Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Talking about Netflix

1235720

Posts

  • Sangheili91Sangheili91 Registered User regular
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular

    I like how excited the cashier is about the parking lot.

  • gundam470gundam470 Registered User regular

    I couldn't find the humor because that's such bad analogy.

    gorillaSig.jpg
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    gundam470 wrote:

    I couldn't find the humor because that's such bad analogy.

  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    Note: they lost me as a customer today...I had already put my account on hold, and was likely gone anyway, but today cemented it. So don't think that I don't understand what you're saying, here.

    But I think the idea is that by spinning off Qwikster (god, that name) they can now completely ignore their DVD customers. They can now run a site aimed solely and completely towards streaming customers, without having to worry ever about what the DVD customers want or care about. It's a focus thing. Even little things like UI tweaks can actually have different receptions between the DVD and streaming users; because they aren't necessarily using the site the same way.

    Unfortunately, I don't use Netflix because I want to manage my streaming movies and I want to manage my DVD queue. I just want to manage my goddamned movies, and I don't care if they're streamed or discs. You can play me this movie right now? Good, do that! I love that! Oh, you can't play this movie, but you'll mail it to me in a few days? That's great too, I'll watch that streaming movie while I wait!

    I'm not 100% sure what I'm going to do, but I doubt I'll end up keeping both services around. I want to be able to pretend it's not a spite thing, but honestly if they don't seem to care about keeping their customers happy any more then I don't feel like being a customer anymore.

    Dehumanized on
    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    Note: they lost me as a customer today...I had already put my account on hold, and was likely gone anyway, but today cemented it. So don't think that I don't understand what you're saying, here.

    But I think the idea is that by spinning off Qwikster (god, that name) they can now completely ignore their DVD customers. They can now run a site aimed solely and completely towards streaming customers, without having to worry ever about what the DVD customers want or care about. It's a focus thing. Even little things like UI tweaks can actually have different receptions between the DVD and streaming users; because they aren't necessarily using the site the same way.

    Unfortunately, I don't use Netflix because I want to manage my streaming movies and I want to manage my DVD queue. I just want to manage my goddamned movies, and I don't care if they're streamed or discs. You can play me this movie right now? Good, do that! I love that! Oh, you can't play this movie, but you'll mail it to me in a few days? That's great too, I'll watch that streaming movie while I wait!

    I'm not 100% sure what I'm going to do, but I doubt I'll end up keeping both services around. I want to be able to pretend it's not a spite thing, but honestly if they don't seem to care about keeping their customers happy any more then I don't feel like being a customer anymore.

    But that's what you're missing. They do feel like keeping their customers happy. But they've decided the only customers they want to do that with are their streaming only customers. They basically decided to not worry about what their DVD+Streaming customers thought, convenient since their doubling of the cost of that plan was probably going to whittle that demographic down pretty considerably anyway.

    They probably lost me when they decided that my preferred delivery methods should cost at a minimum about $16 a month (more if I wanted Blu-Ray, more discs, etc). Because I liked having both. They definitely lost me when they decided to make that service suck (due to divergent queues) for double the price. But thing is, they decided that I'm not a customer they gave a shit about. They care about streaming customers first. They may care about disc customers, or they may be keeping that business around because hey they invested in the infrastructure might as well (and don't be surprised if it gets sold off). And dual-format customers? They can take them or leave them.

    I can see how this might perhaps lead to both services becoming better for their core customers. Because the hybrid thing has been a stopgap for a while now, this makes sense. For the rest of us? We'll either suck it up and subscribe to both, or we'll mix and match services. We'll do Amazon+Qwikster, or Hulu+Qwikster, or Netflix+Redbox, or Netflix+Blockbuster, or whatever. But they're okay with that. Part of that is probably that either of their "halves" are probably still the best service for most people...they're confident enough that they can compete in both markets that any dual-service customers will still land on Netflix+Qwikster.

  • gundam470gundam470 Registered User regular
    Netflix payed $1 million an episode to get Mad Men on Instant. They offered Starz crazy money to renew their contract. I think to say that they're no longer making an effort to deliver a quality service to customers is disingenuous.

    gorillaSig.jpg
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    It's arguable that having separate subsidiaries will allow both "halves" to serve their single-source customers better. Their streaming-only customers may now get a better experience, because they are served by a company wholly devoted to their needs.

    Yes, it sucks for multi-source customers. But with the pricing changes, they were already looking to greatly reduce this contingent anyway. You weren't a customer they cared about. For the rest of the customers (including DVD-only customers), this may well lead to improved service.

  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    I love their product, so I want them to have a long term business plan and I think this is part of it.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    It's arguable that having separate subsidiaries will allow both "halves" to serve their single-source customers better. Their streaming-only customers may now get a better experience, because they are served by a company wholly devoted to their needs.

    Yes, it sucks for multi-source customers. But with the pricing changes, they were already looking to greatly reduce this contingent anyway. You weren't a customer they cared about. For the rest of the customers (including DVD-only customers), this may well lead to improved service.

    So, they're intentionally trying to ditch their most loyal customers. Cool, I can do that I guess.

    steam_sig.png
  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    But I think the idea is that by spinning off Qwikster (god, that name) they can now completely ignore their DVD customers. They can now run a site aimed solely and completely towards streaming customers, without having to worry ever about what the DVD customers want or care about. It's a focus thing. Even little things like UI tweaks can actually have different receptions between the DVD and streaming users; because they aren't necessarily using the site the same way.

    That's another thing that I don't fully understand, maybe that's because I lack a degree in business or marketing but a decently sized business like Netflix should be able to handle two things at once. I work for for a business services branch of HP and it's been strange seeing an even bigger company than Netflix falter a bit and then suddenly decide to cash out it's chips in a market that it didn't immediately expand into and dominate and then go a bit further and cut ties to a shrinking market that it continues to lead in.

    I look at a company like Apple and see that just about everyone agrees they're the big man in the tech sector in terms of general consumer products. They seem to be doing everything in their power not to focus on just one thing but to take a lot of things (iTunes, Apple TV, iPod, computers and cloud storage) and focus on making them as seamless as possible.

    Netflix had that going to some extent with offering DVDs and streaming. Certainly little tweaks can have unintended consequences, some people initially flipped their lids when the 360's interface changed. But here's where I think people would rather deal with a slightly clunky (tabs oh noes!) website than deal with two separate websites that don't event talk to each other adding the clunky aspect of saying, hmm do I need that DVD or can I stream it?

    The fact that people like you and I are leaving over what some would see as a few extra clicks and a few minutes of extra effort shows just how much Netflix needed to maintain that multiplicity of focus in favor of perhaps a clunky but seamless experience. The price hike is another issue that probably primed the pump for the exodus after this split because I'd taken the price hike in stride since it was still convenient and pretty seamless between streaming and DVD selection. If they'd split and not hiked the price I might've gone along but they made it more expensive, less seamless and less convenient.

    Step One: I want to watch this. *Typity type*
    Step Two: Play Now or Add to Queue
    Step Three: Make my choice.
    Step Four: Watch or wait. Either way, end of effort.

    Changing or adding to those steps really wasn't a good idea for Netflix. Unless of course they didn't have what I was looking for at all, but that wasn't often the case at least for me. Of course all we really get to do is talk hypothetical situations since I doubt anyone in these forums is in a position to actually influence Netflix significantly. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong in that respect!

    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    It's arguable that having separate subsidiaries will allow both "halves" to serve their single-source customers better. Their streaming-only customers may now get a better experience, because they are served by a company wholly devoted to their needs.

    Yes, it sucks for multi-source customers. But with the pricing changes, they were already looking to greatly reduce this contingent anyway. You weren't a customer they cared about. For the rest of the customers (including DVD-only customers), this may well lead to improved service.

    So, they're intentionally trying to ditch their most loyal customers. Cool, I can do that I guess.

    You know.. if you substitute DVD only for one political party and Streaming Only for the other. It's eerily similar to the state of politics today. I find that amusing but sad at the same time. I guess us middle of the road types just can't win even when it's at something like watching movies!

    Sorry for the multi-post but that later development was just a little too amusing to pass up.

    The LandoStander on
    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited September 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    But I think the idea is that by spinning off Qwikster (god, that name) they can now completely ignore their DVD customers. They can now run a site aimed solely and completely towards streaming customers, without having to worry ever about what the DVD customers want or care about. It's a focus thing. Even little things like UI tweaks can actually have different receptions between the DVD and streaming users; because they aren't necessarily using the site the same way.

    That's another thing that I don't fully understand, maybe that's because I lack a degree in business or marketing but a decently sized business like Netflix should be able to handle two things at once. I work for for a business services branch of HP and it's been strange seeing an even bigger company than Netflix falter a bit and then suddenly decide to cash out it's chips in a market that it didn't immediately expand into and dominate and then go a bit further and cut ties to a shrinking market that it continues to lead in.

    I look at a company like Apple and see that just about everyone agrees they're the big man in the tech sector in terms of general consumer products. They seem to be doing everything in their power not to focus on just one thing but to take a lot of things (iTunes, Apple TV, iPod, computers and cloud storage) and focus on making them as seamless as possible.

    Netflix had that going to some extent with offering DVDs and streaming. Certainly little tweaks can have unintended consequences, some people initially flipped their lids when the 360's interface changed. But here's where I think people would rather deal with a slightly clunky (tabs oh noes!) website than deal with two separate websites that don't event talk to each other adding the clunky aspect of saying, hmm do I need that DVD or can I stream it?

    The fact that people like you and I are leaving over what some would see as a few extra clicks and a few minutes of extra effort shows just how much Netflix needed to maintain that multiplicity of focus in favor of perhaps a clunky but seamless experience. The price hike is another issue that probably primed the pump for the exodus after this split because I'd taken the price hike in stride since it was still convenient and pretty seamless between streaming and DVD selection. If they'd split and not hiked the price I might've gone along but they made it more expensive, less seamless and less convenient.

    Step One: I want to watch this. *Typity type*
    Step Two: Play Now or Add to Queue
    Step Three: Make my choice.
    Step Four: Watch or wait. Either way, end of effort.

    Changing or adding to those steps really wasn't a good idea for Netflix. Unless of course they didn't have what I was looking for at all, but that wasn't often the case at least for me. Of course all we really get to do is talk hypothetical situations since I doubt anyone in these forums is in a position to actually influence Netflix significantly. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong in that respect!


    The only reason to be doing this is for current/future contract negotiations. This makes no sense otherwise. Business logic tells me that this is a good move for internal dealings that we aren't privy to.

    Skoal Cat on
    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    Not that I'm unaware of how fucked up and arbitrary contract negotiations can be, man it is fucked up and arbitrary if this move somehow enables them to get more content. "Sorry, I won't sell you distribution rights to this content, you are also distributing DVDs." "Okay, now we are just a streaming company that happens to have a 100% wholly owned subsidiary that distributes DVDs." "Let's make a deal!"

    steam_sig.png
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Skoal Cat wrote:
    The only reason to be doing this is for current/future contract negotiations. This makes no sense otherwise. Business logic tells me that this is a good move for internal dealings that we aren't privy to.

    That has to be it. If that isn't it they'll end up as a Harvard case study. And not in a good way.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    Isn't this the forum where people are convinced physical media is going to be dead in X years (usually 1-5)? Far as I'm concerned, Netflix thinks this and is getting a leg up on it.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • gundam470gundam470 Registered User regular
    Spoiler:

    You can't compare Netflix to Apple; Netflix is at the mercy of other companies in ways that Apple is not.

    gorillaSig.jpg
  • gundam470gundam470 Registered User regular
    Not that I'm unaware of how fucked up and arbitrary contract negotiations can be, man it is fucked up and arbitrary if this move somehow enables them to get more content. "Sorry, I won't sell you distribution rights to this content, you are also distributing DVDs." "Okay, now we are just a streaming company that happens to have a 100% wholly owned subsidiary that distributes DVDs." "Let's make a deal!"

    One of the articles floating about talked about how being able to give companies more concrete numbers on how big the streaming audience is can give them significant leverage in negotiations.

    gorillaSig.jpg
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    KalTorak wrote:
    I guess some kid is going to get a nice paycheck out of his Twitter luck.

    http://consumerist.com/2011/09/netflix-might-have-wanted-to-check-twitter-first-before-picking-qwikster.html

    Twitter names are not domain names, and selling names is definitely disallowed in twitter's TOS.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    I guess Netflix is out of luck then?

  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    I for one am perfectly happy with this decision by Netflix. I only stream anyway, and if this new business model allows them to increase the amount of content they have to stream, then good.

    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    KalTorak wrote:
    I guess Netflix is out of luck then?

    I really hope so; it would be way better and funnier if dude just kept the name.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    gundam470 wrote:
    Not that I'm unaware of how fucked up and arbitrary contract negotiations can be, man it is fucked up and arbitrary if this move somehow enables them to get more content. "Sorry, I won't sell you distribution rights to this content, you are also distributing DVDs." "Okay, now we are just a streaming company that happens to have a 100% wholly owned subsidiary that distributes DVDs." "Let's make a deal!"

    One of the articles floating about talked about how being able to give companies more concrete numbers on how big the streaming audience is can give them significant leverage in negotiations.

    It's more that Netflix has essentially no leverage in negotiations these days and getting concrete numbers on who's streaming and who's not means they don't get bent over the barrel quite as much next time they renegotiate contracts.

  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    gundam470 wrote:
    You can't compare Netflix to Apple; Netflix is at the mercy of other companies in ways that Apple is not.

    It doesn't really matter though. Netflix thinks it's playing the long game in this whole thing, perhaps it is but the gamble they're taking is that they can limp through this short term hit to their stock value and their subscriber base. It's really the people who wanted both services and the convenience of it in one package who get screwed and obviously that's not enough to make them care.

    I don't dispute the eventual dominance of streaming media as a delivery system for entertainment but right now Netflix seems set to lose streaming content rather than gain "substantial" amounts of selection with Starz leaving and probably the other studios/companies like HBO or Universal considering doing their own streaming offshoot so they can dip into those imagined profits themselves. Perhaps this move will let them sign Starz up again and retain that chunk of their library but that's still not enough to make up for all those movies and series you could only get on DVD.

    So now Netflix is going to be smaller but more focused in a market that just may be flooded with smaller and focused competitors in the form of all these companies they're trying to negotiate with striking out on their own with streaming. If people want their content that bad why not cut out the middle man? I don't think consumers are going to have a great time of things as all this plays out. Sure there are committed people who'll manage as many queues and as many little or perhaps not so little bills as they have to in order to stream as much stuff as they can. There's likely to even be an App that lets you manage all those queues (if you make one after reading this at least give me a "special thanks to" credit). But I feel like that's a smaller percentage of the population than Netflix thinks.

    I'm probably just going to hop on the sinking ship of Blockbuster, they're nice and desperate so perhaps they'll toss me a few free video game rentals in order to help me forget about their smaller streaming library and the fact I have to walk into a store to get a DVD. Trading one set of inconveniences for another I guess. Maybe when Blockbuster is finished Netflix/Qwikster will be worth going back to. We'll see.

    The LandoStander on
    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    I don't like the name.

    In fact, I hate it.

    q-bert.jpg

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote:
    I'd probably ditch Netflix just as soon as HBO Go would take my money. How about $15 a month? Come on HBO, you know I'm not the only one.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, market fragmentation it is from here on out. As can be evidenced by my post.

    I thought HBO Go was free/included with the HBO subscription? Thats bullshit if its not. Especially since HBO Go is the reason I cant stream The Wire on Netflix and HBO Go isnt available to me because Time Warner Cable hasnt made a deal with HBO yet.
    mcdermott wrote:
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    It's arguable that having separate subsidiaries will allow both "halves" to serve their single-source customers better. Their streaming-only customers may now get a better experience, because they are served by a company wholly devoted to their needs.

    Yes, it sucks for multi-source customers. But with the pricing changes, they were already looking to greatly reduce this contingent anyway. You weren't a customer they cared about. For the rest of the customers (including DVD-only customers), this may well lead to improved service.

    But what percentage of their customers were single source customers? I have to assume that most of their customers were multi-source customers (especially if theyve been long term customers) because 1) the streaming thing is relatively new, and 2) you only recently started getting charged for the streaming service.

    camo_sig2.png
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote:
    enc0re wrote:
    I'd probably ditch Netflix just as soon as HBO Go would take my money. How about $15 a month? Come on HBO, you know I'm not the only one.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, market fragmentation it is from here on out. As can be evidenced by my post.

    I thought HBO Go was free/included with the HBO subscription? Thats bullshit if its not. Especially since HBO Go is the reason I cant stream The Wire on Netflix and HBO Go isnt available to me because Time Warner Cable hasnt made a deal with HBO yet.

    HBO Go is only included with an HBO subscription. I think what is being said is that $15/month would be a good value-money ratio if HBO wanted to charge for access without a subscription - a price point I agree with.

    And the fact that Time Warner Cable customers still can't get it is hilarious considering who owns HBO. (hint: their initials are T.W.)

    camo_sig2.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote:
    Skoal Cat wrote:
    The only reason to be doing this is for current/future contract negotiations. This makes no sense otherwise. Business logic tells me that this is a good move for internal dealings that we aren't privy to.

    That has to be it. If that isn't it they'll end up as a Harvard case study. And not in a good way.

    I think the stock market told an interesting story yesterday. When it first opened, the stock rebounded as investors followed the wisdom of the market experts that this was a smart business deal for Netflix. If you look at Google news, you'll see several articles early in the day by tech analysts proclaiming that this was a bold mood that would be brilliant for investors and the company.

    By the end of the day, the stock was down 5 percent from the day before, a number which disguises both the rise and crash throughout the day. It certainly looks like a lot of investors took a look at the customer complaints, angry articles from journalists (not "analysts") who actually used the product are were pissed.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    One of the larger losses Netflix is taking here is their great word of mouth. For all the advertising, Netflix is one of those brands that spread largely due to customer evangelism. I think the fact that many of those same people are actively quitting and complaining about the company will hurt them more than they suspect.

    Phillishere on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote:
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    Isn't this the forum where people are convinced physical media is going to be dead in X years (usually 1-5)? Far as I'm concerned, Netflix thinks this and is getting a leg up on it.

    The Slate article Mcdermott linked earlier is good and should be read by everybody in this thread because it enlightens a few points.

    One of the most interesting points of the article is that it discusses a study by Netflix that shows that in 2013, their DVD service will peak and begin declining. As a result, the DVD service will steadily need to increase rates on a decreasing subscriber base in order to support the DVD service's infrastructure. By dividing the company into two, Netflix can afford to one day close up shop on the DVD service without upsetting their focus, which is clearly on streaming.

    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    End users aren't the concern of shareholders.

    The irony is that this will see another golden age of piracy, which will suck for shareholders. The studios should fear that, as the worst thing in the world for them is for another round of piracy, as each one pushes the tech forward.

    If the pirates ever manage to find a solution that is both anonymous enough to be secure from detection and prosecution and easy enough to be used by the general public, the studios will be fucked.

    This is easy. It's just going to slow down your speed. One could offer hash checks for each block of data in a torrent. Random hash checks by the entire community rather than those involved with the seeding. If the entire community is there together, and some are sharing legally and others are not, but you're still involved in hash checking all content, regardless, the open connections probably aren't going to be too beneficial to anyone unless they tear apart the stream and watch what is up, what is down, which bytes you're getting are data bytes and not verification bytes.

    The problem is designing that protocol to be peer to peer, but, still be able to string trackers together so that you're connected to the community as a whole without centralizing it (where a single cease and desist can take down the entire structure). You also don't want it to be too partitioned where someone can put up a viral tracker and keep it isolated from the master system of peers to catch sharers.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    emp123 wrote:
    enc0re wrote:
    I'd probably ditch Netflix just as soon as HBO Go would take my money. How about $15 a month? Come on HBO, you know I'm not the only one.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, market fragmentation it is from here on out. As can be evidenced by my post.

    I thought HBO Go was free/included with the HBO subscription? Thats bullshit if its not. Especially since HBO Go is the reason I cant stream The Wire on Netflix and HBO Go isnt available to me because Time Warner Cable hasnt made a deal with HBO yet.

    An HBO subscription would run me quite a bit more than $15/month. For that matter, I don't even have a TV to which I could hook it up. I just want the streaming part to watch on my PC.*

    * 37" monitor, Klipsch reference speakers, Denon receiver. It's not like I'm poor. I just don't see the value in cable subscriptions. That shit is like what: $30/month? No way. I have a mortgage to pay.

    enc0re on
  • StraygatsbyStraygatsby Registered User regular
    I cancelled the streaming 1/2 of my sub last night (had been meaning to since the announcement). The vast majority of streamable stuff is B and C grade junk, TV that is available elsewhere, or classics that I've already seen a thousand times, none of which I really care to pay 7.95 a month to have access to.

    I still have the one disc at a time plan, though. I use that religiously and still find it completely worth the coin. I figure I probably plow through 7 or 8 discs in a month, maybe more, which makes it considerably better in terms of $ and title choice vs., say, a redbox or blockbuster kiosk.

    Now, the question is, how long will that last.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    $30 for basic cable. $60 for standard, if you want more than the major networks (NBC,CBS,ABC,JudgeJudy/JerrySpringer, Fox + a few others)

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    I might actually get a Netflix subscription if they keep expanding their streaming library. I've never had any interest in the dvd-by-mail program, so I'm not worried about missing out on that. This seems like a pretty obvious business move to me, if a company is expecting their dvd-by-mail business to tank. Put that away in another shell corporation so that your main business model won't suffer when the market moves. In the meantime they continue to establish themselves as the market dominant streaming service.

    In most cases you can't get HBO without paying at least $70 for cable service. I see no reason why they'd ever, ever offer streaming services of their content, since I imagine all their deals with the cable providers, etc. makes for a much heftier profit than anything streaming-subscribers would be willing to pay. Plus, they still have season box sales penetrating part of THAT market.

    Darkewolfe on
    "Well, look at this. Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What's that make us?"
    "Big Damn Heroes, Sir."
    "Ain't we just."
  • Idx86Idx86 A man chooses A slave obeysRegistered User regular
    I cancelled the streaming 1/2 of my sub last night (had been meaning to since the announcement). The vast majority of streamable stuff is B and C grade junk, TV that is available elsewhere, or classics that I've already seen a thousand times, none of which I really care to pay 7.95 a month to have access to.

    +1. Hate the streaming options they have. There was an article I read somewhere this morning too about Netflix's viability to pay their streaming bills, as well. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. have MUCH more cash on hand to pay licensing fees for streaming content than Netflix. Tens of billions of dollars more. So, the big boys could throw their weight around and outbid Netflix for the right to streaming services.

    sig.gif

    2008, 2012 D&D "Rare With No Sauce" League Fantasy Football Champion!
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote:
    Shadowfire wrote:
    Well, what part of this move is pro-consumer? I acknowledge that they're trying pretty hard to improve their streaming catalog. I didn't particularly mind that there were gaping holes in the available selection because I could always fall back to ye olde postal service, and their current website is all too happy to offer that operation. Now, it's going to be just "there are gaping holes, go to some other website".

    Isn't this the forum where people are convinced physical media is going to be dead in X years (usually 1-5)? Far as I'm concerned, Netflix thinks this and is getting a leg up on it.

    The Slate article Mcdermott linked earlier is good and should be read by everybody in this thread because it enlightens a few points.

    One of the most interesting points of the article is that it discusses a study by Netflix that shows that in 2013, their DVD service will peak and begin declining. As a result, the DVD service will steadily need to increase rates on a decreasing subscriber base in order to support the DVD service's infrastructure. By dividing the company into two, Netflix can afford to one day close up shop on the DVD service without upsetting their focus, which is clearly on streaming.

    The problem with studies like that is that they try to predict the future. Some things you can predict pretty well, and end up rather close to the mark. For example, if you predicted that Obama was going to win re-election, that's not that far fetched. It's either him or someone else. If you were to predict any of the current GOP lineup were to win the presidency? That's a harder thing to do, even if you have good numbers behind your argument.

    That's not to say we can't make any assumptions about the future, of course. But what is it about Netflix's DVD service (Qwikster) that will peak and then begin declining? Number of subscribers? Number of discs? Number of movies coming out on disc?

    Netflix isn't a buggywhip maker. Comparing physical media rental to streaming is like comparing a homemade, grilled hamburger to fast food. The first is going to take you longer to make, so you have to plan ahead of time, but it's going to taste really good. The fast food burger you can get whenever you want, but the quality is low. Both make you not hungry, both are burgers, but one is higher quality. In many cases, the cost isn't even much different.

    Anyway, enough metaphors. I think Netflix's growth was due to being the "only viable option" for getting movies, because when they launched there was no streaming and going a brick & mortar store was expensive, involved late fees, and a very limited selection. They solved that problem. Now, streaming caters to a different audience -- people who want content immediately despite the drop in quality and also have no interest in owning it. They both involve movies, but they're different groups, so the split makes sense in that regard.

    Of course, plenty of companies do more than one thing.

    The licensing thing is the main reason that the companies split, though, because in my opinion their internal structure is very interested in keeping the relatively fixed costs associated with DVD rental separate from the apparently highly fluid nature of content licensing. If I can buy your movie catalog for [dvd price]x[catalog size], with a long-term investment on a per-disc basis (to account for loss), that's a HELL of a lot more compelling than buying your movie catalog for some nebulous price based on usage stats.

    Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix saw the writing on the wall internally, too, and realized that the number of people who used the mail service tended to not stream, and those who streamed tended to not use the mail service. They probably have a lot of stats showing what content people seem to be interested in in order to "fill in the gaps" for their own needs, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're using that to get started on aquiring streaming content. Still, it's telling that the streaming content will always be less than the amount of content available on Qwikster.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    Yeah there's like 7 movies I have that I want to see. They're all out on DVD/Blu-ray but only one is available streaming. They figured out how to sell music online in a good way. I just wonder how long it will take for video.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.