[kristianc]

> Video streaming services like Netflix are a joke in comparison.

Netflix realised quite rapidly that it was a fools errand to try to have everything.

Given the choice between paying top dollar for every blockbuster film (which engage people for two hours at a time), Netflix invested in TV series and producing its own material, which works out cheaper and keeps people watching for much much longer. Netflix's movie catalogue has shrunk since 2010 (mostly due to Epix moving its films over to Hulu), but the TV inventory has tripled.

Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible, and with a better long tail than music. If Netflix doesn't have a TV show or movie, you'll likely find something else you want to watch. If Spotify doesn't have Taylor Swift, it doesn't have Taylor Swift.

[dagw]

Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible, and with a better long tail than music. If Netflix doesn't have a TV show or movie, you'll likely find something else you want to watch. If Spotify doesn't have Taylor Swift, it doesn't have Taylor Swift.

Funny, I would make the exact opposite argument. I can 'put up with' a lot of different music in the right general genre I'm in the mood for while doing other stuff (and if one song doesn't take my fancy I can either just skip it or wait 3 minutes for the next song), but if I'm going to invest 2-10 hours of focused attention on a TV show/movie then it better be what I actually want.

[vimslayer]

I agree. I'm constantly switching between Netflix, HBO and Viaplay (streaming service in the Nordics) when one of those has a show I want to watch next and the other ones don't have that exact show. I've also started to fall back to renting and (gasp) torrenting movies again because I usually first come up with a movie I want to watch and only then start browsing the services for that movie, not the other way around.

[lukasLansky]

"Netflix also benefits from TV/movies being more fungible"

Is this really the case? I mean, is there any research on this? I would guess exactly opposite is the case: I personally don't care about background music in most situations, but if I'm watching a film for two hours, I'm going to be very selective.

That means that Netflix in its current state is useless for me. As much as I applaud them for some of their production, the combination of half-empty catalogue and forced subscription model is going in the exactly wrong direction. I would pay one-time fee for Roma. I would pay subscription for a good catalogue.

Now, I don't state that it's not the case that most consumers does not care about what they watch as much as they care about what they listen. I'm just interested in some empirical data on this.

[KozmoNau7]

The way I see it, music is generally something you listen to multiple times, especially for favorite albums.

On the other hand, people don't re-watch movies and TV shows at nearly the same frequency. I may be wrong, but that's my observation based on myself and the people I know.

[OJFord]

I suppose it's different for different people - not everyone is using Spotify for 'background music', they might want to sit and listen to Taylor Swift (per above example) and if it's not on Spotify, it's just like Netflix not having the film we want to watch.

Also, I'm not sure if it releases everything as matter of routine, but Netflix certainly releases some of its original content on DVD/BD.