HDTV Almanac - NetFlix Posts Good News

[alfredpoor]

In a letter to shareholders about 4th Quarter 2011 results, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings reported good news and bad news. As I read the letter, it looks to me that while the company may have made some very public missteps along the way, there is no question in my mind that the corporate change of [...]

Read Column

[Rodolfo]

Delivering streaming content over broadband is subjected to the price consumers pay for the separate Internet service, which is out of Netflix control, and certainly could affect its streaming business once all services settle their requirements and caps, for example due to Net Neutrality, which can also bring changes in pricing and monthly caps as companies react to new policies.

Such combination of charges could potentially make streaming economically illogical for a subscriber regardless how convenient maybe. More illogical (to Netflix and indirectly the subscriber) than absorbing occasional increases of a few cents more for the postage of a mailed disc from time to time, which I would say is easier to calculate and plan for future budgeting than the Internet mess. Although mailing cost is also out of control of Netflix they have historical data for proyections and years of experience doing it, as opposed to Internet charges that could end up anywhere and make the whole service ridiculous.

In addition, Netflix had a limitation in the number of streamers a subscriber home may have, I believe it was only two when they implemented the new changes. If that would be as restricted, it would mean that over-the-top could not be as attractive for cutting the cord with cable (and broadcast over the cable) for homes with more than two people.

I do not see streaming as a full replacement but rather as a convenient plan-B complement even in the years ahead. Not to mention the trade offs in image/sound quality of streaming vs. renting the Blu-ray version. Additionally, there is no comparison of quality for large screens and multi-channel audio systems, even if the streamed version could more often be 1080i/p eventually and even with DD Plus.

I am glad Netflix as a company found a foot to construct from there, after the struggle they faced due to wrong decisions at the wrong time using a bully approach. Regardless of the misbalances that approach caused, the company is needed for the market of progressive content consumption until better methods exist. I just hope they do not make more mistakes in a rush and act more cautiously while closely monitoring how the Internet ISPs businesses show their final faces/plans as they adapt to whatever the new regulations may impose, Net Neutrality and otherwise.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[videograbber]

Rodolfo,

those are all really good points, and I was happy to see you making them. To prosper, Netflix needs to be adaptable enough that they can change to meet the needs of a dynamic marketplace. And not try to put all their eggs into a basket which, as you say, may at some point become too heavy to carry. Their expectations that the streaming side will continue to grow, and overshadow their hard-media rentals may not actually come to pass. Bandwidth still isn't free.

For myself, I don't have much interest in the convenience of streaming, simply because I value the quality of blu-ray too highly. If I'm going to take the time in my busy day to sit down and spend 2 hours to watch a movie, I want to see it in the highest quality possible. I spent too much time and money on display technology and ancillary hardware, to enable a best quality user experience. With multiple avenues for blu-ray rentals of new releases available (local shops, Redbox, and Netflix), combined with very reasonable purchase costs for slightly older blu-rays (~$10, much of the time, and as low as $6!), I'm not willing to compromise just for the sake of a little 'convenience'.

Of course, that won't be true for many video consumers, just as the MP3 market has proven for music. I'm in the minority, and I realize that. However, I think Netflix and any other similar companies would do well to consider the full range of needs of the entire spectrum of potential users. And not turn quality-video into a niche or specialty market.

- Tim

[Rodolfo]

Videograbber,

I agree 100% with your approach; that is exactly what I am doing and for the same reason.

Throughout the years I have spent about $100,000 in hardware and software for my HT in pursue of the ultimate video and audio quality, and the 2 hours I spend transporting myself into a good movie would be a total waste of time and HT investment if just clicking to stream a Netflix substandard movie. It is substandard even when it could eventually be 1080i/p, compared to the current ultimate Blu-ray standard, and 4K Blu-ray is around the corner as pre-recorded media of content that is already filmed and stored as 4K.

Reason by which I am installing a Sony's 4K projector to take my HT to a higher level of image quality needed by a Cinemascope screen, and it would be more criminal to spend even an hour of this beauty projecting streamed content and upscaling 4 times the compression artifacts it brings, even when my Internet connection is 100Mbps.

But I admit that, sometimes, what it drives the evening is the one-and-only piece of content that happens to be handy at Netflix, so I go reluctantly with it, as a very unusual event, because content choice is the driver that night. However, deep inside I feel shame, because I am misusing the potential of my hardware, not to mention using 16 speakers to reproduce a matrixed two channel audio soundtrack compressed to up the neck, with an altered/butchered aspect-ratio streamed film.

We are in the same boat Videograbber, reason by which we belong to this magazine, quality is king but is very lonely out there, especially felt when trying to politely explain and justify it to the humongous power of OK-quality crowds.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[wessokolosky]

I opted for the physical disc for the reasons noted above, but also because of the supplementary materials on the disc that do not come with the streaming versions. Sometimes these supplements are fascinating, and lead to a deeper understanding/appreciation of the principal material. I had Netflix streaming for quite sometime, and could live with less than best quality video. However, I often found myself requesting the disc as well just for the supplements. It seems unlikely that these will ever be included with the streamed versions.

Keep up the good work guys.

Wes

[alesch111]

I opted for the physical disc for the reasons noted above, but also because of the supplementary materials on the disc that do not come with the streaming versions. Sometimes these supplements are fascinating, and lead to a deeper understanding/appreciation of the principal material. I had Netflix streaming for quite sometime, and could live with less than best quality video. However, I often found myself requesting the disc as well just for the supplements. It seems unlikely that these will ever be included with the streamed versions.

Keep up the good work guys.

Wes

Many of the discs I get from in the mail from Netflix are a "rental" version and do not have the extra features.

[wessokolosky]

Many of the discs I get from in the mail from Netflix are a "rental" version and do not have the extra features.

Curious! While not all of the Netflix discs I receive have supplemental materials, a fair number do. Don't really know what to make of that, though my original stated preference for having the supplementary materials when available stands, and led me to drop streaming in favor of physical discs.

Wes

[alfredpoor]

I think Netflix rarely sends out the second disc of a two disc set, which is one of the reasons that you don't get the supplementary content for some films.

Alfred
HDTV Almanac