VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Just to come back to this from last week:Although I can not and nether can anyone else, say which streamers will be successful in the long term, do you not accept that the film/tv industry is going through a systemic change and it will likley be streamers which will be the winners overall, rather than traditional tv channels and cinemas. That is not hype, but a massive shift in how the media industry does business.

Streamers are/will be the business model.

I've never said that streaming won't be successful - only that it's not as black and white as being portrayed by some on the forum. There's also limited space in the pay-tv market (which streaming is part of). Not every new streamer is guaranteed success although the underlying hype is that they can all be the 'next Netflix'.

I agree that the industry is changing - content owners are pushing end to end distribution of their content and removing the middle men.

However at the same time I see it as an evolution not a revolution. It's still just television. The point I've consistently made is that linear remains cheap for anyone who owns the content anyway - these will be companies also involved in streaming content. These companies won't see it as a zero sum game the way it's portrayed here. It's an additional revenue stream (pun not intended) that costs virtually nothing to maintain.

On profits, if the streamers emulate Malone's way of doing business, they will always be in debt and never in profit, something we've spoken about before. And no, I'm not thrilled with that way of doing business, but I suppose not paying taxes is very "profitable".

The danger being that lenders are comfortable with cable operators because of the huge asset - the network. Even where massive state intervention funds FTTP networks the majority of consumers - worldwide - will end up in practice having a choice of one or two ISPs in addition to cable.

A streamer in a chunk of debt that is heavily reliant on third parties for content is always at risk of a new entrant (especially a content owner) coming in and offering a like for like service minus the huge costs in servicing the debt. That's a lower price point to consumers and greater market share in theory.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

I've never said that streaming won't be successful - only that it's not as black and white as being portrayed by some on the forum. There's also limited space in the pay-tv market (which streaming is part of). Not every new streamer is guaranteed success although the underlying hype is that they can all be the 'next Netflix'.

I agree that the industry is changing - content owners are pushing end to end distribution of their content and removing the middle men.

However at the same time I see it as an evolution not a revolution. It's still just television. The point I've consistently made is that linear remains cheap for anyone who owns the content anyway - these will be companies also involved in streaming content. These companies won't see it as a zero sum game the way it's portrayed here. It's an additional revenue stream (pun not intended) that costs virtually nothing to maintain.

Hmm, come back to this at some point on the linear thread, but for now..

There can't be systemic change and business as usual. Either there has/will be a tipping point and business is done differently, or not. Whether that's revolution or evolution, not sure, but yes it is still tv.

I agree though, that for our country and some other markets, it's no so black and white, or at least not yet as we're very different to the States. But in America, it's clear that pay tv is in terminal decline and streaming is on the rise. If and when, the tech cos move into sports in a very big way, that would be the final death knell for the traditional cable/satellite tv services over there.

Originally Posted by jfman

The danger being that lenders are comfortable with cable operators because of the huge asset - the network. Even where massive state intervention funds FTTP networks the majority of consumers - worldwide - will end up in practice having a choice of one or two ISPs in addition to cable.

A streamer in a chunk of debt that is heavily reliant on third parties for content is always at risk of a new entrant (especially a content owner) coming in and offering a like for like service minus the huge costs in servicing the debt. That's a lower price point to consumers and greater market share in theory.

I think anything internet related is always at risk of someone new coming along, so in that sense, I agree. But Netflix is huge now with a vast catalogue of its own content and others like Disney and Comcast have vast libraries of their own content, plus theme parks (virus, not withstanding) so these are massive assets in their own right too.

On networks, some see them as assets (like bricks and mortar) and others see them as liabilities which need tons of money to keep maintaining, so not sure I'd quite equate networks to streamers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

The danger being that lenders are comfortable with cable operators because of the huge asset - the network. Even where massive state intervention funds FTTP networks the majority of consumers - worldwide - will end up in practice having a choice of one or two ISPs in addition to cable.

Lenders like cable companies because they get regular income each month from subscribers which equates to paying off the interest on the debt. This is in contrast to some other types of business that may be nore erratic or seasonal in nature.

There don't seem to be many pure streaming companies entering the market apart from Quibi which seems more like an experiment funded by existing content producers. Otherwise, it's just existing players like Disney, ITV and AMC monetising back catalogues and companies active in other regions like 11 Sports and DAZN entering more countries.

A couple of off-topic posts removed.

[muppetman11]

At long last it seems Sky will be releasing HDR with updates for the Disney + and Netflix apps to HDR in the coming months the caveat being anyone with a V1 box (Internal power Supply) won't be able as the box isn't compatible.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...heres-a-catch/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The BT Sport comparison is a red herring. This gave BT (and ESPN, Setanta) fixed revenue from a subscriber base far less likely to subscribe than their counterparts on the Sky platform. It was an easy win. Virgin get to bundle Premiership football without having to take a risk on the rights, and worry about how to sell them to Sky customers.

For streaming services, especially where the broadcaster relies heavily on advertising revenue, the calculation becomes far more complex.

For Virgin, or Sky, there's no new content.

And yet Sky apply a discount for their Netflix/Box sets package. How do you explain that then?

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

At long last it seems Sky will be releasing HDR with updates for the Disney + and Netflix apps to HDR in the coming months the caveat being anyone with a V1 box (Internal power Supply) won't be able as the box isn't compatible.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...heres-a-catch/

It's strange that it has taken so long, but nice to see HDR coming to Sky.

[jfman]

Netflix aren’t advertising funded. Plus it’s discounted Netflix, not free Netflix.

The comparison for hypothetical ad-free streaming from ITV/C4/Five isn’t the same.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Netflix aren’t advertising funded. Plus it’s discounted Netflix, not free Netflix.

The comparison for hypothetical ad-free streaming from ITV/C4/Five isn’t the same.

Neither of these points take away from the fact that VM could offer these services for the same subscription cost as now. You are putting problems in the way.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Neither of these points take away from the fact that VM could offer these services for the same subscription cost as now. You are putting problems in the way.

Sounds dangerously close to socialism Old Boy. Virgin, out of the goodness of their hearts, pay hundreds of millions to broadcasters for lost advertising revenue to give us a free app. And my bill won't go up?

Sounds perfect. A bit too perfect.

[Chad]

Netflix to automatically close paying accounts that have been dormant for over a year

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-a9527626.html

Hundreds of thousands of accounts apparently

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Chad

Netflix to automatically close paying accounts that have been dormant for over a year

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-a9527626.html

Hundreds of thousands of accounts apparently

This is only my opinion but Netflix are starting to cheese people off one thinks first with their vpn blocking, not everyone uses vpns to bypass geo restrictions, then constant price rises now this.
Are they trying to bury themselves?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

This is only my opinion but Netflix are starting to cheese people off one thinks first with their vpn blocking, not everyone uses vpns to bypass geo restrictions, then constant price rises now this.
Are they trying to bury themselves?

Surely it's in people's interests who are paying but not using Netflix to no longer be charged by Netflix? They can always re-join if they want.

[ozsat]

I think it is good that they are doing the auto-cancel option - perhaps all companies in all areas of business should be forced to do this is the customer is not using the service.

Netflix are not the only one using geo-blocking - Amazon and Disney+ do it - Britbox has geo-restrictions too.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

This is only my opinion but Netflix are starting to cheese people off one thinks first with their vpn blocking, not everyone uses vpns to bypass geo restrictions, then constant price rises now this.
Are they trying to bury themselves?

If you think about it, they are doing their customers a favour! They can always rejoin!

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely it's in people's interests who are paying but not using Netflix to no longer be charged by Netflix? They can always re-join if they want.

Yeah i wasn't sobre when i commented lol.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you think about it, they are doing their customers a favour! They can always rejoin!

Agreed, see my reply to Andrew