Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix CEO Comments On Recent Decisions

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the everyone's-a-critic dept.

Businesses 360

ExE122 writes "Netflix CEO Reed Hastings makes several comments about mistakes that were made over the past year. Hastings claimed, 'We moved too fast with it', [trying to exit the DVD-by-mail business] and explains that he still thinks Internet video will dominate in the coming years. From the article: 'Hastings also faced tough questions about last month's double-bomb disclosure: Netflix now expects to lose money for all of 2012, and it is looking to raise cash in a secondary offering of its stock.'"

cancel ×

360 comments

Raise money by giving up a couple of lattes (5, Informative)

John Bresnahan (638668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290038)

At least, that's what you told me.

Re:Raise money by giving up a couple of lattes (4, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290592)

I'm pretty sure the guys giving me lattes are making money. Of course, they're also giving me a product I want at a price I'm willing to pay. I attribute this to them knowing their customers and what their customers want, making that product in a time-honored fashion and not fucking around with any part of the formula. I'm sure the owner of that shop (Which is a small local chain) is making a lot less than the Netflix CEO. But I think we're ALL making more than Netflix right now.

Re:Raise money by giving up a couple of lattes (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290650)

The man is out of touch with reality and that is why I dropped them like a hot potato. His comments and his other executives snotty attitude drove me to Hulu instead.

Re:Raise money by giving up a couple of lattes (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290860)

I agree, I switched to Hulu too as they don't charge extra for DVDs.

Re:Raise money by giving up a couple of lattes (2)

Avenger_Mullah (1304473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290896)

Because the executives at Hulu are such nice people with great attitudes :P

convenience over quality (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290054)

When did we as consumers decide to forgo quality over convenience? I recently tested Netflix. I was sorely disappointed with the quality of the video as well as the lack-luster audio quality. I quickly deleted my account within minutes of opening it. Until they are able to stream true HD sound I see no reason to give up disks. 7.1 is a beautiful thing...not going to waste it. :-)

Re:convenience over quality (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290076)

That's been going on since even well before VHS vs betamax.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290126)

Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.

Streaming is the future, huh?

That greedy bastard Hastings will also probably get a 10 million dollar bonus for his "efforts."

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:convenience over quality (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290226)

Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.

As someone who runs Linux as his sole home OS, I can honestly say that doesn't matter one bit. Companies succeed on sales, and not fairness. Realistically Linux users are such a trivially small portion of the market that any company coming out with any product can safely ignore that segment without any fear of that decision harming business. If it works on Windows and Mac (and even the Mac part isn't all THAT important), then its good enough from a business perspective.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

hpinsider (2468002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290514)

You have got to be kidding? Fairness because you want companies to support the .01% of the pc's out there?

Re:convenience over quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290636)

Might be off by a couple orders of magnitude there...

Re:convenience over quality (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290850)

Linux is probably more like .1%, not .01% of home PCs.

Re:convenience over quality (5, Insightful)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290578)

If it works on Windows and Mac (and even the Mac part isn't all THAT important), then its good enough from a business perspective.

...and on the Wii, XBOX 360, PS3, many tv boxes, most smart phones... There are enough vectors for Netflix to ignore Linux with no problem.

Re:convenience over quality (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290580)

No company should have to ignore any OS as a market when there are standards for streaming video. The problem is not market share; the problem is control. Netflix cannot take the chance that someone will rip its streams or in any way control their videos, likely due to the demands of the MPAA.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290600)

The Linux point, which you ignore, is that Netflix is already running on Linux! What OS do you think HDTVs, media players, smart phones et al are using? The question is why tens if not hundreds of millions of devices can run it on the same OS as Linux desktop/workstations are using. It has nothing to do with security, the world and their dog knows Win PCs are the haven of pirates and copyright infringed media.

Wait, what? (2)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290894)

It has nothing to do with security, the world and their dog knows Win PCs are the haven of pirates and copyright infringed media.

Your claim is that Windows computers have been used to store a lot of pirated media. What does that have to do with the effectiveness of security or DRM in relation to the OS?

I mean, I agree that the Netflix excuse of requiring the right hardware/software for working with their DRM is a lie. But assuming it were not... the difference in it being Windows or Linux, from a DRM perspective, would likely favor Windows (particularly Windows 7).

Re:convenience over quality (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290604)

I tend to agree, however their primary competition (Amazon Prime) supports Linux with no hassle. To make matters worse, NetFlix is not simply refusing to support Linux, they are actively preventing Linux users from accessing content. Chromebooks (essentially Chrome running on a streamlined Ubuntu distro) can access content just fine, but they've intentionally prevented the Chrome extension from working on standard Linux browsers.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290798)

As long as companies aren't going out of their way to HURT linux that's fair enough.

The whole "make shitty hardware and mask all the problems behind windows only drivers" thing seems a bit suspicious though.

Re:convenience over quality (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290598)

streaming is the future BECAUSE it involves higher DRM than dvd's have.

its just that simple and no need to look any further.

the industry loves BD since its harder to break. they love streaming since it costs almost nothing and has tougher drm than dvd.

streaming is good FOR THEM. physical media is better FOR ME.

please avoid their streaming models: make it fail, people. the sooner we sink their sales on streaming the sooner they'll return to physical media. physical media is much more freedom-oriented (and the quality is higher, too).

and as isp's put more and more caps on your bandwidth, I don't see being MORE dependant on the internet as being a good thing. not at all. its a drug dealer situation: they want you addicted to streaming so that they can control all the cards.

don't fall for it. don't give them what they dream about. it will never be good for you and me.

Re:convenience over quality (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290866)

streaming is the future BECAUSE it involves higher DRM than dvd's have. its just that simple and no need to look any further.

Yeah that so totally explains iTunes and Spotify thriving and CD sales in sharp decline.

streaming is good FOR THEM. physical media is better FOR ME.

You may notice there's an 800lb gorilla in the room here, it's not legal but it mostly resembles streaming...

and as isp's put more and more caps on your bandwidth, I don't see being MORE dependant on the internet as being a good thing. not at all. its a drug dealer situation: they want you addicted to streaming so that they can control all the cards.

It's not my fault your country is going backwards technologically. Here's how a country with progress [www.ssb.no] looks like, average = green, mean = blue. I'm on 60 Mbit uncapped for less than $100/mo and a BluRay costs about $30. Cue the Swede with 100 Mbit for $40. Delivering broadband is getting cheaper and cheaper, if you're not seeing it then you're getting ripped off.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

WhiteSpade (959060) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290770)

Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.

Well, in theory, Netflix is eventually coming [ehomeupgrade.com] to Linux [ehomeupgrade.com] courtesy of their efforts to get it working in Chrome.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it.

---Alex

Re:convenience over quality (5, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290272)

walkman over full stereo
compressed DVD over laser disk
MP3's over mobile CD players
watching movies and TV shows on phones/tablets/computers instead of a big TV in full HD
PC's over main frames
laptops over PC's
tablets and netbooks over real laptops/desktops

the list goes on and on with mobility and convenience always winning over quality

Re:convenience over quality (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290944)

I agree, except for a couple of small nits.

PC's over main frames

You don't need an eighteen wheeler to move a single TV set. Doing spreadsheets or databases with only a few thousand records on a mainframe is wasteful. As is putting an apostrophe in PCs.

laptops over PC's

Same thing. No reason to be tied to a desk if the laptop does the job. No reason to carry a travelling trunk when you're only going to be gone two days. The thing with both of them is use of the proper tool, not convinience. You don't need a sledgehammer to open a walnut.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291174)

MP3's over mobile CD players

My "MP3 player" (Sansa Clip) plays flac just fine. The battery lasts longer when playing flac than mp3 too, presumably due to easier decoding.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290400)

Audio cassettes over vinyl, MP3 over CD, VHS over Laserdisc... a long time ago. It's not that quality is not important, but in a lot of cases it reaches 'good enough' quite quickly. VHS quality is probably okay, DVD definitely is. HD is obviously better, but if you're watching something good then you'll rarely find yourself distracted by the poor video quality even if it's only at VHS levels. I'd certainly take being able to watch any film I wanted, when I wanted it, at DVD quality over having to wait a couple of days for a BluRay disk.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291180)

Audio cassettes over vinyl

It usually wasn't cassettes over vinyl, with most of us it was record the vinyl on cassette so we could hear it in the car, as well as folks without much room to store those LPs.

VHS over Laserdisc

Laserdisk was read-only. It was a product without a clear cut purpose. People bought VCRs so they could record shows and discovered rented movies. The laserdisk was doomed from the start.

VHS quality is probably okay

Betamaxes cost twice what VHS cost, and for most of us a small increase in quality isn't worth paying double for. Plus, Betamax was limited to two hours per tape, while the VHS had a six hour length in slow speed.

DVD definitely is.

DVD was superior to anything out at the time, FAR superior in every way to VCRs (except that until recently they were read-only).

Re:convenience over quality (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290454)

When cassette took over from open reel, I think.

Re:convenience over quality (2)

clifyt (11768) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290470)

Quality isn't about the bells and whistles...its about the content.

I have tapes recorded in lowfi mono that are far more artful than anything in 7.1 recorded at 192khz. This is not quality...its a numbers game. Does 7.1 sound nice? Yes...but if the content is good, it shouldn't matter.

I look at Netflix as something that I can test out movies I wouldn't have otherwise watched. For $7 a month, I'm not sure if I'm going to care if I don't get 7.1 out of something that costs as much as 2 coffees. And yet, this is exactly why Hastings was kicked in the gonads pretty hard...people were upset about having to pay the equivalent of one days coffee for something that lasts a lot longer and enriches their lives far more. (it is just television...but c'mon...in the scheme of things, it is still better than coffee!). People getting upset that they are getting something that if it would have come down coax instead of Cat5 and they didn't have a choice of what was being played or when that they would be paying 3x that just for the basics (let alone premium channels) and yet people still found reason to complain.

But some people want to complain about $7 and talk about flashy audio formats that really don't add much to 99% of the films out there...

Re:convenience over quality (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290720)

99% of all 7.1 systems out there are utter crap for music reproduction.

I have sat and listened to ONE that had cheap $1200 each speakers for the 7.1 system. it was fantastic, not Dolby encoded but true 7 channel recording with the subwoofer muted because all 7 speakers had 8" drivers for real sound. the source materiel was recorded in the middle of a orchestra that encircled the recording gear.

on most home systems it would sound like crap because almost ALL home systems have $3.00 speakers for 5 of the 7 channels.

This is why you dont see much multi channel music. Most people cant play it.

Re:convenience over quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290500)

Quality is a subjective term. There is a certain amount of quality that can be enjoyed by all. Another level that is noticed and enjoyed by only the informed and yet another that only deep technical experts can appreciate. And if fairness there are all sorts of levels in between those general three. I for one don't care about video and audio quality so much. Films and TV are such a throw away escapism experience for me most of the time that my experience isn't enhanced by increased quality. On the few occasions that the content is so engrossing that higher quality might have mattered I'm oblivious because I'm engrossed in the content. I care that content is easy to consume and only in this particular medium. (Netflix content was not expansive enough nor was it easy to consume due to a crappy interface so I cancelled mine). In other areas I care about quality greatly but I'm aware that I'm one of the few. What that means is that for the masses in any area quality will com second to convenience and price on any consumer line product. If you want quality you have to pay for it and get commercial grade products which are expensive because there is a small group that wants them. Eventually with things like video the commercial grade stuff eventually makes it down into the consumer market but by then it is no longer at the top of the quality tree. Sorry it's just the way a modern product market works.

Re:convenience over quality (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290534)

7.1 is a joke.

even pros can't align that many speakers in your typical small (not theater sized) room.

but as long as you bought into the MARKETING that more channels == better sound, hey, have fun.

just giving you a hint: less is more when it comes to audio. 2 plus a sub gives audio AND movies all it needs.

at home, you just don't need speakers coming out of every direction. that's the bose effect. you think that's good? interesting how you are affected by salesman (everyone who bought into multichannel at home was sold by some salesguy in person or online.)

just a pet peeve of mine. as a sound guy, I just shudder to think of all the cancellations and reflections that happen with even 5.1, let alone 7.x in a home sized room. my gawd! but again, some people LIKE the bose 'spray sound everywhere' effect.

its is NOT hifi, though. at least admit that much. its loud and coming from everywhere but its not hifi. too many reflections ruin the subtle high-end dacs you guys also insist on running (DTS and higher bit rate dolby, lol!)

Re:convenience over quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290852)

Here here. Another sound guy here to agree with you. And you aren't even going into the fact we have all observed that most engineers have no idea how to mix for surround. The number of bad surround mixes I have heard... I guess most folks at home don't care about that either. They'll just turn it up loud(like you said, loud, not hifi) and really crank their subs so they can go deaf instead of really caring about sound quality.

Re:convenience over quality (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291124)

Very much agree. You only have 2 ears, you shouldn't need much more than 2 speakers. I watch almost all my movies using a decent set of headphones. Sounds much better than any speakers I'm willing to pay for. Using headphones is really the ultimate. You don't have to worry about getting the perfect seat, where other things are positioned in the room, and you don't have to worry about bothering neighbours, or even other people in your own house.

Re:convenience over quality (3, Insightful)

s.o.terica (155591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291128)

This is why you use a room correction system like Audyssey MultEQ XT. The difference that finite impulse response equalization (over the frequency and time domains) makes is staggering beyond description.

Re:convenience over quality (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290672)

Then you will complain about buffering issues and everything else as your ISP saturates because it cant handle what they promise.

Do you have any idea what 24bit uncompressed 7.1 surround take in bandwidth along with uncompressed 1080p HD? Let's not even look at deep color or 3d...

You CANT get that from them, even the top tier of comcast in their fastest market cant deliver that kind of bandwidth.

well (-1, Flamebait)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290062)

I never thought id say this, but i'm now hoping Verizon's new venture turns out to be really good, these Netflix assholes are running the company to the ground.

Re:well (4, Interesting)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290504)

I'm going to be unpopular but I love Netflix. I never used the DVD delivery service so that change didn't affect me, and I do understand why people who were previously on the DVD service would be upset about the changes. It seems like every time I get to a point that I "can't find anything on Netflix" that I'm interested in watching within a few days their contract/content/whatever changes and there's a whole new set of TV series, movies, documentaries, etc. that I'm interested in. I have a Roku box on all my TVs now and subscriptions to Netflix for movies and Hulu+ for stuff I want to keep up with that's currently being aired. Hulu and Amazon are shite for movie content and UI compared to Netflix on the Roku. The only thing that makes Hulu+ palatable is the subscription/queue so I can subscribe to all the shows I watch and then just watch the queue. The device/app/whatever that will really get my business is something that allows me to search all of my subscription services through a single interface and manage a single queue. That's the next killer app but it will take an act of Congress to make that possible.

Good news! (5, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290066)

The Post Office is in the process of shutting down, so everybody'll have to get off the DVD plan, anyway, just like we were trying to cajole them to.

Quite the opposite (0)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290394)

Because the USPS is slowing down on their delivery times, Netflix's DVD service will benefit by delaying the delivery and return of DVDs and BluRay disks. The slower the mail runs, the fewer disks per month a user can receive. This includes not just the reduced number of days that the USPS will deliver by eliminating weekends, but also not guaranteeing next day deliveries.

Assuming Netflix sends a DVD on Monday, and you receive it on Wednesday (slower USPS) and immediately watch it, it will be picked up Thursday, and arrive at Netflix Monday (slower USPS and no weekend deliveries). They can immediately send you a new DVD, but it is still a full week round trip, limiting you to 4 DVDs per month per # of DVDs on your plan.

Re:Quite the opposite (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290780)

But if customers aren't stupid they will notice decreased value of the service and switch to kiosk rentals.

Kiosk Rentals are the New Blockbuster (4, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291042)

But if customers aren't stupid they will notice decreased value of the service and switch to kiosk rentals.

Which have a Ron Jeremy-sized hard on for late fees- or at least, late fees under the new guise of charging you by the day. I don't know anyone who uses kiosks who doesn't pay as much or more in extra days as they did in outright penalties at old-school Blockbusters. You can say that people don't have to keep them for 8 days and this is true; people also don't have to pay the minimum on their credit cards or finance their cars, but they do and it's a predictable source of income for banks and car dealers. Much as extra days are a major source of income for Redbox.

Just because it's a machine in a parking lot and just because they don't call it a 'late fee' anymore doesn't mean the model is different. All they've done is remove the guilt and vindictive gouging from the process - and then promoted their new, spiffed up late fees as a convenience service.

Re:Good news! (1, Insightful)

ossuary (1532467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290428)

We may have to get off the DVD plan, but that doesn't mean we will have to get on the streaming plan. My two biggest problems with his streaming push are: 1. A large number of people still do not have access to eat-all-you-want broadband. He acted as if everyone under the sun has broadband galore. Not only do people not have access, but more and more of those that do are facing data caps. 2. Streaming was nothing but sprinkles on the cake. If "Thor" comes out on DVD, I would hope to see it very soon on streaming, but that is not the case. Sure streaming is great for TV series, indie films, and such, but for big name DVD releases, it was useless. Hastings never fully addressed these issues for me and so I dropped Netflix and am currently trying out Blockbuster. Blockbuster's site sucks compared to Netflix, and their disc mailing schedule is slower, but for me to put some pain in Netflix's wallet it has been worth it to me.

You really can't see the forest, can you? (5, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290938)

Blockbuster's site sucks compared to Netflix, and their disc mailing schedule is slower, but for me to put some pain in Netflix's wallet it has been worth it to me.

Giving money to Blockbuster won't pressure Netflix to improve streaming, Netflix already wanted that; it's every single movie producer that doesn't want it. And I presume both services have access to the same DVDs. So what are you accomplishing?

Starz was Netflix' biggest contract, and during renewal talks Netflix offered them ten times as much money to renew the deal. Starz still said no - not unless Netflix would make a special 'Starz' plan that cost more.

Big Content won't give Netflix a simple, reasonable streaming contracts because that's 'not the model'; they give Netflix the very last dregs of the market for a film, and when it looks like anyone might possibly be waiting for a film on Netflix rather than watching it somewhere else they stop giving Netflix streaming rights - and even try to fuck with their acquisition of DVDs.

It's content producers' obsession with gouging the shit out of every distribution channel and their delusional attempts to make internet video behave like premium cable services that keeps streaming shitty, not Netflix' management.

You hate Blockbuster, but you'll use it to punish Netflix. How about you show some contempt for the assholes holding the cards and pulling the strings rather than despising the companies that are trying to give you a cheap, convenient option for video?

All-Streaming is a Great Idea (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290068)

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

fmdragon (1753262) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290142)

Agreed. There will be some growing pains, but it's a necessary thing to exit the DVD by mail business.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (4, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290220)

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

Hate to break it to you, but the Netflix "watch instantly" library is shrinking (unless you count 27 episodes/season of Dora the Explora as individual titles) since desirable content is getting much more expensive (see the Starz licensing situation). If you are happy with the streaming content then great, but make no mistake they are fighting a very hard battle and you will not be seeing very much new-new content on watch instantly in the coming year or two.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290308)

There have been several high profile cases where companies pulled electronic, non-physical-media versions of content. Fact of the matter is, unless one has control either the device or of physical media, there's no way to prevent companies from pulling things off devices or from removing things from their available catalogs.

The only way to control one's destiny is to have physical media or to have information electronically stored on a device that one controls that the content provider doesn't control. Additionally, as DVDs and other physical media become incredibly cheap, it's easy to actually do this. Storage of 4.5" discs is also easy even for those in the smallest of living spaces if one discards the packaging in favor of those software storage bags that have room for hundreds of discs in a 12"x12"x4" space...

I have considered ripping all of my movies to electronic storage, but even not doing so it's not ridiculous to store them.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290796)

I subscribe to both the DVD and streaming plan. For my personal use, if it's not streaming, it's torrented. For the rest of the family, if it's not streaming, they DVD it, which are usually movies I have no desire to see, nor download. Some content providers give you no option other then to use DVD, then complain when you torrent it. It's not a lost sale, as I would never buy it anyways, it's a lost business opportunity(thus revenue) with streaming providers, such as Netflix. I would really much prefer to have them streaming. I wish the studios would understand that, any profit is better then no profit.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290232)

That's all well and good, but their entire library is not available online. I was recently watching a documentary series, "The Vice Guide to Travel", which I rather enjoyed. I was about halfway through the Poland episode and decided to watch the rest later. The following day when I logged into my account, I was informed that the series is now only available through the disc-by-mail service. Until their streaming library is more consistent and robust (I've already watched most of the interesting looking (to me) movies/docs in my first month of service), I won't be taking Netflix too seriously.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290602)

One thing I've found helpful is on my Roku ($100 device for viewing internet TV, awesome toy, not affiliated with them at all) there's a couple of pay apps (~$5 I think) that will show you which things are leaving Netflix soon so you can hurry up and watch them. I agree 100% with what you're saying... two buts...but it's a part of the game of streaming media that won't ever go away.. the other but is that Netflix should do a *MUCH* better job of warning you that something you've been watching is about to disappear.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290306)

The problem was spinning off streaming and DVD when you still can't get half of the stuff you want without resorting to DVD. If their streaming library mirrored the DVD library I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. It had the appearance of trying to cash in on the fact that their streaming library sucks in comparison to their DVD library. "Hey suckers, we're going to charge you extra whenever you request a product we don't have in stock."

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290632)

If you want DVD go to redbox. It's cheaper than Netflix anyways. Alternatively there's pay per rental on Amazon where you can get a wider array of content if you're willing to pay for it. Depending on how often you do that, it may *also* be cheaper to pay per movie on Amazon than to get DVD by mail from Netflix.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290328)

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

I agree this is a good thing, but until the infrastructure for internet connections are good enough to get the quality of video / audio you get out of blu-ray I still want the disc by mail option. The other part of this is that when you eliminate the disc by mail you also eliminate the commentary options along with other nice extras that the discs have which get removed for streaming. So I think that both services have good reasons to keep them.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290418)

Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore

Yes, it is because you are a college kid.

  1. Older people are still not completely comfortable with their PCs and they have an easier time understanding physical media
  2. Computer monitors are usually smaller than TV screens, and connecting a computer to a TV remains annoying.
  3. People lend movies to each other; streaming screws this up.
  4. Unless you can save Netflix streams on your hard drive, you will not be able to watch your movies when you lose Internet access (while traveling, for example); you can always use a portable DVD player.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

TheTyrannyOfForcedRe (1186313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290668)

Internet connection is the other big factor. Huge parts of the country have 1.5mbps DSL or worse as their fastest option. Netflix streaming is usable at 1.5mbps but it isn't HD and no one else can do much of anything with the Internet while you're streaming. That might fly of a single person or couple without kids but it's a no-go with larger households.

We tried it a number of times when we had the "free" streaming that was bundled with our disc plan. Didn't work for us at all.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290864)

Not all people are poor and can only afford one small 15" laptop to have in their cardboard box. Media center players have existed for a decade and devices like a Roku box and a AppleTV are so dumbed down that even a Business Degree holding person can install and use. The small screen argument has not been an issue for years and is only for those that can't afford to buy a $99.00 box to hook to the TV that has a far better UI for looking through the movies on your computer or available to stream) if you are really poor a $29.00 HDMI cable will work, but talk about a major pain in the butt. If you can afford a 32" HDTV you can afford a dedicated small box to view the content on your PC on the TV.

If you are rich there has always been the Kalidascape device that automatically rips your DVD's and serves them up in every room for you as a home on demand system.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290456)

I doubt it. Video streaming, at least for the next few years, won't replace a thing. Telcos aren't greedy bastards when they artificially slow broadband, throttle traffic, or impose monthly limits. I mean, sure, they are greedy, but there's a more plausible explanation: they don't have the infrastructure and can't admit it. It's understandable, really: putting these things up (more like lying these things down, the US is not Japan after all) is expensive as hell, and they can't/won't invest fast enough (there's a reason why there's only a few competitors, after all). If everyone moved to video streaming right now, the whole Internet would collapse. So they are doing this awful dance with their customers to have some extra time, see if someone comes up with a solution that's not so expensive for them, etc. . The net-neutrality thing, for them, was less about fostering innovation and more about giving an at-least mediocre service for most of their clients. They lied, yeah, but it's business as usual.

So, no, it's not a great idea for movies (especially HD), at least for a few extra years. It is, though, for music, books and other low-size content. We have big enough tubes for those to be hosted in the cloud..

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290490)

Except that they screwed it up so mightily that they mightn't survive as company to make the transition.

Sure stock price isn't everything but seeing it plunge from $300 to $70 in a few months isn't exactly reassuring. And of course the "we are going to lose money" isn't a great sign.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290512)

I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

Good on you, Netflix.

You are a college kid, you represent (one possible) future. In the here and now, DVDs are still an important segment of the business - Blockbuster wouldn't have died at the hands of a streaming only service, and we shouldn't be forced to accept streaming only solutions now that the competition has crumbled.

Yes, streaming is the future, but not a 2011 or 2012 future, I'm thinking more like 2020 if you want to hold on to 80+% of your subscribers.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290614)

I think you're working with a limited sample to base that assumption. For those of us living in very rural areas, this is not a good thing. I have no options that allow me to stream movie length video without incurring costs that are way out of line. I could purchase DVDs for less than streaming a dozen movies a month would cost me in data fees. On top of that, the Netfix streaming catalog is anemic when compared with their DVD options.

I sign up for netflix only during the winter months. During the warmer months I'm too busy with other outside activities to bother watching many movies. When I signed back up this fall, it was very obvious that they don't really care about renting DVDs any more. The DVD plans are basically hidden until you sign up for streaming and then change your plan. I had to call their 800 number to find this out. Many people would look at their signup process and conclude that the DVD-only plans along with the 2 or 3 at a time options are no longer available. After a while of discouraging DVD rentals they'll come back with some statistics that show how few people are on the plans and discontinue it. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:All-Streaming is a Great Idea (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291146)

The problem is that Netflix's streaming collection, while by far the best out there, is still WAY WAY WAY behind their selection of DVD's/Blu-rays. The whole reason I started using Netflix (and I've been using them pretty much from the beginning of the company) was that their selection blew away all my local video stores. I certainly don't want to go back to the "God, I hope they stocked this small movie that I really want to see" days of local video stores and, similarly, I don't want to go to a "God, I hope they got a license to stream this small movie that I really want to see" model either.

Also, they still haven't found a way to include extras with their streaming content and the quality of the HD streaming is still way behind blu-ray. I don't want to forgo commentary tracks, deleted scenes, etc. just because some CEO thinks mailing DVD's isn't "the future."

What happend to he good movies? (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290080)

Why are all the good movies disappearing from Netflix streaming service. I know they are losing Starz, but these are disappearing now.

My guess is Netflix is headed for that dot.com graveyard.

Re:What happend to he good movies? (2)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290354)

Why are all the good movies disappearing from Netflix streaming service. I know they are losing Starz, but these are disappearing now.

My guess is Netflix is headed for that dot.com graveyard.

It isn't just streaming, there have been quite a few things that were in disc form and now are no longer available via disc. This sometimes also just removes them from being available in Netflix, which isn't good either.

Re:What happend to he good movies? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290442)

my NF has been on hold for 3 or 4 months now. nothing left to watch! my queue has 20+ entries but they are all 'unknown release' dates.

meaning: NF has not paid for them yet and has no immediate plans.

rates went up and selection went down.

well done, NF.

you will be remembered in history like so many other service companies that could not keep up and made fatal changes to thier business model and became irrelevant as a result.

Re:What happend to he good movies? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290772)

A whole bunch of great 80s/90s movies just popped up on there. I've recently watched Stripes, Grumpy Old Men, and the Blues Brothers. I know everything is subjective but I generally find that the movies I would categorize as "good" tend to wax and wane. Where you find the new/current content less interesting I was considering cancelling until they recently changed the lineup adding a few more movies that are in my queue. It's $8/mo. If I watch 3-4 movies a month I consider it a good deal.. and I generally watch the equivalent of a lot more than 3-4 movies since I watch seasons of shows and stuff on it.

What's good for the stiock price (1, Interesting)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290108)

Sometimes, what's good for the stock-price is not good for the business.

Maybe he had to be "decisive" and "strategic" in order to survive so he went boldly ahead to exit the DVD-by-mail business and preserved investor confidence at the expense of the business, even though he wasn't sure it was a good idea.

Re:What's good for the stiock price (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290174)

I think it's not so much what they did but how they handled it.

The PR aspect of how it was all done was pretty poor and much of the anger towards them could have been mitigated or redirected.

Re:What's good for the stiock price (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290830)

I agree 100%. IMHO the "We're sorry" letter should have included information to help redirect anger towards the content producers.

The real bombshell story (5, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290120)

What shocks (and appalls) me is that Reed Hastings has made several horrible mistakes, has led his business from profit to loss, and he will still take home a multi million dollar pay package for 2011. It's about time he admit that he is willing to actually PAY for his mistakes, and forego his compensation for the next year since it will clearly be a terrible one for the business. Until then, Netflix is a sinking Titanic with an irresponsible madman at the helm, refusing to change course.

Re:The real bombshell story (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290184)

Yea, they need to rid of him.

It's amazing the guy that started Netflix is responsible for all the BS of late from them.

Re:The real bombshell story (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290564)

People succeed more on luck than on anything else. It's not surprising at all that this guy is out of his depth now.

Re:The real bombshell story (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290660)

Yea, that's what I was thinking or he had some kind of Right Hand Man that kept him in check on these sorts of decisions.

Re:The real bombshell story (5, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290584)

I've worked for a couple of small companies. I think it requires different skill sets/strengths to get a company off the ground, known, and making money in the first place than it does to keep it running after you've gone public, have a bunch of employees, etc. Frequently it's not the same person who has both of these skill sets. A small company with very few employees, a few customers who know they are dealing with a small company, and no stock holders to keep happy can more easily make decisions on their feet and survive fairly well by making decisions that just get them through until tomorrow. As they grow, that agility is lost and I think a lot of managers and CEOs are not able to adapt their thinking and planning to the slower pace of movement and amount of resources it now takes to get things done.

Re:The real bombshell story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290338)

The board of directors could also fire him right? If Reed Hastings is staying put then he still has their confidence. Until he is fired, Reed Hastings deserved to be treated as per the terms of his contract.

Re:The real bombshell story (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290352)

With a few exceptions, that's what it seems to mean to be a CEO: Get paid millions and millions of dollars to screw things up.

Long-term vs Short-term? (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290518)

So people in general complain any time corporations put short term profits over the long term well-being of the company? You have a CEO who isn't being an idiot but made mistakes. What he is trying to do is make sure his company doesn't die in the long run by trying to keep the short term profits.

Maybe executives focus on the short term for a reason. It's kind of like we say we want a politician who does the greater good, etc., etc., but when push comes to shove we want a politician who fights to keep our piece of the pie. Same thing here.

We send a bunch of mixed signals. We don't want an executive to play it safe, but if you make the wrong decision you're fired.

It will take some time. (3, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290122)

he still thinks Internet video will dominate in the coming years

It will dominate in the coming years. Right after the media companies control the majority market share of all ISPs.

Re:It will take some time. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290526)

...and after the MPAA stops attacking our computers. Streaming would be an overnight success if you could save streams to your hard drive, connect your computer to your TV without HDCP screwing you up, and not be told that you are forbidden to watch the movies you were allowed to watch yesterday. The MPAA has basically made a concerted effort to cripple streaming, and so naturally people will gravitate toward the physical media they know and love (and understand -- streaming is still poorly understood by most people, as opposed to physical media).

Unfortunate (5, Insightful)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290178)

While I hate the idea that Netflix may not be around much longer, I'm not surprised. Mr. Hastings strategy seems to be focusing on maximizing contribution margins instead of maximizing profit. Getting one doesn't mean you'll get the other. What I don't understand is why Hastings believes that the major studios will allow Netflix to operate the online distribution at the price levels consumers demand. It is clear that Hollywood has no interest in lowering prices on digital content even though the marginal costs of distribution is minuscule. It won't be long before Netflix changes to a "on-demand" pricing model that Apple, Amazon, and a whole other set of competitors are already doing, and the recent exit of a third of their customers due to the recent price increase is a clear indication that Netflix is selling a highly elastic product. When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290298)

Hollywood needs to cut prices. Price a theater sometime.

Tickets - $10.75 per adult
Popcorn - $8.00 for a large
Drinks - $5.00 each
$39.50 total for two.

Why would I want to do that when I could go to a *very* nice restaurant instead.
Prices need to drop by half for movies to be reasonable.

Re:Unfortunate (2)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290332)

Hollywood isn't making money from the popcorn and drinks, that's the theaters. Hollywood gets the money from ticket sales.

Re:Unfortunate (3, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290460)

And that's why the popcorn and drinks are so damned expensive - because Hollywood gets practically ALL the money from the ticket sales.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290524)

The problem is that they get ALL the money from the ticket sales, forcing theatre's to charge more for the popcorn and drink to stay afloat. This is made even worse by the fact that the tickets are so expensive that many people will just skip the popcorn and drink to save on cost, forcing those who do buy concessions to make up their part of operational costs.

Re:Unfortunate (2)

backdoc (416006) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290702)

When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

Easy...., when people lose interest and quit making these things profitable.

Re:Unfortunate (1)

FreeBSDbigot (162899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291110)

What I don't understand is why Hastings believes that the major studios will allow Netflix to operate the online distribution at the price levels consumers demand. ...the recent price increase...

Might not the recent price increase be an indication that Hastings knows full well that the studios are determined to get more money out of streaming? Megan McArdle recently wrote an interesting piece [theatlantic.com] about this very topic. Faced with choosing among only bad alternatives, it's no surprise that Netflix picked a bad one.

Indie Films (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290262)

I think Indie movies/shows are going to be a big boost in the coming years.

It's going to be just like video games and steam. In that case, more and more games are being released by independent companies or smaller studios (think quality games, torchlight, super meat boy, etc), instead of being published by major corporations, a lot of those games are fantastic.

I know Netflix has a lot of indie films, but the quality of some leaves a lot to be desired, but if they open up to a lot of independent filmmakers that do not have gigantic budgets, they could become the go-to source for this type of content. Who knows, maybe they could even finance their own films via some of these smaller filmmakers. I'm not talking about anything ridiculous, maybe boost an indie films budget from $10k to 100k or hell even a million if it'll have returns, not like that show they're producing costing them how many millions?

The price of a $7.99 one month subscription is ALREADY less than the price of a single movie ticket in most of the world, if they had quality, good films that couldn't be seen anywhere else that'd be a great boost.

Re:Indie Films (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290764)

You Tube is the king of indie.

Look at The Annoying Orange as an example.

Netflix is dead when Verizon gets in the market (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290276)

It will be like the 90's when Microsoft decided to move into markets previously dominated by Wordperfect, Lotus and dBase. Verizon has deep pockets.

Re:Netflix is dead when Verizon gets in the market (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290792)

Verizon FIOS already offers atleast 80% of Netflix's line up in their free on demand section.

It is just a PITA to find it.

As soon as Verizon makes that content easy to find and navigate to Netflix will loose a large chunk of their comingled FIOS subscriber base.

How to do it right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290314)

Such idiots at Netflix. You borrow money to fund shortfalls. And you increase rates over many years so people don't feel the pinch. You keep the DVD business around. People already have the option to do streaming only. It's not hard.

Eventually rates will be high enough to pay the interest off. Doubling prices overnight was the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

And it's not like they did not know what was coming. They knew years in advance that their contracts with Hollywood would be up for renewal and the terms would not be so favorable. So start increasing rates pre-emptively.

I know this with a BSEE. Why doesn't a CEO know this? Just more reason to shirt Netflix.

Attacking streaming (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290388)

Surely Netflix is in a position to understand that video streaming as a market has been crippled by the MPAA. Physical media will not be killed by streaming because people cannot do the sort of things they do with discs when they using streaming services. I know quite a few people who lend DVDs to their friends and family members, including DVDs from Netflix. People still do not always have Internet access, or if they are away from home Internet service may be very expensive -- but it is easy to use a portable DVD player (I may not be up to date on this, but as far as I know one cannot simply download video from Netflix and watch it on a laptop). Connecting a computer to a TV is still a pain and it still is not widely done; people generally do not want to watch movies on a smaller computer monitor when a larger TV screen is available.

When the MPAA stops making life hell for people who want to use their PCs to watch popular movies, killing DVD rental services will be more feasible.

Re:Attacking streaming (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290950)

Or does stopping the MPAA's antics require that consumers stop using DVDs? Your statements just bolster the MPAA's position. They read your post and think, "as long as we keep turning the screws on this streaming thing, consumers will keep wanting DVDs and we can sell DVDs."

I can think of a lot of scenarios where streaming through netflix is preferable to DVD. No need to share DVDs, just tell your friends to stream xyz and they can. No waiting for a DVD to come in the mail, to my experience the streams start up quickly all the time. No surprises. I know my internet connection and i get consistent quality with the streamed video. I have gotten a number of abused and unwatchable DVDs in the mail. A huge library of stuff is available on demand that you can watch back to back. How many DVDs can you possibly get at once?

I think most of us want the nirvana of video that you can watch whatever you want whenever you want. Netflix streaming, to me, seems to be the closest legal option to that. I ditched cable for it. I abandoned the DVD plan and i'm perfectly happy to stream the B movies and tv shows on there. I'm happy to let the MPAA know that i prefer to pay $5 a month to stream what i want when i want as much as i want, even if it's not their grade A blockbuster material. In all honesty 99% of that is crap too. So, f-you MPAA. I'd rather watch low budget campy sci-fi streamed over netflix because it's convenient. If you want in on the action, I might consider consuming your product if you agree to netflix's terms.

The worst mistake to make now (5, Informative)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290662)

is to lose confidence in Netflix. They have a business model that should be how content is distributed by the cable companies. Everything on demand, cheap subscription rates, and access to older archives of content that would otherwise not be available except to purchase physical media, which consumers seem to be shunning.

The problem is that while the big cable companies are still struggling to maintain a greedy monopoly on TV content distribution, companies like Netflix are the necessary upset required to get these big companies making better decisions and offering better services. When Netflix was consuming the largest amount of Internet bandwidth, you know the big Telco companies started paying attention. A few decisions in the right direction and Netflix could replace cable services completely.

I do fear, however, that eventually Netflix may become extinct once big Telco gets into the game of offering similar services, but for now Netflix is the black sheep of content distribution and should be supported rather then complained about. For $7.99/mth I am accessing television and movies I have not seen before and no other service (cable, iTunes, movie rental stores) can offer me that value.

Its easy for people to b*tch about how poorly Netflix may have been operating their business, but in the end these same people will b*tch louder when Netflix shuts its doors for good.

Annoying Orange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290682)

While streaming is going to be huge, it is the ability for indies like the guy who made The Annoying Orange to most their own content that is going to rule the day.

My kids watch that damn show on You Tube and it makes me want to jump off the roof. They love it.

Long live the pirate bay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38290838)

20 minutes to download a 2 hour movie.

Streaming? Disks? Screw all that mess.

click click click wait 20 minutes. movies here! and 6 more queued up that will be done before im finished watching the first one!

And holy shit. it was free too. damm. can't beat that. awesome price. real convience. and the movie will play on any device i want, in any way i want, anytime i want! Damm someone should (ha) sell this as a service.

Verizon FIOS Free On Demand (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38290840)

FOIS Free On Demand has a huge overlap content-wise with the Netflix Streaming plan.

In a sense, if you have Verizon FIOS TV, you already have Netflix. The only difference is that the FIOS offerings are hard to find (probably so that it doesn't detract from their pay per view on demand offerings).

Netflix's Biggest Mistake - Unbundling Services (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38291028)

The biggest mistake they did was unbundle the disc & streaming services. Streaming media is a convenience. Their library is also still too limited for them to consider it a viable standalone product. I personally liked watching my blockbuster movies in their entire Blu-ray HD goodness. When I was bored, or vegging out, and wanted to browse around for something I possibly wouldn't normally watch I'd use the streaming service. Once they raised their prices and unbundled the two I was out. In my house Redbox has taken Netflix Blu-ray/DVD's place and Netflix's streaming has been replaced by Amazon Prime streaming and good old channel surfing. In its current form Netflix's streaming should still be promoted as a complementary service. The best thing Netflix could do now is bundle the two services back and price it right.

Nexflix will just plain keep losing money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38291120)

They want to get out of the DVD through the mail biz. Unfortunately their streaming biz has terrible problems that are getting worse.
When most of us signed up Netflix offered about the same things that cable did. Now that we pay for streaming and most of our offerings are in a foreign language or simply very old or very unpopular.
Some of the Korean/Hindi/Euro movies would be fine if Netflix's "other language" options actually played a different language than default.
Right now Netflix streaming is a mere shadow of its former self and they expect us to now pay ~10$ a month for the privilege of this grossly reduced product we used to get for free.
With Amazon offering free streaming to Prime members this is not the way to compete with something that you alreay cost 50% more than.

Google!!! (4, Interesting)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#38291136)

Being the fan that I am for Google products, and also knowing that the cash is there and the possibilities are there, if I was Google, I would buy netflix, and voila instant stardom for youtube netflix merger.....!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...