Netflix here we go again.

[413x]

I personally find downloading and all that a faff and I suspect its probably more niche than you might think.

What we need is a good content aggregator / front end like Apple have tried to do so that you dont have to keep switching apps.

It probably is quite niche.
It is a bit of a faff.

I just hate juggling subscriptions.
If it was all in one mega portal where you could toggle switches on and off that would be fine. But I know I'll forget with multiple subs. It's why I very rarely use free trials. I know I'll forget.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The removal of password sharing and the cheapest tier is the biggest change they have done outside the normal price increase. We have yet to see the impact which we wont know for the next 12 - 18 months.

I don't see why.
Its not got a lock in period, the prices/changes happen quickly.

I would say its the sort of thing peope would react quickly to.
The problem with saying 12-18 months is so many other things can change, that simply highlighting something from 12-18 months ago as the only cause would be wrong.
You would need to try to eliminate other issues, such as COL, potential competitor activity over that period, etc
Its not a static thing, so many things affect peoples lives, as said content could be a real issue

I remember the last writers strike. Late 90s? That affected a lot of shows, some even got cancelled that were popular, (competing for same actors etc)
IMO thats the biggest issue for Netflix in the next 2-3 years.

 

[beachBOYken]

I don't watch live TV so don't have to consider a licence but i've been quite savvy around subs this last year.

Prime - had 3 free 1 month trials that were enough to watch what I wanted on existing account since cancelling last September.
Paramount+ - took the 50% offer on black friday which equates to 3 quid a month - mostly have it for the Sheridan content and some star trek.
Apple TV - barclaycard keep giving me 5 month free trials (obviously contingent on having a BC)
Disney+ - got a cheap 1 year code off MM here - £33 for the year - this is mainly for my son, I watch little on it.
Netflix - no offers, just dip in and out a few times a year.
Now TV - on a £2/month deal with £1 for boost that I dip into once or twice a year when they email me for the HBO content.

All in all, about £100 across the year - while not representative of everyone, if you time things right, you can watch most available content cheaply.

Mine is currently

Prime £95 for year
Apple TV + free for 6 months
Netflix £10.99 although cancelled at present, but I sub every other month or so.

Don't really bother with the rest, Disney + if any for just a month or two at most.

 

[S.A.S]

It probably is quite niche.
It is a bit of a faff.

I just hate juggling subscriptions.
If it was all in one mega portal where you could toggle switches on and off that would be fine. But I know I'll forget with multiple subs. It's why I very rarely use free trials. I know I'll forget.

it’s not even a faff anymore with 4 different pieces of open source software that are very well supported by the community, you can literally completely automate the entire process, so you just launch plex/jellyfin every night and if it was released, its there ready to go. Theres even incredibly user friendly frontside request software that even recommends new/top stuff that has multi user support and is 1 click to watch.

i’m not promoting the use of this stuff, but its not like it used to be if you put in a couple hours work, you can have your 1 click media powerhouse.

 

[413x]

it’s not even a faff anymore with 4 different pieces of open source software that are very well supported by the community, you can literally completely automate the entire process, so you just launch plex/jellyfin every night and if it was released, its there ready to go. Theres even incredibly user friendly frontside request software that even recommends new/top stuff that has multi user support and is 1 click to watch.

i’m not promoting the use of this stuff, but its not like it used to be if you put in a couple hours work, you can have your 1 click media powerhouse.

I'll have a look!

 

[mrochester]

I agree with some here.
TBH I still see netflix as great value for money. Its the cost in real terms of a couple of rentals from Blockbuster back in the day.
Which also meant you had a risk of not getting to see what you wanted and you had to return the bloody things.
Which then evolved into DVD by mail, where you got 3-4 times as much for the same price in effect, but still had to post them back, but you lost a bit in regards choice as you needed to maintain a list.

For the same you can watch virtually limitless content, you can do so on more than one device and also in other places, like on holiday.

I mean in that context, Netflix is the bargain of the millenium.

I always seem to find content to watch, but agree the rise of multiple streaming has seen dilution of some of the better stuff.


Because in this case its not competition, its fragmentation into a number of monopolies. If you want to watch show X you need to sub to a specific service. Thats not competition.
If they all, or mainly all had the same shows and were actually competing on say price, then what you say would work.

Each time netflix make a change people say, bah its going to hit their numbers, and yet the opposite happens.
I suspect for many people its hard to give up, I mean a decent size popcorn at the cinema costs practically the same as a months netflix.

Competition requires differentiation. You can’t all have the same product and expect there to be competition.

 

[grudas]

I personally find downloading and all that a faff and I suspect its probably more niche than you might think.

What we need is a good content aggregator / front end like Apple have tried to do so that you dont have to keep switching apps.

depends, the old school way yeah.

the streaming software that you can get these days is as simple as netflix etc. - there's the chance of torrents being dead but not that often - not naming anything for obvious reasons.

 

[413x]

Competition requires differentiation. You can’t all have the same product and expect there to be competition.

With streaming one platform isn't the end of the world as they don't really compete. They aren't like mobile phone operators for example. Where a mobile is basically essential.
If netlfix whacked up prices to. 30ppm or produced entirely duff content, they'd lose subscriptions even without any direct competition.

 

[mrochester]

With streaming one platform isn't the end of the world as they don't really compete. They aren't like mobile phone operators for example. Where a mobile is basically essential.
If netlfix whacked up prices to. 30ppm or produced entirely duff content, they'd lose subscriptions even without any direct competition.

The competitive difference between streaming platforms is the different programmes they have. The product is the content and thus needs to be differentiated.

If you have a product or service that everyone needs, and the minimum standard of living requires that, and there’s nothing different about getting the product or service from company A or company B, then I’d argue this market would be a candidate for nationalisation (prime candidates would be electricity, water, gas, home broadband etc). Nationalisation is the recognition that competition in that market has failed/is pointless and should be owned by the public, for the public benefit.

Netflix is definitely not a product that everyone needs therefore it would be fine if they went out of business.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Competition requires differentiation. You can’t all have the same product and expect there to be competition.

Yes but the pricing, options etc are the differentiation

Take a supermarket, they all basically offer the same options in regards what they sell. They offer other differentiation.
Streaming platforms would be the same.

In your model, Tesco would offer baked beans. Waitrose tuna, and Lidl corned beef. But none of them would compete on selling those products.

 

[mrochester]

Yes but the pricing, options etc are the differentiation

Take a supermarket, they all basically offer the same options in regards what they sell. They offer other differentiation.
Streaming platforms would be the same.

In your model, Tesco would offer baked beans. Waitrose tuna, and Lidl corned beef. But none of them would compete on selling those products.

You are forgetting that the location of a supermarket is a huge part of the competitiveness. Digital services don’t have a location therefore cannot compete in that way.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

You are forgetting that the location of a supermarket is a huge part of the competitiveness. Digital services don’t have a location therefore cannot compete in that way.

Ok.

So lets take banking then. Its 99.99% online for the vast majority.

They all offer the same, current accounts, savings accounts, loans etc
They differentiate in the same products via service etc

 

[mrochester]

Ok.

So lets tank banking then. Its 99.99% online for the vast majority.

They all offer the same, current accounts, savings accounts, loans etc
They differentiate in the same products via service etc

And I’m sure you could make a strong argument that banking should be nationalised off the back of that (and ironically, has been over the last Few years to some extent). If it’s something everybody needs, and there’s no difference if you bank with bank A or bank B, then banks should be run for the benefit of the public, not for private shareholders.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

And I’m sure you could make a strong argument that banking should be nationalised off the back of that (and ironically, has been over the last Few years to some extent). If it’s something everybody needs, and there’s no difference if you bank with bank A or bank B, then banks should be run for the benefit of the public, not for private shareholders.

Huh?
What has nationalisation got to do with it.

What your saying is that multiple streaming services providing only limited and basically non overlapping content is competition.
When its basically the opposite.

When a product is only available from one source its a monopoly. In this case a product would be a particular show/movie.
There are substitutions, which will vary from low to high depending on each individuals want to watch specific content.

Limiting where someone can purchase something is specifically anti competition.

The banks compete on many facets of service and trying to tweak offerings to create differentiation, whilst all basically offering the same services (products).
This would be the competition in the streaming market, if most platforms has the ability to give you the same content then they would face competition in regards price, service etc

Right now a lot of content is only available on one platform, and as such if you want it then you have zero competition.

 

[Hagar]

People are obviously upset that the Netflix clamp down on password sharing did not backfire on them and actually increased subscriptions.

Nothing in life is free.

 

[mrochester]

Huh?
What has nationalisation got to do with it.

What your saying is that multiple streaming services providing only limited and basically non overlapping content is competition.
When its basically the opposite.

When a product is only available from one source its a monopoly. In this case a product would be a particular show/movie.
There are substitutions, which will vary from low to high depending on each individuals want to watch specific content.

Limiting where someone can purchase something is specifically anti competition.

The banks compete on many facets of service and trying to tweak offerings to create differentiation, whilst all basically offering the same services (products).
This would be the competition in the streaming market, if most platforms has the ability to give you the same content then they would face competition in regards price, service etc

Right now a lot of content is only available on one platform, and as such if you want it then you have zero competition.

We are talking streaming entertainment services generally, not a specific programme or film.

There’s loads of competition in the streaming entertainment market.

There’s no competition in the ‘Stranger Things’ market, but that’s just a nonsense way to define a market and akin to saying ‘there’s no competition in the Big Mac market’ because you can’t get the Big Mac from Burger King or Greggs.

 

[413x]

The competitive difference between streaming platforms is the different programmes they have. The product is the content and thus needs to be differentiated.

If you have a product or service that everyone needs, and the minimum standard of living requires that, and there’s nothing different about getting the product or service from company A or company B, then I’d argue this market would be a candidate for nationalisation (prime candidates would be electricity, water, gas, home broadband etc). Nationalisation is the recognition that competition in that market has failed/is pointless and should be owned by the public, for the public benefit.

Netflix is definitely not a product that everyone needs therefore it would be fine if they went out of business.

I don't think nationalised entertainment works. Certainly not this.

For myself, the competition here is to get my money. It's not essential. And I'm only going to pay for one.

If amazon is rubbish I won't pay for it. The cost is irrelevant when there's competition.
If Netflix is putting out duff content. Maybe ill pay 5 pounds. But not 20.
This goes for if it has competition or not.

It isn't an essential. So shouldn't be nationalised. But nor does it need competition.

 

[413x]

People are obviously upset that the Netflix clamp down on password sharing did not backfire on them and actually increased subscriptions.

Nothing in life is free.

Its easy to see the vocal minority as a majority. Didn't think it would hurt them myself. But didn't think it would be a huge cash grab.
Netflix for me is still by far the best option. Nothing else has the breadth of good content. I'd say it's personal, but if you had never seen any tv, I'm sure most would think Netflix is the best.

 

[Sythe79]

Netflix might have got worse over the last few years because of fragmentation in the market, but they are still the least bad out of all the streaming services.

It's pretty obvious they can't all survive long term, at the prices they need to be profitable.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

We are talking streaming entertainment services generally, not a specific programme or film.

There’s loads of competition in the streaming entertainment market.

There’s no competition in the ‘Stranger Things’ market, but that’s just a nonsense way to define a market and akin to saying ‘there’s no competition in the Big Mac market’ because you can’t get the Big Mac from Burger King or Greggs.

What your describing is a position where you deem there to be high substitution. So if someone cannot watch Stranger things they are going to be happy to watch odd things somewhere else.

I don't believe that covers the majority of people paying for streaming services.
Most people discuss specific shows. Hence they quality of substitutions is low.

I mean its the specific reason the streaming platforms like Disney have pulled their stuff to their platform.