Warner Bros. deals a little blow to Netflix... (1 Viewer)

...by saying it will delay or forgo altogether licensing to SVOD services and instead go direct to the consumer.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/streaming/time-warner-looking-delayforgo-svod-content-licensing-36981

Patrick Donahue said:

...by saying it will delay or forgo altogether licensing to SVOD services and instead go direct to the consumer.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/streaming/time-warner-looking-delayforgo-svod-content-licensing-36981

Click to expand...

The "all on Netflix" model is beginning to crumble. Netflix was originally sold to us as the vast repository of films and television when it first came out (I remember this as I have been a Netflix disc and streaming sub since the very beginning of their business). Now its turned into something else and I dont much care for it. Studios are going to start going the "CBS access" route and if you want a great deal of content you will either have to 1. buy your favorites via physical or electronic sell thru) or 2. Do several micro payments for everything netflix used to have. Of course this will all add up in the end and the consumer will just say no in the end.

So in a few years instead of subscribing to netflix to get our content we will have to subscribe to a half a dozen different places......bad news

[email protected] said:

So in a few years instead of subscribing to netflix to get our content we will have to subscribe to a half a dozen different places......bad news

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone subscribing to half-a dozen different places for one or two commercial-filled shows per service.


I think the failure of Star Trek will kill those thoughts for the studios.

As long as they have the kiddie shows I don't care. Netflix is a bargain just for that alone. Commercial-free kids shows are gold.

Even if I had to subscribe to half a dozen services, it would still come out to less than what my cable bill used to. And at least you can cancel anytime and pick them back up anytime without any kind of fees, re-installation, etc.

It's bad news indeed, but ultimately it will fail, and Warner and others will simply have to accept that the future lies in the consolidation of media services, not fragmentation. It's happening in the digital music industry, and already happened in the digital games industry. Cost issues aside, consumers are not going to accept having to manage their digital content across a half-dozen or more services.

The Obsolete Man said:

I don't see anyone subscribing to half-a dozen different places for one or two commercial-filled shows per service.


I think the failure of Star Trek will kill those thoughts for the studios.

Click to expand...

The only thing I worry about is that CBS willingly takes the wrong message from this - if it fails, that they'll say "Star Trek" no longer has any appeal, rather than concluding that multiple subscriptions don't have the appeal they wanted.

I am more grateful for my discs all the time. I remember being young, when VHS came out, and I was on the cutting edge, saying to myself "I'll never be a fossil," and now here I am, 51, with no taste for streaming. It's so ephemeral. And what's available can be taken away on a dime. The quality is spotty, too. And how stable is the virtual infrastructure, really? Could the sun burp rudely and throw it all into the dark ages with a solar flare or an EMP event? Our world has become so dependent on something that just seems so fragile to me.

Carabimero said:

I am more grateful for my discs all the time. I remember being young, when VHS came out, and I was on the cutting edge, saying to myself "I'll never be a fossil," and now here I am, 51, with no taste for streaming. It's so ephemeral. And what's available can be taken away on a dime. The quality is spotty, too. And how stable is the virtual infrastructure, really? Could the sun burp rudely and throw it all into the dark ages with a solar flare or an EMP event? Our world has become so dependent on something that just seems so fragile to me.

Click to expand...

And yet for years our banking and credit card systems have all relied on this virtual infrastructure. I haven't had a solar flare or EMP decimate my bank account balance. I don't see people in advanced western countries panicking that all of their money is stored virtually in the cloud instead of stashed under their beds in physical notes or gold bullion.


The future is firmly going to be based on Internet infrastructure, we're simply in the early days of transitioning to it for entertainment.

Koroush, just thinking about your banking simile - I think that's a great comparison. Interesting thing about the banks, at least here in the US, is that your deposits are guaranteed by the federal government, so if my bank goes out of business tomorrow, my money is still safe.


If there was a larger, trusted entity making similar guarantees for digital purchases, I think that could go a long way with people who have fears about the online infrastructure. I think it's too much to ask the government to do the work, but maybe an organization like the MPAA that's been around for decades and recognized by many people could do that task. I think that's ultimately what Ultraviolet was supposed to be, but they don't exactly have a ton of street cred. There are too many storefronts and the studios still haven't agreed on a unified format. I used to think of Disney as the worst offender for being the lone holdout to Ultraviolet, but I like what they've done with their Disney Movies Anywhere service. They linked all of your pre-existing purchases to one account and then linked the incompatible services together in the background. Digital purchases I have from before the advent of Vudu and Amazon streaming now show up on those services. Digital copies that were SD only were automatically upgraded to HD for free. And the Disney brand is so trusted that I'm not worried about it going out of business in my lifetime. On the other hand, while I hope Ultraviolet lasts, it's a new concept and new company, and I have no way of knowing if those purchases will still be there in five years. It may not be completely rational, but I trust that Disney will still exist, and therefore my purchases will be fine.


(My only concern with Disney is that they're I think the only studio that digitally has taken people's purchases and replaced them with different versions of the film without the purchaser's consent. Several years ago they offered an extended version of "Bedknobs And Broomsticks" on their service which ran about 142 minutes. Late last year, they removed the 142 minute version from all of the digital services and replaced it with the 127 minute theatrical version, without any warning. People who purchased that movie lost 15 minutes from their purchase with no explanation and no recourse. That's scary to me. By all means, stop offering the 142 minute version for new purchases if you so choose, but don't take away something that people have already bought and paid for.)

ScottDombrowski said:

Even if I had to subscribe to half a dozen services, it would still come out to less than what my cable bill used to. And at least you can cancel anytime and pick them back up anytime without any kind of fees, re-installation, etc.

Click to expand...

Not if I factor in my high speed internet that I purchase each month specifically to watch said streaming services. Add the $72 for that into the monthly payments and the price is much higher. Some may say "well I already get internet anyway" but it is something you NEED in order to stream programming to your television. A netflix sub by itself doesnt cut it and many people do get the higher priced internet specifically for streaming.

Just to play devil's advocate though, Josh, UV really isn't really it's own company in the normal sense but it stands for Fox, Universal, Warner Bros, etc, etc. If you are confident in Disney purchases because you know it will still exist in 5 years, I would think those companies are just as solid....

Persianimmortal said:

And yet for years our banking and credit card systems have all relied on this virtual infrastructure. I haven't had a solar flare or EMP decimate my bank account balance. I don't see people in advanced western countries panicking that all of their money is stored virtually in the cloud instead of stashed under their beds in physical notes or gold bullion.


The future is firmly going to be based on Internet infrastructure, we're simply in the early days of transitioning to it for entertainment.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the future being based on Internet infrastructure. I'm just not convinced that infrastructure is as solid as people think it is. It's evolving so quickly. It isn't the same today as it was yesterday. And it will be different tomorrow. Its strength is its dynamic nature. I just hope that's not its eventual Achilles's heel, as well.

Persianimmortal said:

And yet for years our banking and credit card systems have all relied on this virtual infrastructure. I haven't had a solar flare or EMP decimate my bank account balance. I don't see people in advanced western countries panicking that all of their money is stored virtually in the cloud instead of stashed under their beds in physical notes or gold bullion.

Click to expand...

Your money is not stored in the cloud. Nor is your bank. Information about your money is. If that information suddenly disappeared, neither your bank nor your money would disappear with it.

Here's my problem: it seems sooner or later, everything I do on my computer is going to have to be 'authenticated' by the all-mighty Internet. I'm still running Vista on my desktop and XP on my laptop. And even the programs on my desktop, several of them, require an Internet connection to work or to update in order to work. I can only imagine how it is with Windows 10. I guess I don't like the idea of everything I'm doing--or watching--being monitored, or having to be certified. Okay, I am *sure* I don't like it.


I enjoy having several programs--and watching several shows--on my computer 9and TV) that the all-mighty Internet and its minions know nothing about.


I like privacy.

Robin9 said:

Your money is not stored in the cloud. Nor is your bank. Information about your money is. If that information suddenly disappeared, neither your bank nor your money would disappear with it.

Click to expand...

Equally, the original copies of the movies you stream, and original information regarding your online streaming/digital download accounts, are not stored in the cloud either. The movies, and your info, are stored on servers with redundant offline backups. So your money (which is effectively a virtual balance, not stored in physical notes in a bank vault) and your bank account details are equally as safe, or equally at risk of being totally erased by EMP or solar flares, as the movies you watch and your online digital accounts.


As for your idea regarding a trusted entity making guarantees for all digital purchases Josh, it would be nice in theory, but may be considered anti-competitive. Only the government can legally run a commercial monopoly, and when they do, it usually ends up bloated and inefficient. But I think you've got the right idea in general: any infant industry needs leadership (and regulation) to assist its growth. I'm not quite sure where that will come from - I had hoped Netflix would lead the way and help consolidate streaming the way Apple's iTunes did with digital music. But it seems movie rights holders have realized the potential bonanza that is streaming and digital download, and they all want to set up proprietary platforms, to the detriment of the industry as a whole. It'll eventually fail and consolidation will happen, but I suppose we first have to go through the motions.


I hate mentioning the same example over and over again, but we went through exactly the same thing with digital gaming. Valve set up the Steam digital distribution platform in 2004, at a time when there was great resistance from gamers ("I'm sticking with my box and discs!", "What if Valve goes bankrupt or the Steam servers go down? I'll lose all my games!"). When it eventually became clear that digital games distribution was secure, convenient, and popular - and thus an absolute goldmine - two major rights holders (Ubisoft and Electronic Arts) created their own proprietary digital platforms (UPlay and Origin respectively) in 2011. But both are considered vastly inferior to Steam, and so Steam effectively provides a consolidated digital ownership platform for PC gamers. For example, the game Far Cry 4 requires UPlay to run, but you can still purchase it on Steam as the overarching digital platform. So you can use one service (Steam) to purchase, manage and play all of your digital PC games.

Great discussion! I used to be anti-streaming/downloading, but about two years ago I saw the light and how I can benefit using this new video platform to watch my favorite films.

The best advice I can give anyone to maximize the benefits of Netflix - and negate the detrimental impact of all of these idiotic short-sighted rights deals - is to sign up to a smartDNS service for a few extra dollars a month. It's incredibly easy to implement (just enter two DNS entries in your playback device's network settings), and then you can access the full Netflix library across all regions. An absolute must for catalog lovers as there is a ton of classics spread throughout places like Netflix Mexico, Netherlands, France, Brazil, Canada, etc.

As an example of how smartDNS helps buffer against silly rights deals, recently Epix supposedly pulled a range of blockbuster movies from Netflix as of the end of September. Titles like World War Z and The Hunger Games. I have no interest in these movies, but were I so inclined, using a global Netflix search engine I can still find and view them on Netflix regions which seem unaffected by the recent deal ending. E.g. This shows that World War Z is still available on various regions such as Netflix Brazil, Mexico and Ireland. Ditto other movies that Epix supposedly pulled over a month ago.

Legally, circumventing geo-blocking falls into a gray area. And Netflix itself turns a blind eye to the practice even though it's very easy for them to detect and block it. After all, as long as you're paying your monthly subscription, it makes no difference to them what content you consume. Here's a recent Wall Street Journal article about smartDNS services. I use Getflix which has a 14 day free trial with no need to enter payment details, as well as simple instructions on how to set up various devices with smartDNS. It's really made Netflix the only streaming service I require.

Carabimero said:

Here's my problem: it seems sooner or later, everything I do on my computer is going to have to be 'authenticated' by the all-mighty Internet. I'm still running Vista on my desktop and XP on my laptop. And even the programs on my desktop, several of them, require an Internet connection to work or to update in order to work. I can only imagine how it is with Windows 10. I guess I don't like the idea of everything I'm doing--or watching--being monitored, or having to be certified. Okay, I am *sure* I don't like it.


I enjoy having several programs--and watching several shows--on my computer 9and TV) that the all-mighty Internet and its minions know nothing about.


I like privacy.

Click to expand...

(Going offtopic).

(Without getting into an OS "holy war").


Over the past 20+ years, if I wanted higher levels of privacy on the computer, I wouldn't have used anything by Microsoft or Apple. I would have used something like Linux or one of the BSD operating systems on my computers. (ie. For hardcore paranoid types, there's always OpenBSD).