4 ms·

The actual streaming video from Netflix does not come from Amazon's systems. From https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/netflix-finishes-its-ma

by scott_s 10y ago

The actual streaming video from Netflix does not come from Amazon's systems. From https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/netflix-finishes-its-massive-migration-to-the-amazon-cloud/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/netfl..., "Netflix operates its own content delivery network (CDN) called Open Connect. Netflix manages Open Connect from Amazon, but the storage boxes holding videos that stream to your house or mobile device are all located in data centers within Internet service providers' networks or at Internet exchange points, facilities where major network operators exchange traffic. Netflix distributes traffic directly to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and other big network operators at these exchange points." Everything else - such as the Netflix UI, your account management, billing, etc - is on Amazon. But Netflix has an enormous amount of hardware distributed around the world. If you wanted to compete with Netflix, you would need to do a lot more than uses Amazon's cloud services.

true_religion 10y ago
> If you wanted to compete with Netflix, you would need to do a lot more than uses Amazon's cloud services. Yes you'd need multi-million dollar contracts with all of the major studios. Netflix isn't as much a technical problem as it is a business problem. HBO has a far worse network, UI, and technology in general but its still competitive simply because it has Game of Thrones and other shows.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Scratch business problem, replace with "legal problem". Copyright law makes it virtually impossible to compete with Netflix. Netflix was only allowed to start because they wedged their way in as a rent-by-mail service. After pioneering streaming and realizing that the studios were asking themselves why they don't just load up their own computers with movies and get paid to stream them out, Netflix was forced to start its own content division to keep subscribers onboard and prevent the studios from poaching all of their customers by failing to renew contracts for content. We have a similar problem in online services. It's impossible to compete with Facebook because the law allows them to hold data hostage. We badly need copyright reform. The current incarnation is impractical in the digital age.
  - philliphaydon 10y ago
    I don't understand what this has to do with copyright laws. This has to do with content licensing and studios not wanting to license content...
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      The copyright laws are what give studios the rights to license that content. Right now, most things published commercially after 1923 are copyrighted and require permission from their rightsholder to distribute. That's practically the entire history of cinema locked up tight. Copyright should be adjusted so that people can make money off of their creations without allowing the culture to be held hostage to corporations. If the copyright term was shortened to, say, 10 years, a Netflix-with-only-content-from-10-years-ago would be totally viable without having to ask for anyone's permission. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. It's gotten totally out of control and severely restricts competition in this type of space.
      - cstejerean 10y ago
        It wouldn't matter to Netflix. The really old titles are cheap and Netflix always carries them. The problem Netflix had/had is access to latest releases. When it comes to movies this the bulk of what people want to watch. Since they couldn't guarantee access to new content they had to pay to produce their own new content.
        eyko 10y ago
        I'd like to see Rambo and The Terminator on Netflix.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        I think it'd matter because right now, there is not really a market for only public domain video content, because such content is so sparse. If we made copyright expire after 10 years, I think there are a lot of people who'd be content with the "classics", and it'd allow innovation and competition to occur between "classics" providers, which is what will give customers the best experience. Right now, competition is hamstrung because people are prevented from entering the market with anything that the consumer would find desirable, barring permission from the rightsholders. Competition is not real competition if the same data cannot be accessed. For example, Chrome and Firefox compete because they both access the same internet, and whichever browser provides the better experience for that internet will win out. That kind of thing is not possible on walled gardens like Facebook because the law allows them to obliterate anyone who would create an alternate "Facebook browser", and it's not possible with things whose primary offerings fall under copyright protection, like Netflix. We need to open these things up so that people can compete and provide the consumer with the best experience without needing anyone else's permission. It's true that most people will want access to new releases, but if copyright expired after 10 years, you'd at least have a secondary service that people would actually want to use, which would compete with Netflix et al for viewership on a lot of the content.

by scott_s 10y ago

true_religion 10y ago

> If you wanted to compete with Netflix, you would need to do a lot more than uses Amazon's cloud services. Yes you'd need multi-million dollar contracts with all of the major studios. Netflix isn't as much a technical problem as it is a business problem. HBO has a far worse network, UI, and technology in general but its still competitive simply because it has Game of Thrones and other shows.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Scratch business problem, replace with "legal problem". Copyright law makes it virtually impossible to compete with Netflix. Netflix was only allowed to start because they wedged their way in as a rent-by-mail service. After pioneering streaming and realizing that the studios were asking themselves why they don't just load up their own computers with movies and get paid to stream them out, Netflix was forced to start its own content division to keep subscribers onboard and prevent the studios from poaching all of their customers by failing to renew contracts for content. We have a similar problem in online services. It's impossible to compete with Facebook because the law allows them to hold data hostage. We badly need copyright reform. The current incarnation is impractical in the digital age.
- philliphaydon 10y ago
  I don't understand what this has to do with copyright laws. This has to do with content licensing and studios not wanting to license content...
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The copyright laws are what give studios the rights to license that content. Right now, most things published commercially after 1923 are copyrighted and require permission from their rightsholder to distribute. That's practically the entire history of cinema locked up tight. Copyright should be adjusted so that people can make money off of their creations without allowing the culture to be held hostage to corporations. If the copyright term was shortened to, say, 10 years, a Netflix-with-only-content-from-10-years-ago would be totally viable without having to ask for anyone's permission. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. It's gotten totally out of control and severely restricts competition in this type of space.
    - cstejerean 10y ago
      It wouldn't matter to Netflix. The really old titles are cheap and Netflix always carries them. The problem Netflix had/had is access to latest releases. When it comes to movies this the bulk of what people want to watch. Since they couldn't guarantee access to new content they had to pay to produce their own new content.
      - eyko 10y ago
        I'd like to see Rambo and The Terminator on Netflix.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        I think it'd matter because right now, there is not really a market for only public domain video content, because such content is so sparse. If we made copyright expire after 10 years, I think there are a lot of people who'd be content with the "classics", and it'd allow innovation and competition to occur between "classics" providers, which is what will give customers the best experience. Right now, competition is hamstrung because people are prevented from entering the market with anything that the consumer would find desirable, barring permission from the rightsholders. Competition is not real competition if the same data cannot be accessed. For example, Chrome and Firefox compete because they both access the same internet, and whichever browser provides the better experience for that internet will win out. That kind of thing is not possible on walled gardens like Facebook because the law allows them to obliterate anyone who would create an alternate "Facebook browser", and it's not possible with things whose primary offerings fall under copyright protection, like Netflix. We need to open these things up so that people can compete and provide the consumer with the best experience without needing anyone else's permission. It's true that most people will want access to new releases, but if copyright expired after 10 years, you'd at least have a secondary service that people would actually want to use, which would compete with Netflix et al for viewership on a lot of the content.