Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | ... | 70

79 posts

Master Geek

#1536020 19-Apr-2016 20:42

shk292:

tdgeek
You want to buy a Dodge Viper do you go to Honda Cars?

If you want free Spotify do you go to slingshot?

Exclusivity is a means to added value .its competition .

Seriously, is that really the best answer you can provide? An obscure car that I could get from any number of dealers or import myself, and a specific deal on a music service?

I think my point must be proven then

"Exclusivity is a means to added value .its competition ", that is very close to an oxymoron. Exclusivity is as close to anti-comeptitive you can get, it is literally contracting competition out of the game. When content resellers have exclusivity on a particular show they have a monopoly on selling that production. They aren't adding value (well very very very little value), as the delivery cost is next to nothing, so all they are doing is charging you extra and clipping the ticket to view something extra - at least in the days of broadcasting they were actually providing a physical service.

Exclusivity for live content production eg, sports, can be considered competitive as the value being delivered is in the content production, but re-selling the live rights with exclusive contracts is anti-competitive.

So the best we can do now is get our US Netflix, try and make the NZ companies squirm and put pressure on the government to update NZ's laws for the internet age. To be honest, I do not know why Sky, Spark and co aren't pushing for the government to effectively ban exclusivity on reselling content - the long term outlook isn't good for regional businesses like that unless they can offer consumer friendly packages tailored to the NZ Consumers. Unless that happens their business is going to be gobbled up by the big offshore companies like Hulu, Netflix etc.

EDIT**

This forum is meant to be about Netflix's blocking attempts, so its probably not the best place to be having this argument.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1536026 19-Apr-2016 20:47

tdgeek:

shk292:

tdgeek:

Oh dear. It was merely one iorvteo examples of many

A viper is not obscure and Spotify is a top brand.

Are you advocating zero competition?

On these forum competition is advocated. That's what we have

Or do you prefer a more socialist approach?

No, I'm a great believer in competition, that's why I don't like exclusive arrangements and geographical monopolies. I believe companies should compete in the global marketplace by adding value to their inputs to produce a product that consumers want to buy. Not by taking legal or technical action to ensure that segments of the global market have no choice from whom they buy.

A Viper is pretty obscure in NZ, presumably that's why you're looking for one? And yes, I'm a Spotify subscriber; I chose them because I think they offer the best value for the mix of music I like, and they have some features that make their package attractive. Not because that's the only way I can listen to say EMI music in NZ. If it was, I'd find other means

Many add value. Thats exclusive, you can only get to here, so buy me. if you want everyone to have everything, where is the competition? Its not there. Factor in that if everyone has everything, you pay the cost. In fact the cost should be quite low as there is no motivation to pay heaps for exclusive content, or for advertisers to pay premium which subsidises it. It seems to me that you want what suits you, but your not prepared for the cost? The creators probably don't care. Its the SVOD that is creating competition, so buy me. OTOH it seems normal, competition. Yet some want it all for nix? Enlighten me.

I still don't understand how you think I'm advocating a monopoly. I'm advocating the opposite; free competition for providers to purchase content and resell it. There are any number of ways they can add value or make their offerings more attractive, and offer packages that are targeted at certain audiences. We've had this discussion before, but it's like you have some sort of reasoning deficiency and every time an alternative model is presented you just go on about monopolies. Providers could differentiate by the type of content in packages, by the resolution and sound quality offered, by number and type of devices, by whether to allow offline viewing, by the type and quality of programme guide, by offering subtitles in different languages, by offering 3D etc etc etc

Do you by any chance work for Sky or a traditional NZ retailer which is why you think the only marketing model is monopolistic gouging of a captive audience?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536029 19-Apr-2016 20:49

charliebrownnz:

shk292:

tdgeek
You want to buy a Dodge Viper do you go to Honda Cars?

If you want free Spotify do you go to slingshot?

Exclusivity is a means to added value .its competition .

Seriously, is that really the best answer you can provide? An obscure car that I could get from any number of dealers or import myself, and a specific deal on a music service?

I think my point must be proven then

"Exclusivity is a means to added value .its competition ", that is very close to an oxymoron. Exclusivity is as close to anti-comeptitive you can get, it is literally contracting competition out of the game. When content resellers have exclusivity on a particular show they have a monopoly on selling that production. They aren't adding value (well very very very little value), as the delivery cost is next to nothing, so all they are doing is charging you extra and clipping the ticket to view something extra - at least in the days of broadcasting they were actually providing a physical service.

Exclusivity for live content production eg, sports, can be considered competitive as the value being delivered is in the content production, but re-selling the live rights with exclusive contracts is anti-competitive.

So the best we can do now is get our US Netflix, try and make the NZ companies squirm and put pressure on the government to update NZ's laws for the internet age. To be honest, I do not know why Sky, Spark and co aren't pushing for the government to effectively ban exclusivity on reselling content - the long term outlook isn't good for regional businesses like that unless they can offer consumer friendly packages tailored to the NZ Consumers. Unless that happens their business is going to be gobbled up by the big offshore companies like Hulu, Netflix etc.

EDIT**

This forum is meant to be about Netflix's blocking attempts, so its probably not the best place to be having this argument.

Re your edit, I agree.

And I say that genuinely. Unlike one here who cannot discuss. If we discard exclusivity, how can NF, LB, Neon, Hulu, Amazon push forward? Good discussion.

Lets talk reality and progress. Rather than Aggress.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536051 19-Apr-2016 21:29

Rikkitic:

Netflix shares are plummeting, along with new subscribers. Maybe they should quit attacking the paying customers they have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36078925

They've got at least 81.5m paying customers so the predicted slow down in projected growth, while notable, is pretty far from plummeting and is not going to be of massive significance to their bottom line. IMO the people who've sold their shares off the back of this news are idiots.

What is more likely to be of significance will be customer reaction to the new pricing model Netflix are intending to roll out. It's exactly as has been spoken about a number of times - gain significant market share then wind up prices. I think we'll be seeing Amazon and Hulu starting to get some claw-backs here.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536054 19-Apr-2016 21:35

shk292:

tdgeek:

shk292:

tdgeek:

Oh dear. It was merely one iorvteo examples of many

A viper is not obscure and Spotify is a top brand.

Are you advocating zero competition?

On these forum competition is advocated. That's what we have

Or do you prefer a more socialist approach?

No, I'm a great believer in competition, that's why I don't like exclusive arrangements and geographical monopolies. I believe companies should compete in the global marketplace by adding value to their inputs to produce a product that consumers want to buy. Not by taking legal or technical action to ensure that segments of the global market have no choice from whom they buy.

A Viper is pretty obscure in NZ, presumably that's why you're looking for one? And yes, I'm a Spotify subscriber; I chose them because I think they offer the best value for the mix of music I like, and they have some features that make their package attractive. Not because that's the only way I can listen to say EMI music in NZ. If it was, I'd find other means

Many add value. Thats exclusive, you can only get to here, so buy me. if you want everyone to have everything, where is the competition? Its not there. Factor in that if everyone has everything, you pay the cost. In fact the cost should be quite low as there is no motivation to pay heaps for exclusive content, or for advertisers to pay premium which subsidises it. It seems to me that you want what suits you, but your not prepared for the cost? The creators probably don't care. Its the SVOD that is creating competition, so buy me. OTOH it seems normal, competition. Yet some want it all for nix? Enlighten me.

I still don't understand how you think I'm advocating a monopoly. I'm advocating the opposite; free competition for providers to purchase content and resell it. There are any number of ways they can add value or make their offerings more attractive, and offer packages that are targeted at certain audiences. We've had this discussion before, but it's like you have some sort of reasoning deficiency and every time an alternative model is presented you just go on about monopolies. Providers could differentiate by the type of content in packages, by the resolution and sound quality offered, by number and type of devices, by whether to allow offline viewing, by the type and quality of programme guide, by offering subtitles in different languages, by offering 3D etc etc etc

Do you by any chance work for Sky or a traditional NZ retailer which is why you think the only marketing model is monopolistic gouging of a captive audience?

Buddy, do you want a discussion, or do you want to do what another here does, advocate aggression and rhetoric and putdowns in order to put her point forward??

A) i don't have a reasoning deficiency. Unless like the other, you see an oppositional view as that?

B) I don't go on about monopolies.

C) No I don't work for Sky (and why Sky?) etc

Lets start over. You advocate competition, so do I. Providers to purchase content and resell it. Same. Do you advocate them all providing the same content, and adding added value to differentiate themselves? Thats fair. It would be great if all these providers had all content.

Competition. I feel we all advocate that. One means is to go exclusive. I have all ABs, so sports fans will favour me. I have the latest TV series, I will be favoured. And so on. Thats what humans do. I see thats fair. If NF etc etc etc all have the same content, thats a hard ride. They pay more, yet they have nothing to tell consumers that its best to buy me. So as well as paying for all rights, I now have to add value. I add top servers that are full HD, buffer free, thats a cost, but so does everyone else. I add free Spotify, but so does everyone else.I add subtitles, 3D, smart search, so does everyone else. You may think I.m pushing the point, but this is what will happen. Spark has free Spotify, I don't think anyone one else does. Thats added value over the others. Voda has Sky option, etc. Thats added value and competition. But you can't have added value if it has no value, i.e. everyone else does it, so these options are exclusive. This is what we have now, NF has NF exclusives. They are merely third party content that NF has 100% exclusive rights to. Amazon and Hulu have that. LB has that I think, and Neon.

What I see in this thread, and not meaning you, is that the overall business model, creators being paid, underwriters of the creators being paid, advertisers ( of the rights purchasers) being paid, distributors such as NF being paid, it all seems to be ignored. There are a lot of players. The top revenue stream needs to be paid. That filters down to each level, just like miner, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, consumer. Its no different to Movies and TV. If there are a few different models, the top stream needs to be paid, you can remove other levels, thats fine, but at the end of the day each consumer has to pay the top level. Or, we can debate that I want everything now for nix (not meaning you). That won't work

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1536055 19-Apr-2016 21:35

Dratsab:

What is more likely to be of significance will be customer reaction to the new pricing model Netflix are intending to roll out. It's exactly as has been spoken about a number of times - gain significant market share then wind up prices. I think we'll be seeing Amazon and Hulu starting to get some claw-backs here.

Amazon have just introduced their own monthly pricing. Unlikely to be a coincidence.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536059 19-Apr-2016 21:40

Dratsab:

Rikkitic:

Netflix shares are plummeting, along with new subscribers. Maybe they should quit attacking the paying customers they have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36078925

They've got at least 81.5m paying customers so the predicted slow down in projected growth, while notable, is pretty far from plummeting and is not going to be of massive significance to their bottom line. IMO the people who've sold their shares off the back of this news are idiots.

What is more likely to be of significance will be customer reaction to the new pricing model Netflix are intending to roll out. It's exactly as has been spoken about a number of times - gain significant market share then wind up prices. I think we'll be seeing Amazon and Hulu starting to get some claw-backs here.

I agree, although noting that NF profit is very small compared to revenue, like a supermarket. They could gain a few miserly percent and be great, or lose a few and be in the red, its quite tight. Hulu and especially Amazon, from an article today are competing heavily. Its a bit like Apple vs Samsung. Apple are big, but have their own chief market, the Apple fans. Like the FTA users. Samsung is like NF, competing for phones from LG, Nokia, etc,etc just like NF is up against Hulu, Amazon. Interesting times.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536066 19-Apr-2016 21:43

SaltyNZ:

Dratsab:

What is more likely to be of significance will be customer reaction to the new pricing model Netflix are intending to roll out. It's exactly as has been spoken about a number of times - gain significant market share then wind up prices. I think we'll be seeing Amazon and Hulu starting to get some claw-backs here.

Amazon have just introduced their own monthly pricing. Unlikely to be a coincidence.

Yep. I read Hulu is cheaper but have ads. We hate ads, but its cheaper! Will the big three jockey for positions or will one take the main stage???

Or will the studios and creators dispense with them and be them???

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1536067 19-Apr-2016 21:43

tdgeek:

Lol I hate the sky monopoly comments .:-)

Well, their strangle-hold is loosening, I admit. :-)

I see the SVOD being you gotta get them all. Ok if it's 4 X $20 but then that's Sky pricing sort of. If law means everyone can have everything another scenario is broadband in NZ. Race to the bottom. Then added value gets added such as Spotify as one example, but I don't see svod having that option. We all hate monopolies but some posts want one guy has it all for nix. That can't work either. Competition works but that causes we need to pay for 4 svod?

I think you're right, there needs to be some reason for you to choose one over another, or more than one -- and I am currently subscribed to three. But I think the content providers are still yet to learn the lessons of the music industry (I can buy any music I like from anyone I like) and the sooner they get with it the easier it's going to be for them. Much like ripping off a bandaid.

I appreciate that there are current contracts in place for regional rights: but I think that that whole concept is now meaningless and needs to go away the same way that saddle-making did.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1536070 19-Apr-2016 21:47

tdgeek:

Yep. I read Hulu is cheaper but have ads. We hate ads, but its cheaper! Will the big three jockey for positions or will one take the main stage???

Or will the studios and creators dispense with them and be them???

Hulu is unique in that they give you a choice. You can pay less, and watch ads - which are not nearly as long or as annoying as the local free-to-air ad breaks - or you can pay more and not watch any (or at worst, there is a single ad before the show starts). I pay more to not watch the ads.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536072 19-Apr-2016 21:50

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Lol I hate the sky monopoly comments .:-)

Well, their strangle-hold is loosening, I admit. :-)

I ditched Sky. I admit I had to as the new house doesnt have a dish! But I can get one, but I probably wont. Its alive and well, and its 50% market share, it has time to evolve, it has that luxury.

I see the SVOD being you gotta get them all. Ok if it's 4 X $20 but then that's Sky pricing sort of. If law means everyone can have everything another scenario is broadband in NZ. Race to the bottom. Then added value gets added such as Spotify as one example, but I don't see svod having that option. We all hate monopolies but some posts want one guy has it all for nix. That can't work either. Competition works but that causes we need to pay for 4 svod?

I think you're right, there needs to be some reason for you to choose one over another, or more than one -- and I am currently subscribed to three. But I think the content providers are still yet to learn the lessons of the music industry (I can buy any music I like from anyone I like) and the sooner they get with it the easier it's going to be for them. Much like ripping off a bandaid.

The creators, which are the studios, etc, don't really care I feel, as long as they get their money, see next point

I appreciate that there are current contracts in place for regional rights: but I think that that whole concept is now meaningless and needs to go away the same way that saddle-making did.

Once the contracts expire, it will change. A bang on series is say $50 million (guess, I have no idea) It can sell to NF for 50 mill or to 10 others for 5 each. OTOH it becomes a need for added value as previous poster said, or the series becomes valueless as you cant charge advertisers a premium as everyone has it, can't charge subscribers extra as they wont wear it. Bit of a crunch there maybe

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536074 19-Apr-2016 21:52

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Yep. I read Hulu is cheaper but have ads. We hate ads, but its cheaper! Will the big three jockey for positions or will one take the main stage???

Or will the studios and creators dispense with them and be them???

Hulu is unique in that they give you a choice. You can pay less, and watch ads - which are not nearly as long or as annoying as the local free-to-air ad breaks - or you can pay more and not watch any (or at worst, there is a single ad before the show starts). I pay more to not watch the ads.

Thats a good option. A "friend" watched Sky Sports F1 maybe last night. The ads were looooooooooooong.

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek

#1536133 19-Apr-2016 23:22

SaltyNZ:

Hulu is unique in that they give you a choice. You can pay less, and watch ads - which are not nearly as long or as annoying as the local free-to-air ad breaks - or you can pay more and not watch any (or at worst, there is a single ad before the show starts). I pay more to not watch the ads.

We like the ads! Especially the drug ones. We're quite keen to devise a drinking game where you have to take a mouthful for each life-threatening side-effect they mention.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

Finch

2851 posts

Uber Geek

#1536140 19-Apr-2016 23:40

Noob question about NetFlix...

Do I have to subscribe to a different country when I want to watch their catalogue, or can I just subscribe to NZ Netflix, and then watch Brazil NetFlix (For example) and it counts it as 1 subscription? Im guessing it's all 1 subscription, just thought I would ask though.

Thanks!

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek

#1536141 19-Apr-2016 23:52

Finch:
Noob question about NetFlix...

Do I have to subscribe to a different country when I want to watch their catalogue, or can I just subscribe to NZ Netflix, and then watch Brazil NetFlix (For example) and it counts it as 1 subscription? Im guessing it's all 1 subscription, just thought I would ask though.

Thanks!

It's one subscription - you'll just see the catalogue of whatever country you are in.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | ... | 70