4 ms·

This is a transient reaction. They still habe 24M subscribers, are a monopoly in their field, and are robustly expanding in other countries. The real danger to

by Jun8 15y ago

This is a transient reaction. They still habe 24M subscribers, are a monopoly in their field, and are robustly expanding in other countries. The real danger to Netflix is not subs leaving because of price hikes (what alternative do you have really, shell out $70 per month to Comcast for horrible TV content?) but disruptions to their content sources, like the recent Staz debacle.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
Exactly. If there is no revolution in content creation, then Netflix is doomed. Distribution and content creation are inexorably linked. Netflix needs to produce content.
- sounds 15y ago
  If I can respectfully disagree, I believe content creation is unlimited. There's a quality-quantity curve, sure. Independent films make up for post-production quality by having great writing and acting. I feel this way because I'm convinced the internet is revolutionizing distribution. Therefore, Netflix is way ahead of the game (if you buy what I'm saying). Production costs are plummeting anyway - it's just that big-budget movies always spend about the same amount, but now that money goes farther.
  - cageface 15y ago
    Production costs for big budget films with a lot of effects are skyrocketing, not plummeting.
ghshephard 15y ago
I'm curious as to why you think they are a monopoly in their field? On any given evening, when I want to watch video content, it's a total coin toss as to whether I (a) end up buying on iTunes, (b) Go watch with amazon prime, (c) Use netflix, (d) bittorent the content. I end up with (d) only when the content is not available on the first three. I can't say I have any particular bias - so "monopoly" is perhaps an overly strong word.
- chc 15y ago
  "Monopoly" refers to their share of a particular market, not their share of how you personally watch video. I don't think Amazon's streaming numbers even compare and Bittorrent is not a commercial entity. iTunes is kind of a competitor, but their business model is so different that it's questionable whether they're really competing for the same people in general.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    Amazon's numbers might not compare right now, but they are very well positioned to elbow their way into Netflix's market. I found an estimate[1] that Amazon has 121-131 million customers, of which about 5 million are Prime members. Those prime members pay less per year than a Netflix streaming customer, and they pay it mostly to get free 2-day shipping, so they're already deriving a lot of value from it even without the streaming. Amazon just dropped a big library (although not as big as netflix's...yet) of free streaming videos in their laps. Word will spread, plus they get to advertise this new service essentially for free to their other 120M+ customers. They also have tons of servers to handle all of this. Amazon could also elbow in on netflix's DVD rental service pretty easily. They already have a worldwide rapid-shipping system in place, including handling plenty of returns. I'm sure they could add DVD rentals with two-day shipping each way if they wanted to. I'm guessing they don't want to, because they don't see a lot of profit in it, and maybe also because it could hurt their already-established business of selling DVDs. [1]http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Amazon-subscribers-pay-79-year-for-the-Amazon-Prime-Service http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Amazon-subscribers-p...
    - Jun8 15y ago
      Here's the question: of those 5M Prime members, have many are prime Prime and how many are through the friends and relatives? I'm an Amazon Prime member through a friend (i.e. I didn't pay the $75, I think a Prime member can have up to four people use Prime services) and Amazon doesn't let me stream videos.
      - 15y ago

by Jun8 15y ago

dreamdu5t 15y ago

Exactly. If there is no revolution in content creation, then Netflix is doomed. Distribution and content creation are inexorably linked. Netflix needs to produce content.

sounds 15y ago
If I can respectfully disagree, I believe content creation is unlimited. There's a quality-quantity curve, sure. Independent films make up for post-production quality by having great writing and acting. I feel this way because I'm convinced the internet is revolutionizing distribution. Therefore, Netflix is way ahead of the game (if you buy what I'm saying). Production costs are plummeting anyway - it's just that big-budget movies always spend about the same amount, but now that money goes farther.
- cageface 15y ago
  Production costs for big budget films with a lot of effects are skyrocketing, not plummeting.

ghshephard 15y ago

I'm curious as to why you think they are a monopoly in their field? On any given evening, when I want to watch video content, it's a total coin toss as to whether I (a) end up buying on iTunes, (b) Go watch with amazon prime, (c) Use netflix, (d) bittorent the content. I end up with (d) only when the content is not available on the first three. I can't say I have any particular bias - so "monopoly" is perhaps an overly strong word.

chc 15y ago
"Monopoly" refers to their share of a particular market, not their share of how you personally watch video. I don't think Amazon's streaming numbers even compare and Bittorrent is not a commercial entity. iTunes is kind of a competitor, but their business model is so different that it's questionable whether they're really competing for the same people in general.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Amazon's numbers might not compare right now, but they are very well positioned to elbow their way into Netflix's market. I found an estimate[1] that Amazon has 121-131 million customers, of which about 5 million are Prime members. Those prime members pay less per year than a Netflix streaming customer, and they pay it mostly to get free 2-day shipping, so they're already deriving a lot of value from it even without the streaming. Amazon just dropped a big library (although not as big as netflix's...yet) of free streaming videos in their laps. Word will spread, plus they get to advertise this new service essentially for free to their other 120M+ customers. They also have tons of servers to handle all of this. Amazon could also elbow in on netflix's DVD rental service pretty easily. They already have a worldwide rapid-shipping system in place, including handling plenty of returns. I'm sure they could add DVD rentals with two-day shipping each way if they wanted to. I'm guessing they don't want to, because they don't see a lot of profit in it, and maybe also because it could hurt their already-established business of selling DVDs. [1]http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Amazon-subscribers-pay-79-year-for-the-Amazon-Prime-Service http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Amazon-subscribers-p...
  - Jun8 15y ago
    Here's the question: of those 5M Prime members, have many are prime Prime and how many are through the friends and relatives? I'm an Amazon Prime member through a friend (i.e. I didn't pay the $75, I think a Prime member can have up to four people use Prime services) and Amazon doesn't let me stream videos.
    - 15y ago