[jforberg]

Spotify did it right; they managed to put together a service that is actually better than piracy in the ways that matter to a typical consumer.

The movie and TV industry have instead put great effort into building services that are significantly worse than piracy.

And nobody can understand why movie piracy is still rampant, while music piracy is receding.

[anonoholic]

It's not as if Netflix isn't trying, it's just that the movie industry as a whole is determined not to cooperate.

Can you imagine a music industry where, in order to listen to new releases, you are required to go to "listening parlours", or wait for radio, CD, streaming release|?

[cptskippy]

Honestly I feel like Netflix has given up and just joined the crowd. As they lose non-original content they're slowly morphing into a cable channel like Bravo.

They no longer listen to customer feedback. Their categorization and search get worse by the day. They refuse to add an option to disable the autoplay previews that no one likes.

That'd all be ok, albeit disappointing, if they were still charging $8 a month. But they keep raising prices like Comcast or AT&T each year while the quality declines or stagnates.

[ethbro]

They're running the Amazon / Apple playbook in media.

(1) Start as a service provider, brokering sales from legacy producers who don't yet have distribution through this new market, (2) pivot to original supply, as legacy producers recognize how much money stands to be made and stand up their own distribution channels, (3, optimistic case) become so large that producers are forced to renegotiate with you, from a weaker position, because they must have distribution on your platform.

I don't think they're going to corner the market like Amazon or Apple did, as they lack the moats (respectively a hyperscale logistics system and first party hardware).

I'm kind of surprised Netflix isn't cross-licensing their back catalog to alternate channels. E.g. trading rebroadcast rights to the first season of Stranger Things to Comcast or a cable network in exchange for {insert popular program}.

That feels the most like an analog to Amazon Marketplace (context: remember, there was once an Amazon without third-party sellers).

[cptskippy]

That doesn't excuse the decline of their UX. They are adoptingany of the tactics and antipatterns used by other media companies that sow the seeds of discontent with their product.

[dwaite]

Netflix's goal with entertainment is to monopolize your free time. Its why they are willing to promote binge-watching, its why they consider games like Fortnite to be competitors in addition to (and in some cases more than) HBO and Hulu.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/17/18187400/netflix-vs-fortni...

[dmitriid]

Their UI is now meant to hide their complete lack of content.

They lost all the big catalogs and deals as Fox, Disney etc. ended their licensing deals. And even though they’ve pumped billions into original content, this can’t make up for the hundreds of titles they lost.

So, the new UI is meant to make you overlook all that and make you watch Netflix original content. To quote myself [1] their selection is ridiculously tragically bad.

https://mobile.twitter.com/dmitriid/status/11204104799549931...

[dwaite]

> They're running the Amazon / Apple playbook in media.

I'm not sure how this is the Apple playbook, unless you count podcasts (which they've never had an option to charge for) as Apple original audio content, or the upcoming Apple TV+ as a 15 year gap between selling third party video content and providing their own.

[paulddraper]

> Their categorization and search get worse by the day

And I cannot begin to fathom why.

Fortunately, there is flixable.com for Netflix browsing. But why doesn't Netflix itself do that? IDK.

[dmitriid]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19998908

[ludston]

It's pretty typical that bands will perform a peice in concerts before creating a recording so yes.

You aren't wrong though.

[Nition]

There still isn't a movie streaming service with as much selection as an old video store. Meanwhile Spotify has just about everything.

[pmtarantino]

The problem for me isn't the old ones - is the new ones. I want to see the new movies at my house. Yeah, there are films that I'd like to see at the cinema, but those are less than 5 per year. But if I could pay to watch a new film in the comfort of my home, I'd do it. As I can't, I'll probably download it for free.

[Vomzor]

Good news then: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-prima-cinema-2016-5?...

It will only cost you a 35000 dollar setup fee and 500 dollar to watch a movie.

[jplayer01]

They even do a background check. This is crazy interesting.

[nine_k]

Would you pay for it as much as a movie ticket costs?

The movie industry goal is to improve box office, not your experience, but these two are linked.

[lagadu]

At this point is feels like their goal is to get me to pirate as much as possible, lets see my anecdotal data point:

Music - Tidal covers about >95% of my music consumption.

TV shows - I have netflix and and prime, these cover maybe 75% of my tv consumption.

Films - Going to the cinema covers 10-20% maybe? I go to the cinema about 5-10 times a year and I pirate the rest because I don't have a good enough service to get those from legally.

[pmtarantino]

For some films? Yeah, I'd do it.

[chupasaurus]

Same thing was with music industry and guess what? Their revenue from streaming is way lower.

[docbrown]

Criterion’s streaming service covers this pretty well. Kanopy — if you have access via your local library — also has a large selection of lesser-known and older films.

[task_queue]

> Spotify did it right; they managed to put together a service that is actually better than piracy in the ways that matter to a typical consumer.

I disagree. As a listener, Bandcamp and Soundcloud fulfill my needs better. Artists are more willing to put their work on those services than they are with Spotify, and it's entirely understandable. With Bandcamp, there is a link to buy albums at their asking price while listening. Spotify listens will pay out fractions of a penny. The result is that other platforms will have new music that suits my tastes, and I will be lucky if rights holders will put the same content on Spotify within the next 5 years.

[nixpulvis]

NO, Spotify is a radio service with 0 promise to save your music over time. I use streaming services and have been hit by this issue frequently. It's tragic.

Now I'm stuck paying for all the music I've been paying for again. Or something else...

[lagadu]

I disagree with your second assertion: if the streaming services go bad, the alternative isn't paying for all the music you've been paying for again; the alternative is pirating it all of it for free.

That's the beauty of the services: they have to compete with free and to do that they have to provide a superior enough experience to the user. If that ends, the music industry is the loser.

[nixpulvis]

Your solution is explicitly illegal and not always possible. Not all music is so easy to find over time.

[chrischen]

You mean by making it free?