Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Television Entertainment

Slashdot Asks: What's Next For Netflix? (500ish.com) 193

Posted by msmash from the what's-new-inside-that-red-envelope? dept.
What does the future hold for Netflix? The company first earned a name for itself over a decade ago renting DVDs via mails in an era when Blockbuster used to laugh at the mere idea of DVDs-by-mail. It then moved to offering online streaming service way before most of the companies. As VC and former journalist MG Siegler writes, Netflix was always ahead of the curve. But the market -- and the demand from the market is changing, again. To address that, the on-demand streaming service has over the past three-four years started to invest heavily in getting exclusive rights for movies and TV shows, as well as make its own original content. But this time, Netflix is facing immense competition from its rivals -- and its moves aren't that unpredictable. It's also worth pointing out just recently, the company's decision to hike prices led its stocks to tank. Siegler writes: The streaming content game is now hyper competitive. And even the streaming original content game has gotten extremely competitive. And this means it has gotten extremely expensive. The result has been great for us, the users, as we do seem to be in a golden age of television-like content, even if it's being delivered via streaming "channels" like Netflix. With 54 Emmy nominations this year, second to only HBO, Netflix is seemingly closing in on what they set out to do once again. They've become HBO faster than HBO has been able to become Netflix. Of course, HBO still has the warm blanket of cable operator fees to keep them cozy; Netflix's model has them a bit out in the cold in that regard. So, again, what's next? Is it VR? Something else? Don't tell me it's 4k. Worldwide expansion is huge, but that's really just growing into the last business. What's the next business pivot?What you, Slashdot readers, think Netflix's next move will be? Or do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot Asks: What's Next For Netflix? More

Slashdot Asks: What's Next For Netflix?

Comments Filter:

  • Verizon will buy them. (Score:5, Funny)

    by caferace ( 442 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:08AM (#52581421) Homepage
    To merge with AOL/Yahoo, of course.

  • Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by netsavior ( 627338 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:08AM (#52581423)
    Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

    It is very refreshing. They are in the business of TV wish fulfillment, and nobody has ever done that before. Since the dawn of television, content owners and broadcasters have been in the business of telling customers what to watch. Netflix seems to make the shows that I want, exactly how I want them, it's so unusual that it almost feels like a trick.

    I pay $144/year (because I have a big family and we pay a higher rate for more simultaneous streaming licenses), but it is a bargain. Just for the Marvel Series' alone I would have paid that much for DVDs.

    • Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:12AM (#52581463) Homepage

      Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

      If by what they want you mean B-movies (and lower) that you've never heard of sprinkled with a few mainstream movies. The TV show collection as well as original content series continues to get better, but their movie list is just awful any more.

      I know it's mostly not Netflix fault their movie selection is crap. But honestly I'd probably pay twice as much if I had a real selection of movies where I had a reasonably good chance that the movie I wanted to see was included.

      • Well, I was only really talking about original content. Their licensed selection is stellar for children, and just all right for grown-ups, but yeah you have probably seen everything worth watching already, Same with any streaming provider... or TV provider in general.

        I subscribe to Hulu, HBONow, netflix, and amazon prime, and I can tell you that even with HBO's general "We only have real movies" policy (as opposed to amazon and netflix, which have tons of B movies) there is never anything to watch on HB

        • I subscribed to HBOGo and Starz for movies. But after just a few months of watching, I deleted everything they had to offer and the newer supply was too slow coming in to make it worth keeping up the subscription... I may return in a year or so...

          Meanwhile I keep my Netflix subscription active, always find something interesting, and have just watched Stranger Things which is the best television series I have seen in a long, long time. Just that alone made the subscription for the year worth it for me.

          • It's like with cable or satellite subscriptions - movie selections are abysmal if you want choice. You wait until the movies come out, watch them during that short window, then the same movie wont' be on cable/satellite for several years. Netflix is a huge improvement right off the bat. If you really need to see the latest releases then sub to hbo for a month or something like that. There's just no reasonable comparison that makes Netflix worse than cable/satellite, the only argument is Netflix vs other

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Hopefully traditional TV channels will die and all we will be left with is Netflix and a few others, offering all content to all regions of the world and investing in quality programming. It really wouldn't hurt to thin the herd a bit and stop giving any money to people like Fox just so they can cancel anything that looks good.

      • Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @10:17AM (#52581931)

        Netflix collection quality is mostly due to most media companies trying to fight tooth and nail for old distribution method.
        The traditional stations are working for advertisers while netflix is working more for the viewer. The traditional media can produce crap and put it on Prime Time to make the advertisers happy (Which is in part of the story quality of the Netflix originals). But for the movies, traditional media wants people to buy BlueRays and DVDs not streaming if possible. Unless they get a good TV Deal, or Pay per view.
        I expect Netflix licensing agreement is too risky for many of these companies, so if they are slightly interested they just push out their B Movies to judge the waters. Or they rotate their shows so they feel like they have a cable deal. I notice this with the Star Trek Movies where they have a couple available (Especially the Odd ones) for a month or so then they go away and replace them with an other one.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          The traditional stations are working for advertisers while netflix is working more for the viewer. The traditional media can produce crap and put it on Prime Time to make the advertisers happy (Which is in part of the story quality of the Netflix originals). But for the movies, traditional media wants people to buy BlueRays and DVDs not streaming if possible. Unless they get a good TV Deal, or Pay per view.
          I expect Netflix licensing agreement is too risky for many of these companies, so if they are slightly

      • I know it's mostly not Netflix fault their movie selection is crap. But honestly I'd probably pay twice as much if I had a real selection of movies where I had a reasonably good chance that the movie I wanted to see was included.

        I don't understand what you are complaining about, cable companies want you to pay 5 to 10 times as much and don't give you a real selection of movies either!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          Why can't I have issue with both things? That Netflix selection of movies is crap AND cable companies want me to pay 5x as much a similar selection of crap.

      • I know it's mostly not Netflix fault their movie selection is crap. But honestly I'd probably pay twice as much if I had a real selection of movies where I had a reasonably good chance that the movie I wanted to see was included.

        Uh, your wish is already granted by Netflix -- pay "twice as much" and subscribe to their DVD plan and get access to roughly 100,000 titles.

        I know that's not the answer you want, but if you're willing to wait just a couple days rather than demanding instant gratification when you decide you "need to watch movie X right now!" you might find there are options available. (Admittedly, if you just want the most popular and recent titles unavailable on Netflix streaming, there are better alternatives... if you

        • But I know DVDs and mail are so "old school" these days. Perhaps hipsters will bring them back in a couple years.

          I sincerely hope not. 480p content is shit.

      • So subscribe to the DVD-by-mail service. They have pretty much everything.

      • "mainstream" is in eye of beholder. Psycho is mainstream, it's not new, it's not modern superhero fluff, but it's still mainstream. And Netflix is full of mainstream stuff, just not the recently released movies. And you won't get those movies on any subscription streaming service at this price. If you want that, you get cable or you go premium, pay per view, cable, etc.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          It has some. I wouldn't say it's full. Of the IMDB top 250 movies, at least as of March Netflix had 26 of them [pajiba.com]. Just over 10%.

          • It has some. I wouldn't say it's full. Of the IMDB top 250 movies, at least as of March Netflix had 26 of them [pajiba.com]. Just over 10%.

            That sucks ass barf. :(
            Man, 10 years ago, Netflix used to actually be good.

            • Man, 10 years ago, Netflix used to actually be good.

              You do realize that Netflix only introduced their streaming service in 2007 (9 years ago), right? Before then, you would manage a list of DVD titles and Netflix would mail them to you as they became available. They still offer this service if you'd prefer DVDs to streaming.

              The difference here is that nobody needs to get permission to rent DVDs. If you go to your local Walmart and buy every DVD on the shelf, you could then rent them to anyone you want for

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

        But honestly I'd probably pay twice as much if I had a real selection of movies where I had a reasonably good chance that the movie I wanted to see was included.

        If you are willing to pay "twice as much" for better content, then why not subscribe to Netflix in addition to Hulu (Epix), HBO, Starz, or Showtime?

    • Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want." It is very refreshing.

      Agreed. The old broadcast TV networks weren't really even trying. They based their programming decisions on the Nielsen rating, which in turn was based on what a few households living in New York City were more likely to watch. This led to everyone in America having to see way too much of whatever people from New York City liked. Even that data was pretty suspect, because at any given time there were only ever three things to watch anyway. That sample size doesn't exactly lend itself to statistical sig

      • That is kinda funny, being that Most Sitcoms are
        1. based in California.
        2. Have at least 1 aspiring actor/actress.
        3. a. If about a family: Based in Suburbia
        3. b. If about young adults: Based in an Apartment Complex
        4. No matter what type of job they have, they can live an upper middle class life style to extreamly wealthy.

        Very West Coast Culture in these shows. I am surprised that is very popular in New York City.
        Or are you making your assumption due to numbers that correlate with a population heat map. XKCD [xkcd.com]

    • Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wbr1 ( 2538558 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:45AM (#52581679)

      Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want." .

      I am a subscriber, but they do not give me what I want. I have little interest in their created content. I get netflix for old shows and movies, and sometimes newer stuff. My GF uses it more than I do. However, when I do get a hankering to watch a movie, many times it is not available. It is on Prime Video, or Hulu, some other streaming company, or wait for the DVD and pay extra for that subscription.

      This Balkanization of content between providers has only been getting worse. I will not pay $20 to netflix, and $10 to so and so, and $15 to another hooligan to get all the content I rarely want. For that price I could get cable.

      So to me, it does not really seem that convenient, which is the promise of streaming video. Add to that, increasing prices, and it is no wonder that people pirate. It is far easier to torrent the new James Bond movie, watch it once, then delete it than navigate the morass of streaming options out there.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by reanjr ( 588767 )

        If you can get commercial free premium content from cable TV for $45/month, then you should probably just get cable. The vast majority of the US is paying more like $80-$120/month. Mostly for 100+ channels they will never watch.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by radish ( 98371 )

          But that figure includes the internet access they still need for streaming. I'm a big fan of streaming media, I've wanted to make the switch, but every time I run the numbers it just doesn't make sense. At best I break even, but lose in some ways (e.g. I can now get live sports but I can't record them on DVR for later viewing). Plus I'm at the mercy of the streaming companies when it comes to things like advertising...with a DVR I can skip them, but a lot of streaming apps (not Netflix, for now) include the

          • Hahaha, like $80-$120 includes the internet. Your area must not have Comcast.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by radish ( 98371 )

              I'm a fios subscriber, but according to Comcast's website their base internet & TV package in my area is $80, rising to $110 for the premium bundle.

      • For that price you could get cable but cable has a worse movie selection than any streaming service.

      • The problem is that when streaming first started, with Netflix, everyone thought, "Yay! were gonna get all the shows, EVERRRR!".
        Wrong.

        And here it is years later and we still don't get that, because as you say, Balkanization.
        Also, IMHO, streaming is a bad way to watch anything that would look better via Blu-Ray, and yes, I have the HD streaming option, and Blu-Ray is better.

        • I like streaming for content that I only plan on watching once or twice. For example, the latest episode of a TV series that I like. I don't need to buy the entire season of every TV show on DVD/Blu-Ray and then have it sit on my shelf collecting dust after watching it once. I'll just stream it. However, if there's a movie I really like, I'll buy the DVD/Blu-Ray so I can watch it over and over whenever I want.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by johanw ( 1001493 )

      For most parts of the world, it is: give them only part of what they want (incomplete series) and only if they don't travel to another country.

      The Pirate Bay beats Netflix on all fronts. I downloaded even a very watchable Star Trek Beyond via TPB yesterday, let Netflix beat that!

      • I downloaded even a very watchable Star Trek Beyond via TPB yesterday, let Netflix beat that!

        I think you just downloaded a wrongly titled Wrath of Khan, there is no way, even if TPB had a whole team of crack video editors, that they could make something watchable out of Star Trek Beyond in the time it's been available...

        • there is no way, even if TPB had a whole team of crack video editors, that they could make something watchable out of Star Trek Beyond in the time it's been available..

          They'd probably need a crack team of script writers too.

    • Re:Netflix has a unique and obvious strategy. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ThatsMyNick ( 2004126 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:53AM (#52581731)

      Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

      That is what I used to think, until I heard my friends across the ponds cant watch House of Cards, because of geoip restriction. Netflix blocked countries from watching their self produced TV series, because they wanted to make more money though licensing deals. Netflix is becoming yet another old school media company (and I use that phrase with contempt).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by kill-1 ( 36256 )

        That is what I used to think, until I heard my friends across the ponds cant watch House of Cards, because of geoip restriction. Netflix blocked countries from watching their self produced TV series, because they wanted to make more money though licensing deals.

        This assessment is not entirely fair. Netflix sold the European rights to House of Cards well before they entered the European market. Also, you can watch House of Cards in Europe (at least in Germany), but you have wait 12 months or so for the latest season.

        • I got House of Cards in Ireland at the same time as the rest of the world, with no VPN hacks. I think GP may be trolling if they can't give evidence of their claim.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unrtst ( 777550 )

        Netflix is becoming yet another old school media company (and I use that phrase with contempt).

        I suspect this is part of the next steps as well.

        Netflix is gaining more and more of their own content. It seems unlikely that they won't eventually license that out to others (ex. Orange is the New Black licensed to HBO).

        I think it'd be good if they split their platform from their media generation, and also licensed the platform to others, along with some built in cross licensing whenever the platform is licensed to others. For example:
        * netflix spilt to netflix-media and neflix-platform
        * license netflix-p

      • Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

        That is what I used to think, until I heard my friends across the ponds cant watch House of Cards, because of geoip restriction. Netflix blocked countries from watching their self produced TV series, because they wanted to make more money though licensing deals. Netflix is becoming yet another old school media company (and I use that phrase with contempt).

        I don't see how Netflix would be maximizing profits based on your scenario. Besides, Netflix doesn't really own House of Cards or any of their internally produced content. They own the exclusive rights to their in-house produced shows but the movie studios still own the content. Netflix has to determine which countries will have an interest in the House of Cards before they license the rights to show House of Cards in those countries. If your friends across the pound can't see the House of Cards is because

    • Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

      My comment has nothing to do specifically with Netflix, but addresses a general pattern that is seen when there's a market leader.

      When a "new guy" comes into an existing market, they can see what the leaders are doing and figure out better ways of doing the same thing. In this case, there's been reference to Netflix taking over from Blockbuster. That's because Blockbuster was one of the market

      • Most folks overlook Blockbusters' biggest problem....they were a franchise operation. They could not change their business model without agreement of the many franchise owners, which made them immobile. Plus, anything that might be seen as competing with the franchises would be a conflict of interest. In some respects they were a victim of their own successful franchise model. People think the company leaders had no vision or interest, not necessarily so, they just could not figure a way to evolve and ke

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

      Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."

      Personally, I think Valve follows this business model better and more successfully than Netflix.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      That's it's problem too - it is too focus group-style data driven. A lot of the shows are either reboots or just very, very similar to each other. Less licensed content, more clones of series. I'm considerably less interested than I was.

    • There are 2 huge problems with Netflix:

      1. The elephant in the room is that Netflix simply can't afford the +x% licensing renewal contract costs. Its days are numbered. This is why every year it has fewer and fewer selection.

      No shows = No subscribers. No subs == No income. No income == bankrupt or get bought.

      Netflix needs to secure a couple of sitcoms to survive:

      * Big Bang Theory
      * Friends
      * Seinfeld

      2. The other BIG problem with Netflix is self-censored results:

      a) Last night I did a s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Netflix needs to secure a couple of sitcoms to survive:

            * Big Bang Theory
            * Friends
            * Seinfeld

        Interestingly enough, Netflix is now offering 10 seasons of Friends for streaming.

  • User Generated Content (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:09AM (#52581441)

    This is probably going to sound a little crazy, but I think they should be looking at Youtube and Twitch and trying to get into user generated content.

    Personally, I know I spend way more time watching youtube channels than Netflix, amd a lot people are the same about Twitch.

    Obviously withouy ads some sort of revenue sharing based on views would be necessary. That may or may not be workable.

    Then again, maybe having users watch more, and thus taking up extra bandwidth, isn't ideal for the bottom line anyway.

    • NetflixPalooza!

      OK, -Palooza is taken, but a series of live concert events in major cities around the world with big name and up and coming bands and other sideshow entertainment. I know that there are already several large shows like this now, but Netflix can record the content for re-broadcast, develop behind the scenes shows and even do a reality TV show where contestants compete as roadies or as side show carnies and face elimination challenges each week using the usual formula of being voted off by th

  • What's next flicks? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    An AI that controls an interactive story aimed just at you that keeps you watching for decades.

  • Why not ask Netflix? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ITRambo ( 1467509 )
    Asking readers what a company that they have no part in managing is simply asking for opinions, or desires. I suggest that if Slashdot really wants to know the answer that someone be assigned to visit Netflix and ask around to find out what rumors the employees have heard. This information will likely be the most correct.

    • Usually, they are not allowed to help you. But one good trick to find out what a company is planning is to look at its job offers.

  • Netflix lacks courage to take on networks and finally get rid of regional locking content bundling. Whatever you think about Jobs, he did one big 'public good' when he took on record label industry. The same needs to happen to content networks.

    • Re:Netflix lacks courage to take on networks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Drathos ( 1092 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:21AM (#52581531)

      They do that, they lose all of their non-original content.

      The media conglomerates have Netflix over a barrel. Netflix can't do anything without their approval.

    • Netflix lacks courage to take on networks and finally get rid of regional locking content bundling. Whatever you think about Jobs, he did one big 'public good' when he took on record label industry. The same needs to happen to content networks.

      You are taking a myopic view of the situation. Being courageous in the manner you suggest can also be stupid. As NF grows and builds their original content library, which they don't regionally restrict, they build leverage against content owner restrictions. It will take time, forcing it now would be a setback and would be a gift to competitors.

  • I get disks in the mail (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:15AM (#52581483)

    I'm surprised that so many people think Netflix has "moved" from DVD disks to streaming. I get DVDs by mail. I love it and have no interest in streaming. Why? Because I can't get most of what I want to see via streaming. I want to see specific things, mainly "art house" movies. I don't care about being able to see 3,000 top-40 movies at will. I don't have any streaming and probably never will. The privacy issues and lack of interesting content make it unappealing to me. The surprising part, though, is not just that many people think disks by mail is old fashioned, but that people think that despite the fact that Netflix makes their profit from DVDs in the mail, not from streaming.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      The surprising part, though, is not just that many people think disks by mail is old fashioned, but that people think that despite the fact that Netflix makes their profit from DVDs in the mail, not from streaming.

      That's not true. Netflix loses money on streaming internationally, but in its most recent quarter its profits from domestic streaming were double its profits from DVD rentals. It also had five times as many domestic streaming subscribers than DVD plan subscribers. These figures are public.

    • You can stream any movies you want, art house or not, directly from amazon pay per view.

  • Netflix has a very poor showing outside the USA (Score:4, Informative)

    by ByzantineAlex ( 1327353 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:16AM (#52581485)
    So I couldn't care less.... In Europe they have like.... 1/5 of the selection while having a bigger price. Also, there's no dvd option, no matter the price. So, from my point of view, they could go belly up - no tears there. Other than that, I think they should go up-market - best selection, greater prices. Or have several tiers.

  • Still original content (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mewsenews ( 251487 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:18AM (#52581507) Homepage

    The article briefly mentions original content like it was their last smart move and they'll have to do something else to survive. I would disagree with that assessment.

    The media cartels (MPAA etc) are trying to starve out Netflix by jacking up their licensing fees, onerous international distribution agreements, etc etc.

    The Netflix back catalog of old movies has actually been shrinking. The focus on original content is to bring control to their programming so that they aren't 100% at the mercy of the cartels who want nothing more than for Netflix to die. The goal of the cartels is that Hulu or some other godforsaken corp-owned property can retain their dominance of the public eyeball.

    That's why Netflix has gone all in on their original programming. I just finished watching Stranger Things and it is really good. Because Netflix developed it themselves, they don't have to negotiate an international distribution agreement and they can release it simultaneously in all the markets they offer subscriptions. That's huge. I watched past the credits and there were translation teams for about 8 languages - I think I saw French, Spanish, Japanese, German among them.

    So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.

    • Re:Still original content (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:54AM (#52581741)

      So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.

      I agree. They are evolving in the direction the market is driving them. As they mature big shifts are less likely. The question is how can they build on top of the existing infrastructure? Can they move into live broadcasting of sports?

      As for original content, I think they may have opportunities in sponsoring and recording concerts in high quality, and/or shorter live music performances. Building up a library of those might have a lot of value.

    • The media cartels (MPAA etc) are trying to starve out Netflix by jacking up their licensing fees, onerous international distribution agreements, etc etc.

      That's why Netflix has gone all in on their original programming.

      It is funny Neflix does the same for their original content. https://torrentfreak.com/netfl... [torrentfreak.com]

    • > The Netflix back catalog of old movies has actually been shrinking. The focus on original content is to bring control to their programming so that they aren't 100% at the mercy of the cartels who want nothing more than for Netflix to die.

      That makes no sense at all. Netflix cannot survive if their catalogue consists of the 10 shows they created themselves. No one is going to spend all that money to access a catalogue that could all fit on a single BluRay disc. Netflix depends on having a catalogue big e

  • They Have Forged The Sword That Will Kill Them (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:19AM (#52581523)

    There is no question that Netflix has to continue ramping up original production. Distribution is easy (sorry tech guys) but good content is hard. But "back in the day," there was a finite amount of space to fill with that original content. Once you reached X number of episodes for Y number of original series per annual season, you had obtained critical mass, and it was just up to the sales guys to make sure you were in as many homes and on as many platforms as you could be, and the programming guys to make sure the content was as good and innovative as budget allowed.

    But Netflix pioneered "binge-watching." Exec-producing ten eps of Game of Thrones and dribbling them out no longer cuts it. We're now conditioned to watch 22 episodes of a new title as they all drop at once, gorging upon it all within a two week period lest we fall behind at the water cooler or in the online chatrooms.

    Time (in a schedule grid) is no longer a constraint. Space (server/bandwidth capacity is cheap) is no longer a constraint. Only money is a limiting factor. How can they keep feeding that beast?

    At one level, Netflix better hope that a lot of little competitors start popping up, because they will be able to sell them off-network rights to Daredevil and House of Cards et.al. and so subsidize their original production, much the same way HBO and video stores were first viewed as rivals to Hollywood, before Hollywood realized how much money it could make licensing to them.

    • I've seen DVD/Bluray copies of OITNB and House of Cards for sale/rent elsewhere. But you're right - however I wonder if binge watching is a fad. I know I used to binge watch older shows "again" during the winter when it was cold and dark out. Tedium and boredom crept in - and instead I found myself watching 1 or 2 episodes most nights - meaning there was always something "I" wanted to watch each night. Mixed with live TV shows. No longer was I keeping up - instead I fell into the regular schedule of wa

  • Sports (Score:3)

    by Dega704 ( 1454673 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:29AM (#52581567)
    The biggest thing stopping online streaming from delivering the decisive blow to cable is live sporting events. I personally don't care about spectator sports, but I imagine that if Netflix were to strike deals with the NFL and the like, it would eviscerate cable TV almost overnight.

    • I agree with this. Netflix is missing "live" shows. Somebody else suggested User Content - but I've thought it should be "Independent" movies (12 minute Youtube of "greatest motorcycle crashes" isn't something I'd pay to watch on Netflix).

      But true "medium" quality movies - a place for the local talent to put out shows, plays or semi-live sports events (State finals) would be cool.

      What if they became the "podcasting" platform of video? But not crap cat videos. High quality local or regional programming.

  • Offline playback hopefully.

  • I switched from the streaming service to the old-school DVD service because the DVD service has a MUCH larger selection of movies than the streaming service does.

    So maybe they should fix their basic service before they start looking for new revenue sources.
    • If the studio doesn't want to sell Netflix DVDs to rent out, they can buy them at Walmart and pay the compulsory licensing. Not so with streaming, hence the disparity.
  • Between the Netflix DVD service and the local library, it's the only way to get the non-mainstream shows I like to watch - old old BBC shows, all sorts of kids' movies, old series out of print, etc. The streaming is nice sometimes too (and the original content so far has been great), but the real meat of Netflix for me hasn't changed since I started - it's the availability of just about everything on DVD.

  • Netflix should offer a streaming service! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:44AM (#52581669) Homepage

    Netflix needs to find a way to expand their streaming service.

    While I keep seeing articles titled "Why does anyone use Netflix's DVD service?" I have a DVD queue that is 324 DVDs long. Their streaming catalog is a tiny fraction of what they have on DVD, and almost nothing I want is streamable. No new releases are streamable. Hardly any Disney or Dreamworks is streamable. Seems like most "blockbusters" aren't streamable. Neither is most of the 90's sci-fi I want to catch-up on. They need to pressure hollywood while they are still the 500-lb gorilla of the market.

  • respective - adjective - belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things.

    The summary asks "do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?" In this context, the word "respective" is meaningless because it has only a single referent. I'm not sure what the editor was trying to signify by adding it to the sentence.

  • I want it all (Score:3)

    by invid ( 163714 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @09:54AM (#52581733)
    I want every movie, television show, commercial, public service announcement--all audio/visual media at my fingertips whenever I want it. I want to ask my TV "Hey, what was that show where that guy wore that thing?" and I want my TV to have a list of shows where that guy wore that thing. I want to watch all prime time television from 1972 from all three major networks in chronological order--with commercials. I want the original Star Wars where Han shot first. I want the Star Wars Christmas Special. I want to see exactly what was on television in the Soviet Union on October 29th, 1962. I want it all.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      And we all thought this was impossible, until the first time we saw Shazam. This Shazam [googleusercontent.com] not that other Shazam [wikimedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wolfrider ( 856 )

      "I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body

  • No doubt they will want to start off with some innocuous, nearly inconspicuous ads, and then work their way up to several minutes of unskippable ads, with ads resetting any time you skip too far ahead or leave it paused for too long. At least that seems to be what other companies are doing. Then they can sell the flaming wreckage before buyers realize that sort of thing pisses off their customers like nothing else. Although there is a chance the CEO will fend off the idiots who want to do this.

    In the meanti

  • It is obvious that the path forward involves more and more user participation. Instead of a scheduled programming, Netflix users were given the ability to choose what show to watch and for how many episodes they want.

    The logic step is this move is to let users affect the direction of the show, engaging them in the story-telling. It's been trialled in one country but the UX was poor. Netflix can and should expand on that idea.

    You could compare that with the Choose Your Own Adventure type of gamebook but inst

  • Netflix is facing immense competition from its rivals.

    Netflix is available in a lot of countries. And the competition varies in each country. In Canada, there really is only two competitors and they're not even as good as Netflix Canada.

  • They need to get local storage working. First it will be phones and tablets then it will be in home appliances.

  • New Mystery Science Theater starting this fall on Netflix. Oh wait, that's not what this is about.

  • What you, Slashdot readers, think Netflix's next move will be? Or do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?

    Keep making billions.

    TFA exaggerates the level of competition for Netflix.

    HBO Go and Amazon's service are not replacements for Netflix...they are technically 'competitors' but only in the most abstract, finance-major sense of the term.

    From a consumer perspective, it's not rational to get rid of Netflix to get HBO Go. They are cheap enough that even low-inco

  • 9 out of 10 times I'm watching Netflix.. Don't really see the other services as having as much material. Even HBO Now, I only kept it until Game of Thrones season wrapped up.

  • I heard their future is in Web 4.0. If they beat their competitors to that, they'll rule the streaming world.

  • >"What you, Slashdot readers, think Netflix's next move will be? Or do you think the company will soon become just another name in its respective category?"

    I don't know what it WILL do, but I know things it NEEDS to do.....

    1) We are all sick of cable. Netflix needs to secure all programs they can with quality networks such as NatGeo, History, etc, and offer a micropayment plan- charge for what we want actually see. I would gladly pay $0.50/hr or more per hour of entertainment and have that money go to

  • Please let the next move be to take the fantasy out of the SciFi section and give it its own section so I can avoid it.

    Please

  • The Netflix streaming service is just like any other premium cable TV channel, except that if you have HBO/Cinemax/AMC/etc you can watch those either over cable or stream it on your laptop or smart TV or tablet, while Netflix is available only as a steaming service. On top of that, you can't get news or live sports from Netflix.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close