Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Media

Netflix CEO Comments On Recent Decisions 360

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the everyone's-a-critic dept.
ExE122 writes "Netflix CEO Reed Hastings makes several comments about mistakes that were made over the past year. Hastings claimed, 'We moved too fast with it', [trying to exit the DVD-by-mail business] and explains that he still thinks Internet video will dominate in the coming years. From the article: 'Hastings also faced tough questions about last month's double-bomb disclosure: Netflix now expects to lose money for all of 2012, and it is looking to raise cash in a secondary offering of its stock.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix CEO Comments On Recent Decisions

Comments Filter:
  • by John Bresnahan (638668) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:54AM (#38290038)
    At least, that's what you told me.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:56AM (#38290054)

    When did we as consumers decide to forgo quality over convenience? I recently tested Netflix. I was sorely disappointed with the quality of the video as well as the lack-luster audio quality. I quickly deleted my account within minutes of opening it. Until they are able to stream true HD sound I see no reason to give up disks. 7.1 is a beautiful thing...not going to waste it. :-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's been going on since even well before VHS vs betamax.

    • by alen (225700) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:19AM (#38290272)

      walkman over full stereo
      compressed DVD over laser disk
      MP3's over mobile CD players
      watching movies and TV shows on phones/tablets/computers instead of a big TV in full HD
      PC's over main frames
      laptops over PC's
      tablets and netbooks over real laptops/desktops

      the list goes on and on with mobility and convenience always winning over quality

      • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @11:12AM (#38290944) Homepage Journal

        I agree, except for a couple of small nits.

        PC's over main frames

        You don't need an eighteen wheeler to move a single TV set. Doing spreadsheets or databases with only a few thousand records on a mainframe is wasteful. As is putting an apostrophe in PCs.

        laptops over PC's

        Same thing. No reason to be tied to a desk if the laptop does the job. No reason to carry a travelling trunk when you're only going to be gone two days. The thing with both of them is use of the proper tool, not convinience. You don't need a sledgehammer to open a walnut.

    • Audio cassettes over vinyl, MP3 over CD, VHS over Laserdisc... a long time ago. It's not that quality is not important, but in a lot of cases it reaches 'good enough' quite quickly. VHS quality is probably okay, DVD definitely is. HD is obviously better, but if you're watching something good then you'll rarely find yourself distracted by the poor video quality even if it's only at VHS levels. I'd certainly take being able to watch any film I wanted, when I wanted it, at DVD quality over having to wait a
    • by Tapewolf (1639955)
      When cassette took over from open reel, I think.
    • by clifyt (11768)

      Quality isn't about the bells and whistles...its about the content.

      I have tapes recorded in lowfi mono that are far more artful than anything in 7.1 recorded at 192khz. This is not quality...its a numbers game. Does 7.1 sound nice? Yes...but if the content is good, it shouldn't matter.

      I look at Netflix as something that I can test out movies I wouldn't have otherwise watched. For $7 a month, I'm not sure if I'm going to care if I don't get 7.1 out of something that costs as much as 2 coffees. And yet,

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        99% of all 7.1 systems out there are utter crap for music reproduction.

        I have sat and listened to ONE that had cheap $1200 each speakers for the 7.1 system. it was fantastic, not Dolby encoded but true 7 channel recording with the subwoofer muted because all 7 speakers had 8" drivers for real sound. the source materiel was recorded in the middle of a orchestra that encircled the recording gear.

        on most home systems it would sound like crap because almost ALL home systems have $3.00 speakers for 5 of the 7

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:37AM (#38290534)

      7.1 is a joke.

      even pros can't align that many speakers in your typical small (not theater sized) room.

      but as long as you bought into the MARKETING that more channels == better sound, hey, have fun.

      just giving you a hint: less is more when it comes to audio. 2 plus a sub gives audio AND movies all it needs.

      at home, you just don't need speakers coming out of every direction. that's the bose effect. you think that's good? interesting how you are affected by salesman (everyone who bought into multichannel at home was sold by some salesguy in person or online.)

      just a pet peeve of mine. as a sound guy, I just shudder to think of all the cancellations and reflections that happen with even 5.1, let alone 7.x in a home sized room. my gawd! but again, some people LIKE the bose 'spray sound everywhere' effect.

      its is NOT hifi, though. at least admit that much. its loud and coming from everywhere but its not hifi. too many reflections ruin the subtle high-end dacs you guys also insist on running (DTS and higher bit rate dolby, lol!)

      • by s.o.terica (155591) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @11:32AM (#38291128)
        This is why you use a room correction system like Audyssey MultEQ XT. The difference that finite impulse response equalization (over the frequency and time domains) makes is staggering beyond description.
        • I am unsure whether this is a troll post or if those words in that sequence actually have a comprehensible meaning.

      • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @12:28PM (#38291860) Homepage Journal

        but as long as you bought into the MARKETING that more channels == better sound, hey, have fun.

        Well, it's only a partial fallacy. Surround sound makes no sense. When listening to music, are you sitting in the middle of the orchestra, or in the audience where the theater's acoustics have been engineered for you to listen in, with all the sound from in front of you? In a movie, I find having sounds come from anywhere but the screen itself a distraction. Quad sound would make sense for movies if there were a speaker at each corner of the screen, so sounds could travel up and down as well as right and left.

        However, the more drivers of different sizes you put in an enclosure, the better it will sound, especially if you separate the different frequencies into channels for each speakers.

        And if you have real speakers (at least three ways with a real woofer in each one twelve inches or more diameter, eighteen is better), subwoofers are not only unnecessary, they will actually degrade the sound. Subwoofers are only necessary to overcome what was the downfall of quadraphonics in the '70s -- the cost of good woofers. I argued with a professor in an undergrad physics class about this when quadraphonics were new, and he actually conceded that I was right when I brought my two Kenwood 777s and a cheap stereo amp in. The trouble with quadraphonic was that you had to have twice everything, so a $1000 stereo would sound remarkably better than a $1000 quad setup. That, and you have the (planned and engineered) interference between the left channel's low frequencies and the right channel's. That is missing with a subwoofer, even though the ear can't discern the position of a sound with a wavelength longer than your head is wide.

        Surround only worked because the price of the amps had come down so far, and the price of four big woofers was mitigated by having a single sub.

        its is NOT hifi, though.

        Even stereo CDs aren't. People misunderstand Nyquist, and think it means that you get perfect sound until you hit the Nyquist limit, but in actuality the closer you get to the limit, the more aliasing you get. There is no way to discern a 15kHz sine wave from a 15kHz sawtooth wave with only three samples per wave. I have never heard a CD through any equipment that would make me think it was a live performance, but I have heard LPs that were that good (and yes, it has to be well engineered in the studio or it's still not high fidelity).

        And as you point out, people don't think of interference, with waves doubling and cancelling each other.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:48AM (#38290672) Homepage

      Then you will complain about buffering issues and everything else as your ISP saturates because it cant handle what they promise.

      Do you have any idea what 24bit uncompressed 7.1 surround take in bandwidth along with uncompressed 1080p HD? Let's not even look at deep color or 3d...

      You CANT get that from them, even the top tier of comcast in their fastest market cant deliver that kind of bandwidth.

  • Good news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Compaqt (1758360) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:57AM (#38290066) Homepage

    The Post Office is in the process of shutting down, so everybody'll have to get off the DVD plan, anyway, just like we were trying to cajole them to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @09:58AM (#38290068)

    I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

    Good on you, Netflix.

    • by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:14AM (#38290220) Homepage Journal

      I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

      Good on you, Netflix.

      Hate to break it to you, but the Netflix "watch instantly" library is shrinking (unless you count 27 episodes/season of Dora the Explora as individual titles) since desirable content is getting much more expensive (see the Starz licensing situation). If you are happy with the streaming content then great, but make no mistake they are fighting a very hard battle and you will not be seeing very much new-new content on watch instantly in the coming year or two.

      • by TWX (665546) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:22AM (#38290308)

        There have been several high profile cases where companies pulled electronic, non-physical-media versions of content. Fact of the matter is, unless one has control either the device or of physical media, there's no way to prevent companies from pulling things off devices or from removing things from their available catalogs.

        The only way to control one's destiny is to have physical media or to have information electronically stored on a device that one controls that the content provider doesn't control. Additionally, as DVDs and other physical media become incredibly cheap, it's easy to actually do this. Storage of 4.5" discs is also easy even for those in the smallest of living spaces if one discards the packaging in favor of those software storage bags that have room for hundreds of discs in a 12"x12"x4" space...

        I have considered ripping all of my movies to electronic storage, but even not doing so it's not ridiculous to store them.

      • by Ceiynt (993620)
        I subscribe to both the DVD and streaming plan. For my personal use, if it's not streaming, it's torrented. For the rest of the family, if it's not streaming, they DVD it, which are usually movies I have no desire to see, nor download. Some content providers give you no option other then to use DVD, then complain when you torrent it. It's not a lost sale, as I would never buy it anyways, it's a lost business opportunity(thus revenue) with streaming providers, such as Netflix. I would really much prefer to h
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's all well and good, but their entire library is not available online. I was recently watching a documentary series, "The Vice Guide to Travel", which I rather enjoyed. I was about halfway through the Poland episode and decided to watch the rest later. The following day when I logged into my account, I was informed that the series is now only available through the disc-by-mail service. Until their streaming library is more consistent and robust (I've already watched most of the interesting looking (to

      • by bberens (965711)
        One thing I've found helpful is on my Roku ($100 device for viewing internet TV, awesome toy, not affiliated with them at all) there's a couple of pay apps (~$5 I think) that will show you which things are leaving Netflix soon so you can hurry up and watch them. I agree 100% with what you're saying... two buts...but it's a part of the game of streaming media that won't ever go away.. the other but is that Netflix should do a *MUCH* better job of warning you that something you've been watching is about to d
    • by slyrat (1143997)

      I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

      Good on you, Netflix.

      I agree this is a good thing, but until the infrastructure for internet connections are good enough to get the quality of video / audio you get out of blu-ray I still want the disc by mail option. The other part of this is that when you eliminate the disc by mail you also eliminate the commentary options along with other nice extras that the discs have which get removed for streaming. So I think that both services have good reasons to keep them.

    • Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore

      Yes, it is because you are a college kid.

      1. Older people are still not completely comfortable with their PCs and they have an easier time understanding physical media
      2. Computer monitors are usually smaller than TV screens, and connecting a computer to a TV remains annoying.
      3. People lend movies to each other; streaming screws this up.
      4. Unless you can save Netflix streams on your hard drive, you will not be able to watch your movies when you lose Internet access (while traveling, for example); you can always use a
      • Internet connection is the other big factor. Huge parts of the country have 1.5mbps DSL or worse as their fastest option. Netflix streaming is usable at 1.5mbps but it isn't HD and no one else can do much of anything with the Internet while you're streaming. That might fly of a single person or couple without kids but it's a no-go with larger households.

        We tried it a number of times when we had the "free" streaming that was bundled with our disc plan. Didn't work for us at all.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Not all people are poor and can only afford one small 15" laptop to have in their cardboard box. Media center players have existed for a decade and devices like a Roku box and a AppleTV are so dumbed down that even a Business Degree holding person can install and use. The small screen argument has not been an issue for years and is only for those that can't afford to buy a $99.00 box to hook to the TV that has a far better UI for looking through the movies on your computer or available to stream) if y

    • I doubt it. Video streaming, at least for the next few years, won't replace a thing. Telcos aren't greedy bastards when they artificially slow broadband, throttle traffic, or impose monthly limits. I mean, sure, they are greedy, but there's a more plausible explanation: they don't have the infrastructure and can't admit it. It's understandable, really: putting these things up (more like lying these things down, the US is not Japan after all) is expensive as hell, and they can't/won't invest fast enough (the

    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      Except that they screwed it up so mightily that they mightn't survive as company to make the transition.

      Sure stock price isn't everything but seeing it plunge from $300 to $70 in a few months isn't exactly reassuring. And of course the "we are going to lose money" isn't a great sign.

    • I think that the decision to exit the DVD-by-mail market is a great one. Maybe it's just because I'm a college kid, but most people I know don't even bother renting DVDs anymore. As Netflix gains more and more licenses for various production companies, and their ability to stream online grows, nearly everyone I know has switched to exclusively streaming (I know I certainly have). Streaming is where the market is at, these days, since we're practically glued to our technology, particularly the internet.

      Good on you, Netflix.

      You are a college kid, you represent (one possible) future. In the here and now, DVDs are still an important segment of the business - Blockbuster wouldn't have died at the hands of a streaming only service, and we shouldn't be forced to accept streaming only solutions now that the competition has crumbled.

      Yes, streaming is the future, but not a 2011 or 2012 future, I'm thinking more like 2020 if you want to hold on to 80+% of your subscribers.

    • by AntEater (16627)

      I think you're working with a limited sample to base that assumption. For those of us living in very rural areas, this is not a good thing. I have no options that allow me to stream movie length video without incurring costs that are way out of line. I could purchase DVDs for less than streaming a dozen movies a month would cost me in data fees. On top of that, the Netfix streaming catalog is anemic when compared with their DVD options.

      I sign up for netflix only during the winter months. During the warm

  • Why are all the good movies disappearing from Netflix streaming service. I know they are losing Starz, but these are disappearing now.

    My guess is Netflix is headed for that dot.com graveyard.

    • by slyrat (1143997)

      Why are all the good movies disappearing from Netflix streaming service. I know they are losing Starz, but these are disappearing now.

      My guess is Netflix is headed for that dot.com graveyard.

      It isn't just streaming, there have been quite a few things that were in disc form and now are no longer available via disc. This sometimes also just removes them from being available in Netflix, which isn't good either.

      • my NF has been on hold for 3 or 4 months now. nothing left to watch! my queue has 20+ entries but they are all 'unknown release' dates.

        meaning: NF has not paid for them yet and has no immediate plans.

        rates went up and selection went down.

        well done, NF.

        you will be remembered in history like so many other service companies that could not keep up and made fatal changes to thier business model and became irrelevant as a result.

    • by bberens (965711)
      A whole bunch of great 80s/90s movies just popped up on there. I've recently watched Stripes, Grumpy Old Men, and the Blues Brothers. I know everything is subjective but I generally find that the movies I would categorize as "good" tend to wax and wane. Where you find the new/current content less interesting I was considering cancelling until they recently changed the lineup adding a few more movies that are in my queue. It's $8/mo. If I watch 3-4 movies a month I consider it a good deal.. and I genera
  • Sometimes, what's good for the stock-price is not good for the business.

    Maybe he had to be "decisive" and "strategic" in order to survive so he went boldly ahead to exit the DVD-by-mail business and preserved investor confidence at the expense of the business, even though he wasn't sure it was a good idea.

    • by firex726 (1188453)

      I think it's not so much what they did but how they handled it.

      The PR aspect of how it was all done was pretty poor and much of the anger towards them could have been mitigated or redirected.

      • by bberens (965711)
        I agree 100%. IMHO the "We're sorry" letter should have included information to help redirect anger towards the content producers.
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:04AM (#38290120) Homepage Journal

    What shocks (and appalls) me is that Reed Hastings has made several horrible mistakes, has led his business from profit to loss, and he will still take home a multi million dollar pay package for 2011. It's about time he admit that he is willing to actually PAY for his mistakes, and forego his compensation for the next year since it will clearly be a terrible one for the business. Until then, Netflix is a sinking Titanic with an irresponsible madman at the helm, refusing to change course.

    • by firex726 (1188453)

      Yea, they need to rid of him.

      It's amazing the guy that started Netflix is responsible for all the BS of late from them.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        People succeed more on luck than on anything else. It's not surprising at all that this guy is out of his depth now.

        • by firex726 (1188453)

          Yea, that's what I was thinking or he had some kind of Right Hand Man that kept him in check on these sorts of decisions.

      • by Jimmy King (828214) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:41AM (#38290584) Homepage Journal

        I've worked for a couple of small companies. I think it requires different skill sets/strengths to get a company off the ground, known, and making money in the first place than it does to keep it running after you've gone public, have a bunch of employees, etc. Frequently it's not the same person who has both of these skill sets. A small company with very few employees, a few customers who know they are dealing with a small company, and no stock holders to keep happy can more easily make decisions on their feet and survive fairly well by making decisions that just get them through until tomorrow. As they grow, that agility is lost and I think a lot of managers and CEOs are not able to adapt their thinking and planning to the slower pace of movement and amount of resources it now takes to get things done.

        • by jeffmeden (135043)

          I've worked for a couple of small companies. I think it requires different skill sets/strengths to get a company off the ground, known, and making money in the first place than it does to keep it running after you've gone public, have a bunch of employees, etc. Frequently it's not the same person who has both of these skill sets.

          Exactly. To me, the only thing that Netflix could have done to save face given everything that has happened is for the board to find a new CEO, one that possessed vision in maintaining a leading, large media distribution company. Reed has plenty of strengths, but he is clearly in over his head as CEO and either needs to find a different spot in Netflix (CTO?) or the board needs to appoint a CSO that has authority over Reed to make sure he doesn't make any more blunders. Until then, I would much rather ho

    • With a few exceptions, that's what it seems to mean to be a CEO: Get paid millions and millions of dollars to screw things up.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:16PM (#38292542)

      Until then, Netflix is a sinking Titanic with an irresponsible madman at the helm, refusing to change course.

      Possibly he should forgo some compensation. But your statement is simply wrong.

      The thing is, he DID change course. Qwickster is gone. Yes it was a stupid idea but how many CEO's back down from stupid ideas once they are released to the public? If nothing else he deserves some credit simply because he was able to put ego aside and do the smart thing.

      Fundamentally with Qwickster gone he has done nothing else wrong. The price increases were mandatory because of content providers forcing Netflix to pay more, it's just that simple.

      I also think it was a good idea to split out charges for streaming/discs. If people want just one or the other, the service is cheaper than it was. I, as a consumer, prefer that choice unbundled (even though I'm currently buying both).

      So basically everyone's beef is with a choice that is not even relevant any more. Give the guy some slack, he is caught between some VERY cheap customers used to getting product for free, and content providers who want to charge an arm and a leg.

  • by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:04AM (#38290122)

    he still thinks Internet video will dominate in the coming years

    It will dominate in the coming years. Right after the media companies control the majority market share of all ISPs.

    • ...and after the MPAA stops attacking our computers. Streaming would be an overnight success if you could save streams to your hard drive, connect your computer to your TV without HDCP screwing you up, and not be told that you are forbidden to watch the movies you were allowed to watch yesterday. The MPAA has basically made a concerted effort to cripple streaming, and so naturally people will gravitate toward the physical media they know and love (and understand -- streaming is still poorly understood by
  • Unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yeshuawatso (1774190) * on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:10AM (#38290178) Journal

    While I hate the idea that Netflix may not be around much longer, I'm not surprised. Mr. Hastings strategy seems to be focusing on maximizing contribution margins instead of maximizing profit. Getting one doesn't mean you'll get the other. What I don't understand is why Hastings believes that the major studios will allow Netflix to operate the online distribution at the price levels consumers demand. It is clear that Hollywood has no interest in lowering prices on digital content even though the marginal costs of distribution is minuscule. It won't be long before Netflix changes to a "on-demand" pricing model that Apple, Amazon, and a whole other set of competitors are already doing, and the recent exit of a third of their customers due to the recent price increase is a clear indication that Netflix is selling a highly elastic product. When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

    • by backdoc (416006)

      When will Hollywod ever learn that we don't want to pay 2.99 per episode for a show with DRM restrictions that force you to re-purchase the damn video for every device you have, and that paying $14 for a digital download when the DVD is selling at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target for $10 is price gouging.

      Easy...., when people lose interest and quit making these things profitable.

    • by s_p_oneil (795792)

      I agree, but what I don't understand is why Netflix customers are lashing out at Netflix when they should be lashing out at Hollywood and trying to stick up for Netflix. I suppose doing things in their own best interest (long-term) is not something Americans excel at.

  • It will be like the 90's when Microsoft decided to move into markets previously dominated by Wordperfect, Lotus and dBase. Verizon has deep pockets.

    • by gatkinso (15975)

      Verizon FIOS already offers atleast 80% of Netflix's line up in their free on demand section.

      It is just a PITA to find it.

      As soon as Verizon makes that content easy to find and navigate to Netflix will loose a large chunk of their comingled FIOS subscriber base.

  • Attacking streaming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:27AM (#38290388)
    Surely Netflix is in a position to understand that video streaming as a market has been crippled by the MPAA. Physical media will not be killed by streaming because people cannot do the sort of things they do with discs when they using streaming services. I know quite a few people who lend DVDs to their friends and family members, including DVDs from Netflix. People still do not always have Internet access, or if they are away from home Internet service may be very expensive -- but it is easy to use a portable DVD player (I may not be up to date on this, but as far as I know one cannot simply download video from Netflix and watch it on a laptop). Connecting a computer to a TV is still a pain and it still is not widely done; people generally do not want to watch movies on a smaller computer monitor when a larger TV screen is available.

    When the MPAA stops making life hell for people who want to use their PCs to watch popular movies, killing DVD rental services will be more feasible.
    • Or does stopping the MPAA's antics require that consumers stop using DVDs? Your statements just bolster the MPAA's position. They read your post and think, "as long as we keep turning the screws on this streaming thing, consumers will keep wanting DVDs and we can sell DVDs."

      I can think of a lot of scenarios where streaming through netflix is preferable to DVD. No need to share DVDs, just tell your friends to stream xyz and they can. No waiting for a DVD to come in the mail, to my experience the streams s
  • by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @10:47AM (#38290662)

    is to lose confidence in Netflix. They have a business model that should be how content is distributed by the cable companies. Everything on demand, cheap subscription rates, and access to older archives of content that would otherwise not be available except to purchase physical media, which consumers seem to be shunning.

    The problem is that while the big cable companies are still struggling to maintain a greedy monopoly on TV content distribution, companies like Netflix are the necessary upset required to get these big companies making better decisions and offering better services. When Netflix was consuming the largest amount of Internet bandwidth, you know the big Telco companies started paying attention. A few decisions in the right direction and Netflix could replace cable services completely.

    I do fear, however, that eventually Netflix may become extinct once big Telco gets into the game of offering similar services, but for now Netflix is the black sheep of content distribution and should be supported rather then complained about. For $7.99/mth I am accessing television and movies I have not seen before and no other service (cable, iTunes, movie rental stores) can offer me that value.

    Its easy for people to b*tch about how poorly Netflix may have been operating their business, but in the end these same people will b*tch louder when Netflix shuts its doors for good.

  • FOIS Free On Demand has a huge overlap content-wise with the Netflix Streaming plan.

    In a sense, if you have Verizon FIOS TV, you already have Netflix. The only difference is that the FIOS offerings are hard to find (probably so that it doesn't detract from their pay per view on demand offerings).

  • Google!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @11:32AM (#38291136) Homepage Journal

    Being the fan that I am for Google products, and also knowing that the cash is there and the possibilities are there, if I was Google, I would buy netflix, and voila instant stardom for youtube netflix merger.....!!!

  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:17PM (#38293210)

    by messing with Netflix. Thanks to withholding their content from Netflix, my children have never, and will never, view a Disney movie. That means they will never pester me for Mickey Mouse dolls and all that crap. They will never demand to go to Disney World; they don't know it exists. And we all know that merchandising dwarfs box office revenue, so that's a giant revenue stream to them from my pocket that will not materialize. As a budget-minded father, I am grateful for that.

    So not brainwashing my kids to want their crap is one positive externality of the MPAA picking up their ball and going home. Another is the quality foreign films, indy movies, and documentaries I have watched instead. I've discovered Korean, Indian, Russian, and other movies whose stories and production values equal or exceed Hollywood's. With those and the indies and documentaries I realize I am more entertained but also better informed now that the MPAA has pushed me outside the circle of their influence.

    Lastly, all Slashdotters know and have said for more than a decade that if Big Content makes it too difficult for customers to pay for their product at an affordable price, then they will simply get it for free online. A friend recently lent me an external 500GB harddrive ($50) with more movies on it than you can shake a stick at. I know others exchange files in myriad other ways. And as hard as Big Content tries, that genie is out of the bottle and will never, never go back.

    In the end, the only party that loses is Big Content. The rest of us gain in nearly every way.

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...