18 ms·

For Cinephiles, Netflix Is Less and Less an Option

226 points by jfb 12y ago

autokad 12y ago
netflix has clearly said they are not an archival service / library (in so many words) that they are a 'whats popular now'. This is the real opportunity for a disrupt-er. sure its hard / expensive to get the content, but that's also opportunity, and clearly netflix is out of touch with what their customers actually want from their press releases. And even though they say they buy only the content 'people want to see currently', it seems like they do a poor job. netflix defenders will spout 'if you cant find something to watch on netflix well ...' thats completely misguided, you shouldnt have to search netflix for something to watch, you should find what you are looking for. as the running joke goes, people spend more time searching netflix for something to watch than actually watching
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lukifer 12y ago
  I wonder if there's a sufficient market for peer-to-peer lending of movies and games, backed by a floating deposit. Uber for discs-by-mail, as it were.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    A distributed peer-to-peer Netflix is really what's needed.
    - DLister 12y ago
      You mean like Tribler? [http://www.tribler.org/ http://www.tribler.org/] Its a decentralized torrent client with built in video player. Form what their site says they are planning to have proxying freenet like system where no one other than you can know both what you are downloading and where you are or who is seeding what where. If that works it could be a netflix/thepiratebay killer.
  - arebop 12y ago
    I remember that this idea was tried for music in 2007 and it took a few years for courts to wind up with a fairly nuanced legal landscape for doing this in the U.S. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tunes,_LLC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tun...]
    - hyperbovine 12y ago
      (S)he's talking about people physically mailing DVDs, not the digital locker thing. I can't imagine that would be illegal, but never underestimate the entertainment industries ability to buy judges.
frozenport 12y ago
If they won't sell the product can we just download it? http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20Baadasssss%20Song/0/99/0 http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20...
- kleinsch 12y ago
  It's for sale on DVD all over the place, just not available for rental. http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Special-Edition/dp/B004LY8QCK http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Spec...
ececconi 12y ago
I remember being in college when Netflix streaming first came out. At that time, almost everyone I knew had a mail-order Netflix subscription. It was revolutionary at the time. I remember when they suddenly started throwing in streaming as a bonus to all the DVD subscribers. I had no idea that this was where they were going to eventually pivot. Netflix lured everyone in and changed the video rental industry with it's amazing mail-order service. Any video you wanted to your door in a couple of days. Fast forward to a decade later when there are very few physical stores that rent movies, and Netflix turned into a service of convenience. No longer is it a service where you can get any movie you want in the next few days. Rather, it's a service where you can get something you'll enjoy in the next few seconds. I've noticed that a lot of the enjoyment now comes from TV series as opposed to movies. At the end of the day I'm glad there are other alternatives to Netflix such as Amazon Instant Video. Getting any movie has never been easier than before. I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Thing is, we are coming off having too much of a good thing. When Netflix first started, it was easy to consume what you wanted for a low price. Now, if you want to consume exactly what you want -- it might cost you more. I've found many movies that aren't available for rent on Netflix, Itunes, or Amazon. I have to buy these titles online to watch them! The other side of the coin is that it's never been cheaper to consume such a variety of media using Netflix. It just might not be exactly what you want. As long as it's good enough for you, though, it's good for Netflix's bottom line.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Do you mean 'anything you want' or that selection seems almost comprehensive? The article claimed that the streaming selection is poor, and substantially smaller than the Netflix DVD selection. My impression of Roku's services is that there is much I cannot find.
  - ececconi 12y ago
    I mean anything I want. Usually I'm covered between Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. I'm really only into mainstream movies though, so I do understand my opinion might not be the best one.
Apocryphon 12y ago
This is terrible. One of the important benefits of the long tail is ensuring works are always available, never lost. Maybe when Netflix finally shutters their collection the Internet Archive should absorb it somehow.
- ghaff 12y ago
  If Netflix has it in physical form, it's presumably available for purchase. (Well, they may have disks that used to be available but aren't currently but in that case it's just a matter of time before they're damaged.) If Netflix is, in fact, cash starving its physical DVD business, that's unfortunate because there are no other AFAIK comparable physical DVD rental alternatives. But the purchase options still exist.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  How would the internet archive possibly get rights that netflix couldn't afford? I'm not sure the 'benefits of the long tail' are working out as predicted in the market, it is true.
  - arjie 12y ago
    Presumably he wants the Archive to archive it and not necessarily make it available. I'm sure there's a country where you can backup DVDs to a hard drive without violating the law.
- chiph 12y ago
  I've had discs arrive broken before. I imagine if that happens often enough, a title would become effectively unavailable - Netflix has no more copies, the publisher isn't willing to press more, and the prices in the aftermarket are too high.
spindritf 12y ago
Cinephiles, just like audiophiles before them and bibliophiles a bit later, simply started their own torrent trackers.
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  It's hard for me to believe any Cinephile would use Netflix at all, the bitrates on their streams are painfully low and it's absolutely noticeable even on medium sized screens. And that's not even mentioning the audio quality.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I don't think that "cinephile" strongly implies anything about the technical reproduction quality of the media. To me, it connotes someone who is very passionate about the history of film, niche genres of film, and/or film criticism or theory.
  - swang 12y ago
    A Cinephile is someone who is into movies and discussing the themes, theories, plots, philosophy of movies. They are not really concerned with bitrates as long as its watchable.
    - acdha 12y ago
      … and bitrates are more of an issue for things like HD action movies. That old French movie from the 70s which hasn't been professionally retouched is probably going to be fine.
  - modfodder 12y ago
    I'm a cinephile and work in post-production. When I'm working on a feature, I'm working with an uncompressed 2k or 4k video file. But when I want to watch a movie or show at the spur of the moment, I'm fine with Netflix. I'm typically more interested in the story although on occasion I will try to find a blu-ray or see it theatrically if it is something visually arresting.
- 12y ago
fein 12y ago
Nice perspective, but perhaps a bit misguided. Netflix would LOVE to have every single movie ever made by man on the service, but there is more at play than just "get the file, now stream it". The entire mainstream film industry is doing everything they can to make sure generic streaming services like Netflix and Amazon don't become as large as they could, and our current legal framework involving distribution of content is quite hostile to these services. This is also following the concept that storage gets cheaper as time goes on. More movies = more storage fees, but I don't think this overhead is nearly as large as some would assume.
- guyzero 12y ago
  The issue is that they no longer have classic movies available through their DVD services. There are no legal or licensing restrictions there due to the First Sale Doctrine.
  - acdha 12y ago
    It's true that first sale prevents the studios from restricting Netflix's usage but it doesn't require them to make new copies for Netflix. If they aren't selling the DVD commercially, as is the case for many classic films, there's no way to legally create a new copy to replace a damaged disc.
    - hayksaakian 12y ago
      wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy? if the original is destroyed?
      - MiguelHudnandez 12y ago
        I think that, if they were challenged, they would have to prove that they are only sending out as many backup copies as they have originals. I wouldn't want to endanger my business to licensing lawsuits based on something like that which would be terribly hard to prove.
sjf 12y ago
I understand why Netflix can't license new material, but why don't they have a comprehensive back catalogue? I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM without commercials. Their movie selection is actually pretty dire, there's no new movies, very few classic movies, so you are left mostly with regrettable B-movies from the 90s.
- ghaff 12y ago
  As far as I'm concerned, Netflix streaming is for television. When a movie I want to watch is available, I just consider that a bonus. Someone I know who used to work for Netflix once told me that people come to streaming "for the movies and they stay for the TV."
- acdha 12y ago
  > I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM without commercials. Why are you sure that the movie studios aren't demanding excessive amounts or strategically avoiding any one service getting all of the movies to ensure nobody gets a dominant position? They're determined to avoid Netflix being able to do what Apple did to the music cartel and I'm sure that's a factor in every negotiation.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jfb 12y ago
  Back catalog is likely even more expensive to clear than new releases are.
wldcordeiro 12y ago
Isn't a large part of this problem with the content producers and the contracts Netflix has to sign with them? I would think that if Netflix could have any movie or TV show in their streaming library they would but there are other interested parties that prevent that.
ghaff 12y ago
This is bothersome although I'd note that at least some of the Woody Allen movies listed are available streaming on Amazon (for a fee) and for purchase. But it's reasonable to ask whether we hit a point where at least DVD reissues (once initial inventory is used up) don't make financial sense any longer. For the past decade or so, we've been living in a world where we could obtain the vast majority of movies as DVDs through some channel pretty inexpensively and painlessly. At the moment, it looks as if that process will become much more fractured and less reliable.
arthuredelstein 12y ago
Maybe this is an opportunity for a startup -- steal Netflix's DVD rent by mail business and offer a very extensive catalog. Seems like Netflix would be happy to cede that market.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Or more likely it isn't or Netflix wouldn't be backing away from it even though they already have the infrastructure. I suspect that there's a real squeeze between the current hits (which Red Box covers pretty well and others purchase off Amazon/Walmart/etc.) and the default behavior of watching whatever is on streaming that just doesn't leave a lot of business on the table for the balance.
- phunge 12y ago
  Or a startup for peer-to-peer resale of used DVDs? Though Amazon might've already locked that market up. Why rent when I can buy for $0.01 + $3.99 shipping?
- acdha 12y ago
  The problem is that your revenue is capped at $8/mo: http://www.netflixreview.com/netflix_plans.html http://www.netflixreview.com/netflix_plans.html Netflix has already built out great infrastructure for this but clearly didn't find it profitable enough to focus on it. I'd be very hesitant assuming that you've seen a market which they haven't.
ISL 12y ago
Seattle's awesome local movie repository, Scarecrow Video, is reinventing itself as a non-profit to survive in the new environment. A recent Kickstarter [1] has offset operating costs for the near future. They have four copies (2 DVD, 2 Laserdisc) of Sweet Sweetback: https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+sweetback https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+swee... [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow-project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow...
- sirmarksalot 12y ago
  I jumped on the Kickstarter as well, but I'm nervous as to whether it will work. Reclassifying as a non-profit doesn't change the fact that employees have to eat, and movies need to be purchased. I'd personally be willing to pay a membership fee or recurring donation in order to keep them in business, but I don't know how well that scales. Their cache is in obscure movies, but their bread and butter is the new releases, just like any other video store, and the latter is being supplanted by online streaming, which fails to address the former. Worse, the entire business model is dependent on the availability of shareable physical media, and the legal permission to rent them to customers. In the shift to digital formats, video stores will end up cut out of the equation entirely. What happens when the video store can no longer offer new movies? Will they be able to cover their expenses with just legacy content? I'm somewhat doubtful.
kolev 12y ago
Outside of world cinema, Netflix is good only for the kids stuff. I find myself watching more and more stuff on Vudu recently. A good, but kinda neglected service is GoWatchIt (http://gowatchit.com/ http://gowatchit.com/), which helps me follow upcoming titles. Another complaint: the 500 movie limit is a joke and having a single queue vs multiple queues is something that should already have been implemented over the years. At least, add the ability to filter within "My List" by genre, etc. I'm really disappointed by the dead-slow pace of development at Netflix. The lack of tools to see more movie info is also displeasing.
- snuxoll 12y ago
  Netflix isn't even a good option for children's programming either, they just failed to renew their license for Sesame Street and they don't have any Viacom content licensed, so that leaves everything on Nick Jr. out. If it weren't for the few Netflix originals (Trailer Park Boys, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards) I'd just drop Netflix and only use my Prime Instant Video because my daughter watches a LOT of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    House of Cards is what got me (reluctantly) to eventually re-up for streaming after Netflix carved it off. But like way too many monthly payments of mine, it's something I marginally get my money's worth from given that I am an avid Amazon Prime customer in any case and there's a lot of overlap.
njovin 12y ago
> Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you want to watch. This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rights-holders aren't willing to sell the rights to their films at a price that the market will pay, then those people who want to see those films will find a way, legal or not, to obtain them through other channels. I will happily pay to stream a movie online, whether as part of a subscription service or directly to the producers. However, when the producers don't provide any means to do so, I've never had a hard time finding a DVD-quality copy that I can download and watch in my home theater in less than the time it would take to drive to Blockbuster and rent it.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Well... I'm not sure "aren't willing to sell rights at a price netflix can afford with their business model" is the same as "aren't willing to sell the rights at a price that the market will pay." Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I have no idea if they're right or wrong (today or tomorrow), although certainly I know my preference as a consumer is to be able to watch anything I want for $8 a month or whatever. But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.)
  - baddox 12y ago
    > But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.) Yeah, the analogy breaks down when you compare rivalrous goods to goods which are trivially copyable.
  - mbesto 12y ago
    > Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I think what he/she meant was that PPV (for example) doesn't address the whole market whereas access to Netflix is pretty ubiquitous and does address the whole market. It also creates a nearly efficient market in that the consumer gets to decide how much they are willing to pay for content - not the distributor (which is the current case of Time Warner, Comcast, etc).
IvyMike 12y ago
In my experience, Facets specializes in "cinephile" movies and is the place to go for the long tail. And they do in fact have Sweet Sweetback's Baadass Song available for rental: http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578 http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kqr2 12y ago
He should have also considered greencine which focuses more on independent and cult classic films: http://www.greencine.com/main http://www.greencine.com/main Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) : http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298 http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298
w1ntermute 12y ago
The best cinephile setup I've found is Roku + Plex + torrents. Just make sure to have a wired connection to your Plex server and to set up the Plex app on your Roku to 'Direct Stream' the video (so there's no reencoding).
- csallen 12y ago
  What do you think about Chromecast instead of Roku?
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    I prefer Roku over Chromecast because Roku has a remote with a headphone jack. If Chromecast had an option to play the audio through the headphone jack of the device you're casting from, I would say it's just as good. In fact, I often cast from the YouTube app on my phone to my Roku, because it's easier than searching for a video using the Roku interface.
kin 12y ago
Wanting to watch one particular film doesn't define or capture cinephiles. The title is an exaggeration to say the least, especially if the movie isn't even available for rent at the many paid movie streaming service options available. That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Max Go, etc. Although I'm not sure the interface exists for all of them.
- dangrossman 12y ago
  > That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Max Go, etc http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity
  - kin 12y ago
    nice! much needed. http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback 0 results. So his problem still holds but it still doesn't demonstrate that Netflix is less and less an option.
lern_too_spel 12y ago
The SF Public Library has two copies currently available via Link+. Was the author using the card catalog?
mindcrime 12y ago
It's almost like the executives at the studios and distributors who own the rights to these films don't realize that, if I can't easily, quickly and conveniently buy access to their film legally, I will just bittorrent the damn thing. And personally I don't even feel guilty about it. It's 2014, join the 21st century or suffer the consequences. I don't mind paying for content, and - in fact - I largely prefer to do so, so there will be more new content coming. But I am not going to bend over backwards to accommodate these laggards and dinosaurs refusal to pay attention to the world we live in.
- zobzu 12y ago
  Can't agree more.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  Really nothing infuriates me more than when CanIStream.it tells me that the movie I want to watch is unavailable to stream for purchase or subscription on any service. I pay for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, and will gladly rent just about any film for $4.99 yet more than once per week I find films that I would need to go to a store and purchase just to see.
  - click170 12y ago
    It would be neat if we could easily wrap these various streaming services up in one UI so that you simply search for a movie and it streams it from Netflix or hulu if possible and bittorrent if not. Its unfortunate that in today's world this would get you sued out of existence.
    - wanderingstan 12y ago
      That's a rather interesting startup/service idea. On setup you tell it what services you have accounts on, and then when you search it will tell you the options (with links to signup on new services), and always with a "BitTorrent at your own risk" fallback.
guelo 12y ago
Pirate it! The more we pirate the sooner we'll get the Spotify of movies. So for the grater good, pirate it!
troymc 12y ago
Zip.ca, a Canadian DVD-rentals-by-mail service, shut down in August 2014. I think it was the biggest such service in Canada. http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-video-rental-service-shuts-down http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-vide...
- mmastrac 12y ago
  Ah that's a shame. Canflix, the other big one a few years back, did a midnight move when they went under.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Netflix didn’t want to talk to me about their movie catalogue, leaving me to rely on the speculation of a couple of video store folks that the company’s DVD selection is shrinking most likely because it is not replacing damaged disks. People often keep them, from a mix of greed and guilt (still haven't watched that classic film...but I really must...I'l do it next week...). Meantime, piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films, so niche titles go out of print and stay out of print because no distributor wants to spend $10,000 on something that may only have a few hundred buyers. I personally think the streaming service is great, notwithstanding the spotty coverage. It also makes a great deal more sense as a long-term revenue model than discs. I don't see a way of guaranteeing availability without compulsory licensing, though.
- morninj 12y ago
  > piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films Source?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Distributors I know. BTW I'm not trying to make a big thing about piracy here, hence my off-the-cuff remark. But it's just basic economics - there's a fairly small but non-zero cost of doing a DVD issue even if its a rerun and some films just aren't going to earn it back. Bear in mind that many, many films would not be profitable on their own, but are cross-subsidized by more popular films in package distribution deals, especially international ones.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    DVD production for non-mainstream films was an iffy business at the best of times. Sales figures for even a company like Criterion were MUCH lower than you might expect. It didn't take much piracy to destroy what was already a marginal business. Source- Friends who went out of business as the market died. And industry sales report data that showed the small size of the market to start with.
- WalterBright 12y ago
pasbesoin 12y ago
Netflix made the argument some years ago that the world and their user base was switching to streaming. To the point of proposing to split disk and streaming into separate businesses (not just separate subscriptions). I was dubious given the comparatively poor quality and degree of choice on their streaming service at that time. Since then, instead of improving, I've seen that choice -- on balance -- get worse. A few TV shows I'm interested in have shown up -- and a whole bunch I'm not at all interested in; while many I might be interested in remain absent. At the same time, the movie selection has grown notably worse, with many titles I dug out of the mess and queued up disappearing before I got to them. Now I read that the DVD service is indeed in decline, as well. The most telling bit of the OP story for me seems to be this quote: Check out this 2013 Netflix PR video communicating that the company should no longer be looked upon as a massive movie library. What it really is, it says, is the “Internet’s largest television network.” Well, I'm not interested in remaining a customer of what is increasingly some sort of Netflix "television channel". As with all the other "streaming", "rental" online services I've tried. I'm coming to the conclusion that they are not worth the investment nor the fees, for me. I'm being driving back to maintaining a personal library. And perhaps to reinforcement my support for my public library, where the membership's interests are still primary.
contingencies 12y ago
Architect on multiple Hollywood/digital projects for major device manufacturers here, also have interviewed to head SmartTV department for the world's largest TV manufacturer (TCL, in China). I finished working in this area in 2010 (left it for the digital currency space) but have seen no suggestion of change. In any case, you heard it here last: the problem is definitely the studios and their insistance on completely outmoded, unfair, obstructive regional licensing. Digital licensing operates as follows. First, digital releases are not a first-class citizen in the Hollywood world. The 'DVD street relase date' for the consumer country in question is the date that everything is calculated from for billing purposes. Multiple periods are then calculated using blocks of days thereafter, during which the wholesale rate offered for a particular item is progressively discounted. Finally, after some period (eg. 90 or 180 days subsequent to DVD street release in that market) the wholesale drops to a base rate 'back catalog' price unique to that item. Netflix and other services basically prefer these titles as they are cheaper to offer. In my experience, significant ingestion overhead is present for digital service agencies on every single title. This is because they are more often than not supplied in weird formats, under strange licensing restrictions, with restrictive rules on reformatting (eg. crop requirements) and re-encoding though they're not able to be played on most devices up front, and certainly not in the higher-resolution digital formats studio supplied. Very frequently, audio tracks for non-original languages are supplied as non time-synched files separate to the original, as are subtitles. So to offer an item, not only do you need to front up to the studio, effectively downpay some cash, figure out a revenue share deal, convince them your DRM is adequate, go through this whole process on a per-market basis, figure out the logistics of moving huge files, put up with delays and their frequent insistence to use weird file transfer mechanisms, but you also need to get any edits accredited, manage your own database of client device capabilities (this is more complex than it sounds, resolution is only a minor components versus various codec support (audio/video/subtitles), non-subtitle support (ie. need to rewrite entire video stream with burnt in subtitles in each language), etc. but also get the results approved, uploaded to an adequately wide range of data centers in a DRM-capable distribution network (what? build my own? yeah...), your studio-approved frequently expensive DRM integration sorted, and manage the changing prices on an ongoing basis as delimited in USD but against a revenue share model with constantly fluctuating exchange rates. Sound like fun? No, it isn't. And you are competing with higher quality torrents people download for free, on or before DVD street release date, in the very first market to ever have the title. That's why nobody does it. The industry could reap immense additional profits if they'd only drop the control-freak old-school management, normalize and prioritize their digital output, and allow all media consumption to become a low price flat-rate experience at some reasonable post-cinema release date, like +30-45 days. Oh, and drop the DRM and the military police style back-channel raids on New Zealand residents who choose to make a point of their untenable and laughably outmoded outlook.
georgemcbay 12y ago
I can't speak to the DVD side of the equation, I suspect that is merely due to the fact that not enough people want to see relatively obscure old movies (on classic DVDs) enough to waste inventory space on them, especially as more and more people move over to Bluray (if only because their console supports it so why not) and online VOD/streaming more and more. But on the streaming side, it is the studios blocking Netflix out, not Netflix being oblivious to how bad their movie selection is. I temporarily worked for a company in the VOD/Streaming space that was run by Hollywood-insider types when they sort-of-aquihired most of the employees of Chumby. Based on my limited time of seeing it from the 'inside', my impression is that Hollywood studio executives have a seething, furious hatred of Netflix and their business model, which they see as devaluing their content. (And I'm not saying they are wrong to think this -- at the very least the Netflix model certainly upsets all the applecarts of the way Hollywood has done business for nearly a century). These people would basically instinctively scowl animated-villain-style when Netflix was brought up, even if it was in other contexts. eg. Software architect explaining to business guys why default sharing on social media was not a good idea (at the time): "We shouldn't automatically share what movies a customer has watched because Netflix (studio-business-guys scowl, hiss, unhinge their jaws) recently got into legal trouble for that". Originally the studios were OK with making some dough from Netflix on old long-tailed-out movie catalogs that would otherwise not be earning anything (because they sure do love money) but a few years ago they hit the brakes on that because they would rather earn less on the old catalog stuff than do anything to further validate the Netflix model, which they see as an existential threat to their business.
fredguest 12y ago
this site http://www.fandor.com/ http://www.fandor.com/ is designed to serve exactly the audience that Netflix ignores, cinephiles if you like. worth checking out. full disclosure, i'm related to the CEO.
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  Does it have a HTML5 player?
  - fredguest 12y ago
    absolutely, works well in the browser, HTML5 not flash, and they have Roku and Chromecast integration and mobile apps as well.
jmckib 12y ago
The author said he struck out with sfpl, but a quick search showed that there are 10 copies, with 3 available. Am I missing something?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Just making something up for clicks, target audience is happy to believe it's an Evil Plot. Most film critics are horrible people.
  - olifante 12y ago
    that's a really cheap ad hominem. Your argumentation is horrible.
Agathos 12y ago
"...and Netflix sells off its vast supply of DVDs for drink coasters..." Can we get off this, at long last? CDs and DVDs are terrible coasters. They're too thin and not at all spongy or porous, so the condensation will creep all the way around to the table side. I once ruined a desk by leaving a cold drink on a CD overnight. Admittedly it was a cheap, second-hand desk, but still.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  been using CDs and DVD's as coasters for years. I still have a stack of Win95 OSR2 discs I bring out for special occasions, and haven't experienced a ruined desk or coffee table yet.
shurcooL 12y ago
I've realized and accepted this for some time now. Netflix and similar are really good for satisfying "I just want to watch some movie and be entertained" needs, but really not great (and likely getting worse), sadly, for "I have a very specific movie in mind and I want to see it" needs. It's a sacrifice I've learned to be okay with, but it is a little sad. I have a few movies on physical media that I had to give up due to them taking up space, and I knew that while they're currently available on Netflix, that may no longer be the case in the future. :(
- ctdonath 12y ago
  So much for the promise of "The Long Tail": that, vast storage being cheap as air, everything would be available on line.
  - ryanpardieck 12y ago
    Wow, it really is sad when you think of it that way. I don't torrent stuff, but this kind of sentiment makes me wish I did ...
DINKDINK 12y ago
" would have run down to my local video store, but I don’t have a local video store. I struck out at the San Francisco Public Library..." So why didn't he go to Le Video? He even mentions it later in the article. Sounds like the author was intentionally constraining himself to make a point.
- jfb 12y ago
  Or Lost Weekend, which is still a going concern, and I can guarantee has a copy of Sweet Sweetback.
shmerl 12y ago
> it seemed like a great idea with no downside Netflix has one huge downside - proliferation of DRM.
- vonklaus 12y ago
  I am not pro DRM, but it is tolerable and warranted here. You are renting the product so you are barred from making copies of it. That's not unreasonable. I am largely against DRM when it is on a video game (or any digital asset) that has been purchased outright. Would I prefer it not be present? Sure. Is it reasonable for a rental company? Probably.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    My opinion is that no DRM is ever warranted or tolerable. Renting aspect is irrelevant here. If you think it's renting that causes the usage of DRM then you are wrong. Look at any services which sell video. They all use DRM too except GOG which just started selling it and has a very small selection of documentaries and Headweb which is available only in Scandinavia. Anyway, I find the concept of renting for digital goods to be illogical altogether, but it's a separate subject.
WalterBright 12y ago
I was going to throw away my DVD collection. Guess I'll keep it, because when Netflix kills the DVD service, I can sell my DVDs for actual money again.
mkhpalm 12y ago
Sooner or later studios are going to realize if its not on something like netflix... it doesn't exist.
nkurz 12y ago
While we can lament the lack of legal streaming options, it's probably worth remembering that there are other perfectly legal subscription by mail DVD services in the US besides Netflix. Below are two that I know of. Are there others? Greencine are good people. As you can tell from their about page, they are significantly less 'glitzy' than Netflix. They also pride themselves on having DVD's that Netflix doesn't, including this one. http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395 http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395 Facets Multimedia is a nonprofit based in Chicago that offers DVD by mail memberships, and lots of people seem to love them. The also have this movie: http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578 http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...
hesselink 12y ago
This problem is even worse when you're outside of the US, and the Netflix selection is even smaller. On the upside, I don't think we ever had the Netflix DVD service, so we don't miss it.
tragic 12y ago
People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film business as a business. Already, when people say "I prefer to pay for a film to support filmmakers, actors etc" the implied subclause is that "I could choose otherwise." And that's where I see it going, really. Look at classical music, the visual arts, theatre (outside of big Broadway/West End musicals) - these continue to exist overwhelmingly on the basis of patronage from the state and philanthropists. This is not exactly an apples-for-apples comparison (a symphonic or theatrical performance is not copiable in the same way as digital video; still less are prints of paintings substitutable for the real thing); but the underlying issue is similar: it costs more to put these things on than can be made back in gate receipts. And so, when people choose to pay for films in a situation where it is just as easy to pirate (it often isn't actually), they are being philanthropic and paying a non-market price for the film. I don't see how a $10 monthly subscription model is going to sustain the entire film industry, although maybe someone can do better maths than me on the back of their napkin.

226 points by jfb 12y ago

netflix has clearly said they are not an archival service / library (in so many words) that they are a 'whats popular now'. This is the real opportunity for a disrupt-er. sure its hard / expensive to get the content, but that's also opportunity, and clearly netflix is out of touch with what their customers actually want from their press releases. And even though they say they buy only the content 'people want to see currently', it seems like they do a poor job. netflix defenders will spout 'if you cant find something to watch on netflix well ...' thats completely misguided, you shouldnt have to search netflix for something to watch, you should find what you are looking for. as the running joke goes, people spend more time searching netflix for something to watch than actually watching

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lukifer 12y ago
I wonder if there's a sufficient market for peer-to-peer lending of movies and games, backed by a floating deposit. Uber for discs-by-mail, as it were.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  A distributed peer-to-peer Netflix is really what's needed.
  - DLister 12y ago
    You mean like Tribler? [http://www.tribler.org/ http://www.tribler.org/] Its a decentralized torrent client with built in video player. Form what their site says they are planning to have proxying freenet like system where no one other than you can know both what you are downloading and where you are or who is seeding what where. If that works it could be a netflix/thepiratebay killer.
- arebop 12y ago
  I remember that this idea was tried for music in 2007 and it took a few years for courts to wind up with a fairly nuanced legal landscape for doing this in the U.S. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tunes,_LLC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tun...]
  - hyperbovine 12y ago
    (S)he's talking about people physically mailing DVDs, not the digital locker thing. I can't imagine that would be illegal, but never underestimate the entertainment industries ability to buy judges.

frozenport 12y ago

If they won't sell the product can we just download it? http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20Baadasssss%20Song/0/99/0 http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20...

kleinsch 12y ago
It's for sale on DVD all over the place, just not available for rental. http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Special-Edition/dp/B004LY8QCK http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Spec...

ececconi 12y ago

I remember being in college when Netflix streaming first came out. At that time, almost everyone I knew had a mail-order Netflix subscription. It was revolutionary at the time. I remember when they suddenly started throwing in streaming as a bonus to all the DVD subscribers. I had no idea that this was where they were going to eventually pivot. Netflix lured everyone in and changed the video rental industry with it's amazing mail-order service. Any video you wanted to your door in a couple of days. Fast forward to a decade later when there are very few physical stores that rent movies, and Netflix turned into a service of convenience. No longer is it a service where you can get any movie you want in the next few days. Rather, it's a service where you can get something you'll enjoy in the next few seconds. I've noticed that a lot of the enjoyment now comes from TV series as opposed to movies. At the end of the day I'm glad there are other alternatives to Netflix such as Amazon Instant Video. Getting any movie has never been easier than before. I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Thing is, we are coming off having too much of a good thing. When Netflix first started, it was easy to consume what you wanted for a low price. Now, if you want to consume exactly what you want -- it might cost you more. I've found many movies that aren't available for rent on Netflix, Itunes, or Amazon. I have to buy these titles online to watch them! The other side of the coin is that it's never been cheaper to consume such a variety of media using Netflix. It just might not be exactly what you want. As long as it's good enough for you, though, it's good for Netflix's bottom line.

hackuser 12y ago
> I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Do you mean 'anything you want' or that selection seems almost comprehensive? The article claimed that the streaming selection is poor, and substantially smaller than the Netflix DVD selection. My impression of Roku's services is that there is much I cannot find.
- ececconi 12y ago
  I mean anything I want. Usually I'm covered between Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. I'm really only into mainstream movies though, so I do understand my opinion might not be the best one.

Apocryphon 12y ago

This is terrible. One of the important benefits of the long tail is ensuring works are always available, never lost. Maybe when Netflix finally shutters their collection the Internet Archive should absorb it somehow.

ghaff 12y ago
If Netflix has it in physical form, it's presumably available for purchase. (Well, they may have disks that used to be available but aren't currently but in that case it's just a matter of time before they're damaged.) If Netflix is, in fact, cash starving its physical DVD business, that's unfortunate because there are no other AFAIK comparable physical DVD rental alternatives. But the purchase options still exist.
jrochkind1 12y ago
How would the internet archive possibly get rights that netflix couldn't afford? I'm not sure the 'benefits of the long tail' are working out as predicted in the market, it is true.
- arjie 12y ago
  Presumably he wants the Archive to archive it and not necessarily make it available. I'm sure there's a country where you can backup DVDs to a hard drive without violating the law.
chiph 12y ago
I've had discs arrive broken before. I imagine if that happens often enough, a title would become effectively unavailable - Netflix has no more copies, the publisher isn't willing to press more, and the prices in the aftermarket are too high.

spindritf 12y ago

Cinephiles, just like audiophiles before them and bibliophiles a bit later, simply started their own torrent trackers.

Omniusaspirer 12y ago
It's hard for me to believe any Cinephile would use Netflix at all, the bitrates on their streams are painfully low and it's absolutely noticeable even on medium sized screens. And that's not even mentioning the audio quality.
- baddox 12y ago
  I don't think that "cinephile" strongly implies anything about the technical reproduction quality of the media. To me, it connotes someone who is very passionate about the history of film, niche genres of film, and/or film criticism or theory.
- swang 12y ago
  A Cinephile is someone who is into movies and discussing the themes, theories, plots, philosophy of movies. They are not really concerned with bitrates as long as its watchable.
  - acdha 12y ago
    … and bitrates are more of an issue for things like HD action movies. That old French movie from the 70s which hasn't been professionally retouched is probably going to be fine.
- modfodder 12y ago
  I'm a cinephile and work in post-production. When I'm working on a feature, I'm working with an uncompressed 2k or 4k video file. But when I want to watch a movie or show at the spur of the moment, I'm fine with Netflix. I'm typically more interested in the story although on occasion I will try to find a blu-ray or see it theatrically if it is something visually arresting.
12y ago

fein 12y ago

Nice perspective, but perhaps a bit misguided. Netflix would LOVE to have every single movie ever made by man on the service, but there is more at play than just "get the file, now stream it". The entire mainstream film industry is doing everything they can to make sure generic streaming services like Netflix and Amazon don't become as large as they could, and our current legal framework involving distribution of content is quite hostile to these services. This is also following the concept that storage gets cheaper as time goes on. More movies = more storage fees, but I don't think this overhead is nearly as large as some would assume.

guyzero 12y ago
The issue is that they no longer have classic movies available through their DVD services. There are no legal or licensing restrictions there due to the First Sale Doctrine.
- acdha 12y ago
  It's true that first sale prevents the studios from restricting Netflix's usage but it doesn't require them to make new copies for Netflix. If they aren't selling the DVD commercially, as is the case for many classic films, there's no way to legally create a new copy to replace a damaged disc.
  - hayksaakian 12y ago
    wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy? if the original is destroyed?
    - MiguelHudnandez 12y ago
      I think that, if they were challenged, they would have to prove that they are only sending out as many backup copies as they have originals. I wouldn't want to endanger my business to licensing lawsuits based on something like that which would be terribly hard to prove.

sjf 12y ago

I understand why Netflix can't license new material, but why don't they have a comprehensive back catalogue? I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM without commercials. Their movie selection is actually pretty dire, there's no new movies, very few classic movies, so you are left mostly with regrettable B-movies from the 90s.

ghaff 12y ago
As far as I'm concerned, Netflix streaming is for television. When a movie I want to watch is available, I just consider that a bonus. Someone I know who used to work for Netflix once told me that people come to streaming "for the movies and they stay for the TV."
acdha 12y ago
> I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM without commercials. Why are you sure that the movie studios aren't demanding excessive amounts or strategically avoiding any one service getting all of the movies to ensure nobody gets a dominant position? They're determined to avoid Netflix being able to do what Apple did to the music cartel and I'm sure that's a factor in every negotiation.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jfb 12y ago
Back catalog is likely even more expensive to clear than new releases are.

wldcordeiro 12y ago

Isn't a large part of this problem with the content producers and the contracts Netflix has to sign with them? I would think that if Netflix could have any movie or TV show in their streaming library they would but there are other interested parties that prevent that.

ghaff 12y ago

This is bothersome although I'd note that at least some of the Woody Allen movies listed are available streaming on Amazon (for a fee) and for purchase. But it's reasonable to ask whether we hit a point where at least DVD reissues (once initial inventory is used up) don't make financial sense any longer. For the past decade or so, we've been living in a world where we could obtain the vast majority of movies as DVDs through some channel pretty inexpensively and painlessly. At the moment, it looks as if that process will become much more fractured and less reliable.

arthuredelstein 12y ago

Maybe this is an opportunity for a startup -- steal Netflix's DVD rent by mail business and offer a very extensive catalog. Seems like Netflix would be happy to cede that market.

ghaff 12y ago
Or more likely it isn't or Netflix wouldn't be backing away from it even though they already have the infrastructure. I suspect that there's a real squeeze between the current hits (which Red Box covers pretty well and others purchase off Amazon/Walmart/etc.) and the default behavior of watching whatever is on streaming that just doesn't leave a lot of business on the table for the balance.
phunge 12y ago
Or a startup for peer-to-peer resale of used DVDs? Though Amazon might've already locked that market up. Why rent when I can buy for $0.01 + $3.99 shipping?
acdha 12y ago
The problem is that your revenue is capped at $8/mo: http://www.netflixreview.com/netflix_plans.html http://www.netflixreview.com/netflix_plans.html Netflix has already built out great infrastructure for this but clearly didn't find it profitable enough to focus on it. I'd be very hesitant assuming that you've seen a market which they haven't.

ISL 12y ago

Seattle's awesome local movie repository, Scarecrow Video, is reinventing itself as a non-profit to survive in the new environment. A recent Kickstarter [1] has offset operating costs for the near future. They have four copies (2 DVD, 2 Laserdisc) of Sweet Sweetback: https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+sweetback https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+swee... [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow-project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow...

sirmarksalot 12y ago
I jumped on the Kickstarter as well, but I'm nervous as to whether it will work. Reclassifying as a non-profit doesn't change the fact that employees have to eat, and movies need to be purchased. I'd personally be willing to pay a membership fee or recurring donation in order to keep them in business, but I don't know how well that scales. Their cache is in obscure movies, but their bread and butter is the new releases, just like any other video store, and the latter is being supplanted by online streaming, which fails to address the former. Worse, the entire business model is dependent on the availability of shareable physical media, and the legal permission to rent them to customers. In the shift to digital formats, video stores will end up cut out of the equation entirely. What happens when the video store can no longer offer new movies? Will they be able to cover their expenses with just legacy content? I'm somewhat doubtful.

kolev 12y ago

Outside of world cinema, Netflix is good only for the kids stuff. I find myself watching more and more stuff on Vudu recently. A good, but kinda neglected service is GoWatchIt (http://gowatchit.com/ http://gowatchit.com/), which helps me follow upcoming titles. Another complaint: the 500 movie limit is a joke and having a single queue vs multiple queues is something that should already have been implemented over the years. At least, add the ability to filter within "My List" by genre, etc. I'm really disappointed by the dead-slow pace of development at Netflix. The lack of tools to see more movie info is also displeasing.

snuxoll 12y ago
Netflix isn't even a good option for children's programming either, they just failed to renew their license for Sesame Street and they don't have any Viacom content licensed, so that leaves everything on Nick Jr. out. If it weren't for the few Netflix originals (Trailer Park Boys, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards) I'd just drop Netflix and only use my Prime Instant Video because my daughter watches a LOT of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues.
- ghaff 12y ago
  House of Cards is what got me (reluctantly) to eventually re-up for streaming after Netflix carved it off. But like way too many monthly payments of mine, it's something I marginally get my money's worth from given that I am an avid Amazon Prime customer in any case and there's a lot of overlap.

njovin 12y ago

> Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you want to watch. This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rights-holders aren't willing to sell the rights to their films at a price that the market will pay, then those people who want to see those films will find a way, legal or not, to obtain them through other channels. I will happily pay to stream a movie online, whether as part of a subscription service or directly to the producers. However, when the producers don't provide any means to do so, I've never had a hard time finding a DVD-quality copy that I can download and watch in my home theater in less than the time it would take to drive to Blockbuster and rent it.

jrochkind1 12y ago
Well... I'm not sure "aren't willing to sell rights at a price netflix can afford with their business model" is the same as "aren't willing to sell the rights at a price that the market will pay." Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I have no idea if they're right or wrong (today or tomorrow), although certainly I know my preference as a consumer is to be able to watch anything I want for $8 a month or whatever. But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.)
- baddox 12y ago
  > But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.) Yeah, the analogy breaks down when you compare rivalrous goods to goods which are trivially copyable.
- mbesto 12y ago
  > Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I think what he/she meant was that PPV (for example) doesn't address the whole market whereas access to Netflix is pretty ubiquitous and does address the whole market. It also creates a nearly efficient market in that the consumer gets to decide how much they are willing to pay for content - not the distributor (which is the current case of Time Warner, Comcast, etc).

IvyMike 12y ago

In my experience, Facets specializes in "cinephile" movies and is the place to go for the long tail. And they do in fact have Sweet Sweetback's Baadass Song available for rental: http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578 http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kqr2 12y ago

He should have also considered greencine which focuses more on independent and cult classic films: http://www.greencine.com/main http://www.greencine.com/main Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) : http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298 http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298

w1ntermute 12y ago

The best cinephile setup I've found is Roku + Plex + torrents. Just make sure to have a wired connection to your Plex server and to set up the Plex app on your Roku to 'Direct Stream' the video (so there's no reencoding).

csallen 12y ago
What do you think about Chromecast instead of Roku?
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  I prefer Roku over Chromecast because Roku has a remote with a headphone jack. If Chromecast had an option to play the audio through the headphone jack of the device you're casting from, I would say it's just as good. In fact, I often cast from the YouTube app on my phone to my Roku, because it's easier than searching for a video using the Roku interface.

kin 12y ago

Wanting to watch one particular film doesn't define or capture cinephiles. The title is an exaggeration to say the least, especially if the movie isn't even available for rent at the many paid movie streaming service options available. That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Max Go, etc. Although I'm not sure the interface exists for all of them.

dangrossman 12y ago
> That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Max Go, etc http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity
- kin 12y ago
  nice! much needed. http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback 0 results. So his problem still holds but it still doesn't demonstrate that Netflix is less and less an option.

lern_too_spel 12y ago

The SF Public Library has two copies currently available via Link+. Was the author using the card catalog?

mindcrime 12y ago

It's almost like the executives at the studios and distributors who own the rights to these films don't realize that, if I can't easily, quickly and conveniently buy access to their film legally, I will just bittorrent the damn thing. And personally I don't even feel guilty about it. It's 2014, join the 21st century or suffer the consequences. I don't mind paying for content, and - in fact - I largely prefer to do so, so there will be more new content coming. But I am not going to bend over backwards to accommodate these laggards and dinosaurs refusal to pay attention to the world we live in.

zobzu 12y ago
Can't agree more.
colinbartlett 12y ago
Really nothing infuriates me more than when CanIStream.it tells me that the movie I want to watch is unavailable to stream for purchase or subscription on any service. I pay for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, and will gladly rent just about any film for $4.99 yet more than once per week I find films that I would need to go to a store and purchase just to see.
- click170 12y ago
  It would be neat if we could easily wrap these various streaming services up in one UI so that you simply search for a movie and it streams it from Netflix or hulu if possible and bittorrent if not. Its unfortunate that in today's world this would get you sued out of existence.
  - wanderingstan 12y ago
    That's a rather interesting startup/service idea. On setup you tell it what services you have accounts on, and then when you search it will tell you the options (with links to signup on new services), and always with a "BitTorrent at your own risk" fallback.

guelo 12y ago

Pirate it! The more we pirate the sooner we'll get the Spotify of movies. So for the grater good, pirate it!

troymc 12y ago

Zip.ca, a Canadian DVD-rentals-by-mail service, shut down in August 2014. I think it was the biggest such service in Canada. http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-video-rental-service-shuts-down http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-vide...

mmastrac 12y ago
Ah that's a shame. Canflix, the other big one a few years back, did a midnight move when they went under.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Netflix didn’t want to talk to me about their movie catalogue, leaving me to rely on the speculation of a couple of video store folks that the company’s DVD selection is shrinking most likely because it is not replacing damaged disks. People often keep them, from a mix of greed and guilt (still haven't watched that classic film...but I really must...I'l do it next week...). Meantime, piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films, so niche titles go out of print and stay out of print because no distributor wants to spend $10,000 on something that may only have a few hundred buyers. I personally think the streaming service is great, notwithstanding the spotty coverage. It also makes a great deal more sense as a long-term revenue model than discs. I don't see a way of guaranteeing availability without compulsory licensing, though.

morninj 12y ago
> piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films Source?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Distributors I know. BTW I'm not trying to make a big thing about piracy here, hence my off-the-cuff remark. But it's just basic economics - there's a fairly small but non-zero cost of doing a DVD issue even if its a rerun and some films just aren't going to earn it back. Bear in mind that many, many films would not be profitable on their own, but are cross-subsidized by more popular films in package distribution deals, especially international ones.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  DVD production for non-mainstream films was an iffy business at the best of times. Sales figures for even a company like Criterion were MUCH lower than you might expect. It didn't take much piracy to destroy what was already a marginal business. Source- Friends who went out of business as the market died. And industry sales report data that showed the small size of the market to start with.
WalterBright 12y ago

pasbesoin 12y ago

Netflix made the argument some years ago that the world and their user base was switching to streaming. To the point of proposing to split disk and streaming into separate businesses (not just separate subscriptions). I was dubious given the comparatively poor quality and degree of choice on their streaming service at that time. Since then, instead of improving, I've seen that choice -- on balance -- get worse. A few TV shows I'm interested in have shown up -- and a whole bunch I'm not at all interested in; while many I might be interested in remain absent. At the same time, the movie selection has grown notably worse, with many titles I dug out of the mess and queued up disappearing before I got to them. Now I read that the DVD service is indeed in decline, as well. The most telling bit of the OP story for me seems to be this quote: Check out this 2013 Netflix PR video communicating that the company should no longer be looked upon as a massive movie library. What it really is, it says, is the “Internet’s largest television network.” Well, I'm not interested in remaining a customer of what is increasingly some sort of Netflix "television channel". As with all the other "streaming", "rental" online services I've tried. I'm coming to the conclusion that they are not worth the investment nor the fees, for me. I'm being driving back to maintaining a personal library. And perhaps to reinforcement my support for my public library, where the membership's interests are still primary.

contingencies 12y ago

Architect on multiple Hollywood/digital projects for major device manufacturers here, also have interviewed to head SmartTV department for the world's largest TV manufacturer (TCL, in China). I finished working in this area in 2010 (left it for the digital currency space) but have seen no suggestion of change. In any case, you heard it here last: the problem is definitely the studios and their insistance on completely outmoded, unfair, obstructive regional licensing. Digital licensing operates as follows. First, digital releases are not a first-class citizen in the Hollywood world. The 'DVD street relase date' for the consumer country in question is the date that everything is calculated from for billing purposes. Multiple periods are then calculated using blocks of days thereafter, during which the wholesale rate offered for a particular item is progressively discounted. Finally, after some period (eg. 90 or 180 days subsequent to DVD street release in that market) the wholesale drops to a base rate 'back catalog' price unique to that item. Netflix and other services basically prefer these titles as they are cheaper to offer. In my experience, significant ingestion overhead is present for digital service agencies on every single title. This is because they are more often than not supplied in weird formats, under strange licensing restrictions, with restrictive rules on reformatting (eg. crop requirements) and re-encoding though they're not able to be played on most devices up front, and certainly not in the higher-resolution digital formats studio supplied. Very frequently, audio tracks for non-original languages are supplied as non time-synched files separate to the original, as are subtitles. So to offer an item, not only do you need to front up to the studio, effectively downpay some cash, figure out a revenue share deal, convince them your DRM is adequate, go through this whole process on a per-market basis, figure out the logistics of moving huge files, put up with delays and their frequent insistence to use weird file transfer mechanisms, but you also need to get any edits accredited, manage your own database of client device capabilities (this is more complex than it sounds, resolution is only a minor components versus various codec support (audio/video/subtitles), non-subtitle support (ie. need to rewrite entire video stream with burnt in subtitles in each language), etc. but also get the results approved, uploaded to an adequately wide range of data centers in a DRM-capable distribution network (what? build my own? yeah...), your studio-approved frequently expensive DRM integration sorted, and manage the changing prices on an ongoing basis as delimited in USD but against a revenue share model with constantly fluctuating exchange rates. Sound like fun? No, it isn't. And you are competing with higher quality torrents people download for free, on or before DVD street release date, in the very first market to ever have the title. That's why nobody does it. The industry could reap immense additional profits if they'd only drop the control-freak old-school management, normalize and prioritize their digital output, and allow all media consumption to become a low price flat-rate experience at some reasonable post-cinema release date, like +30-45 days. Oh, and drop the DRM and the military police style back-channel raids on New Zealand residents who choose to make a point of their untenable and laughably outmoded outlook.

georgemcbay 12y ago

I can't speak to the DVD side of the equation, I suspect that is merely due to the fact that not enough people want to see relatively obscure old movies (on classic DVDs) enough to waste inventory space on them, especially as more and more people move over to Bluray (if only because their console supports it so why not) and online VOD/streaming more and more. But on the streaming side, it is the studios blocking Netflix out, not Netflix being oblivious to how bad their movie selection is. I temporarily worked for a company in the VOD/Streaming space that was run by Hollywood-insider types when they sort-of-aquihired most of the employees of Chumby. Based on my limited time of seeing it from the 'inside', my impression is that Hollywood studio executives have a seething, furious hatred of Netflix and their business model, which they see as devaluing their content. (And I'm not saying they are wrong to think this -- at the very least the Netflix model certainly upsets all the applecarts of the way Hollywood has done business for nearly a century). These people would basically instinctively scowl animated-villain-style when Netflix was brought up, even if it was in other contexts. eg. Software architect explaining to business guys why default sharing on social media was not a good idea (at the time): "We shouldn't automatically share what movies a customer has watched because Netflix (studio-business-guys scowl, hiss, unhinge their jaws) recently got into legal trouble for that". Originally the studios were OK with making some dough from Netflix on old long-tailed-out movie catalogs that would otherwise not be earning anything (because they sure do love money) but a few years ago they hit the brakes on that because they would rather earn less on the old catalog stuff than do anything to further validate the Netflix model, which they see as an existential threat to their business.

fredguest 12y ago

this site http://www.fandor.com/ http://www.fandor.com/ is designed to serve exactly the audience that Netflix ignores, cinephiles if you like. worth checking out. full disclosure, i'm related to the CEO.

TD-Linux 12y ago
Does it have a HTML5 player?
- fredguest 12y ago
  absolutely, works well in the browser, HTML5 not flash, and they have Roku and Chromecast integration and mobile apps as well.

jmckib 12y ago

The author said he struck out with sfpl, but a quick search showed that there are 10 copies, with 3 available. Am I missing something?

anigbrowl 12y ago
Just making something up for clicks, target audience is happy to believe it's an Evil Plot. Most film critics are horrible people.
- olifante 12y ago
  that's a really cheap ad hominem. Your argumentation is horrible.

Agathos 12y ago

"...and Netflix sells off its vast supply of DVDs for drink coasters..." Can we get off this, at long last? CDs and DVDs are terrible coasters. They're too thin and not at all spongy or porous, so the condensation will creep all the way around to the table side. I once ruined a desk by leaving a cold drink on a CD overnight. Admittedly it was a cheap, second-hand desk, but still.

anonbanker 12y ago
been using CDs and DVD's as coasters for years. I still have a stack of Win95 OSR2 discs I bring out for special occasions, and haven't experienced a ruined desk or coffee table yet.

shurcooL 12y ago

I've realized and accepted this for some time now. Netflix and similar are really good for satisfying "I just want to watch some movie and be entertained" needs, but really not great (and likely getting worse), sadly, for "I have a very specific movie in mind and I want to see it" needs. It's a sacrifice I've learned to be okay with, but it is a little sad. I have a few movies on physical media that I had to give up due to them taking up space, and I knew that while they're currently available on Netflix, that may no longer be the case in the future. :(

ctdonath 12y ago
So much for the promise of "The Long Tail": that, vast storage being cheap as air, everything would be available on line.
- ryanpardieck 12y ago
  Wow, it really is sad when you think of it that way. I don't torrent stuff, but this kind of sentiment makes me wish I did ...

DINKDINK 12y ago

" would have run down to my local video store, but I don’t have a local video store. I struck out at the San Francisco Public Library..." So why didn't he go to Le Video? He even mentions it later in the article. Sounds like the author was intentionally constraining himself to make a point.

jfb 12y ago
Or Lost Weekend, which is still a going concern, and I can guarantee has a copy of Sweet Sweetback.

shmerl 12y ago

> it seemed like a great idea with no downside Netflix has one huge downside - proliferation of DRM.

vonklaus 12y ago
I am not pro DRM, but it is tolerable and warranted here. You are renting the product so you are barred from making copies of it. That's not unreasonable. I am largely against DRM when it is on a video game (or any digital asset) that has been purchased outright. Would I prefer it not be present? Sure. Is it reasonable for a rental company? Probably.
- shmerl 12y ago
  My opinion is that no DRM is ever warranted or tolerable. Renting aspect is irrelevant here. If you think it's renting that causes the usage of DRM then you are wrong. Look at any services which sell video. They all use DRM too except GOG which just started selling it and has a very small selection of documentaries and Headweb which is available only in Scandinavia. Anyway, I find the concept of renting for digital goods to be illogical altogether, but it's a separate subject.

WalterBright 12y ago

I was going to throw away my DVD collection. Guess I'll keep it, because when Netflix kills the DVD service, I can sell my DVDs for actual money again.

mkhpalm 12y ago

Sooner or later studios are going to realize if its not on something like netflix... it doesn't exist.

nkurz 12y ago

While we can lament the lack of legal streaming options, it's probably worth remembering that there are other perfectly legal subscription by mail DVD services in the US besides Netflix. Below are two that I know of. Are there others? Greencine are good people. As you can tell from their about page, they are significantly less 'glitzy' than Netflix. They also pride themselves on having DVD's that Netflix doesn't, including this one. http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395 http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395 Facets Multimedia is a nonprofit based in Chicago that offers DVD by mail memberships, and lots of people seem to love them. The also have this movie: http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578 http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...

hesselink 12y ago

This problem is even worse when you're outside of the US, and the Netflix selection is even smaller. On the upside, I don't think we ever had the Netflix DVD service, so we don't miss it.

tragic 12y ago

People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film business as a business. Already, when people say "I prefer to pay for a film to support filmmakers, actors etc" the implied subclause is that "I could choose otherwise." And that's where I see it going, really. Look at classical music, the visual arts, theatre (outside of big Broadway/West End musicals) - these continue to exist overwhelmingly on the basis of patronage from the state and philanthropists. This is not exactly an apples-for-apples comparison (a symphonic or theatrical performance is not copiable in the same way as digital video; still less are prints of paintings substitutable for the real thing); but the underlying issue is similar: it costs more to put these things on than can be made back in gate receipts. And so, when people choose to pay for films in a situation where it is just as easy to pirate (it often isn't actually), they are being philanthropic and paying a non-market price for the film. I don't see how a $10 monthly subscription model is going to sustain the entire film industry, although maybe someone can do better maths than me on the back of their napkin.