
Netflix is on Fire - mcnabj
https://medium.com/@diymanik/netflix-is-on-f-ing-fire-1675d47e722
======
wtbob
I wonder how much of Netflix's success is that its show are good, and how much
is that they are easy to watch.

Anytime I want to, I can go to Netflix and watch any episode of their shows. I
ca watch the first season; I can watch the intervening seasons; I can watch
the current season. There are no blackouts; there are no embargoes.

I can binge-watch if I want, or I can pace myself, at _my_ pace.

Compare that to the big companies' offerings, where I may be able to watch
every episode this season, but not get started by catching up on previous
seasons (I know that they hope I'll pay up for boxed sets of those early
seasons, but I'll just skip their shows altogether instead), or I may be able
to wath previous seasons but not the current one, or (my favourite) I can
watch previous seasons and recent episodes but not early episodes this season.

Why would I want to get involved with a show which is such a pain to watch?

~~~
hackerboos
I'm a prolific pirate. The Amazon offerings as pointed out by the author
(Transparent, High Castle..) sit on my HTPC - downloaded from torrents because
Amazon's streaming services are not offered here in Canada so how else would I
get them.

I haven't pirated any Netflix shows because it's simply too cheap and too easy
to just do it legit.

~~~
e40
I have Amazon Prime and I've been forced to pirate the content because their
streaming app on the Roku 3 sucks ass. On the same device, the Netflix app
never buffers (I have a 55 Mbps connection). So, I recently downloaded a
series I was watching. Turns out, I had paid for it (Hannibal season 3), in
HD. Just couldn't stream, over a few days, without stopped. So, torrenting I
went.

I have the same complaint about HBO Now on the Roku. Man, does it suck.

Lest people think the problem is my network, often when I have the issue I
switch to Netflix and never once have I had a problem after the switch. Seems
unlikely I just happened to switch when the network problems went away.

~~~
scurvy
It could also be congestion at the peering points your ISP uses to connect
(directly or through transit) to Amazon or HBO.

I think Netflix also still uses caching boxes in a few locations, but they are
being phased out.

In other words, there are a lot more variables in the equation than just your
home network and the Roku app.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> I think Netflix also still uses caching boxes in a few locations, but they
> are being phased out.

Proof? I don't see any indication at
[https://openconnect.netflix.com/](https://openconnect.netflix.com/) that
their appliance is being phased out.

~~~
scurvy
I think Dave Temkin mentioned this at a NANOG or two. Or maybe it was at the
bar. I'm not sure. I could be completely wrong. That's why I typed "think"

------
fredley
Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We
own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV
License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a
real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without
owning a License.

I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription
that gets you access to everything the BBC offers, except what they broadcast
live (and maybe online news), which you get for free (the exact opposite of
how they charge now).

A much better proposal for the streaming generation, essentially a tax-cut for
the older generation, and none of the nasty TV License policing issues.

~~~
tylermauthe
I thought you had to pay the tax for any screen, regardless of where the
content comes from?

~~~
petepete
Only if the screen has a tuner and aerial I think; a monitor wouldn't require
one.

~~~
DanBC
No, you're wrong. A person using a laptop to view live tv on eg BBC iPlayer
would need to be covered by a licence.

The licence is needed for any "live broadcast tv". The equipment used is not
relevant; and the source of the signal is not relevant. So someone in England
watching French satellite TV still needs a licence.

------
je42
In addition to it; netflix actually knows that when you watch a series you
don't care about already seen episodes. Good old TV never really labeled
episodes correctly and is a pain to use when you are just interested in the
next you haven't seen. In netflix it is painless. Yes, the feature is simple,
but still I value it every time i can just watch the next episode ( or pick up
where left in the middle of the episode).

~~~
CydeWeys
Not only that, Netflix even does a decent job of handling multiple people
watching the same series at different points, even on the same virtual
account.

------
cm2187
Don't know if the catalogue is the same here in the UK than in the US, but in
the UK Netflix is only good for TV shows. The movie offering is very light.
The other thing is the lack of offline viewing, which is useful when
travelling.

The media industry is so backward. I can't believe most of them still live in
the 90s and these problems haven't been solved yet.

~~~
RottenHuman
>The media industry is so backward. I can't believe most of them still live in
the 90s and these problems haven't been solved yet.

Part of the problem is the broken status of international copyright law and
the many incompatible local laws and regulations. If the international
community could at least settle for an standard approach to digital
distribution over the internet, the world would be a happier place for
consumers.

~~~
sbarre
Is it really copyright law, or is it business-driven content deals?

Content publishers make separate deals with distributors (cable & satellite)
along their service-area borders, and can therefore sell the same content
multiple times over to different regions, most likely charging pricing based
on income levels and audience size, etc.. And no doubt a lot of these deals
are exclusive, or at the very least timed exclusives..

I know this isn't news to anyone, but I feel like this whole "sell the same
thing over and over" must have a much bigger impact on the very slow
internationalization of media, rather than any kind of legal hurdles.

~~~
toyg
Ostensibly, this market fragmentation was forced by legislative fragmentation.
However, excuses are wearing thin: the EU market, for example, is now unique,
if distributors actually _wanted_ it to be. But they don't. Because
distributors are the fat middlemen without a real future in the digital
economy, so they'll try to squeeze every last drop of cash before they're
forced out, exploiting every monopoly and every loophole they can. It's up to
productions and audiences to bypass them as much as they can.

~~~
sbarre
That's my point..

Publishers want the status quo because they make multiples of licensing income
on the same content, and established distributors want the status quo because
they fend off competition (and lock in their customers) from new global
competitors who have better business models.

I can see why content producers may want these new deals, to get better
control, but don't count on anyone else in the gravy train media chain to do
anything other than fight new models tooth and nail until the bitter end.

------
stonogo
What is the purpose of this article? Was it really some random person SO
EXCITED about a video streaming company? I struggle to find a thesis here. Do
people need an entire essay that just says "Netflix is making money and
producing content"?

~~~
StevePerkins
Three-day holiday weekend.

There are currently two separate posts on the front-page about 1999's "Age of
Empires 2" being a nice video game.

~~~
Gigablah
Yes, when people return from their holidays we'll go back to our regular
schedule of marketing blog posts disguised as technical articles.

------
mark_l_watson
We are huge Netflix fans (my wife and I have our own streaming accounts, which
is stupid now since they offer family options for separating play lists). That
said, I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials, is also a fine
product and Hulu is owned by the large network stations.

We get Amazon Prime free shipping via my brother's business so we have not
signed up ourselves and don't get the free Amazon Prime content which friends
and family members say is amazing.

The thing is: there is so much good content that it is fine, at least for me,
to not have access to everything.

Another distribution model that I like is Google Play Movies and TV. It is a
little pricy but I wanted to watch the Worricker Triliogy (fantastic!!) the
the new scifi Expanse and it was so very convenient simply buying both series
and watching them anytime on any device. If the cost was a little less, and if
Google Play had most content, I think that I could be happy with a completely
a la cart pay per view experience.

A suggestion for anyone working in this industry: when content is rented,
offer a purchase option that is valid for a week. Sometimes I have rented
movies and liked them enough that I would pay the difference to own permanent
viewing rights.

~~~
criddell
> I think that Hulu Prime, the version without commercials

The last time I looked, the commercial free version of Hulu still had
commercials for some shows. Has that changed?

~~~
pdappollonio
There are a few shows that large cable companies wants to have with ads. But
it's minimal. I think one of them is "Once upon a time".

~~~
criddell
> large cable companies wants to have with ads

Any guesses why this is? It seems so strange to me that it isn't possible to
offer a commercial free service.

------
krautsourced
It should however also be noted that the people who rate stuff on IMDB or
Rotten Tomatoes (namely, people who go on the Internet to look at movie
reviews, discuss, rate etc.) are also probably most of the target audience for
streaming services in general. While "Big TV" also caters for the older
demographic, people who like reality tv (yes, apparently they do exist, I
don't know...) etc., which still make up probably the majority of the viewers.
Things will most likely change in the next decades, when the older viewers die
out and a whole generation expects streaming and on demand and maybe even
expect "stuff that is not shit" on TV - though I won't hold my breath for the
latter.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I don't think the entire massed effort of the entire entertainment industry
for all time can provide 6 hours/day of "stuff that is not shit." Roughly 6
hours/week is close to doable for the current industry if they don't make too
many mistakes.

Reality TV began with GenX/millenials (MTV in the '90s with The Real World)
and I'm not familiar with people older than that who watch that. I say that;
I'll watch Counting Cars now and again. Reality TV represents a trade of
quality for volume. Us boomers endured dreck like "Dallas".

I think the future is in _non_ fiction. I am biased to like things like
BookTv. The costs are relatively low, it's got a pretty high hit rate ( some
subjects will simply not engage some people ) but it's not really _media_ any
more. Add some "media" to it and you get the execrable TED talks.

I can't see that supporting much in terms of ad revenue. But it might stream
on some sort of modest subscription basis.

~~~
rileymat2
Did reality TV begin with Real World on MTV? What about shows like "Cops"? I
think that predates Real World.

~~~
delecti
I feel like it's worth distinguishing between reality TV with a consistent
cast like Real World, and those without like Cops, which is almost more like a
documentary in that sense.

I'm not sure how I'd make the distinction clear though, because stuff like
"Ghost Hunters" _feels_ a lot more like the Real World kind, despite being
(ostensibly) more like a documentary.

------
in_cahoots
Looking at the top series, they're all semi-obscure or obscure, early seasons
of very new shows. This means they follow some key trends: obscure things
typically have higher ratings in general than the mainstream, because you're
unlikely to hear about them / watch them if you're not already in some narrow
niche. Compare that to something like The Big Bang Theory, where people watch
it just because it's on.

Ratings also tend to go down as a show matures, both as the quality and
novelty drop off (even The Wire has its critics of the last season) and as the
show is exposed to a wider audience.

Taking this into account, I don't think user ratings are the best measure of a
show's appeal.

------
soneca
I don't think online reviews are a good reference for TV shows. My impression
is that, different of movies, only fans do reviews. So the average TV show
rating is much higher than for movies.

And I also have the impression that Netflix shows have a stronger "fan review
only" effect, as you must be proactive to start watching that show on the
first place.

Another effect is that for movies, after you decide to watch it is easier to
get to the end even if you are not liking (more so if you are on a theater).
So most people watched 100% of the content. If you don't like a show, you do
not pass the first episode. So if you did not watched more than 10% of
content, I assume you won't feel confortable with giving a negative review.

So that is why I dont trust reviews for TV shows

------
api
Hollywood is ripe for disruption. They remind me of the old 1970s auto
industry: fat, happy, and stagnant. They don't do "plot" anymore, churning out
nothing but totally formulaic rehashes and reboots and franchise flicks. I
don't think viewers are as dumb as Hollywood thinks. Hollywood gets away with
this schlock because they have little competition at the high end of film
making.

Netflix can do what the Japanese autos did: start at the lower end with good
but inexpensive TV shows and then eat up the value chain until they are
producing blockbuster flicks of superior quality at a lower price. Give me a
great blockbuster movie with an actual plot and actual dramatic tension and
it's game over.

~~~
frik
The super hero movies are getting annoying. The same goes for arkward unfunny
comedian movies.

I hope Hollywood revives action movies (1980/90s style; eg Die Hard 1/2) with
real stunts and little CGI again, as well as films with good realistic
stories, realistic characters, funny and with a little drama (eg The Family
Stone).

------
lostcolony
Another interesting thing to see is the response by a lot of those inside the
television content industry.

Many of the companies that produce content are retooling and reorganizing
specifically to deliver that content over the internet. None of them want to
use Netflix, instead wanting their own service, but the growth of such
streaming services has emboldened them. They both see that it's possible to go
directly to consumer, -and- that it will be necessary at some point in the
future, as the increase in cord cutters means less money on the incumbent TV
providers to pay them with in contract negotiations. They realize they either
are looking at ever dwindling fees, and thus, dwindling business, or they have
to be able to circumvent the existing distributors.

So it's not just that Netflix is managing to create great content; its mere
existence is leading to much of the content that TV distributors currently
have a stranglehold on to be distributed directly by the content company.

~~~
Zekio
Sadly in some countries such as Denmark, there are some TV licensing fees you
can't stop paying, because you can access the content online... Even if you
never intend to use it.

~~~
thomasahle
Just the national broadcasting though, which is not much different from how
you pay for highways, even if you don't have a car.

~~~
tomjen3
Dane here. I pay about half of what the biggest channel package costs in
mandatory license fees every month, and it is a very poor offering.

Netflix is only 80kr, or about 12 dollars, whereas I pay almost 30 dollars for
the tv fees. I watched about 10 minutes of broadcast tv last year but many
hours of netflix. I don't get why I should be forced to pay for something that
doesn't produce any value for me.

------
nebulous1
While I think it's pretty f __*ing obvious that traditional TV channels are
going to be in a lot of trouble in the years to come, I couldn 't verify his
statement that "Netflix now produces 3 of the top 5 rated video series
according to Rotten Tomatoes". I did find the exact list he posted under "Top
TV Comedies"

[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-
list-2/#](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/#)

Also, on their "Top 10 TV Shows 2015", I only see two Netflix shows in places
8 and 9 on the list.

Netflix do produce some top quality shows, but the aren't currently killing it
as much as the author claims.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Unless I'm missing something, your link does match his list, but it's labeled
"Top TV Shows on RT", not comedy. Most of those shows are definitely not
comedy.

~~~
nebulous1
Fair point on them not being comedies. This could be an RT issue. This is what
I see:

[http://imgur.com/PdqztD9](http://imgur.com/PdqztD9)

------
buro9
Netflix has it easy on content production, all they need do is fill evening TV
viewing for a younger generation, and content that can be put in front of
children.

They do not have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content,
Netflix is all killer no filler in terms of content production.

And it turns out, that that's only a few hundred hours of TV per viewer per
year, many of whom belong to those same small demographic groups that share
great overlap in interest.

BTW, I'm really glad they turned down Top Gear whilst at the same time
producing shows like Jessica Jones. One seems so dated and a decade ago whilst
the other feels now or from the future.

~~~
monk_e_boy
The thing about Netflix is that is isn't just USA, here in the UK we've sat
and taken USA content 3 years late, in the mean time the internet and
newspapers full of spoilers and memes about those shows. So what to do? Pirate
them? When Netflix turned up it was amazing!!

But the biggest selling point? For us is ... reception. Yeah, in the old days
TV was full of snow. Now we've gone digital TV is just glitches and pops and
whistles. We go from around 180 channels to 20 every time we re-scan the TV
(which is about once a month) .... most of the time the TV is unwatchable.

Everyone I know is now Netflix and/or Amazon and/or both.

Whoever gets Premier Football, Ruby, F1, Moto GP, Formula E and the olympics
will win TV forever.

------
towb
And Netflix is the only source of UHD, at least in my parts of the world.
Which made me pay them even more for that subscription now when I bought a UHD
TV last week. Oh, and I just ended my good old regular cable subscription one
month ago.

~~~
jerf
Out of curiosity, how good is the streaming UHD? I've always wondered how the
tension between bandwidth consumption and "actually looking better than 1080P"
would pan out.

Last week with some Christmas funds we bought a 24" TV. Even at the point-
blank range it is sitting at, 1080P isn't worth much so I got the nicer (and
non-Smart!) 720P Samsung rather than the off-brand "we have 1080P!"-bullet-
point-feature brand. We also got a Amazon Fire stick to stream to it. We took
perverse glee in making the first thing we streamed to it Netflix's 4K
Fireplace stream:
[http://www.netflix.com/title/80092839](http://www.netflix.com/title/80092839)

~~~
soylentcola
On bigger screens and/or ones closer to the viewer it's definitely a
noticeable improvement. It's obviously compressed and not up to the standard
of a really high bitrate 4k video file but I guess it's equivalent to how "HD"
on cable doesn't look as good as HD over the air but it still looks a lot
nicer than standard def or DVD.

One major downside is that you can't stream 4K Netflix or Amazon to your
browser so even on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor (or if you have a fancy 4k or 5k
display) you won't get the option. It's only available on various streaming
"sticks" or TV-based "apps" at the moment. As far as I know, it's only really
meant as a roadblock to casual ripping of 4k content since it wouldn't be
difficult to determine whether a viewer's computer had the proper hardware
decoders to ensure smooth playback. Unfortunately for viewers, it means you
can't get those higher quality streams without buying a device or using a
"smart" TV. And last time I checked, there's no shortage of pirated 4K content
out there. It's currently one of the only ways to do it if you don't want to
rely on a Fire stick, another set top box, or some possibly-secured TV app
platform. Not a huge deal on my 2560x1440 monitor since it's not too big and
1920x1080 looks fine. But I'm likely picking up a 4k TV in the next month
thanks to a $500 gift card and wanting to game at those resolutions. It's a
shame I'll have to either pirate 4k shows or plug in the ethernet cable to the
TV when I want to stream legit.

~~~
Fargren
I also have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and while the content looks fine, the
video gets really choppy if I don't configure my monitor to 1920x1080, as if
it's struggling to resize the video. Does this not happen to you?

~~~
soylentcola
Sorry for the late reply, but whenever I stream from Netflix, Amazon, or
Youtube, I just let it stream at whatever their site determines as the max my
connection can handle and it never looks choppy in fullscreen. The only time
there's any issue is when bandwidth is limited for whatever reason and the
site needs to drop down to a lower quality stream.

I assume you've already covered this but just in case, do you have the most
recent drivers and software for your GPU? I know in the past that (on Windows
systems at least) using the default "mostly works" driver that comes with the
OS, I'll notice issues with performance because I'm missing any hardware
acceleration that the Intel/nVidia/AMD GPU can do.

Typically I notice it on work machines that just got reimaged with a generic
OS image and don't have the relevant GPU drivers installed yet. Moving windows
around, resizing, and other windowing tasks are a bit choppy until I download
the appropriate package.

Again, I assume you already thought of this if you're specifically buying a
higher resolution display than the average cheap PC comes with. Still, it's
the only thing that I've had affect framerate/refresh in fullscreen video in
the past.

------
vermontdevil
The key is how are the younger generation consuming tv content? My daughter
and all her friends love YouTube, Netflix, etc. They don't bother with cable.

That's where the future is heading, me thinks. And yes I have Netflix, Hulu,
Amazon, etc. Sure the cost pretty much equals what I would pay for cable but I
prefer this way.

------
guiomie
Marco Polo — 92% (Fun Fact: Critics rated it 24%. How’s that for incongruity?)

Narcos — 94% (Another crazy disconnect as critics only rated it 78%)

The author preaches shows produced by data driven companies, then when a
rating data driven company has results he judges abnormal to his taste he
insinuates something is wrong.

Personally, I found Marco Polo okay, the visuals are good, but the plot got
boring after a while. I would not give it more than 50%. As for Narcos, 78%
seems legit, I found the whole traditional drama show mixed with documentary
interventions awkward. And would not give it more than 75%.

As for the article, of course linear TV is going to get disrupt. But I doubt
Amazon or Netflix will get a monopoly. AMC and HBO will simply put their
content online, and TV providers will make their revenue loss from linear TV
on higher internet consumption.

~~~
davej
The author is simply highlighting the disconnect between critics ratings and
audience ratings for Netflix shows.

------
aprdm
Netflix content is indeed amazing, Narcos is my favourite show by far, house
of cards and others are also top notch.

In the beginning I was always wishing that Netflix would get famous TV shows/
new movies to the platform ASAP.

Now a days I really want to see more of their own content in the platform
instead.

------
joakleaf
I wonder if ratings are higher because viewers don't have to endure annoying
commercials?

To me, the absence of commercials definitely makes the experience far more
enjoyable, and I can better relate to the stories and characters when the
experience isn't constantly interrupted.

------
ascendantlogic
So here's the catch 22. The Hollywood content producers and deliverers won't
just sit back and let Netflix and Amazon eat their entire lunch. They will
fight back, and presumably with their own streaming services. So we will have
a proliferation (more so than now) of services to get specific content
through. Usually this is a good thing. People want choice and choice breeds
competition which is good for consumers. However in this instance most people
I know, myself included, just want one streaming service to subscribe to so
it's not such a hassle. But wishing for that is like wishing for Hitler to be
replaced with Stalin. It will end poorly with just another monopoly taking the
place of the old.

~~~
parennoob
Well the way to prevent that is to with your wallet. Don't pay for a cable
subscription (I don't), and refuse to watch sporting events unless they are
available openly for streaming for a non-ridiculous price. It's seriously not
such a big deal. Don't watch the shows that are only available via DVDs or on
"boutique" services where you end up with a subscription when you only wanted
a specific thing.

Eventually, content producers will realize that their delivery is usually
horrible, and causes a lot of pain for consumers (I have to pay Comcast
$300/month to watch the occasional football game? Sorry, not watching
football.) and come up for better, more convenient ways for consumers to pay
for the content they consume.

------
rdlecler1
Other than a few good streaming shows you're left with the leftover movies
that the studios are willing to license to them. Most of the good stuff you
have to get through other means. Sometimes I miss blockbuster.

------
chris_wot
I'm an Australian. I barely watch television any more. The TV Networks have
basically screwed over Australians for a long time. We don't get the same
content at the same time as the rest of the world, it gets shown out of order
and at times they even missed entire episodes.

The only thing that the TV networks might have had going was to produce their
own drama. They didn't - they just produced home improvement shows in the 90s,
and really bad reality TV in the 2000s. Very little in the way of drama, and
what _was_ created was dross.

So, goodbye TV! Hello Netflix!

------
kriro
It'll get interesting when they make the first play for sports rights. Not
because I think it's necessary or anything but that would be a pretty strong
signal for the general audience that the paradigm has shifted. I think
streaming quality isn't quite there yet but there's plenty of not super
premium content they could try.

~~~
CydeWeys
It turns out that my interest in sports did not exceed my hatred of cable
companies. I canceled cable and don't watch nearly as much live sport coverage
as I used to. Every so often I'll catch something in a bar or go to a friend's
place to watch the Super Bowl, and that's it.

Point being, I don't think live sports is enough for cable to survive on. Once
that's all that cable is good for, I think an increasing number of people will
simply give up on sports, especially at $100+/month.

~~~
soylentcola
At least where I live, the cable companies are the only real option for
broadband internet access so we're already paying Comcast for something. And
once you are paying for internet access, cable TV is typically a lot less than
$100/mo. The only reason we still have it is because internet access is $70/mo
while internet plus cable (major channels in HD, minor ones in SD), plus HBO
(main HBO channel in HD, secondary HBO channels in SD) costs $100/mo with
their tuner/dvr rental.

So for a lot of people, they don't need to be worth $100+/month but they do
need to be worth $30-ish per month. Whether they are is debatable but if
anyone in your house still likes to "flip" channels and watch the latest
cable/network TV, it's not always a done deal. If it were up to me, I'd ditch
the cable TV because I hardly watch it and would spend less just renting
"season passes" to the handful of shows I do.

------
yalogin
Why is the argument framed as Netflix against the other TV companies? That is
wrong. I don't think people care who makes the show as long as its good and
available/accessible. They will all change one way or the other. Their
viability in the long run will depend on how good their online offerings are.
We are still in the nascent stages of this.

The big issue here is the service providers like Comcast will be relegated to
becoming purely pipe providers as they are supposed to be. They are getting
hit from both ends by Google and Netflix.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Comcast will have to be reorganized as purely a pipe provider. It won't
survive as it is. It's not clear that DSL will not then eclipse cable
altogether.

As it is , they feed a lot of cash to local stations and ESPN. Those probably
won't survive at all, unless as some sort of premium online content.

HBO/SHO?: Who knows?

------
brownbat
They spent the last 10 years conducting massive studies of what people like to
watch.

If they weren't able to come up with some hits after that, then they weren't
trying.

Somewhere behind the scenes, Netflix is applying sabermetrics to Hollywood.

Except it's worse than in baseball... Unlike Oakland, all their competitors
(except maybe Amazon) can't just copy their approach, because all their data
is private, not public.

~~~
soylentcola
Sure, but you'd think that with all of the market research done by TV and
cable over the past several decades (and it's not as if Comcast and Time
Warner don't track what people watch on their digital cable services) they'd
have some inkling as to what's currently in demand and what may be
underrepresented.

Perhaps it's just more efficient for Netflix to commission content or buy it
and then distribute it themselves. The on-demand model means no concerns about
finding the right timeslot and that's something even NBC has to deal with
despite their Comcast ownership.

Or maybe as the newcomer, they have to take more risks whereas the older
networks are more risk-averse. Right now Netflix reminds me of nothing so much
as it does HBO. It's got older movies and content that it's licensed from
others and it's got its own content that often seems less concerned with
getting the broadest and widest appeal.

Netflix streaming is basically the evolution of premium cable and all they
really did differently was jump straight to online-only delivery.

~~~
brownbat
> they'd have some inkling as to what's currently in demand and what may be
> underrepresented.

My working assumption is that the lessons learned from the prediction engine
they've built are a qualitative leap over just "what's popular, assuming all
of the US is composed of identical viewers." Or even a few demographic
divisions.

Eh, I could be wrong though. Maybe this is just a gutcheck, I think Netflix is
better at data science than other studios, because they have more experience
working with programmers and large datasets.

------
ck2
As long as netflix can dump cash to generate quality original content they
will have great success.

Redbox likes to advertise "not on netflix for years" on certain titles.

And they are right.

For someone who never goes to theaters like me, I hope redbox stays in
business.

------
k__
Mom: "We got Sky now, so many channels and we get the newest Soccer and
Movies!"

GF: "Oh nice... so where can I choose the movies?"

Mom: "You select the movie channel at 20:15 and it shows it"

GF: "What? I that's in four hours! Who pays a company to wait? This sounds
like Netflix in bad to me..."

Classic cable TV is basically dead.

First Netflix&co had better airing times (on demand, haha) and now they invest
in better shows.

Besides Rick and Morty and Game of Thrones, every show I watched last year,
was made by Netflix or Amazon.

And this seems to be a good thing. Just look at stuff like orange is the new
black. These new producers are far less conservative than the old media
companies.

~~~
kriro
Sky (in Germany) has a service called Go which streams to cell phones/tablets.
They also have Anytime for the box. No need to watch at the time if you don't
want to + you can always just record it and watch later.

They've been pretty aggressive in rebuilding their platform content wise. If
you use a regular cable (not wireless) the online archive is actually pretty
big and they have all the latest blockbusters.

They even offer a DRMed download of content which I haven't seen on any other
platform (quite convenient if you commute via train through low-bandwidth
areas :D).

That being said...Netflix is awesome and they have excellent developers and
understand software. Their original content is amazing, very bullish on them
:)

~~~
petepete
Sky UK has Go too, plus thousands of films available to stream, built-in
catch-up TV and Sky Box Sets which has loads of programmes, from HBO, Disney,
C4 and many others - all built into the Sky Box and accessible via the remote.

Truthfully, it's not as cost effective as Netflix, but hey, where else can I
watch the Premier League and La Liga?

------
rco8786
Author seems unaware that Apple is already in the streaming space also.

Otherwise, yea Concast et. al. Seem to have their heads in the sand.

~~~
bparsons
Apple is producing content? All I see in the iTunes store is a bunch of crummy
network TV reruns and stuff I can get on a dozen other platforms.

------
petersouth
Does anybody worry that people will just subscribe for one month out of the
year and watch everything and then cancel?

~~~
mcphage
How much TV can you (and do you want to) watch in a month? Plus, with their
ongoing series, you can get caught up on a show or two, but a year later and
there'll be more content for the shows you watched.

------
mbrutsch
Sadly, half those shows are not actually available on Netflix.

~~~
feld
What are you talking about?

~~~
revelation
Netflix has sold distribution rights abroad to some of their own shows such as
House of Cards, then entered the market shortly after.

As a result, you can now subscribe to Netflix in these markets and not get
access to their own programming. Yes, it is as terrible as it sounds.

~~~
chris_wot
And yet, you can get around those restrictions quite easily.

~~~
IMTDb
Or you can torrent it quite easily and don't pay a dime. The point is : if I
have to do illegal stuff (getting around geoip is against TOS) and start
installing software, search on the internet for a tutorial to learn how to
watch my stuff, I might as well look for "House of cards torrent", it's faster
and cheaper. I can pirate any music I want, yet I pay Apple Music $10/month to
get it because it's easy, the UI is nice, everything is in there, and the
service "just works". If I have to install a VPN, to change my IP so that the
service I am paying will let me watch a show they are producing, something is
broken. Period. Fix it or I'll pirate it.

~~~
chris_wot
You are still paying the content creators if you bypass the geoblock and pay
the monthly subscription fee. And that fee is not at all onerous.

In Australia, all the streaming providers have the problems of not being able
to show all content. There is stuff in Australia that we can't watch _at all_.
Bypassing Geoblocks makes me a citizen of the entire world, which I gladly pay
for.

------
kabdib
... and data caps will put it out.

Serious question: Would nationalizing Comcast fix anything, or make it worse?

~~~
monk_e_boy
This is a problem in the US, not everywhere (nearly everywhere) else in the
world.

