Netflix was the top stock of the decade
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Almost a decade later I'm bearish. Their technology advantage is being commoditized away, and production + marketing has not been their forte. It's possible they'll turn it around, but even so they've got a massive battle on their hands against the likes of Disney and other big content producers who have almost a century of experience in this exact arena. It's not that I don't think they'll be successful, but the current price is over-inflated because Tech—they've got a long way to go to justify the valuation.
I'd automatically axe any show proposal about zombies.
It made the impossible and did something fun and original with the concept.
No, it didn't :)
For you may be, for me was... how do I say it?... trash
Extending a show? Most of your viewers will be long time Netflix subscribers who are already unlikely to churn.
Buy an existing show/create a new one? Now you're pulling in people who aren't already Netflix subscribers. Some of them will remain long term users.
Plus -- you're creating an asset (the show) that you can sell once it's run its course.
Honestly it's really hard to do it, to appeal to both the gamers and the wider audience who never touched the game (inc the critics)
I'm playing games since the late 80s and seen so many movies and TV shows failing.
This list is perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_g...
LOL, it isn't based on video game at all. There is a series of actual fantasy books written by Andrzej Sapkowski that serves as a basis for the show. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher
However, they made a rookie mistake and started filming Sapkowski's source material in the order it was written, i.e. starting with short stories, which is why the show does not make sense: each episode is a separate story, not connected to previous episodes. They should have started with the 5-book saga, and maybe throw some of the short stories as flashbacks.
Show also lacks the proper introduction of characters and the world's mythology. I am a fan of the books, so it all made sense to me, but wider audience might have a trouble making sense of all Wither abilities, Law of Suprise, etc.
The game stories were so, so much better. One of the only games I’ve played that seriously emotionally impacted me. And changed my perception of games forever.
Some people aren't comfortable to be challenged, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The issue was just bad writing. So much bad writing. Cliche moments everywhere, terrible dialogue, completely and utterly predictable plot, bad screen time allocations.
I think the screenwriters should first figure out how to write one engaging plot before trying to figure out how to interweave three.
Also Witcher rated 16?
Compare the very first ep of GoT with Witcher. The first does a wonderful job gradually introducing you to its world, the characters and the background of the story. The latter just immediately dives you into a bunch of unfamiliar names, places and jargon. Confuses the novice at the very first episode.
It seemed to me that most movies don't break even, but a few hits have 20x and higher returns.
Compared to that, Netflix's production just looks normal.
Look at Disney.
> It’s difficult not to look at Disney’s record-breaking year, securing eight of the top 10 highest-grossing films of 2019 domestically
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/23/21034937/disney-star-war...
It seems to be a well oiled machine.
Their streaming service is no exception. The Mandalorian show, run by Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man and The Lion King) is the most streamed television show in recent history, eclipsing the popularity of Game of Thrones and Netflix's darling, Stranger Things—and that's their first at bat.
https://observer.com/2019/12/the-mandalorian-episode-5-disne...
The only media sector where Disney's dominance isn't currently felt is video games—the biggest sector of entertainment by total revenue—where Disney's strategy seems to have been lacking for decades, and where it has not been able to acquire itself out of muddling performance. They were able to outsource a hit with the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order game however, so maybe that will change.
Netflix has taken on enough debt to finance original content that their performance track record in that domain should make investors ask these questions.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-debt-junk-bond...
Disney/Touchstone's "massively higher hit-rate" is not representative of most of the companies Netflix competes with ergo a comparison of Netflix to only Disney is not particularly apt. Netflix hasn't matched Disney's success, but neither have most of Disney's rivals.
So are you talking licensed stuff or original material? Netflix has licensed plenty of good content (incl. Adult Swim stuff).
'The Mandalorian earned nearly 40 million “demand expressions” during the week of Nov. 10-16, according to data provided to Observer by research firm Parrot Analytics. The firm tracks video streaming, social media activity, photo sharing, blogging, fan and critic rating platforms and other consumer demand sources to put together a composite of viewership and growth. Demand expressions represent the total audience demand being expressed for a title within a market and not specific viewership statistics.'
Which sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo presented by a 'research firm' wanting to get customers.
By contrast, Netflix has 60 million US subscribers. HBO Now has 9 million US subscribers, but their cable service overall has over 50 million. 24 million users is an incredible growth rate for Disney's service, which has only existed since November 12.
I remember when House of Cards came out.
It did show that they (Netflix, a technology company) could produce, had big money and a willingness to spend, would do something that was different and unconventional (a political show, released at once). Plus it demonstrated that people were willing to signup for a subscription service just for a particular show.
All the rest I found anywhere between drivel and mostly forgettable.
Though I can’t deny that HoC was an important moment in media history.
They could have a thousand things you think are awful and ten that you think are great to get you as a customer. You'll just ignore the things you don't like. So long as your money pays for the shows you watch it doesn't matter if you don't like the other stuff. That content is there to attract someone else.
Netflix would fail if any one of their customers liked everything they make, because there'd be thousands of other customers who didn't like any of it. There has to be a mix.
Think house of cards, mind hunter, kingdom, death love and robots, the witcher.
> Their technology advantage is being commoditized away
is totally true, but this:
> production + marketing has not been their forte.
strikes me as questionable. They've had standout hits with some first rate production, and if I were guessing, even some of the longer tail of lower impact/quality in-house productions has been targeted towards audiences likely to enjoy it.
Massive battle is right, especially vs Disney's catalog and franchise power. But Netflix has an amazing incumbency position. There's a reason why Disney's still got some well-placed content positioned on Netflix for its viewers.
Most content on Disney+ has already made a sizable profit before it even gets to the channel and afterwards between theaters, video on demand, dvd rentals and sales etc.
Also there is the “flywheel”. Comic tie ins, theme parks and merchandise. Both Apple and Amazon have money to burn they don’t really need their streaming service to be profitable.
Hulu is also for all intents and purposes owned by Disney and it makes more from people who watch the ad supported tier than those who subscribe to the No Commercial options. It is also the successful over the top “cable provider”.
There were issues with the audio, writing, pacing, costumes and at times bad cgi. Really hope they get things together for season 2.
What are you bullish about now?
Netflix is still around and at least for me it is one of a couple services I regularly use / keep and I'm actually kinda annoyed when another service comes along. I just watch what the handful of services I use have...I don't want to chase content around.
Watch Jim Cramer brag about how he used to manipulate the market:
I feel like that is a bit of a big assumption.
The predictions I noted we're not unreasonable and I've no information that indicates any of it was for the reason you describe.
Same. I don't like too much cable TV content, but it is nice that it's all bundled into a single service. I might enjoy one show on Discovery and one on NatGeo, but I'd never sign up for their channels individually.
I’m basically only in it for their original stuff now, which with everyone trying to eat their pie was really the only way they were ever going to keep people, but i could just sub for a couple months every year to binge those. Keeping the year round sub for that is kinda meh as a value proposition.
I strongly advocate for this type of behavior.
Also, the fact that the service of a supposed "tech giant" can be replicated and actually improved by a free pirate website financed by few dodgy ads, makes you think. Is the famed Netflix tech just in copyright handling?
1. Use the AppleTV because no platform streams 1080p+ on Linux
2. Check Netflix
3. Check Primevideo
4. Check HBO (but not available on the AppleTV in my region)
5. Check if I can buy it from iTunes or something
6. Yes, but not in my region
7. Forget all of the above and go to a private tracker and chuck it on Plex.
Fixed via a VPN.
Streaming services should be able to recommend things to me that I genuinely want to watch. Yet, I usually have to dig through their catalog (or use the search function if I already know) to find something worth watching.
Otherwise, there really is little value over private trackers for those who don't care about infringement.
Same goes for AMD, in 2016 it was just $1.8, now it’s $47. Incredible growth in just 4 years
Sweet Mumma Su always brings the goods but she can be a cruel mistress sometimes.
Disclosure: I went long AMD in 2009 and doubled my bet when Mark joined.
If in an alternate universe Intel had their 7nm process going by now as they should, AMD would be once again “nearly as fast” or “just as fast” and nobody using Intel for anything serious would switch over. Intel would have matched the price and that would have been that.
AWS has AMD compute available simply because it costs 10% less, and you still have to opt-in. Would AWS have bothered with the offering if AMD simply cost the same?
AMD hit a complete once-in-a-lifetime home run on the design and execution while Intel has missed a bunch of dates on their roadmap they expected to make. The AMD CEO herself said that she didn’t expect to be ahead of Intel.
What I’m saying is that your bet would still have been a casino bet.
Top stock of the 90s was (I believe) Dell.
Or do people end up paying for a handful of these things?
I can say from my own experience I've got at least 4 streaming subscriptions I can think of...
One of these days I’ll make the right call at the right time.
So there's still time for TSLA to beat NFLX.
I don't have malware on my PC, everything else is an iDevice, the trickiest thing I do is use Google Public DNS [0].
Alas their help page [1] says to contact my ISP. Who have helpfully confirmed they aren't doing a VPN on my behalf! Contacting Netflix results in them asking me if I am using "automatic" network settings and to ... contact my ISP. "We’re confident that your ISP can get you back to streaming."
My best theory is they've blocked a range of IPs belonging to my ISP because something in that range is helping users evade Netflix's geoblocking.
If anybody knows more about how Netflix's great firewall works I am all ears...
EDIT: Yes I have tried changing my IP by disconnecting the modem but it seems it's a static assignment. Next port of call is to ask the ISP. Or better yet, Netflix might unblock me!
[0] Cloudflare DNS makes no difference, and my ISP's DNS makes no difference.
Like I use windscribe and they allow me to see netflix US, UK, etc using their windflix servers which look like proxies on a regular residential connection (it says London the tube when i connect to windflix uk for example ).
I'm sure the rest of the VPN providers are doing something similar resulting in getting the whole ISP blocked.
It’s costing me $3 a month - my connection would be pretty much unusable without it.