Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 11:52 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) Message Board

  • peterakirby peterakirby Mar 9, 2008 3:57 PM Flag

    NFLX; more blood on Apple's play button

    I am betting against NFLX because disc media is dying and their download services are insufficient. There is talk about Blu-Ray being good for NFLX, but Blu-Ray is already obsolete. Apple TV is better and cheaper. To play Blu-Ray discs, you need a Blu-Ray disc player. Then, you need the (more expensive than traditional DVD) Blu-Ray discs. Apple can keep the price of Apple TV competitive or below the price of a Blu-Ray player and I will be surprised if NFLX can compete with the price of a $5 HD download delivered immediately rather than in a day or two. I have Apple TV and it works beautifully. Besides downloading movies, you can do other things with it while all a Blu-Ray player does is play discs. At this time, the NFLX download service doesn't have as many movies available as Apple does and none in HD. The image quality of the Netflix downloads is far lesser than that of Apple's standard def. downloads and there is no immediately apparent way to watch your movie on your TV. DVDs are headed the way of the CD. It's all about data transfer. Competitors to Apple's music download services have been biting the dust in droves lately and I think history will repeat itself with movies. In this scenario, a NFLX set-top box will not matter. Technically, NFLX is one of the few stocks I know of that is higher since the last sell-off. NFLX is at a three year high. It is near it's all time high. I don't think they deserve to be there. I think the street is off base on this one. The stock shot up lately because they raised guidance. With all the insider selling going on, this smacks of manipulation. Are there any Netflix bulls out there?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Movie on demand is a pay per view service. All the cable companies offer it, but it's not cheap. By the way, AT&T's new TV service is a scary prospect for cable companies. It's more reliable and no doubt will be cheaper than cable, especially when bundled with internet and phone service. How often does your land line fail? AT&T is going to be a killer to at least a few cable companies.

      Why don't all of you shorts jump on them?

    • I am sorry, but if you have not heard of "Movies on Demand", then you are investing blind. Of course, if you're shorting NFLX, it's good for you that TW is a threat.

      Seriously - Time Warner is in millions of homes offering this service. I would be willing to bet it's the most used movie service in the world right now.

      If you seriously have not heard of it, I would consider you a very uneducated, foolish investor.

    • That's just a long way of saying you shorted this stock and you're afraid you could get creamed by the longs.

    • Evidently, somebody does. NFLX has a huge short position (355 of float). If NFLX momentum continues to build, the at some point, we will see capitulation from the shorts, and that will be an interesting time indeed.

    • twentyfirstcenturyschizoidman twentyfirstcenturyschizoidman Mar 23, 2008 9:50 PM Flag

      In case you doubt my comment regarding hbo on the internet...


      http://www.last100.com/2008/01/21/hbo-dips-a-toe-in-the-internet-tv-waters/

      This is in addition to the hbo on-demand they've been offering for some time.

      http://www.hbo.com/hboondemand/faq.html

    • twentyfirstcenturyschizoidman twentyfirstcenturyschizoidman Mar 23, 2008 9:44 PM Flag

      You said:

      "Time Warner is a red herring. You may be the only person on this board who has used their download service as I had never heard of it before your mention."

      You clearly don't understand something. Either, what time warner vod is, or what vbslinger said. Yes, I don't agree with your position on netflix but that doesn't change the fact that time warner has had vod for close to 30 years. Maybe longer.


      You also said:

      "I still say the Time Warner service is irrelevant because people haven't heard of it and I don't buy the arguement that they can control Internet traffic to stifle competition."

      Again, the time warner service is nothing new. All cable companies offer vod. Maybe you misunderstood what vbslinger was talking about. Anyway, whatever, it doesn't really matter.

      Don't kid yourself into believing that they can't control the traffic on their network though. Did you do a search for net neutrality? If you had you would probably have come across www.savetheinternet.com .

      Or maybe an article that says:

      In the "most drastic example yet of data discrimination," the Associated Press recently exposed that Comcast, the nation's largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider, is actively interfering with its users' ability to access legal content. The company is cutting off legal peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent and Gnutella, as well as business applications such as Lotus Notes. Comcast has claimed its actions were "reasonable network management."

      http://www.freepress.net/release/297

      Yes, I do understand that the article is about comcast, not time warner. If comcast can do it, so can time warner. This actually helps your argument against netflix.

    • I just don't see how you can argue your point when I am able to today do exactly what you are saying is not feasible. Also, if broadband is a commodity, it is in high demand, right? So businesses ramp up production to meet demand. It may take some time, but the transition to movie downloads will not occur overnight, either. NFLX can tank overnight, though.

    • We don't know what kind of deal Apple has with the movie studios. My sense is that they are totally with it. After VHS, they realized the bigger money is in video rental/sales.

      Widespread downloading IS feasible and will continue to be more and more. It is happening now. Why do you not concede this?

    • I think you make a compelling arguement for Apple TV. Firstly, I don't buy the bandwidth shortage scenario for reasons outlined in my other response. Apple TV is more versatile and therefore more desirable as it can be used cost effectively on a small screen or a giant one.

    • Right, fear is the other guy's problem.

    • View More Messages
 
NFLX
438.55-4.45(-1.00%)Jul 10 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.