Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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

1246720

Posts

  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited September 2011
    shryke wrote:
    And that's just the US. Prospects for this idea get even worse once you leave the US and start having to deal with licensing and places with less or shittier internet or the like.

    I'm leaving those alone, because contracts can hypothetically be worked out in some ideal scenario. Lack of broadband makes it impossible in even the rosiest predictions.

    Edit: There are few first-world countries with worse connectivity than the US. Maybe Canada, but most of your frozen wastes are unpopulated anyway.

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    templewulf wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    And that's just the US. Prospects for this idea get even worse once you leave the US and start having to deal with licensing and places with less or shittier internet or the like.

    I'm leaving those alone, because contracts can hypothetically be worked out in some ideal scenario. Lack of broadband makes it impossible in even the rosiest predictions.

    Edit: There are few first-world countries with worse connectivity than the US. Maybe Canada, but most of your frozen wastes are unpopulated anyway.

    True, but how many first-world countries have as much landmass as the US?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    templewulf wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    And that's just the US. Prospects for this idea get even worse once you leave the US and start having to deal with licensing and places with less or shittier internet or the like.

    I'm leaving those alone, because contracts can hypothetically be worked out in some ideal scenario. Lack of broadband makes it impossible in even the rosiest predictions.

    Edit: There are few first-world countries with worse connectivity than the US. Maybe Canada, but most of your frozen wastes are unpopulated anyway.

    Connectivity in what way?

    Cause given the huge fuss Americans tend to make over even the initial implementation of download caps, I'm thinking you guys have it alot better then you often realise.

  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    templewulf wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    And that's just the US. Prospects for this idea get even worse once you leave the US and start having to deal with licensing and places with less or shittier internet or the like.

    I'm leaving those alone, because contracts can hypothetically be worked out in some ideal scenario. Lack of broadband makes it impossible in even the rosiest predictions.

    Edit: There are few first-world countries with worse connectivity than the US. Maybe Canada, but most of your frozen wastes are unpopulated anyway.

    True, but how many first-world countries have as much landmass as the US?

    Oh, I'm not saying there's not a reason for it. I'm just saying that the reality of the situation prevents a sizable portion of the population from participating in our grand, streaming utopia.

    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User
    Skoal Cat wrote:
    Shanadeus wrote:
    So in other words, people who don't bother with the DVDs will now have a cheaper service?
    That sounds pretty good.

    Now if only Netflix would come over here.

    What? No, there is no way streaming only price point is dropping.
    Really?
    There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!). Members who subscribe to both services will have two entries on their credit card statements, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as the current charges.
    If the total is the same as the current charges, then surely the two separate services will be less than the total?

  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    Shanadeus wrote:
    Skoal Cat wrote:
    Shanadeus wrote:
    So in other words, people who don't bother with the DVDs will now have a cheaper service?
    That sounds pretty good.

    Now if only Netflix would come over here.

    What? No, there is no way streaming only price point is dropping.
    Really?
    There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!). Members who subscribe to both services will have two entries on their credit card statements, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as the current charges.
    If the total is the same as the current charges, then surely the two separate services will be less than the total?

    You seem to have missed their recent price jump where they also split streaming into its own plan. The basic plan is no longer 1 DVD+streaming.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote:
    AppleTV (or Roku). $99. Streaming problem solved for any room.

    Is it a DVR?

    I want a DVR that works like a goddamn VCR--if I know when something is going to air, I can set it to record for however long in however many hours, and watch it later. With no monthly fee or any of that bullshit. I've considered a video capture card, but I turn off my computer in interests of saving money and lowering my bedroom temperature--plus, that'd require long cables.

    ...I might need to break down and buy a VCR and a single, durable tape.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Wait there are people that use VCRs still? Seriously, a VCR and a durable tape will cost you more than a DVD player that can play DVD rewritables. Plus there won't be degradation as you overwrite shit. There are better options, even wayyyyy more frugal than what you're proposing.

    Ladies.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Yeah, the last time I thought about this was four years ago, when DVDR sucked out loud because of everything from your cable provider to the approximately seventy different kinds of DVD-R that exist.

    Really, what I want is a HDD recorder. I don't need a library of fucking home-made DVDs, I just want to watch shows that I'm busy/at work/in classes for. Those are pretty damn rare, when subscription free--Magnavox still makes them, but I don't know about any others.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    Wait there are people that use VCRs still? Seriously, a VCR and a durable tape will cost you more than a DVD player that can play DVD rewritables. Plus there won't be degradation as you overwrite shit. There are better options, even wayyyyy more frugal than what you're proposing.

    My mother used to use one until I finally managed to convince her to join the 21st century with a PVR. Half of the time it's some show like Survivor that she wants to watch but won't actually be home to see it, so she just shoves a tape into the VCR. And the other half is old movies and shit she wants to add to her collection.

    Her latest craze though is DVD recording. As I mentioned, she has this massive VHS collection of... well it's all boring crap to me. Anyways she now wants to convert them to DVD's and has been doing so for years now.

    She's now on her 4th DVD recorder. I don't know how she does it, but she keeps managing to literally burn the things out. Though half of the problem might be that she's a notorious cheapskate, and a lot of those recorders were of dubious quality.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote:
    Yeah, the last time I thought about this was four years ago, when DVDR sucked out loud because of everything from your cable provider to the approximately seventy different kinds of DVD-R that exist.

    Really, what I want is a HDD recorder. I don't need a library of fucking home-made DVDs, I just want to watch shows that I'm busy/at work/in classes for. Those are pretty damn rare, when subscription free--Magnavox still makes them, but I don't know about any others.

    I've got Time Warner for TV and internet. The cable box -> DVR cable box upgrade is, I think, $10 a month, which is only slightly more than Netflix, and gets you a set-top box that will let you record up to two shows at a time with programmable per-show or per-series settings. I guess if you don't have cable TV that would be an issue, but then what are you recording that's not on Hulu?

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I've got Charter Cable, which, for the first time in my life, I don't hate--that being said, I don't want to give them an additoinal x per month to unlock the DVR in my cable box--after a year, I basically could have bought a decent DVR from Magnavox. Hulu, like Netflix (though not nearly as bad) is way slower than actually watching things on cable, and while I don't mind waiting one week, it's a lot more annoying to have to wait a month because I was busy that evening. Sure, things can be found on line, but just being able to set something to record and be done with it would be preferable.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote:
    Yeah, the last time I thought about this was four years ago, when DVDR sucked out loud because of everything from your cable provider to the approximately seventy different kinds of DVD-R that exist.

    Really, what I want is a HDD recorder. I don't need a library of fucking home-made DVDs, I just want to watch shows that I'm busy/at work/in classes for. Those are pretty damn rare, when subscription free--Magnavox still makes them, but I don't know about any others.

    I've got Time Warner for TV and internet. The cable box -> DVR cable box upgrade is, I think, $10 a month, which is only slightly more than Netflix, and gets you a set-top box that will let you record up to two shows at a time with programmable per-show or per-series settings. I guess if you don't have cable TV that would be an issue, but then what are you recording that's not on Hulu?

    I'm with Shaw cable up in Canada, and their PVR cable box does the exact same thing. You just find what you want on the guide and hit the record button, and you can set it to record every episode that comes up. It literally works exactly like a VCR, without the electronics degree needed to actually program the thing.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Basically by fighting Netflix they're doing what the RIAA did in fighting digital music: they're going to lose billions in profits to piracy, wring their hands and shout "WHY WON'T SOMEBODY STOP THE CRIMINALS!", not realizing that most of the time, those people just want it NOW and would pay if they could get it NOW.

    This isn't an endorsement of piracy, it's just how things work. If people have the option to get something immediately as part of a service they already pay for, they will. If a show they want to check out is on netflix, and they're already considering buying it, they will. This isn't rocket surgery, what they are doing is exactly the same as Sony refusing to sell dvds at a reasonable price in China and then claiming with a straight face that pirates in China are costing them eleven billion dollars a year.

    The real problem is that in our current economic state, and congress' "Pro Business" attitude this will only end up worse IP law passed to fight piracy that will end up hurting us all. It's not just the GOP on this one, if anyone read the America Invents Act it's basically a compromise between two corporate giveaways to particular industries. If this is the type of BS we get, and patent reform arguably has a much better chance of passing since the media doesn't routinely collude in every instance to paint anyone supporting a change in patent law as a vicious thug ripping the dollar bills from the poor, poor wallets of starving recording artists...WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CONTENT CREATORS?....and the multi-billion dollar mega corps that actually receive all their profits

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote:
    Yeah, the last time I thought about this was four years ago, when DVDR sucked out loud because of everything from your cable provider to the approximately seventy different kinds of DVD-R that exist.

    Really, what I want is a HDD recorder. I don't need a library of fucking home-made DVDs, I just want to watch shows that I'm busy/at work/in classes for. Those are pretty damn rare, when subscription free--Magnavox still makes them, but I don't know about any others.

    I've got Time Warner for TV and internet. The cable box -> DVR cable box upgrade is, I think, $10 a month, which is only slightly more than Netflix, and gets you a set-top box that will let you record up to two shows at a time with programmable per-show or per-series settings. I guess if you don't have cable TV that would be an issue, but then what are you recording that's not on Hulu?

    I'm with Shaw cable up in Canada, and their PVR cable box does the exact same thing. You just find what you want on the guide and hit the record button, and you can set it to record every episode that comes up. It literally works exactly like a VCR, without the electronics degree needed to actually program the thing.

    Comcast DVR box does the same deal, I can even set it to record remotely using my phone. So, when someone says "Hey, are you watching XXXX? It's awesome" I can set it up to record then and there.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Synthesis wrote:
    Yeah, the last time I thought about this was four years ago, when DVDR sucked out loud because of everything from your cable provider to the approximately seventy different kinds of DVD-R that exist.

    Really, what I want is a HDD recorder. I don't need a library of fucking home-made DVDs, I just want to watch shows that I'm busy/at work/in classes for. Those are pretty damn rare, when subscription free--Magnavox still makes them, but I don't know about any others.

    I've got Time Warner for TV and internet. The cable box -> DVR cable box upgrade is, I think, $10 a month, which is only slightly more than Netflix, and gets you a set-top box that will let you record up to two shows at a time with programmable per-show or per-series settings. I guess if you don't have cable TV that would be an issue, but then what are you recording that's not on Hulu?

    I'm with Shaw cable up in Canada, and their PVR cable box does the exact same thing. You just find what you want on the guide and hit the record button, and you can set it to record every episode that comes up. It literally works exactly like a VCR, without the electronics degree needed to actually program the thing.
    You skipped what happens if you switch services, and maybe what happens in the event of a hardware failure. Besides which, from a cost perspective, setting up a small machine with a hard drive and a video capture card should break even on that 10 a month within a year or two (if I did addition right anyway).

    You will lose out on the guide. Unless the company you are currently with has an accurate online guide that your machine can pull down and let you go from that (note: I'm not sure this actually exists, but it should be fairly trivial to write. Making it look pretty might be harder, but even that not too much).

    edit: I think I can manage setting it up to record from a phone as well, although you'd have trouble with putting an app on your phone.

    edit 2: @synthesis consider http://www.mythtv.org/ you'll have to build a machine for it, but you should be able to do that fairly cheaply. Does mean you'll need to build a machine for it though, so you may be better of picking something else.

    Syrdon on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I don't need the ability to program my DVR by phone from my office. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't oppose it, but I don't need it anymore than I need a guide. I know when the shows I want to watch are--I can't because I cannot actually watch them at that time. I can do math. So, I need a simple DVR/DVDR/PVR/HDD Recorder/whatever bullshit.

    In other words, something like a VCR.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    I think it's the other way around, personally. I think they're separating things so that they can have each part of the company do what it does best without pilfering funds from the other side.

    I really like the disc-by-mail option, and never watch streaming. I care about movie quality, and I basically never watch TV shows. If you DO watch streaming TV shows, you care about having them ASAP and you enjoy watching them without having to pause between discs. You have a lot of options now as companies are competing for this "first run" material, and it's available before the DVDs come out.

    How does Netflix as a streaming company deal with this? Do they take internal assets away from their DVD division? If they make a mistake, or if studios play hardball and they lose streaming licenses, will that negatively affect the DVD-by-mail delivery business?

    Truthfully, having both tightly integrated hurts DVDs, because users would see that a DVD was available via streaming and just watch it instantly. That sounds like a good service offering, and it makes people happy. It made a lot of people happy when it was introduced for free, since you were getting "bonus movies" in addition to your [plan]-at-a-time disc service. That also meant, though, that as people watched more streaming, they reduced their [plan]-at-a-time. People went from 3 at once to 2 at once because they had the additional discs so they could watch TV shows or "extra" movies, so Netflix simply counted streaming as an additional per-month bump.

    As more people tried streaming, those people became less reliant on discs in general and that seems like it'd be a good deal for Netflix, since they'd avoid shipping fees, disc-processing fees, and so on. But, as mentioned above, they instead loaded up on licensing fees, which are not nearly as stable compared to Netflix Operational fees (actually handling the discs), or postage fees. Suddenly every year or two years you could lose all of your content or experience a huge price bump.

    Incidentally, these are the same things that people complain about with Netflix, and is the problem with any streaming-based service that involves a subscription (rather than owning the content). If you don't OWN the content, you have no right to access the content. One of my favorite movies, "In The Mood For Love" by Wong Kar Wai, used to be available on Netflix, and I was happy because I want to buy it on Blu-Ray -- but it's only available on DVD, and for $35! Yet I was able to watch it whenever, until I logged on this spring and discovered that poof, it disappeared. That's significantly different compared to, say, Amazon's Cloud Player, or having a Digital Copy on an iPad/iPhone. I *own* that, I have access to it regardless of my connectivity. The people who use streaming are fundamentally different from the people who use physical or "owned" copies though. There will be some overlap, but the groups have independent needs and desires from the companies they interact with.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • VanguardVanguard In my own head, near the hole where hope drains out and fear is branded deep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    To add some perspective, the decline of CD sales is largely due to an unwillingness to change the industry business model (which has been in use since the 20s) than piracy. To believe otherwise is to drink the RIAA's kool-aid.

    Music piracy only empowered consumers and led to the inevitability of services like iTunes, where rather than buying albums, people buy tracks. This doesn't take into account that there are more forms (and methods of accessing) entertainment than there were 50 years ago, when the industry peaked.

    To sum it up: competition is good, consumer choice is good, and any attempt to restrict the latter will be met with considerable pushback and is doomed to fail.

  • jimb213jimb213 Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Going back to the death-of-physical-media tangent, I think it's useful to look at the state of CDs.

    CDs have been around, what, almost 30 years now? They are well established. They are still what a lot of people buy if they want a whole album. Almost every new car still comes with a CD player. People still listen to CDs. This, though digital distribution options have been available for a pretty long time, both legal and extra-legal. You don't see a lot of dedicated music stores, but if you go into Target or Walmart you see a pretty good sized CD section.

    And consider that this is for a market where digital distribution makes so much sense. Often, people are just interested in a single song, not an entire album. You can buy that song for $1 using a pretty convenient distribution service. There are online radio stations that allow you to pick and choose songs along whatever metric you choose. And yet the CD market still exists. You go into a Starbucks and they're still selling CDs. Granted, this is largely because the music industry is retarded and averse to change, but I don't see how that won't apply just as equally to the video market.

    Meanwhile, movies are not songs. Few people notice a quality difference between a CD and songs streamed from their online radio station, or the song they bought from iTunes, whereas the video and audio quality between BD and streamed HD is pretty obvious. It is easy to burn your own CD full of music. Songs are tiny and easily manageable while movies are big, clunky things. Almost everyone has access to something like iTunes whereas a huge number of people don't have the bandwidth to stream HD movies. CDs have pretty much no reason to exist anymore, yet they still do, and have been for just about ever and probably will be for some time.

    And people are expecting DVDs and BDs to be rare niche products in five years?

    Yeah, not going to happen. People like their physical media. Sure, DVDs are losing marketshare. Know why? Because the people who really dig streaming movies are the same people who really love buying DVDs in quantity. Cinema buffs and technophiles. The mainstream market, though, I think they still want to buy themselves a bunch of DVDs and pop them into their players without worrying about the internet hiccuping.

    Pretty much all of this. I love netflix streaming, and frankly do a majority of my media viewing via netflix & hulu. But when I sit down to watch a movie, I want it to be on DVD or BluRay so it doesn't have crappy blocky encoding. At least on my slightly-too-small-for-my-livingroom-TV, a good DVD looks better than an "HD" stream from netflix.

  • Sangheili91Sangheili91 Registered User regular
    Ever since signing up almost a year ago I've feared that discs would be going away, I assumed it was inevitable given the rumors. So the fact that Netflix is spinning it's discs off, even to an entirely new company, makes me so much happier than if they just got rid of them outright.

    Don't get me wrong, I love me some instant, and sometimes there are some surprisingly good titles available to stream, but I just added BD to my account last week, and my eyes have been opened. Instant is nice, but when I can just pop in a disc and get wonderful high-quality goodness without hooking my computer up to the TV, I'll go with that option every time.

    Not to mention that fact that my internet connection isn't super reliable. Online multiplayer is always really iffy and sometimes the internet will just die right in the middle of a film, which is a huge killjoy. I was just thinking on Saturday, when the connection died in the middle of Die Hard, that this is exactly why physical media will never go away.

    steam_sig.png
    3DS - 1289-8245-3817
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Add me to the list of people who has noticed that Netflix' streaming selection sucks. My queue generally hovers around 300 disks (yes, I've got a lot of crap to get through) and for a while the number of my disks that also showed up in the instant queue was around 60-odd. Today, that number is 50-odd.

    And it's absolutely baffling that many times, content will sometimes appear on streaming for a few months, then disappear. I watched Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs a while back when my wife was out of town. I dug it, my wife said she wanted to see it, so a few months I went to queue it up... but it was gone.

    As has been said before, I don't mind paying a bit more if Netflix brings their instant queue up to snuff. But it sounds like things are getting worse, not better. Maybe it's Netflix' fault, maybe it's the studios' fault (more likely). But regardless, if things don't improve I can't justify paying for it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I don't know if it sucks, but I've long felt, and still do, that it's got huge gaps in coverage (increasingly, more gaps than coverage, really). Not Netflix's fault, but that's the reaity of the situation.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I like the way someone else I talk to put it:

    The Netflix Streaming loophole is closing rapidly.

  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    Physical media won't go anywhere there will always be people who want that physical copy that doesn't rely on batteries (books) or long term contracts (streaming). MP3s might be a bit different but it is kind of nice to have an actual CD that you can do whatever you want with including putting onto your MP3 player. That doesn't exclude the eventual dominance of streaming media because that is pretty convenient.

    Netflix was my preference because the DVD thing really filled in the holes with the streaming service which will be diminishing as contracts expire and more money is demanded by content makers/providers. With the separate queues it'll make it just a little less convenient but still cost the same in the end. Just like Blu-Ray the games options from qwikster is going to cost more but those aren't add-ons that I really needed. If they really wanted to take down Gamefly they'd make the games part of the service since discs are discs after all so they cost the same to ship, more to buy of course. They'll still probably beat Gamefly out but not as quickly.

    Blockbuster.com has a smaller streaming library but the DVD option is consolidated with that streaming. Also they seem to toss the occasional free game rental your way. It seems like every which way there's going to be a decrease in service/convenience for me so why not try something completely different that comes with occasional free games and is still the same single entity? Netflix/Qwikster will always take me back I suppose or maybe they'll reverse course, HP kept making the TouchPad, even if just a little longer.

    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    I think the stuff that shows up for a few weeks is from STARZ Plays (z?) or whatever and it's designed to only be available for a few weeks.

    I do hope they improve their streaming selection.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Really, now its just a question of how they price the game addon that determines whether I reactivate as a qwikster customer, or just move on entirely.

  • TexiKenTexiKen gotta go to work Registered User regular
    I didn't see this posted yet (apologies if it was), but it does a good job of laying out the reasoning in terms of Netflix dealing with Hollywood.
    So here is what I think happened with Netflix’s recent price change (for the record, I have no inside data here, this is just an educated guess). Netflix has for the past several years been negotiating with Hollywood for the digital rights to stream movies and TV series as a single price subscription to users. Their first few deals were simply $X million dollars for one year of rights to stream this particular library of films. As the years passed, the deals became more elaborate, and the studios began to ask for a % of the revenues. This likely started with a “percentage-rake” type discussion, but then evolved into a simple $/user discussion (just like the cable business). Hollywood wanted a price/month/user.

    This is the point where Netflix tried to argue that you should only count users that actually connect digitally and actually watch a film. While they originally offered digital streaming bundled with DVD rental, many of the rural customers likely never actually “connect” to the digital product. This argument may have worked for a while, but eventually Hollywood said, “No way. Here is how it is going to work. You will pay us a $/user/month for anyone that has the ‘right’ to connect to our content – regardless of whether they view it or not.” This was the term that changed Netflix pricing.

    T5cdHbx.jpg
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    That may be part of what is driving the change, I don't think that is the type of deal that Netflix would agree to in most cases. Because that is the same model that cable companies operate under, and that type of arrangement is awful for the end user.

    Tomanta on
  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    End users aren't the concern of shareholders.

    I wonder if perhaps what we'll see isn't some sort of streaming renaissance or golden age that sees Netflix rise from this split to spread streaming video to the masses but rather the slow and confused death of a company that might've been a moderately user friendly one stop shop for movies in varying forms and the rise of a mass of inconvenient and ultimately costly fiefdoms of streaming as each company like HBO or Warner Brothers or Fox Studios attempts to be their own Netflix.

    In cases like this I tend to imagine the least user friendly outcome and that way I'm either unhappy but right or I'm pleasantly surprised and glad to have been wrong.

    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • PhillisherePhillishere 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.

  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander 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.
    Indeed. Even now piracy is a concern across all sorts of media not just movies. With the old Napster days having been put down by the low cost, quality and consistency of things like iTunes or even Zune, Rhapsody and Pandora you see a drop off in the illegal side of things.

    Cost and Inconvenience are really the two things you need in order to make people care less about quality. Wal-Mart has built a global empire of sorts on that premise. Though you can't really pirate loaves of bread or boxes of mac n' cheese (unless you're actually a pirate/thief of course).

    Maybe things will sort of settle down medium to long term but more immediately I'd expect a degree of fragmentation in the realm of Netflix/Qwikster like service. I think they could've kept things together and weathered the rate increase issue but opening a second wound like this may weaken the company enough that they can't deal with the Hollywood studios' demands. Going into negotiations bruised and battered is not the way to do things. In the mean time I think the uncertainty and frustration might drive up piracy simply because for some people you can't beat inconvenient and crumby but free in the face of inconvenient and expensive but decent.

    Piracy of course never being justified, just a constant presence.

    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    TexiKen wrote:
    I didn't see this posted yet (apologies if it was), but it does a good job of laying out the reasoning in terms of Netflix dealing with Hollywood.
    So here is what I think happened with Netflix’s recent price change (for the record, I have no inside data here, this is just an educated guess). Netflix has for the past several years been negotiating with Hollywood for the digital rights to stream movies and TV series as a single price subscription to users. Their first few deals were simply $X million dollars for one year of rights to stream this particular library of films. As the years passed, the deals became more elaborate, and the studios began to ask for a % of the revenues. This likely started with a “percentage-rake” type discussion, but then evolved into a simple $/user discussion (just like the cable business). Hollywood wanted a price/month/user.

    This is the point where Netflix tried to argue that you should only count users that actually connect digitally and actually watch a film. While they originally offered digital streaming bundled with DVD rental, many of the rural customers likely never actually “connect” to the digital product. This argument may have worked for a while, but eventually Hollywood said, “No way. Here is how it is going to work. You will pay us a $/user/month for anyone that has the ‘right’ to connect to our content – regardless of whether they view it or not.” This was the term that changed Netflix pricing.

    This explains the DVD/digital split within plans, but doesn't explain the Qwikster spinoff.

    Though I buy this explanation over at Slate, which basically boils down to the fact that it lets the Netflix brand ignore the DVD customers, who would likely hamstring them from moving forward. That basically the hardest part for any company in an evolving business is to ignore their customers, because while their customers may know what they want right now they have no fucking idea what they'll want in two or five years...and that leaves you open to upstarts filling that niche before you get a chance to.

    Still doesn't explain both the horrid Qwikster name, and failure to check up on things like Twitter availability, both of which seem like serious rookie mistakes.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    Still doesn't explain both the horrid Qwikster name, and failure to check up on things like Twitter availability, both of which seem like serious rookie mistakes.

    Qwikster makes the decision seemed rushed. Like they pushed the announcement up before it was really ready to time it with their stock and subscriber loss instead of possibly taking another big hit later on.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Still doesn't explain both the horrid Qwikster name, and failure to check up on things like Twitter availability, both of which seem like serious rookie mistakes.

    Qwikster makes the decision seemed rushed. Like they pushed the announcement up before it was really ready to time it with their stock and subscriber loss instead of possibly taking another big hit later on.

    I don't care how rushed it was, though, I'd like to think that you could throw a team of interns on this for about eight hours and get a better result.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    End users aren't the concern of shareholders.

    I wonder if perhaps what we'll see isn't some sort of streaming renaissance or golden age that sees Netflix rise from this split to spread streaming video to the masses but rather the slow and confused death of a company that might've been a moderately user friendly one stop shop for movies in varying forms and the rise of a mass of inconvenient and ultimately costly fiefdoms of streaming as each company like HBO or Warner Brothers or Fox Studios attempts to be their own Netflix.

    In cases like this I tend to imagine the least user friendly outcome and that way I'm either unhappy but right or I'm pleasantly surprised and glad to have been wrong.

    This is what we're gonna see I imagine.

    Netflix was only viable so long as no one making the content was paying attention.

  • The LandoStanderThe LandoStander Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    That basically the hardest part for any company in an evolving business is to ignore their customers, because while their customers may know what they want right now they have no fucking idea what they'll want in two or five years...and that leaves you open to upstarts filling that niche before you get a chance to.

    That seems odd to me. Certainly any established company can lose marketshare very quickly in the face of competition or shifting technology look at MySpace, AOL and Borders. However Barnes & Noble didn't go under and they maintain a brick and mortar presence, they just kept up with Amazon better than Borders. Certainly Netflix was facing the long term decline of DVD usage but it certainly wasn't going to doom the company to failure. Quite to the contrary, their DVD service was still bridging the fairly huge gap they had in their streaming library. There really aren't new niches here to develop in terms of delivery it's just a war over who can satisfy the most customers by giving them the content they want as easily as they can get a hold of it. I think ultimately people want movies and they don't care how as long as it's not much effort. So maybe years down the line when Netflix has weathered the battles with studios etc. over the rights to stream their movies and shows and when even more people have broadband in the US at least Netflix might've spun off the DVD portion but until then having more than a couple of price points/options for service wasn't that complicated, they just underestimated their consumers' intelligence and now not only are they losing subscribers but they're looking like dicks in the process.

    More than one bill even if it's the same total cost is an inconvenience, managing two websites and resolving overlaps is an inconvenience. Sure it's no big deal for some but when your business is built on the concept of being as absolutely simple and convenient as possible and delivering things as quickly as possible you can't ignore the right now aspect, because as soon as you do the people who want things right now are gone and even if they come back a year or so later, multiplied by the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that might be the case for and you're out a ton of cash that you desperately need to buy those streaming rights that will secure your company's future and demonstrate that you've got enough market share that competitors shouldn't even bother trying to edge you out. If even half of the 600,000 that quit Netflix over the price or the split go to some other place like Hulu or even Blockbuster that's a decent amount of wind in the sails of competitors who are just as eager to get those streaming and release rights, and now they'll have some of what might've been Netflix's cash to do it with.

    The LandoStander on
    Maybe someday, they'll see a hero's just a man. Who knows he's free.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    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.

    enc0re on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    mxmarks wrote:
    I really dont understand the outrage.

    People seem to be switching out of spite, not true inconvienience. Which is fine, I guess, but silly. I can't think of any company that offers both by mail and streaming content. There was more than likely a REASON for that. Because no one could figure out how to stay in buisness doing that. And now Netflix is deciding to do that as well.

    So if you keep streaming, and decide you hate Qikster (which, based off the name I cant fault you for), and you go to something like Facet (which I hadnt heard of until today) or RedBox...aren't you still managing 2 companies? Redbox has no queue, so that makes it easier in a way, but also has much less of a selection. You still paying for 2 seperate services. Just like Netflix and Quikster.

    Yes, but no.

    Up until last month, Netflix was the cheaper option for me. Streaming is great, and I'll keep it as long as it maintains its current quality, and it cost me next to nothing to also get DVDs along with the streaming, which is useful because I often want to watch specific things. But Netflix DVD selection lacks many things I want. I have more than hundred DVDs in my saved queue, and in my exploring of other options I started looking for those titles on Face.

    Insignifcance? They have it. Weekend? They have it. Medea? They have it. Gray's Anatomy? they have it. The Mother and the Whore on VHS? They have that, too. And yes, they have laser discs along with VHS, for all those rare films that never got a DVD release. They have films from all over the world, and their selection runs deep. It's a service tailor made for the cinema loving dude, and I'm a cinema loving dude. And now this service costs as much as Qwikster.

    Will I be managing two queues? Yes, and that sucks. It's not the end of the world, and other people have been doing it. Sure. It still sucks. Why not stick with Quikster? Because the cost calculus I made when I subscribed to Netflix DVD+streaming has changed, and the little conveniences went away.

    Spite's got nothing to do with it.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    That basically the hardest part for any company in an evolving business is to ignore their customers, because while their customers may know what they want right now they have no fucking idea what they'll want in two or five years...and that leaves you open to upstarts filling that niche before you get a chance to.

    That seems odd to me. Certainly any established company can lose marketshare very quickly in the face of competition or shifting technology look at MySpace, AOL and Borders. However Barnes & Noble didn't go under and they maintain a brick and mortar presence, they just kept up with Amazon better than Borders. Certainly Netflix was facing the long term decline of DVD usage but it certainly wasn't going to doom the company to failure. Quite to the contrary, their DVD service was still bridging the fairly huge gap they had in their streaming library. There really aren't new niches here to develop in terms of delivery it's just a war over who can satisfy the most customers by giving them the content they want as easily as they can get a hold of it. I think ultimately people want movies and they don't care how as long as it's not much effort. So maybe years down the line when Netflix has weathered the battles with studios etc. over the rights to stream their movies and shows and when even more people have broadband in the US at least Netflix might've spun off the DVD portion but until then having more than a couple of price points/options for service wasn't that complicated, they just underestimated their consumers' intelligence and now not only are they losing subscribers but they're looking like dicks in the process.

    More than one bill even if it's the same total cost is an inconvenience, managing two websites and resolving overlaps is an inconvenience. Sure it's no big deal for some but when your business is built on the concept of being as absolutely simple and convenient as possible and delivering things as quickly as possible you can't ignore the right now aspect, because as soon as you do the people who want things right now are gone and even if they come back a year or so later, multiplied by the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that might be the case for and you're out a ton of cash that you desperately need to buy those streaming rights that will secure your company's future and demonstrate that you've got enough market share that competitors shouldn't even bother trying to edge you out. If even half of the 600,000 that quit Netflix over the price or the split go to some other place like Hulu or even Blockbuster that's a decent amount of wind in the sails of competitors who are just as eager to get those streaming and release rights, and now they'll have some of what might've been Netflix's cash to do it with.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.