« Netflix Updates iPad App - Your Thoughts? | Main | Don't Count on Netflix Streaming over Airplay »


hypocrisy rules


A tiered pricing model would not benefit subscribers and it will lead to higher prices overall. As many have said, it will just become like cable.

What has always been great about Netflix is that, when renting DVDs/Blurays, you only rent what you want.

When you start paying for "tiers," you inevitably start paying for a set of content from which you may watch 1-10%.

If the volume of content that I watch doesn't increase, why should my price increase? I wouldn't spend any more time watching than I do now, so why should I pay more so that I can get a couple of titles from this provider, and then a couple from that one and so on.

That way leads to the bundled cable industry that we currently have.

I'd almost rather pay by total volume of programming rather than a separate fee for each provider for their "set" of content. Let Netflix figure out how much to pay each provider based on what I watch. They already know exactly what I have watched, down to the minute. It would be a simple matter to allocate an appropriate portion of my fees to each provider.






Absolutely not.


No. I am not gonna pay cable / satellite like premium packages type crap.

I really doubt Netflix will do that too.

However well see....They didn't need to do it with Epix. So I doubt they will need to do anything special with Starz.

However there is no sense in jumping any gun till more information comes from the horses mouth and not it's ass.

As this story is from an "analyst" that "thinks" how the negotiations will go. IE horse shit.

Netflix has been in the bizz a long time and knows by now how to do deals.

They know how to make deals and still make bank. They have been doing just fine all this time.

So well see in time what happens with Starz.


Stop listening to these analysts and there predictions and crap. They just get you worked up over nothing.

Just have faith that Netflix knows what they are doing.

Enjoy Netflix.

You picked them for a reason. I assume it was because they offer a good amount of content and seem to have a good track record of making the right deals.




Critierion griped about their titles not being hailed on Netflix and chose Hulu because Hulu offered a special section highlighting the Crit library. If you do this type of thing for one distributor, then it's a safe bet everyone else will want the same treatment. Then the contracts come up, and they start demanding higher license fees for their suite of programming. Ad subscribers wail at the increase in price. As bad as losing CRIT is, NF couldn't bow to their wishes, less it open the gates to all sorts of demands from the others...


Not just no....Hell no!

I'd be perfectly happy to completely remove all the crappy-quality Starz content.


No. Not without additional content, better quality picture, and newer releases.

I might pay for a movie channel package that included Starz, HBO, and Showtime. Which would include first run TV shows on their networks.

Netflix Customer... for now.

No HD or surround sound so absolutely NOT.


Hey, all you jerkbags that want to turn Netflix into the next cable... how about you tell StarZ that you want a la carte pricing? That you own a Roku, or an Xbox 360, and that you'd pay $5 a month for their service, straight to them, no middle man, if only they'd stream straight to you. How about that?

That's what a la carte is. Not this middleman bullshit. Netflix ONLY works as a subscription service. The second you start introducing tiers then it becomes no better than cable.

How can you NOT get that?




No way. If I could pay less and simply not get Starz, well then that's different. It's not Starz content that is the issue, it's the quality. With the picture quality the way it is, I don't watch any Starz programming, original or movies, as it is.




An outstanding loud no. If netflix whole selection of titles were permanently available to watch instantly and all new titles obtained from there forward were as well... I could see paying a small amount more. But to be honest there is so much already available to watch it takes a very long time to watch everything you want to watch from the existing selection. For me very few of the titles I watch are from the starz deal. Not to mention within the starz selection there are a lot of titles not properly offered in the correct aspect ratios, are edited, or otherwise messed with.


Not now, not later, NEVER!


I avoid Starz Play titles already. The quality on Starz Play is awful. Why would I pay more?


If, and only if, they start distributing some HD encoded content. It is bad enough that they only offer SD right now, but to make it worse, it is generally poor quality SD. Nothing worse than looking for a movie on Netflix, finding it, and then noticing the Starz logo.



If they do it, it will increase the standard mail DVD use, because that is what I'll simply do.


Not enough content I want to watch on Starz to pay extra. Everybody wanted that channel when it first came out, but honestly HBO is better now.


No !


Not only is it a bad precedent to set but I joined to enjoy content that didn't hurt my wallet like satellite television had been doing for years. If I have to pay for packages what is the difference in the two?
And besides, even with a 5MB connection on D S L the streaming is having to buffer more and more on prime time nights of the week when the 'net is busiest which is more than a little irritating so I won't pay more for a streaming service that yanks me out of the viewing experience sometimes a dozen times during a 1-2 hr. show/movie. :(


No way. I already get Starz as part of my Triple Play package, and I don't need it on Netflix. I can use the Xfinity App on my iPad to watch it, or I can just turn on my TV and watch what's on Starz On Demand.

Starz Watch pads Netflix's instant watch selection, but they can do without it if you ask me.


I would never pay extra for Starz. I already pay extra for Blu-Ray and what's streamed from Starz isn't worthy enough for a tiered upgrade. I don't watch Spartacus but am interested in the new season of Torchwood - I can, if needed, wait for the DVD release before watching it.

If Netflix does it, count free streaming of good quality content goodbye at no additional cost. Every other content provider will want a piece of this action.


Since I sometimes hear the infernal Starz emo-jingle in my sleep, I'd say informally that about half of my instant watching comes from Starz.

This speaks more to the dubious quality of most *other* content available on Netflix instant than it speaks to the quality of Starz content (which on the whole is not bad).

In effect, upcharging for Starz content amounts to a price hike for the service that most of us are using today, assuming (reasonably) that Starz makes up a disproportionate amount of our instant queues.

Put another way, if you charge more for Starz, you'd better be prepared to charge a lot *less* for a non-Starz account--unless a whole lot of other new and high-end streaming titles are waiting in the wings.


NO. Not unless they show in Netflix the same day they show on cable. And yes, NetFlix needs to improve their BD supply.


Extra for Starz? No way, not since those bastards canceled Gravity. That was the only reason to watch any Starz original programming.

Now, HBO I would definitely consider as long as I could stream ALL of the HBO channels. I'd gladly pay extra to get their original series, but I'd also want all of the movies that they're showing that month. I think the easiest method would be for me to just tune to HBO West (or whatever) and watch a real-time stream, just like I was any other HBO subscriber. That way it wouldn't be a big licensing deal to work out, I'd just be another HBO customer with a slightly different method of connecting. And I'd want HBO on Demand as well, of course.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites