Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


765 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102


Topic # 192309 6-Mar-2016 07:47
One person supports this post
Send private message

Sorry for the cliched title.

Is any one else uncomfortable at the way Netflix is heading for hegemony?

We've all been clamouring to get it in NZ, and many of us have been tying ourselves in knots getting it to work on all our devices, and for all regions.

But....

How long until we start to see signs of price gouging, declining quality, poor communication, inflexibility etc? I wasn't in NZ when Sky was getting established, but I imagine people were excited to get it. Look at the Sky service now, their prices, and their relationship with their customers.

It brings to mind a quote from Recep Erdogan, the tyrant currently occupying the Turkish presidency: "Democracy is like a train, you get off when you reach your destination". [whoops, no visa for me!] [or, more worryingly, maybe just no exit visa...]

Currently, the easy availability of torrents means that streaming services have to be perceived as good value, or we all go back to thievery. How long can we rely on that to balance the equation?

Also, as the late, great Jacob Bronowski wrote: "Diversity is the propeller of evolution". We'd all agree that it's crucial that other streaming services stay viable, but how does the market achieve that in a winner-takes-all world? How many of us can afford more than one streaming service? Even if we can, I'd guess it would be Netflix plus something else.







HTPC: Antec NSK2480B case, AMD A4-5300 CPU, Asus F2A85-M LE mobo, WD Caviar Green 64Mb 2TB HDD, HD Homerun, Win7 Home Premium, RAM 1600Mhz 4Gb.
iPad air 2


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
13151 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6172

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1506736 6-Mar-2016 08:10
2 people support this post
Send private message

It can be a mistake to extend the "geek" experience to the broader community. For example in my extended family and circle of friends about 5% have Netflix, about half have Sky in some form, some have QuickFlix and or Lightbox but again only a small number.

We have Sky and Netfix NZ but We are considering dropping Netflix as it is not being viewed that often.

Those in my circles that have tried Netfix would be about 10% that's not exactly clamouring to get it.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1506737 6-Mar-2016 08:11
Send private message

I've noticed that quite a lot of the Netflix I watch is old stuff, like puppies being rescued and 'Dogs with Jobs'.  My point being that most of us only watch a small slice of what's on offer on the US catalogue.  I think in time we will subscribe to multiple providers.  Eg. I like the a lot of the content on Acorn TV, which is British tv (also has Australian, NZ and Canadian because apparently that's the same).  Much of it is old, but it only costs $US4.99.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble streaming it so have unsubscribed, but I would predict that we subscribe to several at that cost.  

 

Also, once the geo nonsense if over, which it will be in time, the costs of content may well be within reach of smaller providers who can deliver targetted tv, a bit like Sky does.  E.g Docos, animals, kiddies stuff, teens, history, sci fi, comedy.  Then you pay for what you want.  It may mean improvement in what providers like Lightbox can offer.  And of course, people do still like local programming which Lightbox has. Also, Sky is still in the market so they may smarten up their act and be more competitive than they have been.

 

I'm a bit of an optimist though.

 

 




765 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102


  Reply # 1506741 6-Mar-2016 08:17
Send private message

jmh:

I've noticed that quite a lot of the Netflix I watch is old stuff, like puppies being rescued and 'Dogs with Jobs'.  My point being that most of us only watch a small slice of what's on offer on the US catalogue.  I think in time we will subscribe to multiple providers.  Eg. I like the a lot of the content on Acorn TV, which is British tv (also has Australian, NZ and Canadian because apparently that's the same).  Much of it is old, but it only costs $US4.99.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble streaming it so have unsubscribed, but I would predict that we subscribe to several at that cost.  


Also, once the geo nonsense if over, which it will be in time, the costs of content may well be within reach of smaller providers who can deliver targetted tv, a bit like Sky does.  E.g Docos, animals, kiddies stuff, teens, history, sci fi, comedy.  Then you pay for what you want.  It may mean improvement in what providers like Lightbox can offer.  And of course, people do still like local programming which Lightbox has. Also, Sky is still in the market so they may smarten up their act and be more competitive than they have been.


I'm a bit of an optimist though.


 



I like the idea of having smaller niche services (Tanks!), but that will only work if the big boys don't buy up the content with exclusive deals.




HTPC: Antec NSK2480B case, AMD A4-5300 CPU, Asus F2A85-M LE mobo, WD Caviar Green 64Mb 2TB HDD, HD Homerun, Win7 Home Premium, RAM 1600Mhz 4Gb.
iPad air 2


jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1506742 6-Mar-2016 08:19
Send private message

turb:
jmh:

 

I've noticed that quite a lot of the Netflix I watch is old stuff, like puppies being rescued and 'Dogs with Jobs'.  My point being that most of us only watch a small slice of what's on offer on the US catalogue.  I think in time we will subscribe to multiple providers.  Eg. I like the a lot of the content on Acorn TV, which is British tv (also has Australian, NZ and Canadian because apparently that's the same).  Much of it is old, but it only costs $US4.99.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble streaming it so have unsubscribed, but I would predict that we subscribe to several at that cost.  

 

 

 

Also, once the geo nonsense if over, which it will be in time, the costs of content may well be within reach of smaller providers who can deliver targetted tv, a bit like Sky does.  E.g Docos, animals, kiddies stuff, teens, history, sci fi, comedy.  Then you pay for what you want.  It may mean improvement in what providers like Lightbox can offer.  And of course, people do still like local programming which Lightbox has. Also, Sky is still in the market so they may smarten up their act and be more competitive than they have been.

 

 

 

I'm a bit of an optimist though.

 

 

 

 

 



I like the idea of having smaller niche services (Tanks!), but that will only work if the big boys don't buy up the content with exclusive deals.

 

 

 

Yeah that is a risk.  You get that in niche businesses and start-ups with are snapped up by the big guys. 


13151 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6172

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1506748 6-Mar-2016 08:27
Send private message

turb:
jmh:

I've noticed that quite a lot of the Netflix I watch is old stuff, like puppies being rescued and 'Dogs with Jobs'.  My point being that most of us only watch a small slice of what's on offer on the US catalogue.  I think in time we will subscribe to multiple providers.  Eg. I like the a lot of the content on Acorn TV, which is British tv (also has Australian, NZ and Canadian because apparently that's the same).  Much of it is old, but it only costs $US4.99.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble streaming it so have unsubscribed, but I would predict that we subscribe to several at that cost.  


Also, once the geo nonsense if over, which it will be in time, the costs of content may well be within reach of smaller providers who can deliver targetted tv, a bit like Sky does.  E.g Docos, animals, kiddies stuff, teens, history, sci fi, comedy.  Then you pay for what you want.  It may mean improvement in what providers like Lightbox can offer.  And of course, people do still like local programming which Lightbox has. Also, Sky is still in the market so they may smarten up their act and be more competitive than they have been.


I'm a bit of an optimist though.


 



I like the idea of having smaller niche services (Tanks!), but that will only work if the big boys don't buy up the content with exclusive deals.


The rights owners will sell to whom ever offers the best deal and ROI for them which is ok. This is more likely to be the "big boys" as they have bigger bags of cash.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


38 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 1506750 6-Mar-2016 08:41
2 people support this post
Send private message

We have Netflix and most likely will not get anything else. It is a great service for the price you pay unlike Sky it was just horrible with all pricing and channel configurations, not to mention the lack of new content the horrible repetitive commercials and tv programs, also never have been big on watching sports on tv, and the sports package seems to be sky biggest feature and everything else just gets left on the sidelines.

 

So not only can we watch what we want to watch when we want we are saving money at the same time. We also use with a couple of Google Chrome cast on 2 TVs that we can control with our phones didn't have to set anything up to get it to work with Netflix, the Netflix app on my phone and tablet automatically see the chrome cast and bang we are watching tv easy as. And if they do bump up the price (which i do not think they will) It will still be a hell of a lot cheaper than sky. I pay $12/month for the service, you cant even go out for a coffee with a friend and spend less than that. 


BDFL - Memuneh
61339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12088

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1506765 6-Mar-2016 09:57
11 people support this post
Send private message

I first experienced Netflix in the USA when they sent out a DVD with a return envelope and you used the website to schedule/prioritise the titles you wanted.

 

The service evolved so much, in so short period of time, that comparing that with Sky is a joke.

 

The company is doing lots of stuff that competitors aren't. The fact Netflix Originals exist is even more show that they aren't at peak at all.







765 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102


  Reply # 1506998 6-Mar-2016 17:33
Send private message

What I'm getting at is this: at the moment we all think Netflix are the bees knees, their service is excellent and we are happy to pay their sub, which is very good value. (I'm generalising obviously )
How long until they use their power to jack up prices, get lazy about new content and take their customers for granted?

That was the comparison with Sky.




HTPC: Antec NSK2480B case, AMD A4-5300 CPU, Asus F2A85-M LE mobo, WD Caviar Green 64Mb 2TB HDD, HD Homerun, Win7 Home Premium, RAM 1600Mhz 4Gb.
iPad air 2


14356 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1867


  Reply # 1507025 6-Mar-2016 17:54
Send private message

It is always why you need healthy competition in the market. Software as a service providers, I am finding are starting to put their prices up and gouge customers. The ones who can do it successfully, and put their pricing up the most, are those where it is very difficult or expensive to move between providers. I have had several SaaS providers that I use who have at least doubled their monthly fee in the last year. Some are also now working on a shared success model, where the more business or transactions you put through the system, the more you pay. So you may see them move from an all you can eat model, to a set number of free hours etc, and you pay more fore more. Companies use all sorts of spin to justify the rises, rather than state the obvious, that that they are wanting to make more money. Also people should remember that many of these online companies are currently running at a loss, so if they float their shares, they will need to become profitable, as investors will want a decent return.


Glurp
8268 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3797

Subscriber

  Reply # 1507056 6-Mar-2016 18:18
Send private message

I follow these discussions out of general interest but I don't subscribe to Netflix, never have, never will. Not because they don't have any content I want to see, but because there is already so much other content that I want to see more and will never be able to get through in a hundred lifetimes. The point being, not everyone feels a need to be a Netflix subscriber. If they get fat and rich and lazy, others will rise to take their place and people will vote with their feet. To use your example, just look at what is happening to Sky. As cheaper and better alternatives come into play, Sky becomes less and less relevant.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


38 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 1507081 6-Mar-2016 20:15
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

Also people should remember that many of these online companies are currently running at a loss, so if they float their shares, they will need to become profitable, as investors will want a decent return.

 

 

 

 

Netflix stats at Q4 2015 has 75 million subscribers and even if all those subscribers only pay $8/month. Thats $600,000,000/per month im sure they would not be running at a loss.


Aussie
4237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1208

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1507092 6-Mar-2016 20:38
Send private message

Better not be... Somehow I went out today and came home with a 4k Sony android TV!  :/


1398 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 1507095 6-Mar-2016 20:43
Send private message

Pehesis:

 

mattwnz:

 

Also people should remember that many of these online companies are currently running at a loss, so if they float their shares, they will need to become profitable, as investors will want a decent return.

 

 

 

 

Netflix stats at Q4 2015 has 75 million subscribers and even if all those subscribers only pay $8/month. Thats $600,000,000/per month im sure they would not be running at a loss.

 

 

Total contribution from streaming for 2015 = 1,042m.  Other operating expenses = 1,058m.  Operating pretax profit/(loss) before traditional DVD business contribution = (16m).

 

Spend $5bn on content in 2016 and you want a return.  Or at least investors will want a return - and a decent one given the risk.


13436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1507136 6-Mar-2016 21:39
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I follow these discussions out of general interest but I don't subscribe to Netflix, never have, never will. Not because they don't have any content I want to see, but because there is already so much other content that I want to see more and will never be able to get through in a hundred lifetimes. The point being, not everyone feels a need to be a Netflix subscriber. If they get fat and rich and lazy, others will rise to take their place and people will vote with their feet. To use your example, just look at what is happening to Sky. As cheaper and better alternatives come into play, Sky becomes less and less relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read this here all the time. Sky and Netflix are two different animals. The latest numbers for Sky shows that their relevancy is very much still there. Sky doesn't transmit heaps and heaps of TV series to Movies. Thats Netflix's model. They transit a wide range of stuff, totally different. Going by the deals threads that happen here, if Sky dropped its pricing by 25% they will increase subscriber numbers.  


1398 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 1508040 8-Mar-2016 12:03
Send private message

Not quite peak Netflix according to Arstechnica's article  [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/study-netflix-is-a-major-reason-why-people-dont-watch-network-tv/]

 

Netflix accounts for an estimated ~6% of overall TV viewing in the US in 2015.  But worrying trends for the traditional FTA broadcasters amongst the 45m Netflix subscribers.  

 

TV viewing dropped by a "precipitous" 6% in 2014 and a further 3% in 2015.  Probably not as much as people were thinking but highlights that maybe the Netflix growth rates are declining more rapidly.  And that fragmentation is gonna happen faster.

 

The ending paragraph from the article sums it up:

 

"Of course, Netflix isn't killing the networks. It's just pushing them to adopt new streaming tech faster. It's easy to imagine a future where Netflix is no longer competing on the basis of its technology, because every network will have its own streaming service (or lucrative deals with already-existing ones). At that point, Netflix will have to compete on content alone."

 

 


 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.