Netflix Subscriber Base Eclipses Comcast's 333
NicknamesAreStupid writes "Netflix just announced its earnings and claims to have more subscribers than Comcast. 'Netflix's global subscriber base grew almost 70% over the past year, to 23.6 million users. ... More than 7% of Americans now subscribe to Netflix.' Does that go to show how great Netflix really is or, well, you know?"
superior value (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:superior value (Score:4, Interesting)
They certainly made me forget about Hollywood Video and Blockbuster back in 1995.
While their price rose to $19.99/mo this year, I'll always remember them for sending me an e-mail a few years back, saying their rates were going to be lowered from $17.99 to $16.99. There is also the way they like to send an extra "+" movie if something in my queue comes from another part of the country because of the delay.
Superior value indeed!
(I killed my cable back in 1999, but that was because most of my entertainment came from reading and writing on the net, as well as the previously mentioned video stores.)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why forcing net neutrality is important.
Comcast makes Netflix crawl to make their VOD service look like it is a better deal. Yes, it is intentional, Netflix wants to put a server on Comcast's network, but are not allowed to, and Comcast's outgoing pipes to the internet are perpetually full because they refuse to upgrade them, even after L3 offered them the upgrade for free.
There's a big difference, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix isn't sucking about $2K/year out of me like Comcast.
Re:There's a big difference, though (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but Netflix is going to eventually force Comcast to lower their prices significantly.
As Netflix offers more TV programming, there may come a tipping point where you don't need Cable TV at all, you could just get all your programming from Netflix. THEN all you need is the broadband service + Netflix. Even though the broadband service might come from Comcast, you don't have to pay the exorbitant rates for the TV channels!
Re:There's a big difference, though (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
My tipping point was about 7 years ago
Re:There's a big difference, though (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not true at all. Netflix reaching critical mass is what prompted Comcast to introduce the bandwidth cap. The way Comcast will compete is not by continuing to improve their network, or improving product or cutting prices, but by lowering bandwidth caps further. Comcast is old media which is dabbling in interweb technology. Comcast is not an ISP - at least not in mindset.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they lower their caps one iota further I will leave.
Proof! (Score:3, Insightful)
See? The free market works! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
In my area cable is better than DSL. And it's not Comcast, but Roadrunner. I'm not saying you aren't correct - for your area. Just don't assume. I know of areas where DSL is so over subscribed that the shared bandwidth really is an issue. DSL is shared just the same as cable, just because it looks like it's higher up (or whatever) doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
As Netflix offers more TV programming, there may come a tipping point where you don't need Cable TV at all, you could just get all your programming from Netflix. THEN all you need is the broadband service + Netflix. Even though the broadband service might come from Comcast, you don't have to pay the exorbitant rates for the TV channels!
Yeah, they'll just raise internet prices or institute usage caps and overage charges until the cost is about the same whether you have Comcast Cable Television or use Netflix + with a level of Comcast HSI with enough speed and usage allowance to comfortably operate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Between Netflix & Hulu Plus, I've got all the TV and movies I can stand to watch. I dropped my cable plan down to local broadcast only and if I don't find a reason to watch any of those channels soon I'll drop the whole shebang.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have comcast, the local-only is about $10 a month, but if you dropped that and had internet only without the cable TV, they charge an extra $10 for that. the local channels are essentially free when you factor that in.
Re: (Score:3)
And this scares the shit out of the major ISP/cable providers. This is also the reason for the big push for metered broadband. Comcast (or any other cable provider for that matter) will not drop their prices on cable without being able to make it up in their broadband income. And you bet your ass they're in the process of buying the representatives to make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
it was about 3 yrs ago I cut the cord to the sat tv system.
I get some OTA tv (with mythtv and hdhomerun); but mostly its netflix for me.
much cheaper, better quality, no commercials and I can watch in any format after a simple 'conversion'.
zero need for pay tv on a cable anymore. I love the fact that I have not had a cable-tv account for over a decade and no sat-tv account for a good 3 years now. plus, any commercials that come thru get zapped at myth-level and anything good gets saved on my HD in cleartex
Re: (Score:3)
True, but Netflix is going to eventually force Comcast to lower their prices significantly.
Not true... More than likely, broadcasters and networks will continue to increase the carry fee that they charge Comcast to carry their channel(s). This will force Comcast to continue to increase fees for cable. While Comcast can decrease their profit margin, I think most people realize that Comcast will only do this as a desperate last resort.
While I am one of the minority of people to cut the cable connection, It will be a very long time before most people do the same. Some people will wrongly assume tha
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is ginormous. So ginormous they can buy up entire networks on a whim. Dish Network had a showdown with Viacom over carry fees, and won. Comcast can do the same, and even better...
Frankly, it's the cable companies that MAKE the cable networks. If the fees for X are too high, go out and FIND a competior in the same space, throw money and eyeballs at them, and onc
Re: (Score:2)
There are millions, millions of people who literally only have cable for ESPN. I used to be one of them. Eventually I just accepted that ESPN isn't worth $60 (and more, since Comcast rates are ever-increasing).
But I agree, it will be a long time before consumers make their own choice, instead of being told "you can't live without ESPN"
Re: (Score:2)
*need* cable TV?
i did not need a TV since 1998. I took no severe mental damage and no severe withdrawal symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
At least with me, watching TV shows from Netflix has increased the amount of broadcast TV I watch. I never bothered with "30 Rock" before giving it a
Re: (Score:2)
Eh not really. Netflix content of TV shows is at least 1 season behind what you get from cable/satellite/antenna/Hulu.
Not always. I don't keep on top of current TV shows, but I know at least some shows are released shortly after they air. Heroes episodes were on Netflix like 3 days after they were on TV (though the last time I brought this up, someone said Heroes was the only show like that...maybe Netflix has started doing more since then?)
I've been without Cable TV for 3 years, and I'm not going back until they let me get channels à la carte (and at a reasonable price). I'm not paying $100 a month for top tier digit
Re: (Score:3)
Discovery, History, National Geographic and the Science Channel.
In the past 3 years, even these channels have gone way downhill. The history channel is now known for "doomsday" documentaries and National Geographic is the Border Patrol channel. I believe Discovery is now the Chopper and Logging channel, ..
The Science Channel did buy the rights to Firefly recently... so maybe there is hope for that one channel.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with cable TV is fragmentation. You don't see those good military documentaries on History anymore because there's a whole channel for that. They offload the most popular content into a spun-off channel, and you end up with "banned from the Bible" and "ancient aliens" on the "history" channel 24/7
Re: (Score:2)
So true. I used to love Discovery and Science Channel. The History Channel was great, even though they used to have lots of filler WW-II documentaries - but hey, who ever gets tired of watching Panzers rolling over the French countryside and Messerschmitts and Spitfires shooting each other down?
I got through graduate school by watching this stuff in my downtime. That was several years back now, so I guess before things really went down hill. Discovery in particular seems to have very little to do with D
Re: (Score:2)
*shrugs* I pay about $62/mo for sattelite service with 2 dual-tuner HD PVR's, and I get all the channels I want. Maybe you should break the cable mold, and get Sattelite, as you can pick and choose specific packages you want, rather than the all-or-nothing paying for channels you don't care about cable model. It's not quite a-la-carte, but it does significantly cut down on paying for channels you don't want. And while the weather does affect the service, mine has gone out once in the last year. Today, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong... content providers will start capping bandwidth and actually enforcing those caps.
Re: (Score:2)
They will leave prices low until they can starve out the cable providers, like they did with the video rental business. THEN they can start ratcheting things up.
Redbox is doing well too (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a different format, but I'm liking the Redbox thing. It's handy and inexpensive, and importantly - commitment free. If you're going to do a rental and it's in your area, give it a try. The website will tell you what movies are available in your area, and which box to get it from. You can return the movie to any box. DVD's are $1, Blu-Ray is $1.50 (per day). If you don't bring the movie back they just ding your card a reasonable retail price and you're done. I hear they're considering video games
Re: (Score:2)
Games have been in RedBox locations in some areas for a few months now. $2.00/night.
And yeah, Netflix and Redbox are both awesome. Between them and GameFly, the three of 'em pretty much ate Blockbuster alive.
Redbox selection is limited to newer titles (Score:2)
Unfortunately most new movies are horrible.
Yeah, that's my problem with Redbox: the selection is limited to newer titles. I'm saving up a list of movies that I want to see but aren't in Redbox (no longer or never were) so that I can make the most of Netflix once I join.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's a big difference, though (Score:4, Insightful)
No one provides the pipe end to end. Comcast provides the last mile to the end users and makes money providing Internet access to home users.
Perhaps Comcast should pay for Netflix's pipes? Just as ridiculous as the other way around.
Or, how about this - each entity pays for their own pipes. Comcast is an ISP and should provide its customers transit to whatever content they want to. End of story.
Re:There's a big difference, though (Score:5, Interesting)
As I like to point out, for $8/mo not only can Netflix afford to pay the content providers for their content, it can also pay it's own internet bills. Yet supposedly for $45+/mo, local ISPs can't seem to provide enough internet access to home users. Every byte home users pay to download Netflix paid to upload. And if Netflix gets some sort of "bulk deal" on bandwidth (yeah, I don't know how that would work either), you'd think actual ISPs like AT&T and Comcast could get a better deal, yet all the ISPs do is complain about bandwidth and put download limits in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I did, decide you can live without the 2 or 3 cable channels you actually do watch in a month, and save yourself $60 or so
Re: (Score:2)
I'm paying Comcast for phone, internet, and TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are of all men most miserable :)
Maybe someday (Score:3)
Re:Maybe someday (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would they raise it? If anything they'd lower it, and not just to protect their profits.
Unicasting content is insanely wasteful. Even with CDNs with good placement (Akamai, etc) that's 1 unicast stream per TV. If you follow this to its logical conclusion and Netflix or some other IPTV provider usurps cable/satellite for subscription channels, what happens the next time Monday Night Football is on ESPN? They're going to stream it to unicast it to 11 million households [zap2it.com], many of whom are going to want to do DVR things like skipping and pausing?
Multicasting is going to be around for a long, long time still. So long as it does, the cable/fiber/satellite networks are still the gatekeepers; they're not going to embrace IP multicasting when they have a perfectly good system that does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they won't.
But Netflix might.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to stream it to unicast it to 11 million households, many of whom are going to want to do DVR things like skipping and pausing?
Exactly. Which is why IP multicast is and forever will be dead in the water. With unicast I watch exactly what I want, when I want and it doesn't matter if we're watching 11 million different YouTube videos or one sports broadcast. That will just be a special use case compared to all the videos, tv series and other things we watch more or less as it suits ourselves.
With fiber to the home spreading there is no more "last mile" problem. Here in Norway 12% have their Internet delivered by fiber already (Q2 201
Emigration (Score:2)
The US can be as retarded as they will on cable/dsl monopolies, but the rest of the world isn't going to stop.
How easily can the rest of the world absorb 300 million refugees from U.S. retardation?
Live events vs. on demand recorded video (Score:2)
Unicasting content is insanely wasteful.
You give the example of ESPN, and I agree that some form of multicasting is better for live streams where everybody is watching the same scene at the same time. But unicasting is the only way I can see to stream a recorded program on demand and make it seekable (skip/pause) without the half-hour start delays inherent in the sort of pseudo-on-demand seen on satellite TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Or AT&T's new 150gb/mo. cap for DSL customers (and AT&T's UVerse matching Comcast's 256gb/mo. cap). Both want to kill innovation and stop you from getting your media elsewhere.
How utterly stupid of them. All the while Google is launching 1gb service in KSK in 2012 to any ISP that dares to use their pipes.
Sure it will (Score:2)
they will raise the caps at the same time introducing a new pricing structure that just happens to be the equivalent to buying internet and cable TV from them.
Just a note about how screwed up Comcast is
When I wanted basic cable (local channels and some chaff) it was a royal pain to get this from Comcast at the price shown on their internet site. I called the number on my bill and was told it was $23.95 for basic cable though their website showed $12.95. After trying two levels of phone support I initiated a
Re: (Score:2)
SOMEONE is inviting lower bandwidth caps... (Score:3)
Don't think Comcast and etc. will let this go. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I'm a mostly happy Comcast customer at home, my company is also a large customer of a local WISP, giving them 40x what Comcast makes on my home connection.
I only use Comcast for Internet so that I can get to Hulu/Netflix. If/when Comcast becomes a problem, I'll switch to the WISP which is growing like gangbusters and offers speeds comparable to my Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but one of your facts is incorrect.
It is not available in every market, but AT&T offers digital tv (over IP) that competes with cable. It is owned by AT&T and not a branded satellite product. (AT&T offers this in parts of Georgia and I am sure they offer it elsewhere.)
In addition I know that Verizon offers a similiar IP-based tv service in parts of New Jersey.
Ouch (Score:2)
Leggo! I can't afford new ones!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck defining "content" (Score:2)
One proposal to that dilemma which I have read is to make it illegal to both sell internet access directly to residential consumers and own backbone or content.
I'd like to see a good definition of "content" [gnu.org] first. If "content" includes any copyrighted audiovisual work, then any residential ISP will own "content", even if it is only the advertisements for its own service.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, well, you know? (Score:3)
Netflix is a great STEP in the right direction...
I'm far from alone in saying -- until we can access content, on AND offline, from any device, and for a reasonable price -- entertainment industry is far from where it needs be!
A big win for Silverlight (Score:2)
Not a big win for Silverlight (Score:2)
This is not the big win for Silverlight you think it is. This is proof that Netflix streaming is being built into more and more consumer devices. If the only way I could view their streams was via my PC, I wouldn't bother... I'd just stick with the disc mailers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A big win for Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)
For rich content on the web, Silverlight is not a bad technology. It's better than Flash in a lot of ways.
But not in the one way that matters to me. Flash is on Linux. In every other respect, Silverlight being better than Flash would be no great accomplishment because Flash is awful.
And to think if they went direct download first (Score:2)
Comcast still wins even with Netflix (Score:2)
I have no cable service and watch Netflix almost exclusively (plus some over the air channels), but Comcast still gets 4 times more money from me than Netflix because they provide my high speed internet.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Comcast earns more profit from me as a internet-only subscriber than they would if I were a cable subscriber.
No Shit Sherlock (Score:4, Informative)
I, like many others dropped Comcast Cable like the flaming turd it was a couple years ago and went with Digital Antenna + Tivo for HD local network broadcast. I still use Comcast for my internet connection via Comcast Business, but hey.. that's a tax write-off. They give me decent enough upstream (10Mbps) that I can host servers, and higher than advertised downstream (I usually get about 24Mbps) with no bandwidth throttling.
HBO is run by shitheads who pretend that P2P lawsuits are an effective deterrent and somehow think their offering is enough to keep people bound to Comcast Cable. Well HBO: FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR GO SERVICE.
I pirate HBO's shows because HBO wont let me get their shows with an iTunes purchase, they wont put them on Netflix and they seem to think I'll happily bend over and let them and Comcast have their way with my anal sphincter. But I wont -- the shitfest that is Cable TV is not worth $100.00 a month. So fuck you HBO and fuck your GO service. I hope you and Comcast and Viacom die the painful and agonizing death you deserve
Re: (Score:2)
Just throwing this out there. You know you can watch [hbogo.com] HBO online now, right? While it doesn't have the accessibility of Netflix, it's some step in the right direction. Just let this sink in for a bit.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, you pirate HBO's shows because you want something for nothing. They produce expensive content and you expect it to be on your Netflix which costs only $8 a month. You're just an unprincipled person who wants the fine entertainment HBO produces (obviously you like it or you wouldn't go to the trouble to obtain it illegally) yet you don't want to pay for it. Actually you like HBO, all while you are ranting FUCK YOU HBO. Well, I'm sure HBO has some choice words for you too.
I have no respect for sniveling p
A story of a simple but great customer experience (Score:5, Interesting)
A few weeks back, I finally got around to sending back the DVD that I had been holding for about the last six months, having never once been hassled, harassed, or charged extra by Netflix for holding onto it for so long. Two days later, Netflix let me know that they had sent me film X from my DVD Queue.
"Hmm," I said to myself. "Wasn't X #2 on my queue? Well, no matter, I must be confused since I was rearranging it the other day."
Before film X had even arrived, Netflix notified me that X had been my #2, but that they had tracked down a copy of film Y, which was the actual #1 on my queue, and as a result, they would go ahead and send me a copy of that as well, despite the fact that I only had the plan that allows for one DVD at a time. They sent it out at no extra charge to me, and the two arrived on back-to-back days. It was great. It may have been a simple thing, but I hadn't had a company treat me so well in quite awhile. Despite that, it was the sort of thing that seemed natural with Netflix, since everything they do is so oriented around the customer.
It was with great sadness that I temporarily suspended my account the day after sending the videos back, since I needed to spend less time viewing films in my Instant Queue and more time on my graduate research. Even in that however, Netflix was great and continues to be great. They let me suspend it for up to three months, charge me nothing during that time, allow me to manage my queues and rate movies while my account is suspended, don't harass me to come back, and give me immediate access to a button for if I do want to close my account entirely. Compare that to Facebook, which makes deactivating your account a chore, places access to the feature in an out of the way location in your settings, only offers to deactivate but not delete your account, and swindles you into reactivating it if you simply log in.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to being done with my research and back in the embracing arms of Netflix in a few months. Chalk me up as a fanboy.
As for a story of great customer service from Comcast...
Umm...
Yeah, I got nothing. My latest experience with them involved 2-5 minute Internet outages that happened a few times every hour while I was visiting with my parents for the Easter holiday. I'm glad Comcast doesn't have a stranglehold over my area yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY (Score:3)
GB Cap = Back to ripping or buying Netfix DVDs (Score:2)
Netflix is super vulnerable (Score:2)
Wtf is going on with the mindless cheer leading. Am I the only slash dot reader with a basic grasp of fundamentals research into companies. The main reason they have been so successful is that they managed to snare most ofof their content licenses at low low rates because the studios thought they were cute and harmless. most of their agreements expire this or next year. I hate big content as much as you all but let's be realistic the war has just begun and big content has a fuckload of cards left
Re:Let's just get this out of the way.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Apple is Apple. Apple does not take on Microsoft territory, they do their own stuff and dont care about the other ecosystems. Yes, they are big, but they are a niche and are happy with their (quite big) niche. Android, on the other hand, is what microsoft used to be, a platform open for business from both hardware and software partners and everybody else who want to mess with it. Microsoft failed to be microsoft in mobile and came up trying to be Apple with Ms WinPhone7. Under the hood, the philosop
Re: (Score:3)
Which is more likely. That netflix is antagonistic toward android out of some vendetta, or that netflix is afraid of Google and their ability to marginalize netflix at some point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reed Hastings is the Founder, Chairman and CEO of Netflix. He also sits on the Microsoft Board of Directors. This may - or may not - have anything to do with why you can't get an Android Netflix viewer client. But those below who would complain should be aware of this.
Ahh, that explains why I can't get an iPhone or iPad viewer... oh wait....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft fears Android (Linux) far more than permaniche apple products.
Apple will never unleash mass market versions of their products, Linux has and will. That's Microsoft's territory and it scares the fuck out of them to be replaced as the default OS.
It's already happening though, the Desktop market is their last stand... they've lost everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1999 called, they want their quote back.
Ever heard of the iPod? iPhone? iPad? I think those are all mass market versions. How's the Linux mp3 player doing? Or Linux tablets? Even Android phones are just barely competing with iPhones despite having being offered by every carrier and having dozens of models and being free [unwiredview.com].
Android loves to say "Look, we're beating the iPhone!" but how hard is that when you pay [androidguys.com]
Hmm, not sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the amount of porting needed to get Netflix to run on WP7 is significantly less than the amount of work needed to get it to run in a sandboxed Java environment. Keep in mind that there was a Windows client for Netflix long before the iPhone or WP7 versions existed.
Though as I think about it, the Wii version of Netflix would probably be a good starting point for getting it to run on an Android phone.
Re:Let's just get this out of the way.. (Score:5, Informative)
They've explained why... [netflix.com]:
The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices. Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.
So, yeah...it has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I too would tend to blame the short-sighted content rights holders for this. It took how long before digital music opened up? We should expect at least as long for video if not more. DVDs are still encrypted as are BluRay. They don't see the harm in encrypted media... not even a little bit. And video isn't used the same way as music -- people do other things while listening to music. Video usually requires [or expects] full attention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These is no Netflix client because DRM is hard to impossible on Fragmented Open Source Android. Apple and Microsoft have protected video paths. They either have to relicense content to stream DRM free, or come up with a solution on a phone by phone basis to meet the DRM requirements of the content agreements.
Re: (Score:3)
If you had the knowledge and means to save the stream, you wouldn't bother.
Re: (Score:3)
Because that's what their contracts likely say, and it doesn't matter if no one would bother if the contract says "you must do X", then you have to do X if you want to do whatever the contract is giving you the rights to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...you mean how the Linux variant known as Tivo doesn't have a Netflix client?
No. This whole "no kernel level DRM" nonsense is just a smoke screen. Clearly there are netflix supported platforms that don't conform to the Vista model. So obviously there are other things at work.
Just as with many similar corporate statements, they are just BS to hide the company's real intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG!!! You're right! I'll never sleep again!! I'm bleeding money with every sleeping moment!!
Get a grip on your reality HUMAN. You're a biological machine that needs certain balances to remain healthy and this includes distractions and the time it takes to have them.
I block advertising in every way including simply not watching TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I don't download TV shows after they have aired. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Global subscriber base" just means "all the subscribers you have in the world"; meaning, without restricting to any particular country or group of countries. It's the most inclusive description. If you said "all North American subscribers" it would be just as accurate, but not as complete, as the phrase alone would not tell you whether or not Netflix had subscribers outside North America, and so you would not necessarily know that the North American figure was the complete one. Describing the subscriber ba
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 tunnels, hmm. Just need to get past that billing address problem, not too hard if you're dedicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't worry, the same companies that control TV also control our internet, and how much of a "Netflicks surcharge" we have to pay. And what the caps are set at. I'm sure they'll do fine for themselves; it's amazing what board position can do to hold back innovation; look at MSFT.
Re: (Score:2)