Hopeful signs from Netflix

Forums › Online streaming services › Hopeful signs from Netflix

Rikkitic

Glurp
7793 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3636

Subscriber

Topic # 228806 23-Jan-2018 14:52

6 people support this post

I have just been listening to the BBC World Service and there is a very interesting item on Netflix. Apparently Netflix is doing very well and their stock has just gone over $100 billion.

The interesting part is their intention to use a big chunk of their profits to greatly increase original content production. What caught my attention is the observation that the big advantage of original content is that there are no geographical restrictions on distribution. My impression is that Netflix is fed up with being strangled by ridiculous Hollywood restrictions and wants to be able to provide its content anywhere it wishes.

By producing more original content of a high standard, less and less geo-restricted stuff from traditional sources will be required. I see this as a hopeful sign that eventually traditional content producers will not be able to compete, and will either have to adapt or be forced out of the market. I think this is a very exciting development.

Just in case anyone wonders, I believe in paying for content but I do not believe in being restricted in what I am able to buy. I am strongly against geo-blocking which is arbitrary and discriminatory and disproportionately disadvantages small territories like New Zealand. I think it is motivated by greed and the sooner it is gone, the better.

I look forward to the day when the content dinosaurs are dead and anyone can view any content anywhere they like.

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

1 | 2 | 3

4760 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1929

Reply # 1945469 23-Jan-2018 14:57

Sounds promising.

Mike

dafman

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1085

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1945477 23-Jan-2018 15:12

3 people support this post

There's one persistent dinosaur roaming godzone, hopefully its meteorite is fast approaching.

And, speaking of Netflix ... I just returned from a short trip to Melbourne and it was great to be able to download HD Netflix onto my android tablet so I could watch movies while offline on the plane. This sort of innovation is great, unlike 1980's media technology which refuses to go away.

And, speaking of Melbourne, it was great to be able to watch the Australian Open on FTA while I was there, unlike in NZ where I would have had to pay $100+ per month on a term contract to watch. Of course, it won't be FTA in NZ in the future, but I look forward to the day when I can watch the Open - on demand - for a sum something less than $100+ per month.

(and, no, not trolling, just saying I look forward to the day).

Brumfondl

930 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 404

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1945519 23-Jan-2018 15:19

I am a fan of the deals Netflix appears to be doing where they fund part of the production costs for the rights to distribute everywhere other than the country of origin, such as Travelers. They seem to be signing more deals with US channels like ABC and NBC to air shows to places like us as they come out, a la Discovery, The Blacklist, and Designated Survivor.

Behodar

6240 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1049

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945521 23-Jan-2018 15:30

One person supports this post

Rikkitic: the big advantage of original content is that there are no geographical restrictions on distribution.

Yet the Blu-ray of Stranger Things is region locked. Go figure.

vexxxboy

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Reply # 1945529 23-Jan-2018 15:45

dafman:

There's one persistent dinosaur roaming godzone, hopefully its meteorite is fast approaching.

And, speaking of Netflix ... I just returned from a short trip to Melbourne and it was great to be able to download HD Netflix onto my android tablet so I could watch movies while offline on the plane. This sort of innovation is great, unlike 1980's media technology which refuses to go away.

And, speaking of Melbourne, it was great to be able to watch the Australian Open on FTA while I was there, unlike in NZ where I would have had to pay $100+ per month on a term contract to watch. Of course, it won't be FTA in NZ in the future, but I look forward to the day when I can watch the Open - on demand - for a sum something less than $100+ per month.

(and, no, not trolling, just saying I look forward to the day).

you will be waiting for a very long time

Common sense is not as common as you think.

networkn

17574 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5058

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945570 23-Jan-2018 17:30

vexxxboy:

dafman:

There's one persistent dinosaur roaming godzone, hopefully its meteorite is fast approaching.

And, speaking of Netflix ... I just returned from a short trip to Melbourne and it was great to be able to download HD Netflix onto my android tablet so I could watch movies while offline on the plane. This sort of innovation is great, unlike 1980's media technology which refuses to go away.

And, speaking of Melbourne, it was great to be able to watch the Australian Open on FTA while I was there, unlike in NZ where I would have had to pay $100+ per month on a term contract to watch. Of course, it won't be FTA in NZ in the future, but I look forward to the day when I can watch the Open - on demand - for a sum something less than $100+ per month.

(and, no, not trolling, just saying I look forward to the day).

you will be waiting for a very long time

Which I am sure is a good thing for those who live in rural areas, or for those who don't have internet that will sustain HD (or streaming of any type) reliably. Or Sports fans, or fans of curated channels. Or those who like to be able to rewind and fast forward properly.

Dafman only knows one song, he hums the bars of it every even mildly related thread. He keeps getting the tune wrong, but even when people tell him how to sing it properly, he continues to sing it incorrectly. :)

On the topic, I too consider it positive that there is a player in the market (There are actually two, and Amazon has been doing this already for 2 years or more just in case anyone cares) with enough clout to challenge the thinking of the existing rights holders.

I believe however, that people are going to soon be complaining that to watch everything they want to, they will have to subscribe to multiple services which could easily cost as much if not more than what they have been paying elsewhere.

Rikkitic

Glurp
7793 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3636

Subscriber

Reply # 1945580 23-Jan-2018 17:45

One person supports this post

I can't speak for others but I would not complain about that. At least I would be able to subscribe to the things I did want, without having a lot of rubbish I don't want included in the subscription price. Real choice is the aspect I find appealing.

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

networkn

17574 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5058

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1945583 23-Jan-2018 18:25

Rikkitic:

I can't speak for others but I would not complain about that. At least I would be able to subscribe to the things I did want, without having a lot of rubbish I don't want included in the subscription price. Real choice is the aspect I find appealing.

Interesting. Do you subscribe to NetFlix? Do you intend to watch every single thing on there? Is there no rubbish in your Netflix Subscription?

You have a real choice now, you have always had it. You can subscribe to a service, or not. You can part with your cash, or not.

I wonder how you'll feel when for example HBO charges $25 USD a month and the only thing they have that interests you, is Game of Thrones. Also you really like Walking Dead, but NBC has that, it's $25 a month and it's the only thing they offer.

Rikkitic

Glurp
7793 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3636

Subscriber

Reply # 1945593 23-Jan-2018 18:43

Fortunately my taste does not run to those kinds of things.

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

tdgeek

12770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2293

Trusted

Reply # 1945644 23-Jan-2018 19:04

2 people support this post

dafman:

There's one persistent dinosaur roaming godzone, hopefully its meteorite is fast approaching.

And, speaking of Netflix ... I just returned from a short trip to Melbourne and it was great to be able to download HD Netflix onto my android tablet so I could watch movies while offline on the plane. This sort of innovation is great, unlike 1980's media technology which refuses to go away.

And, speaking of Melbourne, it was great to be able to watch the Australian Open on FTA while I was there, unlike in NZ where I would have had to pay $100+ per month on a term contract to watch. Of course, it won't be FTA in NZ in the future, but I look forward to the day when I can watch the Open - on demand - for a sum something less than $100+ per month.

(and, no, not trolling, just saying I look forward to the day).

many branches to this

LOl, ok! :-)

Note that Sky is not a content owner. The geoblocking issues are content owner based.

So can you get all Netflix all the time? No. But as to the OP's post, that is indeed promising. Posters need to get off the bandwagon and complain about the content owners, not the content distributors who are bound by the content owners rights.

I do know the OP wants everything available everywhere, and I also agree. But there are many branches to this rights thing. Geo blocking causes us to not see what is in the US or, UK, or Lithuania right now. But if Netflix owns the sole rights to its own content, isn't that the same thing? Its blocking me unless I have Netflix. Lets say Netflix, Lightbox, Amazon, Hulu, etc, all go down the same track. It still remains exclusive content. Instead of geoblocking it is company blocking. And again, I need to subscribe to a never ending list of services to get everything, everywhere.

tdgeek

12770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2293

Trusted

Reply # 1945647 23-Jan-2018 19:07

networkn:

vexxxboy:

dafman:

There's one persistent dinosaur roaming godzone, hopefully its meteorite is fast approaching.

And, speaking of Netflix ... I just returned from a short trip to Melbourne and it was great to be able to download HD Netflix onto my android tablet so I could watch movies while offline on the plane. This sort of innovation is great, unlike 1980's media technology which refuses to go away.

And, speaking of Melbourne, it was great to be able to watch the Australian Open on FTA while I was there, unlike in NZ where I would have had to pay $100+ per month on a term contract to watch. Of course, it won't be FTA in NZ in the future, but I look forward to the day when I can watch the Open - on demand - for a sum something less than $100+ per month.

(and, no, not trolling, just saying I look forward to the day).

you will be waiting for a very long time

Which I am sure is a good thing for those who live in rural areas, or for those who don't have internet that will sustain HD (or streaming of any type) reliably. Or Sports fans, or fans of curated channels. Or those who like to be able to rewind and fast forward properly.

Dafman only knows one song, he hums the bars of it every even mildly related thread. He keeps getting the tune wrong, but even when people tell him how to sing it properly, he continues to sing it incorrectly. :)

On the topic, I too consider it positive that there is a player in the market (There are actually two, and Amazon has been doing this already for 2 years or more just in case anyone cares) with enough clout to challenge the thinking of the existing rights holders.

I believe however, that people are going to soon be complaining that to watch everything they want to, they will have to subscribe to multiple services which could easily cost as much if not more than what they have been paying elsewhere.

Yep. To satisfy @Rikkitic all content needs to be everywhere. So we need a new model. ALL services use exclusivity. ALL of them. So blocking is either geo or its service provider. Either way, its still blocking. I am unsure what the model needs to be, but its hard to see.

tdgeek

12770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2293

Trusted

Reply # 1945649 23-Jan-2018 19:11

Rikkitic:

I can't speak for others but I would not complain about that. At least I would be able to subscribe to the things I did want, without having a lot of rubbish I don't want included in the subscription price. Real choice is the aspect I find appealing.

I see that and I agree. But what is the rubbish? You are talking Sky, I know that. To me, and my tastes, there is rubbish on EVERY channel/service, as these stupid services, do not cater just for me, they cater for everyone. Who wants to watch dumb food channels? Me, and another poster here. Who wants to watch reno stuff, History, doco's, the latest movie and old movies??? I have yet to see a service or a channel that I love every show they play.

So, that rubbish argument doesn't wash.

tdgeek

12770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2293

Trusted

Reply # 1945653 23-Jan-2018 19:16

Rikkitic:

Fortunately my taste does not run to those kinds of things.

But thats the issue. it doesnt matter what your or my tastes are, they are exclusive. Geoblocking is a BLOCK. Exclusive is a BLOCK. We end up with the same issue, money. It all becomes too much, whether its Sky at $100 a month or other services also costing that.

I would love to pay $100 a month, or more to see EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE. My bold isn't to push the point, as that is what many here want. But to be honest, I am 100% unsure of what such a model would be, or cost. It might be that Netflix owns and plays everything? Then we are back to 5 years ago, a monopoly discussion

Rikkitic

Glurp
7793 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3636

Subscriber

Reply # 1945692 23-Jan-2018 20:04

Of course one's person's rubbish is another person's treasure. I would not argue with that. I have also made an effort not to bring this back to Sky. We have already had that discussion at great length.

But if the only way you can subscribe to content you want, is to also take a lot of content you don't want, which presumably you are also being charged for because you pay a lot for the whole package, then the stuff you don't want is rubbish to you. It may not be to someone else, but it is to you. So I stand by my use of the term. I don't want to be made to pay for a lot of stuff that doesn't appeal to me, in order to get some stuff that does.

I may well be wrong, but what I believe and hope, is that we are in a transitional phase. I think streaming services will gradually produce more of their own content, and they will make that available wherever they operate. This is what consumers are asking for, and eventually that demand will have to be met if providers want to stay in business.

Of course each streaming service will still have its own exclusive content, and if you want to see it, you will have to subscribe to that service. I don't think that will change. But the difference will be that geography no longer plays a role. If you want to subscribe to all of a services content, you will be able to regardless of where you live. This is what I am pushing for.

Markets adapt to consumer demand. Eventually I'm sure there will be aggregation services that collect and rerun older content from different providers, so You will be able to view all of that without having to subscribe to each individual service. This is already happening with Amazon. Early episodes of Grand Tour are now available on TV Seven.

This is my vision of a perfect viewing future. I hope it happens.

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

tdgeek

12770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2293

Trusted

Reply # 1945698 23-Jan-2018 20:13

But the use of the word rubbish is based at a dig at Sky. I have the same issue with Netflix, Lightbox, Curiositystream, and so on. They play stuff I dont like, and I am paying for that.

Many here say they will pay (not referring to you), but the bottom line is they dont want to pay, they want everything for cents. That cannot ever work as content costs. Netflix doesnt produce anything or make anything. It buys exclusive rights, so it holds a monopoly.

End of the day if Netflix has a monopoly on content I have no issue, I will buy it if it suits me. If I end up buying 5 subs for $125 a month, thats fine if it has value to me.

1 | 2 | 3