10 ms·

It's interesting because Netflix is a parallel to the US TV networks in the 80s. I remember when Fox was an up and coming network. They had (at the time) edgy

It's interesting because Netflix is a parallel to the US TV networks in the 80s. I remember when Fox was an up and coming network. They had (at the time) edgy content like 'Married with Children', to get more viewers..and now have corporate drivel like 'American Idol'. Netflix is doing the same thing. They create their own content with nudity, swearing, and edgy content to get what the regular networks aren't really doing (and to get the youth interested). When they get enough market share, it will only be a matter of time before they become the thing they tried so hard to replace: a monopoly with fading and corporate-friendly content. I understand why they are trying to block proxies, but how can they even tell that I'm tunneling through SSH?

drather19 11y ago
It's interesting that you posit that the ultimate endgame is "corporate-friendly content". I was curious why you think that content is heading that way? If anything, I'd argue that globalizing Netflix combined with stronger control over their own original content enables Netflix to move towards an endgame where lots of niche audiences are served (rather than only mass markets). At CES, Ted Sarandos (VP of Content) mentioned that traditional TV had to hit home runs all the time, while Netflix can score with singles, double, etc. Why would Netflix jeopardize this advantage and hop in the time machine to become an outdated TV company? It sucks that House of Cards and some of the older original content (particularly the more popular titles) aren't globally available, yet, but I believe (also from the CES talk), this was done because Netflix couldn't afford the financial risk at the time (and/or simply could not afford the global rights) for some of these shows. More recent/upcoming shows are licensed globally, so there's an apparent effort to ensure that Netflix moves to having a single global catalog. This obviously takes time, though, as the whole original content engine starts to ramp and new licensing deals are struck.
- bobby_9x 11y ago
  "It's interesting that you posit that the ultimate endgame is "corporate-friendly content". I was curious why you think that content is heading that way?" Every company I've seen eventually goes this way. When a corporation becomes large enough, they start answering to special interest groups on the left/right and self-censoring content as to not tarnish the reputation of investors or lose valuable market share. "If anything, I'd argue that globalizing Netflix combined with stronger control over their own original content enables Netflix to move towards an endgame where lots of niche audiences are served (rather than only mass markets). At CES, Ted Sarandos (VP of Content) mentioned that traditional TV had to hit home runs all the time, while Netflix can score with singles, double, etc. Why would Netflix jeopardize this advantage and hop in the time machine to become an outdated TV company?" I hope you're right. So far, they are copying the cable company strategy: license older content to get the viewers and then eventually create your own content to make more money. It's a pretty good business strategy, if you can pull it off. When the Syfy (I actually hate this name) channel first came out, it was all old episodes of Quantum leap, Star Trek, and lost in space. They slowly built their own content over the years and now pretty much only have original content. It's also tends to happen with monopolies (if this ever happens to Netflix). Right now, they are taking tons of chances and it's hit/miss (which means some fantastic content for customers). When you are on top, your strategy changes to what has worked. You don't want to lose market share, which means taking less chances. You aren't desperately trying to gain market share, you are now holding onto it. So, we might still see cool content, but it won't be as groundbreaking or as often. I feel like this eventually gets watered down enough, and big money/advertisers get involved, and the cycle repeats. I was an avid XM radio fan from the beginning. Many of the shock-jocks were allowed to say and do pretty much anything. After the big merger, it's now a shell of what it once was (the same strategy as the radio industry. If you compare the jocks of the 90s and today, it's a much different landscape). I absolutely love the explosion of podcasts in the last couple of years. It has given people the complete freedom of speech and has pretty much replaced what I loved about satellite radio. It reminds me why a free Internet is so important.
  - drather19 11y ago
    As far as how much control Netflix retains over its internal vision/strategy in the long run, I'm not sure if there is anyone or any group in a position dominant enough to to swing the the company in a direction counter to its internal mission (http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm). I think dedication to staying easy, convenient, ad-free, etc. is pretty critical to keeping the user base happy (beyond just being part of their core vision), and I don't see that changing for any reason for the time being. It's an interesting thing to watch evolve over the next few years, but I know it sucks for most of the global market with the current catalog disparity. It's hard to say which of the platform or the content are the cart and the horse, though. Do you need the platform to deliver before you ramp the content, or do you need to ramp the content before you open up the platform?
  - nibnib 11y ago
    >Every company I've seen eventually goes this way. When a corporation becomes large enough, they start answering to special interest groups on the left/right and self-censoring content as to not tarnish the reputation of investors or lose valuable market share. Most of the media you mentioned is a-driven. Netflix doesn't sell ad space, why would they need to answer to any group their than their customers?
GhotiFish 11y ago
You understand? I have no idea why when they could of easily just turned and said "It's impossible to do that." Technically true. You'd only take the practical steps to filter people if you really wanted to filter people. I have absolutely no idea why they would want to do that.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Why? They probably negotiated a license deal and one of the conditions of that deal was that they try harder to block the grey market. The fact that this announcement comes at basically the same time as their global expansion is a hint.
legohead 11y ago
I don't understand why they are trying to block proxies, even using your logic. If they want to replace monopolies, then they should become they place everyone wants to use. If everyone in Country-X cut the cord and switched to Netflix, then Netflix wins, right? But by limiting content (by blocking proxies), people will have less reason to switch.
- superuser2 11y ago
  They are blocking proxies because the content owners demand it and are making better enforcement of geofencing part of their contract/license. The content owners demand it because foreign-country distribution rights are less valuable if people in foreign countries can already get the shows from US Netflix.
- bobby_9x 11y ago
  Business is all about relationships, especially in the case of Netflix. Their relationships need to be beneficial to the content creators, at least until they can have a full-platform of self-created content, which I don't think will ever happen. They have contracts with the content creators, which only allow them to show a movie/show in X part of the world or country. I would imagine if they want to show to another country, they need to pay more in licensing fees..and the profits/numbers probably don't make sense to do that.
  - legohead 11y ago
    Ah, I understand now, thanks.

drather19 11y ago

It's interesting that you posit that the ultimate endgame is "corporate-friendly content". I was curious why you think that content is heading that way? If anything, I'd argue that globalizing Netflix combined with stronger control over their own original content enables Netflix to move towards an endgame where lots of niche audiences are served (rather than only mass markets). At CES, Ted Sarandos (VP of Content) mentioned that traditional TV had to hit home runs all the time, while Netflix can score with singles, double, etc. Why would Netflix jeopardize this advantage and hop in the time machine to become an outdated TV company? It sucks that House of Cards and some of the older original content (particularly the more popular titles) aren't globally available, yet, but I believe (also from the CES talk), this was done because Netflix couldn't afford the financial risk at the time (and/or simply could not afford the global rights) for some of these shows. More recent/upcoming shows are licensed globally, so there's an apparent effort to ensure that Netflix moves to having a single global catalog. This obviously takes time, though, as the whole original content engine starts to ramp and new licensing deals are struck.

bobby_9x 11y ago
"It's interesting that you posit that the ultimate endgame is "corporate-friendly content". I was curious why you think that content is heading that way?" Every company I've seen eventually goes this way. When a corporation becomes large enough, they start answering to special interest groups on the left/right and self-censoring content as to not tarnish the reputation of investors or lose valuable market share. "If anything, I'd argue that globalizing Netflix combined with stronger control over their own original content enables Netflix to move towards an endgame where lots of niche audiences are served (rather than only mass markets). At CES, Ted Sarandos (VP of Content) mentioned that traditional TV had to hit home runs all the time, while Netflix can score with singles, double, etc. Why would Netflix jeopardize this advantage and hop in the time machine to become an outdated TV company?" I hope you're right. So far, they are copying the cable company strategy: license older content to get the viewers and then eventually create your own content to make more money. It's a pretty good business strategy, if you can pull it off. When the Syfy (I actually hate this name) channel first came out, it was all old episodes of Quantum leap, Star Trek, and lost in space. They slowly built their own content over the years and now pretty much only have original content. It's also tends to happen with monopolies (if this ever happens to Netflix). Right now, they are taking tons of chances and it's hit/miss (which means some fantastic content for customers). When you are on top, your strategy changes to what has worked. You don't want to lose market share, which means taking less chances. You aren't desperately trying to gain market share, you are now holding onto it. So, we might still see cool content, but it won't be as groundbreaking or as often. I feel like this eventually gets watered down enough, and big money/advertisers get involved, and the cycle repeats. I was an avid XM radio fan from the beginning. Many of the shock-jocks were allowed to say and do pretty much anything. After the big merger, it's now a shell of what it once was (the same strategy as the radio industry. If you compare the jocks of the 90s and today, it's a much different landscape). I absolutely love the explosion of podcasts in the last couple of years. It has given people the complete freedom of speech and has pretty much replaced what I loved about satellite radio. It reminds me why a free Internet is so important.
- drather19 11y ago
  As far as how much control Netflix retains over its internal vision/strategy in the long run, I'm not sure if there is anyone or any group in a position dominant enough to to swing the the company in a direction counter to its internal mission (http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm). I think dedication to staying easy, convenient, ad-free, etc. is pretty critical to keeping the user base happy (beyond just being part of their core vision), and I don't see that changing for any reason for the time being. It's an interesting thing to watch evolve over the next few years, but I know it sucks for most of the global market with the current catalog disparity. It's hard to say which of the platform or the content are the cart and the horse, though. Do you need the platform to deliver before you ramp the content, or do you need to ramp the content before you open up the platform?
- nibnib 11y ago
  >Every company I've seen eventually goes this way. When a corporation becomes large enough, they start answering to special interest groups on the left/right and self-censoring content as to not tarnish the reputation of investors or lose valuable market share. Most of the media you mentioned is a-driven. Netflix doesn't sell ad space, why would they need to answer to any group their than their customers?

GhotiFish 11y ago

You understand? I have no idea why when they could of easily just turned and said "It's impossible to do that." Technically true. You'd only take the practical steps to filter people if you really wanted to filter people. I have absolutely no idea why they would want to do that.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Why? They probably negotiated a license deal and one of the conditions of that deal was that they try harder to block the grey market. The fact that this announcement comes at basically the same time as their global expansion is a hint.

legohead 11y ago

I don't understand why they are trying to block proxies, even using your logic. If they want to replace monopolies, then they should become they place everyone wants to use. If everyone in Country-X cut the cord and switched to Netflix, then Netflix wins, right? But by limiting content (by blocking proxies), people will have less reason to switch.

superuser2 11y ago
They are blocking proxies because the content owners demand it and are making better enforcement of geofencing part of their contract/license. The content owners demand it because foreign-country distribution rights are less valuable if people in foreign countries can already get the shows from US Netflix.
bobby_9x 11y ago
Business is all about relationships, especially in the case of Netflix. Their relationships need to be beneficial to the content creators, at least until they can have a full-platform of self-created content, which I don't think will ever happen. They have contracts with the content creators, which only allow them to show a movie/show in X part of the world or country. I would imagine if they want to show to another country, they need to pay more in licensing fees..and the profits/numbers probably don't make sense to do that.
- legohead 11y ago
  Ah, I understand now, thanks.