
Netflix Has 175 Days Left to Pull Off a Miracle - jorkro
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenmcbride1/2019/05/21/netflix-has-175-days-left-to-pull-off-a-miracle-or-its-all-over/
======
rayiner
I don’t understand why so many people think this is a bad thing. Content
distribution has become a commodity, thanks to AWS and the like. The codecs
and whatnot are all standardized. And it turns out that consumers don’t really
care about recommendation systems and similar accouterments. So the
competition has shifted to the thing that people care about: content. When the
market is competing over the thing people care about, that’s a good thing.

This is the healthiest the television industry has ever been. There are no
“big 4 networks” controlling distribution. There’s no monopolies—if you want
to launch a competitor, start a studio, pay Amazon a bunch of money, and boom.
Disney, Netflix, CBS, etc., have just become umbrella organizations for
studios producing content. They can compete directly with each other, and
consumers and pick and choose what they want to spend their dollars on.

~~~
mikeash
It’s annoying as a user to juggle subscriptions. If I want to watch something,
I have to figure out where it’s available, sign up if I don’t currently have a
subscription, worry about forgetting services and having a bunch of monthly
payments I’m not using. End result: I watch a lot of YouTube and pretty much
gave up on the rest.

Contrast with music, where I have a single subscription and get access to
everything I want without having to think about it. The question of what I
want to listen to is separate from the question of what service I want to use.
I can pick a service based on price and features instead of juggling a bunch
of different ones.

~~~
RussianCow
On the other hand, it's better than the alternative with cable providers where
your only choices are the cheap, basic package with only 12 channels, or the
really expensive package with >100 channels, of which you'll only ever watch a
couple. Juggling multiple subscriptions is annoying, yes, but at least you can
pick and choose what content you want to pay for.

Personally, Netflix has more than enough content for me to watch, so that's
the only video subscription service I still pay for.

~~~
beatgammit
We're the same way, but we have Amazon as well, mostly because of the shipping
side. There are series that I'd like to watch, but it's not available on
either, so I just don't bother.

In fact, I started getting back into watching TV shows after a couple years of
not watching much, and then the fragmentation with Netflix losing content and
creating their own happened, and now I just don't watch nearly as much and we
just watch occasionally for family movie/TV time. I have friends that mention
various series and I've just stopped bothering looking anymore because,
chances are, it's not on a network I already have access to.

My wife has gone back to watching movies at the theater, I'm playing more
video games, and the only reason we pay for streaming anymore is for the kids.
I used to enjoy talking about shows with friends, but now it feels like
everyone has access to different content, so there's less common ground than
before.

I'd be happy to pay a little extra for access to certain content, I just don't
want to have to remember which service provides which content.

------
high_derivative
This article has incredible annoying spacing (one sentence per paragraph). Is
this meant to read like an unrolled Twitter thread?

Content wise: I recently cancelled my Netflix again because despite a flood of
new shows, all feel incredibly generic and formulaic. I like shows across
genres, from teenage romance to sitcom to thriller, and I am looking forward
to watching e.g. Narcos new season when it hits, there are also great one-offs
like Maniac.

I just don't believe in the strategy of flooding their platform with their own
content at this volume. Or rather, the type of content. If I remember
correctly, plots and artistic decisions are made by committee, and it just
shows very hard how plots are made to be subtly educational, not offend, just
a lowest common denominator of what the data says.

Not sure it works. After finding myself browsing through too many evenings in
a row, I always cancel until something I know I want returns for a new season,
then resubscribe for a month.

~~~
com2kid
> I recently cancelled my Netflix again because despite a flood of new shows,
> all feel incredibly generic and formulaic.

Altered Carbon, Love Death Robots, Russian Doll, all recent standout Netflix
originals.

Heck even their Anime is on point, and I am not the largest fan of Anime
cliches. Castlevania was incredible, and Ultraman was above average.

Flavorful Origins is the best food show I've ever seen.

But then again, I only watch ~4-6 hours of TV a month, so a trickle of high
quality content is just fine.

~~~
snuxoll
> Heck even their Anime is on point

They’re impressing the hell out of me recently here, especially with the
announcement that they’re helping produce another season of Ghost in the
Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

I don’t think Netflix has something for everyone these days, but they are
really hitting certain niches out of the park and will be just fine as long as
they keep this core subscriber base. Especially hard sci-fi that almost
everybody else has given up on.

------
Nelson69
Where did Disney get all this delivery cred? They do seem to be taking their
time and they've been gobbling things up and certainly have the content.
Aren't they just an old media company though? I remember when Disney Channel
was a pay channel with relatively bunk content; like it had some original
stuff and then like ancient re-runs for the Mickey Mouse club and once fairly
rarely they'd play a classic Disney movie. Tons of commercials too and they
had like special "early access" adverts for the big next movie and toys and
things like that.

Maybe it's a different company now but I'll ask, with all their content: the
disney stuff, star wars, marvel, fox, etc.. If they put it all on Disney+ at
$7 a month, are they not leaving money on the table? I can't imagine there
won't be up-selling or limited availability of certain media properties or
something. The author is right, if it's _all_ there at $7 and the app is great
and they are bold and aggressive, then I would think Prime and Netflix, etc.
will be in a bit of trouble. On the other hand, if Disney acts like they
always have then I expect there to be like 10% good stuff, an advertising
machine for whatever movie is next in the pipe and then just some bunk filler
content.

~~~
runamok
True. The idea that Disney would allow this is doubtful to me:

> _Disney puts a blockbuster like Avengers Endgame on its platform the same
> day it opens in theaters._

Limiting distribution, sure... Though again they would be losing a lot of
money to DVD/Bluray sales, etc. so again I doubt it:

> _After a few weeks it’s no longer in theaters. You can’t buy it. You can’t
> rent it. The only way to watch is to subscribe to Disney’s steaming service,
> Disney+._

------
berbec
Disney bought the rest of Hulu. They currently have full control and will have
100% ownership in a few years.

We're getting to the point where you don't spend 10 minutes flipping channels;
you spend 10 minutes checking different streaming apps. And the monthly spend
is approaching parity. I spend $75 on streaming services a month.

~~~
rayiner
That’s not really a fair comparison, though. $75 per month didn’t buy you
access to tons of on-demand movies back in the day.

~~~
chaostheory
It’s not a fair comparison. Let’s not forget - no commercials

~~~
willio58
Not necessarily. Low tiers of Hulu still have commercials.

~~~
chaostheory
Yes I pay $.99 / month for it. The normal plan with ads is 6.99 and 10.99
without ads. Currently no other service has traditional ads

Honestly I don’t see how anyone is paying $75 / month for streaming services
unless they are paying for sports plans, which most people don’t subscribe to.
Most people subscribe to only 2-3 streaming services which probably includes
amazon prime. That comes to roughly $35/month

~~~
rak00n
The plan with ads comes for free if you have Spotify premium account.

~~~
thr0w__4w4y
Unless your account is a Spotify Premium for Family account (I just looked it
up to confirm the word "Premium" was still in there). Which is a good deal,
don't get me wrong. But then the Hulu thing doesn't apply.

A couple months ago there was an announcement about free basic Hulu with your
Spotify Premium account. Unless you're a family, then fuck you.

------
jayalpha
Time to buy piratebay.org call options.

Sometimes it is not a zero sum game. People won't sign up for Netflix. And
Hulu. And Disney. And HBO. And Youtube. And...

But netflix going belly up would be a shame. I need the next seasons of
"alternated carbon"!

~~~
cududa
What you just described, minus YouTube is $40 a month. That’s really not that
difficult for a lot of people, compared to how much cable use to cost, plus
add ons. I already pay for Hulu, Netflix, and HBO, and I don’t mind paying
another $7 for Disney+

Content isn’t free, and makers deserve to get paid.

Edit with sourcing: 64% of households making less than $15k have cable.
[https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2001/applia...](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2001/appliances/appliances.php)

The lowest cable packages across the country are $22.57
[https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/05/cut-your-
ca...](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/05/cut-your-cable-costs-
with-a-basic-cable-tv-package/index.htm)

Signing up for Hulu and Disney+ will give you all the content you’re looking
for in the same price envelope sub $15k households are already willing to pay.

------
agent00f
These are $10/month subs which are akin to channel packages. Just because some
will also sub to the Disney chan package doesn't mean they'll drop Netflix.
Would surprise no one if the author were shorting Netflix.

~~~
AznHisoka
It also doesnt mean nobody will drop Netflix. If you are paying money to
Netflix and you are consistently not finding the content you _expect_ to
watch, you are going to question the value of your subscription. Some will
cancel if they find the value too low.

~~~
wolco
Does Disney change the balance for you? Not at all, you either find something
or not.

~~~
AznHisoka
It does for me. I often use Netflix to find something for my kids to watch.

------
paulcole
> For example, about 20 million people tuned in to watch the first episode of
> the latest season of hit show Game of Thrones.

> It was one of the most-watched non-sporting events in TV history.

This is not even _close_ to true.

Nearly 17 million people watched the Murder She Wrote finale in 1996. In the
1970s, each year, the highest rated episodes of All In The Family were
consistently over 20 million. Seinfeld had 35 million once. 60 minutes has
gone over 20 million _many_ times.

Grace Under Fire, a mediocre sitcom most people here have never heard of,
_averaged_ about 20 million viewers for a full season in the mid 1990s.

I love when TV writers act like TV didn’t exist before The Sopranos.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_televis...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts_in_the_United_States)

~~~
yasth
Because the numbers are kind of crap lately. People don't realize just how the
average episode of Friends beat 20 million for every one of 10 seasons [1].
The audience is fragmented like never before.

A small correction though, All in the Family was on average over 20 million
_households_ , and before every house had seven tvs that was significantly
more viewers.

[http://newmusicandmore.tripod.com/friendsratings.html](http://newmusicandmore.tripod.com/friendsratings.html)

~~~
paulcole
Households over 20 million also equals viewers over 20 million.

------
Grue3
Disney values their family friendly image too much. Which is why they'll only
ever produce safe boring stuff that doesn't take any risks. So you get these
kid-friendly superhero and Star Wars movies, which are popular right now, but
surely at some point an adult audience would want more? Especially when
they're watching it in the privacy of their own room. Looking at Netflix
originals (even if they're not very good), I can't see Disney making something
like Narcos, 13 reasons why, Devilman, Love Death & Robots, hell even
something like Sabrina (Satanic imagery) or She-Ra (gay stuff). Seriously,
what shows in [1] excluding "Children and family" section can you see being
streamed on Disney+?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix)

------
Giorgi
So forbes now has a freaking video in the corner that I can't close? WTF?

~~~
zeta0134
I dislike side rails, so I blocked it, and this appears to block the video
that follows you around the article too. Here's the uBlock filter I use, which
would probably work on other ad blockers:

    
    
        ! 5/26/2019 https://www.forbes.com
        www.forbes.com##.right-rail
    

I especially love how the video waits for you to start scrolling. I've noticed
that as a vulnerability in autoplaying media, since the scroll counts as a
user action and the browser will allow the site to "play" the media at that
point. Some sites use it to "auto"-play videos _with sound_ , working around
the user's preferences. Don't any of these sites realize how hostile this
behavior is?

------
mrep
> Disney’s ownership of iconic franchises like Star Wars gives it something no
> money can buy.

Lol, considering Disney themselves not only bought the iconic franchise star
wars, but they also bought marvel and even Pixar. If Disney is good at
anything, it's identifying under-capitalized brands, buying them and then
milking them for all they worth.

------
tzs
Where do Disney's TV channels fit into this? Besides the obvious Disney
Channel, Disney XD, and Disney Junior, they also own the FX channels and
Freeform.

Their movies currently eventually make it to those, and that is mostly where
I've watched them. Sure, they take some time to get there. They are currently
just up to 2016, with Moana, Finding Dory, Rogue One, and Doctor Strange being
where they are up to in Disney animation, Pixar animation, Star Wars, and
Marvel, respectively. But none of their franchises are ones that I need to
keep current with anymore [1], so I don't mind.

[1] I did subscribe to Netflix for a month a few months ago specifically to
get up to date on Marvel, so I could see Endgame in theaters. That was a
special case because I decided it would be too hard to avoid major spoilers in
the two or three years it would take to show up on cable.

------
coldtea
> _Netflix changed how we watch TV, but it didn’t really change what we
> watch…_

Yeah, so? Who said we need/want/will change what we watch?

> _The problem is that no matter how much Netflix spends, it has no chance to
> catch up with its biggest rival…_

Disney? Who the fuck cares for Disney? 8 year olds or parents buying a
subscription for them?

> _Disney owns Marvel, Pixar Animations, Star Wars, ESPN, National Geographic,
> Modern Family, and The Simpsons. Not to mention all the classic characters
> like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck._

So, mostly irrelevant stuff. ESPN has been going down for a decade or so,
Mickey wont be making any revivals, and most people don't get Netflix to watch
Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, or National Geographic.

~~~
reallydude
> Mickey wont be making any revivals, and most people don't get Netflix to
> watch Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, or National Geographic.

These articles act like I want to watch the same movies 100 times, so of
course I'll drop a service with a dedication to creating new content. It makes
no sense, but it does sound a lot like marketing hype by an affiliate.

------
jaimebuelta
A little bit apocalyptic...

Netflix could loose half of their subscribers, take a massive hit, and still
survive... guess that the press love the “X company is doomed!” approach...

Disney entering the streaming area is pretty big, but they still have solid
roots in cinema areas. They can’t premiere the next Star Wars movie in
streaming without cannibalising it’s ticket sales. Maybe they’ll obliterate
other companies, maybe they’ll be successful alongside other players, or maybe
it will be a bad move. We don’t know yet. It looks like an interesting
offering right now, and probably will be successful, but I don’t get why they
need to be so bombastic in their analysis...

------
danwat1234
"After a few weeks it’s no longer in theaters. You can’t buy it. You can’t
rent it. The only way to watch is to subscribe to Disney’s steaming service,
Disney+. " WRONG. Any movie or TV show is on bittorrent for free. It's simply
not the case that the only way to watch it in that situation is thru
subscribing to a streaming service.

------
davvolun
I should have known better than to click on a click-bait article like this.

Even if Disney+ enters the market and immediately dominates, that doesn't mean
Netflix is dead. They'll have to (continue to) adjust and maybe their stock
won't be competing with Amazon, but that's far from dead.

Netflix managed to turn a dvd-rental-by-mail service into the first majorly
successful streaming service, and they are using that to pivot into creating
competitive original content.

Netflix may survive, it may not, but this article was trash.

------
tilt_error
Eehh - who clings to a single provider? In my family we jump around among
iTunes, HBO Nordic, Viaplay and Netflix. I assume we will add Disney+ as well.
Where exactly is the disruption?

~~~
mjrow
Someone who doesn't want to pay 6 subscriptions, I guess.

~~~
gremlinsinc
if Netflix were smart they'd try to push a network package deal -- where you
can signup for disney, hbo, amazon, through netflix and they take $2 or
something off each subscription as incentive, users get single billing for all
streaming, you'd pay the normal price or maybe get $5 off if you buy all
networks for like $50 or $60. disney, hbo, amazon still get their $$ but
Netflix makes some off the top, could be all the providers network and create
the same deal for each other, but whoever sells & bills the packaged deal gets
the extra $2-3 kickbacks.

~~~
javagram
I doubt this has anything to do with Netflix being "smart".

If anything it looks like Disney may be trying to execute this exact strategy
in the future. Look at how they refused to participate in UltraViolet and
eventually got most of the other major movie companies to quit supporting UV
and join the Disney-owned Movies Anywhere service instead.

I doubt they would play ball with such an attempt by Netflix.

------
mgamache
This argues that it's Netflix vs Disney and it's a zero-sum game. If you lump
all TV dollars together it's Disney vs Netflix vs CBS vs HBO vs Cable etc...
It's not so clear what the consumer will do. The wild card is still live
sports. It's the one area that cable still has a strangle hold. Once sports is
fully streaming what can cable offer?

~~~
linkregister
Live sports on ESPN are available on Sling TV and YouTube TV in the United
States.

~~~
mgamache
Some are, but a lot of regional games are blacked out and not available on
Sling. I tried to switch the last couple of years and every weekend in the
fall (College Football) my game was on cable and _not_ on Sling.

------
WheelsAtLarge
Disney has a following and Neflix has a following so that says to me that
customers will pick one or the other or both there is room for both. The idea
that one has to beat the other is good for completion but does not mean that
one has to go out of business. I see it as a big plus since now they both have
to compete for customers. Yeah for us.

------
zanybear
There is also the option of Amazon buying Netflix or better yet Apple. So far
I find Netflix content of higher quality than Disney. There is also a growing
segment of the population that watches only YouTube. I find that is the main
competition for Netflix.

------
indigodaddy
Hard to argue with any of the points offered in the article, but I wouldn't
count Netflix out just yet. I agree it will be a long uphill battle, that may
have to end with a hugely profitable Fortune 100 taking on Netflix's debt
load.

~~~
gremlinsinc
If they fail, they could always open a movie studio. I mean Netflix originals
are some of the best shows and movies around... Dead like me, Stranger Things,
Haunting of hill House, The OA, Sex Ed, etc just to name a few...

~~~
indigodaddy
I loved the end to S2 of The OA. Marling/Batmangli are may be the most
creative and innovative writing duo in TV today. Amazingly thought-provoking
stuff.

------
ralphc
The author says that $6.99 a month is a no-brainer for his 12 year old
daughter, but what about adults? NetFlix has R-rated content that I doubt
Disney would produce or carry, and there will always be a market for that.

------
ricardobeat
> The only way to watch is to subscribe to Disney’s steaming service, Disney+

This typo might end up being the best prediction here.

The winner in all this is going to be Apple TV, aka cable-all-over-again.

------
duxup
Is Disney likely to have much beyond what Disney directly own on it's service?

~~~
scarface74
Everything that Disney owns

[https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/chart-every-company-
that-...](https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/chart-every-company-that-disney-
owns-172130.html)

------
wolco
This article doesn't make any sense.

If Disney is offering a service for a cheap 6.99 why do people stop using
netflix?

Disney has content for kids and superhero fans. This is not a netflix
replacement but replacing whatever was in place before.

Stock prices are popularity contests and Netflix may take a hit but Disney is
undercutting the high prices on Disney/Marvel content it charges now and
longterm it might be better if they merged with a studio offering more adult
material.

"Netflix changed how we watch TV, but it didn’t really change what we watch…"

It changed what I watched. Netflix doesn't even offer most network shows in my
country so I stopped watching a lot of those shows.

