Netflix Is Now Available Around the World
media.netflix.com
media.netflix.com
It will also be interesting to see how other content providers (Amazon, but also CNN, HBO, and more conventional TV Providers) follow suit in the pursuit of eyeballs and expanding global markets.
Netflix is based on subscription, but it would be interesting to know if there is a company or network of companies equipped to sell digital advertising localized, at global scale to support a "free" model often seen on US network applications.
But I'm not sure any of the partners in the conventional setup have a reason to change. US networks don't care about worldwide rights. Producers don't care who is paying them for the rights. Other country networks like having content to license.
Other than China and India, no other market is as big or insular as the US. In Europe people travel across borders and speak multiple languages all the time, and yet it's like pulling teeth to put together multiple regional subtitle rights for use in a country where it is not the native language. For someone to subscribe to Netflix and be able to use it in multiple countries with the subtitles of their choice consistently available is a huge benefit to a huge number of affluent users. This is something which the existing film industry is incapable of doing structurally, and therefore is a huge advantage that can only be replicated by the biggest producers (ie. major studios). And those big companies do not have product development and UX in their DNA, so they will struggle to compete with Netflix in this regard (to date only HBO shows promise). But meanwhile the Netflix experience will be so much better that they will undermine the foundations of industry.
I'm reminded of how in 2007 no corporate IT department would allow employees to use iPhones, and even though Apple never explicitly addressed the enterprise market, and Microsoft bent over backwards to give corporate buyers what they wanted, at the end of the day companies which didn't allow their employees to use their iPhones for work suffered a competitive disadvantage.
BTW the problem extends beyond subtitles. International movies typically are just available in their original language + local translation (German). Then sometimes the video stream also differs from the English version (e.g. when there is a sign in German language).
It is quite possible that this is due to licensing issues. This link here https://mrgnome.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/no-option-to-turn-o... might or might not help you, given its age.
In some sense it is still better than Amazon Prime in Germany with only German audio being available when I was using it last.
Do you know whether the same thing happens with Netflix original content as well?
> Other than China and India, no other market
> is as big or insular as the US.
I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or something like that. What do you think?
At some point I assume they will also become the channel that VR content could be sent through as well, maybe in partnership with Facebook?
They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it.
But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.
Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.
It would be interesting to see how this would/could be applied to both rentals and purchases - rent the bonus features for $0.50-2 each, purchase them for $2-5 each or something like that.
I wouldn't want to watch a film with extra fluff that added nothing to the story, just for a cash-grab by the maker of the film.
Extra add-on features are always pointless: look at the Dreamcast and the add-on packs you could put into the controller. As it was entirely optional, none of the games could depend on it being there so had to cater for controllers without it, so this little LCD on your controller just ended up showing Rayman walking or dancing, and contributed nothing to the game.
The same is happening with Macbooks and iPhones, where developers cannot rely on the user having a "force touch" touchpad or iPhone 6nnnn (whatever it is), so cannot rely on that hardware feature being available; because of this, they cannot say "feature X is done by using force touch" because if you have a Macbook without that hardware, you can't use that feature. So it must get ignored to cater to everyone.
In the case of stories and films, the story must still make sense without the extra scenes. This makes the extra scenes pointless.
You obviously can't apply it to every movie, but you could appply it to quite a few. For instance, there's little point in extra content for Inception, because the movie world is defined by the start and the end of that very movie, and as you said, it has to make sense in its basic version. But consider things with already established franchises. I Disney would start publishing DLC sub-stories to the Force Awakens, I'm betting that every hardcore Star Wars fan would feel obliged to see them. The world portrayed in the movie is much bigger than the movie itself, and is has communities formed around it. To participate in the fandom, you need to be up to date with the canon. I'm pretty sure it could work with Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.
Then there are movies for which such a move would be a gamble. LotR and Hunger Games are franchises too, but I don't think they're strong enough to support DLC money-grab.
Anyway, enough suggesting ideas to them :). I absolutely hate DLCs. I just couldn't resist discussing the concept in the abstract.
I think this could totally work for something like Inception too. The film has a backstory suggests at a wider context beyond what's shown in the scenes. Most stories do. That's why fanfiction exists.
Also: > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great.
From what I hear, that's not true, but it's all hidden through magical "Hollywood accounting" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)
Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?
If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. But if Netflix can deliver high enough production values (coupled with higher quality home equipment) then it may put theatres out of business. Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.
I think that's what it comes down to.
>Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.
But that's been a trend for a long time. There is some evidence that high-quality AV equipment with digital content did impact ticket sales. But I don't know if it's going to kill it. The one thing that cinema has going for it is it's a destination when you want to get out of the house.
And we do have a good thing going. If you want to see a new release RIGHT NOW, you pay $15/person/view. If you don't, you wait a few months to rent it for $5 or wait a little longer and watch it for 'free' on Netflix or TV. That's eco101 price discrimination.
I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive content. I pay $130/mo. for a cable package that provides almost no content that I enjoy and includes a DVR that frequently craps out when recording the few shows that I do watch. I'd rather pay Netflix an extra $30/mo. (or more, depending on what they can offer) for that premium content and ditch my cable package altogether.
Precisely the things I don't watch :P
> Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...
Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors
Let's see what the price is when they are entrenched as a global monopoly with a vast catalog of culturally relevant content that you can't get anywhere else. It may very well act as Hollywood on steroids.
Crunchbase tells us that the only investment was $36m. The rest is regular debt, $1.7bn! It just shows how much banks trust their business model.
For context I watched the force awakens last night at iMax (premium recliner chairs which was nice!) for $43. But you can't see a movie in Australia for less than about $23 these days. We're directly funding hollywood's lifestyle.
This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.
Hard to imagine how that would be possible...
I think some of the low to medium budget movies will make the transition to simultaneous streaming releases where it may be easier to recoup money early on. This may or may not force a similar thing to happen with big budget films, but too many lifestyles would be affected for this to happen in any short to medium term.
Pretty much what happened to authors of novels.
I know authors usually use publishers for review / editing / publication, but I'm not aware of a time where the relationship was not "publisher gets X% cut of revenue". When was it "author gets X million dollars"?
The same applies to music. Pretty much every creative industry outside film is paying the performers or creators a percentage of sales. Its just harder for that to scale to endeavors that take thousands of people like modern blockbusters.
(Royalties aren't rare either, but a lump sum agreement isn't eyebrow raising in the least)
For performers, actors in plays, members of an orchestra, backup dancers behind a pop star... most are getting paid per performance or per period of time, not royalties. Royalties are more common for people who can take a majority responsibility for the end product, e.g. a solo artist or an author.
Much like making music, filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level... it's distribution costs that remain high (hard to reach a large audience without massive ad $$, known actors, and an established publisher). Netflix would seriously disrupt that, boosting "indie" film making in the same way that Spotify / youtube / myspace / etc seriously boosted non-mainstream music. We still have A-list musicians but the long tail is seeing far more success than before.
But Indie music is better in the personal preference category and usually no worse in production values. And on the other hand what we see in regular tv: we see increasing abundance of content , and most people flocking more and more to the highly rated content which usually has high production values and often some measure of high brand.
That's probably because they don't want to risk an hour of their time. On the other hand , listening to a new song ? who cares if it's bad - it's only a minute to switch to something else , and it's a social custom too.
Young Harrison Ford in the late 1970s might have been willing to trade away the use of his likeness in future Star Wars films for a relatively small consideration.
In the future, if a studio can find a relatively unknown actor who wants the work, it's possible they could do with a digitally-produced likeness, in case the original actor doesn't want the job. (Sort of an augmented version of the SNL contract)
Variety claims 10 - 20 million http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pa...
Sydney Morning Herald had an article says that it would be $34 million if it breaks $1 billion gross earnings (which is likely). http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-for...
Probably a bad example, because the studio's investment in Harrison Ford in SW:TFA will surely be repaid many times over, and isn't really threatened by netflix.
The market decides these things.
It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries.
A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats.
Sure, the "Star Wars" name would be enough to put butts in seats but without Ford, Fisher and Hamil, this movie would have made less money.
If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.
In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray.
As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground.
And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films.
> If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.
Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up.
And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.
Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model?
Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.
No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers.
One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.
I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit.
> No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers.
Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely.
For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen.
We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow.
There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup.
It might happen one day but no time soon.
A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.
That's not exactly how movie economics works. The script calls for a male character, 30-40 years old, good-looking as he's the subject of romantic story. The casting operation calls a few agents and comes back with data that Tom Cruise will want $3m, Ryan Philippe will want $2m, some known actor who's currently in a TV series wants $500k, or a no-name actor showing promise will do it for $80k.
It's up to the studio heads and producers to circle down on an option they consider reasonable. They are aware that a portion of movie revenues is generated by having a brand-name actor, i.e., there will be 200,000 extra tickets sold if Tom Cruise's name is on it. Tom Cruise is also aware of this dynamics, which explains the premium.
But it's also not that simple. Actors like to pretend they're in this industry for the sake of "art", not "money", which means that if you have an interesting script and an "artistic" director with a potential of making to Sundance or Cannes, you might then get a brand-name actor for essentially free (you'll have to pay some union-mandated salary). Every big name actor has this "artistic" no-budget movie in his belt, to showcase their "range" and to signal to public that it ain't about the money, which leads to more public attention and larger check for the next franchise movie, as the actor is still "hot".
I guess I like a world where a $300 million Lord of the Rings trilogy exists. It's not necessary but I like it.
That said, the studio will probably get at least half of each of those $5, and I've known people who think absolutely nothing of renting movies for $5 multiple times per day, literally no cognitive difference between picking some $5 movie on iTunes and choosing another one on Netflix. Multiply that, e.g. 1% * $global, and pretty soon you're talking about real money for everybody.
$10-25million is nothing to pay an actor with a main part in a movie that may make $5 billion dollars for the studio.
At the big-chain theatre that I saw Star Wars, the "standard" price for a non-3D movie is $19.50. However it's very easy to get discounted prices for any movie. I paid $12.50 for my ticket, booked it online a few minutes before I left home.
I'm quite sure that the extra dollars paid for the $43 movie ticket was going to the movie theatre, not Hollywood.
Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema.
And I don't watch big budget movies all the time. I can see them getting customers to keep paying the monthly subscription for the cheaper to make content and then they have enough money left over to film a few huge movies every year. Especially if they use relatively unknown talent that won't get paid tens of millions a film.
Which means you're spending $180 on movies per year. $120 for a legacy catalogue of hundreds of movies, and $60 for six new releases. So why would they give up that extra $60?
As for your next question, maybe making their own movies does not exclude theatrical releases and getting another $60 from me.
I think their bigger concern is not having to deal with expiring streaming rights and regional distribution rights. They want their own library of quality content.
A $200 million film that grosses a billion worldwide.. Those margins aren't bad.
For ex: (10 million movie-goers * $10 tkt price =$100 m rev)
(100 million Netflix users * $1(considering that Force Awakens title in Netflix library is being accessed by 1/10th of total library and N'flix is paying Star Wars accordingly) =$100 m)
-- there will be 100-200 m Netflix subscribers who can access all the content anywhere in the world
-- there won't be any physical media drive in existence in which you can slot your DVD.
-- economies of scale for Netflix with dirt cheap internet will force people to consume content cheaply and easily.
-- there will be so much advancement in Televisions and Home theater systems that it would make cinema screen inferior.
Won't these reasons be good enough?
It did happen to me when my daughter was born, I couldn't go to cinema but still wants to see new movies.
Avatar production cost: $237,000,000 USD
Avatar global revenue : $2,787,965,087 USD
91% of Avatar's total revenue was pure profit... practically unheard of in most industries.
Sure, Avatar is a unicorn, and sure studios often produce strike-out movies... but the occasional home-run more than makes up for them.
> How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees?
Perhaps the $200 million production cost is unreasonable. We've all seen how many people and companies are involved in producing a single movie. The actor assistants have assistants that have assistants who have paid interns. One company will do a single character model while another goes a different character.
There's so much waste in the movie industry... it's ripe for the typical "SV" disruption (come in cheaper, and same or similar quality, and make it more easily accessible to the masses).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...
"Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.
A 10+ meter screen plus great sound.
A chance to get out of the fucking couch/house.
Getting to see a movie along with lots of other people (the mere fact of sharing the experience with a whole audience is important to a lot of people and a frequently written about part of the cinema experience, even though some people --introverts, touchy etc-- can't stand others next to them).
I'm sure there were people who insisted on using horse driven carriages, long after automobiles took over. "It's just the proper, cultured thing to do. And you can tip your hat to other passing carriages! The shared feeling!"
Although note that sentimental items can have a value of their own. Cinemas could perhaps even increase the ticket price dramatically in that world, making it a "luxury item" on purpose. "Tell her the depth of your feelings with a real cinema ticket". Remember diamonds?
I'm not big into movies and I don't care for the cinema "experience" at all but I do like to get out of the house once in a [great] while to see a movie with friends. The actual movie we go see isn't too important to me as long as it isn't terrible.
Where the headphones would make the talking-to-others impossible again.
> or, if you're dedicated, with speakers around the room.
Not to mention the HD projector/4K television, dedicated windowless room, comfy chairs, etc...
The point being that, yes, with enough time, money and effort you can of course build yourself a miniature cinema inside your home. But the idea of cinemas is that you don't need any of that to enjoy a movie in exceptional quality.
I live in a city apartment and have neither the physical space nor the dedication to get myself a professional-grade entertainment system. Does this mean I don't care about image details or sound quality? Of course not.
The social components of going to a cinema shouldn't be underestimated either. Watching a film in a crowd is a different experience than watching it with close friends at home - visit any midnight premiere of a movie with a decent fanbase if you need proof.
Depending on who you go there with, it can also be more than just the movie and be a part of going out in the evening.
The disruption seems like a loss of quality to me, where everyone except the rich or very dedicated would have to do with a significantly reduced experience tgan what is available today.
Fact is, I haven't been to a cinema screening in more than a decade, for several reasons:
- it requires me to drive at least 50 km (one way) - I want to see the film in its original language, which is impossible in local cinemas - the german versions (in my case) are simply horrible compared to the original. - many obscure indie films or documentaries are hard to find even if you're willing to drive those 50 km to the next big city
To me, cinema as a location doesn't come with any advantages and if the industry sticks to their content delivery restrictions, I'll lose interest in the medium - a process that has already started. Currently it takes months (often more than 12) from learning about a film and actually being able to see/buy it, mostly on Bluray or if that doesn't work, it's less legal sources. It's tiresome and naturally, I won't keep track of every movie I was interested in at some point.
"The Interview" went online directly, and from what I recall the box office results were kinda meh. Of course, we have no access to a parallel Universe where it would've been released through traditional channels, so it could had been a relative success fwiw.
I think they needs to go global quick, or they will not survive against netflix.
As it is now, the internet is a rather segregated place. Many media sites are only available in the US. "This is not available in your country".
I wonder if a big reason why netflix decided to make original content in the first place, is that its a huge pain to go global with content with regional rights.
Indeed. Its OK at the moment given that its piggy-backing off the Prime subscription. Without that I doubt I'd subscribe.
Seems fine on my Sony. No better/worse than the netflix one anyway
The purpose of Netflix is to provide entertainment. It makes sense for them to be everywhere.
I doubt we'll see Amazon PV around the world anytime soon -- it doesn't make sense for them to spend on the global licensing costs since it won't boost Prime subscriptions.
Of course, Amazon's cash cow right now is AWS. It's mind-blowing how much money companies will spend on that just because they resent maintaining their own hardware.
Of course most people see this already, and the extreme tactics around last mile broadband are exactly around this problem. Netflix can't work if their packets can't get to you, and the person who controls that last mile can hold their packets hostage (and has). If you want to poke a dragon some time, start advocating for equal access to broadband in your municipality :-).
At some point the channels will realize that cable carriers are a dead end and start selling to online companies like Netflix. Why should Netflix replace cable when it could become cable (less the exorbitant pricing and punch-a-hole-in-the-wall customer service)?
They're capable of expanding and pivoting though, more than most companies, so if they decide it's a priority, it's possible. It seems like a pretty big commitment though.
Since most of the news channels consist of rehashing things with the assumption that this is the "first" version you are seeing, they could provide a much better viewing experience that would certainly feel more curated and much more efficiently inform.
Making a Murderer is already in this direction.
"Passengers who bid see where they stand on a leaderboard, and just before boarding begins, the airline awards one upgrade to Main Cabin Select and one to first. The auction, with people bidding against each other in the gate area, can add some excitement—and some potential added frustration—to the boredom of waiting for a flight."
One thing I miss, since giving up cable, is instant content. I could turn the TV on and start watching something, before choosing to watch something else.
Now I turn on the TV and I'm immediately faced with the paradox of choice. If the news was just there, playing in the background while I browsed my other options, I would love this. It's something that would differentiate Netflix and keep me paying for their service.
In some countries Netflix is the only choice. Your right to be at least a little terrified. A few years ago Google was in the same position. Everyone loved them. Google could do no wrong. Now we're in a situation where search has been monopolized by an advertising company.
Everyone is upset about the cable company monopolies, while at the same time happily handing Netflix a new monopoly.
They did original content for as long as they existed, and HBO Now has been available globally for a while now.
Grandparent comment is right, Netflix is the trailblazer.
As an example, consider Africa (I'm Kenyan): the Barclays Premiere League is watched in virtually every country, but provided by one company, known as MultiChoice. Because almost everyone wants to watch football, and there is only one option, if they can afford it, they pay.
If Netflix (or some other company) was to obtain the rights to airing the BPL, all the middle-to-upper-class families in Kenya with decent internet connections would immediately consider switching.
Why waste a lot of money on very expensive content that does not scale and does not fit the Netflix profile?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning whether you've done enough actual research to know if this is really the case.
An interesting related statistic: Almost twice as many people go to the theatre in London as go to all the major Premiership football games[1]. I doubt many people would guess that if they were asked.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11001177/Almost-t...
The question for Netflix — and any content distributor — is whether the benefits justify the price. This calculation will be different for every organisation, based on their financial resources, expansion plans, existing market share, customer base, target customer base, etc. I suspect that, at the moment, the potential benefits from expanding into sport aren't justified for Netflix. They have a strong brand based on access to high-quality, episodic "TV-style" content, that is driving good growth already. Moving into showing live sports would be an expensive risk.
I suspect we'll see Netflix expand into streaming live events eventually, but probably not mainstream sports and news to begin with. It makes more sense for them to identify emerging sectors, such as esports, which have the potential for strong growth, but for which the rights are still relatively cheap.
To me it seems like they shot their own foot; now that I've wasted my free month on this, I'm not planning to pay in the future just to find out if their catalogue has improved.
USA: 7004
UK: 3589
Finland: 3380 (So high because they don't dub?)
Sweden: 2542 (But Sweden does not dub either ...)
Germany: 2415 (But Germany does)
France: 2254
Spain: 1482
Italy: 1393
Portugal: 924
(Europe really seems to get netflix light)
Example:
http://usa.netflixable.com/2016/01/complete-alphabetical-lis...
The total number of movies/shows/episodes is 7004.
(I hope that was what you where asking about)
[Though I really wish I could access some of the German language library directly from my Australian subscription.]
Why would you dub? I mean, why would you either have to dub everything or not include it? Just have at set up a screen that asks which languages you speak, whether you prefer dubs or subs and whether you will accept subs for everything that doesn't have a dub if you previously selected dub.
Why is language so tied to location? Specially in Europe! (and I can imagine there is a pretty large market for shows in Spanish or Mandarin in the U.S. too, and why not have those in French, German, Japanese, Korean, etc too while we are at it...)
I think this announcement probably changes things in the direction I want in this respect. But it always seemed like the obvious choice to begin with.
From a technical point of view is a trivial fix. From a commercial point of view? Well, either selling content in a different language is profitable, in which case negotiating the licenses is worthwhile, or it isn't very profitable, in which case "license to distribute in Japanese with subtitles inside Italy" should not be a very expensive right to acquire.
I have somewhat better luck with the previous episodes of American TV shows.
If I know exactly what I want to watch (and don't get lucky enough to find it on Amazon/Netflix/Hulu) I pay for PPV. I don't expect magic for <$10/mo, especially when the going rate for a one-off viewing is nearly half that.
They've had a handful of times where bigger-name movies burst in based on some deal or the other (Starz being the original big one, but there've been others since) but by and large Netflix has always been indie + back catalog as far as I've experienced it in the US.
Yeah. My main beef with Netflix is that I'd like to just sort content based on the 5-star rating. I'll rarely want to watch something that is less than a 2.0. And I'll consider just about anything that is 4.5 and above.
I'm with you that I'd like to sort/filter by rating, though I also recognize that tends to cause a snowball effect where you're either popular early or never watched at all.
Or is that not what you are looking for?
I do have a Windows laptop, but I rarely consume content on that these days. Mostly I am watching from my tablet, sometimes from my phone, and just very occasionally from my Blueray player (because the UI is terrible, slow, and buggy).
Like in SQL all you would need to do is change this:
SELECT * FROM movies
SELECT * FROM movies ORDER BY rating ASC
I used to use Netflix to ship me DVDs, then I protested the Qwikster move by switching to streaming-only, which was great for movies (for awhile) but has been shifting to TV content.
To be honest, I don't use Netflix much, but the value I get is still worth the $8/mo. Some months I don't use it at all, other months I binge-watch The Man in the High Castle.
When I want to watch a movie, I first hit Netflix (hey, free streaming!) to search for it... then I check Amazon Prime on my Fire Stick, because some titles are free. If it's available for rental, I'll pay the $4. If available for purchase only (or unavailable), then I'll hop over to the iTunes store on the AppleTV and hope it's available for rental.
Or I just go to canistream.it, which was about my only original invention ever, until I found out someone had already done it.
I do use that site quite a bit. It's very useful.
Do you mean that you get that content on Netflix? Or where do you watch?
At this point I'm fairly certain that I won't be able to find any movie from the list of things I'm interested in on Netflix. On Amazon maybe a few, for separate payment, which would be fine but half of their films don't offer the original audio track and instead force my local language. I absolutely don't want to see a dubbed version though. So, all things considered I think it's a mess if you have specific things to watch in mind.
I agree that if you have something specific in mind and don't already know it's on Netflix, you more likely than not won't find it. But I knew that going in, and never expected that to be the case in the first place.
If only this were an option. I'd gladly pay a few bucks to stream a movie. But outside of the US and Canada I don't think PPV even exists at all.
Amazon prime isnt available in my country. I dont know of any other online PPV sites (anyone?)
If I can't stream it from one of these netflix-type sites (and as everyone else has pointed out, the selection is crap) my only options are drive to a DVD rental shop or visit thepiratebay.
And they wonder why piracy is rampant.
That's ludicrously expensive if you just want to watch it once.
My fingers are crossed that this gamble is fruitful in bringing the cost to license content back down again to levels that are sustainable for Netflix. I also wonder if we'll ever see Netflix license Netflix original content to another network.
This is all conjecture purely as an enthusiast of Netflix.
Hopefully.
Also, to confirm what you said, we are supposed to get Star Wars: the force awakens first
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/netflix-stream-star-wars-forc...
I saw somewhere that we would get it in about six months.
In terms of content quality, Netflix (and their competitors) are the equivalent of a free-to-air TV channel with occasional big ticket titles that they likely blow their budget on.
Edit: I am also in one of the grey countries, and I can see the "Start your free month" page on netflix.com, instead of "unavailable in your country."
It works for me in Romania
There's consistently been a new season of a Netflix show that I've wanted to watch every month for a while now, so it doesn't seem like bad value. It helps that I share the account with a friend though, and I'm surprised they still let people do that.
I live in Jamaica and had subscribed to the version that was legitimately available to us w/o using a VPN or proxy or similar service.
The result was twofold:
- less content than on the US version (but the same price)
- a whole lot of content available in overdubbed Spanish only or with baked-on subtitles.
Guess they don't realize that south of the border there are countries that speak English (as well as French, Dutch and Portuguese).
Our cable companies have the same problem trying to legitimately license content from US broadcast and cable networks - they want to dump the "Latin American" feed on us...
I was working in Italy for a bit although they had audio in English for most programs I wanted to watch, subtitles were only available in Italian. Again, it's all because of licensing...
in the case of the latter, big media companies just don't care about small markets, as the cost of operating them is greater than the potential profits realized.
in the case of the former, i work in media and you are absolutely right - media licensing is stuck in a 1985 model, which only serves to sustain a few middlemen kind of players, but in the bigger picture sucks for both consumers and the companies that own the content.
one particular result of this is that many people who can't legitimately get what the want (in terms of downloads, streams, etc.) will just pirate it, having tried unsuccessfully to do things the right way and been frustrated.
Unfortunately that would cost you about the same as a cable subscription due to the licensing costs.
Lots of content = its all worth a whole lot less to people.
Notice how cord cutting has accelerated as people realize a) cable is far more expensive than the value they get out of it and b) the experience with Netflix, Amazon, etc has improved and new players have arrived (MLB, HBO Go).
When people go out of their way to download or stream a show, it's not usually background. Providers know that, that's why they insist on shoving 20 minutes of commercials in front of you for a 40 minute show. You're captive.
I truly believe there are a lot of people out there like me, who are willing to pay existing cable prices for completely on-demand content. They just don't know it/think about it because they aren't navel-gazers like we are.
Netflix already seams cheap at $8/month, especially with their laissez-faire approach to families sharing accounts.
If you read the press release it is available in every country in the world except Syria, Crimea, North Korea and China.
...ok, I am kidding.
Previously, the Netflix website did not work at all from outside of their regions. Want to cancel online? You cannot. Call them? Only if you are willing to pay for a overseas call. No email support, nothing.
I took these steps to cancel my account: 1) Open a Twitter account 2) Tweet about canceling my account 3) Send friend request (or whatever it is called) 4) Accept friend request 5) Send direct message 6) Receive a direct message with an email account 7) Send an email about cancelling my account
Cancel a Netflix account from overseas, all in 7 easy steps.
enjoy Netflix original series including Marvel’s Daredevil
and Marvel’s Jessica Jones, Narcos, Sense8, Grace and
Frankie, and Marco Polo
My understanding is that Netflix doesn't have streaming rights for most of the content that isn't theirs internationally, and that was the biggest barrier before.
My guess is that uptake will be slow, but the great thing is they just keep creating more content, so it'll be more compelling every year.
Now if only BBC's iPlayer would become global and allow us non-brits to pay for it (effectively subsidizing the TV license maybe?), that would be heaven.
I should set up my own VPN again, instead of using paid for services.
Edit: I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing, given I've never paid for a UK TV licence, but for official purposes I still live at my parents' house, who do pay.
But then I wanted one in the UK sometimes, and in the US sometimes.
And then I tried to watch HKTV from Taiwan, so needed one in HK.
So I ended up with ExpressVPN.
But... let's see what happens this year. Especially with netflix!
I built something similar with sshuttle (way easier than OpenVPN) two years ago, it's at https://github.com/lorenzhs/instavpn but it uses the old DO API and is rather hacky. sshuttle also isn't very good for streaming.
http://www.rethinkresearch.biz/articles/bbc-reawakens-plans-...
They say a BBC streaming subscription service is going to launch in the US this year.
Unfortunately I'm not sure the BBC have the entrepreneurial spirit to throw in their current international contracts, and try to launch themselves as a global network. I suspect they'll wait until the VoD market is much larger, which will mean that their competition will be very strong.
But the only thing which keeps me on it are the TV shows, seasons and seasons of it. I'm currently watching Mad Men , that's 6+ seasons I want to watch. I love the luxury of just catching up on a 30-45 min TV show while I'm multitasking, eating, playing PS4 etc.
I think Netflix or competitors who want loyal customers ,expanding library of TV shows should be their prominent strategy. I would suggest - giving out free episodes for every season, atleast 2 and see the signups go up.
Mine seems to be 99% series in the home screen.
Their selection of popular/well known movies has been decreasing over time though, as they've been losing some of those licences. But there's enough of them that it's good enough for "I want to watch some movie, let's see what's on Netflix".
> Their selection of popular/well known movies has been decreasing over time though, as they've been losing some of those licences. But there's enough of them that it's good enough for "I want to watch some movie, let's see what's on Netflix".
Not sure I agree with either. They have some old UK TV, but not that much. BBC offers almost no archive tv on iPlayer, so that's not much of a comparison! And I had to spend a significant amount of time trying to find any film I wanted to watch. My impression of the services was a bit like renting access to 10-15 box sets (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, some BBC Dickens adaptations, etc), and about 50 randomly selected, vaguely entertaining films. I had it for about 4 months before running out of anything I wanted to watch.
AWS knows that if they did anything to harm Netflix's business, it would reflect very poorly on them (and be morally and ethically wrong).
Also, while both offer streaming services, they don't really compete. Many people subscribe to both services.
But! It has complete history of Power Rangers franchise. I think every Power Rangers episode in history is there. So there is that.
What I'm really missing is the option to pay for single premium movies like the newest Avengers movie like I could on Amazon or Google. I don't understand why they don't offer the content that may be too expensive to them for general access at least for extra pay.
starting at $7.5/month (500 INR) with a first month free trial.
From the announcement, it sounds like basically the whole map should now be red with a few exceptions.
Yeey, Serbia available!
[1] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742?ba=GSButtonClick&q=
Most of the shitty German banks issue a German domestic card with a Maestro cobranding, but don't allow Card-not-present transactions so they can upsell credit cards.
I agree though that not a lot of online shops support payment with Maestro, MasterCard Debit, Visa Debit and to a lesser extend Visa Electron are used a lot more than Maestro.
Just make sure - if you get a credit card - to pay off the balance in full each month.
> Visa Electron card accounts may not normally be overdrawn. Visa Debit cards, on the other hand, typically allow transfers exceeding available funds up to a certain limit
> Some online stores and all offline terminals (like on trains and aircraft) do not support Visa Electron because their systems cannot check for the availability of funds.
So you should try to get a Visa Debit card.
As an example, while Amazon.com does not provide the support for them, Amazon.co.uk accepts my Visa Electron card without any issues and I bought a Raspberry Pi using Maestro.
...Spotify disagrees.
Indeed, but they work as "Visa" if you use them like that.
I'm from a country with a similar profile (South Africa) and I can tell you it definitely won't do anything of the sort. They just throttle the hell out of you as an incentive to upgrade.
If Netflix launched internationally with this sparse of a catalogue a year ago, it'd be a much more major problem. Today, though, Netflix has enough of their own series that there's a decent amount of new/interesting stuff to watch. Perk of owning their own content is that they already have the rights—nothing to negotiate for each new country.
Still, for now, the catalogue is sparse enough, you'll want a VPN to get your money's worth from a Netflix subscription outside the States.
Another interesting little thing. Better Call Saul is AMC in the States, but it's called a Netflix Original in most other countries—even Thailand where Netflix doesn't have any other AMC shows.
Also: HBO, time to get HBO Now in Asia.
I want to be able to at least just do a few search queries to check if what I had watched recently is there or I shouldn't even bother and save that "free month" offer for later (because if there's nothing to watch it'd be wasted).
I've just ran through what I had watched any recently. No single title was found. Not even on US Netflix.
And I wasn't watching any obscure stuff - I practically visited popular directory sites (like IMDB), set some basic genre filters and considered watching whatever had >=7.0 and some interesting description. Then, if I liked what I saw, checked some more by a same director.
Guess, I'll have to stay with my parrot and wooden leg.
So far DRM-free video didn't manage to break through on big scale.
I still have an issue that I can only watch some series/movies (e.g. sherlock holmes series) only in french + english, while my friends can watch them in english + german. All in same country (Luxembourg).
Changing the language on the tv and resetting netflix (konami code) changed to the "german" version. But now it's back to english + french.
Best thing would be to have access to all 3 languages here and not make any choice/guess based on tv language or browser environment
I watched HBO on TV which continuously shows (old) movies. I know Netflix is not like HBO. It is a VOD system, like a video version of Apple Music. Is it correct?
It seems Netflix has an uphill battle ahead with regards to content licensing and content delivery.
I haven't dig into it but I am pretty sure that even here in Argentina, ISP are using this thing, because it works incredible fast for HD content. Youtube might use something similar.
This implies to me that their original content is globally available, while licensed content will still be regionally restricted (and I don't see a way they could do anything else). Unless I'm missing something in the announcement?
http://i.imgur.com/LKEcMDo.png
Let's just say, it doesn't look like Netflix will be successful to convert me to streaming.
They don't care where you pay your bill, they care where your IP address is.
All of Netflix's own stuff is there but the rest of the catalogue is rather dire.
Living in Russia (St.-Petersburg), [1] I'm experiencing firsthand the territorial restrictions that transnational companies impose on us. E.g. Amazon doesn't offer any books in Russian and for a long time there wasn't anything of substance to read in App Store nor Google Play, either.
I assumed it's because copyright law works different in every country: to be able to offer all the property they already have rights to in the USA, in the new country (e.g. Russia), they have to strike deal(s) with the copyright holders in that country, perhaps a lengthy and/or impossible task. Yet it doesn't look like it in case of Netflix: they started working in 130+ countries overnight.
[1] I wonder if it the Russian St.-Petersburg mentioned in the press release? Works either way: Singapore is far from both.
I pay for proxy service just to "pretend" to be in USA and than pay the Neflix regular price. I believe a lot of ppl will subscribe to Netflix once no additional tricks are required.
Now I see why Netflix produced their own content. Negotiating for world-wide streaming rights can be tricky. Having a small set of content that they control, which gets turned into a guaranteed set of content that can be delivered for a global network gives them a lot of leverage for negotiating other content. Well played.
On the other hand, I remember Crunchyroll being available in many countries (not sure if that is world-wide), though they don't have the clout that Netflix has, and their content is very specific.
For ex: in Bangalore, for 2000rs, you get 20mbps connection capped at 50Gb and after that its 8mbps only. If I take BSNL, for 2000rs, you get 10mbps capped at 30Gb and so on. However it might be good for Hyderabad people, where 2000rs, you get 50mbps connection capped at 350Gb.
My point is Indian internet cant simply scale to serve Netflix presently. They should tie up with ISPs to something magic
Also, the basic Netflix subscription is only for SD quality, which can easily take off (heck, people have been watching crappy quality videos on 2G for many years). As others have pointed out, Netflix does not need a lot of bandwidth. Of course, the quality will vary, but you definitely don't need a 40Mbps or 100Mbps connection.
Pricing, however, is a huge factor. Having people put in 500 or more a month for a limited set of content is going to be a challenge for Netflix.
I tried lot of IPTV boxes (tvpad, xiaomi box ...) but they all end up super tricky to use outside China.
Hope Netflix will figure out something great to provide Chinese content! If anyone here has any recommendation :)
The majority are Korean, but there's also a good selection of Taiwanese and Chinese dramas too.
(the content varies depending which country you're in. The selection in the UK is very big, but in HK there's very little)
That's not true, you can also set up a channel where users have to pay to purchase or rent your videos (or pay a subscription to see all of your videos). More information is here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3249127?hl=en
It got me thinking how does this work? Surely people working at Netflix knew that this was coming. Are they allowed to buy stocks with such insider knowledge? Are they buying?
Even someone like me with zero knowledge in stock markets would assume this will have a positive impact on the stock price.
I'm a former employee and knew this was coming, but it would still be ethically and morally wrong for me to trade on this info (and probably illegal too).
The reason it popped right after is because there are a bunch of computers that watch twitter for news and trade on it split seconds after it breaks.
Additionally, insiders are usually required to report any trades of company stock that they make.
There are some websites that compile lists of what's available on Netflix in different countries, but they're not always correct.
My best theory is that Netflix pays for certain regions, and worldwide subtitle distribution would cost more. That sounds ridiculous though when comparing to the content itself, but what other reason could there be? The simplicity of the user interface?
It's not like they can ban Chrome or VPNs
Map shows very few countries - no Singapore as mentioned in the article
Also the article mentioned 190 countries at one point and 130 at other places. Moreover, Netflix claims it has 70M subscribers across 130 countries. How is that possible if they just launched it?
The footer says 70M subscribers across 190 countries, and was probably updated today. In their last press release in November, that line said "Netflix is the world’s leading Internet television network with over 69 million members in over 60 countries..."
Seriously, all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but The Avengers and Avengers Assemble missing? What a joke is this? (I'm in Germany)
Just like Amazon Prime this is something I'd be generally interested in. But I cannot consume the content, at least not as easily as local media or random grey (or plain illegal) sources. All hail DRM.
Do you have an HDMI input on your television?
Is there a reason you can not use a chromecast? Apple TV? Roku? Linux PC? Windows PC? Mac PC? chromebook? Amazon Prime HD Stick? Intel Compute stick? an old laptop? a ps4? a ps3? an xbox 360? an xbox one? a wii? a wii u? Many bluray players?
I'm genuinely curious what you're running kodi on that can't run netflix.
I don't own a console. I don't buy ~special~ hardware (Apple TV, Fire TV etc.) and don't use Chrome at all/see no value in a Chromecast.
So, given a Linux machine connected via HDMI trying to play Netflix seems to be .. gambling. Might work with unofficial clients, probably using Flash? Maybe?
It might be worth trying Netflix, since that's billed monthly, I can use the free first month to fiddle around aimlessly until it might work somehow and when it breaks I'll just cancel. Amazon bills for a year, and since there's no officially supported way for me to use the service I .. won't even try to use that.
Too much effort.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-o...
Does anyone have an idea of the total population of coverage added today? I'm wondering if the growth accelerates from here. Seems like it would, but then Netflix has likely already initiated service in the most lucrative markets.
My setup: US iTunes account using AppleTV, IP from Poland
edit: they've updated their info.. it really is around the world.
(from the article)
Available in Cuba? Try to find the bandwidth... Seriously, why include Cuba in the list? That makes their statement a bit of a joke in my opinion.
Did we forget how all of this works ?
Netflix is a web site. Currently, there is only one global Internet. Therefore netflix is available everywhere there is Internet connectivity.
Anything other than that simple scenario is an embarrassing (and epic) fail.
It could have been different.
At least the whole story with the vpns can stop. (Unless you live in Greece...)
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/buyi...
""For these types of services, and others, you have the
right to buy from a service provider located
in another EU country without:
-price discrimination
-having the seller refuse to sell to you simply
because you live in a different EU country.""
edit:formatting
1. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/netflix-ceo-eur...
Essentially, if you live in a country and you then travel to another EU country where Netflix is available, they can't deny you service just because you don't live there.
(24) (24) Audiovisual services, whatever their mode of transmission, including within cinemas, should also be excluded from the scope of this Directive. Furthermore, this Directive should not apply to aids granted by Member States in the audiovisual sector which are covered by Community rules on competition.
Unfortunately, copyright is not unified in the EU. VOD companies need to clear the licenses of every single bit of copyrighted content 28 times to be able to legally offer something on the "unified market" online.
The European Commission has announced they want to improve the "digital single market" and are reviewing copyright, but unfortunately the copyright industry is completely blocking any meaningful harmonisation. The publishing and film industries are literally arguing having 1 EU copyright would instantly kill the EU creative economy and cultural diversity as a whole, so politicians dare not make a move – and the anachronism of digital borders will persist.