10 ms·

Netflix Is Betting Its Future on Exclusive Programming

105 points by donohoe 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- aidenn0 12y ago
  Tell that to any Cable channel of the past 30 years.
- poolpool 12y ago
  The product is on-demand streaming of movies and tv.
- josephagoss 12y ago
  A company should be allowed the freedom to do what they want when it comes to selling their own product. Why would we want more laws restricting business? What if the truth was, a one time payment to watch a show like House of Cards cost $100-$200? By offering a subscription they make it more accessible to more people (They let you cancel your Netflix subscription at any time)
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    > Why would we want more laws restricting business? Presumably because those laws would serve the public purpose.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I dunno, I'd love to be able to pay Home Depot $10/month and just have them deliver any tool I want whenever I want it. Obviously streaming movies don't put wear and tear on the movie, but I found the earlier poster's analogy (now deleted) rather attractive.
- klinskyc 12y ago
  CostCo is a literal example of your analogy. You need to buy a membership to be able to purchase anything.
aidenn0 12y ago
About 2-3 years ago, I said NF couldn't do what it is doing forever, as there is nothing preventing e.g. Disney or Time Warner from selling their content direct to consumers. Obviously the netflix executives were ahead of me on this one.
- rhizome 12y ago
  It takes much longer to steer a huge ship, or however that saying goes.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    That's kind of what I'm saying; it's clear now that when I made that prediction, NF had already started going after original content.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      Idealistically and technologically there was nothing preventing them from streaming directly, but realistically they had decades of contracts to re-engineer to do so, not to mention the fact that they are huge companies with a fundamental stability that prevents them from innovating. From somewhere else (via NFLX Wikipedia): In a 2010 New York Times interview, Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes downplayed Netflix as a threat to more traditional media companies. Bewkes told the newspaper, "It's a little bit like, is the Albanian army going to take over the world? I don’t think so." At the same time, he recognized that the company's DVD service may have contributed to a decline in DVD sales, and regarding the industry's willingness to make special deals with Netflix in the future, he added "this has been an era of experimentation, and I think it's coming to a close."
      - aidenn0 12y ago
        Oh, I see what you're saying now; the "large ships" are the current content holders. I agree, and this is why netflix has time to build up a library of original content. It's bootstrapping its success off the backs of its future competitors. I will predict though, that when Disney's current contract with netflix expires (2020ish IIRC), they won't renew.
hkmurakami 12y ago
Seems like they're following in the footsteps of HBO, going from a distribution channel rebroadcasting others' content to being known primarily for their high quality original content. I like where this is headed. The competition will be a boon for content consumers.
- cornstalks 12y ago
  Ted Sarandos (Netflix's chief content officer) has stated: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." [1] So yes, your observations are spot on. [1]: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development?currentPage=3 http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix...
- imh 12y ago
  The problem is that I pay for netflix precisely because they rebroadcast others' content.
  - booruguru 12y ago
    Yes, but eventually they'll make enough of their own content you wont care if they carry anyone else's stuff.
    - kibibu 12y ago
      I already care that they don't carry Game of Thrones.
    - Touche 12y ago
      You'll care when you have to subscribe to 8 different $9.99 services to get all of the content you want.
      - josephagoss 12y ago
        I'm hoping Netflix gains enough market share with their original programming that it becomes suicide for other producers not to list their shows on Netflix too. Even if to pay for this Netflix has a premium version... ($20 per month for example)
fsk 12y ago
When Netflix first started, they were able to buy the streaming rights to old movies and TV shows for cheap, because executives thought they weren't worth anything. Now those contracts are expiring, and the studios want to jack up the rates or start their own service. Netflix is also getting squeezed by ISPs like Comcast, who want to charge them for the right to deliver video to Comcast's customers who already paid for their bandwidth. So Netflix' only way to survive is to develop its own content. If it's dependent on other people to provide content, they'll jack up their prices to take Netflix' profit margins. So now you have 5-10 competing services, and if you aren't paying attention, you don't know what shows are available on what service. Meanwhile, if you go to a file-sharing website, you can get every single show and movie. So Netflix (and its competitors) have less compelling of a value proposition, if you have to pay $10/month to several different services to get all the shows you might want to watch.
- sriramk 12y ago
  You mean when Netflix streaming started - they've been around for a long time doing DVDs :).
  - digitalzombie 12y ago
    And took down BlockBuster.
  - panglott 12y ago
    I don't understand why people forget they have the DVD business. That's why I subscribed, and I've always been a subscriber. Everything comes out on DVD eventually, so you can watch almost anything through Netflix if you're willing to wait. And there's plenty of media there to fill the time.
    - TheGRS 12y ago
      Its still a good service and their ability to turn around disks so quickly was a huge advantage to them for years. They wisely realized, however, that the DVD business would die slowly and got very competitive about streaming. I'm sure you can enjoy the dvd mailing for at least a few more years before they begin closing those large warehouses down one by one.
jasonkostempski 12y ago
TL;DR Not a new paradigm where you define the functionality you don't want and a compiler gives you the "program" you do want :(
jonathansizz 12y ago
I'm wondering why Netflix don't make a few topical shows, which could potentially increase the loyalty of their subscribers and would be very inexpensive to produce. Having their own shows similar to the daily and weekly shows on Comedy Central and HBO would add a new facet to their offerings.
- TwoLeaves 12y ago
  They have indeed recently commissioned a "topical talk show" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/business/media/chelsea-handler-to-host-late-night-style-talk-show-on-netflix.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/business/media/chelsea-han...).
- msane 12y ago
  I could see that working. I would be surprised if anything like the Daily Show could be replicated without one of the cast members. But some other topical format with the right person. Like what Bill Maher is to HBO.
FrankenPC 12y ago
“It will be like the Yankees and the Red Sox,” Mr. Hastings said. “I predict HBO will do the best creative work of their lives in the next 10 years because they are on war footing. They haven’t really had a challenge for a long time, and now they do. It’s going to spur us both on to incredible work.” That guy has a ton of class. This war will only benefit all of us entertainment junkies.
- mortenjorck 12y ago
  No doubt, though there's also a fair degree of hubris in that statement. HBO is already going strong from a 15-year streak of unprecedented critical success, having birthed genuine cultural touchstones such as The Sopranos and The Wire. Netflix is making an incredible effort to catch up: They're giving great creative talent a lot of creative freedom, and they've certainly put out some fine prestige content in their first three years, but even House of Cards isn't really batting at the same level as HBO's landmark achievements. I think when Hastings says "I predict HBO will do the best creative work of their lives in the next 10 years," there's a tiny bit of projection there – he knows HBO will have to continue to put out landmark content because sooner or later, Netflix will indeed have its own, bona-fide Sopranos. As a fan of long-form episodic cinema, no other rivalry could make me more excited.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
ams6110 12y ago
I don't watch any broadcast or cable TV anymore. Netflix and Amazon Prime video are it (and Prime only because it's bundled; it doesn't really offer anything I'd pay for on its own). This seems like a no brainer to me.
tuna-piano 12y ago
Netflix has shown an ability to think of the future and adapt. Congrats to them. They started mailing DVDs, went full force into streaming old TV shows and movies, and now are pivoting again towards exclusive programming. As a side note, it wouldn't surprise me if they are deeply concerned about an Apple TV service with a similar interface as Netflix, but more / better content. When I hear Tim Cook talk about his ideas for TV, it seems like he hates the current way TV works. Most programs aren't live, but are still shown the way they were 50 years ago for no particular reason.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Apple TV has a very very long way to go. Pro: i'm watching twitch stream of pro-dota on my phone, there's a new menu I've not noticed before. Press it, click apple TV, it's now streaming seamlessly onto my TV. Similarly for any tv shows on my laptop - but only if they're .mp4 (ugh). Cons: Awful menu and navigation. Comparatively expensive (assuming you're watching films - after 2 films you could pay for a streaming service). Search is bad and slow. Recommendations are all the same despite allegedly being split by genre. etc etc. It's barely better than any other smart TV to be honest. I think Apple TV could work, but I don't think it's even close to being there yet
dollaaron 12y ago
> "They will take HBO linear and call it HBO Linear,” he said. “That is HBO if you really want to watch it on somebody else’s schedule.” Am I the only one who likes shows being made available once a week, rather than all at once?
- noblethrasher 12y ago
  We'll lose the sense of community that comes from simultaneous viewings. But, people still bond over books and book series, which is what Netflix programming will be like.
- FreeKill 12y ago
  Is that because you don't trust yourself not to watch it all in a binge situation? The shows on netflix could easily be watched one episode at a time on a regular schedule if that's what you prefer. You get both options (and hundreds of other scenarios) instead of just the one decided by someone else (or else having to record it on a DVR to make your own schedule).
  - dollaaron 12y ago
    It's nice to know that the other people watching a show are also at the same point as you are (or relatively close), allowing you to speculate on what might happen next in the time between episodes. I also like looking forward to the next episode, which doesn't really happen when you can watch that next episode immediately (and self imposed waiting doesn't feel the same).
    - FreeKill 12y ago
      I agree that one thing that's lost is the ability to discuss episodes with people as a show progresses. Since you never know what episode a person is on you can't really risk discussing things until you're sure the person has caught up. With weekly shows like Game of Thrones for instance, you can feel pretty comfortable discussing an episode amongst other fans. Not sure if that's really something I'll miss when it's gone, but it's definitely a big change with Netflix that ultimately started as a smaller disruption with DVR devices... I suppose personally my feelings on the matter is even though I might lose the few advantages that you mentioned, the disadvantages far outweigh it and I won't miss the airing of shows like Breaking Bad or Suits that took one season and split them in half with gigantic gaps in between (months or even years), to the point where you can't even remember where the show was going by the time it returns. I like the freedom to watch at whatever schedule I prefer, without any kind of arbitrary limitations that may or may not suit my lifestyle at the time, and the confidence to know I'm going to be able to see a story through from start to finish once devote time to it...
mattmaroon 12y ago
They will never call it HBO Linear because they aren't bad enough at branding. That's almost as bad as Qwickster.
deegles 12y ago
Netflix could pivot slightly and offer white-label hosting of content for each content provider. Spinning up a hosting service to compete with Netflix can't be cheap.
- TheCondor 12y ago
  I believe mlb does exactly that
nevster 12y ago
Heh - being Hacker News, I thought this was going to about some new methodology like Extreme Programming!
- optimusclimb 12y ago
  Haha - I too immediately thought there was some new programming paradigm I had missed out on!
- M8 12y ago
  Tired of people misusing "developer" and "programming". It's our age!
- greendestiny 12y ago
  Exclusive programming - where only you can read the code you've written.
- mrits 12y ago
  I was expecting to read about 30 year contracts given out to its dev team.
ctdonath 12y ago
Whither the "long tail"?
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Netflix is well on its way to becoming the first of the 21st century "networks". When you think about a television network it plays re-runs of old shows, re-runs of old movies, movies that have come out of theatres, and original series. The only difference between Netflix and say "TNT" or "FOX" (other than they don't have news shows) is that the content is available on your schedule, not the networks, and they don't put advertisements in their content they just charge you a monthly fee to have access to it. They have, nominally 60M subscribers[1] world wide, and 40M in the US[2], out of a total of 113M TV households [3]. If half of their subscribers watched the series Daredevil (which I recommend) that would be the equivalent of Netflix getting a 20 rating. [4] That would be equivalent to a Seinfeld [ibid] which was NBC's hottest show for a very long time. So what that means is that networks need to either adapt to this new model or die. And the more that die, the more content there is for folks like NetFlix. Oddly enough, this sort of makes Roku the new Comcast :-) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/20/netflix-soars-on-subscriber-growth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/20/netflix... [2] http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-tops-57-million-subscribers-in-q4-as-u-s-growth-slows-1201409712/ http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-tops-57-million... [3] http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pd... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Commercial_ratings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Commercial_rati...
- XorNot 12y ago
  The only problem is they're in the middle of having one of the better measures to end piracy be thoroughly dismantled. Consumers are not going to pay 10 different streaming services on a contract fee structure. And it's pretty clear that's not the only problem: once they think they can, we'll be back to product lock in, region lock in, vendor lock in "our new show is perfect to get people to switch to Comcast!"
drawkbox 12y ago
Content is king and Gates was right: http://www.craigbailey.net/content-is-king-by-bill-gates/ http://www.craigbailey.net/content-is-king-by-bill-gates/ Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting. The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment. When it comes to an interactive network such as the Internet, the definition of “content” becomes very wide. For example, computer software is a form of content-an extremely important one, and the one that for Microsoft will remain by far the most important. But the broad opportunities for most companies involve supplying information or entertainment. No company is too small to participate.
pinaceae 12y ago
I guess there is another, very big reason: The Non-US markets. The US is surely important, but Netflix has launched in Europe and faces a huge obstacle that very few US Americans know about - rights licensing is far worse. Selling content overseas is a huge business, which means a giant time delay until something makes it to, say, Germany (even if not dubbed). Which worked in the past, but the Internet is forcing real time usage, see the piracy numbers worldwide for something like Game of Thrones (HBO, I know). There is practically no legal way to easily consume something like GoT the same time as it is aired in the US. Not so for Netflix' own content. House of Cards, Daredevil - all already available globally. The world is a big place and Netflix is going after it, the US is just one market. That HBO/Apple TV deal better be global soon.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Good point and this is a core art of Netflix's strategy for its own content. It's not going to happen any time soon with content from studios and other distributors though, because international distributors usually buy the rights to a film for a 10 year period. Except for the biggest 6, most film distributors don't have multinational operations and even the big 6 don't have offices in every territory, so they can't just wave magic wands and abrogate existing international distribution contracts.
- mattchamb 12y ago
  Just to note, that even Netflix makes mistakes with global content licencing. In New Zealand (where netflix has recently launched) they have sold the rights to House of Cards so even though they own the content, they cannot stream House of Cards.
  - lostfocus 12y ago
    Same here in Germany.
- bjrnjs 12y ago
  HBO is global (to some degree). I live in Sweden and (if I didn't have to go to work) I can enjoy the latest episode of Game of Thrones only hours after it's aired in the US. Although we don't have HBO Go here -- we have a similar service called HBO Nordic. I'm almost certain that it's a HBO owned company, available only in nothern Europe though.
dschiptsov 12y ago
Exclusive is some new fresh post-Reactive bullshit?)
paulajohnson 12y ago
And here I thought I was going to learn something about their software engineering.
shmerl 12y ago
I wish Netflix would provide their own content DRM-free. But they don't, so all their claims that it wasn't their interest to push DRM into HTML are not true.
jamesvang86 12y ago
All people who want to watch Netflix but due to geo-restriction unable to watch can use VPN for this and enjoy all it's shows. For detail please visit at: http://www.vpnranks.com/5-best-vpns-for-netflix/ http://www.vpnranks.com/5-best-vpns-for-netflix/

105 points by donohoe 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

aidenn0 12y ago
Tell that to any Cable channel of the past 30 years.
poolpool 12y ago
The product is on-demand streaming of movies and tv.
josephagoss 12y ago
A company should be allowed the freedom to do what they want when it comes to selling their own product. Why would we want more laws restricting business? What if the truth was, a one time payment to watch a show like House of Cards cost $100-$200? By offering a subscription they make it more accessible to more people (They let you cancel your Netflix subscription at any time)
- kaonashi 12y ago
  > Why would we want more laws restricting business? Presumably because those laws would serve the public purpose.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I dunno, I'd love to be able to pay Home Depot $10/month and just have them deliver any tool I want whenever I want it. Obviously streaming movies don't put wear and tear on the movie, but I found the earlier poster's analogy (now deleted) rather attractive.
klinskyc 12y ago
CostCo is a literal example of your analogy. You need to buy a membership to be able to purchase anything.

aidenn0 12y ago

About 2-3 years ago, I said NF couldn't do what it is doing forever, as there is nothing preventing e.g. Disney or Time Warner from selling their content direct to consumers. Obviously the netflix executives were ahead of me on this one.

rhizome 12y ago
It takes much longer to steer a huge ship, or however that saying goes.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  That's kind of what I'm saying; it's clear now that when I made that prediction, NF had already started going after original content.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    Idealistically and technologically there was nothing preventing them from streaming directly, but realistically they had decades of contracts to re-engineer to do so, not to mention the fact that they are huge companies with a fundamental stability that prevents them from innovating. From somewhere else (via NFLX Wikipedia): In a 2010 New York Times interview, Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes downplayed Netflix as a threat to more traditional media companies. Bewkes told the newspaper, "It's a little bit like, is the Albanian army going to take over the world? I don’t think so." At the same time, he recognized that the company's DVD service may have contributed to a decline in DVD sales, and regarding the industry's willingness to make special deals with Netflix in the future, he added "this has been an era of experimentation, and I think it's coming to a close."
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      Oh, I see what you're saying now; the "large ships" are the current content holders. I agree, and this is why netflix has time to build up a library of original content. It's bootstrapping its success off the backs of its future competitors. I will predict though, that when Disney's current contract with netflix expires (2020ish IIRC), they won't renew.

hkmurakami 12y ago

Seems like they're following in the footsteps of HBO, going from a distribution channel rebroadcasting others' content to being known primarily for their high quality original content. I like where this is headed. The competition will be a boon for content consumers.

cornstalks 12y ago
Ted Sarandos (Netflix's chief content officer) has stated: "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." [1] So yes, your observations are spot on. [1]: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix-founder-reed-hastings-house-of-cards-arrested-development?currentPage=3 http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201302/netflix...
imh 12y ago
The problem is that I pay for netflix precisely because they rebroadcast others' content.
- booruguru 12y ago
  Yes, but eventually they'll make enough of their own content you wont care if they carry anyone else's stuff.
  - kibibu 12y ago
    I already care that they don't carry Game of Thrones.
  - Touche 12y ago
    You'll care when you have to subscribe to 8 different $9.99 services to get all of the content you want.
    - josephagoss 12y ago
      I'm hoping Netflix gains enough market share with their original programming that it becomes suicide for other producers not to list their shows on Netflix too. Even if to pay for this Netflix has a premium version... ($20 per month for example)

fsk 12y ago

When Netflix first started, they were able to buy the streaming rights to old movies and TV shows for cheap, because executives thought they weren't worth anything. Now those contracts are expiring, and the studios want to jack up the rates or start their own service. Netflix is also getting squeezed by ISPs like Comcast, who want to charge them for the right to deliver video to Comcast's customers who already paid for their bandwidth. So Netflix' only way to survive is to develop its own content. If it's dependent on other people to provide content, they'll jack up their prices to take Netflix' profit margins. So now you have 5-10 competing services, and if you aren't paying attention, you don't know what shows are available on what service. Meanwhile, if you go to a file-sharing website, you can get every single show and movie. So Netflix (and its competitors) have less compelling of a value proposition, if you have to pay $10/month to several different services to get all the shows you might want to watch.

sriramk 12y ago
You mean when Netflix streaming started - they've been around for a long time doing DVDs :).
- digitalzombie 12y ago
  And took down BlockBuster.
- panglott 12y ago
  I don't understand why people forget they have the DVD business. That's why I subscribed, and I've always been a subscriber. Everything comes out on DVD eventually, so you can watch almost anything through Netflix if you're willing to wait. And there's plenty of media there to fill the time.
  - TheGRS 12y ago
    Its still a good service and their ability to turn around disks so quickly was a huge advantage to them for years. They wisely realized, however, that the DVD business would die slowly and got very competitive about streaming. I'm sure you can enjoy the dvd mailing for at least a few more years before they begin closing those large warehouses down one by one.

jasonkostempski 12y ago

TL;DR Not a new paradigm where you define the functionality you don't want and a compiler gives you the "program" you do want :(

jonathansizz 12y ago

I'm wondering why Netflix don't make a few topical shows, which could potentially increase the loyalty of their subscribers and would be very inexpensive to produce. Having their own shows similar to the daily and weekly shows on Comedy Central and HBO would add a new facet to their offerings.

TwoLeaves 12y ago
They have indeed recently commissioned a "topical talk show" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/business/media/chelsea-handler-to-host-late-night-style-talk-show-on-netflix.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/business/media/chelsea-han...).
msane 12y ago
I could see that working. I would be surprised if anything like the Daily Show could be replicated without one of the cast members. But some other topical format with the right person. Like what Bill Maher is to HBO.

FrankenPC 12y ago

“It will be like the Yankees and the Red Sox,” Mr. Hastings said. “I predict HBO will do the best creative work of their lives in the next 10 years because they are on war footing. They haven’t really had a challenge for a long time, and now they do. It’s going to spur us both on to incredible work.” That guy has a ton of class. This war will only benefit all of us entertainment junkies.

mortenjorck 12y ago
No doubt, though there's also a fair degree of hubris in that statement. HBO is already going strong from a 15-year streak of unprecedented critical success, having birthed genuine cultural touchstones such as The Sopranos and The Wire. Netflix is making an incredible effort to catch up: They're giving great creative talent a lot of creative freedom, and they've certainly put out some fine prestige content in their first three years, but even House of Cards isn't really batting at the same level as HBO's landmark achievements. I think when Hastings says "I predict HBO will do the best creative work of their lives in the next 10 years," there's a tiny bit of projection there – he knows HBO will have to continue to put out landmark content because sooner or later, Netflix will indeed have its own, bona-fide Sopranos. As a fan of long-form episodic cinema, no other rivalry could make me more excited.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

ams6110 12y ago

I don't watch any broadcast or cable TV anymore. Netflix and Amazon Prime video are it (and Prime only because it's bundled; it doesn't really offer anything I'd pay for on its own). This seems like a no brainer to me.

tuna-piano 12y ago

Netflix has shown an ability to think of the future and adapt. Congrats to them. They started mailing DVDs, went full force into streaming old TV shows and movies, and now are pivoting again towards exclusive programming. As a side note, it wouldn't surprise me if they are deeply concerned about an Apple TV service with a similar interface as Netflix, but more / better content. When I hear Tim Cook talk about his ideas for TV, it seems like he hates the current way TV works. Most programs aren't live, but are still shown the way they were 50 years ago for no particular reason.

Ntrails 12y ago
Apple TV has a very very long way to go. Pro: i'm watching twitch stream of pro-dota on my phone, there's a new menu I've not noticed before. Press it, click apple TV, it's now streaming seamlessly onto my TV. Similarly for any tv shows on my laptop - but only if they're .mp4 (ugh). Cons: Awful menu and navigation. Comparatively expensive (assuming you're watching films - after 2 films you could pay for a streaming service). Search is bad and slow. Recommendations are all the same despite allegedly being split by genre. etc etc. It's barely better than any other smart TV to be honest. I think Apple TV could work, but I don't think it's even close to being there yet

dollaaron 12y ago

> "They will take HBO linear and call it HBO Linear,” he said. “That is HBO if you really want to watch it on somebody else’s schedule.” Am I the only one who likes shows being made available once a week, rather than all at once?

noblethrasher 12y ago
We'll lose the sense of community that comes from simultaneous viewings. But, people still bond over books and book series, which is what Netflix programming will be like.
FreeKill 12y ago
Is that because you don't trust yourself not to watch it all in a binge situation? The shows on netflix could easily be watched one episode at a time on a regular schedule if that's what you prefer. You get both options (and hundreds of other scenarios) instead of just the one decided by someone else (or else having to record it on a DVR to make your own schedule).
- dollaaron 12y ago
  It's nice to know that the other people watching a show are also at the same point as you are (or relatively close), allowing you to speculate on what might happen next in the time between episodes. I also like looking forward to the next episode, which doesn't really happen when you can watch that next episode immediately (and self imposed waiting doesn't feel the same).
  - FreeKill 12y ago
    I agree that one thing that's lost is the ability to discuss episodes with people as a show progresses. Since you never know what episode a person is on you can't really risk discussing things until you're sure the person has caught up. With weekly shows like Game of Thrones for instance, you can feel pretty comfortable discussing an episode amongst other fans. Not sure if that's really something I'll miss when it's gone, but it's definitely a big change with Netflix that ultimately started as a smaller disruption with DVR devices... I suppose personally my feelings on the matter is even though I might lose the few advantages that you mentioned, the disadvantages far outweigh it and I won't miss the airing of shows like Breaking Bad or Suits that took one season and split them in half with gigantic gaps in between (months or even years), to the point where you can't even remember where the show was going by the time it returns. I like the freedom to watch at whatever schedule I prefer, without any kind of arbitrary limitations that may or may not suit my lifestyle at the time, and the confidence to know I'm going to be able to see a story through from start to finish once devote time to it...

mattmaroon 12y ago

They will never call it HBO Linear because they aren't bad enough at branding. That's almost as bad as Qwickster.

deegles 12y ago

Netflix could pivot slightly and offer white-label hosting of content for each content provider. Spinning up a hosting service to compete with Netflix can't be cheap.

TheCondor 12y ago
I believe mlb does exactly that

nevster 12y ago

Heh - being Hacker News, I thought this was going to about some new methodology like Extreme Programming!

optimusclimb 12y ago
Haha - I too immediately thought there was some new programming paradigm I had missed out on!
M8 12y ago
Tired of people misusing "developer" and "programming". It's our age!
greendestiny 12y ago
Exclusive programming - where only you can read the code you've written.
mrits 12y ago
I was expecting to read about 30 year contracts given out to its dev team.

ctdonath 12y ago

Whither the "long tail"?

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Netflix is well on its way to becoming the first of the 21st century "networks". When you think about a television network it plays re-runs of old shows, re-runs of old movies, movies that have come out of theatres, and original series. The only difference between Netflix and say "TNT" or "FOX" (other than they don't have news shows) is that the content is available on your schedule, not the networks, and they don't put advertisements in their content they just charge you a monthly fee to have access to it. They have, nominally 60M subscribers[1] world wide, and 40M in the US[2], out of a total of 113M TV households [3]. If half of their subscribers watched the series Daredevil (which I recommend) that would be the equivalent of Netflix getting a 20 rating. [4] That would be equivalent to a Seinfeld [ibid] which was NBC's hottest show for a very long time. So what that means is that networks need to either adapt to this new model or die. And the more that die, the more content there is for folks like NetFlix. Oddly enough, this sort of makes Roku the new Comcast :-) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/20/netflix-soars-on-subscriber-growth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/20/netflix... [2] http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-tops-57-million-subscribers-in-q4-as-u-s-growth-slows-1201409712/ http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-tops-57-million... [3] http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pd... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Commercial_ratings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Commercial_rati...

XorNot 12y ago
The only problem is they're in the middle of having one of the better measures to end piracy be thoroughly dismantled. Consumers are not going to pay 10 different streaming services on a contract fee structure. And it's pretty clear that's not the only problem: once they think they can, we'll be back to product lock in, region lock in, vendor lock in "our new show is perfect to get people to switch to Comcast!"

drawkbox 12y ago

Content is king and Gates was right: http://www.craigbailey.net/content-is-king-by-bill-gates/ http://www.craigbailey.net/content-is-king-by-bill-gates/ Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting. The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment. When it comes to an interactive network such as the Internet, the definition of “content” becomes very wide. For example, computer software is a form of content-an extremely important one, and the one that for Microsoft will remain by far the most important. But the broad opportunities for most companies involve supplying information or entertainment. No company is too small to participate.

pinaceae 12y ago

I guess there is another, very big reason: The Non-US markets. The US is surely important, but Netflix has launched in Europe and faces a huge obstacle that very few US Americans know about - rights licensing is far worse. Selling content overseas is a huge business, which means a giant time delay until something makes it to, say, Germany (even if not dubbed). Which worked in the past, but the Internet is forcing real time usage, see the piracy numbers worldwide for something like Game of Thrones (HBO, I know). There is practically no legal way to easily consume something like GoT the same time as it is aired in the US. Not so for Netflix' own content. House of Cards, Daredevil - all already available globally. The world is a big place and Netflix is going after it, the US is just one market. That HBO/Apple TV deal better be global soon.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Good point and this is a core art of Netflix's strategy for its own content. It's not going to happen any time soon with content from studios and other distributors though, because international distributors usually buy the rights to a film for a 10 year period. Except for the biggest 6, most film distributors don't have multinational operations and even the big 6 don't have offices in every territory, so they can't just wave magic wands and abrogate existing international distribution contracts.
mattchamb 12y ago
Just to note, that even Netflix makes mistakes with global content licencing. In New Zealand (where netflix has recently launched) they have sold the rights to House of Cards so even though they own the content, they cannot stream House of Cards.
- lostfocus 12y ago
  Same here in Germany.
bjrnjs 12y ago
HBO is global (to some degree). I live in Sweden and (if I didn't have to go to work) I can enjoy the latest episode of Game of Thrones only hours after it's aired in the US. Although we don't have HBO Go here -- we have a similar service called HBO Nordic. I'm almost certain that it's a HBO owned company, available only in nothern Europe though.

dschiptsov 12y ago

Exclusive is some new fresh post-Reactive bullshit?)

paulajohnson 12y ago

And here I thought I was going to learn something about their software engineering.

shmerl 12y ago

I wish Netflix would provide their own content DRM-free. But they don't, so all their claims that it wasn't their interest to push DRM into HTML are not true.

jamesvang86 12y ago

All people who want to watch Netflix but due to geo-restriction unable to watch can use VPN for this and enjoy all it's shows. For detail please visit at: http://www.vpnranks.com/5-best-vpns-for-netflix/ http://www.vpnranks.com/5-best-vpns-for-netflix/