6 ms·

I think it's important to note that this is not by choice, but rather the only path left to Netflix now that studios have realized the value of their catalogs t

I think it's important to note that this is not by choice, but rather the only path left to Netflix now that studios have realized the value of their catalogs to streaming. Netflix originally made a bunch of content deals that made them the sole streamer of entire backlogs of syndicated material. It worked out great for them and pretty decently for the studios too, but after Netflix's success the studios now realize what they gave away. As more of those deals expire the various studios are all looking for ways to get their own streaming platform up where they own more of the profits. A Netflix where the majority of shows are originals, is just an online only version of HBO, which is a shame because the experience is still vastly superior to all the other streaming options. In their greed the studios have basically turned one of the great internet ideas into the second coming of cable. It's understandable why they would all want their own platform but it's much worse for the consumer

wmf 9y ago
At least you can aggregate most of the streaming "channels" though Amazon so you don't have to use a bunch of different apps.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  As long as the service doesn't start sucking (like other monopolies and government services), I think there are a lot of benefits to being able to stream through an established player: it's not just about licensing all the content people want to watch. Supporting a lot of devices (I care about Linux support, A LOT), having agreements to cache content locally with ISPs to ensure performance, etc. I wouldn't mind having a different 4-5 apps for different shows, or switching services every few months. But if everyone went solo and they were all still figuring out how to support everyone's device and how to scale? Not gonna bother.
- andrewla 9y ago
  Hulu has started offering this as well -- HBO, in particular, doesn't really care about the streaming platform per se so much as making the content available. I think this is likely to be a path that others will take to take advantage of the fact that consumers may have a preference, and HBO would prefer to offer a nice standalone app, but perfectly happy to let customers choose Amazon/Hulu etc., for customers who prefer a different or integrated experience.
  - kenhwang 9y ago
    HBO is owned by Time Warner who is also a partial owner of Hulu. Makes sense for them to not care which platform you stream from since either is preferable to Netflix.
taoistextremist 9y ago
I have this suspicion, though, that not all these streaming services will fare well. Sadly, yeah, there's going to be a handful and it'll feel similar to cable, but I think some will forego an independent streaming platform (or abandon ones later on) and license it out to the bigger players, especially because people aren't going to shell out money for each individual service. Though besides Hulu and Netflix, I don't know who else is a big streamer of third-party content. HBO does it with movies but nothing else AFAIK. Maybe some other studios will copy the Hulu approach and create a group of networks all housed on one platform, but I do think it's going to be hard for anybody to push their way into the streaming market without a large backlog of media like Disney.
Afforess 9y ago
You're right, but I am not sure this is the end. We are entering a "streaming content desert" where every content-maker tries to make their own Netflix. Consumers will buy subscriptions to the top 3, at best. Most probably won't go beyond Amazon Prime and Netflix. In five or ten years, when the data finally rolls in that these disparate services are not making anything, have shoddy reviews from hastily-coded backends, etc, content makers will come crawling back. Or go out of business and get scooped up by the larger media houses. By 2030 I expect Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Hulu will have bought up the struggling or failing independent content makers. The markets for content will shrink and consolidate around the big name streaming kings. Then we will wonder why we gave up a cable-free-for-all for an oligopoly. ;)
- AFNobody 9y ago
  The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in piracy on various levels (i.e. ripping streaming shows for personal use and/or organized piracy groups). The main reason for piracy's decline is $20/month for a couple streaming services is less hassle for most people in the 1st world. They are restoring the incentives that led to its rise. Its quite hilarious. I mean if eztv hadn't been taken over I'd be going to them right now because I'm tired of the balkanization of streaming services now that even Hulu is getting knifed in the back like Netflix is. As the knives come out and the backstabbing continues because "its worth money", people will be pushed back into doing that.
  - wand3r 9y ago
    It certainly already has for me.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    > The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in piracy on various levels People aren't "driven to piracy". Piracy's a conscious decision to take what they want without paying for it.
    - s_ngularity 9y ago
deegles 9y ago
What I don't understand is why Netflix never released a "white label" streaming service for studios. Yes, it's a crappier experience for the consumer to have to subscribe to N different services, but Netflix could have made a ton of revenue hosting everything. Maybe they still could.

wmf 9y ago

At least you can aggregate most of the streaming "channels" though Amazon so you don't have to use a bunch of different apps.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
As long as the service doesn't start sucking (like other monopolies and government services), I think there are a lot of benefits to being able to stream through an established player: it's not just about licensing all the content people want to watch. Supporting a lot of devices (I care about Linux support, A LOT), having agreements to cache content locally with ISPs to ensure performance, etc. I wouldn't mind having a different 4-5 apps for different shows, or switching services every few months. But if everyone went solo and they were all still figuring out how to support everyone's device and how to scale? Not gonna bother.
andrewla 9y ago
Hulu has started offering this as well -- HBO, in particular, doesn't really care about the streaming platform per se so much as making the content available. I think this is likely to be a path that others will take to take advantage of the fact that consumers may have a preference, and HBO would prefer to offer a nice standalone app, but perfectly happy to let customers choose Amazon/Hulu etc., for customers who prefer a different or integrated experience.
- kenhwang 9y ago
  HBO is owned by Time Warner who is also a partial owner of Hulu. Makes sense for them to not care which platform you stream from since either is preferable to Netflix.

taoistextremist 9y ago

I have this suspicion, though, that not all these streaming services will fare well. Sadly, yeah, there's going to be a handful and it'll feel similar to cable, but I think some will forego an independent streaming platform (or abandon ones later on) and license it out to the bigger players, especially because people aren't going to shell out money for each individual service. Though besides Hulu and Netflix, I don't know who else is a big streamer of third-party content. HBO does it with movies but nothing else AFAIK. Maybe some other studios will copy the Hulu approach and create a group of networks all housed on one platform, but I do think it's going to be hard for anybody to push their way into the streaming market without a large backlog of media like Disney.

Afforess 9y ago

You're right, but I am not sure this is the end. We are entering a "streaming content desert" where every content-maker tries to make their own Netflix. Consumers will buy subscriptions to the top 3, at best. Most probably won't go beyond Amazon Prime and Netflix. In five or ten years, when the data finally rolls in that these disparate services are not making anything, have shoddy reviews from hastily-coded backends, etc, content makers will come crawling back. Or go out of business and get scooped up by the larger media houses. By 2030 I expect Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Hulu will have bought up the struggling or failing independent content makers. The markets for content will shrink and consolidate around the big name streaming kings. Then we will wonder why we gave up a cable-free-for-all for an oligopoly. ;)

AFNobody 9y ago
The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in piracy on various levels (i.e. ripping streaming shows for personal use and/or organized piracy groups). The main reason for piracy's decline is $20/month for a couple streaming services is less hassle for most people in the 1st world. They are restoring the incentives that led to its rise. Its quite hilarious. I mean if eztv hadn't been taken over I'd be going to them right now because I'm tired of the balkanization of streaming services now that even Hulu is getting knifed in the back like Netflix is. As the knives come out and the backstabbing continues because "its worth money", people will be pushed back into doing that.
- wand3r 9y ago
  It certainly already has for me.
- paulcole 9y ago
  > The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in piracy on various levels People aren't "driven to piracy". Piracy's a conscious decision to take what they want without paying for it.
  - s_ngularity 9y ago

deegles 9y ago

What I don't understand is why Netflix never released a "white label" streaming service for studios. Yes, it's a crappier experience for the consumer to have to subscribe to N different services, but Netflix could have made a ton of revenue hosting everything. Maybe they still could.