[siod]

It honestly feels like the technology advantage Netflix enjoyed has all but disappeared.

Content is now king and all of the other production companies have been making content for decades, Netflix is in serious trouble if it doesn’t lift its game.

[arrosenberg]

To the extent they had or still have technology advantages, they are irrelevant. They do not own the majority of the best, most desirable content. Content producers have engaged in (anticompetitive) vertical integration wherein they also have become distributors. As happens in such situations, Netflix finds themselves squeezed out and taxed to death by monopolist studios like Disney, Paramount and Warner.

Solution: Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. Disney must set a price for a piece of content and then allow any distributor to pay that price to carry it. They must not advantage their own distribution service in any way (which they shouldn't be allowed to have in any case).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...

[mappu]

It's the modern-day version of United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. where movie studios were banned from vertically integrating with theatres.

However I note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... that the decree has just been sunset with the reasoning that ""the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"" - but it seems really like the exact same model,

[roughly]

> "the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"

For some reason* everyone seems to think monopolism was this quaint thing of the past, and not the thing that every market everywhere sprints towards as fast as the technology of the era will allow without some kind of restraint or regulation.

(*"deeply motivated ideological reasoning")

[taylodl]

It's almost as though the "free market" tries as hard as it can to not be free.

[lotsofpulp]

Why would the public need multiple distributors for the same content?

Theaters take tons of staff and logistics to operate. A streaming service is comparably simple (once the initial system is setup) and can deploy all content to all customers within seconds with the efforts of minimal people and overhead.

[arrosenberg]

Where exclusive distribution exists there is little or no competition on price, service or quality. Why bother - they own the content, if you want to watch, you will put up with whatever.

I still put up with listening to Joe Buck call the World Series because Fox has exclusive rights to the broadcast. I would pay money to hear just about anyone else call it, including an ML powered Vin Scullybot (RIP).

Alas, I cannot, for a lack of FRAND licensing.

[lotsofpulp]

How much control a content maker should have is a tough line to delineate.

MLB choose to give Fox exclusive rights, and Fox chose to give exclusive announcing to Joe Buck. Ideally, you could just go to MLB.com and choose whichever announcer you want, or some other equivalent system.

I would lean towards MLB having the right to sell their games how they want, but they also benefit from taxpayer funded stadiums, so I would not mind the government being able to force certain terms like FRAND on them.

[arrosenberg]

You are entitled to that opinion, but exclusive distribution is antithetical to the idea of competitive enterprise. If we are going to continue to go that route, America should stop pretending we care about robust markets.

[Gigachad]

I think the main issue will be that smaller producers and studios won’t be able to make successful content because all of the users and subscriptions will be held by the big players. And even if they can get a licensing deal to put their content on another platform, it won’t be as favourable as Disney gets on their own platform.

[lotsofpulp]

Why does a content creator automatically deserve the audience of Disney at a price they determine to be fair? They are free to sell their media directly to anyone on the planet. They can put it in Google Play Store or Apple TV app for purchase or rent. Or for free on YouTube if they want ad revenue.

There is no barrier to distribution these days. The only limitation is quality of content. If a content creator makes something good enough at a price point people will accept, then customers can easily pay it.

[Gigachad]

Because in general we have found that giant megacorporations building up monopolies and walling in customers has not been a desirable thing. In general its preferable that product producers and marketplaces be run by separate entities, which was largely the case until new technology came in.

[arrosenberg]

Thats not true. Even if you put your content online, that doesn’t mean it will get in front of people. Disney, through its mass and various distribution levers, can control a significant percentage of what Americans watch on a screen, which isn’t healthy for democracy or capitalism.

[choudharism]

Oh wow, TIL. Sometimes history rhymes too hard.

[tehwebguy]

As long as Netflix renews I Think You Should Leave they’ll get at least one month of me subscribing every season.

[asdajksah2123]

Their technology advantage disappeared the day MLBAM started doing non-MLB stuff. You saw this most clearly with the HBO Go Game of Thrones season premieres. The first time they did it, it was with an in house solution built by a Microsoft veteran (who for some reason decided to build a team in Seattle), that absolutely failed.

The next season they outsourced to MLBAM and it was flawless.

And would you know it. Disney bought MLBAM.

Although now there are several content producers who can match up with Netflix, with their in house teams.

What I will never understand though was Netflix voluntarily choosing to eliminate the tremendous data collection operation they had in their rating system. One of Amazon's biggest advantages are the reviews. Netflix had that in the media space. They decided to throw it away for a system which has no user input (so no moat) where anything that is presented to you is invariably rated 99%. It makes absolutely no sense.

[function_seven]

I remember actually rating shows and movies on Netflix. There were stars and I could give as many or as few as I wanted.

Now they give me some stupid thumbs-up/-down thing, and I just give them the finger in response. Ratings on Netflix are useless now.

I do have one huge bit of praise for them: the cancellation process was absolutely painless. Not being snarky, I really appreciated that! (Contrast with trying to cancel SiriusXM, or Spectrum Internet; both painful)

[zdragnar]

Try cancelling Waste Management residential trash pickup. I had to repeat myself over and over that I was cancelling because I was moving to an area they didn't serve, and no, I would not give them my new address to check.

After finally convincing them that yes, I really did want to cancel, I was about to hang up and decided to double check that my auto-pay billing would be cancelled too.

"Oh no, if you're enrolled in auto-pay, you have to call the billing department to stop that."

I was so angry I nearly lost my composure with the lady on the phone who clearly wasn't responsible for such an asinine setup. I wonder how many people got charged for services never rendered and didn't want to deal with their bullshit enough to fight for a refund because they didn't know they had to cancel that separately.

[yazaddaruvala]

I'd love to one day read a case study about Netflix's choice to compete with Disney and HBO instead of competing with Akamai, Cloudflare, and Fastly.

They really had every possible advantage, and then instead re-built trash TV.

[bombcar]

I honestly suspect they believed that nobody else could build what they had because of how hard it was for them to build it.

But technology advanced fast and if your differentiator is tech you’d better watch out.

[yazaddaruvala]

> if your differentiator is tech you’d better watch out.

I’d say if your differentiator is tech, also sell the tech.

[1adam1200]

I think if you look at the market caps of the companies you listed you’ll have your answer.

[xupybd]

I find that Disney doesn't have better content, but it has new content. I've had Netflix for years and watched most of the stuff I liked. I got Disney and they had Castle. That's kept me going for months and I've not used Netflix since.

[skinnymuch]

You’re primarily watching one show? Realistically, any streaming service has a chance at providing that, no?

[xupybd]

Yeah it has 8 seasons. I tend to watch a show from start to finish as it cuts down the time spent hunting for something to watch.

You're correct that any streaming service has a chance at providing a show I'd like. That's the problem for services at the moment. Netflix has a huge catalogue but I've watched the shows I like. Disney has a smaller catalogue but happens to have a show I can watch with my wife. So that's the one we like at the moment.

They don't differentiate on anything else for me. They both work well enough. That said Disney is not on my spart TV so I have to use the Chromecast.

[dr_dshiv]

Seriously, for me it’s the opposite. Disney has classics. I cant not have all of the Simpsons. Or every Pixar film? It’s just too good.

Netflix has new stuff but it gets old faster.

[bombcar]

One show wonders aren’t a bad way to go - and I think this is how Apple+ is going to come in submarine. Price it cheap enough that no matter who you have as #1, you have them as #2.

[kderbyma]

Netflix doesn't care about product. they forgot about it when they started making content. that is why they will fail