Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Netflix up 212% last year. Earnings expected to quadruple. Earnings will be reported tomorrow 22 Jan. 2014.

"Optimism surrounds Netflix, as it gets ready to report its fourth quarter results on Wednesday, January 22, 2014. Analysts are expecting the company to book a profit of 65 cents a share, up from 13 cents a year ago.

The consensus estimate is up from three months ago when it was 47 cents, but hasn't changed over the past month. For the fiscal year, analysts are projecting earnings of $1.74 per share. Revenue is expected to be $1.17 billion for the quarter, 24% higher than the year-earlier total of $945.2 million. For the year, revenue is projected to come in at $4.37 billion."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/narrativ...ected-to-rise/

And your not a streaming fanboy? Yeah, right!

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

And your not a streaming fanboy? Yeah, right!

Right. However, if Netflix is able to deliver UHD at a quality surpassing physical BD, I will subscribe to their service again, after an absence of several years. I'm a fan of quality and I don't care if it is digitally delivered or on physical disc.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Right. However, if Netflix is able to deliver UHD at a quality surpassing physical BD, I will subscribe to their service again, after an absence of several years. I'm a fan of quality and I don't care if it is digitally delivered or on physical disc.

If your a fan of quality, you should be hoping for 4k bluray IMO.

[The_Donster]

I'm curious Steedeel, what did you grasp onto before BD's? I can't tell if we're dealing with a teenager or a immature person who just likes to push people's buttons? Just because Netflix might not be viable for you doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. I realize you live in a country where the internet might not be on the level, but why limit yourself to strictly BD's? As others have pointed out several times, some movies aren't on BD, but are available via streaming. So what do you (personally) do when you run into that, buy the DVD? If that's the case, aren't you being a hypocrite because you're settling for inferior transfers

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If your a fan of quality, you should be hoping for 4k bluray IMO.

UHD downloads are available now and UHD streaming will be available from Netflix and others in a few months. Display manufacturers, several of them, will have several sets with the necessary apps and decoders available very soon. Surely, after CES 2014, it is obvious that the entire industry, from content providers to equipment manufacturers, is focused on digital delivery, not physical disc.

You are swimming upstream. I'm going with the flow.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

UHD downloads are available now and UHD streaming will be available from Netflix and others in a few months. Display manufacturers, several of them, will have several sets with the necessary apps and decoders available very soon. Surely, after CES 2014, it is obvious that the entire industry, from content providers to equipment manufacturers, is focused on digital delivery, not physical disc.

You are swimming upstream. I'm going with the flow.

/facepalm.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

I'm curious Steedeel, what did you grasp onto before BD's? I can't tell if we're dealing with a teenager or a immature person who just likes to push people's buttons? Just because Netflix might not be viable for you doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. I realize you live in a country where the internet might not be on the level, but why limit yourself to strictly BD's? As others have pointed out several times, some movies aren't on BD, but are available via streaming. So what do you (personally) do when you run into that, buy the DVD? If that's the case, aren't you being a hypocrite because you're settling for inferior transfers

I'm not a teenager. Before blurays? DVD and I had laserdisc. I use Netflix on a 50 inch plasma. I know how it would look blown up so I don't go there. Netflix is fine for tv shows and some documentary I may have missed. On the other hand, for tv shows like Hannibal or Game Of Thrones I always choose bluray. I have fibre optic so speed is not an issue. By the way, it's no secret I use Netflix, I have mentioned it several times. I also use BBC Iplayer but It is irrelevant. I don't believe streaming is a substitute for bluray and I never will. Finally, I have movies on bluray, dvd and I use services like ITunes for rentals of movies I know I won't want to own. Just to give you a recent example, I bought a tv film named 'Threads' which was a BBC production from the 80's I believe, on dvd. I don't limit myself to bluray, I do adore blurays however and have a collection that should be touching a 1,000 in a couple of years. I collect films, it's what I do.
What I object to, is people believing streaming is the future and will 'kill off' bluray. Streaming is for convenience and will never match a well authored disc.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

UHD downloads are available now and UHD streaming will be available from Netflix and others in a few months. Display manufacturers, several of them, will have several sets with the necessary apps and decoders available very soon. Surely, after CES 2014, it is obvious that the entire industry, from content providers to equipment manufacturers, is focused on digital delivery, not physical disc.

You are swimming upstream. I'm going with the flow.

Just be careful your not caught in the current! There is no way back once those standards have gone. Don't say you weren't warned!

[buzzwoody]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Right. However, if Netflix is able to deliver UHD at a quality surpassing physical BD, I will subscribe to their service again, after an absence of several years. I'm a fan of quality and I don't care if it is digitally delivered or on physical disc.

It's not Netflix, it's our ISPs. US has massively overpriced, extremely slow internet speeds right now. This whole issue is complex and controversial, but just so you know why Netflix is not able to stream in true HD, 720p streaming takes 3-5 GB per hour. There are far too many capped or pay-per internet users who could even utilize this, let alone ask for more.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

It's not Netflix, it's our ISPs. US has massively overpriced, extremely slow internet speeds right now. This whole issue is complex and controversial, but just so you know why Netflix is not able to stream in true HD, 720p streaming takes 3-5 GB per hour. There are far too many capped or pay-per internet users who could even utilize this, let alone ask for more.

You are right. Average speeds are low. I have 23 Mbps from my ISP. I'm told I will only need around 15 or 16 for Netflix UHD streaming. (This was demonstrated at CES 2014 over the internet, by Netflix.

"Noteworthy in December:
•Performance was up in all countries, except the US and Mexico. The US is now essentially at par with Ireland and slightly above Mexico in the bottom of the country-by-country averages."


http://blog.netflix.com/search/label/ISP%20rankings

Netflix earnings surge. http://www.businessinsider.com/netfl...arnings-2014-1

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

It's not Netflix, it's our ISPs. US has massively overpriced, extremely slow internet speeds right now. This whole issue is complex and controversial, but just so you know why Netflix is not able to stream in true HD, 720p streaming takes 3-5 GB per hour. There are far too many capped or pay-per internet users who could even utilize this, let alone ask for more.

you think you are bad, try Canada. Netflix had to create 2 lower settings here because if you tried streaming a movie, you would be over your limit quickly even if you had an unlimited plan. how quick? I think if you streamed for an hour a day, you wouldn't last 2 weeks before you were told by your IP provider that you were over your limit. Our biggest problem is that the CRTC regulates this but only listens to the providers so they tell how bad the consumer is, how high use means people are pirating movies and that there is no way they can see see that person a is using netflix while person b is doing bad things. They neglect to mention that they also provide streaming movies which don't seem to impact them at all. It isn't just the US, it is here too. Unless you are in a large center where you can get fiber, you are stuck.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

The catch-22 of all of this is that it's almost in the ISP's best interests to make things difficult for services like Netflix (hence the net neutrality issue and the lack of making it a priority to upgrade the infrastructure).

To sort of spring board off of something that I said in the "Digital HD" thread, while services like Netflix and Hulu are essentially modern alternatives to traditional video rental, in many ways they are alternatives to cable and satellite TV, especially now that they've started doing original programming (which makes categorizing the financial success of Netflix strictly in a home video based comparison not fully accurate, but I digress on that for now).

There are people who are "cord cutters," ditching cable and satellite, and just waiting for most of their favorite shows to show up on these services, and spending a lot less than what they would for cable or satellite service.


This is a catch-22 for more than one reason.

First, foremost, and most applicable to this current conversation, many internet service providers in the US (i.e. Comcast and AT&T) are also cable/satellite providers. These "cord cutters" who used to pay for both the internet and tv service are cutting out one to use the other to essentially facilitate what they previously needed both to do. In some respects a smart move on the consumer's part (in others not... more on that shortly), and I can't blame people in this day and age for trying to save money where they can. But when it cuts into these companies' bottom lines, of course they are going to react. And not that I want to defend these companies (I actually have Comcast for my TV service and AT&T for my internet, both companies I have had issues with, and incidentally at the moment my cable is out, and someone is coming out tomorrow to look at it... and I've had internet outages before), but I can see their standpoint on this in more ways than one. Not only are these services cutting into their bottom line when it comes to "cord cutters," but Netflix, Hulu, and the like are also taking up much more of their internet traffic compared to websites (like blu-ray.com here) that are mostly text and graphics based with no video, and their popularity continues to grow.


Then to further elaborate on the "cord cutter" issue, part of the problem with waiting to watch current TV series until they hit Netflix and the like is that it's really not helping the bottom line of keeping those shows and their respective networks going. Many shows still rely on the ratings and income from commercial advertising during their actual broadcasts to justify staying on the air. By purposely waiting until these things hit Netflix and the like, it's not helping the cause of keeping them on the air. I don't blame people for only first getting into a show part way through it's run and catching up by way of Netflix, but upon doing so they should try to watch the actual broadcasts going forward.

Despite Netflix now having original programming, it wouldn't be enough to replace the content from regular and cable TV stations. I know in this day and age it may seem silly to some people to "have to watch commercials," but those commercials help pay for the programming that you enjoy.

Frankly regardless of whether or not this "Net Neutrality" issue becomes a factor, I think the days of $8 a month Netflix service are numbered. In order for services like this to truly rival the likes of Cable and Satellite AND give people as robust and constant of a selection of movies as video stores used to have (i.e. video tapes didn't disappear from the shelves just because a deal with a studio ended), it will cost more, thus subscription costs will go up. And who knows, gradually over time it could get to a point where people are paying almost as much for a service or two like these as they were already paying for cable.

[The_Donster]

And when that time comes I'll re-evaluate streaming Dynamo. I still have Comcast for internet, but I've gone down to bare bones cable. Once I can get an antenna I'll most likely get rid of the damn DTA they've tried strong arming me with. One of the reasons I cut the cord was I wasn't really getting HD quality through their equipment and for a fraction of the cost I could use both steaming and BD rental through Netflix. Right now we have it, Prime and Hulu+ and it still isn't what we were paying for equipment and services. Of course they still have us by the short hairs with internet, but they are the best that my neck of the woods provides. I think it is impossible to know what direction media will take in the next few years. If I were to go back and talk to younger me I'd probably blow his mind on how things have advanced technology wise. For me streaming is an alternative to so many shows or movies I have no interest in owning, but would like to watch. Like cable, the shows rotate and usually to one of my other services. Most of the time it is a out of sight out of mind. When I stumble across something I like I go out and buy it. Still, I'm trying not to go overboard like I have with previous formats.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Frankly regardless of whether or not this "Net Neutrality" issue becomes a factor, I think the days of $8 a month Netflix service are numbered. In order for services like this to truly rival the likes of Cable and Satellite AND give people as robust and constant of a selection of movies as video stores used to have (i.e. video tapes didn't disappear from the shelves just because a deal with a studio ended), it will cost more, thus subscription costs will go up. And who knows, gradually over time it could get to a point where people are paying almost as much for a service or two like these as they were already paying for cable.

I like the way you think. It's pretty obvious to me that Netflix can't charge $8 a month forever, but they are smart enough to know that, once enough people have cut the cord on cable and satellite that there will be less competition and can name their price. Lower quality than cable at a higher price.

I have 300Mbps internet (soon to be 1Gbps) and the HD quality of Netflix is better than I thought. However, it's still not anywhere near Blu-Ray quality.

Also, on busy nights (Friday and Saturday) the Netflix servers DO get clogged. I know it's not my ISP because I can do a speed test and get super high speeds. The Netflix app built into my 4K TV will show me a list of Netflix servers when a connection can't be made (usually on Fri. & Sat. night) and 5 Netflix servers were too busy. I have also attempted to stream 3D. Beowulf played great in 3D during a week day, but in the evening time, forget it. The Amazon/Netflix servers just can't keep up with HD, 3D and I have my serious doubts about 4K when it arrives.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Then to further elaborate on the "cord cutter" issue, part of the problem with waiting to watch current TV series until they hit Netflix and the like is that it's really not helping the bottom line of keeping those shows and their respective networks going. Many shows still rely on the ratings and income from commercial advertising during their actual broadcasts to justify staying on the air. By purposely waiting until these things hit Netflix and the like, it's not helping the cause of keeping them on the air. I don't blame people for only first getting into a show part way through it's run and catching up by way of Netflix, but upon doing so they should try to watch the actual broadcasts going forward.

Also, I see this as a transition between cable/satellite "packages" and ala cart programming. If people aren't willing to pay to watch a particular show, and they aren't willing to watch commercials and buy the products in those commercials, then the show goes away. That's just the way it works. But, if enough people watch the show and pay a company like Netflix to provide the show, we're now paying ala cart. At $8 a month for Netflix, $8 for Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant, Vudu, Redbox Instant, HBO Go, Crackle, Epix & iTunes, I can add a LOT of services for what I am paying Dish Network and paying to purchase BDs.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

I like the way you think. It's pretty obvious to me that Netflix can't charge $8 a month forever, but they are smart enough to know that, once enough people have cut the cord on cable and satellite that there will be less competition and can name their price. Lower quality than cable at a higher price.

I have 300Mbps internet (soon to be 1Gbps) and the HD quality of Netflix is better than I thought. However, it's still not anywhere near Blu-Ray quality.

Also, on busy nights (Friday and Saturday) the Netflix servers DO get clogged. I know it's not my ISP because I can do a speed test and get super high speeds. The Netflix app built into my 4K TV will show me a list of Netflix servers when a connection can't be made (usually on Fri. & Sat. night) and 5 Netflix servers were too busy. I have also attempted to stream 3D. Beowulf played great in 3D during a week day, but in the evening time, forget it. The Amazon/Netflix servers just can't keep up with HD, 3D and I have my serious doubts about 4K when it arrives.

The writing is on the wall IMO. I have said since I joined this forum that I see streaming as a backwards step. I think my words will be borne out. I think Netflix will offer SD only as two cheaper tiers with the premium tier being HD and 4k. In other words, many customers first experiences of Netflix will be not quite DVD quality picture. Before anyone argues, yes I do think the SD on Netflix is closer to cable SD than true DVD quality. Will that change with new codecs? Not so sure. Really cheap subscriptions will win out over HD options because the general population are clueless with tech. This in turn, will provoke the likes of Lovefilm, Itunes, Now tv and Blinkbox to also offer SD only at next to nothing prices. Awful SD but hey, it's only £2.99 a month. This will only encourage the movie on smartphone (IMO) idiots to go that route even in the future. What would be the point at that stage to buy big TV sets to watch low quality streams that would look ghastly. I think, the SD move from Netflix (just my opinion) acknowledges that streaming is the low rent solution it has always been and not some future utopia of unlimited choice in crisp HD or even better 4k.
That's where my argument comes from for those wondering (Donster, etc..)
It is not some mindless post typed to provoke and I don't care how many people say it is. It is not, it is concerns from the heart, from a guy who fell in love with films at a young age and is deeply concerned about its future. I encourage people to read every word of this post rather than glance over it and write it off as a ramble. If I am wrong about all this, I will be ecstatic and I will announce that I am wrong to all. I just see a future that could potentially mean the death of big screen films at home. I know, there is no stopping the mainstream, but the minority seem to be convinced streaming will be a valuable part of their home cinema set-up. I say It won't. Let's see, 2020 is six years away. Let's see where we stand then. If 4k is readily available and we have big screens of some kind still, with no sign of becoming obsolete, then I will admit how wrong I was.

[rickah88]

This thread is moving backwards...im my opinion, of course.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

I like the way you think. It's pretty obvious to me that Netflix can't charge $8 a month forever, but they are smart enough to know that, once enough people have cut the cord on cable and satellite that there will be less competition and can name their price. Lower quality than cable at a higher price.

I have 300Mbps internet (soon to be 1Gbps) and the HD quality of Netflix is better than I thought. However, it's still not anywhere near Blu-Ray quality.

Also, on busy nights (Friday and Saturday) the Netflix servers DO get clogged. I know it's not my ISP because I can do a speed test and get super high speeds. The Netflix app built into my 4K TV will show me a list of Netflix servers when a connection can't be made (usually on Fri. & Sat. night) and 5 Netflix servers were too busy. I have also attempted to stream 3D. Beowulf played great in 3D during a week day, but in the evening time, forget it. The Amazon/Netflix servers just can't keep up with HD, 3D and I have my serious doubts about 4K when it arrives.

Maybe the SD stream is Netflix'es way of keeping a lid on their servers also.

[blujacket]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Frankly regardless of whether or not this "Net Neutrality" issue becomes a factor, I think the days of $8 a month Netflix service are numbered. In order for services like this to truly rival the likes of Cable and Satellite AND give people as robust and constant of a selection of movies as video stores used to have (i.e. video tapes didn't disappear from the shelves just because a deal with a studio ended), it will cost more, thus subscription costs will go up. And who knows, gradually over time it could get to a point where people are paying almost as much for a service or two like these as they were already paying for cable.

You hit that out of the park. No doubt that will happen, probably sooner than people think.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by blujacket

You hit that out of the park. No doubt that will happen, probably sooner than people think.

either that or netflix will be relegated to just the cheap crap and bollywood titles that they have now.. the newer stuff not even getting to them except lower quality lionsgate stuff