41 ms·

Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

481 points by Daviey 10y ago

subliminalpanda 10y ago
It's getting to the point that their OC more than makes up for it. The big studios are just asking for more piracy at this point.
arkitaip 10y ago
I can understand that the media companies don't want to cooperate with Netflix by denying them access to their IP but it's sad that they haven't been able to launch a real alternative to Netflix during all these years.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  Everyone is now launching their own streaming service. Basically, the cable TV phenomena for entertainment has now moved on to the Internet.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Sure they have. Torrents are popular and effective. They work great. The studios clearly prefer we use them; their repeated decisions leaving them as the sole functional choice show that.
  - kbart 10y ago
    Exactly. And as a bonus point, they can force governments to draconian DRM laws citing "billions of revenue lost to piracy".
  - pforpineapple 10y ago
    "The studios clearly prefer we use them" : what do you mean ?
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      I think it's safe to say he, sarcastically, is implying that failure to match the ease of getting torrents of movies means that movie studios are by default leaving torrenting as the best way to watch. Thus they seemingly endorse torrenting by offering no proper competition.
- zaroth 10y ago
  When they think it makes business sense they will do it. It's certainly not a technical limitation. Likewise, I doubt we'll be seeing Netflix's OC showing up on regular cable or broadcast networks anytime soon. Not that they couldn't get some licensing revenue from it, but it's just not their chosen model.
- romanovcode 10y ago
  Nobody wants to share the pie.
- jpalomaki 10y ago
  Maybe the big ones just can't come up with a way to compete with Netflix without destroying their old business. Customers want content with reasonable monthly fee, but that does not mix up well with dvd/blu-ray sales, rental business etc. Supporting Netflix is of course also something they don't like, since the more monthly paying customer Netflix attracts, the more viable competitor it becomes. This leads me to wonder that could it be that studios did not originally even consider Netflix as their competitor?
- jrnichols 10y ago
  They're hoping that you'll buy the physical media. That's been the plan with Redbox - force a 28-90 day delay on new releases so customers will rush right out and just buy it on DVD. reality is that people usually just wait. The studios don't really want to cooperate. They want complete control over how you watch their product.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Agreed. In the UK we no longer have rights to format shift (we did, but they were rescinded), so if you bought it on DVD and want to watch on your tablet - well you'll probably have to buy it again or infringe the letter of the copyright law. What's that? Want to stream it to another device from your computer, ha-ha, no chance. If media companies made such things legal (they control the copyright laws) then there's no telling what might happen. People watching the media they paid for, how absurd! They want to sell you a cinema viewing, sell you a DVD, sell you a tablet download, and even then sell you a streaming copy to watch on your TV (because who has a DVD player now).
wyldfire 10y ago
Netflix is clearly making heavy investments in what we've tended to call "Television" programming. It's often deep dramas that are very engrossing, much more so than TV offered a decade or two ago. Netflix likely sees higher returns here. Movies are quickly becoming the "short story" of the cinematic world, IMO (though those countless sequels and prequels are an exception). When done well they have a strict beginning, middle and end.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  I agree - Netflix is becoming synonymous with binge watching. I've gotten months and months of value out of Netflix with Breaking Bad, Lost, The Office, The X-Files, House, etc... If I had to do the research required to get similar satisfaction out of the same number of hours of movie viewing? Forget it.
- pvg 10y ago
  I think you have this backwards. Netflix's original programming is trying to emulate the best of TV programming of the last decade or two.
- jrnichols 10y ago
  Netflix definitely benefits from the fact that they don't have to worry about the FCC guidelines, or the constant complaints from the Parent's Television Council. I'd much rather watch an HBO show or a Netflix show than anything on traditional TV these days.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I think about "Daredevil" season one: 13 episodes, each almost an hour long. We saw more character development in a single season (of both the titular character and Vincent D'Onofrio's excellent Kingpin) than in years of Marvel movies. If an episode's story needs to run a bit longer, it runs longer. Commercial breaks don't affect pacing. Nobody has to worry about sponsors being upset about content, an episode being interrupted by breaking news or postponed due to a sporting event. I'd like Netflix to have a larger movie catalog, but if they continue to crank out quality long-form stories I'm quite happy to remain a subscriber. (Now we just need them to secure the rights for Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin novels)
jhbadger 10y ago
While I'm sure it's not entirely Netflix's fault (media companies realizing their back catalog has a value), it seems to be a common evolution for movie services to move to providing their own content. Look at HBO. In the 1980s, it was all about showing movies (the name even meant "Home Box Office"). Now it is all about Game of Thrones and what not. With things like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc., that's what Netflix is doing as well.
- bagacrap 10y ago
  HBO is a good example but I don't see blockbuster or Redbox creating content so I wouldn't say it's inevitable. Where are the movie companies hawking their back catalog if not Netflix?
  - beardicus 10y ago
    Is it the various pay-per-view and on-demand services?
  - luma 10y ago
    Blockbuster is a great example of a company that didn't do that. How are they doing these days?
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." - Ted Sarandos, Netflix Chief Content Officer
  - goostavos 10y ago
    Which has always seemed like a _gross_ misunderstanding of what people enjoyed about Netflix from the very beginning. If Netflix launched with Orange is the New Black, Luke Cage, and Daredevil, would they have even a tiny fraction of the user base they currently have? My Netflix hours per month has dropped to well under 10 hours per month these days. There's just not much content on there that interests me. I see more use out of Amazon because, even though it's comparatively expensive at ~$5 per rental, when I feel like sitting down and watching a movie, it's nice to actually have a catalog to browse that's not 90% garbage.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ihsw 10y ago
It should be noted that IMDB is owned by Amazon, but setting that aside it most definitely is unfortunate to see that so many great films are locked up behind licensing barriers. We may never see them get released into public domain.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  > It should be noted that IMDB is owned by Amazon Does it have any relevance?
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    they could change the ordering of some of Netflix's offering, I'm not sure if it would do anything.
- skinnymuch 10y ago
  Are you suggesting Amazon is manipulating IMDB voting..just to have less of the top 250 on Netflix? Otherwise how is it relevant to note?
koonsolo 10y ago
I find it strange that Spotify is able to list almost any band and music out there, and streaming video providers not. They are even forced to create their own content. Seems that the music industry has a better separation between content creators and providers than the movie and series industry.
- scarface74 10y ago
  It's not that strange. There is only one real avenue to make money off of music -- selling it, either digitally or physically -- besides a subscription service. The movie industry can make money during different "windows". Theatrical releases, PPV from cable companies, iTunes, Amazon, etc., physical rentals, DVD and digital sells, subscription movie services (HBO, Showtime...) and regular cable TV.
  - ohitsdom 10y ago
    It's more complicated than that. Artists benefit greatly from repeat customers, so it's to their (and their label's) advantage to expose as many people as possible to their product. This will help drive future profits through the sale of albums, merch, and concert tickets. Movie studios are dealing with a much different dynamic.
    - bbctol 10y ago
      Artists barely make money off of Spotify anyway. It's just marginally more than they'd get out of piracy, and a more legitimate platform to advertise their content. Making money in music has been all about concerts and merch for a while.
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    I think think you're making a distinction where there isn't one. For example, you can license music to TV shows, political campaigns, commercials, movies, and video games. Radio stations must pay royalties for playing songs. There are plenty of revenue streams for music outside of "selling it digitally or physically" and a subscription service.
Coincoin 10y ago
Here in Canada almost all English language content is licensed to a single company, Bell. They systematically deny any access to Netflix and started their own service, Crave TV. They are the one responsible for the great Proxy/VPN banning this year. They are taking advantage of a government granted monopoly they had in the 1900's and now control a disproportionate amount of the media in Canada.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  Off topic, but... > They are the one responsible for the great Proxy/VPN banning this year. At first, I thought this meant Netflix banning all use of VPN for streaming. Searching news articles shows in fact a Rogers VP rep had called on the government to outright ban VPN universally[1], but this was back in spring 2015. You are saying this has actually been made law and is enforced? How did this pass when major corporations require VPNs, and I presume also government officials use it for sensitive communications? [1] http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers/rogers-government-shutdown-vpn/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers/rogers-governme...
  - ohstopitu 10y ago
    It's not yet banned (Hospitals still use them, as do all major corps). I found the following post as late as Dec 2015 but nothing later than that.[1] [1] http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/liberal-government-may-block-vpn-use-to-access-u-s-netflix/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/liberal-government-may-blo...
    - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
      This is _insane_ if it actually happens .. a move I want to compare to China, except here it's the government bending to the will of a corporation, not the other way around! Dumb stuff is proposed all the time in US proposals[1,2] but with great effort they get rejected (not all, sadly). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
dorianm 10y ago
So it went from 49 from 31 in the US Netflix, but it's even less in the french Netflix. (e.g.: not Zootopia and Sunset Boulevard for instance)
Y-bar 10y ago
And of these 31 remaining almost half are missing in the Swedish Netflix: 5. Back to the Future 6. Gladiator 7. Sunset Boulevard 8. Cinema Paradiso 9. Django Unchained 12. Reservoir Dogs 13. Braveheart 17. Amadeus 21. Trainspotting 24. There Will Be Blood 25. Spotlight 26. The Princess Bride 27. Zootopia 29. Jaws 31. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl And yet Netflix want the same monthly cost for less of a service. Why?
- ddeck 10y ago
  Consider yourself lucky. There are 6 of those 31 available in Hong Kong and the subscription cost is 10% higher than the US, despite median household income being around a third lower. I really don't understand the logic in charging a higher price for 10% of the content in a poorer country, but perhaps that's why I don't work for Netflix. Number of TV shows/movies on US netflix: 1147/4593 Number of TV shows/movies on HK netflix: 134/ 392 US Netflix standard price: $ 8.99 HK Netflix standard price: $10.00
- martinp 10y ago
  Pretty much the same ones are missing on Norwegian Netflix as well.
- jug 10y ago
  Yes, also in Sweden and when I once tricked Netflix into showing the US library I kind of wanted to cry. Now I'm tempted to make a pretty graph of "Movies and TV shows per dollar" for the countries they're established in. Should be pretty interesting. I expect major differences.
  - Jommi 10y ago
    Even with all the faults IMDb ratings have, id also be interested in a similar graph, but weighted with IMDb scores
  - yaegers 10y ago
    Not a "per dollar" graph but still a graph just how big the different catalogs are: http://cordcutting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netflix-catalogs.png http://cordcutting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netflix-ca...
flycaliguy 10y ago
Surely I'm not the only person who isn't interested in watching IMDB's favourite content. Give me the 6 outta 10s, that's my bread and butter. I'd rather be surprised and discover a personal favourite or have something on the TV that I won't be expected to dissect with the nerds at work.
- ko27 10y ago
  You are basically saying that you can't "discover a personal favourite" when they are highly rated and talked by other people. That's probably the worst mindset for a avid film watcher.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    Seems to work well for the Indie music crowd.
    - afterburner 10y ago
      Doesn't the indie crowd also rely on word of mouth?
      - TallGuyShort 10y ago
        My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek - a reference to the stereotypical hipster who always has to have liked something before it was cool, and once it's cool they only like the older stuff (that you probably haven't heard of). In reality, I'm sure they do rely on word of mouth, or at least less mainstream, centralized-but-still-kind-of-centralized sources to aggregate and filter new stuff for what's good.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- sotojuan 10y ago
  The IMDb top 50 is full of easily palatable and mainstream movies.
SCdF 10y ago
It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.
- mattmaroon 10y ago
  I don't think the fragmentation is a problem since the cost is so low. We used to pay a lot more for cable and got less quality content than if we just buy a few streaming services combined. Some players like my Roku (and I think Apple TV right?) allow you to do a universal search too. Netflix's problem with movies is intractable because you'd have to pay much more than they're willing to charge to make the studios happy. The studios make more money they way they're doing it (they have accountants too).
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    I don't get the vibe that the studios are in very good shape. For context, see Scorcese's "Personal Journey."
- parennoob 10y ago
  > I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one As long as they are unbundled and easy to subscribe and unsubscribe from, I don't really mind. The bundling is the real thing I hate about cable. Now sub-subscriptions like Amazon Prime has with Showtime and such really suck, and I wouldn't want those, but if registration is as simple as setting up or cancelling a recurring subscription, I'm fine with subscribing to 10 different services. I can also see the market for a free or one-time paid app that will maintain a queue of what you want to watch, and automatically subscribe to the correct channel for that month so you can watch the maximum content for the minimum money. [Also, this is a personal opinion, but to me, Netflix's original content + their reduced catalog is definitely worth $10/month. Much better than the $100+ "special offer price" that Comcast offers if I want to watch non-stupid channels from their lineup.]
diegorbaquero 10y ago
There's no one single service that can gather all movies. Netflix is moving towards creating their own content. Piracy will not cease to exist unless you want to pay many subscriptions to access all recent content.
aj7 10y ago
and nothing worth watching if you're traveling in Europe.
larrik 10y ago
Netflix's real value is in binge-watching TV shows. I wouldn't be surprised if movies just don't get the viewers to justify their cost. As a non-stop Netflix subscriber since 2004, I've only streamed 1 or 2 movies in that entire time (although my kids have).
- ghaff 10y ago
  You and others would presumably watch more if there were more better (especially recent) movies to watch. Personally, I keep my minimal Netflix DVD rental subscription mostly to trickle in the previous year's Oscar nominations etc. >I wouldn't be surprised if movies just don't get the viewers to justify their cost. Presumably that is also true. Whatever deal the content providers are offering, Netflix doesn't see the ROI. To your broader point about TV vs. movies though. A former senior technical Netflix guy once told me that "People come for the movies and stay for the TV shows." (And this was before they had nearly as much original content.) The danger to the studios here seems to be if people just get out of the habit of watching movies as a format. But that's probably a pretty big leap from where we are today.
london888 10y ago
I managed to watch everything I was interested in (Narcos, The Get Down, House of Cards) during the free trial period and nothing else caught my interest so I never had to pay.
geodel 10y ago
It seems good number to me. Was it really expected that a service at fractional cost of cable TV will have majority of top movies in any defined category?
qwrusz 10y ago
Why would a company using a monthly subscription model pay to license the most expensive top-rated classic film catalogues? Why would you want them to? A big portion of the money you pay Netflix every month would then go to have indefinite access to films you don't watch or don't watch again often enough to justify this ongoing cost. Would you lease a Ferrari you drove one or two days a year? Especially if a one-day rental or buying is an option?
- nathan_long 10y ago
  What's the point of paying said monthly fee if you frequently can't find anything you want to watch? Why can't I pay a la carte to stream pretty much any movie ever made? Even if that's a fee on top of the monthly fee, I would do it sometimes.
  - qwrusz 10y ago
    I don't see the point there. I couldn't find anything to watch on Netflix and canceled it a long time ago. There is no technical barrier for a la carte streaming of pretty much any movie ever made.
shocks 10y ago
Offtopic, but does anyone know of a good solution for ragged line balancing on the web? On desktop, the last word of the title ("List") on this page is on it's own line. Infuriating! Haha. edit: This comment definitely deserves downvotes. Definitely.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  It's wildly off-topic ... https://github.com/adobe-webplatform/balance-text https://github.com/adobe-webplatform/balance-text might help, or https://codepen.io/samirsr/pen/sojCi https://codepen.io/samirsr/pen/sojCi .
tankenmate 10y ago
In the UK only 4 of those movies are on Netflix
gamache 10y ago
When I want to watch a movie, and it's not on Netflix, I generally do not watch that movie. I wonder who this benefits.
elpocko 10y ago
I'm a subscriber for a couple weeks now, and I've run out of content I'd like to watch in my free month. The homepage is filled with stuff I'll never watch, and I can't even tell them that fact. There is no button to hide stuff. Back to piracy I go.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  It always was very interesting to me how so much bad stuff is on the front page and meanwhile there are some gems in their platform (like the top IMDB movies listed in the article) that you might never find out are there. Many years ago they made it much easier to discover content but then they did this massive redesign and made it impossible to find stuff. A few years ago I just pulled a list of movies via their API that listed movies ranked by their prediction of how much they think I will like it. That was super useful. Why doesn't Netflix do this? Meanwhile they suggest me movies they themselves predict I won't like. This is interesting to me because it's so bad that I can only conclude that they must have incentives for making suggestions to me other than me watching something I like. Do they pay licensing fees per vote? Do they pay different fees per view for different movies? I would love to know the details!
howdydo 10y ago
I was about to complain about the lack of 8+ IMDB rated films on Netflix UK, but after doing some research[1] it's actually quite high. Although one thing I did notice by picking a handful of random films is that some are rated 8+ but only have 50-100 votes, which reminded me of this excellent article by Evan Miller on how not to sort by average ratings[2]. Personal opinion now: I'm more of a movie person than a TV series person, but I do appreciate some of the Netflix Original series, but I'm finding it harder and harder to justify the monthly cost when I also have a NowTV movie subscription which seem to have more decent films and are regularly updated (even though research[3] shows they don't have many 8+ movies) [1] https://www.justwatch.com/uk/movies?providers=nfx&rating_imdb=8 https://www.justwatch.com/uk/movies?providers=nfx&rating_imd... [2] http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.... [3] https://www.justwatch.com/uk/provider/now-tv?content_type=movie&rating_imdb=8 https://www.justwatch.com/uk/provider/now-tv?content_type=mo...
dmalvarado 10y ago
My younger colleagues at work simply can't believe that I still have a DVD plan with Netflix. I'm not that old! In response, I can't believe THEY are satisfied with what's available on streaming. Netflix isn't interested in paying royalties for blockbuster films. In house content makes so much more sense.
- chiph 10y ago
  Netflix is decontenting their DVD catalog too. My "Saved" list is as long as my queue. (I'm another dinosaur that prefers the guaranteed bitrate of a Bluray/DVD)
- nathan_long 10y ago
  Ditto. I have a DVD Netflix plan, and streaming, and Amazon Prime. Yes, it's ridiculous that in 2016, I'm still regularly getting bits via snail mail. DVDs are sometimes scratched, and my player often forces me to watch previews. It's terrible. Except for the selection. Try this: go to http://www.imdb.com/chart/top http://www.imdb.com/chart/top, then start searching for those on https://dvd.netflix.com/ https://dvd.netflix.com/. I tried a few, and they were all there. I don't have crazy weird esoteric tastes, but I like to be able to say "hey, I heard that Movie X was good" and be able to add it to my playlist. I can pretty much always do that with the DVD service. I can pretty much never do that with streaming services. It's like, "oh, they have a sequel and a spinoff, but not the original." I'm about 98% sure that the difference in selection is because of Hollywood being jerks about licensing, so I don't blame Netflix or Amazon. But as long as there's such a vast difference in selection, I'm going to keep renting DVDs.
  - TheBeardKing 10y ago
    It depends on how many movies you watch whether the mail plan is cheaper than paying on-demand. On-demand prices drop fairly quickly, go on sale periodically, and things like Google Rewards earn you digital credit. Also, RedBox is still an option if needed.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  It reminds me of the common trope of the internet containing "all of human knowledge". An average library has as good a claim to that as does the internet. There's so much stuff that is simply not available for free and a far vaster volume of stuff that is not even digitized let alone available on the internet. Wikipedia is a good way to gain some superficial knowledge about something but it is nothing compared to a few good books on a subject.
dmtroyer 10y ago
What is a "common fact", exactly?
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
So, if I want to re-watch old movies (IMDB's alltime top movies) I've already seen, I shouldn't go to Netflix. But for new stuff? They're adding content all the time. Not sure this statistic is meaningful to me.
2T1Qka0rEiPr 10y ago
As a UK resident, with access to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Sky, I actually applaud Neflix's conscious move away from blockbuster content. Netflix has created some of my favourite shows in the past few years (e.g. House of Cards and Narcos) and I'd rather have that original content given my access to the other services - Sky is better probably better able (through it's Fox parent company) to deliver the blockbusters should I want to watch them. The obvious cost is that we have to subscribe to multiple services, and that necessitates cost both in money and in time to find content legally as you have to go through each in turn. If Amazon and Netflix both move further towards unique content then we'll also have reduced competition in the blockbuster space, which might increase prices and encourage a move back to privacy. (Finally, I have major respect for Netflix as a developer, and so I probably view everything with a certain bias).
- throwawayReply 10y ago
  I agree, but it's conditioned on the fact that in the UK netflix never had good movies, it was all about it's TV box sets rather than movies from the start here. Netflix UK doesn't push movies, I'd be surprised if it had more than 5 movies from the top 250, although the catalogue is so hard to browse it's hard to verify. If netflix was previously advertised here based on it's movie offering I would be annoyed about it's pivot to focus on TV.
sotojuan 10y ago
No film lover I know uses Netflix for them. They all purchase DVDs, torrent, or are waiting for http://www.filmstruck.com http://www.filmstruck.com
ctdonath 10y ago
Remember the promise/hope of "the long tail"? How did so many pundits get that so wrong, overlooking the battles for licensing value?
uxp100 10y ago
I always appreciate that Hulu has its Criterion collection section. And I very recently signed up for Seeso for $4 a month because I was craving some Monty Python's Flying Circus. I don't plan on keeping it long term, maybe just a month, to get it out of my system. And then I still end up digging through shitty cheap roku channels occasionally to find stuff. Mostly just schlock, but I saw, for example, niche titles like Millennium Actress, Ninja Scroll, and Ghost in the Shell 2 on free services. The idea of one streaming service that has it all is dead, but it kind of reminds me of DVD bundles at Walmart. 10 Sci Fi movies for $10, and one of them will be Existenz and the rest will be straight to TV or DVD.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  Vudu.com, which has been giving out free credits every week via T-Mobile, also has a pretty good chunk of the AFI top 100.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Hulu is about to lose the Criterion Collection license. Turner Classic Movies picked up the license for a new service called Filmstruck that's launching (in the US) next week. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4252-filmstruck-launches-october-19 https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4252-filmstruck-laun...
  - jrnichols 10y ago
    Oh great. Just what the market has been wanting... yet another streaming service. Sigh.
bargl 10y ago
Does anyone else find this a really bad metric? This list is relatively static if princess bride is still on there. What about the top 10 by year? Most people want to see the best and latest movie not the best older movie.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  But when looking for an older movie they are going to be more likely to look for the really great movies from the past.
ensiferum 10y ago
Meanwhile in the warez land everything is just 1 click away, hassle free and non-DRM encumbered.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  This is definitely not true. If you're looking for stuff that's popular here and now, you'll do fine (especially if you're a fan of Hollywood blockbusters). But as soon as you start looking for back catalogue stuff, you're in a mess of dead torrents and broken links. Want to find a mostly-forgotten science fiction movie from the mid-90s (in my case, Strange Days)? Two hours of hunting for a way of downloading it led me to buying it through a VoD service instead.
  - jrnichols 10y ago
    I'm still amazed at the number of "mock busters" that are on torrent sites. The awful, low budget, garbage take offs...Like one called "Atlantic Rim." I think you can guess what it was a take off of. Fired up Popcorn Time recently and the list was packed full of those types of movies.
  - kmnc 10y ago
    Come on... I found your movie streaming in one super easy google search..it was the second link. Not to mention a 26 seed torrent in another simple google search. Just last night I watched a Polanski film streaming with basically no effort. Finding old movies streaming online is incredibly easy. I bet 100% of the IMDB top 250 can be easily found by searching "X streaming free" and having a good ad blocker.
  - ensiferum 10y ago
    Well p2p such as torrent is for the bottom feeders. There are better methods available.
    - UVB-76 10y ago
      If you're referring to topsites, they are archaic, their rules are outdated, and they optimize for speed over quality of releases. In terms of breadth and quality of content, private torrent trackers are far and away the best download method.
beautifulfreak 10y ago
I'm glad for Netflix original content. It's been high in quality, and I've already seen all the top 250 IMDB movies I want to see. What Netflix could do to prove its love of movies, and which would probably make good business sense, is unearth movies that have never been shown on TV, or never been digitized to DVD or even transferred to VHS. There are websites devoted to those lost treasures, and movie lovers who would bow and genuflect to Netflix if those movies were ever aired. Consider that eBay does big business selling VHS tapes to people who don't even own VHS players, but who buy and send those tapes to services that will rip them to DVD. (My latest is "We're Talkin' Serious Money" with Dennis Farina - a 6.0 IMDB rated movie I just HAD to see again.) Who else has the power to deal with rights holders who control rights to old movies not deemed worthy of a VHS or DVD release? I type this hoping that someone from Netflix understands and agrees with me. They could make it a big event, build excitement, even though those movies are not high rated. They're just unobtainable rarities, like the 1998 movie with Molly Ringwald, Twice Upon A Time, that I've wanted to see again for 15 years... Great movie, too bad you can't watch it.
- yalogin 10y ago
  Yeah but most people don't care about unearthing movies. All I want are the hits and popular escapist fare which Netflix is not willing to spend on.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> which Netflix is not willing to spend on. Or, just maybe, the license holder isn't willing to make a deal with Netflix because they want to start their own streaming service.
- clydethefrog 10y ago
  See Karagarga and the vulnerability of obscure films[1]. "Without a service like Karagarga movie-lovers are in thrall to the whims of an implacable market — one whose recent and unerring shift to digital streaming has left vast swaths of cinema history to molder unseen. The myth that Netflix and iTunes offer a frontier where “everything” is available to watch instantly is a bad joke to anyone with a serious interest in movies. That crowd is forced, by the market itself, to fend for itself. Many of us would indeed buy an Out 1 Blu-ray or cue up Out 1 on Netflix if such a thing were possible. But in the meantime Karagarga will be cherished for the rare and valued access it affords." [1] http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/weekend-post/karagarga-and-the-vulnerability-of-obscure-films http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/weekend-post/karagarga-and...
oelmekki 10y ago
In the end, the licence owners will lose. Spotify makes it useless to download music illegally because it's so much easier and pleasant to use spotify. If they don't want to play fair game with Netflix, people will just keep / start again downloading the movies they want to watch, because it will be easier.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Spotify makes it useless to download music illegally because it's so much easier and pleasant to use spotify. Spotify has to pay for the content they're streaming. As of now, they're losing money with that model. You might like it as a customer, but content owners and creators don't seem to, and they hold the cards.
  - oelmekki 10y ago
    > As of now, they're losing money with that model Indeed, just seen that they were not profitable at least in May [1] > You might like it as a customer That's something :) Let's wait and see how they do in the next five years. [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/27/spotifys-annual-report-shows-just-how-hard-it-is-t.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/27/spotifys-annual-rep...
patja 10y ago
Netflix still ships physical media, and has a much wider selection than streaming. Unfortunately many of the discs you get from Netflix are made specifically for the rental market and have been purposely degraded by having features such as 7.1 DTS-MA audio removed.
pforpineapple 10y ago
I find it interesting that Netflix is such a success, despite the availability of many great films. As the presence of great films on the platform may suggest, it's a long shot to assume that they're more interested in creating their own -great- content than simply offering you great content. But given the unavailability of a single legal platform to rule them all, the bet on original ideas propelled with data and smart marketing was and is still the best one. IMO, if Netflix had all the content in the world, they would probably stop creating their own.
ainiriand 10y ago
How the 'legal' side could fight against 'piracy' sites? Seems that Netflix et others are losing the war again... I want to use Netflix model but for all the movies I want, not the ones they give me. Solutions?
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I look at it as a matter of cost vs. benefits. My wife and I watch a fair amount of stuff on Netflix each month and our family plan is less than $10/month. How anyone can say Netflix does not provide sufficient value doesn't make sense to me. We also subscribe to Hulu Plus to watch network TV with no commercials. Also a good deal. If we want to watch a new release, I rent it on Google Play Movies. I don't mind using a few different vendors, and competition is good. What is not a good deal is cable TV. We hardly ever use it and it is relatively expensive.
Havoc 10y ago
Netflix first, then Prime, then Usenet. Usually gets me what I want. Downside is that this already means paying half a dozen companies just to watch movies.
Taylor_OD 10y ago
Was it significantly higher at some point? Seems like useless number unless it was previously a much higher number. Edit: Missed it in the article. It dropped 12%.
- gdulli 10y ago
  It dropped a lot more than 12%. It dropped to 12% (out of 250 titles,) from 49 titles to 31.
jordache 10y ago
if it's netflix's intend to become another one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.. ) with their own shows and made for TV movies, then it's business plan made to fail. People want to see the blockbuster movies..
- josho 10y ago
  Rather, it's a smart biz plan. By creating their own content they can provide exclusive access to it. By continuing as they have they risk becoming a commoditized service or even getting locked out of content as other distributors build their own subscription platforms (as they have already built). I will agree with you however that as a consumer I'd rather have a commoditized subscription service for tv/movies. I suspect however that investors will disagree with us.
mooveprince 10y ago
I am subscribed to both Netflix and HBO. After reading this it strikes me that I always watch original Content / Network Series in Netflix and movies in HBO. No wonder why
treehau5 10y ago
A lot of those movies appear in the big $2 dollar DVD bin at Walmart.
awqrre 10y ago
Netflix’s US Catalog Has Shrunk by More Than 2,500 Titles in Less Than 2.5 Years: https://www.allflicks.net/netflixs-us-catalog-has-shrunk-by-more-than-2500-titles-in-less-than-2-5-years/ https://www.allflicks.net/netflixs-us-catalog-has-shrunk-by-...
bisRepetita 10y ago
Because of that, I feel that the value proposition of a video rental store next block is becoming quite good again. Cheaper than renting/buying from Prime or Play. Too bad they're all dead now. I am not sure the new video movie world is better now than it was 10 years ago for consumers.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I bet Netflix would absolutely love to provide all of these movies. I don't have any insider knowledge, but given their past behavior, I cannot help but think the content providers (of which a lot are owned by cable cartels) are preventing this. They are either prohibitively pricing the movies or are trying to dictate too many terms under which viewers have access to the movies. Then there's the fact that some of these movies didn't exist in a "streaming" world and so their licenses (for the music, etc) don't take this into account and so all that has to be renegotiated (which goes back to the prohibitive pricing, surely).
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  If we had 20 year copyright terms then most of the back catalogue issues would be moot. Companies would have to get their act together and make the most of licensing new works with the added competition of others offering only PD works. Of course the poor starving actors of all those old movies -- Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, etc. -- would perish under such a regime. They might even stop making new works! /s
- talmand 10y ago
  There actually has been a few shows on Netflix that had their iconic intro music pulled because they weren't licensed to play the music on a streaming service. Married With Children and Charmed are two I remember.
marcoperaza 10y ago
$10 a month. $10 a month. $10 a month. I'm repeating this because this is something that seems to be escaping people here. You're paying $10 a month for access to a massive library of content. Having every popular movie available for instant streaming is worth WAY more than $10 a month. If you want to watch recent blockbusters and popular movies, you can rent them on Amazon or iTunes. To the people using this to morally justify their pirating, give me a break. Renting/buying movies on Amazon or iTunes couldn't be easier. The only problem is that you would rather steal than pay.
bcrescimanno 10y ago
TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that Netflix brings with a combination of a low subscription cost, no commercials, and the ability to watch as many episodes of a show as you want to watch whenever you want to watch them is VASTLY superior. Netflix survives and thrives on binge-watching--and people just don't do that with movies (they have a LOT of data to back up that statement). Combined with the realities of the costs associated with feature film licensing and there's very little incentive for Netflix to put any emphasis on films. The only way they could do it is to tack on a pay-per-view service for films (because their subscription fee alone will absolutely NOT cover the cost of licensing more feature film content) and they are highly averse to such a service. The general feeling is that it's better for the average user if they can open up Netflix and watch whatever is there without ever thinking about whether it's an "included" title or a "PPV" title. When I was there, we regularly revisited this assumption and research always found that it continued to be the prudent move.
- jackfrodo 10y ago
  What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.
  - YuriNiyazov 10y ago
    Not quite. Iirc, Bojack has 10-12 episodes per season. If you watch the first three today, you will watch the next three tomorrow. If you watch django unchained today, that's not a guarantee you will rewatch kill bill tomorrow.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Binge-watching is putting on a show and leaving it on for a good chunk of the day. Think watching a whole season of a show over a weekend, so at least 4 hours per day. And you can do this with every original Netflix series from the first day the show is launched - you don't have to wait a week per episode.
imagist 10y ago
Competition in the streaming content industry does not benefit consumers as long as streaming providers compete by trying to monopolize content. There are a few solutions to this which I can think of: 1. Add government regulation that makes exclusive licensing of content to streaming services illegal. This feels heavy-handed to me. Streaming entertainment just isn't important enough to warrant the attention of government. 2. Companies self-regulate: this would be cool, but it's not gonna happen without some serious outside intervention. 3. Removal of copyrighting that allows companies to enforce their licenses. This is arguably bad for content producers, but in practice content producers aren't receiving the bulk of the profits--labels and studios are. 4. Go back to an ownership rather than a rent model of content distribution. DRM essentially breaks this, however, and again it's unlikely that content distributors will stop using this. I favor 4, but at a personal level, 3 is the only one really available to me, de-facto.
sun_n_surf 10y ago
Netflix is now basically an OTT TV channel. This puts to rest the content aggregation platform model for video which, unlike music, is highly differentiated with higher cost, which rules out commoditization. This basically reduces online video to two categories: user-generated content platforms and commissioned, curated content platforms. In my view there is only room for one player in the former (YT), but in the latter category, it is basically business as usual for the traditional TV networks.
mockturtle 10y ago
I am someone who vastly prefers films to tv. When Netflix launched as a dvd by mail service, it was the perfect service for film buffs. It was cheap, fast, and had a seemingly endless selection. Now that that part of the business is severely neglected, I'm back to requesting films from the local library and waiting months or spending $30-50 for a single film. I am sure their choice makes sense from a business standpoint, but leaves one-time customers like me in the cold.
pmoriarty 10y ago
Netflix still has a great DVD selection.[1] It's only their streaming selection that sucks. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/ https://dvd.netflix.com/
hathawsh 10y ago
A tip for movie lovers: VidAngel has 100 of the IMDB Top 100. (I'm not sure about the top 250.) VidAngel costs $1 or $2 per movie after sell-back. They filter the movies, but you choose your own filtering, so it's not censorship. (No, I don't work for VidAngel, nor do I have any ties with them; I'm just a happy customer who wants to see them continue to grow and thrive. I'm aware they are being sued, but I think VidAngel will win due to the Family Home Movie Act of 2005.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nfriedly 10y ago
I recently set up a Plex server and started ripping all of my DVDs onto it. There were a couple of hiccups, but overall I've been pretty happy with it. You get a nice netflix-like interface for browsers, it still works great when my crappy internet drops to <1mbs (happens a lot in the evenings, presumably because all of my neighbors are watching Netflix and the local ISP vastly oversold the capacity). And if you pay $150 for the lifetime pass, you get the ability to sync content for offline viewing on whatever device you want + a few other niceties. Ripping DVDs & renaming things to Plex-friendly form is still more work than I think it should be, I'd really like to see something equivalent to CD-ripping software that "just knows" what the disk is by fingerprinting or whatever. In general, Plex doesn't provide anything that I couldn't do with existing (and mostly free) tools, but it provides a friendly enough interface that my wife can use it without help, and being able to sync content to my iPad before a trip and have it "just work" is really nice.
njharman 10y ago
TIL Netflix has a lot of great movies I'd like to see. But my viewing time is already overfilled with all the Arrow, Flash, iZombie, and other shows I'm binge watching. And 80% of the time I'm more interested in seeing some "weird" Indian/Turkish/European movie than same Hollywood drivel.
cakeface 10y ago
Who is going to make an automated service that rents the DVD from dvds.netflix.com, loads the DVD up on their cloud rentable DVD players, and streams the result to your device?
vehementi 10y ago
Maybe they're trying to become IMDB's Top 250 before...
nikolay 10y ago
It's time to cancel Netflix - it's been totally useless to me in the past 2+ years - I end up buying from Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu. I'm not into TV shows - I'm not sure why they think everybody's into that.
barrystaes 10y ago
FTA: “I haven’t heard of any of these movies. Aren’t there any good movies on here?” Well theres a big assumption right there.. Movies yet unknown are not bad.
pescolly 10y ago
Let's not equate the IMDB Top 250 with good movies.
tofupup 10y ago
neat
tofupup 10y ago
neat

481 points by Daviey 10y ago

It's getting to the point that their OC more than makes up for it. The big studios are just asking for more piracy at this point.

arkitaip 10y ago

I can understand that the media companies don't want to cooperate with Netflix by denying them access to their IP but it's sad that they haven't been able to launch a real alternative to Netflix during all these years.

denzil_correa 10y ago
Everyone is now launching their own streaming service. Basically, the cable TV phenomena for entertainment has now moved on to the Internet.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Sure they have. Torrents are popular and effective. They work great. The studios clearly prefer we use them; their repeated decisions leaving them as the sole functional choice show that.
- kbart 10y ago
  Exactly. And as a bonus point, they can force governments to draconian DRM laws citing "billions of revenue lost to piracy".
- pforpineapple 10y ago
  "The studios clearly prefer we use them" : what do you mean ?
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    I think it's safe to say he, sarcastically, is implying that failure to match the ease of getting torrents of movies means that movie studios are by default leaving torrenting as the best way to watch. Thus they seemingly endorse torrenting by offering no proper competition.
zaroth 10y ago
When they think it makes business sense they will do it. It's certainly not a technical limitation. Likewise, I doubt we'll be seeing Netflix's OC showing up on regular cable or broadcast networks anytime soon. Not that they couldn't get some licensing revenue from it, but it's just not their chosen model.
romanovcode 10y ago
Nobody wants to share the pie.
jpalomaki 10y ago
Maybe the big ones just can't come up with a way to compete with Netflix without destroying their old business. Customers want content with reasonable monthly fee, but that does not mix up well with dvd/blu-ray sales, rental business etc. Supporting Netflix is of course also something they don't like, since the more monthly paying customer Netflix attracts, the more viable competitor it becomes. This leads me to wonder that could it be that studios did not originally even consider Netflix as their competitor?
jrnichols 10y ago
They're hoping that you'll buy the physical media. That's been the plan with Redbox - force a 28-90 day delay on new releases so customers will rush right out and just buy it on DVD. reality is that people usually just wait. The studios don't really want to cooperate. They want complete control over how you watch their product.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Agreed. In the UK we no longer have rights to format shift (we did, but they were rescinded), so if you bought it on DVD and want to watch on your tablet - well you'll probably have to buy it again or infringe the letter of the copyright law. What's that? Want to stream it to another device from your computer, ha-ha, no chance. If media companies made such things legal (they control the copyright laws) then there's no telling what might happen. People watching the media they paid for, how absurd! They want to sell you a cinema viewing, sell you a DVD, sell you a tablet download, and even then sell you a streaming copy to watch on your TV (because who has a DVD player now).

wyldfire 10y ago

Netflix is clearly making heavy investments in what we've tended to call "Television" programming. It's often deep dramas that are very engrossing, much more so than TV offered a decade or two ago. Netflix likely sees higher returns here. Movies are quickly becoming the "short story" of the cinematic world, IMO (though those countless sequels and prequels are an exception). When done well they have a strict beginning, middle and end.

TallGuyShort 10y ago
I agree - Netflix is becoming synonymous with binge watching. I've gotten months and months of value out of Netflix with Breaking Bad, Lost, The Office, The X-Files, House, etc... If I had to do the research required to get similar satisfaction out of the same number of hours of movie viewing? Forget it.
pvg 10y ago
I think you have this backwards. Netflix's original programming is trying to emulate the best of TV programming of the last decade or two.
jrnichols 10y ago
Netflix definitely benefits from the fact that they don't have to worry about the FCC guidelines, or the constant complaints from the Parent's Television Council. I'd much rather watch an HBO show or a Netflix show than anything on traditional TV these days.
MrZongle2 10y ago
I couldn't agree more. I think about "Daredevil" season one: 13 episodes, each almost an hour long. We saw more character development in a single season (of both the titular character and Vincent D'Onofrio's excellent Kingpin) than in years of Marvel movies. If an episode's story needs to run a bit longer, it runs longer. Commercial breaks don't affect pacing. Nobody has to worry about sponsors being upset about content, an episode being interrupted by breaking news or postponed due to a sporting event. I'd like Netflix to have a larger movie catalog, but if they continue to crank out quality long-form stories I'm quite happy to remain a subscriber. (Now we just need them to secure the rights for Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin novels)

jhbadger 10y ago

While I'm sure it's not entirely Netflix's fault (media companies realizing their back catalog has a value), it seems to be a common evolution for movie services to move to providing their own content. Look at HBO. In the 1980s, it was all about showing movies (the name even meant "Home Box Office"). Now it is all about Game of Thrones and what not. With things like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc., that's what Netflix is doing as well.

bagacrap 10y ago
HBO is a good example but I don't see blockbuster or Redbox creating content so I wouldn't say it's inevitable. Where are the movie companies hawking their back catalog if not Netflix?
- beardicus 10y ago
  Is it the various pay-per-view and on-demand services?
- luma 10y ago
  Blockbuster is a great example of a company that didn't do that. How are they doing these days?
bryanlarsen 10y ago
"The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." - Ted Sarandos, Netflix Chief Content Officer
- goostavos 10y ago
  Which has always seemed like a _gross_ misunderstanding of what people enjoyed about Netflix from the very beginning. If Netflix launched with Orange is the New Black, Luke Cage, and Daredevil, would they have even a tiny fraction of the user base they currently have? My Netflix hours per month has dropped to well under 10 hours per month these days. There's just not much content on there that interests me. I see more use out of Amazon because, even though it's comparatively expensive at ~$5 per rental, when I feel like sitting down and watching a movie, it's nice to actually have a catalog to browse that's not 90% garbage.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ihsw 10y ago

It should be noted that IMDB is owned by Amazon, but setting that aside it most definitely is unfortunate to see that so many great films are locked up behind licensing barriers. We may never see them get released into public domain.

kgwgk 10y ago
> It should be noted that IMDB is owned by Amazon Does it have any relevance?
- jlebrech 10y ago
  they could change the ordering of some of Netflix's offering, I'm not sure if it would do anything.
skinnymuch 10y ago
Are you suggesting Amazon is manipulating IMDB voting..just to have less of the top 250 on Netflix? Otherwise how is it relevant to note?

koonsolo 10y ago

I find it strange that Spotify is able to list almost any band and music out there, and streaming video providers not. They are even forced to create their own content. Seems that the music industry has a better separation between content creators and providers than the movie and series industry.

scarface74 10y ago
It's not that strange. There is only one real avenue to make money off of music -- selling it, either digitally or physically -- besides a subscription service. The movie industry can make money during different "windows". Theatrical releases, PPV from cable companies, iTunes, Amazon, etc., physical rentals, DVD and digital sells, subscription movie services (HBO, Showtime...) and regular cable TV.
- ohitsdom 10y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Artists benefit greatly from repeat customers, so it's to their (and their label's) advantage to expose as many people as possible to their product. This will help drive future profits through the sale of albums, merch, and concert tickets. Movie studios are dealing with a much different dynamic.
  - bbctol 10y ago
    Artists barely make money off of Spotify anyway. It's just marginally more than they'd get out of piracy, and a more legitimate platform to advertise their content. Making money in music has been all about concerts and merch for a while.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  I think think you're making a distinction where there isn't one. For example, you can license music to TV shows, political campaigns, commercials, movies, and video games. Radio stations must pay royalties for playing songs. There are plenty of revenue streams for music outside of "selling it digitally or physically" and a subscription service.

Coincoin 10y ago

Here in Canada almost all English language content is licensed to a single company, Bell. They systematically deny any access to Netflix and started their own service, Crave TV. They are the one responsible for the great Proxy/VPN banning this year. They are taking advantage of a government granted monopoly they had in the 1900's and now control a disproportionate amount of the media in Canada.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago
Off topic, but... > They are the one responsible for the great Proxy/VPN banning this year. At first, I thought this meant Netflix banning all use of VPN for streaming. Searching news articles shows in fact a Rogers VP rep had called on the government to outright ban VPN universally[1], but this was back in spring 2015. You are saying this has actually been made law and is enforced? How did this pass when major corporations require VPNs, and I presume also government officials use it for sensitive communications? [1] http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers/rogers-government-shutdown-vpn/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers/rogers-governme...
- ohstopitu 10y ago
  It's not yet banned (Hospitals still use them, as do all major corps). I found the following post as late as Dec 2015 but nothing later than that.[1] [1] http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/liberal-government-may-block-vpn-use-to-access-u-s-netflix/ http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/liberal-government-may-blo...
  - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
    This is _insane_ if it actually happens .. a move I want to compare to China, except here it's the government bending to the will of a corporation, not the other way around! Dumb stuff is proposed all the time in US proposals[1,2] but with great effort they get rejected (not all, sadly). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

dorianm 10y ago

So it went from 49 from 31 in the US Netflix, but it's even less in the french Netflix. (e.g.: not Zootopia and Sunset Boulevard for instance)

Y-bar 10y ago

And of these 31 remaining almost half are missing in the Swedish Netflix: 5. Back to the Future 6. Gladiator 7. Sunset Boulevard 8. Cinema Paradiso 9. Django Unchained 12. Reservoir Dogs 13. Braveheart 17. Amadeus 21. Trainspotting 24. There Will Be Blood 25. Spotlight 26. The Princess Bride 27. Zootopia 29. Jaws 31. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl And yet Netflix want the same monthly cost for less of a service. Why?

ddeck 10y ago
Consider yourself lucky. There are 6 of those 31 available in Hong Kong and the subscription cost is 10% higher than the US, despite median household income being around a third lower. I really don't understand the logic in charging a higher price for 10% of the content in a poorer country, but perhaps that's why I don't work for Netflix. Number of TV shows/movies on US netflix: 1147/4593 Number of TV shows/movies on HK netflix: 134/ 392 US Netflix standard price: $ 8.99 HK Netflix standard price: $10.00
martinp 10y ago
Pretty much the same ones are missing on Norwegian Netflix as well.
jug 10y ago
Yes, also in Sweden and when I once tricked Netflix into showing the US library I kind of wanted to cry. Now I'm tempted to make a pretty graph of "Movies and TV shows per dollar" for the countries they're established in. Should be pretty interesting. I expect major differences.
- Jommi 10y ago
  Even with all the faults IMDb ratings have, id also be interested in a similar graph, but weighted with IMDb scores
- yaegers 10y ago
  Not a "per dollar" graph but still a graph just how big the different catalogs are: http://cordcutting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netflix-catalogs.png http://cordcutting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netflix-ca...

flycaliguy 10y ago

Surely I'm not the only person who isn't interested in watching IMDB's favourite content. Give me the 6 outta 10s, that's my bread and butter. I'd rather be surprised and discover a personal favourite or have something on the TV that I won't be expected to dissect with the nerds at work.

ko27 10y ago
You are basically saying that you can't "discover a personal favourite" when they are highly rated and talked by other people. That's probably the worst mindset for a avid film watcher.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  Seems to work well for the Indie music crowd.
  - afterburner 10y ago
    Doesn't the indie crowd also rely on word of mouth?
    - TallGuyShort 10y ago
      My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek - a reference to the stereotypical hipster who always has to have liked something before it was cool, and once it's cool they only like the older stuff (that you probably haven't heard of). In reality, I'm sure they do rely on word of mouth, or at least less mainstream, centralized-but-still-kind-of-centralized sources to aggregate and filter new stuff for what's good.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
sotojuan 10y ago
The IMDb top 50 is full of easily palatable and mainstream movies.

SCdF 10y ago

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

mattmaroon 10y ago
I don't think the fragmentation is a problem since the cost is so low. We used to pay a lot more for cable and got less quality content than if we just buy a few streaming services combined. Some players like my Roku (and I think Apple TV right?) allow you to do a universal search too. Netflix's problem with movies is intractable because you'd have to pay much more than they're willing to charge to make the studios happy. The studios make more money they way they're doing it (they have accountants too).
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I don't get the vibe that the studios are in very good shape. For context, see Scorcese's "Personal Journey."
parennoob 10y ago
> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one As long as they are unbundled and easy to subscribe and unsubscribe from, I don't really mind. The bundling is the real thing I hate about cable. Now sub-subscriptions like Amazon Prime has with Showtime and such really suck, and I wouldn't want those, but if registration is as simple as setting up or cancelling a recurring subscription, I'm fine with subscribing to 10 different services. I can also see the market for a free or one-time paid app that will maintain a queue of what you want to watch, and automatically subscribe to the correct channel for that month so you can watch the maximum content for the minimum money. [Also, this is a personal opinion, but to me, Netflix's original content + their reduced catalog is definitely worth $10/month. Much better than the $100+ "special offer price" that Comcast offers if I want to watch non-stupid channels from their lineup.]

diegorbaquero 10y ago

There's no one single service that can gather all movies. Netflix is moving towards creating their own content. Piracy will not cease to exist unless you want to pay many subscriptions to access all recent content.

aj7 10y ago

and nothing worth watching if you're traveling in Europe.

larrik 10y ago

Netflix's real value is in binge-watching TV shows. I wouldn't be surprised if movies just don't get the viewers to justify their cost. As a non-stop Netflix subscriber since 2004, I've only streamed 1 or 2 movies in that entire time (although my kids have).

ghaff 10y ago
You and others would presumably watch more if there were more better (especially recent) movies to watch. Personally, I keep my minimal Netflix DVD rental subscription mostly to trickle in the previous year's Oscar nominations etc. >I wouldn't be surprised if movies just don't get the viewers to justify their cost. Presumably that is also true. Whatever deal the content providers are offering, Netflix doesn't see the ROI. To your broader point about TV vs. movies though. A former senior technical Netflix guy once told me that "People come for the movies and stay for the TV shows." (And this was before they had nearly as much original content.) The danger to the studios here seems to be if people just get out of the habit of watching movies as a format. But that's probably a pretty big leap from where we are today.

london888 10y ago

I managed to watch everything I was interested in (Narcos, The Get Down, House of Cards) during the free trial period and nothing else caught my interest so I never had to pay.

geodel 10y ago

It seems good number to me. Was it really expected that a service at fractional cost of cable TV will have majority of top movies in any defined category?

qwrusz 10y ago

Why would a company using a monthly subscription model pay to license the most expensive top-rated classic film catalogues? Why would you want them to? A big portion of the money you pay Netflix every month would then go to have indefinite access to films you don't watch or don't watch again often enough to justify this ongoing cost. Would you lease a Ferrari you drove one or two days a year? Especially if a one-day rental or buying is an option?

nathan_long 10y ago
What's the point of paying said monthly fee if you frequently can't find anything you want to watch? Why can't I pay a la carte to stream pretty much any movie ever made? Even if that's a fee on top of the monthly fee, I would do it sometimes.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  I don't see the point there. I couldn't find anything to watch on Netflix and canceled it a long time ago. There is no technical barrier for a la carte streaming of pretty much any movie ever made.

shocks 10y ago

Offtopic, but does anyone know of a good solution for ragged line balancing on the web? On desktop, the last word of the title ("List") on this page is on it's own line. Infuriating! Haha. edit: This comment definitely deserves downvotes. Definitely.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
It's wildly off-topic ... https://github.com/adobe-webplatform/balance-text https://github.com/adobe-webplatform/balance-text might help, or https://codepen.io/samirsr/pen/sojCi https://codepen.io/samirsr/pen/sojCi .

tankenmate 10y ago

In the UK only 4 of those movies are on Netflix

gamache 10y ago

When I want to watch a movie, and it's not on Netflix, I generally do not watch that movie. I wonder who this benefits.

elpocko 10y ago

I'm a subscriber for a couple weeks now, and I've run out of content I'd like to watch in my free month. The homepage is filled with stuff I'll never watch, and I can't even tell them that fact. There is no button to hide stuff. Back to piracy I go.

ajmurmann 10y ago
It always was very interesting to me how so much bad stuff is on the front page and meanwhile there are some gems in their platform (like the top IMDB movies listed in the article) that you might never find out are there. Many years ago they made it much easier to discover content but then they did this massive redesign and made it impossible to find stuff. A few years ago I just pulled a list of movies via their API that listed movies ranked by their prediction of how much they think I will like it. That was super useful. Why doesn't Netflix do this? Meanwhile they suggest me movies they themselves predict I won't like. This is interesting to me because it's so bad that I can only conclude that they must have incentives for making suggestions to me other than me watching something I like. Do they pay licensing fees per vote? Do they pay different fees per view for different movies? I would love to know the details!

howdydo 10y ago

I was about to complain about the lack of 8+ IMDB rated films on Netflix UK, but after doing some research[1] it's actually quite high. Although one thing I did notice by picking a handful of random films is that some are rated 8+ but only have 50-100 votes, which reminded me of this excellent article by Evan Miller on how not to sort by average ratings[2]. Personal opinion now: I'm more of a movie person than a TV series person, but I do appreciate some of the Netflix Original series, but I'm finding it harder and harder to justify the monthly cost when I also have a NowTV movie subscription which seem to have more decent films and are regularly updated (even though research[3] shows they don't have many 8+ movies) [1] https://www.justwatch.com/uk/movies?providers=nfx&rating_imdb=8 https://www.justwatch.com/uk/movies?providers=nfx&rating_imd... [2] http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.... [3] https://www.justwatch.com/uk/provider/now-tv?content_type=movie&rating_imdb=8 https://www.justwatch.com/uk/provider/now-tv?content_type=mo...

dmalvarado 10y ago

My younger colleagues at work simply can't believe that I still have a DVD plan with Netflix. I'm not that old! In response, I can't believe THEY are satisfied with what's available on streaming. Netflix isn't interested in paying royalties for blockbuster films. In house content makes so much more sense.

chiph 10y ago
Netflix is decontenting their DVD catalog too. My "Saved" list is as long as my queue. (I'm another dinosaur that prefers the guaranteed bitrate of a Bluray/DVD)
nathan_long 10y ago
Ditto. I have a DVD Netflix plan, and streaming, and Amazon Prime. Yes, it's ridiculous that in 2016, I'm still regularly getting bits via snail mail. DVDs are sometimes scratched, and my player often forces me to watch previews. It's terrible. Except for the selection. Try this: go to http://www.imdb.com/chart/top http://www.imdb.com/chart/top, then start searching for those on https://dvd.netflix.com/ https://dvd.netflix.com/. I tried a few, and they were all there. I don't have crazy weird esoteric tastes, but I like to be able to say "hey, I heard that Movie X was good" and be able to add it to my playlist. I can pretty much always do that with the DVD service. I can pretty much never do that with streaming services. It's like, "oh, they have a sequel and a spinoff, but not the original." I'm about 98% sure that the difference in selection is because of Hollywood being jerks about licensing, so I don't blame Netflix or Amazon. But as long as there's such a vast difference in selection, I'm going to keep renting DVDs.
- TheBeardKing 10y ago
  It depends on how many movies you watch whether the mail plan is cheaper than paying on-demand. On-demand prices drop fairly quickly, go on sale periodically, and things like Google Rewards earn you digital credit. Also, RedBox is still an option if needed.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
It reminds me of the common trope of the internet containing "all of human knowledge". An average library has as good a claim to that as does the internet. There's so much stuff that is simply not available for free and a far vaster volume of stuff that is not even digitized let alone available on the internet. Wikipedia is a good way to gain some superficial knowledge about something but it is nothing compared to a few good books on a subject.

dmtroyer 10y ago

What is a "common fact", exactly?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

So, if I want to re-watch old movies (IMDB's alltime top movies) I've already seen, I shouldn't go to Netflix. But for new stuff? They're adding content all the time. Not sure this statistic is meaningful to me.

2T1Qka0rEiPr 10y ago

As a UK resident, with access to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Sky, I actually applaud Neflix's conscious move away from blockbuster content. Netflix has created some of my favourite shows in the past few years (e.g. House of Cards and Narcos) and I'd rather have that original content given my access to the other services - Sky is better probably better able (through it's Fox parent company) to deliver the blockbusters should I want to watch them. The obvious cost is that we have to subscribe to multiple services, and that necessitates cost both in money and in time to find content legally as you have to go through each in turn. If Amazon and Netflix both move further towards unique content then we'll also have reduced competition in the blockbuster space, which might increase prices and encourage a move back to privacy. (Finally, I have major respect for Netflix as a developer, and so I probably view everything with a certain bias).

throwawayReply 10y ago
I agree, but it's conditioned on the fact that in the UK netflix never had good movies, it was all about it's TV box sets rather than movies from the start here. Netflix UK doesn't push movies, I'd be surprised if it had more than 5 movies from the top 250, although the catalogue is so hard to browse it's hard to verify. If netflix was previously advertised here based on it's movie offering I would be annoyed about it's pivot to focus on TV.

sotojuan 10y ago

No film lover I know uses Netflix for them. They all purchase DVDs, torrent, or are waiting for http://www.filmstruck.com http://www.filmstruck.com

ctdonath 10y ago

Remember the promise/hope of "the long tail"? How did so many pundits get that so wrong, overlooking the battles for licensing value?

uxp100 10y ago

I always appreciate that Hulu has its Criterion collection section. And I very recently signed up for Seeso for $4 a month because I was craving some Monty Python's Flying Circus. I don't plan on keeping it long term, maybe just a month, to get it out of my system. And then I still end up digging through shitty cheap roku channels occasionally to find stuff. Mostly just schlock, but I saw, for example, niche titles like Millennium Actress, Ninja Scroll, and Ghost in the Shell 2 on free services. The idea of one streaming service that has it all is dead, but it kind of reminds me of DVD bundles at Walmart. 10 Sci Fi movies for $10, and one of them will be Existenz and the rest will be straight to TV or DVD.

Alex3917 10y ago
Vudu.com, which has been giving out free credits every week via T-Mobile, also has a pretty good chunk of the AFI top 100.
ascagnel_ 10y ago
Hulu is about to lose the Criterion Collection license. Turner Classic Movies picked up the license for a new service called Filmstruck that's launching (in the US) next week. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4252-filmstruck-launches-october-19 https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4252-filmstruck-laun...
- jrnichols 10y ago
  Oh great. Just what the market has been wanting... yet another streaming service. Sigh.

bargl 10y ago

Does anyone else find this a really bad metric? This list is relatively static if princess bride is still on there. What about the top 10 by year? Most people want to see the best and latest movie not the best older movie.

dexterdog 10y ago
But when looking for an older movie they are going to be more likely to look for the really great movies from the past.

ensiferum 10y ago

Meanwhile in the warez land everything is just 1 click away, hassle free and non-DRM encumbered.

ascagnel_ 10y ago
This is definitely not true. If you're looking for stuff that's popular here and now, you'll do fine (especially if you're a fan of Hollywood blockbusters). But as soon as you start looking for back catalogue stuff, you're in a mess of dead torrents and broken links. Want to find a mostly-forgotten science fiction movie from the mid-90s (in my case, Strange Days)? Two hours of hunting for a way of downloading it led me to buying it through a VoD service instead.
- jrnichols 10y ago
  I'm still amazed at the number of "mock busters" that are on torrent sites. The awful, low budget, garbage take offs...Like one called "Atlantic Rim." I think you can guess what it was a take off of. Fired up Popcorn Time recently and the list was packed full of those types of movies.
- kmnc 10y ago
  Come on... I found your movie streaming in one super easy google search..it was the second link. Not to mention a 26 seed torrent in another simple google search. Just last night I watched a Polanski film streaming with basically no effort. Finding old movies streaming online is incredibly easy. I bet 100% of the IMDB top 250 can be easily found by searching "X streaming free" and having a good ad blocker.
- ensiferum 10y ago
  Well p2p such as torrent is for the bottom feeders. There are better methods available.
  - UVB-76 10y ago
    If you're referring to topsites, they are archaic, their rules are outdated, and they optimize for speed over quality of releases. In terms of breadth and quality of content, private torrent trackers are far and away the best download method.

beautifulfreak 10y ago

I'm glad for Netflix original content. It's been high in quality, and I've already seen all the top 250 IMDB movies I want to see. What Netflix could do to prove its love of movies, and which would probably make good business sense, is unearth movies that have never been shown on TV, or never been digitized to DVD or even transferred to VHS. There are websites devoted to those lost treasures, and movie lovers who would bow and genuflect to Netflix if those movies were ever aired. Consider that eBay does big business selling VHS tapes to people who don't even own VHS players, but who buy and send those tapes to services that will rip them to DVD. (My latest is "We're Talkin' Serious Money" with Dennis Farina - a 6.0 IMDB rated movie I just HAD to see again.) Who else has the power to deal with rights holders who control rights to old movies not deemed worthy of a VHS or DVD release? I type this hoping that someone from Netflix understands and agrees with me. They could make it a big event, build excitement, even though those movies are not high rated. They're just unobtainable rarities, like the 1998 movie with Molly Ringwald, Twice Upon A Time, that I've wanted to see again for 15 years... Great movie, too bad you can't watch it.

yalogin 10y ago
Yeah but most people don't care about unearthing movies. All I want are the hits and popular escapist fare which Netflix is not willing to spend on.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> which Netflix is not willing to spend on. Or, just maybe, the license holder isn't willing to make a deal with Netflix because they want to start their own streaming service.
clydethefrog 10y ago
See Karagarga and the vulnerability of obscure films[1]. "Without a service like Karagarga movie-lovers are in thrall to the whims of an implacable market — one whose recent and unerring shift to digital streaming has left vast swaths of cinema history to molder unseen. The myth that Netflix and iTunes offer a frontier where “everything” is available to watch instantly is a bad joke to anyone with a serious interest in movies. That crowd is forced, by the market itself, to fend for itself. Many of us would indeed buy an Out 1 Blu-ray or cue up Out 1 on Netflix if such a thing were possible. But in the meantime Karagarga will be cherished for the rare and valued access it affords." [1] http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/weekend-post/karagarga-and-the-vulnerability-of-obscure-films http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/weekend-post/karagarga-and...

oelmekki 10y ago

In the end, the licence owners will lose. Spotify makes it useless to download music illegally because it's so much easier and pleasant to use spotify. If they don't want to play fair game with Netflix, people will just keep / start again downloading the movies they want to watch, because it will be easier.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>Spotify makes it useless to download music illegally because it's so much easier and pleasant to use spotify. Spotify has to pay for the content they're streaming. As of now, they're losing money with that model. You might like it as a customer, but content owners and creators don't seem to, and they hold the cards.
- oelmekki 10y ago
  > As of now, they're losing money with that model Indeed, just seen that they were not profitable at least in May [1] > You might like it as a customer That's something :) Let's wait and see how they do in the next five years. [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/27/spotifys-annual-report-shows-just-how-hard-it-is-t.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/05/27/spotifys-annual-rep...

patja 10y ago

Netflix still ships physical media, and has a much wider selection than streaming. Unfortunately many of the discs you get from Netflix are made specifically for the rental market and have been purposely degraded by having features such as 7.1 DTS-MA audio removed.

pforpineapple 10y ago

I find it interesting that Netflix is such a success, despite the availability of many great films. As the presence of great films on the platform may suggest, it's a long shot to assume that they're more interested in creating their own -great- content than simply offering you great content. But given the unavailability of a single legal platform to rule them all, the bet on original ideas propelled with data and smart marketing was and is still the best one. IMO, if Netflix had all the content in the world, they would probably stop creating their own.

ainiriand 10y ago

How the 'legal' side could fight against 'piracy' sites? Seems that Netflix et others are losing the war again... I want to use Netflix model but for all the movies I want, not the ones they give me. Solutions?

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I look at it as a matter of cost vs. benefits. My wife and I watch a fair amount of stuff on Netflix each month and our family plan is less than $10/month. How anyone can say Netflix does not provide sufficient value doesn't make sense to me. We also subscribe to Hulu Plus to watch network TV with no commercials. Also a good deal. If we want to watch a new release, I rent it on Google Play Movies. I don't mind using a few different vendors, and competition is good. What is not a good deal is cable TV. We hardly ever use it and it is relatively expensive.

Havoc 10y ago

Netflix first, then Prime, then Usenet. Usually gets me what I want. Downside is that this already means paying half a dozen companies just to watch movies.

Taylor_OD 10y ago

Was it significantly higher at some point? Seems like useless number unless it was previously a much higher number. Edit: Missed it in the article. It dropped 12%.

gdulli 10y ago
It dropped a lot more than 12%. It dropped to 12% (out of 250 titles,) from 49 titles to 31.

jordache 10y ago

if it's netflix's intend to become another one of the networks (NBC, ABC, etc.. ) with their own shows and made for TV movies, then it's business plan made to fail. People want to see the blockbuster movies..

josho 10y ago
Rather, it's a smart biz plan. By creating their own content they can provide exclusive access to it. By continuing as they have they risk becoming a commoditized service or even getting locked out of content as other distributors build their own subscription platforms (as they have already built). I will agree with you however that as a consumer I'd rather have a commoditized subscription service for tv/movies. I suspect however that investors will disagree with us.

mooveprince 10y ago

I am subscribed to both Netflix and HBO. After reading this it strikes me that I always watch original Content / Network Series in Netflix and movies in HBO. No wonder why

treehau5 10y ago

A lot of those movies appear in the big $2 dollar DVD bin at Walmart.

awqrre 10y ago

Netflix’s US Catalog Has Shrunk by More Than 2,500 Titles in Less Than 2.5 Years: https://www.allflicks.net/netflixs-us-catalog-has-shrunk-by-more-than-2500-titles-in-less-than-2-5-years/ https://www.allflicks.net/netflixs-us-catalog-has-shrunk-by-...

bisRepetita 10y ago

Because of that, I feel that the value proposition of a video rental store next block is becoming quite good again. Cheaper than renting/buying from Prime or Play. Too bad they're all dead now. I am not sure the new video movie world is better now than it was 10 years ago for consumers.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

I bet Netflix would absolutely love to provide all of these movies. I don't have any insider knowledge, but given their past behavior, I cannot help but think the content providers (of which a lot are owned by cable cartels) are preventing this. They are either prohibitively pricing the movies or are trying to dictate too many terms under which viewers have access to the movies. Then there's the fact that some of these movies didn't exist in a "streaming" world and so their licenses (for the music, etc) don't take this into account and so all that has to be renegotiated (which goes back to the prohibitive pricing, surely).

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
If we had 20 year copyright terms then most of the back catalogue issues would be moot. Companies would have to get their act together and make the most of licensing new works with the added competition of others offering only PD works. Of course the poor starving actors of all those old movies -- Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, etc. -- would perish under such a regime. They might even stop making new works! /s
talmand 10y ago
There actually has been a few shows on Netflix that had their iconic intro music pulled because they weren't licensed to play the music on a streaming service. Married With Children and Charmed are two I remember.

marcoperaza 10y ago

$10 a month. $10 a month. $10 a month. I'm repeating this because this is something that seems to be escaping people here. You're paying $10 a month for access to a massive library of content. Having every popular movie available for instant streaming is worth WAY more than $10 a month. If you want to watch recent blockbusters and popular movies, you can rent them on Amazon or iTunes. To the people using this to morally justify their pirating, give me a break. Renting/buying movies on Amazon or iTunes couldn't be easier. The only problem is that you would rather steal than pay.

bcrescimanno 10y ago

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that Netflix brings with a combination of a low subscription cost, no commercials, and the ability to watch as many episodes of a show as you want to watch whenever you want to watch them is VASTLY superior. Netflix survives and thrives on binge-watching--and people just don't do that with movies (they have a LOT of data to back up that statement). Combined with the realities of the costs associated with feature film licensing and there's very little incentive for Netflix to put any emphasis on films. The only way they could do it is to tack on a pay-per-view service for films (because their subscription fee alone will absolutely NOT cover the cost of licensing more feature film content) and they are highly averse to such a service. The general feeling is that it's better for the average user if they can open up Netflix and watch whatever is there without ever thinking about whether it's an "included" title or a "PPV" title. When I was there, we regularly revisited this assumption and research always found that it continued to be the prudent move.

jackfrodo 10y ago
What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.
- YuriNiyazov 10y ago
  Not quite. Iirc, Bojack has 10-12 episodes per season. If you watch the first three today, you will watch the next three tomorrow. If you watch django unchained today, that's not a guarantee you will rewatch kill bill tomorrow.
- sp332 10y ago
  Binge-watching is putting on a show and leaving it on for a good chunk of the day. Think watching a whole season of a show over a weekend, so at least 4 hours per day. And you can do this with every original Netflix series from the first day the show is launched - you don't have to wait a week per episode.

imagist 10y ago

Competition in the streaming content industry does not benefit consumers as long as streaming providers compete by trying to monopolize content. There are a few solutions to this which I can think of: 1. Add government regulation that makes exclusive licensing of content to streaming services illegal. This feels heavy-handed to me. Streaming entertainment just isn't important enough to warrant the attention of government. 2. Companies self-regulate: this would be cool, but it's not gonna happen without some serious outside intervention. 3. Removal of copyrighting that allows companies to enforce their licenses. This is arguably bad for content producers, but in practice content producers aren't receiving the bulk of the profits--labels and studios are. 4. Go back to an ownership rather than a rent model of content distribution. DRM essentially breaks this, however, and again it's unlikely that content distributors will stop using this. I favor 4, but at a personal level, 3 is the only one really available to me, de-facto.

sun_n_surf 10y ago

Netflix is now basically an OTT TV channel. This puts to rest the content aggregation platform model for video which, unlike music, is highly differentiated with higher cost, which rules out commoditization. This basically reduces online video to two categories: user-generated content platforms and commissioned, curated content platforms. In my view there is only room for one player in the former (YT), but in the latter category, it is basically business as usual for the traditional TV networks.

mockturtle 10y ago

I am someone who vastly prefers films to tv. When Netflix launched as a dvd by mail service, it was the perfect service for film buffs. It was cheap, fast, and had a seemingly endless selection. Now that that part of the business is severely neglected, I'm back to requesting films from the local library and waiting months or spending $30-50 for a single film. I am sure their choice makes sense from a business standpoint, but leaves one-time customers like me in the cold.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Netflix still has a great DVD selection.[1] It's only their streaming selection that sucks. [1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/ https://dvd.netflix.com/

hathawsh 10y ago

A tip for movie lovers: VidAngel has 100 of the IMDB Top 100. (I'm not sure about the top 250.) VidAngel costs $1 or $2 per movie after sell-back. They filter the movies, but you choose your own filtering, so it's not censorship. (No, I don't work for VidAngel, nor do I have any ties with them; I'm just a happy customer who wants to see them continue to grow and thrive. I'm aware they are being sued, but I think VidAngel will win due to the Family Home Movie Act of 2005.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nfriedly 10y ago

I recently set up a Plex server and started ripping all of my DVDs onto it. There were a couple of hiccups, but overall I've been pretty happy with it. You get a nice netflix-like interface for browsers, it still works great when my crappy internet drops to <1mbs (happens a lot in the evenings, presumably because all of my neighbors are watching Netflix and the local ISP vastly oversold the capacity). And if you pay $150 for the lifetime pass, you get the ability to sync content for offline viewing on whatever device you want + a few other niceties. Ripping DVDs & renaming things to Plex-friendly form is still more work than I think it should be, I'd really like to see something equivalent to CD-ripping software that "just knows" what the disk is by fingerprinting or whatever. In general, Plex doesn't provide anything that I couldn't do with existing (and mostly free) tools, but it provides a friendly enough interface that my wife can use it without help, and being able to sync content to my iPad before a trip and have it "just work" is really nice.

njharman 10y ago

TIL Netflix has a lot of great movies I'd like to see. But my viewing time is already overfilled with all the Arrow, Flash, iZombie, and other shows I'm binge watching. And 80% of the time I'm more interested in seeing some "weird" Indian/Turkish/European movie than same Hollywood drivel.

cakeface 10y ago

Who is going to make an automated service that rents the DVD from dvds.netflix.com, loads the DVD up on their cloud rentable DVD players, and streams the result to your device?

vehementi 10y ago

Maybe they're trying to become IMDB's Top 250 before...

nikolay 10y ago

It's time to cancel Netflix - it's been totally useless to me in the past 2+ years - I end up buying from Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu. I'm not into TV shows - I'm not sure why they think everybody's into that.

barrystaes 10y ago

FTA: “I haven’t heard of any of these movies. Aren’t there any good movies on here?” Well theres a big assumption right there.. Movies yet unknown are not bad.

pescolly 10y ago

Let's not equate the IMDB Top 250 with good movies.

tofupup 10y ago

neat

tofupup 10y ago

neat