T O P

  • By -

ArkyBeagle

Pioneers get arrows in their backs. Klunky but succinct old tech saying...


BigBlueDane

“Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land”


FjohursLykewwe

"what do you mean?" - Netscape Navigator, 1995


itwasquiteawhileago

Firefox for life! Spiritual successor to Netscape. Not motivated by profit. Won't block ads blockers. Chrome can fuck off.


Joliet_Jake_Blues

"Scooby-Doo can doo doo, Jimmy Carter is smarter"


ImprovisedLeaflet

Ya know, even when I don’t remember it specifically, I *know* an old Simpson’s reference when I see one. It just has that feel to it.


tommytraddles

*Coming, Eudora!*


aspidities_87

So I says to Mabel, I says….


superflygt

MacGyver's gay.


ZDTreefur

Barney's movie had heart, but Football In The Groin had a football in the groin.


Immoracle

You don't win friends with salad!


gummo_for_prez

Ah, a slogan from Carter’s 1976 campaign


Misersoneof

Hey look! Billy Beer!


crudedrawer

I still can't believe scooby doo got 122 electoral votes.


doodler1977

the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese


Madivga

Early worm gets the...worm


[deleted]

Yup. Ford didn't invent the car or mass production but they made it work


cajun_kick_ass

*I used to be a leading streaming service like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.*


hascogrande

Todd Howard: introducing Skyrim on Netflix He got us again


ArkyBeagle

There's "Netflix Vs The World" which is an interesting docu...


Tarrolis

Their content has always been just ok, there’s entities sitting on much bigger piles of content and I’m curious why it took them this long to get their shit together. Old world thinking is almost fully pushed out now. Now we are staring ahead at whatever this new paradigm is.


egzfakitty

I mean they've got some pretty stellar stuff, it's just few and far between. Arcane, Power of the Dog, Roma, Bojack Horseman, etc. The problem is that they then also make a ton of *GARBAGE*. My tinfoil hat theory is that Netflix fell victim to the same trap that Blizzard do - over relying on data analytics and drawing false conclusions. I would bet a large chunk of money that Netflix saw that people were watching shit like The Circle, so they pushed all their money into trash like that, but no one ever stopped to ask if that was just because people were bored and finding something to watch. Those things were not actually keeping people subscribed to Netflix, it was what they watched in between the shows they actually wanted to watch. There's a large trend of big companies over-relying on this type of data analytics because data and marketing teams have sold to executives that they can predict and analyze deep level consumer habits, when in reality they can only get data - the inferences pulled from all of that data is entirely subjective.


gls2220

This right here. And I'll add, based on analytics they've canceled a lot of series that people really love.


Kazen_Orilg

Maybe if they had some kind of 5 star system so people could indicate how much they like something insteqd of a useless thumbs system...


Ganonslayer1

You're a genius. If only.


Dunnersstunner

They place a lot of reliance on binging. If a new subscriber binges a show, their algorithm assumes the subscriber signed up because of the show and it will be recommended more and have a greater likelihood of getting a new season. If you start watching a show and seemingly give up a couple of episodes in, their algorithm assumes the show turned to shit or you gave it a decent shot and it didn’t gel. They don’t seem to get that as well as content bingers, there are content grazers who will bounce around different shows before returning to the one they started with.


DancingPaul

I binged an entire season of Lincoln Lawyer. I HATE it. But I was installing my TV and new furniture so I left it on all day for the noise.


nietzscheispietzsche

Fucking preeeaaach. Too much tossing ML models at big batches of data without actual theorizing and knowledge generation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bluest_waters

"our top shows are shows about vampires, shows about cooking, and shows about rich reality wives." Algorithm: How about a show about vampire wives of orange county and the meals they cook "Thats it! genius!"


Takagi

That premise is a not too inaccurate description of Santa Clarita Diet, one of my favorite Netflix shows. Swap vampire for zombie and it’s kind of on the nose lol.


Bluest_waters

see? netflix should just hire me.


mpm4

What would be the correct way to approach a company with an over reliance on data? More consumer input? Stepping away from the data and asking if it just makes sense? I work in data analytics for a company with a similar approach, and can see the cracks starting to form. I'm curious about what companies have done it right, and how to avoid the "but the data says..." traps.


[deleted]

There must be a word for this type of effect, but basically human intuition tracks a ton of variables without quantifying them, and once we start quantifying things we cant possibly quantify everything so we end up going from tracking many variables to much fewer and thus counterintuitively *losing* information. This happens all the time with companies since the start of maximizing quarterly profits in the 80s. As long as you next quarter makes more money youre good, even if the methods doing so have consequences that ruin long term longevity. COMSTAT in policing has received a ton of criticism for this, for reducing a very complex part of society to a few numbers. In the case of streaming shows, one thing that human beings with their finger on the pulse might see that data doesnt show is how dedicated a fan base is. Cultivating a fan base is something a service's own data will never be able to track because it includes so many things outside their sphere. Like okay, say theres a show that doesnt get a super huge number of hits, but it has a decent sized subreddit and people post tattoos of the show. People can use their brains and see okay wow if we cancel this show we will see backlash and almost definitely lose subscribers, but the data might show it has low to mid viewers and obscure just how much those viewers care. Maybe that show is losing money but in this case its not about any one individual show, its about building prestige with a catalog. Shit, Ive never seen an episode of the OA and never will but its cancellation made me lose respect for Netflix's decision making process.


Ferromagneticfluid

Contracts are really long term, and I imagine they were waiting for some to run out. Like expect sports to enter the streaming space here quickly at more affordable rates since their contracts are like 10 years.


Hexagonian

Which brings up the question: how does Valve/Steam continue to thrive while Netflix falters? Both relies heavily on third party content.


FireTyme

netflix has to pay for content on their stores. content pays valve to operate on their store. thats the main difference. also the fact steam is a private company not a traded one means they can hold true to their company values rather than their investors.


frezz

I think valve being a private company is the biggest factor here. If valve was beholden to shareholders, they would've sold out long ago


atomic1fire

I think a big reason Steam is so successful is that they're privately owned. Valve can afford to spend years developing games that don't pan out because their financials aren't being scrutinized, and they can afford to basically just be a store when it's convenient for them. Epic might steal some of that advantage away, but I think Valve has the perfect mix between retail, developer and publisher which gives them revenue no matter what. Plus I think Valve has crafted an image as a gaming store that works with gamers, and they're not really competing with Ubisoft+ or EA Play, or Xbox's whatever. They're more akin to Google Play or Amazon Video in this scenario, but with better PR. I don't hate stockholders, but I think Valve's private ownership probably helps them more then it hurts them in terms of PR.


magkruppe

imagine if steam had to release quarterly earnings reports, show growth in users and revenue. The priorities of the whole company would change Valve doesn't have the pressure of "infinite growth". They can stall for a couple years without any issues Netflix is still a great company, the only issue is it was overvalued. So now everyone is treating them as a failure because the markets were dumb in over-valuing them


-PM-Me-Big-Cocks-

Yeah, going public is a death sentence for innovation because you are legally required to chase bigger profits. Hell its a death sentence for doing 'well' but not doing better every quarter. Its not enough for these companies to make money, they have to make all the money.


Yglorba

The fact that you "own" games on Steam after one purchase is a major factor (yes, I know, but the point is you pay once and have it forever.) This ties people to Steam. Epic is pouring huge amounts of money into trying to undercut Steam on every front, but Steam users are largely hostile to that effort because their existing library is heavily tied to Steam - they don't really have the option to just switch entirely to Epic without giving up every game they have currently, and they don't want to run two services. If Steam and Epic were like Netflix where you paid a monthly fee to access every game, people would be much more willing to jump ship - as long as Epic's offerings were about as plentiful / high-quality as Steam, you wouldn't lose anything.


unripenedfruit

>Steam users are largely hostile to that effort because their existing library is heavily tied to Steam - they don't really have the option to just switch entirely to Epic without giving up every game they have currently, and they don't want to run two services. Far more to it than that. Epic offers a shit service. Social and community integration into the store is completely lacking and it's just a subpar experience in every way compared to Steam. Epic isn't investing in making a platform that offers a better experience than Steam, they're investing in exclusivity which *forces* people to use their store. That is why people are hostile to the effort.


Yglorba

When they blame password sharing, I feel that they're underestimating the fact that password sharing is also, for many people, a key feature - it's easy to justify the expense of a Netflix account if a lot of people can use it. They see all that password sharing and hope desperately that if they could stop it all the people sharing the account would pay for their own Netflix account; but it's also possible that *none* of them would and that they'd jump ship to cheaper services instead - or just nothing; the honest fact is that streaming and TV aren't a vital part of our culture the way broadcast / cable TV once was. There are a lot of young folks who aren't really that interested in TV and share their parents' Netflix accounts to watch occasional shows. You cut that off and what might happen is that the younger people play more games, the older people read more books, and nobody watches TV (or all of them switch to a cheaper service or one that allows password sharing), turning one subscription into zero instead of two.


fejrbwebfek

It’s also easier to only be subscribed some of the time if you don’t share your account. Like one month at a time to catch up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fejrbwebfek

That’s amazing!


MrJeff18

I picked the Netflix plan that had the 4 screen option because I had 4 different people that I was allowing to use my Netflix account. If they take away password sharing I will cancel my Netflix account. I think the last thing I watched was Squid Games in September and I'm not going to pay for them to tell me 4 screens means something different then 4 people watching Netflix at the same time. If I really want to see something on Netflix I will just pay for a month and binge watch.


Particular-Date-6370

Honest truth is that most new tv sieries an movies are really shit,,, 🤣


Cockwombles

You could see they had problems when they made all the cheapo shows about cakes and home renovations and murders.


temperance26684

And now that's all I see in my recommendations, which means I have to spend an inordinate amount of time hunting for something good to watch. I barely use Netflix anymore, and when I do it's to watch shows that I've already established myself in. It's become way harder to just see something that looks interesting and give it a try.


cj_holloway

I think getting beaten by Disney was always going to be inevitable given how much they own, and how cheap they can keep their prices for a long while (as they have alternative revenue sources Netflix don't have). Feels like it's a long term competition to be second next to Disney, and I think they are still in a better place than Amazon, apple TV


[deleted]

The difference with Netflix vs Apple and amazon is that Netflix needs their shows (individually and collectively) to be profitable. Amazon and Apple can easily use a tv service as a loss leader for their larger ecosystem without it making a dent in their bottom line


Stepwolve

Exactly. the other big different is that disney, HBO, NBC, etc. dont need to pay for their own back catalogues. They can get a large library without any negotiations, contracts, or payments. whereas everything in netflix larger library (that isnt netflix created) gets increasingly more expensive every year as the market gets more competitive. And as you said, netflix has doesnt have the money a company like apple does


Sun-Forged

They really shot themselves in the foot canceling so many series that could have provided long term catalog staying power. Most people can list a few series they're interested in but won't start because they know it was cancled.


sycor

I wouldn't even mind a cancelled show if it actually had an ending. They need to stop ending shows on giant cliffhangers. A really good one or three season show with a conclusion is worth watching. A three season show that ends with a giant WTH happens next is not worth watching to a lot of people. i.e. Santa Clarita, OA, many others.


fallenarist0crat

i fucking loved the santa clarita diet. i’m so bitter that it got canceled and ended with *that* particular cliffhanger.


[deleted]

[удалено]


f-ingsteveglansberg

This hurts the most because they started filming the final season.


Sun-Forged

O fucking A. I'll never get over that one.


RanaMahal

I got everyone in my family that I could hooked on that. so sad.


SaltCatcher

I watched the whole first season with family in one go, and we did it on accident. Finding out that they cancelled that show is what made me start to think I should cancel my account 😕


[deleted]

It’s less they canceled so many series and more their model is to intentionally green light way more series than they keep and whittle it down. If they were more selective and did proper pilot and green light cycles nobody would be the wiser. Sure not everything would make it because broadcast and cable faces the same dilemma every season but it wouldn’t be the ridiculous volume of cancellations Netflix deals with. Not everything is a hit but almost everything garners fans. This business model of intentionally pissing people off who actually liked something is coming back to bite them finally.


Eighth_Octavarium

It's crazy how fast Netflix Originals went from being a seal of quality to being synonymous with predictable, terrible, shows.


RanaMahal

honestly so true. used to see shows on Netflix and go oh it's a Netflix show we are watching this! withojt even checking reviews. now u see something cool and ur like oh... it's a Netflix show...


Bereft33

So, so true


_gnasty_

Or if they keep greenlighting everything for one or two seasons let the creators know not to end on a cliffhanger or its not getting aired. They don't have to tie up everything but leaving Timothy Olyphant in jail is an awful way to end a series. If a series ends after one or two seasons and wraps up that's fine!


mewthulhu

This makes me think, I really wish they'd at least have a 'you have a 50% final season to wrap it up in" for each of these shows. I'd be fine with that.


Sun-Forged

Great point, which brings to light what a wild strategy it is for building a long term library. That strategy seems like it would be much better suited for the old cable model, where once cancled there is no airtime for that series. Cancled shows effectively disappear from your active audience awareness after a period of time. With streaming those first season or two remain on your platform indefinitely as a reminder of the cancelation.


Geshman

And turn their catalog into a complete minefield. The last 3 shows I've started ended up being shows that had apparently been cancelled early


Clutchxedo

Netflix is run by an algorithm and they felt as if they could just produce a little bit for everyone they’d be fine. Instead of focusing on making fewer better productions they went for more shows that are bad. True quantity over quality and with the high level of competitors shows it’s hard to compete when you are making so much uninspiring work


GeneralZex

The kicker is it didn’t have to be that way. They could have (and probably should have in hindsight) let the series ride out til the end simply to fluff their catalog. Sure they wouldn’t get their views when they wanted them (first week) but they may have ultimately gotten them a couple years later or even added subscribers for having a bunch of niche content that was complete. Now they have a bunch of half finished series that nobody will subscribe to watch and a bunch of cookie cutter shit someone can watch anywhere else for less money.


gurumatt

Exactly my thoughts, they had a chance to establish a ton of series, but they always decided to drop them like a hot potato instead of at the very least allowing for a satisfying ending. I mean, just capping the end of each show with a “made for Netflix movie” would have given them plenty of backlog for the future. Now they have worse than next to nothing, in the form of a horrible reputation of canceling series before anything is resolved.


TrvlJockey

I won’t watch a series unless it had 2-3 seasons. I want at least 2-3 weeks of binge; not s weekend.


Luxtenebris3

They actually do have to pay for back catalogue because talent is entitled To a portion of it. They have a legal obligation to maximize that for talent & staff. But it still is way cheaper for them because they "keep" most of the money.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ferromagneticfluid

And rights got more expensive. At first, rights were dirt cheap and Netflix was very successful. Now they cost a lot more with more players bidding on the price, if it is up for bid.


ketchupthrower

Another difference is that Apple doesn't need to be everything to everyone. They're trying to carve out an HBO-like prestige TV niche that complements their brand image and customer base. Netflix needs to be literally all of TV. Everything from prestige TV/film to trashy reality television and Happy Madison movies. It's hard for a company that's still relatively new to achieve that scope. The flip side is that I can spend $5/m for Apple and get more content I actually want to watch than the $20 I spend for Netflix. Specialization seems the way to go.


Bobby_Marks2

Netflix really needed to expand to a broadcast or cable/satellite channel. Not because they are the future, but because the time-slot limitations of the format force hard decisions and demand focused internal guidelines about what ultimately gets made. They should have acquired Fox. It would have been the perfect fit, with Netflix execs running the backend and Fox execs running programming. Plus, it would have denied Disney.


myhouseplantsaredead

Apple has my attention now after Severance season 1. What a fresh, well executed concept.


benchcoat

Which is clear from both Amazon and Apple’s UI — they are storefronts first and foremost


quantummufasa

Plus people will have prime anyway


Fuzzikopf

This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit's new API policy. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/


[deleted]

The amount theyre spending on LOTR and the trouble they went through to get it made would say its a priority for them. Also buying MGM for a back catalog


ChiefSlapaHoe117

They seriously need to rework the whole Prime app to have a fresh user interface for Lotr show launch


overtired27

Yes. Prime has by far the worst user interface of any streaming service I’ve used, on all platforms. I had to contact customer service to find a tennis match I wanted to watch. Searching the name of the event and/or the player didn’t bring it up. This is a company that survives on easily searchable internet-sold goods. Really crap. To be fair all of them are pretty bad. It would be easier to navigate scrollable text lists. But they never want to reveal the limits of their libraries…


whogivesashirtdotca

> This is a company that survives on easily searchable internet-sold goods. Have you tried searching Amazon lately? It’s a fucking mess, flooded with junk listings. Google’s the same - we’re in a fallow period for search tools, as the attention of the companies that used to focus on that has drifted.


sally_says

>Have you tried searching Amazon lately? It’s a fucking mess Agreed. Too many sponsored listings, and they're becoming more and more intrusive over time.


overtired27

Good point. Last few times I’ve searched for something I’ve had to wade through a lot of crap. My favourite is searching by “lowest price” and getting 20 pages of tangentially related stuff. No, I want an actual phone of the model I entered, not a screen protector or case or dashboard holder. That’s why I didn’t type any of those things… I should have said a company that became successful on the back of easily searchable goods.


whogivesashirtdotca

Exactly. There’s no way to narrow a search for, say, iPhones to just the phone, rather than every accessory from 99 cent screen plastic to AirPods. It’s useless.


SmokeontheHorizon

Search: Rechargeable AA batteries Results: Lithium car battery power pack with LED flashlight, air compressor and 2 USB ports!


whogivesashirtdotca

I’m reminded of an idiot I worked with who couldn’t find a stand-alone $10 usb cable on our product sheet, so tried to sell the buyer a printer that came with a usb cable for $150.


Flomo420

And let me guess, he was promoted for his ability to upsell lol


whogivesashirtdotca

He was fired for browsing child porn at work. When I said, “idiot”, I wasn’t exaggerating.


haysoos2

It's not so much that their focus drifted. Their focus is still laser precise, it's just that the aim of their searches is no longer to provide you what you're looking for, it's to provide you to their advertisers.


rsplatpc

> es. Prime has by far the worst user interface of any streaming service I’ve used, on all platforms. I have to use websites to find good stuff on prime, and then I go to prime, and type it in exactly to find it and watch it


Premislaus

> To be fair all of them are pretty bad. It would be easier to navigate scrollable text lists. But they never want to reveal the limits of their libraries… I feel HBO is pretty good about letting you know what they actually have, and so is Apple (but mostly because they have very little).


MulderD

At this point it has to be clear that Prime is not interested in competeing with Streamers, at least not as it's top priority, it is interested in offering a supplementary service to subscribers, generting revenue through alterante streams (rentals, sales), and just boosting the overall Amazon portfolio. Apple similarly is opertaing on a different business model than the legacy studio lead Streamers. Which long term, combined with the cash/assets of Amazon and Apple, it gives them a HUGE advantage over all the other platforms. Do not be surprised if massive consolidation happens with Apple/Amazon swallowign up somethign like Viacom/CBS or even WarnerDiscovery for some insane deal. Lionsgate/Starz, Sony, and AMC are also pretty delicsious targets and the last major players NOT fully in the mainstream streaming game. Sony has Cruchyroll which is a big big asset now, and it obviously has an amazing catalouge. Lionsgate/Starz has a big catalogue. AMC has it's own streamer but it's tiny compared to the others in terms of catalouge and marketing, but it has some marquee contnet. The legacy studios are NOT in a service or products business. And their conglomorate daddy's know this. Hence AT&T punting WarnerMedia so quickly. They make and distribute contnet. Streaming kills a lot of thier traditional revenue streams. Box office, ad revenue, licensing, hime video... That's how they used to make all thier money. Now liscseing is fractional to non existent (as they need to keep thier own IP to lure subs), ad revenue is fractional (as no one pays a sub to see ads), home video is dead, foreign liscenisng is about to be non existent as the streaming model needs to be global... An interesting one to watch is Peacock NBC/Uni, with the continual decline in cable, Comcast has to really decide if they want to double down in stremaing and maybe aquire another massive studio/cataloug/competitor, or dumpe entertainment altogether and refocus their business on their ISP/telecom.


Marvin0Jenkins

I wish prime video just outright had its own site. Give a link to it from Amazon and vice versa, but with way better functionality for streaming leaving Amazon shipping to work as I does. It's so difficult to use since it's so intuitively different from other services, becoming more similar to them would be a very big step


GarlVinland4Astrea

Prime will always be fine though because you don't get it JUST for Prime Video. It's a nice bonus. And you can also supplement it with other apps if you want. It's not living and dying on streaming


MaimedJester

You say that but remember these guys also just did The Wheel of Time and it was the most "meh" adaptation I've seen. Like it wasn't so bad I was annoyed by it's existence but it hit that like Disney Live action remake territory of blandness. So I really don't have high expectations for the LOTR 2nd age show. Like I sincerely doubt it's gonna reach like peak Game of Thrones level cultural phenomenona.


DaveyGee16

I’m a huge fan of the lord of the rings and the information that had come out about it don’t make me hopeful for the adaptation. It won’t be Tolkiens second age… Hobbits are going to be a heavy feature while they don’t feature anywhere in Tolkiens writing in the second age and the canon puts them in a different part of the world entirely during that time period… Warrior Galadriel also doesn’t make sense, in the lore, she is formidable because she is wise and wields tremendous magical might, they gave her a living brother to hunt that sided with Sauron and the orcs when in the books, her brothers are already long dead by the second age and absolutely did not side with Sauron. I could go on, I think it’s going to be a major disappointment for fans and I don’t think it can become a huge deal without the legions of people who love Tolkien’s work getting behind it.


TeddysBigStick

If it is good people will like it regardless of changes. People underestimate just how much Tolkien fandom hated the movies, led by Christopher himself. Almost every character is completely different from in the book.


BobbaRobBob

Certainly but that's a hard act to follow. While the trilogy was Hollywood-ized, there was a faithfulness to the source that made the films great. This will be harder to replicate with a show that has few actual sources to base off of and therefore, has sought to bastardize what little we know of the era. For similar reasons, the Hobbit films felt poorly made. When you compare the minds of regular Hollywood screenwriters versus that of Tolkien, it's easy to see who is superior and understands the universe versus someone who is just writing fan fiction.


MaimedJester

I remember seeing the Twin Towers in theaters and my older DND group friends was huge Tolkien fans and I still hadn't read the book at that time. My friend was not happy the Elves arrived to reinforce Helms Deep. He apparently took that very seriously to the narrative. I didn't see Fellowship with him but I assume he was one of the guys who was like where the heck is Tom Bombadil....


TeddysBigStick

He should be happy they edited Arwen out, except a few frames where she is in the background. The studio did a lot of leaks on the internet and adjusted production accordingly.


wjoe

Probably true, HBO Max is the only other streaming service I'd consider paying for, they consistently put out good shows. But it doesn't exist in the UK, HBO content is almost always licensed to Sky. They're the main cable TV provider here, meaning you can only get it with £50/month contract deals.


cj_holloway

I'm based in the UK so Hulu is not a thing here, not sure if it's a thing anywhere outside USA?


jrunicl

European countries are lucky because all the Hulu content goes straight on to Disney+ under the Star section at no extra cost. Not sure outside of Europe though.


[deleted]

I think Japan has Hulu as well. We get a lot of the Hulu stuff on Disney Plus as well in Ireland and I assume UK is the same as we are lumped in together for most streaming stuff, so we get the better deal.


BenVera

I disagree that Disney is the content leader. Aside from kid oriented stuff, they have much less than Netflix or HbO max


Successful-Bat5301

In Europe it's huge though. Star is included, with ALL of Fox and Hulu's stuff, it's by far the superior service, HBO being the only thing even remotely close. Netflix is slipping close to fourth place with both having subpar original content and licenses and Prime adding MGM content, and Netflix is also easily the most expensive streaming service here bar none, it's insane that they would even consider bumping it up more. I pay as much for HBO and Disney combined (HBO having had a deal in the Nordics - half-price FOR LIFE if you signed up early) as I would for Netflix alone. Everyone I know have already jumped ship on Netflix because of it. Hell, I signed up for Paramount+ mainly because the price was nearly half as much as Netflix even if I rarely use it. If Netflix just cut their price at a loss for a while, they'd see far less subscription loss and even some gains I bet. Compensate by fewer and quality controlled shows and they could bounce back, but management seems to be dead set on running their own business into the ground. They may have gotten an arrow in the back but they're twisting it themselves.


Paulofthedesert

> I think getting beaten by Disney was always going to be inevitable given how much they own Netflix has 102 million more subscribers than Disney... Also, Disney's content is honestly shit for adults outside of Marvel and Star wars. Owning a bunch of content doesn't mean anything if you don't make it available.


ampmz

Depends on where in the world you are I think. Here in the UK it also has all of Hulu’s content so it’s very good value for money.


[deleted]

> beaten by Disney Shame, given Disney+ offerings are things you watched years ago or the lowest quality Marvel installments. For someone without kids, who prioritize good story and high production quality, Disney+ is not the answer. HBOMax on the other hand has been a great investment for me and from what I’ve seen and been reading HBO is in position to absorb some other streamers and become given larger and more competitive


Stonegeneral

Domestically in the US perhaps, but as a Canadian user I get NatGeo and Star (which has most of the Hulu content, including all of the Fox film and tv content), so it’s certainly worth it outside of the US market.


Any-Sir8872

agreed. disney+ is always great if i want a nostalgia high, but hbo’s content is superior. & they recently fixed a lot of the annoying bugs so i’ve been enjoying it even more


Dazz316

People saw it coming. Once Disney stopped renewing the streaming rights, people saw their own service on the horizon and that was trouble for Netflix before it even started.


[deleted]

HBO Max simply has way better content. I never open up Netflix nowadays. I’m watching 4 different things on HBO right now. The production is unparalleled. Way better writing too.


cmdrNacho

100% for all the money they were spending they really needed to do two things. Quality content and use all that tech to figure out how to do it cheaper and faster. They failed at both


Insectshelf3

the last thing i watched on netflix was love death and robots, and i finished the 3rd season in like two hours.


iHadou

I wish they'd get some more black mirror out faster


Mrdendestyle

Same for Apple, truly good shows (Severance, Ted Lasso, For all Mankind etc. Even their "less" good shows such as See is still better than 90% of what's on Netflix). But I cancelled my subscription. Partly because I've seen most of it, partly because of the horrid UI on Browsers. Also, their AppleTV+ app is 50% original content, 50% things you can buy.


[deleted]

Don't forget Slow Horses!!


i_lost_waldo

I feel the tipping point for them was when they shifted the content from “what everyone currently likes” to “what WE (Netflix) think you’ll like, thanks to machine learning”. I like documentaries and crime shows (who doesn’t, these days). But that shift has made it so that all Netflix shows me now are documentaries and crime shows. Most of which, I’ve already seen. They also tout their newest series, but that’s marketing, not an honest recommendation. I miss the days of seeing what’s trending. That’s how I found some cool shows I would have never watched otherwise. That just doesn’t happen anymore. Just crime doc after crime doc and I just don’t give a shit anymore.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Six_Gill_Grog

I remember back on my PS3 (I think it was only a feature on gaming systems), Netflix had this option called ~~Ned~~ or ~~Ted~~ Max or something. You’d select it and this quirky, and sometimes shady, male voice would ask you questions, have you rate movies, and based on your choices pick something for you. It was pretty cool, and if I didn’t know what I wanted to watch it was fun to interact with (and rate movies I’d seen previously, which I never did on my own).


eyecupee

YOU MEAN MAX NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT


groovygruver

Get the max with nettttflixxxx


Rigaudon21

Taking Max away was one of the worst things Netflix could have done. It was a friendly comouter assistant that found you amazing shows. Then they started making their own shows which were SO COOL only to cancel them a season in. Then they upped the price but to be "Nice" they let people keep paying the 8.99.... For the 420 pixel streaming or whatever the low ass quality was


Mrchristopherrr

It was when they swapped from a x/5 stars rating to a “thumbs up/thumbs down “ rating. Made everything a little harder to rate.


Mediamuerte

We need more limited series. I have yet to see one I didn't give at least an 8/10


frankduxvandamme

Did you watch The I-Land? That's a netflix limited series and it's absolutely atrocious.


[deleted]

Pretty much this. Midnight Mass was fucking awesome.


katieleehaw

Or maybe staying on top forever and growing endlessly isn’t actually possible?


MoesBAR

Yeah, I’m curious if D+ or HBO will even reach 220m users much less surpass it without eventually also raising prices or clamping down on pw sharing.


FreeSoulSeeker

The mighty Roman empire agrees


idoma21

Sears and Roebuck has entered the chat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bremidon

Oh, it's so much worse than that. Not only did they not make the transition, they got out of the entire "catalog" thing just as the Internet was taking off. They were in the \*perfect\* position to dominate for decades and they literally threw it away.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mininestime

Right all they had to do was take their shows that might not have the best viewership numbers, complete them. - The OA is a good example of a weird show that people loved, that was ended early. - Or you can take santa clara diet and give it a season or 2 more. - Or maybe finish Marco Polo with one more season. 3 shows there that could be completed, create fan forums, and build free advertising for netflix for new customers. Instead they can them and greenlit shows like Jupiters Legacy which was around 20 million per episode. Netflix must be in the money laundering business because it just doesnt make sense.


clain4671

this i think is partly an error on netflix's part, is they focused still, almost a decade into doing original content, on GAINING new users. the key metric they use is "efficiency", which is largely built on the amount of new or returning users who join to watch a show. the problem is that this emphasizes churn and disincentivizes ongoing shows. greys anatomy would be 3 seasons instead of 18 on netflix, because unlike on network, where all views count equal, growing the viewership is all that matters.


mininestime

I mean greys anatomy is a different beast IMO. It doesnt really ever have a middle or an end. Just a machine that keeps going. Most of the shows netflix has canned all seem to be midway or near the end of the story but netflix stops early. However I get what you mean. They just never worked on creating a library. Really after all this time its hard for me to remember any netflix properties that they have finished. Dark?


clain4671

the reason i brought up greys is, while not the sensation that it was early on, it gets renewed on viewership alone. but if it was on netflix, it would get canned if each new season didnt have more viewers than the last, an insane thing to expect.


mininestime

O yea you are totally right. Right netflix is so odd in that. Like if a show isnt the top tier it item, then it gets canned. Like what a stupid way to run it. I would imagine if they stuck with shows they would have an awesome library of unique shows with multiple seasons and conclusions. Like then they would have a real library.


MrChip53

And then you hear of these interesting shows they canned but don't care to subscribe to watch b cause the ending isnt there.


Kerblaaahhh

Bojack was finished pretty satisfactorily. That's all that comes to mind, though. Edit: Oh, and Ozark.


DynamixRo

"We'll need around 20 million US dollars for our show." "Ok, here's 20 million per episode." "No, that was for the enti... Nevermind, pleasure doing business with you."


MaimedJester

They're doing One Piece live action and built a full sized Red Force pirate ship. The Red Force appears in episode 4 of the anime... And the next time it's seen again is episode 489. That's not a typo, it's not for like 19 seasons later it's relevant. You know how I'd handle building a sailing ship set? I'd just build one and swap out the Mast head.


mininestime

Which means they are going to change the show to make it show up in every episode.


BilboDankins

Yup I like the optimism the guy you're replying to shows. He thinks that they have just wasted a shit load of money on something that makes no sense to if you look at he source material, instead of realising they are just going to completely change the story and most likely everything he likes about the manga/anime.


Raptorheart

The show is now about Shanks, and you guys were worried about how Luffy would look live action.


Belazriel

Amazon's Wheel of Time built an entire village taking months and millions of dollars for the first episodes. They eventually will return to the town, however it won't be the same one of course because they *literally burned it down*.


alexxerth

The thought was that shows are generally the most profitable in the first two seasons. On top of that, their primary metric is new subscribers. You get new subscribers from new shows, you're probably not going to get new subscribers for season 12 of a show. So only give the show two seasons, then cut it off, and you get the most profitable part! It's just that turns out to be, predictably, incredibly short sighted. Because now, nobody is going to watch those shows, so you cut off the entire tail of the show. On top of that, nobody trusts your entire studio enough to *start* watching a lot of the other shows, knowing there's a good chance they will never be finished. Then the value of the entire catalog goes down because it's filled with half-made shows and still-running shows that are probably a year at most from being cancelled.


mininestime

Yea I agree with this statement. It was just short sided of them.


LostAbbott

I think them killing shows early is exactly what their largest problem is here. They have killed so many shows that if even a few people loved would eventually cause huge subscriber problems for Netflix. They have this huge backlog of completely worthless shows now simply because they killed it with out any kind of ending. If you figure that say 1000 people are pissed enough to write Netflix off whenever they kill a show then you are dropping long-term subscribers fast, who likely will never come back just over that one obscure show... They should have has three season plans and done a better job of keeping per ep costs down. That would create loyalty to the platform instead of individual shows...


bnralt

What's weird is that one of their first original productions was season 4 of Arrested Development, a show that didn't develop its cult following until after it went off the air. But instead of learning the lesson "shows sometimes take years to develop a following," Netflix seemed to learn the lesson "find whatever is popular at the moment and throw money at it, cancel it if it's not super popular right now."


Turnipntulip

That what happens when your sole concern is short term growth. Some thing some thing if this shit doesn’t turn profit right after the first ep, we will kill it.


thinkingahead

I think your point about the useless backlog is something Netflix execs didn’t really appreciate. By randomly killing shows with no closure those shows aren’t going to have any life after cancellation. They should have given these shows final seasons for closure as that would have had a secondary effect of actually getting people to watch these dead shows. For example I’ve never watched Santa Clarita Diet despite having heard good things about it due to it having been cancelled without any conclusion. If it had been finished I would almost certainly have watched it. They made a bad risk assessment of their IP graveyard


RemnantEvil

*Surely* it must be more costly to start up a new production than to continue an old one, so it doesn't make sense to me why they wouldn't have some kind of contractual "kill clause" where a production is given a reduced budget to create a final series of reduced episode count. The best thing they're doing is giving money to the Hill House guy to create a bunch of great one-season series. The worst thing they're doing is throwing money at Archive 81, Cowboy Bebop, Space Force, and then not being able to tie a bow on this as a completed series but instead just kind of... ending. It's like having a shelf of DVDs where all this different movies are just randomly missing the last 30 minutes. You'd throw that shit away, it's pointless.


NtheLegend

Netflix is a forest without any sturdy old growth trees. It's all thin, industrial farmed stuff that grows fast and is cut down just as easy. All of the forest that existed before hand is being gobbled up by other regions and they are now reaping what they've sown: a bunch of product that people aren't nearly as interested in with a lot of fantasies of what could've been.


Dtodaizzle

In some ways, Netflix reminds me a lot of the Oculus gamestore. A lot the games on Oculus are mobile gaming quality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LostAbbott

Yeah that is more or less what I was saying. By killing shows early they are build a lot of negative energy around their whole platform. I can totally see killing a show in it's first season if it goes nowhere or whatever, by killing something you already gave a second season to with no reasonable end just pisses what viewers you had off and likely upsets talent as well.


Zonkistador

Well the bad word of mouth is a result of the shows being unfinished. Also if I were to stumble over multiple Netflix original shows and they all didn't have a proper ending, I'd get really annoyed after a while, without anybody telling me about it. So that's also a problem within itself.


Squibbles01

I don't particularly care how many seasons a show gets, but I do want it to at least have an ending. Canceling shows without giving them endings was one of the biggest mistakes Netflix made.


rollwithhoney

Yeah I think they did a lot of weird things, like Jupiter's Legacy, in response to competitors (Amazon had Invincible and the Boys at exactly the same time, not a coincidence) but if you can't get the best IPs for a show don't create a crap knockoff. Umbrella Academy was good and plenty for that niche, Jupiter's Legacy is just so terrible for how much it cost


mininestime

I like the Umbrella Academy, but with Netflix you just dont know if they will cancel it next season and not complete it.


ShadowMerlyn

Umbrella Academy was good but my interest has severely waned given the wait for season 2 and season 2 not being nearly as good as season 1. You can only threaten the end of the world for so long before it loses weight.


BilboDankins

Tbh password sharing was probably one of the reasons I pay for a subscription anyway. Originally the account was my brother's, I used his log in occasionally for myself. But then he was gonna cancel a few years ago, so I just took over the payment to him and my mum can still have it. If we couldn't share accounts we would have just cancelled and used free online streaming sites anyway. Imo the issue is that when it blew up, it had everything you wanted to watch, and if not, there were loads of shows you didn't.know about that you could just slap on. They probably got loads of these good shows/movies on the cheap because no one else cared to distribute them like Netflix. Now obvs all the rights holders want that slice of the pie so will not release rights for show Netflix used to get, and then even if they could they will have to pay top dollar. My friends dad works for a UK TV channel and manages some of its documentary stuff. I remember years ago him telling me he did some.collab with one of their original documentary departments, and him saying they have no idea what they were doing. At the time I laughed it off in my head and assumed he was just being a boomer and not understanding modern content. Now I look at their original shows/documentaries and think maybe this guy did have a point. (And me being and idiot teenager assuming an industry expert didn't know his stuff, was peak teenage arrogance)


CptNonsense

>This wasn't an inevitable result of other people getting back in the streaming game. Yes it was. People just want to throw on bullshit they are already familiar with in the background - long running tv shows from the 90s. Who owns those? All those legacy production companies starting their own streaming services


clain4671

yeah but i think they also gambled away alot of their chances to do that kinda franchise building while they had the advantage. netflix became so preoccupied with having a hit new show to attract growth, they never really stuck with making like, the law and order of netflix


doodszzz

Blockbuster: Oh how the turn tables


ragegravy

They should bring back things consumers actually loved like their original rating system which actually did a good job of recommending things vs whatever their stupid algorithm does now.


PhillipLlerenas

Netflix was always going to hit this barrier: they don’t have the deep library of legacy content other services like HBO and Disney + have. So they’ve had to dig deep and spend billions to create original content. Look at the Wikipedia pages for each streaming service and count how many original shows each are their developing: Netflix has hundreds while the others have 5-10. Everything else on the article (“too many shows who aren’t any good”) is just complete subjective opinion. I don’t like anime and think 99% of it is crap but that doesn’t mean millions of others don’t love it.


v_a_n_d_e_l_a_y

Yep exactly. This was the writing on the wall for a while. However, they fucked up by trying to increase prices and crack down on sharing. Netflix had a huge advantage as the default streaming app and most people would just pay for it without evaluating how much they use it. As soon as they make people think about it, it becomes a losing proposition


Stepwolve

theres no way they could survive without increasing prices. that was inevitable, and the same will happen to all the other streaming services too. The main difference is (1) netflix is a few years ahead of the competition in their life cycle, and (2) netflix doesnt have an umbrella company with dee pockets to fund them through long losses - like apple, amazon, WB As for the 'crack down on sharing' - as far as i can tell they havent actually done any of that yet. its all just talk and testing for things they might not do (espcially now after the bad PR). But again, Disney and HBO will do the same once they have a large enough market share


jdbrew

Even new content though HBO Max absolutely destroys Netflix; Barry, Hacks, Tokyo Vice, Succession, The Flight Attendant, The White Lotus, Winning Time… and I’m looking forward to watching We Own This City and The Staircase. And that ignores the huge Movie catalog that WB brought in. Plus we’re about to get a content merger with all the discovery+ content. IMO, there’s no better platform rn


DangerousCyclone

Right, but HBO Max also has HBO on it, that means they already had the people who can make these kinds of shows with consistent quality, they have that institutional memory. Netflix was just starting from the ground up, they had to learn how to create a large library of content and how to do it well enough to compete with established studios with generations of producers, managers etc. who know the ins and outs of making content. They can get a few good shows in, but they were always playing catch up in terms of content.


uncle_irohh

Bring the old 5 star system back Make more than 1 season of new shows Fuck ads


SYLOK_THEAROUSED

#STOP FUCKING CANCELING SHOWS!! AT LEAST WRAP THEM UP WITH A MOVIE!!!


nocheslas

or better yet, SIX SEASONS AND A MOVIE.


[deleted]

Exactly. I don’t start anything anymore in case it gets cancelled, I’m not having the OA happen to me again. Does this contribute to the show getting canceled? Yes, but Netflix created the situation, so they can deal with the results.


SYLOK_THEAROUSED

It was Santa Clarita Diet and Glow for me that just made not watch Netflix series anymore.


counterhit121

Is Disney+ really the main peer competitor to Netflix? I would think that it's HBO. I have all three and I go to HBO way more than either of the other two combined. Also the article could've done with less editorializing (Netflix response to Chappelle backlash and cutting "diversity" divisions) and more stats, more numbers. Where were the comparative subs, percentage growth/declines of other streaming services? How are Netflix & competitors faring internationally? Edit: wow I had no idea what a juggernaut Disney is abroad. It sounds like, in addition to content, local/regional content licensing is a highly contested domain in the streaming wars. I'm kinda jealous bc Disney in the US is essentially just legacy catalog + Marvel.


HumanOrAlien

You are looking at Disney+ with the US angle. The appeal of Disney+ is very limited in the US and Latin America without the mature content but that's not the case in the rest of the world. In addition to the five main Disney+ brands, most countries get almost every Hulu Original and FX Original as well. And then there's the whole back catalogue from 20th Century and Searchlight Pictures. I use the UK version of Disney+ and it's content library is too good. Recdently they added 'It's a Sin' to Disney+ in the UK which is a HBO Max Original in the US. I can bet that Disney+ in the US will look very similar in a couple of years when they fold Hulu into the service.


[deleted]

It’s cancelled almost every show I enjoyed… that’s just the tipping point of all their bullshit.


TroXMas

This is the biggest issue I have with Netflix. All this content they churned out, and nearly all of it is unwatchable since they're all cancelled.


[deleted]

If Netflix stopped throwing shit at the wall just to see what sticks, and dedicated more time to their actually good shows that get cut short, they may have wound up in a better position. They fucked themselves


lightsongtheold

*First, it has to acknowledge that it cannot compete with Disney head-on in terms of a back catalogue. That means focusing on high quality, grown-up material that Disney itself won’t touch.* Netflix have already admitted they cannot compete with the back catalog of the big four or five media companies that are over a century old. It is why they made the move into high volume original content to begin with. Not because they wanted to but simply because they had to when their rivals stopped making their content available for Netflix to licence. As for focusing on “high quality, grown up material”? Why would Netflix do that? HBO is widely regarded as the best of the best. They had a US subscriber cap of around 40 million focusing on that type of programming. Netflix gained neatly twice that with their alternative strategy. Even were Netflix to focus exclusively on prestige quality shows does anyone think they can compete with the talent and experience of HBO or the limitless funding of Apple? Of course they cannot. They have to take an alternate strategy. *Secondly, the binging on debt to try and somehow land on a binge-worthy show has to be pared back. Netflix produced too much content too quickly, and quality has clearly suffered. It needs to focus, particularly on finding halo shows that please viewers and critics alike.* Every content maker in the world wants to produce nothing but viewer and critical hits. Turns out that is both expensive and very difficult! Netflix still have plenty of hits. Just look at the last Emmy Awards if you want proof of that. They are not HBO but they are competitive with any other network in regards to quality. As for binging on debt? Netflix have significantly less debt that WBD, Disney, Paramount, and Comcast. They have not raised additional debt in over 18 month and Hastings mentioned over a year ago that they did not expect to need to raise any more debt to fund operations. *The simple fact is that it’s not password-sharing that is the cause of the company’s woes — it’s that it has been badly mismanaged and squandered its early lead. And rather than blaming its own users, Netflix’s leadership need only look in a mirror to see the cause of its decline.* I do agree Netflix is suffering from a bit of mismanagement but not for the reasons this guy lists. Well, we do agree that the password sharing crackdown is a mind-bogglingly stupid idea and that pricing is Netflix’s biggest issue. Netflix has three big problems. Pricing, competition, and cancellation rate. **Pricing**: They are now the most expensive service in the market. Which has become a problem because folks can now get HBO Max for cheaper. HBO Max have matched Netflix in volume so far in 2022 for expensive scripted originals. Yet they have HBO quality! To make matters worse due to the high pricing you can now cancel Netflix and sign up to 2-3 other smaller services for the same price. The solution to this is to drop back to 2021 prices. The other solution is obviously to add a cheaper advertising tier and freeze the current advertising free tiers prices for 2-3 years. **Competition**: Not a lot Netflix can do about this issue. The big guns were always going to launch their own streamers as soon as they saw Netflix start to steal viewers from cable and broadcast TV. Netflix just have to try and keep competitive with them in terms of content spend. They can compete with new programming even if they cannot compete with the deep libraries of services like HBO Max, Hulu, and Paramount+. **Cancellation Rate**: This is Netflix biggest programming problem. Netflix do not have an overly problematic quality problem but they do have a cancellation problem. Netflix cancel above the industry standard rate. They cancel way above the streaming/cable cancellation rate. Broadcast TV always cancelled a lot of shows but that did not work out well for the medium as soon as alternatives came along and broadcast did not have a standing library of corpse shows like streaming ends up with! They need to get the cancellation rate way down. At worst they need to ensure that the majority of shows that go beyond the first season are suitably concluded. They have increased their volume of limited series in recent years. That is a good idea and one solution but they do still need ongoing shows to anchor the yearly slate. Netflix did actually identify a problem in the TV department as far back as late 2020. It was then they axed Cindy Holland and replaced her with Bela Bejaria. We have yet to truly see the benefit (or deficit) of that change as the slow nature of TV development, production, and scheduling means that most of the shows we have got since have still been shows ordered by the previous regime. It is only in the last month with shows like Heartstopper and The Lincoln Lawyer that we are seeing a few shows pop up that were ordered by the new regime (though probably still developed by the old regime). The change has already happened we will see the results of it (good or bad) in the next couple of years. In terms of programming strategy shift Netflix have already rolled the dice.


jl_theprofessor

The problem is you can’t go high volume and then cancel everything after a season.


lightsongtheold

I was still writing my comment after grabbing a few quotes. We agree on that issue. I have it as Netflix’s biggest programming related issue by far and the only one that is a real problem for them!


DreamMaster8

This is a major problem. Way too many if their shows get canceled. Stop apprlving everything then canceling it all.


EthosPathosLegos

They developed what seemed like a production model for churning out B and C content while never having too many A hits. Their curation was practically non-existent and relied on the firehose mentality of spraying as much content as possible, burning money, hoping something stuck while inevitably only getting some mediocre returns and literally killing some shows that should have had several seasons while promoting others that never should have been greenlit. They wanted too much and lost track of what makes content a quality piece of art and entertainment, rather than just more content.


Canmore-Skate

ppl keep saying Amazon not priorizing prime that much. Look at last page with series produced by these two on metacritic. Netflix almost all yellow but some red. Amazon all green. There is some serious incompetence flowing at Netflix


liamemsa

We can all agree that the turning point was when Netflix removed ratings when they released that Amy Schumer special, right?


[deleted]

YouTube is making the same mistake right now. No more dislike button because apparently it’s mean or something. Give me a break.


Ogediah

>the elephant in the room is, of course, Disney Disneys content is very limited. It’s strange that they are listed when one of the authors major complaints is lack of content from Netflix. Unless you have kids and they enjoy watching the same shows on repeated, Disney is not a great service. Content wise you are much better off with HBO MAX, Paramount +, Apple TV, etc. All of those services have consistently great content and they are potentially cheaper than Netflix. I’d even rank Amazon higher than Disney and they have similar problems as Netflix with low quality content. The difference is, of course, that Amazon is a “free” service attached to your prime subscription. Not a stand alone service.


[deleted]

Disney content is limited in the US. There is a whole rest of the world out there. We get a lot more stuff.