Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers
https://arstechnica.com/culture/2023/12/its-shakeout-time-as-losses-of-netflix-rivals-top-5-billion/
329 comments
Disney could have done that and I would have paid.
But they don’t make shows people want to watch any more. Live action Mulan could have been awesome! But they destroyed the themes of family honor and removed the music and comedy.
Pander fatigue is real. I’ve got kids but I’m letting my Disney sub lapse. Anime is way better than the schlock Disney puts out.
But they don’t make shows people want to watch any more. Live action Mulan could have been awesome! But they destroyed the themes of family honor and removed the music and comedy.
Pander fatigue is real. I’ve got kids but I’m letting my Disney sub lapse. Anime is way better than the schlock Disney puts out.
The streamers make some shows that some people want to watch.
Netflix’s report, first of its kind, showed 20 titles that you will have never heard of unless you use TikTok.
Most people are watching the shows most other people are watching, it’s memetic. People want to feel like they’re a part of something; that is they’re are willing to pay $20/mo in Fear of Missing Out.
Nobody has FOMO for old Disney content. The largest expense for Netflix is creating content, all the shows in that report were from 2022 and 2023.
The kicker is that it’s the opposite of the top of the Steam charts, indicating how bad of a business the streamers are in. Those games are most free and have been around for a long time, sometimes decades.
Both games and TV/movies were threatened by piracy. Yet the result for TV/movies was wildly undercharging for the stuff people were pirating - giving away the old catalogue content on the premise they were competing with $0, simultaneously ceasing to monetize their pay to play audience. Huge mistake: they should have wildly increased enforcement, which would have been much much cheaper and effective. TV/movies just do not have enough secular ways to innovate like games do to completely supplant piracy from a technological and social perspective.
Two takeaways: (1) the pay to watch model model was much more sustainable, because most content makes way more sense to sell for those payers, it was non-FOMO content, it was good content. (2) in order to make most of the highly engaged streaming content sustainable, streamers must innovate in monetization, and it’s not obvious if ads will be enough.
Netflix’s report, first of its kind, showed 20 titles that you will have never heard of unless you use TikTok.
Most people are watching the shows most other people are watching, it’s memetic. People want to feel like they’re a part of something; that is they’re are willing to pay $20/mo in Fear of Missing Out.
Nobody has FOMO for old Disney content. The largest expense for Netflix is creating content, all the shows in that report were from 2022 and 2023.
The kicker is that it’s the opposite of the top of the Steam charts, indicating how bad of a business the streamers are in. Those games are most free and have been around for a long time, sometimes decades.
Both games and TV/movies were threatened by piracy. Yet the result for TV/movies was wildly undercharging for the stuff people were pirating - giving away the old catalogue content on the premise they were competing with $0, simultaneously ceasing to monetize their pay to play audience. Huge mistake: they should have wildly increased enforcement, which would have been much much cheaper and effective. TV/movies just do not have enough secular ways to innovate like games do to completely supplant piracy from a technological and social perspective.
Two takeaways: (1) the pay to watch model model was much more sustainable, because most content makes way more sense to sell for those payers, it was non-FOMO content, it was good content. (2) in order to make most of the highly engaged streaming content sustainable, streamers must innovate in monetization, and it’s not obvious if ads will be enough.
My kids watch minecraft and roblox streams ad infinitumon youtube though.. I pay for ad free youtube and ad free streaming services but they still know of and want the latest toys. It's amazing. My kids never want to watch a movie or tv show, only youtube.
> Huge mistake: they should have wildly increased enforcement
They did. However, it turns out that often, you're suing upstanding citizens for what the public views as minor infractions. This does not really recoup costs. It does act as a deterrent, both for Joey Public to illegally download your content, but also for them to spend money on acquiring your content legally. For some reason, the big fish are hard to catch, and catching one doesn't move the needle on illegally downloaded content much.
Moreover, they're not just competing with illegally downloaded content. Disney's back catalogue has been sold for literally decades. I bet that before the era of streaming, most folks lived within 10 houses of a legal, viewable copy of Disney's big hits (Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc). And if not, physical media of such movies and series are typically available on 2nd-hand markets for very affordable prices*. That's what the back catalogue of Disney (and others) needs to compete with first and foremost.
* case in point: I bought a 7 season, 24ish episode/season series on Ebay for 50. Watching it with the envisioned company (ie. no binging) took months; streaming would have been more expensive already at 5 bucks per month.
They did. However, it turns out that often, you're suing upstanding citizens for what the public views as minor infractions. This does not really recoup costs. It does act as a deterrent, both for Joey Public to illegally download your content, but also for them to spend money on acquiring your content legally. For some reason, the big fish are hard to catch, and catching one doesn't move the needle on illegally downloaded content much.
Moreover, they're not just competing with illegally downloaded content. Disney's back catalogue has been sold for literally decades. I bet that before the era of streaming, most folks lived within 10 houses of a legal, viewable copy of Disney's big hits (Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc). And if not, physical media of such movies and series are typically available on 2nd-hand markets for very affordable prices*. That's what the back catalogue of Disney (and others) needs to compete with first and foremost.
* case in point: I bought a 7 season, 24ish episode/season series on Ebay for 50. Watching it with the envisioned company (ie. no binging) took months; streaming would have been more expensive already at 5 bucks per month.
Gabe Newell had it right, piracy is a service issue, not a price issue.
All the old Disney back catalog is still new to my kids so they just watch that and ignore the new junk.
It depends on the age of the kids—for the price of a Disney+ subscription you can buy ~2 DVDs a month, which at my kid's age (4 and 2) is way more frequently than they actually want to watch new movies. When I was a kid, (and I'm seeing it with my own kids) we had a tiny selection of movies that we loved to watch repeatedly. Why pay rent for that selection when you could own it for the same price?
I may do something like this if Disney ever creates good content again on accident.
I bought puss and boots 2 last year on release, and that movie was excellent.
I bought puss and boots 2 last year on release, and that movie was excellent.
Is that true for all kids? I thought popular opinion was that all new gen kids have insatiable content appetites with low attention spans demanding constant newness?
My 4 year old has had unlimited access to most services since 2. Mostly what she does is watches the same 10ish hours of content whatever that is for about a month. And then she picks another 10 hours. This 10 hours may or may not include things from previous 10 hour binges.
Kids like repetition. They are perfectly willing to watch the same season of something over and over again even when they could technically choose to watch something brand new
Kids like repetition. They are perfectly willing to watch the same season of something over and over again even when they could technically choose to watch something brand new
If you feed them a constant stream of new content, yeah, they'll probably be that way, but they're not born with an insatiable desire for novel consumption.
I think it depends on the person. Other than a few favorites, I've never tended to rewatch movies, reread books, replay games, etc. I think that a lot of it may be that a lot of the appeal to me is in "figuring out" the content so that once I know how things play out I don't care all that much about reexperiencing the playing out itself.
Well maybe not everyone, but most of us are born with some level of Novelty Seeking [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking
I don't think that's a good argument. You find "new" when rewatching. The moment is not engaging anymore, it means you drained the entirety of the content
You create your own monsters.
my 2 years old must have watched the mario movie 200 times at least. I was like him, I watched Aladdin 200 times.
I imagine this greatly depends on the age of the kids and their immediate friend groups. A very young child generally isn't going to care or even understand some movie or show is old or not, everything in life is new to them.
Or is that just what the content producers want you to believe in order to get you to sign up the the latest streaming service?
Important point about relative novelty, but kids aren’t subscribers / account holders / bill payers, so I can see how the population with children can become a persistent subscriber base, but growth requirements necessitate either more children (joking) or providing better content.
It’s pretty interesting to think about how technology and scalability play into the costs of the streaming model. Netflix’s engineering capabilities are well respected, I find it hard for another company to replicate this success without using better technology to offer the same service: do we know the technological infrastructure quality of Disney+ or Hulu? Have they encountered costly scaling problems that eat into budgets?
It’s pretty interesting to think about how technology and scalability play into the costs of the streaming model. Netflix’s engineering capabilities are well respected, I find it hard for another company to replicate this success without using better technology to offer the same service: do we know the technological infrastructure quality of Disney+ or Hulu? Have they encountered costly scaling problems that eat into budgets?
Not to backseat parent or anything, but I would never let my kids watch Anime unsupervised. Disney is fine, and they aren't going to sexualize minors like anime often does.
...I'm really having trouble understanding this comment. Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken?
Watching anything unsupervised is of course age-dependent, so I'm not sure I understand the mechanism at work in that part of the comment.
But on the deeper matter of Disney vs. anime:
Obviously anime is a huge basket, so it depends on what studio and creator(s) we're talking about.
There's plenty of amazing, reinforcing, validating, positive anime to be found. The Miyazaki films are, without exception, lovely and perfectly messaged for kids of all ages, including this 41-year-old. There are many other non-Miyazaki works from Studio Ghibli that are similarly friendly.
Disney, on the other hand, absolutely sexualizes and gaslights vulnerable populations. I loved Beauty and the Beast growing up, but in retrospect I realize that it taught a generation of little girls to endure abuse in the hopes of some magical transformation. Aladin is horrifyingly racist and two-dimensional. Pocahontes? Holy fuck.
Compare the Disney and Ghibli renditions of The Little Mermaid and tell me which one is made with greater concern over kids' worldview and mental health, let alone faithful passage of the ecological message of novel.
The Disney formula is very often predicated on a woman whose value is in her sexuality and virginity, with men who are divided into distinctly "good" and "evil" camps who fight over her. It's absolutely the kind of sexualization that is toxic for kids.
Watching anything unsupervised is of course age-dependent, so I'm not sure I understand the mechanism at work in that part of the comment.
But on the deeper matter of Disney vs. anime:
Obviously anime is a huge basket, so it depends on what studio and creator(s) we're talking about.
There's plenty of amazing, reinforcing, validating, positive anime to be found. The Miyazaki films are, without exception, lovely and perfectly messaged for kids of all ages, including this 41-year-old. There are many other non-Miyazaki works from Studio Ghibli that are similarly friendly.
Disney, on the other hand, absolutely sexualizes and gaslights vulnerable populations. I loved Beauty and the Beast growing up, but in retrospect I realize that it taught a generation of little girls to endure abuse in the hopes of some magical transformation. Aladin is horrifyingly racist and two-dimensional. Pocahontes? Holy fuck.
Compare the Disney and Ghibli renditions of The Little Mermaid and tell me which one is made with greater concern over kids' worldview and mental health, let alone faithful passage of the ecological message of novel.
The Disney formula is very often predicated on a woman whose value is in her sexuality and virginity, with men who are divided into distinctly "good" and "evil" camps who fight over her. It's absolutely the kind of sexualization that is toxic for kids.
The truth is kids are resiliant and not stupid. generations "survived" these types of stereotypes and in 20 years someone else will be wringing their hands about the misguided stereotypes the current crop of acceptable movies is involved in (including everything you listed as a positive).
I would never hesitate to allow a child to watch any disney movie, but I definitely would hesitate to allow a child to watch Berserk or a lot of the borderline loli content. I remember watching Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and waiting for the hammer to drop on the PE teacher who was constantly creeping on the teenage girls. When the season ended and it never happened I was completely confused, it wasn't until years later I found out that's an actual trope that shows up in a lot of anime.
What I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you that there are plenty of anime that's perfectly fine for children to watch, but the other posters concern is absolutely valid too, there's a lot of anime children shouldn't be watching (opening scene of elfin lied anyone?) and your hand wringing about Disney movies not being perfect doesn't move that needle in the slightest.
I would never hesitate to allow a child to watch any disney movie, but I definitely would hesitate to allow a child to watch Berserk or a lot of the borderline loli content. I remember watching Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and waiting for the hammer to drop on the PE teacher who was constantly creeping on the teenage girls. When the season ended and it never happened I was completely confused, it wasn't until years later I found out that's an actual trope that shows up in a lot of anime.
What I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you that there are plenty of anime that's perfectly fine for children to watch, but the other posters concern is absolutely valid too, there's a lot of anime children shouldn't be watching (opening scene of elfin lied anyone?) and your hand wringing about Disney movies not being perfect doesn't move that needle in the slightest.
I'm not sure it's a fair to compare your average Disney movie to famously transgressive/extreme examples of anime like Berserk or Elfin Lied. That would be like comparing One Piece to something like Watership Down.
For every Berserk or Elfin Lied there's a Bocchi the Rock! or Spy Family.
For every Berserk or Elfin Lied there's a Bocchi the Rock! or Spy Family.
True. I mean, I let them watch anime I already watched (that's a huge catalog), so I know what to expect
Where was unsupervised consumption mentioned? Quit your pearl clutching.
I think you've misread my comment and OP's comment here
Everybody wanted to control the entire pie, when in reality almost all of them would have been better off just licensing their content to Netflix and not worrying about streaming distribution
So much this. Netflix was valuable to me because I could watch any movie at any time, but now the streaming space is so fragmented that no single provider is worth the price of the subscription, so our family doesn't pay for any of them.
We told ourselves that if we really want to watch movies we'd just rent them off Amazon on a case-by-case basis, but in practice we just completely stopped consuming streaming content as a family. If there are other families like us, then their greed made the whole pie much smaller.
We told ourselves that if we really want to watch movies we'd just rent them off Amazon on a case-by-case basis, but in practice we just completely stopped consuming streaming content as a family. If there are other families like us, then their greed made the whole pie much smaller.
I keep Netflix subscription most out of loyalty than anything else. I've had Amazon prime since it was first introduced but may drop it after the recent announcement.
I also tend to rent from Amazon if it's not on netflix, but if it's on neither or I disagree with the rent price or they don't allow you to rent, I just pirate.
I'm ok with them having my money, but once they started pulling everything off of netflix the entire landscape because anti-consumer. Their greed lost them my money.
I also tend to rent from Amazon if it's not on netflix, but if it's on neither or I disagree with the rent price or they don't allow you to rent, I just pirate.
I'm ok with them having my money, but once they started pulling everything off of netflix the entire landscape because anti-consumer. Their greed lost them my money.
I am in this boat as well. Our stream subscriptions are down to zero -- just the one I get for free with my cell carrier. And as for Disney and whatever the heck it is they have become, I have reverted back to purchasing purchased discs of any good movies or series.
Same, and with my toddler we’re back to good old fashioned DVDs. They may be slower, fragile and have a few unskippable parts but at least the ads are predictable, they don’t involve endless scrolling, and they belong to you.
I kind of skipped the whole blue-ray thing, but is there a reason for DVD over blue-ray besides the price?
Completely agree, but they never seem to learn.
The plumbing companies (like Netflix) look jealously at the content producers, and they desperately want that sweet content revenue.
The content producers (like Disney) look jealously at the plumbing companies, and they desperately want that sweet plumbing revenue.
Sometimes grabbing for the other revenue stream works out (like for Netflix) but most of the time it doesn't.
Disney was so eager to get into the plumbing business that it forgot how to create compelling content and now it can't do either.
The plumbing companies (like Netflix) look jealously at the content producers, and they desperately want that sweet content revenue.
The content producers (like Disney) look jealously at the plumbing companies, and they desperately want that sweet plumbing revenue.
Sometimes grabbing for the other revenue stream works out (like for Netflix) but most of the time it doesn't.
Disney was so eager to get into the plumbing business that it forgot how to create compelling content and now it can't do either.
Disney didn't forget :( They chose to stop, because they valued creating social change more than creating compelling content.
What did they do that makes you think they valued creating social change more?
I could explain, but South Park did it so well already.
If anyone is genuinely curious, you're looking for "south park panderverse".
If we didn't have at least 3 major services, ultimately said services would have made contracts that would have taken most of the value of the deal: That's basically what Netflix was doing when they were the only game in town. We have too many streaming services now, but a monopolist with sensible prices was never the way it was going to end.
It would’ve been interesting if the major studios made their own Netflix.
Assuming they could execute technically on it, then a consumer would have just one subscription to get a ton of great content, and honestly would probably be compelling to have that AND Netflix (all the long tail stuff).
Assuming they could execute technically on it, then a consumer would have just one subscription to get a ton of great content, and honestly would probably be compelling to have that AND Netflix (all the long tail stuff).
Wasn’t that the original idea behind Hulu?
Depending on what you mean by "studios", is this not what Hulu was? A joint ownership between multiple partners... ultimately down to Disney now but not originally.
That was the original idea behind Hulu back in 2007 (originally free but funded with mandatory ads).
> better off just licensing their content to Netflix
the thing is, this makes your IP a commodity. If netflix truly has a monopoly on the market like this, then they can supress the price of the licensing down to very low, and therefore disney would make very little money from the licensing.
It's good for the consumer, but not for disney.
the thing is, this makes your IP a commodity. If netflix truly has a monopoly on the market like this, then they can supress the price of the licensing down to very low, and therefore disney would make very little money from the licensing.
It's good for the consumer, but not for disney.
The way around this is license it to another platform. No exclusives.
If the IP is valuable that would in the negotiation. Simply put, there would be a minimum Disney would require from Netflix for their content. Better yet, structure some type of Joint-Venture deal with Netflix if the Disney content is so valuable (I suspect it is not…)
> a minimum Disney would require from Netflix for their content.
and netflix would just play hardball, since the scenario proposed by the grandparent post is one where only netflix is doing streaming.
> Joint-Venture deal with Netflix
which is not the scenario proposed by the GP - and in any case, this is not different from today, where every media company wants to own their own distribution network.
and netflix would just play hardball, since the scenario proposed by the grandparent post is one where only netflix is doing streaming.
> Joint-Venture deal with Netflix
which is not the scenario proposed by the GP - and in any case, this is not different from today, where every media company wants to own their own distribution network.
Well of course they'd have been. But prevailing wisdom just few years back was Disney's of the world can just steamroll Netflix of the world because they own all the content. Developing streaming system is only some low level implementation detail in larger scheme of things.
Well to be fair, Netflix got free money for years on the premise of future profits, whereas Disney are valued on quarterly earnings.
Back 7 years ago this is exactly what my company (one of those listed) decided was the right move.
Then they changed their mind and pivoted to streaming, now. They're thinking maybe they should have just been an arms dealer.
Then they changed their mind and pivoted to streaming, now. They're thinking maybe they should have just been an arms dealer.
...and Netflix couldn't grow as a tech company paying the ever increasing content costs (and wasn't happy with a utility company valuation) so has spent enormous sums on just terrible shows.
If you're an executive at any of these companies: VERTICAL INTEGRATION
If you're an outsider looking in: GREED
If you're an executive at any of these companies: VERTICAL INTEGRATION
If you're an outsider looking in: GREED
Ok but what's wrong with becoming a basic content internet utility? Why can't Netflix "just" be YouTube for professionally made TV and movie content, with a great UI? Why is that a bad business?
They tried, didn't they? The move into content was forced when the content producers started pulling the licenses.
It's not a bad business it's just a different business. What you are describing already exists and is less valuable than Netflix.
Nebula, brilliant, masterclass, dropout, ...
I do recommend all of these. They provide a stream of high quality YouTube like content.
Nebula, brilliant, masterclass, dropout, ...
I do recommend all of these. They provide a stream of high quality YouTube like content.
The Netflix Ui/UX sucks bad enough that I quit the service over it. I for one do not want them to gain a foothold in the market similar to YouTube, because their market dominance would just lead to the formation of yet another cesspool of shit content.
On the flip side, the old content is exactly what I want. I'm a big fan of Star Trek, including TNG, Voyager, DS9, and even Enterprise. If I play music while I work, I find myself getting distracted by it. So, I prefer to have Star Trek playing in the background since I've seen every episode multiple many times it's really just comforting background competence porn. Other than that, I don't really watch much TV but it's nice to have if I'm bored.
In the last year, I've had to switch streaming providers four times to access this catalogue. I've moved from Netflix to Paramount to Crave (I'm in Canada) and now I'm back on Netflix. For Christmas, I bought myself a Mini PC and a subscription to Proton VPN. At this point, I've spent enough money on Star Trek and a small amount of movies that I don't feel the moral issues I would if I were pirating indie games or something similar.
In the last year, I've had to switch streaming providers four times to access this catalogue. I've moved from Netflix to Paramount to Crave (I'm in Canada) and now I'm back on Netflix. For Christmas, I bought myself a Mini PC and a subscription to Proton VPN. At this point, I've spent enough money on Star Trek and a small amount of movies that I don't feel the moral issues I would if I were pirating indie games or something similar.
Voyager was one series I never completed before the streaming roulette started. Not sure how I started looking for it but I finally said no thanks to subs and bought a box set for 50 bucks. I can watch at my own pace and don't have to shell out 10-25 bucks every month. Have seen DS9 but may do the same there since the price (50 bucks) is so compelling as compared to streaming monthly costs, and you get to keep it forever (forever defined by some arbitrary parameter and not equal to infinity)
I was gutted when Paramount took ST:Discovery off Netflix. But not only did it not cause me to shell out for a Paramount subscription, it made me decide that I was completely done with Star Trek. I’m cured!
Why stream when you can either buy/torrent old media? I don't see a point to streaming when its more efficient to buy or download.
Because buy doesn't exist in a sane form for some things. Kids shows are known for never selling by season and only by some weird theme and of course there are dupes between sets. Buy isn't an option at all for some stuff. I'm looking at you Disney vault bulkshit, but also other not as iconic stuff.
Yes pirate, but that's a problem too. I've tried to pirate some stuff that wasn't popular or it was too old and you're just not able to.
Streaming removes a lot of that hassle. Now that the price is becoming too high, people are considering other options, but there is a reason it exists. Streaming is how I let my kids explore media. Yes, I can just give them my childhood favs, but they need a way to try new shows without me directly interfering and it's been great. I would have never picked out my kid's favs for her.
Yes pirate, but that's a problem too. I've tried to pirate some stuff that wasn't popular or it was too old and you're just not able to.
Streaming removes a lot of that hassle. Now that the price is becoming too high, people are considering other options, but there is a reason it exists. Streaming is how I let my kids explore media. Yes, I can just give them my childhood favs, but they need a way to try new shows without me directly interfering and it's been great. I would have never picked out my kid's favs for her.
Netflix's secret starting in their DVD days was to provide a service that had way more variety than Blockbuster, so that no matter who you were, the movies you wanted to watch would be available.
Disney especially was arrogant enough to assume that they controlled all the IP that people actually want to watch, so they thought they could just pull out of Netflix and everyone would switch. But that's not how movie preferences work. There's no brand loyalty, there are movies (and shows) people like and movies they don't, and each person's set of preferred movies is unique and spread out across studios. Disney isn't Apple.
Disney especially was arrogant enough to assume that they controlled all the IP that people actually want to watch, so they thought they could just pull out of Netflix and everyone would switch. But that's not how movie preferences work. There's no brand loyalty, there are movies (and shows) people like and movies they don't, and each person's set of preferred movies is unique and spread out across studios. Disney isn't Apple.
To be honest I give credit to consumers to puncture Disney's inflated ego and bring them down to earth. If a minimum threshold of folks kept hankering for Disney's content to keep them in good financial condition they'd remain arrogant as ever.
You also have to be willing to be put out good content that isn't written by ChatGPT, which, as we've seen, Disney has been unable to do for quite some time.
> Disney naively thought they could just serve up old classics while wringing the life out of Marvel and Star Wars IP and people would happily continue to pay.
Wringing the life is a pretty mean way to put it. They tried to use the IP to make money. Their movies and shows sound like propaganda with Twitter quips and they aren't good. Marvel and star wars peaked under Disney the same way that Apple peaked from Tim Cook in terms of profit, only apple products are still good.
Wringing the life is a pretty mean way to put it. They tried to use the IP to make money. Their movies and shows sound like propaganda with Twitter quips and they aren't good. Marvel and star wars peaked under Disney the same way that Apple peaked from Tim Cook in terms of profit, only apple products are still good.
> Wringing the life is a pretty mean way to put it.
Corporations don't have feelings. It is okay to be mean to multi billion dollar corporations.
Corporations don't have feelings. It is okay to be mean to multi billion dollar corporations.
You can be mean to people too! However, if you want to model the corporations correctly, you'll not go very far by thinking they are soulless machines. Most of the reasons corporations fail is people making awful decisions than help themselves personally, and harm long term corporate value.
As for low-quality content, I work with people that have made very bad entertainment. Nobody starts out thinking they'll make something bad. There might be some lowering of standards when, say, the voice acting manager and the voice actor decide that it's not coming out right, and there's no budget to try another 3 days.CGI gets planned for some amount, and when time and a half that is spent, Leia still looks like she is made of plastic. Maybe the writing sounded good to a decision maker, but they had terrible taste. Nobody tries to make it bad, but sometimes we get to choose between bad, and probably still mediocre, and massively unprofitable.
That was Disney's problem this year. A lot of content was super expensive: Go look at the budget for Dial of Destiny, or the per-episode cost of she-hulk. So high that they'd have to be the most viewed things ever to have a prayer at being worthwhile. People were trying their best, and the output wasn't a total embarrassment... but they were all money losers.
As for low-quality content, I work with people that have made very bad entertainment. Nobody starts out thinking they'll make something bad. There might be some lowering of standards when, say, the voice acting manager and the voice actor decide that it's not coming out right, and there's no budget to try another 3 days.CGI gets planned for some amount, and when time and a half that is spent, Leia still looks like she is made of plastic. Maybe the writing sounded good to a decision maker, but they had terrible taste. Nobody tries to make it bad, but sometimes we get to choose between bad, and probably still mediocre, and massively unprofitable.
That was Disney's problem this year. A lot of content was super expensive: Go look at the budget for Dial of Destiny, or the per-episode cost of she-hulk. So high that they'd have to be the most viewed things ever to have a prayer at being worthwhile. People were trying their best, and the output wasn't a total embarrassment... but they were all money losers.
> That was Disney's problem this year. A lot of content was super expensive
The streaming model requires a conveyor belt of content to work. And movies are expensive to produce, consume a lot of bandwidth, and not really replayable. The constraints tend to give bad content. It’s the whole cheap, fast, and good triangle.
The streaming model requires a conveyor belt of content to work. And movies are expensive to produce, consume a lot of bandwidth, and not really replayable. The constraints tend to give bad content. It’s the whole cheap, fast, and good triangle.
Corporations are made up of people and groups of people do very much have feelings.
Corporations are people when it benefits them, and are mindless machines when it benefits them.
Right now they're people because they're being criticized. When they do massive layoffs they're just a business doing business things. When it comes to advertising they're people with free speech rights, but when they're committing wage theft they're just businesses and no one goes to jail. When they hire lobbyists it's their right as people, but when they violate laws meant to keep our environment safe they're just companies again and are hit with a small fine.
It's amazingly convenient (for the corporations at least) that they are only people when it benefits them but can drop that title easily when it makes them more money and shields those people from consequences.
Right now they're people because they're being criticized. When they do massive layoffs they're just a business doing business things. When it comes to advertising they're people with free speech rights, but when they're committing wage theft they're just businesses and no one goes to jail. When they hire lobbyists it's their right as people, but when they violate laws meant to keep our environment safe they're just companies again and are hit with a small fine.
It's amazingly convenient (for the corporations at least) that they are only people when it benefits them but can drop that title easily when it makes them more money and shields those people from consequences.
Corporations don't have hands to wring either. I don't love Disney, either IP or their agenda but they didn't wring it. Factually.
They bought an IP to add onto it. If any company wringed anything it was Google buying Motorola for patents and then spitting out the bones to resell.
They bought an IP to add onto it. If any company wringed anything it was Google buying Motorola for patents and then spitting out the bones to resell.
> Wringing the life is a pretty mean way to put it. They tried to use the IP to make money.
Mean or not, I'd say it's also accurate. They tried to use the IP to make money... by wringing the life out of it. There are so many Marvel/Star Wars movies/tv shows now you need a freaking spreadsheet to keep track.
Mean or not, I'd say it's also accurate. They tried to use the IP to make money... by wringing the life out of it. There are so many Marvel/Star Wars movies/tv shows now you need a freaking spreadsheet to keep track.
Bingo, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling like I can't start in the middle and it's impossible to track back to the first story or there are just way too many so I just give up and don't watch any.
They did that with Pirates of the Caribbean first... I blinked and there were 5 of them.
> you need a freaking spreadsheet to keep track.
Still in luck, you are not yet in Hadoop domain :-)
Still in luck, you are not yet in Hadoop domain :-)
Religions don't wring up other religions by making more media of other religions.
WTF does religion have to do with this? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
You don't wring anything by making more media. It is a ridiculous idea to think.
You absolutely can wring something out by making too much of it. There's a reason "superhero fatigue" is a thing.
> Wringing the life is a pretty mean way to put it.
I take issue less with the volume of Star Wars and Marvel content, and more with how Disney makes small gestures toward "genre" while keeping all of that content within a tightly brand-controlled realm where there are no real stakes or diversity and everything needs to be canon. This is one of the areas where I can appreciate WB's approach more with having a variety of movies and shows with vastly different styles and audiences that obviously can't fit together in the same universe.
I take issue less with the volume of Star Wars and Marvel content, and more with how Disney makes small gestures toward "genre" while keeping all of that content within a tightly brand-controlled realm where there are no real stakes or diversity and everything needs to be canon. This is one of the areas where I can appreciate WB's approach more with having a variety of movies and shows with vastly different styles and audiences that obviously can't fit together in the same universe.
This comment reminded me of South Park’s Panderverse for some reason.
For my family, Disney’s value is more balanced between old and new content, vs Netflix, which I expect to lose content after some time.
Making all those awful Marvel and Star Wars movies and taking our money anyway was pretty mean too.
Andor is phenomenal at least.
Marvel and Star Wars are managed in radically different ways, by completely different "PM"s.
Weird, I couldn’t tell at all since they both have converged on the exact same format.
Are you serious? TLDR: They feel pretty different to me. SW has nowhere to go and is trying to go nowhere. Marvel continues doing its thing, within the level of competence they've always demonstrated.
I find that SW has declined to a level previously unimaginable, they are effectively stuck doing live action versions of children's animated TV shows. The mild incompetence of Clone Wars is now a distant memory, the lowest level of quality in a SW fiction project ever has been breached multiple times now by shows such as Boba Fett. The whole universe has no guiding function, expect to retcon as much as possible on top of previously very popular characters.
Marvel has ALWAYS been a milquetoast production company, with some big hits like Iron Man, Avengers films, etc. But most of their production has always been "ok", and having watched The Marvels recently, I felt like they're just going back to their Phase 1 days, where some films were good, many not really (Thor 2, Avengers 2, Iron Man 2).
BUT Marvel has a guideline for where they want to take their content, even if they just recently lost a major actor (only his own fault).
So yeah I do think there's a difference. Marvel is ok, has always been ok, with some moments of brilliance.
Star Wars was a bit all over the place but it definitely had new ideas, every single movie introduced something interesting, be it a location/planet, a character or spaceship. It didn't constantly flirt with the same recycled material ad nauseam, because its creative direction was set, even if sometimes the audience did not like the result.
Current Star Wars creative direction is nil outside of "let's find some other popular side character to wrap a show around, maybe?". There is no story line that makes any sense for the SW being produced, it's just a grab bag of "this worked I guess".
I find that SW has declined to a level previously unimaginable, they are effectively stuck doing live action versions of children's animated TV shows. The mild incompetence of Clone Wars is now a distant memory, the lowest level of quality in a SW fiction project ever has been breached multiple times now by shows such as Boba Fett. The whole universe has no guiding function, expect to retcon as much as possible on top of previously very popular characters.
Marvel has ALWAYS been a milquetoast production company, with some big hits like Iron Man, Avengers films, etc. But most of their production has always been "ok", and having watched The Marvels recently, I felt like they're just going back to their Phase 1 days, where some films were good, many not really (Thor 2, Avengers 2, Iron Man 2).
BUT Marvel has a guideline for where they want to take their content, even if they just recently lost a major actor (only his own fault).
So yeah I do think there's a difference. Marvel is ok, has always been ok, with some moments of brilliance.
Star Wars was a bit all over the place but it definitely had new ideas, every single movie introduced something interesting, be it a location/planet, a character or spaceship. It didn't constantly flirt with the same recycled material ad nauseam, because its creative direction was set, even if sometimes the audience did not like the result.
Current Star Wars creative direction is nil outside of "let's find some other popular side character to wrap a show around, maybe?". There is no story line that makes any sense for the SW being produced, it's just a grab bag of "this worked I guess".
Meanwhile I loved Clone Wars & Rebels, as well as Rogue One. Thus I'm digging shows like Ahsoka & Andor. I'm less excited about the shows tied to the main movies like Boba Fett & Kenobi.
Exactly this. SW productions are side characters who had some kind of relationship with a skywalker at some point getting their own shows. The recent movie franchise didn't manage to open new directions for bigger plots that can be presented as tv shows therefore all Disney+ SW productions are stuck in the past trying to unsuccessfully expand on existing characters.
> The majority of people who buy streaming, I suspect, are interested mainly in the conveyor belt of diverse and engaging content.
I'd love to see this backed up by sources. I for one recall seeing streaming stats from Disney+ and old series like X Files are up there as some of the most streamed.
Anecdotally, I watch and rewatch a lot of old series. Like I'm rewatching Breaking Bad on Netflix right now.
I'd love to see this backed up by sources. I for one recall seeing streaming stats from Disney+ and old series like X Files are up there as some of the most streamed.
Anecdotally, I watch and rewatch a lot of old series. Like I'm rewatching Breaking Bad on Netflix right now.
> streaming stats from Disney+ and old series like X Files are up there as some of the most streamed.
This doesn't contradict OP—Disney's new content is mostly bad, so it's unsurprising that on their platform people are watching older stuff. But would that have been true of Netflix before everything fragmented? And how many people aren't on Disney+ at all because they'd prefer to see new, good content and already finished what little Disney is putting out?
This doesn't contradict OP—Disney's new content is mostly bad, so it's unsurprising that on their platform people are watching older stuff. But would that have been true of Netflix before everything fragmented? And how many people aren't on Disney+ at all because they'd prefer to see new, good content and already finished what little Disney is putting out?
Isn't Suits - a long since lapsed cable series - like the most popular thing on Netflix? So was Friends, Seinfeld, and The Office for a time too. People love to think they can generalize all streamers into a bucket when in reality it's not as simple as anyone thinks. Viewing trends change all the time and can be unpredictable, even horrible stuff gets tons of views.
Apparently not:
https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/tv
Top 10 is pretty dynamic. Longest item there was there for 6 weeks and is new content. Hilariously "Fireplace 4K: Crackling Birchwood from Fireplace for Your Home" beats out Squid Game.
https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/tv
Top 10 is pretty dynamic. Longest item there was there for 6 weeks and is new content. Hilariously "Fireplace 4K: Crackling Birchwood from Fireplace for Your Home" beats out Squid Game.
Squid game show not the actual Korean drama series
It's definitely relative to some degree, X-Files is new content to people of a certain age.
The perspective isn't "this is old" it's "think of all of the people born after $THING released, it's new to them."
Ultimately yeah, it's this. Netflix wins because it understands hanging your hat on one series or IP is business suicide. They churn out a bunch of shows, from higher budget big IPs to a bunch of lower budget series and animations.
David Zaslav and other media execs wanted to try and force the old media philosophy in the streaming environment, which also meant executing a bunch of mid-budget and lower-budget series to try and save money. Except they also shot their only chance of following the actually successful model of Netflix.
David Zaslav and other media execs wanted to try and force the old media philosophy in the streaming environment, which also meant executing a bunch of mid-budget and lower-budget series to try and save money. Except they also shot their only chance of following the actually successful model of Netflix.
Well Amazon shot many very expensive shows and they turned out to be crapola. The only thing favored Amazon studios was huge cash from Amazon so they could just be fine with all mega failures.
So far lot of streaming shows are crappy in a way I can't quite put my finger on and its definitely not just about budget.
So far lot of streaming shows are crappy in a way I can't quite put my finger on and its definitely not just about budget.
I believe it’s the writing. There is no soul in te dialogue and characterization always seems forced. Acting and set design may be good, but it feels like no one is giving a damn about the scenario
I feel the opposite for Netflix, which has better writing but worse acting, casting, costumes and generally plastic feeling on most of its original shows.
I find most streaming shows subpar, I don’t even bother any more and just watch old series I’ve never seen like Mad Men or Beeaking bad or cheers.
We multicam sitcom is kind of awful in this regard, but at least usually it’s funny.
I think for many Netflix streaming shows it’s something with the cinematography, framing, and use of extras. I know in older movies you would get a variety of shots (through a window outside, or across a crowded room as character approaches, swooping in from above, etc) I think a lot of Netflix shows become framing shot, then “headshot to headshot” without much diversity of perspective. The also use less extra I think. I’m not sure but I think that is a factor.
We multicam sitcom is kind of awful in this regard, but at least usually it’s funny.
I think for many Netflix streaming shows it’s something with the cinematography, framing, and use of extras. I know in older movies you would get a variety of shots (through a window outside, or across a crowded room as character approaches, swooping in from above, etc) I think a lot of Netflix shows become framing shot, then “headshot to headshot” without much diversity of perspective. The also use less extra I think. I’m not sure but I think that is a factor.
Money is no substitute for talent.
Except when the "higher budget" is really just paying for an A-list actor with mediocre at best content.
There is so much of this in recent years and I think Netflix may be the biggest offender.
Yes because running NFLX, by comparison, is probably not as "fun" of a job as running a traditional media org. Imagine being in charge of IP you watched as a kid, mingling with famous actors & directors .. it's very sexy. It's a ticket to a different social life. A lot of them are larger than life personalities than come from media families.
Netflix by comparison is like running any other FAANG. Pays well, but you can live a pretty rich-but-anonymous life still. I had to look up who was running NFLX these days, and one of the co-CEOs doesn't even have a picture on his Wiki page.
Netflix by comparison is like running any other FAANG. Pays well, but you can live a pretty rich-but-anonymous life still. I had to look up who was running NFLX these days, and one of the co-CEOs doesn't even have a picture on his Wiki page.
I don’t think “beaming 4k video around the world” is really an issue at all.
The way the internet works, with peering etc. bandwidth is super, super cheap. It’s basically too cheap to meter. AWS bandwidth pricing has no relationship to actual bandwidth costs and never did.
Netflix has for years been operating open connect, basically they place proxy servers with ISPs (effectively a peering type arrangement). In 2021 Netflix said they spent $1B worldwide on open connect over the previous 10 years. But they spent $19B last year on “cost of revenue” which basically means content.
$20B a year on content. $0.1B a year on their CDN. I can’t imagine Disney, Comcast, etc is much different.
The way the internet works, with peering etc. bandwidth is super, super cheap. It’s basically too cheap to meter. AWS bandwidth pricing has no relationship to actual bandwidth costs and never did.
Netflix has for years been operating open connect, basically they place proxy servers with ISPs (effectively a peering type arrangement). In 2021 Netflix said they spent $1B worldwide on open connect over the previous 10 years. But they spent $19B last year on “cost of revenue” which basically means content.
$20B a year on content. $0.1B a year on their CDN. I can’t imagine Disney, Comcast, etc is much different.
> I think this primarily comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of where the value in streaming services lies from the perspective of old world media giants.
> Meanwhile Netflix has built some of the most sophisticated production tooling in the world, and leveraged cross-country content like no old-world provider ever has.
If it was so fundamental and obvious like you state wouldn't you have been super rich by now by buying netflix stock when it crashed in 2022. Maybe you are ?
Dominant narrative back then was that netflix is nothing specail. Building a stream app is a commodity that anyone can build and the old-world providers have content that people want to watch.
> Meanwhile Netflix has built some of the most sophisticated production tooling in the world, and leveraged cross-country content like no old-world provider ever has.
If it was so fundamental and obvious like you state wouldn't you have been super rich by now by buying netflix stock when it crashed in 2022. Maybe you are ?
Dominant narrative back then was that netflix is nothing specail. Building a stream app is a commodity that anyone can build and the old-world providers have content that people want to watch.
Any argument of the form “if you knew that all along you’d be rich by now from playing the stock market” is fundamentally flawed because it overlooks one of the most well known dangers of the stock market:
For a concrete example, before Paramount+ launched I predicted that it would be dead in less than a year.
Clearly I was wrong because it’s still going 2 years later. I still think it will die relatively soon, but predicting exactly when is virtually impossible.
“The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”
For a concrete example, before Paramount+ launched I predicted that it would be dead in less than a year.
Clearly I was wrong because it’s still going 2 years later. I still think it will die relatively soon, but predicting exactly when is virtually impossible.
Everything was doom and gloom for Netflix as I remember it. They were wholly dependent on the licensed content that they will inevitably lose. I guess it turns out that becoming a studio is easier than becoming a streaming platform.
Either that or Netflix just did a better job than the studios did.
Just because someone was more successful with one strategy than someone else was with a different strategy doesn't mean that the strategy is superior, they could just be a better overall player or even a worse player that happened to outmaneuver a better player, or, even, in the massive multiplayer battle royale that is our economy, a worse player that made bad decisions but happened to luck into ideal market conditions.
I don't think Zoom did anything particularly revolutionary, their product just happened to be the exact right balance at the exact right time.
Just because someone was more successful with one strategy than someone else was with a different strategy doesn't mean that the strategy is superior, they could just be a better overall player or even a worse player that happened to outmaneuver a better player, or, even, in the massive multiplayer battle royale that is our economy, a worse player that made bad decisions but happened to luck into ideal market conditions.
I don't think Zoom did anything particularly revolutionary, their product just happened to be the exact right balance at the exact right time.
Netflix - The Studio is extremely sub-par, even by today's lacklustre standards. Sure, they have the occasional success; you throw enough garbage against the wall and something will stick.
> classic story of a tenant mistakenly believing the landlord has it easy - so they abandon their sublet and try to build a mall from scratch
The Mall of Damocles
The Mall of Damocles
It’s funny how crap the other streamers apps still are compared to Netflix.
Little things matter.
Netflix always picks up the exact second you left a show. Apple, Disney and prime sometimes jump back 5 minutes or even more.
Netflix app opens super fast even in my crap old smart TV. Apple, Disney, prime take ages. Even when open the UI is very sloppy.
Netflix adjusts the streaming quality depending on your connection. Which means things download fast / stream reliably and also presumable saves them a tonne of bandwidth.
An then they actually have good content too…
Little things matter.
Netflix always picks up the exact second you left a show. Apple, Disney and prime sometimes jump back 5 minutes or even more.
Netflix app opens super fast even in my crap old smart TV. Apple, Disney, prime take ages. Even when open the UI is very sloppy.
Netflix adjusts the streaming quality depending on your connection. Which means things download fast / stream reliably and also presumable saves them a tonne of bandwidth.
An then they actually have good content too…
Netflix spends a lot more on per developer, and has been working on the UI for longer: See, for instance, how a big percentage of manpower at Disney has been spent going from two completely different UIs between D+ and Hulu into a single one, so every feature didn't have to be made multiple times. Those kind of projects, with a quantity-over-quality approach to hiring, tend to take forever.
Netflix also has an advantage in cost management, also due to better engineers that are also better paid, and have been managing their system for far longer. The AWS bill for D+ is not the kind you get when you have good chances to be profitable. I bet a lot of engineering in the next year or two will be used just more efficient use of compute and storage. I bet many teams there are spending far more on servers than on people.
And if D+ could be doing better, and is still unprofitable, imagine the situation in other competitors that are even newer. The total cost of the infrastructure, without even counting the licensing or the marketing, might cost the more than people are paying.
Netflix also has an advantage in cost management, also due to better engineers that are also better paid, and have been managing their system for far longer. The AWS bill for D+ is not the kind you get when you have good chances to be profitable. I bet a lot of engineering in the next year or two will be used just more efficient use of compute and storage. I bet many teams there are spending far more on servers than on people.
And if D+ could be doing better, and is still unprofitable, imagine the situation in other competitors that are even newer. The total cost of the infrastructure, without even counting the licensing or the marketing, might cost the more than people are paying.
The un-disableable auto-preview, however, is so annoying I never want to open Netflix.
What's really great is MAX. If you've already seen an episode (rewatch or whatever) you probably didn't watch to the complete end (ie skipped the credits), especially if auto play is on. You go to watch that episode again and it drops you at the last 5-10s of the episode and you need to quickly scramble to pause-rewind back before it jumps to the next episode.
What's really great is MAX. If you've already seen an episode (rewatch or whatever) you probably didn't watch to the complete end (ie skipped the credits), especially if auto play is on. You go to watch that episode again and it drops you at the last 5-10s of the episode and you need to quickly scramble to pause-rewind back before it jumps to the next episode.
Prime never remembers when I finish an episode correctly. It’s always a few minutes from the end or even forgotten I watched it at all. It’s a mess to pick up a new season and struggle with, did I actually watch the complete last season?
Oh it's so much worse than opening speed. Paramount+ is straight unusable on every platform I tried, the Android reviews show I'm not the only one. It crashes, fails to load, kicks your dog, you name it. Can't be used.
Peacock has no way to remember I want to see my local news channel live. I have to scroll the entire list of all of the channels across the nation and find mine. It's somewhere near the bottom.
Peacock also has the problem if I pause and want to resume somewhere in the last 15 minutes of a show it'll assume I've finished it and restart. Not great when you just wanted to watch the conclusion after getting off of the treadmill. Also not great when combined with the impossible to use scrubbers, it moves far too fast to be accurate. If you get within 5 minutes of what you were aiming for, it's best to just rewatch that 5 minutes again. You can't improve on it.
I could go on for a while about these platforms, they're hot garbage.
Peacock has no way to remember I want to see my local news channel live. I have to scroll the entire list of all of the channels across the nation and find mine. It's somewhere near the bottom.
Peacock also has the problem if I pause and want to resume somewhere in the last 15 minutes of a show it'll assume I've finished it and restart. Not great when you just wanted to watch the conclusion after getting off of the treadmill. Also not great when combined with the impossible to use scrubbers, it moves far too fast to be accurate. If you get within 5 minutes of what you were aiming for, it's best to just rewatch that 5 minutes again. You can't improve on it.
I could go on for a while about these platforms, they're hot garbage.
I had this problem with Peacock when trying to rewatch the Office. I kept having to dig through their search to get to it and for some reason it wouldn't add it to my recents. In the end I bookmarked the show page and just use that.
Netflix streaming looks worst on my 150" screen. Some shows are watchables but some are simply junk bitrate wise to the point I get huge posterisation effects/pixels. The quality of the content itself is another issue.
For movies I just get the disk and store it forever with r.volution NAS(aka old zappiti NAS)
4K at 150" would look like crap.
Do any streaming services support 8K? That is a lot of bandwidth and decode overhead.
>4K at 150" would look like crap
I mean it would really depend how close you're sitting to the screen, wouldn't it?
I mean it would really depend how close you're sitting to the screen, wouldn't it?
The parent post said it looks pixelated.
So, yes distance matters but is not relevant to my post because they already said it looks bad.
Netflix buffers more for me and quality is awful for up to 20 seconds, I like the small jump back on Disney+ when resuming
Disney has admitted they aren't trying to please Star Wars fans. Amazon has admitted they aren't trying to please Tolkien fans. Fans already consider these new developments of timeless classics to be non-canon no matter who technically owns the rights. It'll be a lesson taught in brand management for eons, until the heat death of the sun - don't acquire a property which is only valuable because of fans, just to discard the very thing that gives it value - the fans.
They truly will learn their lessons, or somebody else will.
They truly will learn their lessons, or somebody else will.
> Meanwhile Netflix has built some of the most sophisticated production tooling in the world, and leveraged cross-country content like no old-world provider ever has.
I stopped subscribing to Netflix around 2 years ago because that "sophisticated production tooling" was producing almost purely garbage tier content. With the exception of Black Mirror, there were no compelling new shows - and Black Mirror on its own was not worth the monthly subscription.
I stopped subscribing to Netflix around 2 years ago because that "sophisticated production tooling" was producing almost purely garbage tier content. With the exception of Black Mirror, there were no compelling new shows - and Black Mirror on its own was not worth the monthly subscription.
I think that part of the problem might be that streaming no longer reliably supplies the old classics. I would likely pay for a service where when someone says "You haven't seen X? It's a classic!" I could reliably watch it. However, in practice the classics are spread across so many different services that none of them are worth subscribing to.
>I think this primarily comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding
I love this. I am not being sarcastic but the optimistic and somewhat enthusiasm of fundamental misunderstanding.
>It’s a classic story of a tenant mistakenly believing the landlord has it easy
I am old. But it still amaze me that "strategic thinking" is such a rare skill set with top executive while high efficiency executive are in abundance.
But then I also remember for more than 10 years the media went with the idea that "execution eats strategy for breakfast."
I love this. I am not being sarcastic but the optimistic and somewhat enthusiasm of fundamental misunderstanding.
>It’s a classic story of a tenant mistakenly believing the landlord has it easy
I am old. But it still amaze me that "strategic thinking" is such a rare skill set with top executive while high efficiency executive are in abundance.
But then I also remember for more than 10 years the media went with the idea that "execution eats strategy for breakfast."
> it still amaze me that "strategic thinking" is such a rare skill set with top executive while high efficiency executive are in abundance.
How much money did the executive make while it took years for these strategies to fail? How much will they make from the golden parachute if they're actually fired for their failures? Is that really failure, relative to the executive?
How much money did the executive make while it took years for these strategies to fail? How much will they make from the golden parachute if they're actually fired for their failures? Is that really failure, relative to the executive?
Maybe Disney just needs to start charging Netflix prices?
Disney really shouldn't even be included in the first sentence of this article, according to itself they have 8 million subscribers and are expecting to be profitable next year.
With a subscriber base of 8 million, assuming hypothetically that each pays $15 monthly over an entire year (a figure which is inflated), the resultant annual _revenue_ would be approximately $1.4 billion.
However, their financial losses this year have exceeded even this ($1.6 billion in first 9 months alone)
Their projection of achieving profitability in the next fiscal year seems, under these circumstances, quite optimistic :)
However, their financial losses this year have exceeded even this ($1.6 billion in first 9 months alone)
Their projection of achieving profitability in the next fiscal year seems, under these circumstances, quite optimistic :)
Disney also has Hulu and ESPN+.
(They rolled up Hulu after acquiring a majority share with the purchase of Fox)
(They rolled up Hulu after acquiring a majority share with the purchase of Fox)
Oh, interesting. I'm surprised they haven't merged them / moved people over / shut down Hulu.
Hulu is the touchstone service — it’s the more edgy and diverse content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_Pictures?wprov=sfti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_Pictures?wprov=sfti...
They're merging the two apps right now.
As of the last couple of months, much of hulu's content is available under the disney app. Seems only a matter of time before the hulu app is completely deprecated.
As of the last couple of months, much of hulu's content is available under the disney app. Seems only a matter of time before the hulu app is completely deprecated.
They have stake in Hulu, other partner is Comcast. So Disney can't just shut it down on their own.
They are in the process of selling it to Disney (following a 2019 deal giving them the option).
https://deadline.com/2023/12/comcast-disney-hulu-mike-cavana...
To some extent, Disney are using it as their adult oriented streaming service in the US.
https://deadline.com/2023/12/comcast-disney-hulu-mike-cavana...
To some extent, Disney are using it as their adult oriented streaming service in the US.
They have way more subscribers than that but are losing subscribers and are themselves in a frenzy over what they consider the failure of Disney+
Netflix isn't profitable if you reject that their production have long term value. Or did that change?
Do you have any first hand sources of Disney’s thought process and strategy as you’ve summarized them here? Calling Disney naive is bold.
> and leveraged cross-country content like no old-world provider ever has.
Mixing in a lot of foreign language content to make their library seem larger is a sad joke and one of the main reasons I no longer subscribe to Netflix.
Edit for clarity: I’m fine with foreign language content in general, as long as it’s categorized as such. The problem is how Netflix mixes it in with everything else in a deceptive manor.
I can remember when Blockbuster and video rental stores would put all this in a foreign language section, which was then further broken down by genre.
Mixing in a lot of foreign language content to make their library seem larger is a sad joke and one of the main reasons I no longer subscribe to Netflix.
Edit for clarity: I’m fine with foreign language content in general, as long as it’s categorized as such. The problem is how Netflix mixes it in with everything else in a deceptive manor.
I can remember when Blockbuster and video rental stores would put all this in a foreign language section, which was then further broken down by genre.
I guess I’m not sure how it’s deceptive? Yes, content isn’t segregated at the top level into foreign and domestic, but the original language is clearly shown and there are many country or language-specific categories too.
Maybe in Blockbuster in the US in the 1990s putting all “foreign” stuff over in its own corner made sense. But most countries didn’t do that. And content consumption has become a lot more globalized in the past decade.
For many people, easily accessing (and being recommended) interesting foreign content is one of Netflix’s selling points, I’d say.
Maybe in Blockbuster in the US in the 1990s putting all “foreign” stuff over in its own corner made sense. But most countries didn’t do that. And content consumption has become a lot more globalized in the past decade.
For many people, easily accessing (and being recommended) interesting foreign content is one of Netflix’s selling points, I’d say.
It’s deceptive in the tactics they use to hide the fact it’s dubbed until you actually start watching it. (See sibling comment further down)
Netflix’s foreign content is quite good. Especially the Korean stuff is pretty high quality and way cheaper to produce, seems like a good idea to me.
> the Korean stuff is pretty high quality
It's part of their Asia pivot. Netflix invests in fairly high quality Asian TV to try and compete for market share within Asia.
Amazon Prime is doing a similar pivot (fairly successfully I might add) in India.
Disney has dropped out of the Asian market because they just couldn't compete Asian competitors or Amazon+Netflix.
It's part of their Asia pivot. Netflix invests in fairly high quality Asian TV to try and compete for market share within Asia.
Amazon Prime is doing a similar pivot (fairly successfully I might add) in India.
Disney has dropped out of the Asian market because they just couldn't compete Asian competitors or Amazon+Netflix.
Disney is big in India through Hotstar and Star India which they acquired along with Fox.
Edit: Seems, I wasn't up to date, they are planning to exit India also. Thanks, alephnerd
Edit: Seems, I wasn't up to date, they are planning to exit India also. Thanks, alephnerd
Disney is selling Hotstar and Star India to Reliance.
It's part of their larger pivot away from Asia and towards building a competitive American streaming presence
https://inc42.com/buzz/reliance-to-acquire-walt-disney-india...
https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2023/06/15/disney-shuts-down...
It's part of their larger pivot away from Asia and towards building a competitive American streaming presence
https://inc42.com/buzz/reliance-to-acquire-walt-disney-india...
https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2023/06/15/disney-shuts-down...
I’m fine with foreign language content in general, as long as it’s categorized as such. The problem is how Netflix mixes it in with everything else in a deceptive manor.
What is foreign language for such a global service?
If I am in Spain, should shows in English be bundled in a "Foreign Language" along with Korean dramas, Japanese animation, and a couple of odd series in Dutch? How is this helpful?
Not saying that language categorization is a bad thing. Being able to filter shows that are available in a specific audio language, or with a specific language available for subtitles, would be a bad thing. But I seriously question the helpfulness of "English" and "Other"
If I am in Spain, should shows in English be bundled in a "Foreign Language" along with Korean dramas, Japanese animation, and a couple of odd series in Dutch? How is this helpful?
Not saying that language categorization is a bad thing. Being able to filter shows that are available in a specific audio language, or with a specific language available for subtitles, would be a bad thing. But I seriously question the helpfulness of "English" and "Other"
I think the right approach would be to label content that is not in the source language you have set as your device locale.
It’s not about filtering out the content, it’s about making it easy to tell whether or not it’s going to start playing with dubbed audio so the viewer can make a better choice.
It’s not about filtering out the content, it’s about making it easy to tell whether or not it’s going to start playing with dubbed audio so the viewer can make a better choice.
Locales are often compromises that don't reflect user preferences particularly well. People speak multiple languages, and they may have different preferences for content / UI languages, date/time formats etc. And the preferences may be situational, such as native X > native English > English translation/localization > X translation/localization.
Just tag the content with the relevant languages and let the user create filters based on them. And assume that the user understands that languages don't form disjoint categories, because the content itself could be multilingual.
Besides, original audio with subtitles is usually superior to dubbed audio.
Just tag the content with the relevant languages and let the user create filters based on them. And assume that the user understands that languages don't form disjoint categories, because the content itself could be multilingual.
Besides, original audio with subtitles is usually superior to dubbed audio.
Hollywood is not in the source language for most of the world. Netflix brand new English content is also not in the source language for most of the world.
Netflix started as English only and already has regional content. It would make since for foreign to be considered “not the dominant language in this region/nstion”
The content quality is excellent, but the English-language voice acting is horrible.
Because it's an afterthought.
Netflix added KDramas in order to help it pivot into the Asian market. Most viewers will be watching the shows via subtitles.
Netflix added KDramas in order to help it pivot into the Asian market. Most viewers will be watching the shows via subtitles.
The shows are heavily promoted here in the US, and they default to the English soundtrack.
I'm in the US. And KDramas don't show up prominently in my recommendations (I prefer watching on KissAsian - force of habit and the subs are better).
The algo is heavily targeted to your own assumed tastes. The one time I did watch one, it was in Korean with English subs.
Maybe you watched a western marketed KDrama like Squid Games? Try watching Beyond Evil, Itaewon Class, Reply 1988, or Mr Queen and see if it reverts to English. I'm kinda curious now
The algo is heavily targeted to your own assumed tastes. The one time I did watch one, it was in Korean with English subs.
Maybe you watched a western marketed KDrama like Squid Games? Try watching Beyond Evil, Itaewon Class, Reply 1988, or Mr Queen and see if it reverts to English. I'm kinda curious now
On top of that, the English subtitles don’t match up with the English voiceovers.
That’s normal. You have to match appropriate sentence length in dubs otherwise when another person is taking the wrong person will still be talking in the dubbed language. Subtitles allow for better translation as that limitation isn’t there
Cross-country content doesn't have to mean foreign language content, right? Squid Game and Money Heist are two examples of "cross-country" content that served Netflix extremely well IMO. Produced for a specific non-anglo-centric region, they slapped shitty English dubs on those and suddenly, world-wide hits.
That’s another thing I don’t like about Netflix: English dubs by default. It’s an example of the deceptive tactics I’m referring to in how they present foreign language content.
The default audio should be in the source language, with subtitles in your language.
The default audio should be in the source language, with subtitles in your language.
Is it really the default? My "default language" isn't english but don't remember seeing a dubbed show.
Unfortunately it is. If you want to listen to the original source audio with subtitles, you have to change these settings each time. It’s super annoying. (Unless something changed recently)
I’m totally with you. I still use almost exclusively Netflix but have to spend a lot more time finding content as it even seems they go out of their way to hide the fact it’s a dub in the trailers. I do a lot of backing out once I realize it’s dubbed.
Thank you, this is exactly what I was referring to. I forgot about the deceptive trailers that attempt to hide the fact it’s dubbed. There’s definitely a deliberate attempt to trick viewers here.
I think the only easy way to tell without watching is by looking at the names of the actors. If they are look like they are from a particular language/region, then it’s usually a sign it’s dubbed.
I was starting to wonder if I was alone with this opinion or if there is just a some Netflix employees here trying to gaslight me. :)
I think the only easy way to tell without watching is by looking at the names of the actors. If they are look like they are from a particular language/region, then it’s usually a sign it’s dubbed.
I was starting to wonder if I was alone with this opinion or if there is just a some Netflix employees here trying to gaslight me. :)
The world is so much larger than the US, you wouldn't believe.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything I stated?
The same would be true if I was watching Netflix in France with my device locale set to fr-FR. I’d just consider English content to be foreign language content instead.
The same would be true if I was watching Netflix in France with my device locale set to fr-FR. I’d just consider English content to be foreign language content instead.
How exactly is that relevant to a streaming service located in, and targeted at, the US?
It is not targeted at the US.
Why is it a problem for you? Don't like reading subs when doing stuff in the background? It's my main reason I don't like foreign, I'm either reading or watching.
I don’t like reading subtitles period (totally distracts from actually watching the movie for me) and I don’t like dubs either as the words not lining up annoys me.
With the way the sound is mixed, I always have subtitle shown. But I’m a fast reader.
Edited post to make my reason more clear
It is surprising to me that the article does not mention Amazon. Starting in January Amazon is going to "feature" ads unless you pay more. I for one am sick of ads in everything and so finally have good motivation to quit prime.
It seems to me this is a continuing example of fantasy businesses. We will deliver products the next day for free. Oops the next three days. Oops a week later. Oops, not for free. We will have free movies. We will make money by producing a constant stream of quality movies. Oops, pablum movies. Oops we have to put ads in the movies.
A business is a thing that provides value to customers which the customers are willing to pay for. If you give your product away, or have get money from other sources to provide for your customers, then you are not a business. Lock in and other anti-customer practices do not make something into a business. Massive tax fraud does not make a business. And yes, I realize Amazon, Microsoft and Apple make money. At least for now.
It seems to me this is a continuing example of fantasy businesses. We will deliver products the next day for free. Oops the next three days. Oops a week later. Oops, not for free. We will have free movies. We will make money by producing a constant stream of quality movies. Oops, pablum movies. Oops we have to put ads in the movies.
A business is a thing that provides value to customers which the customers are willing to pay for. If you give your product away, or have get money from other sources to provide for your customers, then you are not a business. Lock in and other anti-customer practices do not make something into a business. Massive tax fraud does not make a business. And yes, I realize Amazon, Microsoft and Apple make money. At least for now.
I got the Amazon email yesterday and called them. No way to get a prorated refund so I turned off auto renew on Prime. I had a nice conversation with the lady and said the only thing that would prevent the lapse of Prime would be no ads for the base price.
If people cancel in droves they reconsider their position.
If people cancel in droves they reconsider their position.
>No way to get a prorated refund
Maybe this is an annual payment thing? Because I paid monthly and cancelled the other day online and it offered to refund me back $2 and some change left in my current month.
Maybe this is an annual payment thing? Because I paid monthly and cancelled the other day online and it offered to refund me back $2 and some change left in my current month.
Amazon ads is also the last straw for me. I was already putting up with their previews at the beginning of a show, but ads are a big no.
Ads for other shows you have already seen or decided never to watch are annoying at best. I wonder what the question was when this was suggested as a solution?
I paused my prime membership after reading this comment. Was already considering it after the email announcing ads.
As all these competitors launched, I thought maybe NFLX's days were numbered.
Basically NFLX was first mover, but now you have a mix of niche targeting streamers in play. If you have kids or want Star Wars you get Disney+, if you care about sports/live then you pick one of the competitors with that, if you want more highbrow you get HBO/Max, if you want Star Trek you get Paramount+.
Now watching them all burn cash and now scramble to consolidate, maybe I think NFLX was right all along. They have a deep catalog of licensed content from other studios. They churn out absolutely endless amounts of mid content with no name actors at low cost. They have the highest subscriber base with which to attract advertisers to the ad supported tier. They have tons of people on the paid tiers.
Most of the high budget flop boondoggles you keep reading about in streaming shows have been newer players. NFLX was and continues to be the only ones making money.
Think of it as reversion-to-mid wars. NFLX churns out lots of decent forgettable mid but watchable 8 episode series, occasionally renews them for 2-3 seasons. The big brand studio streamers are instead taking expensive IP and high paid actors to ... churn out sequels/spioffs/prequels which turn out to just be high budget mid content. NFLX is very smart here.
Now watching them all burn cash and now scramble to consolidate, maybe I think NFLX was right all along. They have a deep catalog of licensed content from other studios. They churn out absolutely endless amounts of mid content with no name actors at low cost. They have the highest subscriber base with which to attract advertisers to the ad supported tier. They have tons of people on the paid tiers.
Most of the high budget flop boondoggles you keep reading about in streaming shows have been newer players. NFLX was and continues to be the only ones making money.
Think of it as reversion-to-mid wars. NFLX churns out lots of decent forgettable mid but watchable 8 episode series, occasionally renews them for 2-3 seasons. The big brand studio streamers are instead taking expensive IP and high paid actors to ... churn out sequels/spioffs/prequels which turn out to just be high budget mid content. NFLX is very smart here.
Disney really fucked up here. As Netflix has figured out the number one quality a streaming service needs is endless content so that no one opens the app without at least scrolling for a while. Every single person has some sort of guilty pleasure show that can be produced cheaply, and Netflix figured out they can make everyone’s guilty pleasure show by just green lighting everything they come across
My wife watches more than me and I occasionally join. It's all genuinely decent stuff compared to awful NBC/ABC/CBS 12 season x 20 episode x ~20min weekly churned out dreck.
But it is also completely mid / forgettable in a totally different way. A lot of the content is longer than a movie but shorter than a series. You get 5-10 episodes of ~40min length, enjoy it, and never ever think about it again. Rinse & repeat.
A lot of the actors I jokingly refer to as "poor mans __" because they often cast people that sort of look like someone famous. They have a nack for casting decent early career actors/actresses. Sort of a corporatized studio that realized they didn't need prestige names. Maybe, darkly, they've also identified the fact that a lot of people "give it a shot" in acting and then move on, and they can be had a lot more cheaply than someone with a decade of film&TV under their belt. If you live in LA/NYC you've probably got a few of these types in your friends circle.
But it is also completely mid / forgettable in a totally different way. A lot of the content is longer than a movie but shorter than a series. You get 5-10 episodes of ~40min length, enjoy it, and never ever think about it again. Rinse & repeat.
A lot of the actors I jokingly refer to as "poor mans __" because they often cast people that sort of look like someone famous. They have a nack for casting decent early career actors/actresses. Sort of a corporatized studio that realized they didn't need prestige names. Maybe, darkly, they've also identified the fact that a lot of people "give it a shot" in acting and then move on, and they can be had a lot more cheaply than someone with a decade of film&TV under their belt. If you live in LA/NYC you've probably got a few of these types in your friends circle.
> They have a nack for casting decent early career actors/actresses.
That's what Marvel used to do (dozens of A+ list actors in Hollywood were no-name when Marvel drafted them, think about Chris Pratt), but they lost the plot and started pulling in big actors.
That's what Marvel used to do (dozens of A+ list actors in Hollywood were no-name when Marvel drafted them, think about Chris Pratt), but they lost the plot and started pulling in big actors.
Ultimately casting is an ineffable creative skill. Execs find it increasingly harder to trust in the simple skill of artists as the piles of money get bigger. Hence they invest more and more money into 'safe' and more measurable areas like name-recognition, special effects, and marketing. Eventually it ends in disaster though, hundreds of millions of dollars can only go so far to save bad story-telling, and the effort to create a 'guaranteed' blockbuster is revealed as simply putting all your eggs in one basket. There's an excellent memo by Jeffrey Katzenberg about the phenomenon in disney: https://sriramk.com/memos/katzenberg.pdf
I think the effect extends beyond artistic domains as well: how many times have we seen large organizations get burned by 'safely' spending billions of dollars on contractors and getting bad software anyway when they might have simply done their best to hire smart people and then pray for a fraction of the cost.
I think the effect extends beyond artistic domains as well: how many times have we seen large organizations get burned by 'safely' spending billions of dollars on contractors and getting bad software anyway when they might have simply done their best to hire smart people and then pray for a fraction of the cost.
Thanks for the link.
Netflix basically created a better cable TV, endless trash but there's those few shows you enjoy watching or classic sitcoms as comfort food you like to put on and shut your brain off for.
The content isn't king, at least not like the media conglomerates believe.
The content isn't king, at least not like the media conglomerates believe.
Even if content IS king, the conglomerates have risk-aversely optimized on churning out bad but expensive content. The proliferation of sequel/prequel/spinoff/reboot/riff content on top of marquee brands has been overkill. It's like the late 90s move to "reality TV" except without the cost controls.
Tim Dillon talked about this recently. He said they want to be too big to fail, merge and get bailouts and handouts like sports get, since they own lots of revenue streams. He mentioned it's dead too, this article says the same thing. Once it's too big to fail this happens, they can push any agenda they want, not be any "good" and when people wonder how are they still around making nothing but pushing agendas in not all subtle way it's because nobody is responsible for content anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
https://youtu.be/iIRZNlacGMI (second half)
>But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.
Definitely dead.
https://youtu.be/iIRZNlacGMI (second half)
>But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.
Definitely dead.
> He said they want to be too big to fail, merge and get bailouts and handouts like sports get
That is observation I can agree with. Same can be said with finance and airlines - both business models cant stand on their own with out help from the tax payer.
> But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.
Probably also a product of increasing interest rates - risky investors (PE, VC, etc) can't pencil deals, the economics no longer work.
That is observation I can agree with. Same can be said with finance and airlines - both business models cant stand on their own with out help from the tax payer.
> But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.
Probably also a product of increasing interest rates - risky investors (PE, VC, etc) can't pencil deals, the economics no longer work.
That's a good point about airlines and finance, they can't afford to fly so they tried to expand and now it makes most of their income, pilots aren't paid much either. Samsung is probably the finest example of these corporations, it pretty much owns the government with the power it holds along with the other chaeobols.
But the thing it seems he's missing about sports teams sometimes getting bailed out or sweetheart rent deals is team identities often get intermingled with city identities. No municipality is going to bail out a streaming network even though they might bail out a football club or hockey team that's been in the city for ages and is connected to the city identity.
Sorry he just said too big to fail I threw that in there, the government will prop up their arms of propaganda if the nelib news sites and media convege the US isn't going to only save the news sites. I don't think the us will allow our propaganda to be lost unless they have a better way of dealing with it. He did mention them owning theme parks though, Florida can't get rid of them easily and if Disney went under now with their IP, real estate, theme parks, cruises, etc I think the US would bail them out or risk a lot of joblessness.
Streaming has become the new cable: a bunch of piecemeal services with mostly terrible content and a few gems each, with their own pricing plans and ad models. I have no interest in subscribing to all of them or even most of them. There's just too much junk, too many different subscriptions to monitor, and too much deception in their ad models (if I pay for "no ads" and see a 30 second unskippable ad for the service's content before every show that's a dealbreaker--AMC+ does this).
Just today I investigated about Stremio and Torrentio and oh boy, it was waaay way easier to setup than I thought.
I am a person that can handle a good amount of "pain" while using technology (I like using Linux as a desktop, but my laptop's camera won't work on my monitor, sleep mode is broken, etc etc etc) so I am fine with browsing in my phone and casting to my TV. So I'll now get to the arduous task of convincing my wife to unsubscribe to at least some of the freaking too many stream services we are subscribed to (disney+, Star, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and two or three local to my country).
I am a person that can handle a good amount of "pain" while using technology (I like using Linux as a desktop, but my laptop's camera won't work on my monitor, sleep mode is broken, etc etc etc) so I am fine with browsing in my phone and casting to my TV. So I'll now get to the arduous task of convincing my wife to unsubscribe to at least some of the freaking too many stream services we are subscribed to (disney+, Star, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and two or three local to my country).
Cable was a much better setup. The gems, and what I liked and watched, was always spread among different channels. But it was all on one bill, one programming guide, etc. And now that it's all DVR based, no ad is unskippable. Imagine Amazon or Google releasing a device that's so customer friendly that you can fully control the video stream.
> Cable was a much better setup
No, thanks, the ability to pause/rewind/fast-forward, choice of sub/dub, and the ability to actually choose what to watch and when are something I am not willing to give up or negotiate on.
With cable, you are watching a series that airs one episode per week, and then you missed an episode because you had something scheduled for that time slot the show was running on? Too bad, wait for a rerun, or plan ahead by recording it with a DVR, or by using some other subpar workaround with high friction. The show you care about runs at an inconvenient time slot for your schedule? Too bad. Want to watch with subs instead of a dub? Too bad.
I can keep going with that list even further, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear already. Makes me often wonder what people clamoring for the “good old days of cable” are actually smoking.
No, thanks, the ability to pause/rewind/fast-forward, choice of sub/dub, and the ability to actually choose what to watch and when are something I am not willing to give up or negotiate on.
With cable, you are watching a series that airs one episode per week, and then you missed an episode because you had something scheduled for that time slot the show was running on? Too bad, wait for a rerun, or plan ahead by recording it with a DVR, or by using some other subpar workaround with high friction. The show you care about runs at an inconvenient time slot for your schedule? Too bad. Want to watch with subs instead of a dub? Too bad.
I can keep going with that list even further, but I think the point I am making is pretty clear already. Makes me often wonder what people clamoring for the “good old days of cable” are actually smoking.
> ability to pause/rewind/fast-forward, choice of sub/dub
FWIW, depending on the channel/show, one could do this with cable all the way back in the VCR era. Some shows had secondary audio programs with alternative languages and had multiple closed caption streams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_audio_program
I do agree, loads of content never bothered with this though and for sure managing recordings with a VHS or even a DVR was a lot messier than just clicking "play" on a stream. Just pointing out the tech technically existed back then to enable those choice of sub/dub options
> Makes me often wonder what people clamoring for the “good old days of cable” are actually smoking.
Fully agreed on this point.
FWIW, depending on the channel/show, one could do this with cable all the way back in the VCR era. Some shows had secondary audio programs with alternative languages and had multiple closed caption streams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_audio_program
I do agree, loads of content never bothered with this though and for sure managing recordings with a VHS or even a DVR was a lot messier than just clicking "play" on a stream. Just pointing out the tech technically existed back then to enable those choice of sub/dub options
> Makes me often wonder what people clamoring for the “good old days of cable” are actually smoking.
Fully agreed on this point.
Most of these companies should never have entered the streaming business to begin with. Approximately nobody wants to be in a position of needing to subscribe to 17 different services to see a broad swathe of general purpose content. OK, sure, if you have something really niche then maybe it makes sense to run as a separate service. But for most players, I can't help but think they be better off licensing their content to Netflix or Prime and not trying to be a separate platform.
Unless the government mandated some kind of maximum fees / compulsory licensing scheme, all that would happen is Netflix and Amazon would ratchet fees until they were talking all the value. This kind of licensing arrangement happened for radio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license) so it's possible.
It was surprising to me that Netflix wasn’t even listed as a potential acquirer, with the “panic” levels being discussed.
Going one step up the ladder...
So many products and services have been ruined by the need for a subscription/ recurring revenue model instead of a consumption / one time purchase model.
I see so many products (mostly software) I would gladly pay $20 one time for but balk at paying $5/month in perpetuity for.
Content in particular should be owned or rented, not subscribed to.
So many products and services have been ruined by the need for a subscription/ recurring revenue model instead of a consumption / one time purchase model.
I see so many products (mostly software) I would gladly pay $20 one time for but balk at paying $5/month in perpetuity for.
Content in particular should be owned or rented, not subscribed to.
What are some?
A few that have come up recently:
* an intermittent fasting tracking app
* A Pomodoro timer app
* So many apps want a subscription (!) to remove ads
* Picker Wheel, an app that lets you spin a wheel of random choices
* several apps that let you "access" a video library of exercises
* Canva, Figma, Adobe, LucidChart, most design apps
By contrast, Ableton and most DAWs still have a completely reasonable one-time payment model, and then upgrade / expansion packs to fit your needs.
* an intermittent fasting tracking app
* A Pomodoro timer app
* So many apps want a subscription (!) to remove ads
* Picker Wheel, an app that lets you spin a wheel of random choices
* several apps that let you "access" a video library of exercises
* Canva, Figma, Adobe, LucidChart, most design apps
By contrast, Ableton and most DAWs still have a completely reasonable one-time payment model, and then upgrade / expansion packs to fit your needs.
I don't think you're looking hard enough or think differently then me. I don't need an IF app, but if I did I'd use Siri. Try this for pomodoro. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/timer-loops/id1662287175
For exercise I never felt like tech helped me at all. If it's a huge problem fdroid will probably have it free. I'm doing self hosting some cloud services and I've gone back to paper for so many since they're needlessly complex like taiga.io
For exercise I never felt like tech helped me at all. If it's a huge problem fdroid will probably have it free. I'm doing self hosting some cloud services and I've gone back to paper for so many since they're needlessly complex like taiga.io
Sorry if I implied you could only get these types of things through subscription.
I just meant I've seen the subscription model in a lot of places where it makes no economic sense.
I just meant I've seen the subscription model in a lot of places where it makes no economic sense.
I've come to despise all streaming services and hope they all burn down. We've gone full circle in terms of price and convenience. Hell, even Prime now wants to you pay extra to not see ads! Wasn't that one of the benefits over cable in the beginning?
I've gone back to buying physical media and just put everything on my Plex server. The perpetual 'rental' model is a failing one and is not consumer friendly.
I've gone back to buying physical media and just put everything on my Plex server. The perpetual 'rental' model is a failing one and is not consumer friendly.
It is interesting how round things come and go.
First we had cabe TV and for a time it was good.
Then there came the dawn of the internet and with it piracy and lawsuites.
Then came the age of the streaming services, and for a time it was good again. It resembled the cable age of old, but with the power of choice!
Or so it seemed. Then came competing services. Monopolies fuelled by publishing rights. The user had again to pay for each extra subscriptions, just like in the old days, with movie packages, sports packages and whatnot.
Streaming is so bad now it makes sense to pirate stuff again. (This comment doesn't condone illegal practices).
We kinda came full circle.
First we had cabe TV and for a time it was good.
Then there came the dawn of the internet and with it piracy and lawsuites.
Then came the age of the streaming services, and for a time it was good again. It resembled the cable age of old, but with the power of choice!
Or so it seemed. Then came competing services. Monopolies fuelled by publishing rights. The user had again to pay for each extra subscriptions, just like in the old days, with movie packages, sports packages and whatnot.
Streaming is so bad now it makes sense to pirate stuff again. (This comment doesn't condone illegal practices).
We kinda came full circle.
I want to be the consumer, not the product. With large media companies, it’s inevitable that I will become the product.
Cable was supposed to be free of commercials. Streaming was supposed to be free of commercials.
Thankfully books are still free of commercials.
Cable was supposed to be free of commercials. Streaming was supposed to be free of commercials.
Thankfully books are still free of commercials.
I’m so sorry to ruin your day.
https://lithub.com/the-time-terry-pratchetts-german-publishe...
https://lithub.com/the-time-terry-pratchetts-german-publishe...
Thank god this isn't pervasive
Cable had ads on it from day one. Only a few premium channels didn't have ads or only had pre-roll ads.
this guy again.
stop it, when people say it's ad-free they mean the content wasn't disrupted with an ad.
stop attacking a strawman.
stop it, when people say it's ad-free they mean the content wasn't disrupted with an ad.
stop attacking a strawman.
this guy again
> free of commercials
This isn't "not disrupted by ads". This means no ads. Free of commercials, not limited commercials.
Ad-free means ad-free. No mustard means no mustard not just no grey poupon. Not a hard concept to understand.
And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. So even scoped to just pre-roll ads you're still denying highly documented history.
National cable networks were making many millions in ad revenues the first few years into their existence. This means they ran ads. Aka, not free of commercials.
The only way the above makes sense is to add a ton of qualifiers. "The whole point of a few premium channels on some cable networks 20 years into cable's history was limited to no advertising." Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."
And even this statement of "Streaming was supposed to be free of commercials" just ignores the fact Hulu had ad-supported streaming in 2007, pretty early in the commercial OTT streaming industry growth. YouTube started having ads in 2008. But I guess if you've been doing enough drugs to think Netflix started it's streaming business in the 90s you'd see that as late. The rest of us in reality see that's still pretty early in the commercial streaming world.
stop denying reality.
> free of commercials
This isn't "not disrupted by ads". This means no ads. Free of commercials, not limited commercials.
Ad-free means ad-free. No mustard means no mustard not just no grey poupon. Not a hard concept to understand.
And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. So even scoped to just pre-roll ads you're still denying highly documented history.
National cable networks were making many millions in ad revenues the first few years into their existence. This means they ran ads. Aka, not free of commercials.
The only way the above makes sense is to add a ton of qualifiers. "The whole point of a few premium channels on some cable networks 20 years into cable's history was limited to no advertising." Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."
And even this statement of "Streaming was supposed to be free of commercials" just ignores the fact Hulu had ad-supported streaming in 2007, pretty early in the commercial OTT streaming industry growth. YouTube started having ads in 2008. But I guess if you've been doing enough drugs to think Netflix started it's streaming business in the 90s you'd see that as late. The rest of us in reality see that's still pretty early in the commercial streaming world.
stop denying reality.
the reason it's called a strawman is that you're not attacking what the person was actually arguing.
stop it.
stop it.
> free of commercials
This is literally what they said. If they wanted to say something else they should say something else, because cable was not free of commercials. This is not a straw man.
And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."
stop it.
This is literally what they said. If they wanted to say something else they should say something else, because cable was not free of commercials. This is not a straw man.
And once again, cable had interruptive ads since the first cable was connected to the first subscriber. Cable's original point was by no means "freedom from ads."
stop it.
> Then came the age of the streaming services, and for a time it was good again. It resembled the cable age of old, but with the power of choice!
Maybe this was because VCs were footing the bill. Once companies have to be profitable the fun seems to end.
Maybe this was because VCs were footing the bill. Once companies have to be profitable the fun seems to end.
VCs footing the bill for such large disruptions of entire sectors only for them to end up the same seems like it should somehow be illegal. Uber killed off cab companies by being subsidized only to end up more (or just as) expensive except it screwed the workers in the process.
as far as I know cab companies are alive and kicking, they were just forced to give better service due to the increased competition.
And I can tell you I unequivocally prefer cab over uber, cab drivers are humans, uber drivers are fleshy extensions of an algorithm.
By this I mean I can ask a cab driver to wait and take me home, I cannot ask that of an uber driver.
And I can tell you I unequivocally prefer cab over uber, cab drivers are humans, uber drivers are fleshy extensions of an algorithm.
By this I mean I can ask a cab driver to wait and take me home, I cannot ask that of an uber driver.
TikTok, YouTube and maybe Netflix are changing/have changed the media landscape. Soon Netflix is going to have all the big studios content again yet for certain demographics they arent using the other streamers & Netflix less n less as YouTube and TikTok are free. They also offer shorter forms of content that prompt sharing and discussions between friends (social). Content consumption habits are and have changed!
Personally I watch YouTube 90 percent of the time (short to long form content) as its algorithm is the best .. it continues to feed me exactly what I'd like to watch day in/day out. Other percentage TikTok (rather Facebook reels for myself) and some HBO max. I canceled all the others I subscribed to in 2023(Disney, Hulu, peacock, etc) and never even bothered using friends account for Paramount.
Personally I watch YouTube 90 percent of the time (short to long form content) as its algorithm is the best .. it continues to feed me exactly what I'd like to watch day in/day out. Other percentage TikTok (rather Facebook reels for myself) and some HBO max. I canceled all the others I subscribed to in 2023(Disney, Hulu, peacock, etc) and never even bothered using friends account for Paramount.
Last I looked HBO had $53B in debt. Yep:
https://the-media-leader.com/just-how-big-is-warner-bros-dis...
The money bugs won’t let this continue and big shakeups are coming.
https://the-media-leader.com/just-how-big-is-warner-bros-dis...
The money bugs won’t let this continue and big shakeups are coming.
No it's fine! They'll just continue to merge with shitty media companies until the previously good HBO name is entirely worthless and the debt is some other overpaid executive's problem!
I remember groaning when all the "me too" streaming platforms were announced. Netflix was good when it had what I called "remnant content" like full ad-free seasons of TV that I could finally catch up on. And at $8 (or even $10/month) I basically kept it forever even if I didn't watch it for a few months.
But now all these services are rapidly pushing towards $20/month. My usage pattern is to sign up for Netflix about one month a year, binge what I want then cancel. I'll probably do similar with Hulu too. I only have HBO because it's bundled with my ISP.
Netflix's big mistake was movies. The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases. I'm sure Netflix has lost billions trying to create top-tier movies.
Disney's big mistake was thinking their back catalog and milking the Marven and Star Wars properties could carry their platform.
But there were always going to be losers in the "me too" streaming gold rush. But we saw cable haemorrhage customers due to continual price hikes. I'm surprised there hasn't been more focus on controlling costs. Below a certain level customers will just keep a service forever.
What I think Netflix needs to do is build out regional content in a much bigger way. This means have a studio in Spain producing Spanish language content, another in Germany and so on. These should be completely focused on producing content desired by those local markets.
Then you cherrypick content to internationalize with dubbing. For whatever reason, the voice acting I've seen on virtually every dub is awful. And it seems to be the same small group of people that does it too. Money Heist springs to mind. Even "3%", which is a great show, has some awful dubbing.
So Netflix kind of does this but not nearly enough. Like there are Turkish shows produced in Germany that are popular in Spain for whatever reason. Or Korean soaps that have a non-Korean audience. I'm honestly shocked at how bad the dubbing and voice acting ecosystem still is.
But now all these services are rapidly pushing towards $20/month. My usage pattern is to sign up for Netflix about one month a year, binge what I want then cancel. I'll probably do similar with Hulu too. I only have HBO because it's bundled with my ISP.
Netflix's big mistake was movies. The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases. I'm sure Netflix has lost billions trying to create top-tier movies.
Disney's big mistake was thinking their back catalog and milking the Marven and Star Wars properties could carry their platform.
But there were always going to be losers in the "me too" streaming gold rush. But we saw cable haemorrhage customers due to continual price hikes. I'm surprised there hasn't been more focus on controlling costs. Below a certain level customers will just keep a service forever.
What I think Netflix needs to do is build out regional content in a much bigger way. This means have a studio in Spain producing Spanish language content, another in Germany and so on. These should be completely focused on producing content desired by those local markets.
Then you cherrypick content to internationalize with dubbing. For whatever reason, the voice acting I've seen on virtually every dub is awful. And it seems to be the same small group of people that does it too. Money Heist springs to mind. Even "3%", which is a great show, has some awful dubbing.
So Netflix kind of does this but not nearly enough. Like there are Turkish shows produced in Germany that are popular in Spain for whatever reason. Or Korean soaps that have a non-Korean audience. I'm honestly shocked at how bad the dubbing and voice acting ecosystem still is.
>The only thing that makes movies economical is theatrical releases.
Ah no. Home releases have been for very long the single biggest profitable part of a movie's life cycle. That's why Netflix doesn't waste its time with theatrical unless it has to, ie when they employ Scorcese and he puts in his contract, I'm assuming.
https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-mo...
https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-b...
Ah no. Home releases have been for very long the single biggest profitable part of a movie's life cycle. That's why Netflix doesn't waste its time with theatrical unless it has to, ie when they employ Scorcese and he puts in his contract, I'm assuming.
https://stephenfollows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/how-mo...
https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-b...
First, that's 2016. The central point there is how the fall in physical media sales is hurting movies. That trend has continued. I found something else suggesting DVD and BluRay sales were now about 2/3 of theatrical earnings where it used to exceed it. And that was a problem.
Second, from the article:
> Video on Demand performed very poorly for these blockbusters, with almost half of the films earning under 1% of their total income from VOD.
So the digital home entertainment income is revenue from jsut having the content available on Netflix, Hulu or whoever.
Third, even here 20%+ of the revenue came from theatrical release. Given how much a concern there is around the decline in physical media sales, losing that 20% seems like a far bigger deal, which is my point. Netflix basically loses that 20% off the bat.
Fourth, these are averages. There is a long tail in theatrical earnings where the biggest blockbusters can make over a billion. By having streaming-only income you basically lose all your blockbuster potential.
Lastly, just speculating here but as soon as the windows come down between theatrical release, paid VOD release and streaming release come down, it hurts all theatrical and paid VOD release revenue because a lot of people will just wait. This comes into play with simultaneous streaming and theatrical releases, which seem to make even less economic sense.
Second, from the article:
> Video on Demand performed very poorly for these blockbusters, with almost half of the films earning under 1% of their total income from VOD.
So the digital home entertainment income is revenue from jsut having the content available on Netflix, Hulu or whoever.
Third, even here 20%+ of the revenue came from theatrical release. Given how much a concern there is around the decline in physical media sales, losing that 20% seems like a far bigger deal, which is my point. Netflix basically loses that 20% off the bat.
Fourth, these are averages. There is a long tail in theatrical earnings where the biggest blockbusters can make over a billion. By having streaming-only income you basically lose all your blockbuster potential.
Lastly, just speculating here but as soon as the windows come down between theatrical release, paid VOD release and streaming release come down, it hurts all theatrical and paid VOD release revenue because a lot of people will just wait. This comes into play with simultaneous streaming and theatrical releases, which seem to make even less economic sense.
Then what's your theory why Netflix is not doing theatrical, if, like you say, it's just a missed opportunity ?
I’ve definitely noticed that there seems to be ~5 people who do all the dubs on Netflix. For instance there’s obviously one guy who does all the main character voices, one guy who does all of the black guy voices, etc
Yeah, it's deeply frustrating. I don't want to read subtitles so I like dubs. But compare it to American animated series (eg The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, etc) where voice acting is taken seriously as acting, which it is. Having the right voice actor matters.
But for dubs it seems like they have like 6 people on staff whose job it is to do the dubs and they're just bad at it. It's clear it's not taken seriously. Being bad at it isn't the end of it either. The voice just has to be appropriate to the presentation and demeanour of the character.
This shouldn't be an afterthought.
But for dubs it seems like they have like 6 people on staff whose job it is to do the dubs and they're just bad at it. It's clear it's not taken seriously. Being bad at it isn't the end of it either. The voice just has to be appropriate to the presentation and demeanour of the character.
This shouldn't be an afterthought.
If they have just 6 people who do all the dubs, those people aren't bad at it.
But they will be good at it not in the way you like, but the way producers like - do everything acceptably in one take etc.
Dubbing is a pretty extreme industry, from what I've heard. I used to know someone who had contracts to dub Disney stuff - they had ridiculous (and possibly illegal) contracts with huge penalties for quitting, since Daisy Duck better not start sounding different...
I have also witnessed Norwegian children's TV "dubbed" by a broken nynorsk TTS engine.
But they will be good at it not in the way you like, but the way producers like - do everything acceptably in one take etc.
Dubbing is a pretty extreme industry, from what I've heard. I used to know someone who had contracts to dub Disney stuff - they had ridiculous (and possibly illegal) contracts with huge penalties for quitting, since Daisy Duck better not start sounding different...
I have also witnessed Norwegian children's TV "dubbed" by a broken nynorsk TTS engine.
I always watch with subtitles in general because the dubs seem to lose the emotion of the scene. The downside being that I can’t multitask and have to pay full attention to what’s happening on the screen. Why do you prefer dubs?
Disney likely needs to consider "straight to Disney+ pay per view" like they did during the pandemic for Mulan, Jungle Cruise.
There may even be a pricing structure potential for new series or legacy rentals.
There may even be a pricing structure potential for new series or legacy rentals.
The one that surprised me the most to be struggling is Disney+. I thought they would have the strongest streaming story since they have so much of the prime IP: Star Wars, Marvel, Disney Animation, Pixar, etc, whereas Netflix is still heavily dependent on licensed IP.
Streaming services need to continually pump out new content. Disneys release schedule is too slow and they don’t have enough original ip, all their stuff is the same few brands. Their strategy works better for destination content like movies when streaming is a binge based platform.
> The one that surprised me the most to be struggling is Disney+.
Smells like Hollywood accounting [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Smells like Hollywood accounting [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Turns out that streaming unlimited things to a family of 2+ for $13 a month is less profitable than selling $20 experiences per person per view?
Doesn't seem too surprising to me.
Doesn't seem too surprising to me.
It doesn't explain how Netflix is profitable and Disney+ is not.
Hollywood accounting or not on the profit side it still doesn't explain why it has leveled off at 1/4 the revenue of Netflix too.
Maybe prime in the sense that they push out a lot of content, but let's face it - Star Wars and Marvel, they ain't Hemingway.
[deleted]
I think that’s the problem. People have seen all of disneys stuff and what’s new isn’t original or appealing to anyone.
It’s going to be interesting watching this play out in other over saturated markets after the last few years of cheap money
It's happening in the gaming industry too.
Is it just me or has the quality of streaming content gone massively downhill? We are in the era of the McDonald’s of streaming.
Everything is low quality mass market crap.
At this point I’m only watching pre 2016 content or foreign stuff. It’s just so bad.
And this is the stuff writers went striking over. I mean I’m not surprised they are threatened by AI, it’s not hard to copy American films and tv at this point.
It’s like no one, not even hbo appreciates the importance of artistry any more. It’s all data driven, but what you get then is standardized crap. It might work for some industries, but definitely not tv.
Everything is low quality mass market crap.
At this point I’m only watching pre 2016 content or foreign stuff. It’s just so bad.
And this is the stuff writers went striking over. I mean I’m not surprised they are threatened by AI, it’s not hard to copy American films and tv at this point.
It’s like no one, not even hbo appreciates the importance of artistry any more. It’s all data driven, but what you get then is standardized crap. It might work for some industries, but definitely not tv.
It has. I was just having this conversation with a friend the other day. Despite Netflix having all their analytics/viewership data, they consistently crank out garbage. You might get one or two releases a year that are good, but that's it. I know its subjective, but the few shows that I enjoyed were cancelled or just shelved.
They weren’t perfect, but I want normal Hollywood studios to come back. There was a lot more on the line when it came to creating movies/series and a lot more effort went into creating them. It took actual talent to make something great, not data.
The same is happening in the music industry. I know pop music has more or less sounded the same throughout time...but these days its almost indistinguishable. Studios just pick a public figure to sing a generated song, it goes viral for a few months, rinse repeat. I have a hard time telling the difference between artists these days. Their vocal range/tone is almost identical in some cases.
We have an over abundance of choice when it comes to media and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Its now a chore to sort through the garbage and find actual talent.
Sorry for the rant!
They weren’t perfect, but I want normal Hollywood studios to come back. There was a lot more on the line when it came to creating movies/series and a lot more effort went into creating them. It took actual talent to make something great, not data.
The same is happening in the music industry. I know pop music has more or less sounded the same throughout time...but these days its almost indistinguishable. Studios just pick a public figure to sing a generated song, it goes viral for a few months, rinse repeat. I have a hard time telling the difference between artists these days. Their vocal range/tone is almost identical in some cases.
We have an over abundance of choice when it comes to media and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Its now a chore to sort through the garbage and find actual talent.
Sorry for the rant!
No not everything is bad. Severance, The Bear, Succession off the top of my head are totally worth watching.
These are all great series, but they are also on three different streaming services, which from a consumer POV is exactly the problem. Everybody wants a marquee drama series to draw the punters in, but the punters don’t really want to be shelling out for every single streaming service just to watch the one good thing on each of them.
So a sizeable chunk of the potential audience picks one channel at a time & chops and changes between them, cutting revenues by 4x, or else they drop them altogether because it just gets boring trawling through the piles of low-grade content trying to find something worth watching.
So a sizeable chunk of the potential audience picks one channel at a time & chops and changes between them, cutting revenues by 4x, or else they drop them altogether because it just gets boring trawling through the piles of low-grade content trying to find something worth watching.
When you broadcast a TV series you get Nilson ratings.
When you run the a streaming service you get data on when people go and take a toilet break.
This is not very useful for already existing catalog, but when you write new content there will be pressure to adapt the material to the data and so all the new stuff ends up being bland and boring ("we get 3% more viewership if the leading lady is blond with shoulder length hair", means that every tv show will be blond festival).
When you run the a streaming service you get data on when people go and take a toilet break.
This is not very useful for already existing catalog, but when you write new content there will be pressure to adapt the material to the data and so all the new stuff ends up being bland and boring ("we get 3% more viewership if the leading lady is blond with shoulder length hair", means that every tv show will be blond festival).
Nilsson Schmilsson — I think you meant Nielsen.
Though Nilsson Schmilsson makes for better conversation than tv ratings anyhow
It probably started with cable TV and the need for filler for things like the Disney Channel.
Myself, I'm catching up on all the films made before 1980.
Myself, I'm catching up on all the films made before 1980.
If you want to go back further, Netflix's streaming service was worse than the DVD mail service (during its life span, of course) in terms of selection and cost. A good business finds ways to extract more value out of less capital over time.
I have to wonder why consumers so desire new content. Old films and TV shows have much the same entertainment value, and are vastly cheaper to stick through some AI to turn to HD and strip out the no-longer-politically-acceptable jokes.
There is also a wealth of content from other countries and languages, which could be translated with a little AI assistance to do lip sync etc.
With far more content than anyone could reasonably watch in a lifetime, I really don't see why anyone is investing big money into making new stuff.
There is also a wealth of content from other countries and languages, which could be translated with a little AI assistance to do lip sync etc.
With far more content than anyone could reasonably watch in a lifetime, I really don't see why anyone is investing big money into making new stuff.
I would prefer, for future generations not me, to leave the original dialogue. They could include an intro putting the show in context and explaining current value set shortcomings instead. It would seem more productive to learn from the past values and see how they evolved, not simply erase them.
I would prefer if the current zeitgeist didn’t go around stripping older content of what it deems incorrect. There’s no guarantee that twenty years from now there won’t be a totally different view of what’s correct anyway.
Why would you feel the need to have AI "cleanse" older shows? Otherwise, I agree there is a rich history of films.
It really depends what the watcher desires... A lot of audiences will say "ewwe, I couldn't possibly let my children watch that, there are homophobic slurs in it".
Or parts are simply outdated and won't be understood by viewers - like a key element of a plot being that someone erased an answerphone tape - perhaps in todays world you'd replace that with messages showing one tick only...
Or parts are simply outdated and won't be understood by viewers - like a key element of a plot being that someone erased an answerphone tape - perhaps in todays world you'd replace that with messages showing one tick only...
I'm not a fan of this approach or instead of somebody jumping on a horse and riding two days and two nights they should be driving a SUV to destination, in a couple of hours and with AC. After a while movies become historical movies even if they started as contemporary. The 90s stay the 90s, the Old West is the Old West, etc.
My kids kind of enjoy older films where, for example, a person is on a land-line telephone and someone in another room picks up the receiver of a phone on the same line to listen in. They had no idea.
It's educational, historic.
It's educational, historic.
Luckily there’s tons of movies that don’t have those slurs for people to show their kids.
Sensibilities and context change. Even my FIL hates movies from his generation because he sees them as poorly acted, regardless of any other aspects. He prefers more modern work.
I want to say this as kindly as possible, but if you wonder why consumers desire new content then I'd have to wonder how varied is your film and TV taste.
Times change, genres evolve and twist and become something new. Spaghetti Westerns blew up and had a mass craze, then died off. Weird westerns gained momentum and survived to this day. Film depictions of what the future looks like will be vastly different in the 60s/70s versus how it is today. Modern shows like Andor show that aspect of retrofuturism mixed with modern designs. Animation was mostly restricted to childrens work in comparison to today where you have things like Scavanger's Reign.
This is without talking about the change in attitudes towards various minority groups.
Times change, genres evolve and twist and become something new. Spaghetti Westerns blew up and had a mass craze, then died off. Weird westerns gained momentum and survived to this day. Film depictions of what the future looks like will be vastly different in the 60s/70s versus how it is today. Modern shows like Andor show that aspect of retrofuturism mixed with modern designs. Animation was mostly restricted to childrens work in comparison to today where you have things like Scavanger's Reign.
This is without talking about the change in attitudes towards various minority groups.
I think the parent is wondering why consumers care about novelty ("varied taste") instead of quality. Of course, you can have both or neither. I don't know, but the epics of Homer lasted thousands of years because, presumably, people thought they were just damn good. Will Andor, a disposable Disney show, be remembered in twenty years, let alone 100? Probably not.
> and strip out the no-longer-politically-acceptable jokes
Sounds like clearplay and vidangel have a new target consumer base and media pool.
Sounds like clearplay and vidangel have a new target consumer base and media pool.
Shocks me that steaming failed to implement that feature. Years ago, broadcast TV would air edited versions and the cost of that editing must be higher than a GUI feature to play one set of scenes instead of the full movie.
> I have to wonder why consumers so desire new content.
After watching kids grow, it struck me.
That's how we learn. New stuff = different stuff = learning. My kids would look at the floor for a bit as babies, it would be interesting. After a while, watching the same "old" tiles would become boring, not much to learn from there (color, hardness, temperature, grip, etc). So they'd start looking for lint, pebbles, bits of paper or dirt on the floor, cause that was new :-)
Content creation piggy backs on this intuitive understanding and hacks it, since as you say, old content can have great educational and entertainment value.
But I think it all boils down to "new = potential for learning" being wired into our brains.
After watching kids grow, it struck me.
That's how we learn. New stuff = different stuff = learning. My kids would look at the floor for a bit as babies, it would be interesting. After a while, watching the same "old" tiles would become boring, not much to learn from there (color, hardness, temperature, grip, etc). So they'd start looking for lint, pebbles, bits of paper or dirt on the floor, cause that was new :-)
Content creation piggy backs on this intuitive understanding and hacks it, since as you say, old content can have great educational and entertainment value.
But I think it all boils down to "new = potential for learning" being wired into our brains.
"New" to your kids was always something pre-existing, though.
"New content" is something that did not exist before.
I'm willing to bet that any given adult has a huge trove of extant material that would be interesting if they could only discover it. But the cult of the new opposes that.
"New content" is something that did not exist before.
I'm willing to bet that any given adult has a huge trove of extant material that would be interesting if they could only discover it. But the cult of the new opposes that.
People want the same content but new, shoveled out almost exactly the same but slightly different each time.
This is most obvious in certain “genres” of entertainment but it has always existed - romance novels, simplistic comics, etc.
This is most obvious in certain “genres” of entertainment but it has always existed - romance novels, simplistic comics, etc.
I have to wonder why people listen to things other than 1940s big band music. 1940s big band music have much the same entertainment value as modern music, and are vastly cheaper.
I stream YouTube daily. Ted lasso is pretty good when I heard it in the background I started to watch it.
I'm going to go against the popular narrative and say that the current fragmentation of streaming services is a net positive.
The problem is that hard-core users are very vocal and dominate the conversation.
My normie take is that most households will do just fine by having max 2 stream services, which they can regularly switch up. Many may have additional ones via account sharing. That should give you plenty of high quality stuff to watch, "high quality" meaning better than TV.
Multiple streaming services fighting for your eye balls and them not being guaranteed of your business is a good thing. It's how a market is supposed to work. Competition. It's frightening how easily consumers would want to give that up for slightly more convenience of having everything under one roof.
Everything under one roof would mean total price control on the supply side, even more flat repetitive content, the providers having total leverage over producers, etc.
Our behavior enables monopolists. Stop doing that.
The problem is that hard-core users are very vocal and dominate the conversation.
My normie take is that most households will do just fine by having max 2 stream services, which they can regularly switch up. Many may have additional ones via account sharing. That should give you plenty of high quality stuff to watch, "high quality" meaning better than TV.
Multiple streaming services fighting for your eye balls and them not being guaranteed of your business is a good thing. It's how a market is supposed to work. Competition. It's frightening how easily consumers would want to give that up for slightly more convenience of having everything under one roof.
Everything under one roof would mean total price control on the supply side, even more flat repetitive content, the providers having total leverage over producers, etc.
Our behavior enables monopolists. Stop doing that.
I recently dropped my cable service (cut-the-cord) after significant price increases over the past two years and switched to a few streaming providers. My household just doesn't watch enough to justify the costs. The plethora of streaming choices is overwhelming right now for consumers, so consolidation is a good thing IMO, assuming it doesn't come with a drop in quality.
As others have mentioned here, the majority of new content recently is mid-level sequels, spin-offs, prequels, etc. It's becoming much harder to differentiate, so people stick with what they know: Netflix, Disney, HBO/Max. I just don't see enough of a market for the other providers to persist long-term (given the high-cost of managing a streaming infrastructure).
I feel like Disney, in particular, should consider spinning off a few of their larger brands, like Marvel and Star Wars, opening them up for licensing revenue and new creative direction.
As others have mentioned here, the majority of new content recently is mid-level sequels, spin-offs, prequels, etc. It's becoming much harder to differentiate, so people stick with what they know: Netflix, Disney, HBO/Max. I just don't see enough of a market for the other providers to persist long-term (given the high-cost of managing a streaming infrastructure).
I feel like Disney, in particular, should consider spinning off a few of their larger brands, like Marvel and Star Wars, opening them up for licensing revenue and new creative direction.
This is awesome. If everybody keeps canceling steaming subs, stops watching garbage, etc. we can literally force all entertainment companies to merge into one, unweildy, slow, and useless mega-beast and finally shake off videoized entertainment forever. It's retarding the species.
We should not allow distribution of media and software to be a cornerstone of society.
If we passed some regulation to force it to be leased to wanting distributors at equal cost we could kill exclusivity and the middle man margins and just get on with it with a nice, basically free option like SFlix.
If we passed some regulation to force it to be leased to wanting distributors at equal cost we could kill exclusivity and the middle man margins and just get on with it with a nice, basically free option like SFlix.
we had that once it was called television
honestly it was pretty bad, and completely controlled by media organizations who used it to gaslight the poplace as badly as tiktok does today
i think there's both every reason and right to maintain private platforms even if its annoying to consumers, being forced to be lumped in with others comes with regulations that eventually turn into tyranny
honestly it was pretty bad, and completely controlled by media organizations who used it to gaslight the poplace as badly as tiktok does today
i think there's both every reason and right to maintain private platforms even if its annoying to consumers, being forced to be lumped in with others comes with regulations that eventually turn into tyranny
I’m pretty sure television has never worked like that
"Gaslighting" has an old etymology, but its usage as a pop psychology term is recent and mostly a Zoomer phenomenon. Applying it to the history of television strikes me as presentism.
Describing old things with old terminology is just confusing.
Only if the new terminology is better and actually adds something. Does adopting half-baked concepts from TikTokers really add anything here?
I feel like you’re trying to gaslight me into thinking this term is from TikTok.
"gaslight" != "trick"
You can trick someone without deliberately working to make them doubt their own sanity.
You can trick someone without deliberately working to make them doubt their own sanity.
Ehh that’s really the old definition. Nowadays I feel the colloquial definition is simply asserting a narrative you know is false. Emphasis on narrative, not a simple individual factual claim.
So what's the new word for the old definition then?
The old definition is clearly emotional abuse, but the new definition does not seem to meet that standard.
Is this just another case in which you have to add extra qualifiers as in "I have OCD, but what I mean is real, diagnosed, legitimate OCD rather than whatever the kiddos on Tic Tac say"?
The old definition is clearly emotional abuse, but the new definition does not seem to meet that standard.
Is this just another case in which you have to add extra qualifiers as in "I have OCD, but what I mean is real, diagnosed, legitimate OCD rather than whatever the kiddos on Tic Tac say"?
No wonder - They all doubled down on streaming simultaneously and let quality of the produced shows / movies suffer.
Disney, for example, thrived on scarcity and quality. You'd clamor to see that rare release in theaters, and show up for streaming wherever it ended up. Instead they decided to produce like a dozen Star Wars / Marvel series a year. Their movies have been lackluster. They push them to streaming really fast, kneecapping the box office. It all just becomes noise instead of an event reinforcing their brand.
Some studios, like Sony, have just ignored trying to compete on Streaming, and just focus on the quality. Sell it to Netflix later, as Netflix increasingly is in the "quantity over quality" business.
Disney, for example, thrived on scarcity and quality. You'd clamor to see that rare release in theaters, and show up for streaming wherever it ended up. Instead they decided to produce like a dozen Star Wars / Marvel series a year. Their movies have been lackluster. They push them to streaming really fast, kneecapping the box office. It all just becomes noise instead of an event reinforcing their brand.
Some studios, like Sony, have just ignored trying to compete on Streaming, and just focus on the quality. Sell it to Netflix later, as Netflix increasingly is in the "quantity over quality" business.
Companies in many, many industries have been cutting as the economy is booming. What explains this phenomenon? Is it somehow political? Are corporate leadership following the all-is-despair-and-corruption trend, and lack vision, optimism, and drive?
When unemployment is as low as it has been, employers lose leverage. They want to gain that leverage back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/13/tim-gurner-u...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/13/tim-gurner-u...
It wasn’t all for naught, some hidden pearls came out of the low interest orgy thad made everyone and their dog open a streaming service.
For instance, AMC+‘s „The North Water“ or Starzplay’s (yes, really) „Counterpart“. Any more recommendations?
For instance, AMC+‘s „The North Water“ or Starzplay’s (yes, really) „Counterpart“. Any more recommendations?
I think we only got new Trek due to Paramount trying to sell Paramount Plus.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is terrific and has the spirit of the original series.
Star Trek: Lower Decks is also amazing in a very different way. It's like the writers made an adult cartoon show for all the super fans that references every meme, while still being very endearing and true to trek.
Star Trek: Picard, is also supposedly really good, but I have only seen one episode so far.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is terrific and has the spirit of the original series.
Star Trek: Lower Decks is also amazing in a very different way. It's like the writers made an adult cartoon show for all the super fans that references every meme, while still being very endearing and true to trek.
Star Trek: Picard, is also supposedly really good, but I have only seen one episode so far.
[deleted]
Didn't they cancel Counterpart? I watched the first season but never watched the second one when I learnt that it was canceled.
Yes, which I never understood. A plot with infinite potential (re: seasons) and Starz kills it.
They seem to only want to produce the "Power" series with regularity at this point, and really low effort soft core adult TV series
They seem to only want to produce the "Power" series with regularity at this point, and really low effort soft core adult TV series
Second season at least doesn't end on a cliffhanger. They take the time to end the story, especially JK Simmons' arc(s)
I dropped cable in 2007, and streaming last year. If streaming is no longer a value and ad free then I don't have a need for it.
I'm FAST and buy what I want on sale through a single ecosystem.
The whole industry was hotshotted and its going to take a while before they game the CBAs.
But honestly think that my time is better spent doing other things. Perhaps my money will be more appreciated in those areas.
If I start now I still probably won't get to read every book I've ever wanted to read.
> I'm FAST and buy what I want on sale through a single ecosystem.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
FAST is Free Ad-Supported Television.
Sale through a single ecosystem probably means buy individuals things when they’re on sale through iTunes or physically or something.
Sale through a single ecosystem probably means buy individuals things when they’re on sale through iTunes or physically or something.
The current top post is begging people to use Firefox to have more diversity in the browser landscape while everyone here complaining about the diversi... ehem, proliferation of streaming platforms.
Is there an economic or psychological principle that explains this? Something like "people want lots of free choices but only one paid option". (On further thought, this might just be an implication of the trivial "people want to spend less".)
Is there an economic or psychological principle that explains this? Something like "people want lots of free choices but only one paid option". (On further thought, this might just be an implication of the trivial "people want to spend less".)
People want a single global pool of content they can access but many options for how they access that content.
[deleted]
A year ago the consensus here on HN seemed that Netflix didn't have the pockets to compete with the big players in the long run.
In Europe every country has their own competing streaming services, a lot of them very successful because of local content. But everyone pretty much has Netflix as well
Many of these are propped up by local sports. Once the big American companies start branching out, many of these local streaming services will be acquired or wiped out.
If the EU will allow for the big guns to step in and monopolize the market, also every country individually have their own regulatory powers
This is what happens when you take your customers, and your creative talent for granted, systemically, for decades.
The stats for watched shows are pretty interesting -
https://fortune.com/2023/06/29/netflix-amazon-disney-others-...
Nothing prestige, almost entirely NFLX. A lot of it is back catalog licensed stuff. NCIS, Criminal minds, lol. Disney+ on the scoreboard with basically a couple kids shows plus the Simpsons.
Previous year stats pretty similar - https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/streaming-grew-its-aud...
Prestige stuff like Game of Thrones, Succession, even each of the Disney+ Star Wars shows is $100M/season. None of these make the scoreboard for views.
Meanwhile most people are watching boomer reruns and midbrow stuff. Even Seinfeld licensing only cost $100M/year for NFLX to end up one of the top 10 viewed shows.
Nothing prestige, almost entirely NFLX. A lot of it is back catalog licensed stuff. NCIS, Criminal minds, lol. Disney+ on the scoreboard with basically a couple kids shows plus the Simpsons.
Previous year stats pretty similar - https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/streaming-grew-its-aud...
Prestige stuff like Game of Thrones, Succession, even each of the Disney+ Star Wars shows is $100M/season. None of these make the scoreboard for views.
Meanwhile most people are watching boomer reruns and midbrow stuff. Even Seinfeld licensing only cost $100M/year for NFLX to end up one of the top 10 viewed shows.
The answer to this nonsense is quite clear to me: we need to build a federated media platform instead of building silos that create negative outcomes for the customer and perverse incentives for the distributors and producers. We need to homogonise the pricing just like cable bundles do, but without locking the customer into products they don't care about. Spotify, while having many issues of their own, have more or less managed to do this - you don't pay extra for categories of media you don't care about, like you do with cable TV.
The problem is and always was the so-called "rights holders", who are just another form of landlord, looking to milk their licenses for as much as we can bare. Their power needs to be diminished. Whoever cracks that nut will revolutionise the media industry in my opinion.
The problem is and always was the so-called "rights holders", who are just another form of landlord, looking to milk their licenses for as much as we can bare. Their power needs to be diminished. Whoever cracks that nut will revolutionise the media industry in my opinion.
I think what the industry needs is a fixed royalties regime like recorded music has.
Spotify has the whole catalog, and the rights holders can't stop them. But Spotify does have to pay a certain industry fixed royalty per play.
The trick will be that movies & TV have wildly different production costs and replay value vs. music singles, so the scheme would have to account for this in a way that is fair.
Spotify has the whole catalog, and the rights holders can't stop them. But Spotify does have to pay a certain industry fixed royalty per play.
The trick will be that movies & TV have wildly different production costs and replay value vs. music singles, so the scheme would have to account for this in a way that is fair.
It was piracy that really cracked the nut of the music industry though. They simply couldn't fight it so they had to offer an alternative. Video media hasn't gotten to that point with piracy and for the majority of people it's easier to pay for content.
> The problem is and always was the so-called "rights holders", who are just another form of landlord
Since you seem to think the content has nearly no value, go ahead and populate your federated world with your own content.
Since you seem to think the content has nearly no value, go ahead and populate your federated world with your own content.
gcgbcfy(1)
stock seems to be up 160% from its low in 2022. So this piece of information is irrelevant to the future of the company ?
website seems to be down. I read this link instead
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/12/28/shakeout-has-...
website seems to be down. I read this link instead
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/12/28/shakeout-has-...
Which stock? This isn't about Netflix, but its rivals. Kind of a garden path headline.
> Disney, Warner, Comcast and Paramount
warner is up 22% this year.
comcast 26%
warner is up 22% this year.
comcast 26%
You have to compare any growth against a benchmark index which reflects what would’ve happened if the company had simply invested its assets in that index fund instead.
S&P is up 25% this year.
That says nothing about streaming. Maybe it would have gone up even more if they didn't launch their streaming service.
First sentence
>The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.
>The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.
Disney naively thought they could just serve up old classics while wringing the life out of Marvel and Star Wars IP and people would happily continue to pay. But the IP dilution and very real costs of beaming 4K video around the world on demand don’t mix well together.
Meanwhile Netflix has built some of the most sophisticated production tooling in the world, and leveraged cross-country content like no old-world provider ever has.
It’s a classic story of a tenant mistakenly believing the landlord has it easy - so they abandon their sublet and try to build a mall from scratch - the models are vastly different, and perhaps in this case, lethal.