Netflix: The Future Of Video Looks A Lot Like Netflix

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I sure hope this is the way things are in the future. Raise your hand if you are paying for 300 channels just so you can get the 10 you actually watch.

"In 10 years...it will be entirely delivered on the Internet. It will be a series of apps that's closer to what you see on smart TV," said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer at Netflix. "I don't think it will be delivered on cable, and I don't think it will be linear," meaning viewers will be able to watch content in any order.
 
I'd raise my hand to that idea, but I live in an apartment building that provides about 70 channels of DirecTV programming included in the cost of my rent, etc. But it's about time TV and even movie studios start actually putting "precise content on demand" into action. Sure, we've had Pay-Per-View for decades now, but doing it in a more precise manner meaning you can pick and choose exactly what you want in a programming package is an idea that really needs to be rolled out and now's the best time to get started on it.

There's money to be made in this, studios and content developers, and Netflix is on the ball - get in the game before it's too late.
 
I don't need to watch the show live, I want to be able to watch it sometime during the next few weeks, just like I do now on my DVR.

If they do this right (and don't charge too much), I could get rid of my cable subscription and my need for a DVR.

The real problem is that I don't want to have to subscribe to 10 different services, or have a pay per view that charges me every time someone watches a show.
 
I think we'll start seeing more and more non-traditional networks pop up which will force the major content providers to adapt. Until then, I think they'll fight the pick-your-network approach tooth and nail.

You see with Showtime pairing with Hulu, that's a small win. It shows that some premium providers are realizing a shift in the marketplace. I expect other channels to follow suit slowly, allowing you to stream live / watch shows for an X-addon subscription per month. They'll wait to see how Showtime does.
 
It's more a necessity of infrastructure. The cable, antenna, and satellite model are all built around the idea that everyone is receiving the same signal. It's very easy to broadcast 1 or a small amount of discrete channels. You could have 10,000 viewers in an area, but only need 1 data path.

The model of Netflix is that each subscriber is a discrete data path. This presents a tremendous burden on the infrastructure. Even streaming traditional channels like CNN "Live" is a discrete data path for every single person viewing it, even though they are viewing the same thing.

There are reasons that these things evolved the way they did. And things will change as a result.
 
Steve said:
I sure hope this is the way things are in the future. Raise your hand if you are paying for 300 channels just so you can get the 10 you actually watch. [/I]
Click to expand...

I work for DirecTV, only watch aprox 10 channels and I have them all including the sports/Nascar packages. I would love to be able to stream Netflix and the channels I do watch but the data caps, 300gb in my case, would never allow it. Well, it would at increments of 50gb for only $10 each. F you Comcast!
 
We just dropped TV recently. We had the same provider for years even though we had Netflix and unlimited internet. In the end the $120 a month just couldn't be justified for the 20 or so channels we watch. The only thing I miss is just switching to the Football game.. finding streams is super annoying.
 
Steve said:
I sure hope this is the way things are in the future. Raise your hand if you are paying for 300 channels just so you can get the 10 you actually watch. [/I]
Click to expand...
Not really any different than Netflix where you are paying for tens of thousands of shows to get the dozens or hundreds you actually watch.

Netflix may be cheaper now but if/when it starts affecting the amount of money content providers can make through other sources, then they undoubtedly will raise the cost of content to Netflix and forcing increased subscription costs.
 
Steve said:
I sure hope this is the way things are in the future. Raise your hand if you are paying for 300 channels just so you can get the 10 you actually watch.

"In 10 years...it will be entirely delivered on the Internet. It will be a series of apps that's closer to what you see on smart TV," said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer at Netflix. "I don't think it will be delivered on cable, and I don't think it will be linear," meaning viewers will be able to watch content in any order.
Click to expand...


I remember when cable first came out. It was promoted as "commercial free" - and it was - for awhile. Right now I pay for a few dozen channels and only watch sports. When they get rid of all the extra channels I'll end-up paying the same amount or more for the few I watch. A lot of people think they are going to save money getting away from multichanel packages and that's funny
 
The model will shift but it is unlikely to do so in exactly the way the consumer wants ... cheap, fast, unlimited internet is unlikely to benefit the ISPs or the content providers, so although I think we will see an expansion of unlimited hard cord internet, the price is likely to go up substantially ... although consumers won't like this, this will offset the losses from cord cutters for the ISP (who is also a cable provider) and provide some protection for the content provider from piracy (with unlimited fast internet the temptation of illegal and free sources is high ... if the price of unlimited goes up then the content provider can get an increased cut to offset their losses due to illegal file sharing)

I currently pay in the vicinity of $145 for cable and internet from Comcast ... this is comparable to what I paid to Fios in my previous city ... something in the 100-150 price range is likely the sweet spot for the ISPs for fast unlimited (or nearly so) internet ... I could live with $125 internet if the speed was 100 Mbps (or faster) and the limit was in the 1-2 Terabyte range (or higher) ... I suspect the majority of consumers would accept that as well (they might not like it but it is a reasonable compromise I think)
 
I have been saying for years that TV should change.
Especially with sport. there is no excuse why in the UK every PL match is not available to watch online.
 
eth3ton said:
I work for DirecTV, only watch aprox 10 channels and I have them all including the sports/Nascar packages. I would love to be able to stream Netflix and the channels I do watch but the data caps, 300gb in my case, would never allow it. Well, it would at increments of 50gb for only $10 each. F you Comcast!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what our data cap is if any, we have AT&T Uverse. Netflix and Youtube are constantly being streamed in our house do to kids and stuff. I have not once ever received any email from AT&T about bandwidth, nor have I ever felt we were being throttled. The point is, is that 300GB will probably be plenty. But I have no hard data for that claim.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm not sure what our data cap is if any, we have AT&T Uverse. Netflix and Youtube are constantly being streamed in our house do to kids and stuff. I have not once ever received any email from AT&T about bandwidth, nor have I ever felt we were being throttled. The point is, is that 300GB will probably be plenty. But I have no hard data for that claim.
Click to expand...

When I stream netflix nightly I easily exceed my 300 GB tracking (we don't currently have a cap but they monitor it and measure it) ... if you had a family and everyone was streaming then you could go even higher ... 300 GB is good for a light user but you would need performance plans close to 1 TB (or higher) for heavy users and families
 
if those 10 channels cost $10 each, I really don't see the gain. My internet and cable together are $96. I do not get HBO, etc but do have HD. No DVR's.

I guess you could say you get better quality and free dvr service if channels are on demand which is a better value but not a cheaper cost per channel.

Just my thoughts.
 
kbrickley said:
When I stream netflix nightly I easily exceed my 300 GB tracking (we don't currently have a cap but they monitor it and measure it) ... if you had a family and everyone was streaming then you could go even higher ... 300 GB is good for a light user but you would need performance plans close to 1 TB (or higher) for heavy users and families
Click to expand...

They say that u-Verse has a 250GB cap, but sure as shit Peppa Pig and Curious George will stream for hours and hours on end at our house and no flag has ever been raised. Seems like every day I get home from work, the TV is on that Netflix screen that says "Are you still watching", which is like 3-4 hours of continuous watching.
 
Yeah, 1TB would be a good sweet spot with today's media. 2 adults and 3 teenage kids, all connected is a 300gb struggle. 5 smartphones, 1 tablet, 3 laptops, 2 desktops and 2 gaming consoles all pulling from the same 300gb pool of data.
 
westrock2000 said:
They say that u-Verse has a 250GB cap, but sure as shit Peppa Pig and Curious George will stream for hours and hours on end at our house and no flag has ever been raised. Seems like every day I get home from work, the TV is on that Netflix screen that says "Are you still watching", which is like 3-4 hours of continuous watching.
Click to expand...

Are you streaming non HD stuff? ... streaming Netflix with HD will definitely consume more bandwidth ... my highest was in August when I was doing tons of streaming from Netflix and some downloading stuff on Steam ... my total was close to 400 GB ... if you had 2-3 people watching HD Netflix (or God forbid 4K Netflix) then you could consume bandwidth very quickly ... it is certainly possible for a family to exceed 250 GB on 50 Mbps+ service ... before we can totally switch to cord cutting for most of the population we would need high speed service with at least a 500 GB cap available
 
Netflix will pop that message up after less than 3 full episodes of archer for me.. so slightly less than an hour. Seems to be dependant on number of shows, not length.
 
rezerekted said:
With the crappy data caps ISPs impose on us this won't ever happen.
Click to expand...

I don't 100% agree. The market will push them towards what people want, eventually. This is also why I hang on to Verizon FiOS tooth and nail. Great internet and no caps. However like someone else said in the thread Football, in my case College Football keeps me tied to pay TV.

All the Miami Hurricane games (as dissapointing as they are to watch sometimes) are nearly all on ESPN/ABC networks.
 
Wow after hearing most of the limitations you guys have I guess I should count my blessings. I'm paying $79.99 a month for 300mbps down/30mbps up with a 2TB/mo data cap. Provider is Cox. I'm expecting them to roll out their "Gigablast" service here within the next year or so. 1gbps down AND up. No idea how much it'll cost though.
 
My package is slower than yours and more expensive ($89 for 50/10) but I have no data cap.

Not too shabby for Canada in general. We don't have widespread FiOS within Canada in general so Cable speeds of 50mbps are pretty much as good as we get... and truthfully I feel its pretty amazing.. considering the next closest competitor can only offer me 2mbps for the same price with unlimited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top