4 ms·

> However when it's all said in done who else is competing with against netflix? Well, HBO, Amazon and Hulu in the US. In my country (the UK), there are sever

by johneth 12y ago

> However when it's all said in done who else is competing with against netflix? Well, HBO, Amazon and Hulu in the US. In my country (the UK), there are several local competitors; Now TV, Sky, BT, 4oD, BBC iPlayer (sort of), Amazon. I would assume it's a fairly similar situation in most of the markets they operate in (e.g. HBO Nordic in Scandinavia).

nknighthb 12y ago
That raises the question of what it means to "compete" with Netflix. All three you mention currently have severe deficits compared to Netflix. HBO won't be available to non-cable/satellite subscribers until next year, has limited content, and at this point unknown pricing. (Seems unlikely to be less than Netflix, might end up being 2x Netflix.) Amazon has limited content, a crappy UX, and a pricing perception problem (your only option is $99 up-front). Hulu has very limited content, ads even for paying customers, and a crappy UX, all while charging the same amount as Netflix. A cord-cutter is almost certainly going to be paying Netflix. They might pay some of the others, too, but maybe not, and probably not all of them. It seems unlikely they'd pay any of the others without paying Netflix. Is it really competition when your competitor's customers are your customers?
- johneth 12y ago
  > All three you mention currently have severe deficits compared to Netflix. I agree to your points to a certain extent. However, you're forgetting that Netflix also has deficits to the other three. HBO, as I understand it, would most likely have up-to-date recent films, something Netflix severely lacks and people actually want. Amazon is bundled with Prime, a big draw for a lot of people which makes it's offering look more desirable in many ways. Hulu is free (except Hulu Plus). Probably most importantly, all three have unique content which is not available on Netflix (especially true of HBO). > It seems unlikely they'd pay any of the others without paying Netflix. I don't think this is necessarily true. With VoD services like these, people will use the ones which have the content they want to watch. As the 'incumbant', Netflix will have certain first mover advantages in terms of brand recognition, but this won't last forever and the market still has lots of room for growth.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    >However, you're forgetting that Netflix also has deficits to the other three. This is a pretty good point. I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix, and I feel like they provide very different services. Netflix provides a large back-catalogue of movies and TV shows, while Hulu is more for watching things which are currently airing. If netflix was able to get episodes of shows on a real-time basis, instead seasons at a time the season after the season is over, it might be competing on a more direct basis with Hulu. As it stands, I feel like they are for different markets, and somebody who wants a Hulu subscription isn't going to be satisfied with Netflix.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Hulu is not free in any useful sense. You can play a limited selection of their content on a PC without a subscription, but full access and use on mobile devices, consoles, and things like Roku and Apple TV requires a Hulu Plus subscription at the same price as Netflix. I'm not saying the other services don't have content people want that Netflix does not have, I'm saying they're going to want the content Netflix has, too.

by johneth 12y ago

nknighthb 12y ago

That raises the question of what it means to "compete" with Netflix. All three you mention currently have severe deficits compared to Netflix. HBO won't be available to non-cable/satellite subscribers until next year, has limited content, and at this point unknown pricing. (Seems unlikely to be less than Netflix, might end up being 2x Netflix.) Amazon has limited content, a crappy UX, and a pricing perception problem (your only option is $99 up-front). Hulu has very limited content, ads even for paying customers, and a crappy UX, all while charging the same amount as Netflix. A cord-cutter is almost certainly going to be paying Netflix. They might pay some of the others, too, but maybe not, and probably not all of them. It seems unlikely they'd pay any of the others without paying Netflix. Is it really competition when your competitor's customers are your customers?

johneth 12y ago
> All three you mention currently have severe deficits compared to Netflix. I agree to your points to a certain extent. However, you're forgetting that Netflix also has deficits to the other three. HBO, as I understand it, would most likely have up-to-date recent films, something Netflix severely lacks and people actually want. Amazon is bundled with Prime, a big draw for a lot of people which makes it's offering look more desirable in many ways. Hulu is free (except Hulu Plus). Probably most importantly, all three have unique content which is not available on Netflix (especially true of HBO). > It seems unlikely they'd pay any of the others without paying Netflix. I don't think this is necessarily true. With VoD services like these, people will use the ones which have the content they want to watch. As the 'incumbant', Netflix will have certain first mover advantages in terms of brand recognition, but this won't last forever and the market still has lots of room for growth.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  >However, you're forgetting that Netflix also has deficits to the other three. This is a pretty good point. I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix, and I feel like they provide very different services. Netflix provides a large back-catalogue of movies and TV shows, while Hulu is more for watching things which are currently airing. If netflix was able to get episodes of shows on a real-time basis, instead seasons at a time the season after the season is over, it might be competing on a more direct basis with Hulu. As it stands, I feel like they are for different markets, and somebody who wants a Hulu subscription isn't going to be satisfied with Netflix.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Hulu is not free in any useful sense. You can play a limited selection of their content on a PC without a subscription, but full access and use on mobile devices, consoles, and things like Roku and Apple TV requires a Hulu Plus subscription at the same price as Netflix. I'm not saying the other services don't have content people want that Netflix does not have, I'm saying they're going to want the content Netflix has, too.