[HN Gopher] Why Netflix Will Falter
___________________________________________________________________
Why Netflix Will Falter
Author : peasantking
Score : 21 points
Date : 2022-02-09 21:45 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tedgioia.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tedgioia.substack.com)
| anyfoo wrote:
| From the article: "I'm not a binge watcher. I've never been much
| of a TV viewer. I didn't even own a television until my mid-30s.
| [...] but I get restless if I spend too much time staring into
| that flickering screen. My wife Tara has a similar attitude."
|
| This honestly makes me wonder "ok, why should I listen to you,
| then?"
|
| It doesn't help that they then go ahead and give an, at best,
| oversimplified explanation of why VHS won against Beta.[1] Not a
| single mention of one of VHS's killer features versus Beta: Tape
| length. (And calling _Windows_ , of all OSes, an "open operating
| system"... oh dear, I get the point you are trying to make, but
| "open" and 90's anti-trust Microsoft in the same sentence is
| pretty bold.)
|
| Maybe the conclusions are still valid, I can't tell. I remember
| that what made Netflix so immensely attractive to me, a "binge
| watcher" of many many TV shows and with many friends who were at
| least to some extent binge watchers, was that Netflix _was_ the
| platform that had all the movies and especially TV shows that I
| wanted to binge watch.
|
| [1] Here's a very good video going into details:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60
| cgrealy wrote:
| The OS comparison is especially bad since we have seen very
| little meaningful competition in that space.
|
| Linux dominates the server space. Windows dominates the
| desktop/laptop market, with Apple a niche player and Linux even
| more niche. On mobile, it's more balanced but there is still a
| duopoly.
|
| Personally, I would love to just pay a microtransaction for the
| show I want to see, but I'm not sure the economics stack up.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I think it would be interesting to see TV move more in the
| direction that transit cards are moving. You tie your card to
| your account and pay per view. But if you spend enough money
| in a week, you're no longer charged for access (a "week
| pass"). Then, if you spend enough in a month, you're again no
| longer charged (a "month pass"). This idea could potentially
| be passed onto seasons and series rather than being time-
| limited.
|
| That way, you're always getting the optimal price for your
| content consumption, streaming companies can make a little
| more money (since these Pass rates would likely be higher
| than the current monthly membership), but those who just want
| to watch one series or one episode aren't left out to dry.
| spandrew wrote:
| From my understanding the 'rights' to TV shows are actually
| auctioned quite openly due to royalty systems and pretty strong
| union contracts demanding their slice of that revenue. It's
| actually within the deal structure.
|
| So I'm not sure Netflix is at too much risk of every studio
| colluding them out of these auctions. Especially when they are
| legitimately one of the richest 'producers' in LA.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| One take is that many people spend $70 for a TV package, if they
| quit doing that they can afford $70 worth of streaming services.
|
| Another is that there is nothing special about Netflix other than
| being an early mover. It might not be for you but Disney has a
| meaningful brand and the future belongs to meaningful brands.
| KwisaksHaderach wrote:
| Netflix is the instagram of the tv streaming services, 95% of
| the content is crap and they are creating lots of it.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Yea netflix's strategy is pretty clearly to pump out enough
| crap that literally every person has their "guilty pleasure"
| show on there.
| threeseed wrote:
| Except that everyone's 5% is different.
|
| So whilst you may think Emily in Paris for example is crap it
| is hugely popular.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| What makes it the Instagram? Netflix doesn't have user-
| generates content. If you mean Instagram as a shorthand for
| crap generally, I'd choose a different comparison.
| mchusma wrote:
| This person used VISA, a part of (debatably the worst tri-opoly)
| as example of something open? Insane. I was genuinely interested
| in where he was going but this was just a huge fail.
|
| New entrants who wish to take on credit card offerings cannot
| flourish due to Visa and Mastercard's monopolistic practices.
| 300bps wrote:
| Write-ups like this always assume Netflix will remain static.
|
| In the past, they have faced two existential crises:
|
| 1) DVDs by mail was becoming a buggy-whip style business. They
| pivoted to streaming.
|
| 2) Streaming content licensed from other companies effectively
| gave them a "maximum profit". Every efficiency they gained that
| led to higher profit was quickly negotiated away by rights
| holders who threatened to take away Netflix's life blood
| (content). So they started their own production company and
| created their own content.
|
| Now they're being attacked from every direction by a host of
| competitors. History shows Netflix will not lie down. As an
| impartial observer with no dog in the fight, I'm interested to
| see what they come up with next.
| TillE wrote:
| The real problem with Netflix is that it's a middleman - besides
| its handful of original productions, it's really just providing
| replaceable infrastructure. In the long term, bandwidth is free
| and payments are frictionless, so what value can they provide?
|
| Its existence relies on the delicate balance where it's providing
| what's perceived as a superior deal for both viewers and
| producers. Not a comfortable position!
| adamc wrote:
| Hence the move to produce content. But that's a slow process.
| candyman wrote:
| Netflix is cheap enough with enough content to make it a keeper.
| There are lots of other options but they are too niche (Curiosity
| Stream, Gaia) or too expensive (Fubu, YouTube TV). It feels like
| a weird redux but eventually maybe the big platforms - AppleTV,
| Roku, Youtube TV will be just like the giant aggregators of the
| past Cable TV world but you'll be able to pick and chose which
| channels to pay for (Netflix, Tennis Channel, Disney, HBO, etc.)
| telesilla wrote:
| Apple TV already seems to doing that, there are shows on their
| platform that point you to get a showtime, HBO or whatever
| login.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Now that it's moving to $15/mo I'm going to be taking a break.
| We have Amazon Prime and could save $60 by cutting Netflix for
| several months. Or we could spend $35 getting a channel on
| Prime and still save $25.
| devmunchies wrote:
| What was the alternative strategy? Any ideas?
|
| Maybe if they had "channels" that I could add-on like in Prime
| then many would pay for Paramount, HBO, etc and bundle it into
| their Netflix. If they opened it up then other networks could
| build on it as a platform (e.g. Masterclass could build an
| channel integration and it gets approved by Netflix much like an
| App Store). Netflix's childrens content is weak, so this approach
| would allow me as a parent to bundle in PBS Kids or Nick Jr.
|
| If Netflix took 10-20% from channel subscriptions then they could
| easily get to $20/mo revenue for many users. No need to raise
| rates like they are currently doing.
| badrabbit wrote:
| There's a lot of bias here. How many people care about tv so much
| they would switch platforms for a show? I mean, I care a lot but
| I will never get paramount+ for Halo or Disney+ for star trek.
| It's the only thing to do when I am just tired and need to sit
| down.
|
| I am very tolerant of mediocre shows. I used only prime until a
| few months ago and I am honestly aghast and in awe of the amount
| of content on netflix. I feel like I could never run out of
| random things I can put on I haven't seen already. I think a lot
| of people do the same to the point where they have a "just play
| something" feature. Amazon prime had good content but slim
| pickings! And half the stuff you have to pay for, ran out of free
| stuff fast. Hulu likes ads too much, low value content too.
|
| My point is, Netflix is "tv" everything else is some site
| charging for video content. You turn your cable tv on to some
| channel and just watch what is on, so long as you haven't seen it
| already. Netflix lets you do that, everyone else, maybe they have
| good shows but not enough of them. The Netflix UX is amazing as
| well, it rivals apple UX in my opinion. It just works, even
| autoplay preview works well somehow! Their app also syncs well
| and lets you download content for long trips and such.
|
| I have to disagree with OP. Netflix is here to stay. Don't tell
| anyone but I would gladly pay up to $99/mo for it as-is because
| similar quality on cable does not exist but I would be paying
| much more for premium cable.
|
| "Netflix+chill" is only a thing because of their UX, can't do
| that on Hulu because ads ruin things for example.
| threeseed wrote:
| > What's the biggest franchise at Netflix?
|
| What the author fails to understand is that everyone has
| different tastes and that is what makes Netflix so formidable. It
| doesn't need the big showcase shows that Disney has.
|
| The most popular shows on Netflix for 2021: Bridgerton, Lupin,
| The Witcher, Sex/Life, Stranger Things, Money Heist, Tiger King,
| Queens Gambit, Sweet Tooth and Emily In Paris. That is quite a
| diverse set of demographics that would be watching those shows.
|
| And then you have the recent popularity of Korean shows e.g.
| Squid Game, All of Us Are Dead, Kingdom etc which Netflix is
| pioneering by bringing to Western audiences.
|
| Netflix is far more multi-faceted and nuanced than it gets credit
| for.
| dcdc123 wrote:
| They also have the most responsive streams by a mile. Seeking
| on Netflix is so much less painful than their
| competitors...especially AppleTV.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Netflix has the numbers, they need the programming to survive.
| They should show more patience with shows.
|
| I don't thing Paramount+ or Peacock/NBC will penetrate enough, I
| think Disney+ will. HBO is kinda like Netflix, I think those two
| should merge: Netflix provides the tech/platform and a huge
| eyeball base, and HBO has better production. HBO could strengthen
| its cable offerings with Netflix programming, seems very win-win.
|
| No idea what Cabletown's plans are for NBC/Peacock, but I think
| they should consider merging with Netflix too.
|
| Who knows about Paramount+. CBS owns older viewers and network
| TV, so I think they are too stubborn to merge or capitulate. CBS
| cranks out a lot of "good for TV" programming, but is it
| appointment viewing? More like they've mastered the older viewer
| that plops down and surfs the main networks. They won't claim the
| younger viewer, won't get a good enough subscriber base, and they
| won't have a valuable enough catalog to demand good merger or
| licensing terms.
|
| What is FOX doing? Do they have a big streaming platform?
|
| One thing that is for sure, cable is on a deathmarch. The next
| round of NFL negotiations should be interesting, because ESPN
| (and by extension cable TV itself) is already stretched to the
| limit for the NFL contract, and the next one might break them if
| the cable economics continue to degrade in viewership (and
| portion of the cable bill ESPN gets to claim)
| lvl100 wrote:
| Why Netflix Will Continue to Flourish.
|
| They make contents others will not make. They will be the number
| one destination for entertainments for a very long time because
| they are willing to bring Hollywood production value to every
| corner of the globe. I have no doubts.
|
| I think a lot of people suffer from myopic pov when they're
| looking at these global enterprises. The game has dramatically
| changed in the last five years.
| onion2k wrote:
| The point the author misses with examples of credit cards, ATMs,
| operating systems and video recorders is that those are all
| things you only really need one of. If there are two competing
| credit cards you pick the one that's best for you. With ATMs you
| use the most convenient. With OSs you use the one that came with
| your computer. And with video recorders ... well, you just don't
| use those any more.
|
| Streaming services are different. You don't choose one. You buy
| all the ones that offer something you want and leave the rest.
| Sometimes if one feels stale you switch it out for a different
| one. Some people only have one at a time. Some people have
| several. There is no compelling reason for services to share or
| collaborate so long as they are able to profitably hold enough
| market share at any given time. Bundling is highly unlikely to
| ever happen. It's far more likely that we'll see product
| diversification like Netflix's alleged gaming platform. These
| services will need to show growth somehow, but it won't be by
| sharing content.
| threeseed wrote:
| Also it doesn't factor in that companies are bundling their
| streaming services with other services and so many people get
| them for free.
|
| Case in point: Amazon Prime and Apple One.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-09 23:00 UTC)