Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Arrested Development' Comes Exclusively To Netflix

Posted by timothy on from the on-probation dept.

First time accepted submitter Xondak writes "The cult series 'Arrested Development' is being resurrected and brought exclusively to Netflix streaming subscribers. This marks the first time a major studio has produced first-run content for the streaming service and perhaps this will afford other opportunities for cancelled Fox series. Firefly, anyone?"

4 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'll pass. by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have a reference for that?

  2. Hate It by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what I hate about Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google Music, and every other digital music vendor - limited selection. I can get show X or album Y on service 1, but not on service 2.

    I want every CD, every DVD, and every TV show available to me digitally. That's what we all want. It's not like they aren't already sitting in some digital format somewhere.

    I've long thought that digital media should be like the Internet, with individual Music Service Providers competing based on their interface, features, etc., and not on their catalog. In other words, all content available through everyone and that's not why you choose one over the other.

    iTunes, Google Music, Netflix, etc. are simply recreations of the record company distribution monopoly. At least with record companies, there was one LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD standard. Today you can own a piece of media and not be able to play it on all your devices.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  3. Re:"Opportunities for cancelled Fox series." by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, Bruce Campbell might have contractual obligations to the show he's currently working on...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  4. Exclusivity - what the price hike is paying for by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netfix surely could have gotten the content cheaper if it was non-exclusive. The price hike everyone was griping about isn't being spent (entirely) on bringing more content to Netflix subscribers. Part of it is being spent on keeping content away from subscribers of other content delivery services, i.e. exclusivity. You're happy to pay more to help Netflix shut out its competitors, right?

    Note: I'm not arguing about whether or not Netfix is a good deal for the price. I'm arguing against exclusivity as a matter of principle -- it's an abuse of customers to make them pay more in order to make the market less competitive (which ultimately hurts consumers).