Netflix Has More American Subscribers Than Cable TV (engadget.com) 74
According to Leichtman Research estimates from the first quarter of 2017, there are more Netflix subscribers in the U.S. (50.85 million) than there are customers for major cable TV networks (48.61 million). While it doesn't mean Netflix is bigger than TV because it doesn't account for the 33.19 million satellite viewers, it represents a huge milestone for a streaming service that had half as many users just 5 years ago. Engadget reports: The shift in power comes in part through Netflix's ever-greater reliance on originals. There's enough high-quality material that it can compete with more established networks. However, it's also getting a boost from the decline of conventional TV. Those traditional sources lost 760,000 subscribers in the first quarter of the year versus 120,000 a year earlier. Leichtman believes a combination of cord cutters and reduced marketing toward cost-conscious viewers is to blame. Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet.
Surprise, Surprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Netflix Has More American Subscribers Than Cable TV
No surprise here! Of course Netflix has more American Subscribers than the number of cable TV they have in their office.
Re: (Score:3)
they all have local blackouts
Direct TV Now and Sling have local baseball games for some markets and will have the NFL. And they had the NBA playoffs and finals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can get C-SPAN on the internet.
Re:Cord cutting and sports (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to watch live sports. How can I still do that while cord cutting?
Reappraise your need to watch live sports. They are feeding off your tribal instincts.
Re: (Score:2)
They are feeding off your tribal instincts.
In contrast to every other thing on TV in what way, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
They are feeding off your tribal instincts.
In contrast to every other thing on TV in what way, exactly?
Well many shows don't invite you to pick a side and split the protagonists into two sides with clearly distinguished colors and iconography to make it simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Well many shows don't invite you to pick a side and split the protagonists into two sides with clearly distinguished colors and iconography to make it simple.
Are you sure you're not watching Cops?
Re: (Score:2)
Well many shows don't invite you to pick a side and split the protagonists into two sides with clearly distinguished colors and iconography to make it simple.
Are you sure you're not watching Cops?
Very sure. I mostly listen to music.
Re: (Score:2)
Reappraise your need to watch live sports. They are feeding off your tribal instincts.
I don't watch much live sports, but I still think the only reasonable response to this is "fuck off you sanctimonious prick". ;)
Re: How? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Netflix works at 1.5mbps (throttle on T-mobile for unlimited video, not sure about a T1).
It is standard definition, but it handles it far better than youtube in my experience (it [netflix] does a good job of finding the bandwidth, streaming at a slightly lower quality until there's a decent buffer, and then using most of the bandwidth if needed).
Re: (Score:2)
DUH! (Score:2)
Re: DUH! (Score:2)
Until you realize in many ways those cable companies are subsidizing your internet connection with the income from TV subscribers.
If cable TV goes the way of the buggy whip, you'll see broadband prices increase.
It's already happening here in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much subsidizing is going on. The only reason I have cable (US-Comcast) is that they charge me nearly the same amount if I just want broadband.
focusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet."
"Focusing on"? How? By holding on to more and more useless channels? By raising prices continuously? By offering only deceptive "introductory" pricing models? By constantly fighting and making life difficult for TiVo and other third-party box owners? If this is their "focus", they are doing to be in dire straits before they know it.
They don't necessarily have to stream to compete (because DVRs can provide an excellent experience), but one thing they need to do soon is to offer a pay-for-each-channel-wanted model and allow customers to customize what they want to watch. I am BEYOND SICK of paying for crap I don't want and subsidizing others' channels. Sports is perfect example. I bet a HUGE portion of my cable TV bill is poured into sports, something I have ZERO interest in, but yet comprises probably 30 or more channels. Now throw out all religious channels, infomercial channels, game show channels, non-English channels, and reality TV channels. I bet I am now up to about 85%.
Oh, and when they do offer streaming, it is just the same crap content on their existing channels, but with the bonus of being only in stereo not Dolby 5.1, with a crappy low-bandwidth picture, and often forced commercials. All with silly time limits, a poor interface, and sometimes flaky as hell.
Focus, indeed.
Re: (Score:1)
>"Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet."
"Focusing on"? How? By holding on to more and more useless channels? By raising prices continuously? By offering only deceptive "introductory" pricing models? By constantly fighting and making life difficult for TiVo and other third-party box owners? If this is their "focus", they are doing to be in dire straits before they know it.
They don't necessarily have to stream to compete (because DVRs can provide an excellent experience), but one thing they need to do soon is to offer a pay-for-each-channel-wanted model and allow customers to customize what they want to watch. I am BEYOND SICK of paying for crap I don't want and subsidizing others' channels. Sports is perfect example. I bet a HUGE portion of my cable TV bill is poured into sports, something I have ZERO interest in, but yet comprises probably 30 or more channels. Now throw out all religious channels, infomercial channels, game show channels, non-English channels, and reality TV channels. I bet I am now up to about 85%.
Oh, and when they do offer streaming, it is just the same crap content on their existing channels, but with the bonus of being only in stereo not Dolby 5.1, with a crappy low-bandwidth picture, and often forced commercials. All with silly time limits, a poor interface, and sometimes flaky as hell.
Focus, indeed.
13 channels of shit... Here's another thing, commercials. Interstellar is a great movie and runs 2hr 49 min. 1 hr 11 min of commercials? Nope and that is the biggest reason I won't watch cable. Between Netflix and Amazon Prime I'm happy and have more disposable income. Just over $200 a year for both = 1.5 months of cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget "focusing on TV" by setting caps on their Internet service (to discourage too much streaming). Or by pricing their Internet+TV bundles at a lower price than Internet
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until Net Neutrality bites the dust. It'll be the same business model for Internet service as we've enjoyed with cable all these years.
Of One Thing We Can Be Sure (Score:3)
That cable networks are not going to respond to this situation by offering better value for the money! Monopolies never do.
Cable TV prices have been increasing at four times the rate of inflation for years. Forcing people to buy bundles of channels instead of a la carte offerings for less money, etc., etc.
Re:Of One Thing We Can Be Sure (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not a monopoly on content providing anymore though, their monopoly lies in the providing of data last mile.
I expect cable to get cheaper, and internet to get more expensive. Heck, they already offer a stripped down package for free (I actually had to beg them for give me internet alone for the price of internet + 5 channels).
My prediction, internet will creep to $100/month, a serious cable package will be $30 (with more content than the dish, Sony, or google options), and if you get those two, you can tack on premium channels for less than if you don't have the $30 package.
They'll keep their $100-150/household.
Adversising (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, cable companies jerk around customers by charging them arbitrary fees for things they don't want. But aside from that, many of us hate having to watch 20 minutes of commercials an hour, for programming we supposedly paid a subscription to get. Netflix--so far--has stayed away from advertisements within the shows you watch. As long as they keep that up, they have MY money!
Re: (Score:1)
There's an entire generation growing up that isn't used to commercials that aren't product placement. The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
That is exactly what cable TV is! When it was introduced in the 70s, they sold cable TV by telling people, "Because you pay subscription fees, you won't have to watch any commercials!" Well, we all know how that turned out!
You're not wrong, but I'm counting the months until Netflix breaks down and starts allowing commercials of their own. There's just too much pressure from advertisers, they will eventually succumb. I hope I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see it.
Primarily because they seem to be resisting the "become TV" urge, and instead are focusing on becoming a premium channel.
Basically that's what they are, they charge a rate similar to that (between Showtime and HBO monthly), and they produce content without commercials.
Also, they're not desperate, they're making approximately 200 million/year (though I don't know how they amortize the new content acquisition, they could be cashflow negative).
I'm more worried about Hulu going back to ads, much
Re: (Score:1)
Follow up question:
Did cable TV ever provide Network content without ads?
When I was young, it already had ads (mid 80s), but I assume that crept in with the explosion of channels for not much money, and the inclusion of broadcast content.
Re: (Score:1)
How many Americans can't even get cable? (Score:2)
What percentage of American households can even get cable? Now, what percentage can get Netflix? Yep, it's higher. When you add to that just how lame Cable is...
Re: (Score:1)
How do you get Netflix without cable?
Are there places with broadband, but not cable?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get Netflix without cable?
Are there places with broadband, but not cable?
That'll be the fiber optic thingy that comes to the back of my house.
Re: (Score:1)
You have to be in an almost insignificant minority to have access go fiber, but not cable, in the US.
I really doubt that's the reason.
Your sibling post mentions DSL, which makes sense. Where I am they don't offer over 3/1.5 anymore, but if it was reliable 3, even that would get Netflix (I have cable up to 300 available).
There may be a small minority that that does cellular only and Netflix too, but I doubt it's many.
Re: (Score:1)
Was an early adopter of netflix and have never had an issue streaming from them or any other streaming service I have used - and that's even in times when I had slow DSL (6 down / 1.5 up).
Currently my DSL is 80down/10up.
Of course! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course! If would be weird if Netflix had any cable TV at all.
Bundled A La Carte (Score:2)
I think the direction cable/satellite companies are going to go, is bundled a la carte. Telecoms make tons of money from bundling (TV/internet/phone) already, and the idea will be pitched to consumers as 'build your own bundle', and pitched to executives as 'giving customers more opportunity to give us their money.' Essentially, instead of tiers (basic cable, expanded cable, ultimate) with multiple over-the-top channels (HBO, Showtime etc.) you pay for individually, there will be small bundles of channels t
Sharing accounts? (Score:2)
There goes the accusation that people are sharing accounts
https://slashdot.org/story/326... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There goes the accusation that people are sharing accounts
https://slashdot.org/story/326... [slashdot.org]
I fail to see how the growth metrics around a streaming service has anything to do with people sharing passwords. I can assure you that as long as the service technically allows it, password and account sharing will continue.
Given the growth, I seriously doubt they really give a shit. Some things are worth business focus. Some are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, thanks! In my experience I don't see it happening too much. If anything it must lead to more subscriptions...
Re: (Score:2)
Not significant if still more people have it than cable
It shows how hard it is to change a monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how the cable companies screwed it up, huh?
They were perfectly placed to profit from the dotcom boom and later; everyone was obsessed with Yahoo-esque approaches of "being the portal to the interwebz" and/or the browser "wars", (something that continues to this day, except that Google has pretty much won everywhere in search, with Chrome(ium) and on mobile with Android etc.)
Yet all this time the cable (and phone) guys owned the last mile into your house, with TV and Internet along with it.
With a bit of vision but - above all - accepting that they would have to cannibalize their existing offer, they could have used the massive subsidies they received to build out a great network, with good, fast service and compelling original content.
What did they do? Sit on their fat-ass, rent-seeking business model, ripping people off with poor, expensive service and bundles of advert-laden crap channels. Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't had cable TV for over 10 years, and the last time I had satellite service was when it was free for me (DirecTV) some 15 years ago. I have a lot of friends and coworkers that ditched cable/satellite TV, but admittedly I'm only looking at a pool of people who work in the same industry as me, make a similar income, are of a similar age, and live in the same region as me.
The big thing that keeps a few is access to their favorite sports team. I have more than one friend who has cable TV because they ar
Of course (Score:1)