4 ms·

First off, thank you for taking my post in good sport despite its... empassioned nature. > For a show like Game of Thrones, releasing an episode a week is impo

by etripe 6y ago

First off, thank you for taking my post in good sport despite its... empassioned nature. > For a show like Game of Thrones, releasing an episode a week is important to enable 'water-cooler conversations' about the show, which many viewers enjoy. That's a fair point I hadn't considered. One could ask whether that decision is up to the distributor, but that's a quibble. > These are both annoying, but streaming services don't have a monopoly on recommendations and reviews. Personally I put very little stock in their recommendations anyway, so I don't much care when they mess about with them. Would you agree reliable recommendations would be a value-added service? >> not allow viewing of shows because subtitles aren't yet available > Guessing here but that might be done in the name of inclusiveness. Another excellent point I hadn't considered. How do you feel about, say, English subtitles not being available in a country that doesn't have it as a national language, with the series having been released in the Anglo world already on the same service? > If you want to buy a la carte, you already have that option too. I don't see any problem here. By your own admittance, à la carte isn't always an option - you'd mentioned the Simpsons in the UK. > I agree engagement-driven ecosystems can be very troublesome, but [...] not so much with paid subscription services I agree YouTube is worse at actively trying to limit what you see based on what they think you should watch, but I see elements on Netflix, too, with it moving around UI elements to try and get me to engage with what they've curated, pop-ups telling me "what I've missed" and so on. > What do you mean by walled garden in this context? I suppose what I meant to point out is that in my opinion, these services aren't actually competing, since their content offering is mutually exclusive. Seldom are two shows simultaneously available on two different streaming services. Perhaps this is a local expression of streaming providers, I'm not sure. This diminishes the need for said service to distinguish itself on customer service, convenience and UX, since there's no one else offering the same content. That makes me question the added value of the middle man for the consumer, but I suppose content producers see Netflix and co as the consumer, not you or me. They're competing like broadband providers are competing in the US, based on exclusive territory. The same could be said for gaming consoles, but to a lesser degree since there are way more multi-platform games. I'm aware this is a judgement based on my own preferences, since they can be said to compete in terms of what their bundle contains. I'm personally not interested in bundles. I'm interested in good quality shows and movies. I'm interested in having a say in which shows get prolonged for another season and at which price point I'm still willing to endorse them. Like you've indicated, this will probably never completely be the case, since that would make it cost prohibitive for content producers to try anything new, but some modicum of democratisation wouldn't hurt. It's happened for some areas of retail and for the music business, why not for video content? I'm imaging a blend of kickstarter mechanics and content aggregation systems. Perhaps with a mandatory "Innovation" subscription to fund new IP and a corresponding pilots/preview channel.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> Would you agree reliable recommendations would be a value-added service? Yes, and I agree it's annoying when they play games with these systems, when they could just make a product that customers like. In the case of Netflix, the interests of the user and the subscription provider are relatively well aligned. It's more of an issue in YouTube where people can be pointed to toxic lies. That kind of thing can have real consequences in the world, it's not merely causing people to waste their time online. > How do you feel about, say, English subtitles not being available in a country that doesn't have it as a national language If it's translation into a foreign language then that's a different matter. The disabled access point really only applies when it's a native language in the relevant region. Still a plus to have it, but I don't think it would make sense to withhold a show until it's ready. > à la carte isn't always an option Sure, I was generalising. These peculiar omissions do occur. There's still the option to buy/rent these things on disc, at least. > curated, pop-ups telling me "what I've missed" Good old FOMO-based marketing. > these services aren't actually competing, since their content offering is mutually exclusive That's still competition, they're competing on having the best shows. They're in no way obliged to all offer the same stuff. If Netflix turns to garbage, downgrades everything to 480P, stops producing/licensing decent shows, increases their prices, and introduces adverts, then people will move over to Prime and the other alternative services. > This diminishes the need for said service to distinguish itself on customer service, convenience and UX, since there's no one else offering the same content. Not really, as they're not competing only on having the best shows. They compete on convenience and quality too. This is why Amazon has invested in support for Roku, PlayStation, Xbox, Wii U, Chromecast, Apple TV, many different smart TV brands, etc. Some competing services have made less of an investment in supporting these platforms, and are consequently less appealing to customers. Amazon are keen to highlight that with a Prime subscription, you get 4K content for no additional charge, unlike Netflix. > That makes me question the added value of the middle man for the consumer, but I suppose content producers see Netflix and co as the consumer, not you or me. You pay Netflix, and Netflix provides you with a streaming service and pays licensing fees to external content-producers. They're 'middle men' in a sense but they're earning their cut. Content producers make money through Netflix, and through direct sales to customers through discs and through streaming rentals/purchases with services like Google Play Movies. > They're competing like broadband providers are competing in the US, based on exclusive territory. No, that's not a fair comparison at all. With the ISP situation in the USA, each individual customer has little to no choice about which ISP they will have to use. That's not the case here, where customers have many competing services to choose from. This is competition in action. There's no reason they should all offer the same shows, instead they should compete to offer me the best shows they can, then I'll decide which subscription(s) are worth my money. Fortunately, this is exactly what they're doing. > It's happened for some areas of retail and for the music business, why not for video content? From the point of view of someone like Netflix, making a highly unusual show is a high-risk investment of tens of millions of dollars. I'd say they're doing a pretty good job of not being too risk-averse though: Stranger Things was hardly a sure bet, but we can be sure Netflix are glad they went for it. Competition with Amazon Prime is presumably one of the reasons they did it; they know they have to keep adding quality content to stay in the game. > I'm imaging a blend of kickstarter mechanics and content aggregation systems I don't know of any successful TV shows made through Kickstarter-style funding. I don't want to be dismissive of the idea but I haven't been given a reason to think it could be made to really work well.

by etripe 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> Would you agree reliable recommendations would be a value-added service? Yes, and I agree it's annoying when they play games with these systems, when they could just make a product that customers like. In the case of Netflix, the interests of the user and the subscription provider are relatively well aligned. It's more of an issue in YouTube where people can be pointed to toxic lies. That kind of thing can have real consequences in the world, it's not merely causing people to waste their time online. > How do you feel about, say, English subtitles not being available in a country that doesn't have it as a national language If it's translation into a foreign language then that's a different matter. The disabled access point really only applies when it's a native language in the relevant region. Still a plus to have it, but I don't think it would make sense to withhold a show until it's ready. > à la carte isn't always an option Sure, I was generalising. These peculiar omissions do occur. There's still the option to buy/rent these things on disc, at least. > curated, pop-ups telling me "what I've missed" Good old FOMO-based marketing. > these services aren't actually competing, since their content offering is mutually exclusive That's still competition, they're competing on having the best shows. They're in no way obliged to all offer the same stuff. If Netflix turns to garbage, downgrades everything to 480P, stops producing/licensing decent shows, increases their prices, and introduces adverts, then people will move over to Prime and the other alternative services. > This diminishes the need for said service to distinguish itself on customer service, convenience and UX, since there's no one else offering the same content. Not really, as they're not competing only on having the best shows. They compete on convenience and quality too. This is why Amazon has invested in support for Roku, PlayStation, Xbox, Wii U, Chromecast, Apple TV, many different smart TV brands, etc. Some competing services have made less of an investment in supporting these platforms, and are consequently less appealing to customers. Amazon are keen to highlight that with a Prime subscription, you get 4K content for no additional charge, unlike Netflix. > That makes me question the added value of the middle man for the consumer, but I suppose content producers see Netflix and co as the consumer, not you or me. You pay Netflix, and Netflix provides you with a streaming service and pays licensing fees to external content-producers. They're 'middle men' in a sense but they're earning their cut. Content producers make money through Netflix, and through direct sales to customers through discs and through streaming rentals/purchases with services like Google Play Movies. > They're competing like broadband providers are competing in the US, based on exclusive territory. No, that's not a fair comparison at all. With the ISP situation in the USA, each individual customer has little to no choice about which ISP they will have to use. That's not the case here, where customers have many competing services to choose from. This is competition in action. There's no reason they should all offer the same shows, instead they should compete to offer me the best shows they can, then I'll decide which subscription(s) are worth my money. Fortunately, this is exactly what they're doing. > It's happened for some areas of retail and for the music business, why not for video content? From the point of view of someone like Netflix, making a highly unusual show is a high-risk investment of tens of millions of dollars. I'd say they're doing a pretty good job of not being too risk-averse though: Stranger Things was hardly a sure bet, but we can be sure Netflix are glad they went for it. Competition with Amazon Prime is presumably one of the reasons they did it; they know they have to keep adding quality content to stay in the game. > I'm imaging a blend of kickstarter mechanics and content aggregation systems I don't know of any successful TV shows made through Kickstarter-style funding. I don't want to be dismissive of the idea but I haven't been given a reason to think it could be made to really work well.