5 ms·

> 1) obfuscate its surprisingly shallow library A thousand times, this. Netflix should take all the money they are spending on ML to solve a discovery problem

by dlkf 7y ago

> 1) obfuscate its surprisingly shallow library A thousand times, this. Netflix should take all the money they are spending on ML to solve a discovery problem that they don't even have, and instead buy up rights to flicks from the period 1950-2010. A lot of these movies can't be streamed or downloaded anywhere - the only legal way to get them is to pay a grossly inflated price for the DVD on Amazon. This is actually a massive archival problem, and I would love to see someone tackle it. Unfortunately, it almost certainly won't be one of the current major streaming platforms.

the_watcher 7y ago
The ridiculous thing is that the DVD side of Netflix used to be an amazing source for these kinds of films
- dleslie 7y ago
  It still is; for those in the USA only. https://dvd.netflix.com/Queue https://dvd.netflix.com/Queue
  - dlkf 7y ago
    > for those in the USA only Key distinction
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
Most of those rights to flicks from 1950-2010 are owned by: (1) Competitors (eg. Disney+) (2) Studios leasing the rights to competitors (eg. Amazon) (3) Studios that want to expand into the new streaming market (all the rest). The remaining few indie or abandoned flicks are not really worth it.
- dlkf 7y ago
  To be fair, I oversimplified the problem. Every film's rights are owned by someone, and the problem wouldn't be solved entirely by Netflix merely throwing money at it. But the fact remains that there are a lot of great films from this period that as far as I can tell (and for some I've looked pretty hard) are not available for streaming on any platform - YouTube, Mubi, Netflix, Prime, iTunes, etc etc. [0] The problem is worse if A) you're not in the US and B) you are interested in stuff that wasn't a box office top 100 hit. It's an empirical question as to whether, as you say "the remaining few indie or abandoned flicks are not really worth it." Netflix has certainly decided that this is the case, but it's not obvious to me that they're right. [0] https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/10/missing-movies-not-available-for-streaming https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/10/missing-movies-not-avail...
SilasX 7y ago
>A thousand times, this. Netflix should take all the money they are spending on ML to solve a discovery problem that they don't even have, Really? I often find myself learning about Netflix stuff I want to watch only from friends telling it to me, and then having to seek it out in the search function.
- wolco 7y ago
  This is the biggest problem. I have different profiles for family members. Some members get so many more good new shows that don't appear in my profile.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    Their library isn’t that big. If it wasn’t suggested to you and you could actually just look through their library you’d have found those titles. Disney+, Hulu, HBO, and other streaming services do this and it works fine even when they also offer suggestions.
- sombremesa 7y ago
  I used to be able to find things to watch on Netflix when they had publicly visible reviews. Then they removed that, presumably to hock their less than stellar original content. They optimize to try and show you as much crap as possible, which is the real reason you can't find good stuff on your own -- it's not the lack of some personalized algorithmic magic that's responsible here.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I will add a little side data point to this. Season 4 of Morty showed up in a lot of locations except US, Canada, UK. They are a public company now. I find it hard to believe they could not afford US licensing deal. And since they actively enforce their geofencing, the shallow library argument becomes even more apparent. I really dislike streaming wars. We are basically reinventing cable. Any moment I expect unskippable ads in the middle of the show for all paid plans and people defending them as.. it is only 30 seconds..
- barrkel 7y ago
  It's not Netflix's fault. Netflix revealed a way to monetize the long tail of media content, owned by big studios. To those big studios, Netflix is just a middleman; they'll raise rates until Netflix has no profit left, or give discounts where there's a marketing tie-in (this is why the earlier movie shows up in Netflix when the sequel is on in the cinema - it won't hang around for too long though). This structure is why Netflix is turning into yet another cable channel. There's no network effect beyond an install base and a bunch of customers paying monthly - not nothing, but also not actually much of a moat if users are using things like Amazon Firestick or something else that apps can easily be added to. If anything, copyright is the problem. Copyright ought to enable rent extraction to cover the cost of production and a healthy profit premium to encourage quality and have hits that cover losses. But beyond a certain point (and it's measured in years for cinema, not decades) the output probably ought to be considered cultural capital and have capped and non-discriminatory broadcast and streaming costs.
  - snuxoll 7y ago
    The current copyright system is beyond messed up. Locking up IP for multiple generations is just downright pro-corporate nonsense, and we mostly have Disney to thank for it.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    I can agree that copyright is the main culprit, but I am not willing to absolve Netflix from the choices they make. Just as you pointed out, those choices appear to a part of their generap strategy. All that said, as a customer I don't care. I have been spoiled by near instant access to anything I want free of ads. If Netflix does not want my money, someone else will. And if no one else will, then that is how we get piracy. To sum up, I really do not disagree with you. I just think customers are less tolerant today.
mcchew 7y ago
One can find many of those films on YouTube to rent for $2.99-$3.99, which is cheaper than Blockbuster used to be (adjusted for inflation) and much more convenient.
- dlkf 7y ago
  To be clear: I love this business model. This is how I watch films for the most part. But while lots of films are available this way, just as many are not. And many of these are not some obscure indie film - they are acclaimed mid-to-high budget Hollywood films that, for no good reason, are trapped in IP purgatory.
heurist 7y ago
Criterion Channel has been great for this.
pier25 7y ago
I agree. FFS in my country I can see the 1st and the 3rd LOTR movies but not the 2nd.

by dlkf 7y ago

the_watcher 7y ago

The ridiculous thing is that the DVD side of Netflix used to be an amazing source for these kinds of films

dleslie 7y ago
It still is; for those in the USA only. https://dvd.netflix.com/Queue https://dvd.netflix.com/Queue
- dlkf 7y ago
  > for those in the USA only Key distinction

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

Most of those rights to flicks from 1950-2010 are owned by: (1) Competitors (eg. Disney+) (2) Studios leasing the rights to competitors (eg. Amazon) (3) Studios that want to expand into the new streaming market (all the rest). The remaining few indie or abandoned flicks are not really worth it.

dlkf 7y ago
To be fair, I oversimplified the problem. Every film's rights are owned by someone, and the problem wouldn't be solved entirely by Netflix merely throwing money at it. But the fact remains that there are a lot of great films from this period that as far as I can tell (and for some I've looked pretty hard) are not available for streaming on any platform - YouTube, Mubi, Netflix, Prime, iTunes, etc etc. [0] The problem is worse if A) you're not in the US and B) you are interested in stuff that wasn't a box office top 100 hit. It's an empirical question as to whether, as you say "the remaining few indie or abandoned flicks are not really worth it." Netflix has certainly decided that this is the case, but it's not obvious to me that they're right. [0] https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/10/missing-movies-not-available-for-streaming https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/10/missing-movies-not-avail...

SilasX 7y ago

>A thousand times, this. Netflix should take all the money they are spending on ML to solve a discovery problem that they don't even have, Really? I often find myself learning about Netflix stuff I want to watch only from friends telling it to me, and then having to seek it out in the search function.

wolco 7y ago
This is the biggest problem. I have different profiles for family members. Some members get so many more good new shows that don't appear in my profile.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Their library isn’t that big. If it wasn’t suggested to you and you could actually just look through their library you’d have found those titles. Disney+, Hulu, HBO, and other streaming services do this and it works fine even when they also offer suggestions.
sombremesa 7y ago
I used to be able to find things to watch on Netflix when they had publicly visible reviews. Then they removed that, presumably to hock their less than stellar original content. They optimize to try and show you as much crap as possible, which is the real reason you can't find good stuff on your own -- it's not the lack of some personalized algorithmic magic that's responsible here.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

I will add a little side data point to this. Season 4 of Morty showed up in a lot of locations except US, Canada, UK. They are a public company now. I find it hard to believe they could not afford US licensing deal. And since they actively enforce their geofencing, the shallow library argument becomes even more apparent. I really dislike streaming wars. We are basically reinventing cable. Any moment I expect unskippable ads in the middle of the show for all paid plans and people defending them as.. it is only 30 seconds..

barrkel 7y ago
It's not Netflix's fault. Netflix revealed a way to monetize the long tail of media content, owned by big studios. To those big studios, Netflix is just a middleman; they'll raise rates until Netflix has no profit left, or give discounts where there's a marketing tie-in (this is why the earlier movie shows up in Netflix when the sequel is on in the cinema - it won't hang around for too long though). This structure is why Netflix is turning into yet another cable channel. There's no network effect beyond an install base and a bunch of customers paying monthly - not nothing, but also not actually much of a moat if users are using things like Amazon Firestick or something else that apps can easily be added to. If anything, copyright is the problem. Copyright ought to enable rent extraction to cover the cost of production and a healthy profit premium to encourage quality and have hits that cover losses. But beyond a certain point (and it's measured in years for cinema, not decades) the output probably ought to be considered cultural capital and have capped and non-discriminatory broadcast and streaming costs.
- snuxoll 7y ago
  The current copyright system is beyond messed up. Locking up IP for multiple generations is just downright pro-corporate nonsense, and we mostly have Disney to thank for it.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I can agree that copyright is the main culprit, but I am not willing to absolve Netflix from the choices they make. Just as you pointed out, those choices appear to a part of their generap strategy. All that said, as a customer I don't care. I have been spoiled by near instant access to anything I want free of ads. If Netflix does not want my money, someone else will. And if no one else will, then that is how we get piracy. To sum up, I really do not disagree with you. I just think customers are less tolerant today.

mcchew 7y ago

One can find many of those films on YouTube to rent for $2.99-$3.99, which is cheaper than Blockbuster used to be (adjusted for inflation) and much more convenient.

dlkf 7y ago
To be clear: I love this business model. This is how I watch films for the most part. But while lots of films are available this way, just as many are not. And many of these are not some obscure indie film - they are acclaimed mid-to-high budget Hollywood films that, for no good reason, are trapped in IP purgatory.

heurist 7y ago

Criterion Channel has been great for this.

pier25 7y ago

I agree. FFS in my country I can see the 1st and the 3rd LOTR movies but not the 2nd.