If the libraries removed from Netflix are licensed to competitors, it is indeed Good for consumers, provided the barriers between services aren't too steep. [1]

If the libraries removed from Netflix are licensed to competitors, it is indeed Good for consumers, provided the barriers between services aren't too steep. [1] It incentivizes providers like Netflix to continue increasing their value proposition and ensures profits are flowing back to creators/library owners commensurate with their value. If Netflix fails, at this point, I don't think it'd be too big a blow. There are plenty of services in the same space and the feeding frenzy for Netflix library contracts would ensure the survivors are offering the same library to the same market. And I'm not sure why you think Hollywood feels no pressure to get their content in front of viewers. Their proper interest is to maximize the return on their libraries, and they can hardly do that if they enable the creation of an 800 lb gorilla in the streaming market that can dictate terms. Should Netflix be the undisputed one-true-service for digital delivery, that would almost certainly become bad for viewers. What incentive would they have to work with MS/Google on enabling federated/integrated search/navigation? What incentive would they have to work with new device makers as they have? Netflix fantastic value proposition is a product of how intensely competitive that space is, due its future up-side. Things that preserve that competition are Good, even if they are bad for Netflix specifically, up until the point they are bad for the entire streaming market. [1] The current division between Hulu, Netflix, ABC, HBO Go, et al. is about as high a wall as you'd want. Different services, same box, same-ish interface/behavior. If you couldn't get multiple services on the same hardware, it'd be too high. And, of course, if you could get XB1/GoogleTV-style federated search/navigation across services, the status quo would be just fine.