Netflix Is Becoming Just Another TV Channel

An anonymous reader writes: Netflix revealed in a blog post that it will not renew its contract with Epix, meaning you won't be able to watch movies like The Hunger Games and World War Z through the service anymore. With the increase in cord-cutters and more original content, Netflix is positioning itself to be like any other TV channel (one that owns its own distribution model) and is betting that customers won't miss the Epix content. Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos says, "While many of these movies are popular, they are also widely available on cable and other subscription platforms at the same time as they are on Netflix and subject to the same drawn out licensing periods."

Comments

I don't want a fucking TV channel!

[Chas]

I want something that allows me to watch movies and/or episode-based content AS *I* want.

Their offerings of content have continued to get slimmer in the recent couple of years. And I'm finding myself using them less and less.

If Netflix stops delivering that content altogether, I stop subscribing.

And, if we start seeing ADS attached to the content, I'm fucking outta there so fast the wind of my passing will bowl you over.

Re:I don't want a fucking TV channel!

[TWX]

I actually like physical media for old TV. If there's a technical problem I can probably still watch them and if I know I'm going somewhere that I'll be without service I can watch them if I take them along or rip them to file.

Re: I don't want a fucking TV channel!

[mark-t]

They can get cancelled even if you *DO* contribute to their ratings...

Anecdote:

I was in a Nielson household once... from about '99 to '04. When a show that I really *really* liked ended up getting cancelled after barely more than half a season, despite me and my wife and 4 kids watching it every single week starting with the pilot, I ended up cancelling our participation in January '04, and had them take their equipment back. I know that it's not Nielson's fault that the show got cancelled, of course.... but that experience with trying to participate in their ratings program, and *STILL* seeing a show that I really liked get cancelled before it could even get started was very discouraging, and I kind of stopped seeing the point.

Idiots.

[gfxguy]

"While many of these movies are popular, they are also widely available on cable and other subscription platforms at the same time as they are on Netflix and subject to the same drawn out licensing periods."

The reason we can be cord cutters is because we get netflix, so you're suggesting I go back to doing both? %#!# you. #@# you very much.

Re:Idiots.

[Phoenix Rising]

This. I get Netflix so I can "rent" movies. While I've liked some of the Netflix original content, what I really want is a super video rental store.

Re:Idiots.

[RLiegh]

Cord-cutters are undesirable in the eyes of the entertainment industry, it was inevitable that the cord-cutting threat posed by netflix would be eventually be neutralized.

Re:Idiots.

[Daetrin]

Agreed. Like so many other lines of business there are two general strategies they could go for, wide or deep. In the case of media distribution you can try to have as much content as possible, "why subscribe to all those other channels/distributors when you can get it all here in this one spot?" Or they can try to have unique programming that is unavailable anywhere else. "If you want to watch this show you have to subscribe to us."

Doing both can be difficult, both in terms of balance and expense, (but it is the way to go if you want to become a monopoly.) Unfortunately it seems like Netflix is trying to transition between the two, which is a tough sell to the people who originally bought into the service because of what they _used_ to be. They not only have to convince me to be interested in their new original content, they also have to convince me not to care too much about the old licensed content that they're losing.

If any other service (Hulu being at the top of the list) were able to snag all the content that Netflix is dropping Netflix might be in some serious trouble. From what i understand though the reason Netflix is dropping so much content is that the owners have started realizing how much streaming rights are worth, so luckily for Netflix it seems unlikely that any single provider will be able to acquire the same range of content that Netflix used to have.

Re:Idiots.

[tlhIngan]

The reason we can be cord cutters is because we get netflix, so you're suggesting I go back to doing both? %#!# you. #@# you very much.

Well, they said other subscription services, and it's been revealed that Hulu was the one who picked up those movies.

You have to remember the video and movie industry looked at what happened to the music industry. They saw a tepid music industry make its first forays into digital distribution (via Apple and the iTunes music store), after resisting for so long.

Then they saw the rise of Apple over the music industry to the point where the music industry lost control. It took them the step of having to release the music as DRM-free in order to break the control Apple had over them.

So the TV and movie industry took note and said they won't let that happen to them, which meant that they will purposely ensure that no everyone has everything - iTunes will have some, Amazon will have others, Netflix, Hulu, CinemaNow and others will split a bunch as well. Ensuring that no one gets a bigger slice of the pie and becomes the 900lb gorilla.

Incidentally, the TV networks have realized a big benefit to offering streaming TV for cord cutters - ads that are unskippable. If they got the TV show on their DVR, they can skip them at will. If they're streaming it, they can't. This also applies to "Cloud DVRs" as well.

Re:Idiots.

[Dutch Gun]

Hulu will *never* be a contender for me, as they insist on shoving advertisements in my face even if I pay for a premium subscription. I've experienced TV programming on demand and without commercial interruptions. I can't go back.

Re:Idiots.

[TWX]

I don't think that's going to stop people from cord-cutting though. I have probably 30 channels or subchannels with OTA DTV, including older TV shows and older movies. There's plenty to watch for free.

Re:Idiots.

[Dunbal]

And Hulu will never make it with me because for some reason just because I don't live in the US they don't want to allow me the privilege of being one of their customers.

Re:Idiots.

[AK Marc]

Hulu will never be a contender because they are a content owner. Netflix is a service organization. The viewer is the customer. For Hulu, the content owners are the customers, the revenue stream is unrelated to their primary customers. Hulu will never be able to think in a way that will make them relevant.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[bobbied]

Seriously 160 kbps connection? Dude, you need to subscribe to the "We will mail you the disk" part of Netflix and just forget this video streaming idea. Trust me, they can turn a disk around in the mail faster than you can download the movie..

Re:I Love NetFlix

[Man On Pink Corner]

As the article states, Netflix sees this as a bug, and is trying very hard to "fix" it.

kept my Netflix dvd subscription

[Dan667]

Looks like the netflix dvd model is coming around to be in vogue again.

TV channels are not what people want

[McGregorMortis]

What people want from a streaming service is every movie, every TV episode, and every piece of music ever made at any any point in history, anywhere in the world, at a modest fee.

Netflix certainly wasn't that, but it was trying to be. If it's going to stop even trying, then they're just driving people back to BitTorrent. Because that's what BitTorrent is, and it's free.

Until people are given what they want at a fair price, they will continue to find it elsewhere.

Re:TV channels are not what people want

[bobbied]

Never going to happen, NEVER. No matter how many different services you sign up for. Seriously there is way too much stuff to do what you want and there are films which will never, ever see the light of internet streaming. For instance "Song of the South" which is owned by Disney will never be shown in public again for PC reasons, not to mention all the horrible "B and C" movies which would never deserve the disk space needed. (Who's going to watch "Howard the Duck" more than once? Most will quit that movie before the first reel change.) There is just way too much material which the license holder won't let go of and a whole host of stuff nobody wants to watch, even for free.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Grishnakh]

How is it a tech hub like Seattle doesn't have broadband fast enough for Netflix, yet I'm living in rural Virginia and it works just great for me? What the hell is going on in Seattle?

You're opening the door to your competitors...

[thedarb]

Taking away popular movie titles is only going to give your competitors an in. I didn't have to go see films at the theatre if I didn't want. It would end up on Netflix. I didn't need Comcast, it would end up Netflix.

Simply put, if things stop coming to Netflix, so will the viewers. We aren't locked in to 2 year contracts, so we can come and go as we please. Maybe, Netflix, you should continue to court us.

Re:You're opening the door to your competitors...

[c]

Simply put, if things stop coming to Netflix, so will the viewers. We aren't locked in to 2 year contracts, so we can come and go as we please. Maybe, Netflix, you should continue to court us.

You sound like believe this is something Netflix is doing on purpose. Given the business environment they're operating in and how content licensing works, it's just as likely that someone in the industry is jerking them around.

Re:You're opening the door to your competitors...

[phantomfive]

It's possibly a negotiation strategy. Epix loses in this case, because they'll get fewer views, and less money. Netflix loses too, but they're hoping that next time they'll be able to negotiate a better deal.

Re:You're opening the door to your competitors...

[rsmith-mac]

Given the business environment they're operating in and how content licensing works, it's just as likely that someone in the industry is jerking them around.

And that's exactly the case. Netflix's streaming service started out as a last-run content distributor. They could get cheap access to lots of TV shows because the content had already been sold on DVD, sold to first-run syndication, sold to later run syndication (3am on TBS), etc. So selling that content to Netflix for cheap was the final way - the last way - to make money off of it.

However any time you're selling content on a last-run basis, you're also expecting the service provider to either rake in little in the way of income, or at least not overtake higher tier services. Instead what happened was cord cutting, with viewers no long subscribing to cable services, ordering PPV, buying DVDs, etc. This is a great deal for viewers - lots of content for cheap - but it's a poor deal for content owners. The fact that this happened indicated that they undervalued the content they sold Netflix, and that in turn was because they didn't see the value in streaming.

So whether Netflix likes it or not, they're going to be treated as a high tier syndicator due to the amount of revenue they bring in and the number of viewers. And Netflix doesn't charge enough or pay content owners enough to provide all that content that they got for cheap early-on. They either need to pay more or drop the content, so dropping the content they are. That leaves Netflix with little choice but to go the Turner/HBO model and provide original content to hook viewers, along with a mix of syndicated content to fill out their catalog.

As for content owners, they're going to turn to other content distributors who will pay more for it. Hulu, cable companies, etc until revenue sources at each tier match what providers think they can get. Remember, a lot of this stemmed from undervaluing their content in the first place by virtue of underestimating how many people would go to Netflix. They have a general idea of how much their content is worth, via revenue from the pre-Netflix days, so it's only a matter of finding the right mix of distributors to sell to in order to find the right mix of services and customers. There are people out there who will pay more, especially if you balkanize everything so that the viewer pays a larger number of smaller bills (to avoid sticker shock).

Re:You're opening the door to your competitors...

[Dorianny]

There seems to be a big disconnect between what the studios think their content is worth and what people are willing to pay for that content. Last time Netflix increased their streaming price by un-bundling it from the mailed to your house system they saw a huge drop in their subscribers base. If studios were willing to stream their content on theatrical-release date than I would be willing to pay $100 a month but for years old regurgitated content I am not paying much more than $8.

Re:You're opening the door to your competitors...

[Darinbob]

This was a great model too. I got to see a lot of shows I never saw the first time around, because I don't want to hop into the middle of a series (if I don't see episode one of a plot based series, I won't watch any of the rest). Plus ability to watch old episode of current shows is very handy as the cable channels have little interest in doing this. Lots of cable shows don't end up in syndication either.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Tailhook]

I live in Seattle

LOL.

I live within walking distance of actual livestock and real, operating farms, twenty minutes way from a metropolitan area, and I have 60 Mbps business class service. The fact that Seattle, WA is still a broadband desert is so damning it defies belief. Whatever the fuck it is you Seattle knuckleheads have done to yourselves to end up like this....... all I can say is; you deserve it. You really do.

You've governed yourself into a permanent Internet backwater. Congratulations. Go rename your volcano Mt. Talolhowakaji or whatever the 'natives' are demanding.

I wish Netflix stayed true to its loyal customers

[iamacat]

They first marginalized the DVD rental service and now are doing the same with movie streaming. While I watched some of Netflix originals, HBO Now has even more and better original series. The value of Netflix subscription for me is access to movies and shows from major studios. Guess I should look into Amazon Prime instead. Not interested in paying for Hulu and still watching ads.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[ArmoredDragon]

I really do think hell would freeze over before a republican would take office in any office that governs Seattle.

Besides, if that was the case, then I wouldn't have gig service right now where I live in Arizona, which is about as much of a red state as you can get. In fact, come to think of it, a lot of red states have gig service somewhere within the state, such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Louisiana.

Missing the point

[grilled-cheese]

Today's media consumer wants what it wants, when it wants it, right then. This is opposite traditional cable company methodologies. It's why customer's are cutting the cord. To that end, the first service to offer the best selection will win (pricing models aside). If it takes multiple overlapping subscriptions to get the selection, customers will be forced to pick and choose or to go back to pirating. The stuff frequently pirated are the things that customers can't afford (multiple services), can't find (selection problems), or are going to have going 24/7 (kids shows and bandwidth caps). I don't blame netflix entirely though. It's a business decision to keep from raising rates. The real problem lies with the distribution points arguing unreasonable amounts of money for potentially exclusive contracts with providers like Netflix/Hulu/AmazonPrime/CrunchyRoll/etc.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Dutch Gun]

It's just the city of Seattle that's screwed up. The suburbs actually outside the city itself (where I live, and where MS is located) has FIOS broadly deployed. My understanding is that it has to do with Seattle's own rules - there's a huge amount of entrenched bureaucracy and crappy infrastructure in place that essentially prevents competitors from coming in and upgrading. Naturally, large businesses (like Amazon) can simply bypass the mess with commercial-grade connections. It's apparently just the consumers that have it bad.

I have clung to my DVD subscription

[Applehu Akbar]

Because that gives me access on Netflix to every movie ever made, plus a substantial number of TV series both domestic and foreign. Netflix seems to have invested heavily in the "everybody's gonna stream" meme, a dream which crashed into ISP user caps and Hollywood footdragging. That's why the streaming servers offer a stunted collection of movies that "expire" after a year or so. So now that Netflix is set up for large-scale streaming, developing its own content to deliver is a logical next step.

Re:I have clung to my DVD subscription

[N7DR]

Because that gives me access on Netflix to every movie ever made

Huh? On my "saved" queue I have dozens of movies that Netflix marks "unavailable" and can't actually ship, but using some warped logic the company seems to think that they still carry them. And there are dozens more that I want to put on my queue that Netflix doesn't even pretend to carry. And all of these DVDs are available for purchase on Amazon (and, I suppose, available via torrents).

With each of their mis-steps I get closer and closer to dumping Netflix and going back to buying movies.

The Netflix management never seems to have understood what has made them successful. As soon as they started producing "original content", I thought, "What is this? If they have the money to create a series, then why aren't they spending it enhancing their core business and making more movies available to their subscribers?" I've stopped wondering that, because I now realise that, amazingly, Netflix management simply doesn't get it. I think we are watching, in painful slow-motion, the early stages of what promises to be a long, drawn-out death if they don't come to their senses.

Netflix is Tanking Hard

[bill_mcgonigle]

Look at the new and leaving content for this month - it's almost all junk (with slightly more quality stuff leaving than coming).

Netflix is still showing me "New Episodes" for stuff I watched 6 months ago. A friend of mine said recently, "I spend more time looking for something to watch on Netflix than I do watching Netflix".

I just started requesting DVD's again from Netflix (send back the first one in two years yesterday) and my kids watch YouTube all the time anyway - I'm pretty sure there's no reason for me to keep the streaming service at this point. I wonder if I can cancel that separately. I still have 300 discs in my DVD queue and feel silly for trying to use the Internet instead of USPS for digital content.

Re:Why do I need Netflix?

[bobbied]

Netflix is becoming little better than my cable company

Yea? Well be ready to start some competition for them. As Netflix keeps positioning to take more of your money and give you access to less material, the business case for the competition gets better and better. You want to be there to take their subscribers once the scales are tipped in your favor, so you can have your turn, sell the company to investors and sit back in opulence while the bean counters and MBA's do the same thing to your company... Raise prices, lower content costs to make more money and eventually driving the customers to the next big thing...

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[bobbied]

> Seattle...160 kbps

That isn't too bad. You can download a 700 Mbyte movie in only ten hours. With my 56k modem (because stupid Comcast despite having the government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, still doesn't offer service to their entire monopoly area), I can download that in 30 hours. That's not too bad. I can leave the download running while I'm at work and at night and then have two movies to watch over the weekend. I really do hope they add a download option.

So a DVD will take 10 hours and a Blu-Ray will take days to get... Go with the Netflix disk delivery option and it takes about three days to turn around ANY title they have, which is just about any title you could want, plus you can save that internet connection for something else, like browsing Zillo for houses OUTSIDE of Seattle that you can afford...

Quote

[neminem]

"...won't be able to watch movies like The Hunger Games and World War Z"... "betting that customers won't miss the Epix content. "

Yeah, not with examples like those I won't...

Re:Quote

[Nidi62]

It's specifically those two movies. Ok, to be fair, the first Hunger Games movie was a pretty successful adaptation, it was only the others that sucked horribly (and also to be fair, the other two books were crap compared to the first, too, just not by as wide a margin.) Mainly it was a comment about WWZ, though, a truly breathtakingly beautiful book turned into a generic boring white-guy-saves-the-planet-from-zombies movie, that wouldn't even have hurt nearly so much if it hadn't been nominally based on the book it wasn't really based on.

Those "deep" movies are crap, and I care more about older movies than newer ones, as those are the ones I'm most likely to want to see on netflix, as I either forgot to see them in theaters, or completely missed they existed until years later. So I basically agree with you, you were overreacting to my admittedly-vague snark about WWZ sucking bigtime.

World War Z was honestly the most disappointed I have ever been regarding a movie. I actually had trouble finishing it, and I thought the $1 I paid at Redbox for it was about twice as much as I should have paid. The movie had so much potential if they had stuck with the book. The Battle of Yonkers, if done well, could have been an epic scene for a movie; so would the Battle of Hope. And if they were smart they could have turned it into a 10-year, moneymaking franchise easy. The book could easily have been turned into a 2-movie series: the retreat West and the rebuild/retaking of the East. And then you could take some of the movies or side stories referenced in the book as "spin-offs". "Victory at Avalon" would have been a perfect candidate for a lower budget shakycam/"found footage" type movie as that was essentially what it was. Then there's the Alpha Teams, the Chinese sub, etc. But they squandered it all for a quick cashout movie.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Dunbal]

I live in Seattle, and I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream Netflix.

Heck I live in Panama. No not Panama City, Florida. Panama the country with the canal, all the way down in Latin America. And I have the bandwidth (20Mbs) to stream Netflix, through a US VPN. So someone in your city is screwing you.

not so obvious to everyone it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

It is because the studios asked them for a monetary number well outside Netflix's ability to pay and still stay afloat. The studios are doing it on purpose to tank Netflix because they don't like their business model and would prefer you go buy the DVD. And, because they feel they deserve the extra money. Netflix has been a real threat to them, because it has always provided viewers the ability to watch as much as they want for a reasonable fee. I don't envy them. Producers of entertainment are so toxic with their licensing deals that it almost doesn't pay to be in the media delivery business. Dish is always struggling with this as well, it is painful for them and their customers.

THE END OF NETFLIX...

[pellik]

When Netflix gave up it's deal with starz people thought that it was the end. Now Netflix is giving up Epix and people think it's the end again. Netflix still has a lot of content, and will possibly even sign a new content deal. They've long said they intend to rotate through content providers.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Grishnakh]

He is confusing terms a bit here, but the previous poster was calling him a leftist. A true leftist does not favor corporations having the kind of power or influence that he describes, that's a hallmark of the right wing, so it's reasonable for him to call them Republicans, which is a far-right party. Yes, in most areas the Democrats are also center-right, but that party does claim to answer to the people on the left, even if it is just lip service.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[Grishnakh]

Arizona's not *that* red. It wasn't that long ago they elected Janet Napolitano (D) as governor, before Obama got her to take over as DHS head. Tempe's a pretty blue city too, as is Tucson.

Now Utah is about as red is it gets, I think. Along with Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

Re:GUI =/= OS

[imboboage0]

I've been here for 11 years. I still don't understand how this even happens.

Re: Epix was one reason they were forced to stream

[FlyHelicopters]

You are very lucky. I live in a suburb of Phoenix that is only served by Centurylink (no cable TV available). On a good day I can see 1.2 meg down speed and it's costing me over $60/month. Centurylink has been promising to upgrade soon (within 2 months) for the last five years.

Why would they upgrade? They are your only choice of provider, they have you by the short and curlies.

Time to move...

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[tsotha]

He's simply using his own personal definition of "Republican", which for him is "Any person or situation I don't like".

Hulu IS the content owners

[Duckman5]

In fairness, I'd imagine it's probably not Hulu but the content providers that dictate that policy.

Check this Wikipedia article out. Look at the list of owners to the right. NBC-Universal, Fox, Disney. Why do you think they're so stuck on showing ads even on the pay service? It's because it's all they know.

Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream.

[fredgiblet]

They are in bed with corporations to screw us.

Those are called Politicians.

FTFY

Dropping Epix and gaining a lot

[Frigga's Ring]

Did people read a different article than I did? The linked article says the following:

"We also have some great family films coming your way, including Minions, Hotel Transylvania 2, and Home through arrangements with Sony Pictures Animation, Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Animation. Starting next year, we will be the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest theatrical movies from the The Walt Disney Company, including Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel movies. The majority of these films will arrive on Netflix faster than traditional arrangements had previously allowed."

I lose movies like World War Z and Transformers and gain access to the libraries of Disney and Sony? So long, Epix.