Comments on: Why Amazon’s competition is good for Netflix http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: UselessRubbish http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-43108 Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:59:24 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-43108 Right now the streaming market is really all about the rights to back catalogues of old TV seasons that subscribers may have missed when they first aired. It’s a misconception to suggest it has anything to do with “movies”. Right now if you want to stream a movie, you pay $4 or $5 to Apple or Amazon according to exactly the kind of “commodity” business model Felix describes. But that is not Netflix’s game at all — they are selling me all-I-can-eat streaming at a low monthly rate. Sure it’s mostly TV shows I’m watching, but they have some very fine shows to choose from and there’s no way I would be watching most of them under the “commodity” model where I pay $2 or $3 for each episode I want to watch. That’s a vastly inferior deal for the consumer.

As for Amazon trying to directly compete with Netflix with their Prime offerings, they can acquire all the licensing they want, but their product is still fatally flawed for the same reason: the UI sucks for finding free stuff to watch. It is transparent that they are using their free streaming options simply as a lure to advertise their non-free streaming options. If they make their interface more comparable to Netflix then maybe their acquisitions will actually matter from a consumer choice perspective. Until then, not so much.

]]>
By: JimmyMackey http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42935 Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:57:47 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42935 The studio’s don’t want Netflix to be profitable anymore now that an unlimited streaming plan is cutting into their physical media empire, whereas Amazon sells the physical media, and perhaps they see Amazon as an avenue for better revenue for the studios. I’m just thankful that my employer, Dish, bought Blockbuster because now Blockbuster @Home gives me both streaming and discs by-mail for less than both services from Netflix. The best selection and quality of movies with instant gratification are what I get from both streaming and mail, so I get to have my cake and eat it too.

]]>
By: y2kurtus http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42841 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 01:38:23 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42841 “but selling commodities in a competitive market isn’t profitable.”

I think 6 of the 10 most profitable companies in the world sell commodities actually.

What NFLX should have done is what AOL had the presence of mind to do. When their stock was trading for 20x enterprise value they should have bought CBS or the content side of Sony either one or even both of which they could have had. Then they would have had the cable companies beating down THEIR door to do licensing deals.

If they had CBS they could be swapping Comcast access to CSI and the Mentalist for PERMANENT access to SNL and Seinfeld reruns.

Every dollar NFLS spends on content needs to be “forever” content rather then 6 months, 9 months, 18 months or whatever. That way every month the $9.99 customers pay buys them a bit more. Customers don’t care at all about exclusivity… why stop someone on DISH or Xfinity from watching something? What they do want is access to as much fresh programming as possible for the $9.99.

]]>
By: fresnodan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42748 Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:59:53 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42748 Well, if it forces Netflix to buy some more copies of its movies so that I can get what is in my queue in less than 4 years (yup, that is how long I have been waiting for Booz’s Booty Review…mot to mention “Strongman” “Small Crime” & “highway Patolman”)

]]>
By: mfw13 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42738 Wed, 05 Sep 2012 02:42:49 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42738 What I’d really like to see is the opposite, i.e. Netflix to start competing with Amazon by renting out e-books.

Given that e-books have no residual value once you’ve read them (unlike physical books, you can’t give them to someone else or re-sell them), it makes much more sense to rent them for a short period of time (like a movie) instead of buying them.

Although I’m a vorcaious reader, I’ve jump onto the e-reading bandwagon because e-books are simply way too expensive. However, offer me the option of renting an e-book for $.99 a week, and I’d buy an e-reader in an instant.

]]>
By: mfw13 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42737 Wed, 05 Sep 2012 02:29:11 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42737 What I’d really like to see is the opposite, i.e. Netflix to start competing with Amazon by renting out e-books.

Given that e-books have no residual value once you’ve read them (unlike physical books, you can’t give them to someone else or re-sell them), it makes much more sense to rent them for a short period of time (like a movie) instead of buying them.

Although I’m a vorcaious reader, I’ve jump onto the e-reading bandwagon because e-books are simply way too expensive. However, offer me the option of renting an e-book for $.99 a week, and I’d buy an e-reader in an instant.

]]>
By: y2kurtus http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42730 Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:13:08 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42730 NFLX didn’t do what AOL did. They should have looked at their stock at $300 as the massively massively inflated currency it was and bought CBS or the content end of Sony both of which could have been had.

What NFLX needs to do is secure “forever content.” IE when they sign a non-exclusive agreement for seseame street they just need to buy permenent access to the 5000 shows that already exist. That way they are building their libiary continuously larger and the $9.99/month provides slightly more value each and every month.

]]>
By: adamcohen15 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/04/why-amazons-competition-is-good-for-netflix/comment-page-1/#comment-42702 Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:00:13 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=17223#comment-42702 The interface is really my main problem with Amazon’s streaming service. Until it stops looking like any old Amazon department and is spun off into its own service, they’re going to struggle to compete. The site is such a mess.

]]>