I remember for years I kept seeing predictions of Netflix's demise about how someone established coming along and doing it better or every content providers just not selling and/or creating their own service...and so on.
Netflix is still around and at least for me it is one of a couple services I regularly use / keep and I'm actually kinda annoyed when another service comes along. I just watch what the handful of services I use have...I don't want to chase content around.
Almost certainly the work of market manipulators. The SEC is asleep at the wheel. You should not read any articles about a company without considering that market manipulators are probably behind it.
Watch Jim Cramer brag about how he used to manipulate the market:
> I'm actually kinda annoyed when another service comes along
Same. I don't like too much cable TV content, but it is nice that it's all bundled into a single service. I might enjoy one show on Discovery and one on NatGeo, but I'd never sign up for their channels individually.
I used to feel this way but more and more Netflix is the service i question if it’s worth the price to me. This holiday season kinda emphasized why: normally i wind up binging a lot of Christmas movies this time of year but their selection this year (in Canada at least) was downright bad. Like 1 or 2 things i recognized and a dozen or so crappy shovelware shows.
I’m basically only in it for their original stuff now, which with everyone trying to eat their pie was really the only way they were ever going to keep people, but i could just sub for a couple months every year to binge those. Keeping the year round sub for that is kinda meh as a value proposition.
About three years ago I started intermittently paying for Netflix— watch some shows on nights and weekends and then drop the subscription for awhile while I wait for a backlog of new content to arrive.
Netflix has been steadily shrinking their DVD selection, which does not bode well. My local public library has a better selection. I do not understand why Netflix is doing that. I am glad I watched most of my "bucket list" of obscure movies while they had them.
There's popular pirate streaming websites, completely free and with no subscription, that have a movie catalogue that is huge compared to Netflix's, often in decent quality. Most of the movies I want to watch are only available there- I'd be glad to pay a fair price if they were available elsewhere.
Also, the fact that the service of a supposed "tech giant" can be replicated and actually improved by a free pirate website financed by few dodgy ads, makes you think. Is the famed Netflix tech just in copyright handling?
Absolutely. Which comes back to the core offering of all these services: Discovery.
Streaming services should be able to recommend things to me that I genuinely want to watch. Yet, I usually have to dig through their catalog (or use the search function if I already know) to find something worth watching.
Otherwise, there really is little value over private trackers for those who don't care about infringement.
I'd love another service. assuming it has decent content, I'd happily switch. Anything to get away from that atrocious user interface. Sadly the only competitor I know here is Amazon prime which is even worse.
Bummer. I knew this would happen to some extent early in the decade, but thought they’d lose it all when the media companies took back control of their media. Also, was cleaned out over a margin call on Apple in ~2009.
One of these days I’ll make the right call at the right time.
Didn’t time it then or later, I went all in on the product of the decade/century the iPhone. Of course Wall st had other plans I wasn’t entirely prepared for.
You have to know when to buy AND when to sell. I bought Netflix in 2010, but I sold it in 2011. I bought Amazon in 2006 and sold it a few months later. When the price doubles or triples, it's hard not to take the profits and run. That's why my best returns have all come from private equity, because it's locked up and I can't sell at the first dozen or so price points I would have wanted to.
That one hurt. AMD had hired Keller, and rumblings of a new generation were afoot. I'd just bought a house and had no spare cash, so told my trusted coworker to go all in on AMD. He had no spare cash either. Now we once a year have the 'so...AMD...yup...yup' conversation.
If in an alternate universe Intel had their 7nm process going by now as they should, AMD would be once again “nearly as fast” or “just as fast” and nobody using Intel for anything serious would switch over. Intel would have matched the price and that would have been that.
AWS has AMD compute available simply because it costs 10% less, and you still have to opt-in. Would AWS have bothered with the offering if AMD simply cost the same?
AMD hit a complete once-in-a-lifetime home run on the design and execution while Intel has missed a bunch of dates on their roadmap they expected to make. The AMD CEO herself said that she didn’t expect to be ahead of Intel.
What I’m saying is that your bet would still have been a casino bet.
I bought Netflix at the time of the Qwikster debacle because it was obvious the market was overreacting to what amounted to a one-time mistake. At the time, Netflix was a leader in both vision and their technology was a major competitive advantage.
Almost a decade later I'm bearish. Their technology advantage is being commoditized away, and production + marketing has not been their forte. It's possible they'll turn it around, but even so they've got a massive battle on their hands against the likes of Disney and other big content producers who have almost a century of experience in this exact arena. It's not that I don't think they'll be successful, but the current price is over-inflated because Tech—they've got a long way to go to justify the valuation.
It's hilarious how much production has not been their forte. Aside from a few hits like Stranger Things, most of their originals, which they need to pan out for future success (instead of paying 100 million for Friends) are absolute rubbish.
Yet the originals they do hit on they hesitate to pay for once they get big. Why they axed BoJack and seem to have driven Bob-Waksberg to Amazon is beyond me. This was the first show I cared about to get that treatment but I've certainly heard anger about other shows as well e.g. Santa Clarita Diet. It's crazy to me how much they're willing to shell out for Friends rather than building on the good originals. But they probably are basing this on viewership numbers I don't have.
They have a few great ones and k love the "limited series" concept (so no endless series added, but just 1-2, so 14-30 episodes). E.g. Frontera Verde was superb.
Critically the show seems to have been rated poorly but the audience rating on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is extremely high. Overall the data is looking like it'll be another one of their hits despite your personal take on it (just as many did not like Stranger Things).
As with anything with a pre-existing fan base, the initial reviews are the pre-existing fans. The reviews will normalize when more people watch and review.
There haven't been any good video game-to-motion picture ever. What people love in games is really hard to put on screen (Witcher has the original source material books but they were never as famous or good as the games).
Honestly it's really hard to do it, to appeal to both the gamers and the wider audience
who never touched the game (inc the critics)
I'm playing games since the late 80s and seen so many movies and TV shows failing.
The Castlevania anime is really well done and can stand alone without the game but if you have played some of the games it really feels like a playthrough with a good story, though the first two seasons are based on one particular version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania_(TV_series)
>> There haven't been any good video game-to-motion picture ever.
LOL, it isn't based on video game at all. There is a series of actual fantasy books written by Andrzej Sapkowski that serves as a basis for the show. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher
However, they made a rookie mistake and started filming Sapkowski's source material in the order it was written, i.e. starting with short stories, which is why the show does not make sense: each episode is a separate story, not connected to previous episodes. They should have started with the 5-book saga, and maybe throw some of the short stories as flashbacks.
Show also lacks the proper introduction of characters and the world's mythology. I am a fan of the books, so it all made sense to me, but wider audience might have a trouble making sense of all Wither abilities, Law of Suprise, etc.
In eastern europe Witcher is THE thing kids read after they read Lord of the Rings.
I think the biggest problem with the show is that they normalized/westernized the "exotic" slavic stuff. The game didnt do that. They also miss the cynicism and irony of Geralt situation. Probably because slavicsm and cynicism is not something Americans would relate to?
I'm Eastern European and I think that Netflix's adaptation is great. Sure, there wasn't such diversity in the series and the books setting as because of the middle ages of Rzeczpospolita, but anyway, the series are good.
I must admit it is quite fun to watch though, I only played the game never read the book but series left a surprisingly good impression. Hope they will not cut it short.
Big witcher fan, just finished the show an hour ago. Gotta say, strongly disagree. This whole season was just a prologue leading into the 'real' story. Despite that, they managed to fit in great stories that fans of the games would have wanted to see.
Ah well. I thought the story was bland and utterly predictable with badly written scenes and dialogue. Maybe the show is just not my type.
The game stories were so, so much better. One of the only games I’ve played that seriously emotionally impacted me. And changed my perception of games forever.
The timeline confuses quite a lot people (the show has a 7.6 rating in China and a lot of people say it's intelligible, either due to bad translation or bad viewing habits like playback speeds IDK), but it's what made this show extra unique and intriging at least for me, I knew absolute nothing about The Witcher, but the way this show proceeds and the slight confusion came with it just made the whole experience another level, I felt I'm doing an adventure with the story trying to figure it out.
Some people aren't comfortable to be challenged, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I had the same feeling, thoroughly enjoyed it. They dared to venture beyond the typical and find there own footing. One of the better series on a Netflix. It reminds me a bit of Black Sails which is my personal favorite series in recent memory.
The timeline was easy to follow, that wasn’t my issue.
The issue was just bad writing. So much bad writing. Cliche moments everywhere, terrible dialogue, completely and utterly predictable plot, bad screen time allocations.
I think the screenwriters should first figure out how to write one engaging plot before trying to figure out how to interweave three.
It feels a bit like that remake of Oldboy. It's so normalized in aesthetics and thinking it misses the real point. I think it is safe bet by netflix to have some fantasy show. If they went all in with the slavic culture and cynicism it would probably be much more interesting but not a crowdpleaser.
Strangely the show seems to follow the book narrative almost too much. It seems confusing for newcommers (i guess again being safe to not make bookfans angry or just lazy)?
Well tell me about great high fantasy series then. Netflix's The Witcher is one of the best genre players out there. Of course, it has its own flaws, but overall it's that push forward thing that we're all needed.
I agree, especially with people who aren’t familiar with the source material.
Compare the very first ep of GoT with Witcher. The first does a wonderful job gradually introducing you to its world, the characters and the background of the story. The latter just immediately dives you into a bunch of unfamiliar names, places and jargon. Confuses the novice at the very first episode.
Their streaming service is no exception. The Mandalorian show, run by Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man and The Lion King) is the most streamed television show in recent history, eclipsing the popularity of Game of Thrones and Netflix's darling, Stranger Things—and that's their first at bat.
The only media sector where Disney's dominance isn't currently felt is video games—the biggest sector of entertainment by total revenue—where Disney's strategy seems to have been lacking for decades, and where it has not been able to acquire itself out of muddling performance. They were able to outsource a hit with the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order game however, so maybe that will change.
In a discussion of Netflix's poor original content hit-rate, an example of a direct competitor's massively higher hit-rate seems apt. How does Disney's strategy result in better performing content, and how could Netflix learn from it? Is it something wrong with their executive team, or is it just poor strategy, or is it something else?
Netflix has taken on enough debt to finance original content that their performance track record in that domain should make investors ask these questions.
In a discussion of Netflix's poor original content hit-rate, an example of a direct competitor's massively higher hit-rate seems apt.
Disney/Touchstone's "massively higher hit-rate" is not representative of most of the companies Netflix competes with ergo a comparison of Netflix to only Disney is not particularly apt. Netflix hasn't matched Disney's success, but neither have most of Disney's rivals.
Time Warner has the Harry Potter license, Nolan's Batman movies and Joker, The Hobbit, Lego Movie, Wonder Woman, and all of Turner Communications, including CNN & Adult Swim / Cartoon Network.
Beyond Disney proper, there's: Disney Theatrical Group, Walt Disney Television, Radio Disney, ESPN, FX Networks, National Geographic Partners, The Muppets Studio, Pixar, Marvel Studios, 20th Century Fox, Fox 2000 Pictures, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Blue Sky Studios, Lucasfilm, ABC, ABC News, Freeform, Touchstone Pictures, and a 33% stake in Hulu... They make a lot of stuff, though the Fox properties are part of a recent acquisition from Murdoch
Netflix has nothing like ESPN, or Pixar, or Marvel, or Star Wars. ESPN alone has a total U.S. subscriber base of about 86 million, to Netflix's 60.62 million
How much of ESPN's subscriber base is packaged cable? Having Netflix is an active decision, but I recall almost always having ESPN in the early 2000s due to cable packaging.
ESPN+, their unbundled streaming service has 3.5 million subscribers as of November. So well over 90% of their subscriber base is cable. But cable is still a beast to be reckoned with, especially in the arena of live events.
>is the most streamed television show in recent history
Where did you find those numbers ? All I could find was:
'The Mandalorian earned nearly 40 million “demand expressions” during the week of Nov. 10-16, according to data provided to Observer by research firm Parrot Analytics. The firm tracks video streaming, social media activity, photo sharing, blogging, fan and critic rating platforms and other consumer demand sources to put together a composite of viewership and growth. Demand expressions represent the total audience demand being expressed for a title within a market and not specific viewership statistics.'
Which sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo presented by a 'research firm' wanting to get customers.
> Disney+ has grabbed 24 million users in the U.S. since its November launch, according to a new report from the analytics firm Cowen & Co. This figure topped some early Wall Street estimates, but does include people who got the service for free through Verizon’s VZ offerings. Still, Cowen reported that Netflix lost 1.1 million subscribers, who dropped the service to join to Disney+ during this stretch.
By contrast, Netflix has 60 million US subscribers. HBO Now has 9 million US subscribers, but their cable service overall has over 50 million. 24 million users is an incredible growth rate for Disney's service, which has only existed since November 12.
But The Mandalorian runs entirely on brand. It's the franchise that survived "Episode One". The Mandalorian could be the worst TV since the Ewok Christmas Special and still yield almost exactly the same numbers, in the present. From what I hear it's quite the opposite (personally I have stopped tracking Star Wars two films ago), but all that quality is only important for the long term outlook of the franchise.
It did show that they (Netflix, a technology company) could produce, had big money and a willingness to spend, would do something that was different and unconventional (a political show, released at once). Plus it demonstrated that people were willing to signup for a subscription service just for a particular show.
Netflix don't need everyone to like everything they make. They only need to have enough shows in their portfolio that are worth the price for an individual to buy in.
They could have a thousand things you think are awful and ten that you think are great to get you as a customer. You'll just ignore the things you don't like. So long as your money pays for the shows you watch it doesn't matter if you don't like the other stuff. That content is there to attract someone else.
Netflix would fail if any one of their customers liked everything they make, because there'd be thousands of other customers who didn't like any of it. There has to be a mix.
Actually for me discoverability is a big problem with Netflix: maybe I really like 10% of the shows I start watching, but I don't want to invest so much time in watching boring shows. Disney is much better in this regard.
> Their technology advantage is being commoditized away
is totally true, but this:
> production + marketing has not been their forte.
strikes me as questionable. They've had standout hits with some first rate production, and if I were guessing, even some of the longer tail of lower impact/quality in-house productions has been targeted towards audiences likely to enjoy it.
Massive battle is right, especially vs Disney's catalog and franchise power. But Netflix has an amazing incumbency position. There's a reason why Disney's still got some well-placed content positioned on Netflix for its viewers.
Netflix has the Kleenex/Band-aid brand cache for Internet-streamed video. I hear people talking about "catching up on Netflix over the weekend" even though they show they're talking about is on Prime or Hulu.
Exactly. That's like saying to my friend I'm going to google some obscure topic only to pull out my phone and use DuckDuckGo instead. It's becoming a generalized term.
Having “hits” doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is whether they can produce those hits profitably. They are borrowing billions of dollars to both produce and license content with the only real way to cover the cost and to make a profit is subscription revenue.
Most content on Disney+ has already made a sizable profit before it even gets to the channel and afterwards between theaters, video on demand, dvd rentals and sales etc.
Also there is the “flywheel”. Comic tie ins, theme parks and merchandise. Both Apple and Amazon have money to burn they don’t really need their streaming service to be profitable.
Hulu is also for all intents and purposes owned by Disney and it makes more from people who watch the ad supported tier than those who subscribe to the No Commercial options. It is also the successful over the top “cable provider”.
Some Netflix trivia: my residential internet connection can't stream Netflix as of yesterday. I get M7111-5059 which is "[y]ou seem to be using an unblocker or proxy" despite using neither VPN nor HTTP proxy.
I don't have malware on my PC, everything else is an iDevice, the trickiest thing I do is use Google Public DNS [0].
Alas their help page [1] says to contact my ISP. Who have helpfully confirmed they aren't doing a VPN on my behalf! Contacting Netflix results in them asking me if I am using "automatic" network settings and to ... contact my ISP. "We’re confident that your ISP can get you back to streaming."
My best theory is they've blocked a range of IPs belonging to my ISP because something in that range is helping users evade Netflix's geoblocking.
If anybody knows more about how Netflix's great firewall works I am all ears...
EDIT: Yes I have tried changing my IP by disconnecting the modem but it seems it's a static assignment. Next port of call is to ask the ISP. Or better yet, Netflix might unblock me!
[0] Cloudflare DNS makes no difference, and my ISP's DNS makes no difference.
Unplug your modem/dsl/etc for about 30 minutes and see if you can get a new IP address assigned from your provider. If that doesn't work, connect to your modem/dsl/etc software and generate a new mac address, then repeat the 30 minute disconnect. If that doesn't work, call and ask for a new IP because netflix won't connect.
Yeah i think they may be being used by some VPN service to bypass netflix with or without their knowledge.
Like I use windscribe and they allow me to see netflix US, UK, etc using their windflix servers which look like proxies on a regular residential connection (it says London the tube when i connect to windflix uk for example ).
I'm sure the rest of the VPN providers are doing something similar resulting in getting the whole ISP blocked.
Irony of ironies, your best solution might be to use a vpn. My ISP does dramatic traffic shaping at peak hours, and is blocked by prime video as they think it’s a vpn, and I use a popular commercially available vpn provider to sidestep it, and most of their servers seem to work fine with Netflix etc. Additionally, as my ISP is a cell provider, it also means I get automatically served mobile optimised content when streaming, which the VPN also sidesteps - it’s the difference between 800kbps and 50mbps. It’s literally the difference between YouTube at 144p or 4K.
It’s costing me $3 a month - my connection would be pretty much unusable without it.
I should know better but I got into an Internet debate about when the millenium changed (1999 -> 2000 vs 2000 -> 2001 (obviously)). It all started when I made a joke about the decade not ending yet.
Netflix also gradually moved to the dark side, disassociating from Internet companies alliances, and joining the MPAA and similar cartels of copyright maximalists.
116 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 176 ms ] threadNetflix is still around and at least for me it is one of a couple services I regularly use / keep and I'm actually kinda annoyed when another service comes along. I just watch what the handful of services I use have...I don't want to chase content around.
Watch Jim Cramer brag about how he used to manipulate the market:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMShFx5rThI
I feel like that is a bit of a big assumption.
The predictions I noted we're not unreasonable and I've no information that indicates any of it was for the reason you describe.
Same. I don't like too much cable TV content, but it is nice that it's all bundled into a single service. I might enjoy one show on Discovery and one on NatGeo, but I'd never sign up for their channels individually.
I’m basically only in it for their original stuff now, which with everyone trying to eat their pie was really the only way they were ever going to keep people, but i could just sub for a couple months every year to binge those. Keeping the year round sub for that is kinda meh as a value proposition.
https://i.redd.it/rd05w5nlj0541.jpg
I strongly advocate for this type of behavior.
Also, the fact that the service of a supposed "tech giant" can be replicated and actually improved by a free pirate website financed by few dodgy ads, makes you think. Is the famed Netflix tech just in copyright handling?
1. Use the AppleTV because no platform streams 1080p+ on Linux
2. Check Netflix
3. Check Primevideo
4. Check HBO (but not available on the AppleTV in my region)
5. Check if I can buy it from iTunes or something
6. Yes, but not in my region
7. Forget all of the above and go to a private tracker and chuck it on Plex.
Fixed via a VPN.
Streaming services should be able to recommend things to me that I genuinely want to watch. Yet, I usually have to dig through their catalog (or use the search function if I already know) to find something worth watching.
Otherwise, there really is little value over private trackers for those who don't care about infringement.
One of these days I’ll make the right call at the right time.
Same goes for AMD, in 2016 it was just $1.8, now it’s $47. Incredible growth in just 4 years
Sweet Mumma Su always brings the goods but she can be a cruel mistress sometimes.
Disclosure: I went long AMD in 2009 and doubled my bet when Mark joined.
If in an alternate universe Intel had their 7nm process going by now as they should, AMD would be once again “nearly as fast” or “just as fast” and nobody using Intel for anything serious would switch over. Intel would have matched the price and that would have been that.
AWS has AMD compute available simply because it costs 10% less, and you still have to opt-in. Would AWS have bothered with the offering if AMD simply cost the same?
AMD hit a complete once-in-a-lifetime home run on the design and execution while Intel has missed a bunch of dates on their roadmap they expected to make. The AMD CEO herself said that she didn’t expect to be ahead of Intel.
What I’m saying is that your bet would still have been a casino bet.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21890250
Almost a decade later I'm bearish. Their technology advantage is being commoditized away, and production + marketing has not been their forte. It's possible they'll turn it around, but even so they've got a massive battle on their hands against the likes of Disney and other big content producers who have almost a century of experience in this exact arena. It's not that I don't think they'll be successful, but the current price is over-inflated because Tech—they've got a long way to go to justify the valuation.
I'd automatically axe any show proposal about zombies.
It made the impossible and did something fun and original with the concept.
No, it didn't :)
For you may be, for me was... how do I say it?... trash
Extending a show? Most of your viewers will be long time Netflix subscribers who are already unlikely to churn.
Buy an existing show/create a new one? Now you're pulling in people who aren't already Netflix subscribers. Some of them will remain long term users.
Plus -- you're creating an asset (the show) that you can sell once it's run its course.
Honestly it's really hard to do it, to appeal to both the gamers and the wider audience who never touched the game (inc the critics)
I'm playing games since the late 80s and seen so many movies and TV shows failing.
This list is perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_g...
LOL, it isn't based on video game at all. There is a series of actual fantasy books written by Andrzej Sapkowski that serves as a basis for the show. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher
However, they made a rookie mistake and started filming Sapkowski's source material in the order it was written, i.e. starting with short stories, which is why the show does not make sense: each episode is a separate story, not connected to previous episodes. They should have started with the 5-book saga, and maybe throw some of the short stories as flashbacks.
Show also lacks the proper introduction of characters and the world's mythology. I am a fan of the books, so it all made sense to me, but wider audience might have a trouble making sense of all Wither abilities, Law of Suprise, etc.
The game stories were so, so much better. One of the only games I’ve played that seriously emotionally impacted me. And changed my perception of games forever.
Some people aren't comfortable to be challenged, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The issue was just bad writing. So much bad writing. Cliche moments everywhere, terrible dialogue, completely and utterly predictable plot, bad screen time allocations.
I think the screenwriters should first figure out how to write one engaging plot before trying to figure out how to interweave three.
Also Witcher rated 16?
Compare the very first ep of GoT with Witcher. The first does a wonderful job gradually introducing you to its world, the characters and the background of the story. The latter just immediately dives you into a bunch of unfamiliar names, places and jargon. Confuses the novice at the very first episode.
It seemed to me that most movies don't break even, but a few hits have 20x and higher returns.
Compared to that, Netflix's production just looks normal.
Look at Disney.
> It’s difficult not to look at Disney’s record-breaking year, securing eight of the top 10 highest-grossing films of 2019 domestically
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/23/21034937/disney-star-war...
It seems to be a well oiled machine.
Their streaming service is no exception. The Mandalorian show, run by Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man and The Lion King) is the most streamed television show in recent history, eclipsing the popularity of Game of Thrones and Netflix's darling, Stranger Things—and that's their first at bat.
https://observer.com/2019/12/the-mandalorian-episode-5-disne...
The only media sector where Disney's dominance isn't currently felt is video games—the biggest sector of entertainment by total revenue—where Disney's strategy seems to have been lacking for decades, and where it has not been able to acquire itself out of muddling performance. They were able to outsource a hit with the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order game however, so maybe that will change.
Netflix has taken on enough debt to finance original content that their performance track record in that domain should make investors ask these questions.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-debt-junk-bond...
Disney/Touchstone's "massively higher hit-rate" is not representative of most of the companies Netflix competes with ergo a comparison of Netflix to only Disney is not particularly apt. Netflix hasn't matched Disney's success, but neither have most of Disney's rivals.
So are you talking licensed stuff or original material? Netflix has licensed plenty of good content (incl. Adult Swim stuff).
'The Mandalorian earned nearly 40 million “demand expressions” during the week of Nov. 10-16, according to data provided to Observer by research firm Parrot Analytics. The firm tracks video streaming, social media activity, photo sharing, blogging, fan and critic rating platforms and other consumer demand sources to put together a composite of viewership and growth. Demand expressions represent the total audience demand being expressed for a title within a market and not specific viewership statistics.'
Which sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo presented by a 'research firm' wanting to get customers.
By contrast, Netflix has 60 million US subscribers. HBO Now has 9 million US subscribers, but their cable service overall has over 50 million. 24 million users is an incredible growth rate for Disney's service, which has only existed since November 12.
I remember when House of Cards came out.
It did show that they (Netflix, a technology company) could produce, had big money and a willingness to spend, would do something that was different and unconventional (a political show, released at once). Plus it demonstrated that people were willing to signup for a subscription service just for a particular show.
All the rest I found anywhere between drivel and mostly forgettable.
Though I can’t deny that HoC was an important moment in media history.
They could have a thousand things you think are awful and ten that you think are great to get you as a customer. You'll just ignore the things you don't like. So long as your money pays for the shows you watch it doesn't matter if you don't like the other stuff. That content is there to attract someone else.
Netflix would fail if any one of their customers liked everything they make, because there'd be thousands of other customers who didn't like any of it. There has to be a mix.
Think house of cards, mind hunter, kingdom, death love and robots, the witcher.
> Their technology advantage is being commoditized away
is totally true, but this:
> production + marketing has not been their forte.
strikes me as questionable. They've had standout hits with some first rate production, and if I were guessing, even some of the longer tail of lower impact/quality in-house productions has been targeted towards audiences likely to enjoy it.
Massive battle is right, especially vs Disney's catalog and franchise power. But Netflix has an amazing incumbency position. There's a reason why Disney's still got some well-placed content positioned on Netflix for its viewers.
Most content on Disney+ has already made a sizable profit before it even gets to the channel and afterwards between theaters, video on demand, dvd rentals and sales etc.
Also there is the “flywheel”. Comic tie ins, theme parks and merchandise. Both Apple and Amazon have money to burn they don’t really need their streaming service to be profitable.
Hulu is also for all intents and purposes owned by Disney and it makes more from people who watch the ad supported tier than those who subscribe to the No Commercial options. It is also the successful over the top “cable provider”.
There were issues with the audio, writing, pacing, costumes and at times bad cgi. Really hope they get things together for season 2.
What are you bullish about now?
I don't have malware on my PC, everything else is an iDevice, the trickiest thing I do is use Google Public DNS [0].
Alas their help page [1] says to contact my ISP. Who have helpfully confirmed they aren't doing a VPN on my behalf! Contacting Netflix results in them asking me if I am using "automatic" network settings and to ... contact my ISP. "We’re confident that your ISP can get you back to streaming."
My best theory is they've blocked a range of IPs belonging to my ISP because something in that range is helping users evade Netflix's geoblocking.
If anybody knows more about how Netflix's great firewall works I am all ears...
EDIT: Yes I have tried changing my IP by disconnecting the modem but it seems it's a static assignment. Next port of call is to ask the ISP. Or better yet, Netflix might unblock me!
[0] Cloudflare DNS makes no difference, and my ISP's DNS makes no difference.
[1] https://help.netflix.com/en/node/53047
Like I use windscribe and they allow me to see netflix US, UK, etc using their windflix servers which look like proxies on a regular residential connection (it says London the tube when i connect to windflix uk for example ).
I'm sure the rest of the VPN providers are doing something similar resulting in getting the whole ISP blocked.
It’s costing me $3 a month - my connection would be pretty much unusable without it.
Top stock of the 90s was (I believe) Dell.
[1] https://howmuch.net/articles/best-performing-stocks
Or do people end up paying for a handful of these things?
I can say from my own experience I've got at least 4 streaming subscriptions I can think of...
So there's still time for TSLA to beat NFLX.