Netflix Changes Its Mind, Will Keep Profiles Feature

xChange writes "I too was disappointed at Netflix's decision to remove the Profiles feature, and let them know via email and telephone. I was surprised to find the following email in my inbox today: 'You spoke, and we listened. We are keeping Profiles. Thank you for all the calls and emails telling us how important Profiles are. We are sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused. We hope the next time you hear from us we will delight, and not disappoint, you.' I thought that it sounded too good to be true, and went to their blog to confirm, finding this entry. Netflix decided to listen to its customers, and keep a feature that many of us find essential for our use of their service. I am surprised, and very pleased."

Comments

Kudos to Netflix

[dreamchaser]

Making a bad decision is one thing. Recognizing that bad decision and listening to your customer base is another, and admirable in this day and age when fewer and fewer companies seem to care at all about the people they service.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Bad decisions are made all the time. A lot of time, companies will listen to consumers if enough of their customers scream and holler.

Situations where you end up with bone-headed decisions get pushed through despite what the consumer thinks are places where consumers are essentially hostages anyways. For instance, Microsoft... "What? Are you just going to mass migrate all of IBM from Windows? HAH! We'd like to see you try. We'll talk to you again in a week, after you realize it's financial suicide." or "What? You're going to Linux/Mac? Who cares, we have IBM, bitch." Also, gas stations, and oil companies, "You don't want to pay $4.40 a gallon? Hah, let's see you not use gas then..."

The later really bugs me a lot... it's like every year the oil company has been saying things like "we're only making 7% profit, which is the average for a company like ours in a different business." But what they don't see is that they're making a profit in a situation where they SHOULDN'T. Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay... the only reason we still are is because we don't have a choice.

There were a bunch of large companies in IT that imploded because they weren't making money, and this happens all over the place (where companies don't have hostage consumers), so the question should be, "do you deserve to be making 7% profit even though your model is technically failing?"

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay...

The market says otherwise.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[dreamchaser]

I'm not sure I see the logic that oil companies shouldn't make *any* profit. Should the margins be lower given the HUGE volume they sell and the necessity of their product? Sure. No profit at all? Nah.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[TopChef]

Too late. Between this and getting rid of the new release feature, I ended my subscription. So far, Blockbuster has had a quicker turnaround on movies.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[kidgenius]

OK, what should appropriate profit margins be then? Would you rather discuss actual profit instead of a margin? Whom, and by what authority, should decide this, and with what criteria?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Heembo]

What really shocked me was the Netflix told their subscribers that they were removing the profiles feature - but tried to pass it up as a service improvement. FUD! But I do give them credit for hte reversal. I'm very fond of this feature.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Which market is that then? The cartel/monopoly that is Big Oil or the other non-existent one?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[mdmkolbe]

In a free market the economic profit should indeed tend toward 0% but the 7% you mention is accounting profit which doesn't include things like opportunity costs.

Also, "willing to pay" doesn't mean "the price you think is fair". It means "the price at which you stop buying". It would be better termed "willing to buy". But actually that doesn't matter since a true free market actually charges less than some people's "willing to pay" price and more than other people's "willing to pay" price because some people are willing to pay more than others even though the price the item is sold at is (usually) the same for everyone. (Exceptions include coupons, student discounts and a whole host of tricks known as price descrimination.)

ECON 101, possibly the most important course anyone who wants to have an informed political opinion could take.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[prockcore]

No they didn't. They tried to remove profiles because it was making upgrades to the frontend more difficult and only 3% of their users actually used the feature.

So by removing a feature that fairly few people used, they could speed up development. That's how it benefits us, and they told us this up front.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[djp928]

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he meant that they were arbitrarily jacking their profit margin past the point the market will bear. So according to the laws of market economics, they "shouldn't" be making that much profit.

The fact that they are, indeed, making that much profit would seem to prove him wrong, though. But we'll see how long it can continue, I guess.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[mattack2]

You do have choices:
* Mass transit/carpool
* Bicycle/walk
* Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle
* Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.

None of those are easy, and I admit I'm mostly just paying the higher prices too, but for a long time I've known that my next car (I drive relatively little, my first new car is 10 years old and only has around 56000 miles on it) will at the very least be a hybrid...possibly a used one.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

it's like every year the oil company has been saying things like "we're only making 7% profit, which is the average for a company like ours in a different business."

First, grow up about oil companies already and get some education because a) profits aren't bad and b) this notion that oil companies are out to screw you is fantastical delusion.

A small percentage of vast amounts is still vast amounts. To the simple minded (read mass media news outlets) seeing "record profits for oil companies" sure sounds like "oil companies" are the "big bad wolf", but anyone who's got half a brain for critical thinking knows what "profits" means.

It means jobs. Lots of jobs. A profitable company is one that pays well and pays often. It also means research and development. Were do you think these alternate energy funds are coming from? It's not all some kind of magical government subsidy. Energy companies are spending billions of dollars on finding ways to produce more energy for cheaper. Of course, this money they're spending also means... jobs.

Oil companies are not price fixing. How many times do you want the oil companies executives hauled up in front of congress and investigated on price gauging in a 1 year period? What would it take for you to understand this? Nothing obviously. You're the kind of person who prefer having a scapegoat to point a finger at and blame. Let alone the fact that you cannot understand that a) Oil is priced in dollars and the value of the dollar was devalued to obscene levels (blame Bush and Bernanke for that) to help to stave off the housing market crash. b) Continued explosive demand for oil as (particularly) China continues to grow as well as India. c) Most oil fields, particularly in the middle east, are mature and are not capable of producing more. d) world conflicts as Iran and Israel ratchet up the rhetoric. e) some say speculation, but I'm not quite familiar with these mechanics.

Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay... the only reason we still are is because we don't have a choice.

You have a choice, they're just not the convenience you want at the price you want it. That's simple economics. You want cheaper oil costs? Ok, then add more product to the supply or reduce demand. What's the best way to do that for oil? How about we get more of it from the one of the largest un-tapped reserves... USA.

Nope, you won't agree to that because of equally over hyped and biased reports from places like CNN who give these poor mathematical estimates of supply and hyperbolic imagery that drilling for oil in ANWAR will cause some kind of near atomic explosion to the entire ecosystem. Forgoing any critical idea of true supply and demand, producing from American companies (trade deficit and jobs anyone?), very restrictive American (see lobbyists) regulations on environmental protection, and the like.

I assure you that drilling in the US will have a far greater impact than some silly CNN reporter doing clearly flawed napkin math can prove. Except, said CNN shepherds are the only ones to overwhelming number of sheep will follow. Maybe they have nice ties?

Not only will it add more supply (and no, it won't take 10 years if proper support), it will be an American supply, which will significantly reduce the American trade deficit and create more jobs, it will drop all speculators flat on their faces, lower the cost of oil (and therefor gas) which will in turn stimulate the economy (more so than some tax rebate check will), which will in turn save jobs (like the numerous automobile jobs being lost), which will have further impact on the economy, and so and and so forth.

Is it a magic bullet? of course not. Is it a short term fix? You bet. That's exactly what we need as oil companies and others continue to dump billions of dollars into R&D for other forms of energy.

But this asinine notion of "your model is technically failing" is coming straight from the

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[stussymo]

In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel. OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve). There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption). I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies! If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[mdmkolbe]

I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price.

There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, etc.

As I indicated in my post, if they are still buying the product then by definition they are willing to pay. It's called an inelastic demand and market forces work just fine there. Maybe you forgot that from ECON 101.

I never said that Petroleum is a free market, but rather that the GGP has an incorrect understanding of "willing to pay" (which you seem to share). Petroleum is indeed a prototypical example of an oligopoly based market. However, the reasons it is not a free market have nothing to do with whether you buy gas (i.e. elasticity) and everything to do with from whom you buy gas (i.e. oligopoly). The GGP is blaming the wrong cause which is no help to anybody.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[fm6]

I'm not sure I understand why the decision was so bad. They obviously did it so that people who watch movies separately would have to buy separate subscriptions. Aside from the fact that they weren't honest about why they were doing it (a repeat of their behavior when they were throttling heavy users, and pretending they weren't), that actually seems pretty equitable.

Say 4 people are sharing a 4-at-a-time account using 4 queues. (I hear this is pretty common in dorms.) Then they basically are getting the same service as 4 people with 1-at-a-time accounts, but for $6 each instead of $9 each. That extra $3 is not exactly a budget breaker, and yet the $9 total seems a pretty reasonable fee to rent 4 or 5 movies a month. Considering that the postage alone probably costs nearly $5.

It makes sense to give people with a single queue a discount per movie, because you either have a one-person household, or a household that watches all their movies together. So a household with a 4-at-a-time membership is probably not watching 4 times as many movies.

Not that it's a big moral issue either way. Netflix seems to be making money (though obviously not as much as they'd like) and people are getting entertained pretty cheaply (though obvious every $ counts, perhaps too much!).

Anyway, cue the flames.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[FooAtWFU]

There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc.

I think you're just considering "willing to pay" one thing (dude goes: I am fine and happy with gas at this price) and the economists are putting the bar a little higher (which includes a dude going: I just went out and paid this price, and I'm really upset that it was that much, but when you get down to it I suppose it IS worth it in terms not-having-everything-fall-apart-on-me). And the moral of the story is that gasoline has a rather low price elasticity of demand.

P.S. A monopoly or cartel can be, and usually is, part of a market economy. Not usually part of a free market, mind you.

P.P.S. The oil cartels have plenty of incentive to reduce inefficiency in production! More inefficiency means less profit! However, the efficiency of the global economy overall is (indeed) not something they set out to optimize.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[jnana]

Where did you get the 3% number from?

I'm curious because the first night that they announced profiles were disappearing, customer service initially said to many users that "only 1%" of users used profiles, and that half of those who used it were employees (don't ask how a company with less than 2,000 employees can have 0.5% of 8 million users [40,000] be employees).

After a few hours, customer service started saying that "only 2%" of the users used profiles. And then they stopped giving numbers altogether, and the next announcement said it had nothing to do with upgrades or the backend but was being eliminated solely because users found it too complicated.

Did you get the "only 3%" number from Netflix? I'd be seriously impressed if they changed the numbers yet again.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[kidgenius]

Just as a comment, yes, oil production costs have increased. When oil is @ $40 / barrel, it's economical to only go after certain supplies. That may mean that you can't drill through 5 miles of rock to get at oil, because it's not profitable. But, when oil is $100 / barrel, it now may make sense to go get that oil that is harder to extract, because you won't lose any money on it.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?

Yes, because the price of oil has gone up.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc.

Well, we could live in a city, and then we wouldn't need to drive to do those things. I assure you it's possible...I (and countless million others) do it every day.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[TriggerFin]

You do have choices: * Mass transit/carpool * Bicycle/walk * Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle * Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.

* The bus stop is a mile away from home and three from work, and the bus only runs during daylight hours. Not an option.
* The job is 12 miles away, down a highway. I can bike half of that if not carrying anything, in good weather, but not at night.
* Not in the budget for the next couple years. Hopefully it will be after that.
* Gas station attendant or deli counter person? Then I'll never be able to replace the car.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Abattoir]

"What? Are you just going to mass migrate all of IBM from Windows? HAH! We'd like to see you try. We'll talk to you again in a week, after you realize it's financial suicide."

Uh, that isn't really out of the question. IBM has an internal IBM-ified Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution that any employee who wants to use that instead of Windows is welcome to.

This has evolved over the years and when I last worked for IBM, I used it on my company-issued laptop for the last year I was there. All the IBM-required tools, like Lotus Notes and Sametime, work perfectly well. Office is handled with OpenOffice (integrated into Notes w/ version 8).

Of any of the companies out there with a large deployment of Windows, IBM is the best postured to switch to Linux. Given IBM's contributions to the open source community and their respect of open standards, I wouldn't put it past them.

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of or affiliated with IBM. I worked there a year ago. They might have migrated everyone to OS2 at this point, I don't know.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Sancho]

There are multiple schools of thought. Here's another.

Think about utilities. There are plenty of places where the utilities are privately owned. There are places where there is a virtual monopoly. Do you see these places raising the costs of the services that they provide past the point where most customers complain? No. And utilities, arguably, are even more necessary to more people than gasoline. By all rights, they should be capable of gouging. They don't.

Now whatever the reason is for not gouging, apply it to Big Oil. Is it laws which prevent such a necessary part of the infrastructure from becoming too expensive? Is it that the utilities are content with the profits they make? Is it something else entirely? It's probably a question that we should be asking. What exactly makes utilities different from gasoline? And before anyone says it, absurd oil prices aren't just due to scarcity in the middle east.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Sancho]

Property and rent tend to be higher in the city, too. And for the people who don't live in the city already, the costs to move may be too great.

As gas prices increase, demand for in-city living will increase, further driving up the cost of property and rent in those places. It's great for rent-controlled areas--and pretty devestating for everywhere else.

What it boils down to is that we, as a society, need transportation in order to function. Instead of relying on other countries for our transportation, we should start looking at things we can do here (in America.)

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you only pay less than or equal to what you are willing to pay. This is by definition. If you disagree, then you must be confused.

Also, there are other options available to all of those things you list as "must do." For instance, driving a motorcycle instead of a car, using public transportation or moving closer to work to make the commute shorter.

If you want to argue that these things still don't effect the price of gas, then consider this. People don't subscribe to Netflix because they want to be members; they subscribe so that they can receive dvds in the mail. Just the same, you don't buy gasoline because you want to have a bunch of flammable liquid; you buy gasoline because you want to get to work. And my argument is that there are alternative ways to get to work. The fact that you aren't using those alternatives shows that you are willing to pay that price for the gas.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure it really must have been 93%, because the real reason is the developers are lazy, and management would rather piss off 93% of customers.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[zippthorne]

In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules.

Perhaps it doesn't. But it behaves an awful lot like an industry in which both demand and supply are quite inelastic, and pricing is efficient.

That is to say: if it doesn't follow "market economy" rules, whatever rules it IS following sure are approximating "market economy" uncannily well.

Now sprinkle in some hard returns next time, you paragraph-eschewing rant-monkey.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[stephanruby]

I'm not sure I understand why the decision was so bad. They obviously did it so that people who watch movies separately would have to buy separate subscriptions. Aside from the fact that they weren't honest about why they were doing it (a repeat of their behavior when they were throttling heavy users, and pretending they weren't), that actually seems pretty equitable.

No, they did it because of online DRM content distribution. People were already complaining that they could only stream DRM movies from their main account-only.

Netflix sees its future as an online distributor, but apparently it got itself in a bind the way it negotiated online DRM content distribution.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

i wish companies like rogers would listen to their customers.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[dotancohen]

Making a bad decision is one thing. Recognizing that bad decision and listening to your customer base is another, and admirable in this day and age when fewer and fewer companies seem to care at all about the people they service.

Yes, today listening to your customers is so rare that it is front page news. Look! Netflix listened to it's customers! Hurrah to Netflix!

This is sad. I stay away from anything without a public bugtracker nowadays as much as I can.

On second thought, Netflix got some free publicity and public goodwill out of this. Every company should deliberately announce that they are going to ruin their service, just to 'listen to their customers' and get some nice PR.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[oldhack]

No dog in the fight, but will throw this wood in.

IN SHORT TERM, the demand is inelastic, but in the long term it need not be. We managed to reduce consumption after the shortage in the 70's, with 55MPH speed limit, buying Honda civics, etc. But it took a while and it took the whole system - gov't, consumers, auto industry (Ok, foreign auto industry, but you know) - to be on the same page to do that.

Bit more difficult this time, I think. The shortage is not artificial like in the 70s. And our gov't system is much worse, I think - and this is in comparison with Nixon time. Nevertheless, it's a great opportunity to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce our dependence on oil as energy source. At any rate, we need to think to think and act with long term scope.

Hmm... I went off the deep end here...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[joshuaobrien]

In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel.

No. OPEC and you decide the price per barrel. By definition, nobody pays more than they are willing to, so it's reasonable to say most people are paying less than they are willing to pay. Watch the price rise next week. Watch people continue to pay.

OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve).

OPEC can influence supply. Consumers control demand.

There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption).

There are many alternatives you've chosen not to pursue. There are many choices you've made in the past and are now experiencing their outcomes. You decided to risk a livelihood that was exposed to the price of oil. You decided to live far from work in a city with poor public transport. You decided to live further than walking distance from the doctor and the grocery store. You made those choices and now you are paying for them. But you still have choices. Choose a more efficient car. Choose a motorcycle. Choose public transport. Choose to move closer to the grocery store. Choose to get a job closer to home. The longer you think you have no control over your life, the longer you will be at the mercy of others. But I think you'd still rather pay high fuel prices than make any real and difficult change to your life. It will be when the price gets much, much higher that you and many others will decide to change.

I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies!

You don't have much power to effect lower oil prices. Not even your government has much power in that regard. You can continue to rail against the evil oil companies but it won't change them. Find something else to do.

If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?

It's harder and more expensive to extract oil from the ground now. There's less of it. We're finding less of it. This is all very simple stuff. The cheap oil party is over.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's mentioned to you yet that OPEC doesn't have even have a majority position in global oil supply. Since anyone's oil is just as good as anyone else's (the economics term is "fungible"), if OPEC prices themselves too high, Canada and the others eat their lunch.

OPEC likes to believe they have some control, and we like to believe they're the "bad guy", since it makes for good TV soundbites, but the reality is that it's a global market.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[dreamchaser]

I was speaking more as to what *I* would do were I running an oil company, especially given the constant attacks on them and general bad PR. I never said it should be subject to a price cap or some sort of regulatory action to limit margin.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Ma8thew]

With the price of oil currently so high, do you really think OPEC isn't producing at maximum capacity? They are currently limited by their refinery capacity. It has very little to do with politics.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[hedwards]

The GP has a point, if the price really were higher than what the market could bear we would be seeing a lot more Americans and politicians supporting efforts to reduce the consumption by whatever means necessary.

People are less willing to pay now than they were at $2 a gallon, but they're still willing to pay it. Yes, they're cutting back on the consumption, but they are still paying it. At the rate things are going, the oil companies are just going to make a more consistent profit for longer.

You can say cartel/monopoly, and yes that's a part of it, but the reality is the peak pumping year was decades ago, and more likely than not we've already used more than half of the total supply. The prices will just keep going up as long as people will pay, cartel or no cartel.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[hedwards]

But we do have other options. You could run a car off recycled vegetable oil, bio diesel, diesel, electricity, propane, ethanol or gas.

Granted propane, electricity, diesel, bio diesel and vegetable oil would require a complete overhaul of a typical engine, but ethanol requires minimal changes to a typical car to use.

Then there's the option of just walking places or taking the bus. The fact is that whether or not people say they can't switch the overwhelming majority choose not to make a switch or buy a more efficient vehicle either.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[ScreamingCactus]

Just to let you know, American oil is much cheaper than foreign oil. For instance, a barrel of American oil ran somewhere around $100 through the last quarter of '08. Canadian oil has always been expensive due to the high cost of extraction, and Mexican oil has always been fairly cheap. Which means, you guessed it: it's Middle-Eastern oil which is the main culprit. While American oil companies may be making lots of money, their's is still the cheapest oil around. And honestly, the government is making their jobs a lot harder (and more expensive) thanks to all their "safety concerns" and assinine programs like TWIC.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Soporific]

There are many choices you've made in the past and are now experiencing their outcomes. You decided to risk a livelihood that was exposed to the price of oil. You decided to live far from work in a city with poor public transport. You decided to live further than walking distance from the doctor and the grocery store. You made those choices and now you are paying for them. But you still have choices. Choose a more efficient car. Choose a motorcycle. Choose public transport. Choose to move closer to the grocery store. Choose to get a job closer to home.

Who's livelihood isn't exposed to the price of oil? Certainly public transportation is going to be affected by it also, buses use it, trains use it. etc. Living close to or in a city is even more expensive, what are we all going to do, move to New York City so we can live next to a subway and a mini-mart? Will you still have this same feeling when rent is at $20 a square foot and the population density is 1M per square mile for everyone? Is your life really that simple that you can do all of this?

~S

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[volxdragon]

No kidding - *EVERY* friend I spoke with that uses Netflix said they used profiles...I have no idea where the 3% number came up from because from my same set (~30 people), it was 100%. Granted, that is statistically meaningless, but still, 3% seems WAY out of whack...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

The monopolies on mostly essential products say otherwise

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[es330td]

When will people understand that ExxonMobile et al do not control the sale price of their product? Oil is sold on futures markets. Representatives of XOM sell production contracts to buyers for whatever price the buyer is willing to offer. XOM can try to set a price but if it is too high nobody will buy. At the end of the day the margin is determined by the buyers, not the sellers.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[howdoesth]

The GP has a point, if the price really were higher than what the market could bear we would be seeing a lot more Americans and politicians supporting efforts to reduce the consumption by whatever means necessary.

He didn't say "what the market will bear" he said "what people are willing to pay" which are two entirely different things. You bear something under duress. We've built our society in such a way that a lot of people have no choice to cut back on oil consumption, so the market can bear a lot more than it would if people were acting purely of their wills.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you live in the wrong location in relation to your job.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[nabsltd]

Bit more difficult this time, I think. The shortage is not artificial like in the 70s.

There's no actual shortage on oil right now, although there is less in the supply chain than in the past few years. OPEC has repeatedly not increased production (despite there being plenty of oil in the ground), and the futures market is artificially driving up the price of a barrel of oil.

The price of a barrel of oil has risen 300% in the past few years, which would tend to indicate that suddenly there was less than half the oil available as before, but that's obviously not the case.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but must we be on guard against any decision they might try to slip past us? I mean we're already busy watching the government, and trying not to be duped by advertisements and salespeople and telemarketers as it is.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

I'm sorry, you must be new here. We don't use logic or critical thinking. Please take your hippie logic elsewhere. Just because someone doesn't have a choice but to pay $4/gallon for gas doesn't mean they shouldn't choose not to if they don't want to. They're more than welcome to spend $35,000 on a new hybrid car (that still uses $4/gallon gas) and thus "stick it" to the oil companies...a little bit. Or, they could walk. I, for one, am almost ready to make the leap on my 30 mile ride and just start biking in. In this economy, it would be trivial for me to just find a new job with the thousands that are available right now, but I prefer the situation I'm in now. I CHOOSE this life.

And, since the slashdot average IQ seems to have dropped about 50 points in the last few weeks, all of the above was sarcasm.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[b0bby]

If your job is only 12 miles away, you'd still only be spending $50 a week on gas driving a mid-70s Cadillac. It's the people who are doing 50+ miles each way that are really hurting. People complain about the price in the US, but it's been over $5 a gallon in Europe forever ($8 or 9 now) and people still drive. They don't drive as much, and they choose more efficient cars, but they still find it worthwhile. I don't like having to think about filling up, but it's certainly putting conservation on the agenda which is a good thing.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[b0bby]

I've been using Netflix for years and never heard of it, though I'm going to try it out now.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[jandrese]

A number like 1 or 3% sounds more like their internal accounting of how many people use profiles was wrong, because when talking to people who use Netflix (friends and family), I only know one guy (out of the 10-12 or so) that doesn't use it, and he's a single guy living in an apartment. Granted, that's a very small sample, but anecdotal evidence on Slashdot seems to suggest that maybe there is something wrong with their numbers.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[fm6]

So because they couldn't allow secondary accounts to stream movies, they decided to do away with the secondary accounts? That doesn't make sense.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[oldhack]

Doubling of price doesn't mean supply dropped by half - demand is increasing. The recent accelerated increase in the price is bit puzzling to me too, but speculation in futures market should not drive the long-term price of oil - spot price and futures price converge. One reason suggested was that Russia, which had been increasing production more/less in lock step with the increase in demand from China/India, has failed to do so recently.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[dubl-u]

There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc.

Hear that rushing sound? It's me crying you a river.

There is plenty of choice.

A lot of Americans have chosen to commute long distances. To buy houses in suburbs where driving is the only option. To drive large vehicles. They've supported more highways, less transit, and zoning that favors cars over walking and biking.

At the national level, they have chosen to support a full-on war against a major oil-producing nation. And they've chosen to accompany it with a lot of imperialist, anti-Islamic rhetoric that sure isn't going to win many friends in the world's oil-producing nations. And let's not forget choosing to support subsidies and tax breaks on oil and oil-intensive lifestyles.

There has been plenty of choice. What people aren't liking is the consequences of their choices.

There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period.

That's flatly wrong. Read The Economist. Last week they had a 14-page section on the future of the energy sector. OPEC nations, as well as many others, have been adding supply. All sorts of previously uneconomic oil sources will be tapped because the new price makes it uneconomical. It's just that demand in Asia has grown a lot faster than supply.

The current peak also has a lot to do with the crash after the previous one. For a long time, oil was cheap, so nobody invested in exploration or development of new oilfields. It takes many years to bring new supply sources on line. If we haven't hit peak oil, look for prices to be absurdly low again circa 2015, hopefully modulo a $2/gal carbon tax.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[TooMuchToDo]

At current fuel prices, a hybrid pays itself back in a little under 2 years:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm

Note that the calculation assumes the cost of fuel is $3.67/gallon. I'm sure our Camry Hybrid, which we average 45mpg in, is going to have a much faster payback when gas is at $5/gallon (I just paid $4.30/gallon the other day; Northern Illinois).

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

And my '82 Buick Century which gets 30mpg paid for itself years ago. Note, also, that article says it pays for the difference in price between a hybrid and a standard in that time, it doesn't cover the cost of the vehicle itself. For those who can't afford $35,000 for a new car, paying off the difference between $35,000 and $35,900 in 2.6 years is a moot point. What's the return on my investment when we consider the difference between my current car (which has no monthly payment) and a $35,000 car? According to my math, it's 101 years. I'm not overly optimistic about there being gas to buy in 2.6 years, let alone 101.

Hybrids are a stop-gap measure at best. They are not a solution. A better solution for you would have been to find an '89 Geo Metro which got 75mpg. You could get it for under a grand and have an extra $500/month in your pocket.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

New Scion xD: 27/33 MPG, $15,100
New Prius: 48/45 MPG, $21,500

Let's give it best case for the hybrid.
Prius: $21k and 48 MPG
Scion xD: $16k and 27MPG

That's $5k difference in price, and 21MPG difference. So, the Prius uses about 2 gallons per 100 miles, and the Scion xD uses 3.7 gallons per 100 miles. So, per 100 miles, you would save 1.7 gallons with the Prius. With gas at a presumptive price of $10/gallon (yeah, I know crazy... I used to use $5/gallon, but it seems less unrealistic anymore.) that means the Prius saves $17 per 100 miles. At $5k price difference, the Prius would pay itself off after about 290*100 miles, so uh... 29,000 miles.

So, we get 2 years or so. But remember, this is heavily (if not ridiculously) in the Prius's favor. Presuming we use more likely values, the Prius saves just about 1 gallon per 100 miles. At $5/gallon gas, that means it would pay itself off after 1000*100 miles. Or 100,000. How many cars do you know of that are at 100,000 miles?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

The GP has a point, if the price really were higher than what the market could bear we would be seeing a lot more Americans and politicians supporting efforts to reduce the consumption by whatever means necessary.

She didn't say "what the market will bear" she said "what people are willing to pay" which are two entirely different things. You bear something under duress. We've built our society in such a way that a lot of people have no choice to cut back on oil consumption, so the market can bear a lot more than it would if people were acting purely of their wills.

I corrected it for you... god, forget it... maybe I should just give up... *sigh* Maybe we could get slashdot to make our posts look definitively different and we'd stop getting assumed to be guys...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[w000t]

I'm not so sure. Your argument just indicates that increased production cost would be justified by an increase in price. We definitely have had a price increase but that doesn't mean that productions cost have increased accordingly, which is something I don't really know. I do, however, feel inclined to believe otherwise, at least until I see any evidence in the contrary. But maybe that's just because I don't like playing devil's advocate as much.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

I do have a choice, and that's why I started riding a motorcycle. I only use a car now in order to get groceries, and only then when I need A LOT of groceries.

Does it mean I end up driving in crazy rain (like Seattle is known for)? Yeah, it does, but I bought good gear. If you want to talk about beating the pants off of a hybrid, my 600cc motorcycle cost me $2.8k, and gets about 47mpg at 80mph (I don't even think hybrids can DO 80mph). At that rate, paying off the extra $19k that the hybrid costs? Wow, that would never happen... and $19k can buy you some REALLY REALLY good gear. In the winter a lot of people asked me "aren't you cold?" and my response is, "no, although if I stop moving, I get REALLY hot."

Of course, I also have a 250cc that gets 60mpg, and I bought for just $2k... but I don't tend to drive it to work (even though I probably should, gas just isn't THAT expensive yet.)

I was talking to my ex-boyfriend saying, "you know, I started riding a bike because gas was killing me... it's just getting harder and harder for me to stop." Also, I mentioned to him that my car is a bit of my "red-headed step child" of a vehicle. It hasn't been touched in about two weeks or so...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Certainly they're working on it... but a company isn't going to quit windows cold turkey...

but then, XP is giving them an excellent upgrade path compared to Vista...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

Let's give it best case for the hybrid.

And the worst case for the Scion? Nice way to make sure the math works out in the direction you're shooting for. Of course multiplying the current average price by 2.5 helps a lot, too.

this is heavily (if not ridiculously

Oh, yeah, it's ridiculous. You also failed to address my actual argument: best case price for a Prius is $21,500. The difference in price between $21,500 and $0 is $21,500. With that difference, a Prius pays for itself at 124,700 miles. That's 8.3 years with an average of 15k miles/year. That's really not a good return on my investment.

At $5/gallon gas, that means it would pay itself off after 1000*100 miles. How many cars do you know of that are at 100,000 miles?

Both of the cars I currently own are hovering at the 100k mark and all of the cars I've owned in the past were all well over 150k miles. Your completing your argument with this doesn't make any sense, BTW. Your suggestion is it would take over 100k miles to break even on the Prius, but that the Prius won't last that long. Or, in other words, you'll never make your money back. So, the question is: were you disputing my claim or backing it up? :)

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve). There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc

Two other options. One there are electric cars coming (some already available), as well as other electric vehicles (scooters, motorcycles, etc.). Or two you can also ride a bicycle. It is easy, very efficient, and you can probably go farther than you think (especially if you add an electric assist drive). I've read about people even riding in the snow on a studded bicycle tires, or switching to a recumbent trike in the winter.

So no you don't have to drive. I choose not to most of the week and do just fine. I even run errands on the bicycle for groceries or Home Depot or whatever. If you live to far from work, well you might need to move closer to work, or use public transportation. Fuel is probably only going to get more expensive over the long term, keep that in mind if you move or change jobs.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[Chosen Reject]

Does it mean I end up driving in crazy rain (like Seattle is known for)?

I thought Seattle was known for constant drizzling rain. That's not crazy. Houston has crazy rain. Nothing for forever and then 4 inches of it in a couple of hours.

Disclaimer: I lived in Houston for a couple of years (was there for the flood of summer 2001), but have only visited Seattle once (and it only sprinkled a few minutes for the 3 days I was there).

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Yes, it's a constant drizzling rain. But when you're riding a motorcycle, it's really annoying. So, most people end up not riding one. The going joke here, is "if you're not willing to ride your bike in the rain, then you'll never get to ride."

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[operagost]

The price has been rising quicker in the USA because of inflation, which has been exacerbated by the Fed's insistence on lowering interest rates.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[TooMuchToDo]

100K mile club at Priuschat.com:

http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-main-forum/29373-100-000-mile-club-8.html

Lots of cars go over 100K.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[operagost]

Yet another elitist urbanite who thinks his way is the "right" way.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[TooMuchToDo]

Your argument is you already have a car, so it's better to keep your car instead of getting a Prius. This argument doesn't apply to those who are getting a new car no matter what (and not keeping their '82 Buick Centry).

A fully loaded Prius is around $26K, not $35K. Update your math accordingly.

I wouldn't put my wife, nor my children I'll have eventually in a Geo Metro. Even if I was super-poor, I wouldn't. It's a death trap. You can barely get up to expressway speeds without getting killed in one if you have more than one person. I guess the argument comes down to value. When my Mercedes goes off lease next month, I won't be replacing it with another one (I reserved a Tesla Roadster instead). I had no problem buying a Camry Hybrid for my wife since she works in childcare, and uses the car to shuttle children around (hence, I could never get her a Geo Metro). I have no problem paying the $28K the car cost me (fully loaded; Carmax in Kenosha, WI that can sell new Toyotas). It gets excellent gas mileage, we received a $2K tax credit, and it has a wide range of safety features.

Feel free not to get a hybrid. People obviously see value in them if they're only on dealer lots less than a day, and there's already a waiting list for them.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[mattack2]

According to
http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-main-forum/2419-max-speed-prius.html
people have gotten above 100 MPH in a Prius.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Holy crap... did you just totally miss my intentions? This post was designed "let's put things as much as possible in favor of the Hybrid, and I'll show you that the Hybrid STILL isn't worth it."

God...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Factory Prius: 0-60mph is about 12 seconds (I'll give you 10 just for giggles)
Factory Katana 600: 0-60 is about 3 seconds (I'll give it 4 just for giggles)

Ok, so I've hyped everything in favor of the Prius, and it's still 6 seconds behind me on acceleration.

If I only ever drove at the speeds that Priuses get 48 MPH, then I'd probably get over 50, maybe near 60. Although, I enjoy having a speedy vehicle, that uses gas like a hybrid.

I have my sports vehicle, and my gas, too!

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

Yes, I did. I apologize for misunderstanding.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[amRadioHed]

How would living miles away from the things you need and then complaining about the cost of having to drive around everywhere be the "right" way?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[stephanruby]

So because they couldn't allow secondary accounts to stream movies, they decided to do away with the secondary accounts? That doesn't make sense.

It does make sense if you take into account the following.

US Post Office mail is expensive, Netflix's marginal cost for snail mail delivery and return is much higher than for its online distribution. Also, Netflix doesn't pay content title owners for the actual number of films viewed online. Netflix pre-purchases the "rights" from content-owners to redistribute those movies online to a potential number of people. Netflix also tries to sponsor its own productions, and it does purchase lifetime unlimited rights to some Indie productions, but that effort still represents a very small fraction of its accumulated offerings.

By structuring the agreements in this way, in other words by paying for the potential number of downloads instead of paying for the actual number of downloads, Netflix is limiting its financial exposure should a film become more popular than initially projected, it's decreasing its distribution marginal expenses, and it's holding a growing portfolio of assets that analysts say will almost certainly appreciate in value over time.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

This is SLASHDOT!! You can't APOLOGIZE! :)

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[oldhack]

True, dollar's sinking. It'll be a bleak time for a while.

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

That sounds like one of my comments! :)

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[fm6]

All true. But what does that have to do with the decision to eliminate secondary accounts?

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[snowgirl]

Ok, now I know you're from slashdot then... heheh :)

You had me worried there...

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[The Spoonman]

Yeah, but my wife trains me well for when I go out into public. :)

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[stephanruby]

All true. But what does that have to do with the decision to eliminate secondary accounts?

It's in Netflix's financial interest to convert the bulk of its movie transactions onto their online delivery system. In 2005, I seem to recall Netflix was operating at a loss as it was losing money on every extra DVD it had to ship out. I don't know if this is still the case, I don't think it is, but I still believe that getting rid of the secondary profiles was a way to shift many users onto their online delivery system (without having to violate the current one-user DRM agreements they have in place).

Re:Kudos to Netflix

[fm6]

In other words, they did it because they wanted to move people from email view to online viewing. OK, that makes sense, though it's not exactly what you said originally.

woot

[Dale512]

I was pleasantly surprised to find the same email (and submitted to Slashdot) on this. I look forward to continuing to use this feature.

Re:woot

[Spy der Mann]

I was pleasantly surprised to find the same email (and submitted to Slashdot) on this. I look forward to continuing to use this feature.

Same here. I look forward to continuing to use the slashdot submit feature, too!

Re:woot

[Hawke666]

Now all they need to do is add weighted round robin queue selection, and I'll be totally happy.

Re:woot

[Qzukk]

Same here. I look forward to continuing to use the slashdot submit feature, too!

Unfortunately, you'll need to wait a while before using this resource.

zOMG

[PakProtector]

And if you should find businesses listening to their customers, be not afraid, for you are in Elysium, and already dead!

Isn't it a little sad ...

[TechnoWeenie]

that it is surprising that a company listens to its customers.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Wandering Wombat]

It may be sad, but it's also the delightfully hard fact of reality. This is one of those rare situations where wishful thinking and reality actually met up, had coffee, and decided to go home together.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Maltheus]

In general yes, but I'm not too surprised that Netflix is one of them. They are one of the few companies that haven't pissed me off to the point of looking for alternatives. I've always been happy with their customer service.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[moosesocks]

Hear hear! Netflix are one of the only big businesses I've ever dealt with that treats their customers like humans.

I was absolutely shocked last year, when Netflix sent me a tiny postcard informing me that they were cutting my bill by $1/month.

These days, it's a pretty standard practice to lock customers in to multi-year contracts, and not pass on any price-cuts to existing customers. Kudos to Netflix for doing the honest thing. I also move around a lot, and they don't seem to have a problem with updating my address every few months to keep track of me, or suspending my account if I leave the country for an extended period.

Similarly, they're astonishingly trustworthy of their customers when it comes to lost or missing DVDs. If a DVD doesn't show up, or you get a bad disc (a rare occurrence, but not completely impossible), simply fill out a web form, and a new one will be on its way immediately. There's no inquisition, and no accusations of theft. They apologize and fix the problem right away.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Anonymous Coward]

met up, had coffee, and decided to go home together

Damn, I miss Portland.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Sentry21]

For my money, the best service can be had from Westjet Airlines. My roommate is on vacation in Montreal, and I'm handling all of the travel for her - namely the flights. The day before she was going to go, she ended up quitting her job because of unsafe working conditions (her coworkers not being careful with things she's deathly allergic to), so she wanted to extend her stay. This requires me to move her return flight back a few weeks.

The typical response you could expect to get from an airline goes something like this:
Them: There's a $40 fee, plus you pay the difference in flights.
Me: But the one I want is a cheaper flight.
Them: Sales prices don't count, so you have to pay the regular price, which is always higher.
Me: Can I arrange this at a travel agent then and pay there?
Them: No, you'll have to pay online by credit card, or you can pay in person at the ticketing counter (you now, not her when she comes back), but it'll have to be 24 hours before your flight or it won't count.

My conversation with Westjet this morning went like this:
Them: There's a $40 fee, plus you pay the difference in flights.
Me: But the one I want is a cheaper flight.
Them: Well then we'll use the difference to cover the charge, and if there's extra left over, it'll be kept as credit on your account.
Me: Oh. Ok. Well then can I arrange this at the travel agent?
Them: Yes, but you have to do it at least two hours before the scheduled time.

Oh, and they don't have voice prompts. Their 24-hour toll-free line goes went directly to a person on the second ring. That seems as improbable as Apple sending me a free iPhone just for being such a rabid fanboy, and yet, here we are.

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Laurence0]

I know exactly what you mean. I got an email a few months ago from Be (my ISP) with the subject "Changes to your bill", or words to that effect. My first thought was "Oh. How much are they putting it up by?", but when I opened it, I found they were knocking £8/month off it, and giving me a free static IP.

I can't imagine getting something like that from BT or O2...

Re:Isn't it a little sad ...

[Atario]

I agree, especially on the trust-for-customers front. It far from rare that I get a cracked disc, and they never have a problem sending out the replacement even before I've sent the cracked one back.

But it goes beyond that. Once, I had a bout of (what I surmised in retrospect to be) mail theft: someone stealing the Netflix envelopes out of my mailbox. I reported to Netflix that I had not received a batch, and they sent them out again, no questions asked. They got stolen again, and this time Netflix suspended the account and wanted to talk to me on the phone. I was expecting to get read the riot act about stealing their discs, but in fact, they wanted see if I could get an alternative pickup location set up, or whatever. I ended up getting a locking mailbox, told them so, and things were off and running again. Painless as possible.

(Which is far from what I can report about the Post Office when I tried to engage their help...)

I think it's funny

[tacokill]

While I applaud Netflix, I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers".

Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

Thanks for fixing the issue, Netflix (really). I'm not trying to pick on you individually. I just find it hilarious when we write headlines about things that are supposed to happen. (cue Chris Rock jokes)

Re:I think it's funny

[SputnikPanic]

It's really unfortunate that so few companies do customer service right these days. Off the top of my head I can think of only two that have provided me with exemplary customer service: Amazon and American Express. You call either with a problem and it's quickly resolved. Practically everyone else and it's like pulling teeth.

Re:I think it's funny

[Scutter]

Practically everyone else and it's like pulling teeth.

That's because with practically everyone else, you're dealing with people who can't figure out change for a dollar. It takes 45 minutes of explaining the problem before you get to the end of their script and they escalate you to someone capable of understanding what's wrong.

Re:I think it's funny

[Spy der Mann]

While I applaud Netflix, I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers".

Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

Netflix and Profiles feature... check.
Microsoft and the XP sales... Stop 0x0000001e (c000009a 80123f36 02000000 00000246)
Unhandled Kernel exception c000009a from 8123f26
Address has base at 80100000 steve.exe

Re:I think it's funny

[BLKMGK]

I agree and would add that service for my Thinkpad via Lenovo was also outstanding. I erred when I filled out the online form, they called me within an hour to clarify (operator in Texas), offered to send me a part (!) for it or let me send the machine in, included a checkbox to NOT allow them to reformat it in the shipping box, and it was fixed FAST. The DHL driver actually picked up the box with the laptop in it within hours of my calling it in as ready to be taken - at like 7:00PM. I thought sure it would be the next day so his beeping the horn in my driveway was a pleasant surprise. Oh and the laptop was fixed on the first try and NOT formatted. Wow!

Likewise Amazon has been good. $50 coupon for my HD-DVD purchase, good service when things have gone wrong, they don't SPAM me to death, and in general do it right. Even their product recommendations are for things I might actually like instead of crap. not the cheapest but I like them - ordered a Kindle tonight actually.

I use AMX for corporate travel. Once when stranded due to an airline FUBAR I called them. The ticket guy told me, loud enough for the AMX guy to hear, that it was too late for the agent to book the flight. The agent said in my ear "watch this" and I was ON that flight - boy was the ticket guy pissed off! AMX ain't cheap but they DO customer service WELL.

So yeah, some companies do it right and those that do stand out and get talked about. I like many others was thrilled to see Netflix reverse on this - my SO doesn't lose her movie list as a result :-)

Re:I think it's funny

[bignetbuy]

Lenovo is a prime example of extreme customer-service. I submitted a warranty ticket around lunch time on a Tuesday. The support rep called me back by 4pm that day. The spare part was at my office by 8:30am the following morning.

Didn't cost a cent either.

Re:I think it's funny

[tmalone]

I've never had a problem with service from Amazon.com, but man do I hate their website. I can't think of more cluttered website than Amazon.com. I run a somewhat underpowered PowerBook, but it's more than capable of loading most pages in a timely manner. Not Amazon.com. They include so much useless information.

Re:I think it's funny

[Bashae]

I have no experience with American Express, but Amazon does indeed have excellent customer service. For me at least.

On the other end of the spectrum are our telecom companies. Pulling teeth is a walk in the park compared to trying to deal with them.

Re:I think it's funny

[Nightspirit]

Amazon, Newegg, and Fujitsu have all been good to me. The worst has been Wells Fargo and Verizon. Wells Fargo must purposefully hire idiots.

Re:I think it's funny

[sconeu]

You forgot Newegg.

Re:I think it's funny

[AK Marc]

I had a bad battery with Dell. They said "lets replace be motherboard first." So they replaced the MB. That didn't fix it, so I called back on my laptop with an extended 5-year warranty and was told that, even though the first call was done within a year, that because it was just after a year that they wouldn't replace the bad battery (it was bad from the begining, it always shows 100% charge, even when almost dead, so no power management features based on battery left or estimates could be drawn from the battery, but the life was what it should be so it took a while to notice). Eventually, I got escalated to a level where someone could help me. He explained it was my fault for not knowing that extended warranties do not cover power supplies or batteries (even though there is no place that says that, just the regular waranty that says the standard coverage is 1 year on those). After I hounded him for a few months to get them to replace the bad part I called in about before the warranty period was over (my first call where I said "the battery is bad" was within the 1 year period, but they did not replace it then), he said he would. I gave the information for shipping, and nothing ever came.

Dell did not honor their warranty and a Dell representative lied to me about what they were doing with my problem. And they are about average for customer service, sadly.

Re:I think it's funny

[ristonj]

(cue Chris Rock jokes)

Netflix: We're keeping profiles!
Chris Rock: What you want, a cookie?

Re:I think it's funny

[BLKMGK]

I'd have mentioned NewEgg but I have spoken to folks who have not had the best of experiences with them. Like TigerDirect it seems that not everyone loves them. I have had success with NewEgg but then I've also not ever had to return anything. Sadly Mwave seems to be falling behind NewEgg - I used to find them nearly equal but NewEgg's site rox and so do their prices usually. Monoprice is another decent site but again - never had to deal with a return with them. Their prices are cheap enough however that if I bought something accidentally I'd just keep it and order another. (lol)

Re:I think it's funny

[story645]

I agree and would add that service for my Thinkpad via Lenovo was also outstanding.

They're also pretty good when they screw up the first time, which I appreciated. I had to send my tablet in (basically painless process) and it came back still broken. Called up, sent it in again, and they fixed it, but then DHL lost the laptop. They were really good about helping me find it, they called up DHL and provided me with lots of updates and I didn't feel totally out of the loop. (Ended up getting my laptop back just fine.)

Re:I think it's funny

[BLKMGK]

Funny you mention being kept in the loop. When they were straightening out my error the guy needed to transfer me from Texas to the repair center in Georgia. The guy started the transfer, stayed on the phone till they answered, told them who I was and why we were calling, and made sure the handoff was smooth!

Do you know how many times I have called Verizon abut an issue only to have their automated POS system dump me into the ether and drop my call? About 10 times easy - it's what they do when their network fucks up and they are deluged with calls! They just dump the overflow into the trash with no status given. Gee, what a contrast!

Re:I think it's funny

[story645]

Do you know how many times I have called Verizon abut an issue only to have their automated POS system dump me into the ether and drop my call? About 10 times easy

Call at 2am it's the only time I've been able to get half decent service with them. Granted, it's still half an hour of scripts, then escalation (though usually they do explain things to the next tech) and I've had it drop on me between scripts and escalation.

Though what's more annoying, with various companies, has to be all those "notes" that are supposed to be on the account aren't, so I've gotta clear up something for the zillionth time before moving on to the next step.

Re:I think it's funny

[BLKMGK]

I actually had a tech in a switching center call me - he concluded it was an issue with one of their peers when I could only hit certain sites intermittently and a few just fine. However when I finally got enough functionality to hit DSLreports.com I found a zillion others in my area with the same problems - days after Verizon declared it "fixed". I knew things were dorked when ONE machine out of 5 in my household worked and no others did despite multiple reboots. I never got an explanation except and only knew it was their issue after seeing others with the SAME problem.

I will give the tech guy credit though, when I let him know I knew what a traceroute etc. was he skipped the kindergarten B.S. and got down to it. Sadly none of their normal phone support had clue one about that stuff. I don't expect rocket scientists but come on bump me up or something! I couldn't even get hold of anyone till AFTER they thought it was closed - but my area still dorked. Think I got my credit? Yeah me either.

Re:I think it's funny

[halcyon1234]

While I applaud Netflix, I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers".

Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

Yes, it is what they are supposed to be doing. And that is exactly why we should make a big deal out if it.

If the only time we speak up as consumers is to tell a company that they've f'd up and we're pissed at them-- then that is the only image companies will have of use as consumers. Their default assumption of us will be that we're whiny little bitches who only live to annoy them, and who must be avoided at all costs. All we will do is punish companies when they misbehave. It will taint their perception of us.

However, if we make sure to let companies know when they do right and be vocal about it, then that too will change their perspective of us. We will be rewarding them for good behavior. Their default perception of us will be of good customers, and that when they behave they good increased income and good publicity. It changes the relationship in a way that benefits both parties.

We all talk about how "companies love profit" and how thy will look at the cost to produce versus the income they'll realize, and will say "screw it" to any feature, even beloved ones, where income - cost

One of these intangible benefits is "customer satisfaction". In the first scenario, where customers only complain and make life miserable for the company, this value is low. In the second, where we let the company know they've done well, we're happy-- where we do that vocally and often, that value is high. And since that value is high, the formula (actual income) + (intangible income) - costs ends up > 0 far more often. Features like Profiles, where customer satisfaction is part of the equation, suddenly become profitable to keep around; even though it only satisfies a smaller market share, it's a much higher profit per person.

Re:I think it's funny

[Free the Cowards]

This is easily the most annoying thing about phone support.

First the automated system asks you to enter your account number, telephone number, or what have you. Then you get to sit on hold while they scare up a human.

Then you get to the human. What's the first thing they ask? "What is your account number?" My god, I could just kill them!

But it doesn't stop there! First-level support is useless, so you get past them and they transfer you along to someone more useful. Once you arrive, what's the first thing you hear? You guessed it! "What is your account number?"

Doesn't this repetition cost these companies valuable time and thus money? Is it really that hard to make a support system that will hold on to my information as my call is transferred through your organization?

Re:I think it's funny

[sconeu]

Their customer service rocks.

My first order -- from a brand new email account. Got spam on it an hour later. I wrote to them to complain; they apologized and sent me stuff.
Turned out to be from a dictionary attack. I wrote them back to apologize.

One DOA (DVD-RW drive). RMA was no problem. Came the next day.

One moderately expensive rackmount kb/lcd. Vendor shipped the wrong cables -- not Newegg's fault. Newegg sent me the correct cables at their expense. No muss, no fuss.

Re:I think it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

AMX ain't cheap but they DO customer service WELL.

That's the kicker...good customer service exists all over the place, but it's not free. Most companies just focus the customer service on the moneymaking customers.

Netflix is a little unusual in that there is almost no customer tiering. Every customer pays roughly the same amount. Nobody spends 10x or 100x more than anyone else, so Netflix needs to treat everyone equally. That's pretty rare in an unregulated, open market.

Re:I think it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

really? i found amazon to be a bunch of dicks
i ordered one thing from their site a few years back and after having no shipping info posted i contacted them to ask them when it would be shipped..
i got a reply back stating something to the effect of "your order was received payment cleared, item is in stock, but because you didnt spend very much money ($20), we will just ship your order whenever we get around to it"
i got it about 6 weeks later..
still i guess its within the 6-8week delivery a lot of places quote but i was pretty pissed they actually told me i didnt spend enough so they'll ship it when they feel like it

Re:I think it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree and would add that service for my Thinkpad via Lenovo was also outstanding. I erred when I filled out the online form, they called me within an hour to clarify (operator in Texas), offered to send me a part (!) for it or let me send the machine in, included a checkbox to NOT allow them to reformat it in the shipping box, and it was fixed FAST. The DHL driver actually picked up the box with the laptop in it within hours of my calling it in as ready to be taken - at like 7:00PM. I thought sure it would be the next day so his beeping the horn in my driveway was a pleasant surprise. Oh and the laptop was fixed on the first try and NOT formatted. Wow!

I think Lenovo (finally) offers 24h onsite service, like dell does since at least 10 years. Call, and within 24h, a technician will be at your site, with spare parts, install them, no questions asked. They won't care what OS is installed, and certainly not waste their time wiping your disk. Even to diagnose which part is borken (if any) the phone support people that send the technician let you boot a CD or use the builtin diagnostics tool in the Bios, and not argue about OS releases or supported/certified drivers.

Re:I think it's funny

[Jainith]

Amazon has some of the WORST customer service people I have ever dealt with. Due to inability to successfully deliver multiple orders, resulting in me wasting hours of my time talking with someone from the Indian subcontinent. And they still couldn't fix the problems...their solution is to offer me $5 off my next purchase. Well fuck them!

If you want to see a company with real customer service I highly recommend USAA (Banking, insurance, etc.) They are truly a pleasure to do business with.

Re:I think it's funny

[FiveLights]

No, I think they are supposed to be making as large a profit as possible. Companies can decide whether that's short term profit or long term profit, but all companies are supposed to make as much profit as possible. One can argue that keeping your customers happy is something a company can do to help it meet its goal of making as much profit as possible, but it is not a necessary thing to do.

Re:I think it's funny

[Hognoxious]

I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers". Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

I'd like a brand new BMW 750, and I don't want to pay more than 50 cents for it!

Coming right up, sir! Any particular colour you'd prefer?

Yeah, the customer is always right.

Re:I think it's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, no they are not supposed to listen to customers. They are supposed to make money for their investors.

Re:I think it's funny

[dubl-u]

I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers". Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

In my view, there are two kinds of service companies.

One is the friendly, generally small service that provides the service because they like doing it, and aims to make a reasonably living at it. Think a friendly neighborhood restaurant or a great family doctor. They love thoughtful, involved customers because they get their best feedback from them.

The other kind is a machine for extracting money from people. Any service given is the minimum necessary. They are not there because they like their work and want to serve you; they are there to take your money. They want a bunch of pliant sheeple as customers; if you are an active consumer, you are a problem to be suppressed or eliminated. For this, think of cellphone companies, large corporate gyms, and large banks.

Re:I think it's funny

[MMMDI]

See: Comcast.

Me: "It seems as though site1.com, site2.com, and site3.com have been blocked. My friends can view these sites. I can view them through my other ISP. I can view them with Comcast through a proxy. I can not view them normally with Comcast."

Them: Have you tried using IE? Turning off antivirus? Disabling your firewall? Deleting temporary files? Deleting cookies? Refreshing? Restarting your computer?

I gave up when they suggested deleting my history, but sadly, the sites are still blocked. Oh, and before anyone suggests that I change ISP's, I really wish that I could.

Re:I think it's funny

[SputnikPanic]

We'll have to agree to disagree on Amazon. I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with them.

Case in point, a couple of years ago I subscribed through Amazon to a foreign (and therefore somewhat expensive) weekly magazine. I waited and waited to get my first issue. After about 10 weeks, I figured it was time to complain. Knowing that Amazon didn't handle the subscriptions but handed it off to another company, I called that other company. It took me a while to get to a real person, and when I finally did, he told me that since it was a foreign magazine there was little they could do, and even better, he tried telling me that my subscription, for which I had yet to receive a single issue, was nonrefundable. I was less than pleased to put it mildly. I hung up, called Amazon, and two minutes later they were refunding the full subscription price to my credit card.

As for USAA, I've heard nothing but great things about them. My fiancee has USAA and speaks highly of their customer service. I haven't had any experience myself with USAA, but it sounds like they're another one of those few companies that really do things right.

Re:I think it's funny

[Atario]

Doesn't this repetition cost these companies valuable time and thus money? Is it really that hard to make a support system that will hold on to my information as my call is transferred through your organization?

Quite the contrary: they think that by making it as hard for you as possible, you'll give up and they'll get rid of your complaint without having to do anything. Joke's on them, though; as soon as you find a company that treats you right, they won't have your complaining -- or business -- to worry about anymore.

Re:I think it's funny

[Free the Cowards]

Do people really give up that easily? I mean, it certainly pisses me off and makes me look into competitors when it's really bad, but it never stops me from spending lots of time on the phone with them until they resolve my problem.

Damn

[morari]

I was really hoping that tons of people would end their subscriptions over this. I wouldn't have to fight to receive my own rentals then. Seeing "very long wait" beside so many films in my queue is awfully annoying.

Re:Damn

[SydShamino]

This would have been pretty stupid on their part. We have a 2-out unlimited account, divided into two queues. I watch 1-2 a month on mine (more if I had time), and my wife watches one every three months on hers (but won't cancel it despite my suggestion). For that we pay $15 a month.

Were they to eliminate this feature, we'd absolutely switch to A) a once-every-other-month allowance for her to buy DVDs, and B) a 3-a-month 1-out account for me. That costs Netflix like $7 a month for no change in the number of movies we watch or postage they pay.

Re:Damn

[SupremoMan]

This is why I switched to blockbuster. That and the fact that since I moved it takes an extra day each way for the dvd to travel. I mean I had some stuff on my list for over a year, and it wasn't just movies, stuff that is part of a series. I watched Farscape and didn't notice that they didn't have disks for the middle of season 1, I put in the next dvd and there is a whole new person on board, I was like WTF? And year on they still haven't replaced the missing disks.

Re:Damn

[necro81]

Seeing "very long wait" beside so many films in my queue is awfully annoying

Broaden your horizons. There's tons of stuff at netflix (and not just the nth incarnation of the latest anime craze) that is available with no wait. If that latest hollywood blockbuster isn't available, try something a bit older, which would be about 95% of their catalog. There's also a sizeable collection available to stream instantly (though, mac users are still cut out from that feature).

Re:Damn

[JCSoRocks]

Yeah, I've never had to wait for anything. I've watched everything from brand new releases to obscure old movies and they've always shown up immediately.

Re:Damn

[morari]

My horizons are pretty broad. The large majority of the stuff on my queue are in fact foreign films. That said, there are a lot of older films on my list as well that have become staples of pop culture and are thus in high demand. There is also the occasional new release to contend with as well. A lot of times I get these sent out before they're officially released, but must wait for weeks other times.

I don't do streaming. I much prefer laying in bed while watching a film, and no s-video cable on earth is going to stretch from my PC to there. Besides, how am I supposed to pirate films if they're streaming? :P

Re:Damn

[Carnildo]

I don't do streaming. I much prefer laying in bed while watching a film, and no s-video cable on earth is going to stretch from my PC to there. Besides, how am I supposed to pirate films if they're streaming? :P

Record the stream?

Coke II

[Red Flayer]

Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.

I.E., Netflix was never going to cancel profiles. Instead, they pretend they are going to do so, which brings attention to the fact that they offer profiles, unlike one of their competitors.

Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)

Well, what can I say, Netflix... it appears to have worked. As a Blockbuster Online subscriber, I'm thinking of changing to Netflix because of profiles, which I wasn't aware of. It turns out the advantage of Blockbuster (being able to pick up rentals/drop them off at B&M stores) hasn't been heplful to me, so maybe I'll switch over.

Good jorb on the marketing ploy.

Re:Coke II

[statemachine]

I'm not sure why you were modded troll.

Saying you're going to take away a feature, then backtracking, does not make you a hero.

Other analogies:
1) "Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.

2) When a US federal budget is proposed that cuts funding for a program, then in the final spending bill funding is restored to the previous year's level (which may itself have stagnated for many years), and Congress acts like it added funding. What really happened is that funding still gets cut because it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.

While it's still news (because it negates their previous announcement), Netflix does not deserve to come out looking good. At best, it's neutral, because they're simply doing their job and nothing happened!

Re:Coke II

[BLKMGK]

Yup, this is indeed possible. But as a profiles user I'm glad it's staying and am happy for it no matter what the motivation might have been. It really is a nice feature for families who's members have different tastes.

Re:Coke II

[Red Flayer]

Is it really that hard to think that a company would pull a stunt like that?

Seriously, I know it's tough to handle the thought that the campaign to get profiles reinstated was successful thanks to the efforts of slashdotters and others, but...

Do you really think that Netflix would get rid of one of the major feature advantages they have over their biggest competitor?

Anyway, I know I shouldn't be responding to the fact that I got modded a troll, and maybe I could have phrased the parent better. So whatever, this post should be modded offtopic... I've got the karma to burn.

Re:Coke II

[Red Flayer]

It does, however, draw attention to a feature advantage they have over their competitors :)

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.

I used to work there, and I assure you that that was not the case. Profiles caused pain with almost every product development / feature planning session we/they ever had, and I'm surprised that it got a reprieve given the tiny fraction of the customer base that uses/used it.

Re:Coke II

[7grain]

It's my understanding that the lead in "regular" fuel (regular meaning "with lead", not regular = lowest octane) is added as part of the refining process. And that subsequent removal of the lead, therefore, costs more.

Re:Coke II

[Artuir]

Yes, and humans never really landed on the moon, either. Conspiracy theories are tiresome and stupid.

Re:Coke II

[statemachine]

Lead was added because older engines benefitted from the lead coating. It had to do with high compression ratios and unhardened blocks. I found an article that seems to support my conclusion that lead was simply added, and not some necessary component for refining oil.

Tetra-Ethyl Lead: The End of an Era for a Well-Known Molecule

But I also learned something new. I didn't know NASCAR was burning leaded gasoline as recently as last year.

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was modded troll because he was spreading a ridiculous urban legend.

Re:Coke II

[noidentity]

"Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.

The cost of something isn't just production; it's also affected by demand and one-time costs of ramping up production. By the above logic, I should be able to get milk in the store without vitamin D added (but otherwise just the same product) for cheaper, or orange juice concentrate in an 11.5 oz container for less than the 12 oz container.

Re:Coke II

[tweak13]

Piston engine aircraft are still burning leaded gasoline today, and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Re:Coke II

[mgh02114]

There is a good explanation of the New Coke / Classic Coke fiasco at this site:

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

Basically they argue that, just like Netflix today, Coca-Cola simply screwed up.

Re:Coke II

[statemachine]

The urban legend was the "conspiracy" part. Coca-cola was just merely incompetent. The facts are that they switched formulas, then they switched back to the "original" formula, except that cane sugar was dropped for high fructose corn syrup.

Despite what Ms. Mikkelson says about blind taste-testing, there were still many people who could tell the difference and didn't like New Coke. I could always tell the fast-food joints that had New Coke over Coke Classic. I'd order a "coke" and in an unmarked container would be the beverage. Because I was in a drive-thru, I wouldn't know ahead of time or see the name on the tap. New Coke had a definite weird aftertaste.

Pepsi is another that claims people can't taste the difference between Coca-cola and Pepsi. But, I was able to taste the difference when I was at one of their "taste-test booths", with a cold, too.

The problem with these taste-test results is that I think there are a lot of people who can't taste the difference between X and a cow's backside. Can I prove that? No. But I know that at least for me (and a few of my friends), it wouldn't be an issue.

And yes, I can taste the difference between cane sugar and HFCS, too.

Re:Coke II

[ArsonSmith]

Lead was added to reduce or eliminate "spark knock" or precombustion of the fuel. There were stories of valves requiring it for cushioning, that turned out to be all false. There are cars still running today that were in the "required lead" category.

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.

Boy I would love to hear the back story on this. Does anyone believe it?

Re:Coke II

[MerryOtter]

I'd like to understand why Profiles should cause any pain. It's all a database, right? How hard could it be?

Re:Coke II

[thisissilly]

I wouldn't have minded them eliminating profiles, IF instead of combining profiles back into one account, they instead split profiles off into separate accounts, but kept the billing amount the same. My wife and I have 4 at a time 2/2 split. Two accounts of 2 at a time would have cost us $4/month more than our 1 account.

Re:Coke II

[statemachine]

I was sort of with you for the milk analogy (doesn't the vitamin D milk cost more? or at least the same?), but you lost me with the 11.5 oz vs. 12 oz FCOJ containers. And there isn't any harm in adding vitamin D, unlike adding lead.

But your argument really falls flat because unleaded gasoline started out higher in price and never came down compared to leaded. The gasoline companies pretty much said they were removing lead from gasoline, which is false because not adding it is not the same as removing it. If they didn't say this outright, their advertising campaigns sure made it look that way.

This whole thing is also reminding of the current hands-free cellphone that's being mandated in CA. The industry is going all out in their campaign to market headsets to people. Except that any phone that has speakerphone will satisfy the law. Just don't hold it near your ear. And dialling does not need to be hands-free. Put it on a mount, on your dash, or in your lap, on speakerphone after dialling and voila, you're in full compliance. If sound quality is an issue, then buy the headset, but not before you've tested out your speakerphone.

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a database, right? How hard could it be?

Oh, if only there were a "+1, Sadly Hilarious" moderation. I'm guessing you're not a database programmer.

Re:Coke II

[xstonedogx]

They've drawn attention to it, but in a negative way, and they've generated a lot of ill will in the process. Their email and initial response was a horrible way to talk to customers. They trashed this feature the entire time, gave nonsensical excuses, and basically told 1-3% of their customers (numbers out of their asses?) that they would just have to suffer.

Considering they never advertised this feature in the first place, it seems unlikely that was their point here, but even if it was, the cons far outweigh the pros on this one.

Re:Coke II

[CTachyon]

As I understand it -- and I may be off base here -- when leaded gasoline was phased out, fuel refineries had to stop using cheap lead as a substitute for expensive octane.

"Pure" gasoline, before additives, is a hodgepodge of various no- and low-branch alkanes that averages around 6 to 7 carbon atoms per molecule. But linear heptane burns a bit too fast for the liking of a lot of engines, and hydrocarbons with even slight branching burn much faster than that. Enter "octane", which burns slower than "pure" gasoline and autoignites at a higher temperature, thus preventing premature detonation, or "knocking". ("Octane" is in quotes because, in the context of gasoline, "octane" is a function of the burn speed, not the number of carbon atoms. "Octane" doesn't strictly mean 8-carbon linear alkane, as it can also include heavier molecules with a small amount of branching.)

Raising the "octane rating" requires a more involved refining process, because the alkanes in the gasoline-diesel-kerosene spectrum all have very similar boiling points and are hard enough to distill cleanly when making "pure" gasoline. 8-carbon molecules are toeing the line, and heavier ones push pretty solidly into diesel territory. As an educated guess, refining high-octane gasoline probably cuts into diesel yields and reduces overall profits. It probably also requires a more expensive hydrocarbon cracking process, because branches are even less desirable in high-octane gasoline than they are in "pure" gasoline, and a lot of catalytic cracking processes are quite happy to spew out branched hydrocarbons.

Presumably, the reason "regular unleaded" gasoline is more expensive than "regular leaded" is the same reason that high-octane grades of gasoline are called "premium", and priced accordingly.

Re:Coke II

[AndersOSU]

Lead was added (as others have pointed out) to increase the octane of the gasoline. I'd speculate that the reason unleaded gas cost more was that the new additives required to keep the same octane rating cost more.

Re:Coke II

[volxdragon]

That or he's a good one, and you're not. SQL isn't magic, although there are LOTS of bad magicians, errr, SQL programmers out there (or people that claim to be SQL programmers).

Re:Coke II

[virtual_mps]

Lead was added because older engines benefitted from the lead coating. It had to do with high compression ratios and unhardened blocks. I found an article that seems to support my conclusion that lead was simply added, and not some necessary component for refining oil.

There's even more to the story. Some other posts have pointed out that the lead wasn't really necessary for passenger cars, so why was it so common? Guess who owned the patents for tetraethyl lead, and got a royalty for every gallon sold? General Motors and Standard Oil. So the people best in a position to force leaded gas into every gas station also had a financial incentive to do so...

Re:Coke II

[return_of_ffalcon]

Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)

That's a myth: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp New Coke was not introduced as a ploy to draw attention to their brand, with the intention of reintroducing Coke Classic. It was in fact a failure, from which Coke recovered brilliantly.

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

The Coke II thing is a myth.

The truth is that Coke was afraid of the then up-and-coming Pepsi alongside the seeming preference for Diet Coke. So they went to the focus groups, and engineered "New Coke" to taste more like Pepsi/Diet Coke.

The focus groups unanimously declared New Coke the better soda, so Coke moved with it. What they failed to account for was the "American Icon" status of coke, among other factors such as the failure to account for the difference between a small taste of a drink vs. swigging a whole glass of it with dinner (IE, New Coke, having a vastly sweeter flavor that Classic, tasted good in small doses but many consumers found it too sweet to drink a lot of).

The Coke II thing is actually a textbook example of the failings of focus groups. It cost Coke vast sums of money and did little to help them vs. Pepsi...who eventually settled in for second place for many of the reasons people preferred Classic Coke over New(American Icon, less sweet)

Re:Coke II

[kbielefe]

I think in Netflix's case, it was a matter of the profiles feature being tacked on as an afterthought, instead of being designed into the database in the first place. It's not hard to see how something that should have been easy if designed properly would be a nightmare after a few years of code decay. Unfortunately, most developers under management pressure use a "greedy" algorithm and implement what is least disruptive at the time to the detriment of long-term maintenance.

Re:Coke II

[necro81]

My understanding is that leaded gasoline allowed higher octane fuel to be run in engines with higher compression ratios without premature combustion. Not adding the lead to gasoline would have caused most engines of the time to fire incorrectly and wear out a lot faster. Finding a way to formulate gasoline with some anti-knock agent other than lead was difficult and, yes, a bit expensive.

Re:Coke II

[MerryOtter]

I AM a database programmer. There's thousands of examples of systems that have subaccounts and profiles; it's fairly trivial to process and present them, provided you don't make really glaring mistakes up-front. Even when those mistakes have been made, it's usually a straightforward process to script a migration to a proper schema. Databases are designed to be flexible that way, that's why we store data in them. And it can't be that broken because the feature works in every way it can be perceived to work. My family member's profile receives the proper recommendations. They get the correct DVDs in the right order. And so on. I almost buy the idea that someone at NetFlix thought a "simpler" web page might be better for users. I can imagine someone saying that only a small fraction of customers actually use the feature. But pain? From the folks who have put together an incredibly sophisticated database system already? From people who have implemented a recommendations system that is, so far, safe from the 10% improvement challenge? Hard to imagine Profiles were just tacked on in an amateur way. So, cough it up. What was the "pain" associated with this feature? Real-world IT people are dying to know.

Re:Coke II

[Anonymous Coward]

IAADBP. It's not hard at all.

You have one table holding the account information. You have another holding the profile info. All queues, recommendations, community comments, preferences, etc. are keyed off the profiles table. The only thing you care about the account info for is the payment data and tying individual profiles to an single account. There should be a flag in the profile record indicating that it's the account owner.

That's it. I described the basics of Netflix's database schema in less than a minute. Which part was hard again?

New features, etc. should be keyed off the profile, not the account.

Re:Coke II

[dubl-u]

low-branch alkanes that averages around 6 to 7 carbon atoms per molecule [...] lot of catalytic cracking processes are quite happy to spew out branched hydrocarbons

Holy crap! That is the single most informative post I have ever seen on Slashdot.

Please do the world a favor and find some place in Wikipedia for that explanation.

Re:Coke II

[dubl-u]

Oh, if only there were a "+1, Sadly Hilarious" moderation.

No shit. The "it's all in the database" is the modern equivalent of 80-column mind.

Not that databases aren't neat, but there are a lot of people out there calling themselves programmers that couldn't build squat without an SQL interpreter involved. One of my favorite interview questions is, "Ok, now how would you design that without MySQL?" People make the funniest faces.

Re:Coke II

[raddan]

I am a database programmer, and I don't understand the pain either. Now, it may not be set up the way I imagine, but why can't each profile simply be treated like a separate account by most of the algorithms? Except that, in the "responsible account" field, you have the main profile. Accounts that do not have profiles simply point this field back to themselves (this is basic discrete math-- there's a set with a relation on itself). But I suppose if it were not set up this way, there could be some major pain-- in which case the correct procedure would be to refactor the code, and not to take a feature away from the customer.

Re:Coke II

[cparker15]

Did I call it or what?

Re:Coke II

[ChaosDiscord]

It's probably true that Profiles are only used by a vanishingly small portion of their customers. But who are those customers? I'm guessing that among customers with the more expensive accounts, the customers who gave up cable/satellite service for NetFlix, and most importantly the customers who tell their friends they should all get NetFlix that the usage rate is much higher. These are the users who actually fill the 500 title limit per queue, the users with multiple people with different queues. To an extent Profiles are an investment in your most dedicated customers, your cheerleaders, your free advertising. If you drive these people away, you're down to a straightup advertising war. Is supporting Profiles really more expensive than a direct advertising war with Blockbuster? Maybe, but I suspect it's not a clearcut decision.

For example, I have several friends who use NetFlix, but one is far and away the loudest supporter of NetFlix. He is a dedicated user of Profiles. He's been telling me for years how great it it, how it was a better value than cable or satellite service, how Profiles meant he and his spouse could have their own queues. After the Profiles cancellation announcement, he suddenly announced that this killed the value for him and he was going to switch to Blockbuster's service, which at least offered the local service option. Not a good sign. Our household does use NetFlix, in part because of my friend's recommendations. And if my friend tried Blockbuster's offering and liked it, we'd take a good long look at it.

Re:Coke II

[binarybum]

one important thing to keep in mind about profiles in netflix. although each user has individual ratings - apparently the algorithm used to make suggestions just mashes everything up and recommends films based on all ratings within an account. this is a bummer.

Re:Coke II

[MerryOtter]

The correct response to that question is, "why WOULD you design it without MySQL or some other database engines?" Of course, it's very effective if your company is all about doing funky implementations just for the hell of it, but most organizations are concerned about time-to-market and the ability for someone else to come in and pick up where you left off. Anyway, after all this posturing about programming skills and philosophy, no one has come forward with concrete reasons WHY this feature was allegedly a continuing pain for the NetFlix development team. My position remains that it should not have been so. Frankly my experience has been that software engineers report "difficulty" with a feature in inverse proportion to what they happen to find interesting at the moment, regardless of the actual technical challenge present in the task.

Re:Coke II

[dubl-u]

The correct response to that question is, "why WOULD you design it without MySQL or some other database engines?"

That's not the correct answer, but it's a reasonable question.

SQL databases are great for a certain range of problems. They're obviously terrible for other sorts. And there's a fair bit of middle ground where the right choice depends on conditions. If you don't understand other options, you can't possibly know when those other options are the right ones.

FYI I'm not the only person who thinks this. One of the fathers of the modern database, Michael Stonebraker, recently said this:

"We conclude that the current RDBMS code lines, while attempting to be a 'one size fits all' solution, in fact, excel at nothing. Hence, they are 25 year old legacy code lines that should be retired in favor of a collection of âoefrom scratchâ specialized engines. The DBMS vendors (and the research community) should start with a clean sheet of paper and design systems for tomorrow's requirements, not continue to push code lines and architectures designed for yesterday's needs." -- From the paper The End of an Architectural Era (It's Time for a Complete Rewrite).

Of course, sometimes you don't care that your system excels at anything. There are plenty of average problems out there, and as long as that's all you want to work on, only knowing how to design for SQL databases can be perfectly fine.

There's definitely work out there for people who are one trick ponies, but generally not on the projects where I help with the hiring.

Marketing Scam

[the-pdm]

Seems like a big marketing scam to me. Cancel a beloved feature, get lots of attention, bring back beloved feature!

alright

[gEvil (beta)]

Congrats to those who wrote in about this. Now we just need to convince them not to charge a higher price to those of us who rent Blu-rays.

Re:alright

[Anonymous Coward]

They charge a higher price for bluray? I never saw this anywhere (I'm not renting bluray yet). That blows.

Re:alright

[mr_matticus]

Why? Each disc is more expensive on the whole, and the number of users is smaller. The cost of providing the service, per user, is considerably higher for BD customers than for DVD customers, and since the DVD customers can't use the BD, why should they have to subsidize those of us wanting BD titles?

If it's just an extra buck or two per month, it'll be more than reasonable. Remember that prices of BD went up after HD-DVD crapped out, and that with the economy the way it is, BD uptake hasn't exactly exploded. Hell, HDTV penetration isn't even all that impressive yet, nationwide.

Re:alright

[zippthorne]

Are the costs really that much higher though? I'd assume that the majority cost to netflix are licensing, and that they're probably paying more per disk than the retail price (though perhaps being so large, they can command a lower price for replacements)

Anyway, based on the prices in stores, the licensing can't be too much higher for blu-ray.

Re:alright

[mr_matticus]

DVDs: ~$15-20. BD: ~$25-30. Yes, that's a significant expense.

Netflix has over 55 million discs in its warehouse(s), though how many are BD is not clear. They certainly do not pay more than retail for discs, though the extent of their discount and any independent licensing agreements they've reached with studios are obviously trade secrets.

Re:alright

[CopaceticOpus]

How many times is a disc rented out over its lifetime? That $10 extra per disc gets divided up quite a bit.

Furthermore, why should BD users get singled out to be charged higher rates? Users who constantly send their discs back within a day don't get charged more. Users who use the profile feature (which we now know is expensive to maintain) don't get charged more. Users who use the "Watch It Now" online streaming don't get charged more, although that must be a hugely expensive experiment. So why single out BD users? If they really are a small percentage of the users, then the extra operating expense will also be relatively small.

Re:alright

[mr_matticus]

How many times is a disc rented out over its lifetime? That $10 extra per disc gets divided up quite a bit.

Not as many as you'd think, and the prorata share of the disc cost is not the issue. The inventory price is 70-90% greater.

Assuming the monthly subscription rate charged is $10 for normal users, there will be a breakdown for inventory wear/tear and library expansion. Say that's $2. There will be a cost for shipping. Say that's another $2. Then there's just business overhead, call it $5. They're left with $1 profit.

Now consider that the inventory price surges 66%--that increases the base rate to $2.80 or so, and eliminates their profit entirely. Prices must go up for the users of the expensive media, or profits must go down. Users should not have to subsidize the collection of a small number of people demanding premium product.

Charge the BD users an extra buck or two and call it even. Everybody wins, and everybody is paying the same amount.

Users who constantly send their discs back within a day don't get charged more. Users who use the profile feature (which we now know is expensive to maintain) don't get charged more.

All of that has already been built into the base subscription rate. Online services, including profiles and streaming, are infrastructure costs that are impractical to charge per use. The system needed to do so would cost more than the benefit of allocating the costs.

As to frequent returns, that's part of the queuing system. They ship out millions of discs per day, and the marginal cost of increasing that number is negligible--right up to the maximum output of their systems. Filling capacity actually makes things cheaper, which is why they offer so many unlimited plans to begin with.

The cost of media surging 75%, though, is not factored into those rates. Even with just one million discs in the library, the annual cost increase is going to be in excess of $20 million--assuming a $10 increase over DVD and one replacement per year (the actual number of replacements is likely higher). They have an online services development budget to handle the other parts (as well as the ability to invest profits in developing that service, since profiles and streaming are likely to attract new customers, while BD offerings are instead dependent on Blu-ray player uptake, not Netflix availability). They cannot budget for or absorb higher materials costs without raising subscription rates or cutting profit.

It's really fairly basic.

tagged: suddenoutbreakofcustomerservice

[Mr. Sketch]

n/t

Remember BBO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Keyes, how is Blockbuster Online doing?

Yeah, not so hot! Maybe your plan to sell slurpees in the stores will help.

To fast for my own good.

[heresyoftruth]

I appreciate that they kept profiles. I found them invaluable. Unfortunately, when I was told they were going away, my husband and I painstakingly moved his profile to a different account. Instead of a 3/3 = 6 account, we now have two 3 disk accounts. Damn for being so quick and efficient, I guess.

Re:To fast for my own good.

[throbbingbrain.com]

Instead of a 3/3 = 6 account, we now have two 3 disk accounts.

I indicated by email that MY second account would be with Blockbuster.

Re:To fast for my own good.

[porcupine8]

Well, at least you're saving $2/month this way, anyhow, right?

huh?

[OrangeTide]

Never heard of the Profiles feature until today, yet I've been a Netflix customer since 2001. go figure. I guess it's for families with kids old enough to pick their own movies or for couples who have very different tastes in movies.

Re:huh?

[SydShamino]

My queue is filled with low-grade sci fi / adventure, Futurama DVDs, and TV shows I missed on the air.

My wife's queue is filled with Sex and the City, Victorian biographies, and documentaries.

Interestingly we watch a lot of the same stuff: Dr. Who / Top Gear / Graham Norton Show / Good Eats / Daily Show / Colbert Report / Law & Order. We just don't want the same thing sitting around whenever one of us decides to watch a movie.

Re:huh?

[OrangeTide]

my gf and I only watch our netflix dvds together. (usually around 300-400 movies in my queue, down to 332 right now). I think that Roku netflix box sounds interesting for people who may want to just watch a quick show by themselves without having to put it into the queue.

Re:huh?

[mattack2]

I use profiles as the sole user of the account. Admittedly, it's somewhat of a 'workaround' to the 500 item limit in a queue. I said this in the original thread about removing profiles. I admit I should remove 99% of the movies in my queue since I'll never watch them, but I tend to add interesting-sounding movies to my queue, even though I move other ones to the top of my queue usually.

Though even beside that, I keep my main profile (that gets allocated 3 movies) generally with movies, and my other profile has TV shows in it with one allocated at a time.

I was VERY seriously considering going down to the lowest unlimited movie amount if they really went through and removed profiles. I'm grandfathered in 4 at a time at the rate new people pay for 3 at a time... but sometimes movies sit for a long time. So they've succeeded in getting more of my money for at least a while longer. Good for them.

Remember Blockbuster Online?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Keyes how's that working out for you?

yeah, not so hot. Maybe your plan to sell slurpees in the stores will help!

Good PR?

[microbee]

1. Spread rumors about pulling off a good feature 2. ???? 3. Profit!

Re:Good PR?

[brjndr]

2. Announce feature will not be pulled.

Re:Good PR?

[kiehlster]

2. The Revolution Will Not Be Realized

Marketing Handbook Trick no.24

[Oktober Sunset]

It's the new coke/classic coke.

So...

[TheFrunk]

Can anyone tell me how to access this feature? I'm stumped.

Re:So...

[Genocaust]

Under your account there should be a profiles link, or here's the direct one: http://www.netflix.com/ViewProfiles?lnkctr=yas_profiles

I love the feature, and like others, wrote to say I'd be canceling without it. Letting my wife and I keep separate queues and not constantly re-shuffle our lists is great as we have wildly different tastes in movies.

Re:So...

[Chrismith]

Actually, that link just takes me to my account page -- I think that since they were going to cancel the feature, they removed the profiles capability from accounts that didn't already have it set up (so that people didn't start using it just before it was removed). This makes me think that this is probably a real case of backpedaling due to customer feedback, and not just a marketing ploy. If they were trying to push profiles, there'd be a big link on everyone's account page.

Re:So...

[Genocaust]

Yeah, I actually read on their blog link after posting that link that they will be re-adding it for people who weren't using it already in the coming weeks. Only those of us who had already setup profiles in the past still get to use it right now.

Give it time; it's worth the wait :)

Netflix is a great company

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I've ever had a problem with Netflix, namely receiving broken disks or having disks stolen/lost in the mail, they've always sent me new disks right away, without any fuss.

Once when they continued to charge me after I'd canceled (poor student, blah blah), I was forced to email their billing support. Amazingly, my email was answered within about an hour by a *real person*. No form emails, no PR bullshit, just a terse plain-text email. This blew my mind. Not only were they polite, but they refunded my money the same day.

That said, this doesn't surprise me at all. Netflix has always been a pleasure to do business with.

(I don't work for them or anything. Hell, I'm not even a customer anymore. They're just one of the few companies that I don't mind giving my money to.)

Nth-ed

[wdavies]

yep, great news, Kudos Netflix. I was one who called and complained as well. Funny thing was that even the rep was bummed at them removing profiles.

Sigh..

[Artuir]

Queue the sound of thousands of tinfoil hats being put on everywhere. Also queue the sound of billions of keystrokes per second of wacko negative conspiracy theorists that believe this was simply a stunt, like 9/11 or the moon landings.

Re:Sigh..

[blueZ3]

You're obviously NOT new here :-)

And just like that...

[thatoneguy_jm]

...my marriage is saved.

Actual Customer Service vs. story of C/S

[redstar427]

I think is refreshing to see a company actually listening to their customers, and providing the services the customers request.

Yes, it's true, all the companies should do this, but many see that other companies can still make money even when they try to "tax" their customers, or try to force the customer to choose products they don't want. Yet others even call their customers criminals and insist the government make the customers pay, regardless of service.

So, when a company like Netflix does a good thing, I am going to tell them I appreciate good service.

Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

[chocolatetrumpet]

No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.

Re:Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

[gnick]

No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.

That is depressingly accurate and insightful. It would be wonderful if all businesses listened to their customers. And hopefully this move by Netflix will be a good move to keep the customers happy and subscribed. But, as a publicly traded company, their obligation is to maximize their stock price through whatever ethical means necessary.

I sincerely hope that the "listen to your customers" and "provide a good service for a reasonable price" strategy works out, though. I'd love to see those principles extended into other markets.

Re:Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

[hazem]

No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.

Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Adidas could make a lot of profit (for a while) by firing most of their employees and licensing their brand for use on all kinds of things like power drinks, car air fresheners, condoms, and breath mints. This would, however, diminish the brand as well as the value of the company to the shareholders.

While value and profitability are closely linked, they are not the same thing.

Re:Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

[dubl-u]

Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.

And that error is one that I feel like so many businesses make. Some yutz with an MBA and no real understanding of the business cuts anything that doesn't pay off in the short term, because that's the easy way to good quarterly numbers. At least for long enough for them to get promoted and/or for their options to vest. Sadly, those cuts include the kind of long-term investments that got the company to where they are.

I've never been able to think of a decent way to fix this. Anybody got an idea?

Re:Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

[tacokill]

you're right....but my point still stands.

If it's not a law, then it should be: "doing things that your customers like and appreciate generally provides better profits over the long run" (which maximizes shareholder value).

And the likewise: "doing things that piss off your customers generally leads to lower profits* over the long run"


(* cept for monopolies)

Never knew it existed, still can't find it

[pudding7]

I never knew this feature existed until I heard it was going away. I definitely need it for my wife and I. Now that it's staying, I don't see anywhere on the site to set it up. My Account, My Queue, Friends and Community... Where is this stupid feature?
/I may be retarded.

Re:Never knew it existed, still can't find it

[Nightspirit]

I must be retarded as well because I can't find it anywhere. Maybe they locked it so that while people with profiles don't get canceled, but those without them can't add them.

Re:Never knew it existed, still can't find it

[Fnord666]

It is under "Your Account" in the top section ("account information"). The link is titled "Account Profiles".

Re:Never knew it existed, still can't find it

[AK Marc]

If you don't already have profiles set up, you won't have that option. They will be turning it back on later.

Rather than reply individually to multiple posts..

[porcupine8]

For those looking for the Profiles feature, he says in the blog (linked to in some comment above) that they had already deactivated adding new Profiles for anyone who didn't have them already, and it will be back up in a couple weeks.

For those who have them already, the rest of us don't have an "Account Profiles" link in on our Your Account page. I guess we'll get one in a couple weeks.

Can you move from one profile queue to another?

[edmicman]

I tried the profiles thing a long time ago, but didn't like it because you couldn't move a movie from one queue to another. I wanted to separate out my movies from my wife's, but they were already queued up. As far as I could tell, the only way to split them out was to delete from one, and add to the other. As far as I was concerned, eliminating this "feature" didn't affect me at all.

If this still isn't the case, perhaps I'll try it again...

I hate to burn karma but...

[rubypossum]

This is our own fault. We allowed ourselves to become dependent on a single energy source. It's yet another case where homogeneous systems lead to failure. The good news is, the prices have risen enough that alternative energy has become economically feasible. In fact, several different energy sources have moved into the range of being cost-effective. This will allow a whole new generation of billionaires to capitalize on our energy lust.

They will be heralded as heroes, praised as brilliant entrepreneurs. And they will deliver to us light and heat and transportation. Just as the roughnecks, oil prospectors and oil "barons" once were. Then one day the energy sources they come up with will become eclipsed by something else. And the cycle will begin again.

I'd say that getting angry at the profits is a little of an over-reaction. After all, profit is the motive force. It's the reason all those men are spending their lives pushing around paper, digging oil wells and driving and building tankers (instead of playing World of Warcraft.) Contrary to current rhetoric, they aren't doing it because they like you as a person.

We just need to find alternative energy sources. If I ever move out of my parents basement (haha, I mean crappy apartment), I'd like to buy a place in the mountains where I could set up a micro-hydro system. It's one of the few systems that's both inexpensive and large enough to actually work. Then I would be one electric car away from energy independence.

Stupid.

[Trelane]

So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.

Re:Stupid.

[mattack2]

You're right, that (not supporting the Mac) is another thing I would have said if I lowered my subscription (I'm very unlikely to cancel entirely) if profiles went away. I personally would accept a free Roku box as a 'good enough' solution if they really won't support other OSes.

Re:Stupid.

[evilviper]

But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users

Well, what's your solution? They use WMV DRM, and Microsoft isn't about to make a Media Player for Linux. Switching to RealPlayer or Quicktime -compatible DRM would be a worse option in most respects.

Is Netflix doomed to write their own multi-platform media player to get Win/Mac/Linux support in there, with some form of DRM companies will accept? Sounds like a LOT more work than keeping a feature (Profiles) they already have.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

Is Netflix doomed to write their own multi-platform media player to get Win/Mac/Linux support in there, with some form of DRM companies will accept? Sounds like a LOT more work than keeping a feature (Profiles) they already have.

well, clearly that is one option. The other is to just charge me less money since I can't use the feature

Re:Stupid.

[dubl-u]

But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

I don't know the details for Netflix, but I've heard the scoop from other negotiations for video rights. Netflix probably had no choice in this. The studios are incredibly suspicious of digital content because they are afraid it will lead to more piracy. They are also incredibly retarded technically. My guess is that the Windows DRM stuff is a non-negotiable studio mandate.

Netflix sees the downloadable stuff as the heart of their long-term future; mailing DVDs will eventually be as quaint as eight-track tapes. They'd be fools to jeopardize their studio relationships right now over 5% of their current user base. I'm sure that they think (as I do) that the studios will eventually come around on this, just like the big music publishers are starting to. There's no long-term win in upsetting them now, and a lot of risk.

Regardless, with the Roku box coming out, you can watch things that way. I'm going to get one and some cheap Firewire TV capture device so I can watch movies on my home Linux computer.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

I don't know the details for Netflix, but I've heard the scoop from other negotiations for video rights. Netflix probably had no choice in this. The studios are incredibly suspicious of digital content because they are afraid it will lead to more piracy. They are also incredibly retarded technically. My guess is that the Windows DRM stuff is a non-negotiable studio mandate.

I have heard this directly from Netflix. At least one Netflix rep has told me straight out that the movie studios require Windows DRM and therefore they cannot provide a Mac or Linux player.

What they do not explain, however, is why they have to charge me the same as they do Windows users. The solution is simple: if you can't offer a feature to your entire userbase, let them opt out.

I might consider a free Netflix box compensation. Or just let me opt out and give me some money back for the feature I can't use (this is preferable because I don't like DRM either). I will not pay for Windows nor the Netflix box, because then I'd be paying a hefty sum to use a feature that they let their other customers can use for free, and that's a ridiculous thing to require your customers to do IMHO.

Re:Stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.

Let's see. KEEP a feature to please 1-2% of customers, or ADD a feature to please 5-10% of customers.

Which is more cost effective?

Re:Stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.

Netflix cannot provide instant watching to Mac users because the studios will only license the content protected by studio approved DRM, which currently is Microsoft Windows Media DRM. Netflix has been working with Microsoft to test their cross-platform Silverlight software, but the shipping version to date has not included the DRM. Supposedly it will be included with the 2.0 version when released later this year, which means a Mac version can be implemented then.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

Loss if all profiles users told Netflix to shove it: 8.2 million customers *0.02 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $29.52 million per year Loss if all mac and linux users told Netflix to shove it: 8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $147.6 million per year Loss if they gave mac and linux users $2/mo back because they can't use Instant Watching: 8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$2 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $19.68 million per year

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

I'm a Linux user. This is no consolation, even assuming that Mac Silverlight will have DRM. I'd be perfectly happy if they just gave me $2/mo back because I can't use that feature, but somehow that option's never given to me.

Re:Stupid.

[dubl-u]

'd be paying a hefty sum to use a feature that they let their other customers can use for free, and that's a ridiculous thing to require your customers to do IMHO.

Yes! I don't have a car, and so can't use drive-through windows. That's unfair! I demand that McDonald's charge me less for my in-store orders. Or give me a car.

Seriously, all of the people using the movie downloads are people with relatively modern home computers, broadband connections, up-to-date copies of Windows, decent screens, and a comfortable setup for watching movies on their computer. My guess is that less than 5% of Netflix users have ever watched a full movie on line, and circa 1% watch more movies on line than they do via DVD.

You could claim that Neflix is also screwing all those other people. Or you could treat it like it is: an experiment that is so early on that they don't even know how to charge for it properly, so they're just giving it to some customers for free to see how the market develops.

Until then, you might consider being content with getting exactly the service you signed up at the price you were happy to pay before. If you get upset every time you see a Windows user getting something that you don't as a Mac or Linux user, you're going to have a stroke long before Netflix talks the studios around on this.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

Yes! I don't have a car, and so can't use drive-through windows. That's unfair! I demand that McDonald's charge me less for my in-store orders. Or give me a car.

Hmm. Interesting. I'd argue that it's more akin to only letting you use the drive-thru if you own a Ford car instead of your Prius, because Pepsi requires it.

Seriously, all of the people using the movie downloads are people with relatively modern home computers, broadband connections, up-to-date copies of Windows, decent screens, and a comfortable setup for watching movies on their computer. My guess is that less than 5% of Netflix users have ever watched a full movie on line, and circa 1% watch more movies on line than they do via DVD.

So they should be perfectly happy to give us $2/mo back. It won't hurt their bottom line as much as those using the Profiles feature, which was brought back Due To Popular Demand.

Or you could treat it like it is: an experiment that is so early on that they don't even know how to charge for it properly, so they're just giving it to some customers for free to see how the market develops.

It may be an experiment, and I'm doing my part in it.

you might consider being content with getting exactly the service you signed up at the price you were happy to pay before. If you get upset every time you see a Windows user getting something that you don't as a Mac or Linux user, you're going to have a stroke long before Netflix talks the studios around on this.

So be it. My money costs my time and my life, so I like to get some value for it. That's what I'm saying.

Re:Stupid.

[dubl-u]

I'd argue that it's more akin to only letting you use the drive-thru if you own a Ford car instead of your Prius, because Pepsi requires it.

And if that happened, McDonald's still wouldn't give you anything.

So they should be perfectly happy to give us $2/mo back.

Not at all. They are taking what would be profit and putting it back into R&D, so that in five years when the online movie business actually matters, they have a solid offering. Which is exactly what their investors want them to be doing.

If you compare plan prices with other services, they're all about the same. If Netflix closed down their video service tomorrow, they wouldn't drop their prices. They're the market leader; they don't have to. They'd just put the money into a different sort of R&D.

Even if they did drop their prices, killing the video downloads probably wouldn't get you much. I could put together a similar offering for under couple million a year in operating expenses, (including staff time but excluding the studio revenue share). That's like $0.20 per month per Netflix customer. And probably less given that they already have a substantial internet presence, so they wouldn't have to hire as many people as I would. It could even be that the people actually watching online are renting fewer DVDs, so Netflix might already be turning a profit on their online offering. Meaning that killing it would get you bupkis.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

And if that happened, McDonald's still wouldn't give you anything.

Probably not, but I'd definitely take my business elsewhere unless they did.

They are taking what would be profit and putting it back into R&D, so that in five years when the online movie business actually matters, they have a solid offering. Which is exactly what their investors want them to be doing.

If the marketshare is small enough to afford to piss off, then it's small enough not to impact their R&D.

If Netflix closed down their video service tomorrow, they wouldn't drop their prices.

Of course not, prices almost never go down. Only pressure from their customers makes it go down. If Netflix could, they'd take the money directly out of your paycheck every month, whether or not you use their service. What businesses want to do and what their customers should let them do are two entirely different things.

killing the video downloads probably wouldn't get you much.

I don't want them to kill the video downloads. Where did you get that absurd idea? I want to be able to use the features they gave me with the operating system I use or else give me a couple of bucks back each month because they refuse to.

I could put together a similar offering for under couple million a year in operating expenses, (including staff time but excluding the studio revenue share)

when you have done so, or have concrete data to back up your position here, this is entirely unbacked specuation.

The position remains: to keep me a happy customer, I should get the same value as the other customers or get some compensation back. I really don't see why you're fighting me on this.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

when you have done so

s/when/Until/;

Re:Stupid.

[dubl-u]

I don't want them to kill the video downloads. Where did you get that absurd idea?

I never said you did. I'm just saying that the maximum reasonable compensation is the amount extra they're allegedly charging you for a service you're not using. Which we can get at by imagining what would change if they shut it down entirely.

when you have done so, or have concrete data to back up your position here, this is entirely unbacked specuation.

I have friends who built one, so I know whereof I speak.

Bandwidth costs are your biggest issue. Expect circa $10k per gigabit line when you're buying a few. Netflix can probably get it for less, but I'll run with the numbers I have.

Assuming 1% of customers use the feature regularly and average 3 movies a month (which is probably high for now) and assuming they watch them all in a 6-hour window during just 10 days of the month (to account for peak times; again, a high estimate) that's a peak of 4250 movies simultaneously, so let's say you'll need 7 1-gigabit circuits, for a cost of $0.84 million per year. A couple of cabinets will cost you circa $5k per month, and you'll need a couple of ops guys to keep this running, so figure a total of $1.2m per year in direct OPEX. Another $800k per year should more than cover any operational expenditures that the rest of Netflix takes care of.

The position remains: to keep me a happy customer, I should get the same value as the other customers or get some compensation back. I really don't see why you're fighting me on this.

If you're saying this is your own personal and irrational desire that you'd like to indulge, that's fine. Godspeed. I was under the impression you thought your position made some sort of sense.

It doesn't. Most other customers are getting the exact same value you are: none yet. And even if they were to refund every penny that you might conceivably be paying toward the service it would be a tiny fraction of what you want in compensation. Compensation for a service that you're not using only because you use a platform that, when you picked it, you knew would exclude you from all sorts of stuff that other people get.

And wait, I did the per-customer math wrong. $2m a year over 8m customers is $0.25 per customer per year, or about 2 cents a month. If they refund you everything, that's what you'd get. And that's not even accounting for the postage and handling savings from people who substitute on-line viewing for mailing DVDs back and forth.

Wanting them to give you compensation is like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and demanding a discount because you keep kosher and won't eat the shrimp. You're still getting all the movies you want, and you're not getting the downloads only because of a choice you made.

I run only Linux, so I can't get the downloads either. I look forward to when I can. But I don't want them thinking all Linux users act like they're entitled to everything, regardless of how possible it is or what the real costs are.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

. I'm just saying that the maximum reasonable compensation is the amount extra they're allegedly charging you for a service you're not using. Which we can get at by imagining what would change if they shut it down entirely.

That makes sense.

I have friends who built one, so I know whereof I speak.

A random person (to me you are anyway) on the Internet says to trust their authority.

Regardless, I'd think about acceping 2 cents per month, provided it's logical. It's better than what I'm getting now.

Most other customers are getting the exact same value you are: none yet

No, they get extra value that I don't.

I was under the impression you thought your position made some sort of sense.

It makes sense to me. Give me the same value as everyone else, or give me some sort of reduction in price.

Wanting them to give you compensation is like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and demanding a discount because you keep kosher and won't eat the shrimp.

No, it's more like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and being required to pay an additional $300 because I am wearing the wrong kind of shoes to walk around.

I run only Linux, so I can't get the downloads either. I look forward to when I can

I'll again assume that a random person on the internet is telling the whole truth. You'll keep waiting because they won't do it unless you provide a business case for them. Sucking it up and taking whatever they dish out will not do jack.

But I don't want them thinking all Linux users act like they're entitled to everything, regardless of how possible it is or what the real costs are.

I'm not entitled to anything. I pay with my time and sweat to get money and I pay with that money to get value, and I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.

Re:Stupid.

[dubl-u]

A random person (to me you are anyway) on the Internet says to trust their authority.

I gave you the numbers I used. You want to check the numbers, go ahead. You've got better numbers, go ahead. Or if you want to admit that you're basing your claims for compensation on no facts at all, that's fine too.

Most other customers are getting the exact same value you are: none yet

No, they get extra value that I don't.

Most other customers aren't using it. I don't have hard numbers here, but the low selection, the high system and network requirements for using it compared with just using DVDs, and the experience of my friends in trying to get people to watch movies on computers suggest that this is a minor, minor sideshow for now.

You think you've got something to bitch about? The vast majority of their customer base has much better video and audio on whatever they've hooked their DVD players to, and no good way to put their computers in the mix. Netflix has just told all of them to go pay $100 if they want the on-line option on their TV. And you know what? Nobody minds. They're excited about the step forward.

You'll keep waiting because they won't do it unless you provide a business case for them. Sucking it up and taking whatever they dish out will not do jack.

Am I advocating that? No. I'm going to wait until a plausible business case for them even exists. Because right now, it doesn't.

I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.

Not really.

Capitalism mainly works by people looking at what they pay and what they get and deciding if it's a good deal for them. Vendors then compete for that business, pushing them toward delivering maximum value at minimum prices.

You pitching a fit because a few Windows users are getting something extra is envy. It's a foolish envy, because it's not like anybody is stopping you from installing Windows or getting a Roku box, which cost about the same, and which all of those people paid for. And it's a pointless envy because nobody else is offering a better deal on DVDs plus online video for Linux or Mac users anyhow.

You started off this thread by claiming that Netflix were stupid and failed. When it was explained to you why their choice was in fact reasonable for now and part of a plausible plan for success, this became about what you personally wanted because you were envious. Now you're down to saying you'd like somebody to give you a quarter to make you feel better about something that everybody else is already ok with.

Either live up to your rhetoric and actually take your business elsewhere, or quit your bitching. Failing that, do your pointless bitching elsewhere, to people who actually care to hear it.

Re:Stupid.

[Trelane]

I gave you the numbers I used. You want to check the numbers, go ahead. You've got better numbers, go ahead. Or if you want to admit that you're basing your claims for compensation on no facts at all, that's fine too.

Your numbers are based off of your own experience, which I'm required to trust you on. Sorry that I don't trust the numbers of random people on the Internet. If you can provide corroborating links, I'm willing to listen.

Most other customers aren't using it. I don't have hard numbers here, but the low selection, the high system and network requirements for using it compared with just using DVDs, and the experience of my friends in trying to get people to watch movies on computers suggest that this is a minor, minor sideshow for now.

Bully for them that they're not taking advantage of the added value they're being given. I'm not being given that option. Other people not taking advantage of their value does not imply that it's fine if I'm not given the same value.

The vast majority of their customer base has much better video and audio on whatever they've hooked their DVD players to, and no good way to put their computers in the mix. Netflix has just told all of them to go pay $100 if they want the on-line option on their TV. And you know what? Nobody minds. They're excited about the step forward.

Again, their lack of complaining does not imply my lack of a right to complain, even yet again assuming you have solid facts to back up your assertions regarding percentages (i.e. "vast majority" and "Nobody").

Incidentally, "nobody" is demonstrably false, given the people posting to the Netflix Blog hoping Netflix will let them Instant Watch on their xbox, ps3, and/or wii.

Am I advocating that? No. I'm going to wait until a plausible business case for them even exists. Because right now, it doesn't.

Actually, you are.

1. Because you're actively advocating "waiting until a plausible business case for them even exists" (ignoring the points I was originally making which directly the existence of a business case). I rather think that "waiting" (i.e. continuing to pay instead of complaining and/or taking your business elsewhere) was "sucking it up and taking it"
2. Because you're actively telling me I should shut up, suck it up and take it as you argue that my position and I personally am "stupid".

I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.

Not really.

Yes really.

Capitalism mainly works by people looking at what they pay and what they get and deciding if it's a good deal for them

Yes and no. You're right in that deciding if it is a good deal for "them" (i.e. me) is a critical part of capitalism. However, equally critical portions are

1. Communicating with the companies regarding what you want and what you don't want and what your perceptions are
2. Communicating with other customers and potential customers to organize action to help you in pushing for what you want and need (e.g. writing letters to the companies, organizing ad campaigns, proposing bills, organizing boycotts)
3. Buying or not buying the product, or adusting what you buy (e.g. buying fewer DVDs at a time)

You pitching a fit because a few Windows users are getting something extra is envy

"You pitching a fit," eh? I think your logic is being tainted by your biases and emotions.

Envy certainly plays a role, as it does in everyday life. It's only one portion of the picture, however, and painting it as the sole contributing fac

Re:Stupid.

[CopaceticOpus]

There are two reasons this is not reasonable. For one thing, the majority of Netflix users are not using some portion of the service. "I don't have a Blu Ray player, so charge me less. I don't use Profiles, so charge me less." That would quickly become a mess. Secondly, if they offered you the discount you wanted, suddenly 80% of Netflix users would be claiming to be Linux or Mac users.

Anyway, Watch It Now is more of an R&D feature than a selling point. The overall price for Netflix service has actually gone down since it came out.

The don't. Mod parent -1 uninformed.

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject.

Re:The don't. Mod parent -1 uninformed.

[gEvil (beta)]

No, they currently don't. But they have stated publicly that they are seriously considering doing so.

Re:The don't. Mod parent -1 uninformed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Link or it didn't happen.

Re:The don't. Mod parent -1 uninformed.

[gEvil (beta)]

Cos you're too fucking lazy to type it into google.

thanks for listening Netflix. But ease of use...

[Anonymous Coward]

People who complained should also thank them for listening. Think what you will, but it isn't common these days for a customer's wishes to be a factor in a company's decisions in any sense.

I do wish they'd improve the ease of use of the profiles feature though. For instance letting us easily move movies from queue to queue, or see all the queues at once without logging into a separate page (perhaps unless specifically enabled, so people who want to keep their queues private could - but how private can they really be when the thing shows up in the postbox anyway?)

More people would use it...

[Belial6]

More people would use it if Netflix would start renting porn and video games.

netflix pop-ups

[socsoc]

This may be slightly off-topic, but after separating with Netflix about 5 years ago, the biggest obstacle of my return is their use of pop-under advertising windows. I'm not sure how they get past Firefox's pop blocks, but it is annoying as hell. They're the X10 of 2008.

Re:netflix pop-ups

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you certain it isn't something else on your system doing that? I've used netflix's site a heck of a lot and have never seen any pop-up or pop-under adverts. That's with FF 2 and FF 3 on various systems.

Re:netflix pop-ups

[virtual_mps]

This may be slightly off-topic, but after separating with Netflix about 5 years ago, the biggest obstacle of my return is their use of pop-under advertising windows. I'm not sure how they get past Firefox's pop blocks, but it is annoying as hell. They're the X10 of 2008.

I've never seen a pop under ad from netflix. Check your system for adware...

Re:netflix pop-ups

[socsoc]

I get them from snopes on many different machines, including fresh installations. It may be operator error, but fastclick manages to give me new windows, some of which are netflix.

Could you try some links on snopes and let me know your results? Perhaps I do have something, after the recent AVG nonsense, I've moved to Avast. I don't have any pop-up blocking toolbars like Yahoo or Google, but I believe I'm clean and that FF 2/3 should be blocking that stuff. IE8 blocks it and admittedly, I don't use NoScript or AdBlock Plus on a regular basis.

Re:netflix pop-ups

[virtual_mps]

I get nothing from snopes. I always have adblock and noscript installed.

I like Netflix but they're not perfect....

[Wescotte]

I've been a Netflix subscribe since early 2000 using a 4disc plan at ~$19 a month. About a year ago I began seeing these upgrade deals when browsing. For just $x.xx you can upgrade to a five disc plan! I forget the exact number but it was under $2.

So I thought great! I'll upgrade right now and did. They never gave me the exact price of my new plan until AFTER I agreed to it. So when I discovered the $2 was only to cover the cost of the partial month upgrade and my new monthly fee was around $30 a month I said screw that and downgraded back to my 4disc plan. Well, the current 4disc plan is like $24 a month and their customer service said it was impossible to go back to my normal $19 price. Instead I was told I'd receive a credit on my bill for 6months to offset my monthly fee to my original $19 amount.

Well, as you can guess I never did get my credit.. I'm sure if I did enough bitching they just might have given me my original $19 plan back..

Truth is I'm lazy and I haven't been really keeping up with 4discs so I downgraded to a 2disc plan. I also kept in mind that they did add value with the streaming service and turn around time has been GREATLY increased since 2000 so I'm not altogether upset with them.

The truth is they're just as sneaky as any other company out there. I'm guessing the real reason they kept profiles is a very smart programmer figured out how to deal with profiles.

They could get rid of them anyway if they had ..

[Hohlraum]

a clue.

1. migration wizard
2. migrate selected profiles to new account with the same billing info.
3. discount additional accounts under the same billing information to match the same rate as a single account with the same number of dvds.

Now netflix gets what they want and the people want profiles (i'm one of them) get what they want (the same price and to keep ratings which would have been lost on the profiles).

That impressed me too

[Naznarreb]

The first time I lost a disc, I went to the website, found the form and filled it out. I expected a reply a long the lines, "Thank you. We will process this form within the next 5 business days and be in touch with you shortly." I thought the "I lost the disc" excuse had to be the oldest in the book and there was no way I was going to get away with not paying for it. What I got instead was, "Thank you. The next movie in your queue is on it's way." A jaw dropping amount of trust, especially when you consider the rampancy of things like DRM, unfair EULAs/Terms of Service, contracts designed to screw the customer.

Re:That impressed me too

[mshannon78660]

I had a similar experience when I discovered a damaged disk (it had cracked half way across, so it was nearly in two pieces). Filled out the form on the website, they said to send it back and they were sending the next one right away.

When did Pepsi claim it tastes the same as Coke?

[SuperKendall]

I too can easily taste the difference between Pepsi and Coke - that's why I drink Pepsi.

When did Pepsi ever claimed they tasted the same? The whole point of Pepsi is that it tastes different. It's not like it's a generic store brand that's supposed to be Coke-like.

New Coke was closer to Pepsi in taste than Coke Classic, but like you said there was an odd aftertaste which left it tasted worse than either classic Coke or Pepsi to me.

Your post is even more so

[SuperKendall]

So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

This is not an either-or. Removing profiles would not have brought instant watching for Mac/Linux users. So why not let users have an EXTREMELY valuable feature that desire it?

Also, I personally believe the 2% number was a lowball to try and make it seem like no-one would be affected. The problem for Netflix is even if the actual number was somewhat low, it was their core and most vocal supporters that were affected. You do not get fanatically loyal customers without also getting hugely disproportionate blowback when you betray the trust of those customers. Then they will go out of their way to work against you... would Netflix really want 2% of the users that are in large part responsible for growth to talk many, many people into switching to Blockbuster? Because that's what they were looking at.

I think Netflix was starting to see cancellations go up, and new accounts drop off - and that scared them mightily. As it should.

Re:Your post is even more so

[Trelane]

This is not an either-or. Removing profiles would not have brought instant watching for Mac/Linux users. So why not let users have an EXTREMELY valuable feature that desire it?

What makes you think I was arguing against bringing back profiles? On the contrary, I am (still) arguing for Mac/Linux Instant Watching.

Also, I personally believe the 2% number was a lowball to try and make it seem like no-one would be affected.

Almost certainly, as is the Mac and Linux marketshare (people cherry-pick numbers from a variety of sources to suit the needs of their argument).

The problem for Netflix is even if the actual number was somewhat low, it was their core and most vocal supporters that were affected. You do not get fanatically loyal customers without also getting hugely disproportionate blowback when you betray the trust of those customers. Then they will go out of their way to work against you... would Netflix really want 2% of the users that are in large part responsible for growth to talk many, many people into switching to Blockbuster? Because that's what they were looking at.

Right. For example, because they refuse to either give me some money back for features I can't use and they won't give me, I went from 3-at-a-time to 2, and am now down at 2-per-month, the lowest possible one. If things go unchanged, I will certainly be quitting them altogether for Blockbuster or another vendor.

If anything, this underscores how important it is that Mac and Linux users vote with their wallets and not cave and use Wine/VMware/Parallels to run Windows. If we stand up, we will be heard, just as the "1-2%" were here.

I think Netflix was starting to see cancellations go up, and new accounts drop off - and that scared them mightily. As it should.

Quite. Vote with your wallets, people!

Re:Your post is even more so

[Trelane]

(or if not instant watching, then at least give us a chunk of money back every month for features we can't and they won't let us use)

Re:Your post is even more so

[SuperKendall]

But the problem is - go to Blockbuster for what? I thought about that with the queues going, but Blockbuster doesn't have queues. So leaving Netflix over them is simply abandoning the concept.

With "View Now", I figure it is better to work from the inside. I do not use parallels or anything else as a workaround. Every time I log in to check my queue or add a movie, I click on Watch Now just to get the screen that says it does not work on a Mac. I figure, the stats of paying customers who do want that ability will be the thing to bring it to me, not having the number of Mac users on Netflix dwindle and getting nothing more for the trouble of using Blockbuster.

But part of the key is, as you say, don't use parallels or others means to watch stuff from your account.

See, people?

[busydoingnothing]

This is what organized consumer outrage gets you. Money talks. Keep up the good fight.

Vote with your dollars in a POSITIVE way

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a rare example of a company that is willing to do several things.

1 listen to their customers and make them happy

2 admit that they made an error, and fix it. this takes a courageous decision making staff, since errors can stifle careers. in this case it should not, and marketing/other staff that are flexible enough to understand that making a mistake is not the end of the world, and that HOW your deal with the error does make a lot of difference.

3 vote with your dollars and send them an email/letter, etc letting them know that is exactly what you are doing, even if you never used profiles, or netflix (good time to get an account and let em know)

4 the staff who fixed this error are looking very agile right now, in an very unpredictable, changing world, it looks like they have a very bright future ahead of them

in short, kudos to netflix, for things like this u deserve every penny you have earned, and have the good will of many people. please continue the good work, an example is sorely needed to show other companies the right way of dealing with things.

2005 Prius mileage

[zooblethorpe]

I can't speak to acceleration (which mostly only ever struck me as hype anyway), but as far as mileage goes, our 2005 Prius averages around 42mpg at 80mph on US 101 here in central CA. Oh, and it can certainly go faster, too -- at one point I found myself doing over 90 quite easily (and at that, without getting too much faster than most of the traffic...). Just another point on the graph. :)

Cheers,

Re:2005 Prius mileage

[snowgirl]

Right, so you're getting pretty equivalent gas mileage to my motorcycle (except I regularly get about 5mpg more)...

For that you paid like $20k more than me, and you have an enclosed case with A/C, and heat, and all those other niceties.

I suppose it's a personal matter of value at that point.

Re:2005 Prius mileage

[Abcd1234]

For that you paid like $20k more than me, and you have an enclosed case with A/C, and heat, and all those other niceties.

Well, that and a significantly reduced risk of being turned into hamburger the moment a retarded driver clips you while unexpectedly switching lanes without shoulder checking.

Re:2005 Prius mileage

[snowgirl]

Everyone warns me about that. I've been in 2 big crashes, one of them was caused by me and me alone. The second, the driver never clipped me, I simply lost control while avoiding him.

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm

Important notes:

* Half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash
* High blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators
* More motorcyclist fatalities are occurring on rural roads
* Undivided roadways account for a majority of the fatalities
* Collision with a fixed object is a significant factor in over half of the fatalities

Honestly, driving a motorcycle, I can tell you that most of the risks are actually a lot lower than you would think. Your biggest dangers are not other drivers, they're your inability to properly take a corner, as well as alcohol. In terms of dying from it? You're far more likely to be hurt/killed hitting a stationary object, than a car.

The results? People cut people off occasionally, it always happens. However, a motorcycle is much smaller and more maneuverable. You have three "lanes" per single lane that a car has. Someone cuts you off? You pull to the far end of your lane, break, and honk your horn loudly.

You're simply more likely to get hurt if you hit a car... nothing hard to figure out there, physics, and "bash value". What with people driving huge SUVs, being in a Prius doesn't give you all that much better protection.

Take a for instance. A car and a motorcycle are simultaneously clipped from behind. The car spins out crashes, pieces of the vehicle impacting inwards upon the passengers, who are not protected against that stuff. The motorcycle spins, slides, and dumps the rider who also starts sliding. If they're intelligent, they have good gear on, and go "WEEEEEE!" while they slide down the road. If they don't have good gear they go "SCRAPE!!!" while they slide down the road.

Basically, if you're wearing the right safety gear, you're probably no more likely to die in a crash than a person in a car... unless you hit a stationary object... then you don't have a lot of metal in the way to stop a lot of the impact force... of course, in a car such objects (such as improperly installed guardrails that run through your car) can also be really dangerous to passengers, and you don't have the benefit of a nice helmet to protect you.

Why do you think race car drivers have bunchs of safety gear? They deck out almost like the motorcyclist. The reason? Cars don't really give as much protection as people think... in fact, they can sometimes be a DANGER to the occupants.

Re:2005 Prius mileage

[zooblethorpe]

Please note that I didn't write to disparage your post, I was simply adding my own anecdotal evidence to the thread. I also admittedly wanted to point out that your (likely exaggerating?) comment about how fast hybrids can go wasn't necessarily correct. :)

That aside, different needs mean different tools. In my case, passengers are common (most often, my wife), and we sometimes have need for the not-insubstantial cargo space provided when the back seats are folded flat. In your case, I assume these are not factors, and thus a bike makes great sense. Maith thú (Good on you).

Cheers,

Next Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they need to fix their site so I can watch movies online with my Mac.