5 ms·

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 be

by 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.
        geoelectric 12y ago
        Sure. But then you come back to the fact that the majority of their old, good content is carried on other services.
    - craigching 12y ago
      I would love to buy HBO go without having to buy it through my cable provider. I know they were talking about making it available without requiring a cable subscription and your post seems to suggest it is available that way, but I just checked and that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that right? You still have to buy HBO through cable? I flat out refuse to pay Comcast after their sales people tried to resell me on movie packages just after I canceled them (we're talking less than a week after I canceled). I had to tell the saleswoman who called me to stop her sales pitch (after already asking her to stop 3 times) or I'd cancel Comcast altogether :-/ I refuse to order HBO through cable again and that's hurting HBO's business IMO.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    Yes, of their current programming there is only one thing I find interesting. Big fan of the Sopranos and the Wire, but I can get those elsewhere since they're old.
  - guelo 12y ago
    I agree HBO quality is somehow better even though Netflix is paying top dollar. For example, Marco Polo is more expensive than Game of Thrones but much less entertaining.
    - obstinate 12y ago
      Don't say the names of those two programs in the same sentence. Marco Polo made me fear for Netflix's future more than anything I've seen in a long time.
      - rogerbinns 12y ago
        Note that Netflix did not commission Marco Polo. It was originally developed for Starz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_series%29#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_series%29#Prod... and only later picked up by Netflix. It is also done by the Weinstein Company. The brothers have a long history of original content that others wouldn't touch, and turned out good. For example they did Tarantino's earlier works. I would much rather they take chances and sometimes fail, rather than only bet on sure things. The latter leads to the sequel only mediocrity that is Hollywood's current output.
- notnickwolf 12y ago
  I'm interested, what did you enjoy about Bojack Horseman? I've seen it, and I was quite puzzled about who the audience for the show was.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    Did you watch the whole season? I found that it improved a lot in the second half of the season and I'm hopeful that it'll get better in the future, especially with the cast they have. The first few episodes cribbed heavily from other shows, but they started doing their own thing later on and it was much better.
    - interpol_p 12y ago
      I found the first four or so episodes painful to watch. The writing seemed to be trying so hard to be funny, and it was impossible for the excellent voice talent to make it any good. Does it really get that much better? I want to like this show.
- threeseed 12y ago
  True Detective, Girls, Veep, Silicon Valley, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Entourage, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Sopranos, Oz, Sex and the City just to name a few of their pretty amazing content lineup. I wouldn't be betting against HBO anytime soon.
  - drawkbox 12y ago
    Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is the new show to watch on the comedy side now with Jon Stewart stepping out. HBO allows some of the best in the business work together and do amazing things, Curb Your Enthusiasm could have only happened on HBO and it is probably the best comedy show ever. HBO is the only reason left other than live sports to have TV. Part of the reason HBO is so good is lots of the original content is produced like a movie or like a full binge season as Netflix is doing. Because both don't have to chop things up and change or only write a few episodes out to get ad revenue, better quality content is produced. The networks that aren't writing in movie style or full season binge mode will miss out on this quality aspect.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    You named half a dozen shows that aren't running anymore and many of which are available from people other than HBO. Their current programming is pretty weak.
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.

by ericflo 12y ago

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.
      - geoelectric 12y ago
        Sure. But then you come back to the fact that the majority of their old, good content is carried on other services.
  - craigching 12y ago
    I would love to buy HBO go without having to buy it through my cable provider. I know they were talking about making it available without requiring a cable subscription and your post seems to suggest it is available that way, but I just checked and that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that right? You still have to buy HBO through cable? I flat out refuse to pay Comcast after their sales people tried to resell me on movie packages just after I canceled them (we're talking less than a week after I canceled). I had to tell the saleswoman who called me to stop her sales pitch (after already asking her to stop 3 times) or I'd cancel Comcast altogether :-/ I refuse to order HBO through cable again and that's hurting HBO's business IMO.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  Yes, of their current programming there is only one thing I find interesting. Big fan of the Sopranos and the Wire, but I can get those elsewhere since they're old.
- guelo 12y ago
  I agree HBO quality is somehow better even though Netflix is paying top dollar. For example, Marco Polo is more expensive than Game of Thrones but much less entertaining.
  - obstinate 12y ago
    Don't say the names of those two programs in the same sentence. Marco Polo made me fear for Netflix's future more than anything I've seen in a long time.
    - rogerbinns 12y ago
      Note that Netflix did not commission Marco Polo. It was originally developed for Starz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_series%29#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_series%29#Prod... and only later picked up by Netflix. It is also done by the Weinstein Company. The brothers have a long history of original content that others wouldn't touch, and turned out good. For example they did Tarantino's earlier works. I would much rather they take chances and sometimes fail, rather than only bet on sure things. The latter leads to the sequel only mediocrity that is Hollywood's current output.
notnickwolf 12y ago
I'm interested, what did you enjoy about Bojack Horseman? I've seen it, and I was quite puzzled about who the audience for the show was.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  Did you watch the whole season? I found that it improved a lot in the second half of the season and I'm hopeful that it'll get better in the future, especially with the cast they have. The first few episodes cribbed heavily from other shows, but they started doing their own thing later on and it was much better.
  - interpol_p 12y ago
    I found the first four or so episodes painful to watch. The writing seemed to be trying so hard to be funny, and it was impossible for the excellent voice talent to make it any good. Does it really get that much better? I want to like this show.
threeseed 12y ago
True Detective, Girls, Veep, Silicon Valley, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Entourage, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Sopranos, Oz, Sex and the City just to name a few of their pretty amazing content lineup. I wouldn't be betting against HBO anytime soon.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is the new show to watch on the comedy side now with Jon Stewart stepping out. HBO allows some of the best in the business work together and do amazing things, Curb Your Enthusiasm could have only happened on HBO and it is probably the best comedy show ever. HBO is the only reason left other than live sports to have TV. Part of the reason HBO is so good is lots of the original content is produced like a movie or like a full binge season as Netflix is doing. Because both don't have to chop things up and change or only write a few episodes out to get ad revenue, better quality content is produced. The networks that aren't writing in movie style or full season binge mode will miss out on this quality aspect.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  You named half a dozen shows that aren't running anymore and many of which are available from people other than HBO. Their current programming is pretty weak.

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.