New Arrested Development will appear exclusively on Netflix Streaming
netflixstreaming.blogspot.comThis is great that Netflix is being bold. Netflix needs to be bold. The networks own the studios that produce all of the content and will continue to use that to keep Netflix under heel.
Arrested Development certainly has risk though. It's impossible to pick up where the show left off six years ago.
Hopefully if this succeeds Netflix will consider following up by reviving Better Off Ted. A similar, critically acclaimed, and more recent show with actors that seem generally available.
If that IS their biz model I personally would love it. I don't watch much TV, but what I do watch is usually in bulk via a 3rd party streaming service and a year or five late. If Netflix started bringing other titles that were cancelled too soon like Firefly, Deadwood, etc with the budget of HBO and the postsight of watching the net for sleeper hits that were cancelled, you can count me in.
That would definitely be awesome, but it also seems very expensive. Hbo cost a lot more than netflix jet their target audience is usually much wider. Finally hbo, in my mind at least is as much a certificate of great tv as it is a channel. This is not the case for netflix.
That wasn't the case for AMC before "Mad Men". Now, in addition to "Mad Men", they have "The Walking Dead", "Breaking Bad" and "Hell on Wheels". Even more than that, they have my guarantee that I will at least try a few episodes of any AMC original show that comes out.
You're right that Netflix would have to build an audience, but if they are able to create exceptional quality shows, as HBO and AMC have done, then they can very print that certificate very quickly (within a couple of years).
Better Off Ted and Firefly (as some-one mentioned underneath) are perfect examples of shows that would thrive under Netflix. They have such huge appeal to the tech savvy audience who are most likely to adopt Netflix. It wouldn't surprise me if the rights to those shows are owned by big TV companies though, who have little to incentive to sell them on.
Firefly (as some-one mentioned underneath) are perfect examples of shows that would thrive under Netflix.
I have to disagree with this, Firefly is not the type of show Netflix should be focusing on. They need shows with low production costs with broad - lowest common denominator appeal. Expensive shows catering to a niche market (which they pretty much already have captured) is not what they're trying to do here.
There's a few ways they can go, sitcoms and short form comedies are going to be much more profitable for them at this point so Better off Ted is a much better fit.
Then there's the Showtime/HBO premium market (which folks are already paying for as a premium service). But even here I think they'd play it safe short term - more Sopranos and True Blood type mass appeal then Boardwalk Empire and The Wire (both are great, but much more focused market).
> catering to a niche market (which they pretty much already have captured)
Not necessarily. The geek market has little loyalty to Netflix, and would just as easily switch to Amazon Prime or any other streaming service which showed up, especially if it provides better features or selection than Netflix. But if Netflix has shows which won't appear anywhere else...
>Expensive shows catering to a niche market
Like Arrested Development?
Interesting. Do you know anything about the old (and predicted) production costs of AD?
They've already announced how they're going to pick up where they left off and it's actually a very good idea.
For the first few episodes, each main character is going to get a recap episode of what they've been up to.
(Now my personal opinion:) Of couse, the other characters are going to show up but I think it's a very original catching up if they do it from each character's perspective. It will allow for a deeper understanding of their world and when they bring things back into a meld it will be that much more funny because of the conflicts set up in the first few episodes.
Totally agree. Where did you read that this was what is going to happen?
There was a panel a month or so ago ("Bluth Family Reunion", maybe?) in which Mitch Hurwitz said this. I don't remember where I watched it.
I loved Arrested Development, and I'm glad that it's coming back, but I'm not sure this is a good move for Netflix. If this idea picks up steam, Netflix becomes a competitor to the networks and their relationships get worse. Heaven knows they're tense enough already. It seems likely that others may pull their content, as Starz recently did, lessening Netflix's appeal. So yes, in the short run they'll gain subscribers, but I don't think this outweighs the major risks this poses in the long run.
The flawed premise here is that the networks will continue to matter.
They won't. Their days are numbered.
Building the future is hard and it's messy. Netflix has been taking it on the chin this year as they've passed through a really rough patch.
In the end, though, I'd put money on Netflix existing in 2020 before I would any given broadcast network. TV is dead.
Netflix is trying to redefine distribution. They're not going to win by placating the dinosaurs of distribution's past. If the Arrested Development deal works out, production companies may see that they have new options for financing their projects and might get better opportunities to reach an audience than they'd ever get on TV.
So it's simple: take the issue by the balls and control your destiny or bow and scrape before moronic suits who don't understand technology, hoping and praying that they won't change their minds each time a licensing deal expires.
I don't think Netflix will be around as an independent company for more than 5 years. Netflix doesn't have a single advantage save one. It has an installed user base. I'm a Netflix user but I wouldn't think twice about switching to another company. I'm on the verge of using Amazon Prime and ditching Netflix. I think even the installed user base isn't much of an advantage.
Netflix's streaming isn't more innovative and Google's streaming or Amazon's streaming. Netflix's advantage used to be to get people DVDs cheaply and quickly. That's not an advantage to take them into the future. Unless they can find a way to stream movies cheaper than Amazon I don't see how they can survive as an independent.
I think Microsoft should buy Netflix and B&N to compete with Apple, Amazon, and Google in the tablet/content space. As an independent company they are dead in the water.
EDIT: fixed typos
That's exactly what this move is trying to fix.
Customer base is a BIG advantage if they're going to start signing up original content. They're playing to their strengths. Amazon is large, but Netflix is massively larger in terms of watchers. As a producer, which would you sign up with?
Whoever gives you the most money.
I don't think so. A lot of producers/actors don't like playing to an empty room, even if they're being paid well. It's too demoralizing.
Wouldn't this move count as first-mover advantage, then?
I don't think so. There is zero chance that Netflix can produce enough original content to give it an advantage by producing shows. It is easy for Amazon, Google, or Apple to pay for exclusive content if that were to become necessary.
Netflix has very little cash in comparison to it's competition. I'm glad they are trying to remain distinctive and keep innovating but any of their competitors can simply buy a studio and do the same thing.
It's possible Netflix sees the future by becoming like a TV channel but for the internet. And have people pay a monthly price to view this TV channel. Some other content producer would be another channel. I don't see this model working out. Rather, I see producers selling their shows to content distributors like Amazon, Apple, and Netflix and letting them fight over subscribers. If this is the case then Netflix has no advantage.
ABC is owned by Disney, NBC by Universal, CBS has a very close link to Viacom & FOX is, well FOX. Those aren't really "networks" they're small parts of huge content conglomerates that aren't going to just die off because Netflix has a few exclusives. Netflix can try to change into more of an HBO business model & maybe that's a good idea, but it's not one that is going to be putting any studios out of business. It's also a departure from the "get the movies you want at a cheap price" model that a lot of their current customers are accustomed to. I think they're going to have a tough time transitioning from being a content middleman to an exclusive content producer/distributor.
Of course the networks will continue to matter, they're the ones who own all the existing content, have all the relationships, and have a shit ton of money. It will be painful for traditional networks to transition, but at the moment netflix really isn't holding that many cards. The movie and tv industry is rightly labeled as a collection of cartels, and for now they're giving netflix breathing room to grow, so that over the course of the next 10 years they can bleed them for all they've got just like they do with satellite, cable, and movie theaters.
Who's going to build the nationwide, unmetered fiber-to-the-home network to support this new content revolution?
Everyone else but the US?
> fibre accounting for half of all broadband connections in Japan (55%) and Korea (52%). Other leading countries include the Slovak Republic (28%), Sweden (24%) and Denmark (12%).
http://www.telconews.com/2010/12/11/oecd-internet-economy-br...
Don't worry, we in Canada won't be getting reasonably priced good internet connections either.
You'd think the Telcos with their government granted monopolies would be on that.
In the end, though, I'd put money on Netflix existing in 2020 before I would any given broadcast network. TV is dead.
Someone is going to have to deal with the question of live sports coverage, somehow, before this can happen.
You mean like the olympics that were streaming from the nbc website in 2010/vancouver?
I consider it a solved problem. I bet more of the big sports leagues would _love_ to cut out the middle men and monetize viewership more directly somehow (like NBA league pass and MLB.tv are).
Apparently not. You must not be a sports fan if you think it's a solved problem; there is live streaming of about 2 NFL games a week and a handful of English, French, and Italian soccer league matches. Everything else is pirate at best, or stupidly requires you to have a TV subscription anyway. Olympics and World Cup are each once every four years, streaming them is helpful but not really a full solution.
The current problem is that NBC is the only network that has streaming rights for the NFL. This is basically just an artifact of their deal with the NFL. Most likely when it comes time to renew contracts that exclusive clause will be marked out and the NFL will allow all stations that have rights to broadcast games online.
The NFL is pretty much the trend setter in the sports world when it comes to media. They were the first to figure out the right way to do a TV deal back in the early 70s, the first to start their own network, etc. It's only a matter of time.
The problem is the massive amount of revenue the NFL gets from television deals. They would need a paid streaming plan, with many of the same blackout provisions, to make up for that.
Given the existence of MLB.tv and NBA League Pass, I'd say the NFL is behind on online streaming of their games. MLB.tv especially is quite good compared to anything the NFL offers.
Can you get NBA League Pass without a television subscription? It used to be bundled with a Dish TV programming package of the same name, can you just pay for the streaming? (Obviously, you can't pay for either right now, as there is no NBA.)
Yes. NBA League Pass Broadband. I've had it for a couple years, and dumped cable when it came out.
That'll be worth checking out if there's an NBA season this year. Does it truly have the whole NBA? No blackouts?
It has some blackouts, including games that are on national TV (ESPN, TNT, and I think NBATV, which is kind of stupid for the NBA to black out. Some of these games stream on their own sites.) It also blacks out "local" broadcasts; when I lived in Seattle, I couldn't get Portland games.
It has a 2-tier price system. At the lower price, you select up to 7 teams to watch; to get all 30 teams, you have to pay a little bit more.
It's not a perfect system, but it's getting better.
Like MLB's option, League Pass blacks out your local games if they're on TV. One hopes that next time around the TV contracts include a mechanism for a) revenue sharing with the networks for these packages, and b) showing online streamers the same ads they'd see on their local affiliate.
The TV deals are still good enough that the leagues won't offer all of the games through their online platform.
The hope, I suppose, is that future TV deals will decrease to the point that the leagues realize that they can make more money by just distributing it all themselves. That's seems to be what they are setting up at least, but the short term they are making so much money off of TV licensing.
The NBA All-Star game has been shown online for the last few years and it's a better experience because you can choose from four cameras (one of which was following a single player, very cool). That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.
That part of the technology is awesome, but I suppose you'd have bandwidth problems at a large enough scale.
What's going to be interesting is when both real-time rendering and motion capture get good enough to serve as a vehicle for live sports. Imagine being able to put the camera anywhere you want, or on anyone you want. That will kill TV sports if nothing else does in the meantime.
Why? Sounds like a lot of work that's best done on expensive near real-time rendering hardware by techs and producers who know what they're doing. If anything, I think it'll make TV sports even more engrossing.
We'll see. I think it's going to be a pretty huge deal once it happens.
Local stations will probably continue to exist for: * sports * news * weather
Alternatively, ESPN could stream (and should! Could you imagine if they got the ad money directly for the Super Bowl??? I bet ESPN would be licking its chops for that kind of money)
Or the producers of television see this as a way to not deal with the networks and still get their show distributed to people, and the networks find themselves without good television to put on the air.
Agreed. This is proof-of-concept time. If it succeeds, TV/film producers will gradually dip their feet in more.
The networks already want to cut Netflix out. That is what caused the whole fiasco this summer. Netflix can't just behave and hope that the networks keep throwing them bones -- that's just not how business works. It's important that they take aggressive moves to counteract this. If copyright law were a bit more reasonable, maybe this wouldn't be necessary.
And I think the thread they're picking up with AD is perfect -- just imagine all of those long-lost fan favorites like Firefly, AD, and now Community getting picked up and streamed on Netflix in a climate where the show's creators are at least theoretically given freedom from network meddling (not to mention the much more realistic "ratings" that would be possible like this). I may even pay for that, and I almost never watch TV and generally hate it, but if Netflix cultivated all of the great content that the mainstream networks regularly threw away, they'd definitely have a much brighter outlook.
The problem I see potentially arising out of this is the conflict of interest for cable companies as online streaming continues to override cable TV viewership. With Netflix picking up shows that had initially been considered by premium cable networks like HBO or Showtime, how much interest will Comcast have in keeping pricing for internet access out of the ridiculous ranges and varied pacakges of cable television?
If Netflix doesn't make steps like this (and the $100M tv show produced by netflix) they will be at the complete mercy of the major studios/networks.
the hope for Netflix is that they become the new network. If every good new show signs with Netflix or a similar provider, what can the old networks threaten with?
This is what the future will be - then somebody just needs to figure out how to get Netflix, Amazon et al to work together so that consumers don't pay multiple subscription fees.
This is why the Netflix stock price went so high - because so many analysts wrote reports about how Netflix is new media, and it may well be.
tl;dr networks = dead
What if it caused the exact opposite to happen and this move gives netflix leverage in negotiating for content. I am just saying no reason for netflix not to license out the show to be on TV as well...
I'm personally afraid of the more likely possibility of networks spinning off their own Netflix clones which is arguably even worse: to watch an NBC show you would need an nbc.com subscription, a CBS one for CBS shows etc.
I think Netflix needs exclusive content to survive.
Don't those long-term risks exist no matter what?
I predicted this would happen when Starz pulled their programming. Given how much Netflix is paying for content, they can produce several pretty high end shows, which makes them a direct competitor to HBO, Showtime, etc. But, they have a much better delivery method, from the consumer perspective. This was a no-brainer, and good on Netflix for recognizing the opportunity that Arrested Development presents for them. It's relatively cheap to produce, has huge marketing value, and has a cult-like following that will sign up for Netflix specifically for access to these new episodes.
Netflix bought House of Cards back in March bidding against HBO and AMC [1]. Less than a week later CBS, parent company of Showtime, announced it would pull Showtime content from Netflix even though the contract wasn't going to expire until the summer [2]. No negotiation or warning to Netflix, just "FYI, we're out, thanks." HBO just flat out refuses to license any of its content to Netflix or anyone else for that matter.
And it's not like Netflix isn't willing to pay. Netflix paid $30 million per movie for exclusive early access with Dreamworks. Previously HBO held the contract for only $20 million per movie [3].
Media companies are just telling Netflix to flat out screw off or at best pay a ridiculous sum that nobody else would be expected to pay. Each one has a different threshold. HBO has zero tolerance. Starz had quite a bit up to a point. But eventually they all put on the brakes to keep Netflix in check.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/03/netflix-locks-down...
[2] http://www.bgr.com/2011/03/23/cbs-will-remove-some-showtime-...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/netflix-sec...
Time Warner is trying to sign people up for their subscription service (HBO) -- is it really in their interest to license their content to a competing subscription service?
It's in their interest to get as many people to pay for their content as they can, and one would think that multiple channels of distribution would be a means to that end.
It's obvious why they don't want to, of course. If they control distribution, the theory goes, they can charge basically whatever they want. And of course they can control legal distribution quite easily, but that's not enough, is it?
And for the first time, people will actually care about breaking Netflix Streaming's DRM. Anyone want to guess how long it'll last? I'm thinking it'll be up on the Pirate Bay the day of release.
It will be on Torrent/usenet sites within 15min of airing. Pirate groups have this stuff down.
Its not much harder to capture netflix than any other live show.
You can buy $100 capture cards and record live gaming. DRM isnt an issue since you dont even need to crack the source.
And thank god it will... being an avid AD fan outside the US I would otherwise have no access to it.
If Ron Howard wants to throw up a donation button somewhere for all us internationals I'll gladly chip in though :)
Looks like those outside US are reduced, yet again, to grey-market solutions.
Just like standard US shows, it will air to the US first, and international TV stations (or internet streaming services) can bid on the right to air it, nearly always at a later date.
Which is compltely idiotic business model for Netflix. They can sell their original content directly to me. Unlike traditional TV content producers, they don't have to rely on (and split profits with) third party distributors.
I suspect you are right, but I sure as hell hope you are not.
It hardly matters - at this point everybody under the age of 30 torrent it anyway (or get it from usenet).
The copyright battle has been lost for a long, long time now.
That's like saying Spotify should never have tried because "everybody under the age of 30 torrent it anyway".
Only a very small subset of the population torrents movies. Look only to redbox, Netflix, Amazon, motion picture producers even cable companies to see they are all posting huge revenues. Your assment seems to be based on your friends, not the market at large. (Notice I said Rev rather than profit as revs show that people are paying.)
I'd rather pay 8 dollars a month for hassel free streaming and millions of other people would too. This is big business.
Except there are no other prominent streaming services in Europe afaik, who would pick up that idea.
In the UK we have Love Film, and Amazon might well either already offer or expand in the future to offer streaming in various places... or others might shoot up.
But just because it's originally owned by a digital streaming company, doesn't mean someone like the BBC couldn't buy a license to air traditionally.
Too bad. This would have been enough for me to reactivate my Netflix account here in Canada, but instead I'll just get it via btjunkie and Transmission.
The series is netflix-owned though so it'll probably be available in Canada too. They don't have any arbitrary studio rules for regional licensing to deal with.
It's Europe, where netflix hasn't launched yet, that is left in the cold.
This bodes well for Netflix and their new business model.
I hope that the programs they produce will be free of advertising.
>> I hope that the programs they produce will be free of advertising.
Agreed. They should be, right?
Nothing annoys me more than paying for a movie ticket and sitting through 10 minutes of commercials before a film.*
I would hope after the customer backlash over the pricing change that Netflix will be smart enough to stay away from commercials.
* Drivers who camp out in the left lane annoy me slightly more. "Stay right except to pass."
You should pay for Hulu :) I bet that would annoy you more. I still can't believe you pay for hulu and still get ads all throughout the damn show. And not just ads. You see the same ads over and over and over.
Adblock Plus on Firefox (but not on Chrome) blocks the ads on Hulu (leaving gaps of blackness and silence).
In your opinion, is that better than viewing the ads?
Depends on the ads I suppose. I'm surprised that there aren't any services that say "hey , we're going to make you watch ads but we'll let you choose what categories of adverts you get"
That way I don't get constant adverts for women's skincare products and get stuff about new video games instead.
Hulu does let you choose in that every few weeks there's a short survey with questions like, How often do you go see first-run movies? Hulu claims that the purpose of the surveys is to customize my "ad experience".
You can also click on "Ad Swap" at the top of every single ad and choose what out of three choices you'd rather see. Honestly I don't see the problem with ads on Hulu Plus. I'm paying for additional licensing fees and being able to watch the videos on any device I own.
Ah , I'm in the UK so no Hulu available to me. The British TV channels have online services but they're typically the same 4 or 5 ads in rotation over and over again (except the BBC of course) and don't appear to be targeted at all.
For me it is vastly better. Stupendously better.
I like movie previews. Am I the only one?
I'm talking about "commercials" - not previews.
I love movie previews.
Some theaters I go to play commercials (i.e. ads for products) before the movie previews.
No, you're not. I could do without the TV-like nonsense that runs in between shows, though - I can actually tolerate a blank screen.
I would be more tolerant if there were 2 listed times: (1) when the previews will begin; (2) when the movie will begin.
Trailers were once shown after films finished, but theatres changed that to force people to watch them.
For most theaters there are. Our local chain in my hometown started the actual film exactly fifteen minutes after the advertised time, and the same is true for the theaters where I live now.
That's interesting. I would think there would be some kind of agreement with theaters and movie right suppliers to show the previews.
What do you do about getting good seats? If you show up just as the movie is starting, you're probably going to get bad seats.
Movie theaters where I live let you choose the seats when buying tickets.
Most seats are numbered except in smaller cinemas.
If you have pre-allocated seating, the cinema may have to employ people to ensure people are sitting in the right place (at least, people will want someone to complain to if someone else stole their seat).
But more importantly, pre-allocated seats encourages people to show up late to the screening and miss the ads and trailers, and potentially even miss out on the concession stand. If you don't have pre-allocated seats, you need to turn up early to be assured of a good seat; and what are you going to do in the (initially darkened) cinema waiting by yourself, if not consume some snacks that you bought.
The cinemas around me (London) charge extra for the privilege of pre-allocation.
> If you have pre-allocated seating, the cinema may have to employ people to ensure people are sitting in the right place (at least, people will want someone to complain to if someone else stole their seat).
Is this really a problem? All cinemas in Norway (that I know of) have pre-allocated seating, but there is never anybody who ensures that people sit in the right place. If you find that someone is sitting in your seat, you simply tell them to move. I've never heard of anyone refusing to move.
> All cinemas in Norway (that I know of) have pre-allocated seating
I've watched movies in cinemas all over North America, and the only one that ever had numbered seating was a dinner-and-a-movie place where your seat was used to keep track of your order.
Nearly all the "stadium" seating theaters around me in Utah use numbered seating for every movie for at least it's first opening week, but they're largely all owned by one guy (well, his corporation, as he personally passed away a few years ago). It's more of a courtesy so larger families and groups can manage to pick up seats together, but it's still enforced if it needs to be.
Probably a big-city problem.
At my local cinema you can select your seat when you reserve tickets.
I don't go there much since it is too expensive and it isn't kept clean but at least the seats are numbered.
The local cinema were we use to live didn't have numbered seats and was much more cozy.
This might be just regional - none of the larger cinemas in my area do this (yet).
I like them, though I've seen most of them already. It's still enjoyable to see them on the big screen.
I like movie previews, and even some commercials. What I hate is anything that interrupts the show or movie that I'm watching.
I would more than happily sit through a long block of all the commercials before the show if it meant that I could watch the show, in its entirety and without interruption.
I can't find it, but I recall a conversation with Joss Whedon who proclaims the commercial interruption to be the hardest thing in TV-writing to accomodate, and are the most jarring obstacle to an otherwise well-told story.
> Nothing annoys me more than paying for a movie ticket and sitting through 10 minutes of commercials before a film.*
A month of Netflix costs much less than a single movie ticket. Sometimes I wonder how they manage to keep the subscription rate so low without advertising.
Streaming video will live whether or not Netflix does. I'm just pumped for another season of Arrested Development. Booya!
Bold move, but also a crucial blow to cable television.
I hope Netflix licences this out in countries they don't serve.
Syndication of Netflix-produced shows will probably become one of their big money makers if this works out.
Hopefully they'll buck current trends and offer episodic content for $1 or so per episode to non-subscribers. Content available "exclusively" to subscribers is a customer-hostile model, as, e.g., Apple and Amazon seem to realize.
Whoa that's actually an awesome idea. I've never thought of something like that before. And I'm sure someone else has actually already attempted it but I wonder why it isn't widespread. The only reason I can think of is maybe the networks just don't offer a solid enough deal for it to be reasonable and profitable, at least for smaller startups. I bet the big boys like Netflix and Hulu could work something out though.
I hope there will be an easy conduit for these episodes to appear on torrent trackers.
I hope there isn't. Sounds like you're a fan, but either don't want to pay the creators, or don't approve of their choice of distribution? That doesnt give you a moral or legal right to stiff them.
Arrogant nationalist. Not everyone is American and and for that reason gets screwed from everything from current tv (yeah I like to see shows 3 years after they were current) to innovative things like netflix, hulu and even iTunes tv show store.
It will probably come to DVD or be distributed on another channel in your country. If not, it still doesn't grant you a moral or legal right to the content.
If you pirate instead of paying then you make distributing to your country unprofitable; that sounds like the opposite effect from what you want.
Who says anything about paying/not paying? The point is, if you're waiting for an official distribution outside of the US, 99% of the fan websites become complete spoilers.
You can't be a dedicated fan of a US show outside the US and thoroughly enjoy it without pirating it first (...and then, buy the DVD). The only other option is to only watch DVDs and never talk with anyone online about the show, for fear of spoilers.
Didn't they learn anything from the Phantom Menace fiasco? The movie was the first highly and universally anticipated movie since highspeed internet became available. It was released 5 months later in France. It was a total fiasco. Instant surge of piracy, a specific screener became widespread and the only way for Star Wars fan to "survive" a five-months online lockout from their passion. This event was the origin of worldwide releases of blockbusters by movie studios, and the reason why movies nowadays get translated/localized before they are released in their own countries.
"Spoilers" or inconvenience don't give you a right to the content either.
The studio has to weigh the benefits of a worldwide launch (possibly reduced piracy?) against the benefits of a staggered launch (ability to pay for and schedule proper promotion, localization, and advertising in each market.) Sometimes the studio makes the wrong choice, ether the wrong economic one or the one you don't like, but that's their prerogative.
Meta: I'm surprised be the amount of piracy entitlement on HN, which I expect has more content creators than the average net audience.
When a particular product hits home, people feel robbed for not being able to buy it on the spot for any reason, especially when shipping and manufacturing costs are close to zero. Indeed, it really is the other way around, and it will never be otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact that some of your paying customers will be dissatisfied by your service to the point that they will take action to bypass your own faulty distribution channel, and they will even pay to be able to do that.
Heck, let's drop the masks, the majority of your paying customers even bought their very first computer just to be able to do that over the past decade.
I'm not advocating piracy, I'm explaining why it exists in the first place. When the pirated product is available immediately instead of months/years later, and with better features than the legit one, it's foolish to expect even paying fans not to pirate things nor look into piracy as a distribution channel. This is a challenge that content distributors need to deal with, one way or another.
Saying that people shouldn't pirate digital goods because it's illegal is all nice and well, but is this even enforceable? It's my own humble belief that it's not, not with the current state of the art, and that yelling at piracy is like yelling at windmills. Just deal with it and improve your product distribution in every possible way so that piracy is not exactly a better option.
It works, Apple proved it, Steam proved it.
I'm surprised at the piracy entitlement too, and as a content creator, I don't condone it myself. But please understand that this kind of situation - new Arrested Development only available to US citizens - is incredibly frustrating for the rest of us precisely because we, as HNers, know there's zero technical reason why we couldn't be paying for and watching Netflix from anywhere in the internet connected world.
Interesting that you bring up morality. A lot of people don't actually have a moral problem with free viewing of something that isn't offered for pay in the first place. There may or may not be a legal problem with this depending on your jurisdiction, but morality is precisely the area where these people gain their justification.
This is similar to the popular treatment of abandonware.
I mentioned morality because I believe it trumps bad law - I have no moral issue with DVD ripping for personal use, or with region-free DVD players to circumvent region restrictions. Or with using proxies to access Netflix from outside the US, for that matter.
That's just a silly excuse. You can't see netflix over a proxy because you need a us credit card.
I'm not making excuses for Netflix - whose is, after all, financing more episodes of a show fans love. I'm sticking up for the copyright holder who is, after all, making more episodes of a show fans love and getting flack for not getting an international distribution deal set up fast enough.
If they aren't willing to sell it to me, they can't lose any money if I get it elsewhere.
But that's the error they will never realize because they are so used to think of the world in old terms.
bring Netflix in all over the world and then we'll talk about that.
Till they keep screwing people outside of US, I'll head over to the torrents.
I'd wager that a large proportion of the fan noise was probably introduced to the show via less than legal means. For e.g., there was absolutely no way for me sitting in India to have legally watched the show a few years back.
As much as you'd like to believe that a niche group of American viewers alone convinced the creators that furthering the show would be a good idea, that's just not true.
I believe DVD sales had more positive impact than piracy. AD is currently the #45 top comedy DVD on Amazon... five years after its release.
If you love the show so much then pay don't pirate.
Well, you're right. But as someone above me said, those are two completely different use cases.>> If you love the show so much then pay don't pirate.If you can't watch a show on netflix/hulu right away one day later, it's nearly impossible to use the internet anymore without getting spoilered (one word: DEXTER. I simply wouldn't be able to think about something different, let alone wait fucking 1 1/2 years for that shit to appear legally on DVD). So, in this case, people are much more likely to torrent something, to "quickly catch" up. The other use case however is, that you buy your dvd box, for example after each season, to re-watch your show and show your support. And be proud to own it physically.
Completely different things:
A lot of Americans can combine these two because of online services as Hulu or Netflix. Sadly there are other countries where this is just not possible.- Torrent d/l == catching up, satisfying your addiction - Buying DVDs == supporting shows/movies you love
Agreed. The only reason to use torrents is to get your content delivered to the devices you want. It's hard to find a device that doesn't support Netflix. An offline Netflix option might be the only exception
The only exception? How about the billions of us living someone else in the world other than the US?
What is stopping Netflix from offering content internationally? I'm sure there are several layers of bureaucracy here, from Hollywood requirements, syndication etc. It would be interesting to know what steps/changes need to be taken to open this service up for the rest of us.
If the new Attested Development really takes off, Netflix will have a syndication opportunity to trade with the networks. It reminds me of the patent wars; build up your collection so you can horse-trade when necessary...
The source article appears to have been modified to imply that it will not be exclusive to Netflix.
EDIT: Other sources seem to be indicating that it will indeed be exclusive.
This isn't a good deal for the show though. By doing an exclusive it is going to kill their long term audience, leaving Netflix free to poach another show.
The whole "US Member" thing has me nervous.
Might end up just downloading it. Not waiting if they decide to screw over Canada.
p(viewer loves Arrest Development | viewer has netflix) > p(viewer loves Arrest Development) ?
This is better understood as a strategic move, not a tactical one. It's not about Arrested Development qua Arrested Development, it's about not needing Fox, and not Fox qua Fox either but Fox as a particular instance of the general category of television channels.
Yes, that probably & hopefully is their strategy. But is it mere co-incidence that their first major play of that strategy is for a show that is well loved by geeks? My guess is that the above probability does hold true, and that's part of the reason that this particular show is a going first.
The above probability does not hold true.
Netflix and Arrested Development watchers both skew young and urban. I'd be surprised if it didn't hold true.
What makes you think it doesn't?
Exactly. Firefly would be another obvious choice.
Much more expensive per episode though
How will I get to watch this from Australia?
We can't get Netflix here.
I think netflix is expanding to australia soon. Streaming only though, no dvd-by-mail. they recently expanded into south america and europe.
Deadwood, anyone?
Yes, please! And Firefly...
Well havin just cancelled Netflix, I may have to get it again, at least for a month.
I'll be sure to watch it on pirate streaming/BitTorrent once it comes out.