7 ms·

Buying Netflix? I think Netflix is going to start a steady decline as the content owners continually pull their stuff from Netflix for their own streaming serv

Buying Netflix? I think Netflix is going to start a steady decline as the content owners continually pull their stuff from Netflix for their own streaming services. The Netflix original stuff, let's be honest, is hit or miss, with most of the movies being a hard miss.

baddox 7y ago
I don't have much of a problem with Netflix content, but it's the price that just doesn't make sense. They charge extra for UHD, and that premium plan costs more than HBO (which is probably still the king of content quality, though with a crappy 1080p stream) and over twice as much as Disney+ and Apple TV+ (which don't charge extra for UHD).
- nickthegreek 7y ago
  The plan that offers UHD also offer multiple screens. It it is a legitimate way for customers to pay to stream multiple things at the same time. So while it costs around the same as the HBO plan, it offers something that some other services do no. Apple TV+ allows family sharing, but I dont know about Disney+.
  - baddox 7y ago
    FYI, the "Standard" Netflix plan offers 2 simultaneous streams in HD for $12.99 per month in the US. The "Premium" plan offers 4 simultaneous streams in UHD for $15.99 per month. But anyway, I only have one screen, so it's still the case that Netflix charges considerably more just to receive UHD content. As price discrimination goes, that's a pretty scummy way to do it. They've shot and produced this content in UHD, yet they give a much lower quality version to their base customers. I know they have every right to do that, and it might make business sense for them (since people with UHD TVs probably have more disposable income), but it has always felt scummy to me.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Netflix's costs are higher for UHD streaming: storage, bandwidth, production, et cetera. What's scummy about it?
      - baddox 7y ago
        In my view, the "native" format that they produced the content in is the format they should be delivering by default (if supported by the viewer's setup). Of course I recognize that people will disagree, after all, UHD Blu-rays also generally cost more than 1080p Blu-rays. But of course, UHD Blu-rays aren't backwards compatible with standard Blu-ray equipment, so it doesn't feel like an artificial limitation simply for the purpose of price discrimination. This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        Mindwipe 7y ago
        > This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality. Almost every other video service globally does, and of those you mentioned Prime's pricing is mostly based on shipping, Apple TV+ at this point is effectively a PR campaign and not a proper service, and Disney+ is running at a massive loss leader to build share. Netflix isn't charging a sustainable amount of money as it is. You should probably think of it less as charging more for UHD as offering a crazy discount for lower content quality.
      - Qwertystop 7y ago
        Storage and production costs for something available in UHD are the same regardless of whether someone streams a downscaled version. Storing multiple resolutions (assuming they do that rather than downscaling live from the stored highest-res or making the client do it) is where additional costs for more versions would show up.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Netflix’s multiple screens implementation makes it everyone has access to everyone else’s profile. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together, but I can see how that can cause fewer possible subscribers if people start sharing.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      >. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together Spotify does that and it's a complete deal breaker. I want to log in to all my home devices _once_, with a single account. Not continuously log out and log in and try to type complex passwords with a remote control. I mean, I can't even play different songs on different Google Homes or different TVs with Spotify, unless I sign in with different account on each - and then each device is stuck with a specific set of playlists. Horrible. Netflix's system has worked out brilliantly for us - we have half a dozen TVs, and any member of the family can watch anything they want on any TV with their own preferences and profiles with minimum hassle.
      - duahncjak 7y ago
        I understand why Google works that way since the login is tied to gmail and chrome browser history, but I’m not sure about Spotify. They have a popular Facebook integration but I don’t know if you can get any private info out of the Spotify account.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I find that we rarely share devices, even TVs. I AirPlay things if I’m in a common room and it’s too much work to search it.
      - JaRail 7y ago
        There are lots of systems that let multiple users sign in and switch without re-entering credentials. Game consoles are a good example.
      - kedean 7y ago
        When's the last time you used Spotify? Honest question, because that's the exact opposite of how Spotify works. You can be logged into as many devices as you want with the same profile, you just can't play simultaneously on each device without setting up profiles. I love that implementation, because it means I can seamlessly transition a song i'm playing on my phone over to another device with the app controls.
  - dhagz 7y ago
    Disney+ allows streaming to up to four devices simultaneously.
- dobleboble 7y ago
  In my opinion, HBO's content is rapidly going downhill after the AT&T acquisition. Lots of low budget, high shock value content (violence, nudity, drugs).
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I feel like all content is trying to one up each other without substance, as if going off a checklist. But it could also be that I’m getting older and I’ve already seen variations of it so now I’m bored of it.
  - distances 7y ago
    Violence, nudity, drugs? Like Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire?
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I am perfectly happy for other NF subscribers subsidizing the content I watch by them paying more for UHD :)
- Softcadbury 7y ago
  I don't understand how people can criticize the price of Netflix. Remember, just 10 years ago, the price of a single DVD ?
  - baddox 7y ago
    Yes, of course it’s all relative, but that cuts both ways, because we also have other streaming plans to compare prices with.
  - stoic 7y ago
    Physical copies of movies still cost about the same, though.
    - greedo 7y ago
      Bluray and 4K discs have dropped dramatically over the last five years.
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    Agree. I think price are just artificially low because of competition. Of course they are cheaper than Netflix, they are trying to steal market share. We shall see in a few years.
  - mcv 7y ago
    I find both Netflix and Disney+ a fantastic deal. I pay much more for my normal TV subscription and I barely use it. I'm not going to pay for every streaming service, but these two have so much great content for such a reasonable price it's impossible to say no.
- wolco 7y ago
  You can't live on hbo alone. I spent a summer and went through everything I could find. I have no desire to go back for 10 years. They have some great shows but are not creating enough to make netflix output.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  > I don't have much of a problem with Netflix content, but it's the price that just doesn't make sense. Netflix's biggest problem is that they've spent a decade educating customers to expect their service at below cost with an unrealistically low price point funded by debt. They need to hope the sentiment above isn't too common.
cookiecaper 7y ago
Right, we'll have to see how it goes. The point of buying Netflix would be acquiring its content delivery apparatus and other technical assets, not its subscriber base. It's possible Disney will get the kinks sorted out and start rolling a good-enough CDN on their own, making the benefit in acquiring Netflix minimal. It'd also make it much cheaper to acquire if they could wait a few quarters for the damage to start showing up on Netflix's balance sheet. But the longer they wait, the longer they deprive themselves of Netflix's best-in-class content delivery network, which already has near-universal penetration. It's ultimately a question of whether Disney sees a bigger risk in the expenditures necessary to buy up Netflix or the chance that technical issues will continue to haunt the Disney+ ramp-up, leading to a loss in consumer confidence and subsequent retreat back to third-party streaming platforms. One thing is certain: Disney+ is an existential threat to Netflix, and Netflix's only hope is that the implementation will continue to flop hard enough that consumers lose the appetite for it immediately.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
perfect_wave 7y ago
I assume the parent was talking about buying Netflix for the technology and not for the content.
dobleboble 7y ago
One possible route would be for Netflix to become an infrastructure provider for other streaming services. Essentially a white label streaming video library platform.

baddox 7y ago

I don't have much of a problem with Netflix content, but it's the price that just doesn't make sense. They charge extra for UHD, and that premium plan costs more than HBO (which is probably still the king of content quality, though with a crappy 1080p stream) and over twice as much as Disney+ and Apple TV+ (which don't charge extra for UHD).

nickthegreek 7y ago
The plan that offers UHD also offer multiple screens. It it is a legitimate way for customers to pay to stream multiple things at the same time. So while it costs around the same as the HBO plan, it offers something that some other services do no. Apple TV+ allows family sharing, but I dont know about Disney+.
- baddox 7y ago
  FYI, the "Standard" Netflix plan offers 2 simultaneous streams in HD for $12.99 per month in the US. The "Premium" plan offers 4 simultaneous streams in UHD for $15.99 per month. But anyway, I only have one screen, so it's still the case that Netflix charges considerably more just to receive UHD content. As price discrimination goes, that's a pretty scummy way to do it. They've shot and produced this content in UHD, yet they give a much lower quality version to their base customers. I know they have every right to do that, and it might make business sense for them (since people with UHD TVs probably have more disposable income), but it has always felt scummy to me.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Netflix's costs are higher for UHD streaming: storage, bandwidth, production, et cetera. What's scummy about it?
    - baddox 7y ago
      In my view, the "native" format that they produced the content in is the format they should be delivering by default (if supported by the viewer's setup). Of course I recognize that people will disagree, after all, UHD Blu-rays also generally cost more than 1080p Blu-rays. But of course, UHD Blu-rays aren't backwards compatible with standard Blu-ray equipment, so it doesn't feel like an artificial limitation simply for the purpose of price discrimination. This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Mindwipe 7y ago
        > This also seems to be a no-brainer for Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which (as far as I can tell) don't have any concept of charging based on video/audio quality. Almost every other video service globally does, and of those you mentioned Prime's pricing is mostly based on shipping, Apple TV+ at this point is effectively a PR campaign and not a proper service, and Disney+ is running at a massive loss leader to build share. Netflix isn't charging a sustainable amount of money as it is. You should probably think of it less as charging more for UHD as offering a crazy discount for lower content quality.
    - Qwertystop 7y ago
      Storage and production costs for something available in UHD are the same regardless of whether someone streams a downscaled version. Storing multiple resolutions (assuming they do that rather than downscaling live from the stored highest-res or making the client do it) is where additional costs for more versions would show up.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Netflix’s multiple screens implementation makes it everyone has access to everyone else’s profile. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together, but I can see how that can cause fewer possible subscribers if people start sharing.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    >. They should’ve let people link individual Netflix accounts together Spotify does that and it's a complete deal breaker. I want to log in to all my home devices _once_, with a single account. Not continuously log out and log in and try to type complex passwords with a remote control. I mean, I can't even play different songs on different Google Homes or different TVs with Spotify, unless I sign in with different account on each - and then each device is stuck with a specific set of playlists. Horrible. Netflix's system has worked out brilliantly for us - we have half a dozen TVs, and any member of the family can watch anything they want on any TV with their own preferences and profiles with minimum hassle.
    - duahncjak 7y ago
      I understand why Google works that way since the login is tied to gmail and chrome browser history, but I’m not sure about Spotify. They have a popular Facebook integration but I don’t know if you can get any private info out of the Spotify account.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I find that we rarely share devices, even TVs. I AirPlay things if I’m in a common room and it’s too much work to search it.
    - JaRail 7y ago
      There are lots of systems that let multiple users sign in and switch without re-entering credentials. Game consoles are a good example.
    - kedean 7y ago
      When's the last time you used Spotify? Honest question, because that's the exact opposite of how Spotify works. You can be logged into as many devices as you want with the same profile, you just can't play simultaneously on each device without setting up profiles. I love that implementation, because it means I can seamlessly transition a song i'm playing on my phone over to another device with the app controls.
- dhagz 7y ago
  Disney+ allows streaming to up to four devices simultaneously.
dobleboble 7y ago
In my opinion, HBO's content is rapidly going downhill after the AT&T acquisition. Lots of low budget, high shock value content (violence, nudity, drugs).
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I feel like all content is trying to one up each other without substance, as if going off a checklist. But it could also be that I’m getting older and I’ve already seen variations of it so now I’m bored of it.
- distances 7y ago
  Violence, nudity, drugs? Like Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire?
aidenn0 7y ago
I am perfectly happy for other NF subscribers subsidizing the content I watch by them paying more for UHD :)
Softcadbury 7y ago
I don't understand how people can criticize the price of Netflix. Remember, just 10 years ago, the price of a single DVD ?
- baddox 7y ago
  Yes, of course it’s all relative, but that cuts both ways, because we also have other streaming plans to compare prices with.
- stoic 7y ago
  Physical copies of movies still cost about the same, though.
  - greedo 7y ago
    Bluray and 4K discs have dropped dramatically over the last five years.
- jeromegv 7y ago
  Agree. I think price are just artificially low because of competition. Of course they are cheaper than Netflix, they are trying to steal market share. We shall see in a few years.
- mcv 7y ago
  I find both Netflix and Disney+ a fantastic deal. I pay much more for my normal TV subscription and I barely use it. I'm not going to pay for every streaming service, but these two have so much great content for such a reasonable price it's impossible to say no.
wolco 7y ago
You can't live on hbo alone. I spent a summer and went through everything I could find. I have no desire to go back for 10 years. They have some great shows but are not creating enough to make netflix output.
Mindwipe 7y ago
> I don't have much of a problem with Netflix content, but it's the price that just doesn't make sense. Netflix's biggest problem is that they've spent a decade educating customers to expect their service at below cost with an unrealistically low price point funded by debt. They need to hope the sentiment above isn't too common.

cookiecaper 7y ago

Right, we'll have to see how it goes. The point of buying Netflix would be acquiring its content delivery apparatus and other technical assets, not its subscriber base. It's possible Disney will get the kinks sorted out and start rolling a good-enough CDN on their own, making the benefit in acquiring Netflix minimal. It'd also make it much cheaper to acquire if they could wait a few quarters for the damage to start showing up on Netflix's balance sheet. But the longer they wait, the longer they deprive themselves of Netflix's best-in-class content delivery network, which already has near-universal penetration. It's ultimately a question of whether Disney sees a bigger risk in the expenditures necessary to buy up Netflix or the chance that technical issues will continue to haunt the Disney+ ramp-up, leading to a loss in consumer confidence and subsequent retreat back to third-party streaming platforms. One thing is certain: Disney+ is an existential threat to Netflix, and Netflix's only hope is that the implementation will continue to flop hard enough that consumers lose the appetite for it immediately.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

perfect_wave 7y ago

I assume the parent was talking about buying Netflix for the technology and not for the content.

dobleboble 7y ago

One possible route would be for Netflix to become an infrastructure provider for other streaming services. Essentially a white label streaming video library platform.