The most puzzling thing is they already beat piracy with netflix but now they are trying to kill the convenience by splitting content over 20 platforms causing piracy to come back.
Netflix was giving the industry what... 10 dollars per family? They think they can get more than that by splitting into 20 different platforms. They're probably right.
Lol. Netflix is a joke, every time i sign up again I find it lacking tonnes of content.
It optimizes for flicking through its catalog so nobody notices its missing nearly everything.
It does this to wear you down into submission watching or rewatching some old crap.
I went to watch the last season of the 100 before the new release, found its catalog is two seasons behind. Its a mess.
Netflix stuck on season 5.
Why?
Prob same old bullshit. Exclusivity and some shit murdoch run network trying to maintain relevance in a youtube world.
Netflix is garbage all over the world, it was only every half decent in USA where its now being erroded
This has nothing to do with Netflix though and everything to do with broadcasters buying rights in a region/country.
If ABC agreed to an exclusive license of Arrow to TV3 Australia, then Netflix cannot stream Arrow to Australia customers of Netflix. But can stream to New Zealand.
What these production companies need to do is stop being greedy, let a few services exist for competition, and allow licensing to 1 or more services.
As consumers we may need to buy 2-3 subscriptions, but production companies can pick and choose which services have their content by licensing to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately what we have is every production company trying to run their own service to get the maximum profits which means consumers are stuck buying 5+ services to watch all we want. And because of this, piracy will continue to exist.
You can defend netflix all you like. Its still a sub par experience to torrenting.
Stop trying to "fix" a working distribution network.
Start improving it. Legitimize the distribution, get rid of the scummy torrent sites, empower the people, and run ads directly in the content like they are already doing with product placement or self release with skipable ads.
No, its not the perfect, most effective profit wise, but that isnt the fucking point is it. Supplying the people with entertainment is. Artwork is. Culture is.
You can still make profit, nobody will complain, but if you start shitting on the fans you deserve to get whats comin.
Seriously, the industry had its entire distribution channel paid and developed for free, and they shit on it instead of embracing it.
Can you imagine if amazon was able to get people to deliver their products to eachother for free? You think theyd be upset?
Netflix content beats many open TV channels in my area, at least in the fiction and documentary arenas. And like some TV/cable networks do, Netflix invests heavily in producing their own content. It's just a matter of time until they figure out how/if/when they will launch a TV-like continuous stream of content that includes news, weather, sports, gameshows, realities... And add more focus on "live" and sell differentiated content packages by user taste.
Click on it for autoplay to start and watch a bundled playlist of current (random) content or, if they decide to dig into it: news, weather, sports etc.
Isn't monopoly generally regarded as a bad thing? How do we reconcile that with a single provider in this case?
Just say that every content producer must license their work for a "reasonable" price which is connected to the actual viewership (we can do this with streaming).
Companies may litigate this into oblivion but more likely the majority of content would become available cross- distribution.
Don't cinemas work somewhat like this? You have chains owned by WB or whatever by they also show content from other content producers.
The real consideration in regards to copyright and market forces is how market forces right against copyright - the existence of tcp, bittorrent, popcorn time, the hundreds of websites streaming copyrighted material against the rightsholders will - they are all the actual market offering information without the monopolization aspect. Its the distortion in the intention because you aren't supposed to have options in procuring copyrighted works - the distribution channels were originally complicated and expensive enough that centralization was required to create copies and thus anyone violating copyright was targetable. The system becomes dysfunctional when millions of people are giving away copies for free, on demand, instantly, anywhere in the world via the Internet - or in the olden days, via CD or VHS rips. It was the advent of digitization of information that brought about the paradigm shift threatening the institution, not any one specific implementation of the concept.
But yea, monopoly is generally regarded as a bad thing in economics. Why is a huge segment of the economy then built around manufacturing artificial monopolies, primarily to the benefit of those with the means to enforce the terms of said monopolies - rarely an individual creator, often a fortune 500 company.
Nobody would complain if a Netflix competitor emerged with a library at least as large.
Netflix in 2020 is an entirely different service than it was in 2011 back when their library was full of major titles.
The reality is that the owners of content want their own distribution platforms, maybe because they saw what Apple did to the music industry via iTunes, but I’m not sure.
so the content creation companies shot themselves in the foot by pulling their content to try to own the distribution platform (because it would theoretically give 'em more profits vs sharing it with netflix).
But consumers saw value in netflix because the large library of content to be had for around $10 price point - this beats piracy of $0 for unlimited content. Now, for the same level of content as before, you'd have to pay for a half-dozen or so subscription services - likely adding up to 60-90 dollars per month. Piracy is starting to look good again for most people.
Analysts speculate that the market for streaming services will saturate eventually, but I’m not sure we’ve seen it yet. Disney’s stock is the only one I can see that doesn’t have a YTD gain, but that particular decline follows the the global market trends and Disney faces hard times with their parks these days. Bottom line is that these new platforms don’t seem to be hurting that much.
Large content owners saw the writing on the wall when they were negotiating their contracts with Netflix by adding termination clauses once Netflix viewership reached a certain point.
The consumers are really the only ones hurting at the moment IMO.
You expect them to hand their content over to a middle-man (who is also a competitor), when building a streaming service is trivial with lots of capital?
We were obviously heading in the direction of fragmented, a la carte services for a long time. I don't find having multiple services aggravating; I guess I'm in the minority.