5 ms·

Having dedicated nearly a decade of my life to a startup competing in this space, the OA is right about Netflix's superior strategy when it comes to user experi

Having dedicated nearly a decade of my life to a startup competing in this space, the OA is right about Netflix's superior strategy when it comes to user experience and content production. Netflix surged ahead of the pack because they focused relentlessly on the quality of the streaming experience while all the legacy players were focused on deal-making. In other words, while Netflix was building a solid video delivery platform, the rest of the industry was fumbling around with biz dev deals like TV Everywhere that have a very low UX ceiling in the best-case scenario. However that's the past now, and the OA is missing a few trends: First, Netflix will not maintain its UX lead at the same level for long. Video streaming like all technology is commoditizing, the experience will get better and better from non-tech companies. Meanwhile Netflix is continuing to plow down this path of algorithm-driven engagement and ramming stuff down people's throats with auto-play, bad search, and other dark patterns. Given the current cultural zeitgeist (eg. Facebook backlash), this isn't going to end well if they don't change course. Perhaps even more important is the fact that Netflix has a long way to go on the production side. There's a lot of volume of Netflix productions, but not a lot of quality. This is where the OA underestimates Disney—their content is way broader and better than Netflix, and people care a lot about that. Netflix's experimental Interactive content and Reed Hasting's comments about Fortnite also give me pause. This is typical SV-style next-big-thing thinking, but it also represents taking the eye off the ball. Video games are video games, Netflix doesn't know shit about them, and if you ask me they are better off focusing on their core competency versus trying to build a moat with a gimmicky concept. 5 years ago I would have said Netflix has a better chance at becoming a great producer than Disney has at creating a great streaming experience, but now I'm not so sure.

mavhc 8y ago
The OA is also a good Netflix show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OA
- V-2 8y ago
  Uncompelling ending has by now become sort of a trademark of the (otherwise original and highly captivating) productions involving Brit Marling.
  - mavhc 8y ago
    I can see why people hated it, but I like things I can't predict. Have to wait for S2, being edited currently I think. I also liked the end of Lost, HIMYM, Quantum Leap, Mad Men, and BSG, so I'm probably just weird.
    - V-2 8y ago
      I've never even watched The Lost - and neither Quantum Leap nor BSG, for that matter. The ending of HIMYM was awfully contrived. The ending of Mad Men, however, was thought-provoking. Brit Marling had a good ending in "Another Earth", but both "The East" and "Sound of my voice" copped out with cliches - imho. Arguably getting the ending right is among the most difficult parts of the job.
Spooky23 8y ago
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Redbox seems to be very successful with games (the redbox in my neighborhood is typically sold out of games by 7pm, daily), and there’s a deep inventory of quality games that are cheap in comparison to video and can consume many hours of engagement. Apple’s short-sighted, dependence on skinner-box free to play games demonstrates a hunger for zero marginal cost entertainment. The production cost for casual games is near zero; If Netflix could offer quality product to fill that hunger without the casino aspects of the AppStore, that’s a huge business.
- FiveSquared 8y ago
  But what attracts people to the Skinner box games is the fact that they are Skinner box games. coughClash of Clanscough
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I agree Netflix is trending towards failure, but I couldn’t disagree more about why and the path leading them there. Netflix is and has been the least attractive of these services for a long time, specifically because other platforms have far expanded inventory and integrate the ability to instantly rent or buy additional content not directly included. Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content, never bundled, never subscription-based. If a given person wants to buy everything from HBO, they still could, and maybe could get a discount for subscribing, but nobody wants to be forced to subscribe to watch just a handful of content items. It doesn’t matter if it’s Disney streaming, Netflix, Premier League soccer, or anything else. It’s clear rent-seeking to create walled gardens of content only unlockable by bundled subscriptions, and the clear consumer drive existentially threatening the TV industry is that all anybody wants is a dumb pipe with an easy interface to individually purchase each content item on its own merit, flat out. Many streaming services, particularly Amazon’s, offer this to a way higher degree than Netflix, especially in terms of sports access and new release films. Netflix is betting that it can create locked-in content that will compel people to stay subscribing, but I think this is a long-term failing idea. Bird Box is a great example: really poor production, sloppy writing with contrived villains, lowest common denominator stuff. Stranger Things? I couldn’t see one reason to care about it. Not exceptionally bad, just overproduced blandness. The gimmick of making things into viral phenomena is not a stable business plan in this area. As prices rise, Netflix just becomes another HBO. A walled garden of content, except HBO actually makes good television and knows how to do it. Netflix is trashing its own brand with mindless crap. It’s network quality for premium add-on prices. Especially if economic hard times hit, this is exactly something people are going to realize they can live without.
- dasil003 8y ago
  You have some good points, but I'm not sure 100% a la carte at prevailing industry prices is really what people want across the board. It gets expensive very quickly, and a lot of times people do just want something free to veg out on. The perceived value of a subscription has to do with what is actually in the bundle, and this is where we can both agree Netflix is behind the curve.
- 8y ago
MrStonedOne 8y ago
>video games are video games, Netflix doesn't know shit about them, and if you ask me they are better off focusing on their core competency versus trying to build a moat with a gimmicky concept. The point wasn't that they should compete with video games, or enter the space. The point was that in the war for attention and engagement, netflix sees better competition from non-tv streaming services than it sees from other tv streaming services. It was a dig on HBO and Disney, not a suggestion for a new business venture.
- dasil003 8y ago
  Go re-read the whole paragraph instead of taking things out of context. Netflix Interactive content is the gimmick I was talking about, not literal game development.

mavhc 8y ago

The OA is also a good Netflix show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OA

V-2 8y ago
Uncompelling ending has by now become sort of a trademark of the (otherwise original and highly captivating) productions involving Brit Marling.
- mavhc 8y ago
  I can see why people hated it, but I like things I can't predict. Have to wait for S2, being edited currently I think. I also liked the end of Lost, HIMYM, Quantum Leap, Mad Men, and BSG, so I'm probably just weird.
  - V-2 8y ago
    I've never even watched The Lost - and neither Quantum Leap nor BSG, for that matter. The ending of HIMYM was awfully contrived. The ending of Mad Men, however, was thought-provoking. Brit Marling had a good ending in "Another Earth", but both "The East" and "Sound of my voice" copped out with cliches - imho. Arguably getting the ending right is among the most difficult parts of the job.

Spooky23 8y ago

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Redbox seems to be very successful with games (the redbox in my neighborhood is typically sold out of games by 7pm, daily), and there’s a deep inventory of quality games that are cheap in comparison to video and can consume many hours of engagement. Apple’s short-sighted, dependence on skinner-box free to play games demonstrates a hunger for zero marginal cost entertainment. The production cost for casual games is near zero; If Netflix could offer quality product to fill that hunger without the casino aspects of the AppStore, that’s a huge business.

FiveSquared 8y ago
But what attracts people to the Skinner box games is the fact that they are Skinner box games. coughClash of Clanscough

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I agree Netflix is trending towards failure, but I couldn’t disagree more about why and the path leading them there. Netflix is and has been the least attractive of these services for a long time, specifically because other platforms have far expanded inventory and integrate the ability to instantly rent or buy additional content not directly included. Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content, never bundled, never subscription-based. If a given person wants to buy everything from HBO, they still could, and maybe could get a discount for subscribing, but nobody wants to be forced to subscribe to watch just a handful of content items. It doesn’t matter if it’s Disney streaming, Netflix, Premier League soccer, or anything else. It’s clear rent-seeking to create walled gardens of content only unlockable by bundled subscriptions, and the clear consumer drive existentially threatening the TV industry is that all anybody wants is a dumb pipe with an easy interface to individually purchase each content item on its own merit, flat out. Many streaming services, particularly Amazon’s, offer this to a way higher degree than Netflix, especially in terms of sports access and new release films. Netflix is betting that it can create locked-in content that will compel people to stay subscribing, but I think this is a long-term failing idea. Bird Box is a great example: really poor production, sloppy writing with contrived villains, lowest common denominator stuff. Stranger Things? I couldn’t see one reason to care about it. Not exceptionally bad, just overproduced blandness. The gimmick of making things into viral phenomena is not a stable business plan in this area. As prices rise, Netflix just becomes another HBO. A walled garden of content, except HBO actually makes good television and knows how to do it. Netflix is trashing its own brand with mindless crap. It’s network quality for premium add-on prices. Especially if economic hard times hit, this is exactly something people are going to realize they can live without.

dasil003 8y ago
You have some good points, but I'm not sure 100% a la carte at prevailing industry prices is really what people want across the board. It gets expensive very quickly, and a lot of times people do just want something free to veg out on. The perceived value of a subscription has to do with what is actually in the bundle, and this is where we can both agree Netflix is behind the curve.
8y ago

MrStonedOne 8y ago

>video games are video games, Netflix doesn't know shit about them, and if you ask me they are better off focusing on their core competency versus trying to build a moat with a gimmicky concept. The point wasn't that they should compete with video games, or enter the space. The point was that in the war for attention and engagement, netflix sees better competition from non-tv streaming services than it sees from other tv streaming services. It was a dig on HBO and Disney, not a suggestion for a new business venture.

dasil003 8y ago
Go re-read the whole paragraph instead of taking things out of context. Netflix Interactive content is the gimmick I was talking about, not literal game development.