backtop


Print 10 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Mar 6 at 11:22 AM


Netflix CEO Reed Hastings   (Source: Reuters)
Hastings says it is a long-term goal in order to compete with HBO Go

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said it's likely that the video streaming service will end up doing business with cable service providers in the future, despite being competitors now.

At the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco, California, Hastings said that many misconstrue "copycat competition" like Amazon Prime as the main competitors to his service, but mentioned that HBO's Go on-demand service is the real competition for his company. For instance, HBO just announced that Go would be on Xbox Live beginning April 1, which will give users an alternative to Netflix.

"It's very easy for companies to over-estimate copycat competition and not see the real threat," said Hastings. "You go back to 1995, and you talk to the Netscape sales force and ask them what their number one competition is, and they'd say Spy Glass, which was taking a little market share from them at the time. But the real competition was Microsoft and bundling."

This is why Hastings sees Netflix eventually joining forces with cable service providers in the future. Instead of focusing on the likes of Amazon Prime, Netflix wants to give cable service providers an alternative to HBO's Go on-demand and hit the real competitor right where it hurts.

"It's not in the short term, but it's the natural direction for us in the long term," said Hastings. "Many [cable service providers] would like to have a competitor to HBO, and they would bid us off of HBO."

Netflix has already began to take HBO on by releasing original programming such as "Lilyhammer," which premiered February 6, and "House of Cards," which will debut later in 2012.

Source: Netflix



Comments     Threshold


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

Please don't require cable provider login
By jjlj on 3/1/2012 12:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
As long as Netflix is going to offer more content at the same price and NOT require a provider login, I say I can't wait. But if they require a provider login that would just suck.

Like epix for example, why the heck isn't there an option to subscribe to online streaming only?




RE: Please don't require cable provider login
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 2:17:49 PM , Rating: 4
No, absolutely not. Going with a cable provider means streamed commercials. The day Netflix has commercials of any kind, I cancel the service permanently.

Netflix has a very good thing going. They had a rough 2011, mostly due to media hype over a VERY minor change in service plans. Hell how many times have we had our cable rates jacked up? People grumble about that but take it up the ass with hardly any complaint.

For $7.99 I can stream to my hearts content with no commercials. It's perfect just the way it is.


RE: Please don't require cable provider login
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2012 3:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
If limited commercials (3-4 per show like Hulu) were introduced but backed up by new shows being released say a week after being aired, I could live with it.

Unlike most, I don't mind a few commercials.


RE: Please don't require cable provider login
By daneren2005 on 3/1/2012 6:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Heck I actually enjoy a few commercials as long as its not the same one AGAIN


By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 6:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem. Have you ever watched Hulu and Amazon prime? It's the same two commercials EVERY TIME there's a break. And, of course, you cannot skip them or fast forward through.

No, to hell with that. I like my Netflix just how it is.


By The Raven on 3/2/2012 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it necessarily means commercials. I think it will be more exclusivity crap, like pay per view titles not conflicting with Netflix titles or something like that.

It is fine just the way it is. I think Reed is probably just worried that the others will get in bed with the evil cable companies/studios before they do.


By inperfectdarkness on 3/6/2012 11:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
netflix has lost a large chunk of movie library and gained considerable TV library.

i completely agree about commercials. if i'm going to PAY for content, it had better be commercial free. but let's do a little math, shall we?

let's take an old show (relatively speaking), star trek: the next generation. 178 episodes. 45 minutes each. if you were to watch them as originally broadcast, you'd be enduring a full 15 minutes of commercials each episode. that's a grand total of 2670 minutes of commercials, or 44.5 HOURS OF COMMERCIALS. that's right, nearly 2 full days worth of commercials. that's a very significant chunk of MY free time that i don't want to waste watching the same BS ads for cars, oil of olay, or axe deodorant body spray.

now hulu (et. all) does offer REDUCED commercial interruption, but it's still there. if they were to offer only 5 minutes of commercials for a 45 minute show (a 1/3rd reduction) that would still delete 14.8 hours of my time just to sit through crap while watching TNG start to finish.

quite frankly, unless these previously-aired shows from 5+ years ago are in some kind of rerun, they are simply not making money for the content owners--save for sporadic boxed-set sales. bundled licensing to netflix is a great way to derive continued residual income from old shows for virtually NO cost to the content owners. (no production, marketing, advertising, logistics, etc). it's frankly insulting to think that the end user should PAY to watch content, only to be FORCED to endure advertisements.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














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