While snagging
500,000 Blu-ray subscribers is admirable, the big picture helps to explain Netflix's dominance even more. Sometime during the third quarter of 2008, the rental giant managed to secure its nine millionth customer. Needless to say, the DVD rental portion of the business is doing just fine, but CFO Barry McCarthy confessed that its
Watch Instantly digital delivery aspect was still "a tax on the P&L." Essentially, he reiterated that it was an investment in the future, noting that if it didn't start it, someone else would have. He also proclaimed that more content could easily be added to its library of online-accessible titles, but that it wouldn't come free. At present time, we suspect Watch Instantly isn't really hurting for users, which means you could very well be hurting for a new wave of content for some time to come.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brian @ Dec 18th 2008 7:24PM
I'd pay an extra $10/mo if they increased the Watch Instantly by 400%
Right now, there is very little that I haven't seen.
I want more action, more comedy, more anime, more sci-fi... more of just about everything!
shawn @ Dec 18th 2008 7:53PM
yea i would ditch cable if they increased there watch it instantly with better movies,there is alot of filler on that thing..10 more bucks a month im sold
Stew @ Dec 18th 2008 8:00PM
I would pay extra but it has to include HD at 1080 and low loss multi channel sound.
Bye bye Comcast then.
aaron @ Dec 18th 2008 8:14PM
I still think they should separate watch instantly from the dvd rentals.... something on the order of $11.99 for unlimited streaming (which includes 0 dvd/bd's in the mail) and then make it a $4.99 addon to any existing dvd by mail plan.
but i would then expect them to have newer content and i think that extra money could get it. right now you have to treat the watch now service for what it is (a "free" addon)..... which it does a really great job at but i want to see it become its own service and have the content to support that.
Ben @ Dec 18th 2008 11:59PM
I'd pay $30/mo for watch instant by itself if it had new releases in HD with 5.1. I'd probably even pay more than that. I'd ditch all my premium channels on comcast in a second. I'm sure it'll happen someday.
Gio @ Dec 19th 2008 12:24AM
The problem is that the Watch Instantly feature is presented in too many different formats (HD, non-HD, 16:9, 4:3, etc...). They are the same issues people have with the transition to HDTV: it doesn't fill in the entire screen or the quality looks a bit blurry. Lastly, it needs to be user friendly even to those who still don't believe in the remote control. It's a great feature and I take full advantage of it, but Netflix needs to innovate a bit further in the presentation and accessibility of the Watch Instantly feature.
minimalist @ Dec 19th 2008 12:30AM
Watch Now is like the free drugs a dealer gives out before he starts collecting the money. Anybody who thinks it will have the same hundred thousand title collection included in the current Netflix physical library AND that it will remain at 10 dollars a month (or even 20) is naive.
Physical rentals have limits. If you pay 10 bucks for 2 at a time Netflix knows its unlikely that you'll rent more than X number of discs a month. But with streaming it totally different. Since there is no mail or throttling to slow us down, the 10 dollar month person consumes just as much or more than the 40 dollar month person.
So don't expect the 10 dollar a month free ride to last forever. If Netflix eventually becomes this amazing repository of movies and TV shows for which you could justify canceling cable TV then an all-you-can-eat subscription won't go for anything less than what a reasonable digital cable tier goes for. I'm guessing 60-80 dollars a month.
But that assumes they can get the good content in there before they have to start charging more. I doubt I'd pay even 10 dollars a month for what they have right now.
NoAndThen @ Dec 19th 2008 1:48AM
Watch instantly isn't profitable because it has a terrible, awful catalog.
My roommate got netflix, and I was like, 'sweet, we can watch netflix online on the HT...'
nah, fux that. There's maybe 3% of the movies I want to watch, and even then just about, oh wait NONE of them are in HD (the ones I would want to watch.) Make it a modern, fluid, expansive service with youtube/hulu/joost/etc integration and i'll pay you instead of comcast.
Anyone listening?
Nick @ Dec 19th 2008 2:21AM
I'm paying the $8.xx 1 movie a month deal. I'd gladly pay $10-15/month for online only even in standard 480p DVD quality with 5.1 if they had a better catalog. 95% of the movies are garbage filler. Why aren't new releases hitting Watch Instantly? Why couldn't we watch Dark Knight the day it hit?
If you want the thing to be profitable, fine, raise the price, but give us new releases and good quality throughout the catalog.
Big Wizz @ Dec 19th 2008 10:12AM
"Why aren't new releases hitting Watch Instantly? Why couldn't we watch Dark Knight the day it hit?"
Because the studios aren't in the business of stamping all those pretty DVD/Blu-ray discs just for their health.
money, bro, money.
TK101 @ Dec 19th 2008 8:37AM
I've said it a hundred times, and I'll say it again. The day a content provider persuades studios to let them do day-and-date releases with HD/SD downloads and DVD/Blu-ray, that company wins big. The studios are the issue here, as they want DVD money before download money.
I'd certainly pay extra for Netflix to have my new releases available for instant viewing. I'm having fun with the Netflix/TiVo connection, but it NEEDS MORE CONTENT. There is only so much old TV and crap B-movie stuff that I'm willing to watch.
TK
scyber @ Dec 19th 2008 8:33AM
I have the streaming on my Tivo and I love it. If they increased the catalog significantly, I'd be willing to pay some additional money. A significantly increased catalog would make me seriously consider going OTA only and dropping my cable provider. Of course I have to verify that I can get the channels I want via OTA.
Larry @ Dec 19th 2008 9:28AM
The obvious reason they are not profitable is they are still building out the infrastructure. They have to build out a system to support millions of potential subscribers. It is going to take a while before that kind of investment pays off.
Big Wizz @ Dec 19th 2008 10:14AM
Makes sense to me. I'm still having problems getting more than 1-2 bars on my Xbox. And that's with a consistent 5-7Mbps download stream.
I would also gladly pay $5-10/mth for the instant stream. Right now I don't bitch about it (my Xbox problem) b/c it's free.
squiggleslash @ Dec 19th 2008 10:17AM
Interesting disconnect between retail and rental:
Around 6-7% of Netflix's customers are interested in occasionally (not even always) using Blu-ray.
But BD sales figures trumpeted by the various analysts put Blu-ray sales at around 8-12% (with occasional peaks above that for PS3 demographic titles and BD titles for stuff that was released on DVD a long time ago. Generally though, we're talking about 8-12%.)
Eaton @ Dec 22nd 2008 12:24AM
the real problem i think is not just the selection, but i think it's the hardware.. right now to watch it you need to get more people into hardware that will watch it on a TV, not just the computer.. yes, there is a lot out there, but it needs to be more hyped.
Dan Choi @ Dec 26th 2008 9:35AM
Just launched: a website to make it easier to find Netflix titles available for instant watching.
http://instantwatcher.com