Hacker News Reader

Comment by danilocampos | Hacker News Reader

The flawed premise here is that the networks will continue to matter.

They won't. Their days are numbered.

Building the future is hard and it's messy. Netflix has been taking it on the chin this year as they've passed through a really rough patch.

In the end, though, I'd put money on Netflix existing in 2020 before I would any given broadcast network. TV is dead.

Netflix is trying to redefine distribution. They're not going to win by placating the dinosaurs of distribution's past. If the Arrested Development deal works out, production companies may see that they have new options for financing their projects and might get better opportunities to reach an audience than they'd ever get on TV.

So it's simple: take the issue by the balls and control your destiny or bow and scrape before moronic suits who don't understand technology, hoping and praying that they won't change their minds each time a licensing deal expires.

View on HN

I don't think Netflix will be around as an independent company for more than 5 years. Netflix doesn't have a single advantage save one. It has an installed user base. I'm a Netflix user but I wouldn't think twice about switching to another company. I'm on the verge of using Amazon Prime and ditching Netflix. I think even the installed user base isn't much of an advantage.

Netflix's streaming isn't more innovative and Google's streaming or Amazon's streaming. Netflix's advantage used to be to get people DVDs cheaply and quickly. That's not an advantage to take them into the future. Unless they can find a way to stream movies cheaper than Amazon I don't see how they can survive as an independent.

I think Microsoft should buy Netflix and B&N to compete with Apple, Amazon, and Google in the tablet/content space. As an independent company they are dead in the water.

EDIT: fixed typos

That's exactly what this move is trying to fix.

Wouldn't this move count as first-mover advantage, then?

I don't think so. There is zero chance that Netflix can produce enough original content to give it an advantage by producing shows. It is easy for Amazon, Google, or Apple to pay for exclusive content if that were to become necessary.

Netflix has very little cash in comparison to it's competition. I'm glad they are trying to remain distinctive and keep innovating but any of their competitors can simply buy a studio and do the same thing.

It's possible Netflix sees the future by becoming like a TV channel but for the internet. And have people pay a monthly price to view this TV channel. Some other content producer would be another channel. I don't see this model working out. Rather, I see producers selling their shows to content distributors like Amazon, Apple, and Netflix and letting them fight over subscribers. If this is the case then Netflix has no advantage.

Customer base is a BIG advantage if they're going to start signing up original content. They're playing to their strengths. Amazon is large, but Netflix is massively larger in terms of watchers. As a producer, which would you sign up with?

Whoever gives you the most money.

I don't think so. A lot of producers/actors don't like playing to an empty room, even if they're being paid well. It's too demoralizing.

ABC is owned by Disney, NBC by Universal, CBS has a very close link to Viacom & FOX is, well FOX. Those aren't really "networks" they're small parts of huge content conglomerates that aren't going to just die off because Netflix has a few exclusives. Netflix can try to change into more of an HBO business model & maybe that's a good idea, but it's not one that is going to be putting any studios out of business. It's also a departure from the "get the movies you want at a cheap price" model that a lot of their current customers are accustomed to. I think they're going to have a tough time transitioning from being a content middleman to an exclusive content producer/distributor.

Of course the networks will continue to matter, they're the ones who own all the existing content, have all the relationships, and have a shit ton of money. It will be painful for traditional networks to transition, but at the moment netflix really isn't holding that many cards. The movie and tv industry is rightly labeled as a collection of cartels, and for now they're giving netflix breathing room to grow, so that over the course of the next 10 years they can bleed them for all they've got just like they do with satellite, cable, and movie theaters.

Who's going to build the nationwide, unmetered fiber-to-the-home network to support this new content revolution?

You'd think the Telcos with their government granted monopolies would be on that.

Everyone else but the US?

> fibre accounting for half of all broadband connections in Japan (55%) and Korea (52%). Other leading countries include the Slovak Republic (28%), Sweden (24%) and Denmark (12%).

http://www.telconews.com/2010/12/11/oecd-internet-economy-br...

Don't worry, we in Canada won't be getting reasonably priced good internet connections either.

In the end, though, I'd put money on Netflix existing in 2020 before I would any given broadcast network. TV is dead.

Someone is going to have to deal with the question of live sports coverage, somehow, before this can happen.

Local stations will probably continue to exist for: * sports * news * weather

Alternatively, ESPN could stream (and should! Could you imagine if they got the ad money directly for the Super Bowl??? I bet ESPN would be licking its chops for that kind of money)

You mean like the olympics that were streaming from the nbc website in 2010/vancouver?

I consider it a solved problem. I bet more of the big sports leagues would _love_ to cut out the middle men and monetize viewership more directly somehow (like NBA league pass and MLB.tv are).

Apparently not. You must not be a sports fan if you think it's a solved problem; there is live streaming of about 2 NFL games a week and a handful of English, French, and Italian soccer league matches. Everything else is pirate at best, or stupidly requires you to have a TV subscription anyway. Olympics and World Cup are each once every four years, streaming them is helpful but not really a full solution.

The current problem is that NBC is the only network that has streaming rights for the NFL. This is basically just an artifact of their deal with the NFL. Most likely when it comes time to renew contracts that exclusive clause will be marked out and the NFL will allow all stations that have rights to broadcast games online.

The NFL is pretty much the trend setter in the sports world when it comes to media. They were the first to figure out the right way to do a TV deal back in the early 70s, the first to start their own network, etc. It's only a matter of time.

The problem is the massive amount of revenue the NFL gets from television deals. They would need a paid streaming plan, with many of the same blackout provisions, to make up for that.

Given the existence of MLB.tv and NBA League Pass, I'd say the NFL is behind on online streaming of their games. MLB.tv especially is quite good compared to anything the NFL offers.

Can you get NBA League Pass without a television subscription? It used to be bundled with a Dish TV programming package of the same name, can you just pay for the streaming? (Obviously, you can't pay for either right now, as there is no NBA.)

Yes. NBA League Pass Broadband. I've had it for a couple years, and dumped cable when it came out.

http://www.nba.com/home/leaguepass/index.html

That'll be worth checking out if there's an NBA season this year. Does it truly have the whole NBA? No blackouts?

Like MLB's option, League Pass blacks out your local games if they're on TV. One hopes that next time around the TV contracts include a mechanism for a) revenue sharing with the networks for these packages, and b) showing online streamers the same ads they'd see on their local affiliate.

It has some blackouts, including games that are on national TV (ESPN, TNT, and I think NBATV, which is kind of stupid for the NBA to black out. Some of these games stream on their own sites.) It also blacks out "local" broadcasts; when I lived in Seattle, I couldn't get Portland games.

It has a 2-tier price system. At the lower price, you select up to 7 teams to watch; to get all 30 teams, you have to pay a little bit more.

It's not a perfect system, but it's getting better.

The TV deals are still good enough that the leagues won't offer all of the games through their online platform.

The hope, I suppose, is that future TV deals will decrease to the point that the leagues realize that they can make more money by just distributing it all themselves. That's seems to be what they are setting up at least, but the short term they are making so much money off of TV licensing.

The NBA All-Star game has been shown online for the last few years and it's a better experience because you can choose from four cameras (one of which was following a single player, very cool). That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.

That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.

What's going to be interesting is when both real-time rendering and motion capture get good enough to serve as a vehicle for live sports. Imagine being able to put the camera anywhere you want, or on anyone you want. That will kill TV sports if nothing else does in the meantime.

Why? Sounds like a lot of work that's best done on expensive near real-time rendering hardware by techs and producers who know what they're doing. If anything, I think it'll make TV sports even more engrossing.

We'll see. I think it's going to be a pretty huge deal once it happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com