Time Warner CEO Says Netflix No Big Deal

15

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

tekknyne

I think we're forgetting on this forum just how brainless the masses are. I love my family and friends, but I can't tell you how many of them just sit down and veg out in front of the TV with a beer in their hand at the end of the night. They don't want to turn on the computer and make sure it's connected to the TV. They don't have xbox or want to figure out how to stream movies on a complicated thing like that. They just want things to work and be simple.

We're also under-estimating how powerful these guys like Time Warner etc really are. Plus we're only looking in the short term where Netflix seems successful. Companies like Netflix, which I really enjoy, have a lifespan. After you kill off Dexter, House and The Office, what else is there? Frankly, their streaming movies are getting better but still need alot of work, and if Netflix doesn't have these content producers and distributors on board, what do they have to offer? At that point, it's just a website with no content. Speculators are making the same calls about facebook, which seems like the rave these days. But when it's all said and done, what does facebook really offer people? Social Networking exists in various forms everywhere, it's nothing new, people have been communicating forever. So what if you can play farmville? My opinion is that once investors realize the demograph that facebook attracts, they're realize that all the marketing/add dollars aren't going to pay off and give up. I hope that doesn't happen to either site though because both have their place.

avatar

lunchbox73

The guy comes off as an arrogant DB but he has to say crap like that to make the shareholders feel safe.

avatar

cpuking2010

I assume they will start adding commercials to keep content providers happy and when that happens, I'll cancel my account.

avatar

Caboose

If it's a commercial or two at the start of a film, then I'm fine with that. But if it's in the middle of a movie, I'd be pissed.

avatar

Dexter243

i would pay no more then i am now for what i am getting

but to rais the price thay will have to allow me to streem to at least 2 more pc's or devices in the house at the same time befor i would pay more and i have the 1cd at a time subscription

avatar

devastator_2000

You can watch Netflix on 2 or more devices.  I will be watching Babylon 5 on my computer, my wife will be watching a movie on the Ruku and the kids watching Dora on the Wii; all at the same time.

avatar

KnightXENO

This is like saying steam isn't a factor in computer gaming....

Take a poll of anyone you know.  atleast 70% of people soley rent movies by netflix.  Outside of that, there is a large portion of people willing to forgo cable packages entirely and subsist on netflix (or a different streaming site) + internet alone.  I know I personally got used to watching TV shows I liked a season delayed from when I was overseas, but you can't make me go back to commercials or paying for channels when I watch maybe 3-4 shows max anyway.

I'd say $10 is about the max your going to get out of anyone for what they are offering now, but outside of throwing a tempertantrum and denying netflix content (and thus hurting their own bottom line)... there are only a few things they can do. 

Number 1 (and the best idea) is to just beat netflix at their own game.  Their is no reason right now that a competitor can't grab all the old existing content, by say buying out a crumbling retal giant, and start offering currently airing TV with at most a 1day delay vs cable.  You start doing that for anywhere close to the same price as netflix (and still commercial free) and you will win longterm.  Heck just give me netflix + access to official live streams of NFL games (not offered inside the US itself atm) for under $15 a month and you have my subscription.

Number 2 would be to go for a modified youtube/hulu route.  Most people are inherently cheap.  I personally won't go back to commercials, but current media giants (cable/internet/phone/movie providing price fixing monoplies that they are) seem determined to keep a clawhold on the old commercial model.  Fine, offer to stream anything current live in HD with commercials intact.  If people can easily watch the shows they want to watch when they want them... they won't need to rent them at a 6month delay.

Realisitically though, the days of cable subscriptions are fast deteriorating.  If content giants can't realize it, they deserve to go under.  Pretty much everyone now knows cheap on-demand content is the current norm, not the exception.  If they won't except anything less in music and written media, why should visual content be any different?  It won't be for long.

avatar

devastator_2000

I dont mind spending money, but i want to get something for it.  I no longer have a subscription to Comcast cable TV service.  Of all the channels that I had, only about 10 really interested me, and often times I could check each channel and not find anything I wanted to wach.  So i dropped it and kept netflix.  For the most part i can watch most of the shows i like and a few good movies.  But what i would like to see and would pay good money for is a service that offered ALL movies and TV shows on them. 

avatar

Stockislander

I would pay at least $20 if there are no ads.

avatar

Neufeldt2002

I think it won't be long and the telcoms and cable guys are going to force netflix to play by the content distrobution rules that they have to play by, thus leveling the field and keeping netflix at bay longer. At least that is the scuttle-butt I have heard.

avatar

fellowleo

You see, Time Warner owns Time Warner Cable & Road Runner, and they make some of their money by selling you On Demand Rentals. Since just about all new TVs and DVD players have Netflix interface in them, Netflix undermines Time Warner by directing video viewing away from their On Demand and also by using up bandwidth that people are paying a fixed price for. That's also one of the reasons the Cable companies don't want Net Neutrality. I think Time Warner in the future will come up with their own streaming service like Hulu and undermine Netflix by denying them content.

avatar

I Jedi

First off, thank god T.W.C. does not see Netflix as a competitor to its domain, as I am a T.W.C. customer. Anyway, I think Bewkes is wrong in his assumption that Netflix is not going to be, or will never one day become a major player in delivering quality video entertainment to the many. Most people, including myself, never watch the majority of T.V. channels that we are offered on T.V. for $60+ dollars a month. If anything, many people watch a few shows, for which they enjoy watching. I myself only ever watch House M.D., Family Guy, and the Simpsons. For a minimum of $10 dollars a month, I can view all the Family Guy seasons on Netflix, and rent other series I want to watch; example being Rome, for which I cannot find on cable, but can rent from Netflix. Sure, people WANT to see concurrent showings of their shows, rather than wait till Netflix can give it to them months later; however, this problem is easily solved through the use of iTunes, which host many T.V. shows right after they are aired on T.V. for purchasing about $3 a pop. Top that with Hulu, which also host many up-to-date T.V. series for free to consumers, and people start to ask why they are still paying $60 a month for a cable subscription they don't use.

Now, realizing that not all series are available for viewing on Netflix or Hulu, I have only this to say. Eventually, one day, as the online streaming market grows, new competitors will come in, and many publishing companies, like Fox, C.B.S., N.B.C., etc, will be more willing to host their shows on these new media outlets BECAUSE it is the shift that the market is inevitably making from cable-based subscriptions to streaming based.

To prove this, just look at the news industry. 20 years ago, a large portion of the U.S. got its news through newspapers, and this was how many newspaper establishments made their money: subscriptions. Now, the market is shifting from newspapers to online-news content, and these newspaper companies are having to make the transition to this new media outlet, as people just aren't paying for newspaper subscriptions anymore. Of course, there are subtle differences between the video/cable industry and the newspaper industry. For starters, the video/cable industry can still make a ton of money through Netflix and Hulu, as compared to newspaper companies, which will have to rely more and more on ads to generate revenue because people can get their news from somewhere else instead of just once source. You can't watch a different version of House M.D. from some other publisher, as only Fox makes it. The news is the news; everyone can get their hands on it and publish it.

In conclusion, either overtime we will start to see cable subscription cost either go down to compete with online streaming services, or we'll start to see these cable providers putting heavier bandwidth caps on users, so cable subscriptions remain strong. Either way, the transition is going to happen someday in the future. It truly just depends on how long cable companies want to beat customer's pockets for cable subscriptions before they have no choice, but to switch to online content themselves.

avatar

davidflory

I completely agree with you except you will not really see heavier usage caps for one reason...there is too much competition in most major areas in regards to broadband ISPs.  Once one company gets heavy handed with their usage caps their competitors will lighten up.  I tell you, once a person gets their bill with a over usage charge, they will change ISPs in a heart beat.  This is why you see some usage caps and other controls but they are only to slow down the usage from the highest users but it will never cover those constantly streaming content.  It also makes them foolish because much of their advertisements actually encourage users to download and stream music and video.

avatar

stige

they are sour.  hahaha.

i'd probably be willing to pay up to $10 a month for streaming only content.  not much more than the $8 i'm currently paying, lets just say.  any more $ and it defeats the purpose. i might as well just stick with a bigger cable package and use OnDemand streaming or whan-not.

avatar

Caboose

I agree, $10 at most. Maybe if they also had first run films too. Like when Iron Man 3 comes out, if they have it for streaming that day, or the day after, then ya, I'd pay $10-$12/mo for it, but no more.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.