Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon
Just a little reminder to all:
Disney + has zero subscribers
HBOmax has zero subscribers
Peacock has zero subscribers
Apple + has zero subscribers
because they haven't launched yet and as far as many international markets go, some of these services are still at least a year away to launching.
Netflix has 150 million subscribers and counting and in another year will have millions more customers and thousands of hours of more new tv shows and films.
I don't discount the uphill challenge that Netflix will face, but at the moment, at least, Netflix is standing onto of the hill looking way down at the others.
What if Netflix were to take over someone like Lionsgate and/or MGM? That would add a ton of recognisable content. I'm not saying that will happen, but Netflix can adapt as it sees fit.
When all these streamers are launched that will then impact on the media companies' existing services, especially pay tv channels like HBO and ESPN. It's not a zero sum game.
Disney+ will be cheap when it launches, but it needs to offset losses that will inevitably happen as a result of cannibalisation to existing services and loss of revenue from expiring licensing deals. Disney's streamer will need to get a lot of subscribers very quickly, but with Disney's vast content, its doable, but even Netflix will still have rights to some of Disney's content for at least another eighteen months, so it's Disney and the others that has got the main challenge, not Netflix.
|
The problem is for Netflix is that the newbies, particularly Disney and Apple have very large reserves of cash. They can also invest more heavily that Netflix without going as far into debt.
Netflix's debt isn't a problem, as long as they can keep building their subscriber base, but they are getting near the point where that is likely to level off, which is where their investors might get nervous and pull funding. Competitors with large amounts of cash will make that a worse problem simply because it raises the amount of cash Netflix needs to spend to stay relevant.
Netflix needs to be very careful here. They are in the same position Blockbuster Video was in the 90s (Blockbuster was the largest investor in Hollywood). Look what happened to them. They didn't move with the times, and were ultimately bankrupted by Netflix and Amazon. Blockbuster were in that position about 10-15 years after they started. Netflix was in that position about 10-15 years after it started.
---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:12 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozsat
But that is the point of the search - you don't always know what you are looking for - but whatever you decide on should be the best quality offering. It should default to the best quality available - as Netflix does.
If the BBC iPlayer replacement is anything like their BBC iPlayer Radio replacement - then it is goodbye BBC iPlayer.
|
I don't think iPlayer is going anywhere. Yes, iPlayer Radio did, but I don't think the BBC have found a way of streaming their radio online they are entirely happy with yet, and I think iPlayer Radio was just one of their attempts. A good one, from what I remember, but they wanted more info than it was designed to give.