
Netflix to lose Starz, its most valuable source of new movies - mattjaynes
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/09/netflix-to-lose-starz-its-most-valuable-source-of-new-movies.html
======
bittermang
"However, executives at Starz apparently concluded that they would lose even
more money by giving consumers a reason to subscribe to Netflix instead of the
cable channel."

I don't think they get it. The landscape has changed and I'm not going back.

I don't have cable. I don't have satelite. I don't have an antenna for
broadcast TV. I have the Internet serving content to my TV via my Xbox, and I
use it to watch Netflix.

If your content isn't available on Netflix. I'm not consuming your content.
Period.

I'm done bending over backwards. I'm done with schedules. I'm done with
managing the space on my DVR. I'm done keeping up with new episodes and
seasons. I'm done with movie theaters full of loud other people who aren't me,
and the litany of other issues that have been discussed to death from
overpriced tickets, to concessions, to 3D projector woes and content. I'm done
with physical media getting scratched. Hell, I'm even done with sketchy
torrent sites, and different scene groups fighting over who gets to release
what, and a billion codecs and formats. I'm done with it. I'm done.

So frankly, good bye and good riddance to Starz. Go climb this hill and die
upon it. I never liked the fact that their schizophrenic content releases
would appear during a timed window, only to disappear from my list later
before I actually got a chance to watch it. I grew to avoid movies labeled
with the Starz logo, and my heart would sink when a feature would open with
one, because I knew the experience was fleeting and I wouldn't be able to
enjoy the content later. So I'm done with that too.

~~~
MatthewB
I'm in the same boat as you. I cut the cord about 5 months ago and haven't
looked back. I have Netflix and Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV. I know I am
missing out on a lot of great content and it pisses me off...until I get my
bill, which is a fraction of what I was paying before. Also, the convenience
of my current setup is unmatchable.

The thing is, like you said, the technology has changed. I want shows on my
current setup. I am willing to pay more for more content. One thing I thought
was very interesting is Apple removing TV show rentals. I never purchase
movies or TV shows. I like to rent them, watch them once and I usually don't
want to watch them again. If I do, I will rent it again.

Why can't content providers understand this? Netflix and Hulu need to start
creating their own content, which I know they are both working towards.

One semi-related note: AMC is ending Breaking Bad next season because of
Madmen sucking up the budget - Netflix and Hulu: go buy that show! I would
gladly pay for a show-specific season pass just to watch Breaking Bad.

~~~
nhebb
> AMC is ending Breaking Bad next season because of Madmen sucking up the
> budget

Thankfully, that's not going to happen. AMC tried cutting BrBa back to only 6
episodes next season. But Sony owns the rights to the show, so they shopped it
around. AMC caved. For all the press Mad Men gets, Breaking Bad has ~2x the
viewers per episode, and Walking Dead (which had it's budget cut due to Mad
Men's cost) gets about ~2.5x the viewers.

[Edit: Removed my snarky comment about AMC's management.]

~~~
d2vid
To AMC's credit, the CPM AMC receives for Mad Men is much higher: $34 instead
of $12-$25. It could be because people pay attention to the commercials, since
the show is about advertising. A cynic would say it's a prestige thing for
media buyers to get their ads run on Mad Men.

[http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFrie...](http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFriendly&art_aid=147874)

~~~
joezydeco
You mean classy ad campaigns like this one?

[http://main.stylelist.com/2010/08/05/dove-mad-men-
commercial...](http://main.stylelist.com/2010/08/05/dove-mad-men-commercial/)

~~~
xcode
While I agree with the original poster, i.e., those who are already using
netflix are unlikely to go back, netflix is supposed to be a growth business
(P/E of > 60), ergo, if this leads to less growth, that will be terrible
terrible terrible for the company.

------
Steko
[http://www.businessinsider.com/reed-hastings-heres-why-
netfl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/reed-hastings-heres-why-netflix-let-
starz-walk-away-2011-9)

Reed Hastings replies:

"Because we’ve licensed so much other great content, Starz content is now down
to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers’ viewing. As we add a huge more
content in Q4, we expect Starz content to naturally drift down to 5-6% of
domestic viewing in Q1. We are confident we can take the money we had
earmarked for Starz renewal next year, and spend it with other content
providers to maintain or even improve the Netflix experience."

~~~
e40
This sounds like spin. I remember seeing the Starz logo on almost everything I
watched, when I had Watch Instantly on Netflix. I canceled when they raised
the price to $16 for DVD+streaming.

------
SwellJoe
Unless they've got a better deal with Hulu or someone else, they've just cut
off their nose to spite their face. Old media are _amazingly_ good at being
blind to the paradigm shift that will kill them, even when they have the
opportunity to make money from that paradigm shift.

The options Starz (and every other premium cable provider) have right now are
these:

1\. Get that content online, now, in a convenient form that is cost
competitive with Netflix and Hulu or at least Amazon Video on Demand.

Or:

2\. Stagnate and eventually die, because the subscriber base for pay cable is
going to do just that. Only old people are going to have cable in two or three
years.

There are no other options. Without Netflix or Hulu, if Starz doesn't have the
ability to launch their own effective pay service online, they will never see
any of my money (they probably wouldn't anyway; as others have mentioned,
Starz videos tended to be ones I avoided due to quality problems). I have
never had cable in my life...but I pay to consume premium content online. I
have both Netflix and Hulu+ accounts, and I spend an average of $10 a month on
movie rentals and purchases at Amazon. I'm a _new_ customer; an entirely new
revenue stream. I didn't cancel cable to use Netflix. I used Netflix because
it was the only way I was going to watch TV and movies at home. I'm where
their growth could come from, and they don't want it.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
False dichotomy. The smart move is what they're probably going to do; ride
cable as long as they can, while profiting wildly, then transitioning towards
the internet when the margins on cable become too tight. Since they own the
rights to the content they'll have no problems opening their own internet
channels.

~~~
SwellJoe
I don't think it is. By the time they're finished riding the cable profit
train into the ground, they'll find a market with all new players to compete
against, in exactly the same way the music industry is playing out. There are
more indies now than ever, and they're selling more records now than ever. The
pie keeps getting bigger, but the old players are claiming a smaller and
smaller percentage of the total pie. I believe the same will be true of video.
There aren't a ton of indie movies and series being produced, but _some_ are,
and that number will increase over time.

In two years or three, when HBO, Showtime, and Starz finally decide that they
want my money, I'll be hooked on shows from other providers. I won't go the
extra mile to sign up for their puny little service that offers me a few
series and a few movies, when Netflix and Hulu are offering me hundreds of
shows and movies for less than 10 bucks a month.

I just bought a new point and shoot camera for about two hundred bucks. It can
shoot 1080p video. The same revolution that happened in music is about to
happen in movies and TV, and for the same reasons...it'll go faster, though,
because of YouTube and the more advanced Internet culture.

~~~
jaylevitt
"I just bought a new point and shoot camera for about two hundred bucks. It
can shoot 1080p video. The same revolution that happened in music is about to
happen in movies and TV."

But the music revolution - low-cost converters and mics, powerful laptops and
inexpensive software - lets me record a good-quality pop track in my living
room, minus live drums. Can you do set construction, lighting and shooting
cheaply in yours? Or does the movie revolution require way more CGI than the
music revolution required reverbs?

~~~
SwellJoe
I'm just going to bookmark this comment, and someday I'll come back to it and
have a chuckle about how short-sighted it is.

A good music recording studio costs more than many movie sets...and yet,
people manage to make records that sell hundreds of thousands of copies with a
few thousand bucks worth of gear. I've worked on records and movies and in
television. I have _complete_ confidence that great films and great television
shows will be made by independent artists in the coming years.

Some early proof:

<http://www.watchtheguild.com> \- Shot with Canon DSLR cameras, mostly in
bedrooms.

<http://www.drhorrible.com> \- Cost $200k to make, and included seriously high
end talent, like NPH and Captain Mal. Netflix and Hulu could easily fund shows
like this. Or, an independent production company could start turning out
series along these lines. It takes far fewer viewers to pay back $200k than it
takes to pay back a million an episode...and every eyeball that is watching
Dr. Horrible is _not_ watching Weeds or whatever content Starz has exclusive
rights to.

Or, just browse WikiPedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series>

A huge amount of money is not required to make something fun to watch, and the
number of people who realize it will only increase with time.

I'm surprised someone on HN could be so short-sighted as to think that just
because the old way of doing things can never be replicated on a tiny budget,
it doesn't mean entertainment will not be produced in new ways on much smaller
budgets. Doesn't matter how it's produced, or if it is up to the standards of
high end movies. All that matters is that some people (even small numbers for
any given film) tune into the new media rather than the old, and I'm certain
some people will. I don't know anyone under the age of 30 that hasn't watched
both the Guild and Dr. Horrible. That's what the future looks like, at least
one aspect of it.

------
zach
This is the right move for Starz. They should focus on moving onto the iPad
and the app/channel stores for Apple TV and the next-gen Google TV.

Re-upping would only antagonize their existing content partners who they also
have to renegotiate contracts with. Plus it is probably killing their
subscriptions on traditional outlets ("Starz? Oh, no thanks, that's the one I
get on Netflix"). At least this way they can turn off the spigot and entice
people to subscribe before Netflix is primarily cord-cutters anyway.

As for the way forward, licensing to Netflix is not exactly a forward-looking
move -- Starz just a licensing middleman in this arrangement and they know it.
They need to control a branded and coherent channel, not be a movie broker.

Starz was valuable because of their mainstream movie content. Despite comments
about bittorrent, the major value of Starz on Netflix is about 8-year-old
girls being able to watch Tangled on an Xbox 360 (again and again...). It has
been huge for rounding out Netflix's pitch as an alternative to rental.

But to hear Reed talk about it, he probably was negotiating with the
expectation that they'd be parting ways (how could they fix the Sony thing?)
and so Netflix may not have been offering as much as last time anyway. I don't
think the negotiations failing caught either side flat-footed.

I think these companies can focus better on their revenue when they're
separated. Netflix will have to overpay to get their first big chunk of studio
newish-releases, but that's okay. They'll have some different stuff and get
creative and I bet we'll like the result.

Starz can figure out how to sell themselves to consumers without chopping
themselves up. How? Well, every current Apple TV has 8GB of flash memory and
Apple has put an App Store on every other platform they own, so you can see
where that's going. And Google has gone double-or-nothing on Google TV for
that reason. It sure seems like the Apple TV is the cable box of the future.
Is Starz well-positioned to become a subscription service on the Apple TV?
Sure. But maybe not if people can go next door to the Netflix app and get
Starz movies there too.

Seems like the right thing is happening here. I like where this is going.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Good post. I disagree about Apple TV. I think they don't want to have an app
store. I think they're fine with adding sports channels, but for movies they
want you to buy them through iTunes. They'd love a deal with Starz, through
iTunes. I don't think they want competing middlemen on their platform though.

~~~
zach
I think they're fine with sharing their platform with as many other services
as want to be on there -- and that play by their rules. I think there are two
clues to Apple's approach:

1\. They're clearly evolving their offering towards purchasing -- notably,
they just killed TV show rentals. Why _stop_ offering rentals of TV shows, as
unpopular as they may be? This was a major selling point of the ATV last year.
It seems like they're laying the foundation for their fall announcement, but
they had to do this a little early because the fall season starts soon. I
presume that the announcement will be that they're leaving everything but
purchases and movie rentals to the world of ATV apps. Movie rental I think
they are still trying to evolve against the studio's feet-dragging. But TV
shows are essential to an app store, so the new deal will be: You want to
watch a TV show? Buy it or get the app. No confusing in-between option. Apple
_hates_ in-between options.

2\. Their subscription policy. I think they definitely wanted to pick
something that worked for the Apple TV as well. The brouhaha over those rules
has subsided for now. But it's a lot harder to tell people to go buy or
subscribe to something over the web when they're just sitting in front of an
Apple TV. That's way more friction. You might as well tell them to call an 800
number. I think that's something that makes an Apple TV app store viable --
you almost have to have that rule, whereas it seemed kind of excessive on
traditional iOS devices.

And yes, they want you to buy movies and music only from Apple, but on iOS
they have no problem with people using Pandora or Netflix or HBO apps which
they get no money for. Because they're services, just like Netflix and the
sports channels you mention. But on AppleTV, there will probably be more
takers for the 30% split and Apple may go with a subscription-only model (i.e.
no one-time-purchase apps at all). This is presuming they only allow video-
based apps (wot, no Angry Birds?!?) that you could just call "channels". That
is, very similar to the existing ATV apps.

In fact, I think a secondary reason that Apple even created the new Netflix
app, new YouTube app and sports apps is to work out and test the AppleTV's API
and design. I presume they'll still be around in a new-look ATV in the same
way that the YouTube app is still on every iOS device -- Apple doesn't like to
lose control. They're just going to be the founding members of a club of
thousands.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
We're not that far off; I think that is something Apple would do. But that's
Apple going directly to content producers and making deals with them. That's
not something Amazon, Hulu, Veoh, or Crackle could ever be part of (Netflix
probably would get grandfathered in). Those are other middle men. Apple wants
to be the middle man.

It's a really tough sell though. Right now Starz or ABC or whoever can create
a subscription channel on Roku, X-Box, Playstation, and I highly doubt they
would have to pay anywhere near 30% (My guess is that those platforms are
happy to have the content, and allow the apps for free).

~~~
zach
I think a lot of companies would stick with subscribe-outside apps. Again,
same rules as the iPad, so that's okay. Netflix and Hulu would for sure. But:

There are 200,000,000 iTunes accounts with credit cards.

I really can't fault the established video subscription services for keeping
at it, but wow. Can they really resist the power of the App Store?

Now, the interesting thing happens outside of the mainstream. If you're Major
League Lacrosse, or a yet-to-launch uncensored rap video channel, or SOAPnet
(ABC's soap opera channel that a month ago curiously backtracked on their
February 2012 announced end date), CurlTV (an online live curling video site
that folded earlier this year) or one of many other special interest channels
(actual or potential), you're _really_ interested in becoming a subscription
channel on Apple TV. Just imagine hundreds and hundreds of those channels and
you have a platform that appeals to people on a very personal level that cable
can't touch.

To be honest, I'm in LA and this almost seems like I'm talking myself into
starting up a consultancy specializing in Apple TV apps. Combine hard-to-find
assets (iOS developers) and a presumed gold rush with an industry starting to
decline (but still flush with cash) and you have a pretty nice business.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Those channels are already popping up on Roku (Wealth TV is one example). I
think Apple TV can do it too, I just don't think they can play the "we're
Apple" card and have everyone pay them that way when there are competing
platforms with just as large user bases (X-Box and Playstation for example)
offering a better deal. I'm sure Apple wants in to the market, but only if
it's wildly profitable.

So far it doesn't look like being a box provider is going to be wildly
profitable. The prices have been driven down to $100 - $200 tops so you're not
making money on the hardware and there are too many competitors who want
content to really make money through subscriptions.

------
timjahn
My son turned a year old a few weeks ago. He's going to grow up choosing
content on demand from our Roku. Maybe some WonderPets from Netflix. Or a
current TV show from Hulu. Or the latest viral video of some kid a year older
than him rocking out the Beatles on the drums on YouTube.

He won't be familiar with linear television schedules, or the idea of running
home in time for a show. To him, our TV will be the place where he chooses
what to watch, when he wants to watch it.

What these stupid studio executives don't understand is their grandchildren
will be doing the same thing. Whether they like it or not.

~~~
AdamTReineke
Have you seen <http://www.netflix.com/kids>

~~~
timjahn
No, but I've noticed Netflix definitely doesn't lack in children's
programming. It's insane! This is pretty sweet too.

------
cletus
I don't have cable TV. Hell, I don't have a TV. I watch about 3 hours of TV...
per week. And you think I'm going to pay for cable to get your movies? Heh.

Fact is, $8/month for Netflix is all I can justify and I justify that largely
based on TV reruns than movies. Add in Hulu (not Plus) and that's my limit.

Given all that if I could just get HBO Go without subscribing to cable, I'd
gladly fork over maybe even $20/month. As it stands, I can't justify spending
>$100/month for the "privilege" so I guess I have to continue relying on,
well, other sources.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
I do have a big TV, but it's mostly for games and Netflix, via a PS3. Oh, and
there's also a PC next to it, browsing the Internet on a large screen is
awesome. :)

So that's it, it's just a big screen.

~~~
brk
_So that's it, it's just a big screen._

The TV we watch most often is a Panasonic 42" commercial plasma display. Just
a big monitor. No tuner, no speakers, just a screen and some inputs.

One of those inputs is a Tivo, and 1/2 of the time we're watching Netflix
through it. 1/4 of the time we're watching torrented shows off of a WD media
player box. The other 1/4 of the time we're watching the local news, or
listening to it in the background (for what purpose I'm not sure, it's mostly
garbage).

I had digital cable for about 3 months earlier this year. Decided to finally
try it. And, after 3 months, decided it wasn't worth it.

The US is moving away from the old "broadcast" models quickly. People almost
don't even care about the actual content, to the extent that there are many
viable options to fill a block of time with various programs.

------
serge2k
Well, guess I have no choice but to subscribe to starz.

Oh wait, their network is pretty much irrelevant to me, I have watched a few
of their movies on netflix and I like Torchwood (although parts of this season
have sucked) and Spartacus. Other that I honestly couldn't care less and I
won't be spending a dime on their second rate premium channel.

When does their deal with Disney and Sony expire? Can't imagine they would go
with starz over netflix.

~~~
ghshephard
Torchwood? I tried, I really did to purchase Miracle Day on iTunes, Amazon,
Netflix - wasn't able to. I was _happy_ to give them my money - but they
didn't provide me a mechanism (and "Cable" or "Satellite" was last considered
a reasonable channel by me about 8 years ago. )

I think everyone here realizes where all the up-to-date Torchwood episodes
could be found after I finally gave up looking for someone to take my money.

Ideally the marketplace will resolve these issues, and companies that fail to
understand that their business model now has to be centered around providing
content that people want, rather than forcing their "packages", will disappear
while those that understand how to serve their customers will rise to the top.
(And get my money while they're at it)

~~~
semanticist
Torchwood can be found on iPlayer, since it's BBC. My BluRay player/PVR has an
iPlayer 'app', and will even do streaming HD. It's great.

Netflix in the UK have a hard time competing with iPlayer, and the BBC's
content generally. The main reason people pay for TV content of any kind here
is sports.

------
jsherry
I'm sure that Starz gets it: the future of content is streaming. Everybody
gets it. And it's frustrating that we don't have everything streaming today
b/c the technology is there and has been there for some time. But the bottom
line is that cable is still alive and well today, and the margins are much
better there than what Netflix is offering.

Pirating is not the burning platform here like it was for music. Netflix is
not iTunes. Content providers still have the option to make plenty of money
through cable and they're going to do just that until that medium becomes
completely disrupted and they no longer have that as a lucrative channel.
Starz sees Netflix streaming as cannibalizing their cable business, and to a
reasonably large extent they're probably right b/c Netflix streaming has gone
mainstream. The day will come when cable will no longer support Starz (and
others') content and they know it's coming. Until then, sad to say but this is
just smart business.

------
mkr-hn
Give this whole mess ten years. Netflix or something like it will buy up
companies like Starz and HBO in the bankruptcy. A self-solving problem.

~~~
danssig
Starz I can see, but HBO? Content trumps all and HBO is one of the best
content producers there is. No matter what happens, they will continue to find
ways to make money so long as they keep delivering.

Personally I would expect Netflix to be gone in 10 years unless they start
producing their own content.

~~~
mkr-hn
Depends on whether or not they open Go up after it's clear that the cable
companies aren't capable of dealing with the modern world.

~~~
danssig
I don't think it does. Even if Go sucks and goes down in flame, they'll be
able to find someone willing to pick up their programming. And most likely at
a premium.

------
nhangen
I for one am extremely tired of this kind of stuff happening and as a result,
never knowing wheat I can watch, and can't watch, with Netflix streaming.

Two weeks ago, my son and I were watching LOTR and had to pause for some
travel. When we got back, I was puzzled that I couldn't find a way to get it
back on to finish...turns out their contract expired.

How is this OK for a company in this day and age? I'm tired of giving Netflix
a pass because the content partners aren't playing fair. I'm sorry, but that's
your business model, and now that you put the competition out of business, I
need you to perform and not act like a 10 day old startup.

Screw both TV and video. If this is how it's going to be, I'm out. I'll stick
to This Week in Startups, 5by5, and my book collection.

~~~
rmc
Piracy has none of these problems.

------
lchengify
"However, executives at Starz apparently concluded that they would lose even
more money by giving consumers a reason to subscribe to Netflix instead of the
cable channel."

s/subscribe to Netflix/download from bittorrent

The level of disconnect is shocking, however I doubt the Netflix guys are
sweating it. No one is going cancel instant content for $8/mo based on Starz
backing out.

------
bpeebles
I watch a goodly percentage of my content through Netflix instant, and I
actively avoid the Starz provided content. It's never in HD, and even for that
the quality varies from middling to almost poor. I've watched a couple of
things from Starz, but mostly it's because I didn't notice until I had my
heart set on watching it.

So, I don't really care if Netflix loses this. I hope it lets them be more
aggressive at doing new deals to get movies.

~~~
mbreese
I hope that this frees up some more capital for them to do direct deals with
production houses (like their Lionsgate deal). I know that Sony already bolted
from Netflix (via Starz), but perhaps directly dealing with the studios (and
more money) will help Netflix start to get more current movies faster.

------
Jun8
This is a stupid (or desparate) move by Starz, but it also shows the weakness
of Netflix: if you rely on someone else for content (same goes for API) for
revenue, theye can screw you up (e.g. there goes 11% of our valuation), even
if it's in the short term. I think Netflix should be more aggressive in
creating own content (key to HBO's success). They are already moving in this
direction but very slowly. Why doesn't Netflix outsource content (to film &
journalism schools or just YouTube era amateurs) and stream it theirselves?

~~~
tsotha
The real question in my mind is "what is Netflix bringing to the table?" I
mean, there's no reason Starz can't set up its own download channel right next
to Netflix and Amazon on my Roku, is there? Why should they give Netflix a
cut?

~~~
parfe
>what is Netflix bringing to the table?

My credit card. I'm not going to sign up for 5 different sites for content as
each network puts up its own little fiefdom.

~~~
tsotha
For Roku, at least, I think the way it works is you give your credit card once
and then you select channels through Roku. So in this case it's not any less
convenient.

It made sense to go with Netflix when nobody else really had a streaming
implementation, and Netflix had its own advertising the content providers
could piggyback off of. But these days more and more people are getting
content through third party boxes that already act as payment processors.

------
rickdale
I have been critical of Netflix in the past for the quality of their streaming
material. Honestly, I like Netflix most because if I see a Starz movie on my
cable box I know I can watch it later on Netflix. I dont have Starz.

What I do have though is HBO. I pay for it in my cable bill, but they also let
me stream 100% of their content using HBO GO. I admit HBO GO has a long way to
go and isn't the online video store, but for quality shows to stream it is
hard to beat.

This seems like a big blow for netflix; I thought the streaming material was
consistently getting better, this will make it worse.

------
invisiblefunnel
Starz was breaking new ground for cable tv content providers. Now they decide
to return to the stone age? Of course their internal numbers might tell a
different story, but this still seems shortsighted.

~~~
technoslut
It never would've really worked because Starz is an unnecessary middleman
through this whole process. Netflix should be dealing with the studios
directly. Prices would always be higher since Starz wants their cut of the
action.

------
sixtofour
As long as Netflix keeps streaming Korean crime movies and Japanese dystopia
movies and Scandinavian crime/thriller movies and The Third Man, I could give
a rats ass about Starz.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Yeah! I have ;earned to really like South Korean SciFi because of Netflix.
(Unfortunately, my wife always leaves the room when I watch this stuff).

The world is full of interesting material to watch.

------
kin
I'm assuming most people here have Netflix and do not have cable. Here is
Starz' dilemma: Let's take all cable subscribers and consider them potential
Starz customers. They can A. Pay $15/month to get Starz or B. Pay $8/month to
get Netflix + Starz. They would all choose B. Now let's take all the non-cable
subscribers and call them potential Starz customers. Starz technically wants
to keep this too, but they would lose out on all the customers in the 1st
scenario, which make them more money. Thus, their unfortunate decision.

As consumers, we need to wage war against cable companies by not subscribing.
Unfortunately, this is difficult to do considering quality sports programming
is dominantly viewed via cable and the like.

~~~
william42
Sportswise, you can get a lot of stuff on ESPN3 now.

------
trocker
Take a look at this:

<http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110901-715069.html>

@bittermang : true, going back is painful and networks & cable operators are
probably aware of this. But, as wsj puts it - investors of netflix are scared
that its expenditure on the content deals will overtake their revenue and with
netflix threatening the existence of so many network companies, netflix soon
has to create its own content OR devise an extraordinary plan to sustain the
network grudges against it.

It will be interesting to see individual networks starting up their own
streaming services.

------
rglover
Not specifically Starz, but the idea about how to handle all of the different
cable networks has been on my mind for awhile now. Here's a question for
Comcast, Time Warner, and all of the other service providers out there: why
don't you quit wasting time and compete with Netflix? The one thing cable and
satellite companies have that Netflix doesn't is a large collection of long-
standing relationships with networks. With a bit of work, cable/satellite
providers could easily build a system just like Netflix.

Offer a web-based, a la carte service. All content is presented just like
Netflix in a VOD package. Users sign up for an account and are given the
option to pick out which networks they want to receive content from. Any
network can be dropped/added whenever the user wants.

Worried about costs? Tier the service out: $29.99 a month gets you 10
networks, $49.99 gets you 20, and so on so forth. No real change to what's
taking place now aside from customers being happy and being allowed to access
content whenever they want, wherever they want.

Oh, and let's not forget the social layer that would fit beautifully on top of
this. Allow users to easily post episodes/networks to Facebook/Twitter/etc.
Facilitate a conversation between people watching a show. Each show page has a
comments section where fans can discuss what they just watched/are watching.

Just the beginning of ideas for this. If you want to keep discussing (hint:
I'd love to), shoot me an email: ryan@getconduit.com.

------
AndrewDucker
What this makes clear is that we need standards.

If there was a standard way of getting video from the producer to the consumer
then producers could either go through middle-men (like Netflix) or host the
videos themselves, and it wouldn't matter at all to the viewer.

I want to sit in front of my TV (or iPad, or laptop), choose some video from
the biggest menu in the history of mankind, and watch it. I have no interest
in who produced it, or who shipped me the bits. And I shouldn't have to have.

~~~
jerf
We _have_ standards. Anyone can play an x264 file. Anyone can play an MPG.
Wrap whatever media player you like around them.

But... the standards don't have DRM.

If you could buy videos like you could buy MP3s off of Amazon, and nobody
flipped out about the DRM, we wouldn't need middlemen to do the job of
standing up for their customers and making sure the videos actually work,
which they basically wouldn't if the studios had their way, unopposed.

------
angryasian
Everyone is looking negatively at Starz, but I imagine there might be some
outside pressures from the cable providers, Starz main source of revenue, to
not continue. They are in a tough position. We've seen online services set
back with this, and the recent Fox - hulu waiting period. I imagine these
cable providers are not ready to give up yet.

~~~
ams6110
Waiting periods don't bother me. There is so much content out there there's
always something I haven't seen yet.

~~~
Ein2015
They don't bother me either. The torrent sites always have content available
minutes after broadcasts conclude. Hours for 1080p.

Shocking how much the content providers fail to provide content.

------
aidenn0
"Because we’ve licensed so much other great content, Starz content is now down
to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers’ viewing. "

How about "Because all Sony films disappeared from Starz, Starz content is now
down to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers' viewing." That would be more
honest

------
bitsm
I wonder if this shot across Netflix's bow (which it likely is, way too early
to definitively walk away), combined with Netflix's lower (base) digital
subscription, will open the door to premium Netflix packages -- Starz as a
premium add-on for $5/mo.

That might create tons of new opportunities network content bundles or al a
carte show seasons, and mute the furor over the digital-only switch. For
$15/mo. you might be able to get Netflix Streaming + Starz + Breaking Bad.

------
yequalsx
I think that there is sufficient hatred for cable and satellite TV that people
who are on the instant streaming only plan will pay for a DVD plan as well.
Currently I am on streaming only but would rather pay for a DVD plan than for
cable. It's much cheaper this way.

I think an unintended consequence of this is that Netflix ends up making more
money.

------
bobx11
Netflix streaming doesn't have waynes world and many of these movies I would
love to watch... how much more do i have to pay to get this content legally?
Who's up for making a grooveshark for movies? ;)

------
chaostheory
At least Netflix seems to have good PR on this occasion.

------
pbreit
Both companies are posturing. I expect a new deal in the end.

------
WayneDB
Astraweb, SabNZBd, Sickbeard, nzbmatrix. Never going back.

~~~
ericflo
Shhhh, don't tell everyone!

~~~
WayneDB
Hehe, sorry.

