Netflix Viewing Will Surpass ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC by 2016 | Hacker News Reader

Netflix Viewing Will Surpass ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC by 2016

variety.com

139 pointscoloneltcb51 comments

Netflix's motivations align better with the end user.

You pay netflix a monthly subscription, and in order to keep you paying it is in Netflix's interest to provide a variety of high quality content that people want to watch.

On the other hand, regular TV channels main income stream is ads, so their main motivation is to provide low quality keep--you-watching style content that comes with some kind of artificial teaser every 10 minutes so they can trick you into sitting through an ad break. "......And the winner..... of [dance/sing/pop/talent]-factor 2015.............[dramatic tension music]........ Will be revealed after the break."

In the same way that we are seeing many 'news' websites just become click-bait content to get the most eyeballs for their ads with the quality of that content getting lower and lower, regular TV is becoming optimized to provide the highest possible ad/content ratio without losing the viewer.

Just out of interest, are you in the US?

Netflix UK content is average at best, with a slew of B films and TV series with missing seasons. I've given up searching for films I'd like to see (these are not even recent releases).

Actually, Netflix in the US is largely like that for me as well. I never get on expecting to find a specific movie I want to watch. However, I believe Netflix's original content (House of Cards, Daredevil, Chef's Table, Orange is the New Black, and Print the Legend to name a few) are high quality content, meaning that when Netflix has to get its hand dirty, it shoots for quality unlike many cable television providers. I think this may be what the parent comment is referring to.

I admit I was being disingenuous- the original content is brilliant (Daredevil and Better Call Saul are recent examples that stand out for me).

Isn't Better Call Saul from AMC?

Apparently Netflix commisioned it (and they also call it a 'Netflix Original').

I'm in the US, and the biggest appeal for me and many people that I know is having entire TV series. There are also big movies that come and go. Sometimes just before a big sequel comes out the previous movie will show up for a while.

> I've given up searching for films I'd like to see (these are not even recent releases).

That's the wrong way to Netflix, at least for streaming content. You have to treat it more like a TV channel, except you decide when you want to watch the programs. So browse around and see what they happen to have available rather than deciding what you want to see ahead of time and then finding out if they have it (they usually don't).

If you treat Netflix this way, you'll have a better idea what what to expect from the service. You may still decide that Netflix isn't worth paying for, particularly if you already have cable or satellite TV with a good DVR. I watch about seven or eight hours of TV per week, so the limited selection I get from Netflix is sufficient.

That's no I use Netflix, too. Generally speaking, if Netflix releases one or two good shows per month, the subscription is worth it to me. Before Netflix had original content, I didn't feel a subscription was worth it.

Shows I've recently enjoyed on Netflix => Sense8, Daredevil, Bloodline, The Fall. I just like these shows better than 95% of stuff that is normally aired on commercial TV.

You are probably right. The original content is outstanding- and I should probably consider the film catalog as a nice to have. Some TV series have seasons missing (presumably due to licensing issues) which can be a frustratring (this was the case for the excellent 'Justified' and 'Peaky Blinders' in the UK).

That's basically Netflix to me as well, and I am in the US. I wouldn't pay for it because I don't see much value in it, but there seems to be more on it that appeals to my wife so at least it gets used.

They are trying their best to do away with the region-restricted content and are trying to provide all their content anywhere in the world, so sit tight and subscribe again when they do! :-)

Its also in their interest to stop paying to license certain things and assume subscribers have watched them and had their fill, even if they have not.

Scripted shows work the same way with their act breaks and cliffhangers. The incentives are the same, keep the viewer watching (hooked) until the season/series ends. Reality shows do take it to a new micro level of irritance, while scripted shows are more macro. And I wouldn't necessarily assume Netflix would never greenlight a reality series. The people who enjoy reality shows probably think of them as high quality content too. Also, there are several Emmy categories for reality TV.

It's kind of funny, HBO and Netflix are basically the same thing.

They've publicly said that: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."

http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo...

Very interesting reasoning! What is the implication of your theory for the (almost entirely ad supported) Internet?

One of the key reasons I use Netflix is the lack of ads.

Coming from the UK where we have historically been lucky enough to access quality content from the BBC, all without ads, the notion that I should pay $100 a month to access half decent programming that is saturated by ads seems bizarre.

I was more than happy to pay the marginal cost of Netflix on top of the TV licence tax to get access to their original content (which is generally very good quality as noted elsewhere).

Some of the 'Netflix original content' is however simply content produced by the BBC, that Netflix have contributed to in some way (They get a credit) - Take Peaky Blinders for instance.

One thing they are missing is a decent local news feed though..

Look for your local PBS station, which typically stocks good news. Frontline by PBS provides high quality in-depth video journalism. PBS is typically available through a standard antenna, no cable subscription required.

I also have a preference for CSpan when it comes to political news. All political news is biased, so I might as well get the bias straight from the politician's mouths... instead of filtered and hacked through TV Personas. Around where I live, CSpan is a radio station... I don't typically "watch" CSpan but I listen pretty often.

Plain and simple the major OTA networks haven't made it easy for me to watch their content. I cut the cord 5 years ago and watch everything online.

I get poor reception where I live and I'm not in the mood to install an antenna on the roof. I was hoping Aereo wouldn't get shut down so I could actually watch that OTA content.

The networks are going to have to embrace a real digital content strategy if they want to keep up with the trend of people consuming increasingly more content on their pocket computers.

That's a good point. I'd be more inclined to watch a network if all I had to do was go to their website (or app) to get a live feed.

I think it's CBS who charges you for such a privilege. lol

Netflix charge to watch too. When CBS, FOX etc offer an online feed or a "catch up" service it will come down to them either charging a monthly fee or plastering adverts all over it. Personally, I would prefer a monthly fee for the whole package or a pay-to-watch price for each show.

They did do this (Hulu Plus), and surprise, surprise, the greedy bastards chose to both charge a subscription AND continue to plaster ads everywhere.

It kind of reminds me of Nokia and digital photography. Their inability to abandon their current business model is destroying the massive advantage they have (had?) in terms of access to existing paying customers.

I still don't understand why they don't stream their channels online. It's fairly cheap to do so, they'd get more viewers (and more accurate data about their viewers), and the only real restriction it would remove is the ability to filter viewers by location, but this can be solved by mailing out postcards or something during registration.

I tried using a usb ota tuner a few years ago, but it was painful. Driver issues, reception issues (in the middle of recordings a lot of times), etc. It really wasn't worth the time.

Licensing of syndicated content. When an OTA station buys programming, they buy the right to air it in the specific geographical area that station is licensed to broadcast it, so the production firm can sell it in the next city as well.

If the station streams that programming online, there's no clear way to limit the broadcast to the same (or any) geographical area and that means the price would be a lot higher. Basically, the only content they could stream would be their own stuff, like news. And even then, TV production is a myriad of sub-contractors and small production firms and the contracting in place might only release the right to broadcast in the specific area (so, if they get a story of wider regional or national interest, they can license that content to other stations).

On the other hand, if the production firm streams it online (or licenses it to Netflix or to someone else with streaming rights), the content isn't exclusive and can't be relied on in the same way to drive eyeballs to the TV station that might license it, and the content would command a lower price - so the production firm is only interested in that if they can command a price from streaming that makes up for this.

It seems that production firms are increasingly finding that last possibility to be viable, and given the fast migration of viewers online, it's only going to go that way.

OTA receivers and DVR's are pretty cheap these days if you want your OTA fix without cable or satellite. The HDHomeRun line is inexpensive and works quite well as an ethernet attached tuner.

A good Aereo substitute is ustvnow.com.

I haven't seen another comment that addresses this so I'm making this point:

I think it is important to remember that a lot of Netflix's streaming content comes from those, and other, traditional TV networks. If it wasn't for the advertising dollars paying for those shows to be produced, and then later licensed for streaming, then we would be worse off in regards to breadth of content.

So, while Netflix viewing might surpass those networks, a lot of those viewing hours are spent watching those networks' content.

When people wonder why ISPs are trying to deliver as little as possible for as much as possible remember this.

The whole fight of net neutrality and ISP competition is about video. Right now, many people have cable and internet. Companies can sell you your data twice and no one would want to give that up. Fast internet means that in theory you could just buy one source of data. Services like Netflix that have apps integrated into TVs mean that it is a practicality.

They'll have to lift their game in Australia then, their offerings are fairly stale and generally B-grade stuff. I've cut the cord, but the old guard are holding onto some of the content at least.

I suspect that is Uncle Rupert's doing though. For the last decade or so Foxtel have been trying to extort Australians by grabbing all the content and charging ridiculous rates, its good to see some competition.

I suspect the corrupt, wizened old greedbag's next move will be in some paragraph of the TPP, where it'll be against the treaty to do what Netflix do and he'll be able to sue the Australian government for anything that restricts his greedy ways.

Paying to own content is a big part of Netflix strategy. It takes time to build that up thought. Australia seems like a good example of the challenges trying to pay the owner a fee to show it for some time in some countries.

10 years from now Netflix will have a huge amount of content they own everywhere. It is kind of funny they don't even own the rights to show some of the content they are seen to own in some countries (because they allowed rights to be sold to others in various countries where Netflix didn't operate yet).

It seems like Netflix is either showing restraint about paying to license content in every country or those selling it are not willing to sell it.

And beyond that I do think Uncle Rupert has created extra problems for content in Australia (it seems Australia is the worst Netflix catalogue based on what people say - I haven't actually examined it).

Its fairly poor comparatively. The way things are going though, I wouldn't be surprised to see VPN's banned, or attempted to.

I'm not against paying for content I must say, there needs to be an incentive to make it after all. Just not one repulsively rich prick doing it. You'd think after your 2nd billion you'd pull back and think, "I've probably got enough now, I can live happily".

Netflix in Australia has the problem that they're also competing with Presto and Stan, who are owned by the major free-to-air TV networks, and who also have exclusive deals for a lot of American shows/movies and thus Netflix couldn't have a lot of stuff available in Australia.

True. As a consumer, I'd have to subscribe to three+ different providers, all charging a monthly cost, to get at everything now. Or more specifically, just the things I want to watch.

The 'old' Foxtel model was similar; you want to watch a few things? Well, you'll have to buy all the channels for $100+ per month just to see the bits you want.

It doesn't seem like a sensible situation for the people that want to sell content. Seems very sensible for the people that want to control the content though, in terms of making out like gangbusters.

Hmm. I use mostly netflix and other streaming content almost exclusively. I wonder how many people like myself still pay for cable TV simply because the cost of internet by itself is more than the same internet plus cable TV. I can't remember the last time I actually watched television.

I've heard that for more than five years, and I've checked with Comcast, AT&T, and Charter in multiple cities in multiple states and I've never seen this be the case. I wish I could save money by bundling, but bundling for me always makes the Internet cheaper but the total cost is more than Internet without the discount.

-edit: I reread this and it looks like I'm doubting you: I'm not. I just have never seen it personally, and it sounds like a great problem to have, from my standpoint :)

Maybe my first statement wasn't clear. With TV+internet my cost is ~$85 / mo. With just the same internet, my cost would be ~$90 / mo. So yes, with the bundle the internet alone is cheaper if you divide the costs.

However, I don't see it this way because I don't use the other service (TV). I see this as Comcast saying they're going to take $100 / mo from me no matter what.

Suppose you go to a taco truck. They tell you can purchase tacos together with a burrito full of hair for $8. On the other hand, you can purchase just the tacos for $10. Naturally, you buy just the tacos and toss the hair burrito in the trash. However, you can't help but wonder if the truck is only selling the hair burritos simply because they have so much invested in hair burrito production and infrastructure, not because of the public demand for hair burritos.

Yeah I understood correctly. Internet+TV is cheaper than just Internet. I was just saying that the only way I've ever seen it offered to me is Internet is $50 alone or $40 with TV, and then TV is $40 on top of that. The only packages I've ever been offered, TV+Internet is always more expensive than just Internet alone.

I would love to have a hair burrito if the tacos were cheaper, because I never have the option to go to another taco stand.

It's not a good problem, it means they are over-charging you for internet, which feels very shady and exploitative.

They are over-charging us for Internet. Comcast's margins on Internet alone are 90%[1].

[1] My brother-in-law works there. He also confirmed that they actually have the capacity to deliver several hundred megabit to most households. They just don't because they can get away with delivering 50 megabit for $70/month since their competitors are the telco's which have significantly more regulation than Comcast.

Good examples are Google Fiber cities. Once Google announced the _intention_ to come to our city, Time Warner promised to increase our speeds 5-10 times w/o price change within a few months.

Yes, but if it's going to cost $50/mo no matter what, I'll take the package where it only costs me $45/mo. It's not like I have the ability to say "your Internet prices are too high, can you lower them?" So I'm stuck with whatever pricing they offer me, and lower is better no matter what.

Count me in as another one of those. I can't get the top tier AT&T offers my neighborhood (which is still only 12down/1.5up) without the cable package.

cable companies will offer require a STB with an additional fee, that bundle will add up quickly.

You can always ask for a cable card and not use it though.

Are the "major broadcast networks" even the big dogs to compare yourself to now? It seems like the top-rated programs now are all on cable. Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, etc.

The major broadcast networks are who you compare yourself to if you want to talk about your reach. It only stands to reason that the free, over the air TV channels will have more viewers than a channel you have to pay to have the ability to view (cable), then pay more before you actually get to see their content (HBO). Two different metrics.

Kind of like how Apple touts how much money they're making from iOS and the App Store, while Google talks about how many devices are running Android. Android has a lower barrier to entry, while the iPhone has a greater profit margin. Two different metrics for two different demographics.

Amazing since most of the content I view on Netflix is many years old. That is a market the OTA/cable services seem to have totally ceded at this point in time.

However at the same time I want OTA to prosper because ad supported television is free just like radio and to have content stuck behind paywalls is not my idea of ideal future; one of the reasons I am not happy with Apple's offering which could end ad supported internet radio

Except you're conflating your personal anecdote with the statistical story which is almost certainly based on the new content that Netflix is releasing and promoting.

Two days ago it occurred to me that I hadn't watched cable in approximately two months. I watch TV every day. I watch Netflix that much.

If I could get AMC and FX as standalone streaming services, I'd probably drop cable entirely. The few network shows that I watch come in great with a digital antenna and the rest is streaming content.

Things are going to get very interesting when we cross the tipping point.

The best thing about Netflix is being able to unblock the full library using this https://www.unblocknetflix.co.uk/us-vs-uk-netflix-how-to-swi...

I don't care how "successful" Netflix becomes: I will not do business with spammers, and if you do business with Netflix, you are supporting a company that engages in spam.

References:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/news.admin.net-abuse...

http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_jdavidb/journal/18650.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20050215120033/http://manatee.moj...

(And yes, I have personally received spam E-mails advertising Netflix.)

Netflix may be the biggest thing since the wheel. I don't care. I'm still not going to support the company which initially poisoned the HTML standard with DRM. I find it counter intuitive to reward such behaviour with money. And I advice anyone else in here which believes in an open web to do the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com