Do Not Call Comcast’s New Streaming Service a Netflix Killer

So many articles and posts take the stance that Comcast, Netflix, DTV (and here Banks, etc) are all out to strangle money out of consumers out of greed and maybe even malice. They are trying to make a business that turns a profit - and that requires satisfying their customers. If their costs go up (content makers want a larger part of the take, again not out of malice, they want to stay in business), they need to figure out how to cope without just taking a loss. Same as each of us have to do in our business. Gas and insurance went way up, and we had to increase our fees and reduce some services. It’s life. It’s one thing to argue that the wrong decisions were made, another to presume that any change is “greed”. Good business includes figuring value proposition, costs, and uptake. If you find that a particular service you offer costs you more to do than you charge for it, and also that comparatively few of your customers need that service, you may decide to stop making those who don’t use it subsidize those who do, and raise the cost. Greed? Greed is when someone else wants to make a buck, Business is when YOU want to make a buck.

I don’t think I called them greedy, and I don’t mind a company making money off the good service they provide, but I am pointing out that 1) it’s not the netflix killer that so many other people in the media characterized it as, and 2) it offers little or nothing that the company doesn’t already offer it’s customers for no extra charge, but now it’s changing the name and charging for it. If a company wants to charge people more, fine, but don’t degrade or complicate the service and then charge more. Remember how Netflix enraged so many people last year when it upped it’s rate and took away service? What was the result for Netflix?

You say it’s not what you are saying, then you go back and say it again. Yes, I remember what happened at Netflix. I think you do too, but are being a little dishonest in your simplification that paints them as either greedy or foolish. As you know and was widely reported, Netflix’s contracts with the content studios expired, and they demanded much higher fees if Netflix wanted to continue. MUCH higher. THe original fees were low as no one really knew if the service would take off. It did, with big success. But the original subscription rate was absolutely impossible with the new demanded content rates. Netflix is the middleman. They can’t run a business selling to you for less than what they pay for the product. It’s lazy for the average consumer to presume Netlix just got dumb. It’s dishonest for a media critic to do the same.

Let me try this a different way, as my reply apparently didn’t make it through the moderators. I’m not disputing your point 1, but point 2 relies on ignoring causality. You use the example saying Netflix was wrong to raise rates and cut services, and had a bad result for their error. You don’t mention that Netflix’s contracts for content expired and the studios demanded dramatically higher rates from Netflix. The initial rate was a bargain, but it was a result of a speculative low contract rate from the studios, because they didn’t know if it would catch on. Once it did, the studios wanted 2x, 3x, or more. Netflix could not make a business of selling you content for the same price when their costs have skyrocketed. But are we angry at the studios? No, we blame Netflix. I’m suggesting that is not fair, and the media knows better.

Most definitely, these issues of “profit” are a complicated matter for customers when perceived value is really the issue.  People will pay any amount of money for what REALLY matters to them.  It’s the job of a company to figure out what that is and then determine a fair price.  “Fair” is determined by “value” to that particular customer.  In my case, value is determined by convenience and selection when it comes to TV and movies.  Now, I happen to have been using dishonline.com as one of my options for both of the aforementioned and it does not cost me extra, although non-DISH customers can still use the service.  Despite being a DISH employee, I get the same value as any other customer, and often I don’t even log into the site to watch.  Combine that with other options I have to watch media whenever and wherever I am and it spells value to me.  Everyone is different, but honestly Grant, since I wouldn’t want Comcast’s home phone service, I would resent paying five dollars a month.

That’s some good, sound advice. I never tried it, but I hear enroyeve rave about the service. I’m a YouTube man, myself. Bad quality, as compared to a DVD, but it’ll suffice. I stopped watching TV when I was a teen (decades ago), and had a tube-type TV in the basement that I tried to dump for so long. Finally got rid of it without anyone in the house complaining, because TV is digital now (don’t mention the analog to digital converter!). I might look into the streaming to computer…

Still have an old 1951 HMV Valve Radio, Long,Medium and Short Wave signals and still pick up lots on in.Run it up once a month to persreve valves (spares short) and it sounds just great with its huge elliptical speaker. Where you post is concerned dont get me started.Component systems are more environmentally friendly but for instance an iMAC if u keep up the warranty will last a long time,takes up less space and I certainly would get fed up with an outdated design in the end (shallow or what).Agree re all in one printers, very wasteful.