1. I think that's your best point, and it's true that the real test will be if they can grow their streaming catalog enough.
3. It's not as if this HAS to be that way. In a blog comment Hastings said initially both sites would have all existing and current data. We're technologists here, is it hard for anybody here to imagine how sharing that data would work?
6. How will it be a distraction to now have a company that is solely focused on streaming -- which is the umbrella under which the original content is being created?
Wouldn't you agree that the economics of show-running fit a lot more acceptably into a business where the primary cost is content licensing vs a business where the primary cost is dozens of physical warehouses and massive USPS fees?
Regarding point 1. Netflix just created a huge discoverability problem. We ditched our streaming package and became a DVD-by-mail customer only. Not for lack of want or desire to be a streaming customer though. I'm just not all that crazy about paying their monthly fee for TV shows (I already have cable) and backlist DVD content.
We like movies. I can't see how we're not a target customer, but I can't get most new releases on Netflix streaming. Now that streaming and DVD-by-mail are separate companies, how will Netflix convert customers? With completely separate websites, what opportunities will exist to inform me that the movie I'm about to receive in the mail is also available through their streaming plan? I'd like to know that, because the moment they lock up deals for the content I want, I'd be on board.
> I can't see how we're not a target customer
> I already have cable
Netflix is a direct competitor to cable. I don't have cable and I use their streaming platform exclusively. I am their target customer.
They'll have a tough time convincing the older generation to ditch cable. They know that. So they're ditching you, instead. As things move along, you'll end up in the minority. At least, that's what Netflix is hoping will happen.
I think you're probably right. I just found a website (feedfliks.com) that let's me see a lot of details about my Netflix usage. There are some pretty clear patterns there. Television shows, comedy specials, and the type of movie you'd typically see on TNT, FX, or AMC are available on Netflix Streaming. Theatrical release movies are not nearly as popular. So, you pretty much nailed it. Netflix wants to be Comcast. They don't appear to care much for their movie service customers.
As it turns out, I've been using giving Netflix money to be a company they don't want to be. Silly me.
And this is why Netflix' business model is doomed. There is no way for them to compete with Comcast, who already gets $50 each month for Internet alone.
There's just no way the content creators are going to give Netflix better terms than they give cable operators. None. Won't happen.
And Netflix cannot afford to pay what cable pays, because it's all added cost to them.
Netflix is between a rock and hard place, they know it, and they did the absolutely worst thing they could do. They should have just let things ride, milk the cash cow they'd created, and see how it plays out. Instead, they shot the cow, spilled the milk, and seem oblivious to the overwhelmingly negative reaction from their customers. sigh
"With completely separate websites, what opportunities will exist to inform me "
Your comment here is echoed all over HN and the Netflix blog.
Obviously being a separate website in no way prevents them from engaging in that sort of cross promotion. Strikes me as common sense. Comments like yours seem to imply an airgap between the two sites. I haven't read anything official that should suggest that.
That air gap is being created by Netflix. Why would they separate the sites and businesses so distinctly if their intention weren't to create an air gap?
Because they have fundamentally different cost structures, and each will benefit from a dedicated CEO who is accountable for results and responsible for strategy?
You really think that the respective sites will have no integration? Not a single-sign-on user account? Not an "Available on Netflix" link? Why? It makes business sense for both units and it doesn't impede any of the objectives of the spinoff.
I agree with what you that it makes sense, but the message Netflix is delivering tells me that Netflix is headed in the opposite direction of what makes sense.
3. It's not as if this HAS to be that way. In a blog comment Hastings said initially both sites would have all existing and current data. We're technologists here, is it hard for anybody here to imagine how sharing that data would work?
6. How will it be a distraction to now have a company that is solely focused on streaming -- which is the umbrella under which the original content is being created?
Wouldn't you agree that the economics of show-running fit a lot more acceptably into a business where the primary cost is content licensing vs a business where the primary cost is dozens of physical warehouses and massive USPS fees?