That's why Netflix's goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. Do you think it's that easy to set up a reliable online streaming service? Those content companies (Disney, HBO, etc.) will go through a lot of trial and error before they can figure it out. If Netflix capitalizes on that opportunity to get people to watch their shows instead (presuming that they're good shows), then they've definitely got a shot at become an online content company.

If you haven't noticed, all of the content companies[1] are doing the initial work. Look at how many of them are now on devices such as Apple TV. Time Warner / HBO has quite a lot of content they can stream.

I don't have a doubt Netflix will survive, but it will be one of many and probably the Indy / small provider company, if Amazon doesn't run them over.

1) even MLB

Yup. The competitive advantage is not the streaming technology. Many providers, including the ones you mentioned, have feature parity w/ Netflix. I have Netflix, HBO Go w/ Time Warner (and their TV app), and MLB.TV. Although those 4 all have the technology, Netflix's competitive advantage is in convenience. HBO Go and TWC requires an expensive cable subscription and MLB.TV has a horrid blackout policy.

It all comes down to sports for many. If Netflix of Google TV begin to seriously bid for sports contracts things will change very soon. Similarly if traditional sports outlets like ESPN or Fox would cut their cord requirement (even at an egregious per-subscriber cost to start off with) the landscape will really start to shift.

> Many providers, including the ones you mentioned, have feature parity w/ Netflix.

Oh really? Netflix is far ahead of the competition when it comes to device support. And the streaming technology plays a lot bigger role than you might imagine, especially when it comes to live content. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a solved problem. Like I mentioned above in another comment, just try watching a streaming NBA game.

Yes really. Can you elaborate on "far ahead" on device support compared to the TWC TV, HBO Go, and MLB.TV? Being able to control a DVR (like in the TWC TV app) or watching live television and easily perusing a guide and switching between streams (like in the TWC TV app or the MLB.TV app) are pluses over Netflix's offering. I have watched live streaming sports without issue over ESPN's offerings or individual league offerings and I find they work well and provide a lot of alternative content, things which Netflix isn't even in the business of having much less having the features for.

I don't think Netflix would have any special insight as to streaming live action such as sports. Streaming and caching content from a movie or TV episode enables additional options compared to live content.

> If you haven't noticed, all of the content companies[1] are doing the initial work

And most of them suck ass. You can't stream an NBA game live without it buffering the crap out of itself.

> if Amazon doesn't run them over.

Based on what Amazon has done so far, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. They have no understanding of content - their recently released pilots were horrible. You can let a bunch of tech guys up in Seattle make content decisions.

Their insistence at treating their prime streaming like just an aspect of the normal purchasing view is also annoying. If I'm searching through shows, It doesn't help me to see multiple seasons of the same show 'on the shelf,' both SD and HD versions. It just takes longer to find what I want that way.

I don't watch NBA, but the MLB[1] and Disney streamers work damn well. HBO Go works pretty nicely for all my friends who have it (GOT fans).

As for Amazon, they'll do what they do best, buy content from everyone.

1) the MLB has home or away announcers and HD video - much better than the cable version

I would like to have a serious talk to whoever designed the Amazon streaming video interface on the Roku. It shows a grid video selections in rows, then proceeds to obscure most of the selections with the description text. I really can't stand to use it unless Amazon is the only source for that content.

> (presuming that they're good shows)

That's the crux of it. There will inevitably be good and bad shows, or even good but unpopular shows. The viewers are fickle and Netflix will need to somehow manage keeping their attention. Netflix's problem is that they don't own the content. But as soon as they enter the content-creation business, they will be the same as Disney (and will face the same challenges).

Given that Netflix has Ted Sarandos as its CCO, I think they are well-placed to make the right decisions regarding content.

Netflix's goals run much deeper than this. The article touches on this briefly. The goal of becoming HBO has been completed. Take a look at the list of Netflix Original Programming. They've succeeded at becoming a content generator, and they are actively scooping up other companies' IP a la Valve (Arrested Development being the epitomal example of this.). All this does, however, is puts them in league with the major studios.

Netflix is still at the mercy of the internet providers, which are increasingly also controlled by the major content studios. Comcast just won a huge net neutrality battle and is making a play for Cablevision. Netflix has said it's willing to "mobilize its users" against traffic throttling abuse. Netflix's goal is to become Disney before Disney can become Netflix.

They've got better data and infrastructure. And they seem to have a one-up on a culture that lets them be flexable with IP. We'll see what happens.

HBO already has HBO Go so they would only have to scale it out.

From what I've heard, HBO Go has many technical and content quality problems. Plus they have promised real support for Apple TV for a long time, and only presented crappy non-solutions based on AirPlay using an app that can't multitask. :-P

HBO Go arrived on Apple TV last summer.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2042405/hbo-go-watchespn-com...

Not in my country, Sweden. We have to use a computer or iOS device.

What you've heard is, in my opinion, wrong - the service works great across all my devices.

You are underestimating the importance of infrastructure and technology in this equation. No, it's not all just content. Netflix has mastered streaming and is far away ahead of everyone else. Their interface, especially on smart TV and STB apps is better than anyone else's, a far more interactive experience for the end-user.

In addition Netflix has built up infrastructure to allow it to stream in high def in the first place. They are peering near ISPs in large localities to reduce bandwidth costs and improve speeds to the user.

On top of that, how often does your netflix stream stop to buffer? Almost never. They've encoded every file in almost every possible resolution and bitrate and the player seamlessly switches amongst them as the connection slows or speeds up.

Remember, it's not about streaming on your laptop, it's about your television. Forget about the browser experience.

I'm constantly in amazement of Netflix. There is so much more to them than merely acquiring or creating content. To say that Disney and TW will simply setup their own services with great ease discounts the barriers to entry that they will face, as well as the significant costs.

The whole point is that Netflix is racing to build up infrastructure and IP so that the economics of Disney starting its own streaming service instead of getting revenue by streaming on Netflix will not make sense.

All of the big providers are currently running streaming services. They are getting the experience necessary now. MLB has been quite successful in streaming to devices and TVs.

Disney charging each customer instead of the cable share is going to be above the money Netflix is willing to pay for all of Disney's content. All of the big players have quite a lot of content they are currently getting ready for digital streaming. Disney and HBO are already on Apple TV and others (heck Disney is there a couple of times).

Netflix doesn't have the money to scale up to their content machines before the cable money goes. They'll live if Amazon doesn't get aggressive.

"In addition Netflix has built up infrastructure to allow it to stream in high def in the first place. They are peering near ISPs in large localities to reduce bandwidth costs and improve speeds to the user."

Try Vudu if you want to see real dependable HD. I've had issues with Netflix "blocking up" (pixalated) while the Vudu stream is fine and the picture, in my opinion, is better than any other service out there.

ESPN has a strong online presence (gated via tradtional media subscriptions).

ESPN is Disney. There have live TV, replays , highlights streaming online already. Adding some non sports content won't be trivial, but they aren't starting from ground zero.

Yeah and by and large, it sucks. Until they fully decouple it from their regular cable business it's just not compelling at all.

What is the point of having a nice online delivery mechanism if you're required to have the cable channel to use it for the good content? I mean I like online and all, but if I already have cable and have to choose between the two, I'm picking cable.

The same argument applies to the HBO product. To me, the entire point of having an online offering is to reach more people. If you're immediately limiting your potential customer base to your existing customer base... How is that supposed to really work?

My point isn't about convenience of product. It's about the existence of infrastructure. Dropping the requirement of having a cable subscription is not a technical one.

As far as the actual product goes, I have cable. I still watch ESPN on my Apple TV because the replay functionality is really nice. I don't need to pay for a DVR (or HD) to watch the teams I want to. That's pretty cool.

Streaming on ESPN is mediocre. My streams are poor quality, buffer, pixelate, etc while this never happens on Netflix where I regularly achieve "Super HD."

I don't understand why people think Disney will start their own streaming service when they never started their own cable TV company. Large public companies want to get a high return with as little capital invested as possible, which means they will always prefer licensing their IP rather than owning metal.

You overestimate the importance of "experience". Content is all that matters.

I have to disagree.

I know people who complain about the content Netflix has every time the subject comes up. They don't know why, or understand what licensing is (or means), or the impact of the studios and their business model.

They could buy movies on disc, and get whatever content they want, but they use Netflix more and more instead. So experience does matter.

"They could buy movies on disc, and get whatever content they want, but they use Netflix more and more instead. So experience does matter."

Talk to my wife who searches around Netflix for 15 minutes looking for something to watch and then gives up. Experience can improve the likelihood that someone will use your service, but if the content isn't there, then they'll go elsewhere.

You're comparing the wrong things, we're talking about what happens when Disney, etc. pull their content up from Netflix and set up their own streaming services that just don't have nice interfaces. People will get the thing that lets them watch Avengers 2.

Have you seen what is run on standard cable channels lately? The cost to create some junk reality tv show (that will still bring in tons of viewers) is remarkably small compared to the cost of the infrastructure.

>> "Netflix will just be one streaming channel among many."

If the cable business does die those companies could partner with Netflix, split revenues (and risks) and continue commissioning shows.

Content available on Netflix would go up, they could jack up the price (one place to view everything justifies that) and the cable companies don't go completely out of business.

It'll probably never happen but it seems like an ideal solution for all parties, including customers.

It will be different though, and interesting to see play out. Netflix became a big deal because they provided a much better experience than the incumbent. What you're describing is not a better experience at all; It seems more likely to me that cable would continue as-is rather than there be a fractured online marketplace where every provider is effectively a premium channel.