SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The video streaming service plans to spend up to $8bn on content next year to compete with fast-growing rivals.
Netflix will issue bonds to investors, although the interest rate it will pay has yet to be decided, the company said in a statement.
Netflix plans to release 80 films next year, but some analysts are wary about its cash burn and debt interest costs.
The company's latest debt fundraising is its largest so far, and the fourth time in three years it has raised more than $1bn by issuing bonds.
Earlier this month, Netflix said it would raise prices in countries including the UK and US for the first time in two years.
Has Netflix added enough original material to make up for the licensed content they've dropped and the price increase they mean to enact?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:17PM (37 children)
Society is going to shift away from passive content. At best, society will give up consuming fake people's stories, and start making their own by living; at worst, people will become absorbed in immersive interactive content.
My reasoning is that there are only so many stories; the entertainment industry relies on new experiences—which is why there's a lot of content geared towards children. However, with so much content available now, it's very easy to max out on all of the experiences; after a while, there's just nothing new to observe or learn or experience; the content becomes the same ol' thing with slightly different costumes. When the adults move on, they'll take their children with them.
So, unless this billion+ dollars gets put into new kinds of interactive technology, I doubt there's much more room to grow.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:31PM (12 children)
That's not what's gonna kill Netflix short-term.
The end of Net neutrality, bringing low-low caps on anything not rubber-stamped by Comcast or ATT will, at least in the US.
Netflix will have to raise their prices to pay off the ISPs, until they're just one more cable-like choice...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)
It will free people to search for new ways to pass data around.
Email, wikipedia reading, txt messaging, etc., doesn't need 10 Gbps down/up links, or even wired last-mile networking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:56PM
There's also avian carriers
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:49PM (4 children)
I don't think so.
People are slowly but steadily leaving cable TV as the oldest generation dies out, and younger generations don't see the value in something where they can't skip the commercials (without a DVR), can't pick what to watch when, it has an utterly archaic UI, etc. But people are showing that they're perfectly happy to spend good money on streaming services: Netflix, Amazon video, iTunes/Apple, and now with Star Trek: Discovery, CBS has found people are perfectly willing to sign up in hordes for a $6/month service just to watch a single big-budget TV show with angry, unlikeable characters that are at each others' throats (STD is such a success that CBS has already renewed it for a 2nd season).
There's a lot of leeway for Netflix to jack up its prices: it could cost just as much as a premium cable subscription and lots of people will stick with it, because it still offers a level of service that you'll never get with cable TV: a convenient web interface that even keeps track of which episodes you've watched, for instance, with descriptions, suggestions, etc., and truly on-demand viewing at very high video-quality levels. You just won't ever get that with cable TV; the technology is archaic and obsolete and can't be changed. Now that people have had a taste of this, they don't want to go back to the old concept of "channels" and "timeslots", and they sure as hell don't want to watch commercials. So Netflix has a lot of room to raise prices, and people have shown that they're willing to spend a lot of money on digital services billed monthly: XM radio, Spotify, Pandora, iTunes, etc.
Personally, I canceled my Netflix sub a while ago because I just wasn't using it much, and didn't appreciate stuff constantly coming and going, and so much stuff being DVD-only, but apparently most people are still happy to subscribe.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
I love Netflix, except for how small their library is. When something new comes out that I find I like I'll binge the whole series, then there's nothing else worth watching until something else good comes out.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:23PM
There's a new season of Stranger Things on friday. Resub!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
...and didn't appreciate stuff constantly coming and going...
Of course, if they make their own content, it doesn't need to come and go anymore.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:03PM
Right, but it's silly to think that one production company is going to make all the stuff I'll want to watch, so instead we'll wind up with lots of different, incompatible streaming services, and you'll have to have subscriptions to all of them just because there's one (and only one) show on each you want to watch (CBS All Access, HBO Go, etc.).
The whole point of Netflix was that they'd have pretty much everything you wanted to watch in one place, for one monthly price.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:57PM (4 children)
Netflix's per-subscriber bandwidth costs are lessening over time.
Bandwidth is still getting cheaper, equipment gets better although you have to buy it, and new video standards [wikipedia.org] lower the bitrate.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:01AM (3 children)
None of which matters if the big ISPs want you dead and throttle you, with the FCC's blessing.
Anticompetitive practices are not delusions, conspiracies or speculation, but proven historical facts.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:28AM (1 child)
Take your net neutrality shilling elsewhere. Netflix made peace with big cable years ago, which is why they no longer care about the issue. They colocate "Netflix in a box" appliances in all the ISP central offices. Cable boxes are building in Netflix support so you don't even need a third party device (i.e. Roku/XBox) to watch so they can keep you in their UI. Soon enough Netflix won't even count toward your bandwidth cap. And of course that means the cable co can see what you watch. Netflix is well on the road to becoming another HBO and the cable companies are all too happy to assist that transition. They know how to monetize that. Soon you will be able to subscribe to Netflix through the cable company like you do HBO and have it all on one bill.
People think the cable company is obsolete. Nah, they own the pipe most people would use to watch any replacement with, as any of them get big they will partner up with them as just another content outlet, exactly like they carry HBO, Showtime, NICK, CNN, FNC, etc. Netflix will eventually just be another tranche of on demand programming merged into their menus. And if you have the Tivo co-branded cable box / DVR it will even look and work nice. And to make the convergence complete, don't be shocked when a NetFlix channel pops up on your channel grid snuggled in with the other premium channels.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:22PM
You're looking at it backwards, unsurprisingly.
Netflix wants to go straight to the consumer, not be just another HBO.
Big cable can't prevent it under Net Neutrality rules, so they Embrace for now, to reduce cord-cutting. Big cable owns HBO, showtime and the others. Netflix is an annoying competitor threatening the oligopoly and its fat margins.
As soon as your ISP, who wants to sell you their own overpriced video service, is no longer required to treat Netflix packets fairly, why the fuck would they?
Netflix would need to be as profitable for the ISPs as their own service, then the bean counters would point out that not investing their own money is better. But being as expensive as HBO without getting the newest Hollywood blockbusters? Why would the customers watch?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:14PM
I can't remember who it is but someone on SN has this sig: "It's not a conspiracy, it's a plot!"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:38PM (15 children)
Hahahaha!!! That's pretty funny. Seriously, you are really deluded. Have you not noticed how popular reality TV has been for the last 10-15 years? No, society is not going to become like ST:TNG where people no longer sit around watching mindless garbage like Honey Boo Boo and The Kardashians, and instead entertain themselves and each other by playing classical concerts and re-enacting detective novels on the Holodeck. (What made ST:TNG such a great show is that it showed humans as *we wish they were*, not as they actually are.)
Just look at Hollywood movies these day: it's all sequels, remakes, more installments in decades-old franchises, etc. You probably decry this, as do I. Yet look at the revenue numbers: Hollywood is making an absolute killing by following this formula. People just can't get enough of comic book movies, or remakes of comic book movies, or sequels to remakes of comic book movies, etc. Despite a huge number of people complaining about how bad the theater experience has gotten these days, they're selling more box-office tickets than ever before. So obviously, people like you and me are not the target audience, and they really don't need our support. All evidence shows that the general public really is happy to pay high ticket (and concession) prices to watch the "same ol' thing with slightly different costumes".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:43PM (14 children)
All of that eye-popping revenue is flowing out of third-world countries, like China. They're like the small children of the civilization, stumbling upon consumer entertainment for the first time, and finding it magically absorbing.
Eventually, their societies too will mature, and that's when the shit will hit the fan; it may take 3 decades, but in relatively short order, Netflix and its ilk will be gone.
Make your easy money while you can!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:49PM (3 children)
You have people out there paying for Netflix, putting something on, and then working on a computer or falling asleep. Netflix gets their cut all the same. They can even measure and manage this behavior [soylentnews.org].
Netflix must have more than 3 decades left in them because they are doing just fine with English speakers right now. They aren't even relevant in China. [fool.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:14AM (2 children)
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)
One person has supporting links, and you have your opinion. "Try again" is a pretty lame response, maybe yiy should try again!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:02PM
Try again.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:59PM (9 children)
Instead say "Developing Nation".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:06AM (8 children)
Nah, "Third World" is the right term to use. It means "backward," and that ought to sting. If it doesn't sting, then they have no reason to strive to better themselves. After all being poor and backward because they cannot curb their corruption or cooperate long enough to build their country up has failed thus far to spur them to progress. Shame. They need to feel shame, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:33AM (3 children)
Third world does not mean ‘backwards’. I’m sure you are old enough to remember when there was the West (1st world), the Commies (2nd world) and yes, the third world, which were all those countries not in the “west” or “commies”.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:04AM (2 children)
Clearly, if it ain't "First World", then it's backwards.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)
Clearly, the current "First World" is going backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:27AM
There. Settled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM
Pretty sure they would be second world:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/third-world.asp [investopedia.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:07PM (2 children)
Actually, it's a somewhat stupid term to use, because you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Switzerland is a "backwards" country, yet it absolutely does qualify for "third world" status because it was never aligned with either the USA or USSR. Same goes for Norway.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)
But it gets better, Japan was considered to be in the “West”… Never trust politicians or ideologues, they twist words so they can twist your mind.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:14AM
In many way, Japan *is* part of the West. In case you forgot, it was occupied by the US for some time, its Constitution was written by the US, and it's one of the US's strongest allies now, and the US is their biggest trading partner. Their modern culture borrows heavily from American culture. Politically and militarily, they're very much aligned with "the west".
No one's trying to "twist your mind", these labels exist for a reason. The first/second/third-world stuff is really just obsolete, and became that way the day the Soviet Union collapsed. It was just a way of designating which countries were aligned with either side, or neither side. These days it just doesn't make sense because there is no more "second world".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:43PM (4 children)
Passive VR content: the ultimate laziness from a consumer standpoint (although not a creator standpoint).
Taking full advantage of 360 degrees requires a new standard in cinematography and direction. Multiple things may be happening at once within "the frame". Subtle details add to the illusion or distract if absent.
Adding interactivity morphs it from film to game development. Powerful AI/computers will be needed to create an entire virtual world that responds to the player's actions, unless everything is very narrowly scripted with only a few choices.
Graphics still has a long way to go to make open world video games look as good as pre-rendered CGI films (pick whichever one you think looks the best for the comparison, maybe an Avengers film, since they will only be getting better).
But back to your assessment of Netflix. Netflix is doing just fine [soylentnews.org]. If Netflix runs into trouble in the next 5 years, it will probably be because of its many competitors (Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Google/YouTube, Disney, etc.) rather than the societal shift you identify. Society will not give up consuming "fake people's stories". What might happen is that niche content and curation (sifting through all the content to find the things someone is likely to enjoy) becomes more important. We aren't living in an era where 121 million people tune into the season finale (M.A.S.H.). We are living in an era with hundreds of channels, streaming platforms like Netflix tailoring content for narrow and binge-y audiences, and every bit of foreign content being subtitled within hours of release.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)
The 1960s hippies represented the first attempt, but their lifestyle was too unproductive to catch on.
In the coming years, we'll see first world societies' tear down the War on Drugs, and people will begin experimenting once again with their states of consciousness, especially by using psychedelics. I think we'll see the Church of Consciousness spring up, where people not only investigate what it means to be sentient, but also engage in drug-related rituals that are scientifically proven to enhance visceral spiritual experiences.
Go onto YouTube and binge watch discussions about psychedelics, especially about DMT breakthroughs and microdosing. The productive people of the world are starting to get interested in this stuff, and that's what will lead to humanity finally launching out of its hollow, spiritless malaise.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:43AM
Maybe. I doubt that much will happen other than getting DMT, LSD, et al. onto Schedule II down from Schedule I.
Can people have visceral spirtual experiences when using psychedelics while Netflix/mindless entertainment is playing in the same room? Or does Netflix make it an invalid and "unproductive" use of psychedelics? What about smoking dank weed while watching Netflix?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:02AM (1 child)
I've only seen one. It was like something out of dungeons and dragons.
3-D works well if it is used subtly, but what we actually find is the one I saw, in which a rope is lowered down a whole, but appears to be horizontally appearing out of the screen then through my forehead.
I have a 3D pr0n magazine. They're not Playboy shots. It's all women with freakishly huge breasts pointing at the camera.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:37AM
3D is not the same as 360°/VR.
3D is not dead [wikipedia.org] (scroll to 2017) but it is basically used as a gimmick and is technically inferior to VR.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
Hollywood refers to its insatiable demand for new scripts as The Monster.
I expect that's why there are so many remakes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:06AM
Why do you think Hollywood is such a soulless cesspool of former human beings?
They were binge watching fake people's stories before Netflix made it mainstream; for them, there's nothing new to experience, and so they seek out unspeakable debauchery as do the centuries-old vampires.
What do you think will happen when most of the U.S. and then the Third World reaches that point? I shudder to think about it.
Maybe a New Religion really will be the result and the solution. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:33AM
Seems doubtful, society has been consuming passive content for over 2000 years, and it shows no sign of going away.
We've had interactive content for a long time too (hookers and blackjack come to mind), and it's not going to go away either.
Americans watch "TV" an average of 33 hours a week.
The average "share" is less than 10 million, so one estimate of demand is 33 shows * 52 week/year * 300 million people /10 million people per = 50,000 episode a year.
At an average cost of $3 million an episode that's $150 billion.
We're not even saturating demand yet.