• [email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    234
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Anon got it backwards, networks noticed how profitable Netflix was and bumped the price for Netflix to stream their stuff. Netflix responded by producing their own content rather than leasing others’ at exorbitant rates. Then Netflix later got greedy and bumped their prices, lowered their quality, and cancelled all of their good shows.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I think it’s a bit of both. Netflix knew that companies choosing to pull their content would be a threat, so they prematurely started producing content (famously starting with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black). Whether because they saw this as a threat or because of the perceived greater profitability of their own platforms (probably a bit of both), other studios started pulling their content from Netflix and setting up their own streaming sites.

      And naturally, other companies pulling their content accelerated Netflix’s desire to produce their own content to ensure they weren’t left in the lurch.

      • jballs
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah I consulted for the cable industry around the time that everyone was just starting to try to build their own services to compete with Netflix. It wasn’t a secret that production companies would be pulling their content. There were licensing agreements signed that had expiration dates.

        So it was more like a race on both ends. Production companies were like “we get exclusive streaming rights to our movies back in X months, so we need to have our own platform up and running.” And Netflix was like “we lose streaming rights to these movies in X months, we need to make some content to replace it with.”

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Yall are overcomplicating things. Let me simplify.

        Capitalist corporations + infinite greed = cannibalism

        • InputZero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          It’s remarkable how people can see right past what was actually happening and only see what they want to see. Netflix was never trying to be the good guy. Netflix didn’t offer low prices out of the goodness of it’s hearts. It doesn’t have a heart, it has a ledger. The reason why Netflix offered a lot of content for a low price is because the company was trying to disrupt traditional cable. It was always the plan to increase prices, Netflix didn’t become greedy, it always was. It’s just that for a time the companies greed aligned with the publics greed. Once that relationship was no longer beneficial to Netflix it raised the prices, that was the plan all along.

          • MimicJar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            14 hours ago

            But that’s a zero sum argument. Every company is evil following that logic. No company does anything except for money.

            You can make that argument, but it isn’t unique to Netflix.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          That’s not overcomplicating it. That’s the exact impetus for Netflix to make their own content (nothing premature about it).

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        20 hours ago

        It doesn’t really matter, though. The only cause of companies pulling their content is Netflix’s success. There was no way Netflix could have prevented it.

      • [email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Unpopular opinion, but I wasn’t a fan. Was it a bad show? No! Did I enjoy it? Sometimes. How it developed the cult following that it has, I can’t quite piece together. Fantastic voice acting and sound design can only pull so much weight!

        • criss_cross@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I didn’t care for it either.

          I gave it like 3-4 episodes but couldn’t do it. I thought given the cult following and reputation it’d be right up my alley.

        • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Fantastic acting and production quality can elevate any media but especially TV shows. Look at Shrinking for a prime example. It has the production quality of Dispatches From Elsewhere but it’s essentially a three camera sitcom like Modern Family or hell All in the Family. And it’s KILLING right now.

          People like the humor of Inside Job and the fantastic quality made it so much better.

          • [email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I guess if you’re in the market for cola, you’ll look for the cola with the best taste. But seeing a discontinued cola lauded as a fallen behemoth is a bit odd, from my perspective

        • agamemnonymous
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          21 hours ago

          An excellent concept with some interesting opportunities, butchered by regressing it to the same kitschy formulaic plotlines as every other uninspiring adult animation show. I don’t want Big Bang Theory, I want Twin Peaks.