18 ms·

Netflix will falter

41 points by peasantking 5y ago

anyfoo 5y ago
From the article: "I’m not a binge watcher. I’ve never been much of a TV viewer. I didn’t even own a television until my mid-30s. [...] but I get restless if I spend too much time staring into that flickering screen. My wife Tara has a similar attitude." This honestly makes me wonder "ok, why should I listen to you, then?" It doesn't help that they then go ahead and give an, at best, oversimplified explanation of why VHS won against Beta.[1] Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. (And calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system"... oh dear, I get the point you are trying to make, but "open" and 90's anti-trust Microsoft in the same sentence is pretty bold.) Maybe the conclusions are still valid, I can't tell. I remember that what made Netflix so immensely attractive to me, a "binge watcher" of many many TV shows and with many friends who were at least to some extent binge watchers, was that Netflix was the platform that had all the movies and especially TV shows that I wanted to binge watch. [1] Here's a very good video going into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60
- cgrealy 5y ago
  The OS comparison is especially bad since we have seen very little meaningful competition in that space. Linux dominates the server space. Windows dominates the desktop/laptop market, with Apple a niche player and Linux even more niche. On mobile, it's more balanced but there is still a duopoly. Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up.
  - jackson1442 5y ago
    I think it would be interesting to see TV move more in the direction that transit cards are moving. You tie your card to your account and pay per view. But if you spend enough money in a week, you're no longer charged for access (a "week pass"). Then, if you spend enough in a month, you're again no longer charged (a "month pass"). This idea could potentially be passed onto seasons and series rather than being time-limited. That way, you're always getting the optimal price for your content consumption, streaming companies can make a little more money (since these Pass rates would likely be higher than the current monthly membership), but those who just want to watch one series or one episode aren't left out to dry.
  - smoe 5y ago
    > Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up. I'm longing for this for years. I'm pretty fed up of often the only choices being either free and ad supported or having to pay a monthly subscription for entertainment, journalism, software, etc. I have quite a high willingness to pay for all of these, but I don't want to manage a hundred concurrent subscriptions nor having to restrict use to a small subset of services.
    - twelve40 5y ago
      you can watch tons of movies on Amazon each for a couple of bucks. Does that count as a microtransaction?
      - cgrealy 5y ago
        Actually, I can't, because of stupid geo-restrictions (yes, I could use a vpn, that's not the point).
      - smoe 5y ago
        It certainly does count, but last I checked it is very hit and miss what movies I can actually watch due to geo restrictions. Sometimes there are multiple version of the same movie, some blocked some available. At least it shows this info already on the search result page. Often there is no version with original audio but only the dubbed one, which is a deal breaker for me.
  - parasubvert 5y ago
    People went with the content. Windows had the apps, so people went there. Mac kept a fraction because they wouldn’t give up certain apps that Mac was superior with. And then that whole market had huge disruptions when most people stopped using Mac and Windows most of the time in favour of IOS or Android. Again - because of the app experiences. Exclusives are why Nintendo continues to thrive with the Switch. I just don’t see his “open always wins” coming to pass. Google said that with Android and still make more money from iOS. Oops.
  - rmk 5y ago
    The past decade has been about moving to the cloud, more than anything else, and this is a space where the OS mostly receded into the background. However, Linux, with its namespaces, provided LXC and subsequent innovations that leveraged namespaces to usher in the container revolution. I think this has safely put Linux in a league of its own. eBPF may cement Linux's status as the OS of the cloud if it is adopted widely. So there's a lot of action in things that build on OS innovations, but OS innovations themselves have been much slower I think. And the Microsoft with its 'openness' winning over Apple is a story that ignores the phenomenon that is the mobile phone completely. It's iOS and Android, not Microsoft Windows that's the definite winner in that space. Microsoft has a much more mature and well-loved tech stack that was the de-facto choice of developers in the 90s and aughts but failed to capitalize on that in the mobile world.
- 323 5y ago
  Windows has the largest selection of desktop software among all OSes. In that sense is the more open.
- bsder 5y ago
  > Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. And porn. As I recall, Sony wouldn't sell Beta tape or cameras to porn companies.
- B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
  > calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system" You could run any app you wanted. Try that with your phone. P.S. also, you do not have the root password for your phone, or your e-reader, or your TV, or your watch, or ... you get the idea.
PaulHoule 5y ago
One take is that many people spend $70 for a TV package, if they quit doing that they can afford $70 worth of streaming services. Another is that there is nothing special about Netflix other than being an early mover. It might not be for you but Disney has a meaningful brand and the future belongs to meaningful brands.
- KwisaksHaderach 5y ago
  Netflix is the instagram of the tv streaming services, 95% of the content is crap and they are creating lots of it.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Yea netflix’s strategy is pretty clearly to pump out enough crap that literally every person has their “guilty pleasure” show on there.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    Except that everyone's 5% is different. So whilst you may think Emily in Paris for example is crap it is hugely popular.
  - orhmeh09 5y ago
    What makes it the Instagram? Netflix doesn’t have user-generates content. If you mean Instagram as a shorthand for crap generally, I’d choose a different comparison.
  - nomel 5y ago
    I think there's a misunderstanding about what Netflix has to do. Netflix has to provide content that everyone enjoys. Everyone doesn't like the same thing, so it's necessary to have a bunch of content near "interest clusters" that exist within "everyone". This necessarily means that the majority of content will be disliked by any one person, because no one person likes all the genres. All that matters is that the hours of entertainment that you will enjoy is enough to justify the fee, each month. If you actually liked 90% of the shows on Netflix, the company would almost certainly be a failure, since that would mean they were only targeting your interest clusters, which is almost certainly very small compared to the whole interest space.
threeseed 5y ago
> What’s the biggest franchise at Netflix? What the author fails to understand is that everyone has different tastes and that is what makes Netflix so formidable. It doesn't need the big showcase shows that Disney has. The most popular shows on Netflix for 2021: Bridgerton, Lupin, The Witcher, Sex/Life, Stranger Things, Money Heist, Tiger King, Queens Gambit, Sweet Tooth and Emily In Paris. That is quite a diverse set of demographics that would be watching those shows. And then you have the recent popularity of Korean shows e.g. Squid Game, All of Us Are Dead, Kingdom etc which Netflix is pioneering by bringing to Western audiences. Netflix is far more multi-faceted and nuanced than it gets credit for.
- dcdc123 5y ago
  They also have the most responsive streams by a mile. Seeking on Netflix is so much less painful than their competitors...especially AppleTV.
lvl100 5y ago
Why Netflix Will Continue to Flourish. They make contents others will not make. They will be the number one destination for entertainments for a very long time because they are willing to bring Hollywood production value to every corner of the globe. I have no doubts. I think a lot of people suffer from myopic pov when they’re looking at these global enterprises. The game has dramatically changed in the last five years.
onion2k 5y ago
The point the author misses with examples of credit cards, ATMs, operating systems and video recorders is that those are all things you only really need one of. If there are two competing credit cards you pick the one that's best for you. With ATMs you use the most convenient. With OSs you use the one that came with your computer. And with video recorders ... well, you just don't use those any more. Streaming services are different. You don't choose one. You buy all the ones that offer something you want and leave the rest. Sometimes if one feels stale you switch it out for a different one. Some people only have one at a time. Some people have several. There is no compelling reason for services to share or collaborate so long as they are able to profitably hold enough market share at any given time. Bundling is highly unlikely to ever happen. It's far more likely that we'll see product diversification like Netflix's alleged gaming platform. These services will need to show growth somehow, but it won't be by sharing content.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Also it doesn't factor in that companies are bundling their streaming services with other services and so many people get them for free. Case in point: Amazon Prime and Apple One.
300bps 5y ago
Write-ups like this always assume Netflix will remain static. In the past, they have faced two existential crises: 1) DVDs by mail was becoming a buggy-whip style business. They pivoted to streaming. 2) Streaming content licensed from other companies effectively gave them a “maximum profit”. Every efficiency they gained that led to higher profit was quickly negotiated away by rights holders who threatened to take away Netflix’s life blood (content). So they started their own production company and created their own content. Now they’re being attacked from every direction by a host of competitors. History shows Netflix will not lie down. As an impartial observer with no dog in the fight, I’m interested to see what they come up with next.
- antoniuschan99 5y ago
  Also this headline coincidentally showed up today Netflix dominates 2022 Oscar nominations with 27: See studio-by-studio breakdown https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/netflix-oscar-nominations-studio-scorecard/ https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/netflix-oscar-nominat...
_8j50 5y ago
There's a lot of bias here. How many people care about tv so much they would switch platforms for a show? I mean, I care a lot but I will never get paramount+ for Halo or Disney+ for star trek. It's the only thing to do when I am just tired and need to sit down. I am very tolerant of mediocre shows. I used only prime until a few months ago and I am honestly aghast and in awe of the amount of content on netflix. I feel like I could never run out of random things I can put on I haven't seen already. I think a lot of people do the same to the point where they have a "just play something" feature. Amazon prime had good content but slim pickings! And half the stuff you have to pay for, ran out of free stuff fast. Hulu likes ads too much, low value content too. My point is, Netflix is "tv" everything else is some site charging for video content. You turn your cable tv on to some channel and just watch what is on, so long as you haven't seen it already. Netflix lets you do that, everyone else, maybe they have good shows but not enough of them. The Netflix UX is amazing as well, it rivals apple UX in my opinion. It just works, even autoplay preview works well somehow! Their app also syncs well and lets you download content for long trips and such. I have to disagree with OP. Netflix is here to stay. Don't tell anyone but I would gladly pay up to $99/mo for it as-is because similar quality on cable does not exist but I would be paying much more for premium cable. "Netflix+chill" is only a thing because of their UX, can't do that on Hulu because ads ruin things for example.
- parasubvert 5y ago
  Almost everyone I know has multiple TV platforms for specific shows, particularly Disney+ and HBO, more recently Prime. It’s very common. Only reason I keep Netflix is for specific shows.
- gilgoomesh 5y ago
  I'm amazed people are so reluctant to pick up a subscription for 1 month to watch a show. $15 to watch a season of a show. It's not a life decision, it's a whim.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    > It's not a life decision, it's a whim. If I were still single, this would be true. But picking up Disney+ for a month is not a short-term commitment if you have small children.
spandrew 5y ago
From my understanding the 'rights' to TV shows are actually auctioned quite openly due to royalty systems and pretty strong union contracts demanding their slice of that revenue. It's actually within the deal structure. So I'm not sure Netflix is at too much risk of every studio colluding them out of these auctions. Especially when they are legitimately one of the richest 'producers' in LA.
mchusma 5y ago
This person used VISA, a part of (debatably the worst tri-opoly) as example of something open? Insane. I was genuinely interested in where he was going but this was just a huge fail. New entrants who wish to take on credit card offerings cannot flourish due to Visa and Mastercard's monopolistic practices.
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  If you are looking to take on credit cards than sure it’s hard to be a new processor. If you are a bank, it’s fairly simple to issue your customers a Mastercard. I think the small players at this scale are still multi-million dollar studios and production companies.
TillE 5y ago
The real problem with Netflix is that it's a middleman - besides its handful of original productions, it's really just providing replaceable infrastructure. In the long term, bandwidth is free and payments are frictionless, so what value can they provide? Its existence relies on the delicate balance where it's providing what's perceived as a superior deal for both viewers and producers. Not a comfortable position!
- adamc 5y ago
  Hence the move to produce content. But that's a slow process.
- marktolson 5y ago
  They have a lot more than a handful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Netflix_original_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Netflix_original_progr...
- kupopuffs 5y ago
  It did have a first mover advantage, years and years ago. They realized their position and have already transitioned to producing. I'd say they're continuing the fight and thank God as a viewer some of their productions have been amazing
candyman 5y ago
Netflix is cheap enough with enough content to make it a keeper. There are lots of other options but they are too niche (Curiosity Stream, Gaia) or too expensive (Fubu, YouTube TV). It feels like a weird redux but eventually maybe the big platforms - AppleTV, Roku, Youtube TV will be just like the giant aggregators of the past Cable TV world but you'll be able to pick and chose which channels to pay for (Netflix, Tennis Channel, Disney, HBO, etc.)
- telesilla 5y ago
  Apple TV already seems to doing that, there are shows on their platform that point you to get a showtime, HBO or whatever login.
  - gilgoomesh 5y ago
    I think you're confusing the Apple TV app (which shows content from any participating video app on the App Store) and the Apple TV+ service (it's a separate tab within the app), which is Apple's own subscription content.
    - telesilla 5y ago
      >shows content from any participating video app on the App Store I was not aware of that, thanks.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  Now that it's moving to $15/mo I'm going to be taking a break. We have Amazon Prime and could save $60 by cutting Netflix for several months. Or we could spend $35 getting a channel on Prime and still save $25.
  - chihuahua 5y ago
    I'm going to pause my Netflix subscription until the next season of Great British Bake-Off is released in the fall. I'm having a hard time finding anything else that's worthwhile on Netflix. "Netflix Original" to me is a signal of low quality.
devmunchies 5y ago
What was the alternative strategy? Any ideas? Maybe if they had “channels” that I could add-on like in Prime then many would pay for Paramount, HBO, etc and bundle it into their Netflix. If they opened it up then other networks could build on it as a platform (e.g. Masterclass could build an channel integration and it gets approved by Netflix much like an App Store). Netflix’s childrens content is weak, so this approach would allow me as a parent to bundle in PBS Kids or Nick Jr. If Netflix took 10-20% from channel subscriptions then they could easily get to $20/mo revenue for many users. No need to raise rates like they are currently doing.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Netflix has the numbers, they need the programming to survive. They should show more patience with shows. I don't thing Paramount+ or Peacock/NBC will penetrate enough, I think Disney+ will. HBO is kinda like Netflix, I think those two should merge: Netflix provides the tech/platform and a huge eyeball base, and HBO has better production. HBO could strengthen its cable offerings with Netflix programming, seems very win-win. No idea what Cabletown's plans are for NBC/Peacock, but I think they should consider merging with Netflix too. Who knows about Paramount+. CBS owns older viewers and network TV, so I think they are too stubborn to merge or capitulate. CBS cranks out a lot of "good for TV" programming, but is it appointment viewing? More like they've mastered the older viewer that plops down and surfs the main networks. They won't claim the younger viewer, won't get a good enough subscriber base, and they won't have a valuable enough catalog to demand good merger or licensing terms. What is FOX doing? Do they have a big streaming platform? One thing that is for sure, cable is on a deathmarch. The next round of NFL negotiations should be interesting, because ESPN (and by extension cable TV itself) is already stretched to the limit for the NFL contract, and the next one might break them if the cable economics continue to degrade in viewership (and portion of the cable bill ESPN gets to claim)
richardfey 5y ago
There's some wishful thinking here. Also: the supply of new users is much faster to replenish for streaming services than it was for all of the cited analogies.
pessimizer 5y ago
I love that the media has gone bear on Netflix. I'll take the position that it doesn't matter if they start failing, because there won't ever be a reason to completely fail. The people that own Netflix can just buy into the competitors, too, maybe encouraging them to weave together their offerings through a unified delivery system disguised as an independent company. Ultimately, Netflix is just a brand name - a brand name that started off associated with a completely different thing, rare films delivered by mail, and is now associated with mass-market stuff delivered like everything else. A shrunken, rump Netflix is nothing lost. I do like all the non-English series content, although HBO does a lot of that, too. Maybe Netflix will ultimately just be a brand that co-produces and distributes a ton of the world's TV series, and a few prestige films every year.
- bgun 5y ago
  Is one guy on Substack now "the media"? If so then I'm starting to understand why "the media" has become the go-to bogeyman for any cause we want to complain is under assault.
woeirua 5y ago
So the author predicts the rise of a cable like on-demand service... which is exactly what Netflix was before the major content providers all started yanking their content. We're quickly getting to the point where I'm paying almost as much for VOD subscriptions as I was for cable.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >We're quickly getting to the point where I'm paying almost as much for VOD subscriptions as I was for cable. You're still ultimately paying less for a far superior product. I'd much rather see a world with an a-la-carte federated media platform for individual content creators than anything like what Netflix was.
iLoveOncall 5y ago
I think the author of the article has absolutely no credential in the discussion given that he barely watches content (despite paying for 6 subscriptions, go figure?), however I think the conclusion isn't exactly wrong. I think Spotify, Deezer, Netflix, HBO, etc. are all doomed to fail. They're doomed to fail because the competition is Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. which all have virtually infinite money to inject in those services, while the others only have a single income source. Nobody cares if PrimeVideo runs at a loss for years or even decades, and the stock price of Amazon won't move an inch if PrimeVideo looses watchers. But at some point investors will stop lending money to one-trick monkeys like Spotify and Netflix.
- tptacek 5y ago
  HBO is Warner Media. They'll be fine. Microsoft thought it was going to own all of media in the early oughts, and produced... Slate and MSNBC. Apple isn't making much of a dent with Apple TV.
  - iLoveOncall 5y ago
    But Warner Media is still a small player compared to Amazon for example. I don't think they would close the TV channel, or even the concept of online streaming, but they may decide that it's more advantageous for them to merge with a competitor than try to support their own platform against giants that make 10x their revenue every year. Agreed on Apple for now, but as much as I think it'll take a decade for Netflix to "fail", I think Apple is fine with taking a decade to take over the market with Apple TV.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      This argument is essentially equivalent to saying that giant tech companies will ultimately displace all media companies. At the point where you're predicting Amazon toppling Warner, you've basically decided there is no point in investing in anything but a tech company. The other possibility, I think more plausible, is that companies like Netflix will change what it means to be a media company, and media companies will grow to look more like Netflix and less like Viacom.
softwarebeware 5y ago
I think the author makes some good points. I've been a customer of Netflix way back when it was DVDs-in-envelopes and that was awesome because you could get just about any new movie as soon as it was released. The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for. Instead, I'm railroaded into things Netflix created instead, by the algorithm that suggests similar alternatives, all of which feel like cheap knock-offs. I want to watch Star Wars. I want to watch Back to the Future. I want to watch Donnie Darko. And not just when Netflix happens to have them on the catalog.
- m463 5y ago
  I did netflix dvds, then added netflix streaming. Then something happened, my time got more valuable and streaming wasn't as interesting. So I doubled down on dvds and eventually netflix unsubscribed me from streaming because I didn't use it (kudos netflix). I now am exclusively netflix dvds and love it.
  - softwarebeware 5y ago
    > I now am exclusively netflix dvds and love it. Thanks for mentioning this! I actually had no idea that there was still the option for DVDs. Looks like a good service, actually! I may become an exclusively netflix DVDs subscriber!
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for. This is my experience exactly. Netflix has mostly retreated into an "originals"-heavy strategy with an extremely low batting average. Because they have a weak editorial POV, they abruptly and unceremoniously cancel quality content that doesn't perform well, to the point that you're a fool if you start watching a promising-looking series before it completes. If we didn't get such a good deal via T-Mobile, we'd have canceled already.
Barrin92 5y ago
Surprised there are so many negative comments here because I think the author is spot on. Technologically, there is significant redundancy between streaming services and mergers would cut costs dramatically. The competition is all in the ownership of the content, which is costly to produce, so again consolidation makes sense. Another very similar medium to TV streaming is the podcasting space, and it has seen a lot of consolidation with Spotify gobbling up Gimlet and Anchor among others and Apple+ going on their own buying sprees. New original studios seem to get absorbed very quickly. The observation about people getting sick of a fractured subscription market seems also true. Not sure if Netflix will completely falter but if there's ever some kind of ganging up between Netflix competitors it's hard to not think that Netflix would have a tough time.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined. Add in Squid Game, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place and more original content, and I think Netflix is honestly the king of quality content right now. They seem to be in the sweet spot, budget-wise, where they can afford to actually bring the director's vision to life, without the production values being so high that they can't afford to take risks.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The Good Place isn't a Netflix original. It's an NBC show.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    The more you know (it's exclusive to Netflix and pushed heavily here in Australia, so I assumed). Either way, it's fucking great!
- autarch 5y ago
  > >It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes > > Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined. I think he's just talking about mass appeal, not quality. Netflix has lots of great stuff, but Disney has some of the biggest properties in film & TV.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Just anecdotal, but significantly more people I know watched Squid Game compared to the new Star Wars Trilogy or Spider-Man.
fullshark 5y ago
I think Netflix will merge with content producers and become one of three global streaming services. The market share battle is just about positioning before this inevitable consolidation.
- m463 5y ago
  I'm under the impression that movies are actually competitive. There are lots of studios and production companies. Couldn't streaming be competitive too? (assuming "the internet" stays open)
- pvorb 5y ago
  I'm not sure it will persist as a streaming service for very long as competitors seem to have unlimited resources (Amazon, Apple). But it does a really good job at producing content globally, so I think it will persist as one of the major global production studios.
karmakaze 5y ago
> How many streaming TV platforms do I really need? I find that Netflix generally makes people's list, on a list of N--even if N == 1. We'll have to see if that's still true after the price hikes.
JauntTrooper 5y ago
I don't see myself ever cancelling Netflix, Disney+ or Amazon Prime. They're the basic 3 channels we watch in our house. The others -- Hulu, Apple, HBO, Paramount, Noggin, Showtime -- are 'extra' channels that we'll probably cancel & re-subscribe on occasion, depending on whether there are shows we want to watch. (HBO's in the middle. We've been subscribers for years, but the content has been lacking lately and I've seriously considered cancelling it.) I wonder, how common is our framework among consumers, of having a few permanent channels and then a broader set of rotating ones?
zwieback 5y ago
Kind of sounds plausible but if Netflix can continue making good content it will survive in one form or another. My fear is that eventually we'll get back to a cable model where some aggregator with enough power will combine all these offerings and sell that as a subscription.
whoisjuan 5y ago
Very poor reasoning in this article. He totally ignored the business fundamentals of the entertainment industry. Content is king and content is an extremely capital-intensive business. No existing entertainment business is willing to cooperate on content distribution because that would severely reduce their margins. Netflix's strategy is indeed the right strategy because they can create long-lasting IP and horizontally expand their business into other entertainment verticals. Aggregation is by far the worst strategy in content distribution because you don't have bargaining power. As you start adding users to your platform, you will proportionally lose power to renegotiate licenses because IP owners will attribute your growth to their content. It's a zero-sum game.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pier25 5y ago
At home we have Netflix, Disney, and Prime. Honestly, of all the services we've used Netflix is the one giving us more ROI and the one I'd never cancel. We don't use Prime Video because there's barely any interesting content. We only have it because it comes included in Prime, but I'd never pay for it. Disney is great in terms of tech, but I'm seriously considering canceling it because the ROI is so low. Netflix keeps us interested. There's tons of Atmos 4K HDR content and their app/tech is great. At least once a month or so we binge a show at home. My wife also watches Netflix every day while exercising or when eating alone. I watch true crime documentaries, Nordic noir stuff, and even some Netflix movies from time to time. We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. Also, it's quite ridiculous they don't stream content in Atmos 4K HDR that is available in that format like Game of Thrones. We also had Apple+ for a few months. The app/tech is great but ended up cancelling it because we didn't enjoy any of the stuff there.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. FWIW, that may be more a function of the playback device. On Apple TV, HBO Max picture quality has been great. Even on Apple TV the app is very stupid in other ways, though. It often replays the last episode we saw when we continue watching a series, forcing us to scrub through to the end of an already-seen ep before we can enjoy the next one.
  - pier25 5y ago
    I will try again on the Apple TV, but the issues were on an Nvidia Shield Pro.
dasil003 5y ago
> Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.? Do you think Netflix can match that with its proprietary approach? The company will be forced to open up its own system, or face inevitable decline, perhaps even obsolescence. The author does not understand media distribution and has this exactly backwards. Netflix did want to be the single monthly subscription, but the content rightsholders would never allow it because it cedes all the distribution control to Netflix. The last good deal Netflix got was the Starz deal in 2008 when the studios still underestimated the future of streaming. After that it was a steady downward trend, and Netflix realized that as a middle man they had no future, so they entered a race to become HBO (by producing their own content) faster than HBO (and all the other major content rightsholders) could build their own distribution. The idea that Netflix is somehow "proprietary", and the other examples from other industries are "open standards" is specious gobbledygook. You have to look at specifics. For instance, Netflix doesn't make devices, they integrate with smart TVs and OTT boxes which absolutely are open standards as much as any of the other examples. And even within the Netflix bubble they do license others content, so it's not all "proprietary", but on the other hand it's an app, not a platform, so you can't really compare it to a payments network or an operating system like Microsoft Windows—that is what Roku, Samsung and Apple provide, not Netflix. The whole article is just another in a long tail of naive consumer complaints, decrying how things "should" be from their perspective, but in total ignorance of the incentives and systems that lead to things to being the way they actually are. (full disclosure: I co-founded and led a streaming company from 2007-2016)
zuminator 5y ago
I disagree with the author's conclusions, mainly for reasons already stated: the examples given are of companies that provide fungible services, whereas Netflix offers unique programming; it's amassed a war chest of IP at this point; the cost of entry into this market is extremely high; the UX failures of Paramount+ and Amazon Prime, among others, only goes to show that Netflix's core competency isn't so simple to replicate. Imagine someone arguing that the Disney theme parks will falter because there Sea World, Cedar Fair, Six Flags and Dollywood could easily get together and replicate their success. But aside from all of that, I find it irksome when columnists self-identify as "honest brokers," straight-shooters, true patriots, etc. Don't tell me you're trustworthy. Truth-tellers and liars make the exact same assertion. (Hasn't this man ever visited any two-tribe islands?) Just make your points, and respect your readers to determine that you can be trusted.
miffy900 5y ago
> I base this prediction on my study of similar situations in the past. The track record here is clear and unambiguous. Open, shared systems always beat out closed proprietary systems. The author goes on to list examples in credit cards, computer OS's, ATM's etc, but all those things are cherry-picked. They conveniently ignore Apple's iPhone/iPad/App Store combination being wildly successful. And the mis-use of terms like 'open' and 'proprietary' lead me to conclude the author doesn't actually understand what those terms mean. The comparison of Windows to Mac OS X is just laughable; calling Windows an 'open' and 'shared' operating system? Mac OS is 'closed' and 'proprietary'? Well actually they're both proprietary and neither are open. Also being ignored by the author is video game consoles. For more than 2 decades, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have co-existed with their own proprietary hardware/software systems. According to the author, I suppose Google search must be 'open' and 'shared' just because it has 90% market share. > There are hundreds of possible participants out there with valuable film, TV, or other intellectual properties, and they aren’t large enough to take on Netflix on their own. But if they combine their efforts, they will be formidable... > ...Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.? The author hypothesizes about a product that DOES NOT EXIST and comes to the conclusion Netflix is doomed? Also what is the likelihood that all the players in the media industry are just going to decide to come together and hold hands? Even if they all decided to conduct a super-merger, that would never get legal/anti-competitive clearance. How does that not seem a bit outlandish? And yet the author writes about it as if it's some inevitability.
aidenn0 5y ago
In all of the examples, the smaller competitors banded together. Who are the "smaller competitors" here? Disney certainly isn't smaller than Netflix by any reasonable measure, and Amazon has a built-in customer base because of bundling with the free shipping. Perhaps all of the "also-ran" services Paramount, Hulu, Peacock will band together, but I wonder how successful that will be vs. just leasing their material to Amazon or Netflix. Streaming is also interesting because of the less-fungible nature of flagship content. The Witcher is not precisely a substitute for Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time is certainly not a substitute for either. The main reason to not switch from "Bank of my local village" to a Bank of America is friction, and "Bank of your local village" doesn't directly compete with "Bank of my local village" but both compete with B of A, so there is a natural alliance there. [edit] Also, VCRs; Betamax was more expensive and had a shorter runtime, while quality of self-recorded material was less important to consumers. VHS won by being cheaper and better matching customer use-cases; maybe that was because it was open, but it was not directly because it was open. [edit2] > [Netflix] has pursued the wrong strategy, and doubled down at every opportunity. The company has spent billions of dollars on proprietary films and TV shows in order to create a position of market dominance with a totally closed system. But that was only phase one. We are already in phase two, with Disney, Paramount, and others removing their offerings from the Netflix platform, and trying to create their own powerful fiefdoms. Netflix would be out of the streaming business today if it hadn't pursued this strategy; the writing was already on the wall for content-owners doing their own streaming before Netflix produced original content. Streaming platforms are being commodified, but streaming content is not. [edit3] > Do you think Netflix can match that with its proprietary approach? The company will be forced to open up its own system, or face inevitable decline, perhaps even obsolescence Again, Netflix isn't pursuing a "proprietary approach" by choice; if you want to sell Netflix any license for your content (exclusive or otherwise), they are more than happy to do so if the price is right. Look at everything available that isn't "Netflix Original" (and note that even some of that is not exclusive to Netflix, as they may have only partial ownership). [edit4] > Here’s the bottom line: Netflix might be one of the largest companies in the world, but it’s far more vulnerable than it looks at first glance. And it doesn’t have the brand franchises it can milk like Disney—which can churn out Marvel and Stars Wars movies with reasonable assurances of market success. This is the only paragraph related to Netflix in the entire article that I agree with. I don't know how the author can hold this truth in their head while blasting them for spending money like water trying to generate such a franchise through massive spends on content. If the author's thesis is that Netflix is doomed to fail, then Netflix should just shut down streaming operations right now. [edit5] Isn't Roku already a bit of what the author wants? You can search across multiple streaming services and have them all in one place. Sure you have to actually pay for those services, but most of them can be signed up for in the Roku app, and nobody's giving their content away for free...
notmyfuture 5y ago
With the increasing balkanization of streaming TV/film services, I wonder if piracy will start making a comeback. When everything (or most things) are under one roof, streaming makes sense - a single bill, one place to find content etc. Wondering which show is on which platform, or having to consider signing up for a subscription to a new service for a single show is not a good user experience, not to mention the single monthly bill ballooning to 3 or more.
meesterdude 5y ago
> But financial analysts underestimate the risks Netflix took on when it decided to be self-sufficient, creating its own library of movies and TV shows. This huge and ongoing cash drain is a weakness, not a strength. this is a terrible analysis. Netflix recognized early on that they need to start yesterday (years ago) before other streaming services came online. it's why they're still relevant today. Otherwise I must confess: I was bearish on netflix, and still am overall. But their investments are thoughtful and strategic, squid game being a recent example. I don't love them, but they're the only service I'm paying for. their weakness is the monthly cost for unlimited streaming. Once you're basically in every home, the only way you can extract more money is to raise the rates. When a hit show comes out, people may signup for a month to watch and then cancel, and they certainly honor that behavior. But they're also mindful of ads and the expectations of their current user base, and will have to get creative on generating new revenue. I give them 50/50 they find a way.

41 points by peasantking 5y ago

From the article: "I’m not a binge watcher. I’ve never been much of a TV viewer. I didn’t even own a television until my mid-30s. [...] but I get restless if I spend too much time staring into that flickering screen. My wife Tara has a similar attitude." This honestly makes me wonder "ok, why should I listen to you, then?" It doesn't help that they then go ahead and give an, at best, oversimplified explanation of why VHS won against Beta.[1] Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. (And calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system"... oh dear, I get the point you are trying to make, but "open" and 90's anti-trust Microsoft in the same sentence is pretty bold.) Maybe the conclusions are still valid, I can't tell. I remember that what made Netflix so immensely attractive to me, a "binge watcher" of many many TV shows and with many friends who were at least to some extent binge watchers, was that Netflix was the platform that had all the movies and especially TV shows that I wanted to binge watch. [1] Here's a very good video going into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60

cgrealy 5y ago
The OS comparison is especially bad since we have seen very little meaningful competition in that space. Linux dominates the server space. Windows dominates the desktop/laptop market, with Apple a niche player and Linux even more niche. On mobile, it's more balanced but there is still a duopoly. Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up.
- jackson1442 5y ago
  I think it would be interesting to see TV move more in the direction that transit cards are moving. You tie your card to your account and pay per view. But if you spend enough money in a week, you're no longer charged for access (a "week pass"). Then, if you spend enough in a month, you're again no longer charged (a "month pass"). This idea could potentially be passed onto seasons and series rather than being time-limited. That way, you're always getting the optimal price for your content consumption, streaming companies can make a little more money (since these Pass rates would likely be higher than the current monthly membership), but those who just want to watch one series or one episode aren't left out to dry.
- smoe 5y ago
  > Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up. I'm longing for this for years. I'm pretty fed up of often the only choices being either free and ad supported or having to pay a monthly subscription for entertainment, journalism, software, etc. I have quite a high willingness to pay for all of these, but I don't want to manage a hundred concurrent subscriptions nor having to restrict use to a small subset of services.
  - twelve40 5y ago
    you can watch tons of movies on Amazon each for a couple of bucks. Does that count as a microtransaction?
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      Actually, I can't, because of stupid geo-restrictions (yes, I could use a vpn, that's not the point).
    - smoe 5y ago
      It certainly does count, but last I checked it is very hit and miss what movies I can actually watch due to geo restrictions. Sometimes there are multiple version of the same movie, some blocked some available. At least it shows this info already on the search result page. Often there is no version with original audio but only the dubbed one, which is a deal breaker for me.
- parasubvert 5y ago
  People went with the content. Windows had the apps, so people went there. Mac kept a fraction because they wouldn’t give up certain apps that Mac was superior with. And then that whole market had huge disruptions when most people stopped using Mac and Windows most of the time in favour of IOS or Android. Again - because of the app experiences. Exclusives are why Nintendo continues to thrive with the Switch. I just don’t see his “open always wins” coming to pass. Google said that with Android and still make more money from iOS. Oops.
- rmk 5y ago
  The past decade has been about moving to the cloud, more than anything else, and this is a space where the OS mostly receded into the background. However, Linux, with its namespaces, provided LXC and subsequent innovations that leveraged namespaces to usher in the container revolution. I think this has safely put Linux in a league of its own. eBPF may cement Linux's status as the OS of the cloud if it is adopted widely. So there's a lot of action in things that build on OS innovations, but OS innovations themselves have been much slower I think. And the Microsoft with its 'openness' winning over Apple is a story that ignores the phenomenon that is the mobile phone completely. It's iOS and Android, not Microsoft Windows that's the definite winner in that space. Microsoft has a much more mature and well-loved tech stack that was the de-facto choice of developers in the 90s and aughts but failed to capitalize on that in the mobile world.
323 5y ago
Windows has the largest selection of desktop software among all OSes. In that sense is the more open.
bsder 5y ago
> Not a single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape length. And porn. As I recall, Sony wouldn't sell Beta tape or cameras to porn companies.
B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
> calling Windows, of all OSes, an "open operating system" You could run any app you wanted. Try that with your phone. P.S. also, you do not have the root password for your phone, or your e-reader, or your TV, or your watch, or ... you get the idea.

PaulHoule 5y ago

One take is that many people spend $70 for a TV package, if they quit doing that they can afford $70 worth of streaming services. Another is that there is nothing special about Netflix other than being an early mover. It might not be for you but Disney has a meaningful brand and the future belongs to meaningful brands.

KwisaksHaderach 5y ago
Netflix is the instagram of the tv streaming services, 95% of the content is crap and they are creating lots of it.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Yea netflix’s strategy is pretty clearly to pump out enough crap that literally every person has their “guilty pleasure” show on there.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Except that everyone's 5% is different. So whilst you may think Emily in Paris for example is crap it is hugely popular.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  What makes it the Instagram? Netflix doesn’t have user-generates content. If you mean Instagram as a shorthand for crap generally, I’d choose a different comparison.
- nomel 5y ago
  I think there's a misunderstanding about what Netflix has to do. Netflix has to provide content that everyone enjoys. Everyone doesn't like the same thing, so it's necessary to have a bunch of content near "interest clusters" that exist within "everyone". This necessarily means that the majority of content will be disliked by any one person, because no one person likes all the genres. All that matters is that the hours of entertainment that you will enjoy is enough to justify the fee, each month. If you actually liked 90% of the shows on Netflix, the company would almost certainly be a failure, since that would mean they were only targeting your interest clusters, which is almost certainly very small compared to the whole interest space.

threeseed 5y ago

> What’s the biggest franchise at Netflix? What the author fails to understand is that everyone has different tastes and that is what makes Netflix so formidable. It doesn't need the big showcase shows that Disney has. The most popular shows on Netflix for 2021: Bridgerton, Lupin, The Witcher, Sex/Life, Stranger Things, Money Heist, Tiger King, Queens Gambit, Sweet Tooth and Emily In Paris. That is quite a diverse set of demographics that would be watching those shows. And then you have the recent popularity of Korean shows e.g. Squid Game, All of Us Are Dead, Kingdom etc which Netflix is pioneering by bringing to Western audiences. Netflix is far more multi-faceted and nuanced than it gets credit for.

dcdc123 5y ago
They also have the most responsive streams by a mile. Seeking on Netflix is so much less painful than their competitors...especially AppleTV.

lvl100 5y ago

Why Netflix Will Continue to Flourish. They make contents others will not make. They will be the number one destination for entertainments for a very long time because they are willing to bring Hollywood production value to every corner of the globe. I have no doubts. I think a lot of people suffer from myopic pov when they’re looking at these global enterprises. The game has dramatically changed in the last five years.

onion2k 5y ago

The point the author misses with examples of credit cards, ATMs, operating systems and video recorders is that those are all things you only really need one of. If there are two competing credit cards you pick the one that's best for you. With ATMs you use the most convenient. With OSs you use the one that came with your computer. And with video recorders ... well, you just don't use those any more. Streaming services are different. You don't choose one. You buy all the ones that offer something you want and leave the rest. Sometimes if one feels stale you switch it out for a different one. Some people only have one at a time. Some people have several. There is no compelling reason for services to share or collaborate so long as they are able to profitably hold enough market share at any given time. Bundling is highly unlikely to ever happen. It's far more likely that we'll see product diversification like Netflix's alleged gaming platform. These services will need to show growth somehow, but it won't be by sharing content.

threeseed 5y ago
Also it doesn't factor in that companies are bundling their streaming services with other services and so many people get them for free. Case in point: Amazon Prime and Apple One.

300bps 5y ago

Write-ups like this always assume Netflix will remain static. In the past, they have faced two existential crises: 1) DVDs by mail was becoming a buggy-whip style business. They pivoted to streaming. 2) Streaming content licensed from other companies effectively gave them a “maximum profit”. Every efficiency they gained that led to higher profit was quickly negotiated away by rights holders who threatened to take away Netflix’s life blood (content). So they started their own production company and created their own content. Now they’re being attacked from every direction by a host of competitors. History shows Netflix will not lie down. As an impartial observer with no dog in the fight, I’m interested to see what they come up with next.

antoniuschan99 5y ago
Also this headline coincidentally showed up today Netflix dominates 2022 Oscar nominations with 27: See studio-by-studio breakdown https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/netflix-oscar-nominations-studio-scorecard/ https://www.goldderby.com/article/2022/netflix-oscar-nominat...

_8j50 5y ago

There's a lot of bias here. How many people care about tv so much they would switch platforms for a show? I mean, I care a lot but I will never get paramount+ for Halo or Disney+ for star trek. It's the only thing to do when I am just tired and need to sit down. I am very tolerant of mediocre shows. I used only prime until a few months ago and I am honestly aghast and in awe of the amount of content on netflix. I feel like I could never run out of random things I can put on I haven't seen already. I think a lot of people do the same to the point where they have a "just play something" feature. Amazon prime had good content but slim pickings! And half the stuff you have to pay for, ran out of free stuff fast. Hulu likes ads too much, low value content too. My point is, Netflix is "tv" everything else is some site charging for video content. You turn your cable tv on to some channel and just watch what is on, so long as you haven't seen it already. Netflix lets you do that, everyone else, maybe they have good shows but not enough of them. The Netflix UX is amazing as well, it rivals apple UX in my opinion. It just works, even autoplay preview works well somehow! Their app also syncs well and lets you download content for long trips and such. I have to disagree with OP. Netflix is here to stay. Don't tell anyone but I would gladly pay up to $99/mo for it as-is because similar quality on cable does not exist but I would be paying much more for premium cable. "Netflix+chill" is only a thing because of their UX, can't do that on Hulu because ads ruin things for example.

parasubvert 5y ago
Almost everyone I know has multiple TV platforms for specific shows, particularly Disney+ and HBO, more recently Prime. It’s very common. Only reason I keep Netflix is for specific shows.
gilgoomesh 5y ago
I'm amazed people are so reluctant to pick up a subscription for 1 month to watch a show. $15 to watch a season of a show. It's not a life decision, it's a whim.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  > It's not a life decision, it's a whim. If I were still single, this would be true. But picking up Disney+ for a month is not a short-term commitment if you have small children.

spandrew 5y ago

From my understanding the 'rights' to TV shows are actually auctioned quite openly due to royalty systems and pretty strong union contracts demanding their slice of that revenue. It's actually within the deal structure. So I'm not sure Netflix is at too much risk of every studio colluding them out of these auctions. Especially when they are legitimately one of the richest 'producers' in LA.

mchusma 5y ago

This person used VISA, a part of (debatably the worst tri-opoly) as example of something open? Insane. I was genuinely interested in where he was going but this was just a huge fail. New entrants who wish to take on credit card offerings cannot flourish due to Visa and Mastercard's monopolistic practices.

whitexn--g28h 5y ago
If you are looking to take on credit cards than sure it’s hard to be a new processor. If you are a bank, it’s fairly simple to issue your customers a Mastercard. I think the small players at this scale are still multi-million dollar studios and production companies.

TillE 5y ago

The real problem with Netflix is that it's a middleman - besides its handful of original productions, it's really just providing replaceable infrastructure. In the long term, bandwidth is free and payments are frictionless, so what value can they provide? Its existence relies on the delicate balance where it's providing what's perceived as a superior deal for both viewers and producers. Not a comfortable position!

adamc 5y ago
Hence the move to produce content. But that's a slow process.
marktolson 5y ago
They have a lot more than a handful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Netflix_original_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Netflix_original_progr...
kupopuffs 5y ago
It did have a first mover advantage, years and years ago. They realized their position and have already transitioned to producing. I'd say they're continuing the fight and thank God as a viewer some of their productions have been amazing

candyman 5y ago

Netflix is cheap enough with enough content to make it a keeper. There are lots of other options but they are too niche (Curiosity Stream, Gaia) or too expensive (Fubu, YouTube TV). It feels like a weird redux but eventually maybe the big platforms - AppleTV, Roku, Youtube TV will be just like the giant aggregators of the past Cable TV world but you'll be able to pick and chose which channels to pay for (Netflix, Tennis Channel, Disney, HBO, etc.)

telesilla 5y ago
Apple TV already seems to doing that, there are shows on their platform that point you to get a showtime, HBO or whatever login.
- gilgoomesh 5y ago
  I think you're confusing the Apple TV app (which shows content from any participating video app on the App Store) and the Apple TV+ service (it's a separate tab within the app), which is Apple's own subscription content.
  - telesilla 5y ago
    >shows content from any participating video app on the App Store I was not aware of that, thanks.
gnicholas 5y ago
Now that it's moving to $15/mo I'm going to be taking a break. We have Amazon Prime and could save $60 by cutting Netflix for several months. Or we could spend $35 getting a channel on Prime and still save $25.
- chihuahua 5y ago
  I'm going to pause my Netflix subscription until the next season of Great British Bake-Off is released in the fall. I'm having a hard time finding anything else that's worthwhile on Netflix. "Netflix Original" to me is a signal of low quality.

devmunchies 5y ago

What was the alternative strategy? Any ideas? Maybe if they had “channels” that I could add-on like in Prime then many would pay for Paramount, HBO, etc and bundle it into their Netflix. If they opened it up then other networks could build on it as a platform (e.g. Masterclass could build an channel integration and it gets approved by Netflix much like an App Store). Netflix’s childrens content is weak, so this approach would allow me as a parent to bundle in PBS Kids or Nick Jr. If Netflix took 10-20% from channel subscriptions then they could easily get to $20/mo revenue for many users. No need to raise rates like they are currently doing.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Netflix has the numbers, they need the programming to survive. They should show more patience with shows. I don't thing Paramount+ or Peacock/NBC will penetrate enough, I think Disney+ will. HBO is kinda like Netflix, I think those two should merge: Netflix provides the tech/platform and a huge eyeball base, and HBO has better production. HBO could strengthen its cable offerings with Netflix programming, seems very win-win. No idea what Cabletown's plans are for NBC/Peacock, but I think they should consider merging with Netflix too. Who knows about Paramount+. CBS owns older viewers and network TV, so I think they are too stubborn to merge or capitulate. CBS cranks out a lot of "good for TV" programming, but is it appointment viewing? More like they've mastered the older viewer that plops down and surfs the main networks. They won't claim the younger viewer, won't get a good enough subscriber base, and they won't have a valuable enough catalog to demand good merger or licensing terms. What is FOX doing? Do they have a big streaming platform? One thing that is for sure, cable is on a deathmarch. The next round of NFL negotiations should be interesting, because ESPN (and by extension cable TV itself) is already stretched to the limit for the NFL contract, and the next one might break them if the cable economics continue to degrade in viewership (and portion of the cable bill ESPN gets to claim)

richardfey 5y ago

There's some wishful thinking here. Also: the supply of new users is much faster to replenish for streaming services than it was for all of the cited analogies.

pessimizer 5y ago

I love that the media has gone bear on Netflix. I'll take the position that it doesn't matter if they start failing, because there won't ever be a reason to completely fail. The people that own Netflix can just buy into the competitors, too, maybe encouraging them to weave together their offerings through a unified delivery system disguised as an independent company. Ultimately, Netflix is just a brand name - a brand name that started off associated with a completely different thing, rare films delivered by mail, and is now associated with mass-market stuff delivered like everything else. A shrunken, rump Netflix is nothing lost. I do like all the non-English series content, although HBO does a lot of that, too. Maybe Netflix will ultimately just be a brand that co-produces and distributes a ton of the world's TV series, and a few prestige films every year.

bgun 5y ago
Is one guy on Substack now "the media"? If so then I'm starting to understand why "the media" has become the go-to bogeyman for any cause we want to complain is under assault.

woeirua 5y ago

So the author predicts the rise of a cable like on-demand service... which is exactly what Netflix was before the major content providers all started yanking their content. We're quickly getting to the point where I'm paying almost as much for VOD subscriptions as I was for cable.

ramesh31 5y ago
>We're quickly getting to the point where I'm paying almost as much for VOD subscriptions as I was for cable. You're still ultimately paying less for a far superior product. I'd much rather see a world with an a-la-carte federated media platform for individual content creators than anything like what Netflix was.

iLoveOncall 5y ago

I think the author of the article has absolutely no credential in the discussion given that he barely watches content (despite paying for 6 subscriptions, go figure?), however I think the conclusion isn't exactly wrong. I think Spotify, Deezer, Netflix, HBO, etc. are all doomed to fail. They're doomed to fail because the competition is Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. which all have virtually infinite money to inject in those services, while the others only have a single income source. Nobody cares if PrimeVideo runs at a loss for years or even decades, and the stock price of Amazon won't move an inch if PrimeVideo looses watchers. But at some point investors will stop lending money to one-trick monkeys like Spotify and Netflix.

tptacek 5y ago
HBO is Warner Media. They'll be fine. Microsoft thought it was going to own all of media in the early oughts, and produced... Slate and MSNBC. Apple isn't making much of a dent with Apple TV.
- iLoveOncall 5y ago
  But Warner Media is still a small player compared to Amazon for example. I don't think they would close the TV channel, or even the concept of online streaming, but they may decide that it's more advantageous for them to merge with a competitor than try to support their own platform against giants that make 10x their revenue every year. Agreed on Apple for now, but as much as I think it'll take a decade for Netflix to "fail", I think Apple is fine with taking a decade to take over the market with Apple TV.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    This argument is essentially equivalent to saying that giant tech companies will ultimately displace all media companies. At the point where you're predicting Amazon toppling Warner, you've basically decided there is no point in investing in anything but a tech company. The other possibility, I think more plausible, is that companies like Netflix will change what it means to be a media company, and media companies will grow to look more like Netflix and less like Viacom.

softwarebeware 5y ago

I think the author makes some good points. I've been a customer of Netflix way back when it was DVDs-in-envelopes and that was awesome because you could get just about any new movie as soon as it was released. The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for. Instead, I'm railroaded into things Netflix created instead, by the algorithm that suggests similar alternatives, all of which feel like cheap knock-offs. I want to watch Star Wars. I want to watch Back to the Future. I want to watch Donnie Darko. And not just when Netflix happens to have them on the catalog.

m463 5y ago
I did netflix dvds, then added netflix streaming. Then something happened, my time got more valuable and streaming wasn't as interesting. So I doubled down on dvds and eventually netflix unsubscribed me from streaming because I didn't use it (kudos netflix). I now am exclusively netflix dvds and love it.
- softwarebeware 5y ago
  > I now am exclusively netflix dvds and love it. Thanks for mentioning this! I actually had no idea that there was still the option for DVDs. Looks like a good service, actually! I may become an exclusively netflix DVDs subscriber!
CharlesW 5y ago
> The current Netflix is irritating by comparison. I can hardly find anything to watch, especially the stuff I search for. This is my experience exactly. Netflix has mostly retreated into an "originals"-heavy strategy with an extremely low batting average. Because they have a weak editorial POV, they abruptly and unceremoniously cancel quality content that doesn't perform well, to the point that you're a fool if you start watching a promising-looking series before it completes. If we didn't get such a good deal via T-Mobile, we'd have canceled already.

Barrin92 5y ago

Surprised there are so many negative comments here because I think the author is spot on. Technologically, there is significant redundancy between streaming services and mergers would cut costs dramatically. The competition is all in the ownership of the content, which is costly to produce, so again consolidation makes sense. Another very similar medium to TV streaming is the podcasting space, and it has seen a lot of consolidation with Spotify gobbling up Gimlet and Anchor among others and Apple+ going on their own buying sprees. New original studios seem to get absorbed very quickly. The observation about people getting sick of a fractured subscription market seems also true. Not sure if Netflix will completely falter but if there's ever some kind of ganging up between Netflix competitors it's hard to not think that Netflix would have a tough time.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined. Add in Squid Game, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place and more original content, and I think Netflix is honestly the king of quality content right now. They seem to be in the sweet spot, budget-wise, where they can afford to actually bring the director's vision to life, without the production values being so high that they can't afford to take risks.

tptacek 5y ago
The Good Place isn't a Netflix original. It's an NBC show.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  The more you know (it's exclusive to Netflix and pushed heavily here in Australia, so I assumed). Either way, it's fucking great!
autarch 5y ago
> >It takes a lot of Tiger Kings, Queens Gambits, and Squid Games to match up against the Marvel and Star Wars universes > > Is he for real? Black Mirror alone explores more themes in a more creative way than the entire output of Hollywood over the past 10 years combined. I think he's just talking about mass appeal, not quality. Netflix has lots of great stuff, but Disney has some of the biggest properties in film & TV.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Just anecdotal, but significantly more people I know watched Squid Game compared to the new Star Wars Trilogy or Spider-Man.

fullshark 5y ago

I think Netflix will merge with content producers and become one of three global streaming services. The market share battle is just about positioning before this inevitable consolidation.

m463 5y ago
I'm under the impression that movies are actually competitive. There are lots of studios and production companies. Couldn't streaming be competitive too? (assuming "the internet" stays open)
pvorb 5y ago
I'm not sure it will persist as a streaming service for very long as competitors seem to have unlimited resources (Amazon, Apple). But it does a really good job at producing content globally, so I think it will persist as one of the major global production studios.

karmakaze 5y ago

> How many streaming TV platforms do I really need? I find that Netflix generally makes people's list, on a list of N--even if N == 1. We'll have to see if that's still true after the price hikes.

JauntTrooper 5y ago

I don't see myself ever cancelling Netflix, Disney+ or Amazon Prime. They're the basic 3 channels we watch in our house. The others -- Hulu, Apple, HBO, Paramount, Noggin, Showtime -- are 'extra' channels that we'll probably cancel & re-subscribe on occasion, depending on whether there are shows we want to watch. (HBO's in the middle. We've been subscribers for years, but the content has been lacking lately and I've seriously considered cancelling it.) I wonder, how common is our framework among consumers, of having a few permanent channels and then a broader set of rotating ones?

zwieback 5y ago

Kind of sounds plausible but if Netflix can continue making good content it will survive in one form or another. My fear is that eventually we'll get back to a cable model where some aggregator with enough power will combine all these offerings and sell that as a subscription.

whoisjuan 5y ago

Very poor reasoning in this article. He totally ignored the business fundamentals of the entertainment industry. Content is king and content is an extremely capital-intensive business. No existing entertainment business is willing to cooperate on content distribution because that would severely reduce their margins. Netflix's strategy is indeed the right strategy because they can create long-lasting IP and horizontally expand their business into other entertainment verticals. Aggregation is by far the worst strategy in content distribution because you don't have bargaining power. As you start adding users to your platform, you will proportionally lose power to renegotiate licenses because IP owners will attribute your growth to their content. It's a zero-sum game.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pier25 5y ago

At home we have Netflix, Disney, and Prime. Honestly, of all the services we've used Netflix is the one giving us more ROI and the one I'd never cancel. We don't use Prime Video because there's barely any interesting content. We only have it because it comes included in Prime, but I'd never pay for it. Disney is great in terms of tech, but I'm seriously considering canceling it because the ROI is so low. Netflix keeps us interested. There's tons of Atmos 4K HDR content and their app/tech is great. At least once a month or so we binge a show at home. My wife also watches Netflix every day while exercising or when eating alone. I watch true crime documentaries, Nordic noir stuff, and even some Netflix movies from time to time. We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. Also, it's quite ridiculous they don't stream content in Atmos 4K HDR that is available in that format like Game of Thrones. We also had Apple+ for a few months. The app/tech is great but ended up cancelling it because we didn't enjoy any of the stuff there.

CharlesW 5y ago
> We've also tried HBOMax but the app/streaming tech was just terrible. The streaming quality jumped constantly between 720p to 4K. FWIW, that may be more a function of the playback device. On Apple TV, HBO Max picture quality has been great. Even on Apple TV the app is very stupid in other ways, though. It often replays the last episode we saw when we continue watching a series, forcing us to scrub through to the end of an already-seen ep before we can enjoy the next one.
- pier25 5y ago
  I will try again on the Apple TV, but the issues were on an Nvidia Shield Pro.

dasil003 5y ago

> Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.? Do you think Netflix can match that with its proprietary approach? The company will be forced to open up its own system, or face inevitable decline, perhaps even obsolescence. The author does not understand media distribution and has this exactly backwards. Netflix did want to be the single monthly subscription, but the content rightsholders would never allow it because it cedes all the distribution control to Netflix. The last good deal Netflix got was the Starz deal in 2008 when the studios still underestimated the future of streaming. After that it was a steady downward trend, and Netflix realized that as a middle man they had no future, so they entered a race to become HBO (by producing their own content) faster than HBO (and all the other major content rightsholders) could build their own distribution. The idea that Netflix is somehow "proprietary", and the other examples from other industries are "open standards" is specious gobbledygook. You have to look at specifics. For instance, Netflix doesn't make devices, they integrate with smart TVs and OTT boxes which absolutely are open standards as much as any of the other examples. And even within the Netflix bubble they do license others content, so it's not all "proprietary", but on the other hand it's an app, not a platform, so you can't really compare it to a payments network or an operating system like Microsoft Windows—that is what Roku, Samsung and Apple provide, not Netflix. The whole article is just another in a long tail of naive consumer complaints, decrying how things "should" be from their perspective, but in total ignorance of the incentives and systems that lead to things to being the way they actually are. (full disclosure: I co-founded and led a streaming company from 2007-2016)

zuminator 5y ago

I disagree with the author's conclusions, mainly for reasons already stated: the examples given are of companies that provide fungible services, whereas Netflix offers unique programming; it's amassed a war chest of IP at this point; the cost of entry into this market is extremely high; the UX failures of Paramount+ and Amazon Prime, among others, only goes to show that Netflix's core competency isn't so simple to replicate. Imagine someone arguing that the Disney theme parks will falter because there Sea World, Cedar Fair, Six Flags and Dollywood could easily get together and replicate their success. But aside from all of that, I find it irksome when columnists self-identify as "honest brokers," straight-shooters, true patriots, etc. Don't tell me you're trustworthy. Truth-tellers and liars make the exact same assertion. (Hasn't this man ever visited any two-tribe islands?) Just make your points, and respect your readers to determine that you can be trusted.

miffy900 5y ago

> I base this prediction on my study of similar situations in the past. The track record here is clear and unambiguous. Open, shared systems always beat out closed proprietary systems. The author goes on to list examples in credit cards, computer OS's, ATM's etc, but all those things are cherry-picked. They conveniently ignore Apple's iPhone/iPad/App Store combination being wildly successful. And the mis-use of terms like 'open' and 'proprietary' lead me to conclude the author doesn't actually understand what those terms mean. The comparison of Windows to Mac OS X is just laughable; calling Windows an 'open' and 'shared' operating system? Mac OS is 'closed' and 'proprietary'? Well actually they're both proprietary and neither are open. Also being ignored by the author is video game consoles. For more than 2 decades, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have co-existed with their own proprietary hardware/software systems. According to the author, I suppose Google search must be 'open' and 'shared' just because it has 90% market share. > There are hundreds of possible participants out there with valuable film, TV, or other intellectual properties, and they aren’t large enough to take on Netflix on their own. But if they combine their efforts, they will be formidable... > ...Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.? The author hypothesizes about a product that DOES NOT EXIST and comes to the conclusion Netflix is doomed? Also what is the likelihood that all the players in the media industry are just going to decide to come together and hold hands? Even if they all decided to conduct a super-merger, that would never get legal/anti-competitive clearance. How does that not seem a bit outlandish? And yet the author writes about it as if it's some inevitability.

aidenn0 5y ago

In all of the examples, the smaller competitors banded together. Who are the "smaller competitors" here? Disney certainly isn't smaller than Netflix by any reasonable measure, and Amazon has a built-in customer base because of bundling with the free shipping. Perhaps all of the "also-ran" services Paramount, Hulu, Peacock will band together, but I wonder how successful that will be vs. just leasing their material to Amazon or Netflix. Streaming is also interesting because of the less-fungible nature of flagship content. The Witcher is not precisely a substitute for Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time is certainly not a substitute for either. The main reason to not switch from "Bank of my local village" to a Bank of America is friction, and "Bank of your local village" doesn't directly compete with "Bank of my local village" but both compete with B of A, so there is a natural alliance there. [edit] Also, VCRs; Betamax was more expensive and had a shorter runtime, while quality of self-recorded material was less important to consumers. VHS won by being cheaper and better matching customer use-cases; maybe that was because it was open, but it was not directly because it was open. [edit2] > [Netflix] has pursued the wrong strategy, and doubled down at every opportunity. The company has spent billions of dollars on proprietary films and TV shows in order to create a position of market dominance with a totally closed system. But that was only phase one. We are already in phase two, with Disney, Paramount, and others removing their offerings from the Netflix platform, and trying to create their own powerful fiefdoms. Netflix would be out of the streaming business today if it hadn't pursued this strategy; the writing was already on the wall for content-owners doing their own streaming before Netflix produced original content. Streaming platforms are being commodified, but streaming content is not. [edit3] > Do you think Netflix can match that with its proprietary approach? The company will be forced to open up its own system, or face inevitable decline, perhaps even obsolescence Again, Netflix isn't pursuing a "proprietary approach" by choice; if you want to sell Netflix any license for your content (exclusive or otherwise), they are more than happy to do so if the price is right. Look at everything available that isn't "Netflix Original" (and note that even some of that is not exclusive to Netflix, as they may have only partial ownership). [edit4] > Here’s the bottom line: Netflix might be one of the largest companies in the world, but it’s far more vulnerable than it looks at first glance. And it doesn’t have the brand franchises it can milk like Disney—which can churn out Marvel and Stars Wars movies with reasonable assurances of market success. This is the only paragraph related to Netflix in the entire article that I agree with. I don't know how the author can hold this truth in their head while blasting them for spending money like water trying to generate such a franchise through massive spends on content. If the author's thesis is that Netflix is doomed to fail, then Netflix should just shut down streaming operations right now. [edit5] Isn't Roku already a bit of what the author wants? You can search across multiple streaming services and have them all in one place. Sure you have to actually pay for those services, but most of them can be signed up for in the Roku app, and nobody's giving their content away for free...

notmyfuture 5y ago

With the increasing balkanization of streaming TV/film services, I wonder if piracy will start making a comeback. When everything (or most things) are under one roof, streaming makes sense - a single bill, one place to find content etc. Wondering which show is on which platform, or having to consider signing up for a subscription to a new service for a single show is not a good user experience, not to mention the single monthly bill ballooning to 3 or more.

meesterdude 5y ago

> But financial analysts underestimate the risks Netflix took on when it decided to be self-sufficient, creating its own library of movies and TV shows. This huge and ongoing cash drain is a weakness, not a strength. this is a terrible analysis. Netflix recognized early on that they need to start yesterday (years ago) before other streaming services came online. it's why they're still relevant today. Otherwise I must confess: I was bearish on netflix, and still am overall. But their investments are thoughtful and strategic, squid game being a recent example. I don't love them, but they're the only service I'm paying for. their weakness is the monthly cost for unlimited streaming. Once you're basically in every home, the only way you can extract more money is to raise the rates. When a hit show comes out, people may signup for a month to watch and then cancel, and they certainly honor that behavior. But they're also mindful of ads and the expectations of their current user base, and will have to get creative on generating new revenue. I give them 50/50 they find a way.