Regarding S3, S3 is not a CDN.
To your point about disintermediation, it's a good question. A direct to consumer play by the content owners would cut out Starz as well as Netflix. The last time the studios did that, it didn't end so well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Pictures#1941.E2.80.9....
I can think of a couple good reasons it wouldn't work out today, either. I'd predict that the business model of a content silo would be less profitable than the current system. Studios make more money when they have multiple distribution channels; distributing their own goods would give rise to conflicting incentives. Also, you need the DNA of a software company to compete in the streaming space. Studios are built to make movies; Netflix (and Amazon) are built to make software, and it's software that powers streaming. Even if that software is almost invisible.
Ultimately, the same Internet that will kill the cable companies will also kill Netflix. (I have more confidence in Netflix to reinvent itself when the time comes, of course, since you've already done it once.)
Regarding the game business, it's not a good comparison. Selling games is like the DVD business: games are produced at a fixed cost and sold at nearly zero marginal cost. This is true of games sold on disc as well as games sold online through Steam.
But this is not how the movie streaming business works. Content is licensed, not sold. It's licensed to a single buyer for a fixed window of time. After that, it's licensed to someone else. This is why HBO, AMC, and Netflix will never be showing the same movie at the same time.
This is a profit maximization strategy by the studios. I doubt that major studios would make more profit with a direct to consumer model, at least not with one that would replace the windows in which Netflix typically buys content. It could potentially work for new releases, though. I'll leave the exact reasons why as an exercise to the reader.
I hope that Netflix's long term business model doesn't depend on the answer to that question being "No, that's not in their DNA."
It's nice that so many websites offer some kind of streaming video, but the friction of moving from site to site, each with their own navigation and search functions of varying quality, seems like as much trouble to most consumers as getting up and walking across the room to change channels on their TV.
Netflix has done a good job in aggregating content, although I don't believe they have a format and business model that is sustainable into the next decade.
In contrast there's itunes, where in theory I can watch movies that aren't on Netflix. But I don't. I'm not buying an apple TV when my TV is already overloaded with input. And because I can't watch it on my TV, I've never bothered to figure out how to do it on my Mac or my iPad. I have watched plenty of Netflix on my Mac though. Unfortunately, a new release movie for $9.99 is just not that much better than an old movie included in my monthly fee. $9.99 to rent a movie? Fuck. No.
Less space than a Nomad, no wireless. Lame.
That deck isn't just aspirational, it's how the company actually runs.
So the answer is that Netflix is not for everyone. High performers and those who can take smart risks tend to like it. Those who prefer lots of process or are more risk averse tend not to.