Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[slick1ru2]

Oh and

physical disc rentals continue to decline, and came in with a 12% decrease via brick-and-mortal outlets, including a 5% decrease via Kiosk services (such as Redbox). Let's face it, in looking at this aspect of the home entertainment market for the long term, as internet streaming quality and accessibility improves, and more titles become available, the convenience of not having to drive down to local rental store or Kiosk, or wait for a title to arrive in the mail, will continue be factor in the decreasing need for the physical disc rental option.

http://hometheater.about.com/b/2013/...rt-of-2013.htm

Down 17% last year. Dude, I am totally getting my $8/month out of NetFlix.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Uh, you have it backwards, its not Viacom pulling their movies, its NetFlix not renewing. Their CEO was scrambling to the shareholders reassuring them that Viacom will be OK. You have that backwards. In other words, NetFlix didn't think those 2000 titles were worth the price, and btw, that's only 3% of what's in the streaming catalog. Not even that since they added 500 titles today.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...ix-deal-to-end

When did I ever say anything about Viacom? Again, try to stay focused.
I've only mentioned WB pulling their library, the biggest content exodus in the history of Netflix, BTW. Then I've gone on to speculate that because of this move, other studios might follow suit...and if they do, it will make a heavy blow against Netflix a massive one.
So now if fans want WB content, they have to pay $9.99 to Warner, and $8 to Netflix, for the rest of what they've had. See how that works? It's all about exclusive content. For the longest Netflix was the only game in town. They were, and to a certain extent still are the Wal-Mart of streaming. But all of that is about to change, after this move.
What used to cost you $8 is going to cost you several $10 spots/month to get all the content. This has streaming nightmare written all over it.
And as I disc buyer/renter, I couldn't be happier.
We'll see how Netflix stock does for Q1-3. It's all about exclusive content nowadays.
I've got my popcorn, and I'll be watching this play out. Talk about entertaining!

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Oh and



http://hometheater.about.com/b/2013/...rt-of-2013.htm

Down 17% last year. Dude, I am totally getting my $8/month out of NetFlix.

Again, those are B&M stores. You have a knack for bringing up things that have no bearing on what I've said.
I'm sure you are getting your money's worth...but that's all about to change!
Assuming you want all the streaming options you had w/Netflix, well now that $8 is gonna cost you $18...and that's the best case scenario. It will probably be a whole lot more. So start saving those streaming pennies! LOL!

[slick1ru2]

Nothing at Warner's new streaming service website makes me think its going to do nothing but fail. And it costs more than NetFlix. http://instant.warnerarchive.com/ I can see them crawling back to NetFlix.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Again, those are B&M stores. You have a knack for bringing up things that have no bearing on what I've said.
I'm sure you are getting your money's worth...but that's all about to change!
Assuming you want all the streaming options you had w/Netflix, well now that $8 is gonna cost you $18...and that's the best case scenario. It will probably be a whole lot more. So start saving those streaming pennies! LOL!

The cost of one BD. Bargain.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Nothing at Warner's new streaming service website makes me think its going to do nothing but fail. And it costs more than NetFlix. http://instant.warnerarchive.com/ I can see them crawling back to NetFlix.

That, remains to be seen.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The cost of one BD. Bargain.

Yep, for now! We'll see how long that bargain lasts.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Yep, for now! We'll see how long that bargain lasts.

Decades. I've had NetFlix for about a decade already, streaming only for years. Think of all the money I've already saved. Its cheaper now for NetFlix than when it first started. It started out at $4/movie with $2 postage.

And with the projections of up to 90 million subs eventually, that buys a lot content.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Nothing at Warner's new streaming service website makes me think its going to do nothing but fail. And it costs more than NetFlix. http://instant.warnerarchive.com/ I can see them crawling back to NetFlix.

Fail? If Warner's streaming service bring in more than Warner would have gotten by licensing these titles to NetFlix then it will be a success.

The really interesting question is whether this kind of balkanization of content will be a net positive for consumers. It could be pretty cool if the net effect is essentially 'ala cart cable' where instead of signing onto bloated basic and premium packages consumers in effect pay X number of dollars per month for each channel they want.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Also, NetFlix added 500 titles today. Anyway, I stream Crackle, Epix, HBO Go, Max Go and Amazon Prime, usually via Roku which has a search engine that searches all the movie apps which is pretty sweet.

How do you find this out?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by saprano

How do you find this out?

It is true. I think I remember reading it online a few days ago. Don't quote me, but I think netflix representatives stated that was the case.

I mentioned that this might happen ages ago. Several subscriptions for streaming services that end up costing as much as cable/sat. Cutting the cord won't be worth it. Just wait until sports goes the streaming route. We might as well stick with cable. Another thing about future EST is that people may get Into the habit of collecting digitally only for Ultraviolet or whoever to pull the plug. Like I have said before, streaming just represents problems for me. I like to be secure in the knowledge that when I want a movie, i can buy it and it will be mine forever. Renting, now that is different. Streaming is fine for that.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Decades. I've had NetFlix for about a decade already, streaming only for years. Think of all the money I've already saved. Its cheaper now for NetFlix than when it first started. It started out at $4/movie with $2 postage.

And with the projections of up to 90 million subs eventually, that buys a lot content.

Me too, and I've saved just as much money. The only difference being, as a disc renter, I'm not losing content. As a streamer, you are.
Say goodbye to your one-stop streaming shop. It's been a great deal for a long time, but the studios now wany a slice of that pie.

[Monkey]

Is there a list of the 500 titles?

[perfectionthrusilenc]

http://feedfliks.com/netflix-new-instant

I always check feedfliks. They have the new and upcoming releases with dates for Netflix streaming.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by perfectionthrusilenc

http://feedfliks.com/netflix-new-instant

I always check feedfliks. They have the new and upcoming releases with dates for Netflix streaming.

Thanks, that helps a lot.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Me too, and I've saved just as much money. The only difference being, as a disc renter, I'm not losing content. As a streamer, you are.
Say goodbye to your one-stop streaming shop. It's been a great deal for a long time, but the studios now wany a slice of that pie.

I've never "one-stop" streaming. Its not a money issue, I'm not a cord cutter. But if it was a money issue, Roku has over 700 channels, by far most are free and include content you can't rent on DVD. So I haven't lost jack. I don't consider the titles taken any better than the 58,000 that remain. IF I did I would be joining the Warner Archive site.

You rented Blond and Blonder yet? Let me know what I am missing.

[slick1ru2]

I only see you two chime in when some insignificant thing like this happens. Nothing when NetFlix signs major, multi-year deals like with Disney or Weinstein. Or CBS reaffirming that their relationship with NetFlix is Strong. Or how now Dreamworks movies go to NetFlix instead of HBO first. Or the Miramax multi-year deal. Or EXCLUSIVE US rights to BBC programs? Or the great Fox content they've added. I'd rather watch Sons of Anarchy or Archer than Blond and Blonder, but that's just me.

So I've included links to all the content deals you two must have missed, just so you realize that the 2000 crappy films that NetFlix no longer have aren't the big picture. Off to stream Archer!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I only see you two chime in when some insignificant thing like this happens. Nothing when NetFlix signs major, multi-year deals like with Disney or Weinstein. Or CBS reaffirming that their relationship with NetFlix is Strong. Or how now Dreamworks movies go to NetFlix instead of HBO first. Or the Miramax multi-year deal. Or EXCLUSIVE US rights to BBC programs? Or the great Fox content they've added. I'd rather watch Sons of Anarchy or Archer than Blond and Blonder, but that's just me.

So I've included links to all the content deals you two must have missed, just so you realize that the 2000 crappy films that NetFlix no longer have aren't the big picture. Off to stream Archer!

I wonder how long it will be before BBC, ITV and the like here in the UK, release their own streaming store. Wouldn't that mean more content pulled from lovefilm and netflix?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I've never "one-stop" streaming. Its not a money issue, I'm not a cord cutter. But if it was a money issue, Roku has over 700 channels, by far most are free and include content you can't rent on DVD. So I haven't lost jack. I don't consider the titles taken any better than the 58,000 that remain. IF I did I would be joining the Warner Archive site.

You rented Blond and Blonder yet? Let me know what I am missing.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I only see you two chime in when some insignificant thing like this happens. Nothing when NetFlix signs major, multi-year deals like with Disney or Weinstein. Or CBS reaffirming that their relationship with NetFlix is Strong. Or how now Dreamworks movies go to NetFlix instead of HBO first. Or the Miramax multi-year deal. Or EXCLUSIVE US rights to BBC programs? Or the great Fox content they've added. I'd rather watch Sons of Anarchy or Archer than Blond and Blonder, but that's just me.

So I've included links to all the content deals you two must have missed, just so you realize that the 2000 crappy films that NetFlix no longer have aren't the big picture. Off to stream Archer!

Yet again, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying: Of course you have not lost much now. It's moving forward, potentially, how much streaming content will be pulled from Netflix. This was bound to happen, it was only a matter of time. Personally I didn't think it would happen for another 2-3 years, but WB wanted to make money by renting their own product.
As I said, we'll see how other studios react to this move.
We'll see how "insignifigant" this really is in time.

[slick1ru2]

Warner Bros just came out and said that it wasn't their pulling content off NetFlix, it was because they no longer have license for it, they were licensing it from Epix. That license expired so they can't provide it any longer. So your concerns about studios pulling content off NetFlix is incorrect. I knew this didn't make any sense because Warner just inked a deal with NetFlix this year. Also the number of titles is less than half the number originally quoted.



http://tv.yahoo.com/news/netflix-str...070648617.html

Again, as noted by EVERYONE, this adding and subtracting of titles happens all the time including by services owned by studios like Crackle, HBO and Epix.

SO AGAIN, NOTHING WAS "PULLED" FROM NETFLIX. TOTALLY WRONG AND MISLEADING.

They also added bunch of titles. Off to watch MI 2.