Netflix Wants 50% Of Its Library To Be Original Content (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Netflix is looking to shift its content mix even further towards original TV and movies, with a goal of achieving a 50 percent mix between its own programming and stuff licensed for its use by outside studios. The 50-50 target was revealed by Netflix CFO David Wells at the Goldman Sach's Communacopia conference on Tuesday, and Wells added that they'd like to hit that mix sometime over the course of the next few years. As for its progress so far, Wells said Netflix is already about "one-third to halfway" to that ratio, having launched 2015 hours of original programming in 2015, and with the intend of achieving a further 600 hours by the end of 2016. The benefit for Netflix with a shift to self-generated content is that the licensing situation is much simpler, and the investment made represents a cost that continues to deliver value long after the initial spend. Licensing arrangements with outside TV and film distributors have a fixed term, and thus represent a recurring cost if you want to continue offering their content in your library.

Comments

Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more lucrative to be a content creator than a content distributor.

The problem is, they'd lose a lot of their current customers.

Re:Translation:

[unixisc]

They could try doing what Sirius XM did in radio, and attract existing talent to their programs and channels. A lot of people are attracted to legacy shows, and are not always swayed by the latest hits on TV

Re:Translation:

[unixisc]

He hardly did any good movies since Happy Gilmore, aside from 50 First Dates. Most of them are soiled by his bizarre bathroom humor - like Big Daddy

Re: Translation:

[bev_tech_rob]

I'm not sure how it is in other countries but in Canada there are quite a few things landlord as originals that appear to simply be content they are the exclusive regional distributor for rather than the creator.

Wat?

Re:Translation:

[Oswald McWeany]

He hardly did any good movies since Happy Gilmore, aside from 50 First Dates. Most of them are soiled by his bizarre bathroom humor - like Big Daddy

Tee-hee, you said "soiled".

Re: Translation:

[Oswald McWeany]

Netflix and Hulu both do that a lot with British shows in the US

They take a show that was on BBC or ITV and then laud it as "A NETFLIX ORIGINAL" when they reshow it in the US a year later. As if they developed it themselves and it wasn't just rebroadcasting shows that already aired in Britain.

Re:Translation:

[Wycliffe]

Considering I already don't care about and don't watch probably 80-90% of the current selection anyways, dropping what I do care about in order to become Netflix Channel is not something I care to support and might actually make cable look like a good option again. Don't do that.

They've publicly stated that "Netflix Channel" is their goal where they are curators of content. I find this disappointing. I really would like some company to try for 100% coverage even if it is a pay per hour type situation. Amazon is the closest so far with some unlimited content and alot of rental content mixed together. Amazon would be almost perfect if it's subscription also included X hours of anything in its library so that I didn't have to be nickled and dimed for all their premium content. They've recently started adding additional channels like Starz which improves their coverage even more but it's still a patchwork of services. I really want VidAngel to win so that you can rent physical dvds without shipping as netflix by mail still has the best coverage but so far noone has successfully won a remote DVR or remote physical disk case.

Re: Translation:

[Moheeheeko]

Example, there are several anime shows listed on Netflix as "Netflix originals" when the reality is that Netflix is the only place outside of japan to watch it (without downloading it illegally)

Re:Translation:

[PRMan]

Although it was a kids' movie, Bedtime Stories was a really good movie compared to most of the dreck he puts out. I think that's the last quality thing he has touched.

Re:Translation:

[Wycliffe]

Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that? Even Amazon will probably never get over a meager fraction. There is way too much out there. You're asking for something that's never going to happen, because it's way too much work and would be ludicrously expensive. (Peoples' cable bills are tiny compared to the bill you're asking for!)

Netflix by mail already does offer this service. The only problem is that because of current laws it's stuck to using snail mail.

I want almost the opposite of what you do. I want extremely-narrow (1 show) "channels," and dozens of them, all accessed via a standard interface (so that my user agent can show a unified list and play whatever I subscribe to or buy)

In some ways this is the same as what I am asking for. Get 100% coverage and charge me if you need to for certain titles but at least make it available. It's stupid that streaming is crippled in a way that redbox and netflix by mail have titles that streaming can't offer.

Re:Translation:

[LinuxIsGarbage]

They could try doing what Sirius XM did in radio, and attract existing talent to their programs and channels. A lot of people are attracted to legacy shows, and are not always swayed by the latest hits on TV

That's one of many reasons I cancelled Sirius. I don't care to have a bunch of has-beens announcing songs. Do I need to hear the Ashtray Nina Blackwood announcing song titles? That's what the display is for.

Other reasons include:
-Shallow playlist. As an example 80s on 8 make you thing 867-5309 was the only song in the 80's... I liked the "countdown from this week in 198x" not because of the announcers, but because I heard songs I never heard before
-Ads on ad-free radio. "Listen to The Superbowl on channel 856". Fuckoff, If I wanted to listen to the Superbowl I would have tuned in already.
-Starting to charge for online listening.

If anyone listens to SiriusXM, I hope you aren't paying full price. Call to cancel and you should get ~$5/month for at least 6 months. They should offer at least two levels of offers. Complain enough and you get free online listening.

Re:Translation:

[LinuxIsGarbage]

They've been going downhill for years. Ever since they made that move away from DVDS towards online the collection has been getting worse and worse. I think they'll have no problem hitting that 50-50 goal as the amount of 3rd party materials continues to disappear.

The fact that their search and browse facilities are so terrible doesn't do anything good. There's no particularly good way of stumbling on interesting content that they aren't pushing. And the material they're pushing is often times no interest to me. And good luck with search. I'll usually have to search for a half dozen things before I find one that they actually have. And sometimes I've had to look for a dozen.

This is about my experience. I have to get suggestions from friends or online... All the "Recommendations" are titles I've already watched. Trying to browse through categories makes one think they only have about 20 titles in each category.

Re:Translation:

[Rakarra]

Translation: Our library is really shitty and it's not going to get better.

Netflix has some good original content, but I didn't sign up for it to be the next HBO. All of that are steps in the wrong direction.
I signed up for Netflix because of what it was: the best place to find almost any DVD I wanted. Look at the DVD/Blu-Ray selection versus their streaming selection. The streaming selection is pathetic. Online streaming SUCKS, and it's because the power was put back into the hands of the content owners, where it shouldn't belong. They will screw it up every time.

Re:Translation:

[Rakarra]

He hardly did any good movies since Happy Gilmore, aside from 50 First Dates. Most of them are soiled by his bizarre bathroom humor - like Big Daddy

I thought the Wedding Singer was ok. And Punch-Drunk Love was excellent. But that's a Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) movie, not an Adam Sandler movie. It's more a deconstruction of Sandler's previous characters. Punch Drunk Love was 14 years ago though. What of worth has he done since then? Spanglish, maybe?

Re:Translation:

[Rakarra]

Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that?

Netflix does. But only in the DVD-by-mail business. Online streaming, you can't have this, because that's controlled by the content companies, and they will never not have their heads up their asses.

Re:Translation:

[RockDoctor]

Is there no content other than music? What about the documentaries, the reviews of art, theatre, film and literature, the original drama.

I'm not surprised you dumped them if all they could offer on their service was to waste the electrons on music.

Sure they do... wait, no

[drinkypoo]

What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[Anonymous Coward]

What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.

It depends on how you look at it. Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis. They also must keep their price low. So far, the market is speaking and it is telling Netflix that it likes original content. Netflix is very smart to continue this path.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like subscribers are going to continue to have to put up with this terrible market where every streaming service wants top dollar, but none of them have what you want to watch more than 25% of the time.

The content creators, and content providers, are talking to each other. But they are not united in the common goal of providing a great experience for consumers. They are united in the goal of bilking us out of as much money as possible. They will spend hugely more money and effort on anti-file-sharing efforts than they ever would on unified-distribution-service efforts.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[dbialac]

Moves like this are why I canceled and switched to an ad-free Hulu subscription. It had reached the point where I was paying $9/month to watch Futurama, a few seasons of Top Gear (and not the good ones) and annually one self-produced show. For the latter, I figure I can subscribe for a single month when it comes out. Hulu, meanwhile, has almost everything that I watched that Netflix shed and shows they never carried (ex: Simpsons, Seinfeld, South Park, etc.).

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[Feral Nerd]

What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.

I disagree, I don't subscribe to Netflix because of the ability to wade through a legion of TV shows and movies from he 1980s, 90s and early 00s. I wade through that shit and see little that I haven't watched already and very little I'd like to watch again. Then there is more recent third party material like Falling Skies which I watched on Netflix and liked but they unfortunately only had the first two seasons for some reason that probably has to do with legalities and changes in the corporate policies of who ever made Falling Skies and their various regional distributor so I had to bit-tornent the rest of the Falling Skies seasons. Most of what I watch on Netflix, apart from catching up on Star Trek Enterprise, Deeps Space 9 and Starship Voyager episodes I missed back in the day and some newer third party TV series (usually incomplete for some stupid legal/marketing reasons) is Netflix's own original shows most of which are actually some of the best material on Netflix to begin with, Narco's for example stood out. The most glaring shortcoming I see with Netflix is that they aren't producing enough of their own original stuff for me to watch. I can only applaud their effort to make their own content and distribute it themselves because it cuts all the legal and marketing bullshit out of the equation and flushes it down the toilet.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[physicsphairy]

Netflix experienced a golden age where they were the only sensible option for making your content available for streaming and they offered enough additional exposure to make that profitable and desirable. But it's easy enough to cut them out and deliver the content yourself. You can make even more money selling an exclusive licence to Hulu, Prime, etc. Netflix can't offer a wide variety of content if no one is licensing it to them.

Producing original content is actually the solution. If Netflix can say, "Fine, don't license us your show, we'll just make our own in the same genre with a very similar premise" then they have much more negotiating power to avoid losing access.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[CODiNE]

They should pull a Google Books on the DVD industry and rip all those rental discs. Heck Google didn't need author permission, they can even argue an accessibility exemption as they add captions to everything. Say they're doing deaf and blind a favor by captioning and descriptive audio'ing historical content. If they're lucky they won't even have to write a check to anyone.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[AthanasiusKircher]

It depends on how you look at it. Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis.

The thing is -- there are different types of "new" content. There's "new" content in the sense of "made recently." But there's also "new" content in the sense of "we didn't have this product before."

When Netflix streaming first came out, I was hopeful that they'd keep doing more of the latter. There were lots of old, classic films, which I frankly prefer over a lot of new stuff. There are still several hundred old movies I'd be interested in seeing but haven't gotten around to it -- and those are just the "classics" I know about... inevitably, when I watch some of them, I'll discover some other related ones to watch.

All of this was the reason I originally subscribed to the DVD service 15 years or whatever ago.

Anyhow, originally my hope was that Netflix streaming would go more in the direction of what Amazon seems to have done, i.e., creating a huge streaming catalog. Frankly, I'd have been happy to pay a premium for streaming some of the more obscure stuff, or pay for a different tiered system or whatever.

But instead, Netflix has narrowed its focus in streaming, and a lot of the old more obscure content is gone. But even more worrying is that the DVD service no longer stocks a lot of the more obscure stuff.

They also must keep their price low. So far, the market is speaking and it is telling Netflix that it likes original content. Netflix is very smart to continue this path.

Sure, it's very smart from the perspective of business and profits -- so far, it's catering to the majority of customers. The question is -- just how much is it worth to people to watch "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" or whatever? How much will people put up with in dropping of other content and still pay prices for just a few shows?

I know I'm certainly not representative of most consumers. Lately, I've been doing a lot more "one-time" rentals from Amazon for the more obscure stuff that Netflix doesn't have, and watching a lot less Netflix. At some point there may be a place where Netflix is no longer worth it for me. Getting to see "House of Cards" or whatever come up with a few new episodes once per year may not be worth the recurring monthly charge.

Netflix is hoping that its original content will grow to the point that people become "addicted to it" before the rest of the catalog drops to the point where no one wants to pay for it. But just like there were plenty of people back in the day who weren't willing to fork out extra money each month for HBO just to see "The Sopranos" and "Sex in the City" or whatever, there may be many Netflix subscribers who don't care so much about the specific original content from Netflix... at least not enough to sustain a subscription.

Anyhow, bottom line is that this isn't what sold a lot of people on Netflix in the beginning, which was a large selection of all sorts of stuff. If they effectively become "just another cable channel" with a particular selection of shows, it's a big gamble with a large number of their customers. And Netflix has arguably undermined the whole "must-see TV" culture on a particular schedule which traditionally sustained new content. Yes, it still exists -- but a lot of people now just "binge watch" when they have time rather than the buzz created with "Did you see what happened on X last night??" Without that high-priority "I need to see what my coworkers and friends are watching TONIGHT" mentality, will subscribing for annual updates to original content be sustainable for them? Or will people be increasingly inclined to just watch whatever whenever, so they don't need to be subscribed to have the new content "right now" (except for a few hardcore fans)? Or will you have people subscribing for only a month to binge watch the new series of X favorite show and then unsubscribing from Netflix for the rest of the year?

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[Mr D from 63]

Sure, it's very smart from the perspective of business and profits -- so far, it's catering to the majority of customers. The question is -- just how much is it worth to people to watch "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" or whatever? How much will people put up with in dropping of other content and still pay prices for just a few shows?

It depends on how many of those series are available and how good they are. You say 'just a few shows' but that is hardly what NF describes as its plan. The nice thing about original content is that the license does not expire, the more you make the more you accumulate. So at some point the scales tilt back to content increasing.

Anyhow, what Netflix was is history. The entire world around them has changed. The competition, the market, and the supply chain. They could not survive on their original model. They can't afford to keep paying license fees for content that few people are watching.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[drinkypoo]

Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis.

People expect Netflix to provide selection, and if it fails to do that then a substantial portion of their customer base will (finally) use some other service. Since they finally jacked up the prices for long-term subscribers to be the same as everyone else, there's no compelling reason not to switch; one can always switch back for the same monthly price.

Re:Sure they do... wait, no

[Rakarra]

But they are not united in the common goal of providing a great experience for consumers. They are united in the goal of bilking us out of as much money as possible.

The content creators are the same people who are on record as saying, for instance, that the DVD era was a disaster for the movie studios. That they charged way too low a price, and companies like blockbuster and netflix could just rent them out. They truly believe that that was a horrible time, and they aim to "fix" it by charging exorbitant rates for streaming.

So where will existing content come from?

[kalpol]

From where will we obtain any given movie or TV show we want to watch that is not Netflix/Amazon/etc. original content? Right now the Netflix DVD service still has by far the widest selection - things like all the old British shows, old movies, all the stuff that is really desirable to watch but no longer is worth the cost to license it. I tried to find a copy of the 1960 version of the movie The Time Machine - only available via DVD from Netflix. Are we going to see a resurgence in the DVD service?

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

I canceled my streaming subscription about four months ago and went back to the DVD service. I have two DVD subscriptions (one for TV shows, one for movies) so I can have up to six discs at a time. The cost is more than double the streaming service and yes, it's not so great for impulse viewing. But at least I get to watch things that I actually want to watch. The streaming selection has been steadily diminishing for years, and before I finally canceled the service I would go weeks at a time without watching anything on Netflix. And usually then, it was typically a case of searching for one thing and settling for something else. They have some great original content (Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, etc.) but it's not worth maintaining a subscription for. OitNB is available on DVD, and for Daredevil/JJ why not just sub for a month to catch the new seasons and then cancel?

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[Luthair]

I'm in a similar boat though from my perspective all the original content has been garbage.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[omnichad]

They're dropping a lot of old stock of DVDs. In fact, about 1/3 of my DVD queue is no longer available at all. It's true, though. They imagined a world where you could watch anything ever made on one service - and a lot of people bought into it. I'm still on the DVD service, but I'm finding that more and more back-catalog are available as one-time rentals from Amazon streaming for fairly cheap.

There is still a lot of older obscure content that has yet to be released on DVD. Or newer content - Arrested Development season 4 is only available in HD on Netflix streaming. I want the Blu-Ray to complete my set of all four seasons, but they only offer DVD to own. Ironically, I can buy a perpetual HD digital copy from Amazon. Netflix can easily double-dip on subscription charges and home video - and I'd gladly buy some shows on disc even while I have access over Netflix to be able to always watch it in full quality with no buffering. And I also know that Netflix won't be around forever and that the available content will eventually change.

Re: So where will existing content come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive found myself falling back to torrenting more and more in the last six months. Its funny because i have various streaming subscriptions and yet torrents are still the fastest and easiest way to watch the stuff i want.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[segedunum]

Are we going to see a resurgence in the DVD service?

Conceivably. The online service is simply too expensive to maintain and as it is right now, not sustainable into the future. Subscription fees will have to rise drastically, content will have to fall dramatically or possibly both. The assumption has been that subscriber growth would rise enough to offset this but that has been nowhere near to happening. Unless Netflix can get a copy of DVDFab and rip all of their DVD rental stuff online.

It sounds daft but Blockbuster's administrators might want to start dusting down the store fronts, or at least a decent postal service because unless something changes we're going right back to optical media...............

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[CastrTroy]

What they really need is the equivalent of buying a DVD for digital content. You can currently buy the DVD, and that gives you the right to rent it out, simply because you own it. The movie studios have no control whether or not you rent something else that you paid your own money for. There definitely needs to be a way for Netflix to purchase a license for any movie that exists and just stream it as much as they want, provided they only use a license for a single stream at a time. Owning a DVD should probably allow you to store it on a hard disk and rent it out digitally, but the current laws don't allow that I'm pretty sure. But this really does need to be the case. Otherwise, the movie studios will always have a stranglehold on the people distributing and you won't ever get a streaming service that has absolutely every movie available.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[dgatwood]

What they really need is the equivalent of buying a DVD for digital content.

The problem is, then Netflix would not only have to keep all of their active content available for streaming, but also all of their historical content, just in case somebody bought it and wants to redownload it. I mean yes, they could have it on fewer servers, but still, it isn't clear how that benefits consumers over, for example, buying it from the iTunes Store's video section unless they can somehow convince the movie studios to discard their blind trust in DRM and sell the content in a more usable format without all the vendor lock-in.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[NotAPK]

The only aspect that is difficult to assess is the value of the opportunity to watch whatever you like.

If I sold you a service that allowed you to watch any movie ever made, and you signed up for a year and watched a movie each Friday night then you'll have only watched 52 movies out of how many million? That doesn't mean having the other titles in the catalog were a waste, it's important they are there, since you signed up for access to "every movie ever made".

It's like Apple removing all the buttons and options that people don't click on very often. Sure, I may only use the "shutdown button" once a fortnight (compared to start/menu which is used a 100 times a day) but when I want it: that fucking button had best be there!!!!!

Re: So where will existing content come from?

[Applehu Akbar]

Ive found myself falling back to torrenting more and more in the last six months. Its funny because i have various streaming subscriptions and yet torrents are still the fastest and easiest way to watch the stuff i want.

Restricted licensing terms are steadily driving users to torrents. These are people who, once they have tasted the convenience of one source for eveything, will not be coming back.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[Gilgaron]

Compulsory licensing would also help internet radio, but the idea sure won't be popular with the media companies.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[omnichad]

I wonder how many views a lot of that content was even getting.

They had already bought the movies. Storage for flat discs with no cases is somewhat cheap. If those discs are wearing out and need replaced it's because they're being used. They are systematically dumping a lot of their expansive catalog and aren't really being transparent about why. I suspect it's because their disc service still has a better catalog than streaming - and they wanted to dump DVD entirely from their business and offer whatever anyone could ever want over streaming. And they should have fully known that licensing costs would rise to block that from ever happening.

If the content they strip out isn't something I'll watch anyhow, then it doesn't devalue the service I am getting.

These movies/shows were added to my queue when they still had it - so definitely things I would watch. A major part of their value was being able to pick out obscure Canadian or British comedies and them actually having the discs to send you.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[bad-badtz-maru]

I think that the storage for flat discs with no cases is not as cheap as you might think or Netflix would like. They've thinning the plastic disc collection just like they've closed nearly half of their hubs.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[omnichad]

Racing costs to the bottom because they've killed all the competition is what it's all about. Now that there are no/few physical disc competitors to their streaming service, they're the primary competitor to the service they want to sell.

I'm going to stand by storage for flat discs still being inexpensive. It's almost entirely a factor of physical space, since the rest is the same regardless of exactly how large the catalog is.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[AmiMoJo]

As usual, The Pirate Bay has everything, even obscure stuff. Amazon and eBay used DVDs too. The media companies have it backwards, they should be begging to be on Netflix because otherwise they will get nothing.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[NotAPK]

Agreed.

Big fan btw.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks, as you probably know I'm mainly in it for the glory and adoration of my fans!

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[Rakarra]

They had already bought the movies. Storage for flat discs with no cases is somewhat cheap. If those discs are wearing out and need replaced it's because they're being used.

I think both of those assertions are not as correct as you think they are. Storage for flat discs is not that cheap when you have as huge a number as you do -- you need distribution centers, and you need staff to actually do the work. And the discs are not necessarily wearing out from use. They might be wearing out due to age. I think we overestimate the longevity of the average pressed disc, and the number of discs I've gotten recently that are unplayable but look pristine has risen. But most people I've found don't take good care of their discs. They leave them sitting out on a table without a sleeve, let their kids handle them, they get scratched and fingerprints, and it doesn't take much to make a DVD skip or unplayable.

But more than that, if a disc breaks or goes bad and its a disc that was on loan to subscribers most of the time, well that tends to be a net win. But if you have a disc sitting around for awhile and it finally goes out to someone and that someone reports it is broken, well you just took a big hit. The DVD subscription only works for them when the scaling happens on a massive level. But if they lose lots of DVD subscriptions, then the overhead costs for maintaining a massive catalog start to rise above the subscription fees and they have to find ways to cut back.

Re:So where will existing content come from?

[Rakarra]

There definitely needs to be a way for Netflix to purchase a license for any movie that exists and just stream it as much as they want, provided they only use a license for a single stream at a time

They do, but the movie studios hate that method. Sure, it brought them billions, but they still think that they got a bad deal. The reason this WILL NOT happen, and the reason Netflix's content has gotten squeezed, is the content studios are in love with pay per view. They don't want you to pay a reasonable fee for a show or movie and watch it as many times as you want. IE, you are not allowed to own a copy of a movie. They couldn't get pay-per-view with DVD.. it just wasn't technically feasible. But it is with online services.

Transformation

[Lije Baley]

Netflix is becoming "just another TV network", becoming less of what everyone wants and more of what some people will pay for. Very depressing.

Re:Transformation

[alvinrod]

I think to a certain extent this is a response to existing TV networks or content creators souring on giving streaming deals to Netflix in preference of trying to build their own platforms or outright shunning the internet to keep their existing business model in place.

If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?

This leaves Netflix with the only real choice to start producing their own content so that they can sell subscriptions. In that way they're not that much different than HBO that started out as a movie channel and then got into making their own television series and a few original movies, only Netflix didn't start as a cable channel first. Now that HBO has done more to embrace internet streaming without requiring a cable subscription, they're almost in the same business.

If you thought Netflix was going to ever become a one stop shop for all shows and movies you're out of your mind. The film industry saw exactly what happened when iTunes became the far and away dominant platform and how it meant an end to DRM in order to break Apple's hold.

Re:Transformation

[segedunum]

Their costs are simply too high and can't be covered unless they start drastically increasing monthly fees, and the only way people will pay that is if they drastically increase content, live TV, sports etc. The content costs are obviously a problem, but there's not much they can do about that, but their infrastructure costs are way too high and getting higher. Creating their own content is obviously a way to reduce long-term costs but a with lot of investment upfront. The trouble is, the reduced choice can't be made up with producing their own stuff, no matter how popular it is. They're also going to have a few bombs eventually as well, which they can ill-afford. If they'd applied the same logic to their infrastructure as their 'original content' they might have a chance.

I don't see a way out of this.

Re:Transformation

[segedunum]

If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?

It's not that they don't want to license, it's just that from Netflix's point-of-view it's too expensive as their costs rise.

Re:Transformation

[omnichad]

the only way people will pay that is if they drastically increase content, live TV, sports etc
No - I won't pay an increased cost. That's why I got rid of cable.

They are going to have to increasingly niche themselves or split out their content to multiple subscription options. There's no way I want to pay for more selection than I need. I'll just start buying DVD/Blu-Ray of shows for less money unless Netflix DVD has what I want.

Re:Transformation

[Rakarra]

Netflix is becoming "just another TV network", becoming less of what everyone wants and more of what some people will pay for. Very depressing.

What's worse is that no one actually likes TV networks, and no one wants TV networks. They want to watch their favorite shows. The whole "we want a la carte cable plans!" discussion totally missed the point, because people want specific shows anyway. They don't want to watch "another great Netflix show!" Or "another Bravo winner!" They want one or two from here, one or two from there. Not an outdated concept like a TV network that exists for corporate organizational reasons.

So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[QuietLagoon]

Netflix has slowly, but surely, been reducing the breadth of its non-original content. It used to be that Netflix was the go-to streaming service. Now, with Netflix reducing the non-original content, Netflix is turning into just another cable TV channel.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[NotInHere]

I guess they'll revert when they realize that the vast amount of content they've offered was the reason for their success in the first place.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[swb]

IMHO, when streaming started I'd say it had about a B grade in terms of content (quality + quantity).

Over time, it seemed to go down to about C grade.

Lately it strikes me that it's gotten marginally better, maybe B-.

The question is whether they expand their original content significantly without shrinking licensed content to achieve a 50/50 mix, or whether they will expand moderately and shrink moderately to get there, or worse, expand slightly and shrink more greatly.

The expansion of their original content could actually help expand their licensed content if it makes licensed content cheaper. I would mostly guess it would, long-term, if only because Netflix would have more bargaining power.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Wulfson]

More like the rights holders for that non-original content have been slowly but surely starving Netflix of content, bringing about this situation. Sure, I wish all that old stuff that I originally subscribed to see was still available, but I don't blame Netflix for not re-upping when the movie studios et al keep trying to eat all of their profit.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Viewsonic]

I've only been subscribing to Netflix for their original content. I can get most of the unoriginal stuff on my Prime account already.

Many of their shows have been absolutely amazing. Game of Thrones level of awesome, in my humble opinion.

Stranger Things (1 season)
Daredevil (2 seasons)
Jessica Jones (1 season)
Narcos (2 seasons)

I've binged all of these shows because they were that good. The only other show I've ever binged before this was The Wire. That says, to me, they have something special going on. If they can keep the good content coming at a decent pace, I have no problem with them dumping the same stuff I can get anywhere else.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[omnichad]

They were paying a lot of money for some very old shows that everyone's already seen. That might be quantity, but it's not quality where it counts for me - I don't really enjoy re-watching much.

You also can't have a go-to streaming service when studios are going to make better money with their own streaming service. They sold a dream they can't fulfill, and let their DVD service rot in the process (which really did have almost everything imaginable at one point).

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[nedlohs]

They can't. The got in early enough that the rights holders of the streaming content licensed it reasonably cheap. That has all changed now that those holders have realized there's money in streaming and want a bigger slice of it.

They're trying to transition to something that will work in that world. They don't really have a choice.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Feral Nerd]

I've only been subscribing to Netflix for their original content. I can get most of the unoriginal stuff on my Prime account already.

Many of their shows have been absolutely amazing. Game of Thrones level of awesome, in my humble opinion.

Stranger Things (1 season) Daredevil (2 seasons) Jessica Jones (1 season) Narcos (2 seasons)

I've binged all of these shows because they were that good. The only other show I've ever binged before this was The Wire. That says, to me, they have something special going on. If they can keep the good content coming at a decent pace, I have no problem with them dumping the same stuff I can get anywhere else.

Bingo, their original content is available in every region where they operate without restrictions. In my region only about a third of the non-netflix stuff they stream in the US is not available because of existing distribution agreements the makers of that content previously made with local distributors. These are usually conventional cable TV companies, who charge exorbitant prices for the outmoded old TV system of showing one episode per week and where you have to subscribe to and pay for 100 crap channels to get the 12 you really want to watch. These guys aren't about to allow that content to be streamed by Netflix which offers all 12-24 or something episodes of a series for viewing in one batch on the same day. Outfits like Netflix making their own content and distributing it themselves without idiotic restrictions and without attaching a shit load of crap you don't want to watch to milk you for extra money like the conventional cable companies and TV network do and that is basically where the entertainment industry is going.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[rhazz]

Netflix is turning into just another cable TV channel.

In terms of producing their own content, but in most other ways their business model is far more consumer friendly than most of the incumbent cable channels and providers. Just the fact that their original content is globally licensed puts them miles ahead of HBO, which I cannot get in Canada without a $70 cable package. Netflix's existence has been a huge disturbance to the market in a very good way for consumers - just because they don't fix all the problems doesn't make them a bad thing.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[dgatwood]

You also can't have a go-to streaming service when studios are going to make better money with their own streaming service.

Studios only think that they are going to make better money. The reality is that they might, but only in the very short term. The more studios go to that model, the more companies you'll have competing for a limited entertainment budget. Eventually, those studios are going to get squeezed, and viewers are going to start subscribing for two months to each one, then dropping them, and other similar tactics to allow them to subscribe to more services than they can afford to subscribe to continuously.

At that point, the only difference between running your own streaming service and making your content available through Netflix is the profit that Netflix takes, but that mostly gets eaten up by the advertising budget that you have to spend trying to convince people to try your one-off service that has only limited content.

In the long run, the content providers are doomed without a small number of common providers. The "everybody provides their own subscription service" model is unsustainable. An "everybody provides their own DRM-free download service" might be sustainable, but the content providers won't touch that with a ten-meter pole.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[omnichad]

Or, old content just isn't worth making available in that way at all. If $3/mo. of your subscription goes toward licensing for old content and you only care about a few shows, you're better off spending $36/yr. on DVD/Blu-Ray deals.

It's new content that's going to be in larger numbers of niche venues. Recently, Seeso came out as a niche of comedy, standup and British sitcoms, and are only at $3.99 a month. It would take an awful lot of those subscriptions to be more expensive than cable, and you're effectively getting that a la carte cable package people always say they wanted.

Subscribing to a service for a few months and then dropping it is probably fine in that case. It's a way of getting a larger audience without actually lowering the price. And if the service provider already owns the content, they're not losing out by licensing for eyeballs they don't actually have all year.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[mu51c10rd]

It is noticeable as well. For last few months, I've found that I watch far more Hulu and Amazon than Netflix. Why? I don't care for the original content they are focusing on it. I just want to binge watch old TV series I like, or rewatch older movies. Netflix has been dropping those consistently, while Hulu and amazon are picking up the contracts Netflix drops. Same with kids shows...my kids have been steadily losing their shows on Netflix, and have started watching Hulu as well. If this keeps up, I will probably drop my subscription soon.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[drinkypoo]

They're trying to transition to something that will work in that world. They don't really have a choice.

I don't think there's much question of whether they're going to successfully transition to being one of many players. I think a more interesting question is whether anyone is going to step up to somehow unify these disparate services for the end-user, and if so who it's going to be. Due to the unique nature of internet delivery, it can be basically anybody... although obviously anyone who already owns a big CDN has a massive edge.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[drinkypoo]

Or, old content just isn't worth making available in that way at all. If $3/mo. of your subscription goes toward licensing for old content and you only care about a few shows, you're better off spending $36/yr. on DVD/Blu-Ray deals.

There's a substantial slice of the population that doesn't want to own discs. If they can't stream it, they'll most likely watch something else. This segment is growing as useful internet access reaches more potential customers...

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[AmiMoJo]

It's like they don't want to make money. Do they really think people will subscribe to 20 different streaming services so they can all get their cut? People aren't going to subscribe to CBS's service just for Star Trek.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Paul Burney]

I think that's generally true, but Star Trek? If there were a new series, I'd subscribe to a separate service in a heartbeat.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[AmiMoJo]

There is a new series starting early next year. In the US you can only get it if you subscribe to the CBS streaming service. In other countries Netflix is getting it, and if your country doesn't have Netflix... BitTorrent.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[omnichad]

Who cares if they don't want to own it? They don't have to keep it. If it's cheaper, it's cheaper. Letting the media companies tell you what you want to watch is not appealing.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Rakarra]

Streaming has killed Netflix. They're at the mercy of other companies who despise them, unlike the DVD business that built them, where they held the cards.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Rakarra]

There is a new series starting early next year. In the US you can only get it if you subscribe to the CBS streaming service. In other countries Netflix is getting it, and if your country doesn't have Netflix... BitTorrent.

This is not uncommon for the Star Trek franchise. The original series was on... CBS, I think, but the Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were fully syndicated. After that, Paramount started pulling back, because they were starting their own television network, UPN, and they needed a big draw to help prop it up, so Star Trek Voyager was one of the first UPN-only TV series. At my house we only barely got UPN. The picture quality was so poor it was almost unwatchable, after years of watching TNG and DS9 with no problem.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[Rakarra]

Letting the media companies tell you what you want to watch is not appealing.

They already tell you what to watch, since they decide what to make. Many an idea dies because a studio won't pick it up because they think it's not marketable.

Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted

[omnichad]

They already tell you what to watch, since they decide what to make. Many an idea dies because a studio won't pick it up because they think it's not marketable.

Not really entirely true. Once I run out of new content that I actually want, the money spigot STOPS. I won't pay for what I don't want. If I continued to pay for Netflix and they had nothing but shovelvision, I would be under their control.

But that's not what I pay for

[suso]

I started subscribing to Netflix in 1999. I became a customer because I wanted to be able to watch movies from a variety of studios, not just one. If I just wanted one studio, I'd subscribe to HBO. Notice how Netflix streaming doesn't have that good of content from other studios? Probably because studios realize that if they make agreements with Netflix, they will be working with and helping one of their competitors. Like Akbar said, its a trap.

Re:Where Do You Watch Movies Now?

[houghi]

I do not really watch TV or Movies either. I download them and have them running as background noise.
I have replaced it with YouTube where I watch more and more. I am subscribed to 200+ channels. Most will have 15 minutes per week or so. Some have no new content in the last year and could be dead, for all I know.

The way I follow is by exporting the RSS feed and then watching it when the new ones come out. More variation than what I could get on TV. It goes from unboxing, to comedy (Maxim Brady for the win!) to tech to camera to car, travel, woodworking and other subjects.

If torrenting would not be possible from tomorrow on, I would not miss anything. Not really. That said: I torrent myself and I am aware that I do not have some right to see content. Just because things are available does not mean I should have access to them. If the owners of the Mona Lisa decide to hide it in a cellar, I can not say that I have a right to see it. If the writer of a book does not want it to be published, I do not have a right to demand it. I have the right to ask it and they have the right to say no.
The fact that there are ways around it does not alter those rights.

So what is wrong are the laws that provide those tights. Especially the period of how long these rights are extended to.

So getting rid of more content then

[lusid1]

Thats the only way to ever hit 50%.

How to fix that?

[H3lldr0p]

Make television and movies like music with compulsory licensing? Say anything five years and older gets put into the pool of things that can be broadcast/streamed as part of your service as long as you pay the base royalties. Have the same sort of setup as music does but with a much finer grained reporting. That way everyone that should get paid, is paid.

While five years seems a bit long, that's so streaming and rebroadcast doesn't cut too deeply into the DVD/BluRay sales. That should be plenty of time for that to go through the fans that really want their personal copy at release or to wait for the price to fall or discounted.

And this doesn't stop anyone from making separate deals to get it before the five year date and/or add extras to their service like trivia, blooper reels, and so forth.

Again, the point of copyright was to give people a chance to spread culture around before it is outright given away. Seeing as how locked up it's become, anything that speeds and ease of dissemination is a good thing.

Re:How to fix that?

[TheRaven64]

While five years seems a bit long, that's so streaming and rebroadcast doesn't cut too deeply into the DVD/BluRay sales

Studios used to wait six months between cinema release and DVD sales because they were scared that DVD sales would cut into cinema ticket sales. Now they often do simultaneous releases because they learned that if you don't make content available in the format that people want then they'll pirate it (and now we have large statutory penalties because it's hard to argue actual damages when you're refusing to sell the thing that's been pirated). People won't buy the DVD if they can't stream it, they'll either go without or pirate.

Re:How to fix that?

[spyfrog]

That has to be an American thing. I have never ever seen a DVD release at the same time as a cinema release here. To make things even worse - usually the American DVD release is about the same time that we can see it in cinemas here.

Re:How to fix that?

[Coren22]

I don't know what Raven is talking about, the 6 month wait is still alive and well in the US.

Re:How to fix that?

[Rakarra]

Make television and movies like music with compulsory licensing? Say anything five years and older gets put into the pool of things that can be broadcast/streamed as part of your service as long as you pay the base royalties. Have the same sort of setup as music does but with a much finer grained reporting. That way everyone that should get paid, is paid.

That's nice, but it doesn't seem like such a thing would pass a constitutional challenge. You can't force content studios to sell. I can't figure out where the legal rationale for that would be.

Re:How to fix that?

[Rakarra]

That has to be an American thing. I have never ever seen a DVD release at the same time as a cinema release here. To make things even worse - usually the American DVD release is about the same time that we can see it in cinemas here.

It's not an American thing either -- it's extremely rare for a -major- studio to release DVD/streaming versions of a movie here while it's still in first-run releases in this territory.

Pool's closed

[Falos]

Honeymoon's over, free market at work.

Early Netflix, everyone was nodding their heads and saying "lol, sure, give us money and you can borrow our imaginary property" and cooing over li'l baby DVD kiosker. Now streaming is hype, Normals are streaming so hard it's the biggest bandwidth load on the tubes. Now the joke is "netflix and chill", and that's showing up in the contracts. Letting NF rent your imaginary property isn't some cute giggle anymore, it's a threat, if you do distribution yourself or use anyone else. The drafts and proposals are surely phrased a bit different now, they simply have to say "Well, metrics say you'll have X views/usage so it's reasonable we charge you Y.". So NF decided to use their war chest to back out and coast on homebrew.

Commonersumers are sidelined, merely the ore vein patch-of-land covered in battle-torn claim flags in the eternal tug-of-war we call capitalism. Free market "best options" are meaningless under monopoly, and imaginary property (looking at you, pharma) is a great way to lock things down.

Enjoy your 200 channel packages or dozen subscriptions, the honeymoon's over. "Mainstream" isn't just some hipster word, it determines the business world. And with that, I'm pretty sure everyone should find at least one thing in this post disagreeable.

Re:Pool's closed

[spyfrog]

But most people can't afford or simply won't pay for a dozen subscription. So if this is the plan that the media companies have for the future, they will go broke. It is as simple as that.

To be fair...

[oic0]

Most of what I watch on Netflix these days is their original content... Its generally well done and more intelligent than the hyper formulaic stuff TV stations churn out these days. 50/50 seems very drastic, but I would like to see more original content.

Re:more idiots

[blackomegax]

If market forces are any evidence I am in the minority, but: I just want every piece of media ever under one roof, on instant tap on demand. The only current satisfaction to this desire is torrents, and that's a bit unreliable at best. Netflix has for the most part been reliable and fast. Thus desire.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Oswald McWeany]

Same is happening everywhere. Here in the US, you need Hulu if you want to watch "the Path". Amazon if you want to watch "Man in High Tower". I think Netflix is currently the only place for "Peaky Blinders" or "Luther". New Star Trek is going to be on CBS all Access. My wife's stupid ABC shows are going to be on Yahoo video. Meanwhile BBC is slowly pulling all their content from existing distributors and are setting up their own streaming service - so will need that for Doctor Who or Top Gear.

You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.

I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Oswald McWeany]

Oh... and HBO if you want Game of Thrones!

In Portland, Oregon, you have Movie Madness

[mallyn]

When I lived in Portland, Oregon, I used Movie Madness on Belmont St. It's the largest video store in the Northwest, if not the entire west coast. If you live in Portland, I highly recommend you use them and drop netflix.

Now that I am retired in Bellingham, Washington, I miss them. Here in Bellingham, we have the Pickford Film Center, which is the only non-chain art cinema north of Seattle in Washington State. Between going there for movies and keeping busy with my multiple hobbies ans sports, I still have not touched any streaming service for entertainment.

The little video that I look at on line is how-to videos on Youtube on doing stuff as welding, sewing, glass engraving, and so on.

'In fact, I have done my own videos on Youtube such as thins one https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Not to be confused with...

[sycodon]

So I guess we'll start see lots more titles that start their descriptions with the phrase, "not to be confused with the Block Buster...."

Sporadic production

[Oligonicella]

You want to go that way? Don't start series (ala Jessica Jones) and then abort them after one very successful season. Gives the false impression it wasn't well received.

Staggering production times would help as well. Why should viewers wait for all the shows to start new seasons at the same time?

Re:Sporadic production

[Tough_Nuts]

Jessica Jones isn't aborted, it is just like all the MARVEL shows on netflix they are still making them. It just takes time to get that content out to stream.

Re:Sporadic production

[SScorpio]

Yup, though it's probably going to be over a year before season two is out since it's been ten months so far and there hasn't been a release date announced. Daredevil got its second season after 11.5 months. We do get Luke Cage next week Friday, and Iron Fist and the Defenders shows next year.

With how many shows they are doing, it might end up like the movies and have releases every other year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series#Netflix_series

Re:Sporadic production

[Tough_Nuts]

Funny you say that. I have heard Marvel/Netflix people almost the same things. I would have to dig out the comments, but these shows are going gang-busters and seem to have no end in sight at the moment.

Blame Copyright and greed

[bussdriver]

Fees would have to rise and people really were upset at changes Netflix made in pricing before. They are trying to do as much as possible with the funds that they have.

If copyright was SANE there would be a HUGE library of old programming available. If all the old junk isn't preserved, it would clearly be better content than the modern programming... (which is mostly junk.)

The simple answer is that Netflix benefited by being the 1st. Today every major content owner can create their own service or make exclusive deals from an ever growing list of distributors desperate for content. This is almost EXACTLY like cable/sat channels which is why it has morphed into that direction. The HBO model works best which is why so many channels try to create compelling content of their own before they lose their budgets and become a poor rerun only channel who has to play infomercials all night.

Re:Blame Copyright and greed

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that it's all too spread out. If I could pay £8/month for everything I'd take that deal. If they want me to have multiple streaming services or cable with 10 different packages to get coverage, I won't.

At best multiple streaming services will mean subscribing to a different one each month.

The other massive problem is compatibility. My TV has an app for Netflix. It doesn't have one for Amazon so I don't have Amazon. App support for >1 year old TVs is even worse than updates for phones.

Poor value for money

[sjbe]

You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.

That's the problem. I want ala-carte service but I'm not about to pay for 12 different ersatz networks and end up paying more than I currently do. I'm certainly not going to pay for Netflix (or Hulu or ...) for just one or two shows. Doesn't matter how good they are.

I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.

You'll have to remind me when that was because to me their streaming service has never "had just about everything" or even close to it. I tried and dropped Netflix twice because their content catalog was full of crap I had no interest in (lots of old shitty B movies and old tv shows I didn't care about) and missing a lot of stuff I actually did have some interest in. Maybe it suits your interests better than mine but I found Netflix streaming to be poor value for money.

Re:Poor value for money

[PRMan]

The DVD days. They had every DVD.

Re:Poor value for money

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I'm back to buying television seasons on DVD and ripping them to a large portable drive.

Netflix was great at first, but I have slowly made my way through all of the their content that I was interested in. These days when I think of a movie I'd like to watch I'm finding that Netflix doesn't have it. I'm not really interested in any of their new content.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Gilgaron]

True, but if they follow Netflix in terms on binging expectations, you can rotate around your subscriptions and just watch the season in a month and cancel once you're finished. That's also the reason Netflix wants so many original shows... no one will subscribe all year to just watch Game of Thrones.

Good and bad

[jxander]

I'm torn on this.

One the one hand, all of the Netflix original shows have been pretty damned good. Way WAY better than the average tripe on cable. So yeah, keep on keeping on.

On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms. There's really nothing to stop Netflix from jacking their prices through the roof and holding the next season of *insert your favorite show* ransom unless you pay through the nose.

I would love to see the company spin off the production biz into it's own entity. Netflix could still have "first-dibs," and after a few months, license the rights to Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. It's really better for everyone this way. For the consumer, you know exactly what you're getting, there's no content barriers or true exclusives, and you don't have to jump through hoops enabling and disabling different services month-to-month to make sure you can see the shows you want. And for the corporations, this would give Netflix an additional revenue stream, as well as smoothing out subscriptions as people no longer play the aforementioned enable/disable game with the service.

Re:Good and bad

[SScorpio]

Netflix doesn't control the creation process though. The production companies are separate from Netflix and partner to do the shows. This is how shows for network TV are also done.

Look at what the production company of the amazing Stranger Things also did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Laps_Entertainment

Netflix is the one with first dibs, we'll just have to see in a few years if they syndicate their shows. House of Cards was their first big original, and that's only been out of three and a half years.

Re:Good and bad

[R3d M3rcury]

On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms.

Uh, Dude? Where've you been? That used to be the case up until the mid-80s or so.

The argument for the change was that the network TV model didn't work in the days of cable television. When you're one of only have 3 channels, you can be assured of a decent sized audience. When you're one of 100+ channels, not so much. Meanwhile, the studios showed their stuff on broadcast TV and then made money on the back-end with syndication and DVD, which the networks got none of. So the law was rescinded and networks could now own the content that they showed.

That's why ABC is owned by Disney, NBC is owned by Universal, CBS is owned by Viacom (which also owns Paramount), and Fox is owned by, you guessed it, 20th Century Fox. At the time, the networks insisted that wouldn't make any difference in what they chose to show. Now-a-days, of course, you can't watch a show on ABC without finding it at least partially owned by Disney or a subsidiary (eg Marvel or ABC Studios).

Re:Good and bad

[Stonent1]

It's not conflicting with THEIR interests.

Seems the market is like a wind tunnel

[John.Banister]

Pushing Netflix and HBO into the same shape. I suppose I'll see Netflix try for stronger DRM, and hopefully HBO gets more edge servers.

Might as well be 100%

[macs4all]

Because the rest of their Library is an absolute JOKE.

Re:We need an aggregator

[macs4all]

I think Apple is working on exactly that, seriously.

Netflix streams had a good run

[Bender Unit 22]

But I don't subscribe anymore because after their successful IP blocking this spring. All I can get access to now are my local version of Netflix. It sucked when they opened it and it still sucks. But I all fairness, it was going down hill for the American version too before I quit.
Well, it had a good run.
Right now I find plenty of stuff I like to see on Youtube.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.

You didn't really think that you would be able to save money and get the same level of content, did you? All market inefficiencies will eventually correct to remove any advantage to the consumer. If you didn't see this coming, you haven't been paying attention.

Re:more idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not market forces, it's those exclusivity agreements. The DoJ really needs to look into the price fixing that's been going on. It's decidedly anti-consumer to have these exclusivity contracts that prevent all of the services from having access to the same programming.

They wouldn't necessarily have all of the same programming, but that would be based upon what the provider thinks the subscribers want rather than on what hasn't already been locked down by one provider or another.

Well on their way

[Wokan]

At the rate they seem to be losing licensed content without a replacement, they'll accomplish their desired ratio without lifting a finger.

Not interested

[geeknotnerd]

I already avoid Netflix original content - crafted to appeal to the lowest common denominator. More of it, even if it would not be displacing other content, is not appealing to me. It is content I am decidedly not interested in. If the content listings end up being glutted with Netflix originals it will become a much less valuable service for me.

Noooo oooooo ooooooo

[allo]

Their library is now small enough, do not cancel even more shows!

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Anonymous Coward]

Or TPB to watch all of those. They never learn....

Re:Heading the wrong way

[painandgreed]

I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.

True, but streaming is the new cable, and cable is the new broadcast TV. Personally, I still mostly use their DVD service and they still have most everything.

Original?

[TJHook3r]

I'm guessing that if they need that much content produced it will be stretching the term 'original'.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[AthanasiusKircher]

You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV

Except that no longer works -- with "original content" created by Netflix, Amazon, etc., there will be increasingly more shows only exclusively available by streaming only... and from only one particular provider.

because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.

Welcome to the world of "unbundling." Seriously. For years, a lot of people here were hugely critical of cable TV companies because they wanted to just purchase a set of channels they actually wanted. They wanted things "unbundled."

Well, guess what -- this is the future of the "unbundled" world. Instead of paying $80/month to your cable company, you pay $9.95/month to a multitude of streaming services each with their own "exclusive" content and some overlapping hodge-podge of old stuff that's cheap to license. (Kinda like what most cable channels used to look like individually -- a few original shows, and a bunch of old cheap re-runs... except before you tended to pay less than a $1/month for each of those channels, since more cable revenue went to things like sports.)

I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.

Was that ever reality? Netflix streaming always had only a subset of quality content. In the early days of streaming, it had an odd mixture with a lot of really good old movies and only crappy new ones. The market demanded more new content, so recent TV series and movies started to be added, while the good "old stuff" gradually thinned out. The overall selection has gone up and down a bit over the years in various areas, but it was never very complete.

Netflix DVDs used to have "just about everything," though. Streaming ruined that, though. Frankly, I think much of Netflix's DVD service was kept alive by user laziness and apathy -- a decade ago, I knew so many people who got Netflix DVDs and they'd sit on the shelf for a month or two before anyone got around to watching them (or even sending them back unwatched). But they were paying $19.99 or whatever back then for the "standard" DVD service, so Netflix could rake in the profits by buying bulk DVDs.

And people were often completely irrational in terms of renting -- they'd think, "Oh yeah, that classic movie from the 1960s -- I should really watch that." And then it would sit on their shelf for a few weeks before being returned unwatched.

But Netflix could afford to buy a lot of obscure titles with all those subscribers funds rolling in from people who rarely got around to watching movies.

Streaming changed all that -- it turned it into something more like "channel surfing." Netflix DVDs was more like, "I bought those brussel spouts and kale, and they should be good for me, and I really should cook them tonight." Netflix streaming was more like, "Gosh... what sort of trash can I find here -- ooh, some potato chips in the back of the cabinet! That's so much easier than that vegetable stew... let's just eat the chips now" and suddenly they'd be streaming some crap show from the Food Network.

Meanwhile, the streaming gave Netflix new data -- they could actually see that few people ever bothered to watch those old cerebral "classics," while lots of people watched family/kids movies and crappy rom-coms. Of course, everyone knew this anyway, but now with data in hand, Netflix could start making decisions about what kind of stuff to invest in, and what licenses to just let lapse.

They are fast approacing that

[spyfrog]

Well, Netflix is fast approaching a 50-50 split of content. The non-Netflix content outside of the US has always been abysmal and it isn't getting better - it is getting worse.

So I guess Netflix doesn't really need to spend more on own content, they simply need to keep spending little on other content and that 50-50 split will soon be reached.

Nope..

[SuperDre]

One of the reasons I was interested back then in Netflix was because of the old series and movies.. I'm not interested in most of they 'original content'..

I'm good with that

[kuzb]

Much of Netflix's original content is excellent. If they want to do more they can shut up and take my money!

Re:So that's like, what,

[kuzb]

It's a lot more than you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I can't hear you over the sound of

[waspleg]

my vpntorrentasaurus plex. Seriously. DIY.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[BenFenner]

This is completely false. We have Netflix, and we can get ALMOST EVERYTHING, including "The Path", "Man in High Tower" along with most anything else you can think of (minus a few esoteric, rare, or foreign movies/shows). Sure, you have to plan a few days ahead of time and wait for them to come in the mail, or wait a year for the season to come out on DVD, but being an adult I have no problem delaying gratification as such.

So Far, All the Netflix Content Is A Total DUD!

[CAOgdin]

They're going to have to start upping the quality of content. Their rude rip-off of the Brits' "House of Cards" has been a long, drawn-out mess, with none of the political logic in the original...and Spacey is LOUSY as a corrupt politician. We watch a lot more British shows than we do Netflix, and what we DO enjoy on Netflix are recent series we wouldn't otherwise get (think Miss Fisher's Mysteries, or Doc Martin).

If they favor their own content, licensing will be cheaper, but they'll bear ALL the production costs, and with a corporate cheapskate like Netflix that means YouTube quality scripts, and production values.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Oswald McWeany]

Congrats on being an adult- I'm happy for you.

Some of us adults have children though. With a family of 5 is more challenging with the DVD service with only 3 DVDs at a time.

Re:more idiots

[Rakarra]

yes indeed netflix MUST carry ALL content because why??? so what if you have to surf somewhere else to watch tv shows?

Because I don't want to pay $xxx/month for Netflix, of which I'll only watch a small portion. And I don't want to also pay $yyy/month for Amazon Prime when I only want to watch a few titles from there. And $zzz/month for Hulu. And more for HBO. I just want one streaming service and have all the things there.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Rakarra]

Some of us adults have children though. With a family of 5 is more challenging with the DVD service with only 3 DVDs at a time.

You can get more than 3 at time, but of course you have to pay for it. The current age is all about charging you a pretty high price depending on the amount of content you want to watch.

And your kids aren't like everyone else's kids, in that they want to watch one movie 20 times rather than just once?

Good

[DarthVain]

Considering the quality of the content its probably for the best anyway.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Oswald McWeany]

When the were 4,5, or 6 then one movie over and over again was acceptable- now they're older than that, that trick no longer works.

Re:Heading the wrong way

[Rakarra]

I think I was about 20 years old when I finally grew out of that. :-D