Netflix Chief Predicts Death Of Broadcast TV By 2030

[TheBigA]

Did it say WHAT us old farts are watching?

Judging by the "old farts" I know, they're watching videos of their grandkids on their phones. Over and over. In fact, the complaint I'm hearing is there isn't enough memory in their phones for all the home videos they have.

But yes, I agree with what you say. Just because older people use different platforms doesn't mean they don't watch traditional program sources, such as network TV, cable channels, and pay TV. And yes, given the way TV works today, the same 8-10 companies that own traditional TV also own the video platforms people are watching on other devices. This is why those media companies, including the 4 traditional networks, want Nielsen to include those other platforms when they do the ratings.

 

[landtuna]

Judging by the "old farts" I know, they're watching videos of their grandkids on their phones. Over and over. In fact, the complaint I'm hearing is there isn't enough memory in their phones for all the home videos they have.

Wifey and I must be atypical then because neither of us carries pictures or movies on our phones nor have our aged friends. Our kids however take photos of everything on their phones although not much video. The dog, the new car, the work injury - lots of photos. Our phones are pretty much just.....phones. I have a very high quality camera for taking pictures and another for video and they both work much better and have much more capacity than the phone.

The right tool for the right job my dad used to tell me and I haven't found him wrong yet.

 

[davideduardo]

If even the old farts are starting to abandon OTA television, that can't be good news for the future of OTA TV.

They are watching the same content, just on a different platform. The most affected sector here are the cable companies, not the content providers.

 

[TheBigA]

The right tool for the right job my dad used to tell me and I haven't found him wrong yet.

That may be your approach, but most people don't want to carry a bunch of tools. They just want one tool. That tool, for the most part, is the phone.

 

[Morgan Wick]

They are watching the same content, just on a different platform. The most affected sector here are the cable companies, not the content providers.

But are the content providers the studios or the networks? The Internet is providing the opportunity to deliver content without a middleman, with different middlemen, or with the same middleman taking a different form. And OTA television is itself a platform, one a lot of people thought/hoped would come back to replace cable. It hasn't worked out that way. Instead an already vulnerable medium is facing a potentially devastating one-two punch.

 

[davideduardo]

But are the content providers the studios or the networks? The Internet is providing the opportunity to deliver content without a middleman, with different middlemen, or with the same middleman taking a different form. And OTA television is itself a platform, one a lot of people thought/hoped would come back to replace cable. It hasn't worked out that way. Instead an already vulnerable medium is facing a potentially devastating one-two punch.

The studios are suppliers to the networks, both OTA and cable.

Thus far, we are not seeing studios trying to develop an economic model for distribution directly to consumers.

The biggest change currently happening is the "unplugging" of homes from cable and using OTA and streaming to get content.

 

[Avid Listener]

They are watching the same content, just on a different platform. The most affected sector here are the cable companies, not the content providers.

The major OTA networks are both media and content providers. Back when I was a Comcast subscriber, I could watch TV shows on my smart phone. If I was stuck in a doctor's waiting room and they had a television tuned to Oprah Winfrey or The View, I could pull out my phone and watch ESPN instead. That's a typical example of using a different platform to watch different content.

The studios are suppliers to the networks, both OTA and cable.

Thus far, we are not seeing studios trying to develop an economic model for distribution directly to consumers.

The biggest change currently happening is the "unplugging" of homes from cable and using OTA and streaming to get content.

"Thus far". Another example of "I haven't seen it yet, so it doesn't exist and never will". I see the number of casting calls for pilots designed for alternate distribution, such as Netflix. Two years ago there were none. Today it's something like one out of every five.

The people who change from cable to OTA for "content" are, for the most part, people who don't much care about what content they watch. They just want something on the boob tube to pass time. If you want to see particular, specific shows, less than half of the really good ones are available on OTA television.

But those who are using streaming devices to get their TV over the internet are usually using a cable company as their internet provider. I live in what had been one of the fastest growing counties in the entire United States, until the economy crashed. There are two, and only two, reliable providers for broadband internet service. That's a requirement if you're going to stream online content. Those providers are Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T. Both of them are cable companies.

 

[TheBigA]

But are the content providers the studios or the networks?

Both. The networks all own studios. And cable channels. They also own digital platforms like Hulu.

 

[landtuna]

The people who change from cable to OTA for "content" are, for the most part, people who don't much care about what content they watch. They just want something on the boob tube to pass time. If you want to see particular, specific shows, less than half of the really good ones are available on OTA television.

I strongly disagree with that statement. People who drop cable tend to be (a) people who can't afford the service or (b) people who don't watch because they find it filled with crap (and can watch the few selected premiere shows via less expensive means). I am VERY selective of what I watch and could easily afford any cable or sat service extant. I made the voluntary choice to cut the cord because it is not in my nature to throw money away - I wasn't watching a significant amount of what I was paying for. Those shows I want to see are easily and much more cheaply available on other media.

People who say cable/sat has much more worthwhile content than OTA are deluding themselves. So long as the content producers create for multiple platforms there will always be much less expensive ways to watch worthwhile programming than on real time cable/sat devices.

But those who are using streaming devices to get their TV over the internet are usually using a cable company as their internet provider. I live in what had been one of the fastest growing counties in the entire United States, until the economy crashed. There are two, and only two, reliable providers for broadband internet service. That's a requirement if you're going to stream online content. Those providers are Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T. Both of them are cable companies.

I live in the current fastest growing county in the USA at this time but have the same issue as you - there are only two streaming providers, one cable and one DSL. I have used both and both are fine for the purpose. I am now using the faster and less expensive of the two. I could pay about the same amount per month and have cable TV only but it would not include the "worthwhile" programming. By using the 'net as my transport mechanism I get both for one price.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I don't know what it's like where I live, but my phone company advertises high-speed Internet and it might be fast enough for streaming. I think where I live the speed is limited, though for a lot of purposes, if I wanted to spend the money, it would be fast enough.

And while I get slow Internet over phone lines (this site is plenty fast most of the time except when I first get on the computer), I use my phones for one thing: making and receiving calls. They won't do anything else. The one hooked up to an answering machine doesn't even ring any more.

 

[Avid Listener]

I don't know what it's like where I live,

I do know what it's like where I live, since I live here. If I didn't know what it was like where I lived, I would either find out or move.

 

[Unregistered]

What about the only Viacom channel that is doing pretty nice? Oh that channel, IS NICKELODEON!!! WHAT ABOUT NICKELODEON?!

 

[vchimpanzee]

I do know what it's like where I live, since I live here. If I didn't know what it was like where I lived, I would either find out or move.

What I mean is when I asked what it would take to get the speed that would allow me to upgrade TiVo, I was told I can't get the highest speed they have, and I don't remember what they said the highest speed was where I live. I asked what that would cost and it was more than I want to pay.

 

[landtuna]

What I mean is when I asked what it would take to get the speed that would allow me to upgrade TiVo, I was told I can't get the highest speed they have, and I don't remember what they said the highest speed was where I live. I asked what that would cost and it was more than I want to pay.

With DSL you are in good shape at 5MB download speed because you don't share your link with other subscribers. If cable you need a minimum of 7 but the higher the better since cable loops feed multiple subscribers and you may be impacted by that sorority house just down the street with 50 young coeds all watching something at the same time. If you are in a single family housing area you are most probably good but beware of high-density housing areas.

 

[ansky212]

The thing I find so ironic about the article is how this guy is predicting the end of OTA tv, but just look at how archaic Netflix is. The future of TV is in content streaming, yet only a small percentage of Netflix's library is available for streaming. So their business model is based primarily on DVDs (which nobody wants anymore) and sending them back and forth through snail mail. This may have worked 10 years ago, but you're certainly not going to see me signing up for Netflix under this business model.

 

[LKellerIII]

The thing I find so ironic about the article is how this guy is predicting the end of OTA tv, but just look at how archaic Netflix is. The future of TV is in content streaming, yet only a small percentage of Netflix's library is available for streaming. So their business model is based primarily on DVDs (which nobody wants anymore) and sending them back and forth through snail mail. This may have worked 10 years ago, but you're certainly not going to see me signing up for Netflix under this business model.

Netflix is predicting the FUTURE, Ansky212, and I would easily assume they believe that the future is streaming, and that the snail-mail DVDs will be extinct by that time.

However, I do believe that what NetFlix and other streaming services will have to do is to get the content providers to provide more up-to-date films for streaming - more along the lines of what Pay-per-View On Demand now offers. And to do that, NetFlix will probably have to charge more.

Even the current streaming version of NetFlix is better than most, IMO. I tried a trial subsciption to Hulu Plus recently, but cancelled during the trial period because they really had nothing I wanted to see. I'm most interested in the dramatic series from basic cable (Walking Dead, Justified, etc), but since I'm more or less up to date with my viewing, streaming only past seasons doesn't cut it with me.