
Netflix Earnings Are Driven by Investment in Original Content - nature24
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/netflix-investing-original-shows-finally-pays-off/
======
joezydeco
This comment from Reddit user SmegmataTheFirst really nails it:

 _" tl;dr: Advertising ruins everything, which is why netflix originals are
better than cable TV shows."_

[https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5ou7px/netflixs_...](https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5ou7px/netflixs_gamble_pays_off_as_subscriptions_soar/dcmczmz/)

~~~
Joeri
Why are there ads on cable tv? Why can't they just charge tv subscribers the
whole amount and get rid of ads on tv? If netflix can do it, why can't tv do
the same?

~~~
nerfhammer
Cable originally didn't have ads. They just discovered they could put ads in
and nobody cancelled their subscriptions.

~~~
sametmax
Which basically means it's the consummer fault again. I mean, yes, they are
evil. But just like disease, it's useless to blame it. There will always be
diseases. It's our responsibility to cure current ones and create environments
to avoid future ones. Which means for businesses, if you want them to stop
misbehave, you should stop rewarding them when they do. Just like in politics.

Which amazingly we don't do.

~~~
FatalBaboon
Especially in a capitalistic world, I believe this is paramount.

Oh you don't like google and facebook eventually abusing what they know about
you? Don't use their services.

~~~
sametmax
In a capitalistic world, the bank note is a vote bulletin. The only one that
is always listened to, and that you can use every day, on every topic. And
also the one they don't teach you about in school.

------
caseysoftware
Remember this from four years ago: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO
can become us." [0]

In that entire article, there's not a single mention of HBO Go. Looks like
Netflix succeeded.

0: [http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-
hbo...](http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster-
than-hbo-can-become-us)

~~~
RangerScience
I met a then-CTO of HBO on a train once, talked for a few hours from NYC to
upstate. I (digitally) followed the news about him for a bit - it seemed
pretty clear from the time we spent talking, and what I saw digitally
subsequently, that he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming and
the web. HBO content is still amazing, and HBO isn't _bad_ , but... It's
certainly not as good as Netflix.

It occurs to me that it's a lot easier for Netflix to become HBO, than for HBO
to become Netflix - You don't need to build up a tech base, or a talent pool,
to make an amazing show - it's all rented or hired per thing, so if you can
pay for the talent, it's available, and can start making magic immediately.

Not trying to imply the creation of amazing content is _easy_ , more that the
lead time is waaay less than for the creation of tech like Netflix's.

~~~
michaelt

      he tried and failed to get HBO to understand streaming
    

I think it's very difficult when you're in charge of a business with a line of
business that's profitable /right now/ to knowingly cannibalise that line of
business with a new model that will /make you less money/ \- even if the
change is vital to keep you in business in 10-20 years time.

After all, if you're making $10 per customer per month, it's bound to be an
uphill battle to convince people you should change to a business model that
makes you $5 per customer per month.

~~~
pillowkusis
It's not just difficult, it's a bad idea for you. If you know your company
will be successful enough to give you your paycheck for the entire duration
you stay there (10-15yrs seems like a reasonable maximum), then you should
actively defend the status quo. Why make such investments, stick your neck
out, and assume extra risk when you're not going to see the payoff?

This is my theory for why so many companies have outdated business models.

------
SyneRyder
Am I the only one who feels "Netflix Original" became a negative this year?

When I first signed up, Netflix Original meant high quality shows
produced/funded by Netflix itself, like House Of Cards & Orange Is The New
Black & Daredevil. Netflix Original meant the best TV you've ever watched.

Now Netflix Original often means terrible unfunny stand-up comedy, or made-
for-TV movies by big name stars phoning it in. Much of the new Netflix
Original content is rated one-star - on my account I see Wet Hot American
Summer, XOXO, Easy, Chelsea, A Very Murray Christmas, The Ranch, Mascots,
Chewing Gum, Richie Rich, Lost & Found, all with one star. And there's a ton
more. Worse is that it keeps pushing those as recommendations to me, even
though it thinks I'll only rate them 1 star.

I can't see myself cancelling my Netflix yet, but there have been times when
I've been tempted to pause it for a month or so.

~~~
freyir
Netflix is in a growth phase and, no surprise, they're catering a much bigger
audience now. Besides all the shows you listed, it's recently aired Stranger
Things, Narcos, The Crown, Longmire, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmitt, The OA, etc.
These shows aren't going to appeal to everyone, but they're going to be
somebody's favorite show.

Daredevil never really did it for me. I thought their Wet Hot American Summer
reboot was really entertaining. Go figure.

~~~
DanBC
Longmire is a great example of the problem I have with "Netflix original".

It started on A&E 2012 to 2014; it's produced by Warner Horizon -- how is this
original to Netflix?

~~~
SyneRyder
I'm glad someone else picked up on this!

Lots of the Netflix Originals aren't by Netflix at all. In Australia, The
Expanse is a "Netflix Original", even though in America it's on Amazon Prime
Video and was made by SyFy. Glitch is a "Netflix Original" in the US, but it
was made by ABC Australia. And we have Designated Survivor as a Netflix
Original in Australia, even though it's made by ABC Studios and currently
airing on ABC in the US.

It seems Netflix Original now just means "currently Netflix holds exclusive
rights to this show in your country".

~~~
papercrane
> Glitch is a "Netflix Original" in the US, but it was made by ABC Australia.

Netflix is on the production team for the second season.

> It seems Netflix Original now just means "currently Netflix holds exclusive
> rights to this show in your country".

That's not really out-of-line with current industry norms though. Larger
production companies buy the rights to films made by smaller production
companies and put their names on them all the time. For example, Moon comes to
mind. Sony didn't produce it but it's a "Sony Picture". Or Primer, StudioCanal
had nothing to do with the production but is currently listed as the
production company.

------
ReganKoopmans
To me the deal breaker is ads. I think as a society we have begun to grow out
of ads, I personally cannot stand them. I can only just tolerate the 5 second
YouTube ads.

~~~
hackits
I have nothing wrong with ads, though my viewpoint of ads is they need to
target `me` instead of `them`. Eg... 6700K Is now for sale for $200AUD or
1080p is for sale for bargain prices!

Though most of the ad's I see have a handsome margin added to the product that
I neither want nor if I did I could find somewhere on ebay cheaper.

~~~
naibafo
My problem (not a problem for me though) with ads is, that I do not trust them
at all anymore. Even if I would see an interesting looking ad advertising a
cheap 6700K I would think to myself, that they must have paid for the ad
somehow and I can probably find it even cheaper somewhere else.

~~~
hackits
I have to agree I've had exactly the same situation. Wish I could say
otherwise.

The only thing today that directed me to specific products and services are
sites like hackernews, youtube channels like Eli the Computer Guy, and Louis
Rossmann. I've donated about $500AUD to different youtube gaming review
channels (because I like their content). I've donated to schools and donated
my time with teaching programming. Though do I trust a advertisement GIF or
Ads in the middle of a youtube video (hell no!).

Deep down I do want advertisement to get better and I DO want them to target
me with meaning full advertisement. Though it still is a game of pop-ups in
the middle of the screen of Skype, News, Web-sites all wanting to TELL me
about how special they're.

------
stcredzero
Old media tried to kill them by cutting them off from content. Instead of
letting it happen, they proceeded to replace old media as a source of content.

~~~
hackits
Granted Old media did have the funds and backing to purchase Netflix out or
offer competitive alternatives.

~~~
cryptoz
Blockbuster declined to buy Netflix for $50M in 2000. Now Blockbuster is gone
and Netflix is worth a lot more than $50M.

Edit, source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/blockbuster-ceo-passed-up-
cha...](http://www.businessinsider.com/blockbuster-ceo-passed-up-chance-to-
buy-netflix-for-50-million-2015-7)

~~~
freshyill
Netflix was a very different thing back then. Didn't Blockbuster try to make
their own Netflix?

~~~
ascagnel_
They did; both the streaming and disc-by-mail parts of Netflix. Both failed,
because of price and paucity of content.

------
Mikeb85
I agree, Netflix is killing it. First of all, their selection in Canada is
amazing, despite what anyone says. Second, I'm pretty sure I watch more of
their original content than anything. They have great taste, fund the right
people, they've progressed well beyond what I ever expected. Third - great
app, can download content for offline.

Anyhow, they're killing it on every front, and it costs what, $10/month? I'd
pay much more. Anyhow good job Netflix.

------
izacus
Well, the fact that they're the only TV service that doesn't shove you "We
don't want your money, go away" screen to most of the world is helping their
subscriber count. And since they're a monthly billed service, adding a few 10
millions subscribers at 10EUR a month does help a bit with bottom line.

Meanwhile, HBO Now and other cable fossils still show "We refuse to accept
your 15EUR/month" screens to most EU and world countries. Serves them right.

~~~
Freak_NL
True. Last year the number of non-US subscribers overtook the number of US
subscribers of Netflix. They are now starting to invest in non-English content
as well. Should be interesting, as long as they keep offering their own
content globally.

Netflix still suffers from a fragmented back catalogue though, where non-
Netflix Original content can only be viewed in certain geographic regions.

~~~
flurdy
It makes me happy as a Norwegian living in the UK that the major Norwegian
language series (Lillyhammer, Occupied, Nobel) are now available on Netflix in
the UK.

I still hope they can go even further and offer globally their back catalogue
of kids shows in Norwegian language currently only available in Netflix
Norway. I noticed some UK shows are available with Norwegian subtitles but for
the smallest it would be good to have the audio track as well.

This is probably all down to what ever rights agreements they have signed with
the local publishers. And would apply to every countries catalogue and
agreements, so not an easy negotiation.

------
beloch
As Hollywood discovered in the 30's and 40's, controlling both production and
distribution simultaneously can be very profitable. However, they also
discovered that anti-trust lawsuits suck[1]. Refuse to show your competitors'
movies in your theaters and millions of voting consumers begin to grumble.

Netflix's execs have some serious cajones to go where Hollywood went almost a
century ago. They're going to need to be _very_ careful in order to avoid
government interference. Showing even a hint of favoritism towards their own
content could land them in heaps of trouble. Maybe online distribution will be
viewed differently than cinemas were, or maybe it won't.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc).

~~~
massysett
House of Cards is available for purchase on Comcast.

------
Queue29
TIL Netflix (1997) has been around longer than Google (1998)

~~~
nas
I had Netflix around 1999 and I lived close to one of their shipping centers.
The turn around time was about two days and I could request three DVDs at a
time. It was glorious. Huge selection of awesome DVD movies. All sorts of
stuff you would never find in a rental store. Sad that you can't stream those
great movies now but I'm still a Netflix subscriber.

~~~
helthanatos
What's even more sad is they are blocking VPNs and have more of the actually
good shows only available in the UK. I'd like to see them fix their
multinational deals better. Going to have to find alternative means soon.

------
zantana
Now that net neutrality is history doesn't it seem like netflix (and by
extension Amazon) extremely vulnerable to the lack of competition in the ISP
space in the US?

Google at least had something of a workaround with their various efforts to
provide access, but I don't see how they are going to circumvent the
tollbooths which are popping up on the last mile.

~~~
yen223
On the flip side, is no one worried about the seeming lack of a viable
competitor to Netflix?

~~~
RhodesianHunter
Amazon Prime, Hulu, Google Video, HBO is online now, Vudu... I'm not sure what
you're saying.

~~~
phaemon
> HBO is online now

Sounds good! <goes to Google>

> "HBO GO. It's HBO. Anywhere."

Awesome!

> "To access HBO GO℠, you must reside within the fifty states of the United
> States of America."

Oh. _That_ anywhere.

~~~
dagw
You can also get HBO online in Sweden and Norway for example, but branded as
HBO Nordic. So it's not only in the US, but for some reason they're not using
the HBO GO branding outside the US.

------
Tiktaalik
For me what I'm really enjoying about Netflix right now, is not their
original, exclusively for Netflix, content, but the foreign content they're
bringing in, such as "Trapped" and "Occupied", which are shows from Iceland
and Norway respectively.

The BBC has done a pretty good job of buying and airing foreign TV, but in
North America a lot of this stuff hasn't come over. I really appreciate the
effort that Netflix has done to air this sort of thing and I hope to see a lot
more.

Independent of their foreign nature, these are really good shows, but their
foreignness makes them even more interesting as you get a bit of a glimpse
into a different culture without having to travel yourself.

~~~
lobster_johnson
One of their better shows last year was Marcella [1], the British show from
the guy who wrote the original The Bridge (Broen/Bron).

(If you liked Trapped, make sure you check out Baltasar Kormákur's [2] other
non-Hollywood work. 101 Reykjavik and Jar City are particularly good. I also
liked The Sea.)

I love that they're pulling in quality indie/foreign films such as Rams [3],
but these are few and far apart. There are so many superb "arthouse" films out
there that they could offer. I wish someone would sponsor the digitalization
of older "out of print" works that now only survives on old, out-of-production
DVDs or on VHS. I wanted to find a few of Icelandic director Friðrik Þór
Friðriksson's films (Children of Nature is one of my all-time favourites), but
they're not available anywhere. I was hopeful for Filmstruck [4], but their
selection is very limited.

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5269594/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5269594/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Kormákur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Kormákur)

[3]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3296658/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3296658/)

[4] [https://filmstruck.com/](https://filmstruck.com/)

------
kinofcain
What's interesting to me is that while Netflix is often the primary financier,
the traditional studios are still the ones producing the content.

If Netflix has found a worldwide market for content, that's good news for the
studios they're hiring to produce that content.

I'm curious if the additional revenue from Netflix, and presumably Amazon,
Hulu, and a nervous HBO will be enough to offset the declining revenue from
broadcast TV.

------
ProAm
I wish their streaming catalog was better, I can never find movies I really
want to watch so I still get blu-rays because it actually has a lot of
content.

------
RangerScience
I started to feel this after House of Cards; the feeling progressed through
Sense8 and Stranger Things, and has finally come a head with The OA:

As a developer, I want to make something as beautiful as a Netflix original.
I'm not really sure how, tho...

~~~
RangerScience
On further thought, I think my best bet is a framework...? Languages are much
harder to get off the the ground, but the true beauty* lies in the amazing
ideas in which / with which one thinks while programming.

* As opposed to, eh, merely aesthetic beauty - that code looks good.

~~~
Crespyl
If you are ever interested in pursuing aesthetic beauty as a developer, you
might enjoy generative/procedural art.

Tools like Processing[0] are very accessible even to those with minimal
programming experience, and can be very powerful and fluid environments if you
have any familiarity with Java or similar languages (or clojure[1]). It's very
easy to iterate rapidly (even some live-coding elements) and have a lot of
visual feedback, such that it almost feels more like sculpting than a normal
programming workflow.

[0][https://processing.org/](https://processing.org/)

[1][https://github.com/quil/quil](https://github.com/quil/quil)

~~~
RangerScience
Thank you! But not the thing. I don't want to use software to make something
beautiful, or make software that is used to make beautiful things; I want to
make beautiful code. Does that make sense?

(Unless you think the codebases of these projects are themselves beautiful?
Then they might be a The Thing)

------
yabatopia
"In 2016, Netflix spent $5 billion on original programming. Netflix plans to
spend $6 billion creating 1000 hours of new content this year, more than
doubling its 2016 lineup." That's a little bit worrying : double the content,
with only a slightly higher budget. I wonder what impact this will have on the
quality of the shows. No advertising is great but meaningless when the content
is rubbish.

~~~
dagw
_I wonder what impact this will have on the quality of the shows._

If they're smart, none. You can't just go out and buy quality. Stranger Things
for example was a pretty low budget show and most people really quite liked
it. Marco Polo on the other hand cost a fuck ton and I've yet to meet anyone
who really liked it.

~~~
ashark
> Marco Polo on the other hand cost a fuck ton and I've yet to meet anyone who
> really liked it.

My wife's pitch to try to get me to watch that was "it's pretty good when
Marco Polo's not in the scene". Didn't work.

------
aetherspawn
I'm constantly bummed out they don't have classics like Top Gun or nearly any
DC series like The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow etc.

But there will always be someone bummed out.

Edit: apparently at least not within Australia.

~~~
michaelchisari
I just checked, and in the US, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Arrow and
Supergirl are all on Netflix streaming right now.

You're right about Top Gun, though.

~~~
aetherspawn
Damn! We don't have them in Australia.

~~~
SyneRyder
Arrow is on Netflix Australia, as is Gotham, but I think a rival streaming
service has the rights to The Flash (Stan? Presto?)

------
erikb
There is basically a line break between talking about the results and drawing
conclusions. Nothing explains why the success should come from original
content. Sure, it's a factor, but calling it The Reason is awkward.

Also I don't think Netflix has won the streaming wars, already. I use both
Netflix and Amazon (with two more competitors I don't use, in my country). And
they are actually different enough to both survive together. Netflix is the
everybody solution: cheap, broad, but certainly not covering all corners.
Amazon is the "rich" solution: You can have nearly everything there is, but
for some of it you need to pay premium (i.e., buy/rent the movie despite
paying for prime already).

------
Twisell
They just understood the basic, that people can drop 10 bucks a month for an
unlimited pass. Meanwhile some other company still try to sell you
downloadable 15 years old movies for $15 each ...

------
charlieflowers
Netflix original content is amazing. IMO, they are the foundation of a new
golden age of television.

Honestly, if you browse Netflix originals and choose one with 5 stars, and
give it 3 episodes, you're most likely going to be hooked and start binge
watching into the wee morning hours.

I speak from very recent experience -- first with Stranger Things, then
Travelers (it's fantastic), and now Lovesick (possibly the funniest comedy I
have ever seen and also my wife's new favorite show).

~~~
ultra2d
Although I really like Lovesick, it is only an original since the second
season. That might be a really good strategy though, just buy up the best
(cancelled) gems and let the original crew create more of it. They should have
done that with Party Down too.

~~~
shawabawa3
It also used to be called "Scrotal Recall", in what is possibly the worst TV
show naming disaster ever and probably the reason it got cancelled.

Netflix quickly changed the name

------
rebootthesystem
Interesting. At home we've grown increasingly dissatisfied with Netflix. It
takes forever to find anything good to watch. There was a time when they had
reasonably current good movies. Now it can take us 30 minutes of clicking
around to find something decent and, more often than not, we give up.

Let's put it this way, we are finding that we are recording dozens of movies
shown on the FX channel an end-up watching these recordings, even though FX is
great about ruining the experience with pointless commentary and tons of
commercials (thankfully fast-forward on the DVR takes care of that).

FX (and others) have had better content for at least a year. Not sure why we
keep paying Netflix. I need to have a serious look at Amazon video and other
options.

------
Nexxxeh
>He expects Netflix to monetize existing subscriptions by doing things like
adopting higher pricing tiers for 4K content.

They already do, in the UK at least. 4k is only on the top tier 4 stream
subscription. The standard subscription is 2 stream and tops out at 1080p.

------
pmontra
> Very few people will join Netflix for just one title,

Obviously, because it would cost too much. However with enough customers
paying monthly for the full service maybe they will start thinking about video
on demand. I'd pay 1 Euro (not more) per episode.

------
beezischillin
Netflix is such a great service, I'd say they are the ones that are truly
represent the disruption Silicon Valley dreams of so often in, in the
positivest sense. Shame the world around them is less than great. Their
existence in the US is being hampered by petty, extortionist ISPs who couldn't
tell the truth if their lives depended on it and by dumb licensing and
copyright laws. Their catalogue abroad is often less than 10% of the American
one (my country has 12% of it! - according to [https://www.finder.com/netflix-
usa-vs-world-content](https://www.finder.com/netflix-usa-vs-world-content)). I
remember, when they finally expanded to my country, I quickly signed up and
the first thing I did was search for House of Cards, just to see no results.
It was very disappointing, because their original content is really good, in
fact good enough that they created the market in which everybody wants to be
Netflix, so they are all trying to create quality original programming, and
that's a competition I love seeing.

I used to be a Netflix subscriber via VPN, before they officially opened here,
but it just became cumbersome and risky to connect (remember the controversy
surrounding sketchy Chrome VPN plugins?). Unfortunately, right now I don't
have an active subscription at the moment, sadly, because I finished watching
most of the things that interested me from their catalogue in 4 months. Kind
of a shame because the company that cracks international expansion first is
usually the one to stay in those markets.

On the streaming music front, aside from some sketchier ones, Apple Music was
one of the first to open up shop here, and I'm still using it with no plans to
ever abandon it because it's a great service -- not only that, but Apple
decided to offer regionalised pricing, so their is priced very fairly (to
compare and contrast, their subscription costs a little more than twice the
amount than here, but the country I live in being a poorer one, I think it's
perfectly acceptable). On top of that, they have their original content. Even
if Spotify managed to come to this market, I wouldn't switch. There was a time
when I desperately tried to pay for their service but they did not let me, now
I wouldn't, because I already have superior service.

Edit: I can't stand advertising on services, the ads on most American TV
channels and services are so bad that I have to stop using them from time to
time. It's not exactly the norm in my country, but there was a time when I
thought our ads were crazy annoying! Some of it is extra annoying, like
YouTube's, I would love to get YouTube Red, but it's not available here, even
tho Google introduced some really crappy business practices to try and steer
users towards it.

------
yuchi
Can you please change the title in something more clear for non native
speakers?

”killing it” is not a positive statement for foreigners! It looks like they
are dismissing their content creation department!.

~~~
yuchi
So… not understanding the language of the title and asking for clarification
is worth a downvote?

~~~
yuchi
Thanks to everyone who upvoted me again :)

------
Yizahi
Yeah. Amazon released Prime internationally recently. And it has 7 day free
demo period, so I thought I'll try it. I open app and see - aww, it's like 15
TV shows and a hundred movies? Come on... Then - ok, lets check what they
actually have available. The Man in High Castle? Looks promising...

And I'm still subscribed :) . Need to check Netflix too, hope they have a
bigger content selection.

------
puranjay
Amazon Prime Video just launched in India. While it doesn't have the show
quality of Netflix, it is significantly cheaper at a reported Rs. 1000/year
(against Netflix' Rs. 600/month or Rs. 7200/year)

They'll have to figure out their pricing if they want to do well in these
markets

~~~
GFischer
They also launched extremely cheap in South America, but they basically have
no content, so they can't compete with Netflix here.

------
flycaliguy
Watching The Crown recently got me thinking about the current massive
production of Western media content.

You know how a tree over produces seeds in the final phase of it's life? One
last push to spread it's genes?

What if the decline of global western hegemony is producing art in much the
same way?

------
jmelloy
The evolution of Netflix is impressive. It became an 'international' company
when it opened up the streaming service to Canada in 2010, and now they
operate in over 190 countries.

------
eplanit
This is interesting in the larger context of Broadcast Media w.r.t. news, too
-- their power and relevancy are ever declining.

------
dschuetz
Wired.com is adblock-walled? How ironic.

------
shmerl
So, when are they going to release their films and shows DRM-free?

~~~
freshyill
Why would they want to do that? You're not buying their content. You are
leasing it for as long as you are a subscriber.

This isn't a DVD that you physically own and can make a strong case for format
shifting to watch on other devices.

~~~
shmerl
_> Why would they want to do that?_

Why wouldn't they want to do that? When they were pushing EME garbage into
HTML standard, their main excuse was that it's not because they want DRM, but
because without it, major film studios won't release anything through them.
That was before they started making their own stuff. And now that they do,
where is it DRM-free?

 _> You're not buying their content._

What stops them from selling it? It's theirs, they can do whatever they want.

~~~
SyneRyder
They do sell it... on DVD & Blu-ray. If you don't mind spending $120 you can
get all four seasons of House Of Cards on DVD. But that would also buy a year
of Netflix, and most people would see the Netflix subscription as the better
deal.

~~~
shmerl
_> They do sell it... on DVD & Blu-ray._

Who needs obsolete physical media these days? Where are they selling files?

~~~
ultra2d
Yes please. Let me automatically download episodes in the highest quality and
watch them the way I like it, in Kodi: always full screen, 24p, CEC. In short,
give me a legal usenet alternative.

~~~
realityking
How much are you willing to pay for it?

~~~
ultra2d
The same amount as a Netflix HD subscription more or less. Download speed can
even be a bit lower than streaming rate, and the connection does not have to
be as reliable, so it should be cheaper to provide. Unfortunately I think I am
an outlier. Most people probably like the ready-to-use apps on tv/media
box/phone/etc. .

~~~
realityking
The difference is that I can't access Netflix content after the end of my
subscription. With your model I could pay for a month, load as much as I can
and watch for the next 6 months. Repeat as necessary.

I'd enjoy a way _to buy_ not DRMed, high quality digital movies. But I don't
have any illusions that a subscription model is feasible without DRM.

------
WhiteSource1
Clearly everyone is watching Fuller House

