backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by th3pwn3r.. on Oct 23 at 12:48 AM


Netflix is now a streaming company that mails DVDs  (Source: Nintendo)
Reed Hastings says Netflix is now a streaming company

Netflix is one of the main reasons that so much pressure was put on traditional video retail, ultimately leading to the bankruptcy filing of Blockbuster. Netflix has been changing its business model to keep up with consumer trends that are migrating from DVDs to streaming content.

Netflix offered up its financial data for Q3 2010 this week and the company is doing very well. During Q3 2010, Netflix added 1.9 million new subscribers bringing the total number of subscribers to the service up to 16.9 million. The 16.9 million figure is a gain of 52% from the same quarter of 2009. Netflix also stated in the earnings release that 2/3 of the customers of the service now stream content, up from 41% last year and 61% in Q2 2010.

Netflix grew its revenue significantly from $431 million in Q3 2009 to $553.2 million in Q3 2010 for a growth rate of 30% compared to last year. Interestingly, the number of DVDs that Netflix sent to users by mail declined in areas like San Francisco and grew overall by only 10% despite the significant amount of new users that signed up and the growth in revenue. That is a clear indication that more and more users are streaming content only. Netflix did note that it still spends more than $500 million to ship discs.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said, "We are very proud to announce that by every measure we are now a streaming company, which also offers DVD-by-mail. In Q4, we’ll spend more on streaming content than DVD content, and we’ll deliver many more hours of entertainment via streaming than on DVD. More impressively, a majority of our subs will watch more content streamed from Netflix than delivered by us on DVD. DVD-by-mail shipments are still growing, but streaming for us is much larger and growing much faster."

Hastings notes that the company is able to retain more customers thanks to word of mouth marketing by customers and high customer satisfaction. The cost to acquire a new subscriber dropped to $19.81 for Q3 2010 compared to $26.86 for Q3 2009. The huge growth in streaming use also lead to Hastings stating that streaming only subscriptions could be introduced this year. Netflix also plans to expand its service to more countries.

Netflix launched its streaming service in Canada in September marking its first venture outside America. AllThingsD reports that the earnings for the quarter were very close to Wall Street expectations with non-GAAP earnings of $0.70 on expectations of $0.71, missing the mark by a penny. However, Wall Street expected revenue of $551 million, which Netflix beat with $553 million.
 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Blah
By therealnickdanger on 10/21/2010 10:52:29 AM , Rating: 5
You can't judge the whole service based upon one experience. Well, it's a free country, so you can if you want to, but you probably shouldn't.

First, you have to have a good transfer of a film to video (studio). Then the video has to have a good encoding, balancing compression artifacts without sacrificing picture quality (studio/distributor). Then the encoded video has to be properly compressed for streaming, again trying to mask further image compromises (usually the studio/distributor). Then your internet connection quality will determine one of many levels of compression on top of the copy's compression for the final stream (Netflix).

I have seen *some* garbage on Netflix - standard definition streams of older content, but many of the factors I listed above are outside their control. You can't polish a turd. Most content I watch on Netflix is HD and trumps DVD easily, but rarely as good as broadcast HD (varies by channel), and certainly never better than Blu-ray.

In the end, I don't pay Netflix $12/mo for the best quality picture and audio in streaming. That's what I have Blu-ray for. Oh wait, they send Blu-ray to me via mail too! I pay Netflix for the vast, vast stockpile of movies and TV that I like to watch, most of it in HD, but wouldn't spend the money to buy on disc.


RE: Blah
By Motoman on 10/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Blah
By WLee40 on 10/21/2010 11:30:35 AM , Rating: 5
you are an idiot


RE: Blah
By theapparition on 10/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Blah
By Hexus on 10/21/2010 5:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Read the whole thing, the opinion is being based on the whole of the thread, not just that comment.

And it's more his insisting that Netflix is somehow flawed because his experience wasn't as good as someone else, and their opinions of his further decline when he immediately becomes pompous and hostile.


RE: Blah
By Suntan on 10/21/2010 11:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not an idiot so much as just awfully ignorant on the topic.

As discussed, computer playback of Netfix is quite poor compared to other sources and other hardware players (which is unacceptable to a lot of people.)

That said, what Netflix is doing lately on the PS3 (with more recent content available in HD) is down right impressive.

Personally, I think the better quality encodes in HD are quite appropriate, especially if a person is just watching them on a TV of that size.

-Suntan


RE: Blah
By tlbj6142 on 10/21/2010 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
As mentioned above there are 3-4 things that affects the image quality...

1. Source. When I select a movie on my BR only about 20% are listed as "HD" quality. On my Wii there is no HD label as I assume it knows I can't display HD, so there is no reason to transmit that "version" of the film.
2. Bandwidth. If you don't pass the "HD" test you don't get to see it in HD.
3. In-movie adjustments, a co-worker with a Xbox? Ps3? claims the image quality adjusts throughout the movie. I don't see that on my BR or Wii. But it might be an issue via PC viewing.

Examples while streaming movies using my Samsung BR player's netflix "app" displayed on my new 58" Samsung Plasma.

* Season1-3 X-Files look "OK", but they are not labeled as "HD". As I assume they were not shot in HD. They do look slightly better than when streamed via the Wii which I'd expect.
* Star Trek IV -- This is labeled as "HD". It looks like a DVD. But I assume it was shot/processed with older equipment.
* Spartacus: Blood and Sand (a Starz Original series from 2009??) is labeled as "HD" and I'd say it looks nearly as good as the two or three BR movies I own.

NOTE: I've never watched anything on my PC, so I have no idea how he streaming compares to what I see with my Wii-->42"LCD or my BR-->58"Plasma.


RE: Blah
By tlbj6142 on 10/21/2010 11:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
One more thing....

I rarely, if ever use the DVD on Netflix. But, I do, stream probably 10+ hours per week (a mix of BR and Wii viewing).


RE: Blah
By therealnickdanger on 10/22/2010 11:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, most "pre-HD" TV shows suffer from a similar problem. While many shows were shot on film, allowing for pristine transfers from original negatives, it's the effects that hold it back. TV shows back then did all their digital effects work in SD (480i video) in post-processing, separate from the original film elements. So in order to bring pre-HD effects shots into the HD realm, the original source film must be transfered, then the effects shots must be COMPLETELY redone in HD. This is a monumental undertaking, but it can be done.

Star Trek, The Original Series, was resurrected onto HD-DVD and Blu-ray with this mastery. While it didn't contain digital effects, the original effect elements were rotoscoped onto lower resolution tape for broadcast. Paramount/CBS took the time and spent the money to give every old episode the proper treatment: HD transfer from original negatives, recreate all old effects using new technology. Many people balked at the "upgraded" effects, but they did it with extreme care and respect to the original work.

Other shows that require this treatment: Star Trek: TNG, DS9, Voyager, Babylon 5, X-Files (most seasons)... pick just about any TV show before Lost that did effects work in video post... The problem is that it's such an expensive endeavor that it's risky.

Star Trek IV was unfortunately the recipient of over-zealous applications of digital noise reduction, scratch removal software, and edge enhancement. Essentially, the studio decided to take the cheap/easy route and in the process of applying the above algorithms, destroyed most of the fine detail inherent to the original film elements. The ST:IV Blu-ray is better than the DVD, but when compressed down for streaming, the destruction of the source detail ruins it. Wrath of Kahn, while older, was given special treatment and looks much, much better.


RE: Blah
By Riven98 on 10/21/2010 12:33:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You can't polish a turd.

Actually, you can. They proved it on MythBusters. I saw it streamed from Netflix.


RE: Blah
By Copaseticbob on 10/21/2010 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
OWNED!!
Its in HD too.


RE: Blah
By therealnickdanger on 10/22/2010 11:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
LOL that's fantastic! :)


RE: Blah
By gjk392 on 10/21/2010 5:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
"You can't polish a turd."

Actually you can and there is a Mythbusters episode where they did just that. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polish...


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles
Blockbuster Files for Bankruptcy
September 23, 2010, 10:49 PM
Netflix Streaming Lands in Canada
September 22, 2010, 10:22 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki