Slashdot Mirror
Netflix's Subscriber Boom Shows the World is Accepting Internet TV (cnbc.com)
Netflix's boom in subscribers is a sign that the world is accepting internet TV, meaning without commercials and on-demand, said CEO Reed Hastings during an earnings call with investors. From a report: "The basic demand is increasing as people get more comfortable and more aware of Internet television where you don't get the commercial interruptions, where you get to watch where and when you want," said Hastings. Netflix reported $2.47 billion in revenue during Q4 2016, and earnings per share of 15 cents. The streaming giant wildly beat its original projections for subscriber additions, bringing in 7.05 million new customers compared to its Q3 estimate of 5.2 million. The majority of adds were from international viewers. Even though some shows -- like "Gilmore Girls" -- started as traditional TV shows before moving to Netflix, a large part of the draw for new subscribers came from original shows. Almost half of the most searched for shows this year were Netflix originals, said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer. The company has 42 launches coming up, including Marvel's "Iron Fist" and Drew Barrymore's zombie comedy "Santa Clarita Diet."
We have seen the future, and it is online subscription video!
Advertisers and network operators shat their beds and this is direct consequence of their greed. How greedy must you be to CHARGE $100/mo and then FORCE people to sit through 15 minutes of commercial per hour all while providing the worst possible customer service? Consumers, on the whole, are not stupid and will move away from business and practices that are not consumer friendly.
At least initially, people moved to Netflix not because they had tons of good content, but because it was cheap and without ads. Now Netflix grew into viable challenger to established networks, in another couple years networks will start going out of business as subscriber loss keep accelerating.
Jacking up rates, putting in resolution caps, you'll pay them one way or another. Here'sanother one that made the news yesterday, coming into effect in less than 2 weeks.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Title: "Netflix's Subscriber Boom Shows the World is Accepting Internet TV"
Reality: Free TV is so full of commercials, people is paying just to avoid them. Happens with Internet TV that you can rip HQ from it (not like "private hardware home decoders" where you can't even plug an USB).
On demand availability and no unnecessary junk. Of course this would turn everyone to Netflix and similar services. .mp3 format illegal in the olden days?) Maybe I missed it or I jinxed it. Either way, good to see progress happening.
What I find interesting is that traditional media execs. didn't try and stop it or massively slow the pace of aforementioned services as their industry will die off in the long run (remember that the industry didn't want to put their music up on Spotify due to not making enough revenue, or that they tried to make the
Netflix have made me ultrasensitive to ads. For me is now near impossible to follow a regular tv broadcast. Ads are too distracting (thats a feature!!, some might say). Even when Netflix's movie collection is bland and somewhat old, their original content for the most part is entertaining and with good production values. I have been a Netflix costumer for about 2 years and I don't plan to cut it.
On demand video is definitely way more customer friendly than regular television and those numbers say that I'm not the only one thinking that.
Sadly, for those of us in the United States at least, this will just give additional motivation for domestic ISP's to start capping monthly data at home. Also, with net neutrality on the ropes, they can try and extract their "cut" by forcing streaming services to pay up so that they can bypass data caps and bandwidth limitations.
What people really do is trying to escape the ads with bits of programming strewn in between that free TV has become. Advertising has poisoned the very soil they've been living off with their attitude that people cannot escape their clutches.
Guess what: People could.
It's the same that happened to online advertisers who thought they could push obnoxious ads onto people until even the least technically inclined person got off their ass and installed an adblocker. And the same is happening to TV. Geeks and other technically interested people have been reaching for Netflix and other services like it in the past, but now even the non-techs are fed up enough with the constant bombardment with advertising that they're considering alternatives. And that alternative is now quite within reach. It's no longer something that's "only for geeks", where you can only watch your shows more or less well on relatively small computer screens, and only if you have an expensive computer system that provides you with the image and sound quality your TV can provide. Your TV can now play Netflix and other internet media perfectly. And it doesn't take an internet and computer genius to make it happen either anymore.
And frankly, people don't give a shit whether they pay Netflix or their local cable provider, the cost difference is insignificant. What matters, though, is that you can watch the shows you want to watch when you want to watch them and not at 11pm because it's a popular show and can be crammed into the graveyard slot so the network can hand the prime time to a show they want to push desperately.
And even more important is the time you saved, you can watch a 45 minute show in only 23 minutes. I.e. without the fuckin' ads.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I remember back in the 90's when my cable company switched all of their channels to nothing but infomercials all night. In an instant they ditched 50% of their content, but prices did not go down at all. Then i noticed how they were cutting whole scenes out of some of my favorite shows so they could show more ads. I dont know what happened after that because i canceled service & havent looked back since.
Who the heck wants to be "saddled" watching a show at a set time, or, waiting til next week or 2-3-4 weeks to watch the next show? In the winter, when you can't get out and do anything, I'll veg out and watch a bunch of shows back to back.
Once the people currently in charge of content production get too old, leave or lose their current edge in some other way the business will start to come undone a la HBO which certainly has seen much better days.
But what replaces it? That's the $64,000 question. That's been the flaw in all of these "Netflix is doomed because it sucks now / will soon start sucking" arguments. They've got the early brand name recognition (like "iPad" or "Skype" or "Google", it even flirts with genericism) and the legacy device compatibility. It's hard to overstate just how important these two things are. There are plenty of people out there are who watch Netflix on devices that can't be updated to include a competitor. Hell, my parents use a ~2009 bluray player with one of the shittiest and laggy-est Netflix UIs I've ever seen, but they have zero interest in replacing it.
They would have to screw up hard over an extended period of time, or multiple major studios (not just one) would have to band together and gear up for a protracted war in which they heavy market the "hey, do you remember what Netflix used to be like? Well come here and see our *huge* catalog of movies and TV shows that you've actually heard of or remember!" aspect.
And yet even that's an uphill battle... a war that would take five or ten years to win, even with a stronger competitor. Netflix has loyalty perhaps most of all because it panders to laziness, routine and familiarity. I think they have an almost unassailable entrenchment, although it's just barely conceivable that the breakdown of net neutrality (especially in today's political climate) could hurt them enough that a determined studio-backed competitor in collusion with the ISPs could muscle its way in.
You buy internet from cable company. Trump kills FCC, net neutrality dies, cable ISP blocks competition. Cord cutters cant watch online subscriptions. Cord cutting services close. Cable sees boom in subscription from forced subscriptions. Networks no longer required to provide OTA feeds. Free television disappears. America loses.
With the exception of Game of Thrones and Westworld all their new content is terrible. Even the bad Netflix originals like "The OA" are better than the garbage on HBO. And that's actually the problem with the Netflix business model. It's become just another HBO. And the problem with that is once you become just a content studio you're entire business model is a slave to your talent. Once the people currently in charge of content production get too old, leave or lose their current edge in some other way the business will start to come undone a la HBO which certainly has seen much better days. I love Netflix but wouldn't own the stock.
The thing about HBO is people will pay the subscription fee every month for just one of those shows. One really good show with very high production value like Game of Thrones, Westworld, The Sopranos, and even short stuff like Band of Brothers or The Pacific, and you can milk that show and move on to the next. I'm sad to say I am one of those people. I hardly ever watch HBO currently outside of Game of Thrones, Westworld, and a movie or 2 on demand. BUt those shows are good enough for me to justify keeping my subscription up. GoT is winding down but Westworld should have some decent legs, especially if they can expand into the world (and other parks) outside of the Westworld park itself. They just have to keep finding that one show(hell, just make sure to cast Ed Harris in a major role and I'll probably watch it, he makes one hell of an ambiguous bad guy).
If there is any real threat from Amazon/Netflix/etc it's not necessarily the quality of the show that will do in HBO (of course they do have the quality with shows like OITNB, Stranger Things, and Narcos) but more the fact that, for so long, HBO was the only place where you could find shows like that, that they could have content that other networks couldn't. But now you can find that content on Netflix or Amazon. That's the real danger.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I often wonder how Hulu's numbers look these days[1]. It was freaking amazing back in 2008, with very short ads and a great library of old and new shows. Then they started pushing their subscription service heavily (which also had ads), their free catalog shrank dramatically, they disallowed free Hulu usage on traditional TV-connected devices, and they maintained their ~8 day delay on new episodes (so Hulu watchers would always be missing something important if they happened to watch a new episode on TV.)
They pretty much sent the keys to the streaming kingdom to Netflix in a velvet-lined box, back when the word "Netflix" to most people simply meant getting DVDs in the mail, apparently because old media were terrified of Hulu becoming too useful or popular of an alternative to cable TV.
I wonder what must go through those execs' heads these days... those people who chose to hobble Hulu, or even worse boycotted it entirely under the assumption that consumers would be willing to deal with a balkanized mismash of multiple content providers, and are now faced with the Netflix juggernaut. They're stuck in a Sibylline books situation, with their salvation becoming more and more costly each day. I wonder if they've reached the point where they will admit to themselves that there was a day when they could have easily put Netflix in its place, struck out a roadmap and revenue sharing model with Hulu and planned sensibly for the future.
Probably not; not yet, anyway. Heck, I doubt if most of them even realize the full extent of the danger. Even many people around here are still prone to saying stuff like "Netflix's library sucks now, so they're going to fade away", not realizing that not only is there no one in any position to offer a better library, but that Netflix has an entrenchment, both psychological and technical, that very few companies could even dream of.
1. Idly. I mean, I don't care enough to actually go Googling for it.
I finally had enough of Time Warner and fired them for video delivery. Fuck them and their abuse of CCI "CopyOnce" flagging that amounts to rent-seeking by eliminating all non-rented choices for a DVR system except for Windows Media Center (EOL) and TiVo (not really your own).
I now have faster internet speeds, and Sling TV for $40/month cheaper, with all the same channels. And I recycled the box I was using for Windows Media Center into an Ubuntu 16 / MythTV box for recording OTA HD programming at far better quality than anything coming over Time Warner, and I have the ability to scan and auto-extract commercials from the recordings.
Time Warner / Charter / Spectrum can go chug raw sewage. Only way I ever go back is with a deep price cut, and the elimination of CCI flag abuse that allows me to continue using MythTV or the like.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I think the biggest threat to Netflix would be a buyout. If a major media company (e.g. Disney) bought Netflix outright, they could ruin the service and drive people away from it. (Either on purpose to "drive more people to DVD sales" or just from execs who "totally know what the hip kids nowadays want from their streaming service" and thus need to get their two cents in.) Apart from that or the ISPs ganging up on Netflix post-Net Neutrality, you're right that Netflix's position is near-unassailable.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Netflix's boom in subscribers is a sign that the world is accepting internet TV, meaning without commercials and on-demand, said CEO Reed Hastings
Yeah we've seen the "no commercials" promise before when cable TV was becoming a thing and it was bullshit then too. They'll only stay away from commercials long enough to get a subscriber base. Commercials are where most of the money is and it will be hard for them to ignore that fact. I have a hard time imagining Netflix being immune to the siren's call of that much cash forever.
Do not give too much control over a single industry to a single corporate interest. I am a netflix subscriber splitting a 4k account 4-ways, but I have absolutely no doubt when they have the market they want, the only way they are gonna keep investors interested, the 3rd-party studios low-balling prices, or their own production assets happy with their salaries is by breaking the current service in some way. It surely won't be ads, but I'm betting 4k or even HD will at some point increase to become prohibitively expensive for a big chunk of their user base that currently has those and people will have to compromise. (it already increased in the past). Either that or the account-sharing capability will be cut-off.
Subscription services have flat rates, and when the user-base stops growing and also becomes flat while you have already optimized your entire business process, the company freezes financially, which is also known as stagnation. If you look at other industries that have peaked, such as ISP and other communication providers, you know exactly what happens: they increase prices, decrease quality, or bundle useless services to artificially raise prices. And these guys have competition to cope with, while Netflix is like Apple and Android ecosystems together, while Hulu, HBO Go and whatever else are like Windows Phone. It's not gonna be pretty when it happens.
And... Spotify is gonna be just the same, with the difference the music industry provides a infinitesimally cheaper product (music production is almost free when compared to film/tv) at a much higher end-user cost. Spotify knows they have a high-margin, "premium" feeling product and they don't sell it cheap. There's a reason they are so restrictive with family plans as opposed to Netflix account sharing.
Different industry example: Console games - just launched prices have risen from around 40bucks to 70 in less than a decade. Another industry: smartphones - top-tier flagships now cost more than 1000 dollars unlocked. The first iPhone fully spec'd out cost 599$ while top of the line 7 Plus costs 969$. 370 bucks is no joke my friends, apple needs cash to build that UFO.
And between "you cannot tape this show" and "you cannot fast forward through this part", the whole DVR has become obsolete for most applications unless you know how to remove that bullshit from the equation.
I haven't run into a commercial yet that my Tivo can't fast forward through. I can't be bothered with services like Sling that won't let you skip commercials. Just not worth the money to waste my life watching ads.
The HBO subscription is only worth it if you have a peer group that also has an HBO subscription and so it's important to watch things at the same time as them. I stopped buying DVDs about 10 years ago when renting became a lot cheaper than buying, but I've recently started again with boxed sets. Even if I only watch each episode once, it's cheaper than any of the streaming options, plus they're practically DRM free (as in, the DRM is so broken that it may as well not exist) and I can copy them to a mobile device for watching on long trips. Oh, and I get to wait until there are multiple years of something before I watch it.
I do wonder a bit what would happen to the economics of TV series production if most people did this. You'd expect a TV show to make a loss for the first few years, but then be profitable over a longer time, which is a very different model from the current mode of any profits after the first year are a nice bonus, but not factored into the accounting calculations.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I honestly don't remember a promise of no commercials from Cable, only certain channels one could receive from cable. Some of the available channels, like early HBO did say "commercial free" because you paid (and most likely still do) for the subscription. Subscription based TV is why people go to Netflix and watch Netflix owned shows. Just like I pay for CRTV and watch their shows. The "Free" Youtube content can have commercials, but if you subscribe you don't get them either.
Networks who continue to use commercials for funding are on the decline, but this is not new or shocking.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yeah, but it's a lot easier to offer alternative digital offerings on the internet than it is with something that requires a dedicated physical connection/hardware to customers' house (cable/satellite).
That, and the "piracy" alternative is always there too.
Competition - whether legal or otherwise - can help prevent bad behavior.
I'm in the US, we have Charter for internet and AT&T for cable (good UI). Both offer cable.
We aren't there yet, but I could see, through terribly lengthy litigation, a class action that forces local monopolies to divest internet and cable offerings. You can offer one, an independent company has to offer the other.
That said, I do have two internet choices, and Charter isn't bad at all ($40 per month unbundled, uncapped, 100/10 service, we stream 3-4 hours a day, no problems). The cable is expensive but it keeps the Mrs. happy (Can't Buy Me Love is a bullshit song).
AT&T wasn't bad internet either, just much slower DSL service.
BlameBillCosby.com
Producing their own original content was a smart more for Netflix. Everybody knows that their streaming movie selection sucks nowadays and you have to get the old fashioned DVDs in the mail for a decent choice. But for streaming TV shows of good quality it's a pretty good deal, especially since they allow people to share accounts. In fact they say the subscriber model for TV goes some way to explaining the rising quality of scripted TV in certain areas. Shows like Kings were really good but didn't do so well on conventional TV and didn't last very long. But Game of Thrones and the like lend themselves to long-term storytelling, and cord-cutting binge-watching streamers love that shit.
(I still think House of Cards shouldn't have been re-made though, I loved the British original and find the American version unwatchable.)
Drill baby drill - on Mars
So do you get all upset when you go to a friends' house (do you have friends?) and they haven't put black electrical tape over all the brand names on things in their house and in their kitchen? Removed the manufacturer logos from the cars in their driveway? LOL unless shows start taking 4th-wall-breaking breaks in the middle of the plot to show off some product or other, you just ignore it like everything else and move on with your life.
Funny that, I've been a subscriber for many years (since way before the dvd/streaming plan split), and still haven't watched all the content I want to watch. What makes it more difficult is that content I wanted to see (the grand tour) is amazon exclusive, so I now have even more to watch.
But feel free to call me a statistical anomaly, I think you'd be wrong now, given the huge subscriber based Netflix has enjoyed for years...
As Long as it remains commercial free, I will subscribe.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
The HBO subscription is only worth it if you have a peer group that also has an HBO subscription and so it's important to watch things at the same time as them
Entertainment is much cheaper if you are perpetually 3-5 years behind, and can avoid spoilers.
But even "Netflix originals" are, mostly, licensed content from production houses
When they're paying for production, they generally go for worldwide distribution rights. The problem with regional licensing is that companies tend to sell exclusive rights by country for a program.
4th-wall-breaking breaks in the middle of the plot to show off some product or other
Kimmy Schmidt did that (as a joke) with Mentos. Arrested Development came close.
if you are already paying for internet access to.... you know... ACCESS THE INTERNET, like for instance to post on slashdot, then you cannot say it is a cost of Netflix or other online television subscription. you are already paying for internet access anyways, so netflix is only costing a whopping $7.99/mo
given the amount of content available on netflix as compared to whatever tiny handful of channels you get from your antennae, i'd say that's a $7.99/mo well spent
* iPhone Sales Suggest Acceptance of "Cell" Technology
* Latest PC Sales Numbers Show Increasing Belief in Productivity Increases
* New, Used Car Purchases Rise, Experts Say Consumers May Prefer Over Horse-Drawn Carriages
* Electricity Usage Data Indicate Waning Interest in Oil Lamps, Ice Block Delivery
You don't get netflix for the movies, you get it for the TV series
If you can't get better than DSL in Seattle (and Netflix streams fine on DSL at moderate resolution), find a better place in Seattle. Heck, there's fiber in some areas (stops about 100 yards away from where I live - sigh).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Too bad it's mostly Netflix Originals, 99% of which I have no interest in. Still...I'd stick with Netflix before going Dish/Cable.
Yep. So that begs a question, where is the international competition?
I WOULD pay to add netflix style BBC to my download capabilities.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I found that once I stopped having a TV, I also stopped being bombarded with adverts for TV shows and movies, and I stopped caring about whether I was watching something new or something 5-10 years after release. I wonder how much this will become the norm as more people switch from broadcast TV to other media.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News