9 ms·

I feel bad for Netflix. They pioneered this market segment and now it reached saturation, people are getting tired of streaming fragmentation, their content too

I feel bad for Netflix. They pioneered this market segment and now it reached saturation, people are getting tired of streaming fragmentation, their content took a turn for the worse and we are slowly and surely marching towards the next "Netflix of Streaming Services", which is basically Cable over IP. I wonder of Netflix could have done anything to keep being so far ahead and offer content from so many other companies, or was it always doomed to last just a few years before everyone and their grandma started a streaming service.

fny 4y ago
Why feel bad? Competition is a good thing. They enjoyed the ride while they could, now they need to fight to win.
- xypage 4y ago
  Because Netflix was the competition, the competition for cable and expensive physical media. Now all the companies who took none of that risk are coming into streaming and get to take their IPs off Netflix, copying their system (but worse, Netflix isn't perfect but it has the best interface in my opinion), and taking it back to no real competition just the same big companies there were before with a new platform. And on top of that, a lot of those other companies getting into it are charging a lot more, and some are playing ads even with the subscriptions.
  - dexterdog 4y ago
    Netflix had a good interface when they had no vested interest. Now they just want to jam their own mostly terrible content down your throat because they don't have to pay as much to show it and it helps their own ratings.
- Bombthecat 4y ago
  Its not competition. Its a license war
echelon 4y ago
Netflix should have bought out NBC, CBS/Paramount, Discovery, or (most significantly) HBO/WB. Or even just their perpetual streaming rights back in the 00's. Letting Discovery acquire WB was one of the biggest mistakes they've ever made. Just imagine if Netflix had the HBO and WB slate. Game of Thrones, all of DC, Cartoon Network... HBO has the superior content lineup, and they let that slide through their fingers. They should have bought the LotR rights. They still don't have a major fantasy, sci-fi, or superhero franchise outside of Stranger Things. And that universe is tiny. Netflix, frankly, does not have content production as a core competency. Most of the shows and films they produce are terrible. Their in-fighting amongst top exec tastemakers is a testament to this fact.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  The real question is would HBO have made the same amazing content under Netflix as it has under Warner? Netflix can't just bank on acquiring old media forever they need to also create new shows. Hopefully HBO continues to be great under Discovery.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Probably not, because Netflix content leadership sucks. But the Discovery boss recently claimed he wants more "comfort" programming than "destination tv", and that's a horrible sign. It signals they're leaning into more Honey Boo Boo and Ice Road Truckers-type content instead of Game of Thrones, Euphoria, Silicon Valley because it's cheaper to make.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      If they weren't interested in making prestige TV then why buy HBO? That's the biggest thing HBO has going for it right now.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        ATT might have been cash strapped due to having stupid amounts of debt, and an opportunity to wring out some value from an established brand might have materialized at an acceptable price. ATT had already fired all the old HBO bosses that made and green lot all the great HBO shows.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dylan604 4y ago
I find it ironically funny that VOD's panacea of watching anything at anytime just by browsing for what you want has turned into a nightmarish hellscape of horrible browsing experiences to the point of people just giving up and choosing something for the sake of no longer browsing. So much so, the popularity of linearly programmed streaming channels is on the rise. Here's a channel that plays a specific genre of content that can be tuned in at anytime and just watch without a 20min search. What was old is new again, but on a computer and no rabbit ears.
bcrosby95 4y ago
> I wonder of Netflix could have done anything to keep being so far ahead and offer content from so many other companies, or was it always doomed to last just a few years before everyone and their grandma started a streaming service. It was always doomed. There's only so far you can go with streaming services from a tech POV. Once you have a system that's fairly reliable at delivering the content, it's the content that matters, not the tech.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  Netflix saw that, pivoted to become a studio, and has had very mixed success at that. But that's not the point: What was magical about Netflix was the depth of it's backlog and that it had so much from all over. They were an aggregator, they never had "everything" but they had so damn much that something you wanted to watch but never got around to always popped up.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    But it is the point. Netflix could only do that because they had tech that the studios didn't have. The studios don't need Netflix anymore to reach their online audiences.

fny 4y ago

Why feel bad? Competition is a good thing. They enjoyed the ride while they could, now they need to fight to win.

xypage 4y ago
Because Netflix was the competition, the competition for cable and expensive physical media. Now all the companies who took none of that risk are coming into streaming and get to take their IPs off Netflix, copying their system (but worse, Netflix isn't perfect but it has the best interface in my opinion), and taking it back to no real competition just the same big companies there were before with a new platform. And on top of that, a lot of those other companies getting into it are charging a lot more, and some are playing ads even with the subscriptions.
- dexterdog 4y ago
  Netflix had a good interface when they had no vested interest. Now they just want to jam their own mostly terrible content down your throat because they don't have to pay as much to show it and it helps their own ratings.
Bombthecat 4y ago
Its not competition. Its a license war

echelon 4y ago

Netflix should have bought out NBC, CBS/Paramount, Discovery, or (most significantly) HBO/WB. Or even just their perpetual streaming rights back in the 00's. Letting Discovery acquire WB was one of the biggest mistakes they've ever made. Just imagine if Netflix had the HBO and WB slate. Game of Thrones, all of DC, Cartoon Network... HBO has the superior content lineup, and they let that slide through their fingers. They should have bought the LotR rights. They still don't have a major fantasy, sci-fi, or superhero franchise outside of Stranger Things. And that universe is tiny. Netflix, frankly, does not have content production as a core competency. Most of the shows and films they produce are terrible. Their in-fighting amongst top exec tastemakers is a testament to this fact.

rtkwe 4y ago
The real question is would HBO have made the same amazing content under Netflix as it has under Warner? Netflix can't just bank on acquiring old media forever they need to also create new shows. Hopefully HBO continues to be great under Discovery.
- echelon 4y ago
  Probably not, because Netflix content leadership sucks. But the Discovery boss recently claimed he wants more "comfort" programming than "destination tv", and that's a horrible sign. It signals they're leaning into more Honey Boo Boo and Ice Road Truckers-type content instead of Game of Thrones, Euphoria, Silicon Valley because it's cheaper to make.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    If they weren't interested in making prestige TV then why buy HBO? That's the biggest thing HBO has going for it right now.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      ATT might have been cash strapped due to having stupid amounts of debt, and an opportunity to wring out some value from an established brand might have materialized at an acceptable price. ATT had already fired all the old HBO bosses that made and green lot all the great HBO shows.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dylan604 4y ago

I find it ironically funny that VOD's panacea of watching anything at anytime just by browsing for what you want has turned into a nightmarish hellscape of horrible browsing experiences to the point of people just giving up and choosing something for the sake of no longer browsing. So much so, the popularity of linearly programmed streaming channels is on the rise. Here's a channel that plays a specific genre of content that can be tuned in at anytime and just watch without a 20min search. What was old is new again, but on a computer and no rabbit ears.

bcrosby95 4y ago

> I wonder of Netflix could have done anything to keep being so far ahead and offer content from so many other companies, or was it always doomed to last just a few years before everyone and their grandma started a streaming service. It was always doomed. There's only so far you can go with streaming services from a tech POV. Once you have a system that's fairly reliable at delivering the content, it's the content that matters, not the tech.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
Netflix saw that, pivoted to become a studio, and has had very mixed success at that. But that's not the point: What was magical about Netflix was the depth of it's backlog and that it had so much from all over. They were an aggregator, they never had "everything" but they had so damn much that something you wanted to watch but never got around to always popped up.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  But it is the point. Netflix could only do that because they had tech that the studios didn't have. The studios don't need Netflix anymore to reach their online audiences.