Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Couldn't agree less. I think people are trying to convince themselves how great it is because it is cheap. Apparently the bit-rates go as high as 6mbps!!!!!! for 1080p on the PS3. Do you realize (in my opinion) how pathetic that is for full HD? Now if Netflix could offer 10-15 mbps you might have a point about the quality.

Not to entirely agree with you here, but you're right. We are convincing ourselves that it is great because it is cheap. That quality of streaming is better than most HD cable stations/On Demand services and it costs much less. You get what you pay for, and in this case you get a ton of content at a reasonable bitrate for said price.

The worry is that all the casual film watchers will adopt this technology and the likes of myself who have invested fortunes in Home Cinema gear and blurays will not have a HD source in the future (i don't count 6mbps as HD) Everyone who loves best quality HD should not be buying into Netflix and them in my opinion.

Casual film watchers are the ones complaining about the loss of Starz and the price hike. Casual film watchers are the ones dropping Netflix like flies. Casual film watchers are not your enemy in this case.

Now if you are happy with that future, i would question why you are a member of bluray forum in the first place. Make no doubt about it, this technology is intended to replace bluray, and if they cannot get somewhere close to bluray by the time discs are obsolete i (and many more like me) are going to be mightily pissed off!

Wait, what? Your argument just veered off into conspiracy theory territory. Oh wait, you're one of those people who firmly believes that they are trying to phase out all forms of physical media. Give me a break, dude -- there's too much money to be made off of physical media to just phase it out entirely. They're simply providing more options for people to get their entertainment in various different ways.

As i have said before, streaming is a backwards technology, fans of HQ should not embrace it.

Why not? I present to you a few situations which are not exactly new to me, and actually tend to happen on a regular basis.

I often find independent content on NIW that I had previously never heard of before. After watching it, I discover how awesome it is and plan to pick up the best possible release of it on a physical media format. NIW served as a tool to get the word out about an excellent film that otherwise would have remained entirely a mystery to me.

Sometimes these movies have blu-ray releases, but more often than not they are only available on DVD. However, on NIW they are available in HD (albeit as you consider it, unacceptable HD). Even based on your opinion of this being an unacceptable level of quality in HD, it's still better quality than the DVD. Still, I'm going to buy the movie on whatever format it is available on because I want to support the artists.

A backwards technology? Thanks to streaming, several independent filmmakers have found a new tool to get the word out about their movies. 90% of these filmmakers would have had to rely on other, outdated forms of advertisement that aren't nearly as effective, and thusly would most likely have been forgotten by time. Instead, they now find themselves getting noticed a bit more -- all thanks to this "backwards" technology of yours.

Just because one format is different than another doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or that the powers that be intend to use it to phase out other formats. That's just crazy talk.

[Steedeel]

Stoudman, if Netflix came to the Uk i can guarantee you it would not be matching our cable/sat quality in the UK. The likes of Sky have superb picture in HD considering the shared bandwidth.

Netflix 1080p in my opinion is better than dvd in resolution only. I think a well mastered dvd betters it in terms of less artifacts even taking the improved codec into consideration. I am easily distracted by compression artifacts. Now this point has already been argued but no one can prove otherwise.

About the phasing out of discs, i am more concerned about having the necessary quality available when discs are phased out. That is the most important thing to me. Where is the evidence that they are pushing for this. Netflix seems to have settled for low bit rate 1080p. Apple (in my opinion) seem to settled for 4mbps 720p. Don't get me started on Hulu plus. Zune seem to be aiming in the right direction but are not exactly taking over that market. Vudu HDX are absolutely doing things the right way but (in my opinion) overcharge. PSN, again in my opinion, only offer low bit rate DVD quality HD downloads. Now it could be that several years from now when they make their big push, they will up the stakes and push for higher quality. HOWEVER, they may not and settle for what is available now, therefore no high quality source on the market, as people adopt the low bitrate options.
Lets face it most people are dumb when it comes to technology and don't seem to recognize class when they see it in my opinion.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

About the phasing out of discs, i am more concerned about having the necessary quality available when discs are phased out. That is the most important thing to me. Where is the evidence that they are pushing for this.

The evidence that Netflix wants to "phase out disks" is rather severely out of date:
Back in '09, they went and produced all those TV ads that only mentioned the streaming service, but when the numbers came in a year later, it looked as if streaming wasn't their biggest source of income, the realities of the streaming industry didn't look as promising as the dreams did on paper (like, not all movies are going to be available everywhere), and they were losing profits off of what they had.

We still have the "Happy streaming customers" ads, only now the announcer copy mentions that you can get HARD DISK RENTALS, TOO!
This goes along with the CEO changing his tune in public this year, as mentioned in the original post.

[The_Donster]

I thought you were going to stay away from the Netflix threads the last time we proved you wrong SD? Considering that you don't even have Netflix in the UK, I think you should stay away from topics you don't know about. Right now you are just regurgitating things that you've read somewhere. I've also got a problem with you or any other member questioning another member on why they are here because they support streaming. It just screams elitism and I can't speak for the rest, but that isn't why I joined

[Steedeel]

If it is elitism to want and crave the very best that home entertainment can offer then i am guilty. By the way i have not been proved wrong on anything. Unless you have suddenly become marty mcfly! Finally i have experienced streaming via a friend in the USA, which i stated a while back. Ps3 hd stream, i stand by my opinion.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If it is elitism to want and crave the very best that home entertainment can offer then i am guilty. By the way i have not been proved wrong on anything. Unless you have suddenly become marty mcfly! Finally i have experienced streaming via a friend in the USA, which i stated a while back. Ps3 hd stream, i stand by my opinion.

You have not proven any of your outlandish theories yet, so by default the onus is on YOU to start coming up with some hard news to back up your whining posts.
IMO, you're borderline trolling. You rant so much about things that aren't even around the corner yet!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Strilo

I think it does say something about Comcast, which is not amazing for sure. But also, the internet is faster here than it is in the UK is it not?

have no idea on streaming nor sat there, but internet is much better there, it is cheaper and much faster http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/53/39575086.xls the US is actualy quite pathetic when it comes to broadband access , spead wise, it is even worst then here in Canada. http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/...-networks.html

Perhaps I am getting a better streaming experience than those overseas?

don't know about overseas and UK in particular but maybe you are more accepting then others, Netflix streams the same quality here (Canada) and the US and I don't find it looks good.

Either way, Netflix Streaming is not a replacement for Blu Ray for me. it's a replacement for TV. Being able to watch things on demand whenever I want to is too alluring, especially when the quality I directly experience is roughly equivalent.

I don't see it that way either, it is a replacement for the guy that thinks DVD is good enough or that wants to save a few $ and see a lot of content. When I think of TV I am thinking of watching the episode that is playing now or at worst a few hours/day earlier, now Netflix does not offer the same content in Canada and the US, but do they start streaming shows as they are being broadcasted?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by kefrank

I think I must not have communicated very well in my post, because things are being inferred that I did not intend...

I guess it depends on what he meant by "game over for Netflix." That suggests to me that Netflix would be on the verge of folding as a company. They are very far from that point, regardless of some stock volatility.

agree, but I don't see why you would infer bankruptcy, the days of gladiatorial games have been gone for a long time, when was the last time that something needed to die for it to be game over.

I never stated that it's ok for Netflix to make money and not for the studios or distributors to make money and did not intend to even intimate such a thing. My point is simply that Netflix is gaining streaming subscribers and it has put the content owners/distributors on edge, because they have not figured out the right balance that will allow everyone to make money. That's exactly why I think we'll see all sides, including Netflix, making compromises eventually.

but it is not about being on edge, Netflix gets content that you stream from them from the studios, Starz decided they don't pay them enough for it, you had an issue with Starz asking for more money for the content and said "begrudging of any business model that looks different from what they are used to". The issue is you don't add profitability in your equation. If this new model costs them 1$ form an other pocket (older model) then it needs to add 1$ in this one.

I think that's a significant oversimplification of the issue.

in some ways, yes but in many no. Just last week I bought some BDs on the way to the bar where I met some friends, one of them goes to me "why do you buy films when you can see all of them for 8$".

My point was that the practical amount and quality of content that Netflix streaming was actually getting from Starz was not enough to drive them to change their business model just yet.

I disagree, this is a simple way of seeing things

1) the amount and quality is more then you assume it is, it is not just a few TV shows but Starz distributes to them content from other studios as well

2) you are forgetting that this is negotiations, they are can bluff, the old contract is in effect so they can say we don't care if we lose the content now, the question is will they be the same way several weeks/months after the old contract ends.

3) you are also forgetting that this is not just Starz. If they agree and pay what Starz wants, what do you think will happen in other negotiations when those other contracts come up. Even if they don't and lose Starz, what happens with negotiations with other contracts.

Of course, some subscribers will be affected, but I doubt it will make any kind of significant dent in their user base in the short term. Again, ultimately I think Netflix will adjust their model to some extent and content owners/distributors will adjust their licensing demands.

we will see, I can't understand how someone can down play content until the end of 2007 insane HD-DVD fanboys where sure everything was good and HD-DVD would be around for ever, at CES 2008 WB announced that they will continue on the already promised titles, but will be dropping HD-DVD after that. Toshiba folded HD-DVD a few months later. Now I don't think things will be this drastic and Netflix will stop offering DL, but I don't understand how anyone can pretend that content does not matter.

[Stoudman]

I hate to interject into a discussion that I have nothing to do with, but I just have a few points I'd like to make here.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but it is not about being on edge, Netflix gets content that you stream from them from the studios, Starz decided they don't pay them enough for it, you had an issue with Starz asking for more money for the content and said "begrudging of any business model that looks different from what they are used to". The issue is you don't add profitability in your equation. If this new model costs them 1$ form an other pocket (older model) then it needs to add 1$ in this one.

Actually, the issue had nothing to do with money. Netflix offered them quite a bit more than they ever had before, but Starz wouldn't sign the contract unless Netflix restructured their system to the liking of Starz. This was essentially Starz trying to bully Netflix and tell them how to run their own business. Rather than trying to please Starz, they simply accepted the termination of the contract and are moving on.

in some ways, yes but in many no. Just last week I bought some BDs on the way to the bar where I met some friends, one of them goes to me "why do you buy films when you can see all of them for 8$".

No offense, but the experiences of the few are not the same thing as the experiences of the many. Your friend is not a good example. He is one person out of millions.

I disagree, this is a simple way of seeing things

1) the amount and quality is more then you assume it is, it is not just a few TV shows but Starz distributes to them content from other studios as well

Yeah, I saw you saying that before. The problem with this assumption that you keep asserting is that you seem to be under the impression that Starz is offering a lot more content than they really are. The only content they offer has their "Starz Play" logo plastered all over it (even in the queue) and can be accessed from the top of the front page. If it doesn't have the Starz play logo, it isn't something they are offering and it won't be removed when they stop providing their services. Right now they have a total of 38 pages of content on Netflix Instant Watch, with about 24 titles per page. That's less than 1,000 titles, most of them being "quality" titles such as:

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie
Step Up 3
The Santa Clause 2
Bio-Dome
The Pebble and the Penguin
First Kid
Larger Than Life
Jason X

...and so on.

2) you are forgetting that this is negotiations, they are can bluff, the old contract is in effect so they can say we don't care if we lose the content now, the question is will they be the same way several weeks/months after the old contract ends.

I know I won't care. I won't miss titles like those I've already mentioned. Even the ones I would miss would be in SD and, most likely, in FS. I could care less about crap like that.

3) you are also forgetting that this is not just Starz. If they agree and pay what Starz wants, what do you think will happen in other negotiations when those other contracts come up. Even if they don't and lose Starz, what happens with negotiations with other contracts.

Well, let's see...they've signed a contract with Dreamworks to get some of their newest content on NIW only a few months after release. That contract isn't going to go into effect until, I believe, next summer. Still, it's a far better prospect than working with Starz, whose only intention is to restructure the way Netflix works (for the worse) and make a bunch of money offering crappy quality versions of the films they currently have the license to. In terms of which contract is more important and which company would mean the most to Netflix, I'll take the loss of some S#!^ titles in S#!^ quality in return for some much better films from a studio that actually knows what they're doing.

we will see, I can't understand how someone can down play content until the end of 2007 insane HD-DVD fanboys where sure everything was good and HD-DVD would be around for ever, at CES 2008 WB announced that they will continue on the already promised titles, but will be dropping HD-DVD after that. Toshiba folded HD-DVD a few months later. Now I don't think things will be this drastic and Netflix will stop offering DL, but I don't understand how anyone can pretend that content does not matter.

Apples and Oranges.

Content does matter. That's why the loss of Starz is the BEST thing that could have happened to Netflix.

Finally, a response from another post:

I don't see it that way either, it is a replacement for the guy that thinks DVD is good enough or that wants to save a few $ and see a lot of content. When I think of TV I am thinking of watching the episode that is playing now or at worst a few hours/day earlier, now Netflix does not offer the same content in Canada and the US, but do they start streaming shows as they are being broadcasted?

I don't necessarily think DVD is good enough, unless of course it is the rare occasion in which the DVD actually looks better than the blu-ray thanks to a horrible transfer or other issues. It's definitely handy, because it is now cheap and easy to get a hold of. I was once asked the following:

If there was a horrible fire in your house/apartment and you had to grab only the most important things and run, what format would you grab your favorite movie on?

My answer? DVD.

Why? Because I can't grab my blu-ray player at the same time, can I? Most likely, no. After something that devastating, would I be able to afford another blu-ray player right away? Probably not. But a DVD Player? Those are cheap. SD TV's? They give them away. I'd rather be able to watch my favorite movie than to be worried about whether I was watching it in the best possible quality.

It's about priorities, not about me or anyone else thinking that DVD is better. If we can't afford the blu-ray all the time, maybe DVD isn't such a bad option. You're right about one thing -- it's a replacement for the guy (or gal) who wants to save a few bucks and see a lot of content. How is this a bad thing?

You think of TV in the outdated format that it was born in. I know, I was also a child of that era. However, times have changed and we can finally get the content we want WHEN we want it. We don't have to rely on the television station to decide when and where that content will be shown, we can define our own television and film watching at all times. No longer are we constricted by the format of old, as on demand content allows us to do as we please at all times.

Again, how is this a bad thing? No, we can't watch shows as they are broadcast and when they are broadcast for the first time. No, it's not live television. Who cares? The few live or important television events anyone would care about are not worth the hundreds of dollars you'll waste on an inferior form of entertainment just to get it. Most of the great television shows are best experienced in marathons, anyways -- watching the story unfold not piece by piece and WEEK by WEEK, but rather one right after the other. I don't have to wait a week to see the next episode, I can watch it right away. True, it could take months or even years to see a DVD/Blu/On Demand release of said content and I'll have to wait for it, but personally, I'd rather watch it that way regardless.

I know this isn't exactly fair to the people who make the show and rely on ratings based on the old way of doing things, but I can't help what I prefer.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

Actually, the issue had nothing to do with money. Netflix offered them quite a bit more than they ever had before, but Starz wouldn't sign the contract unless Netflix restructured their system to the liking of Starz. This was essentially Starz trying to bully Netflix and tell them how to run their own business. Rather than trying to please Starz, they simply accepted the termination of the contract and are moving on.

Actually, it had everything to do with money - and content devaluation, which means more, or less, money in the long run. Furthermore, demanding what your content is worth is not bullying, it is sound business.

In other words, Starz would have lost a lot more in the long run than what Netflix offered them...in the short run.

Pro-B

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Actually, it had everything to do with money - and content devaluation, which means more, or less, money in the long run. Furthermore, demanding what your content is worth is not bullying, it is sound business.

In other words, Starz would have lost a lot more in the long run than what Netflix offered them...in the short run.

Pro-B

Based on those movies, it sounds like Starz is already devalued. Win 1 for Netflix.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Based on those movies, it sounds like Starz is already devalued. Win 1 for Netflix.

Sound(s) and reality are two different things. Just like it turned out that Netflix wasn't a streaming company after all, as they wanted everyone to believe.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Sound(s) and reality are two different things. Just like it turned out that Netflix wasn't a streaming company after all, as they wanted everyone to believe.

Okay, using that logic...one would think that Nike isn't a shoe company anymore, even though that's what they want everyone to think!

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Okay, using that logic...one would think that Nike isn't a shoe company anymore, even though that's what they want everyone to think!

I am unsure what that logic is. Netflix never disclosed to an independent party where their core revenue comes from - disc rentals or streaming. Intentionally. In fact, they repeatedly produced statements where they made sure not to offer specific information. As time went by, they recommitted to disc rentals. So, the only sound logic you should be using here is the one that explains that they tried to manipulate the market and failed. This isn't to say that there is no place for the service they offer on the market, in this economy there certainly is, but they are not the market, which is what they wanted to be - and thus have monopoly on it - they are a middle man that delivers content and thus part of the market. This is the difference. Naturally, there were and will be various content restrictions from the content owners.

Netflix's attitude on the market really wasn't that different from Blockbuster's. The only key difference here is that with physical media there was and always will be a united market (including software and hardware manufacturers plus the content owners). The streaming market is fractured into multiple platforms and will be for the foreseeable future because content is not bought/sold/licensed and never will be on the same terms that the physical media market has adopted.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I am unsure what that logic is. Netflix never disclosed to an independent party where their core revenue comes from - disc rentals or streaming. Intentionally. In fact, they repeatedly produced statements where they made sure not to offer specific information. As time went by, they recommitted to disc rentals. So, the only sound logic you should be using here is the one that explains that they tried to manipulate the market and failed. This isn't to say that there is no place for the service they offer on the market, in this economy there certainly is, but they are not the market, which is what they wanted to be - and thus have monopoly on it - they are a middle man that delivers content and thus part of the market. This is the difference. Naturally, there were and will be various content restrictions from the content owners.

Netflix's attitude on the market really wasn't that different from Blockbuster's. The only key difference here is that with physical media there was and always will be a united market (including software and hardware manufacturers plus the content owners). The streaming market is fractured into multiple platforms and will be for the foreseeable future because content is not bought/sold/licensed and never will be on the same terms that the physical media market has adopted.

Okay if you think having over 20 million subscribers and being a a multi-billion dollar company a failure...uhm okay.
And for a few years, Netflix did own the streaming market. They made great deals that made them a viable contender in the HV game. Netflix knew these deals would come to an end, and the "big boys" would step in to outbid(or at least try). This is nothing new.
Again, if you view that as a failure...please let me know what success is?

[pro-bassoonist]

I don't believe you are deconstructing my comments correctly. I don't believe that Netflix is a failure and clearly stated that there is a place on the market for the type of service they offer. What I clarified is that they failed to become the market, as they intended, and have monopoly on it - hence the various restrictions they are experiencing and will continue to experience in the future.

It would be interesting to see how they evolve in the future.

Pro-B

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I don't believe you are deconstructing my comments correctly. I don't believe that Netflix is a failure and clearly stated that there is a place on the market for the type of service they offer. What I clarified is that they failed to become the market, as they intended, and have monopoly on it - hence the various restrictions they are experiencing and will continue to experience in the future.

It would be interesting to see how they evolve in the future.

Pro-B

Previously you said "they tried to manipulate the market and failed".
How so? During it's rise Netflix pretty much wiped all of the "mom & pop" video strores that BB did not...then almost pushed BB(along with Movie Gallery the #2 HV store) to bankruptcy. Netflix then signed low-cost deals with studios to start streaming and, for awhile, was the only "game in town".
All the while amassing over 20 millions subscribers, and becoming a multi-billion dollar empire.
I don't see how they failed to "manipulate the market", as you say.

Edit: and that's just the very brief story, as I'm sure you know!

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Previously you said "they tried to manipulate the market and failed".
How so?

We are talking about the streaming market.

Originally Posted by rickah88

All the while amassing over 20 millions subscribers, and becoming a multi-billion dollar empire.

The issue here is that they are very much a pyramid-business, which is why they are trying to expand in South America and Europe - looking for fresh revenue to cover the rising content costs they must pay in North America.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

We are talking about the streaming market.

The issue here is that they are very much a pyramid-business, which is why they are trying to expand in South America and Europe - looking for fresh revenue to cover the rising content costs they must pay in North America.

Pro-B, don't get me wrong...I, very much, look forward to your posts on industry trends and find them very insightful. I just think, IMO, you may have been a little harsh towards Netflix as(again IMO) they are still the King of Hill for time being.
Yes they are branching out, as any growing business would do. Your posts almost imply that Netflix is a sinking ship, which I have no reason to believe...right now! Now after more streaming deals are made, with big companies...well it may be a different story.
Unless you're on the Netflix BoD, I'll continue to stick to my beliefs that Netflix: has been & continues to be an industry force. Not a failed middle man.
My only head-scratcher were the WB, Fox, & Uni deals Netflix signed to get cheaper product at the cost of a 28day wait period. I'd be interested to know when those deals expire(I believe signed last year)...as in this digital age, it's all about: What can you do for me, RIGHT NOW!
Since BB didn't sign any such deals, they have been able to use this as a great advertising slogan against Netflix. So what might have been a nice "long term" deal(as you metioned), may not be a good "short term" deal.
As for the OP...I have seen a few additions to Neflix's BD library over the last couple of months, but not nearly enough to justify(in my experience with them) a "focus on discs".
Again, I think 2012 will see some big changes for Netflix...but that's just specualtion on my part. I do know, that as of now, Netflix more than meets my blu-ray needs at a great price. That's why I'll continue to stand by them, but will keep an eye out "down the road" too.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

I hate to interject into a discussion that I have nothing to do with, but I just have a few points I'd like to make here.

no problem, this is a forum, if things were meant to be private and others not being able to reply it would be in PM

Actually, the issue had nothing to do with money. Netflix offered them quite a bit more than they ever had before, but Starz wouldn't sign the contract unless Netflix restructured their system to the liking of Starz. This was essentially Starz trying to bully Netflix and tell them how to run their own business. Rather than trying to please Starz, they simply accepted the termination of the contract and are moving on.

it has absolutely everything to do with money. When talking about companies every decision taken (right or wrong) has to do with money. Have you seen to many bad movies where the only goal of the corporation/CEO is to destroy the world. Even what you say has to do with money. Let me give a simple example, I have a garage sell, I have a Trinket (not important what it is for the example) two people show up that want to buy it, one of them offers me 20$ the other 30$ which is a better deal for me? obviously the guy offering 30$. The same here, the trinket is us, the person with the garage sale is the studio, the two guys bidding are the distribution channels (Netflix, PPV, local rental shop.....) if they make less when you watch it through X then Y then it is bad for them money wise. And we (consumers) are like the trinket because except for possibly some slim exceptions (i.e. rented a movie liked it and bought it) as individuals we won't use many distribution channels.

No offense, but the experiences of the few are not the same thing as the experiences of the many. Your friend is not a good example. He is one person out of millions.

so you are telling me if I start a poll on Netflix.com and ask " As a Netflix streaming user do you buy, PPV or rent from other places as many films as you used to before you started streaming with Netflix" most people will say no? and that they have cut back on other distribution channels.

Yeah, I saw you saying that before. The problem with this assumption that you keep asserting is that you seem to be under the impression that Starz is offering a lot more content than they really are. The only content they offer has their "Starz Play" logo plastered all over it (even in the queue) and can be accessed from the top of the front page. If it doesn't have the Starz play logo, it isn't something they are offering and it won't be removed when they stop providing their services. Right now they have a total of 38 pages of content on Netflix Instant Watch, with about 24 titles per page. That's less than 1,000 titles, most of them being "quality" titles such as:

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie
Step Up 3
The Santa Clause 2
Bio-Dome
The Pebble and the Penguin
First Kid
Larger Than Life
Jason X

...and so on.



I know I won't care. I won't miss titles like those I've already mentioned. Even the ones I would miss would be in SD and, most likely, in FS. I could care less about crap like that.

I guess it is not hard in, like you point out, 1000 titles to pick 8 titles you can say you don't care for to make an invalid point of how the content does not matter.

Well, let's see...they've signed a contract with Dreamworks to get some of their newest content on NIW only a few months after release. That contract isn't going to go into effect until, I believe, next summer. Still, it's a far better prospect than working with Starz, whose only intention is to restructure the way Netflix works (for the worse) and make a bunch of money offering crappy quality versions of the films they currently have the license to. In terms of which contract is more important and which company would mean the most to Netflix, I'll take the loss of some S#!^ titles in S#!^ quality in return for some much better films from a studio that actually knows what they're doing.

lol, nothing for now and a long delay eventually is a better deal then content and no delay

Apples and Oranges.

Content does matter. That's why the loss of Starz is the BEST thing that could have happened to Netflix.

?

I don't necessarily think DVD is good enough, unless of course it is the rare occasion in which the DVD actually looks better than the blu-ray thanks to a horrible transfer or other issues. It's definitely handy, because it is now cheap and easy to get a hold of. I was once asked the following:

If there was a horrible fire in your house/apartment and you had to grab only the most important things and run, what format would you grab your favorite movie on?

My answer? DVD.

Why? Because I can't grab my blu-ray player at the same time, can I? Most likely, no. After something that devastating, would I be able to afford another blu-ray player right away? Probably not. But a DVD Player? Those are cheap. SD TV's? They give them away. I'd rather be able to watch my favorite movie than to be worried about whether I was watching it in the best possible quality.

It's about priorities, not about me or anyone else thinking that DVD is better. If we can't afford the blu-ray all the time, maybe DVD isn't such a bad option. You're right about one thing -- it's a replacement for the guy (or gal) who wants to save a few bucks and see a lot of content. How is this a bad thing?

you do like making ridiculous posts.

1) I hope you are smart enough to have insurance, if so then the money does come pretty fast (as opposed to theft where the insurance company
waits a month to make sure the goods are not found)
2) when are you living, 2006? You can easily find new feature rich BD players for under 80$ is that really such a big expense? And why would you need an expensive HDTV, a BD player can be hooked up to any TV so buy the same one you would buy for the DVD player. If, let's be generous, the 50$ difference is that big of an issue then maybe you should be thinking on saving some $$$ on the unnecessary fixed monthly expenses
I am sure you could save that each month being less wasteful. (now nothing wrong with being wasteful if you have the $$$ but you are making a big point about a difference that is more realistically 30$ and at worst 50$)

You think of TV in the outdated format that it was born in. I know, I was also a child of that era. However, times have changed and we can finally get the content we want WHEN we want it. We don't have to rely on the television station to decide when and where that content will be shown, we can define our own television and film watching at all times. No longer are we constricted by the format of old, as on demand content allows us to do as we please at all times.

don't know what era you are talking about, maybe the 50's, 60's, early 70's but in the mid 70's the VCR came to market and then PVRs/DVRs. You are not forced to watch anything at a specific time it is just that with TV you can watch it when you want after it is broadcast. With Netflix you cannot, like with BD or DVD you have to wait until it is released.

Again, how is this a bad thing? No, we can't watch shows as they are broadcast and when they are broadcast for the first time. No, it's not live television. Who cares? The few live or important television events anyone would care about are not worth the hundreds of dollars you'll waste on an inferior form of entertainment just to get it. Most of the great television shows are best experienced in marathons, anyways -- watching the story unfold not piece by piece and WEEK by WEEK, but rather one right after the other. I don't have to wait a week to see the next episode, I can watch it right away. True, it could take months or even years to see a DVD/Blu/On Demand release of said content and I'll have to wait for it, but personally, I'd rather watch it that way regardless.

you do know real TV can be free? Also I don't have an issue with Marathons or watching series. Strilo said " Netflix Streaming is not a replacement for Blu Ray for me. it's a replacement for TV". So we agree, the same way I can watch marathons of the TV series I have bought on BD someone who does not care about quality can watch marathons on Netflix, but it is not a replacement for TV because Netflix does not have the equivalent of broadcasts where the next day after it plays on TV, someone can be discusssing the episode with friends or on a forum.

I know this isn't exactly fair to the people who make the show and rely on ratings based on the old way of doing things, but I can't help what I prefer.

no issue with that, I buy many TV shows as well, I also PVR almost everything I watch. The issue though is that if you watch a show on Netflix it is not comparative to watching that show on TV.
.