From the article: "I’m not a binge watcher. I’ve never been much of a TV viewer. I didn’t even own a television until my mid-30s. [...] but I get restless if I spend too much time staring into that flickering screen. My wife Tara has a similar attitude."
This honestly makes me wonder "ok, why should I listen to you, then?"
It doesn't help that they then go ahead and give an, at best, oversimplified explanation of why VHS won against Beta.[1] Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. (And calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system"... oh dear, I get the point you are trying to make, but "open" and 90's anti-trust Microsoft in the same sentence is pretty bold.)
Maybe the conclusions are still valid, I can't tell. I remember that what made Netflix so immensely attractive to me, a "binge watcher" of many many TV shows and with many friends who were at least to some extent binge watchers, was that Netflix was the platform that had all the movies and especially TV shows that I wanted to binge watch.
The OS comparison is especially bad since we have seen very little meaningful competition in that space.
Linux dominates the server space.
Windows dominates the desktop/laptop market, with Apple a niche player and Linux even more niche.
On mobile, it's more balanced but there is still a duopoly.
Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up.
> Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.? Do you think Netflix can match that with its proprietary approach? The company will be forced to open up its own system, or face inevitable decline, perhaps even obsolescence.
The author does not understand media distribution and has this exactly backwards. Netflix did want to be the single monthly subscription, but the content rightsholders would never allow it because it cedes all the distribution control to Netflix. The last good deal Netflix got was the Starz deal in 2008 when the studios still underestimated the future of streaming. After that it was a steady downward trend, and Netflix realized that as a middle man they had no future, so they entered a race to become HBO (by producing their own content) faster than HBO (and all the other major content rightsholders) could build their own distribution.
The idea that Netflix is somehow "proprietary", and the other examples from other industries are "open standards" is specious gobbledygook. You have to look at specifics. For instance, Netflix doesn't make devices, they integrate with smart TVs and OTT boxes which absolutely are open standards as much as any of the other examples. And even within the Netflix bubble they do license others content, so it's not all "proprietary", but on the other hand it's an app, not a platform, so you can't really compare it to a payments network or an operating system like Microsoft Windows—that is what Roku, Samsung and Apple provide, not Netflix.
The whole article is just another in a long tail of naive consumer complaints, decrying how things "should" be from their perspective, but in total ignorance of the incentives and systems that lead to things to being the way they actually are.
(full disclosure: I co-founded and led a streaming company from 2007-2016)
I think the author of the article has absolutely no credential in the discussion given that he barely watches content (despite paying for 6 subscriptions, go figure?), however I think the conclusion isn't exactly wrong.
I think Spotify, Deezer, Netflix, HBO, etc. are all doomed to fail. They're doomed to fail because the competition is Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. which all have virtually infinite money to inject in those services, while the others only have a single income source.
Nobody cares if PrimeVideo runs at a loss for years or even decades, and the stock price of Amazon won't move an inch if PrimeVideo looses watchers. But at some point investors will stop lending money to one-trick monkeys like Spotify and Netflix.
HBO is Warner Media. They'll be fine. Microsoft thought it was going to own all of media in the early oughts, and produced... Slate and MSNBC. Apple isn't making much of a dent with Apple TV.
Not sure others, but Netflix is the Apple in streaming. They are able to churn out mega hits like Squid Games. Look at Apple TV, reminds me of Steve Jobs effort in Ping the Apple Fecebook years ago. Bezos got other interest in space for now. Google isn't famous for ability to create hits....ahem G+ and G-glass. Disney+ has built-in goodwill from their past. I see many kids these days not into Mickey Mouse stuff compare to 20yrs ago. Disney is trying to build more legacy by buying Marvel and Star Wars. Reminds me a lot of their effort of securing Pixar back then. Problem with this franchises are that they tend to fizzle out years later. See what happen to last few Star Wars movies. However if you have consistency in generating hits like Netflix in the pasts decades, that sounds a lot like Apple. That means they will be able to survive to adapt with new stuff. Unlike those milking the pasts like Star Trek, Bobba Fett, adsense, prime, etc.
I remember when working for Netflix there were three moments where I realized I joined a different company than I thought. I realized they combined engineer’s misunderstanding of their business and combined it high salaries provided by similarly confused investors to dominate a single vertical with no appetite to ever compete with the actual tech companies.
1) Seeing the Netflix prototype set top box and learning it was spun out into Roku
2) Hearing leadership repeat the mantra “become HBO before HBO becomes us”
3) Management’s about-face during the Flixter debacle turned into an overreaction against pivoting or building additional verticals outside entertainment
>It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes
Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined.
Add in Squid Game, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place and more original content, and I think Netflix is honestly the king of quality content right now. They seem to be in the sweet spot, budget-wise, where they can afford to actually bring the director's vision to life, without the production values being so high that they can't afford to take risks.
> >It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes
>
> Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined.
I think he's just talking about mass appeal, not quality. Netflix has lots of great stuff, but Disney has some of the biggest properties in film & TV.
The real problem with Netflix is that it's a middleman - besides its handful of original productions, it's really just providing replaceable infrastructure. In the long term, bandwidth is free and payments are frictionless, so what value can they provide?
Its existence relies on the delicate balance where it's providing what's perceived as a superior deal for both viewers and producers. Not a comfortable position!
I think the author makes some good points. I've been a customer of Netflix way back when it was DVDs-in-envelopes and that was awesome because you could get just about any new movie as soon as it was released. The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for. Instead, I'm railroaded into things Netflix created instead, by the algorithm that suggests similar alternatives, all of which feel like cheap knock-offs. I want to watch Star Wars. I want to watch Back to the Future. I want to watch Donnie Darko. And not just when Netflix happens to have them on the catalog.
> The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for.
This is my experience exactly. Netflix has mostly retreated into an "originals"-heavy strategy with an extremely low batting average. Because they have a weak editorial POV, they abruptly and unceremoniously cancel quality content that doesn't perform well, to the point that you're a fool if you start watching a promising-looking series before it completes. If we didn't get such a good deal via T-Mobile, we'd have canceled already.
Then something happened, my time got more valuable and streaming wasn't as interesting. So I doubled down on dvds and eventually netflix unsubscribed me from streaming because I didn't use it (kudos netflix).
What the author fails to understand is that everyone has different tastes and that is what makes Netflix so formidable. It doesn't need the big showcase shows that Disney has.
The most popular shows on Netflix for 2021: Bridgerton, Lupin, The Witcher, Sex/Life, Stranger Things, Money Heist, Tiger King, Queens Gambit, Sweet Tooth and Emily In Paris. That is quite a diverse set of demographics that would be watching those shows.
And then you have the recent popularity of Korean shows e.g. Squid Game, All of Us Are Dead, Kingdom etc which Netflix is pioneering by bringing to Western audiences.
Netflix is far more multi-faceted and nuanced than it gets credit for.
There's a lot of bias here. How many people care about tv so much they would switch platforms for a show? I mean, I care a lot but I will never get paramount+ for Halo or Disney+ for star trek. It's the only thing to do when I am just tired and need to sit down.
I am very tolerant of mediocre shows. I used only prime until a few months ago and I am honestly aghast and in awe of the amount of content on netflix. I feel like I could never run out of random things I can put on I haven't seen already. I think a lot of people do the same to the point where they have a "just play something" feature. Amazon prime had good content but slim pickings! And half the stuff you have to pay for, ran out of free stuff fast. Hulu likes ads too much, low value content too.
My point is, Netflix is "tv" everything else is some site charging for video content. You turn your cable tv on to some channel and just watch what is on, so long as you haven't seen it already. Netflix lets you do that, everyone else, maybe they have good shows but not enough of them. The Netflix UX is amazing as well, it rivals apple UX in my opinion. It just works, even autoplay preview works well somehow! Their app also syncs well and lets you download content for long trips and such.
I have to disagree with OP. Netflix is here to stay. Don't tell anyone but I would gladly pay up to $99/mo for it as-is because similar quality on cable does not exist but I would be paying much more for premium cable.
"Netflix+chill" is only a thing because of their UX, can't do that on Hulu because ads ruin things for example.
I think you're a little behind the times here. Most of the major streaming services have features to automatically play something else when your video ends, and they have for some time--it's hardly a differentiator for Netflix. Likewise downloading content for trips. Hulu does show ads, but they've had an ad-free tier for years now. At the same time, Netflix's catalog has declined--shows that used to be big draws for them aren't there any more, from Mad Men to The Office. Their market share plunged in 2021, and I doubt that's the end of it.
I'm amazed people are so reluctant to pick up a subscription for 1 month to watch a show. $15 to watch a season of a show. It's not a life decision, it's a whim.
From my understanding the 'rights' to TV shows are actually auctioned quite openly due to royalty systems and pretty strong union contracts demanding their slice of that revenue. It's actually within the deal structure.
So I'm not sure Netflix is at too much risk of every studio colluding them out of these auctions. Especially when they are legitimately one of the richest 'producers' in LA.
Honestly, of all the services we've used Netflix is the one giving us more ROI and the one I'd never cancel.
We don't use Prime Video because there's barely any interesting content. We only have it because it comes included in Prime, but I'd never pay for it.
Disney is great in terms of tech, but I'm seriously considering canceling it because the ROI is so low.
Netflix keeps us interested. There's tons of Atmos 4K HDR content and their app/tech is great. At least once a month or so we binge a show at home. My wife also watches Netflix every day while exercising or when eating alone. I watch true crime documentaries, Nordic noir stuff, and even some Netflix movies from time to time.
We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. Also, it's quite ridiculous they don't stream content in Atmos 4K HDR that is available in that format like Game of Thrones.
We also had Apple+ for a few months. The app/tech is great but ended up cancelling it because we didn't enjoy any of the stuff there.
> We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K.
FWIW, that may be more a function of the playback device. On Apple TV, HBO Max picture quality has been great.
Even on Apple TV the app is very stupid in other ways, though. It often replays the last episode we saw when we continue watching a series, forcing us to scrub through to the end of an already-seen ep before we can enjoy the next one.
The point the author misses with examples of credit cards, ATMs, operating systems and video recorders is that those are all things you only really need one of. If there are two competing credit cards you pick the one that's best for you. With ATMs you use the most convenient. With OSs you use the one that came with your computer. And with video recorders ... well, you just don't use those any more.
Streaming services are different. You don't choose one. You buy all the ones that offer something you want and leave the rest. Sometimes if one feels stale you switch it out for a different one. Some people only have one at a time. Some people have several. There is no compelling reason for services to share or collaborate so long as they are able to profitably hold enough market share at any given time. Bundling is highly unlikely to ever happen. It's far more likely that we'll see product diversification like Netflix's alleged gaming platform. These services will need to show growth somehow, but it won't be by sharing content.
Netflix is cheap enough with enough content to make it a keeper. There are lots of other options but they are too niche (Curiosity Stream, Gaia) or too expensive (Fubu, YouTube TV). It feels like a weird redux but eventually maybe the big platforms - AppleTV, Roku, Youtube TV will be just like the giant aggregators of the past Cable TV world but you'll be able to pick and chose which channels to pay for (Netflix, Tennis Channel, Disney, HBO, etc.)
Now that it's moving to $15/mo I'm going to be taking a break. We have Amazon Prime and could save $60 by cutting Netflix for several months. Or we could spend $35 getting a channel on Prime and still save $25.
Netflix has the numbers, they need the programming to survive. They should show more patience with shows.
I don't thing Paramount+ or Peacock/NBC will penetrate enough, I think Disney+ will. HBO is kinda like Netflix, I think those two should merge: Netflix provides the tech/platform and a huge eyeball base, and HBO has better production. HBO could strengthen its cable offerings with Netflix programming, seems very win-win.
No idea what Cabletown's plans are for NBC/Peacock, but I think they should consider merging with Netflix too.
Who knows about Paramount+. CBS owns older viewers and network TV, so I think they are too stubborn to merge or capitulate. CBS cranks out a lot of "good for TV" programming, but is it appointment viewing? More like they've mastered the older viewer that plops down and surfs the main networks. They won't claim the younger viewer, won't get a good enough subscriber base, and they won't have a valuable enough catalog to demand good merger or licensing terms.
What is FOX doing? Do they have a big streaming platform?
One thing that is for sure, cable is on a deathmarch. The next round of NFL negotiations should be interesting, because ESPN (and by extension cable TV itself) is already stretched to the limit for the NFL contract, and the next one might break them if the cable economics continue to degrade in viewership (and portion of the cable bill ESPN gets to claim)
I disagree with the author's conclusions, mainly for reasons already stated: the examples given are of companies that provide fungible services, whereas Netflix offers unique programming; it's amassed a war chest of IP at this point; the cost of entry into this market is extremely high; the UX failures of Paramount+ and Amazon Prime, among others, only goes to show that Netflix's core competency isn't so simple to replicate. Imagine someone arguing that the Disney theme parks will falter because there Sea World, Cedar Fair, Six Flags and Dollywood could easily get together and replicate their success.
But aside from all of that, I find it irksome when columnists self-identify as "honest brokers," straight-shooters, true patriots, etc. Don't tell me you're trustworthy. Truth-tellers and liars make the exact same assertion. (Hasn't this man ever visited any two-tribe islands?) Just make your points, and respect your readers to determine that you can be trusted.
I love that the media has gone bear on Netflix. I'll take the position that it doesn't matter if they start failing, because there won't ever be a reason to completely fail. The people that own Netflix can just buy into the competitors, too, maybe encouraging them to weave together their offerings through a unified delivery system disguised as an independent company. Ultimately, Netflix is just a brand name - a brand name that started off associated with a completely different thing, rare films delivered by mail, and is now associated with mass-market stuff delivered like everything else. A shrunken, rump Netflix is nothing lost.
I do like all the non-English series content, although HBO does a lot of that, too. Maybe Netflix will ultimately just be a brand that co-produces and distributes a ton of the world's TV series, and a few prestige films every year.
Is one guy on Substack now "the media"? If so then I'm starting to understand why "the media" has become the go-to bogeyman for any cause we want to complain is under assault.
Surprised there are so many negative comments here because I think the author is spot on. Technologically, there is significant redundancy between streaming services and mergers would cut costs dramatically. The competition is all in the ownership of the content, which is costly to produce, so again consolidation makes sense.
Another very similar medium to TV streaming is the podcasting space, and it has seen a lot of consolidation with Spotify gobbling up Gimlet and Anchor among others and Apple+ going on their own buying sprees. New original studios seem to get absorbed very quickly.
The observation about people getting sick of a fractured subscription market seems also true. Not sure if Netflix will completely falter but if there's ever some kind of ganging up between Netflix competitors it's hard to not think that Netflix would have a tough time.
This person used VISA, a part of (debatably the worst tri-opoly) as example of something open? Insane. I was genuinely interested in where he was going but this was just a huge fail.
New entrants who wish to take on credit card offerings cannot flourish due to Visa and Mastercard's monopolistic practices.
If you are looking to take on credit cards than sure it’s hard to be a new processor. If you are a bank, it’s fairly simple to issue your customers a Mastercard. I think the small players at this scale are still multi-million dollar studios and production companies.
He totally ignored the business fundamentals of the entertainment industry. Content is king and content is an extremely capital-intensive business. No existing entertainment business is willing to cooperate on content distribution because that would severely reduce their margins.
Netflix's strategy is indeed the right strategy because they can create long-lasting IP and horizontally expand their business into other entertainment verticals.
Aggregation is by far the worst strategy in content distribution because you don't have bargaining power. As you start adding users to your platform, you will proportionally lose power to renegotiate licenses because IP owners will attribute your growth to their content. It's a zero-sum game.
With the increasing balkanization of streaming TV/film services, I wonder if piracy will start making a comeback. When everything (or most things) are under one roof, streaming makes sense - a single bill, one place to find content etc. Wondering which show is on which platform, or having to consider signing up for a subscription to a new service for a single show is not a good user experience, not to mention the single monthly bill ballooning to 3 or more.
> But financial analysts underestimate the risks Netflix took on when it decided to be self-sufficient, creating its own library of movies and TV shows. This huge and ongoing cash drain is a weakness, not a strength.
this is a terrible analysis. Netflix recognized early on that they need to start yesterday (years ago) before other streaming services came online. it's why they're still relevant today.
Otherwise I must confess: I was bearish on netflix, and still am overall. But their investments are thoughtful and strategic, squid game being a recent example. I don't love them, but they're the only service I'm paying for.
their weakness is the monthly cost for unlimited streaming. Once you're basically in every home, the only way you can extract more money is to raise the rates. When a hit show comes out, people may signup for a month to watch and then cancel, and they certainly honor that behavior. But they're also mindful of ads and the expectations of their current user base, and will have to get creative on generating new revenue. I give them 50/50 they find a way.
[+] [-] anyfoo|4 years ago|reply
This honestly makes me wonder "ok, why should I listen to you, then?"
It doesn't help that they then go ahead and give an, at best, oversimplified explanation of why VHS won against Beta.[1] Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. (And calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system"... oh dear, I get the point you are trying to make, but "open" and 90's anti-trust Microsoft in the same sentence is pretty bold.)
Maybe the conclusions are still valid, I can't tell. I remember that what made Netflix so immensely attractive to me, a "binge watcher" of many many TV shows and with many friends who were at least to some extent binge watchers, was that Netflix was the platform that had all the movies and especially TV shows that I wanted to binge watch.
[1] Here's a very good video going into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60
[+] [-] cgrealy|4 years ago|reply
Linux dominates the server space. Windows dominates the desktop/laptop market, with Apple a niche player and Linux even more niche. On mobile, it's more balanced but there is still a duopoly.
Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up.
[+] [-] B1FF_PSUVM|4 years ago|reply
You could run any app you wanted.
Try that with your phone.
P.S.
also, you do not have the root password for your phone, or your e-reader, or your TV, or your watch, or ... you get the idea.
[+] [-] bsder|4 years ago|reply
And porn.
As I recall, Sony wouldn't sell Beta tape or cameras to porn companies.
[+] [-] 323|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasil003|4 years ago|reply
The author does not understand media distribution and has this exactly backwards. Netflix did want to be the single monthly subscription, but the content rightsholders would never allow it because it cedes all the distribution control to Netflix. The last good deal Netflix got was the Starz deal in 2008 when the studios still underestimated the future of streaming. After that it was a steady downward trend, and Netflix realized that as a middle man they had no future, so they entered a race to become HBO (by producing their own content) faster than HBO (and all the other major content rightsholders) could build their own distribution.
The idea that Netflix is somehow "proprietary", and the other examples from other industries are "open standards" is specious gobbledygook. You have to look at specifics. For instance, Netflix doesn't make devices, they integrate with smart TVs and OTT boxes which absolutely are open standards as much as any of the other examples. And even within the Netflix bubble they do license others content, so it's not all "proprietary", but on the other hand it's an app, not a platform, so you can't really compare it to a payments network or an operating system like Microsoft Windows—that is what Roku, Samsung and Apple provide, not Netflix.
The whole article is just another in a long tail of naive consumer complaints, decrying how things "should" be from their perspective, but in total ignorance of the incentives and systems that lead to things to being the way they actually are.
(full disclosure: I co-founded and led a streaming company from 2007-2016)
[+] [-] iLoveOncall|4 years ago|reply
I think Spotify, Deezer, Netflix, HBO, etc. are all doomed to fail. They're doomed to fail because the competition is Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. which all have virtually infinite money to inject in those services, while the others only have a single income source.
Nobody cares if PrimeVideo runs at a loss for years or even decades, and the stock price of Amazon won't move an inch if PrimeVideo looses watchers. But at some point investors will stop lending money to one-trick monkeys like Spotify and Netflix.
[+] [-] tptacek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jansen333|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] birdyrooster|4 years ago|reply
1) Seeing the Netflix prototype set top box and learning it was spun out into Roku
2) Hearing leadership repeat the mantra “become HBO before HBO becomes us”
3) Management’s about-face during the Flixter debacle turned into an overreaction against pivoting or building additional verticals outside entertainment
[+] [-] codazoda|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AussieWog93|4 years ago|reply
Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined.
Add in Squid Game, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place and more original content, and I think Netflix is honestly the king of quality content right now. They seem to be in the sweet spot, budget-wise, where they can afford to actually bring the director's vision to life, without the production values being so high that they can't afford to take risks.
[+] [-] autarch|4 years ago|reply
I think he's just talking about mass appeal, not quality. Netflix has lots of great stuff, but Disney has some of the biggest properties in film & TV.
[+] [-] tptacek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|4 years ago|reply
Its existence relies on the delicate balance where it's providing what's perceived as a superior deal for both viewers and producers. Not a comfortable position!
[+] [-] marktolson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kupopuffs|4 years ago|reply
I'd say they're continuing the fight and thank God as a viewer some of their productions have been amazing
[+] [-] adamc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] softwarebeware|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CharlesW|4 years ago|reply
This is my experience exactly. Netflix has mostly retreated into an "originals"-heavy strategy with an extremely low batting average. Because they have a weak editorial POV, they abruptly and unceremoniously cancel quality content that doesn't perform well, to the point that you're a fool if you start watching a promising-looking series before it completes. If we didn't get such a good deal via T-Mobile, we'd have canceled already.
[+] [-] m463|4 years ago|reply
Then something happened, my time got more valuable and streaming wasn't as interesting. So I doubled down on dvds and eventually netflix unsubscribed me from streaming because I didn't use it (kudos netflix).
I now am exclusively netflix dvds and love it.
[+] [-] threeseed|4 years ago|reply
What the author fails to understand is that everyone has different tastes and that is what makes Netflix so formidable. It doesn't need the big showcase shows that Disney has.
The most popular shows on Netflix for 2021: Bridgerton, Lupin, The Witcher, Sex/Life, Stranger Things, Money Heist, Tiger King, Queens Gambit, Sweet Tooth and Emily In Paris. That is quite a diverse set of demographics that would be watching those shows.
And then you have the recent popularity of Korean shows e.g. Squid Game, All of Us Are Dead, Kingdom etc which Netflix is pioneering by bringing to Western audiences.
Netflix is far more multi-faceted and nuanced than it gets credit for.
[+] [-] dcdc123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|4 years ago|reply
I am very tolerant of mediocre shows. I used only prime until a few months ago and I am honestly aghast and in awe of the amount of content on netflix. I feel like I could never run out of random things I can put on I haven't seen already. I think a lot of people do the same to the point where they have a "just play something" feature. Amazon prime had good content but slim pickings! And half the stuff you have to pay for, ran out of free stuff fast. Hulu likes ads too much, low value content too.
My point is, Netflix is "tv" everything else is some site charging for video content. You turn your cable tv on to some channel and just watch what is on, so long as you haven't seen it already. Netflix lets you do that, everyone else, maybe they have good shows but not enough of them. The Netflix UX is amazing as well, it rivals apple UX in my opinion. It just works, even autoplay preview works well somehow! Their app also syncs well and lets you download content for long trips and such.
I have to disagree with OP. Netflix is here to stay. Don't tell anyone but I would gladly pay up to $99/mo for it as-is because similar quality on cable does not exist but I would be paying much more for premium cable.
"Netflix+chill" is only a thing because of their UX, can't do that on Hulu because ads ruin things for example.
[+] [-] maldusiecle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gilgoomesh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parasubvert|4 years ago|reply
Only reason I keep Netflix is for specific shows.
[+] [-] spandrew|4 years ago|reply
So I'm not sure Netflix is at too much risk of every studio colluding them out of these auctions. Especially when they are legitimately one of the richest 'producers' in LA.
[+] [-] pier25|4 years ago|reply
Honestly, of all the services we've used Netflix is the one giving us more ROI and the one I'd never cancel.
We don't use Prime Video because there's barely any interesting content. We only have it because it comes included in Prime, but I'd never pay for it.
Disney is great in terms of tech, but I'm seriously considering canceling it because the ROI is so low.
Netflix keeps us interested. There's tons of Atmos 4K HDR content and their app/tech is great. At least once a month or so we binge a show at home. My wife also watches Netflix every day while exercising or when eating alone. I watch true crime documentaries, Nordic noir stuff, and even some Netflix movies from time to time.
We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. Also, it's quite ridiculous they don't stream content in Atmos 4K HDR that is available in that format like Game of Thrones.
We also had Apple+ for a few months. The app/tech is great but ended up cancelling it because we didn't enjoy any of the stuff there.
[+] [-] CharlesW|4 years ago|reply
FWIW, that may be more a function of the playback device. On Apple TV, HBO Max picture quality has been great.
Even on Apple TV the app is very stupid in other ways, though. It often replays the last episode we saw when we continue watching a series, forcing us to scrub through to the end of an already-seen ep before we can enjoy the next one.
[+] [-] onion2k|4 years ago|reply
Streaming services are different. You don't choose one. You buy all the ones that offer something you want and leave the rest. Sometimes if one feels stale you switch it out for a different one. Some people only have one at a time. Some people have several. There is no compelling reason for services to share or collaborate so long as they are able to profitably hold enough market share at any given time. Bundling is highly unlikely to ever happen. It's far more likely that we'll see product diversification like Netflix's alleged gaming platform. These services will need to show growth somehow, but it won't be by sharing content.
[+] [-] threeseed|4 years ago|reply
Case in point: Amazon Prime and Apple One.
[+] [-] candyman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnicholas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telesilla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|4 years ago|reply
I don't thing Paramount+ or Peacock/NBC will penetrate enough, I think Disney+ will. HBO is kinda like Netflix, I think those two should merge: Netflix provides the tech/platform and a huge eyeball base, and HBO has better production. HBO could strengthen its cable offerings with Netflix programming, seems very win-win.
No idea what Cabletown's plans are for NBC/Peacock, but I think they should consider merging with Netflix too.
Who knows about Paramount+. CBS owns older viewers and network TV, so I think they are too stubborn to merge or capitulate. CBS cranks out a lot of "good for TV" programming, but is it appointment viewing? More like they've mastered the older viewer that plops down and surfs the main networks. They won't claim the younger viewer, won't get a good enough subscriber base, and they won't have a valuable enough catalog to demand good merger or licensing terms.
What is FOX doing? Do they have a big streaming platform?
One thing that is for sure, cable is on a deathmarch. The next round of NFL negotiations should be interesting, because ESPN (and by extension cable TV itself) is already stretched to the limit for the NFL contract, and the next one might break them if the cable economics continue to degrade in viewership (and portion of the cable bill ESPN gets to claim)
[+] [-] zuminator|4 years ago|reply
But aside from all of that, I find it irksome when columnists self-identify as "honest brokers," straight-shooters, true patriots, etc. Don't tell me you're trustworthy. Truth-tellers and liars make the exact same assertion. (Hasn't this man ever visited any two-tribe islands?) Just make your points, and respect your readers to determine that you can be trusted.
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
I do like all the non-English series content, although HBO does a lot of that, too. Maybe Netflix will ultimately just be a brand that co-produces and distributes a ton of the world's TV series, and a few prestige films every year.
[+] [-] bgun|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
Another very similar medium to TV streaming is the podcasting space, and it has seen a lot of consolidation with Spotify gobbling up Gimlet and Anchor among others and Apple+ going on their own buying sprees. New original studios seem to get absorbed very quickly.
The observation about people getting sick of a fractured subscription market seems also true. Not sure if Netflix will completely falter but if there's ever some kind of ganging up between Netflix competitors it's hard to not think that Netflix would have a tough time.
[+] [-] mchusma|4 years ago|reply
New entrants who wish to take on credit card offerings cannot flourish due to Visa and Mastercard's monopolistic practices.
[+] [-] whitexn--g28h|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whoisjuan|4 years ago|reply
He totally ignored the business fundamentals of the entertainment industry. Content is king and content is an extremely capital-intensive business. No existing entertainment business is willing to cooperate on content distribution because that would severely reduce their margins.
Netflix's strategy is indeed the right strategy because they can create long-lasting IP and horizontally expand their business into other entertainment verticals.
Aggregation is by far the worst strategy in content distribution because you don't have bargaining power. As you start adding users to your platform, you will proportionally lose power to renegotiate licenses because IP owners will attribute your growth to their content. It's a zero-sum game.
[+] [-] notmyfuture|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meesterdude|4 years ago|reply
this is a terrible analysis. Netflix recognized early on that they need to start yesterday (years ago) before other streaming services came online. it's why they're still relevant today.
Otherwise I must confess: I was bearish on netflix, and still am overall. But their investments are thoughtful and strategic, squid game being a recent example. I don't love them, but they're the only service I'm paying for.
their weakness is the monthly cost for unlimited streaming. Once you're basically in every home, the only way you can extract more money is to raise the rates. When a hit show comes out, people may signup for a month to watch and then cancel, and they certainly honor that behavior. But they're also mindful of ads and the expectations of their current user base, and will have to get creative on generating new revenue. I give them 50/50 they find a way.