6 ms·

This is a huge shift for Netflix. Until recently, the motivating impression was that Netflix just plain had every movie out there (which its continuing DVD ser

This is a huge shift for Netflix. Until recently, the motivating impression was that Netflix just plain had every movie out there (which its continuing DVD service kinda does). I subscribed because it was a cheap replacement for buying anything I wanted to see: they had everything I wanted and could want. My to-watch list was very long, and I thought it would remain. Now, studios and competitors are making that model untenable. Netflix can't carry _everything_ because studios/distributors want an ever-larger cut of the profits, and competitors are willing to pay for exclusivity. Suddenly, I find large sections of my to-watch list disappearing off Netflix as contracts expire and don't renew (the biggest blow was when "Toys" disappeared - something old & obscure enough that I thought surely they'd manage to keep that license). Netflix just pivoted. They're no longer the long-promised "long tail" of movies, hosting all but the latest & biggest (yeah, I'm willing to pay extra individually for those). They just gave up on that model. Now they're becoming a "channel" focused on hosting a curated collection, including their own productions. That's a big shift.

ericflo 12y ago
It happened a long time ago, at least I became aware of this shift when an exec from Netflix was quoted saying "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us" http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix...
- joshuapants 12y ago
  And honestly, I think Netflix is most of the way there. HBO Go is a pain to use, the tablet app won't let me output to a TV or monitor, and it is frequently slow for me. I can't remember the last time I needed to wait for Netflix to buffer, and it seems to happen constantly for HBO. Netflix is solid on the technical side, and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. HBO has one show that really interests me (Game of Thrones, of course) and Netflix has a handful (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Bojack Horseman, hopefully with more new interesting series on the way). The only reason I'm even subscribed to HBO at this point is because Verizon gave me a few months for free, and I'll be ditching it once that expires.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. I realize it's your opinion, but...really? HBO has a massive catalog of brilliant shows[1]. Netflix isn't even on the same planet when it comes to original content (but I hope they get there, better for all of us). [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_HBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_H...
    - wmeredith 12y ago
      Tis is my position as well. HBO has been putting out some of the best content available for TV for over a decade. Their back catalog make HBO Go's nominal cost seem like a pittance. Netflix has put together some quality original content (House of Cards is outstanding), but they're going to have to keep it up for a generation before they hold a candle to HBO.
      - geoelectric 12y ago
        I don't think so, because HBO's old content is already widely available. It's only kind of good for retention, and that only on HBO Go (and Amazon, now that it's there too). The competition for new subscriptions and paying that one more month always takes place in the present/future, or at least for content you haven't watched yet which for any fan is going to be present/future. And Netflix is kicking ass there, TBH. They have high-quality dramas, resurrected cult (and my!) favorites, the deal with Marvel, and probably half a dozen other things that got me salivating that I'm forgetting. To be honest, I think Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are -all- schooling the old school providers in terms of interesting new content, HBO included. I love Six Feet Under, Mr. Show, and Deadwood as much as anyone, but aside from Silicon Valley and GoT, nothing else current excites me. At the very least, HBO needs to get much better at both making -and- fulfilling promises.
        ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
        You're assuming fans only care about fresh content and have seen everything in the past. Thats not true.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Yeah, we've seen this coming. What's different is they've announced the move in detail at the link. "Becoming HBO" is no longer just a soundbite quip, it's an established corporate policy.
- yazaddaruvala 12y ago
  Then maybe the real money would be offering a PaaS to create "a Netflix" that any content creator could set up?
- smacktoward 12y ago
  Yes, but we shouldn't downplay the scale of the shift. Today it wants to be HBO, a company that pulls in around $1.3 billion quarterly in revenue[1]; before the shift, it wanted to be Comcast, which pulls in around $16.8 billion quarterly[2]. That's a massive downsizing of ambitions -- so big it's kind of surprising that a share of NFLX today is worth around 5 times what it was worth at the beginning of 2013. The hype around their original programming has successfully papered over the bigger story of their abandoning their plans to be the toll collector of online video. [1] http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-as-much-revenue-as-hbo-but-hbo-is-far-more-profitable-1201087683/ http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-... [2] http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=877721 http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=877721
  - filmgirlcw 12y ago
    Exactly. Netflix pivoted because it realized it couldn't kill cable. It could maybe kill a cable network (and it won't kill HBO, it might kill Starz or Showtime, but not HBO).
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      Netflix has already killed cable for a lot of users. Cable is an ancient UX where you rely on programmers to decide what to watch for you. That model was never good; it existed only because that's all the technology supported when cable TV was developed. That model is now outmoded. The only reason Netflix has yet to achieve utter dominance is the copyright cabal that no longer sees why it should entertain Netflix's money-making when they can create Streaming Video Clone Site #2019 for their properties and collect all the money from subscriptions + ads themselves. Netflix eventually realized that their model was utterly fucked as long as copyright law stayed as it is (since their existence was dependent on the continued cooperation of third parties) and has been forced to rely on its own content to carry subscriptions, since everyone and their dog started making unrealistic demands and pulling their content, many to host on their own sites instead. Consider that under current copyright law, almost the entirety of film history remains inaccessible without an explicit license grant from the rightsholder. If our terms were a little more reasonable, say anything pre-1980 was now public domain, Netflix may have had a chance to exist independent of Big Media's permission. Under current conditions, Netflix can only stream content published prior to 1924 without permission (plus a smattering of mostly-unwanted films that lapsed into public domain due to registration errors or technicalities). Consider that in 1924, sound had not yet been added to film. Cable television as we know it is doomed. People don't like relying on programmers to decide what content they want to watch, they want to decide for themselves and get their content instantly. Netflix was one of the first services to offer this to the masses, but it can't reap the rewards because of the oppressive state of copyright law. Once Netflix really breaks away from dependence on Big Media's copyright grants, they may become one of the biggest champions for modernizing our IP laws to reflect the realities of the digital age.
- kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
  He also claimed that they'd support discs by mail forever, then turned around and tried to hack off that part of the business. Netflix can't be trusted to do what they say they will.
- guyzero 12y ago
  Or more generically, can a software company become a content provider faster than a content provider can become a software company? Put in those terms I'll bet on Netflix.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Creating content people want to watch is much harder than writing software. See, e.g., all the bitching on here about the quality of Netflix's catalog.
    - harryh 12y ago
      It's not about creating the content though. The people at BigMediaCompanies aren't actually doing that. It's about their ability to manage the process. It's not clear that they're particularly awesome at that.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Sure, but somehow their control over the process gives them effective ownership over the people that create the content. Can Netflix replicate that? I think they're getting there judging by House of Cards, but I think it's fair to say that it's not an easier task than the video streaming/distribution one.
q2 12y ago
>>> Now they're becoming a "channel" focused on hosting a curated collection, including their own productions. i.e. "youtube for TV". Since screens are converging, i.e. we can see TV shows on PC or any other device, netflix will be direct competitor to youtube with only captive/curated shows.
gdulli 12y ago
There's just no way I'm going to pay for TV channel by channel, though. I joined for a month or two to support Arrested Development. There's very few shows I'd care enough to do that for. I canceled because regardless of their other originals I wasn't going to keep paying for another channel. It's not nearly enough content to be a replacement for cable and not worth another bill every month in addition. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about them having a great movie selection. By mail, sure. But by streaming that's never been true.
ender7 12y ago
Yes and no. Netflix's basic original goal is the same: they want it to be the entertainment option that you instinctively reach for when you have free time (the "moments of truth"). In the past, they achieved this via their vast catalog and their customers' viewing queues. Most customers have a queue full of things to watch, so when they sit down they can just pop the next thing off the queue. In the future, it looks like they hope to achieve the same default status by simply replacing the queue with fantastic original and curated content and content recommendation systems. No, they won't have everything, but they'll still have more than your limited free time can handle, and their stuff will be of higher quality than anything you can get elsewhere. I'm not sold on whether they can pull off the switcheroo, but it's also clear to everyone that their existing business model can't survive the next 10 years as content incumbents move their content off Netflix and onto their own proprietary platforms. In that world, no one can be Netflix (not even Netflix). However, Netflix has a good chance of being better than any of the other proprietary platforms. Given customers' limited money and patience with juggling accounts and different apps, Netflix stands a good chance to come out on top in that situation. That said, in that world I can't imagine them being more than 5x more profitable than the next most successful competitor in a landscape made up of tens of competitors.
- nissehulth 12y ago
  I don't see a future for proprietary platforms. Not too long ago, the music industry tried that. They were not successful, services like iTunes or Spotify won the customers. It seems to me that the TV content owners have to make that same mistake, then there will be streaming providers that have "everything". Perhaps not Netflix, but something similar.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I don't think people consume music in the same way as movies or TV. My wife and I have accounts for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and we'll get HBO Go. When you're going to sit down for 30-60 minutes, it's not a big deal to search a couple of places. And throw in some central search like what Roku does, it's really no big deal.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ericflo 12y ago

It happened a long time ago, at least I became aware of this shift when an exec from Netflix was quoted saying "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us" http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix...

joshuapants 12y ago
And honestly, I think Netflix is most of the way there. HBO Go is a pain to use, the tablet app won't let me output to a TV or monitor, and it is frequently slow for me. I can't remember the last time I needed to wait for Netflix to buffer, and it seems to happen constantly for HBO. Netflix is solid on the technical side, and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. HBO has one show that really interests me (Game of Thrones, of course) and Netflix has a handful (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Bojack Horseman, hopefully with more new interesting series on the way). The only reason I'm even subscribed to HBO at this point is because Verizon gave me a few months for free, and I'll be ditching it once that expires.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. I realize it's your opinion, but...really? HBO has a massive catalog of brilliant shows[1]. Netflix isn't even on the same planet when it comes to original content (but I hope they get there, better for all of us). [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_HBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_H...
  - wmeredith 12y ago
    Tis is my position as well. HBO has been putting out some of the best content available for TV for over a decade. Their back catalog make HBO Go's nominal cost seem like a pittance. Netflix has put together some quality original content (House of Cards is outstanding), but they're going to have to keep it up for a generation before they hold a candle to HBO.
    - geoelectric 12y ago
      I don't think so, because HBO's old content is already widely available. It's only kind of good for retention, and that only on HBO Go (and Amazon, now that it's there too). The competition for new subscriptions and paying that one more month always takes place in the present/future, or at least for content you haven't watched yet which for any fan is going to be present/future. And Netflix is kicking ass there, TBH. They have high-quality dramas, resurrected cult (and my!) favorites, the deal with Marvel, and probably half a dozen other things that got me salivating that I'm forgetting. To be honest, I think Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are -all- schooling the old school providers in terms of interesting new content, HBO included. I love Six Feet Under, Mr. Show, and Deadwood as much as anyone, but aside from Silicon Valley and GoT, nothing else current excites me. At the very least, HBO needs to get much better at both making -and- fulfilling promises.
      - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
        You're assuming fans only care about fresh content and have seen everything in the past. Thats not true.
ctdonath 12y ago
Yeah, we've seen this coming. What's different is they've announced the move in detail at the link. "Becoming HBO" is no longer just a soundbite quip, it's an established corporate policy.
yazaddaruvala 12y ago
Then maybe the real money would be offering a PaaS to create "a Netflix" that any content creator could set up?
smacktoward 12y ago
Yes, but we shouldn't downplay the scale of the shift. Today it wants to be HBO, a company that pulls in around $1.3 billion quarterly in revenue[1]; before the shift, it wanted to be Comcast, which pulls in around $16.8 billion quarterly[2]. That's a massive downsizing of ambitions -- so big it's kind of surprising that a share of NFLX today is worth around 5 times what it was worth at the beginning of 2013. The hype around their original programming has successfully papered over the bigger story of their abandoning their plans to be the toll collector of online video. [1] http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-as-much-revenue-as-hbo-but-hbo-is-far-more-profitable-1201087683/ http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-... [2] http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=877721 http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=877721
- filmgirlcw 12y ago
  Exactly. Netflix pivoted because it realized it couldn't kill cable. It could maybe kill a cable network (and it won't kill HBO, it might kill Starz or Showtime, but not HBO).
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    Netflix has already killed cable for a lot of users. Cable is an ancient UX where you rely on programmers to decide what to watch for you. That model was never good; it existed only because that's all the technology supported when cable TV was developed. That model is now outmoded. The only reason Netflix has yet to achieve utter dominance is the copyright cabal that no longer sees why it should entertain Netflix's money-making when they can create Streaming Video Clone Site #2019 for their properties and collect all the money from subscriptions + ads themselves. Netflix eventually realized that their model was utterly fucked as long as copyright law stayed as it is (since their existence was dependent on the continued cooperation of third parties) and has been forced to rely on its own content to carry subscriptions, since everyone and their dog started making unrealistic demands and pulling their content, many to host on their own sites instead. Consider that under current copyright law, almost the entirety of film history remains inaccessible without an explicit license grant from the rightsholder. If our terms were a little more reasonable, say anything pre-1980 was now public domain, Netflix may have had a chance to exist independent of Big Media's permission. Under current conditions, Netflix can only stream content published prior to 1924 without permission (plus a smattering of mostly-unwanted films that lapsed into public domain due to registration errors or technicalities). Consider that in 1924, sound had not yet been added to film. Cable television as we know it is doomed. People don't like relying on programmers to decide what content they want to watch, they want to decide for themselves and get their content instantly. Netflix was one of the first services to offer this to the masses, but it can't reap the rewards because of the oppressive state of copyright law. Once Netflix really breaks away from dependence on Big Media's copyright grants, they may become one of the biggest champions for modernizing our IP laws to reflect the realities of the digital age.
kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
He also claimed that they'd support discs by mail forever, then turned around and tried to hack off that part of the business. Netflix can't be trusted to do what they say they will.
guyzero 12y ago
Or more generically, can a software company become a content provider faster than a content provider can become a software company? Put in those terms I'll bet on Netflix.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Creating content people want to watch is much harder than writing software. See, e.g., all the bitching on here about the quality of Netflix's catalog.
  - harryh 12y ago
    It's not about creating the content though. The people at BigMediaCompanies aren't actually doing that. It's about their ability to manage the process. It's not clear that they're particularly awesome at that.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Sure, but somehow their control over the process gives them effective ownership over the people that create the content. Can Netflix replicate that? I think they're getting there judging by House of Cards, but I think it's fair to say that it's not an easier task than the video streaming/distribution one.

q2 12y ago

>>> Now they're becoming a "channel" focused on hosting a curated collection, including their own productions. i.e. "youtube for TV". Since screens are converging, i.e. we can see TV shows on PC or any other device, netflix will be direct competitor to youtube with only captive/curated shows.

gdulli 12y ago

There's just no way I'm going to pay for TV channel by channel, though. I joined for a month or two to support Arrested Development. There's very few shows I'd care enough to do that for. I canceled because regardless of their other originals I wasn't going to keep paying for another channel. It's not nearly enough content to be a replacement for cable and not worth another bill every month in addition. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about them having a great movie selection. By mail, sure. But by streaming that's never been true.

ender7 12y ago

Yes and no. Netflix's basic original goal is the same: they want it to be the entertainment option that you instinctively reach for when you have free time (the "moments of truth"). In the past, they achieved this via their vast catalog and their customers' viewing queues. Most customers have a queue full of things to watch, so when they sit down they can just pop the next thing off the queue. In the future, it looks like they hope to achieve the same default status by simply replacing the queue with fantastic original and curated content and content recommendation systems. No, they won't have everything, but they'll still have more than your limited free time can handle, and their stuff will be of higher quality than anything you can get elsewhere. I'm not sold on whether they can pull off the switcheroo, but it's also clear to everyone that their existing business model can't survive the next 10 years as content incumbents move their content off Netflix and onto their own proprietary platforms. In that world, no one can be Netflix (not even Netflix). However, Netflix has a good chance of being better than any of the other proprietary platforms. Given customers' limited money and patience with juggling accounts and different apps, Netflix stands a good chance to come out on top in that situation. That said, in that world I can't imagine them being more than 5x more profitable than the next most successful competitor in a landscape made up of tens of competitors.

nissehulth 12y ago
I don't see a future for proprietary platforms. Not too long ago, the music industry tried that. They were not successful, services like iTunes or Spotify won the customers. It seems to me that the TV content owners have to make that same mistake, then there will be streaming providers that have "everything". Perhaps not Netflix, but something similar.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I don't think people consume music in the same way as movies or TV. My wife and I have accounts for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and we'll get HBO Go. When you're going to sit down for 30-60 minutes, it's not a big deal to search a couple of places. And throw in some central search like what Roku does, it's really no big deal.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]