Netflix Wants 50% Of Its Library To Be Original Content (techcrunch.com) 187
An anonymous reader writes: Netflix is looking to shift its content mix even further towards original TV and movies, with a goal of achieving a 50 percent mix between its own programming and stuff licensed for its use by outside studios. The 50-50 target was revealed by Netflix CFO David Wells at the Goldman Sach's Communacopia conference on Tuesday, and Wells added that they'd like to hit that mix sometime over the course of the next few years. As for its progress so far, Wells said Netflix is already about "one-third to halfway" to that ratio, having launched 2015 hours of original programming in 2015, and with the intend of achieving a further 600 hours by the end of 2016. The benefit for Netflix with a shift to self-generated content is that the licensing situation is much simpler, and the investment made represents a cost that continues to deliver value long after the initial spend. Licensing arrangements with outside TV and film distributors have a fixed term, and thus represent a recurring cost if you want to continue offering their content in your library.
Sure they do... wait, no (Score:5, Insightful)
What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.
It depends on how you look at it. Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis. They also must keep their price low. So far, the market is speaking and it is telling Netflix that it likes original content. Netflix is very smart to continue this path.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how you look at it. Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis.
The thing is -- there are different types of "new" content. There's "new" content in the sense of "made recently." But there's also "new" content in the sense of "we didn't have this product before."
When Netflix streaming first came out, I was hopeful that they'd keep doing more of the latter. There were lots of old, classic films, which I frankly prefer over a lot of new stuff. There are still several hundred old movies I'd be interested in seeing but haven't gotten around to it -- and those are just
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's very smart from the perspective of business and profits -- so far, it's catering to the majority of customers. The question is -- just how much is it worth to people to watch "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" or whatever? How much will people put up with in dropping of other content and still pay prices for just a few shows?
It depends on how many of those series are available and how good they are. You say 'just a few shows' but that is hardly what NF describes as its plan. The nice thing about original content is that the license does not expire, the more you make the more you accumulate. So at some point the scales tilt back to content increasing.
Anyhow, what Netflix was is history. The entire world around them has changed. The competition, the market, and the supply chain. They could not survive on their original model.
Re: (Score:2)
Selection is great when you've not already watched all the material of interest, but to keep customers on board they need new content on a continuous basis.
People expect Netflix to provide selection, and if it fails to do that then a substantial portion of their customer base will (finally) use some other service. Since they finally jacked up the prices for long-term subscribers to be the same as everyone else, there's no compelling reason not to switch; one can always switch back for the same monthly price.
Re: (Score:2)
Moves like this are why I canceled and switched to an ad-free Hulu subscription. It had reached the point where I was paying $9/month to watch Futurama, a few seasons of Top Gear (and not the good ones) and annually one self-produced show. For the latter, I figure I can subscribe for a single month when it comes out. Hulu, meanwhile, has almost everything that I watched that Netflix shed and shows they never carried (ex: Simpsons, Seinfeld, South Park, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
What made Netflix great was selection. That's why they're so widely subscribed. The only way the ratio is going to look like that is if they're no longer carrying so much of everyone else's content. That won't be good for subscribers, who will get less for their money.
I disagree, I don't subscribe to Netflix because of the ability to wade through a legion of TV shows and movies from he 1980s, 90s and early 00s. I wade through that shit and see little that I haven't watched already and very little I'd like to watch again. Then there is more recent third party material like Falling Skies which I watched on Netflix and liked but they unfortunately only had the first two seasons for some reason that probably has to do with legalities and changes in the corporate policies of
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix experienced a golden age where they were the only sensible option for making your content available for streaming and they offered enough additional exposure to make that profitable and desirable. But it's easy enough to cut them out and deliver the content yourself. You can make even more money selling an exclusive licence to Hulu, Prime, etc. Netflix can't offer a wide variety of content if no one is licensing it to them.
Producing original content is actually the solution. If Netflix can say,
Re: (Score:2)
They should pull a Google Books on the DVD industry and rip all those rental discs. Heck Google didn't need author permission, they can even argue an accessibility exemption as they add captions to everything. Say they're doing deaf and blind a favor by captioning and descriptive audio'ing historical content. If they're lucky they won't even have to write a check to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes indeed netflix MUST carry ALL content because why??? so what if you have to surf somewhere else to watch tv shows?
Because I don't want to pay $xxx/month for Netflix, of which I'll only watch a small portion. And I don't want to also pay $yyy/month for Amazon Prime when I only want to watch a few titles from there. And $zzz/month for Hulu. And more for HBO. I just want one streaming service and have all the things there.
So where will existing content come from? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They're dropping a lot of old stock of DVDs. In fact, about 1/3 of my DVD queue is no longer available at all. It's true, though. They imagined a world where you could watch anything ever made on one service - and a lot of people bought into it. I'm still on the DVD service, but I'm finding that more and more back-catalog are available as one-time rentals from Amazon streaming for fairly cheap.
There is still a lot of older obscure content that has yet to be released on DVD. Or newer content - Arrested
Re: (Score:3)
The only aspect that is difficult to assess is the value of the opportunity to watch whatever you like.
If I sold you a service that allowed you to watch any movie ever made, and you signed up for a year and watched a movie each Friday night then you'll have only watched 52 movies out of how many million? That doesn't mean having the other titles in the catalog were a waste, it's important they are there, since you signed up for access to "every movie ever made".
It's like Apple removing all the buttons and
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, The Pirate Bay has everything, even obscure stuff. Amazon and eBay used DVDs too. The media companies have it backwards, they should be begging to be on Netflix because otherwise they will get nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Big fan btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, as you probably know I'm mainly in it for the glory and adoration of my fans!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many views a lot of that content was even getting.
They had already bought the movies. Storage for flat discs with no cases is somewhat cheap. If those discs are wearing out and need replaced it's because they're being used. They are systematically dumping a lot of their expansive catalog and aren't really being transparent about why. I suspect it's because their disc service still has a better catalog than streaming - and they wanted to dump DVD entirely from their business and offer whatever anyone could ever want over streaming. And they should have
Re: (Score:2)
Racing costs to the bottom because they've killed all the competition is what it's all about. Now that there are no/few physical disc competitors to their streaming service, they're the primary competitor to the service they want to sell.
I'm going to stand by storage for flat discs still being inexpensive. It's almost entirely a factor of physical space, since the rest is the same regardless of exactly how large the catalog is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we going to see a resurgence in the DVD service?
Conceivably. The online service is simply too expensive to maintain and as it is right now, not sustainable into the future. Subscription fees will have to rise drastically, content will have to fall dramatically or possibly both. The assumption has been that subscriber growth would rise enough to offset this but that has been nowhere near to happening. Unless Netflix can get a copy of DVDFab and rip all of their DVD rental stuff online.
It sounds daft but Blockbuster's administrators might want to start
Re: (Score:2)
What they really need is the equivalent of buying a DVD for digital content. You can currently buy the DVD, and that gives you the right to rent it out, simply because you own it. The movie studios have no control whether or not you rent something else that you paid your own money for. There definitely needs to be a way for Netflix to purchase a license for any movie that exists and just stream it as much as they want, provided they only use a license for a single stream at a time. Owning a DVD should prob
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, then Netflix would not only have to keep all of their active content available for streaming, but also all of their historical content, just in case somebody bought it and wants to redownload it. I mean yes, they could have it on fewer servers, but still, it isn't clear how that benefits consumers over, for example, buying it from the iTunes Store's video section unless they can somehow convince the movie studios to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ive found myself falling back to torrenting more and more in the last six months. Its funny because i have various streaming subscriptions and yet torrents are still the fastest and easiest way to watch the stuff i want.
Restricted licensing terms are steadily driving users to torrents. These are people who, once they have tasted the convenience of one source for eveything, will not be coming back.
Transformation (Score:2)
Netflix is becoming "just another TV network", becoming less of what everyone wants and more of what some people will pay for. Very depressing.
Re:Transformation (Score:5, Insightful)
If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?
This leaves Netflix with the only real choice to start producing their own content so that they can sell subscriptions. In that way they're not that much different than HBO that started out as a movie channel and then got into making their own television series and a few original movies, only Netflix didn't start as a cable channel first. Now that HBO has done more to embrace internet streaming without requiring a cable subscription, they're almost in the same business.
If you thought Netflix was going to ever become a one stop shop for all shows and movies you're out of your mind. The film industry saw exactly what happened when iTunes became the far and away dominant platform and how it meant an end to DRM in order to break Apple's hold.
Re: (Score:3)
If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?
It's not that they don't want to license, it's just that from Netflix's point-of-view it's too expensive as their costs rise.
How to fix that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Make television and movies like music with compulsory licensing? Say anything five years and older gets put into the pool of things that can be broadcast/streamed as part of your service as long as you pay the base royalties. Have the same sort of setup as music does but with a much finer grained reporting. That way everyone that should get paid, is paid.
While five years seems a bit long, that's so streaming and rebroadcast doesn't cut too deeply into the DVD/BluRay sales. That should be plenty of time for that to go through the fans that really want their personal copy at release or to wait for the price to fall or discounted.
And this doesn't stop anyone from making separate deals to get it before the five year date and/or add extras to their service like trivia, blooper reels, and so forth.
Again, the point of copyright was to give people a chance to spread culture around before it is outright given away. Seeing as how locked up it's become, anything that speeds and ease of dissemination is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
While five years seems a bit long, that's so streaming and rebroadcast doesn't cut too deeply into the DVD/BluRay sales
Studios used to wait six months between cinema release and DVD sales because they were scared that DVD sales would cut into cinema ticket sales. Now they often do simultaneous releases because they learned that if you don't make content available in the format that people want then they'll pirate it (and now we have large statutory penalties because it's hard to argue actual damages when you're refusing to sell the thing that's been pirated). People won't buy the DVD if they can't stream it, they'll eithe
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be an American thing. I have never ever seen a DVD release at the same time as a cinema release here. To make things even worse - usually the American DVD release is about the same time that we can see it in cinemas here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the only way people will pay that is if they drastically increase content, live TV, sports etc
No - I won't pay an increased cost. That's why I got rid of cable.
They are going to have to increasingly niche themselves or split out their content to multiple subscription options. There's no way I want to pay for more selection than I need. I'll just start buying DVD/Blu-Ray of shows for less money unless Netflix DVD has what I want.
So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess they'll revert when they realize that the vast amount of content they've offered was the reason for their success in the first place.
Re:So long, Netflix, it was good while it lasted (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't. The got in early enough that the rights holders of the streaming content licensed it reasonably cheap. That has all changed now that those holders have realized there's money in streaming and want a bigger slice of it.
They're trying to transition to something that will work in that world. They don't really have a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying to transition to something that will work in that world. They don't really have a choice.
I don't think there's much question of whether they're going to successfully transition to being one of many players. I think a more interesting question is whether anyone is going to step up to somehow unify these disparate services for the end-user, and if so who it's going to be. Due to the unique nature of internet delivery, it can be basically anybody... although obviously anyone who already owns a big CDN has a massive edge.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like they don't want to make money. Do they really think people will subscribe to 20 different streaming services so they can all get their cut? People aren't going to subscribe to CBS's service just for Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's generally true, but Star Trek? If there were a new series, I'd subscribe to a separate service in a heartbeat.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a new series starting early next year. In the US you can only get it if you subscribe to the CBS streaming service. In other countries Netflix is getting it, and if your country doesn't have Netflix... BitTorrent.
Re: (Score:3)
IMHO, when streaming started I'd say it had about a B grade in terms of content (quality + quantity).
Over time, it seemed to go down to about C grade.
Lately it strikes me that it's gotten marginally better, maybe B-.
The question is whether they expand their original content significantly without shrinking licensed content to achieve a 50/50 mix, or whether they will expand moderately and shrink moderately to get there, or worse, expand slightly and shrink more greatly.
The expansion of their original content
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've only been subscribing to Netflix for their original content. I can get most of the unoriginal stuff on my Prime account already.
Many of their shows have been absolutely amazing. Game of Thrones level of awesome, in my humble opinion.
Stranger Things (1 season)
Daredevil (2 seasons)
Jessica Jones (1 season)
Narcos (2 seasons)
I've binged all of these shows because they were that good. The only other show I've ever binged before this was The Wire. That says, to me, they have something special going on. If the
Re: (Score:2)
I've only been subscribing to Netflix for their original content. I can get most of the unoriginal stuff on my Prime account already.
Many of their shows have been absolutely amazing. Game of Thrones level of awesome, in my humble opinion.
Stranger Things (1 season) Daredevil (2 seasons) Jessica Jones (1 season) Narcos (2 seasons)
I've binged all of these shows because they were that good. The only other show I've ever binged before this was The Wire. That says, to me, they have something special going on. If they can keep the good content coming at a decent pace, I have no problem with them dumping the same stuff I can get anywhere else.
Bingo, their original content is available in every region where they operate without restrictions. In my region only about a third of the non-netflix stuff they stream in the US is not available because of existing distribution agreements the makers of that content previously made with local distributors. These are usually conventional cable TV companies, who charge exorbitant prices for the outmoded old TV system of showing one episode per week and where you have to subscribe to and pay for 100 crap chann
Re: (Score:2)
They were paying a lot of money for some very old shows that everyone's already seen. That might be quantity, but it's not quality where it counts for me - I don't really enjoy re-watching much.
You also can't have a go-to streaming service when studios are going to make better money with their own streaming service. They sold a dream they can't fulfill, and let their DVD service rot in the process (which really did have almost everything imaginable at one point).
Re: (Score:3)
Studios only think that they are going to make better money. The reality is that they might, but only in the very short term. The more studios go to that model, the more companies you'll have competing for a limited entertainment budget. Eventually, those studios are going to get squeezed, and viewers are going to start subscribing for two months to each one, then dropping them, and
Re: (Score:2)
Or, old content just isn't worth making available in that way at all. If $3/mo. of your subscription goes toward licensing for old content and you only care about a few shows, you're better off spending $36/yr. on DVD/Blu-Ray deals.
It's new content that's going to be in larger numbers of niche venues. Recently, Seeso came out as a niche of comedy, standup and British sitcoms, and are only at $3.99 a month. It would take an awful lot of those subscriptions to be more expensive than cable, and you're effec
Re: (Score:2)
Or, old content just isn't worth making available in that way at all. If $3/mo. of your subscription goes toward licensing for old content and you only care about a few shows, you're better off spending $36/yr. on DVD/Blu-Ray deals.
There's a substantial slice of the population that doesn't want to own discs. If they can't stream it, they'll most likely watch something else. This segment is growing as useful internet access reaches more potential customers...
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they don't want to own it? They don't have to keep it. If it's cheaper, it's cheaper. Letting the media companies tell you what you want to watch is not appealing.
Blame Copyright and greed (Score:3)
Fees would have to rise and people really were upset at changes Netflix made in pricing before. They are trying to do as much as possible with the funds that they have.
If copyright was SANE there would be a HUGE library of old programming available. If all the old junk isn't preserved, it would clearly be better content than the modern programming... (which is mostly junk.)
The simple answer is that Netflix benefited by being the 1st. Today every major content owner can create their own service or make excl
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's all too spread out. If I could pay £8/month for everything I'd take that deal. If they want me to have multiple streaming services or cable with 10 different packages to get coverage, I won't.
At best multiple streaming services will mean subscribing to a different one each month.
The other massive problem is compatibility. My TV has an app for Netflix. It doesn't have one for Amazon so I don't have Amazon. App support for >1 year old TVs is even worse than updates for
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is turning into just another cable TV channel.
In terms of producing their own content, but in most other ways their business model is far more consumer friendly than most of the incumbent cable channels and providers. Just the fact that their original content is globally licensed puts them miles ahead of HBO, which I cannot get in Canada without a $70 cable package. Netflix's existence has been a huge disturbance to the market in a very good way for consumers - just because they don't fix all the problems doesn't make them a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is noticeable as well. For last few months, I've found that I watch far more Hulu and Amazon than Netflix. Why? I don't care for the original content they are focusing on it. I just want to binge watch old TV series I like, or rewatch older movies. Netflix has been dropping those consistently, while Hulu and amazon are picking up the contracts Netflix drops. Same with kids shows...my kids have been steadily losing their shows on Netflix, and have started watching Hulu as well. If this keeps up, I will pr
But that's not what I pay for (Score:5, Informative)
I started subscribing to Netflix in 1999. I became a customer because I wanted to be able to watch movies from a variety of studios, not just one. If I just wanted one studio, I'd subscribe to HBO. Notice how Netflix streaming doesn't have that good of content from other studios? Probably because studios realize that if they make agreements with Netflix, they will be working with and helping one of their competitors. Like Akbar said, its a trap.
So getting rid of more content then (Score:2)
Thats the only way to ever hit 50%.
Pool's closed (Score:2)
Early Netflix, everyone was nodding their heads and saying "lol, sure, give us money and you can borrow our imaginary property" and cooing over li'l baby DVD kiosker. Now streaming is hype, Normals are streaming so hard it's the biggest bandwidth load on the tubes. Now the joke is "netflix and chill", and that's showing up in the contracts. Letting NF rent your imaginary property isn't some cute giggle anymore, it's a threat, if you do distribution yourself or use a
Re: (Score:2)
But most people can't afford or simply won't pay for a dozen subscription. So if this is the plan that the media companies have for the future, they will go broke. It is as simple as that.
To be fair... (Score:2)
In Portland, Oregon, you have Movie Madness (Score:2)
Now that I am retired in Bellingham, Washington, I miss them. Here in Bellingham, we have the Pickford Film Center, which is the only non-chain art cinema north of Seattle in Washington State. Between going there for movies and keeping busy with my multiple hobbies ans sports, I still hav
Sporadic production (Score:2)
You want to go that way? Don't start series (ala Jessica Jones) and then abort them after one very successful season. Gives the false impression it wasn't well received.
Staggering production times would help as well. Why should viewers wait for all the shows to start new seasons at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, though it's probably going to be over a year before season two is out since it's been ten months so far and there hasn't been a release date announced. Daredevil got its second season after 11.5 months. We do get Luke Cage next week Friday, and Iron Fist and the Defenders shows next year.
With how many shows they are doing, it might end up like the movies and have releases every other year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series#Netflix_series [wikipedia.org]
Good and bad (Score:2)
I'm torn on this.
One the one hand, all of the Netflix original shows have been pretty damned good. Way WAY better than the average tripe on cable. So yeah, keep on keeping on.
On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms. There's really nothing to stop Netflix from jacking their prices through the roof and holding the next season of *insert your favorite show* ransom unless you pay through the nose.
I would love to see the co
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't control the creation process though. The production companies are separate from Netflix and partner to do the shows. This is how shows for network TV are also done.
Look at what the production company of the amazing Stranger Things also did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Laps_Entertainment [wikipedia.org]
Netflix is the one with first dibs, we'll just have to see in a few years if they syndicate their shows. House of Cards was their first big original, and that's only been out of three and a half years.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, this is a clear conflict of interest. One company should not control the creation and distribution platforms.
Uh, Dude? Where've you been? That used to be the case up until the mid-80s or so.
The argument for the change was that the network TV model didn't work in the days of cable television. When you're one of only have 3 channels, you can be assured of a decent sized audience. When you're one of 100+ channels, not so much. Meanwhile, the studios showed their stuff on broadcast TV and then made money on the back-end with syndication and DVD, which the networks got none of. So the law was rescinded and networ
Seems the market is like a wind tunnel (Score:2)
Netflix streams had a good run (Score:2)
But I don't subscribe anymore because after their successful IP blocking this spring. All I can get access to now are my local version of Netflix. It sucked when they opened it and it still sucks. But I all fairness, it was going down hill for the American version too before I quit.
Well, it had a good run.
Right now I find plenty of stuff I like to see on Youtube.
Well on their way (Score:2)
At the rate they seem to be losing licensed content without a replacement, they'll accomplish their desired ratio without lifting a finger.
Noooo oooooo ooooooo (Score:2)
Their library is now small enough, do not cancel even more shows!
They are fast approacing that (Score:2)
Well, Netflix is fast approaching a 50-50 split of content. The non-Netflix content outside of the US has always been abysmal and it isn't getting better - it is getting worse.
So I guess Netflix doesn't really need to spend more on own content, they simply need to keep spending little on other content and that 50-50 split will soon be reached.
Nope.. (Score:2)
I'm good with that (Score:2)
Much of Netflix's original content is excellent. If they want to do more they can shut up and take my money!
So Far, All the Netflix Content Is A Total DUD! (Score:2)
They're going to have to start upping the quality of content. Their rude rip-off of the Brits' "House of Cards" has been a long, drawn-out mess, with none of the political logic in the original...and Spacey is LOUSY as a corrupt politician. We watch a lot more British shows than we do Netflix, and what we DO enjoy on Netflix are recent series we wouldn't otherwise get (think Miss Fisher's Mysteries, or Doc Martin).
If they favor their own content, licensing will be cheaper, but they'll bear ALL the product
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They could try doing what Sirius XM did in radio, and attract existing talent to their programs and channels. A lot of people are attracted to legacy shows, and are not always swayed by the latest hits on TV
That's one of many reasons I cancelled Sirius. I don't care to have a bunch of has-beens announcing songs. Do I need to hear the Ashtray Nina Blackwood announcing song titles? That's what the display is for.
Other reasons include:
-Shallow playlist. As an example 80s on 8 make you thing 867-5309 was the only song in the 80's... I liked the "countdown from this week in 198x" not because of the announcers, but because I heard songs I never heard before
-Ads on ad-free radio. "Listen to The Superbowl on channel 8
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He hardly did any good movies since Happy Gilmore, aside from 50 First Dates. Most of them are soiled by his bizarre bathroom humor - like Big Daddy
Tee-hee, you said "soiled".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He hardly did any good movies since Happy Gilmore, aside from 50 First Dates. Most of them are soiled by his bizarre bathroom humor - like Big Daddy
I thought the Wedding Singer was ok. And Punch-Drunk Love was excellent. But that's a Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) movie, not an Adam Sandler movie. It's more a deconstruction of Sandler's previous characters. Punch Drunk Love was 14 years ago though. What of worth has he done since then? Spanglish, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: Our library is really shitty and it's not going to get better.
Netflix has some good original content, but I didn't sign up for it to be the next HBO. All of that are steps in the wrong direction.
I signed up for Netflix because of what it was: the best place to find almost any DVD I wanted. Look at the DVD/Blu-Ray selection versus their streaming selection. The streaming selection is pathetic. Online streaming SUCKS, and it's because the power was put back into the hands of the content owners, w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it is in other countries but in Canada there are quite a few things landlord as originals that appear to simply be content they are the exclusive regional distributor for rather than the creator.
Wat?
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix and Hulu both do that a lot with British shows in the US
They take a show that was on BBC or ITV and then laud it as "A NETFLIX ORIGINAL" when they reshow it in the US a year later. As if they developed it themselves and it wasn't just rebroadcasting shows that already aired in Britain.
Not to be confused with... (Score:3)
So I guess we'll start see lots more titles that start their descriptions with the phrase, "not to be confused with the Block Buster...."
Re: Translation: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering I already don't care about and don't watch probably 80-90% of the current selection anyways, dropping what I do care about in order to become Netflix Channel is not something I care to support and might actually make cable look like a good option again. Don't do that.
They've publicly stated that "Netflix Channel" is their goal where they are curators of content. I find this disappointing. I really would like some company to try for 100% coverage even if it is a pay per hour type situation. Amazon is the closest so far with some unlimited content and alot of rental content mixed together. Amazon would be almost perfect if it's subscription also included X hours of anything in its library so that I didn't have to be nickled and dimed for all their premium content. T
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that? Even Amazon will probably never get over a meager fraction. There is way too much out there. You're asking for something that's never going to happen, because it's way too much work and would be ludicrously expensive. (Peoples' cable bills are tiny compared to the bill you're asking for!)
Netflix by mail already does offer this service. The only problem is that because of current laws it's stuck to using snail mail.
I want almost the opposite of what you do. I want extremely-narrow (1 show) "channels," and dozens of them, all accessed via a standard interface (so that my user agent can show a unified list and play whatever I subscribe to or buy)
In some ways this is the same as what I am asking for. Get 100% coverage and charge me if you need to for certain titles but at least make it available. It's stupid that streaming is crippled in a way that redbox and netflix by mail have titles that streaming can't offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that?
Netflix does. But only in the DVD-by-mail business. Online streaming, you can't have this, because that's controlled by the content companies, and they will never not have their heads up their asses.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been going downhill for years. Ever since they made that move away from DVDS towards online the collection has been getting worse and worse. I think they'll have no problem hitting that 50-50 goal as the amount of 3rd party materials continues to disappear.
The fact that their search and browse facilities are so terrible doesn't do anything good. There's no particularly good way of stumbling on interesting content that they aren't pushing. And the material they're pushing is often times no interest to me. And good luck with search. I'll usually have to search for a half dozen things before I find one that they actually have. And sometimes I've had to look for a dozen.
This is about my experience. I have to get suggestions from friends or online... All the "Recommendations" are titles I've already watched. Trying to browse through categories makes one think they only have about 20 titles in each category.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heading the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
Same is happening everywhere. Here in the US, you need Hulu if you want to watch "the Path". Amazon if you want to watch "Man in High Tower". I think Netflix is currently the only place for "Peaky Blinders" or "Luther". New Star Trek is going to be on CBS all Access. My wife's stupid ABC shows are going to be on Yahoo video. Meanwhile BBC is slowly pulling all their content from existing distributors and are setting up their own streaming service - so will need that for Doctor Who or Top Gear.
You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.
I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... and HBO if you want Game of Thrones!
Poor value for money (Score:2)
You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.
That's the problem. I want ala-carte service but I'm not about to pay for 12 different ersatz networks and end up paying more than I currently do. I'm certainly not going to pay for Netflix (or Hulu or ...) for just one or two shows. Doesn't matter how good they are.
I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.
You'll have to remind me when that was because to me their streaming service has never "had just about everything" or even close to it. I tried and dropped Netflix twice because their content catalog was full of crap I had no interest in (lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm back to buying television seasons on DVD and ripping them to a large portable drive.
Netflix was great at first, but I have slowly made my way through all of the their content that I was interested in. These days when I think of a movie I'd like to watch I'm finding that Netflix doesn't have it. I'm not really interested in any of their new content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the days it was just Netflix and Netflix had just about everything.
True, but streaming is the new cable, and cable is the new broadcast TV. Personally, I still mostly use their DVD service and they still have most everything.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to pick or choose which shows you care to stop watching OR just go back to subscribing to the bloated service that was cable TV
Except that no longer works -- with "original content" created by Netflix, Amazon, etc., there will be increasingly more shows only exclusively available by streaming only... and from only one particular provider.
because it's getting to the point where the prices are even if you want a good selection of shows.
Welcome to the world of "unbundling." Seriously. For years, a lot of people here were hugely critical of cable TV companies because they wanted to just purchase a set of channels they actually wanted. They wanted things "unbundled."
Well, guess what -- this is the future of the "unbundled" worl
I can't hear you over the sound of (Score:2)
my vpntorrentasaurus plex. Seriously. DIY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats on being an adult- I'm happy for you.
Some of us adults have children though. With a family of 5 is more challenging with the DVD service with only 3 DVDs at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot more than you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]