I don't want to view a publicity for some products right after I see a video of my friends.
It was all fine when they added optional publicity feeds/story you could click on. Since it's forced, I can't see it lasting.
It seems very plausible that Time Warner was this big media company. It then follows that if DeFranco is the type of content creator they are looking to to bring on then this new initiative with Snap Inc and Time Warner could prove very successful in bringing in young people to their platform.
Teens have grown up watching adblocked Youtube and adsless Netflix. Their tolerance for annoying ads is much lower than people who got used to cable TV.
Feels like a whole lot of companies are jumping on the Netflix bandwagon with original content.
And here's the thing that concerns me: Netflix, on a tech level, is pretty much a solved problem. There's stuff left to be done for sure, rust never sleeps, but they're pretty much good to go tech-wise. The content side of their business is an existential struggle, and getting original content right is IMHO a do-or-die proposition for them. They did a pretty damned good job because they have to.
All these other guys, they see Netflix doing a really good job on original content, and they want to duplicate the success. Which is understandable, but can they devote the focus at the top level that is necessary to do the job? Or are they going to half-ass it with the expectation that running a content studio is something any idiot liberal arts major can do?
Snapchat, for me, isn't in the TV game and shouldn't be. Nor Apple. And the results of their experiments are about what I'd expect out of a couple of big companies messing around with original content.
Also it was interesting to hear Reed Hastings basically say that as a tech company Netflix might not have too long an independent life but if you look at it as a rival to Disney it could be a hugely successful independent company basically forever -- and that he himself likes that idea. IIRC that was in an A16Z interview but I'm not sure.
Anecdotally: I don't watch "regular TV" but I do subscribe to Netflix, and I buy a lot of shows on my Apple TV (quality and reliability beat cost, for me). I recently subscribed to ShowTime just to watch the new Twin Peaks; maybe I'll stay after that, maybe not. I've thought about ditching my Netflix account because where I am it's sloooow, but every so often they have some awesome original content I can't find elsewhere, and I stay.
I'm sure I overspend, but I probably spend $100/mo on "stuff on TV." I'm sure a lot of other people do too. And my commitment to spending it on one thing versus another is really minimal.
I don't know if Snapchat will be good at the TV game, but I do know that just like Valley companies tend to "get" software more than LA companies do, the opposite is true of entertainment; and Snapchat has shown they have at least some clue what "the kids" want, which is a pretty huge deal.
If I were a media exec I would definitely want some kind of deal with Snapchat, if only to hedge my bets against the (to me, as a grownup) unknown.
The whole thing just leaves me scratching my head.
This years Xbox announcements were thus only about the games.
In hindsight, we see how that decision looks naive. Xbox was always about the games, and the Netflix consumption was incidental. But original programming wasn't a completely stupid idea on its face back in ~2008-10, or whenever it was. In fact, it's possible they could have succeeded; they just never seemed to be able to get the studio off the ground.
I am not familiar with this phrase, what does it refer to? Or are you referring to my current favorite programming language and the need for it to go mainstream? ;-)
You can also have another perspective on this: with the lack of investments in moonshots and every less actual work to do, we are now entering the "entertainment industry" phase of our society.
You could argue that Netflix creates the on-demand-video equivalent of long form writing, youtube spans from that to shlock novels and comic books...so with vine gone (it's still gone right?), maybe snapchat or instagram will fill the video equivalent of tabloids spanning to facebook posts.
Rust never sleeps: the idea that nothing is ever "not needing maintenance." In webdev, this means that even if Netflix is "perfect," it may not remain so if, for example, the Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft teams all find critical exploits in their browser code that forces a push to up to date and legacy versions of their browsers that breaks the netflix video viewer, or whatever.
No matter how well you paint a bridge, the rust will find a way in.
we also never sleep ;-)
thanks for the explanation...it will be interesting how netflix will handle it. The "reasonable thing" to do would be to either
a) plonk all of those "superfluous" engineers into creative fun mode ala xerox park
b) set them onto formally verifying the stack and then sack them slowly/stop hiring,
at least as far as can guess from the outside of the entertainment industry? Though handling 3D/VR+developing teldedildonics (does netflix do adult content?) might give the techies continued legitimacy
They no longer, to me, have a working streaming service.
DeFranco mentioned that a top media company had made him an offer about a month ago.
Pretty interesting. Anyone know how this split compares to what FB is offering its partners to make original video content?
YouTube is 55 (you) 45 (tube) .
Will they spend all of this money on making ads or is this the sum that Snap will actually receive as payment?
Adding $50m in revenue (nearly 10%) per year over the next 2 years is pretty substantial and you can bet the account director in charge of the TWC account is having a good day.
Is this what getting old feels like?
TWC has skin in the game to explore a new channel. Snap has skin the game to make sure their top notch sales team can close those deals. And a couple hundred kiddie social influencers are gonna get stupid money to play with instead of being on Youtube or Instagram.
Being old is thinking it's just another form of the horse tracks.
Time Warner is a media company. Their business is creating and monetizing media, either by selling it or by selling advertising for it. Traditionally they did most of it by TV and cable. With the advent of the internet and sites like Hulu and Youtube, Time Warner is also moving online. But that's if you're trying to focus on selling the content.
If you're trying to sell the advertising around the content, then you've got a problem. Traditionally you make all of that money on highly valuable ad placements between segments of your TV shows right? Sports broadcasts, for example, are premium advertising inventory, but in the last few years things have been hurting badly because of increasing numbers of cord cutters. They all went to Snapchat, Facebook, Netflix, Google (Youtube), so all of these tech giants are trying to eat traditional media's lunch. It's a blatantly obvious move with the sports broadcasting agreements that Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have been signing.
This is Time Warner going "well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Better to embrace all formats that would let you reach (and monetize) audiences than to get left in the dust. Snapchat has somewhere around 150 million active-ish users, and your average TV show (not the blockbusters) probably sees somewhere around 5-10 million viewers? So the numbers actually work out in terms of just reach. I'm not so sure about monetization.
Now express that budget as something relating to advertising budget and profits. Those 200 hrs should steer tens of billions in sales.
That said, I always thought that their "subscribe to all of the really old video games" service, GameTap, was a fantastic idea that really shouldn't have crashed and burned like it did.
I wonder if large portrait displays will become available again.
Monitor stands for LCD panels that support rotation (and video drivers that do the same) have never stopped being available.
rant: can people taking eyewitness videos please shoot in landscape? It's one thing to view portrait on a phone but when your footage gets picked up by global news, billions are watching your 15 seconds of fame on a widescreen TV!
Turn display sideways?
I guess I'm one of the few hoping fixed orientation landscape laptops recede as tablets gain traction.
A portable tripod mount that flips to portrait would be far more convenient for A4 documents than a form factor that hasn't changed since the 90s.
Yeah what a coincidence.
Now if you TW, where would you rather spend your $100 Million on original content and shows? A fully-sustained cruise liner ($FB) or a rapidly sinking dingy ($SNAP)?
Sidenote: if any shareholders since the IPO are reading this, sell now. Not only are your shares non-voteable , but they are as ephemeral as Snap's users. Get out while you can.
That depends on the nature of the content and who you were trying to reach.
If they want to reach me, put it on YouTube or Vimeo. My kids? Snapchat. My parents? Put it on Facebook or cable TV.
Plus, just because they are pouring $100MM into Snapchat doesn't mean they aren't also placing big bets on other platforms.