Netflix to crack down on unblockers

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

1 | ... | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1598681 26-Jul-2016 07:47

biggal:

tdgeek:

blakamin:

Sky, and Foxtel buy the rights to shows before FTA channels even get a look in. That's why we end up with so much rubbish on FTA, and want things like netflix, stan, lightbox, etc.

Just last night I saw a promo for a show that's "coming soon" to FTA TV. The only problem is it's a show that has already been axed in the US, after 1 season. Sky and Foxtel wouldn't have bought it, so people that only get freeview will get a show that has been over and gone in the US since May.

If I can't get my content by paying a realistic price for it, I'll go back to the old way I watched shows.

How do you know that??? The sellers want a good price, they don't care who buys it. FTA doesnt have the same funding, as its FTA, simple as that.

apart from live sports payper view

most of sky is reruns

And how much "new content" is available on Netflix or Lightbox each month/year? Most of it is..... back catalogue (ie reruns that have been available/seen elsewhere). Drop down your statistics as to the number of hours of new content has been added by each provider (and you should include TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Bravo (shudder), Sky, Netflix NZ, Lightbox) over the last 3/6/12 months. Glib comments not helpful.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1598687 26-Jul-2016 08:07

ockel:

And how much "new content" is available on Netflix or Lightbox each month/year? Most of it is..... back catalogue (ie reruns that have been available/seen elsewhere). Drop down your statistics as to the number of hours of new content has been added by each provider (and you should include TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Bravo (shudder), Sky, Netflix NZ, Lightbox) over the last 3/6/12 months. Glib comments not helpful.

Sky is at least 5x the price of Netflix for repeats. I have Sky and I do get sick of the Sky NZ premier ads for a new Grand Designs series that is yet another repeat. Right now without doing precise metrics a gut feeling is Sky's content on the basic package is close to 80% repeats, movies would be 50%+

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598690 26-Jul-2016 08:13

MikeB4:
ockel:

And how much "new content" is available on Netflix or Lightbox each month/year? Most of it is..... back catalogue (ie reruns that have been available/seen elsewhere). Drop down your statistics as to the number of hours of new content has been added by each provider (and you should include TVNZ, Mediaworks, Prime, Bravo (shudder), Sky, Netflix NZ, Lightbox) over the last 3/6/12 months. Glib comments not helpful.

Sky is at least 5x the price of Netflix for repeats. I have Sky and I do get sick of the Sky NZ premier ads for a new Grand Designs series that is yet another repeat. Right now without doing precise metrics a gut feeling is Sky's content on the basic package is close to 80% repeats, movies would be 50%+

Woudnt all of NF be repeats? Except their own content that they produce (which is wrong as they buy this content exclusively) The way I see it, every provider has many repeats, few first airtime content. Sky though, its skewed as what you pay for Basic is subsidised, Basic should be $15 Sport should be $60, then its more comparable

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

#1598740 26-Jul-2016 09:28

tdgeek:

Woudnt all of NF be repeats? Except their own content that they produce (which is wrong as they buy this content exclusively) The way I see it, every provider has many repeats, few first airtime content. Sky though, its skewed as what you pay for Basic is subsidised, Basic should be $15 Sport should be $60, then its more comparable

Yes, but at least the price reflects that. It's catch-up TV/Movies for people who want the ability to sit down and watch a chunk of something in one go. I'm marathoning Stargate Atlantis at the moment, which I never got into at the time it was screening. If people want the latest and greatest they get Hulu. I have both, and they complement each other, but still cost less than half what I was paying for Sky Basic + MySky + HD ticket. What Sky is providing across the range of Basic channels is similar content to NF (in my opinion), but as you say, they've inflated the price to prop up their sports add-on.

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1598745 26-Jul-2016 09:33

I am with charliebrownnz on most of this. He says a lot of what I believe and have tried to say, but one thing keeps getting ignored on all sides and I think it is the most important issue. It is certainly the one that motivates my arguments, and that is the lack of choice. The discussion keeps getting pushed by some parties in the direction of people wanting everything for free, but I don't think that is what most people want and it is not what I want. For me the real issue remains simply being able to choose (and pay for) what I what when I want it. Geographical distribution is intrinsically unfair because it disproportionately disadvantages small regions like New Zealand. Big regions like the USA and Britain have the resources to support a vastly greater range of choice while the increased competition also drives prices down. Yet we are not allowed to benefit from that because some think that big business has some kind of divine right to profit in any way it chooses. I want to be able to view what I want to watch, not what some Sky or TV NZ buyer thinks will appeal to our dumbed-down masses. All I am advocating for is the right to go to Netflix USA, or the BBC, or anywhere else, to browse through the catalogues and make a choice, and to pay whatever the price is so I can view what I have chosen. That is the sum total of my position. I don’t want it for free, or almost free, so please quit saying that. I just want the choice.

I think it is pretty rich that large corporate interests hammer on about globalisation and international mega-trade deals like the TTP as long as it benefits them, but then want to chop the world market up into little regional slices to suit their self-serving content distribution model. They seem determined to have it both ways, global for cheap production, regional for expensive distribution. The consumer gets shafted and the consumer in small regions gets shafted the most.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1598752 26-Jul-2016 09:44

Rikkitic:

All I am advocating for is the right to go to Netflix USA, or the BBC, or anywhere else, to browse through the catalogues and make a choice, and to pay whatever the price is so I can view what I have chosen. That is the sum total of my position. I don’t want it for free, or almost free, so please quit saying that. I just want the choice.

Hear hear!

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

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

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598756 26-Jul-2016 09:52

Rikkitic:

I am with charliebrownnz on most of this. He says a lot of what I believe and have tried to say, but one thing keeps getting ignored on all sides and I think it is the most important issue. It is certainly the one that motivates my arguments, and that is the lack of choice. The discussion keeps getting pushed by some parties in the direction of people wanting everything for free, but I don't think that is what most people want and it is not what I want. For me the real issue remains simply being able to choose (and pay for) what I what when I want it. Geographical distribution is intrinsically unfair because it disproportionately disadvantages small regions like New Zealand. Big regions like the USA and Britain have the resources to support a vastly greater range of choice while the increased competition also drives prices down. Yet we are not allowed to benefit from that because some think that big business has some kind of divine right to profit in any way it chooses. I want to be able to view what I want to watch, not what some Sky or TV NZ buyer thinks will appeal to our dumbed-down masses. All I am advocating for is the right to go to Netflix USA, or the BBC, or anywhere else, to browse through the catalogues and make a choice, and to pay whatever the price is so I can view what I have chosen. That is the sum total of my position. I don’t want it for free, or almost free, so please quit saying that. I just want the choice.

I think it is pretty rich that large corporate interests hammer on about globalisation and international mega-trade deals like the TTP as long as it benefits them, but then want to chop the world market up into little regional slices to suit their self-serving content distribution model. They seem determined to have it both ways, global for cheap production, regional for expensive distribution. The consumer gets shafted and the consumer in small regions gets shafted the most.

Charlie Browns main focus is free and near free, his comments.

Lack of choice. Its not your product. Its the creators product, they can do whatever they like with it, sell it to who they wish, its not your product.

This isnt, Movie maker, NF and you, there are myriads of other parties involved, advertisers, other competitor providers all vying for viewers eyes, rights get sold for good money to pay the high costs of creation, and the many losses that are made from bombs

Its not your product. Its not your choice if you are allowed to watch it. All of those other particpants could be removed, treat media likle a socialist state, everyone gets everything. So you pay more for NF, plus you pay what the rights purchasers have paid, you also pay what the advertisers pay. And there is only media provider as there is no means to run a business with competition when everyone has the same content. You pay all the costs that will work. Then its too expensive, then there is no comp[etition as there is only one provider as everything is everywhere. let alone the lack of initiative to create cool content as its valueless

Buit it all comes down to I want everything for free or near free, and stating that you dont want it for free is an excuse, you want it for far less than what it costs.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#1598757 26-Jul-2016 09:53

littleheaven:
tdgeek:

Woudnt all of NF be repeats? Except their own content that they produce (which is wrong as they buy this content exclusively) The way I see it, every provider has many repeats, few first airtime content. Sky though, its skewed as what you pay for Basic is subsidised, Basic should be $15 Sport should be $60, then its more comparable

Yes, but at least the price reflects that. It's catch-up TV/Movies for people who want the ability to sit down and watch a chunk of something in one go. I'm marathoning Stargate Atlantis at the moment, which I never got into at the time it was screening. If people want the latest and greatest they get Hulu. I have both, and they complement each other, but still cost less than half what I was paying for Sky Basic + MySky + HD ticket. What Sky is providing across the range of Basic channels is similar content to NF (in my opinion), but as you say, they've inflated the price to prop up their sports add-on.

Netflix is better then Sky basic. No adds during program!!!

I only joined back up Netflix NZ because of the Star Trek reruns, for some reason I like watching them again. Have given up on geo unblocking, so with NZ content it's up to Netflix to have content I'm interested in if they want me to subscribe, and they hit a winner here.

Didn't watch Star Trek reruns on Skys zone channel when they were there as couldn't be bothered fast forwarding adds for watching it though.

Hoping new Star trek series is on Netflix here. Looks like CBS will screen it in America with adds, while countries with it on Netflix will have it add free. Lots of Americans are threatening to pirate as understandly they're not happy about not having the choice on how to watch.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598759 26-Jul-2016 09:53

Rikkitic:

All I am advocating for is the right to go to Netflix USA, or the BBC, or anywhere else, to browse through the catalogues and make a choice, and to pay whatever the price is so I can view what I have chosen. That is the sum total of my position. I don’t want it for free, or almost free, so please quit saying that. I just want the choice.

Perhaps if you JUST said that without all the accusations of skullduggery and conspiracy and evil doings by big corporations, your message would get through clearer. Not just you, but lots of people in this thread.

In an ideal world your idea sounds fantastic, the reality of providing it, just isn't that simple.

You know the old adage you put 2 people in a room communication is simple, add a third and world war 3 gets started? Imagine it on a scale where every show has 20 people associated, all with an opinion, lots with a financial stake, now work out the number of shows etc...

Keeping everyone happy is a bit of a chore.

It looks simple from the outside, reality is different. It's like how Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo, criticised Bush for having it, and within 4 weeks of being in office, was forced to say "actually we can't close it, I didn't have all the information, and now I do, I understand why it's there". Similar concept.

I'd ALSO like what you want, honestly, sounds amazing, but I also realize it's NOT my content, so I am left with no choice but to consume it as the rights holders see fit.

Spending months arguing here, is 100% ineffective to your cause, I'd recommend sending a well thought out (ie SANS the conspiracy and accusation tone) communication to the rights holders.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598760 26-Jul-2016 09:55

SaltyNZ:

Rikkitic:

All I am advocating for is the right to go to Netflix USA, or the BBC, or anywhere else, to browse through the catalogues and make a choice, and to pay whatever the price is so I can view what I have chosen. That is the sum total of my position. I don’t want it for free, or almost free, so please quit saying that. I just want the choice.

Hear hear!

Wrong, you want to bypass the many many others in associated industries to get it for free, or near free, or far far cheaper than what it is worth. the industry needs to use a socfialist approach to achieve that. This topic can easily be why are cars overpriced, why is bread over priced by these bleeders in business. But for media its tremndy and cool to be anti establishment and bury your head in the sand re the real world economics

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1598788 26-Jul-2016 10:11

tdgeek:

Its not your product. Its not your choice if you are allowed to watch it. All of those other particpants could be removed, treat media likle a socialist state, everyone gets everything. So you pay more for NF, plus you pay what the rights purchasers have paid, you also pay what the advertisers pay. And there is only media provider as there is no means to run a business with competition when everyone has the same content. You pay all the costs that will work. Then its too expensive, then there is no comp[etition as there is only one provider as everything is everywhere. let alone the lack of initiative to create cool content as its valueless

Buit it all comes down to I want everything for free or near free, and stating that you dont want it for free is an excuse, you want it for far less than what it costs.

Yes, it is their product but the market belongs to the consumer. You can be as anal as you like about your 'product' but if no-one buys it you won't be in business long. As long as torrents are an option, people can go elsewhere if things are made too difficult. Imagine what that will do to the cost.

In any case, I do not see the logic of your argument. If current economics work for America, then they would also work for America+NZ. Media do not have to be socialised. Competition does not have to be eliminated. Just make the market bigger. Geographical segmentation does not make sense, except to the greedy. There is sufficient profit to be had from a single world market to fund all that cool content.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598789 26-Jul-2016 10:13

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Its not your product. Its not your choice if you are allowed to watch it. All of those other particpants could be removed, treat media likle a socialist state, everyone gets everything. So you pay more for NF, plus you pay what the rights purchasers have paid, you also pay what the advertisers pay. And there is only media provider as there is no means to run a business with competition when everyone has the same content. You pay all the costs that will work. Then its too expensive, then there is no comp[etition as there is only one provider as everything is everywhere. let alone the lack of initiative to create cool content as its valueless

Buit it all comes down to I want everything for free or near free, and stating that you dont want it for free is an excuse, you want it for far less than what it costs.

Yes, it is their product but the market belongs to the consumer. You can be as anal as you like about your 'product' but if no-one buys it you won't be in business long. As long as torrents are an option, people can go elsewhere if things are made too difficult. Imagine what that will do to the cost.

In any case, I do not see the logic of your argument. If current economics work for America, then they would also work for America+NZ. Media do not have to be socialised. Competition does not have to be eliminated. Just make the market bigger. Geographical segmentation does not make sense, except to the greedy. There is sufficient profit to be had from a single world market to fund all that cool content.

Right but your argument has a MAJOR flaw. These companies are THRIVING using the model they have chosen. Torrenting has been happening for years, they are still in business they are still making money.

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1598791 26-Jul-2016 10:14

tdgeek:

This topic can easily be why are cars overpriced, why is bread over priced by these bleeders in business. But for media its tremndy and cool to be anti establishment and bury your head in the sand re the real world economics

For physical goods there is a legitimate reason why they should be more expensive here than elsewhere: someone has to move it from elsewhere to New Zealand. Doing so whilst providing some level of economy of scale involves a middle man, or chain of middle men. There is no such excuse for pure digital goods. It costs no more or less to provide a stream of Game of Thrones to a TV in San Francisco than it does to a TV in Auckland.

I can certainly see a reason for one middle man between me and the content creator - because content creators create content, they don't run big server farms - but any other middle men are simply taking a cut whilst providing no value.

Netflix pay for content with global distribution rights. That right there shows that it can be done, and the only reason it isn't is because the middle men don't want to lose their rent. That's not me being 'trendy'. That's economics. But yet again you're accusing me of wanting everything for free. If that's what I wanted, that's what I would do. But instead, I pay for Hulu. I pay for HBO. I pay for Amazon Prime. I paid for Netflix until they made it clear they didn't want me to pay them. I pay for music and movies on iTunes. I pay for physical discs - I have been collecting them since the only place to get them was Amazon, back in 1997. I have so many my wife makes me keep them in the garage.

Where is this 'free' you think I am wanting?

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

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

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#1598796 26-Jul-2016 10:24

SaltyNZ:

[snip] For physical goods there is a legitimate reason why they should be more expensive here than elsewhere: someone has to move it from elsewhere to New Zealand. Doing so whilst providing some level of economy of scale involves a middle man, or chain of middle men. There is no such excuse for pure digital goods. It costs no more or less to provide a stream of Game of Thrones to a TV in San Francisco than it does to a TV in Auckland.[snip]

[Looks at multiple stacks of servers around the country being endlessly upgraded in order to keep Netflix working well in Spark, looks back at the comment above about there being no extra cost to deliver to NZ and tries to understand how those two things fit together.. Fails... goes back to planning for yet another round of CDN upgrades]

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598798 26-Jul-2016 10:25

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Its not your product. Its not your choice if you are allowed to watch it. All of those other particpants could be removed, treat media likle a socialist state, everyone gets everything. So you pay more for NF, plus you pay what the rights purchasers have paid, you also pay what the advertisers pay. And there is only media provider as there is no means to run a business with competition when everyone has the same content. You pay all the costs that will work. Then its too expensive, then there is no comp[etition as there is only one provider as everything is everywhere. let alone the lack of initiative to create cool content as its valueless

Buit it all comes down to I want everything for free or near free, and stating that you dont want it for free is an excuse, you want it for far less than what it costs.

Yes, it is their product but the market belongs to the consumer. So you want to own and control a product that is not yours to own or control? Ive mentioned socialism as an option to cater for this I want everything rationale, but this is now more like a dictatorial need? You can be as anal as you like about your 'product' but if no-one buys it you won't be in business long. Again, stop promoting your points in that sour, aggressive manner. As many here have repeatedly stated. If you feel that everyone will cease buying NF etc due to geo blockimg thats a stretch. As long as torrents are an option, people can go elsewhere if things are made too difficult. Imagine what that will do to the cost.

In any case, I do not see the logic of your argument. If current economics work for America, then they would also work for America+NZ. Media do not have to be socialised. Competition does not have to be eliminated. Just make the market bigger. Geographical segmentation does not make sense, except to the greedy. There is sufficient profit to be had from a single world market to fund all that cool content.

So, as well as the NF fee, you pay the rights that someone else now has to forego, or get NF to absorb that, same with all the many others who contribute to the costs. There wont be competition unless its about they all have the same stuff so lets buy the cheapest and prettiest UI. You have no concept of business, or you juist prefer to ignore the realities and get oithers to pay for it. And no, NF at a few bucks doesnt oay for it all by a long shot

1 | ... | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70