Until recently, the motivating impression was that Netflix just plain had every movie out there (which its continuing DVD service kinda does). I subscribed because it was a cheap replacement for buying anything I wanted to see: they had everything I wanted and could want. My to-watch list was very long, and I thought it would remain.
Now, studios and competitors are making that model untenable. Netflix can't carry _everything_ because studios/distributors want an ever-larger cut of the profits, and competitors are willing to pay for exclusivity. Suddenly, I find large sections of my to-watch list disappearing off Netflix as contracts expire and don't renew (the biggest blow was when "Toys" disappeared - something old & obscure enough that I thought surely they'd manage to keep that license).
Netflix just pivoted.
They're no longer the long-promised "long tail" of movies, hosting all but the latest & biggest (yeah, I'm willing to pay extra individually for those). They just gave up on that model.
Now they're becoming a "channel" focused on hosting a curated collection, including their own productions.
That's a big shift.
That's a massive downsizing of ambitions -- so big it's kind of surprising that a share of NFLX today is worth around 5 times what it was worth at the beginning of 2013. The hype around their original programming has successfully papered over the bigger story of their abandoning their plans to be the toll collector of online video.
Only surprising if you think Netflix's prior ambitions had any relation to what most investors actually expected them to accomplish. Management's ambitions better aligning with what investors believe is realistically attainable should make stock price increase. It reduces the perceived likelihood that management will blow the opportunity for the best growth they can get in favor of a quixotic and doomed quest for something unrealistic.
The only reason Netflix has yet to achieve utter dominance is the copyright cabal that no longer sees why it should entertain Netflix's money-making when they can create Streaming Video Clone Site #2019 for their properties and collect all the money from subscriptions + ads themselves. Netflix eventually realized that their model was utterly fucked as long as copyright law stayed as it is (since their existence was dependent on the continued cooperation of third parties) and has been forced to rely on its own content to carry subscriptions, since everyone and their dog started making unrealistic demands and pulling their content, many to host on their own sites instead.
Consider that under current copyright law, almost the entirety of film history remains inaccessible without an explicit license grant from the rightsholder. If our terms were a little more reasonable, say anything pre-1980 was now public domain, Netflix may have had a chance to exist independent of Big Media's permission. Under current conditions, Netflix can only stream content published prior to 1924 without permission (plus a smattering of mostly-unwanted films that lapsed into public domain due to registration errors or technicalities). Consider that in 1924, sound had not yet been added to film.
Cable television as we know it is doomed. People don't like relying on programmers to decide what content they want to watch, they want to decide for themselves and get their content instantly. Netflix was one of the first services to offer this to the masses, but it can't reap the rewards because of the oppressive state of copyright law.
Once Netflix really breaks away from dependence on Big Media's copyright grants, they may become one of the biggest champions for modernizing our IP laws to reflect the realities of the digital age.
Netflix is solid on the technical side, and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. HBO has one show that really interests me (Game of Thrones, of course) and Netflix has a handful (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Bojack Horseman, hopefully with more new interesting series on the way).
The only reason I'm even subscribed to HBO at this point is because Verizon gave me a few months for free, and I'll be ditching it once that expires.
I realize it's your opinion, but...really?
HBO has a massive catalog of brilliant shows. Netflix isn't even on the same planet when it comes to original content (but I hope they get there, better for all of us).
Marco Polo made me fear for Netflix's future more than anything I've seen in a long time.
It is also done by the Weinstein Company. The brothers have a long history of original content that others wouldn't touch, and turned out good. For example they did Tarantino's earlier works.
I would much rather they take chances and sometimes fail, rather than only bet on sure things. The latter leads to the sequel only mediocrity that is Hollywood's current output.
The competition for new subscriptions and paying that one more month always takes place in the present/future, or at least for content you haven't watched yet which for any fan is going to be present/future.
And Netflix is kicking ass there, TBH. They have high-quality dramas, resurrected cult (and my!) favorites, the deal with Marvel, and probably half a dozen other things that got me salivating that I'm forgetting.
To be honest, I think Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are -all- schooling the old school providers in terms of interesting new content, HBO included. I love Six Feet Under, Mr. Show, and Deadwood as much as anyone, but aside from Silicon Valley and GoT, nothing else current excites me. At the very least, HBO needs to get much better at both making -and- fulfilling promises.
I flat out refuse to pay Comcast after their sales people tried to resell me on movie packages just after I canceled them (we're talking less than a week after I canceled). I had to tell the saleswoman who called me to stop her sales pitch (after already asking her to stop 3 times) or I'd cancel Comcast altogether :-/ I refuse to order HBO through cable again and that's hurting HBO's business IMO.
I wouldn't be betting against HBO anytime soon.
HBO allows some of the best in the business work together and do amazing things, Curb Your Enthusiasm could have only happened on HBO and it is probably the best comedy show ever.
HBO is the only reason left other than live sports to have TV.
Part of the reason HBO is so good is lots of the original content is produced like a movie or like a full binge season as Netflix is doing. Because both don't have to chop things up and change or only write a few episodes out to get ad revenue, better quality content is produced. The networks that aren't writing in movie style or full season binge mode will miss out on this quality aspect.
Does it really get that much better? I want to like this show.
Put in those terms I'll bet on Netflix.
Netflix's basic original goal is the same: they want it to be the entertainment option that you instinctively reach for when you have free time (the "moments of truth").
In the past, they achieved this via their vast catalog and their customers' viewing queues. Most customers have a queue full of things to watch, so when they sit down they can just pop the next thing off the queue.
In the future, it looks like they hope to achieve the same default status by simply replacing the queue with fantastic original and curated content and content recommendation systems. No, they won't have everything, but they'll still have more than your limited free time can handle, and their stuff will be of higher quality than anything you can get elsewhere.
I'm not sold on whether they can pull off the switcheroo, but it's also clear to everyone that their existing business model can't survive the next 10 years as content incumbents move their content off Netflix and onto their own proprietary platforms. In that world, no one can be Netflix (not even Netflix). However, Netflix has a good chance of being better than any of the other proprietary platforms. Given customers' limited money and patience with juggling accounts and different apps, Netflix stands a good chance to come out on top in that situation. That said, in that world I can't imagine them being more than 5x more profitable than the next most successful competitor in a landscape made up of tens of competitors.
It seems to me that the TV content owners have to make that same mistake, then there will be streaming providers that have "everything". Perhaps not Netflix, but something similar.
Why won't they pay for 5 streaming services? They're already paying for 100 channels.
Remember, cable or satellite TV together have 80% penetration in the United States. That means that your median family with the $50k income is paying close to $80 per month for video entertainment. ($80 happens to be Comcast's video ARPU.)
If the end-game is the unbundling of video content from the delivery mechanism, then that $80 will buy a lot of streaming services. Probably more than five. Depends how they're bundled.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean about them having a great movie selection. By mail, sure. But by streaming that's never been true.
i.e. "youtube for TV".
Since screens are converging, i.e. we can see TV shows on PC or any other device, netflix will be direct competitor to youtube with only captive/curated shows.
For example if I watch a WWII documentary, then they feel the need to recommend every one they have, for a long time. Oh and "watch" means "seen more than a second or two of", so you get all this crud even if you didn't like it.
Perhaps the biggest sin is showing me stuff I have already watched, outside of the "watch again section". My home screen is mostly things I have seen, and I have to keep scrolling past to see if there is anything interesting deeper in the sections.
It is especially annoying that there is no "do not show this again". My home screen is a collection of content I have already seen, or do not want to see. It makes Netflix look dumb and is very user hostile.
Most amusing is that they don't provide a way of finding content that you want to watch now. For example you would like to watch something funny and light for the next half hour, or a date night movie. Sometimes those categories randomly show up on the screen, but usually not.
I'd go on, but the overall vibe is a very dumb experience of recommendations that I don't want, no useful content exploration, and it feels like I watch stuff despite them, rather than because of them. Maybe I should cancel my account again.
This please, if someone from Netflix is reading, please remove movies already watched from all but the "watch again" category. Also please put back "random picks" category: I found great hidden treasures thanks to it.
But...Roku, a spinoff? Nope. Roku's independent, founded by the guy who founded ReplayTV, which was TiVo's only real competition way back when.
In the early days of Roku, Anthony also served as the vice president of Internet TV at Netflix, where he developed what is known today as the Roku streaming player, originally designed as the original video player for Netflix.
Prior to Roku, Anthony invented the digital video recorder (DVR) and founded ReplayTV
No Netflix, I don't want to watch Marco Polo. Wait what? You "updated" the XBox One app and now I have to give voice commands such as "Watch Item 1" instead of "Watch Arrested Development"? How is it that everything you recommend to me these days, unlike in the past, reflects popularity more than my preferences?
We strive to win more of our members’ “moments of truth”.
Those decision points are, say, at 7:15 pm when a member wants to relax, enjoy a shared experience with friends and family, or is bored.
They could play a video game, surf the web, read a magazine, channel surf their MVPD/DVR system, buy a pay-per-view movie, put on a DVD, use a piracy service, turn on Hulu, or launch Netflix.
We want our members to choose Netflix in these moments of truth.
This nails it. When I get home (especially if I had a long day at work), I first go to Netflix and see what's on my list. This is because Netflix app is beautiful, it always works and they have my list of things to watch. As someone who loves to watch documentaries, I am happy with the selection that Netflix offers.
If I don't like anything on the list, I just watch an old Friends or Breaking Bad episode.
I think Netflix has absolutely nailed the user experience and depending on your taste/location, their selection is great as well.
Whenever I use Netflix I always feel like there is a lot of content locked away and I have to dig past the same stuff it always shows to find stuff I'm interested in.
You can literally do exactly that. If you hover over a title there should be a button that says "Not Interested". It should appear just below the stars as if you were going to provide a rating.
Hulu gets more of my bitching when related to selection, but Netflix gets it's share.
Partial seasons, only a few seasons of shows that have long since ended, so many movies not offered.
But basically when it comes down to I want to watch something, we have both a Hulu subscription and Netflix for a reason and I still have to torrent things.
Also, their app sucks for finding things.
Oh, then I finally pick something. And it starts, playing with subtitles in Portuguese because I'm visiting Central America, and Netflix apparently took language lessons from Feynman. Audio's in English, but screw my hearing, I've gotta go read another language. Even on titles with the "Netflix" brand on them, same crap. Or the subs are crappy.
So I give up, load up put.io, and in a few seconds I'm streaming HD on my big screen, Chromecast, or phone. (Unlike Netflix, which streams low quality for several minutes before popping into HD hopefully.)
If you know what you're looking for, it's easy to search (though chances are you won't find it these days...). If you want to explore and discover, it's much harder.
I also wish they'd implement rentals. When we decide to watch a specific movie, these days we will as often as not skip Netflix entirely and go directly to Amazon Prime- because they, typically, will have it available as a rental if not for free.
(Also, firefox says "movie" isn't a word... how odd...)
In Netflix's case their UI is designed for tablets, and it really really shows anywhere else. On a phone, the big cover images take up so much real estate that paging through lots of results is slow. On a TV or computer monitor, it feels weird because it's designed around touchscreen interactions like flicking, which you can't do elegantly with a remote control or XBox controller.
Microsoft seems to have finally figured out that "one UI to rule them all" is a pipe dream; maybe Netflix eventually will too.
It's also missed when watching a show that you DVR'ed, after the fact -- like the series finale to Lost, or the Super Bowl.
If/when live broadcasts are completely a thing of the past, I think this sense of engagement will be lost forever, and people won't even realize what they're missing out on.
In a way, it's sort of like watching someone play a video game live on Twitch vs. watching it on Youtube.
Does anyone else know and also feel this sense I'm talking about?
Granted, Netflix's data is probably much more convincing than any vague feeling of community, but I wonder if the "indulgent viewing" they mention is the side-effect of our brains failing to cope with sudden overflow of stuff to consume.
I would love to see a Netflix 'channel' that loops randomly through the top 100 shows/movies and plays the content live for everyone.
Maybe that's why they're releasing just one episode/week of their new TV series "Better Call Saul".
I also like when I tell a friend about a show that they haven't yet seen. Watching them catch up is fun for me. "How far did you get last night? Were there any new characters introduced? You're going to be surprised how it ends!"
I would love NetFlix to invest in semi-live programs like news and current affairs. So that I could turn on the TV and start watching the news from the beginning instead of midway through a banal rolling program. You would get the sense of engagement of a live show without having to timetable your life.
I'm not sure how useful this feeling is, and so it may die out, but I wanted to acknowledge that you're not the only one to notice it. :)
My process is to check http://instantwatcher.com/ and then go to netflix. The thing is I've been disappointed by whats at the top of the charts for so long, I've considered dropping netflix. The top 50 is uninteresting sounding documentaries, low budget horror, and everything else that rounds out the discount DVD bin at the grocery store. Netflix excells at one thing - Television.
I get that its likely not Netflix's fault. The cut for movie studios each month from an $8 subscription cant be very much. I feel Amazon's pay-to-play model is more realistic, though less consumer friendly. I remember the deal announced last year of netflix getting first run Disney flicks (starting in 2015 I think?) and thats exiting, but the daily reality of netflix besides TV is the entertainment equivalent of hot, soupy gruel.
I also grow tired of seeing promotions for older movies, but I on the other hand, I really like Netflix's "original content" series.
But I can generally always find -something- on Netflix to fill time, as long as I'm not too picky about what it is. That strikes me as more the model they were going for.
I will say this: they're very good at a number of niche (maybe not your niche) genres, critically-acclaimed horror and documentaries being two of my favorites. Blockbusters are fine and all, but I've usually seen them well before I'm going to fall back on Netflix for something.
I'm happy to pay $3-5 for a few days in which to watch a movie, and then not think about it when I'm done. The price is right, and the convenience can't be beaten.
Also, if they want to capture the hotel market, I mean people on the road staying in temp accommodation, they'll have to deliver blue content (or yellow as they say in Asia). People on the road want pornographic content, more so than at home. Their current most likely option is to get it at high markup via hotel operator delivery systems.
Where are you from? I was pretty shocked to learn from chinese people that they thought the english euphemism for pornography was "blue". This is the first time I've seen someone use it.
I won't admit to ever downloading something without full written permission of the copyright holder, carved in stone and witnessed by three saints, but last night I did watch "Black Books" after not finding it on Netflix or any other service.
(If you are a fan of 'Father Ted' or 'The IT Crowd', Black Books was done by the same people and contains many of the same jokes.)
That's part of the reason why they're making their own series. Eventually rights-holders won't have much choice but to allow streaming, but for the immediate future they're the bottleneck.
Netflix has been essentially freeriding on cinema goers and live tv watchers who subsidize all the content creation. If Netflix replaces those sources, it'll have to provide similar revenue.
Using a VPN to bypass such a restriction is just as much a copyright violation as downloading from thepiratebay.
Either way you are creating an unlicensed copy, or at least a performance, of the work. It would be the local license holders right to go after you, or Netflix, for violating "their" copyrights.
The copy is licensed since it's made available by the distributor to the customer. It's the distributors duty to the determine if a customer is eligible for purchase or not, best way would be having to provide a verifiable invoice address within the region of the granted license. An IP is a best guess at best, but not a verifiable proof of the physical location of the end customer. Netflix doesn't ask for an invoice address, Amazon Prime does. Amazon also has siloed accounts for each market where you would have to have multiple subscriptions in different countries to access the local offerings, where as NETFLIX has only one global platform. If an US-resident purchases a US-NETFLIX subscription travels abroad for a short or long period it shouldn't make a legal difference if a private VPN to the home's IP or a commercial VPN service is used.
By all enforceable concepts the place of purchase of the subscription is the relevant thing for having a valid license for private use, not the place of consumption.
Also I can't see why the first-sale doctrine wouldn't apply here either. Rights holder sold a distribution license to Netflix under certain restrictions (first sale). With Netflix distributing the copy to the end customer.
The problem with Netflix really starts long before the consumer. With something like Black Books, which predates the netflix concept, nobody has universal distribution rights. The original creator, the BBC, long ago sold the American rights to someone else (PBS?). So there is nobody from which Netflix can purchase worldwide rights. Netflix instead purchases whatever rights they find and must mirrors them. Netflix very recently spoke out on this issue.
The purchase of a DVD grants you the license to play the stored content for unlimited private screenings from the medium provided. It's both a license and a copy. The first sale doctrine overrides the "For Home Use Only." clause (which is a part of a license) still present on many DVDs and allows libraries and retailers (notably old netflix) to rent out the medium.
BTW, not that it helps you...but Black Books is currently on UK Netflix. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70157495?trkid=13462100
> We win those moments of truth when members expect Netflix to be more pleasurable than their other options
Can you please make it easier for me to find my "Recently Watched" TV Shows? That would definitely make my experience "more pleasurable".
Also, please stop showing me movies I've already rated. I've seen those. Just show those to me in the "watch again" list.
It links to here: https://www.netflix.com/WiViewingActivity
* Check for Netflix extensions and disable them in case they are breaking the page.
* Turn off "Test participation" in Your Account
* Open the console and see if there are any error messages.
* Contact Netflix Support (there is a link from Your Account and when I've tried it I have gotten a response right away.)
Normally, for me the page looks very similar to https://www.netflix.com/MoviesYouveSeen (and is linked to from there.)
For myself, I think it would work really well if they had the more standard list of available shows, movies, etc in alphabetical order, or some other more sortable format, perhaps by release/airing year, or similar.
Otherwise, your best bet is to use one of the many external sites such as allflicks.net.
Thanks for the tip.
This is something that has always bothered me, internet bandwidth only takes up a small amount of spectrum in place of channels and the cable companies could cut lots of channels and improve broadband dramatically. The days of someone dictating what you watch and at what time are over, why all the spectrum hoarding.
Even when I got my first broadband cable connection, one of the first on the node in Chandler in 1996, the cable guy said it only used the space of 2 channels for internet data and the rest for broadcast/cable channels.
So in this particular case, it's not as wasted as it could be. I even think this might be why they were recently able to bump up all the internet speeds in my area.
Here in The Netherlands for the past 5 months only Lord of the Rings part 1 and part 3 have been available due to licensing issues or something. I've called customer support a few times and they keep saying " We're working on it. but we have issues obtaining the license". Seriously. How can a studio only license Part one and three? This stuff makes me mad.
Contacted customer support for the last time today and the person I talked to once again told me the same thing but then surprisingly started openly ranting about "How te studios can be such a pain when we ask them to renew licenses. And that it's diffucult not to get in trouble with them".
Anyhow. they'll personally contact me once they have fixed the license again. That's some nice customer support right there.
Quite saddening to see studios stand in the way of a solid product. I just want to watch my darn triology on friday evening.
They probably have licensed all three parts for streaming, but perhaps, in your region, someone paid for an exclusive license on the second part that hasn't expired, so Netflix isn't able to get a license.
This sounds like a bad move to me. Maybe carrying a huge breadth of content is a good way to attract new users, but unless they have depth of content, they aren't going to hold onto those users. Most people aren't that eclectic in their tastes, so if you only have one film in each category (even if it's the "best" one) people are going to drop them after they've watched everything they like.
Put another way, bicycling-documentary fanatics aren't going to keep paying $8/month indefinitely for access to one great biking doc.
I may be missing something, but strategy of producing original content, while limiting the catalog, doesn't make sense. Why not have infinitely large online catalog AND produce original shows?
Because much of the content they don't have is because the content owner is competing with Netflix and won't license it, or because some other Netflix competitor has purchased an exclusive license.
Some of it is Netflix managing in-total licensing costs, which could be addressed by having "premium" content (either as a tier or pay-per-title or pay-per-view), but that's not the case in general.
> Why not have infinitely large online catalog
Netflix's former, deeper catalog was only possible because content owners were less aggressive in attempting to capture all the value of online streaming of their property.
Maybe it's because I've become less discerning or have unconsciously changed in the way I rate things...but I don't think so...it used to be that anything predicted to be 4-stars or above --which was very rare -- was indeed something that I would love. Now I'm seeing many preemptive 4.8 to 5-star ratings for things that I know I don't like (because I've seen them before).
(I think we can agree that the effect of seeing more high-rated content is not the result of Netflix actually getting more quality content...the number of good movies has remained constant or gone down, especially since the Starz day)
The cynical user in me thinks Netflix has tweaked its algorithm to encourage me to watch more things. However, at least they don't seem to have tweaked it in favor of their exclusive content, as none of those (such as Marco Polo) are predicted to rate highly with me.
[Edit] Some sources:
Geographical Restrictions, (and different pricing) for digital goods within the EU are clearly discriminatory against the customer. As stated here:
Under intellectual property law, right holders may geographically restrict licenses. Therefore intellectual property law allows businesses to compartmentalise the market. Restrictions of passive sale are contrary to the consumers’ freedom of access to goods and services on the DSM, and are not permitted under European law.
Prohibiting geographical restrictions would not require fundamental changes to the international system of intellectual property rights. It would simply ensure that all licences granted for the territory of one Member State are valid for the whole territory of the EU. The tendency to market compartmentalisation is inherent to territorially restricted IP rights.
It's a really complicated issue though, but hopefully, geo-restrictions will vanish at some point in the EU, either by legal or political force.
I hope this is true. Because the quality of content that has been added to Netflix over the past year has mostly been god awful. A lot of the movies that have been added are not even D-grade quality. They are straight to video dreck.
On top of the bad movies there's been reams and reams of awful reality shows as well.
When I first signed up for Netflix they had full libraries of HBO and Showtime shows. NBC shows. Movies that people actually went to see in theaters.
I understand that having HBO and Showtime's libraries is going to be hard now that those companies are pursuing their own subscription services. But that doesn't mean Netflix needs to resort to the crap it's been adding lately.
Honestly, if things don't improve in 2015 there's a good chance I'll cancel my Netflix subscription.
You can't do that if you're pricing yourself out of that game though. I want to pay Netflix more money for a catalog that has virtually every movie/tv show ever. But that's just me.
That first number, the bigger number, is a black hole. Advertising is the worst, with its only competitor in my book being the legal system, industry in the industrialized world. It produces nothing of value, because all it tries to do it move money from predisposed destinations to the advertisers. It is buying market share, without making anything with the money. The later is actual productivity, goods and services people can use and want and experience and benefit from.
I'd go into another tangent about how advertisings size is out of control and it only gets worse due to how people are getting poorer on average (less money per individual) while wealth concentrates in the rich (ie, those that would own a company like Netflix) which means that when you rake in huge profits and a big money pot, what do you spend it on? Making goods and services is pointless if there is no money left in the market to explore your products and buy new things. Instead you throw those profits into advertising, into a non-productive discipline whose only job is to manipulate people into giving you money they would have spent elsewhere. But this post is already long enough that nobody is going to read it anyway!
What a colossal waste, everywhere advertising happens. And it is only on track to get worse.
Erm. Yes, it's doing something with the money. Buying market share.
Netflix is phasing out its DVD business over the next couple of years to focus on domestic and international streaming. International is where penetration is pretty low and they're targeting 15-16% penetration of broadband households over five years from its current 3%.
In the last few quarters they've outperformed their own subscriber growth forecasts on the international side with country launches in France, Germany underway. The share price has jumped each time. Other markets they are likely to cover Italy, Spain, OZ & NZ. Massive markets like India, China, Russia and Japan really unlikely for the medium term at least with piracy, strong local incumbents and lower purchasing power.
It's just made $270m in profits in December 2014, after 10 years of losses from IPO to 2012 and secured a $500m loan with $1.1 billion cash so it is only now becoming financially sustainable. I assume they are getting better at creating own original content and thought Marco Polo was pretty good, might be on my own there though. I think the future is bright though opening in each new country and having to license content in them way in advance means lots of upfront costs in unfamilar locations. Should be a long slog but they're on the right track as a focused, passion brand.
That's an edge that HBO has a really hard time catching up to but Amazon doesn't. I think Netflix is putting a bit too much focus on the content side. It also reads a bit like they'll shift a bit more from customer to business partner focus which may or may not be a good idea.
They dive into detail on the 'competitors-for-content' category, with whom they could compete both on the available content and user experience fronts. On the other hand, the only advantage they can eke out over piracy is in the user experience.
Forget comparison shopping, it's tough to even know what's for sale.
 http://www.lazyfan.com (beta)(a movie trailer autoplays)
I'd prefer a subscription, and I don't really care to own a random episode, but if I was watching so many shows that the money would be an issue, I would have a cable subscription (I don't).
And persuading potential customers who are not naturally inclined toward your service is much harder & more costly than attracting those seeking what you provide.
We cannot afford to license all content from all studios (and compete with Comcast/AT&T etc), so instead we will spend 5b trying to create our own content (and compete with HBO instead).
Oh and we will be spending half a billion on marketing.
(did I misread)
I think some of the HR people are a bit rough, but the teams that contribute to the bottom line are top notch.
1) Deployment of AFFORDABLE highspeed broadband
2) Decreasing local storage costs
Why do I need to stream something if I can store 6TB of data locally for less than $150 (and decreasing daily).
How much storage space will $200 buy you in 10 years? And how many decades of video and audio could one store on such a device?
Besides that, just because something's available on streaming doesn't mean it'll stay there forever.
TL;DR - rough-guess numbers say the entire Netflix library can fit on 24TB, and would cost (content + hardware pricing) around $2500 per copy.
It's not clear to me that mr. throwaway was planning on purchasing any of that content.