Netflix says its brief Apple TV app integration was a mistake
theverge.com
theverge.com
But we don't browse for stuff to watch very often. Netflix wants to get those views and autoplays. It's all about the stats boosts.
We dropped Netflix a long time ago. It became a made-for-tv content sausage factory with the occasional gem. Once a year we fire it up to binge the stuff our friends talk about all the time. Each time we are consistently reminded it's not worth the higher subscription price.
I watched it plenty in the late 00s when it had awesome content, and I was afraid to cancel even if I wasn't actively using it because it had the best recommendations.
Since then, they've constantly hiked the price and have lost their content edge. My parents watched my account though, so I kept it around as a gift to them + a way to have something to do on overnight flights. They finally locked my parents out (after talking it up in the press for months), so they've lost any reason to stay on my credit card.
Feels like there's been generational churn in leadership among the places that were great in the 00s - Netflix and Google both come to mind. The people who did cool, novel stuff have retired, and the traditional execs who will squeeze every dime they can out of customers (and employee perks) have shown up.
I don't like it.
- "Continue Watching" is always in a different place
- Autoplaying trailers
Everything else is alright. Every other service besides Apple TV has much worse issues with UI and UX.
I'm confused why this would be the case. Can you explain further?
It seems to me that what Netflix actually wants is paying subscribers that don't watch anything. Bandwidth and CDNs aren't free after all.
The problem is the quality of that content. The op is right, Netflix became a factory of cheap series that keep people binge watching. The original idea of a service to watch movies is completely lost. I stoped paying a long time ago and don't want to go back.
Subscribers who don't watch Netflix are at the greatest risk of churning. Netflix needs you to continue seeing value out of paying/watching ads.
Also if you are on an ad based plan they would want you to use the service more.
So just like Apple TV TV then?
It instantly degrades what could/might be art to mere «content» and it’s a huge turn off.
I don’t think I’ve ever finished more than 1 full season of a Apple TV+ show.
That said, I’m not claiming Netflix is any better.
Of course Netflix doesn't want Apple to have control of the interface to the Netflix streaming service, just as much as Apple doesn't want Netflix to have control of the interface to Apple's streaming service.
Same reason when you open Netflix it shows new recommendations first, with the option to continue in-progress shows below. Most users will choose the latter, but they don't put it first because it hurts product metrics.
It's so depressing that instead of making products be the best product they can be for users, we inconvenience users at the expense of 'metrics'. It's a pervasive attitude at tech companies. Apple used to be _mostly_ an exception but even they are doing it now.
How the UI gets everyone watching shows A, B, and C but not the hundreds of others is a real thing I believe. Part of the “product” if you think about it.
(I’m not a fan of their product and it’s all TPB for me so I’m a cynic)
Yes, and that's why a la carte streaming of pretty much any media was a mistake. It's an open secret that none of them are profitable. But everyone was chasing that 2010's ZIRP with no plan whatsoever on how to actually recoup those costs. crashed the market before it really began. So the only answer was to enshittify the service once they had the numbers but not the money.
That's why I really hope games resist this model. It's the exact same honeytrap.
Netflix is:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-i...
Disney is also profitable:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
Apple and Amazon don’t really need to be “profitable”, because the purpose is selling Apple One and Prime bundles.
Warner Bros Discovery could have been profitable too, if ATT had not loaded it up with massive debt by overpaying for it.
It's not profitable in a way that can work for a decade. It's like cutting off your arm and saying you "lost weight".
Profit = revenue minus expenses, so not sure what this could even mean. It is a function of both variables.
> As Zazlov has shown, you can "make money" if you simply slash a bunch of contracts, layoff employees, and writeoff stuff for tax instead of releasing products.
WBD has yet to show a profit since Zaslav got involved. He has personally lost a ton of wealth due to declining prices of the equity. But, of course, WBD is not a simple case of a media business not being able to sell media, it is a complicated due to the extreme debt it has, which doesn’t say anything about streaming businesses in general.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WBD/warner-bros-di...
> It's not profitable in a way that can work for a decade. It's like cutting off your arm and saying you "lost weight".
Back to Netflix, their financial trends show a very successful business. Just check their growth in revenue, profit, and profit margins, for 10+ years.
They also suffer from "Oh you liked that high quality classic western? how about some garbage westerns?" No man....
I feel like I have to hunt for content on Netflix and I'm boxing with Netflix's suggestions.
Sounds to me like Apple should allow them to pick a handful of shows to promote as an incentive to integrate into their app.
This seriously annoyed me to the point where I actually just use plex now.
Once this problem is solved, we get to the 'problem' of having content available scattered over 584778964 apps or available in one.
I really don’t get what they intend to gain by geo-restricting languages, but it seems to have slipped their minds that people travel or migrate.
All those region regulations worked ok-ish back when globalisation was not a thing. They are very outdated in the current times. But hey, they still make the big players a lot of money so nobody wants to change.
And that’s just crazy really.
And while video files in the cloud sounds not so exemplary, simultaneously delivering video files to hundreds of millions of devices is not trivial.
I'd be curious as to what had happened internally here.
Maybe devops engineer fat fingered it and enabled it by accident. Doesn’t break anything besides make the C-suite cry. So would make sense as to why there were no red flags, press releases or anything like that.
As a consumer, I hate using NFLX or Paramount, or even Amazon Prime UI. As much as I hate Apple, I do admit the aggregated view is nice. I can search for whatever show and presents me with options. If I am subscribed to the service it’s locked behind, then it opens the right app, and content starts playing.
If this was a thing, I would start to think about some subscriptions again. Till then, watching content in a legit way is simply so much more complicated then alternatives ;P
Alternative methods rely on sacrificing convinience for time setting up and maintaining your own pipeline. So (perhaps luckily), it will always be a niche solution
I won’t pay for Netflix solely because of this issue. Netflix has probably bet correctly that customers like me are negligible, though.