Netflix is on Fire
medium.com
medium.com
Anytime I want to, I can go to Netflix and watch any episode of their shows. I ca watch the first season; I can watch the intervening seasons; I can watch the current season. There are no blackouts; there are no embargoes.
I can binge-watch if I want, or I can pace myself, at my pace.
Compare that to the big companies' offerings, where I may be able to watch every episode this season, but not get started by catching up on previous seasons (I know that they hope I'll pay up for boxed sets of those early seasons, but I'll just skip their shows altogether instead), or I may be able to wath previous seasons but not the current one, or (my favourite) I can watch previous seasons and recent episodes but not early episodes this season.
Why would I want to get involved with a show which is such a pain to watch?
I haven't pirated any Netflix shows because it's simply too cheap and too easy to just do it legit.
I have the same complaint about HBO Now on the Roku. Man, does it suck.
Lest people think the problem is my network, often when I have the issue I switch to Netflix and never once have I had a problem after the switch. Seems unlikely I just happened to switch when the network problems went away.
But none of that matters, you are correct at this point that Netflix clearly has it figured out and working for you, while their competition does not. Only to say, the dynamic bitrate support is likely to improve on the other apps with time (not to mention, your internet connection is likely to periodically increase in speed for various upgrades to your equipment or your ISPs) so those issues are likely not permanent.
I think Netflix also still uses caching boxes in a few locations, but they are being phased out.
In other words, there are a lot more variables in the equation than just your home network and the Roku app.
Proof? I don't see any indication at https://openconnect.netflix.com/ that their appliance is being phased out.
For me, it's almost entirely that it's easy. Aside from Daredevil and a handful of their comedy specials, I haven't watched any of their produced content, and I'd be just as satisfied if it didn't exist.
If its not on Netflix, its on your preferred torrent site.
I'm got too much to lose to be messing around with torrents. I just want to pay something and get the content I want. For now, that's cable TV, not Netflix.
I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you access to everything the BBC offers, except what they broadcast live (and maybe online news), which you get for free (the exact opposite of how they charge now).
A much better proposal for the streaming generation, essentially a tax-cut for the older generation, and none of the nasty TV License policing issues.
In Australia, our ABC is funded directly out of general taxes, rather than an explicit TV License. I can imagine Britain eventually moving to a similar model to fund the BBC.
The BBC is in a difficult bind. It can't charge for license-fee funded content in the UK where it's best known. And if it had to make all its income from its commercial arm, it would only make Doctor Who and Top Gear, none of the classical music, news, or drama that it's best at.
How the BBC is funded is intensely political, being argued a ton right now as the charter is up for renewal in 2016. The BBC in 2017 could be much smaller.
from here: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/panic-at-the-bbc-as-...
"Maintaining an international foothold is vital for Top Gear, which is the BBC’s biggest global brand with sales of the TV show, DVDs, books, live shows and other merchandise worth more than £50 million ($101 million) a year. BBC sources fear Evans is a complete unknown outside the UK. Top Gear’s former three stooges are settling in well at Amazon."
"Clarkson, Hammond and May may no longer be on Top Gear, but they are still vying for the same viewers. While Top Gear’s schemes play out in public, they are busy preparing their new rival big-budget show for Amazon — and crowing about how little interference they get from their latest masters. Along with the lack of outside pressure, the team also has cash, and lots of it, with a budget reported to be at £4 million ($8.1 million) an episode — ten times that of Top Gear’s."
So the BBC will be losing all that Top Gear money too.
And by "left", you mean that Clarkson got canned for punching out a guy because he didn't like his catered dinner, after being warned repeatedly for starting fights and making racist remarks on camera.
While the BBC may have broadcast River, Endemol Shine Group has the distribution rights, which is who Netflix would have paid.
I don't know all the details, but unless River was a wholly internal BBC production, I'd suggest Endemol probably contributed to the production budget in return for the distribution rights.
This happens with a lot of BBC programmes. The majority of the rights reside with BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the BBC. BBC Worldwide bids on distribution rights like any other TV sales and distribution company. Any profits from BBC Worldwide's activities are invested back in the public BBC, thus reducing licence fee rises to some extent.
However, other companies like Endemol and All3Media also produce programmes broadcast on various BBC channels or work with independent production companies to fund productions, in return for distribution rights, regardless of where it is broadcast domestically.
BBC Worldwide has also been investing in independent production companies in order to increase their distribution catalogue.
Disclosure: I worked for BBC Worldwide for 9 years and then ran my own post-production company for a few more years.
They aren't burdened by paywalls or quarter-capitalism. As long as they do a good job (ensuring that the public want them funded) I think they'll be around.
In Sweden, SVT (public service channels) have done a good job providing all content online, on Apple TV, etc. It feels like they have a modern mindset.
Source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one which I assume would have the broadest possible definition
The licence is needed for any "live broadcast tv". The equipment used is not relevant; and the source of the signal is not relevant. So someone in England watching French satellite TV still needs a licence.
"1.3 Note also that “received” means receiving a TV programme as it is being broadcast on TV. It does not include receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."
Meaning that anything that is live, or recorded from a live signal, requires a TV licence - whether or not it came from an over-the-air signal or via an IP service.
But if you consume a catch-up TV service, or watch DVDs, or use Netflix... then you do not need a TV licence.
Aside from the person I know who works at the BBC, no-one I know now has a TV licence, just as no-one I know has a land-line telephone. Modern technology (smart TVs and smart DVD players mostly) have obliterated old style viewing.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/29/bbc-the-voice-i...
Kind of a moot point now seeing as the BBC were outbid for the next series:
Same goes for our national health service, which is currently being gutted for the same reasons.
Furthermore it creates a potential conflict of interest. Do you pass a law that benefits 'your' company over private companies? What about passing a law levels the playing field in a sector but will take profits away from the government?
Not that the last Labour government were very keen on it!
Friends of Rupert Murdoch.
"The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said."
"The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead."
Yeah. So if enough people decide they don't need or want the BBC so they're not paying for it, it will hit a threshold where they just start charging everyone.
One of the important things to note is that the US absolutely dominates world media, from TV to movies to music to everything else. For countries that are linguistically compatible (UK, Canada, Australia, etc) this is extra-true. You get into a weird situation where the bulk of the entertainment being consumed by the populace is foreign-made, and there's increasingly less room for expressions of local culture.
The funding of the CBC in Canada for example is less about making you watch the CBC but more about state funding to create local arts and culture in an environment where foreign culture dominates. It's about making sure "Canadian TV" and "Canadian music" even exists (sorry about the Bieber).
I can't speak for the BBC, but it's also important to note that unlike public broadcasters of the US like PBS, the CBC is not a giant money pit. It creates programs that are highly successful, generate revenue, and have viewership competitive with major American programs. The CBC is a mainstream cultural institution in a way that the PBS can only hope to be, so it's not as if taxpayer money is being spent to create shows nobody watches.
Yes, it is messed up.
The entertainment isn't produced by the state though. The BBC is owned and funded by the British public, not the state. The government isn't directly involved in the BBC, although "BBC Trustees are appointed by the British monarch on advice of government ministers"[0]. Other European countries have similar models.
Besides, and I understand that this is a contentious issue, I think that there are certain services that all members of a society should pay for, even if not everybody uses them. My taxes pay for roads even though I don't own a car. Bear in mind that the BBC also produces news and a lot of other content, all without ads and independent of commercial interests.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Governance_and_Corporate_S...
The media industry is so backward. I can't believe most of them still live in the 90s and these problems haven't been solved yet.
Even netflix support don't realise this.
In another region, the shows in the language of the region where you pay come with subtitles in the region's native language(s) that can't be turned off in a pleasant way through the UI. It can be done via a hack where you can provide the player with your own custom, empty, subtitles file, but this has to be reloaded for each new episode / movie that you play. It took me a good while to figure out how to do this via forums, it's certainly not something Netflix suggest or encourage, or even seemingly acknowledge, in their help sections.
A related problem is that for shows not in the language of the region where you pay, there aren't any subtitles in your language, even though back in the region where you pay, that same show is available, of course with subtitles in your language.
I don't know if it's Netflix themselves, or draconian licensing conditions that lead to this absurdity, but I suspect the latter as with Netflix's own shows, the problem doesn't exist. It basically boils down to this: because I'm in a non-English region, I can watch a show in English but I'm not allowed to just understand it - I must watch it with subtitles! If it's a non-English show, I can watch it but I am not allowed to have help understanding it with English subtitles, even though they're obviously and trivially available. What is the point of these rules?
Unfortunately they do not allow you to turn on English subtitles, and their translation is incredibly poor.
Part of the problem is the broken status of international copyright law and the many incompatible local laws and regulations. If the international community could at least settle for an standard approach to digital distribution over the internet, the world would be a happier place for consumers.
Content publishers make separate deals with distributors (cable & satellite) along their service-area borders, and can therefore sell the same content multiple times over to different regions, most likely charging pricing based on income levels and audience size, etc.. And no doubt a lot of these deals are exclusive, or at the very least timed exclusives..
I know this isn't news to anyone, but I feel like this whole "sell the same thing over and over" must have a much bigger impact on the very slow internationalization of media, rather than any kind of legal hurdles.
Publishers want the status quo because they make multiples of licensing income on the same content, and established distributors want the status quo because they fend off competition (and lock in their customers) from new global competitors who have better business models.
I can see why content producers may want these new deals, to get better control, but don't count on anyone else in the gravy train media chain to do anything other than fight new models tooth and nail until the bitter end.
Here in europe, and I'm assuming the US as well, there's no way to buy and own a movie or TV show in a similar way. It's either DRM or physical media, usually accompanied by long delays before the release reaches europe. Or if available on Amazon Video the film often won't be available in its original language and instead only offer german (for me). Not sure how iTunes or Google handle that but in a nutshell: It's a mess and it has led me to lose interest in film and movies in recent years since a lot of the releases I've been interested in either weren't available or put up barriers left and right.
I buy everything in lossless format and rarely have to look very hard - the few times I had to it turned out to be a vinyl or CD-only release, which wasn't available lossy either. I'm into rather obscure stuff, which may actually help here - I'm not sure but could imagine that it's harder to get lossless audio for the top 40.
Well, here are the stores I use: - Bleep - Boomkat - Qobuz (most iTunes-like with a big selection across all genres, including classic and jazz) - Bandcamp - HDTracks (beware, snake oil! There's no need to go above CD quality in my opinion) - Label / artists stores (yes, many labels or artists sell their music directly without middlemen and in a wider range of formats) - last resort: what.cd or buy the CD and rip it yourself
"The international community" does get together and try to hammer out frameworks of copyright and tariffs which harmonize regulation globally. That's where large chunks of things like the TPP and the TTIP come from, and all the internet-melting complaints about the harmonization of copyright laws and the ability of american corporations to enforce copyright laws on australians and the like. But that's what you're asking for - 'why can't everyone just get together and sort out international copyright law so the media industry can come out of the 90s.' They're trying, but you won't like it when they do.
I know of one difference. Jimmy Carr advertised on twitter his new special more than a month ago. Still not available in the US. That just makes no sense to me, and not that I'm reminded of this I think I'll torrent it.
EDIT: hmm, googling doesn't show there is a Jimmy Carr netflix special. The tweet in question:
Which skews your sample.
There are currently two separate posts on the front-page about 1999's "Age of Empires 2" being a nice video game.
We get Amazon Prime free shipping via my brother's business so we have not signed up ourselves and don't get the free Amazon Prime content which friends and family members say is amazing.
The thing is: there is so much good content that it is fine, at least for me, to not have access to everything.
Another distribution model that I like is Google Play Movies and TV. It is a little pricy but I wanted to watch the Worricker Triliogy (fantastic!!) the the new scifi Expanse and it was so very convenient simply buying both series and watching them anytime on any device. If the cost was a little less, and if Google Play had most content, I think that I could be happy with a completely a la cart pay per view experience.
A suggestion for anyone working in this industry: when content is rented, offer a purchase option that is valid for a week. Sometimes I have rented movies and liked them enough that I would pay the difference to own permanent viewing rights.
The last time I looked, the commercial free version of Hulu still had commercials for some shows. Has that changed?
http://www.hulu.com/help/articles/52427902
Grey’s Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl and How To Get Away With Murder
It also says shows available for next-day viewing will still have commercials.
Any guesses why this is? It seems so strange to me that it isn't possible to offer a commercial free service.
Reality TV began with GenX/millenials (MTV in the '90s with The Real World) and I'm not familiar with people older than that who watch that. I say that; I'll watch Counting Cars now and again. Reality TV represents a trade of quality for volume. Us boomers endured dreck like "Dallas".
I think the future is in nonfiction. I am biased to like things like BookTv. The costs are relatively low, it's got a pretty high hit rate ( some subjects will simply not engage some people ) but it's not really media any more. Add some "media" to it and you get the execrable TED talks.
I can't see that supporting much in terms of ad revenue. But it might stream on some sort of modest subscription basis.
I'm not sure how I'd make the distinction clear though, because stuff like "Ghost Hunters" feels a lot more like the Real World kind, despite being (ostensibly) more like a documentary.
Ratings also tend to go down as a show matures, both as the quality and novelty drop off (even The Wire has its critics of the last season) and as the show is exposed to a wider audience.
Taking this into account, I don't think user ratings are the best measure of a show's appeal.
And I also have the impression that Netflix shows have a stronger "fan review only" effect, as you must be proactive to start watching that show on the first place.
Another effect is that for movies, after you decide to watch it is easier to get to the end even if you are not liking (more so if you are on a theater). So most people watched 100% of the content. If you don't like a show, you do not pass the first episode. So if you did not watched more than 10% of content, I assume you won't feel confortable with giving a negative review.
So that is why I dont trust reviews for TV shows
Netflix can do what the Japanese autos did: start at the lower end with good but inexpensive TV shows and then eat up the value chain until they are producing blockbuster flicks of superior quality at a lower price. Give me a great blockbuster movie with an actual plot and actual dramatic tension and it's game over.
I hope Hollywood revives action movies (1980/90s style; eg Die Hard 1/2) with real stunts and little CGI again, as well as films with good realistic stories, realistic characters, funny and with a little drama (eg The Family Stone).
Many of the companies that produce content are retooling and reorganizing specifically to deliver that content over the internet. None of them want to use Netflix, instead wanting their own service, but the growth of such streaming services has emboldened them. They both see that it's possible to go directly to consumer, -and- that it will be necessary at some point in the future, as the increase in cord cutters means less money on the incumbent TV providers to pay them with in contract negotiations. They realize they either are looking at ever dwindling fees, and thus, dwindling business, or they have to be able to circumvent the existing distributors.
So it's not just that Netflix is managing to create great content; its mere existence is leading to much of the content that TV distributors currently have a stranglehold on to be distributed directly by the content company.
Netflix is only 80kr, or about 12 dollars, whereas I pay almost 30 dollars for the tv fees. I watched about 10 minutes of broadcast tv last year but many hours of netflix. I don't get why I should be forced to pay for something that doesn't produce any value for me.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/tv-list-2/#
Also, on their "Top 10 TV Shows 2015", I only see two Netflix shows in places 8 and 9 on the list.
Netflix do produce some top quality shows, but the aren't currently killing it as much as the author claims.
They do not have the overhead of filling 24 hours a day with new content, Netflix is all killer no filler in terms of content production.
And it turns out, that that's only a few hundred hours of TV per viewer per year, many of whom belong to those same small demographic groups that share great overlap in interest.
BTW, I'm really glad they turned down Top Gear whilst at the same time producing shows like Jessica Jones. One seems so dated and a decade ago whilst the other feels now or from the future.
But the biggest selling point? For us is ... reception. Yeah, in the old days TV was full of snow. Now we've gone digital TV is just glitches and pops and whistles. We go from around 180 channels to 20 every time we re-scan the TV (which is about once a month) .... most of the time the TV is unwatchable.
Everyone I know is now Netflix and/or Amazon and/or both.
Whoever gets Premier Football, Ruby, F1, Moto GP, Formula E and the olympics will win TV forever.
In 2014 [1] people in the US watched an average of 2.8 hours of TV per day.
I think you make a good point but it leaves me asking is filler important and if so why? Are viewers going to watch filler if they don't find anything good on Netflix? My guess is that live events like sports and news are the two elements of TV which Netflix can't replace.
[0]: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/netflix_statistics-fa...
Last week with some Christmas funds we bought a 24" TV. Even at the point-blank range it is sitting at, 1080P isn't worth much so I got the nicer (and non-Smart!) 720P Samsung rather than the off-brand "we have 1080P!"-bullet-point-feature brand. We also got a Amazon Fire stick to stream to it. We took perverse glee in making the first thing we streamed to it Netflix's 4K Fireplace stream: http://www.netflix.com/title/80092839
However, it's not that big a deal when watching from 5-6 meters.
One major downside is that you can't stream 4K Netflix or Amazon to your browser so even on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor (or if you have a fancy 4k or 5k display) you won't get the option. It's only available on various streaming "sticks" or TV-based "apps" at the moment. As far as I know, it's only really meant as a roadblock to casual ripping of 4k content since it wouldn't be difficult to determine whether a viewer's computer had the proper hardware decoders to ensure smooth playback. Unfortunately for viewers, it means you can't get those higher quality streams without buying a device or using a "smart" TV. And last time I checked, there's no shortage of pirated 4K content out there. It's currently one of the only ways to do it if you don't want to rely on a Fire stick, another set top box, or some possibly-secured TV app platform. Not a huge deal on my 2560x1440 monitor since it's not too big and 1920x1080 looks fine. But I'm likely picking up a 4k TV in the next month thanks to a $500 gift card and wanting to game at those resolutions. It's a shame I'll have to either pirate 4k shows or plug in the ethernet cable to the TV when I want to stream legit.
I assume you've already covered this but just in case, do you have the most recent drivers and software for your GPU? I know in the past that (on Windows systems at least) using the default "mostly works" driver that comes with the OS, I'll notice issues with performance because I'm missing any hardware acceleration that the Intel/nVidia/AMD GPU can do.
Typically I notice it on work machines that just got reimaged with a generic OS image and don't have the relevant GPU drivers installed yet. Moving windows around, resizing, and other windowing tasks are a bit choppy until I download the appropriate package.
Again, I assume you already thought of this if you're specifically buying a higher resolution display than the average cheap PC comes with. Still, it's the only thing that I've had affect framerate/refresh in fullscreen video in the past.
The beginning of "Narcos" is filmed from a helicopter down on some streets in a city, that was the first thing I ever saw in UHD, pretty cool! Now I've gotten used to it haha
That's where the future is heading, me thinks. And yes I have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. Sure the cost pretty much equals what I would pay for cable but I prefer this way.
Narcos — 94% (Another crazy disconnect as critics only rated it 78%)
The author preaches shows produced by data driven companies, then when a rating data driven company has results he judges abnormal to his taste he insinuates something is wrong.
Personally, I found Marco Polo okay, the visuals are good, but the plot got boring after a while. I would not give it more than 50%. As for Narcos, 78% seems legit, I found the whole traditional drama show mixed with documentary interventions awkward. And would not give it more than 75%.
As for the article, of course linear TV is going to get disrupt. But I doubt Amazon or Netflix will get a monopoly. AMC and HBO will simply put their content online, and TV providers will make their revenue loss from linear TV on higher internet consumption.
In the beginning I was always wishing that Netflix would get famous TV shows/ new movies to the platform ASAP.
Now a days I really want to see more of their own content in the platform instead.
To me, the absence of commercials definitely makes the experience far more enjoyable, and I can better relate to the stories and characters when the experience isn't constantly interrupted.
If you want soccer, you might even have to change ISP / mobile provider to get it (EPL on Optus)
In the past, I looked at Netflix streaming as a more affordable replacement for basic cable: just like with basic cable (all of the USA/TBS/TNT/etc channels) you couldn't necessarily count on finding a specific movie like with a video store or a VOD setup but you could skim through the offerings, just like flipping channels, and find something you wouldn't mind watching. Other times, it would seem like there's "nothing on".
Nowadays there's enough good, original programming coming out throughout the year that it reminds me more of premium cable. And just as you'd tack on another $5 or $10/mo for HBO, MAX, Starz, etc. you can individually subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, and others depending on which ones you find worth paying for based on the shows they produce.
The other side to it (for me at least) is the convenience of video on demand without messing with DVRs and such. I've said it before and I'll say it again--if cable wanted a way to make me gladly pay $50/mo or more for their service, they'd give me something like a legit version of Popcorn Time. I messed around with that (via VPN of course) when it was making waves a while back and even though I currently subscribe to cable, HBO, Netflix, and Amazon, I was choosing to watch shows via Popcorn Time.
The thing it offered was a single, attractive list of all shows available and a way to bookmark the ones I liked and show which episode I left off on. It brought the Netflix interface to cable TV and was simply a more enjoyable way to watch.
I realize that I'm not entitled to whatever I want for free and I understand that this was still an unlicensed way to watch but I didn't feel it was immoral since I already paid for access to the shows. Even if distribution deals would prevent Comcast and friends from offering everything that way, it would be quite welcome and forward-thinking if they leveraged their unique position as content distributor to offer up something along those lines. Again, it's the one thing that would make me almost glad to pay for cable again, rather than only doing it begrudgingly because it's relatively cheap when bundled with internet access.
Eventually, content producers will realize that their delivery is usually horrible, and causes a lot of pain for consumers (I have to pay Comcast $300/month to watch the occasional football game? Sorry, not watching football.) and come up for better, more convenient ways for consumers to pay for the content they consume.
The only thing that the TV networks might have had going was to produce their own drama. They didn't - they just produced home improvement shows in the 90s, and really bad reality TV in the 2000s. Very little in the way of drama, and what was created was dross.
So, goodbye TV! Hello Netflix!
Point being, I don't think live sports is enough for cable to survive on. Once that's all that cable is good for, I think an increasing number of people will simply give up on sports, especially at $100+/month.
So for a lot of people, they don't need to be worth $100+/month but they do need to be worth $30-ish per month. Whether they are is debatable but if anyone in your house still likes to "flip" channels and watch the latest cable/network TV, it's not always a done deal. If it were up to me, I'd ditch the cable TV because I hardly watch it and would spend less just renting "season passes" to the handful of shows I do.
Still, I wonder if it would really go over well because even for something less popular, they'd have to buy the broadcast rights and then people without Netflix (and potentially without the bandwidth to even get Netflix) suddenly can't watch their games. It would be like putting pro hockey or football/soccer (in the US) on HBO. Sure, those don't have the demand of NFL football or MLB baseball in the states but they have enough of a fan base who's used to watching on ESPN, etc that it may seem like an unwelcome paywall.
Honestly not really sure what sports would have both enough of a viewer base to be worth the effort and are underrepresented enough that fans would just be glad someone is giving them coverage.
I agree though. If Netflix has outdone cable by beating them to the trend of video-on-demand, they may eventually need to address those areas where cable and broadcast remain the norm. I suppose cable and broadcast could focus more on that live content and leave the rest to streaming companies but eventually the competition will come down to people only wanting to pay for one or the other.
The big issue here is the service providers like Comcast will be relegated to becoming purely pipe providers as they are supposed to be. They are getting hit from both ends by Google and Netflix.
As it is , they feed a lot of cash to local stations and ESPN. Those probably won't survive at all, unless as some sort of premium online content.
HBO/SHO?: Who knows?
If they weren't able to come up with some hits after that, then they weren't trying.
Somewhere behind the scenes, Netflix is applying sabermetrics to Hollywood.
Except it's worse than in baseball... Unlike Oakland, all their competitors (except maybe Amazon) can't just copy their approach, because all their data is private, not public.
Perhaps it's just more efficient for Netflix to commission content or buy it and then distribute it themselves. The on-demand model means no concerns about finding the right timeslot and that's something even NBC has to deal with despite their Comcast ownership.
Or maybe as the newcomer, they have to take more risks whereas the older networks are more risk-averse. Right now Netflix reminds me of nothing so much as it does HBO. It's got older movies and content that it's licensed from others and it's got its own content that often seems less concerned with getting the broadest and widest appeal.
Netflix streaming is basically the evolution of premium cable and all they really did differently was jump straight to online-only delivery.
My working assumption is that the lessons learned from the prediction engine they've built are a qualitative leap over just "what's popular, assuming all of the US is composed of identical viewers." Or even a few demographic divisions.
Eh, I could be wrong though. Maybe this is just a gutcheck, I think Netflix is better at data science than other studios, because they have more experience working with programmers and large datasets.
Redbox likes to advertise "not on netflix for years" on certain titles.
And they are right.
For someone who never goes to theaters like me, I hope redbox stays in business.
GF: "Oh nice... so where can I choose the movies?"
Mom: "You select the movie channel at 20:15 and it shows it"
GF: "What? I that's in four hours! Who pays a company to wait? This sounds like Netflix in bad to me..."
Classic cable TV is basically dead.
First Netflix&co had better airing times (on demand, haha) and now they invest in better shows.
Besides Rick and Morty and Game of Thrones, every show I watched last year, was made by Netflix or Amazon.
And this seems to be a good thing. Just look at stuff like orange is the new black. These new producers are far less conservative than the old media companies.
They've been pretty aggressive in rebuilding their platform content wise. If you use a regular cable (not wireless) the online archive is actually pretty big and they have all the latest blockbusters.
They even offer a DRMed download of content which I haven't seen on any other platform (quite convenient if you commute via train through low-bandwidth areas :D).
That being said...Netflix is awesome and they have excellent developers and understand software. Their original content is amazing, very bullish on them :)
Truthfully, it's not as cost effective as Netflix, but hey, where else can I watch the Premier League and La Liga?
Back in the early 90s (~25 years ago) i got my first unix account that had access to the INTERNET! I could have nicely formatated text (via html) sent to my computer running Lynx. That alone was amazing.
The my brother brought home a movie on a CD-ROM. Barely watchable video quality. The i read about the "future" and how eventually you could have a movie streamed to you when you wanted to watch it! Give me a break, that's technically impossible.
And here we are today!
Otherwise, yea Concast et. al. Seem to have their heads in the sand.
As a result, you can now subscribe to Netflix in these markets and not get access to their own programming. Yes, it is as terrible as it sounds.
In Australia, all the streaming providers have the problems of not being able to show all content. There is stuff in Australia that we can't watch at all. Bypassing Geoblocks makes me a citizen of the entire world, which I gladly pay for.
Serious question: Would nationalizing Comcast fix anything, or make it worse?