dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-09-19 08:55:54: Last week Netflix acknowledged that the company's decision to split apart their DVD rental and streaming tiers -- and impose a massive rate hike in the process -- resulted in them losing a million more subscribers than previously predicted. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to jfmezei

Re: Acceess to rights is the key

said by jfmezei:

Remember that Netflix just lost access to a big library of content from Starz (sp?).

They haven't lost anything from Starz. Starz content is still on Netflix until February. Before then Netflix will write a nice big check to Starz and everything will be kosher.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to ArizonaSteve

Re: It's a scam to make us subscribe twice!

said by ArizonaSteve:

Hey Reed,
How about making more movies available for streaming?
Every movie I look for says it's only available on DVD!!!!

blame the studios not Netflix. This will require MUCH more money from Netflix. Money they could only get by raising prcies. Prices people are now bitching about. You can't have it both ways.


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

now they should pick up

Redbox for the win, or redbox can pick them up.

The video store of the future.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by David:

Redbox for the win, or redbox can pick them up.

The video store of the future.

who cares. Netflix doesn't care about DVDs. Only 9% of their customers are on DVD only plans. Let them go to Redbox. Saves Netflix money they can use for streaming.


Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Re: Netflix betting on future Hollywood may not let them have

Until I can get the same release dates on streaming that I can on DVD, then it's going to be DVD rentals for me. I'm interested in seeing new content, not last year's movies or B movie flops.

Then there's this whole I like Bluray movies and streaming in 1080p/24 with DTS is a killa on the caps these days.

All streaming is right now is a means to fill the gaps and catch up on old TV series.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to ksharp25

Re: Im actually ok with it

said by ksharp25:

My point is this. If Netflix is to survive as a streaming service, I need more than Japanese cartoons, tired old low rated TV series (for the most part), horrible weak-sauce B movies and documentaries no one cares about. I dont care if I have to wait 60 days etc like others, but get me relevant AAA content....still for only $8-10 a month. Or Im out. Period. Not paying $25-45 a month just to get what everyone wants and dreams for Netflix to be (which is the price the industry would love)

you're not getting newer movies for $8-$10 a month it isn't happening. That is fantasy talk. You want movies 60 days after DVD release and Netflix only charge $10 a month max. Well let's do math. $10 X 24 million X 12 months is $2.88 billion a year. That is not enough money to pay the studios to get movies 60 days after DVD release.

Hell Starz wanted $300 mil per year for their movies which are a year old at least AND they only wanted it to be for customers that had BOTH the streams and DVD package. Which meant streaming only customers like me would have been left out of the cold. Should Netflix have made this deal? I'm glad they didn't. As I said this is for movies that have been out a year or more. Imagine what 60 day old movies would cost.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

don't care

I only ever signed up for Netflix in order to get streaming. Sure, I tried blu-ray for an extra buck, but I still mostly kept discs for weeks/months at a time because I didn't care.

If they can ever get more content, it'd be nice. They've been at this for years, and still have a rather limited selection.

In comparison, Rhapsody and Spotify have a large swath of music available to stream. The comparison with Netflix and online movie selection is not worth making at this point.

There really is no sensible reason to keep perpetuating physical releases or DRM encumbered iTunes/Amazon/etc. purchases as the ONLY way to watch movies at home. I'm not counting "on demand" because that obviously has its place as well. More people would 'rent' (stream) more often, and there would be more profit in the long run. Hopefully someday, the studios, the producers, and the ISPs "get it."

For now, we're left with capped internet service that has NO reason to exist, fearful greedy studios, and a company (Netflix) that is trying to sell people something they want to pay for, but can only get a taste of.

Oh well, while they're spinning things off/restructuring, can somebody please tell them that their website is rather terrible



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Blame the correct people

blame the content holders not Netflix for all of this

Starz wanted $300 mil per year for their movies which are a year old at least AND they only wanted it to be for customers that had BOTH the streaming and DVD packages.

Netflix offered $250 mil and wanted everyone to have access. Now even if Starz took the $250 mil that's $220 mil per year increase over what Netflix is currently paying. Now where is Netflix going to get an extra $220 mil a year without increasing pricing somehwere? And this is just for Starz this doens't even mention their other deals that are soon to expire and newer deals Netflix wants to do.

Now Netflix can take the $250 mil they wer going to give Starz and put it to getting content from somewhere else. So fuck Starz. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO everyone wants to blame Netflix. Starz gets a free pass even though THEY are being greedy assholes.


ggultra2764

join:2007-09-13
Cambridge, NY

This seems too sudden...

Netflix just hiked up their price rates for dual DVD/ streaming service and separated both into separate packages. And just when customers were getting used to this, now they're making them separate providers? Confusion, much?



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to 88615298

Re: Netflix not so smart?

What you're ignoring is that, before the split, Netflix used their DVD service to negotiate with studios. They agreed to a 30 day DVD waiting period and, in return, got more streaming titles (and reduced DVD prices).

Now what will they use to negotiate with the studios who see any streaming as a threat to DVD sales?
--
-Jason Levine



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to wings10

Re: What about others

They can only do so much against DVD rentals. Like it or not, companies don't need to get approval to rent DVDs. However, RedBox and Netflix made deals to get reduced DVD pricing (and more streaming selection in Netflix's case). If the studios said "You need to wait 2 years before you can rent a DVD", they would be laughed at.

With Netflix Streaming, however, studios get to approve just what is and isn't streamed. Netflix just can't toss all movies/TV shows on streaming. They need to ink deals to allow certain content to go online. If a deal falls apart (see: Starz), then previously streamed content would disappear. If the studios decide to only give Netflix garbage content and/or raise their price demands, then Netflix is going to have to wind up charging users a ton of money for poor content.

Before the split, Netflix had a hedge against the studios. After it, they've placed themselves right in the studios' hands. History says that, when in a position like that, the studios tend to squeeze as hard as possible.
--
-Jason Levine



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to SysOp

Re: Call it what ever you want I'll still be a customer

The foulmothed pothead who owns the Twitter handle might care: »gizmodo.com/5841636
--
-Jason Levine



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Jason Levine

Re: Netflix not so smart?

said by Jason Levine:

What you're ignoring is that, before the split, Netflix used their DVD service to negotiate with studios. They agreed to a 30 day DVD waiting period and, in return, got more streaming titles (and reduced DVD prices).

Now what will they use to negotiate with the studios who see any streaming as a threat to DVD sales?

Streaming isn't the threat for newer movies. Not yet anyways. It's Netflix and Redbox allwoing DVD rentals for $1 or less. Back when video stores existed and charged $5 for a DVD some people said "heck for another $10 I can own the thing". Also the studios made more money from videos stores that charged $5 than when Netflix/Redbox charges $1.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to spewak

said by spewak:

said by jims2321:

The biggest reason I think Netflix is going to suffer is that their streaming side lacks current content. This alone will hurt their bottom line. Then the inability to stream if the user is a dvd subscriber. This really is going to impact their business.

To add:
I don't think that their streaming content will get better anytime soon. People will realize that $8 is a waste for the same old rehashed content.

Netflix was ready to give Starz $250 mil a year for a new deal. That $250 mil will buy a lot of content from someone else. And not all of Netflix content is old. Heck I just watched the Expendables and The Fighter on Netflix streaming and no it's wasn't Starz Play either. It was regular Netflix and in HD unlike Starz movies.

thedragonmas

join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
kudos:1
reply to 88615298

Re: Netflix betting on future Hollywood may not let them have

said by 88615298:

said by thedragonmas:

yeah, no discount, if i bundle video, internet, phone, thru my cable company, guess what? i get a discount. so instead of charging me $16 for dvd and streaming, how about, oh i dont know, $10 for 1 dvd and streaming, now thats a nice discount that would get me to keep both... oh, but wait.........

Excuse me but as I said show me where you renting 6, 8 or 10 DVDs a month for $2 is profitable for Netflix? Which part of this is too hard for you to get?

you pay $50 or more to your cable company for crap on TV which is mostly commericials. I bet if Netflix could get those 24 million to pay $30 a month you'd have a shitload of newer content on Netflix but people woud bitch about the price.

based on all of your posts netflix can do no wrong, even when pointed out your wrong on your facts. your welcome to that opinion. im just pointing out a fact as to WHY people "Went ape" over the so called "bundle" and i dont care if it was just $6, its still a 60% jump and frankly you can justify it all you want, it was uncalled for, and netflix treated their customers like crap over it, maybe, MAYBE if they didnt take the attitude they did no where near the same amount of people would have jumped. but they did, and no amount of "where sorry but oh wait no where not oh and heres what where doing to screw up now" is going to change it...

oh and as to your direct attack, not hard to get at all, what part of a 60% price hike, and no discount for bundling isnt going to get those customers back and no amount of amount of BS arguments by shills going to change my mind to that fact. do you not get?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to jfmezei

Re: Acceess to rights is the key

Hollywood tried to kill off the VCR. Which is why I find this all ironic. Hollywood thinks Netflix is killing off their home video business, but if Hollywood had won and killed off the VCR their home video business wouldn't have ever existed anyways.

Hollywood always thinks some new technology is going to kill their business. First TV then cable TV, then the VCR and EVERYTIME it has done the exact opposite. You'd think after 65 years they would have learned by now.

Unlike back then however if Hollywood think holding onto their content will make people buy DVD they are mistaken. Give people less options and they'll just use torrents and such. Apparently Hollywood wants to turn a whole generation in pirates instead of paying customers. Something the music industry learned far too late and still hasn't recovered from. Hey Hollywood SOMETHING > NOTHING. Simple math.


PastTense

join:2011-07-06
united state
reply to ggultra2764

Re: This seems too sudden...

Why didn't they announce these two changes (the rate change and the name change) at the same time? It would have been more understandable.


ksharp25

join:2010-09-24
Middletown, PA
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
reply to 88615298

Re: Blame the correct people

said by 88615298:

blame the content holders not Netflix for all of this

Now Netflix can take the $250 mil they wer going to give Starz and put it to getting content from somewhere else. So fuck Starz. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO everyone wants to blame Netflix. Starz gets a free pass even though THEY are being greedy assholes.

Apologies if my previous post didnt make that clear, but yes, I agree. This is where my anger has been for years. Netflix was something great that has to get ruined and will probably die because of them.


dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
reply to PastTense

Re: This seems too sudden...

They got a larger backlash than expected. Stock is taking a beating. Need to spin off one of them to please stockholders. Look for Qwister to be totally separate company in future.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298

Re: Netflix not so smart?

The problem is that the studios *do* see streaming as a threat. They don't want people to be able to pay $8 a month and watch unlimited movies/TV shows. They want people to pay $15 (or more) to get the DVD.

They've consistently held back on allowing Netflix to stream recent titles. The Starz deal was a bit of a loophole that Netflix exploited. The studios hated it but couldn't do much about it. When the Starz deal ends, Netflix will need to ask the studios individually to allow them to stream recent movies. When that happens, Netflix will be at the studios' mercy as to what they get allowed to stream and at what price.
--
-Jason Levine



Streetlight

join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO

Netflix Splits Off DVD Rentals, Calls It 'Qwikster'

Seems to me the name for the slower-to-get mail service should be "Slowster" and the name of the streaming service "Faster" or "Immediatster" or "Streamster".

Otherwise leave the mail service as Netflix and the streaming service Quikster



Streetlight

join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to pnh102

Re: Netflix betting on future Hollywood may not let them have

Netflix was paying Starz $30 million but Starz wanted $300 million in a new contract. Hey, Starz, which is better, $30 million or $0 million?


slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1
reply to 88615298

Re: Blame the correct people

bf69 do you work for netflix or what?



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by slckusr:

bf69 do you work for netflix or what?

No just educating the uneducated. I believe an INFORMED populace is a good thing.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to PastTense

Re: This seems too sudden...

said by PastTense:

Why didn't they announce these two changes (the rate change and the name change) at the same time? It would have been more understandable.

That's why the dude is apologizing. He say he fucked up by not doing that. Did you even READ the apology?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Streetlight

Re: Netflix Splits Off DVD Rentals, Calls It 'Qwikster'

said by Streetlight:

Seems to me the name for the slower-to-get mail service should be "Slowster" and the name of the streaming service "Faster" or "Immediatster" or "Streamster".

Otherwise leave the mail service as Netflix and the streaming service Quikster

except MILLIONS of streaming devices have NETFLIX on them.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to jims2321

Re: Netflix not so smart?

said by jims2321:

This really is going to impact their business.

Stock down another 5% today and down about 50% since mid July:
»finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NFLX···ndefined

Their CEO is apologizing because the board is going to toss his butt on the street soon if the stock keeps dropping.
--
»www.rickperry.org/

SixSpeed

join:2001-12-24
USA

Streaming "future?"

Seeing as how their streaming selection is the pits, and they keep losing streaming providers including movies and TV episodes, the "future" isn't looking good.

Right after the price hike, Starz pulled their content.
Netflix is getting too greedy.

I dumped them all together.


SixSpeed

join:2001-12-24
USA
reply to FFH

Re: Netflix not so smart?

said by FFH:

said by jims2321:

This really is going to impact their business.

Stock down another 5% today and down about 50% since mid July:
»finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NFLX···ndefined

Their CEO is apologizing because the board is going to toss his butt on the street soon if the stock keeps dropping.

Even in his apology he seems indifferent and cocky.

F him. I dropped them.

SixSpeed

join:2001-12-24
USA
reply to ksharp25

Re: Im actually ok with it

said by ksharp25:

My point is this. If Netflix is to survive as a streaming service, I need more than Japanese cartoons, tired old low rated TV series (for the most part), horrible weak-sauce B movies and documentaries no one cares about. I dont care if I have to wait 60 days etc like others, but get me relevant AAA content....still for only $8-10 a month. Or Im out. Period. Not paying $25-45 a month just to get what everyone wants and dreams for Netflix to be (which is the price the industry would love)

You wont get it. They are actually losing content much faster then they are gaining.

Starz content is gone as are many TV episodes.

Netflix streaming is garbage, plain and simple.