6 ms·

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 attractiv

by 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.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content, never bundled, never subscription-based. I 100% do not want this. I want to pay for one subscription to get all the media I want (music, tv shows, movies, books, etc). And I don’t care at all about ownership. I’d pay $50-100/month for this subscription, and we’re getting close if you don’t mind cobbling together a half dozen subscriptions and using a bunch of different apps.
- super-serial 8y ago
  That's expensive if you don't watch much TV. I just watch sci-fi shows and wish I could put my money just towards those types of shows. My perfect subscription would be a mix, where I pay a small fee per month but can try out individual shows. If I like the show I'd pay for the rest of the season. For example Amazon now has The Expanse, Starz has Counterpart, Netflix has Black Mirror and I also liked the new Lost in Space. Hulu has... Future Man? CBS All Access has... the ability to ruin Star Trek, so I might want to watch that train wreck. Anyway if there was a cheap subscription like Amazon Prime which allowed me to try out a couple free episodes, then pay $3 per episode that would work. That way I feel like I'm supporting the specific shows I want to see.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  You start by saying you don’t want a unified interface where you can get exactly the content you want, then your very next sentence is that you want a single unified interface to get exactly the content you want. It sounds like you specifically do want a single interface for a la carte content (note: this has nothing to do with ownership vs restricted access), and you currently achieve something like this with a combination of subscription products that bundle a bunch of content you do want with a bunch of other content you don’t want but also don’t care about. A situation where the price is broken down to individually activate just the content you want and not the content you don’t would offer exactly the same experience but with less irrelevant content and you’d only pay for what you choose to consume. In other words, the concept of “I pay for one subscription and get exactly and only all the content I personally want” is equivalent to a unified portal for a la carte purchasing.. activating an on-going payment for ability to see Show A and never activating the same payment for Show B which you don’t care for. The “subscription price” is just the total price of your personal a la carte activations (be they ownership purchases, rentals, or recuring payments to license access to that singular content). At any rate, your comment here is explicitly contradictory.
jolux 8y ago
This is somewhat true except Spotify and Apple Music are absolutely clobbering purchases of à la carte content, such that I think you would have to put the individual prices of media incredibly low for people to get over the psychological hurdle of shelling out for it, even if in the long run it would be cheaper to buy.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  I’m not sure I agree, I think it’s more of a technology problem syncing owned music between devices, and that these major players, especially Apple, have an incentive to make it very hard. For example, I buy all my music outright from Amazon & Bandcamp, downloaded to my laptop. From there I use the VLC app to propagate the music to my phone, ipad, etc. Most normal consumers wouldn’t put up with this. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t rather own the music and pay only for what they personally consume. It just means Apple & Spotify have set up a big moat. You can’t start a startup to compete with them if your main sell is an easy way to have the raw, owned music files propagated to many devices and organized for easy browsing, because the big players (who don’t want consumers to have that) will just negotiate exclusive licenses and disallow you from having inventory.
  - jolux 8y ago
    > I think it’s more of a technology problem syncing owned music between devices, and that these major players, especially Apple, have an incentive to make it very hard. Uh, iPods and iTunes? DRM-free music from the iTunes Store? >For example, I buy all my music outright from Amazon & Bandcamp, downloaded to my laptop. From there I use the VLC app to propagate the music to my phone, ipad, etc. You've just described iTunes though! And iTunes Match since 2011, for $25/year. It's even DRM-free. That was the way people did music before, and it turns out that when you can rent every album in the world for ten bucks a month nobody wants to be spending twenty bucks on every album they want anymore.
kazagistar 8y ago
> Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content The success of Netflix, Spotify, and even TV itself seems to show that a large number of people don't want to self curate, and would prefer to consume content curated by a third party; even if the quality suffers, the lower effort expended might make up for it.

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.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content, never bundled, never subscription-based. I 100% do not want this. I want to pay for one subscription to get all the media I want (music, tv shows, movies, books, etc). And I don’t care at all about ownership. I’d pay $50-100/month for this subscription, and we’re getting close if you don’t mind cobbling together a half dozen subscriptions and using a bunch of different apps.

super-serial 8y ago
That's expensive if you don't watch much TV. I just watch sci-fi shows and wish I could put my money just towards those types of shows. My perfect subscription would be a mix, where I pay a small fee per month but can try out individual shows. If I like the show I'd pay for the rest of the season. For example Amazon now has The Expanse, Starz has Counterpart, Netflix has Black Mirror and I also liked the new Lost in Space. Hulu has... Future Man? CBS All Access has... the ability to ruin Star Trek, so I might want to watch that train wreck. Anyway if there was a cheap subscription like Amazon Prime which allowed me to try out a couple free episodes, then pay $3 per episode that would work. That way I feel like I'm supporting the specific shows I want to see.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
You start by saying you don’t want a unified interface where you can get exactly the content you want, then your very next sentence is that you want a single unified interface to get exactly the content you want. It sounds like you specifically do want a single interface for a la carte content (note: this has nothing to do with ownership vs restricted access), and you currently achieve something like this with a combination of subscription products that bundle a bunch of content you do want with a bunch of other content you don’t want but also don’t care about. A situation where the price is broken down to individually activate just the content you want and not the content you don’t would offer exactly the same experience but with less irrelevant content and you’d only pay for what you choose to consume. In other words, the concept of “I pay for one subscription and get exactly and only all the content I personally want” is equivalent to a unified portal for a la carte purchasing.. activating an on-going payment for ability to see Show A and never activating the same payment for Show B which you don’t care for. The “subscription price” is just the total price of your personal a la carte activations (be they ownership purchases, rentals, or recuring payments to license access to that singular content). At any rate, your comment here is explicitly contradictory.

jolux 8y ago

This is somewhat true except Spotify and Apple Music are absolutely clobbering purchases of à la carte content, such that I think you would have to put the individual prices of media incredibly low for people to get over the psychological hurdle of shelling out for it, even if in the long run it would be cheaper to buy.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I’m not sure I agree, I think it’s more of a technology problem syncing owned music between devices, and that these major players, especially Apple, have an incentive to make it very hard. For example, I buy all my music outright from Amazon & Bandcamp, downloaded to my laptop. From there I use the VLC app to propagate the music to my phone, ipad, etc. Most normal consumers wouldn’t put up with this. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t rather own the music and pay only for what they personally consume. It just means Apple & Spotify have set up a big moat. You can’t start a startup to compete with them if your main sell is an easy way to have the raw, owned music files propagated to many devices and organized for easy browsing, because the big players (who don’t want consumers to have that) will just negotiate exclusive licenses and disallow you from having inventory.
- jolux 8y ago
  > I think it’s more of a technology problem syncing owned music between devices, and that these major players, especially Apple, have an incentive to make it very hard. Uh, iPods and iTunes? DRM-free music from the iTunes Store? >For example, I buy all my music outright from Amazon & Bandcamp, downloaded to my laptop. From there I use the VLC app to propagate the music to my phone, ipad, etc. You've just described iTunes though! And iTunes Match since 2011, for $25/year. It's even DRM-free. That was the way people did music before, and it turns out that when you can rent every album in the world for ten bucks a month nobody wants to be spending twenty bucks on every album they want anymore.

kazagistar 8y ago

> Ultimately what everyone wants is a super easy interface to pay for precise a la carte content The success of Netflix, Spotify, and even TV itself seems to show that a large number of people don't want to self curate, and would prefer to consume content curated by a third party; even if the quality suffers, the lower effort expended might make up for it.