Netflix Calls Out HBO For Not Letting Subscribers Binge On New Shows (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Netflix has gleefully poked a stick at its competitors in the video streaming market, after revealing it had added more than seven million subscribers to its service in the last three months of 2016. HBO also got a special mention. In a letter to shareholders, the company's boss Reed Hastings teased the TV drama maker by noting that, if the BBC was willing to stream shows before they air on television, then maybe HBO -- which has rigidly stuck to its strategy of eking out episodes to viewers -- should do the same. He said: "[...] the BBC has become the first major linear network to announce plans to go binge-first with new seasons, favoring internet over linear viewers. We presume HBO is not far behind the BBC. In short, it's becoming an Internet TV world, which presents both challenges and opportunities for Netflix as we strive to earn screen time." But it's worth noting that HBO currently has an exclusive deal with Sky in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria, and Italy, allowing the broadcaster to have first-run rights on the likes of Game of Thrones and Westworld until 2020 -- so any such change isn't likely to happen in the near-term. Late last year, it struck a deal with Netflix rival Amazon, allowing Prime members in the US to sign up for a monthly HBO subscription. "We have a very successful partnership with this great company that continues to evolve," said HBO exec Sofia Chang in December. The company's HBO Now streaming service shows no sign of shifting strategy, either, with programs airing simultaneously on traditional TV and online.

Comments

BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[omnichad]

Now if only the BBC would offer paid subscriptions to their iPlayer content to other coountries. Cord cutters are not going to subscribe to BBC America but are willing to pay for better access.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[omnichad]

Followup - they'd have to make more money on Sherlock by selling subscriptions than by licensing to PBS.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Darinbob]

Sherlock is on Netflix. I'm waiting for access to the last two years of Doctor Who, and other decent BBC shows. It's in a quandary though; it wants a piece of the streaming pie, but is also restricted in how it can offer taxpayer sponsored programming to other countries.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[93 Escort Wagon]

Followup - they'd have to make more money on Sherlock by selling subscriptions than by licensing to PBS.

Well if they'd sold subscriptions before the current season started, you might be right. But at least based on how the current season is being widely panned by fans, it might be a tougher sell now.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[omnichad]

Sherlock is on Netflix.

Not 2017 Sherlock.

but is also restricted in how it can offer taxpayer sponsored programming to other countries.

Is that really true? BBC America airs Doctor Who almost on the exact same schedule. Sherlock is licensed to PBS. What restrictions are they under?

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[r1348]

Here in Italy Netflix has Doctor Who series 5 to 9, which I believe to be the last one.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[omnichad]

I don't really get the hate. They finally went back toward the original storytelling style that made the first season so good.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Darinbob]

I'm not sure. I know they've been under pressure, as in because they're making a profit therefore funding should be cut. It's free in UK (after tv tax), but not free elsewhere. There's the issue of iplayer not being usable outside of UK, whereas their plan for streaming their own stuff seems to be iplayer based. But since Doctor Who was yanked from netflix and hulu I haven't seen any updates to making content available for streaming.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Nadir]

Italian Netflix has received Sherlock Season 4 the day after it aired in the UK.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't for a number of reasons:

1) They always lead the pack on technology like this, but the old guard like Murdoch cry their fucking eyes out over it and get the government to cripple them which means they're legally barred from doing such things by old-fashioned fuckwads that are unable to compete purely because they're inept and get pissy that something as inefficient as the BBC can even out innovate them.

2) As a result the next best thing they have is the BBC World Service which sells content to America, but as a result of that ends up making licensing deals that allow those companies they sell to in places like America to become sole distributors so that if the BBC started showing it too they'd be in breach of their licensing terms with the people they've sold to.

The BBC led the pack on on-demand TV all those years ago, but now it looks positively archaic with the idiocy of having to delete shows after 28 days or whatever and stupid stuff like that. Again, that's because the government gutted and crippled the BBC's digital projects capability at Murdoch's behest because he wanted Sky to rule the roost without having to put any actual effort in to doing so.

One example of something that would've been amazing for British license fee payers that could've been exported to the benefit of Britain's channels was Project Kangaroo that brought all of the UK's main channels together onto one on-demand platform precisely to address the issue of the BBC having a potential advantage via license fee funds. Ironically it was blocked based on competition concerns, again, because of Murdoch, which is ironic, because Sky still has more money than these channels combined, yet they prefer to milk it off as profit rather than have to try and compete with it, so they kill competition through lobbying instead, like in this case.

Nowadays we're in a situation where the UK's main channels can't compete because all efforts to do so have been crippled so most people under 50 who like things other than the 1 million period dramas that the BBC produces (because I can only assume all it has left after it's cuts is an 1800s wardrobe or something) just watch Netflix, Amazon instant video, and pirated material off the net mostly. The only exceptions are things like The Night Manager (presumably because Tom could just bring his own suit for that) and Planet Earth because they don't need any costumes and Attenborough is thankfully still alive.

At the moment I wouldn't expect too much from British TV, you have to pay for Sky, which is almost entirely full of shit where the only good stuff they have is bought in from the likes of HBO anyway and not even remotely worth the subscription cost. Sky still completely fails at on-demand, it's service is extortionate in terms of lack of value for money, shows only hang around 5 minutes, and those that are there permanently are either also shit or regularly shown through other channels (like Netflix) anyway. Until a government finally says fuck off to Murdoch and tell him that he needs to stop milking profits and actually pay to compete rather than abuse lobbying to compete with artificial restrictions the likes of the BBC's offering and ability to compete digitally will continue to decline. That change wont happen until at least 2020 because the current government is so pro-Murdoch that they're trying to kill off the new press regulations that were put in place as a result of him doing things like hacking in to a dead girl's phones and deleting voice mails, causing the police to believe she's still alive and giving her parents false hope as a result and other such incredibly wonderful things.

So yeah, long story short it wont happen because of lazy pond life that can't compete in the market based on merit, and is dependant on government to let it bypass market forces like competition crippling the service that millions of license fee payers get in the process. If the BBC aren't allowed to even give us good service, then you sure as hell wont be allowed it sadly.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[JackieBrown]

I'm not sure. I know they've been under pressure, as in because they're making a profit therefore funding should be cut.

You have to love it when the government is in charge. Only in government does making a profit equal punishing someone.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[JackieBrown]

Is it better than the mess that was season 3?

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[The-Ixian]

I call that being fiscally responsible. Governments have to at least make a show of this. Companies do not.

Collecting tax payer money in order to provide a service and then making a profit seems, to me at least, to be wrong. If they can make a profit, then they don't need tax money. That money should either be returned to the tax payer or diverted to a program that needs it.

That said, I know nothing about the BBC or TV tax. I just take exception to automatically throwing government under the bus just because it is government.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Coren22]

Netflix no longer has the licensing deal for Doctor Who, it is now available on Amazon Prime. Also, it looks like Doctor Who skipped a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This may be why you perceive a season not being available, it doesn't actually exist. I watched the most recent season on Netflix before they changed the deal to Amazon, so I know it was available previously there.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[Coren22]

Yup. Season 10 starts in April according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In the US, Netflix doesn't have the streaming rights anymore, it is on Amazon Prime Videos.

Re:BBC iPlayer for the UK Only

[omnichad]

I thought it was better. I really didn't like Season 3. It went back to more of the original storytelling style in a very good way.

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like seasons released all at once. Spoilers are everywhere immediately, nobody is ever on the same page with a series, and nobody has the discipline to be able to enjoy a show over at least a few months as traditional releases require.

Re:No thanks

[omnichad]

This has been true since the advent of the DVR (or even the VCR to a lesser extent), unless you are a slave to broadcast schedules. Just get better at avoiding spoilers. It's a better viewing experience to wait until you have the whole season at once rather than mixing one episode of show X and an episode of show Y the next day.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems people just take television as a long mediocre film instead of its own format.

Re:No thanks

[Merk42]

This has been true since the advent of the DVR (or even the VCR to a lesser extent), unless you are a slave to broadcast schedules. Just get better at avoiding spoilers. It's a better viewing experience to wait until you have the whole season at once rather than mixing one episode of show X and an episode of show Y the next day.

For a usual weekly show, you'd be a few days behind with DVR, so you'd only have spoilers for that episode.
Now, you could have spoilers instantly, all the way to the season finale.

Re:No thanks

[omnichad]

For a usual weekly show, you'd be a few days behind with DVR, so you'd only have spoilers for that episode.

For a usual weekly show, I go an entire season behind with DVR. Roll your own Netflix-style viewing experience with any OTA show - a 2TB drive helps. When I finish one entire show, I move on to the next one. So I still have to avoid an entire season worth of spoilers - sometimes for almost a year after it airs. It's still worth it.

I have a terrible memory, so I can't really maintain continuity at one episode per week.

Re:No thanks

[Darinbob]

The spoilers are in the news media. It's ridiculous. They're still stuck in the mode of thinking that of course everyone in the world has already seen the Walking Dead or Game of Thrones finales. So then the talk shows will advertise themselves loudly, as in "See Your Favorite Actor talk about this infamous death scene from yesterday's finale of Your Favorite Show!" Even avoiding that you see the spoilers in just the titles of uploaded youtube videos, spoiled even if you don't watch them, or sometimes an misjudged piece in a newspaper (which quips like "not to give any spoilers but it seems that the entire nation is talking about Your Favorite Actor's infamous death scene from Your Favorite Show.").

Re:No thanks

[The-Ixian]

Why are people so hung up on spoilers?

Unless you are 8 years old, you have seen every permutation of a story there is to tell...

Knowing that someone dies at the end or whatever doesn't change the fun of the story, does it?

Re:No thanks

[The-Ixian]

They're still stuck in the mode of thinking that of course everyone in the world has already seen the Walking Dead or Game of Thrones finales

Or that spoilers don't actually spoil anything.

I have seen 1 episode of both of those shows you mentioned. Even still, I know just about everything that has happened because I live around people who have watched them and loved them and talk about them. While I am not so interested in Walking Dead, I still consider Game of Thrones a large pools of untapped, binge worthy entertainment for a rainy day. I don't consider them spoiled in any way. Just because I know somebody dies at some point in season 2 doesn't make it any less entertaining.

It's like reading the book before watching the movie... aren't you supposedly "spoiling" the movie for yourself? I don't think so.

Batching Means Delay

[Luthair]

If you publish the entire season at once this means you were sitting on progressively more unreleased for a period of time. Imagine if one were to instead release this content as it were available instead of making people wait...

Re:Batching Means Delay

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the delay of making people each week for the show then going on hiatus for a few months at a time because its not "sweeps month"?

I'd much rather the show come out all at once than in spits and spurts because if I'm really into the story nothing pisses me off more than having to wait for 3 months while they make more, or pre-empt it around some sporting / cultural events, or because they're waiting for the "best" time to exact the maximum value from the advertisers.

Having it all at once lets me watch it on my schedule, and I don't mind waiting for that in the slightest.

Re:Batching Means Delay

[sexconker]

Not only does it mean they're holding onto it, it means they're paying for a full season upfront without knowing what the response will be. Of course, this cost gets passed on to the subscribers. If something is a flop, congrats - you bought 9+ episodes no one will ever watch because the first was such a fucking turd a regular network would have preferred to run a damned commemorative coin infomercial in that slot.

Who can seriously sit through the first episode of The OA or Pacific Heat and say they want more?

Re:Batching Means Delay

[Luthair]

As opposed to the delay of making people each week for the show then going on hiatus for a few months at a time because its not "sweeps month"?

I'd much rather the show come out all at once than in spits and spurts because if I'm really into the story nothing pisses me off more than having to wait for 3 months while they make more, or pre-empt it around some sporting / cultural events, or because they're waiting for the "best" time to exact the maximum value from the advertisers.

So you'd rather wait for a year while they make the next season after they release their big batch?

Having it all at once lets me watch it on my schedule, and I don't mind waiting for that in the slightest.

Wait until its all released and watch as you choose?

Re:Batching Means Delay

[Dorianny]

If you publish the entire season at once this means you were sitting on progressively more unreleased for a period of time. Imagine if one were to instead release this content as it were available instead of making people wait...

This would be true for studio based TV shows which are typically shot sequentially. On location series are typically shot all at once, movie style. The extra wait for the entire series to be finished would be a couple of weeks of post-production

Re:Batching Means Delay

[Darinbob]

The linear networks don't do that either. At the very start of the season they usually have half the season at least already complete, and sometimes the full season (especially British stuff that doesn't have the length 22 episode seasons).

Re: Batching Means Delay

[corychristison]

My wife and I binged through The OA on Netflix in a single night.

At first I didn't like it (shaky cameras give me headaches) but it eventually settled down after the first episode.

Honestly I enjoyed it, and I really hope they continue it.

Re:Batching Means Delay

[JackieBrown]

So you'd rather wait for a year while they make the next season after they release their big batch?

Having it all at once lets me watch it on my schedule, and I don't mind waiting for that in the slightest.

Wait until its all released and watch as you choose?

No! He want's to watch it this way so everyone should. Asking him to wait to watch an episode that is already out there requires discipline and is very un-millennial of you.

Binger rights

[no1nose]

We got our rights as bingers. I want to be able to watch the entire season on release day. #BingerLivesMatter

Re:Binger rights

[Anonymous Coward]

And we have our rights as non-bingers. I want to be able to watch TV without having to choose between watching 13 hours on release day OR avoiding the internet for the entire next month to avoid the inevitable spoilers. And god forbid you happen to like 2 or 3 shows that all get binge-dumped on you at roughly the same time.

Meh

[sexconker]

Binging new content is one of the worst things about Netflix.

Shows become a chore to get through. You have to get through them soon or you risk getting spoiled and can't talk about it with other people.
Once you get through it, you've got nothing for a year or more. There are a finite number of shows any one person gives a shit about, so this quickly becomes a problem.

Those are personal problems, however. Dumping an entire season at once results in major problems that hurt all users.

Look at Netflix's original content - their own series mostly suck but still get 4-5 star reviews out the ass simply because there are people who feel the need latch onto SOMETHING to binge on, and Netflix keeps churning them out. On the other end of the spectrum, you get people who spend 2 minutes watching 1 episode giving the whole series a 1 star review. I don't know if they're sock puppeting, but the reviews for Netflix Originals are worse than useless.

Netflix seems to be going after quantity instead of quality. They let a few hits get to their head and now churn out mostly crap they gets overrated because it's from Netflix. (HBO had a similar thing going on 15 years ago or so - everything they put out got hyped and praised regardless of how shitty it was.)

Seriously, go look at House of Cards Season 1 and compare it to House of Cards Season Who Gives a Shit?. Compare Archer to Netflix's pathetic copy Pacific Heat. Everyone was masturbating loudly about Stranger Things, so I watched it. It's pretty poor substitute for The Goonies. Black Mirror Season 3 is incredibly worse than Seasons 1 and 2 (not made by Netflix) - and that says a lot because Seasons 1 and 2 were pretty bad themselves. People compared it to The Twilight Zone! How the FUCK are you going to do that and then expect me to believe you're sane and not being paid by Netflix to say such shit?

Even their non-fiction shit is pure crap. From The Grand Tour (which is somehow even more wooden and scripted than that other show) to The White Rabbit Project, Netflix has awful, awful shit with a few gems. Their good shit is usually their animated shit - from Bojack to F is for Family to Voltron. (Of course, we can't forget Pacific Heat.) Hell, Netflix even managed to fuck up Arrested Development!

Look at their films as well - ARQ, Coin Heist, The Ridiculous 6. It's a shithouse!

This all matters because Netflix is becoming more and more like another network/studio that churns out shit that I end up paying for. Dumping/Binging means they have more gaps to fill in the calendar and makes them run into the same problems as traditional networks/studios.

If I could pay for Netflix without funding production of a full season of Fuller House, or whatever failure gets 10 episodes up front but would've been shitcanned after 1 (PACIFIC HEAT) I would. And I say this as someone who has repeatedly said I would gladly give up Amazon Video / Amazon Pantry / Amazon Buttwiper / whatever to get a free shipping only, yet has turned to Amazon Video instead of Netflix because Netflix's library is 95% shit.

Re:Meh

[MightyMartian]

I don't like all of Netflix's offerings, to be sure, but series like Jessica Jones, Bojack Horseman, Stranger Things and even The OA (which does get weird for weird's sake sometimes) are all as good, if not better, than anything on network TV.

Stranger Things, in particular, is just a glorious piece of awesomeness, celebrating an era that's essentially my youth. Seeing those kids eating takeout pizza and playing D&D in the basement, well, that could have been me back in 1982-83. It evokes the era so well it just made the hairs on my arm stand on end, and that's before any weird monsters showed up!

Re:Meh

[LordKronos]

Binging new content is one of the worst things about Netflix.

Shows become a chore to get through. You have to get through them soon or you risk getting spoiled and can't talk about it with other people.

Exactly. It's bad enough when I've got something going on with the family that it prevents me from watching Game of Thrones for 24 (or even 48) hours and now I've got to avoid spoilers being dropped everywhere. Having to do that for a few weeks would suck.

But aside from that...I'll admit I don't know much about the depth of writing for any of Netflix's shows, but I feel like there are lots of shows that would actually suffer from binge release. For shows that have plenty of depth involve, you want time to watch each episode, absorb what you saw, rewatch it again, discuss it with friends / family / coworkers / strangers on an internet forum, got back and look for what they saw, and THEN move onto the next episode. 1 episode per week works really well for that. But if they were binged dumped, you either lose the ability to discuss 90% of the mystery (because it's resolved before the end of the season), or you need to make pacts with other people to pace it out. And then if you make a pact, you've got to worry that they are honoring it. In cases where episodes were pre-leaked online, there are some people who I've been pretty suspicious about their "predictions" (I suspect they either watched it and pretended like they didnt, or they are passing along "theories" that they actually read online from someone who already watched). It seem to me that for these types of shows, the ratings/profitability of those types of shows would be negatively impacted from binge release.

Some things are worth waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a big fan of HBO's Westworld . I would watch previous episodes to look for hints on things that were later revealed. Had I been able to binge watch that I don't think I would have been that into it.

It gave me something to look forward to on Sunday night, which is usually something I am not since I have to go to work the next day

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[Notabadguy]

If you don't want to binge-watch, you could exert self-control and...not.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

And then have the entire season (except the 1 episode you managed to watch) spoiled for you.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[93 Escort Wagon]

HBO's original content is head and shoulders above Netflix's. Heck, it's way better than ANY of the other players in the market.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[Raenex]

The Young Pope is a bit off. I'll keep watching, though, because I need a replacement for Thrones/Westworld to get my mysterium fix.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[JackieBrown]

If you don't want to binge-watch, you could exert self-control and...not.

And if you do binge watch, you can exercise some self control and wait for the whole season to come out rather than watching them one at a time as they come out.

Either method results in about a year gap for binge watchers.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[TheCastro1689]

Spoilers don't ruin entertainment though https://www.universityofcalifo...

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[TheCastro1689]

You could read a book instead.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[Raenex]

It's not the same thing.

Re:Some things are worth waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should stop looking for spoilers. I hardly ever watch anything when it is released, and I hardly ever come across spoilers for things I'm interested in.

The lesson from retail

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson that these networks appear to be forgetting, is to make it as easy as possible for people to give you money.
Buying everything all at once is easier than piece by piece, especially for shows with an actual story line that doesn't just reset every episode. They are stuck in the mode of thinking of themselves as television channels instead of production companies.
Also, many people wait to watch until the whole season is available, so by letting them have it immediately you can get more of them.

"News for nerds"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stuff that matters"

Seriously, who cares what pissing contest Netflix and HBO are in.

So, then, Netflix

[93 Escort Wagon]

When CW shows were on Hulu, I could stream the current season's episodes just about as soon as they were released. Now that you have them, though, I can't stream any of the current season - at all. If immediate release is supposedly so important to you, then what's with that?

Episodes of HBO's shows get released as soon as they've finished production. Yours, on the other hand, get held until the last episode of the season is done. Also, HBO seems to have original content I actually find compelling, while yours is mediocre at best - I don't even bother with it any more.

Congratulations on effectively spinning your mediocrity, although I'd have preferred that money be spent on holding onto more of that third-party content you keep losing.

I was going to comment on this story.

[hey!]

Then I remembered we're going to have Rick Perry instead of Ernest Moniz in charge of America's nuclear weapons and non-proliferation efforts. That put things in perspective.

Re:I was going to comment on this story.

[Raenex]

Don't worry, Rick Perry wears nerdy glasses now.

Boohoo...give us your content!

[Anonymous Coward]

HBOGO works just fine for me, thanks. No need to pay Netflix too for HBO content.

It's nothing but SPOILERS

[l0ungeb0y]

I like the weekly release of shows like Game of Thrones and West World -- you get to talk to other viewers about the Show as it progresses rather than just in past tense. Binge Watching is nice if you want to get a Show or Season done and over right away. But I find that with quality Shows, I'll take the time to batch them out on my own to draw the viewing experience out longer

Re:It's nothing but SPOILERS

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten pretty good at avoiding spoilers. What I miss when shows are dropped all at once are the week-long discussions of 'what did we just see, and what does it mean for the rest of the story?'. Also, events like the Red Wedding almost breaking the internets probably wouldn't happen if Game of Thrones was binge-watched, and that was a lot of fun.

Re:It's nothing but SPOILERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, events like the Red Wedding almost breaking the internets probably wouldn't happen if Game of Thrones was binge-watched

Or if people read the books...

One thing I'm curious about for the TV series, are they still putting in those unnecessary sex scenes? From watching the first season and comparing it with my memory of the book, it seemed that half the sex scenes were just added for the sake of it and not needed to tell the story.

Amazon

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I find the video access that comes with Amazon Prime to be superior to Netflix. It may just be that my personal tastes align better with what Amazon has to offer, but I think Amazon also has a lot more content so I'm more likely to find something I want to watch.

You also get access to about a bazillion ebooks as well...I haven't used that as much but I have downloaded a few that interested me.

Not a bad deal for $99 a year considering it also includes free 2-day shipping for most of the stuff Amazon sells. .

Sherlock

[DarthVain]

If you think about it the Sherlock format is sort of before it's time and revolutionary. If you think about the context of binge watching 10-20 epsoides of a TV show at a time on Netflix, what Sherlock did was recognize that people are going to watch more than the just the 30min or 45min show, and simply decided to do fewer but most longer complete shows of 1.5h. Hope they make more. Doctor Who I tried to get into, but I could take or leave most of it.

I like watching old shows on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

It ends there.

I hate their original content. It looks bad and I have no interest in it.

Let HBO do what they want. Start by making better shows.

I think Netflix feels the pressure of releasing many month's work all at once and then trying to figure out how the show is doing. I believe measuring that can be difficult...