Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickod | Hacker News Reader

One of, if not the main feature that I associate with Netflix is its large library of content. I pay the monthly fee as I can assume to a certain degree that the majority of the things I want to watch will be available. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Fragmenting the content like this over numerous streaming solutions each with their own charges and workings is, in my eyes, a huge step backwards for online content. I can't see users being happy to pay more parties for the same content on numerous services. This to me reeks of networks killing the golden goose.

View on HN

OR...

having one large company on the internet be the "distribution" company for a bunch of media creators sounds a lot like cable TV doesn't it? I think we actually DO want the media fragmented across multiple providers. We should look at it as a Good Thing that media creators distribute their own media, no matter how big they are.

Except HBO won't do this. If HBO wanted to charge some pittance for HBO Go, I'd pay it. Instead they want me to sign up for cable, which I don't want, so they don't get my money at all. (And I don't see how refusing to negotiate a DVD rental deal helps that goal at all.)

"(And I don't see how refusing to negotiate a DVD rental deal helps that goal at all.)"

If Netflix hemorrhages subscribers and loses it's value proposition vs cable that's clearly good for HBO/Time Warner/Turner.

Giving your competition a discount is what doesn't make sense and that's why HBO decided to stop doing it.

>If Netflix hemorrhages subscribers and loses it's value proposition vs cable that's clearly good for HBO/Time Warner/Turner.

Is it? How much money will they make from all the torrents?

As long as there are no exclusivity agreements, there is no problem--the problem with cable, aatellite, et. al. are the barriers to entry, which don't exist in the streaming space. (The closest Netflix has is its device presence).

And with internet-connected TVs, Bluray players, and devices like the Roku, I can just add a new source of content. No big deal.

I agree with your point about fragmenting content, but not about Netflix. The only reason I still pay $8/month for Netflix is their amazing mass of children's programming.

I could do without the decade old movies.

Funny because I care not for the children's programming but for the ability to watch the classics as well as more recent releases. A large library can cater to many different tastes.

That's why the cable companies like Comcast want to take over. "Free" streaming with your existing subscription. It's already out there in their Xfinity app.

I haven't paid for cable in my life and I don't plan on starting. The on-demand functionality that streaming services offer and their multiple-device support is way too useful to give up in place of cable services.

Xfinity costs extra money and I don't get nearly enough in return for it to be useful to me. Not only that, but content streamed over their Xfinity is still counted against my bandwidth cap with them so basically I am paying them extra money to kick me a little bit harder.

On the other hand, if it didn't count against your bandwidth cap, then we'd all be calling it abuse of a monopoly power to muscle out Netflix (b/c Netflix does count towards the bandwidth cap).

If the content is being streamed from within their network then I don't think it should cost me part of my BW cap, it is almost free to deliver at that point.

I think the same is true for Akaimai and other CDN's that host servers with ISP's to provide local caches to content. This would certainly also mean that bandwidth caps become more generous because so much of the content that most people are using is on CDN's.

I think if there is enough demand for their content they can try to go it alone with their own streaming service. I suppose it is an experiment that has yet to play out for many content providers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com