I do wish they'd pick up a few more good Sci-Fi shows and then cancel them to confirm my personal grudge. It's so hard to waste my time on today's Sci-Fi...get off my lawn, etc, etc.
From the article, fyi.
> slowing at a rapid pace because of increasing competition from Apple, Amazon, Disney and HBO.
I don't doubt that but I do suspect other services will see some slow down too as a result of general bullshit and uncertainty in the economy. It's never really just one thing.
Then again...yeah Disney+ is a really good deal. And Amazon's numbers are inflated from other Prime stuff. I'm just an old man yelling at a screen from his arm chair because I can't trust anyone.
I predict Netflix will change two things business wise:
2. No content dumps, instead 1 episode/week.
Ads and high price is why everyone cut the cable in the first place. (And poor content)
How can anything slow at a rapid pace?
Rapid deceleration. Just because a car is still moving, doesn't mean it's moving as fast as it was 1 second ago.
It wasn't just the analysts. Netflix itself missed big in their forecast.
because of increased fragmentation, torrents are becoming a big competitor again?
I'm already paying for Netflix, Amazon Prime, and HBO Max. Sharing those with friends, and receiving Disney+ and Hulu in return. We're back to where we started, with everything dashed across a bunch of different 'networks', and I left entirely because of the steep cable bill.
Like hell I'm going to add even more services, like AppleTV or Paramount+.
Torrents are too complicated for most people, compared to the ease of buying an 'Android TV box' at a cell phone store, Craiglist or flea market, and paying $15/month for cable channels and TV/movie streaming. The UI is relatively good, worlds apart from the 2010 era when finding shows and episodes required going through a list of gorillavid.com links.
Yeah but Netflix is the one that most frequently gives me hope before smashing it. Ha ha, I got to get out of these abusive relationships.
Another pet peeve is the grouping of sci-fi with fantasy or horror. There are few cases where there is sufficient science in the fantasy or horror that obeys some premise (e.g. differing physics) but mostly the grouping is noise.
What Netflix really needs is genre search that respects "-" as in "sci-fi -horror -fantasy".
a throwback not on Netflix rn: Continuum
As recently as Feb., mgmt was forecasting 2.5 million growth. (much lower than 7 million consensus)
I'm sure their inability to forecast isn't helping.
Management's loss "reasons" all seem valid, but don't forget the production aspect (which is much closer tied to competition)
> "In an effort to continue to gain share in the market, Netflix has increased its content spend, particularly on originals. To pay for it, it’s hiked prices of its service. The company said Tuesday those price changes are helping to bolster revenue, but were partially responsible for a loss of 600,000 subscribers in the U.S. and Canada during the most recent quarter."
My observation is that they are selling attention addiction like Facebook without caring about quality content recently.
Ex: Korean copycat shows and "documentaries", just because both categories tend to rate higher on IMDB. Seems like a decision a PM will make, based on metrics to improve profit, not quality - i.e. give users what they want, even if it is bad for them (or the business) in the long term (as seen with competition's content quality)
PS: Similar thing happened with Facebook back in February. The point is it might take years, but eventually the bs will catch up.
Their desperation is starting to show with the exploration of potential "low hanging fruit" revenue sources like ads instead of new growth markets (games) - as is happening with indirect competitors (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, FB); and direct competitors (Hulu, Disney and HBO): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31101175
The thing about public companies...is that most eventually fall into the pressures of "consistent growth" by stockholders, following the pack mentality (profit at all costs), even if sorting to unethical means.
'Smoking' is really good (not sci fi, though, but I recommend it to everyone). Old Enough has been thoroughly charming as well.
In doing so, they could get huge brand loyalty from bilingual folks, plus more content for people willing to watch with subs. My wife's mom watches tons of dramas on youtube, we'd get her a netflix account in an instant if we thought she would use it - UX watching shows via youtube is abysmal.
Pay for dubbing once a show proves itself without and 'relaunch' the branding to wider audiences. Netflix should have very solid stats on which users are willing to watch foreign language shows with subs, so they can do targeted homepage advertising to test the shows easily.
Dev lift should be light, really just need to add a search filter for original language/country of origin.
I'm conversational in Japanese, and I'd love to see Japanese variety/game shows on netflix. There are thousands of hours of content that have never been available to the US market afaik - I think I've only seen them on youtube or dailymotion when not in japan.
I wonder what the expense of subbing these shows would be. Perhaps they could do a non-exclusive licensing deal where they contribute the sub IP back to the IP holder for an even-further-reduced rate.
I think they are doing that right now with Nippon TV’s Japanese show about toddlers running errands “I’m old enough” which started in 1991.
As the average quality of their English language has, imo, decreased, the fact that I can easily find good content in other languages is a big selling point.
It's going to be mentioned in every earnings call from now on, and it's almost always going to be a bogus excuse.
The important part is subscriber loss in other countries and the projection that over 2 million more subscribers will be lost over the next quarter. Compared to a previous estimate that the company would see a net increase in subscribers by 2.5 million last quarter, that's a big letdown and the market's reaction would have been the same even if the Russia numbers weren't bad.
The selection of older content on Netflix is really weak on the whole and their original content is getting worse and worse.
There is only so many times I can watch a mid-level 80 minute movie script be dragged out across 10 hours in series it really is awful tv and watching the writers struggle to spin tires to drag it to 10 hours is exhausting. Not to mention the executive meddling is extremely apparent in many of their scripts where you can tell whole sections were added at exec request because the story goes off at a tangent and then when it returns the stakes are exactly the same as before the tangent.
Being able to just grab whatever movies I have in my list of things to watch, and play them, locally, without having to scroll through the apps has been quite the relief. Occasionally I use HBO Max still because it has some decent older movies, but I'm pretty much only using my HTPC now, and with Plex, I can watch my library across the network at home via Apple TVs in the bedroom.
The nonsense original content Netflix throw out is awful.
Having to watch 6 to 10 hours of a show riddled with plot holes, long drawn out rubbish narrative, and social justice content just to cloud it further. It's not great.
On top of that they simply switch off all other content if you are using a VPN, even legitimately in your own country, it's rubbish.
PC under the telly is roaring back into fashion.
Who wants to pay umteen subscriptions for bad content anyway?
Now that they are planning on cracking down on password sharing, good riddance
I'm not playing the game of subscribing to different services just to get particular content, because I don't watch things often enough to justify the effort or cost. Plus this way all my physical media comes into the same library as rips, and PlexAmp is a pretty good music player, too.
Jack Reacher. 80 minutes would have been just right.
It isn't that difficult and doesn't involve any technical innovation whatsoever.
Just stop being assholes.
They made record profits during the COVID era, seeing huge subscriber increases during lockdown and work-from-home.
So they increased prices. And nickel-and-dimed customers. And got rid of the best parts of their catalog. And threw a fit about sharing passwords.
Geez. Hey I'm stuck several states away from my family for two years but God forbid we try to connect by sharing our movie and TV watch lists. Meemaw can't watch Peppa Pig with her grandson in person, so we'd better watch out for her wanting to check out his Netflix Kids list and try to connect with what's interesting him.
Netflix used to be great. Now they're just jerks with mediocre content that charge 3-4x what Discovery does.
That’s something Disney and Apple are both embracing with shared viewing sessions. It’s an excellent feature and it has been so much easier watching Disney content together than trying to count down and sync pause/play of content, so guess where we go when it’s remote movie night?
On AppleTV you need to be on a FaceTime call.
I'm not sure they have much of a choice in the matter, given the remaining movie producing companies are trying to fund/build alternatives. Netflix would gladly host all the latest Disney movies, but they aren't allowed to anymore.
Netflix was well aware of this several years ago and leaned into it, but failed to focus on quality.
They need to think like a Hollywood studio, and less like a Video Supermarket. You need to be a Disney or PBS , Universal or MGM, and the subscribers will pay for high quality content.
The only notable Netflix content seems to be the one purchased externally. Internally developed content, tends to follow a common amorphous pattern, that becomes very predictable as it gets extended into multiple episodes of the same script.
They need charismatic movies and set free artists with risky content. Not 20 episodes of Ozark.
One of the issues is how much Netflix content just reflect whatever crap is a fad in California politics. I am not even from US, I don't want to hear about Californian political themes in the media I consume, SPECIALLY when it is a remake of something from a country that has nothing to do with California culture! (like... Japan, or Poland...)
That said, political content is pretty popular with a big chunk of their subscribers. The rest of us lose out because of it, unfortunately... I don't even know if I would call it political, more just forcing in bits of virtue signaling where it doesn't make sense.
What are some examples of this? Of all the issues Ive seen people have with Netflix, this is definitely a very new one.
Hard to say Netflix is worse for this than various other Hollywood studios tho.
(to clarify in anticipation of downvotes, I welcome and enjoy some of the media about trans people etc, I am just answering your question, to elucidate this issue with the services' content that some people have. Definitely not a rare or new issue, I've been listening to people go on about it for years)
I dont see how stuff like this is complained about though, especially since most shows dont actually have more than token representation anyway. Whats the actual complaint here? That the average cast of a show is slightly different now than it was 10 years ago? People complain about "woke" themes but I hardly see concrete examples of them, and explanations as to whats wrong or what should be done differently.
And fwiw I think using Star Trek as an example is funny* since the show has historically been based on diverse groups of people.
In Star Fleet the fact that someone happens to be a polygamous tri-sexual trans-species cat person should pass mostly without comment.
But modern sensibilities set up a dynamic where nobody is just a character.
Everyone is seen as representing "their team" - a race, or a class. This is a big responsibility, so everyone has to take themselves super seriously.
I think we're in a transitional phase for TV. Representation is a priority (great!) but the industry isn't fully confident with it yet. It's OK, TV has always been about the zeitgeist as much as the show.
Perhaps what we need is also more diversity among writers/producers. Right now it feels like a lot of writers are handling their "diverse" characters with kid gloves which can leave them a bit wooden and gets in the way of telling a good story.
> Perhaps what we need is also more diversity among writers/producers. Right now it feels like a lot of writers are handling their "diverse" characters with kid gloves which can leave them a bit wooden and gets in the way of telling a good story.
This is the answer. Seems like just a bit more time is needed for things to find less wooden footing.
Here's a handful of "woke" things I've grown tired of, more because they're such overused cliches or unrealistic things that break my suspension of disbelief than any opposition (I'm a far left, pro-LGBT+, progressive atheist feminist to disclose any biases), but in no particular order:
Every show having an "overcoming sexism" or "overcoming racism" narrative, where inevitably a white guy is the evil villain who underestimates, mistreats or is unfair to the protagonist and then the female/poc character gets to overcome this systemic injustice. (Sometimes this is central to the whole show, sometimes it feels like just an obligatory scene in an otherwise unrelated story).
Casts that have an unrealistic "forced diversity" element. You might call it token representation, but if the scene is a random office in middle-America and the 6 characters are 6 different races or when each character is designed specifically to be the inverse of a stereotype, it makes the show feel less authentic and genuine. Related is changing characters from existing stories to be more diverse according to contemporary American notions of identity.
Men being depicted as so absurdly rapey, or the general overuse of sexual harassment or threatening behavior.
Exaggerations of nepotism, sexism and racism in most shows.
As to your question of "whats wrong or what should be done differently", I think there are a few challenges. For instance, we all sort of accept action movies being full of guns and explosions while recognizing they're not at all representative of reality. However, there does seem to be some evidence that these movies contribute to European misunderstanding and to greatly overestimating the likelihood of encountering gun violence in America. The current set of media might bias a generation of young women to fear there's a rapist in every room and that every career disappointment is a manifestation of systemic discrimination.
An easy parallel might be looking at the over-use of depictions of Black men as gang members, drug dealers or criminals in 1980s and 1990s Hollywood. Any one particular movie scene or tv show might be fine on its own with such a character, but when similar characters and scenes show up in dozens of unrelated titles and as a disproportionate representation it becomes problematic. It's different groups now being the recurring villains, recurring fools, etc, but it's the same fundamental issue.
No one complains about the fresh prince of Bel-Air having a 100% black cast. But I doubt you wouldn't mind if a reboot was made with 80% white cast because it's a show "from 15 years ago".
What many people hate is the lack of creativity and the "corruption" of already-existing shows for ideologic views.
I would however, pay good money for "Star Trek: all David Bowie edition" where an entire starship is crewed with David Bowie clones.
Thanks for the bigman comeback earlier too, you phrased it better than I could have.
The complaints about CA politics in Netflix are new complaints to me.
As far as politics goes Bridgerton is probably the best example which has American racial and gender politics bolted onto some weird fairy tale version of the British aristocracy in the worst way imaginable.
edit: another thing I just remembered, Netflix removed what is probably the best episode of Community from its catalog because of a blackface character, despite the fact that the character is explicitly used to address racism in the fantasy genre.
The one character that outright critiques the practice still ends up revolving around a guy that "she chose" but is lower class. Why did she need a man?
Not only that but the show is all about 15yos marrying 20 something dudes? Just creepy.
On the other hand I thought sex education was great with how it deals with social issues surrounding sex. I do enjoy the aesthetics of it, never really found it weird but its definitely an "american 80s" aesthetic, though that is also how young people are dressing, at least over here.
Personally I dont see an issue with exploring social questions at all, but it does most of the time a superficial analysis just ends up ignoring too many things to be of any use and ends up simply as a performative action. I think this is the case for Bridgerton but not Sex Education.
In any case, what angers me with Netflix is the way they cancel shows without giving them a way to wrap up their stories in a final season. Sure, if you have 2 seasons and you were planning 5 it might be difficult to wrap everything on a third season but it is surely better than simply leaving the story open.
Yes, like most American content sources, the content tends to be flavored by American culture.
> As far as politics goes Bridgerton is probably the best example which has American racial and gender politics bolted onto some weird fairy tale version of the British aristocracy in the worst way imaginable.
I would say it has fairy tale versions of racial and gender politics (which are not, insofar as they connect with real world versions, any less connected to British than American ones) bolted on to a weird fairy tale version of early 19th Century British aristocracy; it's very American, but less in the politics than the style of romance story for which the setting provides the context.
I mean how do you say any of this is American politics and not British/Western European politics? Racial inequality, women's rights, and class structures are not just American things.
I think your mistake is reading Bridgerton as utopian political fiction and not a romance film with a fantasy drawn around combining exaggeration of a few specific facts of Regency England with a couple things drawn from modern Western race and gender politics is the context and engine of conflict.
> There's no classism or anything structural in that show
There is fairly intense classism in the show.
> In that sense it's no different than Hamilton, where you had, ironically enough, an almost all POC cast represent not a single POC character.
Minor nitpick: Hamilton, in fact, has a single explicitly-named on-stage POC character, though the part has no lines.
Major nitpick: you...did not understand a few layers of metaphor in Hamilton.
> superficial diversity in place of actually talking about race, class, and so on.
Hamilton rather directly talks about race, class, “and so on”.
You write this as if the same questions of racial and gender politics are not also significant in other parts of (a) the anglosphere (b) western europe.
You’re right, it’s infuriating but not limited to Netflix unfortunately. Look at Picard… a total cringe-fest.
That said, I did randomly watch an Israeli TV series about the lives of ultra-orthodox Jews, Shtisel, and despite the lack of CGI and all that, I found it an interesting watch.
Ozark seems like a directly bad comparison because it appears to be one of their last big content swings/risks (and is ending soon) from the first few years where they seemed to heavily curate their projects and who the creators were and who the talent were and give them enough seasons to tell the full story they were hoping to tell. (Ozark is one of the very few and seems one of the last to get its full number of seasons expectation and will get to tell a "complete story".) Ozark is not quite as successful as benchmarks like Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, but it fills a niche and gambles on good talent pulling off a tough tightrope of "bad people doing bad things but you root for them in spite of themselves", which is still a very risky niche even with big "Prestige TV" breakouts such as the aforementioned benchmarks. (I've only finished the first season of Ozark because I have a hard time watching this "cringe" genre, but I recall it was very well made and I enjoyed it for what it was.)
Since Netflix ordered Ozark they have indeed seemed to move their Originals content much more to a algorithm-generated "shotgun" approach: building lots of single season shows (or maybe if first weekend and only first weekend views are high enough, or so it seems, they will get two seasons) and seemingly designed overall to take fewer risks (on creators, on talent, on genres). There's definitely a lot extremely generic or at least extremely low risk programming coming out of Netflix's shotgun at this point. Some of it has still been entertaining.
But calling Ozark out for being a product of the shotgun and "low risk" seems backwards when it seems so much more emblematic of riskier Netflix Originals projects than current ones.
Yes, it is crazy, in part because "the algorithm" (how i hate this term) really derives most of its power because it represents huge numbers of human beings making choices. The store clerk may have been an excellent recommendation engine for you, or they may not have been, but they almost certainly were not equally good (or bad) for most people.
Independent video stores are not so tightly tied to one distributor, so yes, a clerk that takes a few moments to hear what movies you like could point you in the right direction....even if that direction is to go a different store entirely.
-First the intersectional genres became harder to find, or create.
-Then the reviews were wiped.
-Then you see the same content you actually watched as recommended and often
But the way their UI/UX is built, it is not conducive for exploring. They've taken so much control away from me. I have to rely on what IT thinks I should be watching.
I know one of the reasons why they do this is because they don't want people to easily see and track of how small their content library is, and how frequently content disappears.
Not sure who else feels this but for me:
There's a lack of "regular tv shows". I knew it was over when they got rid of The Office, that was pretty much the only reason I kept Netflix.
HBO Max, Disney Plus, Prime Video, AMC (temporary) all have the shows we regularly go to. Sopranos/Frasier, Simpsons/Star Wars/National Geography, The Office/Friends, Breaking Bad/Better call Saul (just need to see how it all ends).
Heck even Prime managed to bag many of the shows that used to be on Netflix. Aliens, Tora Tora Tora and even Independence Day is on Disney Plus. Lot of movies outside Netflix.
Netflix just has these one off good shows that frankly doesn't attract across the demographic. Sure there's something for everyone but its lacking those "must have and easy to access binge reruns".
I don’t think they want you exploring too much. It would expose how little content they actually have.
I usually google for "best movies netflix april 2022" (or shows) and look through rotten tomatoes, metacritic, etc to see if that is something worth checking out.
(It doesn't help that they drag their customers into their fight with Apple by not integrating with Apple TV. Given their quality now I don't open Netflix by default and now that they don't integrate my global queue I legit forget to resume a show.)
Killer Clowns From Outer Space
Of those, the very clear ordering in terms of taste and vision is:
Disney+, Apple, HBO >>>> HBO, Hulu.
Apple is the most amazing one to me - they came from nowhere, and are bringing original content like CODA or Severance after only a few years.
Maybe it's because Apple - the largest (tech) company on Earth still has at its core the idea of beautiful things designed by humans, and Netflix never has.
Netflix used to be that way too. But now it is trying to play moneyball.
Netflix was great for about 10 years when it's only competition was Hulu. Now everyone has yanked their content off of Netflix and put it on their own streaming platforms.
When Netflix had ALL of the streaming videos, it was amazing, it was the Video Supermarket as you say.
Now Netflix makes it's own content and I hear nothing but bad things from other people and my own experiences of their programming is that it's substandard to what they could get from other studios.
They need to go back to being the #1 streaming content provider, not a movie studio.
Given that, how is this:
> They need to go back to being the #1 streaming content provider,
I think the exact opposite: Ozark was great, because it is basically a rip-off of Breaking Bad, which was made by a mainstream TV network (which has a lot of experience and research about what kind of stories people do like). The "risky content" from artists that were "set free" is a recipe for disaster: you spend a lot of money to produce a show that only appeals to some exotic audiences. Netflix has some examples of that. Only once in a while you'll hit the jackpot and have this risky content make you a lot of money.
Netflix are going to end up with lots of content but very little original IP that people are seeking out.
Netflix isn't doing any of that. It isn't going for the best and brightest it's going for the best and brightest, and "murder shows", and crappy reality shows, and cooking shows, and, and, and: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/11561544/netflix-doesnt-want-t...
A perfect example is Scorsese's "The Irishman." That movie could have easily been 2-2.5 hours yet it came in at over 3 hours. It was a detriment to the movie rather than a positive. Yet, I bet Netflix loved the extra content even though it was not a good thing for the movie.
Speaking as someone who knows Netflix producers, they very much do...
Speaking as someone with the misfortune to still be holding the stock, down 25% after hours, right now.
And what’s wrong with Ozark? I thought it’s one of the better shows on Netflix.
In my view they need more creative risky shows like the OA, Altered Carbon, Love, Death & Robots, Dark Mirror and more old HBO style content… quality and like you said not this mass produced stuff trying to satisfy the lowest common denominator, because then you will satisfy no one.
Maybe they have good shows I just don't know about. Their recommendation system seems to be crap. I browse for 20 minutes and then give up frustrated, because I can't find anything interesting.
I was just looking to downgrade my plan. Basic only gives you SD quality, which I'm OK with but only allowing one device at a time is taking the p!ss.
How fair is that though? Who's to say that we wouldn't find the quality of content of CBS/NBC/ABC to be equally as bad if we had it comprehensively laid out in a nicely engineered UI like in Netflix? In the previous model, most of us didn't watch TV for huge chunks of the day and simply weren't around to see if the television was good during those chunks.
My limited experience working at a public company has seen tons of employee turnover, especially in this extremely hot job market. I'm considering shopping around as well, but my TC has been going up through promotions, which relieve the pressure to look around a bit.
https://jobs.netflix.com/work-life-philosophy (See Finances section)
To answer your question, using Meta as an example, nothing happens. The employees are exposed to both the upside and the downside of RSUs.
If Netflix is like most companies, they’ll start reining in spending. In fact, that’s exactly what was reported a couple weeks ago: https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/netflix-executives-hiring...
If I’ve recently watched a movie or series, don’t relentlessly show it in the “recommended-content-looping-screensaver”. I know it exists, because I’ve watched it. And you know that too.
The upside is that you always have your account "active" and ready to go. There is no friction to playing a video, browsing the catalog. Just hitting play and you are a paying customer again. If you are going to be charged for two years there is definitely incentive to cancel your account, adding friction to any decision to resubscribe.
The downside is likely that it adds mental friction to that first video every month. It takes it from "well I already paid" to "is it worth it? I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks and won't watch much, maybe I'll skip this month" which negates the mental relief that "unlimited" monthly subscriptions rely on.
They act like they’re “Netflix, king of the hill, above all others and different from wannabes”. Like HBO vs basic cable. Like it’s 2014 still and all the other services are jokes.
It’s not. The others have caught up in many ways, or surpassed. With MUCH better prices. And the Netflix crap ratio has gotten out of control.
One huge hit every few years won’t save you. Apple TV+ is firing on all cylinders. HBO Max, Hulu, and Disney all nice have originals and great back catalogs for nostalgia.
If I could find Apple TV+ quality on Netflix I’d be happier. But I can’t. And I pay 4x as much for that privilege thanks to 4K.
This is honestly the key for me. From Vulture's piece on the cancellation of Babysitters' Club (a good series, by the way):
"As far as I can tell, everything Netflix does is based on how it’s driving subscriber growth.
The truth is that when your show does very well in North America, as ours does, as far as Netflix is concerned, pretty much everybody who’s going to have Netflix [in North America] has it. They’re looking to drive subscriber growth in other parts of the world where this IP doesn’t have much recognition."
If you're a subscriber, fuck you. Give us your money, shut the fuck up, you aren't getting any series you care about. You don't count for anything.
Hence most series get one or two seasons, get cut of with no warning - a shitty way to treat the people working on them - leaving unfinished stories for viewers, because being a subscriber makes your opinion and interests worthless.
Whereas if you are buying individual pieces (for example purchasing episodes from Prime or buying comic books, etc) they need to keep you hooked.
Netflix still produces some interesting shows and I especially like the anime that they are bringing on like Thermae Roma (sp?) that was recently released. I don't think I'd ever see that on Apple TV + which is a big disappointment.
But this is why I also don't invest in Netflix. Missed the boat on growing to get here.
I never would have signed up for them if a subscription hadn't come free with my MBP. Now that the machine is a year old, the free subscription has expired, I cancelled it. I'll pick it up again in a few months when there are new seasons of what I watch.
You can browse their list of supported devices from LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Amazon, Playstation, Xbox, Sony, Vizio, Roku. And then any devices without the app that support AirPlay 2 will work from your iPhone or iPad.
Is Apple TV different in the US than Canada? ‘Cause either I am using it completely incorrectly or they don’t have very much content up here…
They’re doing the HBO thing but are only 2 years old.
I signed up for awhile and watched stuff like Ted Lasso and Foundation and it was good and then I cancelled.
I'll probably sign up again next winter to watch whatever new content they've got (and rewatch Lasso) and then probably cancel again.
It isn't a marriage, you can bounce in and out of it. Play the field.
It's not their IP so one has to wonder how long it's gonna take before we see the obnoxious "last day to watch on Netflix" message.
I didn't subscribe to Netflix so I don't sure what Anime are being offered right now. With the recent deals (HF, Zero's Tea Time), I would have missed/skipped them, even though they are the series I liked. Maybe I will subscribe it once all episodes are shown so that I can watch it and forget it, but I won't subscribe to it long term.
I think it's mostly because they compete with HBO and IMHO aren't really there just yet, but definitely getting there.
Hopefully Apple TV+ can re-create some of that magic.
But nothing new is replacing them. So over time Netflix is becoming irrelevant to me.
I’ve subscribed since early 2000s pretty much non-stop. But I’m about to pull the trigger.
Of course, Sturgeon's Law is still in effect, so 90% of everything will be crap. But producing non-crap for smaller audiences builds loyalty, which is worth something in the subscriber model.
Or at least that's my read of their strategy. There's a real discovery problem that comes with it that I don't think they've solved. But overall it's an interesting approach.
But Netflix isn’t trying as much stuff as network TV. They seem to be trying as much as all of cable.
The problem is at a certain point you ruin all discovery. There is no way to find something new through serendipity. It’s gone next week from the promotion so they can promote 8 other new shows.
But that means even if you find it and it’s good it won’t get and audience and will be cancelled. Unless it gets big from something outside Netflix (social media with Squid Game or some other popular but not mega hit shows) it’s a goner.
So… why even look at all that stuff? It’s not worth it.
When I look back at a lot of my favorite TV shows, many of them took a while to hit their stride. Even universally liked TV shows will have rough starts where people will go, "Yea, you can just sorta skip season 1."
Over time you just get used to thinking, "oh, this is a Netflix original on Season 1, I'll wait and see if they make more content" which probably fucks with the viewer numbers and they cancel it.
Of course, they also license content but that's just about spreading around the dollars from a bag of money.
Personally, I find Netflix to be worth the subscription at the moment. But there are a ton of other streaming services and I'm not going to subscribe to them all. And, while I have gone in and out of Netflix' DVD service, the back catalog has sufficiently rotted I don't find it worthwhile.
No, it's objectively crap. I hate romcoms or horror movies but I can distinguish between the quality that was put in making them (objective) vs how much they affect me (subjective). And even nostalgia aside, they produce only crap.
Nearly all Netflix production is low quality.
As for the "many niches": well they all are sub-niches of the same small niche(s) because I don't see any show or movie that is not either targeted for teens, women or some (usually the same) ethnic group.
They also refuse (or are unable) to add support on Apple TV for their interactive titles. I doubt anyone really cares, but it surprises me, and not in a good way, when I bump into it.
Used it to watch Ted Lasso and Foundation, and the browser experience was _terrible_ for discovery and had lots of bugs and counterintuitive things. And it was Windows+Chrome, so no excuse for having such a terrible interface.
Now I don't even care about it, and find it easier to just open netflix or youtube or something else rather than to waste time and brain cells dealing with their crap.
My biggest gripe is that've cancelled a lot of things without seeing them through to completion. Prime and SyFy have done this a lot too.
Sure, but that happened years ago.
I don't think most people care about 20$ vs 10$ for a monthly subscription. For people who do care, they just pirate for 0$.
The people who do care - they will pirate anyway. You don't even have to pirate - aren't there just websites that play pirated content like it's youtube?
Also, isn't youtube just free? Not having Netflix is not like not having a TV, it's more like not having the fancy cable channels package.
I really, really think you're wrong. The median household income in $67,521. That's not even close to "$120 isn't a big deal" territory, and half of households have less. More than half of American households have netflix, poor-ish people aren't just pirating the content. Smart TVs and chromecast like devices make pirating more difficult. Many people don't want to mess around with casting stuff to their TV from their computer.