3 ms·

It doesn't have to be that way. You could have multiple providers like Netflix and traditional TV stations competing on quality of delivery, whilst licensing co

It doesn't have to be that way. You could have multiple providers like Netflix and traditional TV stations competing on quality of delivery, whilst licensing content from each other. Exclusives are by definition anti-competitive. Some sort of compulsory licensing might work. Or it might lead to no-one producing anything...

bad_user 8y ago
There's not much to compete on. I don't see a difference between Netflix and HBO GO in terms of the actual distribution ... HBO GO's app and website are shittier, but that's irrelevant as long as it lets me watch their shows in HD. And I disagree that exclusives are anti-competitive. If Netflix can create value using its own money, they should be allowed to establish whatever licensing terms they want, including none other than streaming to its own subscribers. If that's anti-competitive, then the definition is broken.
- r_c_a_d 8y ago
  There is a lot to compete on. Recommendations and reviews for example, customer service, price, outages, video quality. The problem is that those things are harder to build a marketing campaing on than "We are the only channel that has Game of Thrones". Exclusives serve only the producer. They are terrible for consumers, as the orignal commenter lamented. Perhaps "anti-competeitive" is the wrong word, since each channel can compete at having the best exclusives ... probably "anti-consumer" is what I meant.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    Anti-consumer, just like copyright law. My argument is that arguing against this practice is arguing against copyright law. And that's fine. We can agree that the copyright law is at least out of touch with the reality and that the copyright duration is outrageous. But there's an argument to be made that the producer is incentivized to produce content by the prospect of making a profit. And that ultimately this benefits consumers too. Would Game of Thrones exist if HBO wouldn't be allowed to have exclusive content? I don't think so. And personally I'm seeing the quality of these shows from HBO and Netflix going up, versus the experience we've had on TV where the shows are optimized for serving ads. I also don't think anybody would pay for an HBO subscription without exclusive hits such as Game of Thrones. > "Recommendations and reviews for example, customer service, price, outages, video quality" There's not much customer service to be had. I never interacted with the customer service of HBO or Netflix. Not much on video quality either IMO, there's basically HD and the ability to stream HD over mobile data connections and that's almost a solved problem. Also on recommendations or reviews, that's ultimately a natural monopoly. Think of how Amazon is thriving due to having the best product reviews, which can't be migrated and any newcomer in the market starts at a serious disadvantage due to not having reviews. If anything I believe it is review platforms that should be made a shared resource, part of "the commons", like highways.
    - r_c_a_d 8y ago
      I think you might be right on incentives, that's why I said it might lead to no-one producing anything. What about a limited period for exclusivity? Do you think, say, 3 years would work? I would be happy to wait that long... in fact I only just recently watched Person Of Interest on Netflix and that has been out for ages. As to other differentiators like quality of service, I think there is a lot of scope there but channels currently have very little need to innovate because the issue of what content they have dwarfs all other considerations.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That’s like saying it’s “anti-consumer” for Apple to have the iPhone as an exclusive and not be forced to license the design to other companies.
rayiner 8y ago
That would remove market competition forces from the most important aspect of the whole the industry: content. Distribution is a solved problem. Everyone does it fine. I want companies competing to make content people want to watch.

bad_user 8y ago

There's not much to compete on. I don't see a difference between Netflix and HBO GO in terms of the actual distribution ... HBO GO's app and website are shittier, but that's irrelevant as long as it lets me watch their shows in HD. And I disagree that exclusives are anti-competitive. If Netflix can create value using its own money, they should be allowed to establish whatever licensing terms they want, including none other than streaming to its own subscribers. If that's anti-competitive, then the definition is broken.

r_c_a_d 8y ago
There is a lot to compete on. Recommendations and reviews for example, customer service, price, outages, video quality. The problem is that those things are harder to build a marketing campaing on than "We are the only channel that has Game of Thrones". Exclusives serve only the producer. They are terrible for consumers, as the orignal commenter lamented. Perhaps "anti-competeitive" is the wrong word, since each channel can compete at having the best exclusives ... probably "anti-consumer" is what I meant.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Anti-consumer, just like copyright law. My argument is that arguing against this practice is arguing against copyright law. And that's fine. We can agree that the copyright law is at least out of touch with the reality and that the copyright duration is outrageous. But there's an argument to be made that the producer is incentivized to produce content by the prospect of making a profit. And that ultimately this benefits consumers too. Would Game of Thrones exist if HBO wouldn't be allowed to have exclusive content? I don't think so. And personally I'm seeing the quality of these shows from HBO and Netflix going up, versus the experience we've had on TV where the shows are optimized for serving ads. I also don't think anybody would pay for an HBO subscription without exclusive hits such as Game of Thrones. > "Recommendations and reviews for example, customer service, price, outages, video quality" There's not much customer service to be had. I never interacted with the customer service of HBO or Netflix. Not much on video quality either IMO, there's basically HD and the ability to stream HD over mobile data connections and that's almost a solved problem. Also on recommendations or reviews, that's ultimately a natural monopoly. Think of how Amazon is thriving due to having the best product reviews, which can't be migrated and any newcomer in the market starts at a serious disadvantage due to not having reviews. If anything I believe it is review platforms that should be made a shared resource, part of "the commons", like highways.
  - r_c_a_d 8y ago
    I think you might be right on incentives, that's why I said it might lead to no-one producing anything. What about a limited period for exclusivity? Do you think, say, 3 years would work? I would be happy to wait that long... in fact I only just recently watched Person Of Interest on Netflix and that has been out for ages. As to other differentiators like quality of service, I think there is a lot of scope there but channels currently have very little need to innovate because the issue of what content they have dwarfs all other considerations.
- rayiner 8y ago
  That’s like saying it’s “anti-consumer” for Apple to have the iPhone as an exclusive and not be forced to license the design to other companies.

rayiner 8y ago

That would remove market competition forces from the most important aspect of the whole the industry: content. Distribution is a solved problem. Everyone does it fine. I want companies competing to make content people want to watch.