[HN Gopher] The bottom is dropping out of Netflix
___________________________________________________________________
The bottom is dropping out of Netflix
Author : bryanrasmussen
Score : 360 points
Date : 2022-04-22 10:45 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pajiba.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pajiba.com)
| flenserboy wrote:
| I'd been looking for reason to get rid of Netflix once they made
| it impossible to adequately curate the user experience -- they
| kept shoving content I didn't want to see at me, as well as
| content I'd already seen, and gave me no way to exclude shows or
| types of shows from being presented to me. Netflix is amazingly
| anti-user, and anti-user choice. The autoplay of short clips they
| introduced made it actively anti-user.
|
| The straw that broke the camel's back for us was the
| disappearance of a deep catalog and only one or two new shows
| which were worth attention -- if we really want to see them,
| we'll sign on for a month next year and binge-watch through them,
| then drop the service again. This is the model we're going to be
| going forward with any such service.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| My point was when they raised the price - insult to injury (not
| great content)
| mirceal wrote:
| I'm bullish on Netflix in the long term. This is an overreaction
| from the market.
|
| As far as tech goes, I think Netflix has the best and I can see a
| future where it will provide streaming tech to all other major
| players.
|
| So, putting my money where my mouth is and buying some shares.
| Let's see how this plays out.
| carride wrote:
| Netflix throws new series shows and movies up without any
| description or even a trailer. They are lazy promoting both their
| own content and others. Waste my time jumping between news and
| blog review sites to get even a simple plot summary.
| mymythisisthis wrote:
| I like to watch Youtube channels like FranLab or Matthias Wandel.
| Sometimes an extremely well written show might appear, like Mad
| Men, but well written shows are rare.
| fullstop wrote:
| I get Netflix through my cell phone carrier, otherwise I would
| drop it. I don't watch a lot of content, and I find myself
| watching HBO Max more often when I do.
|
| With that being said, I might still buy some $NFLX. I thought
| that they were dead once before with the whole Qwikster thing,
| but investing in the company then would have been a very smart
| move.
| orangepurple wrote:
| How much are you paying for a carrier plan if Netflix is
| bundled with it?
| fullstop wrote:
| $135/mo (after taxes, etc) for unlimited data and four lines.
| smt88 wrote:
| HBO Max is phenomenal. They seem to be going a different route
| (pushing quality) than Netflix (algorithms generating low-
| budget reality shows).
| bombcar wrote:
| It's slightly possible that HBO has a longer track record
| making good content than Netflix does; not everything can be
| solved by throwing money at it.
| smt88 wrote:
| HBO Max started out with decades of inexpensive, quality
| content via Warner. Netflix had to either buy or build
| content.
|
| Netflix did poach proven talent, but even then, it was
| people like Shonda Rimes and the guys who botched Game of
| Thrones.
| bombcar wrote:
| Netflix failed to buy a studio; you can poach talent but
| poaching an entire structure is harder to do.
|
| Netflix has spent more on original content than Amazon
| did to buy MGM, though they apparently have spent less
| than Disney did on Fox.
| danielbln wrote:
| Apple+ is also slowly entering that bracket (with stuff like
| Severance) and I'm here for it.
| JackFr wrote:
| Liked Ted Lasso season 1. Underwhelmed by most of the other
| offerings. Also I can't cast Apple TV which is a big
| downside.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Also I can't cast Apple TV which is a big downside.
|
| Sorry, what does this mean?
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| Not the op, but I read this as lack of chromecast support
| mcphage wrote:
| Ah, okay.
| JackFr wrote:
| I love HBOMax content but the technology is a nightmare.
| Constant buffering that makes shows almost unwatchable, which I
| cannot understand since I have no problem with Netflix, Prime,
| Hulu and Disney.
| fullstop wrote:
| I don't have buffering problems with any streaming services.
| Perhaps your ISP has congested peering with their network.
| JackFr wrote:
| Im not a technical network guy, so I don't know, but the
| fact that it doesn't affect any other streaming service
| leads me to blame HBO.
| danielbln wrote:
| Not saying you're right or wrong, but the landscape during the
| Qwikster fiasco was so dramatically different, it may as well
| have been a different market.
| tomohawk wrote:
| > the binge model, churn rate, and rising subscription prices.
|
| Missing option: woke partisan programming
|
| Putting the face of a divisive politician like Obama on a show?
| Guaranteed to lose 30% - 50% of potential viewers who won't watch
| it no matter how awesome it is.
|
| More than half of the most watched shows are not shows that
| Netflix produced. Shows like Better Call Saul.
| walrus01 wrote:
| people who are freaking out over netflix subscriber drop seem to
| ignore that they abruptly dropped 700k russian subscribers all at
| once (for well known and good reasons), which would cause a big
| dip in a subscriber count chart no matter how good the otherwise
| incremental global growth is.
| kderbyma wrote:
| it has nothing I want...they seem to think their algos work which
| they do not....the political Tinge was a tad too much to stomach
| after a while, and when they no longer supported deep searching
| and reduced their catalogue and trimmed out almost all
| value....it was not a hard decision to cancel.
|
| And....nothing seems to be changing...
|
| TIP. wanna survive. give me a build my own tv service.....with
| timeslots and my own show cycles that I put together from the
| content.........that would fix binging and would allow me to have
| a real value add......simple easy fixes....but they are going to
| try and market their stuff to look better rather than fix it....
|
| fix it....it's busted...
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Higher prices, lower quality content. That's the sum of my
| current gripes with Netflix. I'm considering pausing my
| subscription until there's enough for me to watch again. Netflix
| is sacrificing content for profit and squeezing people harder for
| the same reason: the completely unsurprising result: people vote
| with their feet. Publicly pondering adding ads to the mix is not
| going to improve things.
|
| My suggestions:
|
| - invest in licensing deals for existing content. More premium
| content, less generic filler content. As much as I appreciate
| Steven Segal, his later work is not great; to put it mildly. And
| it seems they unloaded a lot of that recently (at least on the
| German Netflix). That, and generic Korean action movies/series
| seems to be a thing lately. What's up with that? There are back
| catalogs of great content dating back decades around the world
| that are hardly being monetized at all currently. Probably
| there's an audience for that. It shouldn't be that hard to get
| good content. And it should be a lot cheaper than producing your
| own new content.
|
| - invest in more & better in house content, that's a strategy
| that has worked in the past. No reason why that would no longer
| work. But make sure the quality is high. Especially a lot of the
| Netflix movies have been expensive flops.
|
| - invest in re-acquiring lost customers (discounts, outreach,
| etc.). Easy because they left because they didn't like the
| content or the price. So, fix that and they might come back. You
| know what they liked and thus which of those issues it is.
| Customer acquisition cost for 200K users is not going to be
| nothing. But that's 30M/year in revenue or so.
|
| - crack down on obvious password sharing abuse but give people a
| good way out in terms of cost and make sure they don't have a
| hard time with perfectly valid uses by families. Converting
| families to individual subscriptions is just not going to happen.
| So, avoid losing them because things get too expensive. Kids
| watching now on a family account may become life time users once
| they move out. A genius move would be to have 1 password per
| profile and only allow 1 device to be watching with a profile at
| the time. That makes it quite obvious how many people are using
| the account. Some people have many kids. Perfectly legit to have
| 6 or so profiles in some larger families. But you can track where
| people watch (same ip address?) and take action when the abuse is
| obvious. Mobile uses are even easier: simply verify the phone
| number. Etc.
|
| - squeeze the competition hard by lowering prices; make sure
| value for money is bets with Netflix. Growth will come at the
| cost of the competition. Right now Netflix is losing this game.
|
| - change the leadership, Netflix is not performing well and the
| current issues have been widely predicted by outsiders; which
| means they are not listening either. That's a double fail. And a
| triple fail if you consider that Netflix takes pride in being a
| data driven company. The content issues should be fairly obvious
| from the data they are gathering. The effect of the pricing
| changes, should not have come as a surprise either. It's not data
| driven if the algorithm tells you only what you want to hear. And
| I suspect the algorithms were fine and management just simply
| ignored the output of that.
| dustractor wrote:
| Serves them right for cancelling The AO.
| omnibrain wrote:
| Cowboy Bebop and Archive 81 are oly the latest examples where
| Netflix cancelled a series I intended to watch before I was even
| able to watch one episode. So why should I keep my subscription
| at all? I can come back in a few years and see what I missed in
| the mean time.
| mbar84 wrote:
| I hope this is a signal that, after the experience of lockdowns
| and isolation, people have a greater appreciation for the value
| of other peoples company.
| xmodem wrote:
| I'm paying for a Netflix account that's shared between 4 of my
| friends. If they crack down on account sharing, I certainly won't
| continue subscribing and I doubt my friends would either.
| fullstop wrote:
| I mean, it is against the terms of use. With that being said,
| you also pay for a certain number of "screens" so it seems like
| the terms would enforce themselves.
|
| Netflix is old enough now that a lot of subscribers now have
| children that are in college or have graduated. My daughter is
| in college, and she definitely uses my netflix credentials. At
| what point does Netflix feel it is required for her to have her
| own subscription?
| francisofascii wrote:
| What if Netflix had a "family" plan for say $15 - $20 a month?
| fullstop wrote:
| I hate to tell you this, but anything besides their basic
| plan is already in that range and includes 2 to 4 "screens"
| (concurrent streams), depending on the plan.
|
| It really feels like this is already a "family plan", given
| the number of concurrent streams permitted. I don't think
| that there's much fruit to be gathered by shaking this tree.
| leephillips wrote:
| But they say all the users must be in the same "household".
| I assume this means people living together, and excludes
| offspring off at university. But I hope I'm wrong!
| fullstop wrote:
| Yep, the definition of "household" can mean a lot of
| things. I wonder how Netflix would define it?
| post_break wrote:
| The same IP address or region.
| leephillips wrote:
| Where does this come from? I didn't see it in the Netflix
| TOS, but I could have missed it. Link?
| fullstop wrote:
| Not OP, but I found this:
| https://help.netflix.com/en/node/124925
| leephillips wrote:
| That certainly looks like it's about to tell us what a
| household is, but then doesn't, except circularly.
|
| But it does say that people can use their Netflix account
| while travelling, as long as they can verify that the
| device is "authorized". So the bottom line seems to be
| that you're a member of my household if I say you are, no
| matter where you are.
| fullstop wrote:
| She's about 20 miles away and, for now, lives here in the
| summer and on breaks. Sometimes the IP address will
| match, sometimes it will not.
|
| Househould is not an easy thing to quantify.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| I tried to sign up for Netflix this morning but it wouldn't
| accept any of my 3 different credit/debit cards so I gave up.
| skc wrote:
| Makes you wonder what the thinking was to coin the acronym FAANG
| in the first place (at the expense of Microsoft no less)
| lostgame wrote:
| Frankly, they shouldn't have increased their subscriber fees
| recently. It's not the time. They could've done it closer to the
| beginning of the pandemic, when it wouldn't have really affected
| the amount of subscribers, as people would've kept subscribed
| anyway - but to do it now was suicide. I know at least 5 people -
| personally - who quit Netflix after that.
|
| The password sharing thing is also huge, as due to the insanity
| of the fragmentation that the ludicrous number of streaming
| services has caused, a lot of friends and families cope by
| subscribing to one service apiece and sharing them among each
| other.
|
| As soon as these little tricks stop working _and_ it becomes more
| expensive, people will just drop it. It 's not like Netflix has
| actually worked on any value adds recently - tbh I feel their
| content offerings have gotten so poor recently it's next on the
| chopping block for me, too.
| nottorp wrote:
| > Then again, if you're borrowing someone else's password,
| Netflix may not be valuable enough to warrant a subscription in
| the first place
|
| Exactly. Same false argument as for torrenting entertainment
| content. Most people who get it for free will just go without if
| they're prevented from getting it.
|
| As for Netflix specifically, I don't watch it but I believe the
| missus is finding fewer and fewer shows worth watching.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Serious question. Why is Netflix software engineering comp so
| high? Is it a small team working on all technical problems? It
| seems that every other content provider built a decent enough
| streaming service and from anecdotal experience they offer
| between 60-70% in TC of what Netflix offers.
|
| Is Netflix on more devices? Does Netflix have technology that
| make content distribution more efficient compared to other
| streaming services? Is it the location of the team, CA? I am
| genuinely interested.
| carride wrote:
| Perhaps they promote their tech achievements better than others
| https://netflixtechblog.com/
| danans wrote:
| I doubt most of the subscription loss is attributable to reasons
| that most HN types go on about (the rants about wokeness, not
| enough scifi, carousel UI, pirating etc...).
|
| What's probably going on is after after a few years of pandemic
| isolation and Netflix binging, the arrival of pandemic triggered
| inflation, and overall higher employment rates, people just have
| less interest, time, and money to binge watch longer form
| content. Many are probably consuming shorter form content (like
| TikTok), or enjoying more time in public.
|
| We economize by scrutinizing our spending of both money and time.
| When we feel we have less of both of those, streaming services
| are an obvious "nice to have" for a lot of people that can be cut
| from their lives with minimal feeling of loss, especially since
| it can be substituted with fulfilling time spent with other
| people.
|
| Also, if you're paying an extra $150 a month for energy utilities
| and gasoline, it kind of makes sense that you might cancel a
| streaming service that you watch once or twice a week.
|
| These days the time I spent on streaming services during the
| pandemic is more likely than ever to be spent having a beer on a
| neighbor's porch (with them of course!).
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| I agree with this and it's likely we're going to see the same
| subscription dips hit other services, such as Disney+, Prime,
| Patreon, and more.
|
| Money is tight. People are closing their wallets. Frivolous
| luxury expenses are the ones that will be cut the first.
| sjtindell wrote:
| Even introducing the the pandemic and inflation into it at all
| seems off base to me. There simply isn't an infinite number of
| people in the world who have the time, money, and broadband
| access to watch Netflix. They're nearing or have reached the
| peak of people who can use their product. That makes sense to
| me.
| dawnbreez wrote:
| Netflix says it lost 200k subscribers--but I have to wonder, is
| that 200k people who were paying for a subscription, or is some
| percentage of that number actually people who were sharing an
| account, stopped watching when Netflix started threatening
| people who share accounts, and are now being counted as "lost
| subscribers" (because Netflix expected them to start a new
| account)?
| bombcar wrote:
| It's fewer total subscribers. The real number is the entirety
| of the miss (predicted 2.5m higher subscriber numbers - 700k
| loss to Russia + 200k actual drop = 2m less than expected).
|
| It means new subscribers are now outnumbered by cancelling
| subscribers for the first time.
| lock-the-spock wrote:
| Constant price increases with stronger competition (Disney+) -
| my downgraded subscription is more expensive than what I paid
| two years ago...
| ozzythecat wrote:
| I cancelled because it's not worth the time investment. Good
| shows are not only difficult to find, but Netflix will release
| a season or two and unreasonably no longer continue on, without
| closing out the story. They try to cater to a mass audience and
| use a large net, but then due to capital costs or whatever
| reasons, they force their customer to feel stupid for getting
| invested into a show in the first place.
|
| I miss the days where I could binge watch a series on release
| date. Now all the streaming services also seem to rate limit
| each episode to once a week.
|
| All the qualities that drew me into streaming have slowly faded
| away.
| aadvark69 wrote:
| It's exhausting to find good content on Netflix. I found
| myself dreading opening the app because it would take 10+
| minutes to find something decent to watch. So I stopped using
| it.
| mattferderer wrote:
| This is underrated.
|
| I recall hearing a discussion on the extreme desire humans
| have to hear a story's ending, even when they aren't that
| interested in the story. There is simply a need to know how
| it ends. I've caught myself to often watching something I
| think is a waste of time but needing to know how it ends.
| This is as much of a weakness as the reciprocity rule.
|
| Netflix burned me to many times on this. It's bad taste to
| re-use the same story time & time again to pump out tons of
| content. It's unforgiveable to not finish the story though.
| standardUser wrote:
| "It's unforgiveable to not finish the story though."
|
| Not to repeat myself, but we all clearly need a little
| perspective, because for several generations the norm has
| been television shows being cancelled without closure. To
| have an expectation that all shows, or even most shows,
| should have proper conclusions is completely out of line
| with reality.
| watwut wrote:
| Those shows tended to be episodic with only weak overall
| story in. You had ending for each story. The writing is
| much different now (and better then used to be, but
| abrupt end is annoying people more).
| johncessna wrote:
| If there aren't more than 2 seasons worth of episodes, I
| don't watch it.* It doesn't guarantee a conclusion, but it
| cuts down on that sense of abandonment when a great show
| gets chopped too early.
|
| *exceptions for shows, mainly anime, where a season is a
| self contained story. And Firefly, cause it's Firefly.
| tricky777 wrote:
| i have abit opposite "filter". If it has 7 seasons, I
| assume they will milk it for many years to come.
| bbarnett wrote:
| There is a series with a sentient entity, living in a star.
| I think by Pohl.
|
| Anyhow, he passed before writing the next book, and it
| literally bugs me at least once or twice a year, and yet I
| read it 20? 25? years ago.
|
| So yes, at least here endings matter.
| _jal wrote:
| This.
|
| I cancelled it when they raised their prices, it made me
| think about how much I watch things on there. Which was
| rarely - my guess was around 1 show/month on average.
|
| > Now all the streaming services also seem to rate limit each
| episode to once a week.
|
| Yeah, screw that noise. Torrents are still their primary
| competitor, and the operative issue is not cost, it is
| convenience.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Entire seasons being released at once was such a massive
| positive for streaming. The fact that they're moving away
| from that just to boost numbers is very disappointing.
| zanellato19 wrote:
| I disagree. The wait and the suspense it builds and the
| talking between friends is amazing.
|
| People surging ahead leads to a difficulty in conversation
| that week-to-week episodes do not.
| watwut wrote:
| Disagree. We wait till itnis released all so we don't
| have stupidly long delay between episodes ... and it
| means dodging spoilers and debates.
|
| Once a week episode is good for episodic content, nit for
| something with good writing.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| I much prefer to binge it's cheaper and easier to fit
| into your life. Finished a project and have a break? Turn
| Netflix back on, binge, cancel. I guess I don't watch TV
| to talk about it with friends though.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Depends on the type of content. Not everything is a nail
| biter.
| bombcar wrote:
| The "talking between friends" works great when it's
| something everyone is watching, or there's only a few
| channels available, etc.
|
| Once everyone is split into various streaming camps, the
| talking between friends begins to drop.
| ghaff wrote:
| I do find weekly drops for 30 minute comedies sort of
| annoying but I'm fine with weekly releases of serialized
| dramas which mean that you can discuss things/read
| discussions only with other people watching along at the
| same pace.
|
| That said, I mostly don't binge watch and maybe it would
| bug me more if I did.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I watch primarily for my own enjoyment. Binging "dumb"
| sci-fi or fantasy (Witcher, etc) on a cold Sunday
| afternoon is the best (well, skiing would be better, but
| it doesn't snow much in DC).
| bengale wrote:
| I actually find it tends to split groups between those
| that watch episode drops and those that wait to binge
| later. Not to mention the spoilers that people drop when
| they assume someone is watching along.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >I miss the days where I could binge watch a series on
| release date. Now all the streaming services also seem to
| rate limit each episode to once a week.
|
| Haha this just means that I have to wait longer to
| resubscribe.
| giords wrote:
| I totally agree. Overall the quality just dropped
| dramatically and what made Netflix great is disappearing.
| standardUser wrote:
| "without closing out the story"
|
| To be fair, that was the fate of almost every television show
| ever made. In fact, your entire first paragraph is just
| describing what we used to call "television".
| tricky777 wrote:
| that is why netflix was so appealing. at first
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| It's a minor thing but Netflix is also most annoying to use
| from many services now because they are strict on device
| approval. For instance most home projectors do not support
| Netflix. I was close to cancelling Netflix because it just does
| not want to work on my projector and it really is bloody
| annoying to use the workarounds.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| It's both.
| andrew_ wrote:
| I had been a Netflix for customer for 10 years. For me
| personally, it's a combination of several of the reasons you
| cast doubt on. While I may not be in the majority, I am real
| and those reasons (which I shall not list, to avoid HN wrath)
| were attributed to my cancellation.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Same
| UberFly wrote:
| 62951413 wrote:
| I loved NFLX when they had a 4-CD plan. All the HBO shows
| from the golden age of TV 10 years ago .. I know that I
| cannot blame them for losing streaming rights. But I
| definitely can for pushing the government ideology in their
| original content. The last few seasons of Longmire is the
| last show for normal people I can remember NFLX to produce.
|
| I'd have no problem paying for the kind of TV we had with Mad
| Men or Breaking Bad. I'm not aware of any streaming service
| of that kind.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| AMC actually has its own streaming service now, AMC+.
| danans wrote:
| Your reasons are totally real and you are entitled to them,
| but in the context of subscriber loss in the 100s of
| thousands probably marginal.
| soperj wrote:
| They actually gained subscribers in the western world
| still, but lost in total because of all Russian accounts
| were terminated.
| MrMan wrote:
| yes lets talk about the actual reason for god sake. it
| was hugely due to Russia
| malfist wrote:
| The issue isn't necessarily that they lost users this
| time, even though that's what all the headlines are
| about. They projected continued losses of subscribers,
| even after the one time event with russia is through.
| brimble wrote:
| Russia's why it was a _net loss_ , but _not_ why they
| missed their projection so badly.
| bombcar wrote:
| Russia is also not (and cannot be) the reason Netflix
| themselves project a 2.7m subscriber loss for the next
| quarter.
| cguess wrote:
| Not having a large part of the world's populating
| confined to their couches probably plays a large part of
| this. People are doing other things with their
| discretionary money; eating out, drinking out, traveling,
| buying new clothes that they haven't had to for 2+ years.
| panarky wrote:
| The real reasons are almost certainly economic and
| structural, and not a result of silly culture war wedge
| issues.
|
| 1) Netflix has much more streaming competition now.
|
| 2) Availability of good content has gone down as networks
| reserve it for their own new platforms, and as production
| was halted by covid.
|
| 3) Greater scarcity gives studios pricing power to increase
| Netflix's cost to acquire the few good shows available.
|
| 4) Netflix tried to counter (2) and (3) by making their own
| shows, but a lot of it is trash.
|
| 5) Netflix raised customer prices aggressively, while
| there's not much on their platform to justify the higher
| prices.
|
| 6) Customers are increasingly savvy about binge-watching
| what good shows there are on one platform, then cancelling
| it and rotating through other platforms.
|
| 7) Loyalty is for suckers. Churn, baby, churn.
| arghnoname wrote:
| You're probably right. For what it's worth, I'm like the
| parent and for me at least that stuff isn't why I
| cancelled, it's what pushed me over the edge. I don't watch
| Netflix much (poor catalog, maybe lack of discoverability),
| but I don't notice $20 going away either and would keep the
| service if it provided much value at all. Cancelling had
| been on my list for years.
|
| I finally cancelled when I realized that whenever I did go
| look at it to see what's available it felt like there was
| more agenda pushing than entertainment, which itself made
| me check for content less often in the first place. Netflix
| won't miss my money, I may be in a small minority. It may
| be they get more subscribers for their politics than they
| lose (I'm sure they think so).
| andrew_ wrote:
| Until we have publicly available statistics, speculation is
| irresponsible. We can't possibly know or being able to
| sample or extrapolate what motivation 200,000 had, nor
| their commonalities.
|
| It sounds more like you'd like the reasons not to be one of
| or a combination of those, which would be fair.
| danans wrote:
| > Until we have publicly available statistics,
| speculation is irresponsible.
|
| > We can't possibly know or being able to sample or
| extrapolate what motivation 200,000 had
|
| Speculation on the causes of major changes for which we
| have no hard data is the basis of the original article
| and pretty much every comment on this thread. Nobody here
| is giving investment advice, so I don't know how it's
| irresponsible.
|
| > It sounds more like you'd like the reasons not to be
| one of or a combination of those, which would be fair.
|
| My personal _guess_ (also note the use of 'probably' in
| my original comment) is when it comes to things like paid
| streaming services, personal economics is the biggest
| factor in the decision to subscribe/cancel for most
| people, and other rationales are mostly tangential. In my
| experience, the bottom line is what matters in the end.
| _jal wrote:
| I'm sorry about your share price, but speculation is just
| what the market does.
|
| You'll have better luck asking for prayers.
| brewdad wrote:
| If we can never know, then their speculation is as
| valuable as your anecdote.
| majormajor wrote:
| We have publicly available stats for their competitors.
| (And actually we do "know" the reason for this quarter's
| loss for Netflix: shutting down and losing 700K subs in
| Russia.)
|
| Is Netflix more "woke" or "less scifi" or "prone to
| pirating" or "annoying about UI and recommendations" than
| Disney+ or HBO Max? (Ok, HBO Max has had a lot of cinema-
| quality sci-fi and similar genre content land recently,
| so maybe on that one?)
|
| Those services are gaining subscribers faster so any
| backlash seems less likely, compared to "there is a lot
| more serious competition than their used to be, Netflix
| costs the most, and has a far less proven content model."
|
| Netflix is increasingly only worth it for their
| originals, and now those are head to head against Disney
| and HBO+Warner cinema originals.
| strangattractor wrote:
| I would tend to agree. Another factor is that people have
| choices now. There are other public streaming companies which
| gives investors something to compare to. When you are out there
| on your own the sky is the limit for stock price. Now it's why
| should more for a premium for X when Y is growing faster etc.
| jboy55 wrote:
| I've realized I have a problem, and the solution might be me
| cutting off Netflix? The problem? I've slowly accumulated _ten_
| streaming subscriptions. Some might be included in cable, some
| are stand alone and some just house purchased Blu_ray. I would
| see a show I would like, I would subscribe, binge, then forget
| to unsubscribe or be lured by the promise of a show. I think
| many people are just looking at their overall spend, and
| cutting based on how much they watch. The explosion of
| streaming services had to have victims, and Netflix is just
| paying for being one of the pack, not something unique.
|
| They are; HBOMax, Discovery+, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Peacock,
| Vudu, Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+, Espn+
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I do think that fierce competition from competing services with
| way more IP's to leverage is a big factor. But yes, I think in
| some extent the world is simply starting to open back up
| slowly, and this will naturally affect any industry which
| surged due to the pandemic. Whatever restaurants remaining will
| surge, indoor entertainment will deflate down a bit.
|
| And I also agree that the internet sentiment of "omg too many
| services, I'm just gonna pirate" is such a minor part of the
| equation. Social media loves overrepresenting its just world
| fallacy and thinking that everyone is as invested to screw over
| companies as they are on twitter or whatnot.
| wiremine wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Changes in post-pandemic behavior, prices increases, more
| competition, arguably decrease in quality, and no long-term
| contracts. Doesn't seem like rocket science why they're loosing
| customers.
| api wrote:
| I think pandemic rebound is probably part of it, but honestly I
| just think Netflix has gotten cheap. Whether it's in-house or
| licensed, "woke" or not, whatever, the quality of in-house
| content and the availability of outside content has really gone
| downhill.
| bcassedy wrote:
| I haven't canceled yet but am considering it. They have a few
| problems for me -
|
| They don't make it easy to discover content. They still have
| quite a lot of good original content that isn't promoted and a
| slew of third party things that aren't promoted or discoverable
| at all unless they happen to make the trending list
|
| The majority of their original, promoted content is watered
| down crap designed for mass appeal.
|
| For TV shows, when they do produce something of quality they
| often dump it if it doesn't find an audience immediately or it
| doesn't drive "new subscribers". Leaving a bunch of stories
| half told doesn't give me the confidence that it's worth the
| investment to start on their new content. This is especially
| problematic because it is a vicious cycle where since they
| aggressively cancel stuff that isn't performing, people don't
| invest their time in new stuff because of the expectation it
| gets canceled, means more new stuff underperforms, leading to
| more cancelations, and further eroding the trust of viewers.
| It's also negatively impacted by poor discoverability.
|
| Their UI is seemingly optimized to shove their latest broad
| appeal stuff in my face and seems to deliberately make it hard
| to find anything else.
| supertofu wrote:
| The Netflix UI is so unfortunate. I KNOW they have the
| ability to recommend me interesting content, but instead they
| just peddle whatever their latest original content. Also the
| browsing experience is hellish. It's barely possible to even
| search by genre.
| tricky777 wrote:
| the worst crime, is suggesting series which I just finished
| watching. wtf. I know that its technically good for their
| bottom line if I watch same thing twice (twice the revenue
| for the same cost), but that ia so frustrating, when trying
| to find something to watch.
| carbine wrote:
| > The majority of their original, promoted content is watered
| down crap designed for mass appeal.
|
| this has 100% been the reason my time spent on Netflix has
| gone down. seems like everything they make is algo-optimizing
| shlock designed to appeal to the average consumer.
| serial_dev wrote:
| I didn't cancel Netflix yet (have been thinking about it as I
| find that sometimes I just watch it for hours, and it's kind of
| a waste of life). I can say for sure, if they introduce ads,
| I'm leaving, I won't pay for watching ads, sorry.
| conception wrote:
| They've said they are introducing a reduced subscription fee
| with ads, not adding ads.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I believe ads are fundamentally immoral. (Moral ads are
| theoretically possible, but in practice I almost never see
| ads which have the purpose of informing rather than
| emotionally manipulating. Ads destroy culture, make viewers
| less happy, and waste time).
|
| The fact that they drew a line in the sand is why I have
| brand loyalty. If they cross that line, I'll no longer be
| "supporting a company bringing a moral perspective on
| content delivery" and turn off autorenew: just pick up a
| month or two a year.
| gramie wrote:
| Yes, and cable TV originally ran without ads (because why
| else would you pay for TV?), but once they had a subscriber
| base they started playing them.
|
| Bottom line: if they think it will improve the bottom line,
| they will do it.
| dawnbreez wrote:
| I would not be surprised if the ads are placed at the
| current price tier, honestly. It wouldn't technically be
| lying; they're delivering a cheaper tier with ads, and a
| more costly tier without ads, just like they said they
| would! It's just that "cheaper" in this case would mean
| "cheaper than the new higher subscription tier", not
| "cheaper than the previous model".
| grogenaut wrote:
| Given their price increases they'll be at $15/month on the
| ad supported tier soon
| thewebcount wrote:
| I generally avoid any service that even has an ad-
| supported tier because in my experience it starts out as
| "ads are to subsidize the cost for people who can't
| afford or don't want to pay for the premium service."
| Then it becomes, "We're contractually obligated to have
| ads in certain shows regardless of which tier the viewer
| is, but they won't show up in others, and they'll be
| short and unobtrusive." Then it's "We're keeping rates
| low by having ads in all show, but they're ads that are
| relevant and very short, and only at the beginning and/or
| end of the show." Then it becomes "We're removing the
| premium tier because not enough people signed up for it.
| Also the ads are going to be longer and more intrusive
| now." Forget it. I can just skip the whole thing and lose
| nothing. If you even have an ad-supported tier, I'm out.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Yep, Youtube to chromecast is practically unwatchable
| these days. 1-2 stupid 5 second ads interrupt the program
| every few minutes. Many are so short I'm perplexed why
| the brand thinks they are getting any value out of them:
| they do little but annoy me and make me think the brand
| is bad with money.
| bombcar wrote:
| Advertisers also don't want to advertise to those "too
| cheap to pay to avoid ads".
|
| They want to everyone, or the premier tiers. It's a
| conflict that can never be resolved.
| no_wizard wrote:
| they _really_ want the premium tiers in my experience
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, they should go with a flat price, and if you watch
| ads you get "4K sponsored by Advertiser X" kinda thing,
| otherwise you get boring 420p.
| brimble wrote:
| They already did a Coke ad for like 5 awkward minutes in the
| middle of an episode of Stranger Things.
|
| Incidentally, all this talk of how badly they're doing just
| reminded me to cancel, which I did, minutes ago.
| roody15 wrote:
| Absolutely agree... ads would be the death blow for me. Have
| cancelled a few times in the past because just don't have a
| lot of time to watch TV. Ads and would never go back
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I think the demise of Netflix has been greatly overstated
| (although _growth_ is slowing down)
|
| The biggest change last quarter is that Netflix went from
| having 700,000 customers in Russia down to 0. In other words,
| they actually had a net gain of 500,000 subscribers in the
| parts of the world where they still operate.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| A net gain of 500,000 against an expected gain of 2.5M is
| horrible. Don't think analysts are ignoring the Russia
| situation, they just realize that Netflix has much bigger
| problems.
| graaben wrote:
| I believe they are forecasting a loss of another 2mm
| subscribers in Q2.
| every wrote:
| We are in the process of doing something similar. My wife
| watches a lot of Netflix so we will be keeping that (for now).
| But between us there is only a single product on Google TV we
| watch regularly and it is going from 5 days a week to 1. And it
| even has a free "highlights" post on Youtube a day after
| broadcast. We will be cancelling next month...
| vishnugupta wrote:
| Since Netflix launched in India couple of years ago I've been a
| subscriber. The content is strictly average. Amazon Prime and
| Disney + Hotstar have significantly larger, relevant, and
| better content. Amazon Prime gets you free shipping as well so
| that's there.
|
| However, I don't know to what extent Netflix are relying on
| India for growth. At INR 650/month it's definitely not cheap.
| Disney + Hotstar, at INR 1499/year is, _five times_ less
| expensive.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| My SO and I as well as some friends of ours (we were talking to
| them about it) are just subscriptioned out. We can afford it,
| it's not the money (though we do hate to waste money, we're not
| foolish). But we keep track and it's just, why do we have so
| many, so we decided to pare down and see what we miss and see
| what sticks.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I canceled because they were raising my subscription to $19.99
| (I had the UHD subscription), and I really don't watch it
| enough to make it worth $20/month to me.
|
| I still have Hulu, HBOMax and Disney, so in 6 months or so I'll
| probably drop one of those and return to Netflix to look for
| new content before they delete my viewing history. I've been
| with Netflix since when they were DVD-only, so they have a lot
| of history on me.
|
| I imagine that before long, the streaming providers will get
| tired of people rotating through and will require 1 year
| contracts.
| NearAP wrote:
| I agree.
|
| - I recently realized I had only turned on my TV just about 4 -
| 5 times in about 6 months and yet I was paying close to $140
| per month, so I downgraded my cable subscription to the minimal
| (combined cable & internet is cheaper than only internet).
|
| - Also realized I rarely watched Netflix (hadn't watched in
| months) cos I no longer found shows that I liked and I was
| paying $15.49 per month. And then I saw HBO Max was $9.99 a
| month. So I canceled Netflix and signed on to HBO Max. There's
| also the psychological part that HBO Max allows me to pay for
| the whole year upfront (Netflix doesn't) so I can close my eyes
| and just pay them $100 and be done with it.
|
| - I also realized I rarely have time to watch long form content
| except for weekends. This is one advantage that Amazon Prime
| has - apart from it being 'free' to me since I already paid for
| prime, I can rent movies for $2.99 for those few times that I
| need to be 'entertained'. Maybe I spend $6 in one month and $0
| in others. It's still better than $15.49 (or $140) without
| watching at all.
|
| - It's possible that lots of people have a variation of these
| reasons. I understand that Netflix had to raise their prices
| given how much they were spending on content. It looks to me
| like they 'overspent' on content without taking into
| consideration that they would have to recoup the cost from
| increased subscription fees and this might not be palatable to
| their members given that there are now multiple alternatives
| ghaff wrote:
| I think a lot of people have become conditioned to monthly
| subscriptions that they don't need to think about. But,
| especially if you're more into films than TV shows, there's
| something to be said for cutting back on subscriptions and
| buying/renting a la carte. Netflix still even has their DVD
| by mail option although the back catalog isn't nearly as good
| as it used to be.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Yep. It even has an android app. And I agree, the catalog
| has more holes than it used to. Still more content than the
| streaming service though.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Also if you look for sales on Slickdeals for 4K movies
| (digital as well as physical), you can OWN (albeit another
| discussion exists for what owning digital content actually
| means for the buyer) a 4K movie for as little as $4-5 dollars
| when sales slide down that low.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I don't have any 4K screens, so I like to just buy used
| DVDs off of ebay or local thrift stores and rip them.
|
| Theoretically you could then resell the same discs if you
| don't care for copyright law, but I'm too lazy.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Absolutely I try to find used DVD/BRs as well.
| thriftbooks is also a good source for used. For new,
| hamiltonbook occasionally has nice sales.
| karmakaze wrote:
| I agree that it would be best for consumers if we could pay
| for as much as we consume at an all-inclusive buffet of
| content. This isn't what providers want, they don't want
| their utility to be commoditized. But it could work for a
| first mover providing such a platform.
|
| What if Amazon instead of Prime Video had an open content
| marketplace? Sure there would be a lot of rubbish, but with a
| good recommendation system could outdo Netflix in matching
| content with consumers, which was Netflix's core competency
| until they decided otherwise.
| leothecool wrote:
| > combined cable & internet is cheaper than only interne
|
| Be careful. Its not cheaper after they include local
| programming fees.
| greggman3 wrote:
| > There's also the psychological part that HBO Max allows me
| to pay for the whole year upfront (Netflix doesn't) so I can
| close my eyes and just pay them $100 and be done with it.
|
| Interesting. My behavior has been that when someone
| recommends a show on Netflix and I decide I want to watch it
| it subscribe and cancel which means I pay for 1 month. I
| watch the show. I've tried browsing for others but hate
| browsing on Netflix. I'm happy that "I'm done with it"
| immediately and that I'm not billed anymore. Netflix makes it
| super easy to start again, and to cancel and also like that
| having it cancelled provides a tiny hurdle against binging
| random stuff.
| NearAP wrote:
| yes, that makes sense for your use case i.e. you're not
| 'interested' in subscribing in general but you only want to
| watch a specific show.
|
| For me, if I want to get the package (in general and not
| for a specific instance), I'd rather pay upfront (so far as
| it's not expensive) than the monthly subscription.
| Psychologically, I feel like - 'I just eat the cost and I'm
| done'. So I'd rather just pay you $100 for the entire year
| or say $60 for the entire year of Sirius XM than a monthly
| thing.
| bhaak wrote:
| > I've tried browsing for others but hate browsing on
| Netflix.
|
| Is this Netflix or do you hate browsing on other streaming
| services as well?
|
| Regarding UI IMO Netflix is still top. Disney+ is somewhat
| close in handling but noticeably slower and you notice its
| focus on movies. Series are not as easily navigatable as on
| Netflix.
|
| Amazon Prime is abysmal. They don't even group different
| seasons of a series together. Here in Switzerland, it's
| even worse, I get a mix of French and German stuff
| recommended.
| StillBored wrote:
| I don't understand how anyone can say the netflix UI is
| anything other than trash.
|
| Part of people's problem with netflix is that it shows
| them maybe 100 different shows out of the couple thousand
| they have at any given time, for the rest you basically
| have to use a 3rd party to discover them. Sure its
| prettier than it was back when they put everything in a
| giant tree/list, but now its a dozen or so vertical
| categories with 20 or so horizontal items and it doesn't
| even bother to deduplicate shows out of multiple similar
| rows.
|
| The best netflixy way for me to discover new shows is to
| log into my wife's profile where she has a 100 different
| romance/etc movies. Otherwise "whats-on-netflix.com" for
| example does a better job than netflix itself, including
| showing a complete list of new additions, and removals,
| etc.
| bananamerica wrote:
| Netflix is faster, reliable, and works every time, even
| on slow and unreliable WIFI. I can fast forward, go back,
| pause, and resume without delay. Netflix is simple, it
| works, and I don't need more than that. It could
| certainly be better, but it's not any worse than other
| streaming services. Netflix is by far the better user
| experience of all services I use.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I don 't understand how anyone can say the netflix UI is
| anything other than trash._
|
| Perhaps because the UI varies from device to device.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Huh? It's pretty obvious Netflix uses the same UI across
| all of its platforms. It might be condensed slightly on
| smaller screens, but it's the exact same interface.
| tomrod wrote:
| Yeah it's more of a garbage-in garbage-out status
| nowadays regardless of device.
| SalimoS wrote:
| Can't agree more, the difference in watching Netflix on
| Xbox one and Apple TV is noticeable (also the fact that
| there isn't integration with the Apple TV app is the solo
| reason I'm most likely to finish my tv show from Amazon
| prime compared to Netflix (because let's face it it's not
| Netflix and chill anymore now we have to check more than
| a sub. app to find what to watch
| nescioquid wrote:
| When I first had the thought that the UI was trash, it
| occurred to me that the point of the UI is to drive the
| _user 's_ behavior and not the other way around. I think
| there's an "In Soviet Russia..." joke around here
| somewhere.
| sandyarmstrong wrote:
| If I know what I want to watch, the Netflix UI is
| perfect. Every other service's UI makes it surprisingly
| difficult to find and watch the next episode of "thing
| I've been watching every night for the past few weeks".
| Also the other services make it harder to
| pause/resume/fast-forward, let alone achieve "advanced"
| things like toggling subtitles.
| Semaphor wrote:
| That is true. As crap as Netflix has become, while you
| are watching a show, the experience is great.
| yupyup54133 wrote:
| I also do not like browsing for content on Netflix
| because whenever I pause on a title it starts playing
| trailer with sound when what I really want to do is look
| at the average user rating and read the premise blurb.
| sunnytimes wrote:
| you can turn that off in the settings.
| cout wrote:
| Where is that in the settings?
| skatanski wrote:
| If you open Netflix in browser, go to account settings,
| then select specific profiles dropdown, there are
| playback settings at the end. You can disable automatic
| playback during browsing. Its really useful with kids.
| joncrocks wrote:
| https://help.netflix.com/en/node/2102
| [deleted]
| FredPret wrote:
| That is so bad; I always mute my TV when browsing Netflix
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Here in Switzerland, it's even worse, I get a mix of
| French and German stuff recommended.
|
| Isn't that right for Switzerland? What's the issue?
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| That's how Americans view Europe, yes. "The user lives in
| Switzerland so they speak both" :) in reality there's
| German-speaking Swiss and French-speaking ones. In fact
| there's even Italian-speaking ones but they don't usually
| make the cut for services like this. The division is
| pretty much divided by region and heritage. They will
| technically speak both but will not prefer to. Also
| besides the languages there's also a cultural difference.
| And Swiss-German is quite different from German/Austrian
| German too but let's not get into that.
|
| Just bunching all the content "because your country is
| .ch so you will like all of this stuff" is such a typical
| American oversimplification.
| [deleted]
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > They will technically speak both but will not prefer
| to.
|
| Well, there are places in Switzerland like Bern that are
| officially and pragmatically bilingual.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yes but many are not. And more importantly: many of its
| inhabitants are not.
|
| It's this American view that the whole world is 'like
| America with just a different locale setting' I find
| really annoying.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > It's this American view that the whole world is 'like
| America with just a different locale setting' I find
| really annoying.
|
| Sure, at the local movie theater we have Indian films
| (probably multiple regions), Korean films, Chinese ones,
| sometimes Spanish and so on. English is hardly the only
| language around. My wife (Chinese) consumes a lot of
| Korean dramas on Netflix.
|
| My feeling about Switzerland when living there is that it
| was slightly less multi-cultural than the states, having
| a much stronger desire for immigrants to assimilate and
| become "suisse" (but disclaimer, I was living on the
| French side). You can still find the multi-cultural
| stuff, but version originale is the exception, not the
| rule.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| In the UK we have many Asian shows on Netflix. We watch
| them on captions. It's not has hard as you'd imagine.
| Give it a go!
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Imagine half of them would be all Asian and not just the
| big bucks international focused ones like Squid Game. But
| local ones not tailored for it. You'll tune out soon.
| It's like going for a regular cinema but getting an
| arthouse collection.
|
| I travel a lot (at least before Corona) and sometimes
| Netflix would not even allow me to continue watching a
| movie in the hotel, in the same subtitle language as I
| watched it before. Because I connected from an IP in
| Romania I'm suddenly supposed to speak their language too
| :S Because the options for captions in other languages
| disappear. This really annoyed me as I often would pop up
| in different countries and using a VPN was too slow on
| crappy hotel WiFi.
|
| It's this kind of shortsighted vision that I argue
| against. The world is not that simple. Maybe in the US it
| is but not everywhere.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Region locked content is usually enforced by the provider
| of the content, not the distributer. So don't blame
| Netflix, blame the studio who licensed the content. I'm
| sure Netflix would prefer to work with blanket
| international licenses rather that have to negotiate
| different terms for different content in each individual
| country.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| So they can pick and chose what they want based on their
| preference can't they?
|
| What's the huge issue? Is preferring German and being
| presented French some kind of slight?
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| It is a bit yes. I've not been to Switzerland but I know
| that in Belgium this is totally not done. Flemish
| speakers often despise French culture and vice versa. And
| have their own TV channels, shows, media personalities
| etc. I'm Dutch myself and am often viewed as Flemish by
| the French speakers when I try to speak French, and I can
| feel the hate (it's quite uncomfortable so I don't
| usually go to their parts).
|
| Also, Netflix already shows so little in their overview,
| making half of them non-starters is really annoying. The
| world is not a cookie cutter duplicate of America with
| just some different language settings. There should be an
| option for local differences (not just this one but ones
| that exist in many countries). It's just a total
| disregard of national and regional cultural differences
| too.
|
| In fact I'm quite surprised the US has such a harmonised
| culture because they have huge differences too. I just
| can't wrap my head around how a Silicon Valley hipster
| can be just as offended by half a boob on TV than a
| methodist Midwestern. Though only for the latter it's an
| actual cultural and religious issue. The level of
| cultural harmonisation despite all the regional
| differences is something that's pretty unique in the US I
| believe. I've travelled a lot and I've not seen this in
| other countries.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > It's just a total disregard of national and regional
| cultural differences too.
|
| That surprises me - Netflix seem pretty good at
| accommodating UK culture as a contrast. Local shows like
| The Crown, for example.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Some local productions yes. They do that in every EU
| country too because it's in fact an EU requirement to do
| so. But the UK is culturally much more similar to America
| than the rest of Europe.
|
| For us there should just be a preferred language setting
| instead of just dumping the user in a certain box because
| of the IP they connect from.
| brimble wrote:
| Huh--I never saw Netflix' British content as
| accommodating UK culture, but as accommodating American
| Anglophilia. Same reason they have a ton of Japanese
| content.
|
| Maybe it's both, I suppose.
| jimbokun wrote:
| HBO Max buffers content and fails to play all the time
| for me (on Samsung Smart TV), which almost never happens
| with Netflix.
|
| I love a lot of HBO Max content (especially Turner
| Classic Movies) but the app is experience is painful.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Yea HBO's app is incredibly broken. I don't understand
| how the rewind button is still broken. At least 20% of
| the time when I rewind the app crashes, how is that even
| possible in 2022? Seems like they're doing it on purpose
| to try to get you to pay attention.
| jaegerpicker wrote:
| The state of media Apps in General is REALLY low.
| Paramount+ makes me turn on subtitles for EVERY episode
| and ignores the system settings, HBO Max's app is a
| dumpster fire, Netflix doesn't integrate with Apple TV or
| the algo driven listings are terrible, Hulu is a broken
| mess all around. In fact the only media app I enjoy using
| is Apple TV+/TV.app.
| SalimoS wrote:
| Amazon prime UI and search is kinda shit, but if I found
| an interesting show to watch (to be honest I'm using
| tiktok as my recommandation engine) I search for it then
| continue watching from the Apple TV app
| Semaphor wrote:
| Prime is better than Netflix on desktop. They worked hard
| to get there, but they finally ruined the website enough
| that both my Android TVs Netflix app and prime are
| better. It took me a while to even figure out how to show
| some minimal information about a show that was more than
| name and thumb.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > Amazon Prime is abysmal. They don't even group
| different seasons of a series together. Here in
| Switzerland, it's even worse, I get a mix of French and
| German stuff recommended.
|
| I haven't noticed this in France. For a given series,
| there's a "season" dropdown that has all the seasons,
| even some which may be unavailable.
|
| However, I hate dubbed movies and series, and I hate that
| I can't filter out those titles that, for some reason,
| only offer a French dubbed version.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah in Spain too.."the user is in Spain so will want
| Spanish dubbing". Uhhh.
|
| The dubbing is also horribly done with bored voices that
| don't match the actors at all. Yet native language (+
| subs if native is not English) is often unavailable.
| Especially on prime
| alistairSH wrote:
| Not the OP, but I hate browsing on most/all the
| platforms. But Netflix seems to be worse than average and
| that's an already low bar.
|
| Things that rustle me... - recommending movies/shows I've
| already watched. There are very few shows I want to
| rewatch. - recommending trash reality shows. I rarely
| watch them. - recommending too many shows that are in a
| foreign language. I will watch foreign shows, but most of
| my viewing it's just background noise while I workout or
| something else where I can't easily watch subtitles. -
| Auto-playing trailers. It's annoying and loud.
| bengale wrote:
| The Netflix decision that is causing me the most
| aggravation is that they are the only service I use that
| doesn't integrate with the watch next bar on Apple TV. I
| forget that I'm watching something, especially if they
| are doing weekly episode drops, and then lose interest if
| I've forgotten what's going on. Everybody else is able to
| add their new episode to that bar so I can work through
| my backlog, and even pop new seasons in there if I've
| watched the show in the past.
|
| It feels like they're making decisions to suit themselves
| rather than me and it winds me up considering they are
| the more expensive subscription.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| +1 Netflix not integrating with Apple TV is a pain for me
| also - for everything else, I often search on Apple TV.
| jaegerpicker wrote:
| That's huge pain. I love my Apple TV and I'm much more
| likely to cancel netflix than not use the ATV. I also
| really love the TV app and Watch next, for apps that work
| with it it's such a great UI IMO.
| dwighttk wrote:
| I like up next/ watch now on Apple TV
|
| However it is irritating that shows I've purchased from
| the iTunes Store occasionally lose their blessed statusSS
| and I can neither put them in up next nor even have the
| show's page open to the episode I last watched. Unless I
| binge the whole show in one sitting I'm gonna be
| scrolling horizontally past a lot of episodes every time
| I sit down to watch.
|
| SS my hypothesis is that it is when the package I bought
| them in gets taken off iTunes (e.g. I got the complete
| Downton Abbey, but for a few weeks they were doing a
| every episode and the movie package and you couldn't buy
| just all the seasons together, that one even lost its
| blessed status while I was watching the show, which was a
| mystifying experience)
| watwut wrote:
| Not OP, but Netfix UI is uniquely bad. It looks good ...
| and make it impossible to find shows you might like and
| be at mood for ... despite them actually being there.
| noncoml wrote:
| ( _inappropriate_ )
| danans wrote:
| Pure software engineer, actually.
| noncoml wrote:
| Sorry. It was tongue in cheek and not appropriate. Deleted.
| tonguez wrote:
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| You really needed to get that off your chest huh? Go pay for
| a therapist, and save us your weird malformed ideology and
| frustrations.
| provedhispt wrote:
| ghaff wrote:
| A lot of the "pandemic stocks" have taken a real pounding.
|
| For me, Netflix content is "OK" overall. But so is content on
| most of the other streaming services. And I don't really watch
| a huge amount of video so it makes sense for me to pick a few
| services and maybe dip in and out. Netflix is probably the one
| delivering the least bang for the buck to me right now so I'll
| probably watch a few things and drop it at some point.
| dv_dt wrote:
| Especially if the streaming service tells you it's going to
| raise prices and crack down on password sharing. It's bringing
| the customer's attention to the subscription service at exactly
| the wrong time.
|
| Edit: missed a "the"
| hackernewds wrote:
| Best thing a subscription service can do is not remind me
| that I'm subscribed. The constant price increases were poorly
| planned, against the lack of good content - since Stranger
| Things and House of Cards can't recall much attaining that
| level of vitality (besides maybe Squid Games)
| sschueller wrote:
| Instead of increasing every one's pricing they should have
| added a FOMO tier giving people early access to new content
| before anyone else.
|
| Additionally to get people to think twice before unsubscribing
| increase the price for new subscribers but keep existing subs
| at the lower rate. You cancel you can't get that rate back.
| bombcar wrote:
| FOMO vs resolution would have been brilliant, and
| grandfathering in is a great way to keep people around (even
| if you do something like bump them up in cost later, but
| still cheaper than everyone new).
| sgarman wrote:
| > Many are probably consuming shorter form content (like
| TikTok), or enjoying more time in public.
|
| So Quibi was right! ;)
| martibravo wrote:
| I have been a Netflix customer for 5+ years, and I've switched
| services to Disney+ for two reasons:
|
| - Netflix with 4K and 4 streaming devices costs 17.99EUR here
| ($19.50), while Disney+ only costs EUR8.99 with the same
| features.
|
| - Netflix made and continues to make good content, but since
| major producers have been removing their content from Netflix
| and into their own services, Netflix here almost survives on
| old local shows and new in-house content. Feels like there's
| almost nothing new to watch. I have rewatched Gilmore Girls 4
| times. Disney+ gets you Marvel, Disney, Pixar, FOX, NatGeo,
| StarWars, Star (lots of ABC content)
|
| -Netflix decided to crackdown on password-sharing: my brother
| moved away some months ago and has been using our Netflix
| account, and we don't want him to pay Netflix for himself.
|
| -There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost
| revenue. Hell to the no.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| The 4k pricing was always a sore spot for me. Netflix's
| content was never worth $20, so for a long time I was
| subscribed for mediocre standard def content. I regret not
| unsubscribing sooner.
| Flott wrote:
| I also find the 4k catalog very... lacking. (In Canada at
| least). Movies outside of Netflix originals are just not
| available in 4k.
| Bellamy wrote:
| I've had Netflix for years. I will cancel immediately if I
| see something close to an ad.
| bumby wrote:
| > _There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to
| boost revenue._
|
| It's been stated elsewhere here but worth reiterating: the
| current description of this idea is to give customers _the
| option_ to have ads in exchange for a lower overall
| subscription cost and not just shoehorn them into the
| existing plans.
|
| At least that's the stated intent. I can definitely see where
| it can lead to a slippery slope where it's easier to just
| give ads to everyone when they need another revenue bump.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| theres also a high probability of misinformed (or well-
| informed but adversarial) twitter users getting
| #CancelNetflix to trend because people will only read the
| headlines and not understand that they wont be seeing ads
| unless they want to save money.
| ghaff wrote:
| Whether ads are a discount or ad-free is a premium is
| just a matter of framing.
| bumby wrote:
| I think their point is that people are missing the fact
| that the ad-revenue model (as proposed) would have no
| impact on people already subscribing.
| ishjoh wrote:
| I appreciate that you're being positive but with media
| companies I'm much more cynical.
|
| I think we're going to see a price increase to stay ad
| free or an option to have the same price with
| advertising. So it will be a price increase to keep your
| same service ad free.
| bumby wrote:
| I understand, I'm only going off of what they've publicly
| stated as their intent as reported by the WSJ and
| elsewhere. I'm also skeptical.
|
| "Reed Hastings said Netflix is exploring ways to add
| lower-priced advertising-supported subscription tiers"
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/netflix-q1-fy2022-earnings-
| repo...
| htrp wrote:
| That's how it starts..... it ends with you paying for ad
| free hulu and wondering how you're still watching
| unskippable ads.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| >There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost
| revenue. Hell to the no.
|
| oh geez, that would be the death knell for netflix. that was
| one of the big benefits they had over cable ten years ago
| when streaming was still new. i cant imagine paying $18 a
| month and still being forced to watch ads.
|
| on a side note, im extremely pissed at paramount because
| their "ad-free" plan was updated to force viewers to watch a
| 30 second spot at the beginning of every show. if star trek
| strange new worlds doesnt turn out to be a million times
| better than picard and discovery i just might cancel because
| im so pissed i have to watch ads on the premium plan.
| listless wrote:
| My wife keeps throwing out "wokeness" as the reason and I don't
| buy it. Yes, that shit is obnoxious, but I don't care. If your
| content is good, be as "woke" as you like. I just want good
| shows.
|
| Bottom line is Netflix has too much competition from cheaper
| platforms with better content.
| tyingq wrote:
| Some of it would be what it does to "suspension of
| disbelief". It's hard to get immersed in a show if it doesn't
| seem real enough.
| syspec wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| tyingq wrote:
| I don't know that I can come up with the best example,
| but let's say a 1800's period piece that tries to weave
| in some LGBT themes, racial equity, etc. There's ways to
| do that well, but it's easy to push it hard enough that
| it's going to make it hard to believe. Hard to believe
| some of the depicted events would have happened in that
| timeframe, in that manner, etc. Badly researched, written
| or performed, it would be hard to stay immersed in a
| story that's highly improbable.
| subpixel wrote:
| I have not dropped Netflix but I admit the virtue-signaling
| in the suggested content has made me stop giving the
| interface as much attention. The suggestions are crap across
| the board, and I assume in Netflix's interest more than my
| own, so I just search, and when I can't find what I want, I
| go someplace else.
|
| Increasingly, I just go somewhere else.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Yeah, I need to make room for all my new Substack
| subscriptions, and there's nothing on Netflix Streaming that I
| want to watch, anyway.
|
| I do like their DVD service, though.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Especially since there is not even enough good content on
| Netflix to fill 1-2 hours per week. The article nails the
| central issue: the shows on Netflix are not good.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| Yes, that's largely it. Many of the shows, especially newer
| ones, are actually just kinda trash. Why pay for trash? Not
| to mention the raised prices and cracking down on password
| sharing.
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| I think complaining about wokeness with "Cuties" is completely
| reasonable reason to cancel. A few people I know cancelled. I
| also know once they start cracking down on password sharing
| they will also cancel.
|
| Don't sugar coat a poorly run company with equally opinionated
| reasoning.
| whymauri wrote:
| A key point here is TikTok and the attention economy. At a high
| level, the entertainment/social media industries are based on a
| finite resource: attention. Netflix is losing the attention of
| users, especially younger users, to other platforms. Then there
| is attention loss due to other rising streaming services.
|
| But yeah, the rate hikes are also hitting hard. Targeting
| account sharing more aggressively than they already do will
| lead to more cancellations. And the day Netflix shows me an ad,
| I will never use it again.
| bruce511 wrote:
| I see a lot of focus on the "lost 200 000 subscribers", but less
| acknowledgement that they kicked 700 000 Russians off the
| subscriber list, meaning they actually grew by 500 000
| subscribers (still well short of wall streets expectation of 2.5
| million.)
|
| So in one sense it's a one-time drop, not a trend.
|
| Does Netflix have more competition than before? sure. Is it
| growing as fast as before? no, especially as they reach
| saturation in some markets. Is this the "end of netflix"? um...
| no
| dehrmann wrote:
| This is also the end of the covid bump. People might even try
| to make up for lost time in the next year and leave their
| houses more than in 2019.
| rc_mob wrote:
| You are aware covid is not gone?
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| > So in one sense it's a one-time drop, not a trend.
|
| But it is a trend, they said to expect a 2 million subscriber
| loss in the following quarter.
| mcphage wrote:
| You're right, but the article posted includes statements
| like:
|
| > Two hundred thousand subscribers did not suddenly quit
| their subscriptions and start using their friends' passwords.
|
| That implies the author thought this was a natural
| subscription drop and not a result of losing 700k subscribers
| in Russia. I'm not sure I have any confidence in their
| predictions about the future, since they're so clueless about
| what's happening _today_.
| rc_mob wrote:
| Yeah I hate the author of this article
| bombcar wrote:
| Likely the very fact that there's been all these articles about
| Netflix losing will cause them to lose more.
| colechristensen wrote:
| What? I read that as losing 200,000 subscribers not counting
| kicking off Russians so the actual number would be losing
| 900,000 subscribers.
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Expectations are everything in the stock market.
|
| If wall street expected 2.5 million (most likely based on past
| growth and stock valuation) and Netflix reports a growth of
| 500k (if you keep the Russians in mind), it's a really really
| terrible result. It's 5 times below expectations.
|
| For me it looks like this could just be the beginning and
| they're losing a lot more in the following years.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I bought a Nebula device, Netflix won't support a device unless
| it sells a million units?
|
| You know what's easier than dealing with that crap...
| kklisura wrote:
| I think Netflix can pull out of this current situation if they
| build a live-streaming, social media platform and start directly
| competing with Youtube and Twitch.
| faangiq wrote:
| Huh it's almost like hiring lots of really expensive engineers to
| make a dead simple site serving D tier content was a bad idea.
| cpcat wrote:
| I can tell you why i cancelled my subscription. Everytime i would
| access Netflix from another device, they would reset my password
| and i couldn't create a new one without contacting customer
| service. They basically kicked me out. When i said i don't want
| to go through this process for the third time, and since your
| algorithms kicked me out, i want my money back, at least whatever
| is left of my subscription. They said no, i either go through the
| manual process with them to reset my password, or my subscription
| will automatically renew (because i can't even log in to cancel
| it). Thankfully they were very happy to cancel my subscription on
| my behalf.
| Markoff wrote:
| > a year-long subscription at a discount -- 10 months for the
| price of 12, for instance
|
| That doesn't sound like very good deal to me, I'd prefer 12
| months for the price of 10 or pay as you go for minutes/hours of
| actually watched content. Though Netflix has so much trash it's
| not really worth paying for. Had it for many months and hardly
| watched anything there.
| bjornlouser wrote:
| I wish they would allow viewers to sync the playback of a podcast
| on their phone to the video on a separate screen.
|
| I would probably watch more of their terrible shows if I could
| listen to commentary through an unsanctioned channel
| indigodaddy wrote:
| " Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an algorithmically
| designed movie every single week, they could make three excellent
| series and three much-talked-about movies every two months and
| scale back on spending from $17 billion to $10 billion a year and
| actually grow -- and maintain -- their subscriber base."
|
| I think it's inevitable that Netflix will sell to one of the
| media behemoths. They simply don't have the time that it will
| take to make the kind of major pivot mentioned above.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I finally canceled Netflix as many of the shows I loved were
| canceled (largely the expensive to produce ones).
|
| Sense8, Travelers, Altered Carbon, basically there expensive
| science fiction.
|
| Sure nailed it is fun but I won't miss it. The only one that I
| will truly miss is Big Mouth... but there are alternatives.
|
| Apple TV+ is quickly becoming my science fiction go to and they
| seem to be going more than HBO route with a smaller catalog.
| 1minusp wrote:
| Ah finally a mention for Altered Carbon! Loved the first
| season, and felt like they wrapped it up on the cheap the
| second season.
| WithinReason wrote:
| I have the same problem, Netflix seems to be going for quantity
| over quality.
| starik36 wrote:
| The problem is that Apple TV+ doesn't have that many shows that
| I might want to watch. Once you binge through a couple, it's
| all slim pickings.
| makecheck wrote:
| I think it would have been interesting if Netflix had shopped
| around its tech stack, kind of how companies that make games can
| also sell game-making engines.
|
| Maybe they could have had a huge windfall by offering to be the
| "AWS" behind every "$CHANNEL+" streaming service. In other words,
| instead of having 14 kludgey apps that all suck in at least one
| way, we get 14 services but with a smooth implementation.
|
| I don't see how content is a long-term win for them.
| mlex wrote:
| Coincidentally, AWS has a video streaming service already:
| https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
|
| Disclaimer: I work at Twitch, an Amazon subsidiary whose tech
| it's based off of.
| munchler wrote:
| Interesting. Does Amazon Prime Video use this service?
| flatearth22 wrote:
| alanlammiman wrote:
| This is the second article that I've seen on the front page of
| HN. Both had comment counts in the high hundreds. I have to say,
| for all Netflix's foibles, that certainly shows a lot of interest
| in the product. In a sense having a product where people write
| multi-paragraph comments on everything they dislike about your
| design is a compliment.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| For me Netflix has too few classic movies/series while Disney+
| has a lot more. It also has too many foreign movies that I have
| zero interest in.
| MrMan wrote:
| Netflix hates free speech!
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| I blame Netflix for popularizing the stack of horizontal
| scrolling carousel of thumbnails. It is a terrible way to browse,
| and so many companies mindlessly copy it.
| jayd16 wrote:
| You say mindlessly copy but what's the better solution they're
| ignoring? Or do you mean you don't like TV focused controls
| used in a browser?
| wtetzner wrote:
| How about a list you can vertically scroll through, with the
| option to filter based on various criteria?
| jayd16 wrote:
| A vertical list is a waste of horizontal space when it's a
| list of movie posters. They go with the carrousel for
| better or worse because it lets you quickly scroll through
| categories without scrolling through every item in a
| category. If you want a grid, its basically what they have.
|
| If you just want more search options, I agree but the
| search layout is also already a grid.
|
| I'm asking for a specific implemented app that feels better
| in practice, not just something you think might work
| better. There are subtle issues with getting this layout
| right. Its not as obvious as you say when you need to deal
| with crap remote dpads and no keyboards.
| postalrat wrote:
| You need to scroll though netflix both vertically and
| horizontally. How about at least making vertical
| scrolling the primary scroll direction.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Because then you can only traverse in one dimension as
| opposed to two. You can currently scroll through
| categories quickly. In a single list you have to scroll
| through every title.
| postalrat wrote:
| I didn't mean to abandon two scroll axes. Only make the
| vertical scrolling the primary method people use to
| scroll though videos. Or do people prefer to scroll
| through categories?
| wtetzner wrote:
| > A vertical list is a waste of horizontal space when
| it's a list of movie posters.
|
| It doesn't need to be a list of movie posters.
|
| > If you want a grid, its basically what they have.
|
| It's not though, you have to scroll horizontally for each
| section. That's not the same as a grid.
|
| > I'm asking for a specific implemented app that feels
| better in practice, not just something you think might
| work better.
|
| That's tough to do if everyone is implementing it poorly.
| However, I would say that something like this feels
| better in practice (even if it's still not ideal):
| https://i.imgur.com/AU6Az7e.jpeg
| Jcowell wrote:
| That wastes more space than a horizontal scrollable grid
| that'll go back and for with the mouse wheel. Even
| Netflix large rectangular preview boxes still fit more
| shows.
| wtetzner wrote:
| I don't think screen space is necessarily the right thing
| to optimize for. It's not the only consideration in terms
| of ergonomics.
| marssaxman wrote:
| All that automatic zooming and whirring and auto-playing as my
| cursor moves around drives me batty! It's so distracting - it's
| _harder_ to figure out what I might want to watch with all that
| chaos trying to grab my attention.
| mywittyname wrote:
| fuuuuuuuuuuuuck autoplay.
| LandR wrote:
| Turn it off.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I had no clue that this was even possible.
| LandR wrote:
| The setting doesn't exist in the netflix UI on TVs and
| your phone etc. But it's there if you log into the
| netflix settings on a browser.
| canadaduane wrote:
| Can you point specifically to what you don't like about it?
|
| Personally, my "least favorite feature" is that hovering (with
| mouse) over any video would auto-play. In other words, just by
| moving the mouse you would be under threat of accidentally
| distracting yourself. Maybe some people don't feel the same
| way, but for me, it was destabilizing to the point that I
| couldn't recall what it was I was searching for / interested in
| in the first place. I think they have "fixed" this in the past
| year, but there are still times when auto-play completely
| interrupts my thought/intentionality.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| You could just turn autoplay off in settings.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| that's only a recent feature!
| dymk wrote:
| It's quite annoying to turn it off, you have to do it from
| a web browser.
|
| Most people don't even know that it's an option. Horrible
| design for this particular feature's UX.
| cronix wrote:
| I have to change from the traditional 2 finger vertical
| scroll to get to the bottom of the page to a single touch
| pointer action to bypass the area of the screen so I can get
| past the area and continue to scroll to the bottom. It's
| horrible UI if you have a multigesture touchpad, like apple
| macbooks. Instead of scrolling from the top, it starts
| scrolling vertically (like it's supposed to) to suddenly
| scrolling horizontally as soon as you hit that area. Amazon
| prime does it too. Instead of speedily cruising around the
| interface, it's a nonstop battle for control to go where I
| intended. You end up fighting the interface, which leads to a
| very poor experience day after day after day. If I want to
| scroll horizontally, scrolling left-right should do that, not
| horizontal to get a vertical action.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| I'm aware that Netflix offers a tiered plan structure, but it
| seems pretty lackluster to me. Really the only differentiator
| between plans is the availability of HD or Ultra HD [1]. That
| isn't much of a value proposition to a viewer like me, since I
| only watch Netflix on my laptop. I'd be curious to see what other
| tiered models Netflix has considered, if any.
|
| One would think there's room for a Netflix equivalent of Amazon
| Prime, where you pay a yearly fee instead of a monthly fee (as
| the author mentions), for which you get a discount off the
| monthly rate for essentially "buying in bulk", as well as early
| access to original content, and maybe even get access to content
| that non-Prime subscribers can't access at all.
|
| Netflix's strategy contains several apparent contradictions that
| I'm unable to make sense of. For example, charging by the month
| seems to conflict with releasing an entire season of content at
| once. If you're going to charge per-month, then as the author
| mentioned, switching to a weekly-release model seems like the
| smart move, so you can squeeze more months out of a viewer who
| sees that content as "appointment viewing". If you're going with
| a "binge-release" model, I would think you'd charge per-year
| instead.
|
| Another contradiction- simultaneously raising subscription rates
| and cracking down on password sharing seem to conflict with each
| other. The more you raise your prices, the more you incentivize
| people to share passwords.
|
| 1. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926
| judge2020 wrote:
| UHD is often desirable for Smart TV / streaming stick usage.
| giords wrote:
| IMHO it's mostly about high prices in exchange of mediocre
| content. With all the competition, the quantity of available
| shows is now higher but the average quality is lower. Personally
| I often think to drop Netflix as well, there's really little that
| I feel like watching in it.
|
| I think many just pirate those show they are interested in or
| subscribe just 2-3 months a year to binge watch.
| rc_mob wrote:
| The comments in this thread are 100 times more insightful and
| interesting and accurate that the author of the linked article.
| The article itself read like it has an agenda and its full of
| logical holes. Why are internet authors so bad?
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Honestly for me I just do not know all the content Netflix has
| because the browsing is so bad. I wish instead of pushing shows
| to me best on algorithms, it would just let me browse categories
| and recent additions etc in a simpler way. Maybe categorised by
| year.
| civilized wrote:
| The recommendation system crash is coming. Name a
| recommendation system that shouldn't be replaced with simple
| rules based on obvious and transparent metrics like popularity
| and ratings, or by organizing things into categories.
|
| Less fancy ML nonsense, more working hard to gather high
| quality simple metrics.
| nhkcode wrote:
| https://movielens.org/ is the best one I've used so far. I
| find it almost creepy how good it predicts how I'll rate a
| movie.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Netflix had a great recommendation system for their DVD
| catalog 15 years ago without any ML hocuspocus. The problem
| now is that their content is mostly mediocre and user driven
| ratings can't be used effectively to identify similar
| cohorts. That's why they got rid of the stars.
| scrollaway wrote:
| YouTube has the best recommendation system in the world.
|
| Of course it gets lots of complaints. But the amount of
| fantastic content it has consistently recommended for me,
| including even pretty small channels, is incredible.
|
| A few points though:
|
| 1. I find YouTube to be good for general educational content.
| I don't know if it's as good for specific niches of
| entertainment.
|
| 2. It's not just plug and play. You need to actively tell
| YouTube what you like and dislike, remove trash
| recommendations, and remove terrible videos from your watch
| history.
|
| Do this, and you will be rewarded with a YouTube homepage
| full of hours upon hours of absolute gold. When I don't know
| what to do, I open YouTube and just let it run. It's awesome
| and life changing.
| xedrac wrote:
| That doesn't work so well if you're trying to push a social
| agenda to people who aren't interested in LGBTQ+ or racial
| "wokeness". Imagine someone searching for all content that
| doesn't include some form of LGBTQ+. There wouldn't be much
| of a catalog to watch.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > Imagine someone searching for all content that doesn't
| include some form of LGBTQ+
|
| whats the reason for that?
| aiiane wrote:
| I've always preferred to use https://unogs.com/ which lets you
| search with a lot of advanced search parameters and the
| resulting pages are much easier to browse, and then just pull
| up specific titles on Netflix itself.
| dmitriid wrote:
| After all major content providers dripped out of Netflix
| (Disney, Warner Brothers, just to name two biggest ones),
| Netflix can't afford to show you "all the content" because they
| don't really have any content.
|
| So they are in a desperate situation to try and make you watch
| anything at all.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| But pay triple the price like they have all the content still
| and then tell you the crappy shows you want to watch.
| dmitriid wrote:
| They have to recoup 14 billion dollars they spend on
| producing content somehow :)
| andrew_ wrote:
| They started losing me when they took away the ratings. Just
| got worse from there.
| yosito wrote:
| Absolutely, Netflix would be 1000 times better if they just let
| me sort, filter and find content based on concrete metadata.
| Instead, I'm forced to rely on their recommendation algorithms
| that purport to know what I want to watch, but for some reason
| keep recommending low quality content in languages I'm just not
| interested in. I'd be happy if I could just filter Netflix to
| only show me content with original audio in languages I speak.
| The few shows I'm interested in watching with subtitles or
| dubbed audio are things I can search for on a case by base
| basis. And don't get me started on Netflix's non-intuitive
| categories which seem more intent on forcing me to view
| ideologically motivated content than on helping me to find
| content in a category I'm interested in. I don't want to search
| for "Christian Films with Family Values" nor do I want to watch
| "Films With Black Female Leads". Nothing wrong with those types
| of films, but I'm searching by "Action", "Romance", "Comedy",
| "Sci-Fi" etc.
| samstave wrote:
| I have a very good friend who is a long time engineer at
| netflix, this is his quote:
|
| " _They keep the search and browse capability so crappy in
| order to mask the true size of the content library_ "
| infiniteL0Op wrote:
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yes! I recently went on a little trip and the AirBnB host had
| Netflix. This is the first time I've ever used Netflix. And
| oh my god how do people find anything with it?? I didn't
| realize that you could scroll horizontally for about a day.
| And the categories are... useless. +1 for traditional
| "action" categories. And the content was mostly straight to
| DVD B-movies with a few "80s oldies." I did manage to watch
| the new Blade Runner there so ok they did have something I
| could recognize.
|
| And the TV shows were awful. Nothing I've never heard of. I
| couldn't even find Seinfeld reruns or something normal. And
| after watching a random selection of them I am so glad we
| never wasted our money on the service. My wife picked a show
| (neither of us ever heard of) apparently about a narcissist
| woman who moves to Paris for work and it was just a low
| budget list of every "arrogant American visits France" trope
| and stereotype ever invented.
|
| The experience was very much like visiting my devout
| Christian friend who has a huge bookshelf full of religious
| movies I've never heard of, and nothing "mainstream popular".
| Like when you turn on Netflix you enter an alternate universe
| where nobody's ever heard of _The Wrath of Khan_ , _The
| Godfather_ or _Pulp Fiction_.
| yardie wrote:
| Modern videostreaming is such a poison pill. Where the
| rights come and go arbitrarily. So Netflix decided they
| were going to do their own content because they couldn't
| rely on production studios. Since they don't have to pay
| royalties on their own content the streaming apps
| intentionally push the homegrown movies and obscure the
| slightly better 3rd party content. And it was not always
| like this. In their early streaming days the AAA titles
| (The Godfather, The Matrix, etc) were front and center. The
| recommendations engine was actually useful. And there were
| few competitors so AAA titles would stay on their platform
| for years.
|
| I've been using their service since 00s when they were
| shipping DVDs. I barely recognize the same company even
| though they are wildly successful.
| chucksmash wrote:
| > I couldn't even find Seinfeld reruns
|
| Guess it depends on what you mean by "recently" and maybe
| it depends on region as well, but Seinfeld is on Netflix!
| chx wrote:
| I actually want to search for "action series with female
| leads" but I have no idea how to do it with Netflix nor does
| Netflix carry most of them. Instead, I "search" on Reddit and
| pirate them.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ifyoulikeblank/comments/rdpmp9/tv_i.
| ..
| pojzon wrote:
| I can assume Netflix does not have this kind of browsing
| simply due to amount of content they have.
|
| Offering of Netflix is extremely poor if you crop out all the
| duplicate shows popping on your feed.
|
| Ive decided to drop Netflix simply because:
|
| - new interesting shows are popping up so rarely, there is no
| point to pay the monthly sub
|
| - there is too much political agenda sold even in children
| shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap)
| roody15 wrote:
| "there is too much political agenda sold even in children
| shows"
|
| Yes sadly this has become much more prominent in the last
| couple of years. It has blatant political propaganda
| inserted into all of their original content that is clearly
| forced and hurts the quality of the programming.
| cguess wrote:
| You never watched Sesame Street did you? They've been
| explaining social issues to kids since the 1960's. Of
| course Mr. Rodger's first episode was explaining the
| Vietnam War. Kids shows are and have always been
| political if they're not pure fantasy (even then...)
| otterley wrote:
| Can you provide some examples of this, and how it's
| impacting children in some sort of harmful way?
| roody15 wrote:
| I didn't suggest it was "hurting" children however I do
| believe it hurts the overall quality of the programming.
|
| One example that probably flirts the line with hurting
| children was Netflix's Cuties.
|
| "Netflix is also the streaming service behind "Cuties," a
| wildly controversial French film that tells the coming-
| of-age story of an 11-year-old girl as she discovers her
| maturing self, all while looking for acceptance in her
| religious family and group of young dancers she hopes to
| befriend"
|
| If you want examples of pardon the term but I guess
| "woke" programming, this list is pretty extensive on
| Netflix. You can do a quick google search yourself to see
| lots of examples here.
|
| My personal take (as someone who is left leaning) is when
| these messages are bombarded into programming it often
| feels forced.. even perhaps propagandized. This level of
| inauthenticity hurts the overall artistic and
| entertainment value of the programming (just my two
| cents).
| jdlshore wrote:
| Cuties isn't a children's show. It's a commentary on
| sexualization of minors in France. Do you have any
| specific examples of political agendas in childrens'
| shows?
| Kranar wrote:
| Cuties isn't a children's film, it's rated MA (for mature
| audiences).
|
| There is no dispute that Netflix has woke programming, or
| heck many other kinds of programming and no sensible
| person would claim otherwise. What is being asked is
| which programs for children/kids are you arguing is
| politically motivated?
|
| The only examples anyone has been able to produce are
| children shows that have homosexual characters in them. I
| am going to assume the best of intentions here, but it's
| very hard not to find it appalling that many people would
| think that a show that has some gay characters in it is
| making a political statement or has a political agenda.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I've been seeing people complain about the presence of
| PoC in many of these programs too, even though artificial
| diversity has been a staple of children's programming
| since at least the '70s.
|
| The fact that the inclusion of LGBT and/or PoC in a
| children's program is at all controversial tells me we
| still have a problem that needs to be addressed. If you
| really don't like the idea of seeing a black or gay
| person on TV then you are the problem.
|
| The sad thing is that a big majority of people
| complaining are people who are past child-rearing age and
| thus not even the target market for any of these shows.
| otterley wrote:
| Can you give an example of a scene or dialogue that poses
| a problem, and why it's a particular problem?
| ipaddr wrote:
| I watched a recent program about a clothing brand who
| they tried to peg as racist but failed.
|
| The content itself is political. That's increasingly
| problematic.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Except most content is always political, because it's
| being written and created by people that belong to groups
| and organized institutions.
|
| What you're really saying is that it's not your personal
| politics, and is therefore bad.
| roody15 wrote:
| Not really. I am saying there is an artificial corporate
| element of inserting political narratives into much of
| the programming. Authentic pieces where writers just
| create a good story typically reverberate better with
| audiences .. despite the writers political opinions
| whether they lean left or right.
|
| The opposite is true. If a writer feels or is outwardly
| coerced that he/she must include certain characters,
| topics, behaviors.... this comes off an not genuine,
| propagandized, or even corporate commercially. My
| personal opinion is much of the Netflix original content
| falls into this later category.
| aspaviento wrote:
| Exactly. I don't know why is it so difficult for people
| to understand that you aren't sexist, racist (pick your
| favourite -ist) for noticing this. The time you take to
| "educate" viewers about your preferred political agenda
| is time you are taking from the plot, from character
| development, from story cohesion... It feels forced no
| matter what.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Yes, really. A story about Christian values is going to
| come off as political to Hindu or Muslim viewers.
|
| > this comes off an not genuine
|
| I get the feeling you'd say this even about authentically
| written content, so it's a moot point. You've drawn a
| line in the sand that characters and content that don't
| look like you are bad, and that it's origins must be from
| seedy beginnings rather than decades of hard work by
| dismissed groups of people that are now finally getting a
| chance to write stories about people like them.
| nigerian1981 wrote:
| You mean about Abercrombie & Fitch? The company whose
| former CEO Mike Jeffries effectively spelled out his
| tactics in a now-infamous profile on the news site Salon,
| saying: "We go after the attractive all-American kid with
| a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people
| don't belong (in our clothes), and they can't belong. Are
| we exclusionary? Absolutely."[1]
|
| [1]https://edition.cnn.com/style/amp/abercrombie-fitch-
| exclusio...
| ipaddr wrote:
| When I see companies on shark tank say they are targeting
| the black community most agree with the approach. Many
| brands target segments.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| I fail to see the racism in that statement. Essentially
| he's saying "it's not for everyone", and that's true for
| a lot of brands.
| rxactor wrote:
| I disagree with the parent comment that is is commonplace
| (I think it is rare) but I have definitely seen it.
| Several episodes of shows for girls under 5 have the
| trope "boys/grownups say girls can't do X" which the girl
| characters have to overcome. This is absurd material to
| expose to children of that age, who have never been
| exposed to the concept outside of children's programming!
| It's so far removed from the reality of young girls today
| it makes me doubt that the people writing this stuff even
| have children.
| everdrive wrote:
| They've been doing this my whole life, and it drives me
| nuts. I used to complain that nearly every Disney movie
| on TV contrived some reason for men to be assholes and
| say something along the lines of "GIRLS can't play
| soccer!" Only of course to be thoroughly flummoxed by the
| end. It's endlessly tiring, and as you note, it
| inadvertently demonstrates to girls the bigotry it hopes
| to overcome.
| someguydave wrote:
| World Cup women's soccer lose to high school men
| https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-
| under-15-b...
|
| Telling girls they can be stronger than men is a lie that
| can lead to terrible outcomes.
| otterley wrote:
| Well, there are some who can. Why stop them if they have
| that ability? Why not encourage them, under the right
| conditions?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| zo1 wrote:
| Not OP. But I looked it up. A lot of the ones I found are
| ones my kids watched and I didn't even notice! Just shows
| how insidious and gently "slipped in" it is.
|
| https://www.romper.com/life/lgbtq-shows-kids-family
|
| Not that it's bad for those people to believe in those
| things or anything. But I don't want my kids exposed and
| normalized to these things until they're an appropriate
| age to decide on their own.
| 8note wrote:
| I'm not clear that your children can become old enough to
| decide things for themselves without exposure to the
| world. Hiding things from them is going to make their
| decisions more naive.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I clicked that link expecting to see opinions on "Trickle
| down economics" or "abortion" or "ownership of the means
| of production" being fed to children but all I see is:
| "Same sex couples exist."
|
| "Same sex couples exist" is not a political view. It is a
| reality of fact that children of all ages already know.
| My kid's best friend since age 5 has two moms. Trust me:
| she has no concept of what politics are but knows what
| two loving parents are.
|
| If "gays exist" is the example of politics jammed into
| TV, that's a really really weak example.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| (Spoiler: no, they can't)
| petefromnorth wrote:
| It's very real. I have friends in the industry working on
| a Netflix series, and the amount of political correctness
| being forced on them from the Netflix side is insane. I
| cannot give a specific example due to exposing which show
| this may be on, but if the stories I hear or true, the
| Netflix staff must do a lot of Yoga cause the stuff they
| force to change is a stretch. The artists I know on the
| show went from being excited, to just there for a
| paycheck after certain fruits were deemed racist around
| black characters (not watermelons), and a LGBT plotline
| was forced into a childrens show just because.
| otterley wrote:
| The info you've supplied doesn't support your premise.
| You say "it's very real," but you admit you cannot cite a
| single example, and your only evidence is some vague
| hearsay.
| o_1 wrote:
| petefromnorth wrote:
| I can, but I am choosing not to as to preserve privacy.
| Just one data point, you are welcome to not believe it.
| [deleted]
| xedrac wrote:
| In one kid show "She-Ra" for example, every relationship
| is gay/lesbian save for one. I cannot prove harm in any
| meaningful way, but I think this sort of
| misrepresentation of reality is very confusing to kids.
| xedrac wrote:
| @ryandrake I believe the poster's comment about
| "political agenda" was really referring to more of a
| "social agenda".
| ryandrake wrote:
| Smurfs were all (but one) male. I wouldn't read too much
| into She-Ra. And "same sex couples exist" is not really a
| political statement.
|
| Now, when She-Ra starts having extended monologues about
| taxation policy or the virtues of direct democracy vs.
| representative government, I'll support ya!
| robonerd wrote:
| Smurfette was created by the evil wizard Gargamel to
| undermine Smurf society.
|
| (I'm not joking, that's canon.)
| jacobmartin wrote:
| Gay/lesbian relationships are overrepresented relative to
| real life in She-Ra, but there is far more than one
| heterosexual relationship. Off the top of my head there
| is Bow and Glimmer, Queen Angela and King Micah, Mermista
| and Seahawk, and Entrapta and Hordak by the last episode.
| heimidal wrote:
| She-Ra is a show that takes place in a world where people
| _wield magical swords while riding around half-naked on
| giant armored tigers_. Yet your chief complaint is that a
| friend group having several non-heterosexual
| relationships is a "misrepresentation of reality"?
|
| Seriously?
| everdrive wrote:
| Political themes in TV shows are pretty ubiquitous these
| days. In part this is because US politics are more
| interested in "culture war" issues than they are with
| specific political platforms. In other words, culture war
| issues tend to deal with moral and social values. In a
| previous time, political issues might be much more
| limited in scope: what should the government tax? Which
| regulations are helpful? etc.
|
| "Culture war" issues tend to be a bit more subtle, and
| can usually be ignored as valid plot devices. There's not
| even anything explicitly wrong with adding your own
| cultural values to a movie, but rather it can get pretty
| overbearing, even if you tend to agree.
|
| A good way to look out for these themes is to look at the
| characters and ask some basic questions:
|
| - Which characters in the show are in charge? What groups
| (racial, sexual, etc) are they from?
|
| - Which characters in the show are competent? What groups
| are they from?
|
| - Which characters in the show are the villains? What
| groups are they from?
|
| - Which characters in the show are the victims? What
| groups are they from?
|
| - Which characters have "good" traits such as humility,
| kindness, etc?
|
| - Which characters are shown to be bigots?
|
| - etc.
|
| This can get a bit more complex, too. The solutions to
| problems, or explanations for the ills of the world might
| also follow culture war lines. Who are the bad guys? Are
| they from a corporation? From the government? From a
| certain gender or ethnic group? etc.
|
| A great example of this might be the Mulan remake vs. the
| original. In the remake, much of the movie is occupied
| with showing how Mulan is better than everyone, and then
| quickly cutting to show face-shots of men who are either
| severely intimated, cowed, afraid, or impressed. I'm not
| suggesting there is anything wrong with this. Rather I'm
| just making the point that this was added to the movie
| for political and cultural reasons. The original cartoon
| didn't really have much comeuppance in this way, because
| it was written during a different time.
|
| Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with people
| putting their political views into shows -- really,
| that's inevitable at some level. But, there's also a
| certain level where it becomes too over the top, too
| sanctimonious, too pervasive, and you just want to get
| away from it all.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Poppycock. Political issues in media have always included
| cultural and social issues, it's just that they now span
| a larger universe that includes more than white male
| Christians.
| otterley wrote:
| I grew up in the '80s and it was there then, too. Some
| example episodes from "Diff'rent Strokes," a show about a
| white industrial magnate who adopts a couple of Black
| orphans:
|
| * A social worker investigates the boys' home life and
| tells Mr. Drummond that she believes black children
| belong in black households.
|
| * Mr. Drummond scolds Arnold for secretly recording other
| people's conversations. Arnold disobeys him and records
| Kimberly's boyfriend Roger making racist comments about
| Willis to his sister.
|
| * Arnold's poor dental checkup has Drummond suspecting
| that the easy availability of junk food from vending
| machines at school is to blame. But when Drummond begins
| a campaign to replace the hot dogs, cookies, potato chips
| and soft drinks with more healthy foods, Arnold's friends
| try to convince him to get his father to reconsider.
|
| * Arnold's joy of being transferred to an all-white
| school (and riding a bus to get there) is shaken to its
| very core when a racist busing opponent calls the
| Drummond household warning the pro-busing family
| patriarch not to send his black children to the new
| school, or else.
|
| * When it is learned that Drummond's upcoming
| construction project may be located on top of an ancient
| Indian burial ground, he faces protest from a Native
| American who threatens to go on a hunger strike if the
| land is built on. Arnold and Willis follow suit by going
| on a hunger strike of their own.
|
| --
|
| And of course, we mustn't forget "All in the Family" from
| the 1970s; pretty much every episode was about politics
| in some way.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| How about Mr Rogers. Sharing water with a black man was
| intensely political when he did it. On a _childrens_ show
| no less.
| twofornone wrote:
| Except in virtually all of this woke programming white
| male christians are deliberately and exclusively
| portrayed negatively, if their characters aren't outright
| replace with race and gender swaps. It's petty revenge
| racism.
| otterley wrote:
| If you're saying that you cannot find a single example
| where a white male is portrayed non-negatively, you need
| to look harder. Longmire on Netflix is just one example.
| Jack Reacher and Bosch on Prime Video are others.
|
| That said, there's plenty of room to make fun of white
| male Christians, just like there's plenty of room to make
| fun of everyone else. It's not like there's a shortage of
| hypocrisy and foibles out there.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of
| the world for the better part of a century is not
| political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's?
|
| Why is it only political when another group is creating
| the content?
| twofornone wrote:
| >But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of
| the world for the better part of a century is not
| political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's
|
| This is dishonest. Minorities were also portrayed
| positively in legacy media, and villains were also
| frequently portrayed by white males.
|
| >Why is it only political when another group is creating
| the content
|
| In the past studios were creating content relevant to a
| predominantly (90%+) white audience. They were creating
| content which was largely in line with their target
| demographic culture.
|
| This recent media instead is creating content to disrupt
| what it's owners and managers see as a "racist" culture.
| That's what makes it political. It's less about money and
| more about deliberately changing culture in a
| hypocritical manner - fighting alleged racism with
| explicit racism. Breakfast at tiffanies was not about
| punching down on asians, but black feminist vikings is
| about sending a politicized message.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| > creating content relevant to a predominantly (90%+)
| white audience
|
| Sure, maybe a century ago in the 1920s but it's been
| several decades since international revenues eclipsed
| domestic.
|
| > That's what makes it political.
|
| Other people having their voices heard is what makes it
| political? Or that you don't like what those voices have
| to say?
| twofornone wrote:
| >Other people having their voices heard is what makes it
| political? Or that you don't like what those voices have
| to say?
|
| This is just as dishonest as pretending that D&I is not
| discrimination against straight white men. People are
| finally starting to see through your lies. This is isn't
| about "having voices heard". Blackwashing characters has
| literally nothing to do with having voices heard.
| Portraying white males exclusively in negative roles has
| literally nothing to do with having voices heard. Its
| deliberate erasure in pursuit of progressive politics
| which come from a place of self hatred (all the
| brainwashed white women leading this charge) and petty
| race revenge. That's the difference. It's racism, pure
| and simple.
|
| >Sure, maybe a century ago in the 1920s but it's been
| several decades since international revenues eclipsed
| domestic.
|
| The US was still 80% white until sometime around the 80s.
| And in any case US movies were made for US audiences
| until recently, foreign box offices were a bonus and did
| not dictate content. In any case this is another bullshit
| justification because other markets, like china, don't
| want to see american style diversity, i.e. black people.
| otterley wrote:
| > D&I is not discrimination against straight white men.
|
| Well, it isn't. As a straight white man myself, I don't
| feel like I'm particularly suffering from discrimination.
| Am I picked first for everything now, like maybe before I
| would have? Maybe not. Does it adversely impact my life?
| Not really.
|
| It's OK to let others to have the first sip from the
| fountain once in awhile, and you can help lift up
| historically-persecuted people without it necessarily
| being a loss for you. Attitude goes a long way in helping
| yourself be at peace with it.
|
| If you're a straight white man and you're feeling
| seriously oppressed by D&I, I'd like to hear from you
| personally and understand your situation better.
|
| Anyway, this is pretty far afield from the discussion,
| which is really about specifically how media is harming
| people and children in particular.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| This isn't some debate where you can score cheap points
| on technicalities. Frankly comments like this lower the
| quality of the discussion.
|
| If you want to know why D&I is an issue, it's because it
| is re-entrenching all of the stereotypes by hamhandedly
| trying to give everyone different handicaps, like life
| can be simplified to a game of golf. The reality, though,
| is that it doesn't matter what handicap I'm given, due to
| my poor golf game I'm never going to play against Tiger
| Woods.
|
| The only thing the handicaps change is what we're
| measuring, and at some point people decide not to play
| the game, or lobby to change the rules. Look at the
| resurgence of the far right: it is D&I which gave them
| the resentment in people's souls to which they could
| place their hooks.
| otterley wrote:
| You're just reading the news and jumping straight to
| conclusions. If you'd like to actually defend a position
| against D&I and how it is actually net harmful (or
| personally harmful to you), or specifically how it is
| reenforcing harmful stereotypes with examples of such,
| then that would be an enlightening discussion.
| twofornone wrote:
| >If you'd like to actually defend a position against D&I
| and how it is actually net harmful
|
| Because it's racist and sexist? Because it reduces people
| to their skin color and gender? Because it implicitly
| reinforces the notion that minorities are "different" and
| forces us to nonsensically pretend that differences can
| only be positive in cooperative environments? Because it
| suggests that minorities need special advantages to level
| the playing field? Because top to bottom it is not a
| cohesive, consistent, or rational policy and implies that
| all inequities are exclusively the result of
| discrimination on behalf of white males who have been
| made into a target, are having their voices silenced,
| their job opportunities removed, and their livelihoods
| threatened for self advocating?
|
| On one hand your ideology implies that all of this is
| deserved because of the past and necessary for an
| equitable future, but then at the same time you blatantly
| deny that any of it's happening and shame anyone who
| speaks up against this discrimination by calling them
| bigoted. It's insanity.
| otterley wrote:
| > forces us to nonsensically pretend that differences can
| only be positive in cooperative environments
|
| What is "forcing" you to do this? The D&I training I've
| been taking has been about finding positivity in
| differences to our mutual advantage, but never does it
| say that all aspects of it are 100% positive.
|
| > Because it suggests that minorities need special
| advantages to level the playing field?
|
| The evidence on this is pretty clear, because several
| minorities do suffer from historical poverty (in money,
| in education, and quality of life) that has been very
| difficult to overcome. A lot of damage was done prior to
| the Civil Rights Act through mechanisms specifically
| intended to keep Black people down, and we haven't
| recovered from that yet. We're getting _better_ , but I
| don't think we can just put our heads in the sand and
| conclude that the Civil Rights Act was the end of our
| journey to remedy the terrible legacy of slavery and
| racism.
|
| > all inequities are exclusively the result of
| discrimination on behalf of white males who have been
| made into a target, are having their voices silenced,
| their job opportunities removed
|
| You _cannot_ be serious about the silence of white voices
| in the media. Maybe some individuals are being silenced
| (see below), but the sentiments certainly are not. For
| every 1 person who may have been silenced, it 's easy to
| find thousands who haven't, whose opinions track roughly
| identically. And those people who have been "silenced"
| seem to have no trouble getting their voiced heard
| through other avenues. Alex Jones still has plenty of
| mouthpieces, as does Donald Trump. (Both also happen to
| _own_ those mouthpieces...)
|
| And it is especially ironic when a person claims they are
| being silenced... on Twitter, and then when it is
| republished through various blogspam ad nauseam.
|
| > ...their livelihoods threatened for self advocating?
|
| I think it depends on the nature of the advocacy in
| question. If you're saying, "I want the opportunity to
| learn, to work hard, and be successful," I would be very
| surprised if people were to threaten your livelihood over
| that. On the other hand, if your advocacy consists of
| lies, exaggerations, and hysterics, then people might not
| want to associate with you.
|
| I don't accuse anyone of being a bigot because they have
| genuine and good-faith concerns about whether we are
| remedying social inequity the wrong way. It's when they
| flat-out lie, deny the past, make racist remarks
| themselves, or make themselves out to be the victim
| without evidence that they deserve that moniker.
| [deleted]
| otterley wrote:
| > Breakfast at tiffanies was not about punching down on
| asians
|
| You seem pretty sure about that for a person who wasn't
| involved in its production. Even assuming, _arguendo_ ,
| that it wasn't, would you contend that it would be
| appropriate to have such a character in a modern movie?
| Have you surveyed Asian people about how they feel about
| the Fu Manchu character?
| orangepurple wrote:
| This is designed to shift the overton window. I'm not
| sure who benefits from it or why it's being rammed
| through though.
| 0xcafecafe wrote:
| Can you please provide examples of said propaganda in
| NFLX programming? Genuinely curious.
| xedrac wrote:
| See my comment above about She-Ra.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| So not having only heterosexual relationships means that
| the content is propaganda?
| DocTomoe wrote:
| When they go to the polar opposite - only homosexual
| relationships - then it might be.
| splatzone wrote:
| I haven't seen She-Ra, is it only gay relationships? I'm
| curious if you think a show with only straight
| relationships is propagandistic too (ie most TV ever
| made)
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| Exactly. A lot of new content made seems to be really poor
| to me. And oh, did I mention content that keeps making
| frequent trips in and out of Netflix? (Movies like The
| Terminator franchise, Troy etc.) So cringe I just want to
| cancel it after this month.
| ODILON_SATER wrote:
| `- there is too much political agenda sold even in children
| shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap)`
|
| This is what pushing me over the edge. I have both Netflix
| and Amazon prime subscriptions. I have thought several
| times to drop one. The only reason I still have Netflix is
| because my wife and kids watch their shows. But I have had
| a hard time finding good shows because everything is
| political, and I hate when the trailer deceives me and they
| just inject pure political propaganda in the middle of the
| show.
|
| Suddenly I found myself reading about Synology NAS and how
| to set up Plex on it. I am very close to buy a Synology
| NAS, and to boot I can get host my own VPN server, seems
| like a good idea.
| 8note wrote:
| Everything is political, if not your view, to somebody
| else's. you might prefer to watch fox news for
| entertainment that doesnt feel political?
| otterley wrote:
| Can you give some examples of shows, scenes, or dialogue
| that you find particularly objectionable, and why?
| andrew_ wrote:
| I've never seen a question like this asked in good faith
| on HN. Seems it's always to pick a fight.
| sofal wrote:
| I think it's because most of the time the "politics" that
| are objected to tend to be things like having an LGBT
| character in a show. While it's probably not true that
| _everyone_ who complains about "politics" on TV these
| days are objecting to LGBT people, it is almost certainly
| true that everyone who watches TV and gets disgusted by
| seeing an LGBT character will code their disgust in terms
| of "being tired of politics" shoved down their throat,
| etc.
|
| Thus it tends to be very likely that the person
| complaining about "politics" is simply masking a disgust
| of others' identities, but doesn't want to get into
| specifics because it would be a bad look. Therefore the
| question asking for specifics is interpreted as a way to
| pick a fight, because they know what might ensue if they
| actually got into specifics.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| I'm honestly curious too. Our kids watch chip & potato,
| octonauts, number blocks, and all sorts of things. None
| of it seems political. But maybe I'm missing something.
|
| Hell, Netflix even has barbie cartoons, which leftists
| don't exactly view highly.
| stonogo wrote:
| That's funny, because I've never seen a question like
| this answered, except with handwaving about how the
| poster can't say more, or they don't want to get
| distracted with specifics, or a handful of other reasons
| the original claim can't be backed up.
| otterley wrote:
| I ask to elevate the level of discussion here. Speaking
| in generalities and characterizing people's work without
| evidence is too facile; you can go to other popular
| social media sites for that. Elsewhere in this thread, my
| gentle prodding has led to discussion of some actual
| shows and scenes that people are thinking of, and it's
| led to much more interesting - and less heated -
| discussion.
| arghnoname wrote:
| I think water sanitation is vital, good, etc
|
| If every show I watched had ham-fisted dialogue about how
| great water sanitation is, how we should all happily pay
| more taxes to support it, how flushing chemicals down the
| toilet is evil, etc, I'd turn the channel off.
|
| Even if you agree with the message, being preached to can
| be off-putting. If you disagree with the message and
| people like you are framed as cartoonish villains, it's a
| different matter entirely.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| Thank you for taking the time to call these people out
| (or at least asking them explain themselves).
|
| Calmly thinking through ones prejudices, even if only to
| defend them, is an easy way to erase them.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > - there is too much political agenda sold even in
| children shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap)
|
| What do you mean by "political agenda"? Like open advocacy
| for certain policy position or political parties? Or just
| stuff like "gay people exist and should be treated with
| respect"?
|
| Also, when I was a kid I would listen to conservative talk
| radio _all the time_. It 's the only thing my dad would
| listen to while driving. And I don't think it was
| corrupting or traumatizing or anything.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Michelle Obama programming. Me too related programming.
| Forced lgt story lines in unrelated programming.
|
| Everything you experienced in your life can and does
| corrupt you.
| samstave wrote:
| This is why Disney is an abomination.
|
| Also, if you look at the content tropes constantly used,
| and especially used in much of the netflix library:
|
| ---
|
| - Lots of satan/evil
|
| - The constant CIA/NSA/FBI/Cop/Assassin Badass Porn, with
| the invariable singular hacker support guy on the squad
| that can get into any system and has a 3D blueprint with
| wireframe models of every building
|
| - The hero cop constantly going against the bureaucratic
| system that holding back his personal justice
|
| If you cant see the constant hero worship of rogue
| cops/cia agent/killer/evil etc in literally 90% of
| hollywood content puts a subconscious desire in the
| impressionable young minds of males to acquiesce to a
| violent society where they can see themselves as the
| fictitious bad-ass action person.
|
| Etc...
|
| The entire hollywood movie-narrative is an incestuous
| cess-pool-adrenochrome--eating-gay-frog-orgy. (Tongue in
| cheek alex jones reference, relax)
| notpachet wrote:
| Occasionally it redeems you.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| > Forced lgt
|
| So you agree then that hetero relationships in children's
| media is also a political agenda?
| chernevik wrote:
| Maybe by your lights.
|
| It is a fact that gay marriage is an experiment, never
| before tried in human history. We do not know how
| successful it will be in raising children to be healthy,
| productive human beings -- which is the chief social
| purpose of marriage.
|
| Likewise the whole sexual revolution and the
| normalization of sex outside marriage is an experiment.
|
| We do know that "hetero" relationships, and married ones
| in particular, can succeed enormously at producing
| children and raising them successfully. Perhaps these
| various new arrangements will succeed just as well, and I
| expect enormous political pressure on evidence and
| analysis to support just that conclusion, but we will
| see.
|
| Until time has told, the presumption that homosexual
| relationships are the same as heterosexual is a matter of
| conjecture and, well, politics.
| Kranar wrote:
| Human history has existed for much longer with same-sex
| marriages than without it. It was mostly outlawed with
| the rise of Christianity. The impact of same-sex marriage
| on child rearing is well understood as same-sex couples
| raising children predates same-sex marriage by decades
| and studies can be found going back to the 1960s on the
| subject.
| ipaddr wrote:
| What societies had same sex marriages?
| Kranar wrote:
| I mean almost every single one of them prior to the rise
| of Christianity and the influence of modern western
| culture. The Chinese had no qualms with gay marriage or
| homosexuality in general, there are records of famous
| Japanese Samurais who married one another, Native
| Americans have the concept of two-spirit marriages,
| numerous Roman Emperors married male husbands, and
| neither the Greeks or Egyptians differentiated much
| between homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
|
| The decline in same-sex marriage, and same-sex
| relationships in general can be predominantly attributed
| to the changing attitudes about sex that came about with
| the rising influence of Christianity. Christianity did
| not just ban same-sex relationships, it advocated for
| sexual abstinence in general, forbidding any form of sex
| outside of marriage and even within marriage promoting
| sex as strictly for the purpose procreation going so far
| as to forbid the use of contraceptives, oral/anal sex and
| even masturbation. There are numerous reasons for why
| this change in attitude gained popularity from economic
| reasons to major shifts in demographics due to the
| outbreak of numerous wars in the 3rd century resulting
| in, among other things, growing discrepancies between the
| number of men and women.
|
| It would take on the order of a thousand years before
| attitudes on sex became more liberal, with the Anglican
| church among the first to formally permit the use of
| contraceptives, and Protestant movements recognizing
| sexual acts between husband and wife as serving a
| "unitive" purpose rather than strictly procreation.
|
| The point is to say that homosexuality was a casualty of
| very strict views on sexual relationships in general that
| came about with the rise of Christianity, but prior to
| that most societies didn't care to think much of it one
| way or another. Some people like vanilla, some people
| like chocolate; why would the people who like vanilla
| care too much about the people who enjoy chocolate?
| chernevik wrote:
| > numerous Roman Emperors married male husbands
|
| Ok, name two.
|
| > The decline in same-sex marriage, and same-sex
| relationships in general can be predominantly attributed
| to the changing attitudes about sex that came about with
| the rising influence of Christianity
|
| Name a same-sex marriage in pre-Christian Greece or Rome.
|
| The Greeks had no problem with homosexuality, Plato is
| full of jokes about it. And it wasn't that big a deal
| among the Romans, Julius Caesar's own legions would sign
| songs about his escapades. But I don't know of any
| evidence that it was ever the basis of a household. None
| of the great Greek dramaturges bothered to write a play
| noticing it.
|
| > There are numerous reasons for why this change in
| attitude gained popularity from economic reasons to major
| shifts in demographics due to the outbreak of numerous
| wars in the 3rd century resulting in, among other things,
| growing discrepancies between the number of men and
| women.
|
| I don't know where you're getting this stuff, I know a
| fair amount of history and I'm aware of nothing so
| remarkable as a shift in gender balance in the 3rd
| century.
|
| > homosexuality was a casualty of very strict views on
| sexual relationships in general that came about with the
| rise of Christianity
|
| I don't think Christianity/Christians have ever cared
| that much about it, really. They/it think it wrong and
| immoral, sure, but it isn't something that has ever
| attracted an enormous amount of attention or effort. It
| wasn't important enough to get much attention from
| Chaucer, Dante, Bocaccio, Shakespeare -- none of whom
| were shy about the range of human experience.
|
| I know there are historians of gay sexuality, of which I
| am ignorant, but as a layman familiar with some of the
| core texts, my impression is that the overall view was
| "eh, whatever".
| InCityDreams wrote:
| I'm of the opinion _all_ marriage is bullshit, and the
| very notion of anyone needing to register their social
| standing, regarding who they live with, as a very
| peculiar practise...likely to mess up children more than
| having any two persons ensure they are loved and cared
| for, and just getting on with it.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Sorry treating people with respect is unacceptable in
| children's shows for you. But I don't think that's
| changing soon.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Likewise the whole sexual revolution and the
| normalization of sex outside marriage is an experiment.
|
| This seems extremely ahistorical. I'm pretty sure humans
| were having sex _exclusively_ outside of marriage for
| most of the history of Homo Sapiens as a species.
| Marriage, and especially exclusively-monogamous marriage,
| is a relatively recent invention.
|
| > We do not know how successful it will be in raising
| children to be healthy, productive human beings -- which
| is the chief social purpose of marriage.
|
| We kind-of know though[1]:
|
| > To date, the consensus in the social science literature
| is clear: in the United States, children living with two
| same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with
| two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and
| methodologically sound social science studies, including
| many drawing on nationally representative data, form the
| basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that
| children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as
| well as children raised in different-sex parent families
| across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures:
| academic performance, cognitive development, social
| development, psychological health, early sexual activity,
| and substance abuse.
|
| Families with same-sex parents are not a new thing in
| 2022, there's been plenty of time to draw conclusions.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091994/
| chernevik wrote:
| Your kitchen drawers are full of chipped flint tools,
| right? I mean, that's what was used for cutting and
| chopping for most of human history.
|
| Marriage might be "a relatively recent invention", but it
| was so successful and adaptive that we really don't have
| much (any?) record of any other arrangement of human
| sexual relations.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > Marriage might be "a relatively recent invention", but
| it was so successful and adaptive that we really don't
| have much (any?) record of any other arrangement of human
| sexual relations.
|
| then why do we have so much divorce?
| lurker619 wrote:
| I sense a pattern in your complaints...by any chance do
| you also oppose abortion?
| e40 wrote:
| BS. There is a very high correlation between imdb rating
| and if I enjoy something. Give me a sort by that and I will
| be very happy.
| samstave wrote:
| https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055592025/
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I cancelled my Netflix premium subscription some years ago due
| to the UI.
|
| I just want to read what the movie/show is about without it
| starting to play some distraction, or worse, revealing
| trailer/intro.
|
| When I'm done I want to easily find relevant movies and shows
| on my own, not get some random suggestion on auto-play shoved
| in my face which I have 3 seconds to get rid of.
|
| Since then they've lost a lot of content and produced a lot of
| terrible stuff, so slim chance I'll sign up again anytime soon.
| cynusx wrote:
| Or just allow you to hide movies that you've already watched or
| decided you don't want to watch
| babypuncher wrote:
| Algorithms like this in general have made UX worse across the
| web.
|
| Facebook was also way more enjoyable to use when your home page
| was just a chronological list of all your friends wall posts.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Youtube is suffering a similar issue lately.
|
| I'll watch a tutorial video then suddenly that's the _only_
| thing my feed recommends to me. None of my subscriptions. None
| of my established preference. Just dozens of videos on a topic
| that I likely don't actually care that much about.
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| Just yesterday I discovered that youtube's "home" feed in the
| iOS app is not actually endless. I know this because I
| reached the bottom of it without tapping into a single video!
| For the past 6 months or so in particular, their
| recommendation engine has just been abysmally bad.
| timmahoney wrote:
| I can't agree with this more. I find it extremely difficult to
| find something I want to watch, because I simply can't find out
| how to look at their entire library.
| nradov wrote:
| Back when Netflix had DVDs the recommendation algorithm worked
| pretty well, at least for me. It's gotten gradually worse over
| the years. Or perhaps they no longer have much good content, so
| no recommendation algorithm would work well? Either way I guess
| it's time to cancel my subscription.
| carride wrote:
| Dvd Netflix[0] is still sending movies to your house (in
| USA). Many movies which are not available in any streaming
| service. They got worse with new releases since 2020, but for
| many famous movies of the past this is a decent service.
|
| [0] https://dvd.netflix.com/
| bombcar wrote:
| It works pretty well but for anything big name I can get it
| used on Amazon for cheap, and anything new is in Redbox.
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| They still do rent discs. I am a subscriber thereof.
|
| dvd.com
| zupzupper wrote:
| Same here, much better selection on DVD / BluRay than their
| streaming.
| everdrive wrote:
| The algorithmic feed alone is reason to leave Netflix. Briefly,
| I had Netflix working on a 3rd-party add-on for Kodi. (it's
| since broken)
|
| It was beautiful:
|
| - There were no video previews.
|
| - All selection was text-based only.
|
| - There was no algorithmic feed: only lists based on category /
| genre / etc.
|
| If Netflix offered this, I might actually pay for it. For now,
| I'm just using a relative's login, and I won't be paying if
| they boot us off.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| The sorting is brutal.
|
| The sorts should be partitioned. For a given category, that
| list they show you? Movies you have seen and rated down should
| be the very, very last on the list. Then movies you seen and
| rated up would be just before that. Then movies you haven't
| seen, but are older. Up front should be movies you haven't seen
| but are new to Netflix.
|
| A movie should appear in no more than three categories, because
| they like to pack these with spam. I marked horror as my #1
| category, why do I have to scroll through a ton of stuff like
| "Strong Female-Led Dramas" to get to it?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I have to agree. If I remember a show, I can search by name but
| I can only browse through the stuff that their algorithm shows
| to me. And that's just a few dozen titles.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Agreed. I have never used such a non-deterministic UI. Every
| time I load the app I have to hunt around to find the show I
| last watched and continue it. It feels like it's in a different
| place every single time.
|
| And actually trying to browse the catalog is painful.
|
| I like some of their content but I really hate the Netflix
| apps. (Not to mention weird subtitle issues and play position
| sync issues).
|
| The one thing I will say though is I cannot remember the last
| time I saw a single bit of buffering. Everything starts playing
| immediately, every time. The actual reliability of the
| streaming itself is superb.
| the_biot wrote:
| Algorithms? Netflix hasn't done actual recommendation
| algorithms since the DVD days. These days it just relentlessly
| pushes its own third-rate content to viewers, presumably
| because it's cheaper than licensed content.
| throwaway042122 wrote:
| I particularly hate the way they keep pushing serial killer
| documentaries, and there seems to be little way to get them to
| stop. When it's late at night and I'm trying to find something
| relaxing to watch before going to bed, the last thing I want to
| see is a serial killer's face staring at me and then footage of
| them starting to play. It ruins my night. Honestly that's been
| the last straw for me. They're happy to force their customers
| to see disturbing things, as long as it boosts engagement.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| True crime is extremely popular with the female demographic.
| That can be influencing what they push on you.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I went and quit most of my subscriptions, just because I
| literally don't have enough time .
|
| It's at a point where I'll probably resubscribe for maybe the
| next season of Squid Game, like I'll resubscribe to HBO Max if
| they do another season of Righteous Gemstones.
|
| The streaming market is so over saturated, it makes more sense to
| cancel all your subs, get your entertainment from YouTube, and
| then subscribe just for a month to binge your favorite shows.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Well it's simple.. The movie industry almost killed itself, and
| now it's getting greedy again. More and more people are simply
| downloading again. Not because they refuse to pay, but because
| they refuse to pay for 6 platforms, and get annoyed by not being
| able to find where they can watch things.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| I'm not even against piracy but this comment smacks of
| entitlement and lack of nuance. The "movie industry" isn't some
| monolithic thing and no one needs 6 platforms. Pirate content
| if you want, but don't pretend you're entitled to tv or movies.
| throwpp034578 wrote:
| jstummbillig wrote:
| At this point, you would think a branch of the media industry
| realized establishing a unified platform before a 3rd party
| inevitably does it and then also wants to be cut in (Steam for
| games, Spotify and Apple Music for music) is the only move. You
| would think.
| ZYinMD wrote:
| I just want to buy the shows I want to watch, and permanently own
| them under my Netflix account. I don't mind buying them for $30 a
| season. Just like Steam.
|
| Hey you know what? I think Steam should probably do just that!
| nabla9 wrote:
| * I wrote 3 years ago (June 20, 2019)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231341
|
| >Even when someone is the first with tech and prioritization, it
| does not mean they succeed in the long term after the field
| matures. I don't have high hopes for Slack in 5-10 years. Neither
| do I see Dropbox or Netflix justifying current valuations in the
| same time period.
|
| Since then NFLX: -40.90%, SP500: +51.14%, DBX: -10.08%
|
| * 2 years ago (Aug 4, 2020)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24054157
|
| >Almost all Netflix competitors (Disney, Amazon, HBO Max,
| Peacock, Apple ... ) will have other sources of revenue besides
| streaming so they can afford to keep loosing money to gain market
| share. Netflix can't cut prices too much.
| emsixteen wrote:
| What's the realistic Dropbox competitor, with partial file
| sync, selective sync, share links and the like? Have tried
| Google Drive, Mega.nz, iCloud, OneDrive, Jottacloud and others
| and none has really impressed.
| mathattack wrote:
| Google and Microsoft only have to be 60% good enough when
| they're bundled in with other products to be free or almost
| free.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Valuation is thinking about the [future profits]/[stock
| price] ratio.
|
| No matter how good the company business and it's position in
| the market is (= future profits), it can be overvalued if the
| price is too high.
|
| I think Dropbox seems like really nice product, but not at
| the valuation it had or has. It has no permanent competitive
| edge.
| dgb23 wrote:
| Very bad taste of Amazon to make a competing product to
| Netflix, which has to be one of their biggest clients.
| altdataseller wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is a joke or just a very very bad take.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Where have you been the last twenty years? This is their
| whole business model.
| naveen99 wrote:
| What about now that they will switch to advertising model ?
| ericmay wrote:
| I agree re: Netflix and Dropbox. Salesforce acquired Slack
| though.
|
| The main issue with a thesis about Slack is that for some
| completely unknown to me reason, nobody has even attempted to
| make a competitor. Discord is the closest but using both I
| don't think I could use Discord for work at all. It's just off.
| altdataseller wrote:
| Teams and Mattermost are competitors
| onphonenow wrote:
| Zoom is trying to compete in that space and doing pretty ok
| ericmay wrote:
| Yea Zoom has a chance to make some inroads here. It's not
| even close as of _today_ but that doesn 't mean it can't
| get better.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Is this a Teams joke?
| WaffleIronMaker wrote:
| No, Teams is a joke.
| sofixa wrote:
| A _bad_ joke.
| usrn wrote:
| XMPP still exists.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| IRC still exists even. I was recently told that it's
| basically Dischord for old people and I can't really
| disagree with that perspective from the eyes of a kid
| today.
| polka_haunts_us wrote:
| Netflix, at least compared to Dropbox, had the opportunity to
| transition to producing 1st party content which they could use
| to continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party
| content went proprietary. My gut instinct is that Netflix has
| failed to succeed on that front, but there was an attempt.
|
| Curious where on your crystal ball you see the likes of Spotify
| and the music (and podcast I guess) industry in 10 years.
| markdown wrote:
| > but there was an attempt.
|
| Unfortunately it was data-driven. This meant that if a new
| show didn't catch on within a season or two, it was
| cancelled. They've killed so many great shows chasing the
| lowest common denominator.
|
| The formula they settled on was: big name star in a generic
| designed-by-committee (or AI) show.
|
| Shame.
| dougmwne wrote:
| This is where Apple TV+ has been a breath of fresh air,
| like eating a garden fresh tomato after years of canned
| tomato paste.
| thedougd wrote:
| I think you're spot on about this. Oddly, Netflix has seen
| some success by reviving shows that were discontinued on
| major networks. You'd think they'd know better than to
| cancel shows like The OA before completion.
| jon-wood wrote:
| I'm really disappointed that creators didn't catch on to
| this and design their shows to run for one or two seasons.
| Not everything needs to be a decade long odyssey, and in
| fact a great many TV shows that were great at first were
| IMO destroyed by trying to keep running for as long as
| possible, long past the point where they ran out of things
| to say.
| gilbetron wrote:
| Not OP, but I don't see why anyone would invest in Spotify -
| there's many other options out there for great music. Spotify
| doesn't have sole rights to really any music as far as I
| know, plus music is far easier to make than movies & series.
| If you cut me off from established artists, I can still get
| great joy in a multitude of music being developed today.
| Beyond that, there's always the option of just giving money
| to the artists I like directly. The only thing Spotify has
| going for it is convenience, and I still would rather use
| Google/Youtube music. I pay for Youtube premium and get music
| for free with it, as does my entire family. Furthermore, it
| doesn't matter to the artists where their listeners get their
| music, there is no extra cost to them licensing it out to 2
| or 1000 Spotifys, although there's an argument to be made
| that just 1 legal license would benefit them, but with
| pirating I don't there's much to that argument.
|
| There was an article in the Atlantic about how people are
| listening more to "old" music these days, which makes sense,
| but will have a big impact on the industry as well:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-
| music-...
| nabla9 wrote:
| > continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party
| content went proprietary.
|
| They did and they do. They put all their money into the 1st
| party content. They produce huge number of bulk mediocre
| content and also some really good shows. I can't see how they
| could do anything different. It's not enough. They have no
| competitive edge in 1st party content creation except size.
| That edge is in danger.
|
| The competition has either deeper pockets, more content, or
| other income sources.
|
| I have no idea about music streaming. I assume its similar
| network externalities, economies of size business.
|
| ---
|
| edit:
|
| As an infrequent investor, the company must do better than
| relevant index fund (SP500, NASDAQ composite, and so on) over
| the next 5-10 years to make sense to me. Netflix may
| establish itself as a good blue-chip company, but that's not
| enough a reason to buy it.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| >some really good shows
|
| That they almost always cancel after two seasons regardless
| of popularity or story progression. As a result, lots of
| people are wary of starting to watch anything new on
| Netflix since it's almost guaranteed to be cancelled
| prematurely.
| ilaksh wrote:
| What actually happened is that Netflix is one of relatively few
| companies who have put out honest assessments in a time of severe
| economic stress. Also their competition has been growing for
| years. That's it.
|
| People are so used to having smoke blown up their asses that when
| someone tells them honestly about slightly negative news, they
| get confused.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| All the handwringing over Netflix subscriber loss seems to be
| overlooking the fact that they raised their prices -
| significantly. Of course they could lose subscribers from doing
| that. But 200k subscribers out of 150 million? Combined with the
| end of the pandemic and sky high inflation meaning many people
| have less opportunity to watch and less money to spend. The fact
| they raised their prices something like 20% and lost less than 1%
| of their subscriber base in that environment could almost be seen
| as a positive.
|
| The there is definitely a question whether, now that they have
| moved so solidly into content production, Netflix is actually a
| scalable / viable company any more. When they were just sending
| other people's content around and doing it much cheaper and
| better that was innovative and different. But content production
| is an expensive treadmill you can never get off and unless they
| find a way to innovate on that front, they are up against much
| more experienced and well established players with no
| differentiator at all.
|
| But reading the sky falling into the current reported figures
| seems a little over the top.
| zenithd wrote:
| rdtsc wrote:
| > they raised their prices - significantly
|
| Yeah, and I was right on the edge, not really watching it
| enough to justify the previous, cheaper, price. When they
| raised the price it served as a motivation to cancel it. In a 6
| months I might join for a bit to watch some newer shows, then
| probably cancel again.
|
| Raising prices works well perhaps if people are in love with
| the product or there is just no other alternative. But people
| have been auto paying and not really thinking much or using it,
| raising the prices is a decision point to re-evaluate the value
| of the service.
| hamiltont wrote:
| Think I read somewhere that of one of their content production
| differentiators is their direct-to-consumer approach.
| Classically lots of content was produced for the "average"
| consumer. Netflix can use their subscriber data to create low-
| cost content for extremely niche consumers, who might love that
| extremely relevant production (think super edgy, super graphic,
| super cartoon, etc - the type of extremes not covered by the
| average).
|
| Not sure how much this holds true anymore, as now many big
| players have direct-to-customer streaming, but just sharing
| since it was a neat thought when I first read it
| nine_k wrote:
| I wonder why the market reacted so harshly though, with NFLX
| losing 1/3 last Wednesday ($347 to $215).
| Silhouette wrote:
| Many of the big tech stocks are _insanely_ overpriced
| according to traditional investment measures. The rational
| reasons to support those prices are expectations of similarly
| extreme future growth or a belief that it might be a
| speculative investment but the dollars will keep pouring in.
|
| The discussions this week aren't just a wobble, they're about
| whether Netflix can still generate that kind of extraordinary
| future growth. If there's even a strong hint that it might
| not then the speculative bubble bursts. If there's a serious
| expectation that it won't then the growth investors are out
| as well. One stock price crash, coming right up.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| The market disagrees with the higher poster's analysis
| paxys wrote:
| The market reacted because a much higher subscriber growth
| was factored into the price. After the massive drop Netflix
| is still worth $100B and is one of the largest media
| companies out there, which is nothing to scoff at.
| jurassic wrote:
| I completely agree. I was only lightly using Netflix so when
| they last raised prices it was the push I needed to actually
| cancel. The recent content they've rolled out doesn't justify
| the heftier price tag compared to competitors. I love the UX of
| Netflix, but content rules and they're losing that battle. I
| don't even want to try new shows because of their reputation
| for cancelling things unceremoniously.
| cmckn wrote:
| I think many single-season Netflix shows would have been
| movies 15 years ago. But many types of films just don't get
| made anymore, and many directors and performers would rather
| work on series.
|
| I'd still watch a show with one season, just like I'd watch a
| film without a sequel. I don't tend to watch Netflix shows
| because they just aren't that good.
| Silhouette wrote:
| I've watched some great shows that were one-season-and-
| done. Unfortunately in the Netflix era you might instead
| instead get half-and-dropped or one-and-unresolved-
| cliffhanger. A lot of us find those endings very
| disappointing and so don't engage with new shows at all
| even if they look like we might enjoy them. Fool me once,
| shame on you. Fool me seven times since the start of COVID
| binge-watching...
| toofy wrote:
| i agree, as long as it has a clear finale. cancelling
| series which were meant to have more seasons is what
| troubles me.
|
| I absolutely agree where i'd rather watch an entire season
| than a movie, tho. i really enjoy the depth that can be
| exlores from doing an entire season. but like i said above,
| if a show requires further seasons to finish the story,
| it's very frustrating when it's canceled.
|
| to me it feels like reading a third of a novel and having
| it yanked away.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| > I don't even want to try new shows because of their
| reputation for cancelling things unceremoniously
|
| Ah, so I'm not alone in this! Nowadays, I typically only
| consider shows that have at least a few seasons, I will never
| ever try one with just one season. The chances of them
| killing it off are just too high, and that would ruin it
| completely for me.
|
| I like to binge watch, I can't enjoy that when they keep
| killing off shows. It feels like a restaurant with only
| starters.
| Silhouette wrote:
| It's an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy of the modern
| data-driven mindset. Sometimes the very act of collecting
| and acting on that data materially affects the data itself
| by creating perverse incentives.
|
| The two parent posters are _far_ from alone in my
| experience. Lots of people are getting turned off by the
| variable quality and uncertain future of the home-made
| productions, which means lots of people are holding off
| starting to watch a show until it 's somewhat established
| and had some positive reviews. If your management strategy
| is to measure early engagement with your own shows and
| viciously kill off anything that doesn't make the cut, and
| if your viewers know this, then you have defeated yourself
| no matter how good the show is or how popular it would
| naturally have become.
|
| A few years ago there was almost a trend for shows that
| weren't getting the numbers to get wrapped up with some
| sort of mini-series or TV movie so at least there was a
| chance for the production team to finish telling their
| story and give some closure for the fans (who might be
| fiercely loyal in sentiment even if too few in number to
| sustain the show). It's a little ironic Netflix would
| probably have been in a better position than anyone to
| adopt this kind of strategy and establish a reputation for
| being trustworthy and loyal to fans. Now it has the
| opposite reputation and we're openly speculating about
| whether it will ever recover.
| WiseWeasel wrote:
| Tapas 4 life!
| ripe wrote:
| It's sad that we cannot own titles but are forced to rent them
| from these streaming services that can't seem to get their shit
| together. (Not blaming Netflix per se; this is a pox on all their
| houses). Used to be nice in the DVD days. I built myself a nice
| collection then.
|
| This was the idea behind digital rights lockers: UltraViolet,
| which Disney refused to participate in and which closed down in
| 2019, and its successor Movies Anywhere, in which Paramount, MGM,
| and Lions Gate are not participating.
|
| [Old HN discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046108]
| bogomipz wrote:
| Not just that but it's sad we can't even just rent the titles
| we used to be able to rent from videos stores. There is no much
| content that is just not available and I fear it never will be.
| If you were fortunate enough to have lived near a cinephile
| type rental place then you probably remember how directors
| often had their own sections. You could browse Kurasowa, Orson
| Welles, Robert Altman, Godard ...
|
| I remember looking at the Criterion Collection streaming
| channel not that long ago and what struck me was just how much
| of the Criterion Collection was not even available on their
| streaming channel.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I don't think the service is doing too hot subscriber wise
| numbchuckskills wrote:
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I pay for a handful of streaming services but that's only
| because they're decent for content discovery and ease of use.
| If there's ever anything on there that I genuinely like I just
| pirate it (Arcane most recently) because the UX of having files
| that just work everywhere is so much better than the
| alternative. I would happily pay for unencumbered .mkv
| downloads if my recent buying trends wrt bandcamp .flacs are
| any indication.
|
| The only way to stop me from pirating the media I like is if
| you actually let me buy the superior experience I can have as a
| pirate.
|
| P.S. copyright and IP law in general need severe reform if we
| want to serve creatives and not executives
| jmyeet wrote:
| What people don't realize is that part of the pricing model for
| various physical media is that the media wouldn't last. VHS
| tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc all age, get lost, break, get scratches,
| whatever. They're not "forever".
|
| Now you can say "I can make a digital backup of my DVD".
| Depending on your jurisdiction you may have the rights to do
| that. But your own backup of that is unlikely to be durable.
|
| A cloud copy of something on Google, Apple, Amazon or Netflix
| is essentially forever.
|
| People don't realize what they're effectively asking for is
| digital rights to something in perpetuity. And you can't really
| price that realistically.
|
| Streaming services actually far better match what users
| actually want (in general). There's no issues of storing media
| or keeping digital copies safe. The limited time you can view
| something is what makes it economical.
|
| Remember too that most things tend to only ever be watched
| once. The satisfaction for collection isn't relaly about repeat
| viewing at for the most part.
| runnerup wrote:
| Streaming services would match what I want if the content I
| want was on all services and the services competed on service
| quality.
|
| Instead I want to watch "The Expanse" and I dont know if it's
| a Netflix special or HBO or Hulu or Amazon or what. I logged
| into three of them and it wasn't there.
|
| Oh look, it's on the Pirate Bay. Also, it's not throttled /
| forcibly downgraded to 720p or whatever.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I rely on the NSA for my forever backups.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean about being forced to rent content,
| even some Netflix original shows are available for purchase.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Things-Complete-Blu-ray-Orig...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07DNZHV3M/
| standardUser wrote:
| It would be much worse if we were forced to buy the rights to
| watch a TV show or movie before we know if we even like it. I'd
| have a massive virtual library of half garbage.
| nyx_land wrote:
| If only there were a way to get a file of the same movie from a
| different site and then make a copy of it to save to your
| personal archive of movie files, ensuring you never need to
| worry about paying for multiple streaming services that will
| probably remove titles you like and never carry others in the
| first place...
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| Doesn't apple still allow you to buy movies on their service? I
| only bought two (the iron giant and the bucket list) but i am
| pretty sure iron giant i bought close to 15 years ago. I can
| still download it from their service without any problems(just
| went to the tv app on my phone to confirm and just started to
| download them right now)
| bognition wrote:
| Yes many online services do but there is little to no
| interoperability.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Yes, lots of services do. Apple is unique though in that a
| purchase entitles you to all versions of a film, including
| future versions. I bought 3:10 to Yuma on iTunes in 2008 and
| I can watch it in 4K/HDR today without spending another cent.
|
| I still prefer buying and ripping Blu-Rays though.
| j4yav wrote:
| I have been rebuilding my DVD collection through thrift stores.
| It's incredibly cheap to do so now, and pretty fun to see what
| you find.
| lostgame wrote:
| I think an issue for me that prevents me from collecting
| DVD's, to; say - collecting CD's - is that while a CD from
| the 1980's is pretty much the best quality of audio you can
| still get today, DVD's unfortunately suffer from an issue
| where the SD quality has aged very poorly, and the difference
| in resolution and image quality is insanely noticeable on,
| especially 4K, TV's.
|
| Of course, since CD's are uncompressed audio, it doesn't
| matter if you play them on the most modern sound systems,
| they're still going to sound great.
|
| Streaming allows me to find a nice balance between quality
| and bandwidth, unfortunately while DVD's are neat for bonus
| features, the quality unfortunately makes it rather
| unpalatable on even semi-modern (1080p) TV's.
| gramie wrote:
| Surprise, the physical layers in your DVDs and CDs is also
| decaying, so a CD from the 1980s may well be unplayable
| now. I've found that with many of my old commercial disks,
| let alone the ones I've burned myself.
| lostgame wrote:
| Unfortunately as a SEGA Saturn collector, this is no
| surprise, and disc rot has taken claim to games that
| could otherwise be worth hundreds of dollars today. :(
|
| Weirdly, almost all of even my much older audio CD's -
| stored in the same bin away from heat and moisture -
| don't have this issue.
|
| I have to wonder what effect the specifics of the
| manufacturing process have on how likely a disc is to
| experience disc rot, as actually even within the SEGA
| community it's widely accepted that Saturn discs have an
| unusually high rate of failure compared to other compact
| disc collectables.
|
| However - importantly - my original point about quality
| also applies to backups of these mediums as well - so,
| assuming any copy of that audio CD has been properly
| archived and backed up, it will pretty much always be the
| best quality it can possibly be. Backing up a DVD these
| days - when there is a majority of the time a superior
| Blu-Ray or streaming release, is frankly pretty
| pointless, except for, unusually - the much more abundant
| amount of special features often found on DVD's.
|
| I never understood why special features pretty much went
| the way of the Dodo when Blu-Ray became the standard.
| [deleted]
| digisign wrote:
| My 80s CDs are all perfect, even my 90s burners.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/I7fokrx
| digisign wrote:
| Many remasters sound better than the original disc. It is a
| small improvement however, perhaps 1.2x better at most, not
| a 4x one like dvd to bluray.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What stops you buying on iTunes for example?
|
| And did anyone ever use those UltraViolet codes? I never tried
| them. What did they even do?
|
| I guess streaming won out because consumers prefer it - I know
| I do.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > What stops you buying on iTunes for example?
|
| DRM. If it's DRM your still don't own anything
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You never 'owned' any copy - you only had a licence.
| brimble wrote:
| Try selling a Blu Ray. Now try selling a movie you bought
| on iTunes.
| [deleted]
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| those DVDs come with an EULA backed by a dozen laws, which, if
| they were universally enforced and followed to the letter,
| would put you in jail for the criminal act of making a backup
| copy, among a myriad other possible violations
| flyinglizard wrote:
| I don't want to own movies. I watch them once. I'd rather have
| the selection any day.
| lostcolony wrote:
| The cost is part of the reasons those never really caught on,
| not just participation. The number of titles I (and I assume,
| most people) will watch enough to warrant paying $20 for is
| vanishingly small. Even $4 a rental is a hard bar to pass at
| this point with streaming competing.
|
| $1-2 to rent though? I'd be all over that. Weirdly, that's the
| cost to rent a physical disk at Redbox...but an on demand title
| anywhere is higher than that. Despite a streaming solution
| being cheaper to distribute, the fact it's more
| convenient/desirable, I guess, means it costs enough to price
| it outside of what I want to pay.
|
| This feels like a really inefficient market.
| m463 wrote:
| used dvd stores can be fun
| brimble wrote:
| I would do a whole lot more digital rentals if the prices
| weren't so damn high. How is it that it can be significantly
| cheaper to rent the _physical disk_ than to stream the movie
| once? How can I watch 20 hours of stuff on HBO in 4k for like
| $10 or $12 or whatever that runs now for a month, but a
| single 2-hour movie is $5?
|
| It'd also help a lot if I didn't need a different "app" for
| every store, with its own player UI. Learning how to use yet
| another designer's cute "experience" just to do the same
| thing I used to do with a few buttons on the front of a VCR
| that were the same for every single movie, isn't my idea of
| fun.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent
| the physical disk than to stream the movie once?
|
| The cost to build out the infrastructure to stream movies
| is tremendous.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent
| the physical disk than to stream the movie once?
|
| Price discrimination or price segmentation is the technical
| name.
|
| If you are selling an identical good which has near zero
| marginal cost to reproduce, then the way to maximize your
| profit is to sell it to each person for the maximum they
| are willing to pay.
|
| Ideally, you want to sell (or rent) the same movie or tv
| show or song to someone willing to pay $5 for $5, $10 for
| $10, and $1 for $1.
|
| In practice, it is logistically infeasible to target each
| and every person's maximum price, but you can try to target
| populations as a whole. For example, grocery stores with no
| discount to people who are willing to pay more, versus
| giving out paper coupons or online coupons to those willing
| to spend time to save money.
|
| In media's case, I am assuming that the media sellers are
| betting the people willing to buy online are willing to pay
| more, on average, than people willing to go through all the
| trouble of renting a physical disk.
|
| At least in my case, it would ring true. If I really wanted
| to see something, I would not care about paying $5 in the
| moment on my TV and start watching in seconds, rather than
| remembering to get and dealing with a disc from a Redbox
| kiosk for $1. But there are people who would want to save
| the $4, and so the content sellers are able to get $5 from
| me and $1 from the person using Redbox (although they are
| also losing sales from people not willing to buy at $5
| online, and not willing to pay $1 at a Redbox, but the bet
| is that population is smaller than the total of the other
| populations).
| mason55 wrote:
| To put it another way, you're literally paying for
| convenience.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you want to sugar to help the medicine go down...
|
| Compare the current digital rental prices to taking
| yourself to the theater. While the digital rental rate is
| high, it is less than one ticket for admission. If you buy
| concessions, it only goes up. If you take someone else, it
| gets higher. That one digital rental starts to look less
| steep from this vantage point. That being said, I still
| don't do the digital rental.
| dataflow wrote:
| > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent
| the physical disk than to stream the movie once?
|
| Note you're not just paying the marginal cost, you're also
| paying for the streaming infrastructure they invested in
| setting up.
| brimble wrote:
| Yes, of course, but that's still much cheaper than
| physical disk distribution.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Is it? Stamping and shipping discs costs very little, the
| license is the major cost in most cases.
|
| Edit: very old numbers can be found here.
| https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/03/6400-2/
| svachalek wrote:
| Netflix used to be an unlimited dvd rental service. It turned
| into the same thing without the mail step, so of course we
| stopped using it. I think if we had known what streaming
| would look like today, a lot of people including myself would
| have held on tighter.
| gh02t wrote:
| Except back in the DVD rental days, Netflix could rent out
| basically everything instead of having to fight for
| exclusive content rights. You could subscribe to Netflix or
| go to Blockbuster but you could get the same selection more
| or less at either.
| LVB wrote:
| I let go of DVDs for quite some time but have re-enabled
| https://dvd.netflix.com recently. Good selection, plus the
| much slower act of selecting, receiving and exchanging is
| sort of a welcome restricted diet compared to the endless
| buffet over the past decade.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's OK although the back catalog has rotted a lot. I
| suspect that they repurchase a lot fewer disks that have
| been reported as defective for older films. I agree in
| general that most people dismiss this as an option--or
| even consider it weird--but many people I know who are
| much more into films than TV find this a good option. I
| do off-and-on myself.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The one thing about the DVD aspect of it is that DVD
| content just looks bad on my current viewing screen. Blu-
| ray discs are okay. However, the DVD catalog is much much
| larger. Whachagonnado
| ghaff wrote:
| I admit I'm still at just HD. And getting rid of that TV
| with a higher-res one would be something of a task. So I
| mostly just stick with regular DVDs and HD streaming
| content.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| The problem with pay per item is that they try to stretch and
| tretch the amount of items/movies/episodes you watch.
|
| Netflix overdid it with making everything a serie. It's super
| annoying, and I simply don' have the energie to start another
| serie simply because Netflix's analytics say that it's better
| for engagement that you have use the serie format instead of
| a simple movie. It has very little to do with the actual
| story telling.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Totally disagree, all of my favorite shows would have made
| terrible movies. Breaking Bad is just barely long enough as
| it is, trying to compress that down into even a long movie
| would have destroyed the story.
| ghaff wrote:
| This happened irrespective of Netflix streaming. Breaking
| Bad, The Sopranos, BSG, Lost, etc. The thing is serial was
| fairly annoying if you had to be in front of the TV on
| Wednesday at 9pm every week to watch something. People
| would do it for a must-watch miniseries. But as soon as you
| could do on-demand it was a nice format for a lot of
| things.
| davidw wrote:
| I kind of long for the sitcoms of my youth. Something like
| Night Court, where it's a half an hour of jokes and then
| you're _done_. It 's nice and relaxing and doesn't try and
| hook you into watching hours on end.
| burntwater wrote:
| I've started watching Cheers on Hulu for exactly this
| reason. Next will be Mash.
| kenjackson wrote:
| A family show that holds up surprisingly well is The
| Brady Bunch. There's some weird 70s things in it -- but
| overall maybe better than I remember it.
| nostrademons wrote:
| This niche has largely been replaced by casual mobile
| games. Pop open Candy Crush and play for as long as you
| have time. You're never really done, but each session is
| basically independent of the past and doesn't require a
| whole lot of mental effort.
|
| TV in general is losing viewership to games. A decade
| ago, the watercooler conversation at work would be "So,
| what TV shows are you watching?" Now, it's "So, what
| games have you installed lately?" This may be a big part
| of Netflix's problem.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I have trouble imagining what the games / movies hybrid
| of the future will be. It's clear something is changing
| (game revenue exceeds hollywood - even if that's not a
| totally fair comparison).
|
| There is a VR-movie called Pearl by an ex-Disney director
| - you basically sit in a passenger seat watching the plot
| but can turn your head etc.
|
| Take that one step further and be at the table with
| Michael Corleone and the Police Captain. But what happens
| if you wonder out into the kitchen and check on the veal.
| Linearity and emotion get sacrificed. But the techniques
| games designers find to bring our attention will
| undoubtedly be useful for journalists and campaigners to
| highlight real issues, and marketers to highlight crap.
|
| I can sense it matters. I just don't understand it. I do
| wonder if i played more games it might help !
| foota wrote:
| I think your s key is broken
| ben0x539 wrote:
| "serie" is the singular for series in a bunch of
| languages, which honestly makes more sense than having a
| singular noun ending in s and the plural form being
| identical to the singular.
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| I still buy hard media (which makes me a Luddite apparently)
| because I consider it art and refuse to pay for digital media
| that is allegedly perpetual and then one day it goes missing
| because the wokes decided it should be memory holed.
|
| One of many, many examples: https://screenrant.com/its-always-
| sunny-blackface-episodes-m...
|
| Even things like iTunes Music Store which once claimed that all
| your past purchases are available for download from iCloud
| forever quietly became untrue when I discovered parts of my
| music library went missing. Come to find out the record company
| decided to pull licensing from Apple which made that media
| forever unavailable. So don't forget your backups..... rule of
| thumb is that you can never trust any company with your media
| no matter how much bullshit they sell you.
| managerclass wrote:
| But how do you actually find content that you like?
|
| Sometimes I have to go though 4-5 different shows/movies on
| various streaming networks before I find something worth
| watching and even then, the shows usually get really bad by
| season 2-3. I can't imagine how wasteful it would be to have
| to buy all these bad shows instead of just streaming them.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _But how do you actually find content that you like?_
|
| Recommendations from friends. Reviews by trusted critics.
| The same ways we've always found other things we like
| really.
|
| _I can 't imagine how wasteful it would be to have to buy
| all these bad shows instead of just streaming them._
|
| I have a significant disc collection of movies and TV shows
| I enjoy. I have almost nothing I haven't rewatched at least
| once and enjoyed again and/or lent to friends or family at
| some point for them to enjoy as well. I don't really know
| how that happened but I can tell you that almost none of
| those discs were bought as new releases other than big
| names that I was already fairly sure I'd enjoy or
| sequels/spin-offs of things I'd previously enjoyed.
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Almost a decent comment.
| password4321 wrote:
| Do you have any little disc destroying demons around... oh
| wait, did I say that out loud? I meant little kids.
|
| Discs are good for ripping then straight to storage (or
| mailing back to Netflix?) but that's about it.
|
| It would be cool to have a shared database of
| binaries+commands to recreate scene rips from the discs. Or
| just following along with someone who knows what they're
| doing and doesn't go for one-size-fits-all compression.
| disqard wrote:
| I'm in your camp, but I think you used the antonym of the
| word you intended to: "ephemeral" vs. "eternal" :)
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| You are correct, thank you. I blame lack of sleep and
| coffee. :)
| eweise wrote:
| I don't know about movies, but music streaming is awesome. I
| have a couple thousand CDs that are sitting in a closet
| somewhere. For a while I kept them as mp3s on a hardrive,
| copied other people's mp3s to build up my collection. But its
| still so limited. I love going through my favorite artists on
| spotify, listening to the less popular albums I never would
| have bought and discovering new artists.
| yeetsfromhellL2 wrote:
| I did the same thing. I used to put a lot of effort into
| getting a perfect FLAC rip of everything I ever listened to,
| having them on my devices, or setting up streaming from a
| home server. I threw that shit out a long time ago, partly
| because I don't listen to the garbage that I used to, and
| partly because I've got better things to fuss over now. The
| amount of time worrying about file integrity, backups, server
| being up (and updated)...sorry, 90%0 of it is music I'll just
| get tired of soon. It wasn't worth it. Spotify makes more
| sense for me.
|
| Same with movies. As I've gotten older, I can name about a
| dozen movies I'd like to watch again. I can afford to buy the
| next "highest quality release ever" when the time comes.
| bartekrutkowski wrote:
| Isn't it because it differs so much from movie streaming? On
| major music streaming platforms you can find most of the
| popular music artists. I don't have any numbers to back it,
| but my gut feeling tells me a-number-so-close-to-100 percent
| that it doesn't even matter anymore it may not be actually
| 100. Movies? You can't get Disney on Netflix, you can't get
| Apple on HBO, you can't get... you just can't. Imagine having
| Metallica on Netflix, Madonna on Apple, Beatles on Sony and
| Silent Poets on Amazon.
| [deleted]
| mqus wrote:
| That works until UMG etc start their own streaming services
| and take their content off spotify for this or any other
| reason.
| s3233323 wrote:
| lostgame wrote:
| Music streaming doesn't suffer _nearly_ the fragmentation
| issues film and television streaming services have, though.
|
| If I want to listen to something as common as Kanye or
| something as obscure as MSTRKRFT, I can do it on Spotify,
| Apple Music, Amazon Music, pretty much anything. And I only
| need to subscribe to one service.
|
| If I want to watch something as common as 'Inception' or as
| indie as 'Twin Peaks', there's virtually no chance I'd be
| using the same services.
|
| The experience with video streaming is literally just some of
| the worst ever in terms of finding content. You pretty much
| have to just pick whichever one seems the best and pirate
| whatever else you need, which begs the question of why not to
| just pirate in the first place. That's just not the case with
| music.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| > MSTRKRFT
|
| 17 million listens. I would not call that obscure.
|
| As a matter of fact a lot of truly obscure stuff barely
| gets to SoundCloud, let alone Spotify.
| lostgame wrote:
| I don't think this really affects my point that the
| fragmentation situation is _infinitely_ better with
| streaming music than it is with video.
|
| Here's - perhaps - a better explanation as to why.
|
| The majority of major music labels - Sony/BMG, Columbia,
| EMI, etc - have the majority of their music available on
| the majority of the available streaming services.
|
| This situation is unfortunately _worsening_ on video
| streaming platforms as every major studio and their
| brother wants to completely commit to their own service.
|
| It's even worse as the result of this weird licensing
| moving around is series and films being removed from
| services you'd previously subscribed too mainly for those
| particular shows or films.
|
| The only result of this is value loss and confusion
| presented to the consumer - as the recent CNN+ disaster
| shows, along with Netflix's flailing subscriber count.
|
| The music streaming world is exponentially better. Like -
| subscribing to a music streaming service is actually
| worthwhile. Video streaming services decrease in value
| with every new one that is introduced.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Netflix is something I subscribe to during Christmas but ignored
| all other times. I quickly canceled when they hiked up their rate
| recently.
|
| I have and will keep Disney Plus and HBO Max even when I watch
| them infrequently cause of Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Pixar and other
| big tentpole IP properties that Netflix has none of!
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Right now, on my screen, on the 'Recommended' tab of 'Breaking
| Bad': 1) Shrek, 2) Shrek 2, 3) How to tame a dragon ...
| etc..etc..
|
| How is this company still alive?
| hemreldop wrote:
| isaacfrond wrote:
| Link is overloaded. This one works: https://archive.ph/RXo0I
| gumby wrote:
| Netflix always had a terrible business model dependent on
| transient properties of the media environment. I thought from the
| beginning they were not masters of their own fate (remember
| Redbox's hack to get around publisher restrictions? Weird
| streaming windows even from the streaming era's earliest days?)
| and once they started spending the big bucks to try and stay
| afloat it was clear they were doomed. They were only in "FAANG"
| to make the acronym funny.
|
| I expect the entire streaming business to follow the cable TV
| model: 1 - start with a paid, high quality and/or increased
| supply without ads; 2 - bleed ads into some of the streams
| because the first stage was unsustainable; 3 - race to the bottom
| with bundles, because the individual streams are too expensive.
| Expect Comcast to be the big winner here through a roll up and
| cross-sale of carriage to their cable channels into streaming
| bundles (because aggregated bundle fees will provide at least
| some revenue without the cost of running your own streaming
| platform.
|
| Youtube ought to win this battle but have to date demonstrated
| little competence. Comcast is the superpredator.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > They were only in "FAANG" to make the acronym funny.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-faang
|
| See "The origins of FAANG". At some point, presumably because
| it is a catchy sounding acronym, people started using FAANG to
| mean large tech companies, or large tech companies with very
| high payrates.
| gumby wrote:
| I suppose it's MAAMA these days, much as I'd prefer MAGMA
| bombcar wrote:
| FAANG or FANG without N becomes a very unfortunate acronym.
| 8note wrote:
| GAAF
| robonerd wrote:
| _gaffe: A foolish and embarrassing error, especially one
| made in public._
|
| GAAF is certainly better than the reverse, but it lacks
| the _bite_ of FAANG.
| jeffwask wrote:
| It's funny they talk about the binge model and how Netflix has to
| change. I don't engage in the weekly drops on other providers I
| just wait the 12 weeks anyway. FOMO and WFH cancel each other
| out.
| MillenialGran wrote:
| This has been amazing to watch unfold.
|
| Netflix after canceling all of its best shows during a period
| when piracy has never been easier: "Let's start doing ads!"
|
| I wonder if anybody at Netflix has seen the UX of popular
| streaming apps like (now defunct I believe) terrarium and its
| successors. They're easier to use, just as fast as Netflix, have
| much larger libraries, allow DRM-free downloads, ad-free, no
| algorithmic spam, etc. It is incredible that when faced with that
| as another consumer option they've gone for "severely degrade
| user experience" as the strategy.
|
| At this point, some vulture private equity firm should just take
| them private and sell it for parts. Clearly they've spent far too
| much time being the biggest player and have completely
| disconnected from what their customers want.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > canceling all of its best shows
|
| Care to list? Most of the loss of shows I see are from studios
| pulling them off Netflix to make them exclusive to their own
| streaming service - a bunch of Disney stuff is now Hulu or D+
| only for instance.
| MillenialGran wrote:
| Ozark, Stranger Things, Grace and Frankie are all wrapping
| up. Archive 51 was great and very well received and cancelled
| immediately.
|
| Right now there's kind of a shortage of Netflix-unique _good_
| shows. I 'm not spending money that I worked for in exchange
| for... a nature documentary narrated by Obama.
|
| Derry Girls is great but you can watch it months in advance
| on All4 with a dirt cheap VPN. There is a similar situation
| for Bodyguard.
|
| They are expecting people to actually sign up (instead of
| sharing passwords lmao) and watch ads for the off chance that
| in a year or two maybe Squid Game season 2 is as good as
| season 1, or that they need to not miss out on Red Notice 2
| and 3. It feels like they are literally betting that people
| need forgettable Gal Gadot movies in the same way that they
| need cigarettes.
| beckler wrote:
| I'm mostly bitter about Santa Clarita Diet being cancelled,
| but these were some other shows I enjoyed that were also
| cancelled: The OA, GLOW, I Am Not Okay with This, Teenage
| Bounty Hunters, Daybreak.
| MillenialGran wrote:
| Canceling GLOW was one of the first indicators that
| nobody in charge at Netflix appears to actually watch
| Netflix shows.
|
| Did they ever clarify exactly why it was cancelled? I
| remember reading that the cast and crew wanted one more
| season to finally wrap up the story, and the fans
| DEFINITELY wanted another season so... ?
| johnchristopher wrote:
| https://decider.com/list/canceled-netflix-original-shows/
|
| Personally I am still not over the cancellation of Sense8 and
| The Oa.
| mike00632 wrote:
| The Dark Crystal, Travelers
| MillenialGran wrote:
| Travelers was great! I would have loved another couple
| seasons!
| ripe wrote:
| I agree with your point that Netflix UX is terrible. But what
| do you mean "canceling all of its best shows"? It's not
| Netflix's fault if the studios pulled their licenses for their
| content, for their own streaming services.
| saurik wrote:
| When I read that phrase I presume they mean Netflix's first-
| party content, not content being licensed.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| I think it's not just canceling their "best" shows. They have
| lots of data on what people watch. Rather I'd say that when you
| cancel shows people _love_ whether or not they have great
| ratings you 're creating a lot of brand damage that is not
| accounted for. I think this latest price increase really tipped
| that over the edge for plenty of people that weren't getting
| much use from Netflix.
|
| Price increases bring increased scrutiny on the value of the
| service compared to just hiding as a monthly $15 charge or so
| amongst a sea of subscriptions that products are sold as.
|
| This is anecdotal but this is my experience. I used to love
| Netflix and though maybe they didn't have the most shows they
| had shows I realllllly wanted to watch. Now? There is so little
| that I care about and the positive brand sentiment is gone.
| Great shows that I became attached to were canceled so
| regularly that I am truly not interested in investing time into
| their shows. Not all shows should go on forever but then you
| might as well commit to making everything a limited 2 season
| series and be honest about it.
|
| I actually canceled Netflix and had not had it for a year
| before the pandemic (where I gave in) but I think many people
| in this economic environment are finding it easier to give up a
| TV subscription to a company that produces _mostly_,
| mediocrity.
|
| It truly has been interesting to watch a giant brand so
| committed to their own internal analytics that they've lost so
| much of their brand reputation.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| ITT: Developers, who are so normally concerned about copyright
| and licensing, making excuses as to why they should be able to
| ignore copyright and licensing for things they want.
|
| Next time HN pops up with a licensing thread, it would be helpful
| to reuse arguments here as to why any company or person should be
| able to freely do what they want with source code, art, graphics,
| etc.
| smm11 wrote:
| Netflix used to offer movies that were previously shown in
| theaters. You could get a DVD in the mail, and watch a movie you
| hadn't seen otherwise. When streaming became a thing years later,
| you could again watch a movie you hadn't seen otherwise.
|
| We used to watch five to ten movies a month via Netflix. We
| haven't used it in two or three years now.
| OskarS wrote:
| The thing I find interesting with Netflix is how much they spend
| on content and what a terrible rate of return it has. Look at
| Apple TV+, they're absolutely TINY compared to Netflix in both
| library size and money spent on new production, but they have
| arguably more hits than Netflix. Like, since when has any drama
| on Netflix been as buzzy or as good as Severance on Apple TV+?
| When was the last time they had a comedy success like Ted Lasso?
|
| They have a couple of things that are very good (including
| Russian Doll, which is better than the article gives it credit
| for). But it's the ratio the that's troubling: the value of [good
| shows] / [shows produced] is absurdly much lower for Netflix than
| for Apple TV+, HBO Max or Disney+. All their spending seems to
| result in is endless mediocre True Crime documentaries that try
| recapture the magic of the first season of Making a Murderer, and
| the occasional golden nugget you binge in a weekend.
|
| The article makes a big deal of the binging thing, and I agree
| it's a terrible model compared to weekly releases. But I feel
| like Netflix's real problem is that they just don't make enough
| good stuff.
| muh_gradle wrote:
| I was really skeptical of subscribing to Apple TV (an
| additional streaming service really?) but after watching some
| of the Apple content I'm a convert. Ted Lasso, Severance,
| Pachinko, and many more.
|
| There's just so much cheap, quickly produced, B-level content
| that it dilutes the brand.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I think they've over-interpreted their viewing data. Seems like
| they concluded that viewers spend most of their time watching
| garbage filler, which is probably true. But they shouldn't
| presume that each viewing hour is equal to the next.
|
| I'll watch some garbage on streaming. But I'll make
| subscription choices based on flagship shows since everyone has
| garbage filler content.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Based on the cancellations of some beloved shows, I'd also
| say they give a disproportionate weight age to binging.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I have no idea what happened with Netflix.
|
| Their first few originals were great, or if not great, then at
| least interesting.
|
| Now, they produce _so much_ , but most of it is just... feeling
| like made by AI
|
| Like they see what is popular elsewhere and trying to produce
| exactly the same thing. But as with GPT generated text, after a
| while, you can sense something is off.
| rnd0 wrote:
| >The article makes a big deal of the binging thing, and I agree
| it's a terrible model compared to weekly releases. But I feel
| like Netflix's real problem is that they just don't make enough
| good stuff.
|
| Personally speaking, I'd be happy if they simply completed the
| stuff they do make -instead of cancelling it prematurely.
| prasadjoglekar wrote:
| "The thing I find interesting with Netflix is how much they
| spend on content and what a terrible rate of return it has."
|
| Bingo - that's the real reason for the long term (or secular )
| decline we're seeing. With 0% interest rates, it didn't matter
| what the payoff time horizon for Netflix was. With 4% interest
| rates, longer horizons are gone. Couple that with Netflix being
| a discretionary expense, and we see the compounding effects of
| inflation.
|
| Two things will happen - we'll see the real value of Netflix's
| library content. Do people really value that at $12 per month.
|
| And we'll also likely see an appreciation in the value of the
| library content from legacy studios like Paramount/NBCU etc. -
| who have complained for the longest time that this is
| undervalued relative to Netflix.
| fetus8 wrote:
| $12 a month? The cheapest Netflix plan is $10 for STANDARD
| definition. $15 for HD on two screens, and $20 a month for 4K
| resolution.
|
| I think bumping up past $15 has hurt them a lot too. $20 a
| month for a streaming service is outrageous.
| juki wrote:
| They have different prices for different countries.
| matwood wrote:
| > Apple TV+, HBO Max or Disney+
|
| Exactly. If I pick a random show on any of those, it's probably
| at least ok (depending on the kinds of shows I like). Pick a
| random Netflix original and it's probably terrible. And, the
| ones you do find that are ok end up canceled after a single
| season.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Netflix suggestions are not good. It takes a long time to find
| something decent to watch.
|
| I have enjoyed Narcos, Tiger King, Stranger Things, Queen's
| Gambit and others.
|
| But there are so many bad shows, that are formulaic, unoriginal
| and overall, lame.
|
| Then, I have nothing against noble causes such as social justice
| and such. But compare a good movie, such as Men of honor, or the
| Green Book, with the unoriginal content on Netflix. It is just
| not watchable.
| itqwertz wrote:
| It is absolutely the woke aspect that is driving people away.
| Mongo_Mak wrote:
| They raised prices.
|
| They've reduced content.
|
| They consider emplacing password locks for their users.
|
| These things say to me "we no longer want your business and will
| blame our decline on what YOU'RE doing rather than our policies
| that aren't keeping up with the real world."
| me551ah wrote:
| The biggest problem Netflix has is content. When it first came
| out, it enjoyed a near monopoly and had access to content from
| every single major network. But as networks have started to roll
| out their own subscription services, Netflix is suddenly finding
| itself in a position where it lacks content. It has tried to
| become a content machine, but hasn't been very successful at it.
| Netflix is a tech company and not a media company, and as
| streaming tech becomes commonplace, Netflix is losing its edge.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > algorithmically designed movie
|
| Still more original than the next MCU movie.
| rcurry wrote:
| I just got tired of them putting the same movies in every damned
| category:
|
| Horror? How about The Truman Show!
|
| Sci-Fi? How about The Truman Show!
|
| Action? How about The Truman Show!
|
| Adventure? How about The Truman Show!
|
| Finally I just unsubscribed.
| TheAdamist wrote:
| Arguably Truman Show fits into all those categories, plus
| romance and more, depending what part of the movie you are
| talking about.
| asciimov wrote:
| The only think that keeps me subscribed is my partners addiction
| to Asian dramas (K-dramas, J-dramas, C-dramas, etc). Yes, we also
| have several other dedicated Asian Drama streaming services, but
| Netflix has some exclusives.
| julianbuse wrote:
| What is a C-drama?
| asciimov wrote:
| Chinese Drama's. Interesting thing about them is that they
| usually dub over their local accent with Standard Mandarin.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| For myself I'm on the cusp of cancelling. Mostly just for the
| slant of most of the content. I'm not interested in paying for my
| propaganda feed.
| zach_garwood wrote:
| Since Netflix is sticking with the binge-watch release model they
| pioneered, I wish they would provide a 1 or 2 week-long "binge"
| one-time payment option. They could charge as much as for a
| month's subscription, but you wouldn't have to deal with
| canceling your subscription when you're done watching the 2 or 3
| shows you actually signed up to watch. $20 for a limited time, no
| hassle binge is a pretty good deal; it's cheaper than buying a
| single movie on Prime Video and much cheaper than buying movie
| tickets for me and my partner.
| jmull wrote:
| It seems like that would hurt their business, not help it.
|
| They don't want to to get in and get out. They need subscribers
| and the revenue flow they bring. I think they should stop the
| binge model for new, original content. That is, release new
| seasons one episode at a time rather than drop them all at
| once.
| seoaeu wrote:
| If you sign up and cancel right away, your subscription lasts
| for the rest of the month (and they charge you accordingly). It
| is a couple extra clicks but basically what you are asking for
| padseeker wrote:
| The biggest issue is there is too much competition and too many
| streaming services. When Netflix was the only game in town it was
| a no brainer. However I'm currently paying HBO, Hulu, Disney,
| Apple and Amazon along with Netflix. each platform has something
| worth watching, but not all are worth paying for. I should cancel
| Apple+ and I most of whats on Amazon is terrible but it comes
| with Prime already. I still think Netflix is worth keeping
| compared to some of the other services but they keep raising the
| price.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| "4-5 new HBO episodes every Thu and Sun"
|
| There's not anything particularly compelling right now IMO on HBO
| dropping new episodes except for Tokyo Vice... which others am I
| missing?
| dehrmann wrote:
| I'd be careful to make a claim as big as "the bottom is dropping
| out," but Netflix is facing a few headwinds.
|
| - Lots of competition, some more serious (Disney+) than others
| (Amazon)
|
| - Nearing the top of the streaming adoption curve
|
| - End of the stay-at-home covid bump
|
| The covid impact is noise in the long (5+ years) term.
|
| Reaching full adoption is a sign of maturity overtaking growth.
| You run the company differently, but it's not "the bottom
| dropping out."
|
| Competition is rough. The competitors have deep pockets and back
| catalogs, but consumers have no appetite for 6 separate services.
| This is where I'd be worried.
|
| I empathize with the recommendation and UI gripes, but I doubt
| they're driving Netflix's woes.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Moving from a growth company to a stable company just implies
| it deserves a much lower valuation multiple, which is what the
| market is adjusting to.
|
| My question is, how did people not expect this given that a
| huge XX% of the first world already uses it, and there are tons
| of viable competing streaming services popping up like weeds?
| They had a first mover advantage, and that was pretty much it,
| but streaming is a solved technology now. Competition took much
| longer to mobilize than it should have, but it's finally here
| now.
|
| At the end of the day the only differentiator for Netflix is as
| a production company. Up to you to decide what their moat is
| there
| rc_mob wrote:
| Hi. You are 1000 times smarter than the idiot author of the
| article. The linked article mentions none of these.
| nova22033 wrote:
| Perhaps a more appropriate question: Why did NFLX jump from 363
| at the beginning of the pandemic to 690 at the peak of the tech
| "boom". Was it really worth that much more?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| What a terrible article. It's literally just full of guesses and
| conjecture about numbers based on the author's personal
| prejudices.
| ParksNet wrote:
| "The woke mind virus is making Netflix unwatchable"
|
| Elon Musk, April 2022. Accurate.
| rnd0 wrote:
| "the blue bus travels over denmark" rnd0, April 2022. Also
| gibberish.
|
| I mean, as long as we're going to be spewing content-free
| sentences I might as well get mine in.
|
| "Woke" isn't a useful term because today in 2022 it basically
| means "anything a conservative doesn't like". "Woke mind virus"
| is particularly egregious -that's pure hyperbole without even a
| pretense of meaning.
|
| The problem with Netflix in the main isn't that they show too
| many people who are white, or show two many people who are
| LGBTQ+. The problem with Netflix IN THE MAIN is that they are
| cracking down on a subscription policy no one wants while
| increasing prices beyond what people believe are reasonable
| while at the same time hemmoraging content. It doesn't help
| that they have demonstrated over the last decade that you
| cannot rely on their own content to actually tell a full story
| (because it will get cancelled prematurely).
|
| None of that has anything to do with the "woke" bugbear -it
| would be equally true if Netflix's political stance matched
| OAN.
| gorwell wrote:
| The "woke" all have the same opinions and aggressively attack
| any deviation. It acts like a parasite or virus that contains
| a payload of dogma replicating itself from host to host. It
| turns rational people into zombies, so mind virus describes
| it very well. Challenges to the dogma are considered
| dangerous as it threatens the ability for the virus to
| spread.
|
| You're right that the virus could be a different variant,
| like the anti-woke variant, and it'd be a problem too if it
| parasitized as many brains.
| rnd0 wrote:
| What are those opinions, please; if there is no variation
| then that ought to be easy enough for you to detail.
|
| >It turns rational people into zombies, so mind virus
| describes it very well.
|
| If you believe in literal zombies, I'd gently suggest to
| you that your own grip on rationality may not be as firm as
| you believe.
| orangepurple wrote:
| It may not be unfair to claim that it's "everything
| conservatives don't agree with." While that may or may not
| be true, it more specifically refers to a type of hivemind.
| rnd0 wrote:
| >While that may or may not be true, it more specifically
| refers to a type of hivemind.
|
| It sounds to me like you meant "colliqually" -as in "in
| informal or slang usage", not "specifically"?
|
| In every conversation I've had on the subject where I've
| tried to nail down a definition of the term, the intended
| meaning is always different. Unless I'm very mistaken
| (please correct me if I am) there isn't an objective
| universally-agreed upon definition of what Woke means.
|
| It's used the way "liberal" was in the 1990's or "SJW"
| was in the 2010's -an empty pejorative that ultimately
| only adds noise to any conversation it's unironically
| used in.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Since you assert that "woke" isn't a useful term because
| today in 2022 it basically means "anything a conservative
| doesn't like" and Elon Musk uses the term liberally, do you
| agree that Elon is not a conservative?
| rnd0 wrote:
| I don't honestly give enough of a shit about Elon to
| remember what his politics are.
|
| All I care about is that "woke" is empty rhetoric which is
| in practice meaningless.
| sublimefire wrote:
| Netflix has too many random choices of equal weight for me. I
| search for 20 minutes then just jump to Youtube.
| throwaway71271 wrote:
| netflix content is the curse of data driven product building.
|
| building for everybody and in the same time building for nobody
|
| you optimize for the most impact, and yet you forget that the
| average man does not exist.
| ineedasername wrote:
| On bad quarter for subscription losses-- driven by dropping out
| of the Russian marked-- (they'd be up 500k subscribers if not for
| that) and people are jumping on the "Netflix is doomed"
| bandwagon.
|
| That seems very premature to me. Subscription growth has slowed
| and they may still lose some more, but saying the bottom is
| dropping out is hyperbole at best & clickbait at worst. (though
| why not both?). They're facing more competition, and coming out
| of COVID lockdowns probably means people aren't home as much to
| binge watch shows. Not enough to doom them unless they start
| hitting a bunch of own goals.
| ehsankia wrote:
| They seem to be stuck in the lose subscribers -> increase price
| -> lose more subscriber cycle.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I guess it depends on how they react now, and who the price
| increase hits.
|
| For now subscription loss is a one-off event, so it's a bit
| early to call it a cycle. They project to lose subscribers
| this quarter as well, so it could be the start but I'd guess
| that a base price increase is at least a year in the future
| since they just bumped it up. If they do it sooner, that
| would be a key sign of the cycle you're talking about.
|
| They have hinted at a price increase for accounts that are
| sharing passwords. On the other hand they've also hinted at a
| cheaper ad-supported plan. If they go ahead with an increase
| for shared accounts that could get messy. There's a lot of
| potential for angry customers here. Get it right and people
| will be frustrated at higher prices, maybe cancel, maybe
| share the cost, but probably not be outraged. Get it wrong
| and they've got a million or more customers essentially
| getting fined for sharing an account that they're not
| actually sharing.
|
| It will be interesting to follow along, I just think it's too
| soon to project any particular path. They could pull it
| together (maybe?) or they could proceed to botch things up
| with customer-unfriendly punitive policies and lower quality
| content as they try to cut costs, and maybe two years from
| now we'll be looking at a Disney(+) buy out at a steep
| discount. (more likely, at least the part about screwing
| things up. A buyout... I don't know. Maybe just stagnation.)
| bvm wrote:
| how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy do you think all this news
| about subscribers dropping off is for Netflix? I feel there a
| danger that, much like when people join something because in part
| other people were joining it (a big factor in me joining in
| 2011), it becomes something people are doing because they've
| heard others are; I know I'm definitely consciously evaluating
| how much I watch it now, but perhaps I'm just a sheep.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| If Netflix would add 4K DVDs to their DVD service I'd drop
| streaming NF for it in a second..
| jsemrau wrote:
| Netflix is now a mature business that stopped growing.
| https://app.finclout.io/t/NBbmd0A
| glenjamin wrote:
| The graph in your link appears to show an operating profit of
| over $6 billion.
|
| What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion
| dollar a year profit is considered a problem?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Stocks got valuations into the hundreds and lower thousands
| times revenue. This is only sane if there is space for the
| business to grow a hundred times, what for those large
| companies is obviously not true.
|
| Now that the US money hose decreased it's flow a little bit,
| the insanity of those valuations is hurting.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Nothing wrong with valuing that business at ~100 billion too.
| vmception wrote:
| Nothing, theyre just Attempting to price the shares correctly
| now.
|
| Its $6bn in profit still at a $96bn valuation. Down from
| $150bn. Quite high if only looking at profit. But I
| definitely like the revenues under the idea they can reduce
| overhead
| jsemrau wrote:
| I suppose the assumption of many investors is that
| competition is increasing and with that profitability will
| decline as well. Still the markets are crazy right now.
| vmception wrote:
| the moment earnings dropped, yes. by now its just people
| getting stopped out, cutting losses, shorts and put
| buyers piling on. there is that idea of a death spiral
| where Netflix has to spend even more on content and
| licensing again while raising prices for users and
| pissing users off more, but that model was resilient for
| cable - although cable does not command such revenue
| multiples from traders.
|
| I can see the business being fine, definitely watching
| for lower prices. netflix has always been a fun casino,
| super leveraged rocket.
| jsemrau wrote:
| I think Netflix has taken the right strategy by
| diversifying into more international content (Better Than
| Us, Squid Games, Alice) Expand to casual games and
| interactive content.
|
| As a consumer, the company will still provide real
| economic value
| jsemrau wrote:
| Facebook also still makes insane profits each year. And the
| stocks drop like hell. There is a lot of uncertainty in the
| market with many smaller growth stock of the Russel 2000
| being completely oversold.
| https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-small-cap-
| stocks...
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Most US publicly traded companies are valued off future
| growth, not off profitability. We have no shortage of
| profitable companies in the US, so investment gravitates
| towards those that have the next best thing.
| wirefall wrote:
| Infinite growth is now the norm.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion
| dollar a year profit is considered a problem?
|
| It is not considered a problem by anyone other than those who
| were invested in Netflix equity and expected it to be at a
| higher price.
| onion2k wrote:
| _What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion
| dollar a year profit is considered a problem?_
|
| Because it _is_ a problem.
|
| Firstly, it's a problem because stock prices are a measure of
| predicted future value. The profit today is mostly
| irrelevant. In order to make a profit on shares the business
| has to be in a position to do better in the future. If it
| doesn't then people won't believe it'll do better even
| farther in to the future, so they won't bid more for the
| shares than they're worth today. That means investors can't
| make a profit. If you bought Netflix shares in the past
| you'll lose money. That's a problem.
|
| Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, Netflix (and
| every other tech unicorn) use their shares as a hiring
| incentive. If the shares are going the wrong way then good
| hires will refuse offers and go elsewhere. A big chunk of
| renumeration in tech is predicated on people getting stock
| instead of cash because that's worth more to the individual
| and cheaper for the business. If that fails then the business
| has to start dipping in to that $6bn profit to replace people
| who leave, or to acquire businesses, or just to maintain the
| status quo.
|
| It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where a $6bn profit turns
| into a loss within a decade or less. The driving force behind
| people saying Netflix has a problem is that they're
| predicting that the future of the company isn't good.
|
| I mean, they might be wrong and Netflix might be fine, and
| ultimately even if things go badly Netflix is never going to
| "fail" because it'll get bought long before that happens, but
| if you hold Netflix stock it's entirely reasonable to be
| worried despite the healthy profit they make.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Netflix does not pay in shares, they pay in all cash as
| their job compensation.
| efficax wrote:
| Last I knew, they offered you the choice of all cash or
| using whatever % of your salary to buy options, including
| 100% options.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| As of a few years ago, they paid all cash, gave you an
| additional 5% of your salary in options, and you could
| purchase more options if you want. I don't believe they
| allow 100% allocation any more (but they once did, feel
| like that ended around 2015 or so)
| cercatrova wrote:
| Interesting, must be somewhat recent of a change. I
| wonder how those people who took the 100% options deal
| are feeling right now.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > That means investors can't make a profit.
|
| That's not quite true. It means investors can't plan to
| make a profit by selling future shares based on the price
| growth beating inflation.
|
| But...investors can still make a profit from dividends.
| There are plenty of large companies that are much less
| growth focused, and much more dividend focused.
| loudmax wrote:
| What's supposed to happen is that profitable companies
| start paying dividends to their shareholders. If you're
| getting dividends, then you don't mind if the value of your
| shares is staying flat or even dropping a little. The
| original purpose of owning shares in a company wasn't only
| that the value of the shares themselves would increase, but
| that they'd pay dividends so shareholders can make a profit
| over the life of a company.
|
| As far as I know, Netflix shares, much like shares in many
| other tech companies, do not pay any dividend. Perhaps it's
| time they begin.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > The original purpose of owning shares in a company
| wasn't only that the value of the shares themselves would
| increase, but that they'd pay dividends so shareholders
| can make a profit over the life of a company.
|
| I do not want dividends if I think the business can
| invest the money with a higher probability of better ROI
| than I can. If shareholders want dividends, they can vote
| for them.
| mcphage wrote:
| > I do not want dividends if I think the business can
| invest the money with a higher probability of better ROI
| than I can.
|
| A better ROI to whom--itself, or to you? Do you own
| Netflix stock to make money for yourself, or for Netflix
| to make money for itself?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| To me, of course. But Netflix earning more money for
| itself is the same as Netflix stock price increasing is
| the same as the Netflix's owner's ROI.
| mcphage wrote:
| Clearly not the same, since a dividend would increase
| your ROI, but is not Netflix earning more money for
| itself.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| For a liquid asset, ROI should be the same (excluding
| taxes) either with or without dividend:
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/ex_divide
| nd....
|
| With a dividend, you have to pay taxes now. Without the
| dividend, the stock price remains higher so you sit on
| higher unrealized gains. But assuming you can sell it
| anytime (it is liquid), the ROI is still there without
| the dividend.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If they were able to do, shouldn't they instead take debt
| specially when it is cheap now. Invest that and give you
| the dividends on both?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Borrowing is not free. Other owners of the company may
| not have the same cash flow objectives. If you have
| enough votes on the board to make that the objective,
| then it is possible, but longer term stakeholders will
| probably object to being saddled with debt so some can
| cash out now.
| anecd0te wrote:
| Netflix (like many businesses) use stock buybacks instead
| of dividends.
| [deleted]
| vmception wrote:
| wow they make that much revenue? probably would buy this dip
| then. $30bn ARR trading at a $96bn marketcap/valuation and
| they're profitable!? uhhh say less!
| lbrito wrote:
| One thing that's missing is a single-ticket subscription that
| encompasses many streaming services. SV types are smart and can
| probably squeeze a profit while still keeping attractive pricing.
|
| Fragmentation is becoming annoying and unsustainable. I see some
| streamers as better content producers than tech companies, so
| they will probably shift towards that over time. Also all these
| services are upkeeping parallel streaming tech. All this will be
| consolidated sooner or later.
| rybosworld wrote:
| The original content is 99% garbage. Every streaming service has
| this problem, though.
|
| The series that are really well made are few and far between.
| E.g. - Narcos - Ozark - House of Cards - Stranger Things
|
| For every good show, I see another few dozen that I can't bear to
| sit through. Stuffing the catalogue with filler is reminiscent of
| cable.
| jdlshore wrote:
| The problem with this analysis is that it assume everyone has
| the same tastes, and stuff you don't personally like is
| "garbage." The reality is that people have a lot of different
| tastes. I don't think you should judge Netflix by what you
| don't like; only by whether it has enough of the things that
| you _do_ like.
|
| For example, I've been enjoying "Handsome Siblings," a Chinese
| wuxia show that's pretty shallow. It's not going to win any
| awards for writing or acting, but it's beautifully produced and
| good mindless fun.
|
| To some people, it's filler junk (worse-- _subtitled_ junk). To
| me, it 's perfect for passing the time on a long plane ride.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Yes, I didn't like any of the shows the person you are
| replying to listed. Although Netflix still doesn't have any
| shows I like, I've only been enjoying Apple+/Hulu, hell even
| Amazon.
| pHollda wrote:
| Taste is not subjective. The critics (cc Metacritic, >>>
| Rotten Tomatoes) are usually right about TV/film.
|
| Decent Netflix TV: Maid, Unbelievable, Ozark, Narcos,
| Bloodline, Mindhunter, Black Mirror, Sweet Tooth.
|
| They average like one decent TV show every 18 months. It's an
| absolute disaster.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Netflix feels like a case of trying to "A/B testing as
| substitution for a strategy"
|
| Being overly focused on engagement optimizes what's easy to
| measure. It doesn't always optimize what's important. In the case
| of Netflix what's important is brand strength and month over
| month subscriber retention. Engagement optimization leads to
| click-baity crappy reality TV instead of shows that actually
| drive retention
|
| Meanwhile other services (notably Apple TV+) simply focuses on
| quality over quantity and starting to do rather well.
| synergy20 wrote:
| vudu is a nice try, just too expensive, a few movies adding up is
| already more than netflix+disney+others
|
| at least vudu should have something like the more you buy the
| cheaper you will be charged
| ryanmcbride wrote:
| The reason I cancelled was a combination of not being
| particularly interested in most of the content (I liked
| Bridgerton though) and the fact that while they were boasting
| record profits, they hiked their price up. I remember back when
| their streaming service was new it seemed like they had every
| movie under the sun (or at least a lot more than they do now) but
| since every studio has decided to have their own streaming
| service, it's mostly Netfilx's own movies/shows. Some are good
| but they miss way more than they hit.
|
| On top of that, raising the price in the same month that they
| announce record profits left a really bad taste in my mouth. I
| know they're a business, and businesses love to chase infinite
| growth, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or give them my
| money.
|
| The best streaming service for my particular usecase, which is
| primarily watching wide release movies, has been hbo
| max/go/whateverthey'recallingitthisweek. They get most of the
| wide release movies I'm interested in, and for the older weirder
| niche stuff that they don't get, I just buy the dvd/blu-ray and
| throw it on plex.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Honestly I think a bit mistake Netflix makes which others don't
| as much is reminding people they exist so damn frequently. The
| #1 rule of subscription services is to let people forget they
| are subscribed.
|
| I'm also surprised Netflix doesn't have a yearly bundle...
| that's how Prime gets me, by the time I get charged for a year,
| it's already too late. Less frequent bills means less chance
| for someone to reconsider their subscription.
|
| But yes, the constant email they send me about things changing
| and the price increasing, every email is a chance for someone
| to realize they don't use Netflix and would rather unsubscribe.
| [deleted]
| cercatrova wrote:
| It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these streaming
| services.
|
| - You get the benefit of high quality (true 4k, not stream
| compressed "4k") and no buffering.
|
| - Plex, Radarr, Sonarr automatically downloads and categorizes
| your content for you, you can just sit back and enjoy your
| content. - Edit: Plex et al are not the *only*
| ways to download content, not sure why some replies are thinking
| so. I too can type in a show into a piracy site, click the magnet
| icon, and start immediately watching it. I personally don't even
| use Plex, Radarr or Sonarr myself, it was just a suggestion. In
| contrast, I can't just type any show into Netflix and watch it,
| since it might not even be on Netflix! Then I'd need to get on
| justwatch.com just to figure out which streaming service is
| playing the show. This is harder than piracy in my view.
|
| - You can use whatever media player you want without having to go
| through a browser and its DRM. I use mpv and filters like Anime4k
| to automatically upscale my content, something that I cannot do
| via a browser or otherwise without the physical file on my hard
| drive.
|
| - You're not geo-locked to content, just because you're not in
| the target country doesn't mean you wouldn't want to watch it.
|
| - Oh, and you can share with as many of your friends as you want
| without a restrictive password sharing penalty like Netflix seems
| to want to start enforcing.
|
| Now, what _would_ be a good model to stop such piracy? Something
| like Steam or Spotify but for movies and shows:
|
| Perhaps a paid Plex server where I get all content from every
| distributor for a flat fee, and the service provider can then pay
| out to each distributor their portion of my subscription based on
| number of views. I retain access to the physical files without
| DRM so that I can do with them what I want, such as applying mpv
| filters.
|
| Hell, it's probably in the best interest of all distributors to
| band together because clearly everyone having their own
| subscription service is a race to the bottom. See Netflix here
| struggling to make original content because major distributors
| like Disney and Paramount have already left. See CNN+ that shut
| down one month after starting. Due to the tragedy of the commons,
| where each distributor thinks they can make more money via
| starting their own service, this hypothetical new service would
| have to be some sort of joint venture between them all so that no
| one is incentivized to start their own.
| bradly wrote:
| Not being able to set or see an actual resolution when using
| Netflix on my TV is so frustrating.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Even without a widget I can definitely see that with Netflix
| I am getting 720p on a 4k TV, even more frequently when
| watching childrens shows. I have a 200Mbps internet link,
| Disney+ plays 4k just fine.
| FpUser wrote:
| Resolution on its own does not mean much. To me all that
| matters if it is visually ok.
| bradly wrote:
| It is not. It's very clearly not HD and we gigabit
| internet. Other services do fine. Especially rented HD
| movies that are streamed. So instead of using my TV for
| Netflix, I watch on my laptop with a browser plugin to set
| a proper resolution.
| nradov wrote:
| Right but the visual quality depends more on the actual
| bit rate than on the nominal resolution.
| colechristensen wrote:
| But bitrate doesn't matter if they've selected 720p for
| you.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I think I'm missing your point.
|
| What I've noticed: a Netflix 1080p is very much worse
| looking than the 1080p I get off Plex.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Unbounded bitrate on 720p video will always look rather
| degraded on a 4k screen.
| mindslight wrote:
| As is commonly forgotten, 720p _is_ "HD".
| digisign wrote:
| Internet provider may be throttling you on purpose. Do
| they sell TV as well?
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| Just wait a while. Your eyes will get like mine as you
| get older. ;)
| FpUser wrote:
| I do not have dedicated TV. Just computers with big 4K
| monitors. I gave up on TV and replaced it with the
| computer some 17 years ago I think
| bradly wrote:
| We just have less streaming services and rent or buy the
| content we want to watch.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| You can on most TV sets and STBs. UI is a bit hidden, but you
| can.
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| All this. Plus, if you live in a country that's not the US,
| half the streaming services aren't available, and on the ones
| that are, half the content is missing because it's 2022 and
| geographic region licensing is still a thing.
| jksmith wrote:
| Maybe, but I'd pay for better content and UX. Many movies above
| that royalty threshold just aren't available. Also Netflix must
| die because they canceled Cowboy Bebop.
|
| About time anyway. Always next version of the business they put
| out of business. That's the way it works, especially with the
| deflation threat of technology. If you're a tech business and
| you can't maintain a margin so you have to raise rates, then
| something is up, broke, stockholder greed, personal greed, etc.
| mpalczewski wrote:
| > It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these
| streaming services.
|
| It really isn't and it's only cheaper if you don't put much
| value on your time.
|
| Radarr and Sonarr don't do anything automatically. Setting them
| up takes more time than they are worth. I tried installing
| them. Most would describe me as technically savvy, but I just
| gave up.
|
| example issues. Here's the quick start guide.
| https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/quick-start-guide 1. Get
| stopped immediately at the indexer. No sane defaults there at
| all. No guidance either.
|
| Plex doesn't do 4k streaming to Apple TV, doesn't do 4k to
| chromecast.
|
| The movies you pirate frequently have technical problems,
| usually the sound is off. You are lucky to have subtitles that
| work(synced correctly).
| racl101 wrote:
| > It really isn't and it's only cheaper if you don't put much
| value on your time.
|
| Very true.
|
| In the hours it takes to download and curate these movies and
| shows I've made more than enough to cover a Netflix, Disney+,
| Prime and HBO subscriptions for that month or pay for a few
| VOD titles for that month.
|
| My time is way more fucking valuable than the time required
| to do this well.
|
| And if I do without content or entertainment even better. Not
| everything is worth watch every month.
| simongr3dal wrote:
| I don't really get why Netflix is so sour about password
| sharing, it's literally part of the subscription pricing, they
| tell you how many concurrent streams you're allowed to have.
| postalrat wrote:
| Kinda crazy that using the number of streams you are paying
| for is now considered getting netflix for free.
| malermeister wrote:
| _Obviously_ that 's just for one person watching different
| things on their TV, computer and phone simultaneously. /s
| abnry wrote:
| Yes, this very much bothers me. You pay for streaming. How
| many streams do you want? Well, pay Netflix for that number.
| However you like to use those streams is up to you.
| michaelt wrote:
| In the 1990s some homes would have several screens of cable
| TV, so several people in the same home could watch different
| things at the same time. Parents with teenage children, for
| example. Because of the physical cables it only worked in one
| home - when the kids moved out, they had to pay for their own
| cable or go without.
|
| Netflix presumably hopes to achieve the same thing: Letting
| kids share their parents' accounts before they leave home,
| but not after.
| colechristensen wrote:
| At this point 80% of the reason I still have a Netflix
| subscription is to share my password with my parents.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Same, rarely watch myself, but they got pissed when I
| cancelled it.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| I don't know how to phrase this nicely, but this is precisely
| the type of Hacker News nerd-blindness that I find amazing.
| It's "easier"? Is it? For young children who want to watch
| their kids shows and don't know what 4k means? For grandparents
| who want to see some k-dramas and have no clue about DRM or
| geo-locked? Sure, Netflix has issues and it's made some bad
| decisions, but let's not delude ourselves here. The group of
| people who are comfortable pirating media and find it "easier"
| than Netflix is at least an order of magnitude smaller than
| Netflix's user base.
|
| I'm sorry, I just find it really absurd when people claim
| something is easier when it's just not. Perhaps you find it to
| be a better trade off, but it is not easier.
| sgarland wrote:
| Agreed. While the *arrs are "easy" to set up once you have
| good knowledge of Kubernetes or at least Docker Compose,
| that's not exactly common. If you're using the native Windows
| clients, there's a pretty good chance you don't have a NAS
| set up (or at least not well), which means there's a decent
| chance you'll eventually have a hardware failure, and then be
| surprised when your media is suddenly gone.
|
| ZFS pools with full backups, redundant hardware, and highly
| available servers is not normal.
| brewdad wrote:
| Even just having a spare PC to run your media server is not
| normal. Never mind all of the technical knowledge needed to
| keep it all running smoothly.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You can run a media service for example jellyfin on the
| same PC as the client.
|
| Installers are a thing on windows, on Ubuntu you can
| install software with apt. It wasn't packaged for my distro
| so I downloaded an archive unzipped and dropped it in /opt
|
| Not sure why anyone would absolutely need to understand
| Kuberetes or even docker.
|
| Plugging a PC up to a display has been a better TV for a
| while now.
| [deleted]
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I can agree it isn't easier for those who don't know it. It's
| like saying the CLI is easier than a GUI - sure, for you.
|
| The things this person lists are things I agree with,
| however. I actually have Amazon Prime Video but still enjoyed
| watching my friend's pirated copies on Plex, because there is
| no way to force-disable shitty compression levels, even if I
| have gigabit Internet.
|
| Also, my friend can make sure their video library never
| changes or goes away, and that certain rarer content is
| archived forever, not subject to the changes of George Lucas
| or Disney editing out "problematic" content.
| samstave wrote:
| This is why we need an Airport Hub model for media
| consumption hubs, like Plex. (Which is what Cable TV started
| out to be: We provide the infrastructure to get the signal
| into the home. You, the media-company, pays to land your
| content at our hub so that our subscribers to our
| infrastructure can see your content.
|
| There are lists of how much it would cost to have all the
| streaming services, and for a LONG time, it was illegal for
| cable companies to prevent you from selecting the channels
| you would like a-la-carte... but it did NOT prevent them from
| charging too much for each channel to make that an
| unworkable...
|
| " _You want JUST HBO? Sure, no problem, if you don 't buy it
| in the bundle, the individual channel cost is $29 per
| month!_"
|
| ---
|
| That is _THE_ failure of "regulation" ; _THE GOVERNMENT WILL
| MANDATE THROUGH LOBBIED REGULATION THAT ONE MUST HAVE THIS
| [SERVICE] - HOWEVER, WE WILL NOT REGULATE HOW MUCH YU CAN BE
| CHARGED FOR THE SERVICE, BUT WE WILL FINE AND PUNISH YOU IF
| YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS SERVICE._
| teawrecks wrote:
| You mean the kids who don't buy all those streaming services?
| Or the grandparents who don't buy all those streaming
| services? We agree, not having to deal with all these
| streaming services is easier than having to deal with all
| these streaming services.
|
| But if we're talking about the people who are buying all the
| streaming services, it's currently easier to pirate. I get
| that you haven't taken two seconds to do any amount of
| research on the matter and that complete lack of any
| experience whatsoever gives you a sense of expertise to call
| other people blind and absurd, but consider that maybe you
| just don't know what you're talking about?
| Cipater wrote:
| Hang on, are you really saying that it's easier for kids
| and grandparents to set up Plex, Radarr and Sonarr than it
| is to sign up and use Netflix?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Well now only a fraction of content is on Netflix so if
| one compares the time cost of spending 2 hours doing so
| once this decade vs spending $200 a month for everything
| from live TV to Disney.
|
| The easy option will cost you 24000 over 10 years. If you
| earn 20 bucks an hour or less like near half of America
| this represents an additional 1200 labor hours or a full
| time job for 30 weeks.
| Cipater wrote:
| I agree with your comment but you're arguing a different
| point entirely.
|
| You even call Netflix the easy option which is all I'm
| saying.
| rhino369 wrote:
| It's not easier. I've got a BS in EE and am old enough to
| have downloaded episodes of the TV show 24 over 56k using
| early BitTorrent. I've successfully set up plex (which
| requires an in house server/spare pc), sonarr, radarr,
| usenet, etc. I'm probably the 99% percentile in ability to
| pirate. And its not easier than netflix.
|
| 90% of people I know probably couldn't set this up. And the
| other 10% would spend more time dicking around with the set
| up than they would using netflix or the other services.
|
| GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem. Free is very
| enticing.
| kyriakos wrote:
| I would gladly pay for a service I am currently getting
| through piracy if there was a legal way to have it though.
| Availability of all content, no geoblocking (I live in a
| country where Disney+ and HBO Max is not available but I do
| pay for Prime and Netflix). For me if there was a way to
| have what I'm getting in a legal way I'd go for it but it
| is not an option. What I'm getting at is that its not a
| matter of money/pricing its also a matter of convenience,
| availability and not having to track 4+ subscriptions and
| apps when you can watch it all under a single platform.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Availability of all content, no geoblocking
|
| that's where the "service problem" sentiment falls apart.
| All companies want to be this monopoly for you with no
| red tape over multiple governments. But of course,
| companies get the best cuts (100%) from hosting it
| themselves and countries (and media licensed) will never
| agree on what's okay.
|
| In this case, piracy is a way around a world that hasn't
| quite caught up with how the internet works yet. I wonder
| in a few decades if governments worldwide create enough
| enforcement on this for it to be just as inconvinent as
| trying to steal a CD.
| crazysim wrote:
| I think some of those 90% people might pay for major
| pirated Plex server operations.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| I was at a friends house, he was starting GameOfThrones. I
| was like "you going to cancel hbo after??" He explained he
| was pirating. But! He is non technical (a nurse by trade).
| I was very confused asked to see his setup. He walked over
| to small black box under his tv. I was fascinated. It was a
| raseberry pi enclosure with hdmi out, it was prepackaged -
| networking p2p software for looking up stolen items, a UI
| better than netflix. All he did was take it out of the box,
| plug in the HDMI, and start watching UNLIMITED content on
| any streaming service I have heard of.
| madduci wrote:
| Kodi with the right preloaded plugins can do wonders and
| make it accessible to non-technical users
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Ask your friend where he bought such a wonderful device
| bin_bash wrote:
| I didn't understand the GabeN reference but looked it up:
|
| > "Piracy is a service problem." Valve's Gabe Newell said
| that years ago, touting the success of Steam, his online
| video game distribution service.
| the_other wrote:
| Am I the only person that hates Steam?
|
| The UX is crap; the info architecture is obscure; it
| doesn't work well on macOS (or at all if I use the wrong
| file system); it uses confusing labels for the stash of
| stuff I've already bought. I don't use it often enough to
| know if my usr/pwd is still valid (it is, fortunately).
| It had some slightly odd 2FA type thing the last time I
| logged in. It just gives me the impression that it wants
| to hide games from me that I've already bought and to
| make new ones hard to find. I'd rather have discs in
| boxes taking up space (tbf I also collect vinyl so maybe
| I'm just anachronistic?)
|
| The only good thing going for it is that it doesn't ever
| email me junk.
| cupofpython wrote:
| Our use-cases must be vastly different. steam is actually
| one of the few applications my friends and i talk about
| as having good design.
|
| I've been using steam for over a decade and have always
| enjoyed that it works the way i expect a computer
| application to work. i can right-click on things to get
| to their properties and other options, i can point it to
| games i have installed that i didnt buy through steam and
| they appear next to my steam games in my library
| seamlessly
|
| the store UI is.. not the most intuitive thing for me,
| but it seems consistent. it is very rare that i am
| browsing steam store to begin with, though. I am usually
| searching for a specific game directly, which i never
| have trouble finding if it's in their collection. I also
| like that i can add any games im interested in to a wish
| list and they notify me when it's on sale
|
| i used to edit my settings in a config file in
| counterstrike, which required "tampering" with local
| files but in a way that ultimately resulted in compliant
| files. Finding that file was an obscure path to navigate,
| ill give you that - but again the organization is still
| consistent. all files for one game can be found in one
| folder with the games name on it. you can manually delete
| that folder and effectively uninstall the game. you can
| even do a custom reinstall by selectively deleting files
| from that folder and ask steam to replace the missing
| items and it will. For example, to reinstall a game
| without losing your save files.
|
| Not trying to invalidate your experience, but your
| comment caught me by surprise because your dislike seems
| to be well rationed and thought out - ie genuine - so i
| just found it interesting
| zhynn wrote:
| I love steam. And the revenues from steam allow valve to
| experiment and explore (and support my favorite esport
| Dota2). The Valve Index and Steam Deck would not exist
| were it not for revenue from Steam. Not to mention
| Proton. As long as they keep doing interesting things,
| and allow me to play the games I buy offline (which they
| do), I will continue to be a Steam fan.
| veqz wrote:
| I was terribly skeptical to Steam when it launched, as I
| am to all online/hosted services. What if they just
| remove a game I'm using? Does all my games stop working
| if they turn off their servers? Am I really going to have
| to be online whenever I want to play?
|
| But I gave in after several years, and now I'm a quite
| happy Steam user on Linux. It works as advertised, and
| the only issue I have is that I haven't found a way to
| filter games for <<Linux support>> and a genre at the
| same time. I've used EXT4 and BTRFS as file systems while
| using Steam, and never had any issues with that either.
|
| I'm inclined to agree with Gabe. I've never spent as much
| money on games as after I got Steam. It makes it really
| easy to get a new game. Without Steam, I'd probably just
| go without. I have lots of things to spend my time on,
| and sometimes I'm even a little bit bummed that wasting
| time on games is an option on Linux these days...
| the_af wrote:
| As a Linux user, this was my experience as well, going
| from hate/skepticism to full embrace.
|
| Though I also buy from Humble Bundle and GOG. I prefer
| GOG whenever possible, if it's DRM free. Sometimes it's
| the most expensive option though.
| supramouse wrote:
| It's pretty bad/awkward on macos, I've found that the
| client works miles better on windows and linux
|
| the other problems are personal preferences that aren't
| universal
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >the other problems are personal preferences that aren't
| universal
|
| few things in life are. But we're on the internet, so we
| inevitably here a lot fo "personal preferences", often
| exagerrated to the point where it sounds like it's the
| worst thing in the world.
| robonerd wrote:
| You aren't the only one. Steam is DRM with good PR. Much
| of the goodwill gamers have for Steam is based on
| misconceptions, rumors, or delusions, particularly: _" If
| Valve ever goes out of business, they said they'll lift
| all the DRM for the games I've bought"_ I've heard that
| from so many gamers it isn't even funny, it's a
| widespread misconception and it's obvious horse shit.
| _Maybe_ Valve has or once had that intention with their
| own in-house games, but they wouldn 't even have the
| legal right to do something like that for 99.99% of the
| Steam catalogue.
|
| Even for the in-house games, you have to be naive to
| trust any sort of promise from a commercial software
| product that isn't in a contract. Notch supposedly once
| promised that Minecraft would eventually become open
| source; well that plan evaporated when Microsoft waved a
| few billion dollars in front of him. Maybe he meant it at
| the time he said it, but that doesn't count for anything.
| andrewzah wrote:
| The question here is: so what?
|
| Valve makes a lot of money from the steam store. They're
| not going anywhere. There are competitors like gog games
| that sell them without DRM. You download the games
| anyways so I'm sure a solution will be figured out if
| Valve starts to have issues.
|
| Steam provides a pretty seamless experience for gaming,
| and it provides useful services to developers as well.
| Then you have things like the steam workshop and
| marketplace.
|
| And for minecraft being open source: who cares? Gamers
| want games that are good and fun to play. There are very
| few open source games that are actually fun to play.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >The question here is: so what?
|
| Well, the huge dicourse in consoles atm is digital and
| ownership. There were several scares over the years (some
| that went through, some that backpedeled) on storefronts
| closing down and no longer being able to buy older games
| as a result, in a market where retro gaming is being
| flooded by scalpers selling stuff at 20x markups. Console
| players are feeling uneasy with the advent of there being
| "digital only" variants sneaking back in, and cloud
| gaming is getting bigger each year.
|
| Maybe this is just a cacophony of old fans not getting
| with the times, but it seems like a signifigant enough
| sentiment that "so what" seems overly dismissive.
|
| >And for minecraft being open source: who cares?
|
| older minecraft players apparently. Granted, it hasn't
| really stopped their creativity and servers, so in
| practice it doesn't change much. But I wouldn't be
| surprised in some microfose move years down the line
| angering that playerbase.
|
| Again, an oddly dismissive take for something that has
| historically happened. It's easy to say "I don't care
| it's convinent" until it isn't.
| cupofpython wrote:
| > very few open source games that are actually fun to
| play
|
| you found one?? please share
| andrewzah wrote:
| Cube 2: Sauerbraten is fun and it uses very little
| resources. The game and engine are open source.
|
| Other than that I can't really think of anything other
| than good clones like OpenTTD or crappy clones like
| minetest.
|
| Maybe Dwarf Fortress in the future if tarn or his brother
| open source it.
| jcranmer wrote:
| OpenTTD?
| robonerd wrote:
| OpenRCT2, OpenMW, DaggerfallUnity
|
| Granted, you have to buy the game to make use of these
| open source engines legally. But these open source
| engines free you from the limitations of DRM,
| Windows/Wine and run better than the original engines
| (support modern resolutions, innumerable bug fixes, etc.)
| cupofpython wrote:
| I agree that promises from these companies mean nothing..
| but how much of a problem is this in todays gaming market
| though really?
|
| many new games are free and rely on in-game transactions
| tied to an account outside of steam
|
| There are no restrictions on the games I bought through
| steam that actually get in the way of me playing them -
| and there are a lot of conveniences offered like having
| access to my entire library on any machine with steam
| installed, or playing the games installed on my machine
| pretty much indefinitely offline. And being able to
| verify my game files and have them automatically fixed /
| updated
|
| The games i bought a long time ago and still play have
| more than earned the money i spent on them anyway. if
| steam dies and i need to buy them again, i will and i
| will be happy to. if i cant find them anywhere because
| the games themselves died, ill make an image of my PC
| before upgrading it or uninstalling them and play them
| offline in a VM
|
| there might be an itch here or there i cant scratch for
| whatever reason, but i can always buy a new game inspired
| by the same genre which is usually more fun than trying
| to recreate a nostalgic feeling anyway
| Pr0ject217 wrote:
| I'm curious how old you are. I remember the days of when
| you had to travel to a brick-and-mortar store to purchase
| a physical copy of a game (if it was in stock). Then, you
| travel home, install it, and play it, saving your local
| saves on your computer, backing them up manually on an
| external drive so that you don't lose your progress in
| the event of a system failure. Oh, and writing your CD
| Keys in a notebook, and carrying that with you (along
| with your physical games) wherever you move. I don't
| remember how patches were managed, but I don't recall
| there ever being a 'day-one' patch of fixes, or being one
| message away from the developers.
|
| Steam provides a lot of value.
| thewebcount wrote:
| No, you are not the only one. Fellow macOS Steam user
| here. Whenever a game I'm interested in comes out, I
| first go to the AppStore to see if it's available there,
| then to the developer's web site, and only as a last
| resort to Steam. The UX is some of the worst I have to
| use in a given week. It constantly shows me games that
| don't run on any system I've ever used (Windows
| exclusives, but I've never used a Windows machine since I
| signed up for Steam, for example). It's just awful all
| around.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I don't hate it, but I'll admit that the Valve worship is
| some of the most cultish I've seen in video games. To the
| point where I feel gamers work against their best
| interests whenever they see a "threat" to their beloved
| library not having every game in history under one
| launcher (nevermind that Steam users can add non-steam
| games to their virtual library). You'd think Youtube and
| even Spotify lately would show the dangers of lumping all
| your eggs in one basket.
|
| But, I will also admit that I'm a bit biased against
| steam due to using PC's for a lot of Visual Novels. And
| their VN submissions have always been a lottery of some
| sorts, to the confusion of readers and developers alike.
| Nothing worse than having an existing product on the
| store and then suddenly having a sequel to the product
| rejected, while the first product still sits on shelves.
| andrewzah wrote:
| It's a pretty famous quote and he's correct. Steam has
| DRM aspects but is pretty seamless. It is entirely way
| more work to look for cracked games and download those
| than to just buy it on steam.
| sonicggg wrote:
| Not a money problem. I have a Netflix subscription, and yet
| end up going to pirate websites more and more often these
| days. I'll probably just cancel my Netflix subscription.
|
| It's so frustrating to see that 90%of the shows I want to
| see are unavailable on Netflix. Video streaming is just so
| fragmented right now. And they try to compensate with a
| bunch of low quality Netflix original shows.
|
| Why can't they just replicate what has been done in audio
| streaming? Spotify is what Netflix should have been. It's
| been years I no longer need to pirate music.
| brimble wrote:
| For me, it's that I want a significant portion of a piracy
| set-up for things that I can't get at all (4k _actual_
| original Star Wars trilogy, certain shows with the original
| soundtrack rather than a worse replacement, some obscure
| pieces of media) or for things I consider likely to
| disappear any time (YouTube videos) so if I 'm going to
| have it anyway, I may as well also use it to avoid the
| "where the hell can I watch this?" shuffle. I do also pay
| for several streaming services.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I think there is some merit in piracy being a service
| problem. There are certainly a number of situations where I
| just seek out a less than legal solution because there is
| no legal way for me to buy some media. Be it language
| barriers, region locking, license expiation,
| censored/rejected media, etc.
|
| However, people professing this quote everywhere should
| note that it's very hard to compete with "free infinite
| media" for those with the knowledge to pirate. So don't be
| surprised if instead of catering to that crowd that they
| instead focus on people who can't or don't want to pirate.
| It's a double edged sword. If I do pirate, I don't pretend
| I do it in some effort to make the product better. I do it
| accepting the risk that they may never choose to cater to
| me.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem. Free is
| very enticing.
|
| A service problem and a money problem are almost the same
| thing. Time is money, and I value my free-time very high.
| People will pay to not have to spend time to find the free.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Check out jellyfin it runs fine as a service on the users
| PC. You create different directories for TV shows and
| movies and drop files in and they show up shortly after.
|
| Plug the PC up to display and presto.
| brewdad wrote:
| I got a $25 Fire TV Stick and plugged it into the back of
| my TV. I push 1 button and everything powers on and
| Netflix, Hulu, or Disney+ launch automatically. Any other
| service is a couple button presses away. All in 4k. (Well
| Hulu is upscaled)
|
| I never have to leave my sofa. I don't have to dick
| around with plugging and unplugging my PC. No keyboards
| to manage. No OS or software to keep updated.
|
| Your solution is easier than some other options but I'll
| stick with mine.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| I too wish I could have a laggy experience with a bad
| interface requiring me to pull out my phone and search
| for which of the several services I pay for have a
| particular piece of content on my phone then slowly
| navigate to that service then try to enter the search
| term character by character by moving a little cursor to
| each individual character with my remote.
|
| Then have a firmware update ad some advertising to the
| experience.
|
| Sure beats my experience of pulling out my 12 oz keyboard
| plus touchpad bluetooth keyboard connected to a real PC.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| The Roku stick is even better because it isn't inherently
| locked down by Amazon's ecosystem. Far more services that
| are effortless to install.
| Krasnol wrote:
| I didn't set up anything fancy like that.
|
| I have a shared folder on my home network where I download
| stuff from 1-click hosters with jdownloader. I get the
| links all on one platform.
|
| I got that money. I paid for Netflix once but now I can't
| remember the last show I watched made by them. Instead I'd
| have to pay for at least 3 other platforms to watch those
| few shows I watch throughout the year. Sometimes I'd even
| have to use a VPN to get it in the original language.
|
| It only is a service problem for me.
|
| (there is a bit revenge for their inability to provide a
| single platform in there too)
| ineedasername wrote:
| _> GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem._
|
| GabeN is partially correct: It's a money & service problem.
| It's money for some, service for others, sometimes a bit of
| both. During college I had no money, so the issue for me
| was money. Once I got a job after college it was service: I
| didn't want to drive to music store & hope they had the CD
| in stock that I was looking for, not when I could
| definitely get it in 5 minutes online. Similar issue for
| videogames: I didn't want to spend $30-$60 for a game I
| couldn't return, when my computer might choke on it & not
| run or if half an hour in I realized it was crap. On top of
| which I might have to drive around to half a dozen stores
| to find a copy. That was a mixture of service & money.
|
| These days it's faster for me to pay $1 for a song than
| pirate it, and I can instantly buy, download, and return a
| game in an hour if it either doesn't run or I hate it
| immediately.
|
| Free is enticing, but so is convenience & instant
| gratification.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| I almost exclusively pirate movies and tv series from
| pirate bay. I would have no problem paying $20 a month for
| that service as-is (TPB + torrent network), as it's better
| than the currently available alternatives.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Sure it is a magnitude smaller but it was even smaller a few
| years ago and streaming pages where you don't have to
| download a movie first are quite common and popular within
| the non-technical audience and they become even more popular.
|
| I'm sure the industry will come up with new ways to intrude
| on the internet again to stop this before they get together
| to make another platform which would allow the audience to
| download everything in one place.
| Xelbair wrote:
| yes it is.
|
| I come from country where intellectual property was treated
| as a western joke.
|
| Children younger than 10 learned how to pirate - by
| themselves, without knowing even English. A lot of people
| still can do that, and it's quite easy to find out how.
| seaman1921 wrote:
| YES it IS easy. Any kid or grandparent could do it - don't
| underestimate them. This isn't their nerd-blindness, this is
| your normie-ignorance.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Or you could just open Tor browser, search the pirate bay and
| download stuff with a bittorrent client.
|
| _That 's_ easy.
| boringg wrote:
| Yeah but then your tagged by your host country for using
| Tor.
| driverdan wrote:
| What does that mean? Tagged by your host country?
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I've yet to explore Tor. Are you saying there's a reason
| I shouldn't? I mostly just want to see how my own sites
| perform, and haven't gotten around to it yet.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I can't tell if this is sarcasm.
|
| Most of my friends have no idea what Tor is. Many don't
| know the Pirate Bay, and most of those who know bittorrent
| haven't configured it to get past their firewall.
|
| But you know what they do know? Turning the TV on, going to
| Roku, searching for a movie/show, and watching it in
| whatever app Roku suggests.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Exactly. I'm a 59 year old man who knows how to pirate, but
| watches his content from streaming providers because it's
| simpler and safer, and I don't like to steal. I don't think
| piracy is what's killing them. It's that there are too many
| streaming providers and people don't hesitate to drop
| subscriptions. I tend to subscribe when there's a deal, watch
| everything I want to see, then drop it and switch to another
| one for 6 months. And I'll bet I'm not alone.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This.
|
| I'm a 60-year-old (Do I win a kewpie doll?), and have the
| tech chops to pirate, but I don't want to.
|
| It's important for me to live a life of Personal Integrity.
| That stance gets a lot of chuckles with this crowd, but
| it's of critical importance, in my life.
|
| I'm fortunate, in being able to afford streaming services,
| but find the profusion and variety to be a mess.
|
| I like AppleTV Channels, and the way that the AppleTV Watch
| Now app aggregates the apps. Amazon has something similar,
| that my wife uses.
|
| Unfortunately, it looks like these knuckleheads can't agree
| on common licensing models. I don't want the "You can have
| any color you want, as long as it's black." approach of
| cable bundlers, but I also don't like the myriad ways of
| subscribing, or, quite frankly, the ever-changing prices.
|
| They need to get their shit together.
| ghaff wrote:
| I even have Plex set up with (mostly) ripped DVD content
| but I still subscribe to a few streaming services and
| buy/rent a la carte now and then. The fragmentation is
| annoying but subscribing/unsubscribing is pretty low
| friction. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see more
| discounting for longer subscription terms.
|
| Of course, what was (past tense) also annoying was paying
| $100/month for a cable bundle that I rarely watched.
|
| It's also the case that I have access to a ton of video and
| don't consider much to be "must see."
|
| And to the topic at hand, I may very well cancel Netflix
| one of these days. There's some stuff I haven't watched yet
| but after I get through that I may well drop it.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > The group of people who are comfortable pirating media and
| find it "easier" than Netflix is at least an order of
| magnitude smaller than Netflix's user base.
|
| This view is very US-centric.
|
| In most of the "rest of the world", netflix either doesn't
| exist or has a very very limited show list (even here, in a
| relatively developed EU country), and piracy literally is the
| only way to get a lot of the very popular shows.
|
| And if you already pirate 3 of the 5 shows that you watch,
| why would you pay for the other 2, that are available on
| netflix, if you can just pirate those too?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Netflix is US-centric, so that's no surprise:
| https://www.comparitech.com/tv-streaming/netflix-
| subscribers...
|
| I don't mean to be rude, but in the grand scheme of things
| the other countries don't quite matter as much, financially
| speaking. And those smaller parts of the world pirating
| isn't a big loss. Similar to the video game industry in
| Japan; some games may get an overseas following, but if the
| domestic market is slacking, that studio may not get the
| chance to make a sequel for those overseas fans.
|
| So back to the US-centric sentiment: American audiences
| don't have the excuse 99% of the time of "this content is
| region blocked in my country", so the sentiment here shifts
| to "I don't want to manage 4 streaming services".
| tomerv wrote:
| Indeed, pirating is very much an all-or-nothing solution.
| Torrenting your first movie might be difficult, but the
| second time it's easy as pie.
|
| In many ways, pirating is like any subscription service:
| signing on is a difficult decision (whether financially or
| technically), but once you're there and all caught up with
| the UI, using it again is the default move for watching
| your next show/movie.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Pirating has got a lot easier in recent years...
|
| In my country (slovenia) there is a very good local
| torrent tracker + a lot of people use the few larger
| general torrent sites, and even "grandpas" can use them,
| if their "computer-savy" kid installs them a torrent
| client, and shows them where to search.
|
| In you go further down the balkans, you can find full
| movies even on youtube, especially local ones (because
| youtube doesn't remove them). Not that long ago, you
| could also buy or rent pirated cds/dvds literally from
| street vendors and "movie clubs" (think blockbuster, but
| smaller, more local and pirated).
| notadev wrote:
| It's pretty easy for my family to use Plex just like any
| other streaming service. The not easy part was my
| responsibility.
| dinobones wrote:
| It is extremely tired as well. Any time there is a post about
| Netflix, or some streaming service, I always predict there
| will be someone in the comments section talking about their
| "sweet, open source Unix based media server" and how much
| better it is.
| Krasnol wrote:
| It would make it quite suspicious and weird if the most
| obvious solution to the problems which are often the
| content of those posts, wouldn't have been posted by
| somebody in the comments.
| Nav_Panel wrote:
| I have a friend who pays $15 a month for a dedicated seedbox,
| with 1-click install of a browser-based torrent app + plex.
| He set up plex to use the remote torrent folder, then
| anything he downloads gets immediately listed on plex,
| streamable anywhere, supports chromecast, etc. Pretty cool
| and a _little_ harder than using a proper paid streaming
| site, but not a different order of magnitude. Hardest part is
| finding the seedbox company and also tracking down the right
| torrent for the show (the choices can be overwhelming).
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Using a pirate streaming service such as stremio is literally
| no more difficult than netflix.
|
| I think you underestimate how many people pirated things
| before netflix existed.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Using a pirate streaming service such as stremio is
| literally no more difficult than Netflix.
|
| Nope. Just tried it. Literally not. It gives me the option
| to play movies, but nope. Can only play trailers.
|
| There are addons, but they seem to use Torrent. I have no
| interest in streaming up to other people and redistributing
| the data. Is that set up automatically, or does it reuse my
| internet connection without informing me?
|
| Also, with Netflix, I don't have to worry about copyright
| issues. Does streamio make that as easy?
|
| None of this sounds literally as easy.
|
| And again, literally cannot play a movie I can easily play
| on Netflix.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Wow, there's a "stremio" button on my TV's remote control?
| I can't find it. I have a feeling that the definitions of
| "difficult" and "literally" are unknown to you.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Yes - people don't get that most folks want to watch on
| the TV without involving any browser.
| yoz-y wrote:
| When it was still called popcorn time I used it. It was
| easy to use, but it was far from being as reliable as any
| other commercial streaming service. Buffering was very
| common and subtitles were missing or would de-sync a lot.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| people forgive a lot of hiccups and quality issues when
| the service is "free". I see the same sentiment in the
| emulation scene where people will in one breath call a
| game "playable" despite weird graphical hitches,
| slowdowns, and crashes. And in the next breath berate
| some remaster because it dips under 60 FPS in a few
| moments of gameplay.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| I think it's true in the same way that Media companies
| feigned that everyone was pirating.
|
| If it's just as fringe as you say, and i agree, then we
| shouldn't entertain the idea that media is (or was, in early
| 2000s before Netflix) losing that much money to pirating. As
| i'm sure now that people start migrating to less legal
| avenues for digital media we'll start seeing a resurgence of
| cries over lost profits due to piracy.
| renewiltord wrote:
| As an amusing anecdote, my parents live thousands of miles
| from me. The last time I saw them I set up a Raspberry Pi
| with XBMC (yeah, that long ago) and a flirc IR receiver for a
| remote, hooked it up with local network, and an external hard
| drive that has a battery-backed power source. I then `dd`'d
| over the image onto 5 SD cards and left it with them.
|
| Since they're in a low power-security environment, there's a
| lot of unexpected on-off cycles. Anyway, the whole thing
| still worked for them until recently and as things started
| failing (as they inevitably do with this max jank thing I've
| made them) they just figured out how to work with it.
|
| At first, they ran out of content, so they learned how to go
| get it on ThePirateBay and find the right mirror.
|
| Then OpenSubtitles (which was integrated with XBMC) stopped
| working on it for some reason, so they would go manually get
| srt files and stick them on the USB drive (visible over Samba
| from the network).
|
| Then as the local external drive started failing, they used
| the home desktop's samba mounted drive (that I'd set up
| earlier).
|
| Hilariously, the gradual collapse of the system seems to have
| worked as a natural training regimen, and now they're fully
| equipped with knowledge. So now they've got one of our old
| desktops in the living room hooked up to the TV, a small
| bluetooth keyboard lying on the coffee table, and watch
| pirate video on the TV.
|
| The whole thing is positively comical because I pay for all
| the services so this isn't necessary at all. But availability
| is not complete and I'm sure it tickles them to be able to do
| this stuff themselves.
|
| Anyway, thought it was a funny story. They're in their late
| 60s but they're doctors and last I knew, not particularly
| tech-savvy, so I am both proud and highly entertained.
| noelsusman wrote:
| It's amazing isn't it? Like people really think streaming
| services should care about mpv filters as a real use case for
| their customers. Incredible stuff.
| kemiller wrote:
| It's not that everyone can or wants to run their own Plex
| setup, it's that the Plex model, once set up, is much more
| consumer-friendly: Get the shows you want, don't care about
| the distributor. It's probably naive to think that would work
| for a bunch of reasons (Who exactly runs this? Are they a
| for-profit monopoly now? Who will fund the content if there's
| no monopoly rent?) but I don't think it's crazy to imagine a
| service that works more like it. We went to all the effort of
| unbundling cable and now we just have a different set of
| bundles. It's a little better, but they've fallen back on old
| habits.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| The thing that all these everyman-boosters that have invaded
| and gentrified tech seem to forget is that people are capable
| of learning, and with the right motivation, they will.
|
| Can piracy be the bridge to tech literacy? Sure.
| ohyoutravel wrote:
| The comment was:
|
| "It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these
| streaming services."
|
| Which seems false on its face. Every TV has access to all
| these streaming services built in. Or Roku devices, which
| take moments to set up. This is unrelated to whether people
| are capable of learning, but I am even bearish on that when
| it comes to the average person in the current piracy
| environment.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Sucks for them, I guess. Because with the right know-how
| and some setup it is pretty damn easy.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _Every TV has access to all these streaming services
| built in. Or Roku devices, which take moments to set up_
|
| You mean those same TVs and devices that plaster your
| screen with ads, arbitrarily modify the UI, suddenly make
| certain shows unavailable, spy on what you're watching,
| require unwieldy DRM, take minutes to turn on, interrupt
| your relaxation time to run "updates", randomly brick
| themselves, become obsolete in a short several years, and
| generally dictate your experience based on short-sighted
| corporate whims? Visiting someone else's house and seeing
| the garbage behavior they put up with from their "smart
| TV" is as mindblowing as seeing someone using a web
| browser without adblock!
|
| "Piracy is easier" refers to the experience _after_ you
| 've gone through the work of setting up your own
| entertainment system. Setting it up certainly does
| require an investment of time and self-actualization,
| which for sure is more effort than searching "netflix"
| and following their "conversion" path. But after that,
| things just generally work without all of the corporate
| hassles. I don't foresee everyone choosing to make
| running a libre media setup one of their hobbies, but
| most people will know someone who has...
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >"Piracy is easier" refers to the experience after you've
| gone through the work of setting up your own
| entertainment system.
|
| and the thread here as a whole is rebuking the argument
| that Netflix is losing money because people are pirating.
| Most people don't or can't go through this work, so that
| likely isn't the reason why Netflix is seeing drops.
| mindslight wrote:
| I agree that piracy likely isn't responsible for the
| larger immediate trend. But from the perspective of
| someone with a libre media setup, all these
| streaming/DRM/lockdown tribulations are like watching a
| storm from inside a warm house with a hot cup of cocoa.
| Especially on a technical forum where people should know
| better than to succumb to corporate ploys, its worth
| reminding everyone of that. And my comment did imply the
| end game for "most people" - technical friends/family
| running seedboxes and sharing them up.
|
| Current market wise, I wouldn't be surprised if the
| Netflix situation is people canceling their membership to
| spend that money on a different streaming service, and
| then swapping between friends to get the union of shows
| for a similar $/month. This would explain both pushes of
| membership going down, plus them wanting to crack down on
| sharing.
| racl101 wrote:
| Maybe it's because I haven't done it in earnest since the days
| of Limewire but pirating sounds like such a fucking hassle
| these days. So I just don't do it not out of a strong sense of
| morality but because I'm lazy.
|
| I'd rather do without.
| mcot2 wrote:
| Not really. Streaming services like NetFlix are much easier.
| With Apple TV there is a universial search between all of the
| various services.
|
| Running a large media server can actually be pretty costly on
| power bills these days.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Running your Apple laptop is pretty costly? It's much less
| than streaming costs
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Running a large media server can actually be pretty costly
| on power bills these days.
|
| Only if using server hardware, and that isn't a good way to
| do it. A recent generation igpu and a low power computer is
| the way to go. You'll get 10+ streams out an Intel Nuc, or
| similar sff pc. The expensive bit is the storage array.
| bb123 wrote:
| There are also tons of benefits to just walking out of the
| grocery store without paying. No queues, no small talk with the
| checkout person and you save cash too.
| ipaddr wrote:
| A better way to look at it is if you went to the store and
| took pictures of the food and shared those pics with friends.
|
| You want me to buy the apple before taking a picture?
| Stunting wrote:
| A picture wouldn't feed anyone, so this example is heavily
| flawed.
| lostlogin wrote:
| The apples haven't got any better lately, and they now have
| a DRM coating which prevents your photos working. The
| coating is a continual irritation to apple eaters. There is
| also a terms of service for apple eaters to sign.
| bb123 wrote:
| False equivalence. 0 marginal cost of replication doesn't
| mean that the item is valueless. The creators have a right
| to be paid for their work. Just as you'd be working your
| rights to charge people to look at your apple picture.
| woah wrote:
| Piracy. It's a crime.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU
| wtetzner wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
| CabSauce wrote:
| Sure. It's also stealing. And doesn't provide any money for
| future shows that you might enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I've
| done it for some things that I wanted to watch, but wasn't
| willing to pay for. But let's not pretend that everyone
| torrenting is a reasonable solution.
| Shacklz wrote:
| > And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you
| might enjoy.
|
| Which means that dinosaur-industry would _finally_ have to
| arrive in the 21st century. People are very much willing to
| pay for things they enjoy - see Twitch Subscribers and
| Patreons for examples. Paying for shitty catalogues where the
| parts that you actually enjoy are distributed across multiple
| services just isn 't cutting it.
|
| Good riddance to all those copyright-attorneys and other
| parasites leeching off of the entertainment industry.
| CabSauce wrote:
| I don't disagree. However, you can buy/rent movies and
| shows on an individual basis from amazon/google/apple now.
| The prices are just higher. There seems to be some benefit
| to bundling shows together into a service. You can also
| just jump around from service to service, which is what I
| do.
| dolni wrote:
| I don't "rent" anything online because the price is
| insane.
|
| Let's talk $1 to watch something once. That's reasonable
| and a price I'd pay. $4-5 to watch something in my own
| home is not.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Ahh, but "buying" streamed content is a fool's purchase.
| If the streamer loses the rights to film you "purchased",
| _you_ lose your purchase. This happened a few years ago
| with Disney content on Amazon.
|
| Better to buy a physical media.
| derekdahmer wrote:
| I don't want to assume anything about your financial
| situation but I just don't believe most people would find
| 2 hours of entertainment for $4 unreasonable. Like that's
| just silly cheap.
|
| We live in a world where 90% of the entire catalog of
| movies ever filmed are available to be instantly
| delivered to your home in 1080p for less than the cost of
| a Big Mac. In the 90s it cost about the same not even
| taking into account inflation or gas to drive to
| blockbuster and rent a VHS. We are living in the future!
| dolni wrote:
| It's cheap in terms of absolute dollar value, yes. But
| it's also an EXCEPTIONALLY shallow form of entertainment
| that I can easily approximate for free by just streaming
| some different movie off Netflix.
|
| I'd much rather go to the movie theater and pay the even
| higher price for admission, because that's an actual
| experience. You can't replicate "going to the movies" at
| your house very well.
| john_minsk wrote:
| Sorry, but no. That's what I find difficult to understand
| - let's say I want to watch a movie and ready to pay 5$
| for it - why would I watch it in Hd or even 1080p if I
| have 4k TV? I understand that Google has only HD option
| for me, but why would I want it if I pay? In my mind if I
| pay - I should get every technical option possible to
| watch it, otherwise raw files are just few clicks away
| and I already paid for my broadband.
|
| As simple as that.
|
| The problem, for me at least, appears where some legal
| rights damage technological usage.
|
| How many times my Netflix downloads will "expire"? Is
| this milk or something? Why do they need to expire?
| Sorry, but I refuse to understand...
| brewdad wrote:
| Those are just excuses to justify your piracy. If you
| have a decent 4k TV and are sitting more than 5 feet away
| from it, the 1080p stream will upscale to "retina"
| quality and you won't be able to tell the difference.
| petefromnorth wrote:
| > We live in a world where 90% of the entire catalog of
| movies ever filmed are available to be instantly
| delivered to your home in 1080p for less than the cost of
| a Big Mac
|
| Yet whenever I want to watch something, I have to look up
| which service it's on, see if it's available in my
| country, sign up for a subscription, possibly download an
| app.... Or, go to the high seas and be watching it in 4k
| resolution within 2 minutes.
| lostlogin wrote:
| That might seem silly cheap, but compare it to going to
| the cinema. The dining has a huge site to pay for,
| projection equipment and staff, cleaning and a million
| other things.
|
| So if I watch it at home and remove all those costs from
| the cinema, surely $1 is going to be closer to what the
| film studio would have got if I went to the cinema?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I wonder if this is different based on number of people
| in the household. On amazon, I think it's usually $3
| (fucking $2.99 penny tricks), which amounts to $1.50 each
| for the two of us watching. In a family of four, it's
| sub-dollar each. Which as a percent of the dinner you're
| probably eating while you watch is very little. But
| renting for yourself alone feels at least twice as
| expensive!
| noncoml wrote:
| > Sure. It's also stealing
|
| How about "owning" a movie but not being able to resell it or
| loan it to friends. What's that?
|
| Please don't use physical item terms for digital items.
|
| Stealing something from you implied you don't have to have it
| after I take it.
|
| It's illegal and unethical, we agree on that. But it's not
| stealing.
| rsync wrote:
| It's been a while but my practice used to be:
|
| pay full price for the online offering (conducting the
| transaction in a browser) and then just download the content
| from BitTorrent.
|
| I would happily defend that practice in front of a jury of my
| peers.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You'd probably lose.
|
| The thing they get you on with BitTorrent isn't the
| download part, it's the seeding part, where you're
| _distributing_ the copyrighted content to other
| downloaders.
|
| You could turn off seeding, but that'll get you banned from
| a lot of torrent sites, and it's not a technical
| distinction I'd want to have to explain in court to lay
| people.
| rsync wrote:
| Again - it has been a while - but I did, indeed, use
| leech mode on the client ... so no seeding.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| If I pay for Netflix, which offers _Friends_ in some
| countries but not my own, and I want to watch _Friends_ , am
| I stealing it by torrenting it? Who has less property now
| than before I torrented the show?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, and it's an
| act of protest. I paid for Netflix for years when the
| streaming catalog was good, but now the streaming video
| market feels like an anti-consumer predatory cash grab.
| jasonlfunk wrote:
| It's a pretty self serving protest. Just don't watch it.
| You make your point without abandoning the moral high
| ground.
| Stunting wrote:
| It's stealing, specifically from myself and others in my
| industry that you haven't heard of that. Making movies
| would be impossible to be without your
|
| - Lesser Known actors - Assistant Directors - Stunt
| Coordinators - 2nd Unit Directors - Stunt Performers
|
| and I'm sure there are others. Residuals factor into our
| income, allow us to qualify for health insurance, empower
| our unions, and provide a stable income to continue working
| in an unstable career.
|
| All so we can make better entertainment for you! When you
| pirate, you're stealing money from us.
| dml2135 wrote:
| But... you don't own the copyright to the movie. The
| studio does. You were paid a wage for a job.
|
| You can accuse the pirates of limiting your potential for
| future earnings, but that is not the same as stealing
| from you.
| Stunting wrote:
| my contract is directly related to the post box office
| profits of the movie.
| wtetzner wrote:
| Not to argue either way about piracy, but it sounds like
| you might want to work on getting a better contract.
| Stunting wrote:
| ha. You are not wrong. The winds are shifting and I'm
| optimistic that i will be able to individually garner a
| better contract over time even if my union fails to help
| with it.
| dml2135 wrote:
| Fair enough, but still, depriving you of potential
| earnings is not the same as stealing.
|
| If I can't buy something for a price that's worth it to
| me, I will just watch something else. It doesn't mean I'm
| going to pay more for it.
|
| You get the same amount of money either way.
| Stunting wrote:
| Right, so that isn't stealing. It is in fact what I
| advocate strongly. If more people did that, more content
| they would enjoy would be provided at a reasonable cost.
|
| But extracting the value of watching something without
| paying the fee for that service...that's stealing.
| brewdad wrote:
| If you choose not to pay for their movie and watch
| something else, you are correct that you didn't steal
| from them. You did steal from someone else just like them
| though. If you pirate their movie, then yes you did in
| fact steal income from them. The act of choosing to
| pirate that particular movie changes it from a matter of
| _potential_ income to a loss of _actual_ income.
| delusional wrote:
| Well when you spend your money you are literally stealing
| it out of the hands of my and my friends in banking.
| brewdad wrote:
| 100% the opposite. Bankers make their money from the
| flows of cash streams. Putting my cash under a mattress
| or setting it on fire steals it out of the hands of your
| banking friends.
| delusional wrote:
| This may be a regional difference, but we make most of
| our money on fees. Cashflow isn't actually worth that
| much in the current economy.
|
| Not that it matters though, I was trying to make use of
| the "common knowledge" that banks make money from your
| deposits, and that therefore you spending your money
| instead of depositing it in a negative return account is
| costing us potential revenue. I know that's not how banks
| make money, but it's the culturally accepted explanation
| for how banks make money.
| Stunting wrote:
| In this example, the banking provides the service of a
| safe place to keep my money until I spend it. That's what
| I pay for, in the form account fees and the banks ability
| to leverage my saved money for their financial gain.
| robonerd wrote:
| How much of _your_ money has been taken from you? Not
| hypothetical money you think you might have been entitled
| to, but money that was _actually yours_. How much was
| taken from you?
| Stunting wrote:
| around anywhere from 2 - 25 cents per viewing per
| consumer. Over the course of my career that can break
| down to easily 7 figures if I was to work on say the
| original Star Wars.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| If I didn't pirate it, I wouldn't watch it, so you're not
| losing anything in my case. Additionally, if your work is
| actual art rather than mediocre filler content I probably
| bought your merch, which I definitely wouldn't do if I
| was getting raped by a streaming service, so if anything
| odds are you're coming out ahead. Beyond that, if I'm
| pirating, people start conversations about TV shows I
| don't feel compelled to hijack them by talking about how
| all streaming platforms are bullshit, which I totally
| would do if I wasn't pirating.
| robonerd wrote:
| _Not_ hypothetical money you think you might have been
| entitled to. The truth is, not a single cent was stolen
| from you.
| Stunting wrote:
| did you extract the value of the entertainment without
| providing the fee? That's stealing money from me.
|
| If you weren't gonna watch it, don't watch. The argument
| being made is you in fact, do want to watch it, you just
| don't wanna pay for it. That's stealing.
| robonerd wrote:
| If it's any consolation to you, I've almost certainly
| never seen a movie with you in it.
| Stunting wrote:
| Did you steal any content that was behind a paywall? If
| you did, you have taken money out of my industry and made
| it more difficult for it to be a viable career path in
| the future.
| robonerd wrote:
| Your industry pretty much stopped making movies I care
| about, so I don't care if your industry curls up in a
| ball and dies.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Some people like to get paid for their work and a
| subscription entitles you to nothing but what the service
| wishes to provide.
| noelsusman wrote:
| Then vote with your wallet and don't watch the content. You
| don't get to steal it just because you disagree with their
| distribution methods.
| dml2135 wrote:
| There are many lifetimes of content out there already. What
| if I'm fine with there being no money for future shows?
|
| I really fail to see how a world without high-budget Marvel
| films will be so bad. I'd be fine watching old movies and
| art-house productions for the rest of my life.
| glerk wrote:
| It's been more than a decade since I had the opportunity to
| plug this educative video in an internet conversation:
| https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4
| CabSauce wrote:
| Call it digital trespassing then. Semantics.
| Stunting wrote:
| It's stealing. You're stealing from the residual base of
| workers who require residuals to continue this career.
| glerk wrote:
| Is it my responsibility to help these people continue
| their careers? I have worked on tools that help
| businesses fill out legal forms without the need of a
| lawyer. By the same logic, am I "stealing" from the
| lawyers who need this friction to continue their careers?
| The reality of technological progress is that some
| economic activities become unsustainable and some workers
| will be forced out of their careers.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| I'm okay with that. The business is unfair to those in
| it, particularly at the lower end, and also unfair to its
| consumers. It is not the job of consumers to fix or
| perpetuate that system.
| Stunting wrote:
| No, it's the union job to do that for sure.
|
| I'm only here to pop the balloon on the consumer's
| perception that "it's not theft." there's a face and a
| name that goes along with that theft. Thousands of them.
| petefromnorth wrote:
| It's not theft, it's piracy.
| robonerd wrote:
| Torrent client in one hand, blunderbuss in the other, I
| just hope the Royal Navy doesn't hang me.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| That's definitely good; there are hidden immoralities in
| every transaction and it is in the interest of all of us
| to be more aware of them.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| If there is anyone I wouldn't feel bad stealing from, the US
| entertainment industry would not be far behind.
|
| Remember that whole Cuties debacle where Netflix sexed up a
| French coming-of-age about _children_ ?
| e40 wrote:
| There were a few years were I literally stopped all
| torrenting. Netflix and Amazon had everything I wanted. Sure,
| there were a few things that didn't exist, but I was too lazy
| to go after that minor amount of content. I was fully legal
| and paying for everything. I was fine with it.
|
| Then, the great splintering happened. I currently pay for 5
| services, but that doesn't cover even 1/2 of what I want to
| watch.
|
| All the content owners said to themselves "we can be Netflix
| or Amazon Prime, too" and they pulled their content into
| their own services.
|
| But the biggest problem: the user experience absolutely sucks
| now. It's so hard to find stuff and remember where things
| are, there's no universal search. I have to use justwatch.com
| on my phone when I want to sit down to watch something new,
| which might mean a trip to the computer to download it if one
| of the many services I already pay for don't have it.
| dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote:
| >> the user experience absolutely sucks now
|
| Understandable, I just cut back on all the TV engorging and
| rotate the streaming services every quarter. IMO it's a net
| win. Save money on the streaming services and life is
| better for having not watched so much television. Not going
| to the grave wishing I binged Season 2 of some random show
| one more time.
| sharkster711 wrote:
| I have a TCL TV (with Roku) and searching for a show using
| the voice remote generally gets me the result and also
| which app is streaming it. I use it all the time these
| days.
| aaronax wrote:
| Why don't you just not partake in the content? You really
| don't need to spend all that time watching shows. If you
| don't like the terms under which it is offered, just find
| something else to do.
| delusional wrote:
| Who cares. What difference does it make to you if he
| pirates it or doesn't watch it?
| Kye wrote:
| JustWatch is good for this, but it mostly reveals how
| sparse most of their catalogs are. It confirmed for me, at
| long last, that the reason I couldn't find anything to
| watch is because there wasn't anything to watch. Paramount+
| at least has all the Star Treks after pulling it from every
| other service, but it seems like all they have other than
| that is 30 seasons of 5 cop shows.
| rajup wrote:
| Google search does a pretty decent job of surfacing where
| something is streaming
| sharperguy wrote:
| Most results would just be buried somewhere in the middle
| of a four page article filled with ads and popups about
| cookies and newsletters and the like.
| rajup wrote:
| I'm not sure where you're located but for me, I
| prominently get a panel with the streaming options.
| Something like this https://searchengineland.com/google-
| search-tests-new-interfa...
| Damogran6 wrote:
| In my case, it's where they wrapped up the long-tail
| movies. Want to watch Airplane!....$3 rental. Spaceballs?
| $3 rental Cannonball Run? $3
|
| I am not going to pay to rent stuff I used to be able to
| encounter for free by surfing channels...well, on top of my
| dish/cable bill
| CabSauce wrote:
| And the cost of ads? Seems like a deal to me.
| spookybones wrote:
| Amazon and Youtube (and maybe other streaming services)
| also offer some of the movies for free with advertising.
| So the model hasn't changed much from going to rent a
| movie at the store for a few bucks or watching it on
| cable tv, except you're not paying for cable now.
| noncoml wrote:
| I am fine with renting and paying. But the arbitrarily
| stupid rule "you have 48 hours to finish once you
| started" is what stops me from "renting" any lure.
| brewdad wrote:
| How often are you renting a 2 hour movie without having a
| 2+ hour window of free time to watch it?
| noncoml wrote:
| More often than you think. Usually we watch movies in the
| evenings and one of us ends up falling asleep after a
| long day.
| jl6 wrote:
| Does "encounter for free" also include instant access? I
| seem to recall that movies like Spaceballs would be shown
| for free, but probably next week.
|
| The $3 is for fast-forwarding Mr Video to next week.
| derekdahmer wrote:
| Maybe I'm crazy but $3 to have a HD movie instant play
| without ads on any device I want seems like an insane
| deal to me.
| brewdad wrote:
| Back in the 90s you would have had to pay $3-5 per movie
| at Blockbuster. Drive to the store, hope the movie you
| want was in stock, drive home, watch movie, remember to
| rewind the movie when it's done, drive back to the store
| to return it before the due date.
|
| Now, for less money, I don't even have to get off the
| couch. What a world!
| axus wrote:
| It's really about the repeat plays. The game service
| Steam is successful because you "own" something after
| spending, without paying a recurring fee.
| ghaff wrote:
| Movies are different than games (and music) however.
| While I have rewatched movies--multiple times in a
| (relatively small) number of cases, movies are mostly one
| and done for me--and I imagine most adults.
|
| That said, I don't know why the 48 hour limit on rentals
| got normalized. I've fallen asleep, gotten distracted,
| etc. while watching a movie and I don't like now being
| forced to watch it soon.
| brewdad wrote:
| It was normalized back when the first video rental stores
| opened decades ago. It remains today because there needs
| to be some way to differentiate between a rental and a
| purchase, otherwise everything would become a purchase at
| a significantly higher price point.
|
| Maybe the limit could be 72 or 96 hours instead. Or you
| could rent it with no time limit but maybe can't ever
| rewind then you can make it last as long as you need but
| when it's done, it's done.
| jerf wrote:
| Also: Airplane! and Airplane 2 DVD: $6.
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XGD93BP Spaceballs $7, less
| if you're ok with used:
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TJ1H32 Cannonball run, $10,
| though less if used and there are some $10 "Cannonball
| Run + another movie" sets on Amazon as well.
|
| While I tend to agree that piracy and/or ripping isn't
| something everyone can do, I've filled out my Plex
| collection legally lately with DVD acquisitions at
| bargain-bin prices. Used doesn't matter if you only have
| to be able to read the disc once to rip it, and I'm yet
| to get something used off Amazon that couldn't be read
| once. (I haven't even had to clean it or anything, it's
| all just worked.)
|
| So, my Plex install in terms of raw content isn't up to
| Netflix's size. However, I rather suspect there are some
| people reading this who have more hours of video on their
| Plex than Netflix even has available. And while mine
| isn't that large, it is _much_ better tuned for me and my
| family 's interests at this point. And I don't have to
| worry about getting halfway through a series, only for
| some licensor to notice it has become popular enough to
| pull it and run it on their own service. Netflix has the
| problem now that anything that becomes popular on their
| service will get yanked. I do not know how they overcome
| that. They hoped to do it with enough original content,
| but to my eye, that has failed, and there is now no
| longer enough time to fix that. While I understand the
| complaints that they treated it too much like "content",
| to be honest, I've never thought this would work out,
| from the moment they announced it. A single company just
| can't produce a sufficiently diverse set of "content" to
| be the everything-to-everybody they would have needed to
| be to justify a Netflix valuation.
| pininja wrote:
| Do you also make backups of HD movies using this process,
| by any chance? Like you, I have no issue purchasing
| something. But I don't like "purchasing" something stored
| in a walled garden online-only service that can be taken
| away.
| hamstergene wrote:
| Piracy is a protest. 95% of those shows are worthless fillers
| that would have never been watched by the viewers if the full
| selection was available. Most of those future "originals"
| shouldn't be happening in the first place.
|
| The reason music streaming defeated piracy is because a
| single subscription gives access to most of the music in the
| world, including from other countries and languages as long
| as you can type the search query (Indian, Japanese, Turkish,
| Russian etc.)
|
| The reason video piracy is resurging is that every streaming
| service provides 2-3 good shows and hundreds of fillers, and
| to have a real selection of what is currently good one would
| have to pay $200-300 per month for dozens of apps. On top of
| that, pulling the show from one app and reappearing it on
| another loses watch history, which is no way in the interest
| of the customer. Sell what the users really want to buy, and
| they will pay.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| It is THE solution because its the only thing that will force
| them to change their model.
|
| See music streaming, the origin of video streaming, origin of
| steam etc
| halfnormalform wrote:
| You stole? Like you broke in and took their only digital copy
| so they couldn't make more? That's monstrous!
| Joeri wrote:
| Steal _verb_
|
| 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and
| especially as a habitual or regular practice
|
| Yes, piracy is stealing according to the dictionary,
| especially if done habitually. That the owner is left with
| a copy of the work is immaterial to the act of theft.
| ipaddr wrote:
| You are stealing my content by viewing this.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| It's not taken. It's copied. Digital piracy is not theft.
| It's unauthorized copying.
|
| It would be taking and theft if you deprived the owner of
| their content while copying it for yourself. Like
| stealing money with wire transfers.
|
| This isn't just semantics, it's important to not conflate
| theft and piracy. They're almost completely different,
| except in both cases the offender obtains something they
| didn't originally possess.
|
| "You wouldn't steal a car" is mafiaa newspeak intended to
| maintain control of rents.
| Stunting wrote:
| it's theft of the income of the workforce required to
| make movies. Whole departments receive residuals based on
| the post box office sales and that income is required to
| ensure that it is a viable career. That enables talented
| and safe people to continue making entertainment which in
| turn provides a better product.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| No, it's not. If I pay for a movie, but I then download
| it from The Pirate Bay, it's still piracy, but nobody
| loses anything.
|
| I recently went over my media collection and did some
| conservative guesstimation of my spending over the last
| 20 years. I've paid over 6 figures to consume various
| sorts of media.
|
| I have absolutely zero moral or ethical qualms with
| downloading and/or pirating content I've already paid
| for. I don't give a flying fuck if the copyright holder
| doesn't like the means by which I get the content. The
| studios and copyright lobby and mafiaa are not good faith
| operators.
|
| Piracy is not theft. Sometimes it's ethical and
| justified.
|
| I _WANT_ to pay. I want to give a streaming service money
| to curate, deliver, and maintain a library of high
| quality content. The industry doesn 't want that to be
| possible, because it interferes with the bad-faith
| rentseeking games played with royalties and residuals.
| I'm done playing pretend, and will happily Pirate even
| new content I haven't paid for.
|
| I will pay when there's the opportunity for good faith
| commerce. I'll buy discs and files directly where
| possible.
| Stunting wrote:
| In your example, getting a third party to provide a
| digital copy of a good you already own is not theft. I
| would argue it's a lousy way of doing things, opening you
| up to many more problems, but it's not theft.
|
| Taking a good or service that you don't own is stealing.
| That's piracy. That's theft.
| bhaney wrote:
| Oh, are we doing argument by dictionary now? Here's
| another one then:
|
| Take _verb_
|
| 1: remove (someone or something) from a particular place.
|
| Piracy doesn't remove something from a particular place,
| so it is not _taking_ , so it is not _stealing_. You
| know, "according to the dictionary"
|
| (My point here is to show that quoting dictionary
| definitions to resolve technicalities is a worthless
| argument. I don't actually care whether or not piracy is
| classified as theft)
| nescioquid wrote:
| I sort of think piracy in this context is actually
| distributing some media, e.g. a movie, without holding
| the copyright or a license from the copyright holder to
| do so.
|
| You will argue that this may deprive the copyright holder
| of some rent if the media is for sale, but that sounds
| qualitatively different than taking or stealing.
| tzs wrote:
| That's not how English works. "Stole", "steal", etc., have
| meanings beyond just illegally depriving someone of
| physical property. Here are several examples of correct
| usage of "steal" or "stole" that have nothing to do with
| illegally taking property.
|
| * Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest
| in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on
| their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in
| love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten
| "stole" their heart.
|
| * An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a
| performance that outshines the performance of the stars.
| Many would say that the actor "stole" the show.
|
| * An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain
| access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard
| containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade
| secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to
| say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula.
|
| * When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer
| email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is
| commonly said that the data was "stolen".
|
| * Alice is Bob's fiance. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's
| knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it
| acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiance.
|
| * A team that has been behind since the start of the game
| but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to
| have "stolen" the game.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| > the kitten "stole" their heart.
|
| > the actor "stole" the show
|
| > A team has... "stolen" the game
|
| These examples are all obviously metaphorical and
| irrelevant, unless you want to talk about
| _metaphorically_ stealing from people, which I don 't
| understand to be the point of this thread.
|
| > Mallory "stole" his fiance
|
| Bob has been deprived of his fiance.
|
| > the rival company "stole" your secret formula
|
| > crackers gain access... the data was "stolen"
|
| These are the only two relevant examples, and they're
| sufficiently debatable that it's unlikely you'd be able
| to prosecute either for theft or larceny. In the case of
| the crackers breaching an email list, many laws are
| broken, but I doubt "theft," or anything like it, would
| be one of them. In the case of the corporate espionage,
| if this is theft, it's theft of intellectual property.
| And that makes it the most direct comparison to content
| piracy, but it doesn't advance the conversation because
| it's the same debate.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart._
|
| A great moral crime, no doubt...
|
| The problem is once you expand the definition of 'steal'
| _well_ beyond what is legally considered theft, the
| immorality of "stealing" is no longer a given. People
| who accusatorily use the word in reference to copyright
| violation are leaning on the 'illegal acts of theft'
| meaning of the term to add apparent moral weight to their
| argument. But when challenged on that, they retreat into
| these more diverse meanings of the word and pretend they
| never meant it that specific way. It's a _Motte-and-
| Bailey_ tactic.
| tomp wrote:
| All of these examples result in someone not having
| something any more (being the star of a show, trade
| secret, confidential data, fiance, winning of the game).
|
| Piracy is not stealing.
| rhino369 wrote:
| A better example is theft of services. If you sit down at
| a barber's chair and then walk out without payment, we
| all consider that stealing. But no property was actually
| deprived--just wasted effort.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It's always hilarious to see HN of all places get nitpicky
| about this distinction. If some megacorporation stole your
| code, we'd laugh them out of the room if they said this
| shit. "We didn't steal your code, it's still right there on
| github! We would have used it legally if you had licensed
| it differently!"
| wtetzner wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you'd still call it copyright
| infringement.
| nevi-me wrote:
| It doesn't matter how you rationalise it. Someone created
| content with the intention of it being consumed for a fee.
| You downloaded it, likely from someone who illegally
| copied/reproduced it.
|
| Maybe I didn't "steal", but I contributed to criminal
| activity.
|
| Sure, copyright laws can seem absurd, but if you disagree
| with the laws, consider the ethics.
|
| How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from
| you, and then go give random people your content? This
| especially when it starts to drive into your revenues.
|
| "Only digital copy" is disingenuous. If the cost of
| producing the digital copy is say $40mm (an amount article
| says some Netflix movies can cost).
|
| They're making copies from a digital copy, and their
| business is to sell access to them. If their model is
| "we'll replicate this copy 500 million times, and charge
| users $0.10 a view", every 10 copies viewed elsewhere is $1
| lost.
|
| Should a service raise the fee to say $0.12 to better cover
| costs?
|
| Ultimately, theft is often subsidised by paying customers.
|
| I'm also guilty of this. I download torrents where:
|
| * I can't buy something because it's not available due to
| region restrictions, and I can't buy it via VPN (looking at
| Disney+)
|
| * I can't buy it anywhere altogether.
|
| Where I used to download maybe 50 torrents a year a decade
| ago, I probably do it <5 times a year now. It's stealing,
| or consuming stolen content.
|
| The pricing strategies of big corp is a separate
| accessibility issue.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I agree with everything you say here, and torrent a bit
| more than you and get things via newsnet a lot. I
| maintain a large media server.
|
| The end result of my pirating is a media service that is
| easier to use, is higher quality and requires less effort
| than a streaming service (though initial costs and setup
| time were high).
|
| I also pay for 3 streaming services that go unused, and
| this covers about half or maybe 3/4 of what I watch.
|
| Streaming is in a dangerous place when piracy works
| better, looks better and is more convenient.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| It really doesn't matter how _you_ rationalize it either,
| within the frame of capital everything is immoral
| dml2135 wrote:
| > How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from
| you, and then go give random people your content? This
| especially when it starts to drive into your revenues.
|
| I would consider that if I am selling a product that has
| absolutely no scarcity, such as digital files, I have a
| few approaches.
|
| - Introduce artificial scarcity with something like DRM
|
| - Create a business model focused on the service of
| providing the product, rather than the product itself
|
| I would not try to accuse my potential consumers of a
| crime in order to fix the flaws in my business model.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| The other option, which obviously doesn't work for mega-
| corporate media, is independent, direct support (patreon,
| etc). Most of my favorite modern content is created in
| this way, and is entirely free to download and distribute
| - contribution is entirely optional.
|
| problem is that greedy media moguls want to get paid for
| a piece of content forever, instead of just raising
| enough money to cover the labor and advertising, give
| stakeholders some profit, and move on, so they cannot
| exist this way.
|
| That is their problem though :)
| CabSauce wrote:
| More like I snuck onto a ride without buying a ticket. Or
| snuck into a theater without buying a ticket. Wouldn't you
| call that stealing?
|
| Edit: Call it digital trespass then. I don't really care
| what you call it. There are obviously fixed costs to
| creating content. Just because there aren't incremental
| costs incurred from piracy, doesn't mean there isn't harm.
| Lost revenue is harm.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| > " _Call it digital trespass then._ "
|
| The legal term you're looking for is probably "theft of
| services", e.g. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-
| of-services/).
|
| And, to the people trying to play semantic games with
| "steal" and "theft", theft of services does have laws
| defining it as a criminal offense, e.g.
| https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 .
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Legally that wouldn't be theft.
| newman8r wrote:
| In those cases, your mere presence costs the operator
| more (fuel cost/ wear and tear/limited number of seats) -
| so sure, those cases could be considered stealing, but I
| don't think they're in the same realm as downloading
| entertainment.
| tzs wrote:
| I have some used oil I need to get rid of. I could drive
| the 45 mile round trip to the county hazardous waste
| disposal site and get rid of it properly. Or I could wait
| until we get a good rain and pour it into the drainage
| ditch in front of my house, where it will eventually end
| up somewhere in Puget Sound.
|
| The amount of oil is small enough that it would have
| absolutely no measurable effect whatsoever on Puget
| Sound.
|
| Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it
| in the ditch?
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| If the environmental impact assessment (you should
| already have conducted this) shows the impact of dumping
| your 1 ml - 1,000 l is less than the impact of your
| driving 45 miles, go for it!
| newman8r wrote:
| > Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it
| in the ditch?
|
| I'd say no - because it's decreasing the intrinsic value
| of a shared resource (whether or not it can be measured).
| Downloading a movie, on the other hand - doesn't decrease
| the intrinsic value of the media being copied.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| I don't think these are fair comparisons.
|
| A ride requires a vehicle, a driver, fuel, etc. You can't
| freely copy a vehicle, a person's time, or the fuel
| required to power the vehicle.
|
| A theater requires electricity, seating, space for
| seating, an audio and video system, etc. These are also
| things that you can't freely copy.
| dlp211 wrote:
| You are stealing the residuals of the actors, producers,
| stuntmen, grips, and all the other folks that help make
| content.
|
| Not everyone is a A-List celeb or director.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| This logic is still flawed. If I stole a ride on a train,
| am I stealing from the people who made the train?
| vincnetas wrote:
| Yes, it's not stealing.
| Stunting wrote:
| and then the carnival workers get fired, because there
| isn't enough income to pay 3 people. One person has to
| take tickets and run the rides, which is now more
| dangerous for you. So they shut it down, and all the cool
| rides leave town and you'll tell your kids how much
| cooler carnivals use to be and you'll never understand
| it's cause you stole income out of the workers pockets.
| redhedgehog12 wrote:
| Not sure if you're being sarcastic... If not, you're just
| being facetious. Just because a thing is digital and
| therefore copiable, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever
| pay for it.
| [deleted]
| robonerd wrote:
| > _And doesn 't provide any money for future shows that you
| might enjoy._
|
| The last movie I pirated was directed by a man who died
| almost 30 years ago. Do you suppose if I subscribed to
| Netflix (which doesn't even have any of his movies at all as
| far I can tell), they'd hire a necromancer to get a few more
| movies out of his corpse?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his
| corpse?
|
| We don't hire necromancers anymore, they've been replaced
| by training models on a corpus anchored by the creator's
| existing work.
| robonerd wrote:
| You're probably right, and honestly the thought of this
| happening just makes me feel sad. That premise is just
| like the character Dixie Flatline in Neuromancer. Simply
| tragic.
| beckman466 wrote:
| i prefer not to pay for my own exploitation and being
| psychologically mindfucked by propaganda. i don't want to
| give money to Hollywood millionaires and the expensive
| product advertisements that classify as movies today
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| The purpose is to be a signal to the distributor: "fix your
| payment model or we're not paying". I pirated for a long
| time. When Netflix became a thing, I stopped pirating (since
| it was easier). Now I pirate again. If a new company came
| along with a good model, or the industry as a whole decided
| this streaming debacle is stupid, I would definitely stop
| pirating and give my money to someone. Until then, why would
| I pay money for a worse service than what I can get for free?
| CabSauce wrote:
| Wouldn't the appropriate choice be to not pay for the
| service AND not pirate? That seems like the best way to
| send the message. Pirating gives the impression that you
| want to view their content but not pay for it. So they
| should invest in locking down their content, not improve
| their experience.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Yes, I'm interested in their content. I'm not interested
| in their byzantine ways of inventing 20 million new
| streaming services that I need to subscribe to in order
| to watch one single show I want.
|
| > So they should invest in locking down their content,
| not improve their experience.
|
| Good luck with that.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Then they would replace the content but not the system.
| If you like the content pirate it. They may add more drm
| like music companies or they may reduce prices or they
| may make streaming easier.
|
| Ignoring it sends a different message.
| Stunting wrote:
| purchase the shows you want to watch individually.
| Hitton wrote:
| How do I do that? For instance imagine I would like to
| watch Book of Boba Fett (just an example, I saw it
| mentioned somewhere today). I don't think that Disney
| allows to purchase it individually, but I can only guess,
| because in the sticks where I live (EU country), Disney+
| isn't even available.
|
| That reminds me, what do you think about geoblocking
| these services? If one has a choice: buy the content, buy
| VPN and break the copyright by watching it in unsupported
| country or just break the copyright by pirating it
| outright, what should one do?
| Stunting wrote:
| Boba fett is not provided individually. The cost value of
| producing that show is driving people to a subscription
| system. If you don't want to do that, don't sign up for
| it.
|
| If you want to watch that show but you don't want to pay
| for subscription, let DIsney know. If the market demanded
| it by way of retracting their subscription dollars, they
| would notice.
|
| But if you steal it because that's just how you want to
| do things, you're a thief.
| Hitton wrote:
| It was your suggestion to purchase individual shows.
|
| >If the market demanded it by way of retracting their
| subscription dollars, they would notice.
|
| One could say that pirating is the act of retracting the
| subscription dollars, but I digress. I can't retract my
| subscription dollars, because they won't even offer me
| the subscription (which I mentioned in my comment).
|
| Could you as an knowledgeable insider actually answer the
| part of my previous comment you conveniently skipped,
| that part about what is person supposed to do if the
| Disney doesn't even offer the service in their country?
| And don't say "let Disney know", something actionable
| please.
|
| >But if you steal it because that's just how you want to
| do things, you're a thief.
|
| 1) it's not theft, it's digital "piracy"
|
| 2) And I didn't say I pirate their stuff, the show was
| just an example. But I still feel discriminated on
| account of country I am from by them refusing to sell me
| their subscription service. And everyone knows that
| racism is worse than stealing.
| ncallaway wrote:
| That sends the wrong message.
|
| If you're interested in the content, but dislike the
| delivery mechanism, ignoring the content entirely sends
| the signal: "I am not interested in the content you're
| producing". The companies will attempt to address that
| signal by changing the content, to try and find content
| that attracts larger audiences.
|
| Piracy sends a different signal: "I am interested in the
| content, but not the price or the delivery mechanism".
| The companies will attempt to address that signal
| differently. Maybe they lower the price. Maybe the ease
| the friction on the delivery mechanism. Maybe the
| _increase_ the friction on the delivery mechanism (by
| adding DRM). But the signal from piracy sends a more
| clear message to the content companies that ignoring the
| content.
| barkerja wrote:
| What is a "good model" to you?
| john_minsk wrote:
| When I open IMDB database a drop down with links appears.
| If publisher decided not to provide movie for purchase -
| these are links to torrent files to download movie in HD,
| FHD and 4k with preselected language and subtitles
| settings. If publisher decided to provide movie for
| purchase - links to buy it with comparable price to a
| movie ticket. But you buy Movie not an
| HD+English+SpanishSubs file version and you don't have
| access to 4k video. You can also buy subscription to IMDB
| which will include 100-200 hours worth of content per
| month. You don't buy movies this way. You stream them and
| they don't belong to you once your subscription ends.
| Publishers get their money based on minutes of content
| watched by users.
|
| It won't work?
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Effort of buying legally < effort of downloading
| illegally
|
| Netflix did it (once upon a time. no, not the movie). I
| don't really care for reasons why this is hard for the
| industry or really anything else. As long as it doesn't
| economically make sense for me to give money to someone
| (doesn't reduce my own effort/time expenditure or provide
| something I can't have otherwise), I will not give money
| to someone. Morals be damned.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| You can rent on many of the streaming services for like
| $3, which blows a hole in the "it's just effort"
| argument.
| petefromnorth wrote:
| You still have to find which service it's available on,
| enter payment information, download an app... And even
| then if you're not in the USA the selection is
| distributed across more apps, and lots of content isn't
| available easily even if you want to pay.
| pineconewarrior wrote:
| acquiring currency requires effort. Considerable effort,
| for some. One can click on a torrent link way faster than
| they can earn $3
|
| Plus, this rental will not be available in all locales,
| for every video, etc
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| That's Amazon AFAIK, I don't know of any others. It's a
| step in the right direction but the price is still too
| high (it's usually $4-$5 in my experience). I only get to
| watch it once, not keep it, and I pay you double what I
| used to pay Blockbuster? No thanks.
| brewdad wrote:
| Blockbuster new releases were $3 in 1990 dollars ($6.60
| today). This was in a mid-sized town in the midwest, not
| Manhattan or LA. Blockbuster was also far less
| convenient.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Fair, I forgot about inflation.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Plex is nice! I run a Server for Family and Friends, it works
| great, but I'm an IT GUY and it's a Hobby.
|
| For the most people it's too much struggle to run this,
| especially when plex has the default settings of ,,transcode
| everything to 2mbit if the server is not at home".
|
| I have multiple subscriptions, but most players suck (I look at
| you Amazon Prime). Plex is a way better experience.
|
| Oh I use a Nvidia Shield as Client. It's awesome!
| candlemas wrote:
| But technically that's stealing. I still feel a pang of guilt
| if I do it so I just use the free streaming services.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Theft, in plain english, is defined as the dishonest
| appropriation of property belonging to another with the
| intention to permanently deprive. Stealing is the act of
| theft.
| gruez wrote:
| technically it's "copyright infringement", not "stealing"
| Stunting wrote:
| it's very much stealing from the residual based income of
| the workforce required to make your entertainment.
| andrew_ wrote:
| As mention in a comment above, it is not the consumer's
| responsibility to provide income to employees of a
| company providing goods or services. Please stop with
| this fallacy.
| Stunting wrote:
| Company's providing goods and services in a capitalistic
| society are entirely dependent on consumers providing the
| income for their workforce.
|
| How else do you really think this whole thing works. You
| get to keep your money, but still get all the goods and
| services provided. That's just silly.
| andrew_ wrote:
| You're conflating consumer responsibility with consumer
| spending. It's the company's job to provide wages - the
| company dictates and designs the means to acquire money
| to provide wages. If the company provides a widget that
| consumers don't want, is it the consumer's fault the
| company cannot pay the wages of the employees? That's
| just silly.
| Stunting wrote:
| I'm saying "taking a service that you did not pay to
| receive" is stealing.
| elenaferrantes wrote:
| Stunting wrote:
| You're stealing income, specifically from me and all of my
| coworkers. Perhaps you think that you're only stealing from
| Producers and A list actors, but there are entire departments
| that receive residuals on a production.
|
| - On screen performers, stunt performers like myself and actors
| who grind out a comfortable living. Those residuals also go to
| qualifying for health insurance through earnings. You are
| directly stealing from my ability to provide health insurance
| to my family.
|
| - Assistant Directors, who are saints dealing with every
| logistical problem imaginable. The best of them only work 1-2
| movies a year because the workload causes severe burnout.
|
| - The Union themselves! The more money that flows through the
| union, the more powerful they are. The more safer movie sets
| become and the better life is provided for the workforce that
| makes your entertainment.
|
| - Yourself! You are reducing the value of producing quality TV
| and Movies by stealing them. Every time one a show is pirated,
| there is less incentive to spend more money on an entertainment
| spectacle.
|
| Go check out my imdb and see how many of my credits you've
| watched https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1968249/
|
| For every show imagine that it's a nickel you stole from my
| income. WOuldn't be surprised if you took a buck or two out of
| mine. Now multiply that by all the on screen performers and ADs
| and others I mentioned. Now multiply that all the people who
| steal like you.
|
| You're directly responsible for sucking the quality of life
| away from people who make your entertainment and reducing the
| desire to make things you enjoy. You're going to end up with
| shows that are AI generated CGI sponsored by Mt. Dew and Chevy
| trucks.
|
| Stop stealing our shit.
| rambambram wrote:
| Impressive list of movies! And a very good point you make.
| NB: Your website loads pretty slow for me (I'm in Europe),
| and the video on the homepage is unavailable, it says.
| Stunting wrote:
| Thank you, It's long overdue to update. I appreciate the
| bump
| rambambram wrote:
| We're on HN, so you probably know your way around
| websites. But let me know if I can help you with an
| 'internet friendly' website (quick loading, no third
| party code, stats without tracking, clear layout,
| beautiful styles, easy editing, and more).
| mech422 wrote:
| Yeah - I have to admit, I was impressed with your list of
| credits... I live under a rock and haven't seen many of
| them, but I really enjoyed 'The Accountant' and I'm a
| sucker for anything Spiderman/Marvel
| Stunting wrote:
| The Acct was heavily provided by now Action Director Sam
| Hargrave, and you should look through his credits. He's
| most well known for Extraction on Netflix, but he's been
| doing it for a while. If you liked Acct, you'll probably
| like the other stuff he did before he was well known
| outside of our circle.
| mech422 wrote:
| oh - Thanks!
| Tao331 wrote:
| I think your real anger should be directed at the studios
| that aren't fairly structuring your benefits and
| compensation, as well as the union that is not getting these
| for you.
| Stunting wrote:
| My real and passionate anger is directed constructively at
| those entities. Today I am providing a face and a name to
| people who think "piracy isn't stealing"
| rjbwork wrote:
| I, and nobody I know, has pirated games or music since Steam
| blew up about 12-15 years ago and Spotify/RDIO and similar
| blew up about 10 years ago.
|
| There was about a decade when Netflix went full in on online
| streaming and was offering a fantastic service for a
| reasonable price with a far superior experience to piracy.
| That is no longer the case, and the unbundling to now a
| dozen+ of subscriptions is driving pretty much all my techie
| friends back to movie/tv piracy. I personally don't really
| watch much TV and might watch one or two movies a year, so
| I'll just not watch anything. I've already cancelled my
| Netflix subscription about a year ago, and I prefer playing
| video games and reading books anyway.
|
| Until your industry can offer a product experience that is
| superior to piracy, people are going to pirate. The games and
| music industries have largely solved this problem. When will
| yours?
| Stunting wrote:
| Sure you're talking about economical motivators, which I
| hope and fight for our Union to adjust to.
|
| Until then tho..a person who steals from a moral high
| ground is still a thief stealing from my income.
| rjbwork wrote:
| No, it's not economic at all. You've repeatedly failed to
| grasp this in this entire comments section. It's about
| convenience. It is actually more convenient to pirate the
| handful of movies or TV shows people want to watch than
| to maintain a dozen subscriptions or activate just the
| one for the handful of shows or movies they want to watch
| at any given time.
|
| Steam and Spotify have made it incredibly simple to just
| get what you want without having to juggle or manage any
| kind of bullshit.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| Steam charges by the game and often times you can find
| whatever you want on iTunes or Amazon video if you're
| willing to "buy" the movie/tv season. Why do you limit
| yourself to content that comes to you from a
| subscription? I'm guessing because it's kind of expensive
| to buy a season of tv.
| rjbwork wrote:
| I don't, actually. I pay for a number of things that I
| feel deliver value. I've bought movies and TV off of
| amazon video/youtube. I pay for some podcasts. I buy
| audiobooks off of Audible and eBooks from kindle (despite
| these being even more expensive and more convenient to
| pirate than movies/TV). I've commissioned some graphic
| design stuff for personal use. Though I'm personally not
| into sports, a friend of mine is super into the NFL and
| buys their online package (though he still has to pirate
| certain local games because...not enough people showed up
| to the stadium that day???).
|
| As I've said in the thread, for me the alternative to
| movies/TV isn't piracy, it's playing games or reading
| books, which I do pay for because the experiences of
| finding what I want, buying it, and consuming it is a
| superior experience to piracy. If that ever changes
| across the entire media landscape and games/books go the
| way of movies/TV that may change.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| ah, sidenote! I watch NFL too. Generally local games are
| blacked out so you need to watch them on the local
| broadcast via antenna or a cable. I do find this annoying
| but I have an antenna pretty much for that reason.
| Stunting wrote:
| It is very convenient to steal. You fail to grasp that
| still constitutes theft.
| rjbwork wrote:
| Your obtuseness and just general attitude in this thread
| really actually makes me want to start pirating again.
|
| Boutta go "steal" from you just to do it.
| RDaneel0livaw wrote:
| The only thing I pirate is movies / tv shows ... and it's
| extremely simple: because it's not humanly possible to
| purchase them digitally.
|
| Games: yes. Music: yes. Books: yes. Magazines: yes. What
| happened to tv and film? Where are you all?
|
| Let's say I want to purchase The Fifth Element and throw
| it on my plex server so I can watch it on vacation out of
| the country? How can I do that? The answer is simple: you
| cannot. So I pirate it. And enjoy watching it. If the
| industry WOULD provide me with some way to purchase The
| Fifth Element, get a high quality mkv or mp4 or whatever
| download of it, I would do it in an instant.
| [deleted]
| Krasnol wrote:
| Wow I thought 2022 nobody would still be so 90s in this
| regard.
|
| Most of those who pirate, wouldn't pay and since the content
| is not going away because somebody pirates it, it can't be
| stealing.
|
| And Jesus...please...it's not like you're starving out there.
| Start producing original stories. We don't even need all that
| fancy and expensive CGI crap. Just start writing properly and
| in a creative way. Pay THOSE people more IF they deliver
| (though I'm not sure anymore if you really understand what's
| missing here with all your sequels and remakes...). We're not
| the audience you should cry to, go to those managers who
| messed up that market so piracy is coming back again.
| rjbwork wrote:
| > Wow I thought 2022 nobody would still be so 90s in this
| regard.
|
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
| his salary depends on his not understanding it."
|
| Although in this case, I have to imagine that first
| understanding the problem would enable the industry to fix
| itself and then make more money.
| jorams wrote:
| There's two (relevant) kinds of consumers here: Those who
| want access and those who want ownership.
|
| Netflix was on a path to successfully serve the first kind,
| the only remaining problems being region locking and an
| incomplete catalog. Demand for piracy went down. Then the
| industry got greedy, made one of those remaining problems
| much, much worse, and now the demand for piracy is on the
| rise again.
|
| The industry spends a lot of resources making life worse for
| the second kind, in a misguided attempt to both satisfy them
| and fully prevent the possibility of piracy. Instead they
| fail at both. The result is an increased demand for piracy.
|
| > You're directly responsible for sucking the quality of life
| away from people who make your entertainment and reducing the
| desire to make things you enjoy. You're going to end up with
| shows that are AI generated CGI sponsored by Mt. Dew and
| Chevy trucks.
|
| So here's the problem: The only way I can spend money to
| encourage the production of content I want is to buy a
| terrible, abusive product I don't want. It only plays in
| 720p, it's only available through a shitty app, it may
| disappear from the platform it's on any time.
|
| All of it is just a wrapper for content. Please sell me the
| content. Whatever file comes out at the end of the production
| process, sell it to me.
|
| Instead I spend my money in other places. Streamers on Twitch
| want it. YouTubers want it. People on Patreon want it.
| Developers want it. Somehow they manage not to abuse the
| people willing to give them money.
| al_ak wrote:
| It's literally not the job of consumers to provide for your
| income. That may be a harsh lesson, but it's true.
| Stunting wrote:
| This literally how the financial system is set up.
| Consumers provide money to a workforce that provides good
| and services that society enjoys. In turn, that workforce
| consumes goods and services providing income to a different
| workforce.
|
| When you steal cool stuff, cool stuff stops getting made.
| bin_bash wrote:
| It's literally the job of consumers to pay for the things
| they consume.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| That's the expectation perhaps, but that's not what "job"
| means.
| Stunting wrote:
| It's the definition. Not paying for redefines one to
| being a thief.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| That's a rather extreme definition of what a job is, in
| my opinion.
| delusional wrote:
| Whatever chief executive that decided to create their own
| streaming platform for a price that's too high is stealing
| your money. They are the ones that made it more convenient to
| pirate.
| Stunting wrote:
| Ah, now that is a point. I don't expect consumers to take
| on my personal union politics. That is the duty of the
| workforce and their union..
|
| Which is more powerful if consumers don't steal money out
| of their pocket.
|
| Pay for cool things and you'll get more cool things.
| cwkoss wrote:
| What if I pay for a movie ticket because I think it might
| be cool, then the movie is awful and I don't want more
| like it to be made?
|
| There is no option for refunds. Pirating first gives the
| user more control over which films they economically
| incentivize iteration on.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| How you worded that sounds reminiscent of mafia
| "protection". I assume that wasn't your intention, but
| that's how it read for me.
|
| It seems to me like piracy of shows is tangential to
| whatever the root of the issue is. Folk are becoming
| disenchanted with streaming services. Whether they pirate
| or just stop watching instead, the services have clearly
| changed in ways that make them less valuable to
| consumers. Unless somebody figures that out, it's not
| going to improve. I doubt DRM is the answer, although a
| combination of higher prices and consolidated content
| might be. Folk would pay more for Netflix if it was still
| a "monopoly" with all the popular shows.
|
| I think accusing folk of stealing money out of your
| pocket for downloading a video is quite hyperbolic and
| isn't winning you any arguments. You're trying to make it
| a moral issue, but it isn't really a moral issue, and
| nobody outside of the industry cares. You could claim
| that it's disrespectful to you as a participating member
| of society, and it probably is, but yelling at people to
| respect you more doesn't work, and has the opposite
| effect.
|
| I think your point, though, is that it's a tragedy of the
| commons situation. The industry works as a whole because
| people are willing to pay a premium in exchange for
| entertainment. If people don't pay, then there's no
| incentive to produce. If folk value new entertainment,
| they need to support the industry that produces it.
| Stunting wrote:
| If thieves are offended at having their behavior
| identified as stealing, they could stop stealing.
|
| The problem, as I see it, is entertainment is being seen
| as a "good" and not a "service." Physical dvds and vhs
| has conditioned us to think that it's a physical good, so
| there is no harm in replicating the digital product. In
| fact that emotional state derived from viewing the
| entertainment is the service that is being paid for.
|
| Taking the value of receiving that entertainment without
| providing the cash value of that service is stealing.
| samstave wrote:
| Make "cool things" overly priced, especially in a fucked
| up inflationary market manipulated by corruption and
| influence, where for the last several years everything
| costs more which is tangible and required to survive,
| (food, shelter, transport, employment)
|
| Then the ephemeral luxuries, such as entertainment, begin
| to take a more relaxed position on our moral compass when
| one compares paying for entertainment services, vs, using
| funds for food.
| Kye wrote:
| I went looking for a la carte options for all the Star
| Treks. They really want almost $50 per season for DS9, a
| show that premiered almost 30 years ago. There's just no
| reasonable way to justify that but greed. I can't believe
| people like Stunting actually see much of that ~$50, and
| I think they're here fighting over people not giving them
| their scraps when there's no guarantee people are making
| a choice between paying $50, paying $10 to Paramount, or
| downloading a copy ("pirating" IP is a made up concept no
| one uses outside the world of RIAA, MPAA, and similar).
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| I love 90's star trek. I haven't watched anything past
| Enterprise and the Chris Pine movies because I don't have
| a CBS account. I could easily afford it, but none of the
| new content seems worth it to me, in terms of my time let
| alone my money. I'm not a pirate, and yet I feel like
| Stunting is upset with folk like me.
| Kye wrote:
| Lower Decks is worth a month of it. I always wondered
| about the ships sent in after the Enterprise to deal with
| whatever they left. Now I know.
| cwkoss wrote:
| The Orville isn't officially Star Trek, but I'd argue is
| the best descendant of 90s Star Trek of the past decade.
| Kye wrote:
| I have a very hard time taking Seth MacFarlane seriously
| as a non-voice actor. I keep hearing all the characters
| he voices, and that clashes with the attempts to play
| serious characters.
| cwkoss wrote:
| A significant proportion of 90s trek fans who have seen
| the new series would agree its not worth it.
|
| I pirate-streamed the first season of discovery due to
| its lack of availability on other platforms. Felt like a
| 10 hour movie about a dystopian future with weak shallow
| characters rather than an episodic serial about the great
| people solving problems in a better society than we have
| today. Tried a few episodes of Picard and just didn't get
| into it. Neither were entertaining enough for my full
| attention, ended up watching on second monitor while
| playing a game.
|
| I would feel like a schmuck if I paid CBS to subsidize
| this content: wasn't what I want more of in the world.
| There is no "voting with your dollar" in modern content
| delivery when you can't get a refund when a show ends up
| being a waste of time.
| Stunting wrote:
| To you. The service I provide to society is
| entertainment. Perhaps in the dystopian sand planet of
| the future that won't hold much value but right now on
| Today's earth, entertainment is a service that is valued
| by society.
|
| In the future, I suspect we'll still have storytellers
| for the same reason we do today. To Inspire, educate, and
| entertain. I cannot envision society with zero
| entertainment.
| ProAm wrote:
| > Stop stealing our shit.
|
| While I agree with your sentiment, you can also make a better
| product. This is an easy fix with some of the smartest minds
| in the industry. People showed Netflix early on they were
| willing to PAY for ease of use.
| Stunting wrote:
| 100 percent agree. Voting with dollars is the fastest and
| best way to make better products.
|
| The big studios know how many people are watching their
| stuff via theft. They are going to keep producting low end
| crap with studio friendly sponsorships, because piracy will
| have taught them that is a better business model.
|
| Pay of the things you want to see and you'll see more of
| them.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| > Pay of the things you want to see and you'll see more
| of them.
|
| Where can I pay for a streaming service with no geo-
| blocking, no DRM quality limitations on Linux, offline
| viewing and all the shows/movies I want to watch? Seems
| the only way to vote with my wallet is to refuse to pay,
| which morally isn't really different to piracy.
| Stunting wrote:
| Refusing to pay and refusing to consume is different
| morally from stealing.
|
| I don't know where to find all those requirements.
| Perhaps they exist. If they are that big of a dealbreaker
| for you, don't consume the value provided by
| entertainment services.
|
| When you decide that the exact moral high point is to
| consume the goods and services while still maintaining
| integrity about not providing the cash value asked of
| those things, you are justifying being a thief.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| You're responding to a stuntperson who, unfortunately, has
| no control over the distribution of the product they worked
| on.
| ProAm wrote:
| > You're responding to a stuntperson who, unfortunately,
| has no control over the distribution of the product they
| worked on.
|
| And he is yelling at us, which also have no control, he
| should be yelling at the people he works for that do have
| control.
| Stunting wrote:
| No one is yelling you ninny. I'm telling people that
| steal services that they are in fact thieves, and
| specifically calling you a ninny for your overreaction to
| that.
| ProAm wrote:
| :) I know you're not yelling, more figure of speech. (did
| not mean to offend) But this is on HN where we allow pay-
| wall bypassing for all articles (which is also theft) so
| you wont get sympathy there. Like I said I agree with
| your sentiment, its just not the way to fix it. And I
| dont think it's a difficult problem to solve, especially
| from an extremely profitable and rich company.
| Stunting wrote:
| Yet. I do have minor creative input depending on the
| production. When an audience shows they enjoy something I
| am able to argue more fiercly to include a similar thing
| into the next one.
|
| And someday I'll be makign my own productions.
| gsk22 wrote:
| Direct your anger at your employer for not offering a product
| the market desires -- rather than at consumers who resort to
| piracy because the legal route is expensive, inconvenient, or
| nonexistent.
| threwsacompany wrote:
| And you are stealing people's attention spans. Which is more
| criminal?!
| Stunting wrote:
| :D
| isatty wrote:
| Well then let us pay for shit in a convenient way. Like OP
| said, if there's something like steam or Spotify then I'd
| gladly pay for it. I still rent movies weekly on AppleTV
| because it's a convenient experience. Geo gating, shitty
| compression and making us choose between n apps is not the
| way.
|
| Also, we're going to end up with shitty generated content
| regardless of my $10. If you're making strong statements like
| OP is stealing from _you_, then go advocate for change.
| You're in the industry.
| zeroxfe wrote:
| > Well then let us pay for shit in a convenient way.
|
| While this may be a way explain why the masses pirate, it's
| a poor justification for an individual to do it. If you
| don't find the available payment mechanisms convenient
| enough, then walk away and support a product that does have
| mechanism convenient to you. (For the same reason that you
| wouldn't steal from a store that only takes Amex.)
| pie_flavor wrote:
| Walking away vs pirating has _exactly_ the same outcomes
| for the distributor. The only person affected in a
| nonzero way from the transaction is me, positively.
| Stealing from a store that only takes American Express
| would result in the store _having less inventory_ ; what
| I have gained, they have lost. The same is not true of
| copyright infringement. The only time copyright
| infringement converts into actual quantifiable loss for
| the seller is if I turn around and sell pirated copies at
| a lower price, which is why that's the degree of
| infringement that turns it from civil to criminal.
| Stunting wrote:
| you are able to pay for individual film and tv shows right
| now through Amazon and Apple, i'm sure others.
|
| I do advocate for change, within my own union. Today I am
| educating consumers on who exactly they are stealing from
| when they pirate shows.
| Kye wrote:
| Hard lesson learned from years of trying to "educate"
| people on things that matter to me: you're going about it
| all wrong. I've seen your posts all through this thread.
| All you've done is beat people over the head with your
| perspective and berate them for not agreeing with you.
|
| I don't think this is what you mean to do. I think you
| really care about this! Lay down your sword and _listen_.
| Hear what people are saying in response. Let their
| responses inform and refine your advocacy. You can 't
| stroll in broadcasting an ideological, self-interested
| position and expect people to react well.
| CodeMage wrote:
| Every single show or movie I wanted to watch over the
| last year has been an exclusive to some streaming service
| or other.
|
| Amazon used to let me buy anything, and the Prime was
| there to entice me so I don't have to pay for individual
| catalog items, but that's not the case anymore.
|
| Now I have a choice between:
|
| 1. paying for a crapton of streaming services so I can
| watch a handful of things I'd like
|
| 2. pirating
|
| 3. not watching most of the stuff I think I would like to
| watch
|
| I'm not picking option 1 for what I hope are obvious
| reasons. I really don't want to pick option 2 because I
| empathize with people like you, who would be affected by
| that. For the moment, I'm picking option 3.
|
| However, if you really want to "educate consumers", you
| might be more successful if you change your tone so it
| doesn't sound like aggressive victim-blaming. People like
| you and people like me are being screwed by a third
| group.
| Stunting wrote:
| I appreciate you not pirating. You are only being screwed
| if you think you are entitled to the entertainment. You
| are not.
|
| You have an option to pay for the service as offered,
| steal it, or move on.
|
| Entertainment abounds in our society and is readily
| available at little to no cost all around you via local
| theater, open mic nights, libraries, etc.
|
| The connivence of having that entertainment pumped
| directly on demand to your home is a luxury that has a
| certain value to it.
|
| Currently that luxury is available via paying for the
| service or stealing it. The theft is relatively low risk,
| even by hilariously paying for a services that help hide
| your theft. That's the number one reason these services
| are being stolen.
| CodeMage wrote:
| Whether people are "entitled" to enrich their lives with
| art/entertainment or not is an interesting question in
| this context.
|
| We're living in a society where a huge number of people
| has experienced a good solution to the demand for that
| enrichment, and that good solution has been deliberately
| sabotaged so that a small, rich group of people could
| become even richer at the expense of everyone else.
|
| Just like you argue people are not entitled to art and
| entertainment, so I would argue that those who
| deliberately restrict access to it in completely
| unnecessary ways are not entitled to the additional
| profits they squeeze out that way.
|
| As for the comments about luxury of pumping the
| entertainment to our homes instead of enjoying it at
| little to no cost at the venues you mention, I'm reminded
| of Arthur Dent being told that the plans to demolish his
| house were on display all the time. Suffice it to say
| that your vision of how the majority of people live is
| very distorted.
| Stunting wrote:
| "I'd like to steal things because I morally disagree with
| the rules to society that I am currently opting to live
| in. I could choose to move, address the change at a
| governmental level, or simply find my entertainment
| elsewhere but no. It is everyone else who is the problem.
| Therefore I take great offense to being labeled as a
| thief."
| CodeMage wrote:
| The first sentence is spot on. The rest is the distortion
| I was talking about. You demand empathy, but are
| unwilling to be empathetic yourself. In the end, you're
| the one opting out of discourse here, not the rest of us.
| Stunting wrote:
| I'm saying when you steal you're a thief. If that ruffles
| your feathers, stop stealing.
| CodeMage wrote:
| It doesn't ruffle my feathers at all. I've done my share
| of piracy when I lived in countries where that was the
| only viable way to get my hands on the information, art,
| or entertainment that was otherwise unavailable to the
| vast majority of people living there. And no, I'm not
| ashamed of it, and it doesn't offend me if you decide to
| label me a thief or worse.
|
| What I was trying to do is have a conversation with you
| about why people "steal" or whatever the correct word for
| this thing is. Just like there are reasons people steal
| in real life, there are reasons for this behavior, too.
| You can try to understand it, or you can keep throwing
| everyone in the same bin, slap a label on that bin, and
| feel morally superior.
|
| One of those two will lead to improvement for everyone.
| One of those two is easy. I'll leave it an exercise for
| you to figure out which one is which.
| Kye wrote:
| If you're rich and disconnected enough to just drop
| everything and move over entertainment choices, I'm not
| sure you're in touch enough to have any kind of
| perspective on the people you're trying to convince.
| cwkoss wrote:
| There is an inherent classism to "piracy is stealing"
| arguments: by gating access to culture, it effectively
| says "poor people shouldn't be able to participate in
| culture, because they don't have enough money"
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Ugh. Never before have I seen a comment that I've agreed with
| so much but also wanted to yell at at the same time.
|
| To put it really bluntly, pointing out how piracy is easier
| than paying again is not literally stealing money out of your
| pocket. The whole "lost sales" and "stolen income" thing
| doesn't always hold water, because you can't measure all the
| counterfactuals involved. A _lot_ of pirates are either just
| data hoarders or collectors, and you aren 't really in price
| competition with piracy as long as you are even slightly more
| convenient than it. Yes, that actually used to be the case
| for movies and TV shows, back when you could get access to
| everything you could ever want to watch just by subscribing
| to Netflix or maybe Hulu. Piracy was actually _going away_ ,
| right up until everyone pulled their content from Netflix to
| try and grab a larger slice of a smaller pie.
|
| However, I don't want to actually trash your point _too hard_
| , because you did touch upon something worth talking about. I
| have noticed in HN and in other engineer-oriented spaces a
| certain contempt for the creative working class. I call it
| "kill and eat everyone below the talent line".
|
| There's this weird meme that came about around the same time
| that the RIAA was indiscriminately suing casual pirates. Back
| then, _some_ artists - usually ones at the start of their
| careers or doing it as a hobby - were distributing content
| over the Internet for free. In fact, some of them were even
| able to make money off of it through crowdfunding or
| advertisements without directly demanding payment to read,
| listen, or watch their work. So people made this assumption
| that this business model would be both sustainable long-term
| and scalable to large productions. Ergo, copyright is just an
| artifice of history, we can just abolish it, and the "real
| artists" will prosper while publishers and middlemen are out
| of a job.[0]
|
| The problem is that "real artists" covers both the Toby Foxes
| of the world just as well as the Temmie Changs. Abolishing
| copyright beggars the songwriter in the name of the singer.
| A-list actors would actually survive and thrive in a
| crowdfunding-only market, because they have the name
| recognition to do so. But all the other people who support
| them would see their income shrink. And producers and
| publishers would just turn into the absolute worst kind of
| scummy for-sale pirates you could think of.[1]
|
| The thing about piracy is that we as tinkerers and hobbyists
| assume it works exactly the same for everyone else as it does
| for us. I.e. me and my 10,000 friends all trade files around
| for free. Yes, a lot of pirates _are_ data hoarders and
| collectors, but there 's an entire world of bootlegs and
| knockoffs outside of the world of BitTorrent. For-profit
| piracy is far more pernicious than just the person with a
| Plex server, and it comes in a lot of forms you wouldn't even
| expect. For example, when Facebook launched their video
| service, there was an entire cottage industry of people
| reuploading YouTube videos and monetizing them on Facebook.
| This is the sort of thing that individual filesharers would
| not even recognize as piracy, but is absolutely immoral and
| wrong, and does pull nickels and dimes out of artists'
| pockets.
|
| [0] The counterargument I'm making against copyright
| abolitionism does not apply to other things like shortening
| the length of copyright terms or adding more exceptions to
| it. Those at least still allow the existence of a creative
| working class.
|
| [1] Fun fact: lousy speedsubbing jobs aren't just for modern
| anime pirates. Before we had international copyright, it was
| common for publishers to just take books published in other
| countries, translate themselves, and sell them before the
| original author could.
| Stunting wrote:
| It is literally stealing money out of my pocket. Even if
| they don't watch it themselves, they will provide it free
| of charge or even for a personal fee I will never see to
| someone else.
|
| The concept that Pirates wouldn't have paid for it anyway
| is valid. Part of my problem with piracy is that so much
| bullshit gets consumed that without stealing, those things
| would be much less part of pop culture and we'd have a lot
| better stuff to entertain us.
|
| However for definition sakes. Taking a service that you
| wouldn't have consumed by paying and using it for free is
| stealing.
| gernb wrote:
| I'm super sympathetic that someone is not paying for you for
| the time you spent making the content (me, also a content
| creator) But, just a suggestion, you need to find a better
| way to put your message. As long as you call it theft /
| stealing you're going to get lots of push back because
| copying a movie is not the same as stealing/theft so instead
| of making your point you'll mostly get arguments about
| definitions.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
| christophilus wrote:
| I don't pirate (out of principle), but I also basically don't
| stream because I'm a Linux user and your streaming platforms
| suck big fat ones.
|
| If you want people to "stop stealing our shit", you should
| really address how crappy the distribution system is.
|
| - Can't get it in __ country
|
| - Can only watch it on __ closed-source devices
|
| - Can't watch it offline
|
| - A is only available on platform 1, B is only on platform 2,
| and I don't want either crappy platform
|
| Anyway, as I said, I don't really watch movies much anymore,
| and haven't seen any of the ones on your IMDB page, I mostly
| play games or read books these days, but I'd probably watch
| more if the distribution system was better.
| servilio wrote:
| Add:
|
| - Can't get it with subtitles/dub in _ language
| Stunting wrote:
| This is a valid complaint. I would tell you that on the
| many streaming services available for free like youtube,
| vimeo, etc. There is probably a small filmmaker who is
| making the type of show you enjoy. Finding them, providing
| value by first clicks and shares and eventually with income
| as they grow will encourage more filmmakers to make things
| you like.
| [deleted]
| ashayh wrote:
| | You're going to end up with shows that are AI generated CGI
| sponsored by Mt. Dew and Chevy trucks.
|
| As opposed to movies/shows already high on CGI with poor and
| rehashed storylines, and whitewashed to cater to CCP
| censorship?
| Stunting wrote:
| Yes. It will get worse. Support the type of content you
| want and you'll see more.
| digisign wrote:
| When you work for the devil, don't be surprised to become
| collateral damage.
|
| Thinking of all the stealing they've done from the public
| domain it makes my blood boil. Charging top dollar for
| artists work that have been dead for decades is a disgrace.
| How about "stealing" from the public and renting it out in
| perpetuity... Winnie the Pooh, anyone?
| brewdad wrote:
| Why are you consuming the goods provided by "Satan"?
| Stunting wrote:
| "I steal from you because I find your parent company
| morally reprehensible, yet I would still like to enjoy the
| services provided by that company."
|
| Hell of a position.
| digisign wrote:
| Most of the money goes to the top, and if you are going
| to throw around inaccurate/loaded terms like stealing,
| two can play at that game. 1%ers take a larger slice of
| the pie than street thugs but we are misdirected and
| situation quietly swept under the rug.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Uh huh, I'll stop stealing from you when _you_ stop stealing
| from me.
|
| Advertizements everywhere stealing my attention, public
| space, and landscape beauty. Stealth taxes on empty hard
| drives and other storage media. Hardware-destroying rootkits
| and other malware (lost a DVD drive to DRM, will you
| reimburse me?). Draconian control mechanisms and lobbying
| stealing my control of the devices I own. Mountains upon
| mountains of disposable plastic promotional crap stealing my
| planet and ecosystem.
|
| I'm not stealing from you. I'm extracting some small
| reparation for the many toxic behaviors your industry engages
| in. When you start offering an honest product I'll start
| honest buying. And I do - I pay more combined to good people
| producing good content via Patreon than a monthly Netflix
| subscription.
| ripper1138 wrote:
| This is a joke right? Kind of like rioters looting local
| businesses and then saying "society stole from us first"?
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Never rioted nor looted nor seen either, so can't
| comment. Joke, it is not.
| Stunting wrote:
| You, personally, are stealing from my income. All those
| issues you raise are valid and important issues to address.
| Stealing because those things make you angry makes you part
| of the problem.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| If the entire world of piracy tripled tomorrow, it still
| wouldn't have the tiniest shred of impact on your income
| compared to the decisions of rapidly consolidating
| tech/studio execs who are tanking your industry and
| fighting your unions to chase pennies.
|
| A lot of us would gladly pay the cast and crew directly
| to own a copy of your output that we could access on our
| own terms, but that isn't a reality for most trade under
| capitalism. There's a reason Googlers on HN aren't trying
| to guilt trip everyone for personally stealing their
| income by using ad blockers. Maybe this is particularly
| to the entertainment industry, but most of us would shrug
| our shoulders at the equivalent of petty shoplifting from
| our employers.
| anthuswilliams wrote:
| I don't personally pirate much, but I take umbrage at you
| characterizing it in this way. You seem to think that the
| issues of accessing media without subjecting yourself to
| user-hostile behaviors are wholly orthogonal to the issue
| of accessing media without paying for it. They aren't.
|
| Imagine a hypothetical universe where, in order to watch
| one of your movies, people had to a) pay you $1 and also
| b) let you punch them in the nose. Then, when people
| sensibly start pirating your content instead because they
| don't want to get punched, you loudly proclaim that they
| are stealing the $1 you are owed.
|
| That's what's happening here. People want to watch your
| content, and are willing to pay for it. But they don't
| want to pay for it AND get punched in the nose. They
| pirate because your distributors, and by extension you
| yourself, have made it impossible to watch your content
| (and pay you!) in any other way.
|
| I get that your natural rejoinder will be "if the content
| is not worth being punched in the nose, just don't watch
| it!" Which is fair. Debatable, but fair. Just don't come
| here pretending that all you have asked for is the
| reasonable sum of $1 when you are actually demanding that
| your customers subject themselves to the indignity of
| your fist.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Film is competing against loads of free content and the
| industry is thrashing to avoid accepting the obvious
| fate: it is no longer economically rational to produce
| films with budgets in the hundreds of millions.
|
| Jobs will be lost, just like happened with farriers and
| switchboard operators. Your income will disappear
| regardless: the demand for stunts is elastic and the
| supply is increasingly competitive. Blaming pirates is
| being unable to see the forest for the trees.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The world is full of problems. We are looking at actual
| massive potentially civilization or species ending issues
| in the large and dealing with trying to make a living,
| manage illness, deal with death, parenting in the small.
|
| If you live in a big city you probably walk by people in
| the street slowly dying from a drawn out form of suicide
| because you can't possible change all their lives on your
| way to the grocery store or coffee shop and people at
| large are choosing to do the same with your income
| stream. They opt to deal with problems more important and
| more personal than fixing the way in which culture is
| monetized so as to funnel slightly more money to rich
| folks who could do more for society as soylent green in
| hopes that a few extra bucks will stick to the hands of
| useful folks like yourself.
|
| For myself I'm not angry nor do I have any intention of
| fixing the problem because nobody with any decision
| making power gives two shits what my opinion on anything
| is. I have monetarily in life about nothing and indeed
| will have nothing tomorrow and the next day. You feel
| like people are violating the social contract by not
| paying for multimedia. Part of your problem is that you
| even believe that we are part of the same society or
| share the same ethics.
|
| We really aren't. I am not the benefactor of the current
| situation nor do I have any meaningful power to negotiate
| new ground rules or even enforce existing ones so
| rejection makes worlds more sense.
|
| You say stop downloading and I hear enjoy poverty but
| with fewer books, music, movies, games. I wont actually
| be supporting the folks you mentioned to any greater
| degree but you will find such more ethically palatable.
| HALF of America is sharing 12% of the income. We don't
| have anything but you can stick a $200 PC and plug it
| into a $20 monitor and courtesy of a $10 internet
| essentials package download as many books music movies
| shows as you can possibly consume.
|
| I don't feel like making my shitty life shittier in order
| for you to feel better. Artificial scarcity is a dumb way
| to run a society and its not my fault the people with all
| the money in this society have chosen it.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| What a coincidence, I finished ,,no sudden move" seconds ago.
| Stunting wrote:
| oh rad. I had an amazing time watching Soderbergh literally
| operate a camera above my recently deceased body. It was
| spiritual.
| cwkoss wrote:
| It's not stealing if they wouldn't have paid for it
| otherwise.
| joemi wrote:
| Thanks for speaking up about this from a perspective not
| often seen here on HN. It's really pretty weird that someone
| needs to explain to so many people that media piracy affects
| actual working people.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| When I lend a physical dvd to my friend is that stealing?
| Stunting wrote:
| Did you purchase, rent, or legally borrow the physical dvd?
|
| When you lend it out, are you still able to enjoy the
| entertainment service provided by the dvd?
|
| The answers to these questions are the answers to your
| questions.
| dml2135 wrote:
| > Every time one a show is pirated, there is less incentive
| to spend more money on an entertainment spectacle.
|
| I'm fine with this. Some of the best movies ever were made in
| the 70s, after the Hollywood studio system collapsed and a
| ton of money was sucked out of the industry.
| californical wrote:
| Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for it
| in the first place?
|
| If it's not easy to find and use on a subscription service
| that I already have, I'm just not gonna try to search for it
| or pay for it. What difference would it make if I pirated it
| and watched it anyways?
|
| (FWIW I personally don't pirate anything, I just really don't
| see the merit to the "stealing" argument)
| bumby wrote:
| This reminds me of the squatter issue and the claim that
| it's not wrong if the owner wasn't using it. This is only
| true if you have a vastly different idea of property (real
| and intellectual) rights that much of the country/economy
| is founded upon.
| [deleted]
| CodeMage wrote:
| Yes, it is. But even though you didn't manage to
| communicate your point correctly, it still stands: the only
| reason streaming replaced piracy was because people could
| afford it and it was easier to use.
|
| Even the ease of use has declined, and the affordability is
| down the toilet. And as usual, we have people at the top
| reaping record profits and making victims of their greed
| blame each other at the same time.
|
| EDIT: Fixed a grammar error.
| Stunting wrote:
| Yes it is really stealing.
|
| You want something. You don't want to pay for it. You take
| it without paying.
|
| That's stealing.
|
| If you really truly didn't want to watch it, you wouldn't
| steal it.
| dml2135 wrote:
| You don't take it, you make a new, identical copy of it,
| leaving any previously existing copy intact.
| Stunting wrote:
| I will happily take your money and provide you with a
| new, identical copy of it if that's the deal you want to
| make.
| Krasnol wrote:
| That doesn't make any sense as an allegory.
|
| Nobody is TAKING anything. Everything is at the place
| where it belongs.
|
| Also if you'd be able to make identical copies of money,
| of course people would accept it.
| Stunting wrote:
| I'll go into your mailbox and take your paycheck. I'll
| provide you with a new identical copy of it. I'll leave
| the previous existing copy intact, but in my possession.
|
| Which one of us gets to deposit the money?
| JamesBarney wrote:
| You're copying the check but stealing the money. The
| money and the check are not the same thing.
|
| If I copy your car key and use it to steal your car. I've
| copied the key but stolen your car.
| Stunting wrote:
| You're copying the entertainment value provided and
| stealing the income that is related to that value.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| What about borrowing from public libraries? Buying a used
| legitimate disc at a garage sale? Are people who do this
| in the wrong?
| Stunting wrote:
| Finally! I agree with this. I think that physically
| purchased goods should be free from any sort of "DRM."
| and is not stealing.
|
| The difference is one party at a time, i.e. household,
| library patron, etc, can enjoy the entertainment service.
|
| When you pirate it, The original owner of the dvd retains
| the service value as well as providing the service to
| others without any value being transferred to the
| workforce/IP holders.
|
| That's the difference and I personally am all in for a
| mythical solution that but still allows complete freedom
| of ownership while also stopping people from digitally
| reproducing assets and dispensing them exponentially.
|
| I don't believe it will ever happen tho :/
| pie_flavor wrote:
| Theft is when you take something _from_ someone. As in,
| what you have materially gained, they have materially
| lost. Copyright infringement is _not_ theft, and must be
| treated differently, because what you gain, nobody has
| lost; the supply is infinite.
|
| If you accuse someone of stealing the income, but they
| haven't gotten any money out of it, how does that make
| sense? What you're describing is a _missed opportunity_
| for a sale; had someone 'stolen' nothing and simply
| passed the product by, you would still not have made that
| sale and nothing would have changed.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I generally support this argument, but to play devil's
| advocate, you might consider the bit stream used to
| transfer the content to be new bits. The file may be a
| bit-for-bit copy if you ask a computer, but streaming it
| required a series of voltage fluctuations that wouldn't
| have happened otherwise. You could consider that series
| of events to be roughly analogous to a CD-ROM containing
| some content. You can load the CD onto two computers and
| get two copies of its content, but there are two
| physically distinct CDs just like there are two
| physically distinct series of bits streaming to two
| locations.
| mockery wrote:
| So if I make a new, identical copy of a GPL'ed codebase -
| should I feel free to use it for whatever purpose I want
| and ignore the GPL?
| mgh2 wrote:
| Literally the NFT argument
| hunter2_ wrote:
| An NFT is a certificate of authenticity. Copies of the
| associated item don't have a valid certificate. Getting
| satisfaction from a copy is orthogonal to the value
| associated with the authenticated original.
| [deleted]
| hutzlibu wrote:
| But you agree, that there is a difference between copying
| information and taking physical objects away?
| roland35 wrote:
| I seriously don't understand why this point keeps getting
| repeated. It is just semantics!
|
| Yes, we all know copying a digital show isn't the same
| exact thing as stealing your car. However, you are still
| taking something of value! Let's say you snuck into my
| band's concert venue and didn't buy a ticket. Yeah you
| didn't physically take anything from me, but you are
| having access to something you shouldn't without paying.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| No, I am not taking anything of value. You still have all
| the things of value you had before. The difference
| between a rivalrous good and a non-rivalrous good is
| _not_ semantics.
| Stunting wrote:
| piracy is receiving the service value of entertainment
| without providing the requested fee.
|
| Another word for it is stealing.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| Theft is not defined by the receiving, it is defined by
| the taking. The moral ill is not you being enriched, it
| is the person who had it rightfully, being deprived of
| it.
| cwkoss wrote:
| For receiving the service value of entertainment of
| reading this comment, I request a fee of $1,000.
|
| Is my request reasonable? Do you feel inclined to pay me?
| Do I incur $1000 of damages if you choose not to?
| Lord_Baltimore wrote:
| The mental gymnastics to justify piracy as anything other
| than theft is always interesting to watch.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| So is the substitution of moral smugness for complex
| thought.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. If
| someone steals my car I no longer have my car. If someone
| copies my car my car loses values because there is now
| one extra copy of my car floating around.
| Stunting wrote:
| entertainment is a service industry. Extracting the
| service value without providing the requested fee is
| stealing.
| dang wrote:
| You've posted 67 (!) comments in this thread, mostly
| making the same point over and over in angry ways.
|
| I get that you have legit reasons for feeling strongly
| about this topic, but this is way over the top, so please
| don't do it on HN. We want _curious_ conversation here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| [deleted]
| bumby wrote:
| If intellectual property is indeed property, it can be
| stolen. Considering (in the US, at least), intellectual
| property is codified within the Constitution, it's pretty
| hard to say it isn't real.
|
| Edit: to be clear, I agree it's not 'theft', but am
| pushing back on the way this distinction is sometimes
| used to insinuate that it is victimless (not saying the
| poster above is claiming that, just that it's worth
| pointing out)
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > You want something. You don't want to pay for it. You
| take it without paying.
|
| This is an age old argument... I'm not taking anything.
| I'm merely looking at something. The same way that I'm
| not "stealing from Leonardo" when I look at statue of
| David. I understand that the makers of the movie had some
| hopes of monetizing my looking but alas, they failed.
| Based on pure logic alone, it's clear that piracy is not
| theft, it's something else.
| rhino369 wrote:
| >Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for
| it in the first place?
|
| >If it's not easy to find and use on a subscription service
| that I already have, I'm just not gonna try to search for
| it or pay for it.
|
| That is easy to say when you just take it for free
| regardless. I strongly suspect people saying that would
| actually pay for a decent amount of it if piracy wasn't an
| option.
|
| And the number of pirate I know would plop down 15 bucks
| for a movies (since CAMs and TSs are terrible copies) but
| won't pay for a movie on VOD (since they can pirate it in
| clear 4k) confirms my suspicions.
| bin_bash wrote:
| > Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for
| it in the first place?
|
| Since when does it matter if I would've paid for it? If
| someone steals a Mercedes from a dealer is it not stealing
| if they wouldn't have bought it anyways?
| yata69420 wrote:
| That's stealing because it deprives someone else of their
| property. The dealer cannot sell the car once you've
| stolen it.
|
| "Intellectual property" doesn't really work like that.
| rewgs wrote:
| You are wrong. You're focusing on the wrong thing here.
| It's not whether the good can still be sold, it's about
| whether the business can continue to get money.
|
| Say you have a business idea. Perhaps something that you
| want to patent. I use it and start my own business,
| rendering your potential business moot.
|
| Did I steal from you? If so, what did I steal?
| dleslie wrote:
| Bandwidth, storage, and hosted servers aren't free.
| Neither are staff.
| Stunting wrote:
| the income associated with IP very much does.
| yata69420 wrote:
| Just out of curiosity, do they get deprived of the income
| when I download the content, or when I watch it?
|
| Do they lose more income if I watch the content with
| friends?
|
| In the early days of photography, people believed that if
| your photo was taken, it was stealing your soul [1].
|
| I can understand the idea of piracy being wage theft in
| the same way I can understand the idea of photography
| being soul theft, but I think both are rather silly
| ideas.
|
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/8382
| Stunting wrote:
| We get deprived of the income when it is consumed without
| providing money for that service.
|
| If you watch it with your friends, 5 people watch it for
| one purchase. If it's good, you all tell 3 more people.
| Of those 15 people, 20 percent end up purchasing a
| viewing and the system repeats.
|
| When you pirate it you take all the service for zero
| cost. That affects real people.
| yata69420 wrote:
| What if 6 people watch it for one purchase? Does it
| become theft then?
|
| How about a college dorm hosting a movie night? Maybe
| theft?
|
| What if a million people watch it for one purchase? I
| know you think that's theft, but I'm not sure where you'd
| draw the line.
|
| I think the reality is that 90% of the population won't
| pirate because it's too much effort and legally
| ambiguous. If your content becomes popular through
| piracy, you will absolutely reap the rewards of good
| content creation.
|
| If a billion people pirated your content because it was
| _that good_ , you'd have absolutely no problem
| monetizing. You'd be a household name. When Disney loses
| their copyright on the Mouse, they're still going to be a
| huge company capable of monetizing all things Mickey.
|
| If we get back to a state where everyone is pirating
| because the content services suck, then you need to
| petition your content distributors to lower friction and
| provide an experience worth paying for, but we're nowhere
| near that.
|
| Gabe does it with Steam. I used to almost exclusively
| pirate games, and now I almost exclusively buy them,
| because Steam has value adds (achievements, friends,
| online play, tournaments, workshop content, etc).
|
| Also, you have to understand that many people who have
| large collections of pirate content see themselves more
| as archivists than viewers. I'd guess most pirated
| content never even gets consumed, just downloaded for a
| "later" that never comes.
| cupofpython wrote:
| >if you watch it with your friends, 5 people watch it for
| one purchase. If it's good, you all tell 3 more people.
| Of those 15 people, 20 percent end up purchasing a
| viewing and the system repeats.
|
| or he could have not watched it at all, told no one, and
| you would have 0% instead of 20%.
|
| Pirating at scale is a real problem, but an individual
| pirate is just an opportunist. There is a difference
| between taking something off the shelf vs picking it out
| of the trash.
|
| There is a small volume of "piracy" that could be
| considered "picking through the trash". Some (a lot) of
| entertainment looks like trash to some (a lot) of people
| and the only reason those people watch it is because it
| they get to watch it for free. And then when they are
| pleasantly surprised, they tell people about it. This is
| the heart of the "i wasnt going to pay for it anyway"
| argument. Its the type of person who wouldnt pay for a
| donut, but if you were about to throw them out theyll
| take one.
|
| Id be curious to see statistics that shows the relation
| of being successful in the pirate world and successful in
| the real world. Because that is ultimately related to the
| argument you are making. that the current state of piracy
| is hurting your industry, not helping it - since you say
| this specific pirate is hurting you right now.
|
| it certainly hurts the transactions bottom line when
| isolated to viewing your bottom line with or without
| pirate sales - but thats an incomplete financial scenario
| (this type of thing is _my_ job). you shouldnt assume a
| gain of x% sales of pirates that 'would have paid for
| the content if they couldnt get it for free' without also
| _subtracting_ y% of sales from people 'who only bought
| it because pirates started the conversation that
| ultimately led to their purchase'.
|
| Sometimes the marketing for a movie sucks, and not a lot
| of people are interested in seeing it. There is a small
| time frame of relevance and pirates might help overcome
| the shortcomings of marketing efforts and make the movie
| more relevant which helps it reach more people than it
| would have.
|
| In all of your discussion, you seem to presume that the
| pirates knew about and had an interest in your film to
| begin with. You assumed successful marketing of your
| film. maybe you're right, and it probably does 'hurt'
| (tax?) the biggest blockbuster of the year... but 'people
| who only watch things online for free' is a real
| community of maybe significant size and i dont know if
| there has been any work done to try to measure the impact
| of what penetrating that community has on the financial
| success of entertainment media in general.
|
| "all theft is bad" is a nice story, but it ultimately is
| not always true. sometimes companies _allow_ theft on
| purpose as a form of marketing. They do that as an
| observational response to the fact that the cause and
| effect of 'influencers' exists outside of the intent of
| the people involved.
|
| This leads to a hypothesis that pirating is a form of
| marketing for your industry. If it were to become too
| easy to perform or too widespread, it would likely cross
| a line into being actually damaging. But if the people
| pirating it are mostly a small group of tech savvy,
| relatively intelligent, movie enthusiastic people (due to
| the technical requirements needed to pirate) then maybe
| when they pirate you they might be autonomously servicing
| your industry as an influencer. I know it sounds asinine,
| but if you want to talk money - there are a lot of
| factors to consider.
|
| So are they stealing? sure. Are they taking money OUT of
| your pocket? very debatable; unclear. They are
| influencing with the pool of money that ends up in your
| pocket, and it isnt so black and white what their actions
| have on the size of that pool due to the complexity of
| your industry.
|
| --------------- Sorry for the long post, and it isnt an
| attack on you or even a support of piracy in general (it
| might read that way) - i got caught up in mentally
| exploring the underlying financial model at play in the
| current market. fwiw im too lazy to pirate, but i still
| feel there is an incredible difference between people who
| pirate for themselves vs people who make it easy for
| others to pirate. People who invite some friends over to
| watch something they pirated, vs someone who distributes
| pirated content on common low-tech household media
| formats like USB, CD, etc.
| rjbwork wrote:
| You assume people are going to pay for it. If you provide
| a good service, they will, as shown by Steam and Spotify
| and, at least initially, Netflix.
|
| If you don't, they won't, as shown by the proliferation
| of shitty streaming services and the gutting of content
| on Netflix.
|
| It's got to suck to feel that people are stealing from
| you because you have no control over the content
| distribution mechanisms in the industry you work in, but
| I think you're largely engaging in fallacious
| argumentation here. It's pretty much the 90's version of
| piracy rhetoric. One pirated watch != one watch worth of
| income lost.
| Stunting wrote:
| I assume that if people want to enjoy a service without
| paying for it, it's theft.
|
| It's the "I don't want to pay for it, but I still want to
| watch it." that seems to be hang up for so many.
|
| Let me explain it simply. That is stealing and it
| directly affects my ability to make a living as well the
| motivation for service providers to make more products
| you enjoy.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| It does not affect your ability to make a living if I
| consume a copy of your IP that I was not going to pay for
| in the first place. You have lost nothing you would not
| lose otherwise, and you have gained nothing you would not
| gain otherwise.
| Stunting wrote:
| You gain the value of service without paying the
| requested fee. If you weren't going to watch it, you
| wouldn't. Watching it, without paying for it is theft and
| it takes money from me.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| Proof by repeated assertion. The post you are replying to
| is an effective response to yours. Once more: It does not
| affect your ability to make a living if I consume a copy
| of your IP that I was not going to pay for in the first
| place. Watching it without paying for it does _not_ take
| money from you, because you would still not have had that
| money if I had simply not watched it at all.
|
| > If you weren't going to watch it, you wouldn't.
|
| This is flat out false and incredibly obviously so. You
| can easily see it just by cranking the numbers - if a
| video game is fun, but costs $500, do you really think
| that each person who pirates it is depriving the
| developer of $500? If some magical DRM scheme was
| implemented that could not be broken and guaranteed every
| person who played it, bought it, would everyone who
| pirated it in the previous hypothetical instead buy it
| for $500? No, they would ignore it, nobody would buy it,
| and the developer would have just as little money as they
| had before.
|
| Pirating a piece of IP does _not_ translate 1:1 into a
| lost sale as you keep variously asserting and acting like
| it does. It can even turn into a _gained_ sale, in the
| case of video games or software, when people would not
| have bought it based on the promotional material but
| consider it worth buying after actually using it. You
| have a right to exclusivity on sales - selling pirated
| material is criminal - but you don 't have a right to
| actually make any sales if nobody wants to buy it.
| rjbwork wrote:
| What are your thoughts on me and all of my friends and
| family getting together in my home theatre and watching
| the latest movie that I paid 4 bucks for on something
| like Amazon or Youtube?
|
| Is everyone there except me stealing? It feels to me a
| little bit like the N=1 vs N=0 problem of theism - I'm
| simply an atheist to one more god than you are.
| Similarly, I simply don't think it's theft to one more
| person in that context than you might (of course, here
| I'm assuming you don't think all those people are
| stealing).
| Stunting wrote:
| I am 100 percent okay with it. One entity has provided
| the fee for service (and afforded me 1/100th of an
| avocado toast, thank you very much) and is not in their
| ownership to do as they like.
|
| That they want to share it is their business, not mine.
| If it's good, those friends will tell other friends and
| someone along the way will purchase it again, and I'll be
| even closer to my mortgage busting avocado toast
|
| The hypothetical argument against that is "what if I get
| 100 friends, for 100 nights to watch it." Sure,
| hypothetically you could but then it'd be pretty
| expensive for you and added wear and tear on your home
| and a pretty big headache to deal with. THe only way to
| justify it would be to start charging, which at that
| point, would be stealing. So it always comes across as a
| thought problem, but I find it's not a real problem.
|
| I don't mind if the town throws a movie festival once a
| month and plays my movie. I mind if they all get to go
| home with the luxory of having it on demand and the
| ability ot share it with everyone they know without
| providing the service fee requested.
| dml2135 wrote:
| If you steal a physical object, you deprive someone else
| of having it. Nothing of the sort happens when you copy a
| media file.
| Stunting wrote:
| when you steal a viewing of a show, the income related to
| your consumption is directly stolen from me.
| dml2135 wrote:
| It's not though. You could argue it is indirectly stolen
| from you by impacting your potential for future earnings,
| but please explain how the "direct" part of your
| statement works. Are funds withdrawn from your bank
| account when someone pirates a movie?
| rewgs wrote:
| Ever heard of royalties?
|
| When you pirate instead of purchase/stream, I lose that
| potential income. Directly. Period. What would have been
| $x is now $0.
|
| Before you dive into the semantics to avoid being held
| responsible: sure, "stealing" isn't precisely the right
| word. What you're really doing is opting to do the thing
| wherein I don't get paid, rather than the thing wherein I
| _do_ get paid. So instead of "stealing," let's call it
| "removing access to my livelihood." Is that better?
|
| Oh, and our up-front payment has been eroded away for
| decades because we'll apparently be paid on the back-end.
|
| Oh, and! Our back-end payments are multiple orders of
| magnitude lower on streaming services vs broadcast
| because streaming services say that streaming !=
| broadcast, so they shouldn't have to pay royalties at
| all!
|
| So we're getting hammered in all three directions -- the
| audience doesn't want to pay for streaming, the streaming
| services don't want to pay royalties, and the production
| companies don't want to pay up front. And yet the demand
| for what we make only ever continues to go up.
| Interesting.
|
| Maybe people are just selfish and full of shit, willing
| to bend any logic to their favor or not educate
| themselves if it benefits them?
|
| To anyone in this thread that doesn't work in film: you
| know when you see people talking about something that you
| know a lot about, and they're just totally wrong and
| totally confident about it? That's how I feel reading
| this thread. Except you're not just wrong about some
| meaningless fact -- you're literally all patting
| yourselves on the back for arriving at the pocket of
| logic that allows you to continue removing me and my
| peers' ability to make a living, guilt-free --- as long
| as you don't have to pay the equivalent of a single fast
| food meal per month.
|
| The impact is DIRECT and MASSIVE at scale. All those
| shitty trends in movies you hate --- all of which come
| from the studios being more and more risk-averse? The
| massive tent poles, the monoculture, the re-hashed
| stories, the horrible fan service, the product placement,
| etc? That all is a DIRECT result of piracy. Period.
|
| Stop. Fucking. Pirating.
| dml2135 wrote:
| But what if someone is not pirating instead of
| purchasing, they're just pirating instead of doing
| something else?
|
| You need to consider that maybe the product you are
| producing is simply not that valuable.
|
| I'm an artist myself. If someone took a photo of
| something I painted, and started making copies and
| _selling_ them, yea I 'd be pissed. That's what copyright
| law should be used to protect against.
|
| If someone took a photo of my painting for their personal
| use, instead of buying one of the photos of my painting
| that I sell myself, I'd reconsider whether my business
| model of selling photos is the right one.
| rewgs wrote:
| > But what if someone is not pirating instead of
| purchasing, they're just pirating instead of doing
| something else?
|
| By "something else" do you mean "another activity
| _instead of_ watching TV /movies/etc," or do you mean
| "watching TV/movies/etc, just via another method?"
|
| If the former...who cares? That still doesn't justify it.
| Just because I chose another recreation activity instead
| of watching a movie doesn't mean that I'm entitled to the
| movie for free. _Not choosing_ something doesn 't have an
| effect on the price (at least on the micro level; on the
| macro level, this is of course the concept of "demand,"
| but even if the demand is so low that the "correct" price
| is effectively $0, that still doesn't give you the right
| to steal it -- the Intellectual Property is still
| _property_ of the owner, and they are the only ones who
| have the right to sell it or give it away, just as you or
| I have the right to sell or give away any of our
| property, be it a couch, a TV, a pair of shoes, an idea
| for a story, whatever. It 's all property).
|
| If the latter, what could possibly fit that criteria?
| You're either getting the TV/movie via official methods
| or piracy, there isn't any other way. It's binary. There
| isn't a way to get your hands on a film that is neither
| officially sanctioned nor piracy.
|
| > You need to consider that maybe the product you are
| producing is simply not that valuable.
|
| Not that valuable? Are you serious? We're talking about
| products that are considered "low budget" when they cost
| 1 million dollars to make and at best receive profits of
| hundreds of millions of dollars. The entire premise of
| this thread is that everyone _wants_ to watch everything,
| they _want_ access to everything (i.e. the demand is high
| and not going anywhere). They just don 't want to pay for
| multiple separate services -- but only because they can
| compare to and prefer the brief, golden period wherein
| everything was accessible on Netflix and Hulu, back when
| they were the only two games in town and were a breath of
| fresh air compared to the expensive cable packages
| (which, might I remind you, people _still_ paid --
| economically, that means that the price is considered
| "fair" and commensurate to demand). Back when Netflix and
| Hulu were both unsustainably hemorrhaging money, I might
| add.
|
| Paying for 100% of the streaming services now costs <=
| your typical cable package just 20 years ago, and that's
| not even adjusting for inflation. So things are _still_
| cheaper than they 've ever been, with a not-insignificant
| raise in convenience and overall quality of the product
| to boot. Had we jumped from cable packages to the current
| situation, HN would be jumping with joy.
|
| Just be honest: you want what you want, for as little as
| you can get it for. And that's fine! That's human nature.
| What's not fine is, because you can get it for $0 pretty
| much risk-free, you'll bend over backwards defending why
| doing so is okay.
|
| (Comment too long for HN, continuing in the next one...)
| rewgs wrote:
| (cont)
|
| > I'm an artist myself. If someone took a photo of
| something I painted, and started making copies and
| selling them, yea I'd be pissed. That's what copyright
| law should be used to protect against. If someone took a
| photo of my painting for their personal use, instead of
| buying one of the photos of my painting that I sell
| myself, I'd reconsider whether my business model of
| selling photos is the right one.
|
| Boy, I think that if this were happening at scale, you'd
| change your tune (to be clear, by "you" I mean "the
| general you," because I don't know and can't speak for
| "the literal you"). But let's dig into this. Why is it
| not okay for someone else to sell something that you've
| already decided to give away for free? Where does the
| problem lay?
|
| Question: You'd only be upset if someone took a photo of
| your painting and started selling it to...whom? Answer:
| The same people to whom you'd otherwise be giving it away
| for free, of course. Whether those people buy it for $0
| or >$0, they're all just using the photo for "personal
| use." No matter what, the photo/painting is ostensibly
| ending up in the hands of the same people, so why is it
| problematic if someone else sells it? You've already
| stated that you don't want the money by opting to give
| the photo away for free when you could just as easily
| sell it, so it's not like the seller is getting something
| that you otherwise want. You're still getting what you
| want -- $0. The audience is still getting what they want
| -- the painting/photo. Even in the scenario you mentioned
| in which someone snaps a photo of your painting, I'm not
| seeing the issue (well, I do of course, but acting as
| devil's advocate and pretending that I don't care about
| IP for a moment, I don't see the issue) -- they're
| effectively doing exactly what you're doing, which is to
| say they're snapping a photo of this painting and then
| selling it (in this case, to themselves) for $0.
|
| In fact, taking a step back, allowing others to sell
| something that you're opting to give away for free is
| almost saint-like -- putting effort into making a thing
| that can ostensibly be sold for a profit, but choosing to
| give the ability to make said profit to others. That'd
| certainly be nice of you. In fact, how often do we see
| Reddit celebrate Frederick Banting for doing just that
| with insulin? I feel like that story makes it to the
| front page every few months. But you'd be feel bad for
| doing the same thing with your painting...why?
|
| So, what's the crux of the problem?
|
| (Putting aside what "the problem" is for a moment, let's
| take a moment to acknowledge that this scenario that
| would upset you -- someone selling your product when
| you've opted to give it away for free -- wouldn't
| actually happen, because no one would knowingly choose to
| pay someone else for one of your paintings/photos when
| they can get it for free from you. Whatever problem you
| have with the seller, you won't have to worry about it
| for long, because eventually the audience will learn that
| they can get the same thing for $0 from you. It's
| literally the exact same scenario that we're talking
| about re: film/TV piracy, except that the roles of who's
| selling it for > $0 and who's distributing it for free
| are reversed. The very existence of film/TV piracy, the
| very fact that we're having this conversation, proves
| that the imagined scenario in which someone other than
| you sells your product for more than $0 wouldn't exist
| [at least not at a scale worth worrying about]. People
| always choose the cheapest option).
|
| (Furthermore: what even does "personal use" in your
| example _mean,_ if not something that literally
| encompasses the entirety of the audience 's engagement
| with the photo/painting? Is there a way to engage with a
| painting/photo -- regardless of whether I pay for my
| access to it or not -- that doesn't fall under the
| umbrella of "personal use?" Regardless of the form of
| your painting that someone engages with (via the
| original, or via a copy/photo), and regardless of whether
| they buy it from you or someone else, or get it for free
| from you (or someone else); regardless of any of that,
| the definition of "personal use" is always the same: the
| audience looks at it. That's what people do with
| paintings and photos. "Personal use" here is a nonsense
| term that means nothing other than "not selling" and is
| only included in your argument to give undue credence to
| your "side" of giving it away for free, the function of
| which is to make the other "side" look more in the wrong,
| but only if you squint your eyes).
|
| So...what _are_ you worried about? Why does someone
| selling the same IP that you give away for free irk you?
| Either: someone tries to sell your IP, you undercut them
| by giving it away for free, they can 't sell it; or,
| someone tries to sell your IP, and those who you
| apparently wish to have access to it still have access to
| it...what's the problem? It certainly isn't the fact that
| you're "losing out" on the sale of the photo, because
| you've already forfeited your right to that.
|
| There's two possible answers here:
|
| 1) You have a moral stake in the price being $0, and wish
| to protect the photo's price of $0 regardless of who's
| "selling" it. It's the Arizona-Iced-Tea-only-ever-being-
| sold-for-99-cents thing. And hey, I can't argue with
| that. I respect that and that is of course your choice.
| Though, you might have trouble _enforcing_ that price
| without protecting your IP, so adhering to the tenants of
| IP is still in your best interest.
|
| 2) The other (and I think more likely) answer: You could
| sell it, you could give it away for free -- both are fine
| as long as _you 're the one that's doing it._ Why?
| Because it's YOUR PROPERTY. You're trying to disagree
| with me, but deep down even you intuitively know that
| it's wrong to do _anything_ with someone else 's
| property, whether that be selling it, giving it away,
| breaking it, duplicating it, stealing it, writing on it
| with a marker. It's all a question of consent and who is
| logically fit to give it. If I come to your house and
| steal your microwave, you'd probably be _some amount_ of
| pissed -- it doesn 't matter if I give it away to someone
| who can't afford one, or sell it for more than you bought
| it, or break it, or keep it for myself. No matter what,
| you'd still be somewhere on the continuum of "pissed,"
| because it's _yours._
|
| (Comment too long for HN, continuing in the next one...)
| rewgs wrote:
| (cont)
|
| But it's more than that, isn't it? The thing that _makes
| it yours_ is _what you put into creating /acquiring it,_
| i.e. you paid for it by putting work into acquiring it
| (even if you got it for free on Craigslist and the
| previous owner literally drove to your doorstep and gave
| it to you, you still invested a few seconds of time). How
| _much_ you put into it, and in what _form,_ multiplied by
| the _value you get from owning /using_ it, would likely
| be commensurate with how pissed you'd be at me for
| stealing your microwave. If the Craigslist guy drove it
| to your house, and you didn't use it and just kept it in
| storage, you probably wouldn't be all that pissed if I
| stole it from you. If you purchased it brand new and it
| was very expensive and took a lot of hours working, and
| it also gave you a vast amount of value (perhaps it's
| your first microwave after a lifetime of preparing all
| food from scratch over an open fire), you'd be very, very
| pissed at me, right? It's all about context -- the
| context being defined by what you put into acquiring it
| and what you get by owning it.
|
| Making a thing -- whether we classify it as "art," as we
| do with film/TV/paintings/etc, or whether we classify it
| as anything else, as we do with
| iPhones/microwaves/chairs/etc, has no bearing on this
| fact -- is literally no different. They're all
| "products." The person who put the effort into realizing
| it ("making it real") is the ONLY one who _can_ be argued
| to own it (unless of course that ownership is knowingly
| and purposefully transferred to someone else, either in
| whole or in part). And thus the creator is entitled to
| the act of "exploiting" it (the legal term encompassing
| the act of duplicating, dispersing, selling, hopefully
| profiting from, etc).
|
| The whole premise of Intellectual Property is that _you,_
| the _creator,_ are the only one who should be able to
| decided the price of the thing you created, or whether
| even to sell it _in the first place._ It is PROPERTY, and
| just like all other forms of property, it really is
| nothing more than a social contract. Law can enshrine it,
| back it up, give mechanisms for enforcement (but the law
| can of course sometimes be ineffectual, or changing times
| /technology/context/etc can render certain social
| contracts difficult to enforce -- as we're seeing now in
| the post-piracy era). At its core, though, the concept of
| property, intellectual and otherwise, rests entirely on
| good faith, ethics, just like not driving on the wrong
| side of the road.
|
| This property is "intellectual" because it's not
| necessarily physical, is perhaps a little abstract, and
| is the result of thinking, not building (physically; not
| yet, anyway). You can't touch or taste or see it -- you
| can only touch or taste or see _copies_ of the thing, or
| _specifications_ of the thing in terms of schematics or
| patents or whatnot. IP isn 't about the _copies_ of a
| thing per se -- those are just the cookies that result
| from the cookie cutter. The cookie _cutter_ here is the
| valuable thing; whether or not you choose to "exploit"
| the cookie cutter by creating and selling the resulting
| cookies is up to you, the owner of said cookie cutter.
| But if the cookies are selling for $0, then ownership of
| the cookie cutter is effectively worthless too. Who cares
| if you own something that can create something that's
| worth $0? Which is why protecting the sale of the
| _copies_ of IP is so important, as they are the only
| tangible proof we have of the cookie cutter 's value.
|
| IP is, basically, a little business all to itself. Sure,
| businesses are built _around_ IP, but they are nothing
| without it. If you take away IP, the only businesses you
| 're left with are services. Literally all other
| businesses are based on the exploitation of _some_ IP,
| because IP is essentially a business, and the copies of
| the IP are essentially the products sold by the business.
| When you purchase a Blu-Ray, you don 't own the movie,
| but you do own the physical plastic/etc that comprises
| the Blu-Ray. If someone steals your Blu-Ray, you can
| technically call the cops to report stolen property (in
| practice, they probably won't care, of course), but you
| can't call the cops to report a stolen _movie._ No one
| stole a movie from you, they stole a copy of the movie.
| No one stole your cookie cutter -- they just stole your
| cookie.
|
| Consider how often we see people on HN freak out that
| they don't feel like they "own" anything anymore (it
| doesn't matter whether we're talking about ads in Windows
| Explorer or an artist suddenly being removed from their
| music streaming service of choice). Why does that bother
| them? Because they're still paying for access to it, and
| this computer is sitting in their house, and with that
| comes irrevocable feelings of ownership and all that
| comes with it. Paying for a product entitles you to some
| form of control or ownership (even if not 100%) of the
| thing (or at least the right to do what you will with the
| copy of the thing); paying to _create_ a product entitles
| you to the money incurred by exploiting it.
|
| Think about just how many people on HN alone are
| harboring totally incompatible thoughts, complaining
| about not feeling like they own their copy of Windows,
| and yet still being pro-piracy of film/TV. And then
| within that you'll have some who are totally against
| pirating software, some RMS level open source die-hards,
| and some who only believe piracy is fine if the company
| in question "deserves it," like Adobe. There's no logic
| anywhere with this shit, no consistency. It's all just
| unexamined feelings.
|
| I wonder: would you be upset if the imagined seller
| decided instead to also give away your paintings/photos
| for free?
|
| All of what I'm saying can basically be summed up as
| "first principles of intellectual property," i.e.
| fundamental truths, not changing, borne of logic. There
| is no disrupting the business model to the extent that
| any of these first principles change; these are the
| basics of select parts of human nature, of markets, etc
| -- the connective tissue of society that I have as much
| expectation of changing as I do the Periodic Table or
| Newtonian Physics (spare me the "but actually..."s, you
| know what I mean).
|
| In light of of this whole spiel, I hope that the sentence
| "I'd reconsider whether my business model of selling
| photos is the right one" comes across to you as it does
| to me: it sort of feels like a thief who just stole from
| me saying in response, "I'd reconsider whether my model
| of owning property at all is the right one," or someone
| who just shot me saying, "If I were you, I'd reconsider
| whether my model of living is the right one." Which,
| sure, we can have that conversation if you want, but I
| imagine it won't be particularly fruitful.
|
| What you and everyone else in this thread who's okay with
| piracy are saying is: "I would rather have the tools that
| enable piracy than art." The value of the tools that
| enable piracy is what they give you, i.e. art. So, if
| using the tools of piracy kills art, and you use the
| tools of piracy because you want _access_ to art, DO NOT
| ENGAGE IN PIRACY. Choose art instead, because that 's the
| thing that you _really_ want.
|
| In a word, the only salvation out of this mess is ethics.
| True, ethics is unreliable and pretty much
| doesn't...happen...at scale, but as all instances of the
| Prisoner's Dilemma go (and this is certainly one of
| them), the only thing that breaks it is choosing to act
| virtuously in spite of the potential harm involved (as
| opposed to what happens when we don't choose to act
| virtuously: we all but guarantee that the harm inflicted
| on us is greater than it would have been had we not tried
| to avoid it; the instances in which people escape
| unscathed act as carrots, tempting us to act unvirtuously
| in case we too can be one of the lucky ones. But the
| Prisoner's Dilemma is a Whole Big Thing so I'm gonna stop
| there).
|
| Or, keep pirating, and you'll find yourself in a world
| with more and more stringent DRM, locked-down devices,
| more atomic streaming services (and then mergers and
| acquisitions, meaning Disney becomes even more of a
| monopoly [remember that they already own Hulu], the movie
| studios become property of tech giants, etc etc
| etc...Either way, one day, you won't be pirating content,
| but you can at least contribute to the reason why.
| Stunting wrote:
| The workforce's income is contractually tied to the
| amount of post box office profit the film makes. When you
| steal a show you get the entertainment value without cost
| of your money. That is directly reflected in my income.
| dml2135 wrote:
| That's fair enough and I did not know that, and will
| certainly take into account when making future purchasing
| decisions, thank you.
|
| But the bottom line is, it's just not worth paying for
| digital content for me, merely by knowing the fact that
| it's available for free. A file has no intrinsic value,
| why should I pay for it?
|
| I'll gladly pay for an experience, or service, such as a
| movie theatre or a streaming platform that does the work
| of delivering content to me. But there is so much free
| stuff out there, paying to download the latest Batman
| movie is simply not worth it.
| [deleted]
| Stunting wrote:
| "When it's so easy to steal why should I pay for it."
|
| When you pay for things you like, more of it gets made.
| dml2135 wrote:
| But what if I don't like Hollywood movies, consider them
| cheap crap, and don't care if more of them get made? I
| just want to watch them to see what everyone else is
| talking about.
| Stunting wrote:
| Then you are a thief who steals products that you don't
| enjoy.
| elenaferrantes wrote:
| you are making assumptions about the prerequisites.
| Talking about "income" implies that the person is viewing
| a show inside a form of commercial contract like going to
| a place where the show is displayed or buying a dvd or
| paying a streaming plateform etc...
|
| Downloading a file (containing the show) from a publicly
| accessible server on the internet is completely outside
| of commercial contract so there's no income in the first
| place.
|
| Authorities can decide to make it illegal to download
| files from internet but it's not "stealing"
| tigertigertiger wrote:
| The difference is obvious. If they steal a Mercedes it's
| gone, the car dealer does not have it anymore.
| Stunting wrote:
| when you pirate a show, no longer get the contractually
| based income related to your viewing.
| greatpatton wrote:
| The probability of that income is quite hypothetical.
| Most of the time, the person would never have payed for
| it.
| Stunting wrote:
| and yet they consume it. Consuming goods and services
| without providing money for that is...wait for it....
|
| stealing.
|
| Not paying for things that they do not consume is voting
| with their dollars.
| elenaferrantes wrote:
| yreg wrote:
| Do you believe that if there was no piracy people who
| pirate wouldn't watch paid entertainment?
| kemiller wrote:
| @Stunting your perspective in this thread is very
| valuable, and the best thing that streaming has done,
| much better than old-school bundling and certainly better
| than piracy, is encourage a boom in interesting content,
| and I'm very glad you and the other workers in
| entertainment are getting paid.
|
| But flogging the tired comparison between stealing
| physical objects and making illegal copies of content is
| a losing argument. Everyone instinctively knows it's not
| the same thing. Just because an end user gains a benefit
| they didn't pay for doesn't mean it's theft. The owner
| still has the content and can sell it to as many paying
| customers as they like. Once the car is gone, it's gone
| and unavailable to sell to someone else. Consider: what
| would the auto market look like if we had Star Trek-style
| replicators and could make copies of physical objects for
| pennies? Let's use bikes instead. If you had the ability
| to make cheap copies of a bike, would it be ethical to
| deny the use of a bike to a poor farmer who could use it
| to get goods to market and make their life better, when
| your marginal cost is near zero? Do the needs of the R&D
| people who designed the bike override that consideration?
|
| This is just as much of a problem for all the software
| creators on here as for the content creators, though the
| rise of SAAS has changed that somewhat. Content's
| inherent non-scarcity is one of the best things that has
| ever happened to humanity, it just happens to break our
| pre-existing economic model and hurt the people who
| create it. This is a fundamental shift in our economy
| that's underway and we have been lurching around trying
| to solve it for decades now. We need to solve it, but
| pretending that it's the same as theft is just not going
| to get us to a solution.
| Stunting wrote:
| Or we could all just admit that it's theft.
|
| Society being in a lurch between how we handle our
| physical goods and our digital goods is a very important
| subject that is going to get ironed out over the next few
| generations I'm sure.
|
| That doesn't make it not theft, even if its' really easy
| to do.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Virtually every dictionary clarifies that theft requires
| intent to deprive the original owner from using the
| stolen item, which is incompatible with the act of making
| a copy.
|
| As gp said, your points are valid, but you're using a
| word incorrectly. Just use a different word so as not to
| have dictionaries disagree with you. Copyright
| infringement.
| elenaferrantes wrote:
| Say A makes a film. Situation 1 : B do not watch the film
| a do something else. Situation 2 : B downloads the film
| from P2P network and watch it. What is the difference for
| A ?
| bin_bash wrote:
| They lost a potential sale because someone didn't have to
| pay for something.
|
| This is obvious. It's crazy how many of you are twisting
| yourself into logical knots to try to justify this
| action. It's not murder, but it's clearly wrong on its
| face.
| elenaferrantes wrote:
| The sale is not lost because it would not happen _anyway_
|
| This is obvious. It's crazy how many of you are twisting
| yourself into logical knots to try to qualify this action
| of stealing. Righteousness is debatable, but it's clearly
| not stealing.
| traject_ wrote:
| I don't know; it seems there is a clear learned aversion
| to the word "stealing" but doesn't change the unethical
| nature of the crime is equivalent to stealing royalties
| deserved for the consumed work. I pirate some times sure
| but I do so with the understanding that what I am doing
| is unethical and try to avoid it.
|
| Consuming media/entertainment is no human right and if it
| is too expensive/too inaccessible/whatever and you wish
| to be ethical, don't pirate it in the first place.
|
| Humans have great difficulty controlling their impulses
| especially in connection to crimes that are undetectable
| and easy to perform but the honest will at least own up
| to what they do.
| kjs3 wrote:
| Such is the state of ethics is the world. Some people can
| justify anything.
| expensive_news wrote:
| Yes, obviously. I really don't see how one could possibly
| sympathize with this argument. Say I go to a bakery and I
| only "sort of" want a cookie. I'm not hungry enough to pay
| for it, so I just take it, and claim "I'm not actually
| stealing because I wasn't going to pay for it anyway".
|
| You could claim it's different with digital goods, but it's
| not. Money still went into making that good (whether that's
| software or a movie or even just a picture) and you're
| still getting the benefits of owning that good without
| paying for it. Put another way, how does not caring enough
| about something entitle you to ownership?
|
| So you are absolutely stealing whether you would "have paid
| for it" or not.
| californical wrote:
| What if most of my enjoyment of a cookie is looking at
| all of the pretty designs and crafty details on the
| cookies, and I don't actually care that much to eat them.
| Is it stealing to go into a bakery and look at the
| cookies, then leave? I've gotten all of my enjoyment for
| free, after all!
| hunter2_ wrote:
| You might be satisfied, but you only consumed a component
| of the work that the creator explicitly offers for free
| while refraining from consuming the component that
| requires payment. Just like browsing an art gallery: I'm
| satisfied seeing a painting in the gallery location,
| which is a freebie, and I don't care about also seeing it
| in the location of my choice, which has a price tag.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| How much money do you make per movie ? Honest question
| Stunting wrote:
| I don't give out exact income on the internet.
|
| Our base pay is daily rate governed through SAG-Aftra CBA
| with the Producer's guild and scaled off the budget of the
| production. Then there are OT factors and bumps that go
| along with how difficult the particular work is.
| DontMindit wrote:
| Disney, Paramount, CNN would eventually be held hostage to
| their platform by a Spotify or Steam ... The Music business and
| artists have been destroyed by Spotify
| unboxingelf wrote:
| Having not touched this since early days of TPB, is there a
| decent overview to approaches in 2022 you could point me to?
| E.g. has torrenting moved to the cloud or are most running
| vpns? Asking for a friend.
| malermeister wrote:
| A friend can recommend bytesized hosting if you want minimal
| hassle. They have installer scripts for all the most popular
| tools (like the ones in parent) and it's really easy to set
| up your own netflix-like experience, with Plex as the
| streaming UI, deluge as the torrent client and Sonarr and
| Radarr as automated torrent downloaders.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Latest and greatest is "plexshares" just google that. I've
| been sailing the high seas since 2002 and this is my last
| stop. No fuss, no worrying about anything. Wife and kids are
| very happy.
| john_minsk wrote:
| Wow. Thank you very much. Any advise for noobs?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Find one in there that you like in your price range. I
| pay $20 and have 1080p/4k remuxes. I used to spend at
| least 10 hours a month managing my own Plex/Emby, the
| money is well spent to me.
|
| Also, buy an nvidia shield tv pro. It plays everything
| directly with no transcode, and handles all subtitles
| effortlessly without triggering a transcode.
|
| I tried roku, amazon cube, apple tv, everything - the
| shield is the best still despite it's age. It's flawless.
| Supermancho wrote:
| rarbg.to is the popular index site. Bittorrent, the purple
| client. My smart TVs can access my PC's dedicated media
| directory - which took a bit of fiddling to get right. The
| big drawback is a lack of subtitles, unless they are baked in
| to the rip.
|
| I still have Netflix and Prime Video (because of AMZ Prime).
| I have thought about dropping Netflix more than a few times
| after the price hike.
| cercatrova wrote:
| I wouldn't recommend BitTorrent/mTorrent, they're now run
| by a Chinese cryptocurrency company and have ads.
|
| qBittorrent is an open source alternative that also has my
| favorite feature, downloading a file in sequential order so
| as to stream it immediately rather than waiting until it
| all finishes downloading.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| I'd recommend checking your local library for their DVDs.
| Mine has a pretty good collection.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The search term you're looking for is "seedbox".
| unboxingelf wrote:
| I have heard this term and briefly looked into it. My
| takeaway was it's a vps with prebaked software/config
| offered by shady looking providers. Is that roughly correct
| or did I get lost in adwords?
| tblt wrote:
| Unlike your standard VPS hosts (DigitalOcean etc.), a
| good seedbox host will take your inevitable DMCA notices
| and file them in the shredder.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Basically, you'll find ones with fast storage with big
| storage for reasonable prices and that are... explicitly
| sanctioning this use case. And I'd bet the competent ones
| specifically design their network and client settings for
| good performance. In professional settings getting good
| large storage performance is sometimes a struggle or
| expensive.
|
| I've thought about using them for non-shady data storage
| and transfer given the price and performance. Nothing
| sensitive which wasn't encrypted, obviously.
| rsync wrote:
| All the cool kids discuss seed boxes, etc., at a forum
| named "lowendtalk".
|
| It's not my crowd but it's interesting...
| gruez wrote:
| >You get the benefit of high quality (true 4k, not stream
| compressed "4k")
|
| Where do you think pirates get their source content from? Sure
| if it's a movie with a blu-ray release there's a 4k high
| bitrate source, but if it's a netflix original the "stream
| compressed 4k" is the only version available.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Yes but a physical file does not buffer once fully
| downloaded, and I can upscale via mpv filters or madVR if
| needed.
| [deleted]
| me551ah wrote:
| This is exactly what I use. Throw all this on a good quality
| seed box and you have your own machine on the cloud.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| Since the rise of streaming services it have been surprisingly
| hard to get older and less popular content as less people are
| seeding. Also seems there are stringent laws present for
| content sharing than it was 10 years ago. I doubt that content
| piracy will come back in the way it was so that an ordinary
| citizen could say "It's easier just to pirate".
| sylware wrote:
| ... and you are not forced to use those grotesquely and
| absurdely massive and complex google(blink/geeko) or
| apple(webkit) based browsers (and their SDKs), in other words,
| open source drm software which is "obfuscated" via complexity
| and size: you can use the media player you like, and in my case
| _my_ shmol media player _I_ wrote (using ffmpeg). This issue is
| actually critical as it is not really piracy as it narrows down
| to the right to have interoperabitily with technically
| reasonable and sensible software.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Hell, even those browsers only get 720p...
| bageljr wrote:
| Gecko isn't google its Mozilla, all you have to do is change
| the search engine. But the rest is all correct
| sngz wrote:
| I haven't had netflix subscription for years now since they
| stopped carrying movies and TV shows other networks had and
| shifted towards producing their own shows. I'm not interested in
| any of their original series / movies and just used it to avoid
| going to the movie theater and watching TV ads.
| cpt1138 wrote:
| I think I would pay for all these services for content if I could
| be assured of watching the content how I want. I don't like the
| monthly fees, but Ill put up with it, I prefer the rental model
| and I'm willing to wait (like we used to for rentals). That said
| the way I want to watch content is downloaded for offline
| viewing, on our projector, with the sound split since my wife is
| hard of hearing and likes the sound going directly to her hearing
| aids. The content providers see that as pirating and disable it.
| Its frustrating to find that out, when you are no longer anywhere
| with service (the reason for the downloading the first place) and
| can't do anything about it. Netflix has worked like that for a
| while and the problem is finding good content. Amazon Prime
| "works" and is the rental model and I like that the best. Disney
| does not work at all. And I cant be bothered to try every service
| to see if it works like that. I would love an aggregator and
| would be happy to pay monthly if they could provide EVERYTHING.
| In the meantime, Ill often even pay for the content somehow and
| then pirate it to watch it how I want.
| aneil wrote:
| I thought I was alone when I unsubbed. I couldn't believe
| everyone was watching the trash Netflix was churning out. I take
| their decline as a positive statement about humanity.
| brewdad wrote:
| For those trying to justify piracy (and, yes, I have been and
| probably will be an occasional pirate myself) would you consider
| it acceptable to sneak into a theater without buying a ticket if
| there were empty seats?
|
| Why or why not?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Fun thought experiment.
|
| Clear violation of private REAL property. I think a lot think
| INTELLECTUAL property is rent seeking.
| ElectronShak wrote:
| Netflix should just get live soccer content, massive massive
| market!
| treis wrote:
| These suggestions are pretty weak. Mostly boil down to making
| better stuff for cheaper. Which is obvious and something everyone
| is trying.
|
| IMHO, Netflix is the classic .com company where they think they
| can do everything better than the incumbents. That's true when
| there is a paradigm technology shift (internet ordering and then
| streaming). But it's almost never true when you're talking about
| core competencies.
| wtetzner wrote:
| > Mostly boil down to making better stuff for cheaper.
|
| I wonder if they'd be better off making better quality content,
| but less of it.
| standardUser wrote:
| Readers here love to crap all over Netflix, but it's still the
| service I use most. Yes, the movie selection is lackluster and
| yes, they make a lot of mediocre shows (though often for niches
| where fans of that content may have few other options). But they
| also make some of my favorite shows of all time like Bojack
| Horseman, Big Mouth and Sex Education. And they've revived some
| of my favorite content of all time like Arrested Development, W/
| Bob & David and Wet Hot American Summer (with mixed results, but
| still). Not to mention a lot of fringy comedy that may have
| otherwise never been produced, like I Think You Should Leave,
| Aunty Donna and Middleditch and Schwartz.
|
| And they've brought content into the mainstream (in the US) that
| we otherwise may have never seen, like Black Mirror and Squid
| Games.
|
| Throw in some flagship nature documentaries, a ton of stand up
| specials and the occasional cultural phenomenon like Stranger
| Things and I still feel like Netflix is easily worth the cost.
| And just because they produce a lot of crap doesn't negate any of
| the above. There is no number of Adam Sandler movies that will
| change how much I loved Michael Bolton's Big, Sexy Valentine's
| Day Special.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| The reason you used to have Netflix was that you could binge
| watch old shows. As Netflix lost the license to these many
| seasons deep shows and replaced them with single seasons of just
| a handful of episodes people got less and less out of it, but it
| became much more expensive for Netflix and so they raised their
| price.
|
| We need a 'must-license' system for TV-shows and movies, so that
| any movie that is available on one streaming service must be
| available to any other streaming service for the same terms. No
| doubt this will not mean that all movies are available on all
| streaming services, but it will mean that there will be actual
| competition.
| rednerrus wrote:
| This is a case of disruption being too disruptive. They stuck
| with their disruptive models instead of adopting the parts of the
| older model that were working. Binging is great but it's hell on
| getting people to come back every week and continue to build the
| buzz for shows.
|
| Squid game was huge and should have been a monster pole to
| hammock off of for months. The conversation about Squid Game
| should still be goin on...
|
| Killing off shows because they're not bringing in new users is a
| terrible idea.
|
| Their tech is great but the running a network aspect was pretty
| terrible.
| mkl95 wrote:
| I unsubbed for two major reasons:
|
| 1. Netflix is boring
|
| 2. Their recommendation algorithms didn't solve 1.
|
| The root cause of it all is their odd focus on expensive
| originals over third party content. Their catalogue is just not
| deep enough if you remove all the subpar content. Before using
| Netflix I engaged in massive piracy for over ten years, and I'm
| considering it again - this time in smaller amounts, because I
| don't have that much free time anymore.
| garciasn wrote:
| In addition to these things: the way the force us to browse
| content is awful and it's been copied by all of the vendors.
| Netflix and Prime are particularly terrible because of the
| volume of content, much of it absolute garbage, they have
| online.
|
| 1. I want to find my own shit with filters, not by scrolling
| through endless reams of D- grade cable TV quality shows.
|
| 2. I want major efforts from networks and studios, not homemade
| content. I know I may be in the minority here, but I strongly
| prefer HBOMax right now (which I get for 'free' with my phone
| plan) because the content is aligned here coupled with their
| own solid content, not D+ grade self-created content.
| thadjo wrote:
| Came here to say the same. I cancelled two months back and I
| really don't miss it. On the other hand if HBOMax hiked their
| prices to $30/mo I wouldn't blink.
|
| For me I associate the big red "N" with bad content. So when I
| open Netflix and see the red "N" plastered on every thumbnail
| the algo serves up, I immediately wanted to close the app. I
| eventually felt tired of batting away their originals to find
| good content so I unsubscribed.
|
| I don't know how many other people actually feel the same way,
| but it seems pretty clear to me that their subscriber base
| doesn't like Netflix's original content as much as Netflix
| does.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| I would have kept Netflix but I got tired of being up charged for
| 4k content and because they are unable to make dark areas look
| like anything other than a blocky mess.
| nojs wrote:
| This may be country-specific but here the Netflix catalogue is
| _really_ bad. It's basically only good if you're really bored and
| happy to watch whatever they recommend (usually their originals).
| If you have something in mind and search for it, it's almost
| never available.
| 0xTJ wrote:
| The entire TV/movie streaming industry is pushing the world back
| to a cable-like one, and that's already pushing people back to
| pirating. There are a lot of people who were content to pay for a
| couple services, but even without any sports, you can easily be
| paying for 3 streaming services for ~$60, just to get content
| that used to be on Netflix (plus whatever's been released since).
| Once you add one or two sports, you can be looking at prices
| above $100 per month.
| elicash wrote:
| Why not just have one streaming service at a time? Each has an
| absurd amount of content so just switch it up every few months.
| You get to watch everything and it's super inexpensive.
|
| Sports are trickier of course.
| olex wrote:
| This is what I do. When the "to watch" list of shows I got
| recommended or am otherwise interested in watching on one of
| the services gets a few items on it, I buy a month of
| subscription and immediately cancel. Then watch the stuff
| during the month, and some time later get another month of a
| different service. This has been working great for the past
| couple years.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > you can easily be paying for 3 streaming services for ~$60
|
| You can easily buy and cancel what you want when you want, so
| that is the not cable-like development.
|
| I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the
| content in the world for $x.
|
| The important part is the creator/curator/seller of the content
| and the purchaser of the content are not held hostage by a
| monopoly/monopsony distributor.
| chrisan wrote:
| > I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the
| content in the world for $x.
|
| People just want to pay for what they want. What is so hard
| about that?
|
| I don't want cable with 500 channels of no interest. I also
| don't want to deal with subscribe/cancel 20 services as shows
| come and go.
|
| Just make it simple ffs.
| mywittyname wrote:
| A lot of content can be purchased outright on several
| different platforms.
|
| It's $40/season, but it's available.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| While I myself have purchased many seasons of TV, I
| should caution you that none of it can be "purchased
| outright" on these platforms. Your account can be
| cancelled at any time, and you then lose access with no
| recourse. "Purchasing outright" requires buying physical
| media, and even then, disc players are becoming
| dangerously niche.
| anecd0te wrote:
| > What is so hard about that?
|
| Media companies have been using the value of "content you
| want to watch" to subsidize "content you don't know you
| want to watch" for about a century now, the back catalogs
| are what will keep you paying but that only retains value
| so long as new content can be added to it.
| rekoil wrote:
| If people really start doing that en-masse, then the next
| thing the streaming services will implement is that
| cancellation means you lose access immediately.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Then I will set a reminder on my phone to cancel before
| next renewal. Or if too troublesome, I will just pay for
| the specific episode or show or movie.
|
| Or if the price is too high, I will find something better
| to do with my time. Same as every other entertainment
| option in life.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the
| content in the world for $x.
|
| Why do actors and movie studios, producers, and glorified
| CDNs/streaming services think they are entitled to tens of
| millions of dollars for producing a TV show? They create
| mindless entertainment for society and yet they are so highly
| compensated. Yeah, I don't feel like I owe them anything.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Why do actors and movie studios, producers, and glorified
| CDNs/streaming services think they are entitled to tens of
| millions of dollars for producing a TV show?
|
| Because that is the agreement they made for selling their
| labor/services/content to the buyers of the
| labor/services/content.
|
| > I don't feel like I owe them anything.
|
| Correct, you do not owe them anything.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| "Mindless" is a subjective term. Millions of people enjoy
| the entertainment you refer to, as judged by the fact that
| they go to the cinema and pay for admission. That's why
| they're so highly-compensated.
|
| If you don't see the value in the entertainment those
| companies provide, you're probably not the target audience.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| They aren't entitled to it. They get it because that's what
| most people are willing to pay.
| 0des wrote:
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > it is easy to see how a family of frogs is slowly boiled
| back into having an expensive "entertainment package" as if
| it were the old cable days again,
|
| It is not easy to see for me. If you want access to all the
| content all at once, then pay up.
|
| If you want access to specific content at the specific time
| you want, then pay then, watch, and cancel the subscription
| if there was one.
|
| This latter option was not available before, and it is now.
| I am loving the new system which cuts out the middleman
| (cable/satellite tv) that was able to jerk around both me
| and the content seller.
|
| The next problem needing to be solved is reducing copyright
| length to 10 years or so. That is what will make the price
| of content go down by increasing the number of content
| sellers.
| aww_dang wrote:
| Buy a subscription. Then get a VPN so they don't force me
| to watch things from the wrong country. Then dislike the
| political narrative forced on me? Or just click through
| to some streaming site and close a few popups?
| Markoff wrote:
| > The entire TV/movie streaming industry is pushing the world
| back to a cable-like one, and that's already pushing people
| back to pirating.
|
| Downloading video content for your own consumption is not
| technically pirating in many EU countries and it's perfectly
| legal (not so much uploading/hosting it). While in same EU
| countries would be already torrenting (distributing) it
| illegal, so you are safe only with DDL.
|
| But yeah, fragmentation of market killed it for end consumer.
| grayfaced wrote:
| All these services are going for the strategy of a couple big
| releases and hope people forget to cancel. But now with a dozen
| different services consumers are being forced to learn to swap
| in and out.
|
| Once they swap into a good pirate solution, it'll be very hard
| to get them to swap out.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| We're being nickeled and dimed to death.
|
| Where I live now there is an insane number of carwashes --
| and more being built. Apparently they're a "subscription
| service" like 24-hour gyms, etc...
| jimmar wrote:
| Lots of people are complaining about terrible content on Netflix.
| Years ago, Netflix was praised for its "long tail"--basically it
| could have content that appealed to people with diverse
| interests. But it seems like people now see the long tail as
| useless junk and would prefer a shorter tail with more
| concentrated quality.
| robonerd wrote:
| Netflix _had_ a long tail, when it was a DVD rental service.
| Netflix streaming has never had a long tail and definitely don
| 't now. They presently have less than 4000 movies, including
| all their 'originals' (which should probably be called
| 'derivatives'.) This is scarcely a long tail as far as I'm
| concerned. I cancelled my account years ago because there was
| nothing I wanted to watch. I realized I spent two or three
| times as much time browsing the catalogue as actually watching
| something, and half the time I was settling for something I'd
| already seen. Nothing I've seen or heard even remotely tempts
| me to come back.
| nikanj wrote:
| The long tail I want: movies/shows made in the 80s, your
| friends might recognize the name. The long tail netflix has:
| made last year in Romania, nobody has ever heard of it.
| sct202 wrote:
| If Netflix would make it more obvious what is junk vs not I
| think it would be a more enjoyable experience. Right now I have
| to keep switching from their app to cast and IMDB/Google/Rotten
| Tomatoes to figure out if something just has a rough start or
| is just bad.
| listless wrote:
| Apple TV seems to do this well. Too many choices appears to be
| just as bad as no choices. I don't go to Netflix because
| there's just too much. It literally makes my anxiety rise just
| being in there.
| regularfry wrote:
| Long tail works as long as the people in the tail can find the
| content relevant to them. If browsing and search is bad enough
| that it doesn't seem to be there, it might as well not be.
| itronitron wrote:
| Their UI, or the service itself, is also flaky. It's fairly
| common for us to start watching a series and the next day
| Netflix will show us as having already watched all of the
| episodes, despite our changing to a complex password and also
| not enough hours passing for us to have watched them all. I
| wonder if they are juicing the numbers for some reason or if
| it's just an error.
| hatchnyc wrote:
| > It's fairly common for us to start watching a series and
| the next day Netflix will show us as having already watched
| all of the episodes
|
| Wildly off-topic but perhaps you're turning off a TV
| without the streaming device itself shutting down?
| itronitron wrote:
| I suppose it's possible that their auto-play feature is
| doing it. Most of our Netflix use is on a laptop so if
| the browser tab isn't closed maybe it keeps streaming the
| auto-play, although I haven't checked for that.
| matwood wrote:
| Netflix lost a lot of good long tail content when networks
| pulled their old content to form the foundations of their own
| streaming platforms. For example, The Office.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > But it seems like people now see the long tail as useless
| junk
|
| Hum... It's not that. It's just that it's impossible to access
| the long tail of Netflix content.
| leothecool wrote:
| US growth is saturated. They raised the price 10%. They lost less
| than 1% of subscribers. What's the problem?
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Interesting analysis.
|
| I find it interesting that so many people spend so much time
| watching tv in the first place. Growing up, I was one of those
| people but about a decade ago I lost interest in pretty much
| anything on television. There are certain shows that I will watch
| on occasion that get me hooked, but I usually struggle to find
| anything that is actually worth my time and end up just turning
| the tv off after surfing the streaming options for 10 minutes. It
| boggles my mind when I hear things like "golden age" of content.
| Sure there is a ton of content, but it's all so vapid.
| stack_framer wrote:
| This is exactly how I feel. Even after years of this, I'm still
| amazed at how much is available, and how little of it I
| actually want to watch.
| MivLives wrote:
| During quarantine I switched to mostly movies. They require
| more singular focus (it's harder to watch a movie while doing
| other things), don't really have the binging problem (2 hour
| and done instead of just continually extensions of 45 minutes),
| and are generally higher quality. I've seen some very good
| (Memories, Son of the White Mare), some very bad (I went
| through a Bakshi phase), and overall decided I prefer this to
| watching yet another sitcom or graphic novel adaptation on tv.
| mackrevinack wrote:
| movies can also better adapt to be a bit shorter or longer
| depending on whether the story calls for it.
|
| something i notice myself thinking after i finish most tv
| shows i watch is: "that really could have been shorter". it
| might be some parts of an episode could have been trimmed
| down or in some cases even multiple episodes of a season.
|
| i don't think this is exactly surprising either considering
| the rigid schedule of most tv shows to fit a story into 45
| minutes slot and a set number of episodes per season
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I'm the opposite of you. From age 20 to about age 45, I did not
| watch TV at all. Part of that was because I grew up in the UK,
| and the experience I had with the BBC (and a bit of Channel 4
| and very occasionally ITV) made US TV just look stupid to me.
| Endless stupid ads, laugh tracks, completely unrealistic
| characters, dumb plots, and more endless stupid ads.
|
| Then ... Netflix arrived. I started watching a few of the shows
| that people raved about from their days on network TV, and I
| realized that the biggest problem was ... endless stupid ads.
| Which Netflix did not have. I became willing to try out HBO
| from time to time, got in Battlestar Galactica, and of course
| in 2014, True Detective showed up on HBO. In 2019, I discovered
| Deadwood (at that point nearly a decade old), a more or less
| Shakespearian epic of 19th century US history. Over the past
| decade, I've discovered so many truly worth shows - and I
| haven't event started on The Wire yet!
|
| On top of that, Netflix has given me access to several UK shows
| (Luther, for example, but also Grand Designs (now, thankfully,
| on Youtube)) that have rounded out the menu.
|
| I understand that aesthetic choices with TV shows are very
| personal, but I can honestly say that I now absolutely believe
| that "TV" (ala the new streaming services and/or their
| presentation of material without ads) can be a medium for
| stellar story telling. I would like it if we had a few more
| defined "limited series" where there's a story already known,
| with a beginning, middle and end (True Detective and Mare of
| Eastttown are great examples of this (as long as they do not
| ruin Mare by making a sequel). And sure, there are some TV
| series that really would have been better as a film.
| Nevertheless, the ability to spend 8-16 hours with compelling
| characters is big positive to me.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I only use Netflix and Prime, and both feel really stale to me.
| It's all "content" - good to very good production values
| designed to fill a gap and appeal to a demographic. But very
| repetitive and production line, with no passion projects,
| nothing too arty or quirky, nothing outside of the box, no
| _surprises._
|
| Some of it is quite watchable, but none of it is exciting or
| fresh. It's all some combination of stock soapy characters and
| themes in stock genre settings, usually with some
| comedy/sex/violence/horror added for stickiness.
|
| Netflix could easily throw some money at graduate film makers
| and say 'Make something no one has seen before.' That might or
| might not help retention, but it's hard to shake the feeling
| Netflix are deliberately aiming for the middle of the bell
| curve as creative policy, and missing opportunities to lead
| instead of trying to play it safe.
| [deleted]
| saltminer wrote:
| I think Netflix's big problem is I'll occasionally discover
| something amazing, and then look at the release date and
| wonder "why did it take so long to find this?"
|
| If the experience browsing their catalog wasn't so awful, I'd
| be more inclined to try and use the service. Instead, after
| I've finished something good, I don't tend to come back to
| Netflix for awhile - it's easier to just watch stuff on
| Youtube because I know how to navigate it, the search works
| well, and the recommendations are actually decent.
|
| I remember a couple weeks ago, Blade Runner 2049 was the
| first thing that popped up when I logged into Netflix. I was
| so happy to see it there, but when I went back the next night
| to watch it, it wasn't there (which is fine, the homepage
| isn't static). So I went to search for it, and "Blade Runner"
| returned nothing relevant (nor did "Blade Runner 2049"). I
| had to search "2049" to find it, and after the movie ended,
| Netflix recommended the first Blade Runner (which also didn't
| show up in any of my searches).
|
| The search isn't always this bad (both Blade Runner movies
| show up in search the way I would expect them to now), but
| still...even when I know something great is on Netflix, it
| can be an utter pain to get to. It's like they're trying to
| get me to go with the mediocre recommendations instead of
| watching the good stuff that I know is on there.
|
| It's so annoying that if I was the one paying for it, I'd
| cancel my subscription. And I remember things used to be a
| lot better, which just makes it all the more frustrating when
| looking for something good.
| 1minusp wrote:
| This exactly. Across a LOT of their anime, crime drama
| espcially (in my limited view, probably applies to other
| genres as well), I feel they have this minor variation on a
| theme, sort of algorithmically built, almost. Everytime i
| watch some new series i get this "wait a minute..." feeling.
| I occasionally find new stuff to watch that is interesting
| (of late, noir crime drama shows on Prime) but those also
| have the same ingredients. A lot of those are not prime
| original anyway. That original content seems rare.
| 111111101101 wrote:
| > But very repetitive and production line, with no passion
| projects, nothing too arty or quirky, nothing outside of the
| box, no surprises.
|
| I'm getting the feeling that Apple TV+ is where it's at for
| this type of content. Severance was particularly good.
| vikingerik wrote:
| I feel what you say too, that all the content feels samey.
| But I'll offer a suggestion that works for me: try some
| animation. That's where you get the passion projects that can
| feel _different_. Animated characters and settings can be far
| more expressive and varied and fresh, compared to the stock
| sameyness you get from live action.
|
| The new She-Ra on Netflix was the best thing I've watched in
| quite some time. It's not a kiddie show, it works for all
| ages, think like Pixar movies. Other great cartoons across a
| variety of streaming services: Steven Universe, Gravity
| Falls, Owl House, Star Trek Lower Decks, also the more
| mainstream Bob's Burgers. If you want something fresh to
| watch, try animation.
| dv_dt wrote:
| I have a similar experience with respect to watching
| foreign produced content. It's interesting because they
| present different approaches to the shows and even if
| they're using entertainment tropes they can be different
| enough because they're tropes of that nation.
|
| But once I watched a few, Netflix filled my entire
| recommendation catalog with almost all e.g. Turkish and
| Korean shows. Pretty annoying as it's like ordering an ice
| cream dessert, then the only thing the menu ever shows is
| all ice cream desserts. It makes me think part of people
| feeling it's all the same is that the recommendation
| optimization is overbearing in shoveling too much of more
| of the same recent history vs presenting a mix of
| recommendation and discovery.
| 10729287 wrote:
| I guess this is the cons of being such a data oriented
| company. It requires guts to think beyond ROI when you have
| so much infos about your users and their habits.
| nradov wrote:
| Data oriented optimization strategies tend to result in
| local maximums. Jumping across the solution space from a
| local maximum to the global maximum requires a visionary
| leader, and some luck.
| GLGirty wrote:
| You're right, but Netflix has been punished for taking risks.
| Look at the spike in churn rate with the release of 'cuties':
| https://thestreamable.com/news/report-netflix-
| saw-3-6-millio...
| motogpjimbo wrote:
| Throwing money at graduate filmmakers and telling them to
| follow their passions would all but guarantee a catalogue
| full of $CURRENT_DAY political messaging, which would be
| poison for subscriber retention.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| Dont throw all the money there, just some to have some
| unique, quirky, passionate, fresh content. Surely people
| can skip titles they don't like.
| npongratz wrote:
| > ... would all but guarantee a catalogue full of
| $CURRENT_DAY political messaging, which would be poison for
| subscriber retention.
|
| Seems to me that's what they already have; which upon
| reflection, is indeed probably why they're currently having
| problems with subscriber retention.
| ethanbond wrote:
| I think there's so _much_ content that even with a very low hit
| rate, there 's more than enough to entertain yourself to death.
| For example, the 18 hour Vietnam War documentary by Ken Burns
| is itself enough to burn a month or so of TV time.
| alexilliamson wrote:
| +1 for Vietnam. And Jazz. And The West. There is something
| about starting a Ken Burns series that is super relaxing, and
| releases the pressure to find the "perfect thing" to watch
| for the next 10-20 hours.
|
| Vietnam is particularly amazing. Shout out to the Trent
| Reznor soundtrack too.
| slfnflctd wrote:
| The West is pretty depressing, though, as it's mostly about
| the horrific treatment of the indigenous people of North
| America. I've been putting off the Vietnam one for similar
| reasons. Not exactly what I think of as relaxing.
|
| Jazz and Country Music are definitely more digestible, I
| finished both and was glad I did. Baseball is also actually
| pretty chill & enjoyable, even for someone who never had
| more than a passing interest in the sport.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| I don't watch stuff unless it has ended and is reccomended by
| someone who watches shows I generally enjoy. Here's my pitch
| for the golden age of TV, though most of these are from a few
| years back. Most on HBO.
|
| The Wire
|
| The Sopranos
|
| Generation Kill
|
| The Deuce
|
| Treme
|
| Show me a Hero
|
| Luck
|
| The Expanse
|
| Sillicon Valley (not actually that funny but like a documentary
| of our field)
|
| Mad Men
| usefulcat wrote:
| Deadwood. Re-watching it now after 10+ years and am (again)
| impressed. Given the abundance of -isms in that show, I'm
| doubtful it would even be made today, which makes it even
| more of a find.
| declnz wrote:
| Yes. Though stepping back a little further, I'd add (with
| some qualification):
|
| 24 (which perhaps opened my eyes to TV overtaking film in new
| ways) Lost Buffy
|
| And then further still:
|
| The X Files This Life (UK only?)
| cm2012 wrote:
| I'd add Arcane on Netflix, which is also on the top 20 shows
| of all time on IMBD.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I think Arcane is probably the worst scripted show I've
| ever watched. It makes me immediately skeptical of ratings.
| My only hypothesis is that everyone enjoying it has never
| read a book.
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| Its basically a live action comic book and it does that
| well though its not everyone's thing.
| saltminer wrote:
| And if you like Arcane, I'd recommend She-Ra and the
| Princesses of Power (also on Netflix).
| loudmax wrote:
| Obviously any such list is subjective, but I have are a few
| strong contenders for inclusion.
|
| Breaking Bad
|
| Narcos
|
| Battlestar Galactica
|
| And some weaker contenders: Game of Thrones, Stranger Things,
| Crash and Burn
| cm2012 wrote:
| And I think Better Call Saul is even better than Breaking
| Bad
| mywittyname wrote:
| You are not alone.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| So, I see this and think "ooh, BG, I'd watch that again".
| Then I think, how do I find it, will I need a new
| subscription, it's probably not even available in my
| geographical area ... or I could probably go to a Torrent
| site and be watching it in 5 minutes (the limitation being
| the speed of my internet connection).
|
| As copyright is system granted by the demos I'd love to
| force federation by creating a 'most-favoured nation'-type
| deal where if you offer content to one delivery company you
| have to make it available to all (maybe after a 1 year
| exclusivity period) for the same price. Under such a regime
| everyone gets paid but artificial monopolies are restricted
| (such monopolies don't help the _demos_ so why allow
| copyright to be used to create them??).
|
| The proliferation of content provider apps is getting silly
| and we should mould copyright to serve the people.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| I've never heard of crash and burn I'll check it out!
|
| Waiting on stranger things to end
|
| I enjoyed Breaking Bad, Narcos, Battlestar, and some of the
| game of thrones seasons.
|
| If you liked Narcos you might also like ZeroZeroZero. It's
| a miniseries on Amazon with really high production value.
| jeffdn wrote:
| Band of Brothers? Succession? Severance?
| mackrevinack wrote:
| true detective, season 1
| danielbln wrote:
| Under all that muck, you aren't seeing the nuggets. A great
| example is Severance which came out just this year (Apple+) and
| it's a masterpiece, from cinematography to high concept to
| acting. We live in a golden age because there is something for
| everyone, but that also means there is a lot of trash. Luckily,
| there are also more gems available now than ever before.
| nradov wrote:
| Sure there's good content, but I'm not going to commit to yet
| another monthly fee. If there was a way to buy a season of a
| particular show for a one-time fee then I might do that.
| Amazon offers that option for some shows.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| My belief is that, like any media, there is a massive backlog
| of good content.
|
| When you get through the part of the backlog you enjoy, you
| have to either wait for content you enjoy to come out (slow!)
| or explore less enjoyable (to you) content.
|
| Back in high school, I felt "behind" in my cultural wisdom, so
| I spent an entire summer watching a huge list of TV shows and
| movies.
|
| Now, shows I truly enjoy are few and far between, because I've
| seen so much of the good content in my favorite genres already.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| My belief is that when I am 85 and barely functioning
| physically, I will have ample time to catch up on the "good
| content".
|
| I hear _The Wire_ is /was a good show. We'll see....
| 8note wrote:
| There's one challenge with that. Your eyes might not work
| very well when you're 85
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| Agreed, I never watch TV unless it's, weirdly enough, a social
| setting. My wife and I watch TV together all the time, we have
| shows that we like to enjoy together and talk about. My
| roommates and I would watch TV together all the time in
| college, and every now and then there will be a show that I'll
| go to my friends houses to watch (game of thrones). But now
| that I think about it, I don't think I've watched a TV show by
| myself in over 20 years.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I haven't "watched television" in over 20 years. At the same
| time, the internet (YouTube to a large degree) has crept in to
| steal away my time.
|
| I am thankful though that YouTube sucked so bad for so long
| because I spent a lot of time with my kids when they were
| young, reading to them, biking with them, taking them on road
| trips. Cutting the cord was the idea when my first daughter was
| born - to have the kids grow up without television (we would
| put on over-the-air PBS kid's shows when they were young but it
| was pretty much only hotels stays when they would see _Sponge
| Bob_ or whatever, ha ha).
| fullstop wrote:
| I'm in the same boat, I cut the cord in 2008 and truly feel
| that my kids had a better experience as youths. Having cable
| tv in a hotel was a huge deal for them, although they didn't
| really understand commercials.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Ha ha, yeah my kids were shocked by the repetition and
| onslaught of commercials. "How does anyone watch this?"
| they asked. Yeah.
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| I've never been into "flow tv", and about 2 decades ago i
| simply stopped watching anything but the news, and that only
| for 30-60 minutes per day, and shortly after that i simply read
| the news on the internet and completely stopped watching
| "normal" tv.
|
| Since then, i've only had streaming services, and my
| consumption is somewhere around 3-5 45 minute episodes per
| week. I have watched maybe 4 normal length movies since i had
| kids 13 years ago, and zero "extended length" (3 hours'ish)
| movies.
|
| Recently though, i find myself to be even more picky. These
| days i still watch 3-5 episodes per week, but my viewing is
| usually done late friday and saturday evening, and the rest of
| the week i generally prefer a good book instead.
|
| In April alone, i've watched 5 x 45 minute episodes in total,
| and read 3 books of 800 pages or more, so perhaps i'm coming
| full circle :)
| acd10j wrote:
| I think one of the main reasons for netflix troubles is
| competition catching up. With such a huge historical library
| Disney is killing Netflix at one extreme, and HBO max and prime
| on another. There is nothing unique that netflix offers.
| Occasionally few good shows but no lasting property.
| vmception wrote:
| > Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an algorithmically
| designed movie every single week
|
| Thank you. The only reason I break my Netflix embargo (and log
| into my profile on a friends account) is so I know what some
| viral meme is about.
|
| Nobody[1] talks about or remembers shows from there two weeks
| later.
|
| [1] this is hyperbole validated by 200,000 - 2,000,000 others
| seeing the light
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| > Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an
| algorithmically designed movie every single week
|
| I'm actually kinda torn about that statement. While i usually
| prefer shows by other studios for quality, i've watched some
| Netflix Originals that were rather good, and especially some
| "foreign language" ones that i would most likely never have
| watched otherwise.
|
| Most of the Netflix Originals are not huge budget productions,
| but especially their foreign stuff sometimes proves that less
| is more. They tell interesting stories in "good enough"
| settings for them to be enjoyable.
| vmception wrote:
| nothing precludes Netflix from having great content, their
| quantity over quality model is annoying. The "stars" or
| "match" of recommended content has no basing on the enjoyment
| by other users as it is purely algorithmic while having the
| visual component of looking like reviews. They try to induce
| fear-of-missing-out with their trending list, which I also
| don't trust due to the likelihood of it not involving any
| humans at all like their other feature. People catch on and
| walk away.
| 8note wrote:
| Algorithmically designed movies are pretty good though.
|
| Every Pixar movie is exactly the same, and they're all great.
| It's a good formula. My problem with movies is that they're
| built for two many audiences. Pick China xor America, and the
| will be more enjoyable to watch
| slackfan wrote:
| The huge thing that's causing this is the fact that they just
| nuked all Russian subscribers. They had been heavily expanding
| into that market and competing pretty well, but now, well. Yeah.
| martin_drapeau wrote:
| Netflix is kind of stuck. They don't have expansion revenue and
| therefore growth prospects are limited to increasing
| subscriptions against now a very competitive, and almost
| commoditized market.
|
| The writing was on the wall that Disney+, HBO Max, etc would be
| attacking them and taking away customers.
|
| Those legacy businesses have other sources of revenue and
| streaming is their future. They have the means to keep their
| prices low for many years to fuel growth.
|
| Not sure what Netflix can do to continue growing. Then again,
| they managed to switch from DVD to streaming years ago. It was
| rough, they made mistakes but overcame them. Looking forward to
| see what they do.
| throwaway4837 wrote:
| NFLX lost the past 5 years of growth. I suspect more tech stocks
| will (and many already have) follow this as the market corrects.
| tomlin wrote:
| The idea that it would grow for infinity time was the real
| problem here. We should expect ups in downs in a business.
| Economics is supposed to work like that.
| Havoc wrote:
| I think there is also a wider subscription fatigue at play here.
| Please are starting to realise that all those PS10 add up
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Netflix stuff has just come to feel so...sanitary. It's like they
| have an enforced style of wardrobe and cinematography or
| something. It all just feels kindof the same.
|
| Even shows like Ozark have this very "netflixy" feel to them.
|
| The sense I got when Netflix started going original content was
| that it was the place for creatives to go and flex their muscles.
| They could do really weird stuff like Sense8 or The OA (both
| absolutely _top_ tier stories in my opinion).
|
| But now, I have come to expect that no shows will ever go
| anywhere (story wise) that is interesting. No boundries will be
| pushed, just bland kindof all the same background stuff. It's too
| bad, because some of the early stuff was really cool.
| throwaway24124 wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence, but I hear similar complaints from friends,
| and I think that the "netflixy" feel is going to be the single
| biggest downfall for the company. Netflix requires all original
| content must be filmed with a true 4K UHD sensor, and because
| these productions are all using the same powerful digital
| camera, these shows are all filmed with cheap low lighting
| setups, since these powerful new cameras require a lot less
| light to capture a scene (think of the newer iphone cameras and
| how they perform much better in low light). Whereas older non-
| netflix shows filmed on different cameras with much more
| powerful stage lighting setups.
|
| The result is that all these new netflix-produced shows like
| Ozarks all look super flat and similar. Most scenes are very
| poorly lit, which leads to a really poor experience when
| watching on a laptop or tablet. I don't think all viewers are
| consciously realizing it, but I think this is why many people
| are getting "bored" of netflix shows.
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90653850/why-netflix-movies-look...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-22 23:00 UTC)