[S_A_P]

I don't necessarily agree with this. If I want to watch well produced online content, I do not think Youtube.com. I do think that Netflix and amazon Prime video have "traditional" studio created content that has high production value. That said, I watch youtube and Netflix almost equally, but for different reasons.

Youtube is great for short videos, interviews and niche interest. IF I want to watch scripted drama like NARCOS, I can't find anything close to that on Youtube. At this point, I dont think that they are competitors. The content is not even close to being equal. Im not even saying one is better or worse, they just are too different to call them competition.

[coldtea]

>I don't necessarily agree with this. If I want to watch well produced online content, I do not think Youtube.com (...) Youtube is great for short videos, interviews and niche interest. IF I want to watch scripted drama like NARCOS, I can't find anything close to that on Youtube.

That's orthogonal though, since people don't split equally their viewing habits based on content types.

So if, e.g. younger generations, watch less "scripted drama like NARCOS" and more "short videos, interviews and niche interest stuff", then Netflix has a YouTube problem, regardless if they have all the "well produced online content".

[skohan]

What remains to be seen is whether the demographic trends here are due to fundamental differences in what gen Z kids are interested in, or whether it's just a function of the fact that YouTube is free, and Teenagers don't have money, and your parents can't see what you've been watching like they can if you use their Netflix login.

It would be like looking at transportation data and concluding that since teenagers tend to take the bus or ride bikes to get places, the auto industry will be doomed in 20 years.

[coldtea]

On the other hand, what teenagers are used to watching, they can take to their adult life.

The same way languages and idioms CS students learn in college influence what happens in the enterprise later on.

A generation back everybody just watched TV -- kids AND parents. So this is new-ish.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If I want to watch well produced online content, I do not think Youtube.com

I do. Historia Civilis is presently my favourite channel. Production quality is nothing to write home about, but the quality is fantastic. Moreover, I don’t walk away feeling like I crapped away thirty minutes—I learned something.

[nindalf]

There’s two things I adore about Historia Civilis. One is the way he represents terrain and units on a battle field in battle related episodes. It might not look fancy but it gets the job done. Normally I struggle to imagine unfamiliar terrain so this helps a lot. The second is he passes the Gell-Mann test for me. There are certain sections in history I know really well because I’ve read multiple books on it and he gets those absolutely right. So when I watch an episode on an era I’m unfamiliar with, I’m confident he’s done his due diligence.

[Scriptor]

What do you mean by the "Gell Mann" test?

[sah2ed]

The quality of a news source passing a simple test of credibility by presenting an accurate account of a topic the reader is deeply familiar with.

For instance, if you are a Computer Scientist and you find yourself agreeing to a layman explanation of the halting problem while reading a NYTimes article (targeting a general audience) then the article passes the Gell-Mann test.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

[oxide]

There is a ton of quality on YouTube, some of my favorites are Redlettermedia, Baz Battles (focused on historical battles) and Lemmino, his short form documentaries are extremely well edited.

Historia Civils is one of my favorite channels as well. Excellent content.

[assblaster]

Check out PBS SpaceTime, and you'll quickly lose a day to that amazing content.

[lettergram]

I think a bigger thing, is that any of the youtube channels could just start posting to an alternative. I too enjoyed Historian Civilis, as well as Baz Battles and Kings and Generals.

In the later two cases they probably post twice as much content on patreon or other distribution channels.

I think that highlights the risk of lower scale production videos. They can be posted in more places to be "profitable", which means the distribution channels are necessarily more dynamoc / easier to come by.

[genidoi]

They are competitors - for your eyeballs. Just because they don't provide precisely the same service doesn't make them non-competitors.

Youtube competes with Netflix the same way your shower length preference competes with Netflix. The disconcerting (if not narcissistic) elephant in the room being that service providers are viewing any activities that cause you to spend time away from their service as "competition" at all.

[mijamo]

I don't really understand this. Netflix cares about how much you watch it ONLY if it means you will stop your subscription. In fact, as long as you keep your subscription their interest is that you watch as few as possible to minimize costs, right? So a few addictive shows that make you need to keep Netflix are betters than keeping you on Netflix all day every day.

If Netflix cannot be replaced by Youtube, it is not a real competitor.

Saying otherwise leads to weird useless definitions of competition. We would have to say everything is a competitor of everything else, and then how is that interesting to know?

[davidivadavid]

No, it leads to the only valuable definition of competition: competitors are products that serve the same need. Netflix and Youtube are entertainment. They compete with each other, as well as TV, video games, and a bunch of other things. They also serve other needs (e.g. education). But there are (many) other needs that they don't serve (e.g. nutrition (you can't eat Netflix), healthcare, human relationships, etc.).

[pmart123]

Not quite, at least from what Netflix has publically stated about its content strategy. Each time Netflix produces content, they view that content as having very diminished value for the customer that has already watched it, but that new content has made its subscription offering more value to the next potential customer. With this line of thinking, Netflix probably doesn't want you to every "finish" its catalog. I think there are exceptions given what Netflix paid to keep Friends. But, my guess says they found that most content does not get repeat viewership, which is much different than music for instance.

[coldtea]

>So a few addictive shows that make you need to keep Netflix are betters than keeping you on Netflix all day every day.

Not really, as you're more likely to drop the service you're not on "all day every day" than otherwise. And the fewer the addictive shows the more chance you'll get addicted to something else next year on another service (or just download the stuff).

[bryanrasmussen]

yes but if you have a subscription and you watch nothing algorithms probably tell them that sooner or later you will stop to have a subscription. There is probably a sweet spot where you are most likely to keep your subscription even without watching much. This would really be what must watch original content would be about. If you have netflix only for showing your kid BabyBoss, then that is when it might be good for them. (until that kid hits the teenage years)

[bluGill]

Not exactly. Makers of woodworking tools consider football a bigger competitor than other woodworking tool manufactures. If you buy a nice tool from a different brand - well there is a chance you will buy from them latter. If you get addicted to football and quit doing woodworking you won't buy from them at all.

[bryanrasmussen]

Ok but how do you compete against football? In competing against another tool maker, analyse what people like about their tools that your tools do not have, improve your tools is pretty easy. also variations of this strategy. But you cannot analyse what your tool does not have that football has and replicate it because essentially your woodworking tool has nothing that football has and football has nothing your woodworking tool has.

[fipple]

There's plenty of content on YouTube that's at the highest level of professional production. It's 0.01% of what's on YouTube, compared to 100% of what's on Netflix, so you will not find it by just going to YouTube.com and clicking random links... but there's still many human lifetimes of high-end content on YouTube.

[sharcerer]

True. I can account for India here. There are some channels which nake scripted web series releasing 1 episode per week. Some of them even have 1-2 seasons . Mostly 5 episodes. And they are really popular among youngsters. Basically,these shows touch upon common middle class family relatable stuff,or college youngsters themed series. Most of them have a different sponsor each time. Sometimes its a car company (for a road trip based series),or a yoghurt brand, once Xiaomi was also a sponsor. And they hire veteran actors who are quite popular on traditional TV soap operas. But, i do feel that Youtube hasn't done enough for them. Personally i love Youtube for its educational content.

[joshschreuder]

Fair point. I think Captain Disillusion is a good example of this, his production value is extremely high with regards to visual effects for what is a fairly niche subject matter.

[nothrabannosir]

Captain Disillusion is nowhere near the quality of a Netflix show. I love the guy and support him on Patreon, but at the end of the day, it’s a garage version of myth busters. It still has that “youtuby” feel of a guy doing a thing in his spare time.

The budget is incredibly low; look at his Patreon. Compare this to the millions of dollars that go into a film considered “low budget”.

If CD is YouTube’s high quality content, then that is exactly the point GP was making.

[tk75x]

For an example of high quality Youtube content, check out Good Mythical Morning.

[Lewton]

Still, imagine if he got a Netflix deal(how awesome would that be), the production value would go up

[bmsleight_]

To me it is perfect expansion for Netflix.

Youtube offers a universal service provision, Netflix could carefully cherry-pick the top youtubers and offer them the money.

[kiriakasis]

but Youtube also has very low quality suggestions, so in practice it ends up proposing the same topics over and over again. And god forbid you watch anything political.

[freddie_mercury]

> IF I want to watch scripted drama like NARCOS, I can't find anything close to that on Youtube

If you step outside of the narrow US/English speaking world this isn't the case.

Here's episode 92 of a popular hour-long scripted family show from Vietnam: https://youtu.be/rqdqn5Rfx6w

You can see that it has 5.7 million views within 5 days of release. That's more viewers than, say, Daredevil gets.

[thedaemon]

Netflix does not release it's viewer data as far as I understand. You cannot compare that which you have no data for.

[freddie_mercury]

You don't need Netflix to release viewer data for other analytics firms to provide the answer.

[icebraining]

YouTube Originals has scripted dramas, though the selection is still tiny, and the UI is a mess, in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqVDpXKLmKeBU_yyt_QkItQ/pla...

[aequitas]

YouTube recently suggested Impulse to me (sci-fi/drama) out of the blue. Just the first 3 episodes for the rest you needed premium. It definitely looked like a show you would find on Netflix or TV in terms of production.

[alimbada]

I watched the first couple of episodes of that and while I do enjoy it I wouldn't pay a monthly for a YouTube Premium subscription just to watch one show. The other show that it keeps suggesting to me is Origin which looks interesting too, but it's still not enough.

Edit: Origin, not Origins.

[httpz]

Comparing YouTube to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges. However, at the end of the day I'm not gonna eat another orange when I already ate a lot of apples.

[samsonradu]

Interestingly there's no mention of HBO here (nor in sibling comments), a very high production value content which imo is running circles around Netflix and Prime.

[codq]

Agreed.

As far as I'm concerned, almost everything on HBO is worth watching.

But almost nothing on Netflix is worth watching anymore. The quality bar has lowered so much over the years.

[oblio]

HBO barely streams anything, at a global scale.

[B-Con]

They don't have to produce the same type of content to be competitors. They are competing to produce video content you spend time on, albeit different types.

But YouTube is hinting they are considering making "TV show" style content, what with most of their YouTube Red exclusive content being of that format. While I find none of it interesting, except Mind Field by VSauce, they clearly have the idea on their radar.

[InclinedPlane]

Irrelevant. Books, video games, films, youtube, netflix (et al), mobile games, even social media all compete for the same thing: time. People don't have infinite time, if it's filled up with watching youtube videos it can't be filled up watching netflix, regardless of the quality of the content.

[bilbo0s]

>if it's filled up with watching youtube videos it can't be filled up watching netflix...

Correct.

And that's pretty convenient for Netflix' bottom line if that person is paying the monthly fee, but using only, say, a quarter of the netflix bandwidth of a heavy user.

The modeling to figure all this out is a lot more complex than just "are they watching?"-"are they not watching?". We need access to Netflix' internal data to determine viewing patterns, license fees, bandwidth costs, etc, but I suspect that people using Netflix more than a certain amount in a month end up costing netflix money instead of making netflix money.

[coldtea]

You constantly assume bandwidth is a big concern for Netflix.

[bilbo0s]

And you constantly assume bandwidth is the only per user cost that Netflix is paying. It's one cost, that definitely affects decision making, but there are others.

For instance, if you try to license certain types of content, you'll find that the licenses will tend to work in the following fashion:

-Estimate how many people will use content. -Resolve differences, if any, between your estimate and content owner's estimate. -Settle on per user fee.

Then there are other licenses that are kind of pseudo per user. For instance:

-How many people tix to your last tour Mr or Ms Comedian? -Well Mr Digital Property Licensing Hardass, we sold X tix. -Great!!! We'll give you X dollars because we know from analytics that (factor * X) people will view your content over the life of this license.

These things are a lot more complicated than just "Are people watching?" - "Are people not watching?".

Likely Youtube can do things like weigh bandwidth costs heavier in their models, therefore prioritizing eyeballs. Any eyeballs, because they make money from ads. You try to run something like Netflix using the same modeling factors and you'll go under in fairly short order. There are just a lot more expenses, and the revenue is from a source with a different behavior. So you don't want eyeballs, you want the right eyeballs for the content that you've paid to provide. That means you need to be cold, hard, and calculating. Not every viewer will be equally profitable to you.

[1337biz]

> If I want to watch well produced online content,

That's probably the main question - in how far people actually care about quality / production quality. YouTube's unique angle is originality and cartering towards highly personalized interest topics.

[kazagistar]

In the past few years, I have found myself drifting away from playing mainstream AAA game titles, and more towards indie games, which I find to have higher quality for me. But how can this be, since they have such lower budgets and production values? They make up for it with a combination of individual creativity and unfiltered vision, which are more difficult with a big budget provided by producers demanding their money back. Smaller productions also have the flexibility to target niche or unproven markets, which means I am able to find works more ideally suited to my preferences.

In case the metaphor isn't clear, this is a similar dynamic to Netflix vs Youtube.

[sebastianavina]

I've bought several movies on youtube. My family has netflix, but I don't like to watch tv, so I really dont care... On the other side, sometimes I read something about a movie, and I just want to watch that movie... If it's not available on netflix, I go straight to youtube and buy it or rent it... Also, I always listen music on youtube. It's just a differente market...

My mom love the tv, and watches tv 10 hours a day straight (yeah, its unhealty, but she is 66 y/o, so if thats her will, she can do whatever she wants), and she loves netflix, and amazon prime, and claro video, and youtube...

[bayesian_horse]

Youtube is better at grabbing the users' attention... Not necessarily with better content.

Though I learn more from Youtube than from Netflix, in general...

[bilbo0s]

Again though, Netflix is not there to grab a user's attention, Netflix is there to grab a user's money. We shouldn't conflate these two base motivations.

If netflix gets you to pay the monthly fee, while at the same time you only use a quarter of the bandwidth of most other netflix users...

well, I'd imagine that's a win for netflix.

Again, we'd need more of Netflix' internal data, but I wouldn't be surprised if a full modeling would reveal that netflix wants to optimize viewing time to be something less than 100% of some break even viewing level. I have to believe that people using Netflix more than a certain amount in a month end up costing netflix instead of benefiing netflix.

But again, we really need access to their internal data to say that for sure.

[jsnell]

Bandwidth is cheap, when the users are actually paying customers. Churn, on the other hand is very expensive. I bet Netflix prefers heavy users over those who watch two movies a month: the latter people are much more likely to cancel the service.

[bilbo0s]

It's been said before, but we'd need the internal data regarding viewing patterns, license fees (which are per user in many cases), bandwidth costs, etc etc, but I'd take your proposed wager. Without hesitation. I can think of very few scenarios where the amalgamation of these per user costs is lower for a heavy user. (Not saying it can't happen, just saying based on what I know, I'd feel pretty confident betting that it doesn't happen.) Additionally, throwing in what I know about consumer behavioral patterns, I'd wager even their light users are extremely unlikely to cancel Netflix.

[manojlds]

Does sleep have well produced online content?

[bilbo0s]

Sleep goes you one better.

Often enough sleep provides fantastical entertainment content indistinguishable from reality. Every genre, from comedy to horror. Only thing is, you can't choose what content you want to experience. (At least, not to my knowledge you can't pick what content you want?)

[cvs268]

> Only thing is, you can't choose what content you want to experience

On the plus side the content during sleep is curated based on your personalised tastes, with special preference to what you recently saw...

The recommendations are generated in real-time using an unique algorithm running on the world's fastest neural network.

Also the transition from one program to another is completely seamless, with no credit-scenes and ZERO advertisements.

[ConceptJunkie]

Mine often gets stuck on the college anxiety channel, which only shows reruns from 30 years ago. I'm glad I'm not paying a monthly fee.

[kamaal]

>>Only thing is, you can't choose what content you want to experience.

Also most dreams are forgotten once a person wakes up. So that's like a lot of entertainment, and you never tire out of seeing dreams with the same theme.

[Kirth]

I haven't been remembering my dreams for almost a decade now. Is this good, is this bad? Does anyone have a similar experience?

[Retra]

It wouldn't expect it to mean much. You're probably just not waking up during your dreams and staying in bed to ruminate over them. Dreams don't go into recallable memory unless you hold onto them when you're waking.

If it bothers you, you can always try sleeping in new and interesting places/positions every night. That seems to be a common trigger for lucid dreams, sleep paralysis, and other unforgettable dream experiences.

[clarry]

Look up lucid dreams.

[jerkstate]

if you do it right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

[woodycheers]

What the story is driving at is that people end up spending a lot of time on YouTube, when they could have spent it on Netflix, as its CEO has desired. Spending 60 odd minutes of 80 odd minutes one frequents the web for watching video on YouTube is massive.

[bilbo0s]

The thing is that it's a bit more complicated than that. The business models are different. Even if we don't do the full analysis we can see that someone spending 60 minutes on youtube instead of netflix means that netflix is not paying for that 60 minutes of bandwidth. Netflix doesn't have ads paying for everything, they have to pay for everything other ways. So that business becomes about more than just blindly getting eyeballs. You want the right eyeballs, based on the content you pay to offer. That implies some fairly complex modeling.

Now of course we'd need more information than Netflix would likely provide us to do a full analysis, but my sense from what we can know is that this guy is likely close to correct about what his enemy is.

[coldtea]

>Even if we don't do the full analysis we can see that someone spending 60 minutes on youtube instead of netflix means that netflix is not paying for that 60 minutes of bandwidth.

The bandwidth would be insignificant to Netflix compared to churn. Not to mention, with edge caches at telcos and so it, it would be already paid.

[anongraddebt]

I agree. Netflix aims to be a sort of global tax on TV and Movie based entertainment. Their business model runs up against biological constraints (with regards to the desire for perpetual growth).

[prostoalex]

Just like everyone else, they’re nailing down exclusives. I was going to buy my son the latest season of Thomas & Friends in digital (those Amazon Prime $1 digital store credits for delayed delivery do come handy), but apparently the only venue to do so is YouTube.com.