10 ms·

Netflix now bigger than HBO

240 points by edouard1234567 13y ago

edouard1234567 13y ago
One interesting piece of information from this article : During peak periods of internet use in the US, Netflix constitutes 33% of all downstream traffic. Impressive!
- anotherbadlogin 13y ago
  Less impressive is logic like this: "Facebook obviously controls a large share of internet use, but the content it serves isn’t as rich, or bandwidth-heavy, as YouTube or Netflix. In theory, the richer media should ultimately translate into more revenue." That makes no sense. Why would that be true? A gigabyte of Facebooking would be a SHITLOAD of Facebooking, seeing lots of different pages and ads, and providing loads of demographic data. A gigabyte of video is what, one hour-long show at max quality?
untog 13y ago
I think that HBO are quietly positioning themselves to prosper when the cable bubble finally bursts, though- HBOGO is great. Compare that to Showtime, for example, whose app offerings are widely panned.
- chc 13y ago
  I'm not so sure. HBOGO is exclusively an add-on to the cable service. Its present quality is irrelevant to the post-cable world as it is completely incapable of gaining traction outside of the "cable bubble." It is basically a tree falling in a forest where nobody can hear it. In the far-off future when HBO gets with the times, who knows what Showtime and everyone else's offerings will look like?
  - kgermino 13y ago
    I don't think the idea is to gain traction, but to be ready to switch to a non-addon model when the bubble bursts. Espn and HBO have set themselves up with excellent apps and web services. Right now they are (frustratingly) only available to cable subscribers, but if at some point in the future we see a mass exodus from cable companies then all they need to do is add a way to pay them directly and they have a full, independent subscription service.
  - doppel 13y ago
    HBO is gaining a lot of traction outside of the US, especially in Scandinavia with HBO Nordic (HBO GO equivalent without a cable subscription). So they have the platform to do it, which means if the cable market starts plummeting they can pivot and start offering it as a seperate package rather than an add-on for cable. I have hope that they will do this, but looking at the history it's far from certain.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      My guess is this is exactly what they're planning to do, but that a revenue tipping point hasn't been reached in the US yet: cable subscriptions still provide too much money for them to be willing to flip the switch. Experimenting in Scandinavia lets them lay the groundwork without prematurely giving up the huge US cable revenue stream.
- Systemic33 13y ago
  Thats why they are testing the waters with HBO Nordic in the scandinavian countries (I reside in Denmark). My experience so far has been that HBO Nordic is compared to Netflix hitting more quality programming than netflix, but Netflix is quickly catching up (especially with House of Cards), and since netflix is monthly based, and HBO Nordic is 6months prepaid, and netflix has good solutions for mobile.
- brndn 13y ago
  Showtime has a similar offering called Showtime Anytime.
  - untog 13y ago
    And the reviews are spectacular: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/showtime-anytime/id484232467?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/showtime-anytime/id484232467...
colkassad 13y ago
I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.
- arjn 13y ago
  Yeah, House of Cards with Spacey is excellent. I started and liked it so much I finished watching all episodes in 2 days. Its really good to see companies like HBO and Netflix giving the traditional TV media houses a run for their money. BTW, if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones.
  - tnuc 13y ago
    >... if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones. Is there anyone on hn who hasn't checked out Game of thrones?
    - sneak 13y ago
      I don't like the genre (fantasy), and I don't like soaps. "OMG, $x is fucking $y!" isn't my idea of entertainment unless $x and $y are people I know personally.
      - cwp 13y ago
        Ok... But have you checked it out?
        david927 13y ago
        I watched the first episode and honestly didn't find it interesting.
        13y ago
quaunaut 13y ago
I keep seeing qz.com linked here: Is there a bloody reason that the page doesn't go completely to the right side, so I can use my bloody mousewheel without my mouse being over the content?
- donohoe 13y ago
  Browser & OS plz
  - veb 13y ago
    OS X and Safari. I have the same problem. Annoying.
    - dirkgently 13y ago
      May be a more, er, modern browser may do the trick?
  - mbesto 13y ago
    Just some feedback. Your whole website is straining. I actually noticed my head (not just my eyes) moving back and forth left and right to see what else is on the site. I can see how the responsiveness would work well on mobile devices, but it's painful to discover content on the site via a laptop. The content itself is OK since you have a fixed width. TL;DR - The website is very difficult to enjoy because of the design.
  - quaunaut 13y ago
    Chrome Version 26.0.1410.64 m Windows 7, all newest updates Sorry for not getting to you faster.
- larrydavid 13y ago
  It's a responsive issue, not sure if it's intentional or not. At browser widths of about 1400px and above, a buffer appears on the right hand side of the page. If your cursor is in that area the main content div won't scroll. I'm thinking it may be an error since the main content div stops expanding at about 1400px but the black header/nav does. At widths lower than 1400px the header and content div expand/shrink together and the scrolling problem does not occur since the content div fills the full width of the page to right.
mikegreco 13y ago
Netflix competing against HBO will be great, especially when HBO separates itself from its current model of being a cable add-on. Lilyhammer (Netflix) and Game of Thrones (HBO) are two of the best shows being produced right now, not to mention all of the other great original content both have provided. Mainstream TV is not at all compelling in comparison.
malkia 13y ago
My wish is NetBO = NetFlix + HBO - then I can forget about cable provider. But as others are pointing out - it would be bad for competition.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  HBO has a bullheaded insistence on distribution through cable operators, though. I can watch Netflix without a cable connection but HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. It's reminiscent of Sony's attempt to keep their content studios and product groups under the same tent. Any company whose business model is based on running unstoppable forces into immovable objects is always going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the long term. HBO just hasn't figured that out yet.
  - joshred 13y ago
    It's not exactly a bullheaded insistence. They're owned by Time Warner Cable.
    - spacemanaki 13y ago
      I believe you're mistaken; the Time Warner that owns HBO is not affiliated with TWC anymore.
  - lotso 13y ago
    > HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. And you know this how? I'm pretty sure the execs at HBO have run the numbers. Why HBO Can't Afford To Offer A Stand-Alone Streaming Service http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/11/why-hbo-cant-afford-to-offer-a-stand-alone-streaming-service/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/11/why-hbo-cant...
    - filmgirlcw 13y ago
      Exactly. And when the numbers do make sense, HBO will be there and likely be there faster than anyone else in the space. Why? Because they know how to continue to feed a business model that works for them (and is much more profitable than Netflix I might add), while also keeping an eye on the future.
dhughes 13y ago
I've battled with Netflix many times. Its Canadian content is a joke, compared to what's available in the US I can't imagine why anyone would stay with Netflix Canada for more than a month. Yes I've tried various VPNs and it's far better but I don't like the layout they changed it since I had used it the first time. The biggest problem is the bizarre customer service which seems to be very amateurish. I was billed twice per month somehow they got approval to bill my credit card again, same address same person - me, without me giving approval. And it was a battle to get the representative to understand that was a problem. The representative said she couldn't refund multiple months but I asked how they could take multiple months but not refund it! After some arguing (very unprofessional) she agreed to refund two months. I asked her to cancel my account and she asked me why! Jesus Christ why do you think! You bill me twice, no approval, you drag your feet to refund my money you took and then are surprised when I want to cancel my account. The concept is great better than MythTV, torrent or anything I could get working but their billing and customer service absolutely sucks!
- protomyth 13y ago
  Isn't part of the problem the Canadian content laws?
  - winthrowe 13y ago
    I don't think that's as large a problem as preexisting exclusive content contracts with incumbent networks.
  - dhughes 13y ago
    Yes I'd say may be but I don't know for sure, odd though that they would advertise to me in my account menu screen certain shows or movies but when I tried to watch it I got a message "not available" which is just infuriating. Teasing me with unavailable titles is misleading it fluffs up the titles selection but of the limited amount there may be 25% fewer titles than advertised. The billing is what is upsetting how can a large company have such terrible billing. And they don't care it took so much. Part of my chat Netflix Courtney Okay, so what I can do for you is get that account cancelled. I am able to refund 7.99 back to you too. Would you like me to credit back that 7.99 or add it on this account so you get Netflix free next month? You Shouldn't that be $7.99 X 2 for two months? Netflix Courtney I totally know what you mean. But I am only able to do one month. I would love to give you 2 months but the system only allows one. You Why would the system create and bill me for a separate new account? You Credit me the $7.99 and cancel my account please Netflix Courtney We didn't create it. Someone must of created that account. Also, in November, a movie was streamed on it. That is why I can only do one month as someone was using the account. Netflix Courtney Not a problem, give me a moment. You Well you have a security issue then because I never created it You I'll get the other $7.99 back from Visa You It's all used from the same IP mine Netflix Courtney Well, do you want me to see if I can do anything further for you? You If you can credit me back the entire amount yes, but also cancel my account. Let me know either way Netflix Courtney Okay, give me a moment to see. Netflix Courtney Okay, so I am reaching out and in this rare occasion, I will credit back both 7.99. I will get this all taken care of for you. Netflix Courtney Do you still want me to cancel this account too? You thank you You yes I don't trust it if it creates a new account without me creating or authorizing it Netflix Courtney Well, someone might of got a hold of your information. I am not sure. Give me a moment to do this for you. Netflix Courtney Well I have gone above and beyond to take care of this for you David. I am sorry you are not satisfied.
dbcooper 13y ago
It would've been nice if that article compared revenue and profit numbers, rather than just how many subscribers each service had ...
- filmgirlcw 13y ago
  Well that would have ruined the whole point of the article. HBO accounts for 25% of all of Time Warner's profits. That's significantly more than what Netflix can offer. And it would also be useful if they did the revenue per user figure -- but again, that wouldn't be a tweet-worthy and sexy headline. (It would have also required the author to understand the content business but I digress).
  - riggins 13y ago
    the netflix numbers are actually pretty easy. At $8/months, it's ~$96/year ... which is close enough to $100 to make for easy math. Quick and dirty numbers (on just the domestic streaming). At 30M subs, run rate revenue is approximately $3B. They had about $2B in content commitments. Delivery costs (i.e. bandwidth) runs about 20% of revenue. So on their $3B, $600M goes to delivery, $2B goes to content, and they have $400M-ish in profits. NFLX is difficult to value because it's growing so fast and the content cost is a moving target. If NFLX can keep content costs around $2B, then every incremental customer is 80% profit. Every 1M subs they add, is $100M in revenue and $80M in profit (capitalize that at 10x and you're adding $800M in valuation ... keep in mind they added 2M domestic subs in the last 3 months). Some people argue that content providers will demand higher fees as NFLX increases subscribers. I'm not convinced. They walked away from Starz and they cut a deal with Disney that doesn't look any more expensive than what they were paying previously. And they're also building a library of owned content. It's definitely one of the most interesting stories to watch.
blantonl 13y ago
Apple has $100b+ cash on hand. From a strategic perspective, Apple really needs to give a hard look at Netflix.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Has Apple ever bought a high-profile company? They make acquisitions now and then, but they seem to be mostly (all?) companies that have solid tech but aren't on the public radar, or at least weren't pre-purchase: P.A. Semi, Siri, that kind of thing. Arguably NeXT falls into that category as well, although it's a bit of a special case since it was Jobs's company.
- r00fus 13y ago
  How long would Netflix's contracts last if it was Apple (huge threat to media companies) who owned them? Netflix has already lost some of it's content because they were deemed too big of threat to the content provider's main business (e.g.: Starz [1])... I only imagine this problem would magnify 100x if Netflix were owned by Apple. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/technology/netflix_starz/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/technology/netflix_starz/ind...
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Could the studios really afford to cut out Apple and the iTunes store? They probably control most of the digital market.
- baby 13y ago
  I really hope Netflix doesn't get bought by anyone, especially Apple. What they're doing is great and they don't need a bigger guy behind them.
- jebblue 13y ago
  Apple needs to keep their ever loving mitts off Netflix.
- riggins 13y ago
  MSFT is the company most often mentioned as an acquirer. I believe they have the Xbox set up so Netflix works right out of the box.
cyanbane 13y ago
"HBO’s figure dates to the end of 2012, but it’s unlikely to have grown much in the first three months of 2013, owing as much to the cable TV industry’s stagnation as its own trouble signing up new subscribers." I wonder how many people are like me and only pay for the months in which Game of Thrones is on (Q2 so far)?
- filmgirlcw 13y ago
  LOTS. That's why they typically try to program hits like GoT and True Blood back to back so they can get you for six months. HBO hovers between 27 and 33m depending on the quarter.
baby 13y ago
I just bought a Netflix plan and am using it in France (through a plugin). I don't know if it's illegal but it is really really good. I actually really hope this is going to keep working and that Netflix is not going to fix this. If I had the people and the skill I would try to launch such a startup in France. I have no idea why there is no equivalent, it's a promised success.
- pfg 13y ago
  I think it would be really hard to start something like Netflix as a startup in Europe. The content licensing structure is quite a mess (which is probably one of the reasons why Netflix isn't available yet (with some exceptions in Scandinavia)).
philipwalton 13y ago
<rant> Netflix really needs to implement an offline mode for its mobile apps. The vast majority of the times I'm watching something on my phone, I don't have a WiFi connection or the connection is too slow to stream an HD video (like on a plane, at the gym, in a car, etc.) I'd love to be able to download something at my home and watch it in offline mode later. Both Rdio and Spotify do this for music. Why doesn't any video services do it? Are you listening Netflix? </rant>
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  > Why doesn't any video services do it? Licensing issues.
  - philipwalton 13y ago
    I don't think so. The same issues would be there for music, but those apps all offer it. As long as you can only watch it from within their app (so they can keep stats), it shouldn't matter whether it's online or offline.
    - rdouble 13y ago
      Licensing for video and music is not the same. However, it is the same in that if you're ever wondering why a music or video content app doesn't do something, the answer is always "licensing."
    - filmgirlcw 13y ago
      It's absolutely licensing. When content is licensed, there are different licenses that are distributed based on who pays and what the service is: * First-run -- you get to broadcast it first * Syndication -- you get to broadcast second * Digital -- you can also show the product on a digital platform (this was how Netflix was able to do their loophole with Starz back in the day, Starz sold the digital license and streaming license to Netflix because the content owners hadn't specified that such a license was unable to be resold or relicensed -- that' since changed and now it's an extra fee if you want to do that like EPIX does) * Digital streaming -- can be streamed but not watched offline * Rental -- traditionally DVD/Blu-ray * Digital rental -- iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc. -- includes offline Netflix would have to pay significantly more for its content to offer an offline mode. Even HBO, who owns most of its original content -- doesn't do offline because again, the costs would be exorbitant. EDIT: To be clear I'm not being all-inclusive, as JFB points out below me, there are even nuttier licensing schemes too. And this is before we even talk about international, where you typically have different agreements with every. single. territory.
aidos 13y ago
I'm really cheering for Netflix. Outside of the US (I'm in the UK) people have complained about a lack of content but I'll pretty much give all my money to the people who bring back Arrested Development.
- GFischer 13y ago
  I'm in Uruguay, where we get 1/10th of the US content, and it still blows local cable out of the water :) . Video on demand (with no ads!) is a killer feature for me. Not to mention it's way cheaper than local cable - I'm paying for three subscriptions (mine, my parents' and my uncles') for less than one month of basic cable. The day they can simulate cable's mindless zapping (some sort of preprogrammed channels), and get sports on board (I'm an NBA fan, and I'd like to watch Champions' League football too)
  - legitsource 13y ago
    The no ads feature is important to me. I had a subscription to Hulu Plus, and it pissed me off that I paid a subscription fee and had annoying commercials.
- touristtam 13y ago
  +1 on this. First time I hear about HBO Go (yeay for USA only web service - like Hulu). Netflix on the other hand is competing with Love Film over here.
- gizzlon 13y ago
  Agreed, I live in Scandinavia and the the content is really lacking. But at ~12$ it's so cheap (cable is maybe 50-100 $) I can keep Netflix and NBO Nordic.. Edit: That being said, I'd probably discontinue Netflix if it weren't for Arrested Development and, to a lesser extend, House of Cards
- djhworld 13y ago
  I'm a UK netflix user too, it's pretty great. I wish HBO would offer a similar service to non-US citizens
rmm 13y ago
There is currently a massive short squeeze occurring with Netflix stock.
filmgirlcw 13y ago
It's great that Netflix finally beat HBO's subscriber figures but given that subscriber figures are cyclical (though HBO's have evened out now that HBO Go is out -- which incidentally was largely the impetus behind HBO GO, to curb subscriber churn during period's when new series aren't on), it'll take consistent effort and good programming for Netflix to remain in this position. The problem is, that strategy takes money. And that $8 a month per household is probably half of what HBO is getting per household for its 29m subscribers (plus what they get from home video, licensing and international). Netflix has pivoted from trying to be cable to trying to be HBO. That's all well and good but let's not try to spin this as how cord-cutting is "winning." It's not. If cord-cutting was winning, Netflix would have had more subscribers than HBO quarters ago. Instead, Netflix's next big strategy is to get bundled WITH cable providers (which incidentally is a smart approach and could be what really lets Netflix's subscriber base balloon). HBO, Netflix and Showtime require original content to really push the needle. HBO has an advantage of having spent the last 20 years (since Larry Sanders, really) cultivating the best showrunners and writing talent that have in turn, brought in some of the best programming in the history of the medium. Moreover, HBO has a financial advantage in that they make most of their original series in-house. Netflix does it two ways. They fund series outright like House of Cards and Arrested Development (but to be clear, 20th Century Fox still produced and owns the video and syndication rights to AD) or they acquire the first-run rights (Lillyhammer, Tom Fontana's Borgia). Even in the cases where they do fund the development, a secondary production company usually still does everything -- it's not in-house. HBO, by virtue of being a subsidiary (and the most profitable subsidiary) of Time Warner, has access to Warner Bros. Television, which cuts down on a lot ancillary costs before it comes time for distribution. It'll be interesting to see if Netflix can afford to acquire or do full-contracts with certain production companies and creator shingles to get rights to future projects. Alan Ball has a longstanding deal with HBO and David Milch has a semi-exclusive with them too. TL;DR This is great for Netflix, but all it really does is make them a real contender as a premium content network. It doesn't impact HBO's current economics or have any impact on the realities of running a content business. Which is basically that good shit is expensive.
shmerl 13y ago
Is it good or bad? Both are strong DRM proponents. Where are DRM free alternatives?
jebblue 13y ago
Netflix deserves it. With them for movies and free HT OTA TV we are 100% cable free. If only they ran in my Chrome browser on Ubuntu like Crackle does.
ignostic 13y ago
The figures don't include pirating. If HBO had been smart enough to launch and promote HBO GO as a stand-alone service, pirating would be lower and streaming/revenue/official viewership would be higher.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Stand by for a deluge of replies explaining exactly how HBO is making more money by refusing to take peoples' money. I know, I know, I don't get it either.
  - henrikschroder 13y ago
    That's because the cable bundling agreements they have make them obscene amounts of money. Those people are overpaying for the service, and that makes them more money than opening up HBO Go would. It's not hard to understand, they're not idiots at HBO, they crunched the numbers and figured out how to get the most money. In the future, there will be a tipping point when enough people have tired of "cable teevee" that the numbers will fall the other way, and when that happens, they'll leave the cable companies behind and push as hard as they can on HBO Go globally. They're already testing the waters and rolling out the infrastructure for it.
    - Goronmon 13y ago
      >Those people are overpaying for the service, and that makes them more money than opening up HBO Go would. You and HBO are assuming that the number of people who would join HBO Go without a cable subscription isn't going to be greater than the number of people who would drop cable to just get HBO Go. It's just a guess.
      - henrikschroder 13y ago
        It's not about number of people, it's about how much money they're getting from each. A cable subscriber is worth a lot more than an HBO Go subscriber, since they get kickbacks from the cable companies, they are cheaper to acquire, since they get a lot of free advertising through the cable companies, and they are less likely to cancel, since it's harder to cancel an entire cable package. So it's not a 1:1 relationship between cable customers and HBO Go customers. They need to acquire several Go customers to make up for each lost cable customer. But cable is shrinking, and streaming is growing, and at some point the scales will tip. However, they have to be damn sure that it has tipped, and that they can sustain their current revenues, so they will probably be a bit cautious and conservative, and let their cable-only deal stick around a bit longer. This might not be what you want, but such is life. (Or you could move to any Nordic country and enjoy HBO Nordic, which is HBO Go, but without the cable subscription requirement.)
k4st 13y ago
This is not so much constructive, but more a comment on my Netflix viewing habits and opinions on three shows which they've created: I really enjoyed House of Cards. Lilyhammer was pleasantly surprising and I'm looking forward to future seasons. I recently tried watching Hemlock Grove and that was awful. I'm sceptical of Arrested Development: I loved the original, but it's been a long time and I feel like it's time to move on. Otherwise, I find Netflix to be attractive in cycles. Every now and then, I will discover a bunch of new things (be it movies or TV shows) and binge watch them, and then I feel like there nothing left on Netflix. I keep paying on "down periods" because I like there is a sense of security because I have a high quality / stable streaming service available to me. Then, after a few weeks, I eventually return to Netflix for more binge viewing.
yoshizar 13y ago
The number of subscribers seems to be a total apples to oranges comparison, given the extremely different channels Netflix and HBO get customers. If I could pay Netflix prices for HBO Go, I would do it in a heartbeat. But there's no way I'm going to buy a TV and pay +$100/month for cable to become an HBO subscriber. Because of their different business models, you'd think that the only metric they should be measured on is revenue vs. revenue. To compare subscribers seems like sensationalism and poor logic.
dombili 13y ago
I feel like comparing these two is sort of like comparing Android vs iOS, am I wrong? Netflix has more subscribers because it's cheaper. HBO on the other hand has less subscribers, but I'm guessing that they make more profit than Netflix. At the end of the day, it depends on which one you think is more important. More profits or more subscribers?
mohamedzahid 13y ago
"HBO’s figure dates to the end of 2012, but it’s unlikely to have grown much in the first three months of 2013, owing as much to the cable TV industry’s stagnation as its own trouble signing up new subscribers." How the hell do they know this? Girls and Game of Thrones have been huge hits and an equally strong argument could be made that thanks to these two shows alone HBO is well over 30 million subscribers, hence having a larger viewership than Netflix. Pretty irresponsible imo to base an entire article and make a factual statement in the headline based on a hunch.

240 points by edouard1234567 13y ago

One interesting piece of information from this article : During peak periods of internet use in the US, Netflix constitutes 33% of all downstream traffic. Impressive!

anotherbadlogin 13y ago
Less impressive is logic like this: "Facebook obviously controls a large share of internet use, but the content it serves isn’t as rich, or bandwidth-heavy, as YouTube or Netflix. In theory, the richer media should ultimately translate into more revenue." That makes no sense. Why would that be true? A gigabyte of Facebooking would be a SHITLOAD of Facebooking, seeing lots of different pages and ads, and providing loads of demographic data. A gigabyte of video is what, one hour-long show at max quality?

untog 13y ago

I think that HBO are quietly positioning themselves to prosper when the cable bubble finally bursts, though- HBOGO is great. Compare that to Showtime, for example, whose app offerings are widely panned.

chc 13y ago
I'm not so sure. HBOGO is exclusively an add-on to the cable service. Its present quality is irrelevant to the post-cable world as it is completely incapable of gaining traction outside of the "cable bubble." It is basically a tree falling in a forest where nobody can hear it. In the far-off future when HBO gets with the times, who knows what Showtime and everyone else's offerings will look like?
- kgermino 13y ago
  I don't think the idea is to gain traction, but to be ready to switch to a non-addon model when the bubble bursts. Espn and HBO have set themselves up with excellent apps and web services. Right now they are (frustratingly) only available to cable subscribers, but if at some point in the future we see a mass exodus from cable companies then all they need to do is add a way to pay them directly and they have a full, independent subscription service.
- doppel 13y ago
  HBO is gaining a lot of traction outside of the US, especially in Scandinavia with HBO Nordic (HBO GO equivalent without a cable subscription). So they have the platform to do it, which means if the cable market starts plummeting they can pivot and start offering it as a seperate package rather than an add-on for cable. I have hope that they will do this, but looking at the history it's far from certain.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    My guess is this is exactly what they're planning to do, but that a revenue tipping point hasn't been reached in the US yet: cable subscriptions still provide too much money for them to be willing to flip the switch. Experimenting in Scandinavia lets them lay the groundwork without prematurely giving up the huge US cable revenue stream.
Systemic33 13y ago
Thats why they are testing the waters with HBO Nordic in the scandinavian countries (I reside in Denmark). My experience so far has been that HBO Nordic is compared to Netflix hitting more quality programming than netflix, but Netflix is quickly catching up (especially with House of Cards), and since netflix is monthly based, and HBO Nordic is 6months prepaid, and netflix has good solutions for mobile.
brndn 13y ago
Showtime has a similar offering called Showtime Anytime.
- untog 13y ago
  And the reviews are spectacular: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/showtime-anytime/id484232467?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/showtime-anytime/id484232467...

colkassad 13y ago

I just finished watching the first season of House of Cards and I really enjoyed it. It's up there with original HBO programming as far as quality is concerned. If they can keep that up then traditional outlets should definitely stay worried. I know there was some talk about Netflix's future because of their dependence on content providers, but if they can keep this up then they certainly have a hand to play.

arjn 13y ago
Yeah, House of Cards with Spacey is excellent. I started and liked it so much I finished watching all episodes in 2 days. Its really good to see companies like HBO and Netflix giving the traditional TV media houses a run for their money. BTW, if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones.
- tnuc 13y ago
  >... if you liked House of Cards, check out Game of Thrones. Is there anyone on hn who hasn't checked out Game of thrones?
  - sneak 13y ago
    I don't like the genre (fantasy), and I don't like soaps. "OMG, $x is fucking $y!" isn't my idea of entertainment unless $x and $y are people I know personally.
    - cwp 13y ago
      Ok... But have you checked it out?
      - david927 13y ago
        I watched the first episode and honestly didn't find it interesting.
        13y ago

quaunaut 13y ago

I keep seeing qz.com linked here: Is there a bloody reason that the page doesn't go completely to the right side, so I can use my bloody mousewheel without my mouse being over the content?

donohoe 13y ago
Browser & OS plz
- veb 13y ago
  OS X and Safari. I have the same problem. Annoying.
  - dirkgently 13y ago
    May be a more, er, modern browser may do the trick?
- mbesto 13y ago
  Just some feedback. Your whole website is straining. I actually noticed my head (not just my eyes) moving back and forth left and right to see what else is on the site. I can see how the responsiveness would work well on mobile devices, but it's painful to discover content on the site via a laptop. The content itself is OK since you have a fixed width. TL;DR - The website is very difficult to enjoy because of the design.
- quaunaut 13y ago
  Chrome Version 26.0.1410.64 m Windows 7, all newest updates Sorry for not getting to you faster.
larrydavid 13y ago
It's a responsive issue, not sure if it's intentional or not. At browser widths of about 1400px and above, a buffer appears on the right hand side of the page. If your cursor is in that area the main content div won't scroll. I'm thinking it may be an error since the main content div stops expanding at about 1400px but the black header/nav does. At widths lower than 1400px the header and content div expand/shrink together and the scrolling problem does not occur since the content div fills the full width of the page to right.

mikegreco 13y ago

Netflix competing against HBO will be great, especially when HBO separates itself from its current model of being a cable add-on. Lilyhammer (Netflix) and Game of Thrones (HBO) are two of the best shows being produced right now, not to mention all of the other great original content both have provided. Mainstream TV is not at all compelling in comparison.

malkia 13y ago

My wish is NetBO = NetFlix + HBO - then I can forget about cable provider. But as others are pointing out - it would be bad for competition.

CamperBob2 13y ago
HBO has a bullheaded insistence on distribution through cable operators, though. I can watch Netflix without a cable connection but HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. It's reminiscent of Sony's attempt to keep their content studios and product groups under the same tent. Any company whose business model is based on running unstoppable forces into immovable objects is always going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the long term. HBO just hasn't figured that out yet.
- joshred 13y ago
  It's not exactly a bullheaded insistence. They're owned by Time Warner Cable.
  - spacemanaki 13y ago
    I believe you're mistaken; the Time Warner that owns HBO is not affiliated with TWC anymore.
- lotso 13y ago
  > HBO actively refuses to even think about an Internet-only subscriber model. And you know this how? I'm pretty sure the execs at HBO have run the numbers. Why HBO Can't Afford To Offer A Stand-Alone Streaming Service http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/11/why-hbo-cant-afford-to-offer-a-stand-alone-streaming-service/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/11/why-hbo-cant...
  - filmgirlcw 13y ago
    Exactly. And when the numbers do make sense, HBO will be there and likely be there faster than anyone else in the space. Why? Because they know how to continue to feed a business model that works for them (and is much more profitable than Netflix I might add), while also keeping an eye on the future.

dhughes 13y ago

I've battled with Netflix many times. Its Canadian content is a joke, compared to what's available in the US I can't imagine why anyone would stay with Netflix Canada for more than a month. Yes I've tried various VPNs and it's far better but I don't like the layout they changed it since I had used it the first time. The biggest problem is the bizarre customer service which seems to be very amateurish. I was billed twice per month somehow they got approval to bill my credit card again, same address same person - me, without me giving approval. And it was a battle to get the representative to understand that was a problem. The representative said she couldn't refund multiple months but I asked how they could take multiple months but not refund it! After some arguing (very unprofessional) she agreed to refund two months. I asked her to cancel my account and she asked me why! Jesus Christ why do you think! You bill me twice, no approval, you drag your feet to refund my money you took and then are surprised when I want to cancel my account. The concept is great better than MythTV, torrent or anything I could get working but their billing and customer service absolutely sucks!

protomyth 13y ago
Isn't part of the problem the Canadian content laws?
- winthrowe 13y ago
  I don't think that's as large a problem as preexisting exclusive content contracts with incumbent networks.
- dhughes 13y ago
  Yes I'd say may be but I don't know for sure, odd though that they would advertise to me in my account menu screen certain shows or movies but when I tried to watch it I got a message "not available" which is just infuriating. Teasing me with unavailable titles is misleading it fluffs up the titles selection but of the limited amount there may be 25% fewer titles than advertised. The billing is what is upsetting how can a large company have such terrible billing. And they don't care it took so much. Part of my chat Netflix Courtney Okay, so what I can do for you is get that account cancelled. I am able to refund 7.99 back to you too. Would you like me to credit back that 7.99 or add it on this account so you get Netflix free next month? You Shouldn't that be $7.99 X 2 for two months? Netflix Courtney I totally know what you mean. But I am only able to do one month. I would love to give you 2 months but the system only allows one. You Why would the system create and bill me for a separate new account? You Credit me the $7.99 and cancel my account please Netflix Courtney We didn't create it. Someone must of created that account. Also, in November, a movie was streamed on it. That is why I can only do one month as someone was using the account. Netflix Courtney Not a problem, give me a moment. You Well you have a security issue then because I never created it You I'll get the other $7.99 back from Visa You It's all used from the same IP mine Netflix Courtney Well, do you want me to see if I can do anything further for you? You If you can credit me back the entire amount yes, but also cancel my account. Let me know either way Netflix Courtney Okay, give me a moment to see. Netflix Courtney Okay, so I am reaching out and in this rare occasion, I will credit back both 7.99. I will get this all taken care of for you. Netflix Courtney Do you still want me to cancel this account too? You thank you You yes I don't trust it if it creates a new account without me creating or authorizing it Netflix Courtney Well, someone might of got a hold of your information. I am not sure. Give me a moment to do this for you. Netflix Courtney Well I have gone above and beyond to take care of this for you David. I am sorry you are not satisfied.

dbcooper 13y ago

It would've been nice if that article compared revenue and profit numbers, rather than just how many subscribers each service had ...

filmgirlcw 13y ago
Well that would have ruined the whole point of the article. HBO accounts for 25% of all of Time Warner's profits. That's significantly more than what Netflix can offer. And it would also be useful if they did the revenue per user figure -- but again, that wouldn't be a tweet-worthy and sexy headline. (It would have also required the author to understand the content business but I digress).
- riggins 13y ago
  the netflix numbers are actually pretty easy. At $8/months, it's ~$96/year ... which is close enough to $100 to make for easy math. Quick and dirty numbers (on just the domestic streaming). At 30M subs, run rate revenue is approximately $3B. They had about $2B in content commitments. Delivery costs (i.e. bandwidth) runs about 20% of revenue. So on their $3B, $600M goes to delivery, $2B goes to content, and they have $400M-ish in profits. NFLX is difficult to value because it's growing so fast and the content cost is a moving target. If NFLX can keep content costs around $2B, then every incremental customer is 80% profit. Every 1M subs they add, is $100M in revenue and $80M in profit (capitalize that at 10x and you're adding $800M in valuation ... keep in mind they added 2M domestic subs in the last 3 months). Some people argue that content providers will demand higher fees as NFLX increases subscribers. I'm not convinced. They walked away from Starz and they cut a deal with Disney that doesn't look any more expensive than what they were paying previously. And they're also building a library of owned content. It's definitely one of the most interesting stories to watch.

blantonl 13y ago

Apple has $100b+ cash on hand. From a strategic perspective, Apple really needs to give a hard look at Netflix.

_delirium 13y ago
Has Apple ever bought a high-profile company? They make acquisitions now and then, but they seem to be mostly (all?) companies that have solid tech but aren't on the public radar, or at least weren't pre-purchase: P.A. Semi, Siri, that kind of thing. Arguably NeXT falls into that category as well, although it's a bit of a special case since it was Jobs's company.
r00fus 13y ago
How long would Netflix's contracts last if it was Apple (huge threat to media companies) who owned them? Netflix has already lost some of it's content because they were deemed too big of threat to the content provider's main business (e.g.: Starz [1])... I only imagine this problem would magnify 100x if Netflix were owned by Apple. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/technology/netflix_starz/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/technology/netflix_starz/ind...
- dublinben 13y ago
  Could the studios really afford to cut out Apple and the iTunes store? They probably control most of the digital market.
baby 13y ago
I really hope Netflix doesn't get bought by anyone, especially Apple. What they're doing is great and they don't need a bigger guy behind them.
jebblue 13y ago
Apple needs to keep their ever loving mitts off Netflix.
riggins 13y ago
MSFT is the company most often mentioned as an acquirer. I believe they have the Xbox set up so Netflix works right out of the box.

cyanbane 13y ago

filmgirlcw 13y ago
LOTS. That's why they typically try to program hits like GoT and True Blood back to back so they can get you for six months. HBO hovers between 27 and 33m depending on the quarter.

baby 13y ago

I just bought a Netflix plan and am using it in France (through a plugin). I don't know if it's illegal but it is really really good. I actually really hope this is going to keep working and that Netflix is not going to fix this. If I had the people and the skill I would try to launch such a startup in France. I have no idea why there is no equivalent, it's a promised success.

pfg 13y ago
I think it would be really hard to start something like Netflix as a startup in Europe. The content licensing structure is quite a mess (which is probably one of the reasons why Netflix isn't available yet (with some exceptions in Scandinavia)).

philipwalton 13y ago

<rant> Netflix really needs to implement an offline mode for its mobile apps. The vast majority of the times I'm watching something on my phone, I don't have a WiFi connection or the connection is too slow to stream an HD video (like on a plane, at the gym, in a car, etc.) I'd love to be able to download something at my home and watch it in offline mode later. Both Rdio and Spotify do this for music. Why doesn't any video services do it? Are you listening Netflix? </rant>

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> Why doesn't any video services do it? Licensing issues.
- philipwalton 13y ago
  I don't think so. The same issues would be there for music, but those apps all offer it. As long as you can only watch it from within their app (so they can keep stats), it shouldn't matter whether it's online or offline.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    Licensing for video and music is not the same. However, it is the same in that if you're ever wondering why a music or video content app doesn't do something, the answer is always "licensing."
  - filmgirlcw 13y ago
    It's absolutely licensing. When content is licensed, there are different licenses that are distributed based on who pays and what the service is: * First-run -- you get to broadcast it first * Syndication -- you get to broadcast second * Digital -- you can also show the product on a digital platform (this was how Netflix was able to do their loophole with Starz back in the day, Starz sold the digital license and streaming license to Netflix because the content owners hadn't specified that such a license was unable to be resold or relicensed -- that' since changed and now it's an extra fee if you want to do that like EPIX does) * Digital streaming -- can be streamed but not watched offline * Rental -- traditionally DVD/Blu-ray * Digital rental -- iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc. -- includes offline Netflix would have to pay significantly more for its content to offer an offline mode. Even HBO, who owns most of its original content -- doesn't do offline because again, the costs would be exorbitant. EDIT: To be clear I'm not being all-inclusive, as JFB points out below me, there are even nuttier licensing schemes too. And this is before we even talk about international, where you typically have different agreements with every. single. territory.

aidos 13y ago

I'm really cheering for Netflix. Outside of the US (I'm in the UK) people have complained about a lack of content but I'll pretty much give all my money to the people who bring back Arrested Development.

GFischer 13y ago
I'm in Uruguay, where we get 1/10th of the US content, and it still blows local cable out of the water :) . Video on demand (with no ads!) is a killer feature for me. Not to mention it's way cheaper than local cable - I'm paying for three subscriptions (mine, my parents' and my uncles') for less than one month of basic cable. The day they can simulate cable's mindless zapping (some sort of preprogrammed channels), and get sports on board (I'm an NBA fan, and I'd like to watch Champions' League football too)
- legitsource 13y ago
  The no ads feature is important to me. I had a subscription to Hulu Plus, and it pissed me off that I paid a subscription fee and had annoying commercials.
touristtam 13y ago
+1 on this. First time I hear about HBO Go (yeay for USA only web service - like Hulu). Netflix on the other hand is competing with Love Film over here.
gizzlon 13y ago
Agreed, I live in Scandinavia and the the content is really lacking. But at ~12$ it's so cheap (cable is maybe 50-100 $) I can keep Netflix and NBO Nordic.. Edit: That being said, I'd probably discontinue Netflix if it weren't for Arrested Development and, to a lesser extend, House of Cards
djhworld 13y ago
I'm a UK netflix user too, it's pretty great. I wish HBO would offer a similar service to non-US citizens

rmm 13y ago

There is currently a massive short squeeze occurring with Netflix stock.

filmgirlcw 13y ago

It's great that Netflix finally beat HBO's subscriber figures but given that subscriber figures are cyclical (though HBO's have evened out now that HBO Go is out -- which incidentally was largely the impetus behind HBO GO, to curb subscriber churn during period's when new series aren't on), it'll take consistent effort and good programming for Netflix to remain in this position. The problem is, that strategy takes money. And that $8 a month per household is probably half of what HBO is getting per household for its 29m subscribers (plus what they get from home video, licensing and international). Netflix has pivoted from trying to be cable to trying to be HBO. That's all well and good but let's not try to spin this as how cord-cutting is "winning." It's not. If cord-cutting was winning, Netflix would have had more subscribers than HBO quarters ago. Instead, Netflix's next big strategy is to get bundled WITH cable providers (which incidentally is a smart approach and could be what really lets Netflix's subscriber base balloon). HBO, Netflix and Showtime require original content to really push the needle. HBO has an advantage of having spent the last 20 years (since Larry Sanders, really) cultivating the best showrunners and writing talent that have in turn, brought in some of the best programming in the history of the medium. Moreover, HBO has a financial advantage in that they make most of their original series in-house. Netflix does it two ways. They fund series outright like House of Cards and Arrested Development (but to be clear, 20th Century Fox still produced and owns the video and syndication rights to AD) or they acquire the first-run rights (Lillyhammer, Tom Fontana's Borgia). Even in the cases where they do fund the development, a secondary production company usually still does everything -- it's not in-house. HBO, by virtue of being a subsidiary (and the most profitable subsidiary) of Time Warner, has access to Warner Bros. Television, which cuts down on a lot ancillary costs before it comes time for distribution. It'll be interesting to see if Netflix can afford to acquire or do full-contracts with certain production companies and creator shingles to get rights to future projects. Alan Ball has a longstanding deal with HBO and David Milch has a semi-exclusive with them too. TL;DR This is great for Netflix, but all it really does is make them a real contender as a premium content network. It doesn't impact HBO's current economics or have any impact on the realities of running a content business. Which is basically that good shit is expensive.

shmerl 13y ago

Is it good or bad? Both are strong DRM proponents. Where are DRM free alternatives?

jebblue 13y ago

Netflix deserves it. With them for movies and free HT OTA TV we are 100% cable free. If only they ran in my Chrome browser on Ubuntu like Crackle does.

ignostic 13y ago

The figures don't include pirating. If HBO had been smart enough to launch and promote HBO GO as a stand-alone service, pirating would be lower and streaming/revenue/official viewership would be higher.

CamperBob2 13y ago
Stand by for a deluge of replies explaining exactly how HBO is making more money by refusing to take peoples' money. I know, I know, I don't get it either.
- henrikschroder 13y ago
  That's because the cable bundling agreements they have make them obscene amounts of money. Those people are overpaying for the service, and that makes them more money than opening up HBO Go would. It's not hard to understand, they're not idiots at HBO, they crunched the numbers and figured out how to get the most money. In the future, there will be a tipping point when enough people have tired of "cable teevee" that the numbers will fall the other way, and when that happens, they'll leave the cable companies behind and push as hard as they can on HBO Go globally. They're already testing the waters and rolling out the infrastructure for it.
  - Goronmon 13y ago
    >Those people are overpaying for the service, and that makes them more money than opening up HBO Go would. You and HBO are assuming that the number of people who would join HBO Go without a cable subscription isn't going to be greater than the number of people who would drop cable to just get HBO Go. It's just a guess.
    - henrikschroder 13y ago
      It's not about number of people, it's about how much money they're getting from each. A cable subscriber is worth a lot more than an HBO Go subscriber, since they get kickbacks from the cable companies, they are cheaper to acquire, since they get a lot of free advertising through the cable companies, and they are less likely to cancel, since it's harder to cancel an entire cable package. So it's not a 1:1 relationship between cable customers and HBO Go customers. They need to acquire several Go customers to make up for each lost cable customer. But cable is shrinking, and streaming is growing, and at some point the scales will tip. However, they have to be damn sure that it has tipped, and that they can sustain their current revenues, so they will probably be a bit cautious and conservative, and let their cable-only deal stick around a bit longer. This might not be what you want, but such is life. (Or you could move to any Nordic country and enjoy HBO Nordic, which is HBO Go, but without the cable subscription requirement.)

k4st 13y ago

This is not so much constructive, but more a comment on my Netflix viewing habits and opinions on three shows which they've created: I really enjoyed House of Cards. Lilyhammer was pleasantly surprising and I'm looking forward to future seasons. I recently tried watching Hemlock Grove and that was awful. I'm sceptical of Arrested Development: I loved the original, but it's been a long time and I feel like it's time to move on. Otherwise, I find Netflix to be attractive in cycles. Every now and then, I will discover a bunch of new things (be it movies or TV shows) and binge watch them, and then I feel like there nothing left on Netflix. I keep paying on "down periods" because I like there is a sense of security because I have a high quality / stable streaming service available to me. Then, after a few weeks, I eventually return to Netflix for more binge viewing.

yoshizar 13y ago

The number of subscribers seems to be a total apples to oranges comparison, given the extremely different channels Netflix and HBO get customers. If I could pay Netflix prices for HBO Go, I would do it in a heartbeat. But there's no way I'm going to buy a TV and pay +$100/month for cable to become an HBO subscriber. Because of their different business models, you'd think that the only metric they should be measured on is revenue vs. revenue. To compare subscribers seems like sensationalism and poor logic.

dombili 13y ago

I feel like comparing these two is sort of like comparing Android vs iOS, am I wrong? Netflix has more subscribers because it's cheaper. HBO on the other hand has less subscribers, but I'm guessing that they make more profit than Netflix. At the end of the day, it depends on which one you think is more important. More profits or more subscribers?

mohamedzahid 13y ago

"HBO’s figure dates to the end of 2012, but it’s unlikely to have grown much in the first three months of 2013, owing as much to the cable TV industry’s stagnation as its own trouble signing up new subscribers." How the hell do they know this? Girls and Game of Thrones have been huge hits and an equally strong argument could be made that thanks to these two shows alone HBO is well over 30 million subscribers, hence having a larger viewership than Netflix. Pretty irresponsible imo to base an entire article and make a factual statement in the headline based on a hunch.