Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

this hampering of quality is a new BS argument that you did not make before, until now it was that the content was not worth it because there is very little and what it is sucks content wise.

Actually, I've been mentioning the whole time that the quality of their services on NIW is poor, not just in terms of what they offer but how they offer it. I've stated in several posts that most of their content is often in SD and Full Screen.

As for why I call it BS. Have you ever thought the reason could be just that it is streaming vs all the other options

No, I haven't. Because that's not what it is. There is HD content on NIW. It is labeled as such. Nothing provided by Starz is labeled as such. Upon actually viewing it, the content is far worse quality than most of the other SD content provided on NIW and, often, presented in the wrong aspect ratio.

No, this isn't streaming vs. all other options. Do you really think I'm that stupid? Do you understand how insulting you are being in this post?

[quote]BD looks better then OTA because BD can go to 48mbps (40mbps for video) and OTA only 20mbps, cable/sat is a bit lower and will depend on the cable sat/company, and then far behiond at 4mbps tops you have Netflix streaming. It does not and you cannot expect it to look and sound as good.[QUOTE]

I don't expect it to look or sound as good in HD as a blu-ray, but depending on your connection quality it can actually look a lot better than the same content on cable. Oh, and for the purposes of argument I feel it prudent to mention at this point that I have had HD Cable. This information will come in handy later.

If you are happy with that quality, then good enough but unless they raise the BW by a lot no matter how good the content looks when it is given to them it would look like the 4mbps they can offer for their best quality (and if you choose a lower speed like 300kbps then it will look even crappier)

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. The same content that has visible digital artifacts ruining the picture on an HD cable station (something I just recently had the "pleasure" of experiencing) can and often does look better on Netflix. Let me put it this way: I've had NIW since it launched and I have yet to experience any artifacting or visual quality issues whatsoever. Well, aside from that short period in which Microsoft Silverlight was screwing everything up, but they fixed that issue pretty fast.

FYI: Silverlight (which at the time and I believe still to this day is inaccessible by the user) was, for a short time, limiting the bit rate to less than 1 MBPS, ensuring that even HD content ended up looking like very poor SD content. If you'd have made the arguments you're making today during that short window of time, I would have fully agreed with you. However, times have changed and the technology has gotten much better.

As for “Also, how is renting a movie, liking it and buying it a slim exception? You seem to enjoy claiming that certain habits are either rampant or not rampant enough based on little or no evidence.” Think about it, if someone bought the movie why would they rent it? And if they intend to buy it then why would they rent it first?

They wouldn't rent it if they already bought it. Where the hell does that example come from?

As for "If they intended to buy it then why would they rent it first?" -- Umm...to find out whether they like it or not? Personally, I usually don't buy something unless I've seen it and I know that I like it. Why would you want to own something if you don't even know if you'll like it? I have plenty of friends who feel the same way.

Do you think the people on here that have 1000+ BDs rented those before they bought them.

Probably quite a few. Maybe some of them didn't rent the movie but rather saw it in theaters. Either way, you seem to be assuming something about a bunch of people that you have no evidence for.

Let me ask you this simple question, how many Netflix movies/TV episodes do you stream a month and how many of those do you then buy on BD? If you go you buy ½ of them, then I will agree it is not slim, but I doubt if I had a poll most would be near or above 10% and most likely the vast majority will be less then <1%.

I buy what I can afford on blu-ray. If I can't afford it, I put it on a wishlist and plan to buy it when I can afford it. Some of the content I find on NIW and enjoy enough to purchase separately cannot be had on BD, so I buy them on DVD -- again, if I have the money to do so.

Why would you agree it isn't slim based on my example? Just like your friend, I am one out of millions -- I am not a good example of the whole. I'm simply suggesting (based on my example, admittedly not much but at least proof of the existence of the example) that your original assumption that anybody who uses NIW doesn't buy BDs/DVDs is untrue.

first I am guessing you have no idea what altruism actually means. Since altruism means to be so generous and selfless to others to the point where it actually hurts you, for example if some person sees a hobo freezing in the street and decides to give the hobo the coat of his back then that is altruism. Can’t see what that has to do with what we discuss.

Sorry, meant "Truism," just typed the wrong word. It happens.

As for the rest of the comments, the onus is on you to prove that it is not correct and people who stream also get that same content from elsewhere which is more profitable for Starz.

How is it on me? I wasn't talking about Starz, I was talking about people who Stream any content in general. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has discovered something on NIW and then bought it on BD/DVD. You see, NIW doesn't have every title forever, so eventually if you want to watch it again, you're going to have to buy it. This is more profitable to some companies than NIW is, but either way they are making money. In the process of making money on NIW they are making money by allowing people to check out their content. Of course, this is all based on the concept that people who rent will also buy stuff that they have previously rented, something you don't seem to be willing to admit to. What's shocking is that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, what with all of the PREVIOUSLY VIEWED DVDs/BDs that Blockbuster SELLS EVERY DAY.

It is a simple assumption that the vast majority that have watched the Spartacus: Blood and Sand on Netflix probably did not also buy the BDs or other distribution chgannels that are more profitable for Starz.

Why? Because the show sucked and nobody would be willing to pay for it? Or because you live in some delusional world where nobody ever buys anything after renting it?

The question is not if it is more or less then what I assume especialy since I did not make any assumptions)

Umm. Look up. You just openly made an assumption. Oh, and I would call using your friend as an example of every NIW viewer a pretty big assumption.

but what is the difference between the two distribution channels for Starz (i.e. what Starz made from Netflix and what Starz would have made if the person used something else to watch it). If Joe would have bought the BD (if he was not subscribed on Netflix) and Starz makes 10 times what they would when he watches it on Netflix, you need Joe and 9 other people that streamed on Netflix and used a different method as well (i.e. some buy the BD, others the DVD, others rent somwhere else) in order to counter that one lost sale on BD.

You're still looking at Starz like they're the victim. There is no victim here. Both companies came to a decision that they felt was best for each respective company. Netflix wasn't getting the quality of content they wanted for the price they were offering or would have had to pay, so they let the issue slide. Starz wasn't getting paid what they wanted for their content so they moved on. It's all rather simple when you stop to think about it. Neither side is really suffering as a result. The reason you're seeing Netflix stocks dropping is the price hike, not the loss of Starz. Not having to pay for Starz is not going to increase the amount of money they are spending on content, it's going to decrease it. They are paying less for the content they provide and yet we still pay more. This is the impetus behind the movement to ditch Netflix -- nobody cares if the content Starz was providing is gone, they only care that they aren't getting the same deal that they were getting before.

But anyone that cares about A/V quality would not be using Netflix in the first place so I can’t see how you see that as a valid point.

Not necessarily. You can care about A/V quality and still be broke enough that NIW is a better option than Cable or BD/DVD. Again, this doesn't mean that these people are not going to save any money and spend it on SOME BD/DVDs and it also doesn't mean that they don't care about A/V quality. It just means they don't have a lot of money to spend and they're looking for the best possible quality for the best price. Although it might sound insane, all of the content Netflix offers for $8 a month is just that -- the best possible quality for the best price.

But you did hand pick a handful of titles out of as you said (I think your count is off) close to 1000 titles. Pick any studio and I am sure you can find a handful of titles you can do without.

But you won't find that pretty much all of their content is in SD and FS. With other studios you'll find higher quality A/V on most if not all of their content. Again, it's not just the quality of the titles but the quality of their A/V as well, which (in case you didn't get the hint) is far worse than most of the other content on NIW. VISIBLY worse. AUDIBLY worse. In every imaginable way. How many times do I have to say this before you get the point?

Oh, and you think my count is off? I literally went to the site and counted the titles. Here, I'll give you an exact count:

37 full pages of content.

24 titles per each full page.

37 x 24 = 888.

38th page only has 20 titles.

888+20 = 908.

908<1000.

Simple math.

you missed my point, you said Starz does not matter because “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.”



Nothing now was meant wrt the Dreamworks contract, if like you say it only comes into effect in roughly a year then it means nothing added to replace the lost content for now.

Well, considering they're currently under contract with another company, they can't exactly break that contract to start providing Netflix the same content right away. You are correct in that nothing is added to replace the lost content for now, but then the content won't be lost until late February of next year. If Dreamworks starts offering content later in the summer of next year, that's a few months without replacing the content -- and even then it probably won't be as much content as Starz was providing.

So in short, nothing is coming along to replace that 8% that Starz represented of the library. Again, this isn't exactly a loss of quality content, so I doubt most of the Netflix users who remain are really going to be that upset about it. Those that don't remain have left because of the price hike.

Will Netflix give you a ~10% discount for the ~10% of content you admit you won’t have access to?

No, they probably won't. The argument was never over whether or not Netflix is charging more for less -- which they obviously are. The argument was whether or not the loss of Starz was really a loss at all, which in terms of quality it really wasn't. I guess the only point I would try to make here is that even with the price hike, NIW is still worth the price -- even with less content.

As for long delay, yes I would call only having access something a few months later as a long delay, there is a day when it is available and that is not when you will get it on Netflix. If your boss said I would pay you in a few months wouldn’t you consider that a long delay?

You act like getting something later than everyone else is something new to the industry. How the hell can you compare it to someone paying you? We are paying them for content. An appropriate example would be the boss paying you for work that you agreed to complete in a few months. That's just how most contracts work.

what does HD-DVD have to do with anything?

I don't know, you brought it up.

I asked because you started with content matters and then said losing a sizable amount of content is the best thing that evere happened. Those two statements are contradictory.

Boy, you sure do like to pick and choose the words you read. I said losing the Starz content was the best thing that ever happened (and was trying to say it was the best thing for NIW subscribers). Content does matter, that's why losing poor quality content (and it was poor in pretty much every conceivable way) isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. Making room for the content that is actually worthwhile on the service to get noticed a little more is not a bad thing -- it just makes the service more valuable for the other studios providing content, because as I've already stated, it's basically like advertising in that it will convince some viewers to purchase the content elsewhere in other formats.

Studios advertise their films on all kinds of websites, but rarely do any of the visitors actually click on the ad or pay attention to it. Still, for the very few people who do click through and discover a film via this method, this service is worth it to the studios. They are PAYING for this privilege. Netflix PAYS THEM for a pretty similar service, the only difference being that instead of an actual advertisement, NIW allows people to watch the film in its entirety before deciding whether to buy it. I know it might be a little subversive to think of it in this manner, but that's basically what it all boils down to. Why would any studio offer their content for such low prices if they weren't making more money off of it somehow elsewhere? If Starz isn't making money off of it, that's their own problem -- brought about by refusing to give people decent quality versions of what little decent quality content they had. Besides, as a provider of several different films from several different studios, they weren't making much money on the sale of DVDs/BDs of those studios. You want to know why they wanted more money and why they left? Because they don't really fit into the equation for this particular system.

As for Youtube, Hulu, Vudu…. You don’t need Netflix to access them so I don’t see what it has anything to do with the conversation. If Vudu has Srtarz content and you have a Netflix account do you see it for free using Vudu?

Wow, you really do like to selectively choose what you read. Youtube, Hulu and Vudu offer similar streaming services to what NIW offers. I would argue that they offer much less content and have a different format for offering it in some cases, but my point is that your comparison to HD-DVD was not a valid comparison. What, are you trying to get out of it because you know it wasn't a good comparison? Are you trying to pretend you never made the comparison? It's there. In black and white.

My argument here was simply in regards to your comparison. I compared Netflix to Hulu, Youtube and Vudu for the purposes of showing that there is more than just one format out there to stream content. With HD-DVD it was one format that was only playable on HD-DVD players. Streaming is far, far different from HD-DVD and the two cannot be compared. That's all I was saying.

how much does insurance cost, I know a few people that live paycheck to paycheck but everyone has insurance.

You really don't understand poverty, do you? All this based on an example that is only meant to show that it's better to have a poor quality copy of something than to not have it at all.

You made an invalide argument and now trying to cover it up by being more ridiculous, no one said people don’t deserve entertainment, or that they should not spend the money as they wish. It is the insane argument that if your home was burning down that any one in his right mind will save the DVD of a movie he likes because it is too expensive to replace a BD player.

It wasn't an argument, it was an example that you took far too literally. It's only meant to show how little A/V quality matters when you're broke or close to broke. As for who doesn't have insurance? I know some people. Next time an apartment building burns down, go poll the tenants and ask them if they had insurance. Somehow I get the feeling that plenty of them don't. Maybe it's just the fact that I've seen it happen a few times on the local news, only for them to question tenants who would reveal that -- shock and awe, they couldn't afford the insurance, so they just lost everything. Again, your view of the world is small and petty and doesn't seem to go beyond the middle class.

but if 80$ is quite a bit of money and they can’t afford it, then don’t, I did not tell anyone how to spend their money and it is not 80$ since you can buy a BD player for less then 80 and if the alternative is a DVD player then you would need to buy it. But let’s put it into perspective, (and get back on topic a bit) Netflix costs 8$ a month for a years subscription he would have paid more then the cost of the BD player.

Netflix costs $8 a month, which over a year is $96. This is more than a cost of a BD Player. You're right.

However, a BD Player doesn't magically play thousands of movies and television shows whenever you want. You have to buy BDs/DVDs to play on it. Lets say you get lucky and buy a BD Player for $50. Then you buy nine $5 BDs to start your library.

You still don't have the same amount of content as you get with NIW, and you've spent just as much money as you would have on that service in a year. How is this a difficult concept to understand?

You and I have very different definitions of wealthy and poor

Apparently we do. My definition of poor is someone who makes less than $16,000 a year. If properly managed, this money can be enough to survive on (just barely) while still being able to purchase DVDs/Blus every now and then.

so you think everyone with a BD player is wealthy because they had 50$ to spend on a BD player instead of a DVD player? Your argument also does not hold, since the individual in your example only has one DVD (the one saved in the fire instead of the BD right next to it)

No, in the example I gave I was simply suggesting that someone without insurance would not be able to afford to purchase a BD player right away. Again, you took the example far too literally, but it does happen from time to time, sadly.

because you will see a difference, have you even watched a BD? Try it out for yourself, connect the BD player limiting it to SD to your TV and then try it (if you don’t own an SD TV).

Yes, I have watched a BD. No, it doesn't look better on an SDTV. What are you, insane? How are you seeing a difference? You're just imagining things. Now, I won't argue that if you have the money, the BD Player is the better investment -- after all, it plays DVDs and BDs. However, this scenario finds the person left with almost nothing.

Second the scenario is of someone at this time in a tight spot (house burned down and no insurance and can just afford cheapest TV since there are more important things then movies in life) it is not a permanent solution, if now SDTV was a necessary compromise, in a year he might have the $ to buy a better TV why also waste money on a DVD player & movies now and then in a year or so have to rebuy them. You are thinking immediate and not even short term, probably why the person was in such a financial crunch where he can’t afford the difference between a BD player and a DVD player.

Well, the scenario is an immediate reaction scenario. If you could spend $10-20 getting a TV and a DVD player, why wouldn't you? Then you could start saving the rest of your money for a better TV, at which point you could probably also afford a BD player. In theory, spending more money earlier makes more sense, but in practice it doesn't work when you're broke.

no and no, VHS/Beta where created for home recording, not only was there nothing to buy/rent when they launched but when Beta launched (came out first) the studios brought them to court. Who is talking pre-recorded content?

Oh, that's what you were referencing. Wow, that one went over my head. Sorry. The point I was making was that VHS originally wasn't introduced to the market for collectors, but more importantly for the rental market. True, you had the ability to record stuff from television onto VHS at the time, but it was technically illegal in some cases. Also, the quality of the recordings was very poor. In addition, early adopters paid quite a bit for the novelty, as VCRs weren't exactly cheap.

You said that if show X plays on channel Y at time T it is impossible to watch it at any other time unless someone waits weeks and months until it is on Netflix, I pointed out that late 70’s someone could have bought a VCR and used it to record a show that was playing and watch it 10m,20m,30m, 1h,2h, 1d,2d….after it aired, when ever he wanted

Got it now. Thanks.

not at all, I was pointing out that anyone could record a show from the time the VCR hit the market what tech they use is immaterial, just that you would need to go to the 70’s and beyond to be at a time when the only way to watch a show was to watch it when it airs.

But who really uses a VCR anymore for this? And not everybody can afford a DVR.

not at all, I record it when it airs and watch it later, I watch most of my shows recorded since that way they take less time then live (skip commercials and all) the only one I regularly watch live is the news at suppertime since it plays while I am preparing food/eating.

don’t know in what fantasy world you live in but no, OTA is 100% free and you are not tethered to their schedule, let me guess if you where alive in the 80’s 90’s you where one of those people who’s VCR was blinking 12:00. Look, now a days you have a PVR/DVR, depending on situations you tell it “tape show X” or “tape channel Y at time t”, one of my recorders only does time, my other I use either method. Then when you want to watch it you do (you can also watch it while it is recording), you can also be watching a show, press pause and then continue it later by pressing play. I have no idea why you are completely delusional and think that you can’t record the shows you want to watch, again, that has not been true since the 70’s.

Unless of course you don't have a VCR or a DVR. I don't really have a desire for them either, because as I've previously stated, I'd rather watch a TV series back-to-back than to watch it week-to-week. Even with a DVR you're still going to have to wait a while in between episodes. With NIW and DVD/Blu you don't have to wait any longer than the amount of time it takes for the show to be released. Speaking of which, you'll find shows on NIW that aren't even on DVD yet from time to time. It's not as if they follow the exact same path as DVD/Blu when it comes to that.

no because I don’t get to see it when I want to.

Not everyone watches TV the way you do or wants to watch it that way. If they do, they have their options. Even then, NIW might be an option because the time frame between air date on TV and on Netflix isn't always as long as you seem to be assuming.

who said it is a negative, it was just mischaracterized as TV. TV is being able to watch the show when it is broadcast as a TV signal or any time after that, if you can only watch it when it comes out on BD/DVD then it no longer compares to TV but BD/DVD.

So that's your definition of TV? Alright, I can respect that. Still, TV on DVD/BD doesn't make it any less a product of Television.

If you buy/rent a season of a TV show on BD/DVD you need to wait until it comes out and you can see a whole season on your display, if you watch TV you can watch it when it airs (or record it to watch it a bit later) but unless you recorded and kept a whole season you can’t watch it all at once. It is as if the guy said a donkey is no substitute for a horse, it is not as elegant or as fast but a donkey is the perfect substitute for a chicken. I can understand comparing a donkey to a horse, you can ride both, they can pull stuff…. But if someone wants a chicken, it is probably for eggs or ,eventually, cooking it, none of which a donkey is good at.

What in God's name are you blathering on about? It's like you had an idea of what you were trying to say and then you drifted off into some kind of barnyard comparison. Eh??

I have never watched the cartoon network, but are you sure that you have your TV set-up correctly, maybe you have it to stretch SD.

Yes, I'm sure. The content is in SD on the SD version of the channel and in HD on the HD version of the channel. On the SD channel, the original SD content shows up in full screen. On the HD channel, they upconvert the SD content to HD and cut off the top and bottom of the image so it will fit a 16x9 image. They do this intentionally because most people want the image to fill their screen, they don't care that they are losing part of the image. Just to be clear, this is content that was never filmed at 16x9, so there's no way to make it fill a 16x9 screen without stretching or ruining the image in some way.

Maybe I live in a better place then you, all the TV shows are shown in their proper AR (if it is 4:3 then there are bars on either side) For movies I will always fall back to the disk, preferably BD. Even though OTA and even cable are far superior to Netflix in quality they still don’t come close enough to BD.

No, they do this everywhere. It's probably just that you're watching channels that don't do this. As for the rest of your argument here, I think it is once again important to mention that Netflix is far cheaper than Cable and offers much more content than OTA broadcast. Just sayin'

you do realize that I did not exclude cable but that there is more then just cable out there. I don’t pay for cable nor satellite, You buy an antenna (or make your own) and you will catch channels that are sent out over your neighbourhood, this is 100% free so you don’t pay more, you don’t pay a cent. I would assume anyone that is interested in quality will know this since OTA is better quality then cable and someone who is obsessed with $ and the poor should know this as well. Maybe if you did then you would save enough to be able to spend a few dollars and get a BD player.

Yes, but these stations are usually very limited -- just as they always have been. If you live in a certain area, you might get channels that are typically paid for through cable, but most of us are stuck with PBS, Fox, ABC, NBS, CBS, and whatever else is randomly showing.

[Franchise317]

We have netflix and dont really use it much...I thought about turning it off but 8 or 9 dollars a month doesnt really hurt anything for me so i leave it...We have comcast and 2 hd / dvrs so most stuff on netflix we actually have on the dvrs..

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

I don't expect it to look or sound as good in HD as a blu-ray, but depending on your connection quality it can actually look a lot better than the same content on cable.

I am not talking about connection quality, that will give playback issues but A/V quality due to the way over compression. Even if you have a 100Mbps link it won't look any better then a 6mbps link with little latency.

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. The same content that has visible digital artifacts ruining the picture on an HD cable station (something I just recently had the "pleasure" of experiencing) can and often does look better on Netflix.

are you talking about having connection issues through your cable? that is a possibility and bits lost on the way, but if that is your issue then you should look at what you have indoors and if that is not the issue then call the cable provider.

Let me put it this way: I've had NIW since it launched and I have yet to experience any artifacting or visual quality issues whatsoever. Well, aside from that short period in which Microsoft Silverlight was screwing everything up, but they fixed that issue pretty fast.

again no one is talking bad connection and play back artefacts due to not having the data arriving in time (they can happen with any distribution channel). We are discussing quality. When video is compressed (and all digital video and most digital audio is compressed) compression does two things, 1 simplifies by using short hand (for a video example if you have a completely uniform black screen for several frames there is no need to give the value of each pixel as black and there is no need to give the second frame since nothing has changed-known as p or b frames- for audio why would you give a value of 0 on a speaker if no sound is coming out of it) and if it is not lossless (there is no lossless video) distort the image so that it is easier to use short hand ( to work off of what was said previously let's say a block i all black but there is the one white pixel, the encoder could decide it is not worth keeping the detail that the pixel is white and so leave it as black like the rest of the block or the pixel could have been black in the previous frame and now decide it is not worth making it white since there is restricted BW).

So what happens is that the more video is compressed the farther it is from the stated resolution and he less detail it has and the more compression artefacts the image will have and the farther from what it ideally should look like it is.

They wouldn't rent it if they already bought it. Where the hell does that example come from?

where is it an example, it is a tautology. Your profile says you have a few BDs, after you bought them did you go and see them on Netflix or did you watch the BD copy when you wanted to see them? Or maybe you went to blockbusters or red box or Vudu or somewhere else?

As for "If they intended to buy it then why would they rent it first?" -- Umm...to find out whether they like it or not? Personally, I usually don't buy something unless I've seen it and I know that I like it. Why would you want to own something if you don't even know if you'll like it? I have plenty of friends who feel the same way.

but then you did not intend to buy it before hand. You saw it, liked it and then decided to buy it. But yes I do sometimes blind buy I read all the HP books, saw all the movies own all the BDs, have not seen the last one but I intend to buy it since I need it to conclude the series, I am a huge Marvel fan so I bought Thor and X-men without seeing them. Intend means "to have in mind as something to be done or brought about", when you say that you need to see it first before making a decision then either you saw it in theatres and intend to buy it or you don't intend to buy it until after you rented it, the second does not apply in this situation since the intent was not there.

Probably quite a few. Maybe some of them didn't rent the movie but rather saw it in theaters. Either way, you seem to be assuming something about a bunch of people that you have no evidence for.

not at all, I am not assuming anything, why don't you try and ask them? There is the 1000+,1500+ 2000+ thread and you can see in there

I am not a good example of the whole. I'm simply suggesting (based on my example, admittedly not much but at least proof of the existence of the example) that your original assumption that anybody who uses NIW doesn't buy BDs/DVDs is untrue.

I never said such a thing, it is not a matter of absolutes. Let's try this again
since I don't know what is made and I want to keep it simple:
Option1 = 1$
Option2 = 2$
Option3 = 4$
Option4 = 10$
if someone goes from O4 to O1 that is 9$ cheaperfor them and it is good but it is a loss for the person offering the options since now they make 1$ instead of 9$. Same if it is O3 to O1 then there is a 3$ difference or O4 to O3 with a 6$ difference.

If one person decides to go from O4 to O1 you need 9 people that will do their original option (be it O2 or O3 or O4) and O1 to counter it (let's assume there are 10 people that would pick O1 or O4, if one does O1 only and the other 9 do O4+O1 you get 9*10$+10*1$=100$ which is the same as 10*10(all picked O4) =100$). The same will happen if I use any other combination but the numbers would change (3*4$+4*1$=4*4$, O1-O3 and 4*10$+ 5*2$=5*10$, O2-O4).

Right, if One person goes from O4 to O1 and some other person decides to do both it does not cover the loss of that one person that went from O4 to O1. The only time that is true in this scenario is O1-O2 (i.e. 1*2$+2*1$=4$=2*2$) or O2-O4 (i.e. 1*4$+2*2$=8$=2*4$) and one person means 1/2 of the people that are picking and not just one person.

Obviously the% will depend on the difference in the options but the simple reality is for every person that says "instead of buying the film I will just stream it" you need a lot of people that will do more then just stream it, and for every person that says "instead of renting it at Blockbusters" or "renting at redbox" or "using Netflix disk rental" you also need a few people as well.

For Starz Netflix needs to make up the difference for every client that went from a more lucrative option to Netflix streaming. That is why the few movies that are streamed and then bought it is not important (and not none existent) it does not make up for what is lost.

Sorry, meant "Truism," just typed the wrong word. It happens.

no prob

Of course, this is all based on the concept that people who rent will also buy stuff that they have previously rented, something you don't seem to be willing to admit to.

no, I never said it never happens, that is why I asked you how many movies/TV shows do you watch on streaming and how many of them you buy afterwards. It is that ratio that is important. If on average for every 100 movies viewed it leads to 1 buy then it is meaningless. Because it probably did lead to 50 movies where revenue was lost because the studio makes less on Netflix streaming than, for example, Netflix disk rentals.

What's shocking is that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, what with all of the PREVIOUSLY VIEWED DVDs/BDs that Blockbuster SELLS EVERY DAY.

why is that contrary, does BB have a policy that you have to rent the movie before you buy the PV version? also how is this good, the studio does not make the money on the PV.

Why? Because the show sucked and nobody would be willing to pay for it? Or because you live in some delusional world where nobody ever buys anything after renting it?

no because I have functioning brain cells, do you realy think that most people that watched it (or something else) on Netflix streaming also rented it at Blockbusters or even on Netflix disk rental?

Umm. Look up. You just openly made an assumption. Oh, and I would call using your friend as an example of every NIW viewer a pretty big assumption.

it is not every NIW viewer. Words like Most and stuff don't mean every one.

You're still looking at Starz like they're the victim. There is no victim here. Both companies came to a decision that they felt was best for each respective company. Netflix wasn't getting the quality of content they wanted for the price they were offering or would have had to pay, so they let the issue slide. Starz wasn't getting paid what they wanted for their content so they moved on. It's all rather simple when you stop to think about it. Neither side is really suffering as a result. The reason you're seeing Netflix stocks dropping is the price hike, not the loss of Starz. Not having to pay for Starz is not going to increase the amount of money they are spending on content, it's going to decrease it. They are paying less for the content they provide and yet we still pay more. This is the impetus behind the movement to ditch Netflix -- nobody cares if the content Starz was providing is gone, they only care that they aren't getting the same deal that they were getting before.

I did not say Starz is the victim, if anything it is Netflix users since they still have to pay as much while the content was reduced. The issue is you pretending it is a good thing that the content is gone.

Although it might sound insane, all of the content Netflix offers for $8 a month is just that -- the best possible quality for the best price.

no, it is the most quantity for the best price. If you are interested in Quality Netflix also does BD rentals, Redbox does BD rentals (what is it 1.50 per film), i have bought movies on BD for <5$. If price and quantity is important then I agree, but the quality is not there no matter how you pretend it is

You are correct in that nothing is added to replace the lost content for now, but then the content won't be lost until late February of next year.

glad we straightened it out

No, they probably won't. The argument was never over whether or not Netflix is charging more for less -- which they obviously are. The argument was whether or not the loss of Starz was really a loss at all, which in terms of quality it really wasn't. I guess the only point I would try to make here is that even with the price hike, NIW is still worth the price -- even with less content.

agree with the second part but not the first, the argument started because when it was announced you said it was good thing to lose all that content.

Boy, you sure do like to pick and choose the words you read. I said losing the Starz content was the best thing that ever happened (and was trying to say it was the best thing for NIW subscribers). Content does matter, that's why losing poor quality content (and it was poor in pretty much every conceivable way) isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

lol do you think there are little slots and they are all filled up and now that Starz will be going they can fill up those slots with other better titles?

Making room for the content that is actually worthwhile on the service to get noticed a little more is not a bad thing -- it just makes the service more valuable for the other studios providing content

this makes no sense what so ever. Think about it, why do you go to netflix and stream? Because of the value (cheap price and can see a lot of films) the less content they have the less valuable it is because if you go there and you want to see something that is not there you will go elsewhere to see it. Less content is never good.


---- will continue some other time since that has gotten way too long

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

Wow, you really do like to selectively choose what you read. Youtube, Hulu and Vudu offer similar streaming services to what NIW offers. I would argue that they offer much less content and have a different format for offering it in some cases, but my point is that your comparison to HD-DVD was not a valid comparison. What, are you trying to get out of it because you know it wasn't a good comparison? Are you trying to pretend you never made the comparison? It's there. In black and white.

My argument here was simply in regards to your comparison. I compared Netflix to Hulu, Youtube and Vudu for the purposes of showing that there is more than just one format out there to stream content. With HD-DVD it was one format that was only playable on HD-DVD players. Streaming is far, far different from HD-DVD and the two cannot be compared. That's all I was saying.

OK, we are going too far in this with the HD-DVD fanboys I was pointing out that content matter sand it is easy to see it does not (if you want to prop up what you have/use) but it will have a negative effect. Why do you stream Netflix? Because of the content, if content decreases that is bad even if you personaly think they are crappy titles or bad transfers. As for your comment, it is nonsense, Hulu, Youtube, Vudu are different formats, your point would be as valid as someone saying it does not matter if HD-DVD loses content because there is DVD and BD and they are disks. This is a dicussion about Netflix streaming.

You really don't understand poverty, do you? All this based on an example that is only meant to show that it's better to have a poor quality copy of something than to not have it at all.

Well there was a time when I was a student working on my masters degree making 15k a year ~6k went for my share of the rent, 2-4K for tuition (luckily school is cheap here) and 1k for school supplies (Masters books in Mathematics are not).

It wasn't an argument, it was an example that you took far too literally.

Yes but an example still needs to works and yours did not.

Netflix costs $8 a month, which over a year is $96. This is more than a cost of a BD Player. You're right.

However, a BD Player doesn't magically play thousands of movies and television shows whenever you want. You have to buy BDs/DVDs to play on it. Lets say you get lucky and buy a BD Player for $50. Then you buy nine $5 BDs to start your library.

You still don't have the same amount of content as you get with NIW, and you've spent just as much money as you would have on that service in a year. How is this a difficult concept to understand?

I agree it is not the same amount of content but

1) the discussion started because you said BD players are too expensive and you would rather take any one DVD from your burning home then any of your BDs since a DVD player is more affordable and will be easy to replace. I agree in 2006 that would be the case comparing a 1000$ BD player to a 30$ DVD player but DVD players have not dropped in price and the cheapest ones are still 25-30 while in the Canadian deals section there is discussion of a BD player at Walmart for 56$. The issue is that you act as if someone has to be wealthy to spend 50$ more for a BD player over DVD but you don’t have an issue with spending 8$ a month, 96$ a year, several hundred dollars for the life of the BD/DVD player
2) Yes a BD player does not mean content, but a Netflix streaming account does not mean a player either you need both to watch something (A display will help as well )
3) No you don’t need to buy BDs, you can rent them from Blockbusters or redbox or even through a Netflix disk program, you can also borrow from friends/family or even possibly the public library (have not been to the municipal library in years but they do loan out BDs at my BILs library)

Apparently we do. My definition of poor is someone who makes less than $16,000 a year. If properly managed, this money can be enough to survive on (just barely) while still being able to purchase DVDs/Blus every now and then.

actually agree on this though when I lived on that it was mid 90’s and neither DVD/BD where out, on the other hand I would consider them luxuries and a bit foolish especially if they don’t have more important stuff like, to get back on the original topic, fire insurance. My personal opinion luxuries come after necessities and a bit of savings.

On the other hand would you consider someone making 20K as wealthy?

Yes, I have watched a BD. No, it doesn't look better on an SDTV. What are you, insane?

no, but maybe my eyesight is not as bad as yours

How are you seeing a difference?

my eyes, plus there is the big audio difference

You're just imagining things.

no man, you can do a qualitative analysis with the proper equipment. We will skip audio since I hope you agree DD does not compare to lossless but on video BD starts off with HD and is compressed at a much higher bitrate then DVD. Less of the image is destroyed during compression. When you watch the BD on the SD TV it looks more accurate then the DVD. Yes you need to be someone that cares about PQ and be extremely picky (almost OCD) to care but it does look better.

Now, I won't argue that if you have the money, the BD Player is the better investment -- after all, it plays DVDs and BDs. However, this scenario finds the person left with almost nothing.

yes but the person is rebuilding. For me it makes sense to splurge a bit more (or wait until they can) on something good

Well, the scenario is an immediate reaction scenario. If you could spend $10-20 getting a TV and a DVD player, why wouldn't you?

Where can I spend 10-20 on a TV and a DVD player?

Then you could start saving the rest of your money for a better TV, at which point you could probably also afford a BD player. In theory, spending more money earlier makes more sense, but in practice it doesn't work when you're broke.

agree with the broke part, but then again I was always semi-patient, a decent TV is expensive but why spend 10$ or 20$ or 30$ now on a DVD player when a BD player is under 80$ and possibly around 50$. That is what I don’t understand. For me that is just wasteful. For a TV I can understand how a patch for let’s can be a good idea instead of say 500$ or 1000$ for the TV they really want

True, you had the ability to record stuff from television onto VHS at the time, but it was technically illegal in some cases.

never has been illegal to tape to watch things later. Illigal to make copies of films (i.e. rent and tape). For archiving (keeping the content for ever instead of buying a permanent copy) but never to watch anything.

Also, the quality of the recordings was very poor.

I would not say very poor especially if you bought quality tapes, but that is immaterial to the discussion

In addition, early adopters paid quite a bit for the novelty, as VCRs weren't exactly cheap.

when they launched they where not, but then again nothing is.

But who really uses a VCR anymore for this? And not everybody can afford a DVR.

don’t know if anyone does (my guess there could still be some) but that is not the point you said you are stuck watching a show when it airs. The reality is that it has not been true ever since the first VCR went to market in the late 70’s. As for DVRs, they are not cheap but then again I would not characterize them as expensive it also depends what you want to do.

So that's your definition of TV? Alright, I can respect that. Still, TV on DVD/BD doesn't make it any less a product of Television.

agree, the shows where produced for TV but you are not watching TV, the same way that a film is produced for the theatre/cinema but you are not watching a cinema at home unless

What in God's name are you blathering on about? It's like you had an idea of what you were trying to say and then you drifted off into some kind of barnyard comparison. Eh??

would using cars and planes work better? The guys aid Netflix is not a replacement for BD but is for TV. I pointed out that it did not make sense. BD is a distribution method on them there could be TV shows or films or other stuff I guess. In such a discussion TV is a distribution method one that airs a given show (or film for that matter) on a given channel on a given day at a given time (plus if you have a DVR/VCR you can time shift). Since with Netflix you cannot see the show at the same time as it airs, it is not a TV replacement. If he meant he watches films on BD but streams TV shows then that is a different topic. I don’t understand why shows are treated differently but it is not all that important.

Yes, I'm sure. The content is in SD on the SD version of the channel and in HD on the HD version of the channel. On the SD channel, the original SD content shows up in full screen. On the HD channel, they upconvert the SD content to HD and cut off the top and bottom of the image so it will fit a 16x9 image. They do this intentionally because most people want the image to fill their screen, they don't care that they are losing part of the image. Just to be clear, this is content that was never filmed at 16x9, so there's no way to make it fill a 16x9 screen without stretching or ruining the image in some way.

yuck

No, they do this everywhere. It's probably just that you're watching channels that don't do this. As for the rest of your argument here, I think it is once again important to mention that Netflix is far cheaper than Cable and offers much more content than OTA broadcast. Just sayin'

But cable offers much more content then Netflix and OTA is much cheaper

Yes, but these stations are usually very limited -- just as they always have been. If you live in a certain area, you might get channels that are typically paid for through cable, but most of us are stuck with PBS, Fox, ABC, NBS, CBS, and whatever else is randomly showing.

No man, try it, you would be amazed. With ATSC stations can have sub-channels ( basically it means multiple stations transmited together). Here in Canada most/all do not have any, but in the US most of them do have, I think there is one in California with a dozen video subchannels (i.e. acts as if there are 12 different stations so 12 different shows at the same time) the Vermont/NY stations I receive are no where near that amount but every one of them has at least 2, do this for the fun of it, go to zap2it.com , TV listings enter your location and pick antenna and see what is there. Here I get with 2 PBS stations, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, but in reality they act like 13 stations with NBC 5.2 being 24/7 “movies” (OK in the morning there are some kid shows and repeats Stargate at 9/10 on Sunday but the rest is all movies) I doubt you will see Starz speciality shows, but I heard you don’t like those

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am not talking about connection quality, that will give playback issues but A/V quality due to the way over compression. Even if you have a 100Mbps link it won't look any better then a 6mbps link with little latency.

Are you incapable of accepting that perhaps there are some compression methods in which not as much quality is lost? And that perhaps Netflix utilizes these compression methods?

are you talking about having connection issues through your cable? that is a possibility and bits lost on the way, but if that is your issue then you should look at what you have indoors and if that is not the issue then call the cable provider.

No, I'm talking about what, based on the numbers, might be considered similar or exactly the same quality as NIW but in actuality is much worse. You talk as if there was some constant variable throughout all forms of compression that ensured that 6 mbps in any form is the same in every form. This simply isn't the case.

again no one is talking bad connection and play back artefacts due to not having the data arriving in time (they can happen with any distribution channel). We are discussing quality. When video is compressed (and all digital video and most digital audio is compressed) compression does two things, 1 simplifies by using short hand (for a video example if you have a completely uniform black screen for several frames there is no need to give the value of each pixel as black and there is no need to give the second frame since nothing has changed-known as p or b frames- for audio why would you give a value of 0 on a speaker if no sound is coming out of it) and if it is not lossless (there is no lossless video) distort the image so that it is easier to use short hand ( to work off of what was said previously let's say a block i all black but there is the one white pixel, the encoder could decide it is not worth keeping the detail that the pixel is white and so leave it as black like the rest of the block or the pixel could have been black in the previous frame and now decide it is not worth making it white since there is restricted BW).

Again, there are variables you aren't considering here. Of course, I'm not an expert in the field and I'm not a mathematician or a scientist or even in that frame of mind -- I'm an English major. However, I happen to have some experience with video editing and I know that depending on how you compress something it will look either better or worse, even at similar bitrates.

So what happens is that the more video is compressed the farther it is from the stated resolution and the less detail it has and the more compression artefacts the image will have and the farther from what it ideally should look like it is.

True, but again, even with this concept in mind, the over-all level of quality is also dependent on HOW it was compressed, not just on the level of compression.

where is it an example, it is a tautology. Your profile says you have a few BDs, after you bought them did you go and see them on Netflix or did you watch the BD copy when you wanted to see them? Or maybe you went to blockbusters or red box or Vudu or somewhere else?

Regardless of the fact that this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I actually have watched films that I bought on blu-ray in different forms after the fact. For instance, I have titles such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Proposition, both of which have different special features on the DVD and the Blu-ray -- so I'll gladly watch both to see all the special features if that's what I want to do. Also, being that Netflix is fairly more convenient than popping in a disc and at times they offer content in HD that is only available elsewhere on DVD, sometimes I will watch the film on Netflix even though I own it on DVD. The quality isn't incredibly better, but it is noticeably better to my eyes from time to time.

but then you did not intend to buy it before hand. You saw it, liked it and then decided to buy it. But yes I do sometimes blind buy I read all the HP books, saw all the movies own all the BDs, have not seen the last one but I intend to buy it since I need it to conclude the series, I am a huge Marvel fan so I bought Thor and X-men without seeing them. Intend means "to have in mind as something to be done or brought about", when you say that you need to see it first before making a decision then either you saw it in theatres and intend to buy it or you don't intend to buy it until after you rented it, the second does not apply in this situation since the intent was not there.

The intent was not there to rent before buying? How do you figure? Okay, this is one of the problems we are having here -- you're not properly explaining what you're trying to say. I firmly believe you're trying to make a point here, but for the life of me I can't decipher what it is.

You can intend to rent something before buying it. At times you might be fairly sure that you want to buy it and at other times you might not know at all. If i'm not sure at all but I know I want to see it, I might decide after viewing it that the experience is worth owning on DVD/Blu.

Even though I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, I'm fairly sure that you're leaving out a few variables here. Still, if you could try to explain it in laymans terms for me, I'd be appreciative. I know at this point it's probably growing old, but if you've got the time, eh?

not at all, I am not assuming anything, why don't you try and ask them? There is the 1000+,1500+ 2000+ thread and you can see in there

Why is it on me to poll the masses? Why am I the one with something to prove? You're the one suggesting that people who rent don't buy as many BDs and vice versa. Wouldn't it be your task to prove your point? So far I don't see any proof. ownership of thousands of titles is not proof of concept, not that you ever said it was.

I never said such a thing, it is not a matter of absolutes. Let's try this again
since I don't know what is made and I want to keep it simple:
Option1 = 1$
Option2 = 2$
Option3 = 4$
Option4 = 10$
if someone goes from O4 to O1 that is 9$ cheaperfor them and it is good but it is a loss for the person offering the options since now they make 1$ instead of 9$. Same if it is O3 to O1 then there is a 3$ difference or O4 to O3 with a 6$ difference.

If one person decides to go from O4 to O1 you need 9 people that will do their original option (be it O2 or O3 or O4) and O1 to counter it (let's assume there are 10 people that would pick O1 or O4, if one does O1 only and the other 9 do O4+O1 you get 9*10$+10*1$=100$ which is the same as 10*10(all picked O4) =100$). The same will happen if I use any other combination but the numbers would change (3*4$+4*1$=4*4$, O1-O3 and 4*10$+ 5*2$=5*10$, O2-O4).

Right, if One person goes from O4 to O1 and some other person decides to do both it does not cover the loss of that one person that went from O4 to O1. The only time that is true in this scenario is O1-O2 (i.e. 1*2$+2*1$=4$=2*2$) or O2-O4 (i.e. 1*4$+2*2$=8$=2*4$) and one person means 1/2 of the people that are picking and not just one person.

Obviously the% will depend on the difference in the options but the simple reality is for every person that says "instead of buying the film I will just stream it" you need a lot of people that will do more then just stream it, and for every person that says "instead of renting it at Blockbusters" or "renting at redbox" or "using Netflix disk rental" you also need a few people as well.

For Starz Netflix needs to make up the difference for every client that went from a more lucrative option to Netflix streaming. That is why the few movies that are streamed and then bought it is not important (and not none existent) it does not make up for what is lost.

Again, it seems like you think this is based on some fixed variable. You're right. If a studio was making less money streaming than by selling their films by other means, (which is what I think you're trying to say) they'd be foolish to keep streaming. So tell me: Why do several studios keep streaming? Why are several more trying to break into that market?

You see, with Starz you are presented with a special case: They are a studio with their own channel. If they can make more money with their premium channel, why would they offer their services to Netflix?

No, seriously.

Why did they even bother signing a contract with Netflix in the first place? When they signed on they were making far less money than when they decided to stop offering their services to Netflix. Why even sign on in the first place? If they had nothing to profit from, they wouldn't have agreed to be paid less than what their content is worth.

Yet they did just that.

Why? I would argue that it is because as I've already said, NIW and other streaming services are an excellent form of advertisement.

Brand recognition.

Get your brand name out there in more places and you'll get more subscribers to your main service. Of course, eventually they chose not to continue their services, suggesting that they were not happy with the results. Either their brand grew to outperform what they wanted from Netflix or they weren't getting enough new business from Netflix.

Is this because streaming is a poor form of advertisement? Is it because it doesn't work at all as a form of advertisement? Tell that to the hundreds of independent filmmakers/studios that see and refer to an addition of their content to something like NIW as being a positive and helpful experience. Tell that to the big name studios and television channels that still provide their services to Netflix.

You see, you're thinking about this market all wrong. If services like Netflix Instant Watch were only going to be a loss for these studios, they never would have agreed to offer content in the first place. Your math isn't necessarily flawed, as you're correct that to make the service worthwhile to a company like Starz, they have to be making enough money in other ways (O2, 3, 4) as a result of O1 to make up for what they could have been making if they didn't offer their content to O1. However, it's not as if they're losing money.

At all times they are making money with this service. It might not be what they want to make, but they are being paid for their services by Netflix. They are being paid to do what amounts to advertising their product. O1 results in O2, 3 and 4 in some cases -- if it didn't they would have no reason to offer O1 in the first place. The thing is, they used to have to pay for this same level of advertising and now they are being paid for it. If it isn't working out for them, they have every right to drop out of the program as they have done.

However, something tells me it was their content that made the service of no use to them. It's on them to provide content that people will want to watch if they want to make even more money from it. Still, as I previously stated, they are a special case -- they have their own premium channel to fall back on if they don't like the deal. They can make a lot more money via this method than another studio might be able to make because they are still a premium cable channel, unlike something like the Disney Channel, which has become a basic cable channel. One still has to pay for this kind of channel, but not nearly as much, making the service Netflix offers a little more valuable to them.

So you see, there's more going on here than you've added to your formula. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

no, I never said it never happens, that is why I asked you how many movies/TV shows do you watch on streaming and how many of them you buy afterwards. It is that ratio that is important. If on average for every 100 movies viewed it leads to 1 buy then it is meaningless. Because it probably did lead to 50 movies where revenue was lost because the studio makes less on Netflix streaming than, for example, Netflix disk rentals.

Again, no revenue is actually lost as the studios are still making at least some money for offering their content on NIW. They aren't making much, and in some cases they might not be making as much overall as they would without the use of NIW, but that's when companies like Starz decide to pull out. Every case is different.

Where is your evidence that the studio makes less on streaming than disc rentals?

why is that contrary, does BB have a policy that you have to rent the movie before you buy the PV version? also how is this good, the studio does not make the money on the PV.

Fair enough. I'm honestly not sure where I was going with that.

no because I have functioning brain cells, do you realy think that most people that watched it (or something else) on Netflix streaming also rented it at Blockbusters or even on Netflix disk rental?

No, where did I suggest this? I suggested/would suggest that someone who watched something on NIW OR rented it at BB might be convinced by the quality of the content to purchase it later.

it is not every NIW viewer. Words like Most and stuff don't mean every one.

No, but they infer, do they not?

I did not say Starz is the victim, if anything it is Netflix users since they still have to pay as much while the content was reduced. The issue is you pretending it is a good thing that the content is gone.

Well, from a certain point of view it can be a good thing. Is it not a good thing to weed out the bad eggs from the good ones? If Starz was not providing quality content, particularly in the matter of the image and sound quality in comparison to other NIW offerings, then there content will not be missed when it is gone. This is my opinion, but somehow I doubt that many film fans will disagree with me on this.

That being said, Netflix users may be the victim, as you've said, in that they still pay a certain price for a reduced amount of content. That amount of content will not be automatically filled, even when companies like Dreamworks finally start offering content to NIW. However, I think it's important to note something about the several different account options offered by Netflix:

As of now, the option to pay $8 a month for Instant Watch has "access to Starz Play" as a special feature of the account option. We don't know if they will simply remove this from the list in February, or lower the price of the service as a result of its removal at that time. The fact that it is mentioned as a premium service of Instant Watch seems to suggest that they would acknowledge the loss of the service at some point and perhaps even reimburse customers for it somehow.

We simply don't know how they will handle the issue yet. We can make assumptions, but until we get there we just won't know.

no, it is the most quantity for the best price. If you are interested in Quality Netflix also does BD rentals, Redbox does BD rentals (what is it 1.50 per film), i have bought movies on BD for <5$. If price and quantity is important then I agree, but the quality is not there no matter how you pretend it is

The quality is not there? So, would you say that because the movie is offered at a bitrate you don't like, Double Indemnity is not a quality film? Am I just fooling myself into thinking that this movie is better than it really is because I have the option to watch it and thousands of other movies on NIW? Is it the quantity of content that is fooling me into thinking that this is a classic and beloved film? How can one pretend that the quality is not there when it absolutely is. The image quality might not be as good as blu-ray, but it can be, depending on the studio in question and on Netflix's compression methods, often better than DVD quality when offered in HD.

This all stems back to your belief that compression is some kind of static algorithm.

agree with the second part but not the first, the argument started because when it was announced you said it was good thing to lose all that content.

Which is something I believe I have properly explained my meaning for several times already. I'm not going to re-state it again.

lol do you think there are little slots and they are all filled up and now that Starz will be going they can fill up those slots with other better titles?

No, you're misunderstanding me. I think that without Starz getting the same attention it was getting, more independent (and often times better) content can get noticed and put out in front than was previously possible. In terms of using the service as a means for brand recognition and spreading the word about a particular title, the loss of Starz is a good thing for other companies offering their content to Netflix.

this makes no sense what so ever. Think about it, why do you go to netflix and stream? Because of the value (cheap price and can see a lot of films) the less content they have the less valuable it is because if you go there and you want to see something that is not there you will go elsewhere to see it. Less content is never good.

True, if there is content you want to see and you can't find it in one place, you will go elsewhere to see it. This is why everyone that was using Netflix for Starz content (I can't imagine there being too many of them) will probably consider paying for the Starz channel (if they aren't already). This isn't good for Netflix in that they will invariably lose some subscribers from this, but I would argue they have lost more from the price cut and the true effect of this particular situation will not be seen until February 2012, when the content is officially taken offline. That's just the way this kind of stuff works. Still, as I've mentioned, this doesn't mean less content is a bad thing for other studios or for NIW subscribers who never watched the Starz content in the first place or don't care if it is gone.

You have a point, Netflix is going to lose some money from this. However, somehow I doubt it will be nearly as much as was lost just in the last few months thanks to their price hike.

---- will continue some other time since that has gotten way too long

Same.

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

OK, we are going too far in this with the HD-DVD fanboys I was pointing out that content matter sand it is easy to see it does not (if you want to prop up what you have/use) but it will have a negative effect. Why do you stream Netflix? Because of the content, if content decreases that is bad even if you personaly think they are crappy titles or bad transfers.

Actually, I use their streaming services for a variety of different reasons, most of which I have touched on in some way or another. Let me present you with an example that might be agreeable in this case:

Lets say you find a grocery store that offers several of the food items you know and love. You also discover that this store has several items you thought had long been cancelled and forgotten by time. In addition, you find new food items that you fall in love with while shopping for other items. Some of the food isn't as high quality as in other stores, but the price over all is much cheaper and you get more bang for your buck here. Still, there are some items that you're not willing to compromise on quality for, so regardless of the fantastic prices and the other variables, you still shop at other stores. However, you visit this store every now and then because you know that it is worth the time and effort to do so.

That's how I see NIW. If the store stops offering a lot of their food items, I might notice a few of them missing, but it won't stop me from continually patronizing their services.

As for your comment, it is nonsense, Hulu, Youtube, Vudu are different formats, your point would be as valid as someone saying it does not matter if HD-DVD loses content because there is DVD and BD and they are disks. This is a dicussion about Netflix streaming.

Hulu, Youtube and Vudu have a lot more in common with Netflix than you seem to realize, but for the purposes of the discussion at hand we'll just stick with Netflix. I really don't feel like going into all the similarities and explaining ad nauseum how the comparisons are valid, so I'm willing to just drop this one.

Well there was a time when I was a student working on my masters degree making 15k a year ~6k went for my share of the rent, 2-4K for tuition (luckily school is cheap here) and 1k for school supplies (Masters books in Mathematics are not).

Ahh, mathematics. That explains the reliance on thinking of things in terms of equations and the few little grammatical issues here and there. It also explains how we seem to see things very differently, as I'm pretty much the polar opposite. I can't stand math, but I know enough about it to know how this stuff works.

The world is a lot different today than it was when you were in college. Back then a VHS copy of a movie might have run you $20-30. Now you can get a DVD or Blu for less than $5. Entertainment is everywhere, it's almost inescapable. Sometimes the thought of this scares me, but it's just a part of our lives nowadays that permeates through everything. If, after paying for everything else and saving some money you can still afford to buy something for entertainment value, why not?

Yes but an example still needs to works and yours did not.

Sure it did. It just didn't work for you because you couldn't see a case in which someone didn't have insurance or, conversely, had a reason to buy a DVD/TV/ect. after such an event. You might be right to think it would be foolish, but that's up to the individual to decide. This example amounted to little more than a "desert island" question, but when taken to the extremes it can still hold up.

I agree it is not the same amount of content but

1) the discussion started because you said BD players are too expensive and you would rather take any one DVD from your burning home then any of your BDs since a DVD player is more affordable and will be easy to replace. I agree in 2006 that would be the case comparing a 1000$ BD player to a 30$ DVD player but DVD players have not dropped in price and the cheapest ones are still 25-30 while in the Canadian deals section there is discussion of a BD player at Walmart for 56$. The issue is that you act as if someone has to be wealthy to spend 50$ more for a BD player over DVD but you don’t have an issue with spending 8$ a month, 96$ a year, several hundred dollars for the life of the BD/DVD player

I, and many others have valid reasons for using NIW, and I believe I've laid out quite a few of them for you. As for your math, you're thinking in terms of only brand new items. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it certainly wouldn't be hard to find a DVD player at a place like Good Will for $10 or less. If you only had the money for rent, food and other necessities and you only had $50 left over, would you spend that $50 on a BD player? Or would you spend $10 on a DVD player and save the rest?

2) Yes a BD player does not mean content, but a Netflix streaming account does not mean a player either you need both to watch something (A display will help as well )

This is true, but you'll need a viewing device for a BD player just like you will Netflix. If you have a computer, you don't need a "player."

3) No you don’t need to buy BDs, you can rent them from Blockbusters or redbox or even through a Netflix disk program, you can also borrow from friends/family or even possibly the public library (have not been to the municipal library in years but they do loan out BDs at my BILs library)

Okay, so under this example lets say you rented $46 worth of BDs a month from Red Box. That would be about 30 titles a month, 360 titles a year. Lets say that you could also get 5-10 titles a month from the library, 120 a year. This is less than 500 titles, in theory, a year. There are thousands to choose from on NIW. In terms of content, NIW is still the better option. In terms of quality, BD is still the better option. I guess it all depends on what you really want, although I have to admit this would be a pretty decent replacement for their streaming service if you weren't happy with it. Even with less content, it would still be enough content that the quality of it might make up for the lack of choices, depending on who you are and what you wanted for entertainment.

However, this method wouldn't be able to replace the movies and shows I've discovered THROUGH Netflix. Most titles at Red Box and the Library are likely to be typical titles, Hollywood titles. This means discovering new independent content would still be difficult, but again -- it just depends on what you want.

actually agree on this though when I lived on that it was mid 90’s and neither DVD/BD where out, on the other hand I would consider them luxuries and a bit foolish especially if they don’t have more important stuff like, to get back on the original topic, fire insurance. My personal opinion luxuries come after necessities and a bit of savings.

I agree, but I wouldn't consider a cheapo DVD and a cheapo DVD player a "luxury." If you can get one item at the dollar store and another at Good Will, the title "luxury" kind of flies out the window.

On the other hand would you consider someone making 20K as wealthy?

Well, perhaps from a certain point of view. They wouldn't be comfortably wealthy, but depending on where they live and the quality of domicile they can get for a low price, they might be able to more than afford all the possible necessities and still have plenty of money left over for frivolous spending. It all depends on how you look at it. There's more than one side to any story, or in your case, equation.

no, but maybe my eyesight is not as bad as yours

Maybe it's not. I do have bad eyesight. I also have glasses which correct my eyesight, making it 20/20. With that in mind, my eyesight isn't exactly the issue here.

my eyes, plus there is the big audio difference

I will not deny this. The audio quality you get through streaming isn't too terrible, but it's just nowhere near the same experience as you're going to get with BDs or even certain DVDs. You'll find no argument from me here, you're absolutely correct.

no man, you can do a qualitative analysis with the proper equipment. We will skip audio since I hope you agree DD does not compare to lossless but on video BD starts off with HD and is compressed at a much higher bitrate then DVD. Less of the image is destroyed during compression. When you watch the BD on the SD TV it looks more accurate then the DVD. Yes you need to be someone that cares about PQ and be extremely picky (almost OCD) to care but it does look better.

I understand that technically, the image you're seeing is better -- but that's a technicality that doesn't really transfer very well. Most people, even with 20/20 eyesight, will not be able to discern any difference, regardless of it being there. What's more important here is that, for the money, a BD player is more valuable than a DVD player. Still, my argument is that in a certain precarious situation in which someone does have a very small amount of money left over for entertainment, the $10 DVD player might be a better option.

yes but the person is rebuilding. For me it makes sense to splurge a bit more (or wait until they can) on something good

If they have the money, definitely. If not, why splurge?

Where can I spend 10-20 on a TV and a DVD player?

DVD Player for $10 at Good Will. I've seen them. They work.

TV for free on Craigslist. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Hell, I have a friend who got a free 27 inch SDTV because his neighbor left it behind when they moved out.

agree with the broke part, but then again I was always semi-patient, a decent TV is expensive but why spend 10$ or 20$ or 30$ now on a DVD player when a BD player is under 80$ and possibly around 50$. That is what I don’t understand. For me that is just wasteful. For a TV I can understand how a patch for let’s can be a good idea instead of say 500$ or 1000$ for the TV they really want

Because if you can get a DVD player for $10, spending $50-$80 on a BD player doesn't make sense if you don't have a lot of money.

never has been illegal to tape to watch things later. Illigal to make copies of films (i.e. rent and tape). For archiving (keeping the content for ever instead of buying a permanent copy) but never to watch anything.

There were people who used to sell bootleg tapes of television shows that weren't played on air or sold in any other format. That is the type of illegality I was referring to, but perhaps it really didn't have a place in this discussion. My bad.

I would not say very poor especially if you bought quality tapes, but that is immaterial to the discussion

VHS is the poorest quality media format ever created for a visual medium. Period.

when they launched they where not, but then again nothing is.

Of course.

don’t know if anyone does (my guess there could still be some) but that is not the point you said you are stuck watching a show when it airs. The reality is that it has not been true ever since the first VCR went to market in the late 70’s. As for DVRs, they are not cheap but then again I would not characterize them as expensive it also depends what you want to do.

Alright, you have a point. Mine would be that while there are ways to record and watch things later, we're at a point where one format for doing so is so old and of poor quality that most people would rather wait the time it takes to see it on DVD/BD than to use it. The other format is so expensive that, yet again, being patient and waiting for the eventual release is a much better option. Until DVR's drop in price, there will be quite a few people who are stuck in the middle and living by the rules of the television station. You have a point, they don't HAVE to be if they don't want to, but perhaps some of them would prefer it to the alternatives.

agree, the shows where produced for TV but you are not watching TV, the same way that a film is produced for the theatre/cinema but you are not watching a cinema at home unless

This is an argument of aesthetics.

would using cars and planes work better? The guys said Netflix is not a replacement for BD but is for TV. I pointed out that it did not make sense. BD is a distribution method on them there could be TV shows or films or other stuff I guess. In such a discussion TV is a distribution method one that airs a given show (or film for that matter) on a given channel on a given day at a given time (plus if you have a DVR/VCR you can time shift). Since with Netflix you cannot see the show at the same time as it airs, it is not a TV replacement. If he meant he watches films on BD but streams TV shows then that is a different topic. I don’t understand why shows are treated differently but it is not all that important.

It might not technically be a replacement, but maybe people would prefer if to the way that TV works.

yuck

EXACTLY! Upon further inspection, not every channel is guilty of this, but some rather big names are. I'm sorry, there's just something wrong about watching Married With Children in Widescreen.

But cable offers much more content then Netflix and OTA is much cheaper

Does cable offer more content? Maybe. They certainly offer some different content, but it might not be content you want to watch. Also, you'll be paying much more for cable than for NIW.

OTA is much cheaper. This is why you see people using OTA and NIW instead of paying for cable. You still get some content OTA that you got on Cable and a lot of the other stuff you find on cable is also available on NIW. In particular I'm thinking of a show that I was, for a short time, addicted to: American Pickers. This show was, I believe, in its second season on cable when they first added the first season to NIW. Well, it was somewhere in that time frame. However, before the second season ended, they had episodes from the second season available to watch on NIW. This is content available before the DVD/BD release. I believe they had episodes from the first season available on there before the DVD release as well. Point being, not every television show from a cable station that ends up on NIW follows the same rules as the DVD/BD releases precisely.

No man, try it, you would be amazed. With ATSC stations can have sub-channels ( basically it means multiple stations transmited together). Here in Canada most/all do not have any, but in the US most of them do have, I think there is one in California with a dozen video subchannels (i.e. acts as if there are 12 different stations so 12 different shows at the same time) the Vermont/NY stations I receive are no where near that amount but every one of them has at least 2, do this for the fun of it, go to zap2it.com , TV listings enter your location and pick antenna and see what is there. Here I get with 2 PBS stations, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, but in reality they act like 13 stations with NBC 5.2 being 24/7 “movies” (OK in the morning there are some kid shows and repeats Stargate at 9/10 on Sunday but the rest is all movies) I doubt you will see Starz speciality shows, but I heard you don’t like those

I know, I do use OTA in my living room. I use OTA and a wifi enabled BD player to access NIW. This doesn't mean that I'm lucky enough to live in an area where they provide more channels OTA. To my knowledge, the only "special" channel we get here is Discovery Channel. Oh joy. We also get a bunch of random ESPN radio channels for some reason. It really is quite strange.

[bhampton]

It's Quickster now.

Netflix likes streaming so much they are removing the by-mail service and calling that one Quickster.

So ends my time with Netflix.

(I still use a bit of Quickster.)

-Brian

[Strilo]

But now the disc folks have a team of people and a company focused solely on discs. Shouldn't that make them all happy?

[bhampton]

I wanted an alternative to Netflix and they created one for me and automated the change.

In the long run,.. it could be good. As long as the idiots in charge of destroying Netflix are not tasked with running the new service.

-Brian

[Steedeel]

Strilo, not if you read between the lines and see where this is going.

[RonSwanson]

This is completely idiotic.

I will be keeping Netflix streaming, but to divide the business like this is foolish at this juncture. If you have stock, sell it.

Why would I subscribe to "Quickster" when I could just sign up for the now superior Blockbuster by mail, which also has free in store exchanges and quicker turn around on plenty of discs? If they are now separate, why would I bother doing Netflix and Quickster? (I used to have Blockbuster by mail w/ exchanges, until they got rid of the instore exchanges...then I switched to Netflix with the added option of streaming...I noticed discs weren't as quick or numerous with Netflix. Blockbuster's disc business by mail is certainly better, and now that Dish Network is turning things around and have re-included in store exchanges, the DECISION IS A NO-BRAINER).

The whole advantage Netflix had was that streaming was free in addition to the discs...if I have to subscribe to two different entities, I'm certainly not sticking with Quickster.

Unless Netflix has tons of network/studio deals up its sleeves coming in the near future that will increase its streaming content significantly, this doesn't make any sense from any perspective. This could be possible. But...If they don't, this bodes well for Dish Network's Blockbuster, and blu-ray in general.

Frankly, if Blockbuster can work out some streaming deals, there is a real opportunity here for them by having an all inclusive all in one company that streams, now that Netflix "doesn't"

....Now for people who will do disc only with quickster, it's really your choice which way you want to go. Frankly, I don't believe Netflix...er....Quickster disc service will be improving; if it would have they wouldn't have separated.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

I think the split is stupid for them, but great for consumers. This and the price hike are going to start opening things up for competitors and allow Netflix to fall, destroying their near-monopoly and giving all of us more choices.

Thank god the idiots are in charge.

[Anthony P]

Are you incapable of accepting that perhaps there are some compression methods in which not as much quality is lost?

no, obviously since DTHD and DTS-MA are lossless nothing is lost even if the two don’t have the same BR at a given time. Also AVC is much better at low bitrates then Mpeg-2. But a CODEC is a CODEC is a CODEC, and it has the rules of how things can be compressed, the encoder (device that does the compression) can only decide what information is destroyed. So if two different encoders of the same CODEC have the same bitrate then unless something is seriously wrong they will destroy roughly the same amount of data, just in different places.

And that perhaps Netflix utilizes these compression methods?.

no, we know what they use

Of course, I'm not an expert in the field and I'm not a mathematician or a scientist or even in that frame of mind -- I'm an English major.

obviously, but that is the difference, between you and me, I am not an English major but I am a Mathematician and I worked professionally in this for close to 10 years (not movies but videoconferencing, there is a difference since VC is live and there is a lot less movement and you want a lot of compression but the principles are the same and so are the CODECs)

True, but again, even with this concept in mind, the over-all level of quality is also dependent on HOW it was compressed, not just on the level of compression.

yes and no, it depends how you define quality. If you define it as how far it is from the original, then not really. If you define it as the guy is not paying attention enough or the guy might not realise what he is missing then yes. Assuming the same CODEC is used (since each CODEC has pros and cons) if you have something simple , a person in front of a blanc wall with no detail, a good encoder would not keep detail (not block) in the detail-less wall at the expense of the person, but if it did do that then the quality would be better in the one that did not favour the wall for the person talking. On the other hand if one encode favours the mouth on the face (let’s assume a close up) to the hair then someone that does not care and is too focused on the mouth will say see that encode as looking better but the same amount of detail is lost compared to the other encode which kept more detail in the hair. So I would not call it higher quality. Also that is true for the same bitrate, and even possibly slightly different bitrate, the discussion is of bitrate that is different by several magnitude.

Regardless of the fact that this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I actually have watched films that I bought on blu-ray in different forms after the fact. For instance, I have titles such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Proposition, both of which have different special features on the DVD and the Blu-ray -- so I'll gladly watch both to see all the special features if that's what I want to do. Also, being that Netflix is fairly more convenient than popping in a disc and at times they offer content in HD that is only available elsewhere on DVD, sometimes I will watch the film on Netflix even though I own it on DVD. The quality isn't incredibly better, but it is noticeably better to my eyes from time to time.

but that does not answer the question asked. I said if someone buys the BD then they are not likely to watch it on Netflix, you thought it odd and so I asked you if you have ever watched any of the BDs you have on Netflix after you bought the BD. I did not ask you about DVDs you own. And yes I did allow for other rentals to make it easier to come up with a counter example to prove me wrong.

You can intend to rent something before buying it. At times you might be fairly sure that you want to buy it and at other times you might not know at all. If i'm not sure at all but I know I want to see it, I might decide after viewing it that the experience is worth owning on DVD/Blu.

exactly. The intent is to rent and see it, not intent to buy it. If you intend to buy something that means that you don’ need to rent it first so that you can decide if you want to buy it. Intend to buy=100% sure you want to buy, what you are talking about is 10% or 50% or maybe even 90% sure but still not 100% sure so the intent is not there before you rent it, there is a doubt that you might not want to buy it.

Why is it on me to poll the masses? Why am I the one with something to prove? You're the one suggesting that people who rent don't buy as many BDs and vice versa. Wouldn't it be your task to prove your point? So far I don't see any proof. ownership of thousands of titles is not proof of concept, not that you ever said it was.

because you don’t trust my research.

Again, it seems like you think this is based on some fixed variable. You're right. If a studio was making less money streaming than by selling their films by other means, (which is what I think you're trying to say) they'd be foolish to keep streaming. So tell me: Why do several studios keep streaming? Why are several more trying to break into that market?

You see, with Starz you are presented with a special case: They are a studio with their own channel. If they can make more money with their premium channel, why would they offer their services to Netflix?

no I am saying it is complicated. As for Starz in particular, maybe they thought there are guys like Anthony that don’t have cable or sat and so they can’t get what I show on my channel and this is a way to get them. Maybe that happened until they noticed some subscribers dropped the channel since they where already on Netflix and that that number became significant enough to make a difference to their bottom line and so if Netflix wants to continue they will need to pay up for what they lose from their channel (or other means such as more expensive rentals and buying the content)

Again, no revenue is actually lost as the studios are still making at least some money for offering their content on NIW. They aren't making much, and in some cases they might not be making as much overall as they would without the use of NIW, but that's when companies like Starz decide to pull out. Every case is different

how is “no revenue is actually lost” if “they might not be making as much”

No, but they infer, do they not?

why would “most” infer “everyone” if anything it infers the opposite, if someone was sure it was “everyone” then they should not say most but everyone. Most means 50%+1

Is it not a good thing to weed out the bad eggs from the good ones?

only if there is an absolute, which in this case there is not. Let’s go back to your example, in NA we are used to eating fresh chicken eggs, and to most of us a duck or quail egg would not be considered good (for example the recipe Is not written for them so they can’t be used) in China they eat something called a 100 year old egg (has other names as well) the white part becomes a brown jelly like substance and the yellow a green/grey that stinks of sulphur and ammonia (i.e. rotten eggs) . If you don’t get the example, just because you decided something is bad content does not mean that everyone sees it that way. So who is to decide if an egg is bad or not.

The quality is not there? So, would you say that because the movie is offered at a bitrate you don't like, Double Indemnity is not a quality film?

If Double Indemnity is a good film or not is immaterial. We are talking AV quality

You have a point, Netflix is going to lose some money from this. However, somehow I doubt it will be nearly as much as was lost just in the last few months thanks to their price hike.

but that is because you see it as a single event and not as a small piece of the puzzle. The price hike and Startz leaving are both related. Why is there a price hike? Because Netflix’s costs of operation (studio royalties) are constantly increasing nad their profitability decreasing so they need to find ways to make more money, why is star leaving because Netflix has decided not to give Starz what Starz says they are worth. What happens with the next negotiation? Lose more content or raise the price to couver it?



The issue is this is the wild west of streaming and any negatives are bad and losing customers (even if small numbers) is bad. Let me put it this way, when I started using the internet to search for stuff I used to use Archie and Veronica, then Alta Vista and then Yahoo and now Google. Look at this forum, you can find full of posts/threads on BD being dead even though BD sales are growing fast, go to the 3D forum there is a thread called “who killed 3D?” but 3D ticket sales are doing well and more and more films are coming out in 3D.

If you only had the money for rent, food and other necessities and you only had $50 left over, would you spend that $50 on a BD player? Or would you spend $10 on a DVD player and save the rest?

Now you don’t give a time frame but I would go with save all of it for me necessities come first, savings second and lastly luxuries. So If you are talking yearly or monthly then 50$ is no were near enough for savings let alone for luxuries. Even weekly it would be a bit low IMHO. My personal philosophy is that you need to strive for long term savings (money meant for emergencies such as job loss or even for retirement) to be at least ¼ of your take home.

Entertainment is everywhere, it's almost inescapable.

doesn’t this counter your point. If it is everywhere, why not save money?

If, after paying for everything else and saving some money you can still afford to buy something for entertainment value, why not?

agree 100% never said the opposite, the issue is that you also assume that the person does not have money.

I, and many others have valid reasons for using NIW,

never said people should not watch it, I agree, it is the cheapest way to watch lots of content. And if that is what someone wants and they have the money, then why not.

As for your math, you're thinking in terms of only brand new items. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it certainly wouldn't be hard to find a DVD player at a place like Good Will for $10 or less.

yes, brand new, just because it is easier. If we go with used, how do you know GW will have a DVD player, what if you go there and all they have is a 20$ BD player? Sept 2006 I bought the Samsung BD player, in Dec 2006 I bought a PS3, eventually I stopped using the Samsung and gave it for free to my sister, since she got one for free would it make sense to use free I a calculation? But if you want to used then looking at Amazon there are a few for 30$, I have no idea what goodwill charges for BD players, but why use the 50$ for a new BD player and compare it to 10$ for a used DVD player?

This is true, but you'll need a viewing device for a BD player just like you will Netflix. If you have a computer, you don't need a "player."

but didn’t it burn up in the fire and if you are buying a new PC, you can get one with a BD drive and then you won’t need a BD player

Okay, so under this example lets say you rented $46 worth of BDs a month from Red Box. That would be about 30 titles a month, 360 titles a year. Lets say that you could also get 5-10 titles a month from the library, 120 a year

not meant as a negative, but wow you sure have a lot of free time. I am lucky if I get to see 5 movies a week (typical is 2-3), the only time I strive to go over a movie a day is October (I participate in the month of horror thread) and then I feel burnt out.

I agree, but I wouldn't consider a cheapo DVD and a cheapo DVD player a "luxury." If you can get one item at the dollar store and another at Good Will, the title "luxury" kind of flies out the window.

not at all, price and luxury are completely different according to the dictionary

“something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary” nothing in there about not being able to buy them at goodwill or the dollar store.

Yes it s an easily attainable luxury but one just as much. There is nothing necessary about it.

Until DVR's drop in price, there will be quite a few people who are stuck in the middle and living by the rules of the television station.

but DVRs (at least for OTA) are not that bad, for example

I chose the Channel Master CM-7000PAL (~300$) for my BR connected to my projector. Now that one is a bit pricey, but it has dual tuner and I needed the second tuner for the projector or to record two shows at the same time, but I was also considering the brite-view pvr which is ~200$ (it only has one tuner so I decided an extra 100$ worth it). But I also have an old Panasonic HDD/DVD DVR that has an old analogue tuner, so it is in the FR connected to my HDTV (and using the TVs tuner and line out/in to record), I am sure you can find old DVRs used cheap if you don't care about tunning in the station. Lastly but more importantly in my office I have added a tuner card to my computer, but since desktops are rare here is a USB tuner card for 20$ http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16815116059 (never tried this particular one but mine is Hauppauge and they do have a real good reputation as manufacturers of tuners) and your PC becomes a DVR. If someone uses a PC connected to the TV for Netflix, as you said you do, is a one time 20$ fee an unattainable price for most people in your opinion?

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, obviously since DTHD and DTS-MA are lossless nothing is lost even if the two don’t have the same BR at a given time. Also AVC is much better at low bitrates then Mpeg-2. But a CODEC is a CODEC is a CODEC, and it has the rules of how things can be compressed, the encoder (device that does the compression) can only decide what information is destroyed. So if two different encoders of the same CODEC have the same bitrate then unless something is seriously wrong they will destroy roughly the same amount of data, just in different places.

...and guess who decides whether or not the right or wrong "information" is destroyed? Well, aside from the encoder. It's the videophile. The human being watching the content. Even someone experienced in the field is still going to be relying on their own two eyes when it comes to this stuff. True, you could break it down and look at what was taken out and where, piece by piece, but that wouldn't account for how the content is seen by the majority of people who view it.

Nobody is arguing that Netflix Streaming HD is better than or even comparable to blu-ray, but most viewers aren't going to see much of a difference unless they've been trained to FIND a difference. At that point, how can you call them an "average" viewer? But are you even saying that? Aren't you really just saying that for certain people this quality is understandably not something they want to pay for? This is an argument I can agree with, but at this point it feels like you're just arguing for arguments sake. Either way, it's cool.

no, we know what they use

...which is? Let me guess, not good enough for golden eyed viewers?

obviously, but that is the difference, between you and me, I am not an English major but I am a Mathematician and I worked professionally in this for close to 10 years (not movies but videoconferencing, there is a difference since VC is live and there is a lot less movement and you want a lot of compression but the principles are the same and so are the CODECs)

So you've essentially been trained to notice this type of thing? Just saying, this puts you in a minority, not a majority.

yes and no, it depends how you define quality.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

If you define it as how far it is from the original, then not really. If you define it as the guy is not paying attention enough or the guy might not realise what he is missing then yes. Assuming the same CODEC is used (since each CODEC has pros and cons) if you have something simple , a person in front of a blanc wall with no detail, a good encoder would not keep detail (not block) in the detail-less wall at the expense of the person, but if it did do that then the quality would be better in the one that did not favour the wall for the person talking. On the other hand if one encode favours the mouth on the face (let’s assume a close up) to the hair then someone that does not care and is too focused on the mouth will say see that encode as looking better but the same amount of detail is lost compared to the other encode which kept more detail in the hair. So I would not call it higher quality. Also that is true for the same bitrate, and even possibly slightly different bitrate, the discussion is of bitrate that is different by several magnitude.

These are some of the kinds of variables I'm talking about. The people watching the content are all going to have a different take on how it looks, based on how much time they've spent focusing on the quality of such things.

I look for fine detail, issues with how the product was crafted more than I do for small and relatively unnoticeable impurities caused by the way that it was compressed. Still, sometimes these types of things are hard to ignore. When watching a movie on a network channel, I was shocked to find that there was extensive artifacting in every dark (and thusly black) scene. The film was entirely unwatchable as you couldn't tell what the hell was going on. It was on an HD channel and being shown, purportedly, in HD. I went on Netflix and found the same title in SD. There was no artifacting. It was more than watchable and presentable.

My point? This isn't the standard for every cable station, but I have yet to find many cases of poor AV quality on Netflix. In actuality, I usually find better quality video on NIW than I do on HD cable. The BR on some HD cable channels can sometimes be worse than 1,000 kbps in my experience. That is something I DO NOT consider acceptible. In comparison, Netflix offers close to the same amount of content that I usually watch on cable and often in better quality. Maybe it's not BD quality, but it's better than the rest.

What's interesting is that my cable company is the same one that provides my internet, which runs between 6-8 mbps down and 2-4 mbps up. It's the best connection in my area and definitely the most reliable, only going down once or twice a year, often for less than an hour. I don't know why there's such a big difference in the content they provide through their television service, but it's there and it is noticeable.

but that does not answer the question asked. I said if someone buys the BD then they are not likely to watch it on Netflix, you thought it odd and so I asked you if you have ever watched any of the BDs you have on Netflix after you bought the BD. I did not ask you about DVDs you own. And yes I did allow for other rentals to make it easier to come up with a counter example to prove me wrong.

Sorry, but that isn't even really a question. I guess I did misunderstand the concept you put forth, however. I have to agree, if someone buys a BD they probably aren't going to watch the same title on Netflix. However, if they are away from said BD and they want to watch the movie, they might be inclined to use NIW -- which is often far more readily available wherever you go.

exactly. The intent is to rent and see it, not intent to buy it. If you intend to buy something that means that you don’ need to rent it first so that you can decide if you want to buy it. Intend to buy=100% sure you want to buy, what you are talking about is 10% or 50% or maybe even 90% sure but still not 100% sure so the intent is not there before you rent it, there is a doubt that you might not want to buy it.

Let me give you an example of a case in which someone might intend to buy something but wants to try it out first.

You hear a BD of your favorite movie is coming out. You want to get it, but you're worried about the PQ because the studio in charge is notorious for screwing things up. You decide to rent the item first and try it out to see if you like the quality. You still have every intent of buying it because it's your favorite movie, but at the same time you might want to wait and see if the studio does a re-issue or if someone else plans to release it.

You can rent with the intent to buy later.

A better example would just be someone who doesn't have the money to buy the movie, even if they want it, so they spend some money to rent it now just so they can see it.

It might be doubt about whether you want to purchase a particular version of the item, it might be lack of funds, but whatever the case you can definitely intend to buy something and still have a decent reason to rent it.

because you don’t trust my research.

Okay, I've been civil up to this point and I have every "intention" of remaining civil. That being said, this is just about the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. I bear the burden of proof because I don't trust your research? Up until this post (in which you have shown at least a little of your expertise) you have given me no reason to trust your research. You haven't presented much by way of evidence, and even now your evidence is based on flawed perception. Why flawed? Because even if your eyesight is flawless and your expertise in the field is dead on, all that really means is that you don't speak for a large crowd of people. Your expertise is not an example that works for most people, because most people aren't like you.

You bear the burden to prove that your expertise is valid to whatever argument you're making, that your research proves some kind of point. Thus far, it simply hasn't.

On a lighter note, I just read through what I wrote and thought the following:

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man."

no I am saying it is complicated. As for Starz in particular, maybe they thought there are guys like Anthony that don’t have cable or sat and so they can’t get what I show on my channel and this is a way to get them. Maybe that happened until they noticed some subscribers dropped the channel since they where already on Netflix and that that number became significant enough to make a difference to their bottom line and so if Netflix wants to continue they will need to pay up for what they lose from their channel (or other means such as more expensive rentals and buying the content)

Why would they want to offer content to those who weren't currently Starz subscribers for less money? Maybe, I don't know, to bring in more subscribers? What do you call it when you show something to people in an attempt to get them to buy your product? Are we in some alternate universe in which that is not called "advertisement"? Obviously it wasn't working for them for whatever reason, so they dropped out. Netflix wasn't about to force their subscribers to pay more for the worst quality AV content on their streaming service just to make Starz happy. Can you really blame them?

how is “no revenue is actually lost” if “they might not be making as much”

Well, it's on them (Starz) to provide content that will get them enough attention to make the service (Netflix) worth using. They didn't have to lose revenue, they just made piss poor decisions that lead to that result, which is why they eventually stopped using the service.

But that's besides my point. I used a poor choice of words, probably. What I was trying to say is even if they aren't making as much money as they want, they're still making money -- which is a better proposition in theory than losing money by paying for advertisements elsewhere. The problem here is more that their product isn't suitable for the service, not that the service isn't any good. It works for several other studios perfectly fine. If it didn't wouldn't they be complaining?

why would “most” infer “everyone” if anything it infers the opposite, if someone was sure it was “everyone” then they should not say most but everyone. Most means 50%+1

So your point is...? Most means...most. Got it. Most infers a majority. A majority infers quite a few people. Do you have any evidence beyond your friend that 50% +1 of Netflix subscribers are less likely to buy something if they can get it on Netflix? If so, I'll concede this point.

only if there is an absolute, which in this case there is not. Let’s go back to your example, in NA we are used to eating fresh chicken eggs, and to most of us a duck or quail egg would not be considered good (for example the recipe Is not written for them so they can’t be used) in China they eat something called a 100 year old egg (has other names as well) the white part becomes a brown jelly like substance and the yellow a green/grey that stinks of sulphur and ammonia (i.e. rotten eggs) . If you don’t get the example, just because you decided something is bad content does not mean that everyone sees it that way. So who is to decide if an egg is bad or not.

True, but we are talking about an absolute -- the quality of the AV that Starz Play provides. No matter where you go or what you do, it remains the same for every Netflix viewer: Bad. Not just "Netflix's 6 mbps BR and compression methods aren't as good as blu-ray" bad, but "Everything else on Netflix looks perfect but this looks like a VHS copy" bad. Ask anyone who's actually watched something of Starz Play on Netflix -- they'll tell you there's a noticeable difference between their content and the rest of the content offered on NIW.

That being said, I guess the burden of that proof is on me. Still, you'd have to be blind not to notice the difference. It's like the difference between 1080x720 and 240x320. Most of the HD content offered on Netflix looks at least as good as a standard 720p/1080i release, but the Starz content is barely passable as standard Youtube quality from FIVE YEARS AGO.

If Double Indemnity is a good film or not is immaterial. We are talking AV quality

Good point, and the AV quality offered by Starz is atrocious. You could bring up the example of the egg again, but let's just be fair here -- we're comparing films to films, television shows to television shows, "most" people are going to take the better looking egg over the poor quality egg.

but that is because you see it as a single event and not as a small piece of the puzzle. The price hike and Startz leaving are both related. Why is there a price hike? Because Netflix’s costs of operation (studio royalties) are constantly increasing nad their profitability decreasing so they need to find ways to make more money, why is star leaving because Netflix has decided not to give Starz what Starz says they are worth. What happens with the next negotiation? Lose more content or raise the price to couver it?

You're damn right I don't see it as a piece of the puzzle. Where does it fit? Nobody has felt the effect of the loss of Starz yet. That variable can't even be considered until February 2012.

Oh, but wait -- you're arguing that the rise in prices is a direct result of Starz demanding more money. But Starz didn't really demand more money, they just denied what was offered and demanded Netflix to create a tiered system. Starz is the only company that is complaining here. Netflix has been signing deals with other studios without much issue.

The main complaint most people seem to have (which I still feel is baseless) is that there isn't enough content on NIW. The rise in price very may well be in response to their next few negotiations, but not as a result of anything Starz did. They want more money so they can afford to sign more contracts and get more content.

The issue is this is the wild west of streaming and any negatives are bad and losing customers (even if small numbers) is bad.

I couldn't agree more. Netflix made a stupid move to do what, in the minds of most consumers and even investors, amounts to little more than a price hike. Considering the poor economic market they find themselves, the stupidity of their decision is further heightened. Nobody is talking about Starz in relation to what is happening right now because it simply isn't a part of the current issue.

This is the wild west of streaming, as shown by the demands of Starz. If streaming were a more defined industry, would a company like Starz be able to come in and demand that said company change the way they do business?

To take this "wild west" theme even further, let's put forth an example we often see in the western: A criminal offers protection to the town so long as the town sherriff leaves them alone. A few months or a year later, the criminal decides that he doesn't just want immunity, he wants to run the town. Does the town sherriff just let him get away with it? Well, in this case, no. Netflix decided not to let Starz control the way they do things. Still, they haven't exactly run the crook out of town, but the day is fast approaching when his services will no longer be needed. We won't see the effect of this until the crook leaves town.

Let me put it this way, when I started using the internet to search for stuff I used to use Archie and Veronica, then Alta Vista and then Yahoo and now Google. Look at this forum, you can find full of posts/threads on BD being dead even though BD sales are growing fast, go to the 3D forum there is a thread called “who killed 3D?” but 3D ticket sales are doing well and more and more films are coming out in 3D.

So you're saying that Netflix might just be a stepping stone or it might last a lot longer than we all think?

Well, with the way their stock is dropping, I'm afraid that regardless of how fair their prices still are, they might not be around for very long.

I think we just disagree on why those stock prices are falling.

Now you don’t give a time frame but I would go with save all of it for me necessities come first, savings second and lastly luxuries. So If you are talking yearly or monthly then 50$ is no were near enough for savings let alone for luxuries. Even weekly it would be a bit low IMHO. My personal philosophy is that you need to strive for long term savings (money meant for emergencies such as job loss or even for retirement) to be at least ¼ of your take home.

That's great if you're making a lot of money, but there are plenty of people living in this country that spend 50% or more of their income just on housing. It's a shame, but it's true. It's not always their fault, it's just the cards they were dealt. Again, that doesn't mean they can't buy a DVD every now and then if they want to. Why save for a rainy day when it's already pouring out?

doesn’t this counter your point. If it is everywhere, why not save money?

Again, why save for a rainy day when it's already pouring? Your frame of mind quickly changes when you're in the lower class compared to when you're in the middle or upper class.

agree 100% never said the opposite, the issue is that you also assume that the person does not have money.

Is that not a fair assumption to make?

never said people should not watch it, I agree, it is the cheapest way to watch lots of content. And if that is what someone wants and they have the money, then why not.

Glad we can agree on something.

yes, brand new, just because it is easier. If we go with used, how do you know GW will have a DVD player, what if you go there and all they have is a 20$ BD player?

Because I've never seen a BD player at Good Will and I'm willing to wager most people haven't. Why would you give something away when you can make a decent profit off of it. If you can make a decent profit off of it, it doesn't typically end up at Good Will.

Sept 2006 I bought the Samsung BD player, in Dec 2006 I bought a PS3, eventually I stopped using the Samsung and gave it for free to my sister, since she got one for free would it make sense to use free I a calculation?

I guess that could be part of the calculation, but if it were, it would mean you probably have an outside source of income to help you get back on your feet, which wouldn't really fit this example. Again, it's not a perfect hypothetical, but it does happen from time to time.

But if you want to used then looking at Amazon there are a few for 30$, I have no idea what goodwill charges for BD players, but why use the 50$ for a new BD player and compare it to 10$ for a used DVD player?

I have no idea what they charge, either -- again, never seen one. If they did, they might charge something like $50. They tend to charge based on typical market value estimation, which is about what I was using as well.

but didn’t it burn up in the fire and if you are buying a new PC, you can get one with a BD drive and then you won’t need a BD player

You got me there.

not meant as a negative, but wow you sure have a lot of free time. I am lucky if I get to see 5 movies a week (typical is 2-3), the only time I strive to go over a movie a day is October (I participate in the month of horror thread) and then I feel burnt out.

Well, it's kind of my job right now. I get paid to review films.

not at all, price and luxury are completely different according to the dictionary

“something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary” nothing in there about not being able to buy them at goodwill or the dollar store.

Yes it s an easily attainable luxury but one just as much. There is nothing necessary about it.

You have a point, I won't argue this.

but DVRs (at least for OTA) are not that bad, for example

I chose the Channel Master CM-7000PAL (~300$) for my BR connected to my projector. Now that one is a bit pricey, but it has dual tuner and I needed the second tuner for the projector or to record two shows at the same time, but I was also considering the brite-view pvr which is ~200$ (it only has one tuner so I decided an extra 100$ worth it). But I also have an old Panasonic HDD/DVD DVR that has an old analogue tuner, so it is in the FR connected to my HDTV (and using the TVs tuner and line out/in to record), I am sure you can find old DVRs used cheap if you don't care about tunning in the station. Lastly but more importantly in my office I have added a tuner card to my computer, but since desktops are rare here is a USB tuner card for 20$ http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16815116059 (never tried this particular one but mine is Hauppauge and they do have a real good reputation as manufacturers of tuners) and your PC becomes a DVR. If someone uses a PC connected to the TV for Netflix, as you said you do, is a one time 20$ fee an unattainable price for most people in your opinion?

Well, your typical DVRs aren't cheap, but I honestly hadn't even thought about a tuner. Now that you mention it, I really want to try that. Thanks for the suggestion!

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

Nobody is arguing that Netflix Streaming HD is better than or even comparable to blu-ray, but most viewers aren't going to see much of a difference unless they've been trained to FIND a difference.

You need to come up with some serious sources to prove that this is indeed the case, preferably studies and polling data, because otherwise you are simply passing an opinion as a fact.

What we do know for a fact is that because of the difficult economic climate, discretionary income has decreased and "most people" have adjusted their spending habits. In other words, there are fewer and fewer impulse buys these days.

But you are not operating with facts here to disprove what has been said, and thus speculate that the new consumer behavior=inability to recognize a difference in quality.

Pro-B

[bobbydrugar]

holy cow this one page is going to need its own server i kept my netflix streaming for my roku plenty of content for me and for my quality fix i buy blu's and sometimes even dvds. choice and options are always good

thanks
t

[Strilo]

This thread has been hijacked by these massively long quote for quote replies and is now unreadable.

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Nobody is arguing that Netflix Streaming HD is better than or even comparable to blu-ray, but most viewers aren't going to see much of a difference unless they've been trained to FIND a difference.

I agree with pro b here.

Its pretty obvious to most people that I know that have better than a 40 inch screen that Netflix HD at 720p is not as good as Blu-ray.

Now if they never try Blu-ray to see the better alternative that is one thing altogether as is being willing to pay for the difference. But most people even without a lot of savvy on badly adjusted sets can tell Blu-ray is better without much experience. Its not a question of training its pretty clear to most humans in my experience as well.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

You need to come up with some serious sources to prove that this is indeed the case, preferably studies and polling data, because otherwise you are simply passing an opinion as a fact.

What we do know for a fact is that because of the difficult economic climate, discretionary income has decreased and "most people" have adjusted their spending habits. In other words, there are fewer and fewer impulse buys these days.

But you are not operating with facts here to disprove what has been said, and thus speculate that the new consumer behavior=inability to recognize a difference in quality.

Pro-B

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by blueshadow

Its pretty obvious to most people that I know that have better than a 40 inch screen that Netflix HD at 720p is not as good as Blu-ray.

Just an additional tidbit of info, Netflix also has titles which support streaming HD in 1080p; this may be a better comparison to use although it still won't be as good as Blu-ray.

[bhampton]

Why does this thread go on?

Netflix is not turning it's focus back to disc.

Neflix is out of the disc stuff and they gave away the disc business to an employee and called the resulting mess Qwikster.

Netflix is now streaming and nothing but streaming.... Than again, I don't think they will survive the current mistakes.

-Brian