posted by
martyb
on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:06AM
from the here's-hoping-the-fat-lady-has-laryngitis dept.
from the here's-hoping-the-fat-lady-has-laryngitis dept.
Netflix changed how we watch TV, but it didn't really change what we watch...
Netflix has achieved its incredible growth by taking distribution away from cable companies. Instead of watching The Office on cable, people now watch The Office on Netflix.
This edge isn't sustainable.
...
Disney's cable business has stagnated over the past seven years. But in about 175 days, Disney is set to launch its own streaming service called Disney+.It's going to charge $6.99/month—around $6 cheaper than Netflix.
And it's pulling all its content off of Netflix.
This is a big deal.
No more Bunk'd on Netflix? Nooooooooooooooo...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix has 175 Days Left to Pull Off a Miracle... Or It's All Over
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 81 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:14AM (30 children)
This doesn't kill Netflix in 175 days or a year. I'm not sure it kills it at all. Even with Disney Hulu, Amazon, AT&T, Apple, and all the rest competing and pulling content away from Netflix, Netflix's zombie customers will keep it alive. In the best case, they will remain at the top. In the worst case, they become the AOL of streaming.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:25AM (18 children)
They don't get to survive. Content is being pulled by the networks, and Net Neutrality's death means that the giant ISPs will squeeze users' Netflix's bandwidth, offering instead "unlimited downloads" on that content they just happen to own.
One-two punch. No way out in the US, unless the next president has a D attached, and pushes for restoring NN quickly.
Netflix's assets will get picked by someone pretty cheap, in less than 5 years, maybe as little as 3.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:51AM (6 children)
Its more of a minority party issue. If the next prez is -D then suddenly restoring NN will be confusingly impossible for the -D party and it'll become a -R issue with people saying "if only the next prez is a -R, then we get NN back"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:11PM (2 children)
quite wrong. its always been the R policy to short change the common person to to prop up the 'businessman'.
the anti-NN is perfectly aligned with R policies.
if an R gets in, he'll continue to fuck the regular person over. its what they do!
zero chance an R will undo anything along these lines. these days, the R's are mostly about 'whatever the black guy did, we HAVE to undo'. just for spite (its called 'stigginit'; aka, sticking it to 'the libs'. even if it makes your own life harder, as long as you did something harmful to those horrible libs, its ok. that's their MO and its how you can know they are an R).
this 'both sides are bad' is 100% wrong, in this case. all the bad is on the side of the R's. by design, in fact.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:20PM
Both Ds and Rs are owned by big business interests, just different ones. Neither has ever done shit for small business owners.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 24 2019, @02:07PM
Thinking both, either, or neither side is "bad" depends utterly on how one defines "bad" and "Good". An objectivist would believe that such definitions should be accepted by all, is all.
Despite that, the second that the D's get control of both houses (and/or the Presidency) they will be mostly about 'whatever the orange guy did, we HAVE to undo'. And neither side will truly be doing for spite, but to prove control and try and align things with their ideology, even if it drives unemployment up because as long as those stupid neocons get a comeuuppance it's OK.
And it's actually because bipartisanship is dead because people no longer judge the effectiveness of their leaders on how well they cooperate but rather how well they prove to their bases how much they stuck it to the other side. On both sides, just with different spin. Because these days independents have no power and it's all about the base 'bout the base 'bout the base (no dissenters).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:58PM (1 child)
Dems implement NN
Republicans repeal NN
Yet, somehow, you don't think Dems will want to implement NN again?
Such "both sides" bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:21PM
That is what happens when people willingly hand their brains to someone who enjoys fava beans with a nice chianti.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:27PM
Guess what the Dems were last time they implemented Net Neutrality: the minority party
Guess who the prez was last time they implemented Net Neutrality: -D, Obama
This is some "Insightful" theory you've got.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:48PM (4 children)
This discussion is not about net neutrality. Stop trying to hijack every discussion to a Prog talking point, it is becoming as sad and predictable as when every story has to work in a climate change hook.
Netflix is not worried about network neutrality, cable operators (i.e. ISPs) are building Netflix support into their cable boxes. Netflix is not worried about the delivery side of the operation at this point. The "buffering" monster is tamed, throttling is not an issue, etc. Their survival now hinges on, as the article we are discussing today (try to keep up numbnuts) is whether they can maintain access to sufficient content to keep subscribers interested. They think they can create their own, math says that isn't likely. The whole Netflix business case was always improbable and a short term adaptation to a temporary niche, but they have billions of market cap depending on them being the future of TV. Haha. Fools and their money, etc.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:18PM (3 children)
When it comes to Netflix survival, NN is not a "Prog talking point". It's front and center.
When NN got repealed, I stated multiple times that Netflix was done for. The NN repeal is why the ISP-owned content generators (Universal and friends) are pulling their stuff off Netflix. They have the content, and they can squeeze the guys who need the content, or the customer access.
They still have to play ball with Disney, because they can't afford to lose Disney content on their cable platforms, but the can crush Netflix with data caps.
There is no rational reason to say that "Netflix is not worried about network neutrality". Cable operators can build "support", but to be excluded from the data caps, Netflix will have to pay, and therefore raise their prices, at the same time that they lose content which moves to each maker's platform. It's not sustainable, and they can't win.
They can make a lot of compelling original content to try to survive the Disney juggernaut, because cable cutter can pay two or three cheap subscriptions. And they have inertia and name recognition on their side. But Comcast will crush them (in the US) with data caps.
NN isn't a "prog talking point". It's what kept the big guys from controlling your internet.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:04PM (2 children)
Nope. I know math isn't your strong suit or you wouldn't be a Prog, but if you are on a place like this you can probably follow along with really basic stuff if I spell it all out and talk really slowly.
If Netflix has to survive on original content alone they are not the "future of TV", they are HBO without the backstop of a back catalog of content from their allied studios. There is only sufficient public attention to sustain a couple of big budget highly viewed and discussed programs at any one time. So assume they execute well and regularly have an A list show like House of Cards, Game of Thrones, etc. That gets them HBO size subscriber numbers. At best.
Or more bluntly, a max US subscriber pool of say 50M. And they won't be paying $15/mo for a cut rate HBO so back to $10. Half a billion a month in revenue is the execute perfectly, everything breaks their way overly optimistic scenario for what they look like in a decade.
Now to the numbers. HBO is part of Warner, which is part of the ATT Juggernaut. The entire thing is valued at around 1/4 T. Netflix closed today at 153B. Or 25 times their best case annual (pre expense, pre tax, talking pure top line gross income) revenue a decade out. At some point they have to admit this to the shareholders, that they have been conned. Do you think that is going to be survivable?
Notice that absolutely none of this has the slightest to do with their delivery side of operations. None.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:51PM (1 child)
1) Are you aware that you are allowed to make decent points without adding moronic trollish liminary comments ?
2) Are you aware that Netflix, by producing its own content, can actually distribute it to other places, bringing significant income from abroad to keep financing said content, and may therefore be fine in their foreign operations where the competition is less lopsided ? That could have an impact on their market value...
3) Customers will run away to competitors as soon as the delivery quality, or price, changes due to US ISP shenanigans. Netflix can keep being a US content creator, and sell that content to others for distribution, but in the US they are toast. Pure production houses do exist, and Netflix is not in a bad place to survive as a producer of good quality shows. But their US distribution is going to die, because the end of NN means that the price can't match the limited homegrown content.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:27PM
You got that backwards. The decent points are there to sucker people into the trolling. Authoritarians like j-mo don't care about the merits, they care about displays of social dominance. If the facts achieve that goal, then they use facts. If lies will work instead, then they use lies. And if neither will work, they just randomly shit on their perceived enemies to puff themselves up like a rooster crowing from atop a pile of dung. By engaging, even with their reasonable-sounding theories, you are giving them the attention that their desicated, self-hating little souls need to feel good. Check out the concept of narcissistic supply [wikipedia.org] - negative supply is just as good for them as positive supply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:42PM (3 children)
That will not be enough. Senate will have to be at least 50(D) with VP as tie breaker. Don't forget how after Obama's election Treason Turtle declared that his only goal was to make Obama a 1 term president - and then set about doing everything he could to make it so. He, more than anone else currently in office, is the author of this country's misfortunes. Also don't foget that 'reasonable' guys like John McCain were promising impeachment proceedings from day 1 if Clinton were elected. The Яepublicans aren't going to suddenly start acting like the loyal opposition once the Mad Potus is out of office.
Basically if we ever want to get back to governing the country rather than oligarchs looting the country, its going to take D majorities in both houses of congress and in the whitehouse.
And even then, that won't be enough, Treason Turtle has been packing the courts with grossly misqualified hyper-partisans. Never before has anyone with an "unqualified" rating from the US ABA (American Bar Association) been appointed to the federal judiciary. Treason Turtle has put six(?) of them on since Twitler took office and most recently he nominated the wife of a russian lobbyist within hours of that lobbyist's client announcing a new aluminum plant to be built in Kentucky with substantial tax dollars.
Our only hope is that these judges have been so badly vetted that investigations will turn up criminal activities in their background that lead to impeachment. Treason Turtle reduced vetting time from 30 hours to 2 hours a couple of months ago in order to speed up the process of ramming them through, so there are probably a lot of skeletons in their closets.
One bright spot - Uncle Clarence Thomas seems to have too much ego to resign any time soon, so if he croaks with a D senate & whitehouse there might a chance to get a judge who doesn't strap on the Fox goggles every night. But if the Mad Potus loses and election (and doesnt tear the country apart trying to hold on) Uncle Tom might decide to retire during the lame duck session.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:59PM (2 children)
But we can expect that the patriotic leader of the senate will apply to any lame-duck nominee the same logic that he applied to a last-year-of-term nominee, and refuse to consider a candidate from the outgoing loser president, reserving that nomination to the incoming legitimate president.
It will totally happen.
Right.
Settled.
Totally.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:18PM (1 child)
Also we are gonna need leaders who aren't afraid to exercise power. Biden is going around talking like he didn't have a front row seat to 8 years of the GOP's massive opposition to governing, Schumer is an inept puppy and Pelosi has been insanely milquetoast. Even Bernie is too cowardly to endorse ending the filibuster (a senate tradition that is not in the constitution and was created to pacify the white supremacists from the south so they could block all civil rights laws). The D old-guard are acting like the codependent spouse of someone with narcissistic personality disorder - so consumed with managing the feelings of an abusive partner that they can't even think of standing up for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:21PM
Well to be fair that is their actual position. Their JOB is to work with those lizard people to achieve results for the country. After a time I imagine it is exactly like an abusive relationship.
(Score: 1) by easyTree on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:50PM (1 child)
Who wants five or ten streaming services? ProTip: Noone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:13AM
I want more than ten streaming services.
Specifically, duplicate pirate streaming services running out of Russia, Ukraine, China, Thailand, etc.
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:58AM (10 children)
They have pulled in a lot of content from countries without the gripes USA likes to indulge in for example the Korean shows can be quite good more than that some of their original shows are quite worth the watch. There's still lots of shows for me to get through before I cancel. Its cheap enough not to care about the cost. I haven't seen GOT but hey someone gave me the boxed DVD set. Now I just need to work out how to play them. If they play. Last few DVDs I bought would not play on the old computer DVD drive so that sucked kinda put me off buying DVDs.
Let's fork The Internet so we can relive the heyday of p2p
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:24AM (5 children)
Why? Did you try loading them in VLC?
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:45AM (4 children)
VLC, handbrake, other software. Suspect its the DVD drive itself. Discs from one series just work while another just spins round or gives weird data. Lots forums say things about DRM in the DVD drive itself and stuff but never got to the bottom of it.
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:52AM (3 children)
Per chance you are trying to play Blu-Ray in a DVD-only player?
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @12:33PM (2 children)
Never owned or touched a blueray disk. Never had a blue ray player but have ps4/now, but still won't buy blue ray. DVD all the way till it dies baby!
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:15PM (1 child)
That's actually a wise attitude, considering Blu-Ray discs have the data so close to the surface that the faintest, lightest barely-visible-at-any-angle scratch can make it unreadable. (Though if the scratch is at the right spot on a game instead, it can result in some really interesting effects. I now have a copy of Red Dead Redemption in which riding a horse causes John to sink under the ground and produces pseudo-art like this [postimg.cc].)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:48PM
Ugh, that's over a decade out of date. Yes the data layer is closer to the surface on blurays, in order to make them easier to read. But they also have high-durability coatings that are far more scratch resistant than the old DVD polycarbonate. What you wrote was true back when blurays came in protective cartridges, but those days are long past.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:56AM (2 children)
Dual layer DVD, some drives are very sensitive (famously the original Wii had like two games that used -DL, poorly, and often wouldn't work on some wii other than under the most pristine conditions)?
Strange region locking tricks?
So incredibly old that the old drive doesn't understand DVD-RW, combined with your assumed new DVDs are actually pirate copies on -RW media?
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @12:28PM (1 child)
Boxed set from a local store? I'm thinking DRM issues perhaps. Strange that some disks work okay and others just don't be recognized.
But yes, a while back there was a DVD knockoff eh -RW of a certain series purchased online that played well for a year till the disks wore out. There be a subtle clue here me hearty that those disks not be the reel deel.
How is one meant to backup DVDs if they won't even be read on the computer? So, I gave up buying DVD. This is reason to like Netflix more. Just a pity they aren't more like the old video stores that had hundreds of old titles to go through. I miss Blockbuster now it's gone.
Yea for the new stuff I'll try the ps4 now I have one ^ ^
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:07PM
Quit fucking around and buy a computer DVD drive that works. They can't be more than $50, free if you pull one from an old computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:44PM
It is entirely possible your drive is defective. For example, many older drives have trouble with dual layer disks. There are also many different substrate materials used in DVDs. This was very common with recordable discs back in the day, where some drives could not read all types of burned discs.
Basically none of these problems exist with new drives, which cost about $20. I suggest trying one, or borrowing one from a friend, before blaming your discs.
Additionally, some drives have stricter region locks than others. On most DVD drives the region coding is basically irrelevant because the encrypted data is readable and the keys can be brute forced in seconds, but a very small number of drives will not let you read the disc at all if the region coding is wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:20AM (2 children)
Nothing that hasn't already been happening. This industry move is just going to make piracy attractive again.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 5, Touché) by MostCynical on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:09AM (1 child)
What do you mean,"again"?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:30AM
= even more
(Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:22AM (5 children)
Now they're free to develop their own original superhero, science fiction, and cartoon content.
What, developing characters and shows costs money? Oh no, I feel so bad for them!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:01AM (3 children)
Don't be retarded. There's no way a new player can suddenly and magically materialise a huge back catalog of movies and shows like Disney has been milking for years.
If Disney never made another movie, the way they milk their franchise will keep the cash rolling through the door.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:21AM
Netflix now has the one key ingredient to do just that. Money.
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:09PM
That's correct, but Netflix has already been generating original content and has built up a "back catalog" of movies/shows/etc. Their catalog just isn't anywhere near the size of disney's portfolio, or others. I doubt everyone will pull all of their content. I'd still be tempted to stick with Netflix at that point though, just to stick it to the stupid studios. I've grown quite disenfranchised with Disney for a while, unfortunately for me, my wife and kid don't have the same feelings. So, I'll likely end up purchasing both as I really don't want to stick with just Disney.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:35PM
And has had the legislative muscle to keep extending copyright on. (Yeah, others helped, but Disney was certainly at the forefront.) Come 2022 there will be another huge push to keep extending it another 20.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @12:37AM
They are free, free to use all the same stories that Disney has tried to usurp that are public domain.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dltaylor on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:40AM (5 children)
Unless it is totally free, and free of advertising (other than trailers), I will not subscribe.
I saw "Star Wars" opening week, and am a fan of the MCU, but will never pay Disney for fragmented content.
"Star Trek" has been important to me (I have the animated ones on LaserDisc), but I haven't subscribed to CBS, either.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:46AM (2 children)
What arrrrrrrr you, some kind of filthy pirate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:03AM (1 child)
I'll never subscribe either. But, that just means I'll also never watch their shit.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:32AM
Wise. Take one step more and stop commenting on S/N, double the profit.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:37AM
You may not, but millions of parents with kids whining in their ears, will. Your ( or my ) few bucks they miss out on wont matter to them. Like pissing in the ocean.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:37PM
May your LaserDisc player never break in a way that Scotty can't piece together again. (Unless you've managed to archive them).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:06AM (10 children)
I don't have kids. I don't care for the Disney song and dance. What do they have that I might want?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:35AM (3 children)
Star Wars?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:38AM (1 child)
He can watch it on VHS or DVD.
The new ones aren't canon anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:26PM
** Space Force chaaaaa**
or
** Force Space aaaaahc**
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday May 24 2019, @11:44PM
I never really got into star wars. I saw the first three movies of course, but I was always much more interested in Star Trek.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:54AM (1 child)
Just take a gander at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_The_Walt_Disney_Company [wikipedia.org] and you will see that they own a ton of stuff. Basically, they now own half of the major broadcast networks, almost all sports broadcasting, two of the largest movie production companies on the planet, and 50 smaller production and distribution companies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:59AM
Something something artificial scarcity, something something TPB.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:48AM (1 child)
Song and dance ... ok, that rules out a lot. How about dogs and ponies?
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:21PM
Okay, I've got the dogs: List of Disney Dog Movies [disneymovieslist.com]
Here's a pony movie: Ride a Wild Pony [imdb.com]
There's not as much to go on with pony movies, for several reasons. First, ponies don't often get the title role, with horses usually anchoring equestrian movies. Second, My Little Pony takes up a lot of that segment of the market, and it isn't Disney. Third, an increasingly urban population doesn't relate with ponies as much as they did in the 70's (for example).
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:57PM
Disney is one of the corporate media behemoths. They bribe/lobby for draconian copyright laws. And wasn't there a story about them firing a whole swath of Americans to replace them with H1Bs?
May not be a bad idea to avoid Disney, even if they do have something you want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:19PM
Snow White Does The Seven Dwarfs?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mykl on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:07AM (1 child)
I think that the proliferation of these services will more likely change our viewing habits than kill off some of these services. Rather than maintaining subscriptions to each service all the time, people will turn the services on and off as desired. For example, you may wish to watch the final season of Orange is the New Black in July, so subscribe to Netflix for that month. GoT is finished now, so you can switch HBO off to compensate.
I already do this with just 2 services (Netflix and the Australian streaming service Stan). I'm taking my kids through the Marvel movies, which are all on Stan, and will turn Stan back off once we're through them all (until another must-watch movie or series comes on).
In any case, Disney will never be the Netflix killer - they have too narrow a range of offerings to kill a service as broad as Netflix.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:37PM
Give it some time, and the companies will find a way to make switching things off as annoying and infuriating as possible. Meet the new cable companies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:14AM (8 children)
I will subscribe to one paid service for streaming media. I have chosen Netflix, mostly by inertia. I'm not going to have 10 different subscriptions to all the studios' different catalogs and offerings. The industry can either consolidate in a reasonable, pro-consumer, way, or I will go to my 2nd choice for media: Torrentz2.eu. [torrentz2.eu]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:13AM (4 children)
This. It's already a problem: there are too many different sources of content, each with its own subscription plan.
We subscribe to basic cable, to get local news, weather, etc.. It also includes the basic BBC channels, which we occasionally watch. In addition, we watch some sports, so I subscribe to the Eurosport app, on our Vero (Kodi) box. If BBC iPlayer existed outside the UK, I would probably subscribe to it as well. That's it. I am not also going to pay Netflix, Amazon, CBS, Disney, etc, etc... Even if it wouldn't be ridiculously expensive, it would be too complicated. So the stuff we watch less frequently gets torrented.
The usual case for piracy: make it too difficult/expensive/complicated to buy your product, and people find other solutions.
Intellectual property is, frankly, a contradiction in terms. A law which cannot be enforced is a stupid law. Things that exist purely electronically can be easily copied, there is no realistic way to prevent this --> ergo, copying electronic files should not be illegal in the first place. This makes no more sense than those old laws regulating how couples are supposed to have sex.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by Only_Mortal on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:25AM
I was under the impression that a version of iPlayer exists in the US now?
Just found it: https://www.britbox.com/home [britbox.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:36AM
The problem with those sex laws was that if someone saw you doing a 69 with your wife they reported you to the clergy and the local lord meaning accusations of satanism and stint in jail. If you were lucky.
Yes this is a bad law and a bad system. It just feeds itself. The companies make money from copyrights then use that money to buy laws to make even note money.
Copyrights. 20 year term max. If there is no clear human owner then it is automatically in the public domain. Easy.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:57PM
I have no interest in any TV service with a monthly subscription fee frankly. We've actually never had cable TV in the decades we've lived where we are. I use an antenna and record OTA HD networks on our MythTV system ($20 a year for schedulesdirect listings).
Other than that all we've been using is Vudu. I have to confess that I hate the fact that they're owned by Walmart. That aside, there's no monthly subscription fee, there's a decent amount of free content with very limited commercials, and their prices for things like current movies are comparable with others. Often the 4K version (sometimes Dolby Vision and sometimes HDR) is the same price as HD. Most importantly we only pay for what we watch. I refuse to put up with anything other than that.
That's also why Amazon and others that have content only available from their service can stick it up their ass. I wish everyone would refuse to accept that and the practice would die of natural causes.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:08PM
The Beebs plugin does a great job of delivering BBC access.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beebs-watch-bbc-iplayer-i/opmliiafmgjkgkfadkpomlefdllhajdi?hl=en [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:08PM
Torrents for sure, but I don't do that anymore either. Instead I know a guy, who knows a guy. We hang out every year or so and exchange external hard drives. I say 'thanks, see you next year!'
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:41PM
I find it odd that you equate the desire for a streaming monopoly with "pro-consumer".
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:19PM
I switched to Netflix, because I was fed-up with video rental store fines. Just like a whole lot of people. Netflix was the nail in the coffin for most video rental stores and they were the first to get video streaming done correctly. People want a bunch of movies available to view when they want, without advertisements, at a reasonable cost.
Rant about Advertisements:
Did I mention, without Advertisements? Because, Advertisements are Annoying, and when you were paying for cable/satellite, you were also paying them to Advertise to you. It was such a major surprise when someone actually came out with something that didn't have Advertisements, that people flocked to it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by loic on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:23AM (1 child)
I do not know if a cheaper price and a good catalog will be enough. Netflix is a rock solid platform, it had small hiccups, but it has taken years to achieve this quality. So to the initial issues with Disney + will really annoy people. People have their habits, they are used to their proven services and to not be able to access every single movie. But it looks like people do not care so far, there is always another flick or tv show available for watching. And if you really want that particular movie, they will use one of these numerous free illegal website, just like now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:40AM
For now. Wait until they'll shape the crap out of Netflix's traffic. Then send Pai a thank you letter, just to let him know the depth of your love.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:15AM (3 children)
Just what we need.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:02AM
You read the article? Such wow, so unique! What's it like?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:20AM
Not clickbait, market manipulation.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:01PM
It's from Forbes this time, not Phys.org. Shit, man, you're never fucking happy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:23AM (4 children)
This will be their eventual death, not content.
They have enough original content to keep enough subscribers to stay alive, perhaps at a reduced level. But when subscribers have to pay huge fines ( ya, fines ) to their ISP to use it, they will go down, in flames.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @12:41PM (3 children)
Or they could start playing hardball. According to Wikipedia, Netflix had $1.2 Billion net income on $15.8 billion in revenue in 2018, while Akamai Technology, for example, had total assets of $5.5 billion for the same year. If ISPs want to squeeze Netflix, they should look into squeezing back.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:56PM (2 children)
How ?
If the guy at the toll booth on the only road is paid to not let you go through to your destination, the only way to change his mind is to give him more cash than he makes blocking you. Whether he lets you through or not, his competing product will not include the toll fee.
Netflix can't afford that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:05PM (1 child)
Become their own ISP.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:37PM
*facepalm*
Wrong end of the problem.
If they can't be MY ISP, then they won't reach me when the monopolistic guy serving me starts playing dirty.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:20PM (1 child)
Disney has a large back catalog, and their acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars augment that a lot. But, really, who hasn't already seen all of that dozens of times in their lives already? And small kids don't care about any of it. They think all that stuff is for old people, and they're right. And when it comes to us old people, Disney has so antagonized the hell out of us with their disrespect to canons that we have had near religious devotion to our whole lives, that they're not gonna squeeze one more nickel out of many of us.
And that's the biggest couple of reasons in Netflix's favor: Disney's back catalog is stale and over-marketed, and their recent moves have destroyed the brand equity of at least one of their biggest franchises, and has dampened that of another.
Another reason I think Netflix has an edge is that they have been running minute data analysis of their streaming traffic for years. They can tell exactly when it is during a show's plot that viewers switch off and walk away. They can tell from cross-tabs which kinds of viewers like what kind of content, so that they can recommend good choices to them? Does anybody else remember how they ran that big contest for a better recommendation engine? That was at least a decade ago that they were thinking about that kind of thing.
When it comes to precisely mapping what streaming audiences like and how to cater to it, Disney and their fellows are babes in the woods next to Netflix.
What I'm watching closely now is Netflix's experiments with interactive content. I said about 15 years ago that would be a way for content creators to move past piracy, because it would be a living, breathing narrative instead of a dead, shrink-wrapped one that is easily commoditized and shared. And here they are doing it, and I'm wondering how much longer before they steal another march on the dinosaurs of the world like Disney..
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:46PM
Looks like someone hasn't been with any kids between 4 and 11 for quite a while.
We don't have TV, we have adblockers on everything, and we limit non-homework screen time strictly. But they sing the Disney songs with their friends, know the plots, and want to see the movies (old and new) any chance they get (playdates and birthdays). The merchandise keeps showing up all around them, and they get gifted a lot of it (rarely by us).
I won't pay for the Disney service. But I would be surprised if less than 75% of the elementary school households do.
And given Disney's giant catalog, I'm guessing most people won't drop it as soon as their kids hit puberty. "It's only 6 bucks, come on!"