Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamespo | Hacker News Reader

So what you want is the service to be very cheap and have a massive amount of content available.

I would pay much more if I could have a single place to look for content this is why I sub to 3 providers and also bought a box that aggregates all the streaming content i can access into a single library.

But considering that no matter how much I pay I can't seem to get a reliable library these days and the bang for the buck degrades with every passing day I am more and more reluctant to continue using those services. I got Netflix with the UltraHD package and it was easier and better to get both Narco's and Daredevil using alternate means that's something shouldn't happen.

> I would pay much more if I could have a single place to look for content

You're describing the traditional pay-TV model in an on-demand world. Every industrialized nation has one.

No I want a library like I had 2-3 years ago instead of a shrinking shell that it is today...

I think I'd be willing to pay more to offset higher content costs for more theater/blockbuster type movies. If Netflix was say 14.99 instead, I wonder what that would do to help? Perhaps splitting the content between tiers? It would shrink their "user base" for the purposes of streaming, allowing higher per-user payments on a title-by-title basis.

Sad part is, I know they are trying to lower that amount, and show that content providers need them as much/more than Netflix needs their content, but as a consumer, I'd like the options.

An idea for NetFlix would be to have a higher tier package that has access to content for longer. So if the average agreement for access to material is six months, people with the higher tier package have access to it for six months and people without it have access for four months. Higher tier customers get it a month early and a month after it rotates out for lower tier customers.

I'd be happy with Netflix doubling my monthly fee if it meant access to more, better and newer movies.

Complain to content creators, not Netflix.

Huh? if anything it's the distributors and considering that were discussing this in a thread about how Netflix decided to dump a huge movie library how is this even relevant?

I understand why Netflix is doing this as a company, they are no longer the biggest baddest player around and with more competition they have harder times scoring good deals with license holders and they see original content as a central part of their growth strategy because that content is and always will be exclusive to them for as long as they want to hold it.

That doesn't mean that I as a consumer want this or will benefit from this in any way, I can understand the financial reasoning behind it just like I can understand why game publishers run exclusive pre-order bonus deals and day one DLC but it also doesn't mean I don't loath it or will support it in the long run.

Simple. Most of the deals Netflix have in place have terms dictated by the content creators. Well, maybe content owner is a better term. There are also the deals that Netflix passes on because they feel the terms required by the content owners are too much.

In the end, content owners get the final say in whether their content appears on Netflix or not. They either say no because they don't like Netflix, they say no because they got a better deal elsewhere, or Netflix says no because the terms are not financially viable. Which is one reason for Netflix to "dump" a huge movie library, which they have before. When I first signed up they had a deal with Starz that eventually went away.

So, if you don't like certain content not being available on Netflix or that certain content was taken away; then most likely your complaint should be aimed at the content owners.

Although, there are examples of content that Netflix doesn't actively pursue but I'm speaking of strictly mainstream entertainment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com