Online-video sites

Net flicks

Original programming hits the web

See article

Readers' comments



I have a subscription to sky, and netflix. I watch the news channels in the morning and the radio at the weekend, HBO series on the weeknights. Online TV is definitely where it is going and perhaps Google will bring all the YouTube channels together to be in a similar broadcasting format to traditional TV, however they obviously will start charging for this sonner or later and it will be interesting to see if they implement pay per view, HBO will place their content on their own YouTube Channel. It's not just YouTube, Amazon and Hulu that are getting a share of the online TV market.

I have also come across many relatively new sites that are cropping up with high quality content and millions of viewers, including Blip.TV and Vimeo, that I enjoy coming across new series and productions that I have never heard of before.

Angelo Labrou

You'll be surprised to see that in Greece, yes Greece, a start-up called Garage TV is launching a paid subscription video service!


I wonder how people endure watching non-recorded TV in America. Commercials must be at least 50 % of the airtime. It is torture.

Long John Silver in reply to MBerg

And yet, surprisingly to those of us who have come to rely on digital video recorders (DVRs), many Americans do "watch" in real time. That's in quotes (err, inverted commas) because it's been pointed out that the TV is indeed on but the consumer is actually multitasking during the commercials -- texting, yacking on the phone, etc. Is this really just a comment on consumers' impatience with the task of learning how to operate a DVR?

As I write this, I am listening to an internet-only radio station from San Francisco, 3000 miles from where I now live, over an audio stream through a Squeezebox. The game has changed, and old media are having their lunch steadily taken away by nimbler competitors. Kudos to Netflix for not waiting around.

blue asgard

The companies behind this form of internet programming, like Amazon and Google, will surely want to be able to offer video subscribers the kind of content they like to watch. Amazon certainly does this with books, based on your own profile and the sorts of books people with profiles like yours have gone for.

I live surrounded by DVDs of films and TV series I've enjoyed yet I'll watch the same films/episodes on TV in preference. Don't understand why. If I controlled what I saw on TV with a tablet and that tablet showed me an evening's worth, or maybe a week's worth, of programming of the kind the provider knew what I tended to like, then I'd happily go for choices from such menus although these might vary with my moods. With a common viewing area the family could squabble about what they wanted to see (as ever) in full knowledge that the following day's choice would include some of the previously unwatched items or even the option to go back and see things again. Presumably programming would include regular slots for things like (live) news and (live) sports which would be more expensive than the time-shited sort, and news programmes might be quite different allowing you the option of going into less immediate things in greater depth or even linking into documentaries which had a bearing on a particular news topic. Presumably shows like progressive competitions would similarly be timed so as to be available at the same time everywhere (or later). I get to see on my tablet choices from the shows (news, documentaries, adventure series, comedies, sitcoms etc etc) i like to see and an evening's programming is made up for me.
Since the times are not wholly up to me (but are listed for me like my own, private TV guide) this is like near video-on-demand rather than actual video on demand, and is much less demanding to stream over the internet, but if it was widely available like that it would still create huge demands on an already saturated resource. All of the plans for programming discussed here will do this, so bandwidths will have to increase - a lot.
Bandwidth, or rather than the lack of it, is going to be the short-term show-stopper, but in the end not in the long term.
Outside that the 'idiot lantern' would be exactly as idiotic as I wanted it to be and hopefully the 'long tail' will ensure that programmes of the kind I like would continue to get made. Making programmes for broadcast or movies for the cinema has been throttled back to such an extent by the economics of shortage that this could be the beginning of the end for that model and perhaps we might see a true flourishing of the media industry, one which would resist outsourcing.


I for one am curious whether Internet video distribution will accelerate the same "un-bundling" effect as Internet audio distribution. Meaning, the shift to buying cheap digital artifacts in smaller chunks, simply because the technology makes it easier to manage than traditional TV pay-per-view. The same tech also makes it easier to manage a variety of bundling strategies: pay for the whole season/series at once. Or pay for an Internet "channel" at once. Or pay for a "sample" episode only IF you viewed more than 50% of the running time.

On the one hand, there's a corresponding danger of consumers paying more overall. On the other hand, it's more economically efficient to achieve better matches of consumer and product. Fewer complaints about overpaying for a bundle of stuff of little value (e.g. TV channels with numbers greater than 80).

at_PL in reply to Reido

In my opinion the future is subscription based streaming (as Spotify or Rdio in music and Netflix in video). The are many reasons, but the most important are: it's cheaper for the customer, the new generation of consumers doesn't understand/praise/is accustomed to the idea of "owning" CD or DVD (our children won't even know what CD or DVD is), streaming, when reasonably priced is a perfect weapon against piracy and most importantly - it is convenient for customers. We might see different subscriptions with different content and maybe short-time subscriptions (just enough to watch couple of episodes of the premium TV series) but in my opinion it all be just variations of subscription based streaming.

trisul27 in reply to at_PL

The problem with streaming is that it is vulnerable to being throttled by someone between the source and destination, such as your ISP, who has no interest in having their bandwidth saturated.

Dark Archon

If Netflix can add more HBO-level quality original programming to their tempting mix of watching what/how much/when you want, their model should take off. Once you start watching programming this way, it is torturous to go back to traditional tv and sit through all the advertising.


I pay $50 for internet and another $55 for cable TV. I pay $8 for Netflix. Let's ignore the huge value added outside of streaming video entertainment, and just assume the internet fee as a requirement for Netflix: so I'm paying $58 for Netflix -- only $3 more than cable TV and arguably superior in many ways. Traditional TV providers like Comcast and Cox must know their days are limited

Hamakko in reply to Booth113

I was in the same boat up until three years ago, when my wife and I pulled the plug on cable TV (actually on any TV). We've had only Netflix since, and we're saving $60 a month that we had previously spent for years on stuff that we don't really watch. I recommend it.

Tha Dude Abides in reply to Booth113

HBO Go is their precursor that is only available to cable subscribers but I'd bet it will be available soon as a standalone service.

I'm with each of you in that I'd rather spend my money on a better internet connection (I've searched 'jobs in Kansas City' just so I could be closer to the Google Fiber rollout) and Netflix than cable. Then again, I'm 24 and I hear that is becoming pretty common for people my age.

FZwwDoSjzm in reply to Hamakko

If you threaten to leave your cable company, they'll probably make you a good offer to stay. It wasn't enough to keep me on, but you might save some money. It's nice to have leverage over a company that thinks it's indispensable.

Hamakko in reply to FZwwDoSjzm

Yes, that's exactly what happened. Like you, I felt it still wasn't worth it.
I can't remember the last time I felt excited about a TV show. I'm still trying to figure out if that's me getting old and cynical, or if it's scriptwriters, producers etc having long since run out of good ideas.


If Netflix can deliver one or two solid, HBO-esque series, its value proposition will be completely changed. That's the first time I've heard of "House of Cards" but I immediately found myself weighing the costs and benefits of a subscription. I've never felt the need to use Netflix because I don't have time to watch so many movies each month that there would be drastic savings. However, if that show and others are hits, the movie service would just be icing on the cake.
How can anyone really have 148 hours of free time for TV each month?! I'm going to dwell on that the next time I'm slogging through another 100 hour workweek.

at_PL in reply to seize_the_diem

On the other hand - who needs 100+ TV channels? Netflix (or other brand, whoever wins the market) is the future. Streaming is the future. It will take some time, because cable companies still have a "silver bullet" - they provide broadband and can bundle it with TV, but I notice more and more people dropping TV altogether and use only streaming for TV shows and movies. When wireless internet surpasses (both in terms of cost,speed and availability) cable broadband (which will happen one day) - cable companies will be out of business IMHO.

Spivey26 in reply to seize_the_diem

I assume the 148 hours could include the "semi-watched" Morning TV as they ready for work, or when they have it on in the background as they make dinner, talk with friends e.c.t. Still, thats a lot of TV.

Spivey26 in reply to seize_the_diem


erniejpdx in reply to Spivey26

Worse yet, much of what is watched is drivel. Between TV, Facebook, gaming and other electronic distractions Americans waste much of the time that could be better applied to learning, family interaction or to physical activities. To me it reflects our other addiction, to junk food: both provide a kind of superficial satisfaction without any real benefit and possible harm.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

