
Netflix plans to spend $8B to make its library 50 percent original by 2018 - artsandsci
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/16/16486436/netflix-original-content-8-billion-dollars-anime-films
======
dcole2929
I think it's important to note that this is not by choice, but rather the only
path left to Netflix now that studios have realized the value of their
catalogs to streaming. Netflix originally made a bunch of content deals that
made them the sole streamer of entire backlogs of syndicated material. It
worked out great for them and pretty decently for the studios too, but after
Netflix's success the studios now realize what they gave away. As more of
those deals expire the various studios are all looking for ways to get their
own streaming platform up where they own more of the profits. A Netflix where
the majority of shows are originals, is just an online only version of HBO,
which is a shame because the experience is still vastly superior to all the
other streaming options.

In their greed the studios have basically turned one of the great internet
ideas into the second coming of cable. It's understandable why they would all
want their own platform but it's much worse for the consumer

~~~
Afforess
You're right, but I am not sure this is the end. We are entering a "streaming
content desert" where every content-maker tries to make their own Netflix.
Consumers will buy subscriptions to the top 3, at best. Most probably won't go
beyond Amazon Prime and Netflix. In five or ten years, when the data finally
rolls in that these disparate services are not making anything, have shoddy
reviews from hastily-coded backends, etc, content makers will come crawling
back. Or go out of business and get scooped up by the larger media houses.

By 2030 I expect Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Hulu will have bought up the
struggling or failing independent content makers. The markets for content will
shrink and consolidate around the big name streaming kings. Then we will
wonder why we gave up a cable-free-for-all for an oligopoly. ;)

~~~
AFNobody
The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in
piracy on various levels (i.e. ripping streaming shows for personal use and/or
organized piracy groups).

The main reason for piracy's decline is $20/month for a couple streaming
services is less hassle for most people in the 1st world. They are restoring
the incentives that led to its rise. Its quite hilarious.

I mean if eztv hadn't been taken over I'd be going to them right now because
I'm tired of the balkanization of streaming services now that even Hulu is
getting knifed in the back like Netflix is. As the knives come out and the
backstabbing continues because "its worth money", people will be pushed back
into doing that.

~~~
paulcole
> The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in
> piracy on various levels

People aren't "driven to piracy". Piracy's a conscious decision to take what
they want without paying for it.

~~~
s_ngularity
It's a conscious decision, but that decision may be greatly influenced by the
content being prohibitively expensive for them to otherwise obtain.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Sure, but that's the basic deal for any situation involving self-control and
moral freedom.

There's an act you would like to perform, but it's
unwise/moral/sinful/suboptimal. Do you do it or not?

~~~
Can_Not
Glad you asked! But some people may disagree with your premises rather than
directly with your conclusions.

\- if you steal that's bad - few people disagree with this

\- if you sell unauthorized copies of someone else's thing, that's bad - few
people disagree with this.

\- if you make and watch an unauthorized copy of someone else's thing, but
only for yourself, that's bad - most people kind of disagree with this,
especially if in a vacuum.

\- same as above, but you make minimum wage (because the economy is only
growing for the 1%, not because you're lazy) at 2 jobs and you like 1 tv show
from 6 Netflix clones and you think 6x12$/month is too much when you're
already paying 100$+ for cable TV and internet and share a small apartment
with 2 roommates, and student loans, and you don't have healthcare, so you
pirate 3 tvshows. - you'll probably mentally rewrite this as "no, they were
lazy, otherwise they'd be getting VC funding for their 3rd startup like me",
but most people probably don't think this is wrong if they don't apply
egocentric mental rewrites of reality. And of course, if the response to this
person's "personal problems" is "not my problem, piracy objectively bad", then
of course the correct response would be "somebody watched your video for free,
not my problem".

\- the content cannot be legally acquired in your country - probably less
people find this bad.

\- you pirated the content because you don't think the people who would profit
deserve money - I would consider it ethical to pirate EA games and unethical
to pirate most indie games. If ISIS (terrorist organisation) released a TV
show, are you going to defend their IP rights?

\- you pirated content because you don't believe in property rights - this one
can be interesting. The USA's philosophical mind share is heavily
propertarian, but how do you convince someone they stole your TV show view
count (worth less than 10$ this month) when they believe you are sitting on
top of the stolen value of the entire real estate of North America (stolen
from the natives) and labor (some literally stolen from Africa, others where
someone worth twice minimum wage in profits is paid minimum wage), then you
have the balls to acuse them of theft? In fact, if you don't believe in
property rights, then you think the gate keeping on this video is a form of
theft, since without the right, it belongs to everyone.

"Piracy is theft, there are no valid nuances" isn't a good position.

------
ocdtrekkie
This is something I expect them to reach fairly quickly, not necessarily
through new content: Netflix has steadily carried less and less content from
other companies as long as I've been a subscriber. They carry least-common-
denominator content in the back catalog plus a few limited time recent movies
to keep people hooked.

What I've realized is most well-regarded, award-winning film cannot be found
on Netflix. They will easily reach 50% original content, mostly because
they'll just continue dropping everyone else's content over time.

Thankfully, their original content alone is pretty much worth the price.

~~~
hyperhopper
The problem is though, is that by doing this it is no longer the service that
originally attracted many users: a one stop service to watch the things I want
to watch.

It is just becoming the internet equivalent of an unlimited on-demand cable
channel.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
True, but the reality is: Disney is going their own way. HBO, DC, CBS are all
going their own way. The idea of a "one stop shop", also known as _a monopoly_
doesn't make sense as soon as the market is large enough for multiple players.

Netflix doesn't want to pay the prices they'd have to in order to remain a
one-stop shop, it certainly isn't practical at $9.99 a subscription.

There's no way the $100 a month cable subscription was suddenly going to be
replaced by a $10 a month subscription. Now you can get CBS All Access,
Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO, the new DC comics streaming service, the new Disney
streaming service, a couple more probably, and you'll still be paying $100 a
month... just a la carte for the channels you want.

~~~
kenhwang
HBO is owned by WB, DC is leveraging WB to build their streaming service.
Disney and WB both have a stake in Hulu.

So the realistic remaining players after the dust settles would be
Disney+Hulu, CBS, Netflix, and Amazon. And of those 4, CBS lacks the capital
or content to compete with the other 3 and given their relatively friendly
relationship with WB, I can see them integrating into the Disney/Hulu
heavyweight.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
What you 'see' lacks a lot of understanding.

\- CBS remains the dominant power in network TV, shows like NCIS, Big Bang
Theory, etc.

\- CBS has always been the standout in refusing to offer their shows over
Hulu, feeling they have enough independent value of their own.

All Access has it's weaknesses, but it's also one of the cheapest offerings
($5.99 to watch with commercials), and CBS easily has the content to work
with. Discovery alone is worth the cost of admission, and for anyone who also
watches CBS' network shows, it becomes an easy sell.

Again, at the end of the day, these businesses are based on a $100 a month
cable package model. All of this content is not going to keep being made at
$10 a month offerings. Either you're going to end up with ten services, or the
three or four services you see 'consolidating' will end up costing $25 a month
each.

~~~
kenhwang
Dominant meaning the smallest of the big 4 (Disney, Comcast, Fox, CBS) along
with being the only one with a dropping stock price YoY in a bull market?
(+3.2%, +16.6%, +25.1%, -8.25%)

Discovery is my favorite show at the moment, but one show can't carry a
company.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I will restate what I wrote above: CBS is the _number one network channel_.
There are a big three: CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Disney owns the third biggest channel, Comcast owns the second biggest
channel. Fox isn't even on the playing field, and is cashing in their
entertainment arm.

------
nathan_long
Online movie services are a disappointment because the selection is terrible.

Go to IMDB.com. Pick a random movie. Click on the director to see more movies
by him or her. Choose one. Click the lead actor to see more movies with him or
her. Choose one. Click the studio to see more movies by them. Choose one.

Why can't I do this with any streaming service?

There's no decent search and filter ability because there's not enough
selection to support it. The interfaces are all geared toward suggesting what
you might like, not letting you search for what you know you want, or filter
out what you know you don't.

Want to see only Best Picture winners? Only 5-star PG movies? Only detective
films from before 1970? Nope. Sorry, not enough selection. Maybe you'd like
this new drama we just made?

Technically, we could have a service with every movie ever made. But we don't,
for stupid business reasons.

If we ever get a service with a decent selection, it won't be possible for it
to have 50% original content because it would take a hundred years of solid
filming to get there.

~~~
kodablah
I regularly use [https://www.justwatch.com](https://www.justwatch.com) for
looking up movies. But its scraping abilities leave a lot to be desired; they
are often wrong. And the data is not very transparent (e.g. historical data).

I have considered creating an alternative. And have the client choose the
streaming services they have like JustWatch. However, for unavailable movies,
have a "I'd watch this if it were streaming for me" button. Then I'd record
the cross-section of that user's streaming services and their request and keep
public counters. I'd remove all users votes if that movie became available for
any of their streaming options. I'd show votes for movie per streaming
subscription service. Also, in the interest of transparency, I'd keep a
running history of when movies came and went from providers. I'd also scrape
TV guide to see when they are on TNT or whatever. This is the type of data
people deserve.

Aside: JustWatch people, I know you browse HN...you can steal this idea and
monetize it by, instead of being nice like me and making the votes
transparent, just keep the counters internal and sell them as data points. You
can couple it into a "I'd watch this! Notify me when this movie is available"
feature.

~~~
dewey
> But its scraping abilities leave a lot to be desired; they are often wrong.

If you spot any mistakes, especially ones that are consistent and happen
frequently (wrong price on a provider,...) feel free to email us at data-
police@justwatch.com and we'll take a look. We are very responsive when it
comes to that and are constantly improving our scraping infrastructure to stay
as accurate as possible. Unfortunately it'll always be a bit of catching up if
you scrape hundred of third party providers in more than 30 countries that
constantly change their APIs or websites :)

As for the "notification" system. That's definitely something that we think
about, stay tuned!

Disclaimer: I work on the JW scraper

~~~
kodablah
By "often wrong" above, I should clarify that I find maybe a mistake a week
browsing hundreds. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression that it is
wrong most of the time or anything. I do report incorrections through the app.
I love the feature that allows me to put in my email to get notified when the
issue is fixed, I wish more companies did this (granted I only put my email on
a small percentage of the issues I find). To date, I have not seen anything
systemic though.

------
kodablah
I wish they would spend more money on finding old films and digitizing them.
There have to be vaults of old Italian films that don't have significant
licensing costs. Sure, I may represent a small segment of their paying
customers, but I find myself using Amazon's video service more and more
because of this. To me, a newly released old movie has similar value to a
newly released new movie, and I bet the former can come cheaper and faster (I
personally am mostly done w/ TV shows and often consider the format a
protracted way to consume my time over a standalone movie).

~~~
smacktoward
The problem is that there is also a vanishingly small audience of people who
want to watch old Italian films (or old films from anywhere, really).

The mass audience only cares about the new releases. This has been true since
the dawn of home video; anyone who ever browsed the shelves of a Blockbuster
store will remember how lopsided the selection was -- entire walls filled with
copies of the latest releases, a few shelves with movies released over the
last ten years, practically nothing farther beyond that. They didn't stock
that way because they wanted to, they stocked that way because recent movies
where what their customers wanted to rent.

Even universally-acknowledged classics are hard to market to the mass audience
-- there are tons of people who flat out refuse to watch _anything_ in black
and white, for instance.

~~~
kodablah
I agree the audience is currently small, but I don't agree it is getting
smaller. People rediscover eras and genres.

The good part for Netflix vs Blockbuster is that this is a one-time cost and
it will be digitized forever. You don't have to market it to a mass audience
or attempt to determine the number of VHSs you'd have to create. I don't think
they need to market it at all. Just do it. Surely it is only a fraction of the
cost of having Will Smith in a Police-Alien movie and it'll boost your
catalog.

~~~
coldtea
> _I agree the audience is currently small, but I don 't agree it is getting
> smaller. People rediscover eras and genres._

Slowly enough to not matter and always stay a niche endeavour.

------
JustSomeNobody
I get why they feel they need to do this, but I hate the trend of everyone
taking their ball and going home. I loved how with Netflix, I had most of the
content I would want right there on a single service.

Note to content providers: I'm not going to have Disney, Netflix, HBO, CBS,
Hulu, etc subscriptions. It's just not going to happen. I'll do without first.

~~~
natoliniak
I sense a resurrection of torrenting and ironically enough, DVD rentals. BTW,
Netflix still has a very rich library of streaming content, but in other world
regions. A good global VPN service and some DNS tweaks will unlock a ton of
streaming content.

~~~
dagw
_A good global VPN service and some DNS tweaks will unlock a ton of streaming
content._

Can you recommend something the works? I used to have a couple of different
ones, but Netflix got really good a blocking VPNs a while back so I kind of
gave up.

~~~
natoliniak
You are right, it is a bit of cat and mouse game, but I have been quite
successful at using a Nordvpn's French and Brazilian pops (for at least the
past 6 months). You have to also modify your client DNS settings to either use
European/S. American DNS servers (plenty of free ones) so that Netflix's apis
will resolve to the proper region, otherwise you will get only NA catalog,
even if you are on VPN. good luck!

------
bearcobra
This seems like a huge opportunity for Hulu or whatever service the
21Fox/Disney deal leads to. HBO has long proven that there is tremendous value
in originals, but having a really broad base of legacy content seems like it
could attract a ton of people who don't place the same value on new shows.

~~~
e1ven
A lot of TV shows and movies are now only available on Hulu. I've started
subscribing, and am seriously considering dumping Netflix.

------
dabernathy89
I really enjoy a lot of Netflix originals, but I wish they would direct more
energy into improving their streaming library's 3rd party content. There are
so many films only available via their DVD service, which I (and many others)
no longer use.

~~~
empath75
Netflix simply can’t afford the licensing fees. All the other movie companies
are trying to put Netflix out of business and aren’t going to charge them
anything like a reasonable rate.

~~~
dcole2929
It's worse than that. Studio's are simply declining to license their stuff to
Netflix for streaming at all. Losing Disney was incredibly telling because
their catalog is so big and diverse I can't imagine that Netflix wasn't
willing to write a blank check to ensure they didn't lose access to that
content. The children's movies alone would be worth the cost.

------
codingdave
I'm more and more disappointed in their content. I'm sure some people love
their original content, but I am not one of them. Nevertheless, I stick with
Netflix because their UI for navigating it all, while not perfect, is far
better than the other streaming services. And they have easy to use profiles
including a 'Kids' option.

But if any other provider catches up to their UX, I'll drop Netflix in a
second.

------
jjrh
From what I understand Netflix is pretty smart about where/what they film to
take advantage of tax credits and other incentives countries provide. So that
$8B really stretches.

Seems like they are at the point where they need to keep their head above
water long enough to let other content providers try/decide if it's worth
trying to compete in the streaming business.

------
King-Aaron
How about spending $8B to make the current library of titles available to more
regions...

------
everdev
$8B could add a lot of good movies that are currently absent from the
collection. Original content is probably a better financial move, but my
impression of the quality of shows on Netflix is not high.

~~~
jjrh
Netflix original content is a mixed bag. They have some really good shows, and
some more forgettable ones that are the type you throw on for background
noise.

------
Noos
Considering this means a lot of low quality sitcoms and endless comic book
television series (until the next fad is made manifest), its hardly a value
proposition.

------
gigatexal
this is likely to be an unpopular opinion but I hope they produce content that
is also family appropriate. It doesn't have to suck or be cliche, just be
relatively clean. Too much of the original content I am seeing is TV-MA. If
they do this they will enfranchise many families to ditch cable than would
otherwise have done so.

------
sloxy
well, if their catalog grows to 50% original content, here's hoping netflix
adopt more UK/HBO style formats for tv shows.

have a clear defined arc lasting ~3 seasons with 6/8 episodes in each
season..and then just stop.

point in case, house of cards should have been a 2 series show with frank
never becoming President.

