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

Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#51

Post by MaxBarraclough »

pndy wrote: post #48

I'd be more satisfied with Netflix and other streaming services operating in my country if these would offer wider content catalogs not limited by licensing agreements - with ability to rent it, as classic vhs or dvd rental was working (no idea if that was already a thing on Netflix - it operates here since 2016). I had no clue that N. had Family Guy until I read on 3rd part site that it's being pulled out without an…

> ability to rent

Netflix are clearly only interested in the subscription model, but if you want a la carte rentals, they're available from Google/Amazon/Rakuten/Sony/Microsoft/Apple.

> such rental it's not going to happen because companies want to hold their deck of "cards" and refuse to share it with other tables in this video streaming casino

From a more optimistic angle, it's neat that Netflix can exist at all at its current pricepoint.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#52

Post by MaxBarraclough »

mac01021 wrote: post #21
abritinthebay wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also not zero sum though. There doesn’t have to be just one successful company standing.

Is it not zero sum? In other words, is there a way that Netflix and Amazon Video can cooperate with the result that each earns more income than would be possible if they were purely competitive? There are only 8 billion people in the world, and each can spend at most X hours per day watching streaming video. It seems to be clearly in the interest of each provider to try to obtain all X of those hours.

> It seems to be clearly in the interest of each provider to try to obtain all X of those hours.

Not so. You're confusing subscription-based revenue-stream with advertising-based revenue-stream.

Netflix's subscription is a flat rate, and they have no ads, so unlike YouTube they don't make money per hour of viewing.

The ideal case for Netflix is if I pay my monthly subscription, but don't watch anything at all. They get their money, but it minimises their server load. Of course, in reality, if they want to persuade me to keep my subscription, they'd better offer good content - if I'm watching nothing at all, I'm likely to cancel.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#53

Post by vertex-four »

pndy wrote: post #48

I'd be more satisfied with Netflix and other streaming services operating in my country if these would offer wider content catalogs not limited by licensing agreements - with ability to rent it, as classic vhs or dvd rental was working (no idea if that was already a thing on Netflix - it operates here since 2016). I had no clue that N. had Family Guy until I read on 3rd part site that it's being pulled out without an…

Note that Netflix in their mainstay countries is also full of filler - there’s actually only a limited catalogue of well-known TV and movies in general. That’s a huge part of why they’re doing their own shows now, so that they don’t have to fight for licensing.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#54

Post by quink »

blfr wrote: post #33

I've seen a couple of Netlflix shows and don't understand the improvement. It's the same TV junk but over the Internet. Now even made by the same people. Other forms of content have been completely transformed by the change in medium. Podcasts have built upon their radio legacy and diversified tremendously. YouTube allowed people to share nearly anything from incoherent rants to whole college courses. Netflix merely…

> Netflix merely replaced the ads with subscription and remains the same cognitive parasite TV was, pumping out stuff that you're better off not watching at all.

I fundamentally disagree - there's plenty of absolute gems on broadcast TV that are rendered unwatchable by ads and requiring a specific time. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is one I'm watching right now that I'd never watch on either TV, buy the DVD of or watch a limited selection of episodes on any of the broadcaster's streaming services that have ads.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#55

Post by isostatic »

muse900 wrote: post #44
endisukaj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's tons of great TV shows nowadays. Mentioning Grey's anatomy and Glee does a disservice to TV. Besides the obvious Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad there's Stranger things, Black Mirror, Westworld, just to name a few. Hell, all of the above are much much better than 90% of the crappy Marvel/superhero/blockbuster movie Hollywood keeps spewing nowadays.

I'll agree with you and the OP. I think what the OP is trying to say here is that for example netflix just mass produces shows with the same people over and over again dropping the quality of its shows. I'd say netflix has some good shows to watch, but the way its going and the way its producing shows I'd say most of netflix shows are garbage with only a few of them being nice to watch.

What you consider garbage others consider good. Netflix knows what you watch, they are the product, you are the customer. There's no competition for time slots where people who like $goodshow are drowned out by people who like $populartrash

With legacy tv you are the product, the show is the overhead, and the advertisers are the customer. With Netflix you are the customer and the show is the product.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#56

Post by isostatic »

slededit wrote: post #8
abritinthebay wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the implied point is about it being mainstream . Which what you’re describing explicitly isn’t.

Piracy was mainstream in the early 90s/2000s. It was only when iTunes came out and the RIAA lawsuits successfully killed the p2p clients that it tamed back down.

Napster made music sharing mainstream c. 1999, but only the most extreme people were DCCing sg1 episodes over modems at that point.

It was the emergence of iTunes that killed off unauthorised sharing - because the product was available at a reasonable price in the way people wanted it.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#57

Post by dustincoates »

Cyph0n wrote: post #38
untog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't dismiss Hulu, but they're also very obviously not in the same league. For one, they're US-only. Handmaid's Tale is aired on other channels/services worldwide.

Also, they force you to watch ads on top of the subscription you're paying. I'd rather pay more than watch 3 minutes of shitty ads per episode.

You can. Hulu offers a commercial free option with the customer paying more, though there are six shows that have commercials at the beginning and end.

https://www.hulu.com/nocommercials https://help.hulu.com/en-us/included-in-no-commercials-plan

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#58

Post by isostatic »

petepete wrote: post #49
tyingq wrote: post #4

I wouldn't dismiss their competition either. I specifically paid for Hulu solely for "The Handmaids Tail", an incredibly well done drama. ( https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5834204/ ) Still dwarfed by Netflix with a ~$10B market cap, this battle isn't over. Amazon has a decent shot as well.

The Handmaid's Tale is great, and here in the UK is shown on Channel 4 (free to air, only a TV licence is required). Then there's Billions, my current favourite show, which is on Sky Atlantic (subscription, about £30 per month) - also home to Game Of Thrones and everything else HBO. If you add Prime for Mr Robot and Netflix for Stranger Things, it starts to get quite expensive.

Not sure about sky Atlantic, but channel 4 has adverts, thus dramas aren't watchable.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#59

Post by learnstats2 »

JackCh wrote: post #45
SteveNuts wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example?

It's probably best for civility's sake if he didn't. Would it really add much to the discussion if he did? I think it should suffice to say that the range of netflix content is far narrower than the ideological range of the general population.

Surely the opposite is true: Netflix is providing content for a broader ideological range.

They are still listing Friends and Breaking Bad, you're just not furious about those.

Re: Netflix is moving television beyond time-slots and national markets

#60

Post by isostatic »

dustincoates wrote: post #57
Cyph0n wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they force you to watch ads on top of the subscription you're paying. I'd rather pay more than watch 3 minutes of shitty ads per episode.

You can. Hulu offers a commercial free option with the customer paying more, though there are six shows that have commercials at the beginning and end. https://www.hulu.com/nocommercials https://help.hulu.com/en-us/included-in-no-commercials-plan

So they still do adverts? No, I hate adverts, they steal my time and rewire my brain. Paying for them as well? Disgusting.
Post reply on HN