Starz To Pull Content From Netflix 314
tekgoblin writes "Starz plans to remove all of its movies and TV shows from the Netflix streaming library after negotiations failed. Starz, which is owned by John Malone's Liberty Media, said they have ended talks with Netflix to renew a deal that ends February 28th. Netflix stands to lose a large amount of content, as Starz has licenses for first run Sony and Walt Disney movies."
Next up: tiered pricing (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for selecting Netflix. Along with our basic package would like to upgrade to the following?
Starz Package - $5.99/month
Fox Sports Live Streaming - $12.99/month
Nickelodeon Package - $4.99/month
Slashdot Channel - £2.99/day
NFL On Demand - $14.99/month
NHL Prime Time - $0.99/decade
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is more profitable for the content provider to charge you a lot more money for crap you don't want that happens to include something you do.
True on-demand content would essentially impose a free market on the system, which does not benefit the copyright cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So while I think the model could work, we're going to have to see the amount of money that actors, directors, and others make decrease by a significant margin if we ever want to be able to only pay $10 a month for all you can handle streaming TV.
OK
Re: (Score:3)
This would be much better than have to pay $70 and forced to get everything (i.e. like cable or directv)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, think it through. If all you want is the "Stars Package" do you really believe Netflix will let you pay only $9.99 for just that portion? More likely than not, they will follow the example Cable has laid out and charge you $9.99/mo for general Streaming and then another $9.99 on top of that for Stars. Then if you want the Stars stuff in HD, you'll have to pay an additional $6.99 on top of that. The whole point here isn't that Netflix wants to be the cable company, but those with all the goods are
You forgot DVDs by Mail (Score:2)
They recently "upgraded" their DVD model as well.
DVDs by Mail - First Born Male Child
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for selecting Netflix. Along with our basic package would like to upgrade to the following?
Starz Package - $5.99/month Fox Sports Live Streaming - $12.99/month Nickelodeon Package - $4.99/month Slashdot Channel - £2.99/day NFL On Demand - $14.99/month NHL Prime Time - $0.99/decade
Interestingly enough, a good sports package would actually put a huge dent in cable as that is mainly why a lot of people still have it. If ESPN was somehow available via another channel (PlayOn with ESPN3 live streaming for me), many more would be dropping cable. It might even be enough if like your example Fox Sports was offered.
ESPN could come up with their own "cable box" like a Roku type player and then really hurt cable, that or piggy back off things like Netflix or have an app for the ever growing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll get there some day, the pricing will eventually align with the higher rungs on the value chain.
In the meantime, FYI, you can find many first-run and catalog Sony films at Crackle.com [crackle.com] (they even have a Roku channel if you're in to that sort of thing). Crackle is Sony's Hulu-wannabe for their content. No, I don't know why it exists either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, three pounds per day is what you get just by exposing yourself in posts.
<pound>
And maybe if you opt-in to advertisements you'll get more!
Wow.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it is a long time from February, and this may be a move by Starz or Netflix for publicity on the issue.
Or, they could land another company like HBO.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want Anime, then check out Crunchy Roll.
Streaming is already dicey... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use Instantwatcher [instantwatcher.com]. It tells you exactly how many days are left before "good titles disappear from instant streaming."
useful (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix is a wonderful supplement to piracy.
If it isn't on Netflix, it is popular enough for a torrrent. If you cannot find it through nefarious means, it is old enough to be on Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
I like the quote: "...Starz, in a statement, called its decision "a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging" of its content...". Translation: We think we can gouge Netflix now that they are big enough and if we pull our content, then people with just buy it elsewhere. Piracy doesn't exist.
I can't help but wonder if this is just hard-ball negotiating tactics and as Feb 28 approaches, some deal will reached.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:useful (Score:5, Insightful)
Any good sites for finding movies now?
Re: (Score:2)
Any good sites for finding movies now?
Yes...google "[name of movie or show] torrent" and pick one.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what, that is *exactly* the point. It's not all about piracy and getting stuff free. If it was, then people wouldn't pay $35 month for giganews subs.
This is over 4x the current netflix price. Funny that.
Never mind crap like "Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet"
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind crap like "Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet"
That's exactly my problem. I would like paying for these things. But nothing is willing to sell it in my country. No iTunes Moves/Series, no Netflix, no Hulu, no Amazon.com movies, Google TV or anything. And I'm not living in some backwater. My country (The Netherlands) has the highest average broadband speed in Europe and 4th highest worldwide.*
I think the Dutch equivalent of the MAFIAA has something to do with it (BREIN and BUMA/STEMRA). I hope the European Commisioner or Digital Agenda Nelie Kroes will e
DVD plan (Score:3)
I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's interesting about the Roku (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the Netflix FAQ, no Roku device supports streaming subtitles.
I'd link to the FAQ, but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that, so instead, here's the list of devices that support subtitles:
* PC/Mac
* PS3
* Wii
* Google TV Devices such as Logitech Revue and Sony Internet TV
* Boxee Box by D-Link
* iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch
Note that on the PS3 at least, you have to turn on subtitles before starting to stream, and if subtitles aren't available, the option is just missing entirely.
You missed a few (Score:2)
You forgot to add the WD TV Live series, Samsung devices, and Vizio TV's to that list. They all support subtitles as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. There's a DVD only plan? I should check to see if we can get a cheaper one.
Streaming isn't Linux compatible anyway, and we signed up long before they had streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Netflix recently separated their DVD and Streaming plans. Streaming costs $7.99 a month. 1 DVD at a time costs $7.99 a month. 2 DVDs at a time costs $11.99 a month. If you want 2 DVDs and Streaming, that would cost $19.98 ($7.99 + $11.99).
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. I've been overpaying then. Need to get the 2 DVD plan until some sort of agreement on DRM for Linux is worked out.
Ditto (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?
Nine times out of ten when I see "STARZ PLAY" at the beginning of a movie I know it sucks ass and I won't actually finish it.
Streaming is the best way to rent movies EVER because so many of them are such total shit. I actually watch less movies to the end than I stop watching them in the first fifteen minutes. Going to the 2-DVD plan would be idiotic for us because we're already having trouble finding anything we want to rent. Of course, we're also having trouble finding stuff we want to watch streaming.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm kinda in the same boat here. It's hard to find something I actually want to watch on Netflix anymore. I used it vigorously for about one month, after that it was hard to find anything I wanted to watch past that point. Most of the shows I did watch during that first month were movies that I have on dvd and just found it more convenient to call up netflix and hit play with than actually new material. I don't think that it's really netflix's fault, it's just the entertainment that is produced g
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, if it was just me, I'd rather go with the DVD-only plan, since it's much more likely to actually have the content I'm looking for. That said, my wife uses the streaming a lot because it's much more convenient than using torrents or whatever, and the quality is better (we don't have a blu-ray player for HD stuff... actually we don't even have a TV).
OTOH, I don't really watch movies or TV all that much, so we'll probably end up dumping the DVD plan :-P I have enough of a Futurama backlog to appeas
Re: (Score:2)
I am waiting for Netflix to go non-subscription based since I rarely watch movies and old television/TV series. I love Redbox for being cheap and paying when I want to!
Re: (Score:2)
And their streaming content providers won't pull the same shens as Stars is with Netflix?
Hollywood and the content companies learn through pain. They have to shoot themselves in the foot at least a dozen times before they begin to realize that their current activity may be hindering their profits, not improving. Streaming content in particular seems to be taboo. They do it, because market forces have essentially forced them to, but they don't understand it and will fight it every step of the way.
Replacement Content? (Score:3)
Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey said the company was "confident we can take the money we had earmarked for Starz renewal next year, and spend it with other content providers to maintain or even improve the Netflix experience."
Good luck with that. What content would that be exactly? Losing access to Sony and Disney will be a fairly large void to fill, especially for the amount Netflix has "earmarked" for it. On the other hand I wonder how much of a "bonus" Starz might be receiving from cable or satellite providers to play hard ball with Netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand I wonder how much of a "bonus" Starz might be receiving from cable or satellite providers to play hard ball with Netflix?
Hard to say. Chances are if you have Netflix and watch it on TV, you have cable. I realize that's not always the case, but it seems like that's the majority of broadband subscribers. We have Comcast with Starz as a part of our package, so whenever we want to watch Starz content, we watch it in HD on OnDemand instead.
Re: (Score:2)
With DirecTV, Starz is an optional package. A package a friend of mine canceled shortly after getting a Roku box, considering that had Netflix and she can watch movies through that.
Personally, I was already disappointed with the streaming Netflix offering (see older comment), but with this change it's just going to be much worse.
Soon Netflix's streaming offering will just be one 'recent' half a year old) A title with the rest filled with B and C titles, the odd A title from 5+ years ago, and a lot of anime
Re: (Score:2)
Sony on the other hand has been playing serious hardball, but Starz will not have Netflix revenue to throw at Sony any longer. Their deal ends in 2014 so the best move for Sony is to start grabbing revenue directly from Netflix, essentially "double dipping" for 2 to 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that deal last year was for television eps and catalogue films, Starz handles Disney's first-run theatrical titles. That's what we're losing.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney doesn't really want you to be able to watch their movies any time, though, so they probably planned for this deal to fall apart anyway. They want to be able to sell you exorbitantly-priced DVDs (etc) so they don't sell them all year. Or is that over now? It's been their traditional model, artificial scarcity. Which means the internet must scare the living piss out of them. When's the last time you saw a Disney movie (and not a PIXAR movie, but a Disney movie) that had the palpable quality of Peter Pa
Re: (Score:2)
Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King... Remember they had that string of Menken and Ashman musicals and many of those are easily on the same level as Cinderella and Peter Pan.
Peter Pan, and Pinocchio, and Cinderella are great, but they aren't holy relics and they aren't perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they were perfect, but look at the time and effort and downright artistry that went into those pictures... whereas the Disney of today is engaged primarily in stamping out new pictures as fast as they can manage, based on the same old plots, with the same old dark-skinned bad guys beating up on the lighter-skinned good guys. zzzzz
The other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I See (Score:2)
THIS is why people torrent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't torrent, but I agree. If Netflix announced tomorrow that they had come to an agreement with the major studios to put all movies on streaming, say 90 days after the DVD release, then tons of people would sign up for the service. Netflix and the studios would both win. They could even raise their Streaming plan to $10 a month and it would still be a great deal. Instead, the content providers complain that if people access their titles on Netflix they won't buy the DVDs when many people will either
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're looking for is some company who will somehow have literally anything that you're looking for available instantly for a nominal price?
Yes.
I think the logistics behind that are mind-boggling. Seriously, work up some numbers.
It exists today for 0 dollars. Surely it can be done for slightly more than that.
Re: (Score:3)
I fixed that for you to fully illustrate the issue. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm,
As posted this service already exists as various pirate file sharing sites can attest to. Doing it legally is another matter entirely as companies depend on a force monopoly over works produced and demand premium payment for show that have already more than paid back their production costs, even if the accounting says they haven't, eg look up babylon 5 accounting practices and why babylon 5 still keeps racking up debt even though the show hasn't been in production for qui
Re: (Score:3)
The economics of the situation already means that I can BUY some of these movies for less than streaming rental services want to charge me.
Many of the prices industry is trying to charge are simply out of touch with the reality of the market. Never mind pirates.
There's a glut of content out there and it's all got to compete with every thing else for a limited chunk of the nation's disposable cash. Every bad remake needs to compete with the original.
Is there a list somewhere? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Log into your Netflix account, at the top click on "Watch Instantly", then below that click on "Starz Play".
It's about 39 pages of stuff, mostly old movies.
Netflix's response (Score:3, Informative)
How can you have this story without Netflix's response? Google it for a good read.
Spoiler: Basically Netflix said thanks for what they had, but with all their other studio agreements, Starz only accounts for 8% of what people watch now. Not much of a loss, and they'll spend that on deals with other studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Starz only accounts for 8% of what people watch now.
Gotta love the obstinate party in a negotiation that simply can't fathom how someone else's statistics can royally fuck their argument.
lol (Score:2)
Sucks (Score:3)
Complain to Starz (Score:3)
If anyone wants to let Starz know what they think, Liberty Media's contact information is here [libertymedia.com]. Netflix was willing to offer up to 250 million...yet that was not enough to Starz who previously was providing their library for 30 million. Seems blatantly obvious who is at fault for the lack of renewal here.
Boo freakin' hoo (Score:2)
Starz' content was poor quality, and old movies that you'll find on TBS or some other cable channel if you really cared.
Good riddance. It sucked having to page over their junk, and if it frees up money for places with real content, more power to Netflix.
The funniest thing is that Starz seems to think their "brand" has any value.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds familiar. (Score:2)
Not too long ago I was thinking to myself, "You know, I haven't really pirated anything in a while. Most of what I want is on hulu or netflix." I also noted that many of the things I watched on Netflix started with the Starz logo. Perhaps very soon it will be time to go back to TPB. Why don't media companies get it? I don't *NEED* to buy their product, I can have it for free because there is no scarcity in a world of 1s and 0s.
So in other words (Score:2)
So in other words, Netflix streaming will soon be no better than Amazon Prime? I subscribe to Prime for the shipping services, but almost never use the streaming. If Netflix doesn't go back and kiss Starz's ass, why should I not go to a disc-only subscription, buy a Roku XS and use Prime instead?
Good riddance, I say. (Score:3)
Starz content on Netflix Streaming has always been horrible quality. Fire up Tangled, skip to the scene where the dam breaks, and listen in horror to the audio compression artifacts. I've got pretty low standards of quality, and even I'm embarrassed for Starz.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it's more likely that Starz wants more money for its content than Netflix gets out of its subscribers. According to the article, Starz wanted $300 million a year for the rights to show the same content that four years ago it was passing along for $30 million a year. Netflix has 22 million subscribers. Stars wanted more than $10 per subscriber per year, which would probably be fine if Netflix _only_ had Starz content and no other significant expenses.
But for my $8/month streaming account, I can say without a doubt that I do not watch more than 10% of Starz content.
Netflix just signed a streaming deal with Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM for about $200 million a year — and those three have more and better content than Starz, which suddenly thinks its worth 1/3 more than those others. Not likely.
Netflix basically just said, "Meh, we'll take the money we were going to give to you and give it to someone else for their content." Starz is not the only game in town. It's not even the best game in town. And now everybody knows how much is too much. It's just hardball.
Re: (Score:2)
Also with the slow death of video rental stores, the only place to get their content will be torrents.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also with the slow death of video rental stores, the only place to get their content will be torrents.
C'est la vie; torrenting is still the easiest and most convenient way to get the content anyway. Sooner or later these companies are going to realize that if people want to see something, they're going to see it...especially digital media. The more difficult they make it to get the content legitimately, the more people turn to The Pirate Bay and they get nothing.
Case in point, HBO Go...I recently tried to sign up for this service since I'm supposed to be eligible to get it due to being a cable subscriber (Charter), after about 6 steps into the process requiring me to use the Charter email address I've literally never touched in my 10 years as a subscriber I said "fuck it" and just download the shit illegally like I always did. I shouldn't have to do that, I'm a paying customer, but the legal process is so retarded that they make it impractical.
They'll learn, just like the record labels did. It's only a matter of time...
Re: (Score:2)
Beauty of copyright: they ARE the only game in town when it comes to movies that they own copyright to.
Re: (Score:2)
and those three have more and better content than Starz, which suddenly thinks its worth 1/3 more than those others
Not 1/3, but 1/2 - they want $100 million more, which is 50% of what Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM are charging. I.e. it's actually *worse* than you said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Starz isn't "buying" the rights. They "own" the rights for a period of time. Until that time period is over, they are the only source.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you blame Netflix? There are two parties in this contract; we won't know which one is at fault without knowing how much Starz is demanding, and how little Netflix is offering.
Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return). It means that publishers like Starz feel entitled to demand whatever price they want for their content, or flat-out refuse to license it - particularly if they'd rather you spent $10/mo on their service (even though you only want to watch the odd show), rather than paying Netflix $x/mo, of which only a fraction will end back at Starz.
The same issue is gradually making itself known with computer gaming; particularly the current Valve/EA fight, with contract negotiations breaking down as both parties want to push their own distribution systems (Steam/Origin resp.) with their products (notably Crysis2, Dragon Age 2, and soon SW:tOR).
This is bundling, it occurs when you have publishers, distributors and copyright owners all mixed together, and is anti-competitive and evil. This is what led to the EU fining Microsoft €899m [wikimedia.org] in 2008, for bundling WMP with Windows (and made MS give EU users a choice of web browser, by default).
Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.
Of course, this will never happen in the US/EU etc. as it would involve the big copyright owners (Disney, Warner Bros, Starz etc.) giving up control, and their refusal to allow these sorts of services already (or reliance on excessive DRM) shows how tightly they cling on to this. Plus it would probably have to involve registering copyrights, a state-run scheme, international co-operation and a significant change to the big copyright treaties (such as TRIPS or the Berne Convention).
But one can dream...
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not Netflix fault or Starz – because – gosh – it sounds one of them is doing something sinful or illegal Think about it this way
Starz is a monopoly – in so far that that they are the only people selling first run streaming Disney movies.
Netflix is a quasi-monopsony [Technically not, but it’s the largest streaming video company, and if Starz want’s Netflix consumers they have to go through them]
What is the “fair” price that Netflix should pay Starz?
Re: (Score:2)
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
This is a simple case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price. If they can't agree, the deal is not done.
Re: (Score:2)
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
You are confusing the content monopoly with the distribution system monopoly. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on the manufacture Ford cars, but they're not the only ones selling them. You can get them second-hand, through a dealer, through a distributor etc.. Imagine, instead, if Ford could prevent people from selling a Ford car without a licence - they could then insist that the only way to buy a Ford would be from them, and when you did that, you had to get 5 cars at once, and agree to buy cars from them for the
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.
It would also require someone to decide what is "fair". Is an hour of "big brother" or "american idol" worth the same as an hour of "planet earth" or "mythbusters"?
Re: (Score:2)
This already happens; in the UK we have a little-known thing called the Copyright Tribunal [ipo.gov.uk], which acts as a sort of mini-court/dispute resolution thing. It's job (by law) is to dictate the terms of licence agreements (mainly between collective licensing bodies and end users) in cases where the parties can't agree on them themselves.
Historically, this comes from part of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often simply called the Statute of Anne) which gave a cause of action against booksellers etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the only way around this ... is compulsory licensing.
Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!
Compulsory licensing eliminates any control over how a work is used or presented. If you're forced to license your content you can't object to situations that devalue the work you've produced. If a major cinematic element of a movie is its detailed scenery, would it really be fair to run it through a streaming service that cuts out 75% of the detail? Or what about one that surrounds a dark suspenseful movie with flashing ads? Content owners wou
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!
Firstly, "officially-licensed" would quickly lose its meaning and appeal under a compulsory licensing scheme. If you look at Creative Commons stuff (where all relevant uses are "officially-licensed") the equivalent phrase appears to be "creator endorsed [questioncopyright.org]" (which is 'better' in many ways, as it involves the creator rather than a mere licensor). Also, it would be interesting to see if current copyright laws could be used to stop porn of Disney characters... particularly given the expression/idea divide. Plus o
Starz content sucked ass anyway (Score:2)
I've been using Netflix streaming since it came out, and I hated seeing the Starz label on anything (it got to where I wouldn't put anything from them in my Queue). Why? Because none of their stuff was in HD and all their prints were for shit. That's all fine if you're watching Netflix streaming on your old 4:3 Philco, but their stuff looked like shit on HDTV or a decent computer monitor. So, while I hate losing ANY content on the great Netflix streaming service, I can't say I'll be too heartbroken to see t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the Starz logo comes up in 4:3 does not mean that the rest of the show does. Every film I have watched on Netflix from Starz has been in HD (except when my bandwidth cannot keep up with it temporarily).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gives a shit whose "fault" it is?
It makes the Netflix streaming service useless, so as far as I'm concerned, if Netflix wants me to pay to stream, they have to have content I want to watch.
They already have next to nothing interesting on streaming, their streaming clients universally suck ass and routinely crash, and now they're going to reduce the available content even further?
I don't care if it's "Starz's fault," it's Netflix that has to keep me as a customer, and right now, their streaming service s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, the last thing I want is for Netflix to cave in and end up securing content the way cable companies secure content, such that I have to pay $80/mo to get the 3 tv shows I watch.
They're an alternative source of entertainment. If you want Starz content, go pay your cable company the $10/mo for Starz. I liked the Netflix service just fine before the Starz deal. The cost hasn't gone up for me, and I imagin
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And Netflix streams well enough that "crappy DSL" can handle it on my TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Angry much?
I, for one, am endlessly entertained by Netflix's streaming content and the DVD service is crazy convenient. The loss of Starz (if the deal is truly dead) is unfortunate. Some of the content I watch comes from there, though to be honest not a lot.
The Netflix clients are phenomenal, as is the streaming quality. I have never seen it crash once, so I suspect your anger at Netflix is misplaced here.
If you don't like the service, cancel your subscription and pay 2 - 3 times more elsewhere for less
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had any issues with their streaming client; I have watched online, using my Roku device, and using my Wii device. All performed well. Perhaps the problem is on your end (network)?
Re: (Score:3)
Everytime I saw the Starz label, I cringed. They should have just changed to it "No HD."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For those of us who don't bother with cable/satellite TV, an increase of 6 dollars still places their service under 25% of the cost of a basic TV plan. That is why the rate increase did not bother me and I have no plans on cancelling.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to install Silverlight on my computer and I get almost all my movies for free anyway. Sony/Disney can just suck it.
How is your fear of Silverlight and admission of media theft relevant to this discussion?