For the Netflix Subscribers Among Us

In article 2016112814035042601-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-11-28 21:44:46 +0000, android said:

In article 2016112812583851661-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-11-28 20:27:53 +0000, android said:

In article 2016112812114229064-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Netflix has just released a NatGeo (sponsored by Canon) photography
centric series in 6 half-hour episodes. It was originally broadcast by
NatGeo in December 2015 and is well worth seeing.
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/12/cano...es-now-netflix
/

Don't have Netflix and don't know whether it's available. Netflix charge
viewers about the same world wide me thinks but there I live we only get
to see about one third of the generally accessible content. OTOH, the
Moroccans get less than four percent...

Well, if you don't subscribe to Netflix it isn't available to you. That
said plenty of folks do subscribe to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime for
what they provide.


The lack of Netflix content is a price that I'm willing to pay to live
there I live. That content, if attractive is of course available through
other content providers that have outbid Netflix.

Fortunately I don't have to deal with the lack of
content issues of Moroccans or Swedes.

Oki...

As for availablity of this
particular series, it seems Netflix is going to make it available
Worldwide. All I am doing is letting those folks who care, know that
this particularly impressive series is available via Netflix.

I think that Utube would be the proper channel for infomercials...

;-)

Soo why pay three times more than other users for the actually
accessible content that's mostly crap to begin with?

https://www.finder.com/netflix-usa-vs-world-content

I see you would be a 30%er if you subscribed, since they say they are
releasing it Worldwide, one would expect to find it on Netflix Sweden
and Morocco.

Whatever.

One can also utilize the relocation capabilities of a VPN, that is what
I do to get BBC content not available in the USA. I believe Alan Browne
does the same to access content not available to him in Canada.

That would probably break the EULA.

Which EULA?

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2016-11-28 15:11, Savageduck wrote:
---

Can't VPN across anymore. Netflix are assiduously complying to their
license terms and have made VPN-ing in difficult. My VPN service (HMA)
is hard blocked now. There are others - but as more people flock to
them Netflix tend to block them too.

In article 2016112814035042601-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Terms of usage then...

There are other services that stream video available...

However, not all streaming services provide the same or provider
specific exclusive content. So, I subscribe to Netflix and Amazon
Prime. Amazon Prime pays for its self by including free shipping for
online purchases + a few other services.

Netflix can't afford to outbid other players for attractive content.
That's what the free market is largely about...

They, Netflix and Amazon, seem to be able to afford content which is
attractive enough to make their business succesful, add to that their
exclusive in-house productions.

Then there would not be any differences in the offerings. They can't
make a profitable return on some material in some competitive markets.
--
teleportation kills

On 2016-11-28 22:15:23 +0000, android said:

In article 2016112814035042601-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-11-28 21:44:46 +0000, android said:
In article 2016112812583851661-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


However, not all streaming services provide the same or provider
specific exclusive content. So, I subscribe to Netflix and Amazon
Prime. Amazon Prime pays for its self by including free shipping for
online purchases + a few other services.

Netflix can't afford to outbid other players for attractive content.
That's what the free market is largely about...

They, Netflix and Amazon, seem to be able to afford content which is
attractive enough to make their business succesful, add to that their
exclusive in-house productions.

Then there would not be any differences in the offerings.

....but there are. In some instances the offerings are unique and exclusive.

They can't make a profitable return on some material in some
competitive markets.

They seem to able to turn a reasonable profit globally. It seems that
in some markets there are licensing conflicts.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016112814353911825-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

They, Netflix and Amazon, seem to be able to afford content which is
attractive enough to make their business succesful, add to that their
exclusive in-house productions.

Then there would not be any differences in the offerings.

...but there are. In some instances the offerings are unique and exclusive.

Then there would be no hindrance in offering them to subscribers that
are paying a similar subscription fee... They have to pay production
companies per market and those might find it more lucrative to find
other outlets.

They can't make a profitable return on some material in some
competitive markets.

They seem to able to turn a reasonable profit globally. It seems that
in some markets there are licensing conflicts.

Only throe differential of the offering when they are outbid relative to
their profit criteria.
--
teleportation kills

On 2016-11-28 17:12, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-11-28 21:55:40 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-11-28 15:11, Savageduck wrote:
Netflix has just released a NatGeo (sponsored by Canon) photography
centric series in 6 half-hour episodes. It was originally broadcast by
NatGeo in December 2015 and is well worth seeing.
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/12/canons-tales-light-tv-series-now-netflix/


Doesn't seem to be on Canadian Netflix, alas.

That is odd considering they were promoting it as a Worldwide release.
Perhaps it is a Canadian blocking thing.
Did you try a Netflix search for "Tales By Light"?

There it is!

I searched "National" and got the few NG docus. Odd that National
Geographic would not be part of the description. Added to "My List".

Thanks.


--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

On 2016-11-28 23:13:53 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-11-28 17:12, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-11-28 21:55:40 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-11-28 15:11, Savageduck wrote:
Netflix has just released a NatGeo (sponsored by Canon) photography
centric series in 6 half-hour episodes. It was originally broadcast by
NatGeo in December 2015 and is well worth seeing.
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/12/canons-tales-light-tv-series-now-netflix/


Doesn't seem to be on Canadian Netflix, alas.

That is odd considering they were promoting it as a Worldwide release.
Perhaps it is a Canadian blocking thing.
Did you try a Netflix search for "Tales By Light"?

There it is!

I searched "National" and got the few NG docus. Odd that National
Geographic would not be part of the description. Added to "My List".

Thanks.

Enjoy.
I have taken in the first three episodes. The tales deal more with the
individual photographers and their stories than major technical issues.
All very interesting none the less, and extremely well produced. So far
enjoyable light entertainment.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/28/2016 5:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


They, Netflix and Amazon, seem to be able to afford content which is
attractive enough to make their business succesful, add to that their
exclusive in-house productions.


I realize that I am in the minority. I have never subscribed to any
streaming service, except audio. (with the exception of our TV
services.) We spend little time just watching TV, but there are some
episodes on channels we watch. My complaint is that we can only get such
service in bundles. Between my wife and I there are only about 15
channels we watch, but in order to get them we have to subscribe to
channels we have no interest in seeing.


--
PeterN

Per android:
The lack of Netflix content is a price that I'm willing to pay to live
there I live. That content, if attractive is of course available through
other content providers that have outbid Netflix.

Have you tried Netflix's DVD subscription?

Since they unbundled DVD and Streaming, I have flipped back-and-forth
between the two a few times but always come back to the DVDs.... more
titles, for one thing.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 2016-11-29 13:36:51 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/28/2016 5:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


They, Netflix and Amazon, seem to be able to afford content which is
attractive enough to make their business succesful, add to that their
exclusive in-house productions.


I realize that I am in the minority. I have never subscribed to any
streaming service, except audio. (with the exception of our TV
services.) We spend little time just watching TV, but there are some
episodes on channels we watch. My complaint is that we can only get
such service in bundles. Between my wife and I there are only about 15
channels we watch, but in order to get them we have to subscribe to
channels we have no interest in seeing.

That is cable TV marketing for you.
I have a pretty comprehensive cable package, but I probably only check
about 15 channels.
Streaming services such as Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime actually
provide content which is not available via the networks. I subscribe to
Netflix and Amazon Prime, and the Amazon Prime subscription pays for
itself because of the free shipping benefit with their online shopping,
which I use enough.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per android:
The lack of Netflix content is a price that I'm willing to pay to live
there I live. That content, if attractive is of course available through
other content providers that have outbid Netflix.

Have you tried Netflix's DVD subscription?

Since they unbundled DVD and Streaming, I have flipped back-and-forth
between the two a few times but always come back to the DVDs.... more
titles, for one thing.

I don't think that they it has been made available here and I prefer to
own the media. That said: I could ponder using streaming services if it
was really good and provided something that I really desired and could
not get elsewhere. Netflix of today is not such a service here where I
have chosen to live.
--
teleportation kills

"PeterN" wrote

| I realize that I am in the minority. I have never subscribed to any
| streaming service, except audio. (with the exception of our TV
| services.)

It may depend on how you define that. I've
read that TV itself is not very popular with
millennials.

I've never had any kind of streaming, unless
you count cable TV for a couple of years in the
early 90s. I get about 45 stations over the air
and actually tune in to maybe 25. But there's
little that I actually want to see, so I depend
on Netflix disks.

| My complaint is that we can only get such
| service in bundles. Between my wife and I there are only about 15
| channels we watch, but in order to get them we have to subscribe to
| channels we have no interest in seeing.
|

As long as people pay outrageous prices for
cable, which is generally an effective monopoly
business, they'll keep charging. ESPN alone charges
$7+ per cable customer and, as I understand it,
refuses to allow their station to be optional. So
the cable company has you over a barrel, but ESPN
has them over a barrel. I don't watch any sports.
If I had cable, much of my bill would be for stations
that are of no more interest to me than Spanish-
language shopping.

Almost weekly I get a glossy ad from Verizon in
the mail, for FIOS. Their brazen attitude amazes me,
but it demonstrates what passive suckers people
have become when it comes to these services.
Verizon tells me I can get their service for something
like $99/month for the first year. They don't tell me
the details of what I would get. They don't even tell
me what the regular price is. And at the bottom is a
large block of tiny text that I can't quite read even
with my glasses on. A magnifying glass reveals a
disclaimer about a long list of extra, trumped-up fees,
which are also not detailed.

So Verizon is trying to wow me by saying I can buy
an undisclosed service from them for an undisclosed fee.
The only selling point is that "FIOS is fast!!" Why do I
need "fast!!". I can't legally download movies so why
do I need 100 mbps? I don't. Most of the time I only
need enough speed to load webpages. And what's that
got to do with the cable TV service part of the bundle?
Nothing.

The Verizon ads are like something out of a cynical
cartoon. But the ads come every week. Verizon is
spending a lot of money to sell their FIOS (while they
refuse to string copper for phone customers). There
must be people who agree to that deal. And as long as
they do, the scams will continue.

Another aspect of that is the spyware, which is a
growing issue. Streaming services and cable TV are
increasingly looking to spyware and targetted ads for
income. The intrusion is just geting started, with
cable companies, media companies and device makers
all vying to own the spying.

https://securityledger.com/2015/11/v...-your-screens/

https://securityledger.com/2014/05/b...g-no-smart-tv/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupb...-of-smart-tvs/

I have an Internet-capable TV, but have no intention
of hooking it up to anything but the antenna and the
DVD player.