« Netflix Adds 'Harvard Park' to Streaming to honor Jackie Robinson Day | Main | Netflix Adds Revolver Titles to Streaming »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1bb69e20168ea427b4d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fast Company Reports that Amazon "Massively Inflates its Streaming Library Size":

Comments

ts

Not surprising. As the article hints at, NF probably engages in this counting method as well. Amazon is a behemoth who I'm sure will beef up its streaming service as time goes by. It's bigger problem is the vast improvement needed for the UI. It is not at all user friendly and search is clumsy. If someone is already paying for or wants Prime then it's fine as an added bonus. However there was talk of splitting streaming off into a stand alone service. Not sure where they are with that, but major improvements will be needed if it ever happens.

IMACynic

If they (Amazon) really wanted to be clear and honest, they would state that they currently offer x,xxx movies and xx,xxx episodes from xxx TV series via their streaming service.

But, let's face it, it is every company's goal to word things in ways that make themselves sound better than they actually are. It's expected. I don't think it's necessarily blatantly deceptive.

Lumping TV shows and movies together is never going to provide a clear understanding of total available entertainment. Most movies range from 80-140 minutes, while a season of a TV show could be 24 episodes averaging about 41 minutes each for a total of 984 minutes. Watching a movie can be a casual, single evening thing, while watching a season (or all seasons) of a show represents a substantial investment of time. Either can be equally enjoyable. It's also easier to squeeze in a TV episode than it is to watch a whole movie when you are short on time.

Both companies allow you to sample the service with a free trial and they also allow some searching and browsing for non-members to see what it available at any given time. There is no way you could say you weren't allowed to make an informed decision about what you are getting.

All of that said, I think both companies could do a much better job of providing options for sorting and searching. Fortunately all of these shortcomings have been covered by third party apps, extensions and websites.

Robert Emmerich

Not to defend Amazon, but is that 17,000 number for Prime or for their total streaming library? I've tried Prime twice and it is very limited but they do have a much larger On Demand catalouge. Amazon promotes Prime using the word "thousands" but I didn't see 17k anywhere.
Amazon Instant video shows 50,066 movies and 8,970 tv shows. Prime lowers that to 1751 movies and 1476 tv shows. These numbers are right out there for anyone to see on the top of the left hand column. So unless anyone has Amazon marketing literature w/ the 17k number to call them on this all seems a waste of time.

IMACynic

@Robert Emmerich

Amazon's website changes what is presented depending on the customer's history (if you are logged in or based on the data in the cookies on your computer), but if you go to this page when you are not logged in to Amazon, you should see the following near the top of the page:

Amazon Prime: Prime members get unlimited access to over 17,000 Prime Instant Videos at no additional cost. You will have an opportunity to sign up for Prime as part of the PlayStation 3 registration process.

Again, as I stated above, I don't think it's worth getting your knickers in a bunch over this. However, I do think distinguishing between the two types of content is valuable info for consumers.

And I have no idea where that 60,000 number mentioned in the article came from regarding Netflix streaming titles. I questioned that myself when I first saw it referenced in some other news articles. The highest recent estimates I have seen are less than 50,000, even accounting for each "video" separately. But since that didn't come directly from Netflix, we can hardly blame them for it.

WakkaWakka

http://thenowhereman.com/netflix/

46458 according to that site.

Robert Emmerich

Thanks CYNIC, I stand corrected. I don't think I've been on an Amazon website w/o being logged in since forever. Seems kind of stupid on their part to throw that 17k number out there when anybody who is logged in - and again I am NOT currently a Prime member - would see the 1751 movies and 1476 tv shows without any real effort. So stupid ad, but nice of them to make the real numbers easily accessible. I don't think nf has anything like that, though pretty much everything else they have IS better.

Judy__

Not very surprising. The dearth of movies is why I no longer have a streaming account besides the dreadful new interface. And SuddenLink has put small caps on the service in my area [an effective price increase of 1500%] so streaming is impossible now anyway. The screws are tightening on internet access in the US.

Judy__

P.S. I dabbled with Amazon for a few days but their interface is mostly useless too.

chris

They should either separate the amount of movies vs TV Series, or just add up all the viewable hours. It's not fair to count each episode as a title, but nor is it fair to to count a whole series as 1 title either. I think viewable hours is the most proper way to count it.

alan

i stay away from amazon

Jack

The problem with Amazon is that a lot of their VOD is *really* low quality when played on a PC. I mean, like lower than VHS quality. I just streamed "Tucker: The Man and His Dream" and I swear it was in a native 320x240. When I blew up to full screen, it looked terrible-- Like it was formatted for Kindle Fire, and nothing else.

I like Amazon a lot, but their VOD is still sub-par, and they need to step it up a bit and give us at least decent 480p quality AT MINIMUM if they want to compete with Netflix.

Todd

I agree with counting per episode. Rationale is that some services offer more episodes of a show. Netflix for example has all past seasons of family guy while Hulu has past Seasons plus current ePisodes.

Galagatron

I saw this story over the weekend. It also mentioned that Netflix counts the same way but just doesn't use a number (anymore) when advertising its available content.

Klass Klown

Netflix Feeling The Heat Of Competition, Could Fall All The Way To $72

Miller did the math and found that 250 GB a month, at 1 hour of streaming per gigabyte, means Reed would have to watch 8.3 hours of video/movies a day. Given that is “obviously unrealistic,” Miller deduces “Mr. Hastings is issuing those comments because he is worried about competition, which is a legitimate concern, as CMCSK [Comcast] charges $4.99/month for streaming, 38% below NFLX’s base price”

Great Wall

Thank you for making the honest attempt to speak about this. I believe very robust approximately it and want to learn more. If it's OK, as you acquire more intensive knowledge, may you mind including extra articles similar to this one with additional info? It would be extremely helpful and helpful for me and my friends.

CordCutter

Klass Klown - Those numbers aren't correct, HD streams use over 1 gb, that also assumes that Reed's house (or anyone for that matter) is only streaming to 1 device at a time. Since cutting the cord I have never been under 250gb.

Perkins Cobb

"The number of titles does not equate to member happiness or viewing pleasure."

And, neither does the selection or the image quality.

Peter Davenport

Amazon streaming no way compares to Netflix in the value of what you get for $8 a month, unless you use their shipping alot of which I do not. Wider selection of films, classic TV and a much better, organized UI along with a queue on NF. I have both and Amazon has one streaming feature that I think NF would be cool to have and that is the trailer for a film on most titles. Not important though. NF also has many more devices to stream on. Blockbust is no threat to anyone after their last blunder.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors

Third-Party Netflix Sites