulu non-commercial plan, upon which they ma…

The problem is, the whole way licensing is conceived in this industry is not for any individual property to individually generate an income. That's not good enough for studios or networks. They perceive some tremendous added value in the portfolio of shows or movie properties they have to offer. Consumers, of course, don't give a shit about this, as evidenced by their willingness to jump out of cable-land for anything that offers a modicum of greater purchasing power.

Hulu or the network are likely not making any more money off of you watching Penn & Teller's show. Penn & Teller's show is probably less-profitable per-viewer to the network, because Penn & Teller are stars with great agency who can demand a large cut of the pie. Hulu's and the network's incentives are largely to get away with offering you the properties from their portfolio with the lowest market value, without you deciding to cancel entirely. While you and many other readers here are willing to re-evaluate and cancel your streaming subscriptions on a regular basis, I suspect their average consumer does not behave that way.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#450

Post by tracker1 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #329
paol wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

"Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days." Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/

That was my thought as well.. no, it isn't instant gratification, but it does have value... I wonder how legal a dedicated feed rental system would be. Effectively, you rent a movie (as available) and someone puts it into a drive in a data center, that is then played for you directly, with the software interface controlling playback... you then click "return" when done watching... maybe a bonus for early returns (vs checked out for 24hrs).

It might take some custom hardware, but just a few larger central stores vs something like redbox for example.

Post reply on HN