[autokad]

I think content producers weren't going to give netflix a free lunch forever, so they had to start producing their own original content.

I dont own netflix, but I do think it's a great idea and a smart investment by them. One thing netflix does with this disruption-wise is the way they think about content.

companies like comcast (NBC) still got their heads in broadcast television style producing content, where-as netflix takes a lot of risks, and is ok if a show has a niche following, so long as they have something in their library for everyone.

edit: its sad, if content producers thought like this in the past, we'd have more episodes of firefly.

[erikbe]

You're right that they probably weren't going to be able to license all that content indefinitely, so they had to move on and create some other competitive advantage.

But then they lost the advantage they had. The subscribers they have today subscribed to the variety it had in its catalog, not Netflix Originals that have replaced it.

Netflix is an organization built around distribution, where dependability and efficiency wins. I am highly doubtful that Netflix can produce great stories, whether in movie or series format. They do take a lot of risks (and arguable they would have to because do they have leaders that understand story?) but that in itself is not an advantage. It is only an advantage if it produces better stories and we haven't seen that.

In fact, there is a company that is much, much more exciting and successful when it comes to production: Blumhouse Productions. I recommend reading up on their model.

[pbhjpbhj]

> I am highly doubtful that Netflix can produce great stories, whether in movie or series format. //

I have UK Netflix, I see no difference in the quality of the stories on Netflix and those on terrestrial TV (which costs more due to BBC license fee). The stories in the Netflix movies are as compelling as other movies IMO, though they don't have the budgets and sometimes that shows more clearly than others.

AFAICT we're looking at content producers all having their own walled-garden distribution channels; so they can keep more of the money and squeeze more cash out of consumers as an industry.

To fix this it seems we could require content producers to release to any channel if they release to one, giving a global per stream price. So, you release it to your own platform they pay X to the production arm and Y users view it; end of the year everyone else can pay you at a rate of X/Y per stream (plus an admin cost). Maybe that would homogenise streaming channels too much?

Remember copyright is an entirely UNnatural right, in theory we get to set its terms to be whatever is best for the demos.

[malloryerik]

> ... we could require content producers to release to any channel if they release to one, giving a global per stream price.

Just imagine if, in the physical rental DVD/VHS era, stores could have obtained monopoly distribution rights. Star Wars only at Blockbuster Video. Your suggestion appears worthy of serious consideration.

[dagw]

I am highly doubtful that Netflix can produce great stories

I think Netflix is banking on the fact that great is on the whole unnecessary and pretty good is good enough. Every mediocre TV show is someones favorite and if they just throw out enough different things something will stick for enough people. In the short to medium term at least they don't have to make you super engaged with their content, all they have to do is have enough OK stuff that you don't bother unsubscribing.

[kiriakasis]

> I am highly doubtful that Netflix can produce great stories

If we are talking about tv series then there is a really low bar for what is considered "great stories".