12 ms·

Netflix and the Future of Television

68 points by jfaat 12y ago

warrenmiller 12y ago
No mention of torrents or popcorntime?
- m4xm4n 12y ago
  Likely due to the fact that as of yet, no one has found a particularly good way of monetizing torrents without alienating downloaders. Monetization is a necessity for industry adoption, so it's hard to tie the future of television to something like torrenting, unless there's a way for content creators & licensors to get paid.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Broadcast television has been given away for free since it's inception, and monetized with advertisements. I don't see why officially-sanctioned torrents couldn't do the same. Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes, and you'll outcompete the crappy scene releases that trickle down to public trackers.
    - VLM 12y ago
      "Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes," Another option: directors cut type content. So you get 2 minutes extra content of dubious quality, but there's a 10 second diet coke ad at the start. Well, you could try to find a torrent of the extra content without the ad, but its got slower seeds, so you're better off with the diet coke ad...
      - drdaeman 12y ago
        > but its got slower seeds I'm not sure this would be true. This may work for rarer content, but certainly wouldn't work for hot torrents. A fast webseeds CDN or whole datacenter of seedboxes is still on par with a large community-only swarm - that is, except for minor issues (possibly slower start) they both can well saturate one's downstream channel. That is, unless one wants the download to start at full-speed right at the release second and not an hour or two later when swarm gets enough seeds. But I'm not sure most users care whenever their favorite series get an update at, say, 18:00 or 20:00.
    - glomph 12y ago
      People would just release versions with the adverts cut. What do you think goes on with HDTV releases at the moment?
      - Zigurd 12y ago
        There are torrents of TV shows with the ads cut. That hasn't made a dent in broadcast TV.
  - SlashmanX 12y ago
    Blocktech are trying to do something like this with MovieCoin[1]. They contacted PopcornTime about it but I'm not sure how far their technology is at the moment [1] https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/427/moviecoin-worldwide-secure-distro-of-movies-payment-system-to-connect-contentcreators-audiences https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/427/moviecoin-worldwid...
davedx 12y ago
I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched a video about the development of Xfinity X2, and their R&D department looks like it has insane resources. It's a very interesting space to be in, on all sides.
- dublinben 12y ago
  To what end though? Their new X2 cable boxes are slower than ten year old ones, and are just catching up with the interfaces of Tivo and Roku from five years ago. Who really wants "innovation" from their cable provider? Certainly not the unsatisfied customers that are leaving in droves.
- lotsofpulp 12y ago
  What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home, and I don't see them wanting to innovate that away. If anything, their R&D is probably in figuring out how to box out movie studios and other content providers like Netflix/Amazon Prime to make their own offerings more attractive.
  - VLM 12y ago
    "Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability" If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this. Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.
themartorana 12y ago
Sports - that's the ticket. Comcast remains relevant for two reasons in my mind - they provide high-speed Internet in a quasi-monopolistic fashion, and local sports broadcasting. (I live in Philly, the stranglehold on sports here is palpable.) That said, even sports apps are starting to show up on Apple TV and the like - it's just that right now, sports are attached to cable deals, much like HBO Go is attached to cable networks. I feel like the "a la carte" unbundling discussion is almost moot. It was an important idea before, paying for just the channels you want. But now each channel can have it's own streaming app, and I can pay for and stream them whenever. So now I guess it's just a matter of time before someone offers bundled groups of on-demand app access. Netflix + NFL Network + ABC/CBS + HBO Go... And toss in Comedy Central for good measure. Add in a $99 Apple TV, and who needs Comcast and Time Warner? Oh right. They own the Internet access. I'd really like some net neutrality soon, please.
- baddox 12y ago
  We're already seeing the beginnings of one possible solution to the "sports on TV" problem: e-sports and video game streaming. Right now there are several hundred thousand viewers on Twitch.tv, unless their viewer numbers are extremely inflated. Video game streams overwhelmingly tend to be free (with subscriptions to remove ads, unlock the highest video quality, or access previous video on demand). Many tournaments have top notch video productions, and are probably produced on a shoestring budget compared to national sports television productions. There's no technical reason why non-electronic sports couldn't also be streamed like this.
  - eropple 12y ago
    No technical reason, but it'd probably be a pretty big drop in revenue.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      Why? How much revenue do the teams and leagues get from TV per-viewer now? Why couldn't they get more by cutting out the middlemen (cable companies and TV networks) and just get subscription fees directly from viewers, and ad revenue directly from advertisers?
shmerl 12y ago
The future should be DRM-free. Netflix are not going in the right direction. GOG try to break that wall on the other hand. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...
- timothya 12y ago
  I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. If Netflix didn't do DRM, then it wouldn't have any good content on it. As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    This argument is increasingly less compelling as Netflix's focus moves away from streaming other people's content towards streaming its own original content.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      It was always a fake excuse for Netflix. They bear the guilt of pushing this DRM garbage into HTML standard.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. Where is their own content DRM-free? > As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. Netflix clearly don't care to push for it in the least. So kudos to GOG for actually trying.
    - nemothekid 12y ago
      > Where is their own content DRM-free? What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure? Why add even more to the cost of in-house content for DRM? > Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. That someone is consumers, not Netflix. And given that the overwhelming majority of consumers don't care about DRM, Netflix has little incentive to care about it also - they have enough to worry about with their content well drying up, and I doubt they are keen on exacerbating that problem by telling their partners to license their content DRM free. Short of either the government stepping in and mandating the end of DRM, I don't think will ever see DRM go away (not to say it won't be hopelessly broken). All that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons - it would allow them to distribute on Linux and most likely simplify parts of the content delivery chain. For Netflix they have no reason to be against DRM free content, but a ton of reasons to not be actively against DRM.
vermooten 12y ago
Netflix has little chance in the UK so long as they have such a dismal choice of content.
- robert_tweed 12y ago
  This hasn't been the case for a long time, although for some reason it remains a common misperception. I think it's mainly a marketing problem because people are always reading comments like this online, or hearing about such-and-such series that "is on Netflix" but disappointingly isn't currently available in the UK, while simultaneously being unaware of all the content that is available in the UK but not in the US. For example, Netflix UK has the first 2 Hobbit movies, Pixar's Up, the original Danish versions of The Killing and The Bridge, all of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, 24 and The Shield - none of which are currently available in the US. There's a load more I can't remember off the top of my head. The UK also got Breaking Bad a few hours after it was aired in the US, whereas US customers had to wait several months, presumably due to an exclusivity deal with AMC. Obviously the UK also gets all the Netflix original content. Occasionally a new season will launch a few months ahead in the US, but that's not really a big deal. I can only assume this is done for same marketing reasons that blockbuster movie launches are typically staggered worldwide. There are a small number of US shows like 30 Rock and Better Off Ted that I wish were on the UK service, and Star Trek DS9 is conspicuously absent, but that list is much smaller than it was 2 years ago.
- Benji_San 12y ago
  This is sadly also true for the Nordic countries. There's a bunch of contenders in the streaming business and huge pushes for cable-TV from the major broadband providers. The sad part is that most services are utter crap and suffer from huge technical problems, consumer unfriendly subscription models, horribly implemented localisation and a serious lack of content. Netflix is reasonably good and their own series are more or less worth the 8€ subscription fee. Finnish Netflix compared to the US version costs 25% more for <25% of the content of the US version. It isn't too difficult to access the US version of Netflix, but doing so reliably requires a VPN connection which I am not willing to pay for. And it's technically equally illegal as the piratebay and more of a hassle to get it to work with my chromecast/plex/xmbc. This is sadly a really old problem. Noone is currently selling film/TV-series content to a reasonable price that could even look at competing with the piratebay/piratism. Heck, todays services can't compete with piratism from ten years ago.
dobbsbob 12y ago
Surprised "social tv" hasn't taken off more, though I guess people commenting using twitter during broadcasts kind of killed that idea I liked the pirated streams that had open chatrooms with just enough moderation to kill spam and wild political ranting where you could joke about what you're watching, kind of how taima.tv and JustinTV used to operate.
paul9290 12y ago
I miss Aereo and the ability to watch live local broadcast channels on my Mac Mini. Copyright recently has killed a few venues online where I was paying to watch their content. I'd still pay them directly for an Aereo service if they provided it. I will never pay for Cable TV again .. bloated, over priced junk in which you have to deal with horrible customer service! No thanks! I do see Dish is coming out with an over the top cable like service. It's sure to hobbled at first, but maybe in the long term it will provide a solid experience.
platz 12y ago
I wonder how long physical media and things like redbox will live on for.. it seems tempting to say it will die out soon, but at least in the US, we do not have ubiquitous high-quality bandwidth.
iramiller 12y ago
I would not be surprised if eventually Netflix is forced to charge different rates to customers based on their ISP and the amount of shakedown they are forced to pay for interconnect agreements. It is easy to imagine a base rate of $8 for Netflix and a $4 Comcast network fee. After all if Netflix must raise rates to cover these new costs it seems it would be in their best interests to educate their customers in hopes of driving lobbying efforts to force common carrier legislation on ISPs.

68 points by jfaat 12y ago

warrenmiller 12y ago

No mention of torrents or popcorntime?

m4xm4n 12y ago
Likely due to the fact that as of yet, no one has found a particularly good way of monetizing torrents without alienating downloaders. Monetization is a necessity for industry adoption, so it's hard to tie the future of television to something like torrenting, unless there's a way for content creators & licensors to get paid.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Broadcast television has been given away for free since it's inception, and monetized with advertisements. I don't see why officially-sanctioned torrents couldn't do the same. Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes, and you'll outcompete the crappy scene releases that trickle down to public trackers.
  - VLM 12y ago
    "Make them high quality, and backed by fast seedboxes," Another option: directors cut type content. So you get 2 minutes extra content of dubious quality, but there's a 10 second diet coke ad at the start. Well, you could try to find a torrent of the extra content without the ad, but its got slower seeds, so you're better off with the diet coke ad...
    - drdaeman 12y ago
      > but its got slower seeds I'm not sure this would be true. This may work for rarer content, but certainly wouldn't work for hot torrents. A fast webseeds CDN or whole datacenter of seedboxes is still on par with a large community-only swarm - that is, except for minor issues (possibly slower start) they both can well saturate one's downstream channel. That is, unless one wants the download to start at full-speed right at the release second and not an hour or two later when swarm gets enough seeds. But I'm not sure most users care whenever their favorite series get an update at, say, 18:00 or 20:00.
  - glomph 12y ago
    People would just release versions with the adverts cut. What do you think goes on with HDTV releases at the moment?
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      There are torrents of TV shows with the ads cut. That hasn't made a dent in broadcast TV.
- SlashmanX 12y ago
  Blocktech are trying to do something like this with MovieCoin[1]. They contacted PopcornTime about it but I'm not sure how far their technology is at the moment [1] https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/427/moviecoin-worldwide-secure-distro-of-movies-payment-system-to-connect-contentcreators-audiences https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/427/moviecoin-worldwid...

davedx 12y ago

I work for one of the big cable companies, and the internal culture seems to be "innovate, but slowly and carefully". Everybody is fully aware of the threat Netflix et al pose to the incumbents, but progress is slow. So many of our resources are spent just trying to minimise costs and maximise revenues, without really changing the game. Comcast, for all their flaws, do seem to really care about innovation. I watched a video about the development of Xfinity X2, and their R&D department looks like it has insane resources. It's a very interesting space to be in, on all sides.

dublinben 12y ago
To what end though? Their new X2 cable boxes are slower than ten year old ones, and are just catching up with the interfaces of Tivo and Roku from five years ago. Who really wants "innovation" from their cable provider? Certainly not the unsatisfied customers that are leaving in droves.
lotsofpulp 12y ago
What incentive does a cable provider have to progress and become a dumb pipe? The only value Comcast brings is owning the license to rent a wire that brings Internet signals to your house. After that, the content creators/curators can take care of the rest. Of course, being a dump pipe means less profitability, but it should have already been treated like a utility in the first place, like in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's a huge, profitable, conflict of interest to have your content provider also be the internet signal provider to your home, and I don't see them wanting to innovate that away. If anything, their R&D is probably in figuring out how to box out movie studios and other content providers like Netflix/Amazon Prime to make their own offerings more attractive.
- VLM 12y ago
  "Of course, being a dumb pipe means less profitability" If you have a strong, legally enforced monopoly, I'm not seeing this. Is walmart really less profitable than mom -n- pop main street? If they aren't, why did mom -n- pop main street all go out of business when walmart moved in? The future seems to be big dumb profitable pipes and much less profitable content sources.

themartorana 12y ago

Sports - that's the ticket. Comcast remains relevant for two reasons in my mind - they provide high-speed Internet in a quasi-monopolistic fashion, and local sports broadcasting. (I live in Philly, the stranglehold on sports here is palpable.) That said, even sports apps are starting to show up on Apple TV and the like - it's just that right now, sports are attached to cable deals, much like HBO Go is attached to cable networks. I feel like the "a la carte" unbundling discussion is almost moot. It was an important idea before, paying for just the channels you want. But now each channel can have it's own streaming app, and I can pay for and stream them whenever. So now I guess it's just a matter of time before someone offers bundled groups of on-demand app access. Netflix + NFL Network + ABC/CBS + HBO Go... And toss in Comedy Central for good measure. Add in a $99 Apple TV, and who needs Comcast and Time Warner? Oh right. They own the Internet access. I'd really like some net neutrality soon, please.

baddox 12y ago
We're already seeing the beginnings of one possible solution to the "sports on TV" problem: e-sports and video game streaming. Right now there are several hundred thousand viewers on Twitch.tv, unless their viewer numbers are extremely inflated. Video game streams overwhelmingly tend to be free (with subscriptions to remove ads, unlock the highest video quality, or access previous video on demand). Many tournaments have top notch video productions, and are probably produced on a shoestring budget compared to national sports television productions. There's no technical reason why non-electronic sports couldn't also be streamed like this.
- eropple 12y ago
  No technical reason, but it'd probably be a pretty big drop in revenue.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Why? How much revenue do the teams and leagues get from TV per-viewer now? Why couldn't they get more by cutting out the middlemen (cable companies and TV networks) and just get subscription fees directly from viewers, and ad revenue directly from advertisers?

shmerl 12y ago

The future should be DRM-free. Netflix are not going in the right direction. GOG try to break that wall on the other hand. See https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

timothya 12y ago
I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. If Netflix didn't do DRM, then it wouldn't have any good content on it. As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. I'd bet that by the time we see A-List movies on GOG, we'll be seeing them on Netflix too.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  This argument is increasingly less compelling as Netflix's focus moves away from streaming other people's content towards streaming its own original content.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    It was always a fake excuse for Netflix. They bear the guilt of pushing this DRM garbage into HTML standard.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > I doubt that Netflix really wants to be doing DRM. But the simple fact is that the rights-holders demand it. Where is their own content DRM-free? > As soon as rights-holders can be convinced that DRM is unnecessary, then we'll see the internet streamers like Netflix drop it. Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. Netflix clearly don't care to push for it in the least. So kudos to GOG for actually trying.
  - nemothekid 12y ago
    > Where is their own content DRM-free? What does Netflix gain at this point for instrumenting DRM free streaming for a small subset of their content rather than just piggybacking off their current infrastructure? Why add even more to the cost of in-house content for DRM? > Without someone pushing for it, it will never happen. That someone is consumers, not Netflix. And given that the overwhelming majority of consumers don't care about DRM, Netflix has little incentive to care about it also - they have enough to worry about with their content well drying up, and I doubt they are keen on exacerbating that problem by telling their partners to license their content DRM free. Short of either the government stepping in and mandating the end of DRM, I don't think will ever see DRM go away (not to say it won't be hopelessly broken). All that still doesn't change the fact if Netflix could, they would most likely drop DRM, if not for all the technical reasons - it would allow them to distribute on Linux and most likely simplify parts of the content delivery chain. For Netflix they have no reason to be against DRM free content, but a ton of reasons to not be actively against DRM.

vermooten 12y ago

Netflix has little chance in the UK so long as they have such a dismal choice of content.

robert_tweed 12y ago
This hasn't been the case for a long time, although for some reason it remains a common misperception. I think it's mainly a marketing problem because people are always reading comments like this online, or hearing about such-and-such series that "is on Netflix" but disappointingly isn't currently available in the UK, while simultaneously being unaware of all the content that is available in the UK but not in the US. For example, Netflix UK has the first 2 Hobbit movies, Pixar's Up, the original Danish versions of The Killing and The Bridge, all of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, 24 and The Shield - none of which are currently available in the US. There's a load more I can't remember off the top of my head. The UK also got Breaking Bad a few hours after it was aired in the US, whereas US customers had to wait several months, presumably due to an exclusivity deal with AMC. Obviously the UK also gets all the Netflix original content. Occasionally a new season will launch a few months ahead in the US, but that's not really a big deal. I can only assume this is done for same marketing reasons that blockbuster movie launches are typically staggered worldwide. There are a small number of US shows like 30 Rock and Better Off Ted that I wish were on the UK service, and Star Trek DS9 is conspicuously absent, but that list is much smaller than it was 2 years ago.
Benji_San 12y ago
This is sadly also true for the Nordic countries. There's a bunch of contenders in the streaming business and huge pushes for cable-TV from the major broadband providers. The sad part is that most services are utter crap and suffer from huge technical problems, consumer unfriendly subscription models, horribly implemented localisation and a serious lack of content. Netflix is reasonably good and their own series are more or less worth the 8€ subscription fee. Finnish Netflix compared to the US version costs 25% more for <25% of the content of the US version. It isn't too difficult to access the US version of Netflix, but doing so reliably requires a VPN connection which I am not willing to pay for. And it's technically equally illegal as the piratebay and more of a hassle to get it to work with my chromecast/plex/xmbc. This is sadly a really old problem. Noone is currently selling film/TV-series content to a reasonable price that could even look at competing with the piratebay/piratism. Heck, todays services can't compete with piratism from ten years ago.

dobbsbob 12y ago

Surprised "social tv" hasn't taken off more, though I guess people commenting using twitter during broadcasts kind of killed that idea I liked the pirated streams that had open chatrooms with just enough moderation to kill spam and wild political ranting where you could joke about what you're watching, kind of how taima.tv and JustinTV used to operate.

paul9290 12y ago

I miss Aereo and the ability to watch live local broadcast channels on my Mac Mini. Copyright recently has killed a few venues online where I was paying to watch their content. I'd still pay them directly for an Aereo service if they provided it. I will never pay for Cable TV again .. bloated, over priced junk in which you have to deal with horrible customer service! No thanks! I do see Dish is coming out with an over the top cable like service. It's sure to hobbled at first, but maybe in the long term it will provide a solid experience.

platz 12y ago

I wonder how long physical media and things like redbox will live on for.. it seems tempting to say it will die out soon, but at least in the US, we do not have ubiquitous high-quality bandwidth.

iramiller 12y ago

I would not be surprised if eventually Netflix is forced to charge different rates to customers based on their ISP and the amount of shakedown they are forced to pay for interconnect agreements. It is easy to imagine a base rate of $8 for Netflix and a $4 Comcast network fee. After all if Netflix must raise rates to cover these new costs it seems it would be in their best interests to educate their customers in hopes of driving lobbying efforts to force common carrier legislation on ISPs.