
The Netflix Backlash: Why Hollywood Fears a Content Monopoly - prostoalex
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/netflix-backlash-why-hollywood-fears-928428
======
ravenstine
Hollywood is just getting it's comeuppance, just like cable and taxis, for
trying to remain 20+ years in the past. Seems like they should be worried less
about a monopoly and more about becoming bloated and obsolete. Cry me a river,
Hollywood. You lagged behind in technology and overcharged people on mostly
garbage content laced with lots of advertising. Bet you're real pissed that a
few newcomers have better digital products, are cheaper, and produce far
better content than you do.

------
payne92
Hollywood has had so SO _SO_ many chances over the years to have Netflix's
business: streaming content to customers under reasonable terms.

If Hollywood took all past energy spent on DRM, lobbying, finding ways to
limit user's rights, and suing customers, they might not be in the situation
they're in now.

~~~
mixmastamyk
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American
public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

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

------
mwsherman
The word “Hollywood” itself refers to a monopoly. This article reads like a
status quo that is accustomed to power and resistant to sharing it.

------
ceilingscorpion
I am surprised that the article didn't once mention the lack of advertisements
on Netflix. The are inherently selling a different product than television by
not having ads

~~~
dragonwriter
> I am surprised that the article didn't once mention the lack of
> advertisements on Netflix. The are inherently selling a different product
> than television by not having ads

By "different product than television" do you mean "different from broadcast
and basic cable television in _exactly the same way_ that premium cable
television is".

~~~
lsaferite
I'm pretty sure most 'premium' cable channels include commercials. Unless you
restrict that to things like HBO only. If so, then you left out a bunch of
channels that are cable only and outside of the 'basic' grouping.

~~~
dragonwriter
The distinction between "basic" and "premium" cable is much muddier these
days, because what is classically "basic" is no longer a single pacakage but a
bunch of tiers, and what is classically "premium" is no longer sold on a
channel-by-channel basis (e.g., HBO used to be one channel, paid separately)
but in its own packages (e.g., all HBO, Cinemax, and Starz channels together
as one package) by cable providers.

But, yes, "premium cable" channels are things like HBO, not things like BBC
America, even if the latter is only available on the top 3 of 7 tiers from a
given provider.

------
andrewclunn
TV shows (though calling them that may itself now be an anachronism) have
become a commodity. Netflix, HBO now, Amazon Prime video... these are the
future. This is the destruction of the middle man monopoly in the form of the
cable provider. A new monopoly based on more cheaply and effectively providing
consumers with content they want will fall (assuming it does come about) just
as easily as it was made if price gouging and lack luster content take hold.
Consumer choice, not Hollywood relationships, are the new drivers of success.
Adapt or die.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is the destruction of the middle man monopoly in the form of the cable
> provider.

Right, instead of the cable provider as the middle man between the content
service and the viewer, the ISP (often, the same actual firm as the cable
company) is the middle man between the content service and the viewer.

Its only even a little different if net neutrality sticks.

