To deal with the added write amplification, Tanguy said Micron increased the TRIM command set, meaning blocks of data no longer required can be erased and freed up more often
Did they mean "implemented" rather than "increased?" Or did they mean that they added something new to the TRIM command?
Yeah, that makes sense in a sad way. I suppose the music industry thought the same way for a while. Eventually, illegal music distribution services convinced them otherwise. Now, VPN connections are the equivalent for streaming video.
If the return on investment doesn't exceed the cost of setting up the licensing and distribution rights, it won't happen.
That part seems logical. But I am amazed that "licensing and distribution" would be so expensive that it would exceed the value of millions of people viewing their content. That sounds like the companies are becoming inefficient. Their own internal paperwork is so complex and expensive that they can't deploy their own product. Ouch, that's really wacky.
Even then, it has to exceed costs by a high enough amount, otherwise the entities involved will focus their efforts on something else that's more lucrative
I get that. I work for a company that decided to can a perfectly functioning and completed product because the regulatory requirements for a particular region cost $10 million. Now, they know it would make more than $10 million, but they only had $10 million to spend in that fiscal year. So they spent it on a product that would make more. To all the people on that project, it seems like a really weird decision. But you only have so much working capital.
I echo your sentiment about the "global economy." By default, a licensing agreement should apply universally to all geographies. If I build something on the internet, it is available to everyone by default. I must go out of my way and spend extra money to make it not work for some people based on their location. In this case, the content providers stunted their own sales to the point of creating a black market. (The people using VPN to access Netflix are essentially a black market. Or gray market if you prefer since they aren't doing anything illegal.)
Pope: Thank you for a detailed answer. I'm tired of stupid responses like "xenophobia and stupidity." I expected some AC responses like that, but the registered users doing it is quite maddening.
I wasn't looking for a distilled answer. I really wanted to know what specifically is the problem. If the licenses are locked-up by exclusive agreements with existing broadcasters, then I can understand the problem. Netflix might only be able to solve that by buying out the broadcasters. I wonder if the broadcasters could let the content providers break the contract, in exchange for some agreement. Or if they can sub-license the rights back to Netflix, and profit as a middleman.
Q: Why does this code not work?
Distilled answer: Bad programming.
Answer I wanted: Line 27 doesn't allocate enough memory.
Q: Why can't I stream The Simpsons?
Distilled answer: Licensing and greed.
Answer I wanted: Viacom has an exclusive licensing agreement that expires on March 21, 2018
Interesting. So maybe they don't want Netflix to cut into DVD sales if DVD sales are more profitable in Australia than they are in the US. That would be a valid reason.
I keep hearing "greed" but that is a copout. Greedy people do not refuse to license their products for decades.
I get that Netflix won't launch in Australia without licenses. So why don't they have licenses? Why can't they get them?
The only substantive answer I've heard so far is that the companies sold decades-long *exclusive* licenses to someone else. That might tie into your statement "And whatever agreements it did sign so far likely don't become active until Launch Date X." So the implication is that they *can* get licenses, but they won't kick-in until someone else's exclusive license expires? And why was this different in Australia?
Thank you. That is the first actual substantive answer I've had on this topic. Every other reply is "because licensing" or "because greed."
"Those greedy bastards" don't make money by refusing to license their products. There must be some real concrete reason.
"Licensing issues" seems to be the standard reply. But, why would licensing in Australia be different from licensing elsewhere? Isn't a show streamed to Australia is just as profitable as a show streamed to Europe or America?
This is what I always here, same with Anime. But I don't understand why this is hard. Why would the rights be harder to secure in Australia versus anywhere else in the world? Why would a content provider care about geography? Isn't money made from streaming to someone in Australia the same as money made from streaming to someone in the US? When Walmart wants to sell Proctor and Gamble shampoo in the US, Proctor and Gamble profits. Why would P&G not want Walmart to sell shampoo in Australia? Or the Mars or the Moon? Is streaming somehow different?
Why is Netflix not available in Australia?
Certainly that would be a big benefit. But that isn't what the article says happens. The article says it is "transparent" and applications won't even notice. I'm unclear how that is possible and I am looking for input on that. Some other replies are talking about that though, and it sounds interesting...