Slashdot Mirror
76% Of Netflix Subscribers Think Netflix Can Replace Traditional TV (cordcutting.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It turns out plenty of people think Netflix is ready to replace their traditional TV. According to a survey on AllFlicks (Editor's note: the site is Netflix focused, so it's not really a neutral audience), 75.6 percent of Netflix subscribers said that the on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service has grown good enough to replace whatever the traditional TV has to offer. The participants, however, also noted that the streaming service still can't replace live sports coverage or the experience of the movie theater. In some other news, Netflix knows which picture and video you're likely to click.
If Netflix provided the movie theatre experience, I would cancel my service.
Amirite?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
With ESPN now talking to HULU, we are moving closer to a break of the sports content lock that cable has held, and hopefully we'll have IPTV choices to suit our needs from true competitors. Cable is going to have to adjust. With smartphone habits overtaking TV watching anyhow, its a matter of time.
Probably the sole reason this hasn't happened completely is there is no sports option without cable. My bet is cable companies are not encouraging stations like ESPN to make a ESPN-GO like option with monthly fees.
Try "has" for anything but breaking news or sports.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I used to think that, but that was before they started cutting their movie selection and wasting money on a handful of self-made shows instead. Now it's just turning into Hulu.
My wife and I are moving soon. Between Netflix (streaming + discs), Hulu, and Amazon we feel pretty well covered. If anybody has any suggestions for streaming news they would be well appreciated.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
If they know what I'm likely to click, why don't they show it to me, instead of aggressively doing the opposite?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
until you hate netflix as much as you hate cable. it will happen and the schadenfreuden will be sweet.
my mom has been a terrestrial cable TV subscriber since the mid 1960's and i shown her satellite when it first got popular and she was not impressed, i shown her Roku and all the free stuff it includes and google's chromecast, and she had no interest in it, she love her basic cable, she gets 60+ channels but only watches about 5 of them, and does not care to change, she is too stubborn and set in her ways to change,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
For a long time for me, Netflix DID replace traditional TV.
Even now it mostly does, but I have broken down and have a few things like an HBO Now subscription (now that HBO and others no longer require a tie in from your cable provider).
Even if you loved sports, I cannot see how cable at this point is a better deal than something like the MLB subscription which through apps gives you way more than TV ever could. You'd have fewer sports to watch but get way more games and information. Personally I've been waiting forever to get great rally driving coverage through some kind of app... the WRC app now looks like it may have what I want.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
[Netflix can't replace] the experience of the movie theater.
Oh yes, so many things I will miss about movie theaters...
- Outrageous prices of concessions and tickets.
- Going to the movie rather than it coming to me.
- Inability to pause.
- Scheduling parts of my day around when the movie I want to see is on.
- Other people that never improve, and often detract from, the movie experience.
Mark my words: Movie theaters are the next lunch Netflix will eat after cable TV stations and providers.
Currently if only watching on-demand content we don't have to pay the television licence in the UK, so using Netflix / on-demand providers is saving me money, for a more convenient service!
The only downside to this is the BBC sending out letters assuming you're watching TV illegally, unless you can prove otherwise... but it's a small price to pay!
Netflix has some stuff but it's full of crap that takes some wading through and there's limited access to current movies.
The Roku can use Netflix, but it can also use many other sources. The Roku is plenty good enough to replace cable TV.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
As a long term pirate (20 years ish) paying for netflix seemed dumb, until my internet connection got good enough that maintaining a media server was a waste of time. At the same time I was a huge supporter of the BBC and our TV license but since subbing to Netflix (and pirating the few latest releases a year I'm interested in) I've not viewed terrestrial digital, free to air satellite or anything. I now pay 140 or so a year for something I don't use mainly to keep the licensing bully boy enforcers from nosing round my gaff.
Netflix can't replace TV yet because there is too much content it doesn't carry. However a media centre that can aggregate your different media sources can. Especially so if your chosen sport have streaming as well. My choices of MotoGP, Cricket and NRL Rugby all stream, all of them can be supported directly by KODI.
I thought that back when it was just three DVDs at one time; one movie and two series at any time kept me in plenty of TV watching.
I think it would really suck if all TV became pay TV, regardless of whether you have to pay for an internet connection to get it, or that plus paying some service like Netflix. Also, what about local news broadcasts? Local public access? OTA broadcast television and radio have always served these purposes as well as entertainment, or has everyone forgotten that? Anyway.. I dumped cable TV years ago and haven't regretted it once. I also dumped Netflix before that, because it just didn't offer enough to justify the cost -- but that was before companies like Netflix started creating their own content; still, it isn't attractive enough to me to pay for it. Between the antenna on my roof and a DVR, I've always got more than enough new programming to watch than I have time to watch it all. If streaming over the internet and paying Netflix or whoever for your entertainment works for you, great, I'm happy for you, but at the same time I don't think I'm alone in my preferences.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
These days I can hardly find anything I want to watch on streaming, and I can barely keep my DVD queue full.
Hulu is a desert. I won't pay for Amazon Prime, at least not while I'm paying for Netflix. Comcast/Xfinity can't seem to make up its mind what I'm allowed to watch on my broadband-only service; I watched have of season five of Game of Thrones before they decided I wasn't really entitled to it. Yes, I am actually entitled to some things, just not very much. I almost bit when they had a Broadband+TV deal that was within a couple dollars of what I pay now, but it was one of their fscking one year deals, then the price goes up and I have to play hardball and threaten to switch to FIOS to keep them from jacking up the price.
I use a VPN to watch BBC iPlayer, where at least some of the content is a bit better than the drivel we're given here.
And my wife and I go to the movie theater to see new movies when there's something worth seeing, which kinda contributes to our inability to keep the DVD queue full. I guess I live in a civilized part of the country – nobody's phones ring in the middle of the movie, etc.
We have moved from the old cable model--where you had to choose a core option, had a few add-on-packages you could choose on, and had a very few a-la-carte offerings. Now we have a couple of package options that are cheaper than the core options used to be: we can get the netflix package, the hulu package, the amazon package, the cbs package, etc..., all of which compete across a variety of genres.
Meanwhile, the sports genre is only available on cable, where it can demand monopoly prices and is the primary driver of people to purchase cable. It is difficult to see it as anything more than an abuse of market power that should implicate anti-trust laws, and would in a more invasive regulatory climate. It is like if you took all comedy, and said it could only be purchased or viewed through streaming company ComedyRules, which also has a lot of non-comedy.
In theory it is a free market and someone could bid more than the cable companies in order to be able to carry sports--but in a real bidding war nobody would be able to, because the cable company has the benefits of monopoly pricing.
Real lawyers write in C++
Traditional TV is a steaming pile of crap. I watch more YouTube content created by random people with a camcorder than 'traditional TV'. In fact I'm amazed that 'traditional TV' hasn't gone the way of the dinosaurs yet. I tried to get a subscription to the local TV channel that has a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones, they told me that in order to get that channel I'd have to buy a 'value package' of 10 channel that included sports channels, a celebrity channel, a lifestyle channels... basically I'd have to pay for access to the channel I wanted and nine other channels pumping a steady stream of cultural sewage that I wouldn't watch to save my life. Short answer? No thanks! Next stop was trying to get access to the HBO directly only to be told by a very courteous and helpful HBO callcenter worker: "HBO is not available in your region". Apparently this is because of 'legal and licensing issues' which translates into: 'artificial trade barriers to rip off the consumer'. So having been frustrated at every turn in my quest to be an honest consumer and pay for the content my next stop was BitTorrent. I'll give Netflix credit for producing their own content rather than relying on the big content producers. Some of their series are pretty good and the stuff they make themselves is of course available everywhere, even in 'my region' so I got a subscription instead of downloading their stuff from BitTorrent because unlike 'traditional TV', Netflix didn't try to rip me off.
Pretty much everything my wife and I watch comes from three sources:
Netflix, shomi (a canada only streaming service similar to Netflix) and the iTunes store. We subscribe to all of the current TV we like (8 or so shows I think) on iTunes. We download and watch them every week whenever we want. The rest comes from streaming services. I haven't done the math but I'm pretty sure that the total cost still comes out to less per month than cable TV. Even if it were more expensive I wouldn't care since the convenience and lack of commercials are worth every penny.
We don't much care about live sports or newscasts so there's really no need for us to have traditional cable/pay TV. It's been more than a decade since I've felt the need for a cable subscription.
I would say that for Netflix subscribes, Netflix often already has replaced traditional TV/cable. It has for me, for my parents, for my parent's parents. I know a few people who use both Netflix and TV, but they seem to be drifting more toward Netflix for their content. The only people I know who are exclusively using TV/cable at the moment are senior citizens. That should be a bit of a wake-up call for the cable providers.
No good sports on Netflix. Not even close to a TV replacement. Netflix does cartoons well, and that's it.
That is still missing. But that is why we have OTA. ( for now anyway.. who knows how long it will last )
First of all, to get that out of the way, I am tired of incessant Netflix pedaling. Very narrow selection, uncomparable to the actual selection.
This will happen:
Everybody will pay a fee, much like we pay now to ISPs: it will be one lump fee per month for everything.
ISP will track every click you make and how much time you spend on content (like it or not). It will automatically identify the content as well, whether you are streaming it from HBO, Netflix or free.entertainment.biz
Thus, ISP will have a comprehensive picture of what content is viewed for what time. It will cough up portion of the revenue to the content owner based on that figure.
It is very similar to what is happening on TV right now, except that the measure of popularity of content is determined by rather silly and outdated Nielsen rating system.
There is no way "free" content could be curbed under the current model. The war with pirates is futile.
With the predicted model (note that I am not proposing it, nor advocating it, I just think that things are moving to that direction, I, like any other guy, do not like myself tracked) there will be no reason for PirateBay or VPN to avoid ISP, if I can for the same monthly Internet fee access better quality site on a legal basis.
No shadiness, no copyright infringement, no privacy.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No Netflix either.
Not as it currently is it can't.
For one no live anything.
For two I can't leave it on for noise. Three episodes and wham are you still watching this?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
...it depends on what Netflix licenses from the content providers. Netflix is a medium; content is king. Do we know what they are willing to pay, and how much of the TV/movies will be available as a result? My thought is that now that they are on top, they will be forced to cut the number of films they license in order to remain profitable.
Online news is produced by the same people and just as vapid. Maybe you need a neutral third-party source? Too bad, they all got driven out of business because people wanted news that reflected their worldviews.
Hahahaha think it can replace regular tv? I'm sorry but I've been using Netflix and Amazon exclusively for the last two or three years. Someone is far behind the times.
I am extremely happy with being rid of traditional tv.
My quest to pay for Game of Thrones went down that exact path; then they wonder why it's the most pirated show ever. Mix anti-consumer practices and evolving people's expectations, and you get your answer. I'd gladly give HBO my credit card info, if they let me.
I no longer have regular TV because there isn't anything on it for me anyway, especially not at the time I want to see it. .nl the Netflix catalogue is only 33% of the US catalogue, so I still get stuff to watch via "alternate" channels.
Sadly in
I only one about one other VOD service available here, and it has absolutely nothing to offer (crappy Dutch productions).
So 76% of NETFLIX users like NETFLIX. Not surprising at all, nope. If it had been 76% of Cable users think Netflix can replace traditional TV, that would've been interesting.
but its not even close to having a meaningful catalog here in Austria, Europe.
Since Netflix has bowed to the content conglomerates and started blocking people getting around geoblocks (100% legal where I live) I've terminated my membership.
Wilst I've got the skill, I dont have the time, patience or willingness to spend the money on complex solutions involving running my own VPN server from an S3 container. Fuck that, I've gone back to Channel BT.
Yes Netflix, you can tell the content owners that instead of paying for their content like I was happy to do before they started fucking around, they've forced me back to piracy, mission fucking haycomplished guys, well fucking done.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Why?!?
It already has.
If I wanted the movie experience at home, I could just replace my sofa with 1950s bus seats, strap a subwoofer to my face and take the batteries out the remote so I can miss half the movie if I need the bathroom/ refreshments. I could also invite some belligerent strangers to apologise to when moving, and to scatter popcorn and unnamed sticky fluids all over my fiurniture. The movie companies like to make out that the theater is some sort of social experience - for it to be that, you'd have to be able to interact or at least percieve fellow patrons. For me, other people is the worst thing about watching the movie.
Name a single time any entertainment media switched formats and the price stayed the same or lowered.
I'll beat that with two, even without invoking piracy.
Music from CD to paid download When new albums on CD were $15, albums on iTunes were $10. When new albums on CD with three good songs were $15, those three songs on iTunes were $3. Prices for some individual tracks increased 30 percent when the music stores dropped DRM around 2009, but overall, it was still cheaper than CD. Movies from VHS to DVD The studios chose to eliminate the "priced for rental" window, when a VHS movie would cost $90 or so for the first few months. DVD movies were priced for sell-through at about $30 on day one. (Forum source; I apologize for lacking the time to dig up a more reliable source.)I've replaced my broadcast AND movie going with DVDs in various ways-- library check-outs, rentals, Netflix, etc. Here's the thing-- I'm not interested in "Sports Coverage," News coverage is horribly biased towards useless sensationalism, equivalent to click-bait. There are way better sources of news that don't include the sensationalism (or the click-bait, which is my gauge of a serious site vs a crapvertizer). Movie theater experience is useless because all that is available is a narrow set of recent crap releases. Why would I want any of that?
People watched sports for decades over standard-definition analog cable TV, whose usable resolution (based on luma bandwidth and Nyquist's theorem) is 320x480i at 60 fps. Does a match streamed at this resolution really have a higher peak data rate than, say, an action movie streamed 640x480p at 24 fps?
There are 3 teams I care about and two of them are local and likely to be on ota tv
That works for you, not so much for fans of the pro team that moved out (e.g. Rams fans in Los Angeles and St. Louis), the pro team to which their favorite player was traded (e.g. Peyton Manning fans in Indiana during his seasons with the Broncos), the team local to the place where they grew up before moving for a job to an industry hotbed, the team of the university that one of their adult children attends, etc.
sports are much more fun to watch at a sport bar with a bunch of people around you cheering, then they are to watch at home by yourself.
Some parents want to cheer with their minor children, even if they live in a 21-to-enter state. Or by "bar" do you include all-ages sports restaurants such as Buffalo Wild Wings? Visiting a restaurant daily (baseball) or every other day (basketball) isn't practical for everyone.
Don't these stream packages black out any match whose exclusive rights have been sold to a national or regional TV network?
There is no mandate to watch TV, no mandate to listen to music, no mandate to watch movies, yet all those industries assume they have a captive audience.
You may be right about TV and movies. But music has captive audiences in waiting rooms of businesses, grocery stores, etc. Part of your grocery bill goes toward royalties for the music played over the PA system when associates aren't being called to the registers.
Youtube already replaced television. You should have cut the cord a long time ago and joined the new paradigm. Netflix is not the best replacement since the content is stale and licensed outside of the few products Netflix funds which have niche appeal. Youtube content is constantly changing and being updated several times a second with new videos. The only problem faced is finding the content that appeals to you.
For people that need traditional media there are always Crackle, PBS, HBO Now, Hulu, iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, Google Play, and of course Netflix. Not to mention others that have been wising up like Showtime.
Free from Xfinity since 2010. =D
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
Let me know when 20 million concurrent users can reliably stream a football game in HD 60 fps over the Internet.
No doubt this will happen, but right now the reliable numbers I hear are about 1-2 million reliable concurrent streams.
Yeah I can see that.
I watch more Netflix original content than I do regular tv. Still watch some tv but on average yeah... all stuff I am not interested in.
On that note Netflix... make some science/history/nature shows in a shorter format like a tv show. I love documentaries but don't always have 2 hours in a row to spend watching one.
75447885311367 options, none I want to watch. Just like tv
After the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, live sports on traditional TV are on a delay anyway to block "fuck" or a visible female nipple.
After becoming a cord cutter, I switched back to TV because of company coming over to help with my newborn twins. Having TV is just too damn convenient now.