[News] Netflix wins rights to Disney streaming.

[CynicismKills]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/12/netflix-disney-deal/

They'll get Disney stuff at the rate HBO and the like get movies starting in 2016. However, they're already getting older movies (Pocahontas, Dumbo, Mouse Detective and others are streaming already). Maybe this means in the next year we'll see some Star Wars on Netflix? More Muppets?[DOUBLEPOST=1354703856][/DOUBLEPOST]Netflix's post on it: http://blog.netflix.com/2012/12/exciting-new-relationship-with-disney.html

Also the Lucasfilm buy-up was approved on Tuesday, so maybe some more news on whether we get a bit of that action eventually.

 

[Dave]

2016? Gee, can't wait.

 

[strawman]

Now that starz knows its going to lose rights in three years, they may be inclined to do a reciprocal license with Netflix earlier.

Don't hold your breath, but access might happen earlier than '16.

 

[Espy]

UGH. Seriously, this whole ring around the rosie of who has rights to what and movie "X" is on Netflix for 3 months then it's off because it's on "STARZ" or whatever is just getting stupid. Want to watch a movie? Better buy Hulu. And Netflix. And Amazon. And Cable. And Premium Cable. Because shits gonna move around between them all to keep you guessing. Oh and then you better have more money to rent stuff when it's not on the regular version of half of those.

Hey Hollywood bigshots: You want to know why people pirate your crap? Because it's easier than trying to figure out were the hell someone can find your crap and how much extra they have to pay for an hour of mind numbing entertainment.

 

[strawman]

Yeah, same problem with the olympics and other sports rights. Exclusive rights sold to the highest bidder is more profitable for the seller than shared rights sold to several bidders.

Capitalism at its worst.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

It's funny how the most illegal means of getting movies and TV shows is also the most convenient.

 

[Gared]

Heh. Maybe Starz shouldn't've canceled the "Starz Play" deal that they had going with Netflix, or tried to jack up their rates so damn far when the contract ran out last time. I'd say good for Netflix for sticking it to them for pulling that crap, but I really don't like the way that Hastings has been running Netflix for the past couple years, so I won't.

 

[Chad Sexington]

It's funny how the most illegal means of getting movies and TV shows is also the most convenient.

Well I'm pretty sure the most illegal would be like, breaking into someone's house and murdering them just to make off with seasons eight and nine of the X-Files. I'm generally opposed to capital punishment, but in that case, we'd have to, because I mean, who the hell would choose to watch those? They're the worst! THE WORST

 

[strawman]

I really don't like the way that Hastings has been running Netflix for the past couple years, so I won't.

What, profitably?

 

[Gared]

What, profitably?

Is it really profitable to piss off so many of your customers, and continually try to find new and different ways to get rid of the biggest cash cow you have (DVD rentals), in such a way that you devalue your company's stock by 71%?

 

[strawman]

Well, he sure stepped in it that time, and they reversed course very quickly.

But the profit in streaming vs the profit in DVD mailing is obvious, and it's right for him to devalue one and focus on the other going forward.

 

[Gared]

Well, he sure stepped in it that time, and they reversed course very quickly.

But the profit in streaming vs the profit in DVD mailing is obvious, and it's right for him to devalue one and focus on the other going forward.

But reversing course didn't stop the massive drop in value. Also, I can see devaluing DVD mailing, but right now they're devaluing it so hard that if you don't have a DVD subscription in addition to a streaming subscription, if you search for a movie that they don't have available to stream, their database flat out refuses to acknowledge that the movie even exists. So not only are they devaluing their DVD service, they're actively driving potential customers away. Hastings may be brilliant (a lot of stock analysts certainly seem to think he is, at least), but that doesn't mean he can run a company worth a damn; something several of his own stockholders seem to agree with, since there are now near-continual talks about various stockholders taking over the company and/or selling it.

 

[strawman]

Well, I can't disagree with that. It sounds like he still wants to separate the two businesses completely.

I think he should embrace both of them. They are an entertainment giant now - there's no need to leave money on the table.

In fact, they could probably make a significant amount of cash by adopting redbox's model. If you have a streaming subscription, and there's a movie you want to see no available for streaming, let me push a button, you charge me $1, send the disc, and I return it when I'm done. Require that you can't have more than one disc out at a time to avoid people holding onto discs, and those that want more than one at a time should get a subscription to the disc service.

Amazon makes it trivial to purchase something on a whim. If they just had a button on the movies not available for streaming, they'd be raking in a chunk of change as well.

 

[Gared]

Exactly. There are so many things they could be doing differently with their DVD service, but he's bound and determined that it's a dead technology (and he's not really wrong, just apparently isn't living in the same reality as the rest of us) that he wants to completely get rid of it. Sure, DVDs (and even Blu-Rays, to an extent) are a dead tech, that people are going to move away from en masse, if they haven't already, in favor of easy streaming. But, like so many other companies that are completely enamored with the concept of digital delivery, he's completely forgotten that there are entire, massive swaths of this country that have no access to broadband - even relatively low-speed DSL broadband. Until those massive tracts of countryside somehow become profitable for broadband companies to connect and serve, people are going to continue to buy and rent DVDs; but rather than acknowledge that, and use the potential of those customers to his advantage, Hastings wants to just completely do away with his DVD service. It makes even less sense when you take into account the fact that, as of Oct 25th, DVD rentals made up 90% of Netflix' profit, because the margins are so much wider for rentals than they are for streaming. Hastings is bound and determined to kill of 90% of his company's profit, because he's too wrapped up in moving forward with spreading streaming to the world.

It's like Espy said, there's a reason people (like me, who would much rather actually own a movie legally) pirate so many TV shows and movies. And part of that is because I know damn well that the makers of Ghostbusters 2 didn't just name it that arbitrarily, without ever having made a Ghostbusters 1, or that Seth Green has only ever appeared in 4 movies and 2 TV shows, like Netflix would have me believe.

 

[Necronic]

In the scheme of things the DVD delivery service makes like zero sense. No other business that has a focus of digital delivery does this as well. Would anyone ever expect iTunes to get into a mail order business? Of course not.

The only reason people think this about netflix is that it's how the business started, and it's why a lot of people loved it back in the day. Now, that's not a bad reason to do something. There is customer loyalty and all that. And in this case the customer loyalty definitely trumped the need to streamline. But on the other hand, look at Blockbuster. They assumed that the "Old ways are the Best ways", and look where that got them? They may be the poster child for losing a business because you failed to adapt.

Home delivery of media will always be a worthwhile business, but as streaming becomes a bigger and bigger industry it's hard to justify maintaining two such disparate business models under the same roof as there is almost zero overlap in the overhead.

As for their stock price? I would argue it's insanely undervalued right now. They are in a rapidly growing marketplace with just about zero competition.

Final note, I have never heard someone using Netflix as a justification to pirate. That's a new one on me. gg.

 

[Gared]

So, your overall point is that you agree with everything that Steinman and I have said, except for the pirating thing? Cool, cool. I didn't say anything about the other providers adding DVD rental services. It really wouldn't make sense for any of them to add that as a service, because those services already exist and because the initial investment in setting up delivery services is higher than would be worthwhile. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense for Netflix to be trying so incredibly hard to kill theirs.

Oh, and it's not Netflix as an excuse for piracy, it's the complete and utter lack of being able to find certain movies, despite the fact that I'm a Netflix subscriber, a Comcast OnDemand subscriber AND a Hulu Plus subscriber. I'm not talking about downloading Top Chef episodes the day after they air (why spend time downloading something that's easily available on OnDemand), I'm talking about things that are "out of print" for some incredibly bizarre reason.

 

[Necronic]

They don't need to be trying hard, but it should die eventually. Your point about the lack of access to bandwidth is pretty key. Currently customer access to the DvD market is already at its peak. Pretty much anyone can jump on a computer and order their movies. This means that the room for growth in the market is very limited.

Streaming, on the other hand, has so much room for growth its mind boggling:

-Bandwidth issues: As more people get higher bandwidth services they will get more customers

-Media Players: Right now you either run it on your computer, an Xbox/wii/PS3, one of the weird one off items (robuk or slingbox etc). None of these items have particularly high market saturation other than computers, and watching it on your computer is kind of lame. Given more time, you will see more and more TV's come with these things already pre-installed and easy to use. Lots of potential here to get the Baby Boomers into using it.

-Limited overhead increases for expanding customer base: You don't have to have more assets to serve more customers when you are streaming (other than increased bandwidth). Compare that to delivery which requires more physical disks, more employees managing the hardware, etc etc

-Currently limited licensing deals: The licenses are pretty limited at the moment, partially because this is such a new concept. Given time for the legal ideas surrounding streaming to perkolate you will see this change and licensing deals will allow a much wider access base to the uders.

-Doesn't rely on the post office: I honestly never thought this would be an issue, but there you go.

-------------

Delivery doesn't have any real future compared to streaming. Streaming will continue to grow in market share as delivery sits as the niche business it has always been. While the convention has been 90/10 delivery/streaming, I cannot imagine that it won't flip within a decade. He shouldn't prematurely euthanize delivery, but he would be an idiot to keep it on life support.

 

[Gared]

I can almost completely agree with everything you said there. The only point that we disagree on is the Baby Boomers' adoption of the technology, even when more TVs roll out that have integrated internet connectivity to allow for streaming to their TVs. I don't know what you do for a living, but working at Microsoft, I can tell you that the level of technophobia among the Boomer generation is staggering. We have people who are still trying to get us to support their Windows 95 computers, because they're either too intimidated to learn newer systems, or because they're happy with what they've got and don't see any reason to upgrade. Hell, we have people who write us letters and mail them to us asking for computer support.

 

[Espy]

Final note, I have never heard someone using Netflix as a justification to pirate. That's a new one on me. gg.

I'm not sure who you are referring to here, but if thats the point you took from my post then I fear you misunderstood or misread it.

 

[figmentPez]

I've tried to find out if a certain show or movie is currently available streaming on Netflix, but you can't unless you're already a Netflix customer. Subscribing is like rolling the dice and hoping that what you want to view is available. No thank you.

 

[strawman]

I've tried to find out if a certain show or movie is currently available streaming on Netflix, but you can't unless you're already a Netflix customer. Subscribing is like rolling the dice and hoping that what you want to view is available. No thank you.

You should be able to get a free trial.

 

[figmentPez]

You should be able to get a free trial.

True, but that only works once, and the selection for streaming is constantly changing. I shouldn't have to sign up, even for a free trial, to find out if it's going to be worth my money this month.

Eh, I guess it doesn't matter much. I'm busy enough watching stuff I can get for free. I don't think I'd have time to watch much on Netflix anyway.

 

[evilmike]

I've tried to find out if a certain show or movie is currently available streaming on Netflix, but you can't unless you're already a Netflix customer. Subscribing is like rolling the dice and hoping that what you want to view is available. No thank you.

It might be worth looking at http://www.canistream.it/, which not only covers Netflix, but has listings for Hulu, Amazon, and several other services as well.

 

[figmentPez]

It might be worth looking at http://www.canistream.it/, which not only covers Netflix, but has listings for Hulu, Amazon, and several other services as well.

That is awesome. Very good to know about.

 

[Bowielee]

Netflix's selection is in such constant flux, I consider cancelling my subscription on a regular basis. It is currently shit except for TV series and some indie films.

 

[Frank]

I'm liking the Marvel cartoons mostly.

Watching Ultimate Spider-Man right now....and it's not nearly as shitty as I thought it would be.

 

[Gared]

I tend to wind up just watching and re-watching the same things over and over again. Like the ESPN 30 for 30 films, or Ken Burns documentaries. Or Phineas and Ferb.

 

[Covar]

I'm liking the Marvel cartoons mostly.

Watching Ultimate Spider-Man right now....and it's not nearly as shitty as I thought it would be.

I wish they had Spectacular Spider-man on there.

I'm watching through Psych right now. Just started Season 6.

 

[Gared]

And in other Netflix news, Reed Hastings specifically, as well as the company in general, are being investigated by the SEC, because of a post that Hastings made on Facebook back in July, touting the fact that streaming viewership was over the billion hour mark for the first time ever in June. Apparently, since Mr. Hastings is the head of a major business, and since that information could be very interesting to stockholders as well as brokers and others involved in the markets, what he should have done was make a general press release instead of a Facebook post; as he has apparently violated SEC regulations requiring that all investors have equal access to information. Oops.

And on a Disney related front, it looks like it's not going to take until 2016 for at least a bit more of the Disney catalog of movies to show up on Netflix, as last night I noticed a lot more offerings from their older animated movie collections, like Aristocats, the Fox and the Hound, and Dumbo. Also, the old Garfield and Friends cartoon is now available.

 

[Krisken]

Garfield and Friends? Really? SWEET!

 

[Gared]

Yep, seasons from '88 to '90; it just appeared in my "Watch it again" list.

 

[Krisken]

I'm saddened at the loss of all the MST3k's they had in instant watch. Grumble!

 

[CynicismKills]

I'm saddened at the loss of all the MST3k's they had in instant watch. Grumble!

Woah, only thing left is the movie. What the hell.

 

[Covar]

And in other Netflix news, Reed Hastings specifically, as well as the company in general, are being investigated by the SEC, because of a post that Hastings made on Facebook back in July, touting the fact that streaming viewership was over the billion hour mark for the first time ever in June. Apparently, since Mr. Hastings is the head of a major business, and since that information could be very interesting to stockholders as well as brokers and others involved in the markets, what he should have done was make a general press release instead of a Facebook post; as he has apparently violated SEC regulations requiring that all investors have equal access to information. Oops.

And on a Disney related front, it looks like it's not going to take until 2016 for at least a bit more of the Disney catalog of movies to show up on Netflix, as last night I noticed a lot more offerings from their older animated movie collections, like Aristocats, the Fox and the Hound, and Dumbo. Also, the old Garfield and Friends cartoon is now available.

This is interesting to me, as Hasting's page has over 200,000 friends (just over 245,000 today).

 

[Sparhawk]

And on a Disney related front, it looks like it's not going to take until 2016 for at least a bit more of the Disney catalog of movies to show up on Netflix, as last night I noticed a lot more offerings from their older animated movie collections, like Aristocats, the Fox and the Hound, and Dumbo. Also, the old Garfield and Friends cartoon is now available.

The reporting hasn't been very clear, but the 2016 date is for new release Disney movies. The catalog is supposed to be available fairly quickly. Here's a quote from a CNN Money article about it:

The Netflix deal includes some Disney (DIS, Fortune 500) straight-to-video new releases, which will appear on Netflix starting in 2013. In a separate contract, Netflix also signed a "multi-year" deal to stream classic Disney movies including "Dumbo," "Pocahontas" and "Alice in Wonderland." Those movies will be available for streaming starting Tuesday.