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

491–500 of 548 posts

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

#491

Post by wtetzner »

oldmanjay wrote: post #483
caleblloyd wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their DVD service may still exist, but my DVD player does not.

That's not really a flaw of netflix, is it? If you believe it is, I'd love to understand your reasoning.

I'm not the OP, but I'll give it a shot :)

The value Netflix provides is primarily convenience. There are other ways to watch movies and TV shows, the reason to use Netflix is that it's more convenient than the alternatives.

Having to deal with physical media (and wait for them to be delivered) is less convenient than other alternatives to Netflix. Therefore, it's a flaw of Netflix.

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

#492

Post by enjo »

bogomipz wrote: post #443
pkulak wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fil…

Google too:

Noseferatu: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Nosferatu_The_V...

Blowup: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Blowup?id=5esCY...

Knife in the water: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Knife_in_the_Wa...

I prefer Google to the Amazon option. Much better device support (it works on pretty much every device out there) and the overall UI is just fantastic.

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

#493

Post by turc1656 »

gregmac wrote: post #470
dragonwriter wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DVD players are cheap, so that's an easily solved problem.

My willingness to deal with physical media, let alone the postal service (any more then I am forced to, anyway) disappeared a few years ago. How is Netflix able to get rights to send physical media, but not stream? It seems to me that literally the only real difference is physical media means there is a limit on number of concurrent viewers.

I understand the desire for instant gratification, not to mention the desire to be free of the money pit called the USPS.

That being said, physical media has far superior audio and video quality. A Bluray disc vs streaming 1080p (especially a Netflix stream) is a world of difference. Streaming media is usually bit-starved to near death. If you care about quality (and you very well may not), it's the only way to fly.

If you don't mind the subpar video and audio quality, then I can understand why people use the streaming service. It's just not for me, though. I have a 49" 4k TV and a Bluray player that upscales for a reason. I don't want that swill they serve up over ethernet, lol.

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

#494

Post by soneil »

dragonwriter wrote: post #328
bcrescimanno wrote: post #304

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…

Do people not binge watch movies on Netflix because of something inherent in the form, or because Netflix doesn't make continuous play of related sets of movjrs, especially serial franchises (where it would make sense just as it does for TV series) possible, both because it doesn't support it as the default (or even an optional) mode in the UI as it does for TV series and because it also rarely has whole franchises i…

I suspect there’s a question of causality. Do people get netflix so they can binge-watch, or do they binge-watch because it’s the only thing netflix does well?

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

#495

Post by khedoros1 »

sqeaky wrote: post #464
seattlefreeze wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other option is not watching the films -- this would prevent consuming a good without paying for it.

Watching a movie does not "consume" it. In the economic sense consumption means a resource is used and cannot readily be re-used at its original quality. Copying a file does not deprive anybody of anything, I cannot even see a reasonable argument when the case involves a market where the good is not even offered for sale.

I'm pretty sure that they meant "consume" as in "watch", not "consume" as in "make unavailable for further use". So, watching a movie doesn't consume it, but one does consume movies.

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

#496

Post by jra_samba »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #202
sgeisenh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy and larceny are entirely different crimes. Nobody "stole" anything, in this particular situation. In order for something to be "stolen", the victim must lose something that they already had. You might try to argue that streaming services lost a sale, but they never had the sale and they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale. To be clear, I am not promoting piracy, it does pose ethical…

The 'book value' of items in the corner market is negligible. The real value is in having that soda available, cold and ready for you. And in marketing that fact. So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

I can't believe people are still equating copyright infringement with physical theft. Didn't that tired old argument die a long time ago ? If not, why not ?

One more time, boys and girls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

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

#497

Post by herge »

blakeyrat wrote: post #480
dragonwriter wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people not binge watch movies on Netflix because of something inherent in the form, or because Netflix doesn't make continuous play of related sets of movjrs, especially serial franchises (where it would make sense just as it does for TV series) possible, both because it doesn't support it as the default (or even an optional) mode in the UI as it does for TV series and because it also rarely has whole franchises i…

I really wish Netflix had the YouTube-esque ability for users to make and share playlists. All the Star Trek series and films are on Netflix. Wouldn't it be great to have a playlist of every episode by original air date? (So you don't get confused when Deep Space 9 refers to an event in First Contact?) Wouldn't it be awesome to have a playlist of only the top 20 Voyager episodes, so you don't have to suffer through t…

I think their UI is purposefully bad to make it hard to notice titles coming in and out of circulation, as the deals they have with different production companies expire.

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

#498

Post by wtetzner »

dimino wrote: post #360
ArkyBeagle wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bread and butter" - there's no differential income stream from anything on Netflix. It's just two bits' worth - streaming yes/no, DVD yes/no. I'd be hard pressed to find the link to support this, but my understanding is that DVD/BluRay sales are the mechanism by which the "last mile" of movie finance is accomplished. My wife and I recently made the decision to stop Netflix. We'd kept a tally and Amazon Video was use…

It's $10/month, peanuts considering what you're getting. Your careful analysis of a purchase that's doable using the literal change falling out of your pocket is not representative of the folks who purchase Netflix (not representative of any purchasing group, really). They're not catering to the folks like yourself.

> It's $10/month, peanuts considering what you're getting.

It's not peanuts if you don't think you're getting much value (e.g. it doesn't have the stuff you wanna watch).

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

#499

Post by wtetzner »

jackfrodo wrote: post #314
bcrescimanno wrote: post #304

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…

What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.

Isn't it more expensive for Netflix if people are spending more time watching it? Obviously they need to watch it enough to be willing to continue paying the subscription, but it seems like movies might be enough to do that.

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

#500

Post by jra_samba »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #119
ekianjo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.

I know; I have to keep bringing it up because people keep pretending they're owed entertainment. This entitled generation is just disappointing.

Is that the entitled corporate generation you're disappointed in ? You know, the kind of entitlement that thinks "the author's life plus 70 years" is a reasonable term for copyright length.

How many more works does the author create in the +70 years after death ? If the answer (I suspect) is zero, what possible:

".. promotion of the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

can there be in that time ?

Post reply on HN