
Netflix Viewing Will Surpass ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC by 2016 - coloneltcb
http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-viewing-abc-cbs-fox-nbc-1201527442/
======
SimonPStevens
Netflix's motivations align better with the end user.

You pay netflix a monthly subscription, and in order to keep you paying it is
in Netflix's interest to provide a variety of high quality content that people
want to watch.

On the other hand, regular TV channels main income stream is ads, so their
main motivation is to provide low quality keep--you-watching style content
that comes with some kind of artificial teaser every 10 minutes so they can
trick you into sitting through an ad break. "......And the winner..... of
[dance/sing/pop/talent]-factor 2015.............[dramatic tension
music]........ Will be revealed after the break."

In the same way that we are seeing many 'news' websites just become click-bait
content to get the most eyeballs for their ads with the quality of that
content getting lower and lower, regular TV is becoming optimized to provide
the highest possible ad/content ratio without losing the viewer.

~~~
martijn_himself
Just out of interest, are you in the US?

Netflix UK content is average at best, with a slew of B films and TV series
with missing seasons. I've given up searching for films I'd like to see (these
are not even recent releases).

~~~
loudmax
> _I 've given up searching for films I'd like to see (these are not even
> recent releases)._

That's the wrong way to Netflix, at least for streaming content. You have to
treat it more like a TV channel, except you decide when you want to watch the
programs. So browse around and see what they happen to have available rather
than deciding what you want to see ahead of time and then finding out if they
have it (they usually don't).

If you treat Netflix this way, you'll have a better idea what what to expect
from the service. You may still decide that Netflix isn't worth paying for,
particularly if you already have cable or satellite TV with a good DVR. I
watch about seven or eight hours of TV per week, so the limited selection I
get from Netflix is sufficient.

~~~
amorphid
That's no I use Netflix, too. Generally speaking, if Netflix releases one or
two good shows per month, the subscription is worth it to me. Before Netflix
had original content, I didn't feel a subscription was worth it.

Shows I've recently enjoyed on Netflix => Sense8, Daredevil, Bloodline, The
Fall. I just like these shows better than 95% of stuff that is normally aired
on commercial TV.

------
_puk
One of the key reasons I use Netflix is the lack of ads.

Coming from the UK where we have historically been lucky enough to access
quality content from the BBC, all without ads, the notion that I should pay
$100 a month to access half decent programming that is saturated by ads seems
bizarre.

I was more than happy to pay the marginal cost of Netflix on top of the TV
licence tax to get access to their original content (which is generally very
good quality as noted elsewhere).

Some of the 'Netflix original content' is however simply content produced by
the BBC, that Netflix have contributed to in some way (They get a credit) -
Take Peaky Blinders for instance.

One thing they are missing is a decent local news feed though..

~~~
dragontamer
Look for your local PBS station, which typically stocks good news. Frontline
by PBS provides high quality in-depth video journalism. PBS is typically
available through a standard antenna, no cable subscription required.

I also have a preference for CSpan when it comes to political news. All
political news is biased, so I might as well get the bias straight from the
politician's mouths... instead of filtered and hacked through TV Personas.
Around where I live, CSpan is a radio station... I don't typically "watch"
CSpan but I listen pretty often.

------
Yhippa
Plain and simple the major OTA networks haven't made it easy for me to watch
their content. I cut the cord 5 years ago and watch everything online.

I get poor reception where I live and I'm not in the mood to install an
antenna on the roof. I was hoping Aereo wouldn't get shut down so I could
actually watch that OTA content.

The networks are going to have to embrace a real digital content strategy if
they want to keep up with the trend of people consuming increasingly more
content on their pocket computers.

~~~
bluthru
That's a good point. I'd be more inclined to watch a network if all I had to
do was go to their website (or app) to get a live feed.

I think it's CBS who charges you for such a privilege. lol

~~~
rhubarbcustard
Netflix charge to watch too. When CBS, FOX etc offer an online feed or a
"catch up" service it will come down to them either charging a monthly fee or
plastering adverts all over it. Personally, I would prefer a monthly fee for
the whole package or a pay-to-watch price for each show.

~~~
thefreeman
They did do this (Hulu Plus), and _surprise, surprise_ , the greedy bastards
chose to __both __charge a subscription AND continue to plaster ads
everywhere.

It kind of reminds me of Nokia and digital photography. Their inability to
abandon their current business model is destroying the massive advantage they
have (had?) in terms of access to existing paying customers.

------
wj
I haven't seen another comment that addresses this so I'm making this point:

I think it is important to remember that a lot of Netflix's streaming content
comes from those, and other, traditional TV networks. If it wasn't for the
advertising dollars paying for those shows to be produced, and then later
licensed for streaming, then we would be worse off in regards to breadth of
content.

So, while Netflix viewing might surpass those networks, a lot of those viewing
hours are spent watching those networks' content.

------
CyberDildonics
When people wonder why ISPs are trying to deliver as little as possible for as
much as possible remember this.

The whole fight of net neutrality and ISP competition is about video. Right
now, many people have cable and internet. Companies can sell you your data
twice and no one would want to give that up. Fast internet means that in
theory you could just buy one source of data. Services like Netflix that have
apps integrated into TVs mean that it is a practicality.

------
harkyns_castle
They'll have to lift their game in Australia then, their offerings are fairly
stale and generally B-grade stuff. I've cut the cord, but the old guard are
holding onto some of the content at least.

I suspect that is Uncle Rupert's doing though. For the last decade or so
Foxtel have been trying to extort Australians by grabbing all the content and
charging ridiculous rates, its good to see some competition.

I suspect the corrupt, wizened old greedbag's next move will be in some
paragraph of the TPP, where it'll be against the treaty to do what Netflix do
and he'll be able to sue the Australian government for anything that restricts
his greedy ways.

~~~
curiouscats
Paying to own content is a big part of Netflix strategy. It takes time to
build that up thought. Australia seems like a good example of the challenges
trying to pay the owner a fee to show it for some time in some countries.

10 years from now Netflix will have a huge amount of content they own
everywhere. It is kind of funny they don't even own the rights to show some of
the content they are seen to own in some countries (because they allowed
rights to be sold to others in various countries where Netflix didn't operate
yet).

It seems like Netflix is either showing restraint about paying to license
content in every country or those selling it are not willing to sell it.

And beyond that I do think Uncle Rupert has created extra problems for content
in Australia (it seems Australia is the worst Netflix catalogue based on what
people say - I haven't actually examined it).

~~~
harkyns_castle
Its fairly poor comparatively. The way things are going though, I wouldn't be
surprised to see VPN's banned, or attempted to.

I'm not against paying for content I must say, there needs to be an incentive
to make it after all. Just not one repulsively rich prick doing it. You'd
think after your 2nd billion you'd pull back and think, "I've probably got
enough now, I can live happily".

------
chestervonwinch
Hmm. I use mostly netflix and other streaming content almost exclusively. I
wonder how many people like myself still pay for cable TV simply because the
cost of internet by itself is _more_ than the _same_ internet plus cable TV. I
can't remember the last time I actually watched television.

~~~
freehunter
I've heard that for more than five years, and I've checked with Comcast, AT&T,
and Charter in multiple cities in multiple states and I've never seen this be
the case. I wish I could save money by bundling, but bundling for me always
makes the Internet cheaper but the total cost is more than Internet without
the discount.

-edit: I reread this and it looks like I'm doubting you: I'm not. I just have never seen it personally, and it sounds like a great problem to have, from my standpoint :)

~~~
Retra
It's not a good problem, it means they are over-charging you for internet,
which feels very shady and exploitative.

~~~
Zelphyr
They _are_ over-charging us for Internet. Comcast's margins on Internet alone
are 90%[1].

[1] My brother-in-law works there. He also confirmed that they actually have
the capacity to deliver several hundred megabit to most households. They just
don't because they can get away with delivering 50 megabit for $70/month since
their competitors are the telco's which have significantly more regulation
than Comcast.

~~~
woobar
Good examples are Google Fiber cities. Once Google announced the _intention_
to come to our city, Time Warner promised to increase our speeds 5-10 times
w/o price change within a few months.

------
smackfu
Are the "major broadcast networks" even the big dogs to compare yourself to
now? It seems like the top-rated programs now are all on cable. Walking Dead,
Game of Thrones, etc.

~~~
freehunter
The major broadcast networks are who you compare yourself to if you want to
talk about your reach. It only stands to reason that the free, over the air TV
channels will have more viewers than a channel you have to pay to have the
ability to view (cable), then pay _more_ before you actually get to see their
content (HBO). Two different metrics.

Kind of like how Apple touts how much money they're making from iOS and the
App Store, while Google talks about how many devices are running Android.
Android has a lower barrier to entry, while the iPhone has a greater profit
margin. Two different metrics for two different demographics.

------
Shivetya
Amazing since most of the content I view on Netflix is many years old. That is
a market the OTA/cable services seem to have totally ceded at this point in
time.

However at the same time I want OTA to prosper because ad supported television
is free just like radio and to have content stuck behind paywalls is not my
idea of ideal future; one of the reasons I am not happy with Apple's offering
which could end ad supported internet radio

~~~
dasil003
Except you're conflating your personal anecdote with the statistical story
which is almost certainly based on the new content that Netflix is releasing
and promoting.

------
LordKano
Two days ago it occurred to me that I hadn't watched cable in approximately
two months. I watch TV every day. I watch Netflix that much.

If I could get AMC and FX as standalone streaming services, I'd probably drop
cable entirely. The few network shows that I watch come in great with a
digital antenna and the rest is streaming content.

Things are going to get very interesting when we cross the tipping point.

------
SuperGarcisa
The best thing about Netflix is being able to unblock the full library using
this [https://www.unblocknetflix.co.uk/us-vs-uk-netflix-how-to-
swi...](https://www.unblocknetflix.co.uk/us-vs-uk-netflix-how-to-switch-
netflix-country-with-dns-or-vpn-proxies/)

------
erbo
I don't care how "successful" Netflix becomes: _I will not do business with
spammers, and if you do business with Netflix, you are supporting a company
that engages in spam._

References:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/news.admin.net-
abuse...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/news.admin.net-
abuse.email/o2Ih9V2_tHE)

[http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_jdavidb/journal/18650.html](http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_jdavidb/journal/18650.html)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20050215120033/http://manatee.moj...](http://web.archive.org/web/20050215120033/http://manatee.mojam.com/~skip/netflix.html)

(And yes, I have _personally_ received spam E-mails advertising Netflix.)

------
josteink
Netflix may be the biggest thing since the wheel. I don't care. I'm still not
going to support the company which initially poisoned the HTML standard with
DRM. I find it counter intuitive to reward such behaviour with money. And I
advice anyone else in here which believes in an open web to do the same.

