I loved Arrested Development, and I'm glad that it's coming back, but I'm not sure this is a good move for Netflix. If this idea picks up steam, Netflix becomes a competitor to the networks and their relationships get worse. Heaven knows they're tense enough already. It seems likely that others may pull their content, as Starz recently did, lessening Netflix's appeal. So yes, in the short run they'll gain subscribers, but I don't think this outweighs the major risks this poses in the long run.
The flawed premise here is that the networks will continue to matter.
They won't. Their days are numbered.
Building the future is hard and it's messy. Netflix has been taking it on the chin this year as they've passed through a really rough patch.
In the end, though, I'd put money on Netflix existing in 2020 before I would any given broadcast network. TV is dead.
Netflix is trying to redefine distribution. They're not going to win by placating the dinosaurs of distribution's past. If the Arrested Development deal works out, production companies may see that they have new options for financing their projects and might get better opportunities to reach an audience than they'd ever get on TV.
So it's simple: take the issue by the balls and control your destiny or bow and scrape before moronic suits who don't understand technology, hoping and praying that they won't change their minds each time a licensing deal expires.
I don't think Netflix will be around as an independent company for more than 5 years. Netflix doesn't have a single advantage save one. It has an installed user base. I'm a Netflix user but I wouldn't think twice about switching to another company. I'm on the verge of using Amazon Prime and ditching Netflix. I think even the installed user base isn't much of an advantage.
Netflix's streaming isn't more innovative and Google's streaming or Amazon's streaming. Netflix's advantage used to be to get people DVDs cheaply and quickly. That's not an advantage to take them into the future. Unless they can find a way to stream movies cheaper than Amazon I don't see how they can survive as an independent.
I think Microsoft should buy Netflix and B&N to compete with Apple, Amazon, and Google in the tablet/content space. As an independent company they are dead in the water.
Customer base is a BIG advantage if they're going to start signing up original content. They're playing to their strengths. Amazon is large, but Netflix is massively larger in terms of watchers. As a producer, which would you sign up with?
I don't think so. There is zero chance that Netflix can produce enough original content to give it an advantage by producing shows. It is easy for Amazon, Google, or Apple to pay for exclusive content if that were to become necessary.
Netflix has very little cash in comparison to it's competition. I'm glad they are trying to remain distinctive and keep innovating but any of their competitors can simply buy a studio and do the same thing.
It's possible Netflix sees the future by becoming like a TV channel but for the internet. And have people pay a monthly price to view this TV channel. Some other content producer would be another channel. I don't see this model working out. Rather, I see producers selling their shows to content distributors like Amazon, Apple, and Netflix and letting them fight over subscribers. If this is the case then Netflix has no advantage.
ABC is owned by Disney, NBC by Universal, CBS has a very close link to Viacom & FOX is, well FOX. Those aren't really "networks" they're small parts of huge content conglomerates that aren't going to just die off because Netflix has a few exclusives. Netflix can try to change into more of an HBO business model & maybe that's a good idea, but it's not one that is going to be putting any studios out of business. It's also a departure from the "get the movies you want at a cheap price" model that a lot of their current customers are accustomed to. I think they're going to have a tough time transitioning from being a content middleman to an exclusive content producer/distributor.
Of course the networks will continue to matter, they're the ones who own all the existing content, have all the relationships, and have a shit ton of money. It will be painful for traditional networks to transition, but at the moment netflix really isn't holding that many cards. The movie and tv industry is rightly labeled as a collection of cartels, and for now they're giving netflix breathing room to grow, so that over the course of the next 10 years they can bleed them for all they've got just like they do with satellite, cable, and movie theaters.
> fibre accounting for half of all broadband connections in Japan (55%) and Korea (52%). Other leading countries include the Slovak Republic (28%), Sweden (24%) and Denmark (12%).
You mean like the olympics that were streaming from the nbc website in 2010/vancouver?
I consider it a solved problem. I bet more of the big sports leagues would _love_ to cut out the middle men and monetize viewership more directly somehow (like NBA league pass and MLB.tv are).
Apparently not. You must not be a sports fan if you think it's a solved problem; there is live streaming of about 2 NFL games a week and a handful of English, French, and Italian soccer league matches. Everything else is pirate at best, or stupidly requires you to have a TV subscription anyway. Olympics and World Cup are each once every four years, streaming them is helpful but not really a full solution.
The current problem is that NBC is the only network that has streaming rights for the NFL. This is basically just an artifact of their deal with the NFL. Most likely when it comes time to renew contracts that exclusive clause will be marked out and the NFL will allow all stations that have rights to broadcast games online.
The NFL is pretty much the trend setter in the sports world when it comes to media. They were the first to figure out the right way to do a TV deal back in the early 70s, the first to start their own network, etc. It's only a matter of time.
The problem is the massive amount of revenue the NFL gets from television deals. They would need a paid streaming plan, with many of the same blackout provisions, to make up for that.
Given the existence of MLB.tv and NBA League Pass, I'd say the NFL is behind on online streaming of their games. MLB.tv especially is quite good compared to anything the NFL offers.
Can you get NBA League Pass without a television subscription? It used to be bundled with a Dish TV programming package of the same name, can you just pay for the streaming? (Obviously, you can't pay for either right now, as there is no NBA.)
It has some blackouts, including games that are on national TV (ESPN, TNT, and I think NBATV, which is kind of stupid for the NBA to black out. Some of these games stream on their own sites.) It also blacks out "local" broadcasts; when I lived in Seattle, I couldn't get Portland games.
It has a 2-tier price system. At the lower price, you select up to 7 teams to watch; to get all 30 teams, you have to pay a little bit more.
It's not a perfect system, but it's getting better.
Like MLB's option, League Pass blacks out your local games if they're on TV. One hopes that next time around the TV contracts include a mechanism for a) revenue sharing with the networks for these packages, and b) showing online streamers the same ads they'd see on their local affiliate.
The TV deals are still good enough that the leagues won't offer all of the games through their online platform.
The hope, I suppose, is that future TV deals will decrease to the point that the leagues realize that they can make more money by just distributing it all themselves. That's seems to be what they are setting up at least, but the short term they are making so much money off of TV licensing.
The NBA All-Star game has been shown online for the last few years and it's a better experience because you can choose from four cameras (one of which was following a single player, very cool). That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.
That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.
What's going to be interesting is when both real-time rendering and motion capture get good enough to serve as a vehicle for live sports. Imagine being able to put the camera anywhere you want, or on anyone you want. That will kill TV sports if nothing else does in the meantime.
Why? Sounds like a lot of work that's best done on expensive near real-time rendering hardware by techs and producers who know what they're doing. If anything, I think it'll make TV sports even more engrossing.
Local stations will probably continue to exist for:
* sports
* news
* weather
Alternatively, ESPN could stream (and should! Could you imagine if they got the ad money directly for the Super Bowl??? I bet ESPN would be licking its chops for that kind of money)
Or the producers of television see this as a way to not deal with the networks and still get their show distributed to people, and the networks find themselves without good television to put on the air.
The networks already want to cut Netflix out. That is what caused the whole fiasco this summer. Netflix can't just behave and hope that the networks keep throwing them bones -- that's just not how business works. It's important that they take aggressive moves to counteract this. If copyright law were a bit more reasonable, maybe this wouldn't be necessary.
And I think the thread they're picking up with AD is perfect -- just imagine all of those long-lost fan favorites like Firefly, AD, and now Community getting picked up and streamed on Netflix in a climate where the show's creators are at least theoretically given freedom from network meddling (not to mention the much more realistic "ratings" that would be possible like this). I may even pay for that, and I almost never watch TV and generally hate it, but if Netflix cultivated all of the great content that the mainstream networks regularly threw away, they'd definitely have a much brighter outlook.
The problem I see potentially arising out of this is the conflict of interest for cable companies as online streaming continues to override cable TV viewership. With Netflix picking up shows that had initially been considered by premium cable networks like HBO or Showtime, how much interest will Comcast have in keeping pricing for internet access out of the ridiculous ranges and varied pacakges of cable television?
the hope for Netflix is that they become the new network. If every good new show signs with Netflix or a similar provider, what can the old networks threaten with?
This is what the future will be - then somebody just needs to figure out how to get Netflix, Amazon et al to work together so that consumers don't pay multiple subscription fees.
This is why the Netflix stock price went so high - because so many analysts wrote reports about how Netflix is new media, and it may well be.
What if it caused the exact opposite to happen and this move gives netflix leverage in negotiating for content. I am just saying no reason for netflix not to license out the show to be on TV as well...
I'm personally afraid of the more likely possibility of networks spinning off their own Netflix clones which is arguably even worse: to watch an NBC show you would need an nbc.com subscription, a CBS one for CBS shows etc.
