Netflix Wants You to Throw Out Your HD TV -- Just Not Yet

If you watched Netflix's (NASDAQ: NFLX  )  highly acclaimed remake of the British House of Cards, you probably viewed it in HD on a TV or a computer screen.

The show looked pretty good, right? One could be forgiven for thinking that a television picture -- especially a streamed television picture -- couldn't get much better than that. But one would be wrong.

House of Cards was not shot in hi-def; it was shot in 4K, an ultra-high-definition video format with four times the resolution of today's HD TVs. That would be 3,840 x 2,160 pixels for 4K, compared to 1,920 x 1,080 for HD.

Fans of Netflix's latestforay into original video production should know that Arrested Development was also shot using 4K cameras.

Why would Netflix go to the trouble and expense of shooting in 4K? (House of Cards cost more than $100 million to produce.)

Because it plans on eventually streaming that 4K video through our home video systems. And not in the distant future, but within a year or two, according to an interview that Netflix chief product officer Neil Hunt gave The Verge.

Hunt said that streaming will be the best way to get 4K video into homes. But, he said, there is still a lot of work to do on compression technologies before Netflix can squeeze four times the data through existing pipelines, and in the decoding of that data. The technical challenges for broadcasting are even greater than that for streaming, however.

Right now Netflix is the 900-pound Gorilla of the Internet. It is the source of over 30% of all Internet downstream traffic, not just video streaming, but all Internet downloading. Netflix subscribers stream more than a billion hours a month, a number that keeps growing, according to Hunt.

That is a lot of ones and zeros coming from the company that seemingly shot itself in the foot just two years ago when it announced it was separating its monthly DVD mailing service from its Internet streaming service. The ensuing anger from once-devoted subscribers pushed Netflix's market value down 78% in four months.

I wish I had loaded up on Netflix at that time, because its stock bounced back with a vengeance, getting closer to its peak value of $295 in July 2011.

What changed Netflix's fortunes? Netflix CEO Reed Hastings ended up being right: Streaming entertainment has just kept growing and growing. He saw DVD-player sales flatten as tablet and smartphone sales exploded.

Netflix has been out ahead of everyone else in the video content delivery business, first with its super-efficient DVD distribution network and now with its streaming business. But will it be in the right place at the right time with its 4K gambit?

Televisions that can handle 4K video now are not only extremely expensive -- how's $17,000 to $40,000 sound? -- but those monitors will be incompatible with future 4K standards, according to one television manufacturer.

In remarks made at a press event in Italy last month, Michael Zoeller, Samsung's European director of TV sales and marketing, said, "No UHD TV today will be compatible with the UHD standards to come."

I'm not betting against Netflix and Hastings being eventually right about 4K, but I wouldn't throw away my HD TV just yet. Who knows when the 4K UHD sets will be available to take in Kevin Spacey's manipulations in all their evil detail?

The Motley Fool has released a premium report on Netflix. Inside, you'll learn about the key opportunities and risks facing the company, as well as reasons to buy or sell the stock. The report includes a full year of updates to cover critical new developments; click here and claim a copy today.


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2013, at 6:49 PM, vv234 wrote:

    I think for most TV shows other than those about nature/Nova/Science, HD resolution is more than enough. 4K is a total waste of the bandwidth for streaming. It's all about the story line and the acting,

    not how many winkles on the actors' face we could see.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2013, at 11:51 PM, merc66 wrote:

    "Televisions that can handle 4K video now are not only extremely expensive -- how's $17,000 to $40,000 sound?"

    Crutchfield has a 65" Sony 4K TV for sale for $6999. I think your prices are a bit inflated. Time will tell if this new technology catches on. I think I will wait a couple of years for prices to drop.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2013, at 12:09 AM, merc66 wrote:

    correction: Crutchfield has a 55" Sony 4K TV for $4999. A fraction of the price quoted in the article.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, XMFDRadovsky wrote:

    merc66,

    I stand corrected. The prices I quoted were for 4K UHD TVs in the 80-plus inch range (which I should have stated).

    But in a search on Amazon, I found a 50-inch Seiki 4k UHD for $1,400 ... hmmm.

    Still, with not much in the way 4K material currently available, and if coming streaming 4K material will not be playable on the 4K sets now produced, what's the point?

    Probably best to wait till all the video delivery quirks are worked out.

    Thanks for the information.

    Dan

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2461207, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/29/2014 8:47:29 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement