Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Expects To Be Unprofitable In 2012

PolygamousRanchKid writes with an article in CNN Money about Netflix's prospects in 2012. From the article: "Netflix warned in its last earnings report that it expects to be unprofitable 'for a few quarters' starting at the beginning of 2012. The primary culprit is Netflix's pricey plan to expand its streaming video service into the United Kingdom and Ireland, but a wave of subscribers jumping ship hasn't helped. The filing also revealed that Netflix is in the process of raising $400 million from investors to help bulk up its cash stash. While that will give Netflix more money to invest in content, secondary offerings are sometimes considered ominous signs."

323 comments

  1. More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They need more content...I watched nearly all the good movies over one winter off work.

    1. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They need more content...I watched nearly all the good movies over one winter off work.

      You should really consider spending more effort defining your career. Seriously.

    2. Re:More content by localman57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe he's a bricklayer. My cousin is one. He works like hell 3 seasons a year, then takes the winter off.

    3. Re:More content by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      They need more content...I watched nearly all the good movies over one winter off work.

      The "watch it now" content started at about 10% of the catalog, and it was a fair cross section (of the 500 movies in our queue, 50 showed up in "watch it now")

      The difference between disc by mail and watch it now is that you can only get maybe a half-dozen discs by mail per week (3 at a time, assuming you're not "watching" them the minute they arrive and running across town to get them back in the mail before the 6pm last pickup). With watch it now, you can binge on 6 movies a day, or more if you want.

      Mostly I like the watch it now for TV series, and I gladly traded down to 2 discs at a time + watch it now from 3 at a time, even though watch it now is limited, it's got more content than I can handle (whole series like Star Trek: TNG, 24, Hawaii Five-O, etc. etc. hundreds and hundreds of episodes.)

    4. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 2

      In their Canadian implementation, everything I have tried looking for(pretty much anything you would see on Rogers/Bell) has not been on there. I have not enabled my free trial yet because of this.

      If they put actual content on, I would gladly give them my money.

    5. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck you and people that think like you.

    6. Re:More content by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's relatively common in the construction field to do that. Which is just as well because there's typically a lot less work in the winter anways. If they work enough they can even draw unemployment during the winter.

    7. Re:More content by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Theoretically you can watch more with streaming, but in practice I don't think that's a common enough problem. What it means is that I could watch a couple episodes out of several different series during the week. The main limiting factors for most people are time and the speed of mail. People probably do watch more streaming than discs, but then again they might not, I know before I canceled that I watched several times as many discs as streams. And since leaving I haven't missed streaming at all.

      I have no idea whether or not I'm normal, but my gut tells me that I'm closer to normal than the people that are watching tons of content every single week.

    8. Re:More content by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      As he said...
      Any career that has a known large gap of unemployment isn't too lucrative unless your making bank (per hour, not more hours able to be worked) during those worktimes.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    9. Re:More content by Karlt1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As he said...
      Any career that has a known large gap of unemployment isn't too lucrative unless your making bank (per hour, not more hours able to be worked) during those worktimes.

      Not great but a livable wage.....

      http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary

    10. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please define "actual content"? I find there is plenty of content. I am a big movie fan and watched about 50 movies since it became available in Canada. Some excellent TV shows too (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Mad Men, Arrested Development,...). Obviously you won't find the same movies that you can order on PPV with Bell (which cost almost the same as a full month of unlimited streaming from Netflix), but if you are a movie fan, I'm sure you'll find some older (and some new releases too (Black Swan, True Grit for example) movies to watch (From top directors such as David Lynch, Kubrick, Aronofksy, Almodovar, etc..). If you are looking for the latest Transformers movie, then the service is not for you.

    11. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a limited definition of _good_. Netflix has more movies than I'd be interested to watch in a lifetime, but I have broad tastes.

    12. Re:More content by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I put my NF sub on hold since I did run out of things to watch. my queue is entirely on the 'no idea when we will pay to have this back again' list. so I suspended my account. didn't really want to, but they are being very 'slow' to restock various videos and series.

      I'm more and more picky about what I waste time on, for tv; and I've about watched all there is that is worth watching. NF is slacking. I think they'll buckle and fall apart in a few years since they make so many bad business decisions.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a little sceptical to start with but found that there seems to be enough content and enough new content added regularly to justify the $8/month

      I think one day a month or 3 ago I counted 150 new titles ( including quite a few full TV shows) worth of content added in about a 3 day period

      http://can.whatsnewonnetflix.com/

    14. Re:More content by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      It is actually better than it seems. I subscribed a while back and it appears that there is more content than they show on their sign up screens. Which of course makes no sense at all.
      That said, I did run out of content I wanted to watch after about 2 months. So I suspended my account. It comes back on as of Dec 1, I hope they have added enough content to make it worthwhile, or I will be suspending again before very long. After that if they still can't get content, I will be ending my account.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    15. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I admit, it was more than three months ago that I last looked. /me checks....

    16. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, let me do some random searches of stuff I want to watch...
      (I PROMISE that these are as they come off my head, of stuff I am thinking of with no deliberately only looking for stuff they don't have)

      Pulp Fiction: No
      Stargate SG1: Oooh they have it now!
      Stargate Atlantis: No
      Dr Who (new): No
      Top Gear(UK, New): YES!!
      House MD: No
      Lost: No (Not actually a bad thing)
      Total Recall: No
      Avatar: No
      Airplane: No (But they have Airplane2??)
      Shrek: No
      Star Wars: No
      Start Trek Series: No (But they do have three films, including the latest)
      Die Hard: No
      Inception: No
      Crank: No (But they have Crank 2)
      Family Guy: No
      Futurama: No
      Titanic: No (But, again, they have the sequel!. I don;t actually want to watch it anyway, I just thought of it is all)
      Friends: No (For wifey)
      Seinfeld: No
      Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: YES!!!
      Snatch: YES!!!
      Saw: Yes, but only 1 & 2
      The IT Crowd: Yes!
      The Backyardigans: Yes
      Special Agent Oso: No
      Mickey Mouse: No
      Grays Anatomy: No
      Kill Bill: No
      Shaun of the dead: Yes :)
      Poltergeist: No

      Etc, etc, etc. Need I go on?

      8/32 - 25% success.
      Granted, this is a FAR better success rate than when I last looked (more like 5%), but it's still pretty piss poor :(

      When it gets to over 50% such that most (i.e. over 50% :) ) of what I am looking for is there, then I will part with my money.

      I wonder what the pass rate is for that list on the USA version. I don't have a US proxy so can't check. I bet it is much higher.

    17. Re:More content by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I rate shows i like and netflix has recommended a lot of films I would have never seen which I liked a lot.

      For example: 12:01, "Cottage to Let", (a lot of 1950's war/spy movies), A lot of anime I would not have otherwise heard of.

      So that's worth considering.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:More content by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Wait... There was a sequel to Titanic?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    19. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked the US Netflix version using Unblock-us, and I find the amount of QUALITY movies to be pretty much the same, so you probably would have the same success rate, but the movies are different. There are a lot more TV shows though. I find paying 5$/month for unblock-us (1 week free trial) is a good way to extend the selection.

      When I first joined Netflix, I spent a couple hours browsing the selection and found about 30 movies i wanted to watch that I haven't seen, and at least the same amount of excellent movies I had already seen. I think it's better to browse to selection than to search for individual titles, otherwise your are bound to be disappointed.

      Since then, I check the can.whatsnewonnetflix.com site regularly and add 2-3 movies to my watch list each month.

    20. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's relatively common in the construction field to do that. Which is just as well because there's typically a lot less work in the winter anways. If they work enough they can even draw unemployment during the winter.

      I work seasonally indeed, Unemployment for 3-4 months, sometimes with a part time job but then back to the golf course in spring.

    21. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I didn't notice that you said David Lynch when I first replied. I did actually look up Eraserhead (it was a No), but decided to leave it off the list as it was too obscure lol.

    22. Re:More content by VickiM · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's weird. When I look at my account:
      Star Gate Atlantis - Yes
      Airplane! - Yes
      Doctor Who - All the new Who that has been release on DVD except Season 6 which was released two days ago in Region 2 only
      Star Trek Series - I see original, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, the Animated Series.
      Die Hard - Yes
      Family Guy - Yes
      Futurama - Yes
      Grey's Anatomy - Yes

      Are you a troll?

    23. Re:More content by DocHoncho · · Score: 2
      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    24. Re:More content by edmicman · · Score: 1

      I can't look it up for specifics right now but your list looks like it would probably match pretty close for the US, too. I'm pretty sure we have all of Family Guy available, though, or at least it was awhile back. But that's one of the other joys of Netflix streaming - just because something is there at one point doesn't mean it'll be there the next time you look. But all in all, yeah - Netflix rarely has but a few recent hits, and rarely has 5+ year old any first runs. Oh, it'll have the 5 sequels that went straight to video, but good luck having the actual real movie available.

    25. Re:More content by VickiM · · Score: 2

      Oh, I see your older post now! It's a Canada thing. You, sir, are no troll!

    26. Re:More content by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      There was a sequel to Titanic? what a dreadful thought!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    27. Re:More content by vgerclover · · Score: 3, Funny

      This time, it's personal!

    28. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have Futrama, also, at one point they had Lost(not sure if they still do). What country are you in?

    29. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see from your other post. Wander why they give you Canadians the shaft? I'm in the US.

    30. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      It's Netflix who are trolling us with their US based advertising yet no decent shows ;)

    31. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Actually... That's not fair to Netflix.

      It is, in all likelihood, Rogers & Bell that won't let Netflix show anything that people WANT to watch. For if they did that, they would lose customers (Me for one!).

      Rogers and Bell are the fault of all bad things in Canadian online media :)

    32. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw your reference to a sequel of Titanic, and thought WTF? But it actually has nothing to do with that ship. The name of the ship in that movie is called "Titanic II". Heh.

    33. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit.

      Just figured to check to see if the poster was correct, so I checked to see about Die Hard.
      Die Hard 1 - DVD or instant
      Die Hard 2 - DVD or instant
      Die Hard 3 - DVD or instant
      Die Hard 4 - DVD

      OK, how about Grey's anatomy ?
      2005 - DVD or instant
      2006 - DVD or instant
      2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 - DVD or instant

      You do have to spell correctly though...

    34. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American availability:

      Pulp Fiction: No
      Stargate SG1: Yes
      Stargate Atlantis: Yes
      Dr Who (new): Yes (the current season isn't on there - season 6)
      Top Gear(UK, New): Yes
      House MD: No
      Lost: Yes
      Total Recall: No
      Avatar: No
      Airplane: Yes
      Shrek: No
      Star Wars: No
      Start Trek Series: Yes (I believe every show...even Voyager)
      Die Hard: Yes
      Inception: No
      Crank: No (but Crank 2, yes)
      Family Guy: Yes
      Futurama: Yes (and all the movies)
      Titanic: No (never saw it, never want to)
      Friends: No
      Seinfeld: No
      Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: Yes
      Snatch: No
      Saw: a couple, but not the first one
      The IT Crowd: Yes
      The Backyardigans: Yes
      Special Agent Oso: No (didn't see this at all, is that the right title?)
      Mickey Mouse: No
      Grays Anatomy: Yes
      Kill Bill: No
      Shaun of the dead: No
      Poltergeist: No

      So 14/32 - 43%

    35. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI, here's what it is in the U.S.:

      Pulp Fiction: No
      Stargate SG1: Yes
      Stargate Atlantis: Yes
      Dr Who (new): Yes
      Top Gear(UK, New): Yes
      House MD: No
      Lost: Yes
      Total Recall: No
      Avatar: No
      Airplane: Yes
      Shrek: No
      Star Wars: No
      Start Trek Series: Yes (original, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise)
      Die Hard: Yes
      Inception: No
      Crank: No
      Family Guy: Yes (Seasons 1-7)
      Futurama: Yes
      Titanic: No
      Friends: No
      Seinfeld: No
      Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: Yes
      Snatch: No
      Saw: Yes, but only 6 & The Final Chapter
      The IT Crowd: Yes
      The Backyardigans: Yes
      Special Agent Oso: No
      Mickey Mouse: No
      Grays Anatomy: Yes
      Kill Bill: No
      Shaun of the dead: No
      Poltergeist: No

      So looks like 16/32, about a 50% success rate. Interesting to note some things that were available in Canada weren't available here (like Shaun of the Dead).

    36. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking Star Trek TOS? Because I know Next Generation, Voyager, and DS9 are all on there. Or at least, they were like a month ago when I watched them all.

    37. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it depends on what's available at the given time as content comes and goes. I watched Pulp Fiction on there several months ago and I know that they've had Lost available in the past.

    38. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a US customer. I did a quick check for things you're missing:
      Stargate Atlantis - yes
      Star Trek - all series - yes
      Airplane - yes
      Lost - yes
      Futurama - kiss my shiny metal ass (yes)
      Grey's Anatomy - yes
      Die hard - yes

    39. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head, I can tell you that every Star Trek series is there(Classic, TNG, DS9, Voyager), as well as Family Guy, Futurama, and Dr. Who(old and new) are available for streaming in the US version.

      Those are just the ones I've watched myself, didn't actually check the rest of your list.

    40. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Oh, is it a completely unrelated film? I just assumed it was a sequel lol.

    41. Re:More content by microbee · · Score: 1

      : When it gets to over 50% such that most (i.e. over 50% :) ) of what I am looking for is there, then I will part with my money.

      Yes, but it may not be the same price. In fact, it probably will not be the same price.

      It doesn't matter much how much content is there. It matters whether the existing content is worth the existing price.

    42. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I can only assume you are looking at the US version of Netflix, where they have decent selections?

    43. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Interesting that there are some things on the Canadian Netflix that are NOT on the US one. I had assumed that ours really was just a subset!

    44. Re:More content by billtom · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, Bell and Rogers are evil bastards, but in the Netflix Canada case, it's the Canadian divisions of the major movie/television production companies that are the villians. Like: Sony Pictures Canada, NBCUniversal Canada, etc, etc. (And yes, Bell and Rogers are somewhat involved, but in their role as content owners, not as ISPs.)

      From what I understand, these big multi-national companies are not particularly happy with Netflix US, but they're kind of stuck because they have existing agreements and Netflix US has too many subscribers to ignore.

      But then when it came time for Netflix and the movie/TV production companies to negotiate contracts for Canadian distribution, the productions companies said, "hey, wait, here's our chance to really stick it to Netflix. the Canadian market isn't that big and Netflix doesn't have a big presence there yet."

      So they offered much worse deals to Netflix that Netflix just couldn't afford; or refused to license the content under any terms.

      Basically, the people who own the content copyrights are starving Netflix Canada in hopes that it dies.

    45. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      oops, yeah, what you said :)

    46. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's so much on there though. I've never watched Community; Netflix suggested it to me. Watched it, loved it. Likewise Fantastic Mr. Fox. I liked Twelve Monkeys despite never having heard of it before somehow (gave it a 4/5, which is coincidentally exactly what Netflix said I'd give it), and now it's suggesting Dr. Strangelove as my best bet, which is one I've thought about but never actually watched. The suggestion engine seems to be pretty near spot-on. Try some new stuff out, you might fight something you like.

    47. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I figured it was something like that :(

    48. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Also, I always spell Grey's Anatomy wrong as I always think of a certain book that somewhat predates the TV series :)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray's_Anatomy

    49. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Oh and Special Agent Oso is a kids show. I felt I should include some kiddy offerings as our friends always harp on about how great Netflix is for kids stuff.

      My list has a 33% pass rate on kids stuff, but in its defence, the other 66% was Disney channel which likely does not play anywhere other than Disney Channel.

    50. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      oooh I forgot to check Twelve Monkeys. Love that film. And Brazil! Ohhh it doesn't have Brazil :( Or Bladerunner :( Or the Matrix :(

      It really seems like every time I WANT to see something, NetFlix cannot help.

      Unfortunately I don't have enough spare time to watch new things I have not heard of based on the hunch of a computer :)

    51. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might already know this, but the Top Gear you get on Netflix isn't quite the same Top Gear you get when you watch the broadcast from the BBC...or the rips of the broadcast from the BBC, in my case. I think the biggest change is the music, due to licensing issues, but it's SUCH a difference.

      I compared the Bugatti Veyron vs Cessna race from Series 7, which has an awesome soundtrack, to be sure. Just not quite there.

    52. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      No I did not know that. Imagine if I had parted with my cash to find this out the hard way.

      Looks I like I need to stick to sourcing it via alternative methods then.

    53. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a fucktard?

      >> I wonder what the pass rate is for that list on the USA version. I don't have a US proxy so can't check. I bet it is much higher.

      You are obviously USA. He is not, he probably has a more limited selection than you.

    54. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like He's from outside of the US. Like many content distributors they are only licensed for certain regions. Netflix is primarily a US service, even if they have branched out somewhat.

    55. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, I see a great many of those on my list. Every season of every Star Trek series is available. SG Atlantis all there. Family Guy. Poltergeist. A lot of the others come and go here and there. Avatar was on there for a while.

    56. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Lots of you are missing the fact that I am talking about the Canadian offering on Netflix. Not the USA one. My bet is you are in the USA, right?

    57. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not a troll, he's not in the U.S. as he vaguely states at the bottom. He's in Canada, where selection is limited and streaming is the only option.

    58. Re:More content by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      My cousin is an elementary school teacher. She makes about $80K a year and gets to go off and fuck around Europe all summer long. It's a great deal if you can put up with other people's shitty little kids all day long.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    59. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Netflix has the wrong Bladerunner anyways.

    60. Re:More content by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's even worse - *all* companies providing video content (even those doing PPV VOD, which the studios have no problem with in generall) currently have to negotiate individual contracts for each studio/network in each country.

      If you have ever wondered why so many of the US companies providing streaming content have had such a hard time expanding into other countries... no, it's not translating the software or setting up the CDNs (those are big tasks, but well understood) - it's the f-ing studio contracts.

    61. Re:More content by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      As a note, many school systems offer a different system of pay that teachers can sign up for. Rather than get, say, 36 weeks of pay at ~$833 a week you can elect to get 52 weeks of pay at ~$576 a week. This can make it easier to balance your budget and prevent cashflow problems during the summertime.

    62. Re:More content by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's a bricklayer. My cousin is one. He works like hell 3 seasons a year, then takes the winter off.

      Or an Alaska fisherman, those guys can make around a hundred grand for a few months of extremely grueling (and dangerous) work. Or at least they used to earn that much back in the early nineties, when a guy I know went up there.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    63. Re:More content by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Wait... There was a sequel to Titanic?

      Yup, and it's a beauty!

      A dastardly tycoon builds a cruise ship in Earth orbit and calls it "Titanic II". What only he and the contractor know, without the architect's knowledge, is that pennies were pinched in construction materials, so that crucial safety features are missing.
      To make a long story short, due to a series of malfunctions and human error, on the gala maiden voyage, "Titanic II" crashes into the ISS and its' orbit begins to decay, with not enough escape pods available to all passengers. There's a very dramatic scene when all hell is breaking loose, the architect grabs the dazed tycoon by the lapels of his tux, shakes him and screams "My god, what have you done? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?"

      But anyways, it's really about a geeky girl with a heart of gold and her douchebag Wall Street fiancee, who's given her an unobtanium engagement ring, and...

      Oh lordy, I can't go on with this. But it ends with a zero-g Bollywood dance number, in the steerage compartment.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    64. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      And they wonder why people download stuff illegally...

    65. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Netflix is giving you an opportunity to expand on what you want to watch. There are plenty of great movies and TV shows on there if you look for them.

    66. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been spending the better part of the last two months watching Stargate Atlantis on Netflix. Did you actually check the above list or are you making it up?

    67. Re:More content by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Do you actually use the Canadian Netflix?

    68. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just balance your budget by the year since you know how much you'll be making either way.

    69. Re:More content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, Star Wars isn't available streaming from anyone. I suspect it's a George Lucas issue. You know, Mr. Embracer of Digital.

  2. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Qwikster will be profitable. Oh, wait...

    1. Re:At least... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Qwikster will be profitable. Oh, wait...

      Qwikster could have been profitable. But it's saturated, which would have made it an income stock, not a growth stock. And nobody wants to be an income stock, because it's not sexy. In the long term the Disc by mail will be doomed by changes in 1st class mail. A stamp is going to 45 cents next year. Saturday delivery is doomed. And eventually the USPS will go to alternate day delivery to nearly half the number of carriers and trucks it needs. Redbox will be the way of the future, for the media of the past.

    2. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saturday delivery is doomed. And eventually the USPS will go to alternate day delivery to nearly half the number of carriers and trucks it needs.

      This is hilarious. You're just making things up out of whole cloth. What mental disease possesses you?

    3. Re:At least... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      You're just making things up out of whole cloth. What mental disease possesses you?

      An unnatural fixation on charts and graphs. The one I'm looking at right now is a chart of first class mail volume. If you don't believe me, I have some NFLX to sell you...

    4. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they changed their name back to Amway?

    5. Re:At least... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Same thing seems to be happening in the UK - there was some story about the cap on price increases for first class stamps being removed a couple of weeks back. We already had a change in pricing schemes in the last few years so that postage is no longer a flat rate for envelopes but is based on the size as well as the weight of the envelope. As more retail business moves online I predict we'll see more of this - partly to deal with increased costs (fuel, primarily I guess) but also as more retail stores move their business online the people who deliver the packages have a strong hold on a potentially lucrative sector.

    6. Re:At least... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Red box has no selection.

      Instant play should be the wave of the future- but if they charge more than first class mail, then mailing remains an option. I.e. Stars wanting 1000% more for their content in 1 year.

      Netflix was profitable with disks. It was a great deal with instant play.

      Next thing, it will be $90 a month like other cable stations and not worth the money.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:At least... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The selection problem is solved as soon as someone exploits the fact that a disc burner easily fits in a big-assed kiosk.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:At least... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Except that is large scale commercial copyright infringement. The content companies were already incredibly pissed with redbox/netflix using off the shelf DVD's. Imagine how the would react to something they have an actual complaint about.

    9. Re:At least... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with an income stock as long as it, you know, provides income. Qwikster would need to implement a dividend to entice buyers. I kind of doubt dividends are on the radar for this business anytime soon with the earnings reports they have been releasing. This would make Qwikster the unsexy member of the group of already unsexy income stocks.

    10. Re:At least... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The problem as I understand it is copyright. In the US at least (dunno about other places) copyright only limits copying. So there is no way for the copyright owners to stop kiosk operators buying DVDs/blu-rays and renting them out.

      Whereas a kiosk that burns disk would be at the mercy of copyright holders (just like netflix streaming is).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    11. Re:At least... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      postage is no longer a flat rate for envelopes but is based on the size as well as the weight of the envelope

      Postage was never a flat rate for envelopes, it was always based on weight. They just added dimensions to the critera as well making items that were the weight of a letter but larger in size and/or awkward in shape more expensive to send, presumably because they were a pain to handle (you can't put an awkward shaped package through an automatic sorting machine and if it won't go through the letter box the postman has to ring the doorbell and wait).

      One thing it does do is make places think about not overpacking stuff. You can send a DVD in it's case in a thin padded envelope (which given the tough flexible plastic DVD cases are made out of is plenty of protected) as a "large letter" whereas if you just shove it in some huge box you will probablly end up paying "package" rates.

      As more retail business moves online I predict we'll see more of this - partly to deal with increased costs (fuel, primarily I guess) but also as more retail stores move their business online the people who deliver the packages have a strong hold on a potentially lucrative sector.

      Afaict the biggest problem for post offices is that they have large fixed costs (sending a postman down a street costs about the same regardless of how much he delivers to each address) so as mail volumes go down (and afaict the increase in packages from on-line sales is not enough to make up for the decrease in letters) either the price per item has to go up, the frequency of service has to go down or the government has to make up the difference. Worse increasing the price or decreasing the service can drive mail volume down further.

      Note that the royal mail do not have a monopoly on delivering packages.

      I think in the not too distant future the era of a postman travelling down pretty much every street every day will be gone replaced by some combination of commercial mail services in areas where they make financial sense (business areas), an occasional mail service for non-urgent stuff that has to be sent in paper form and courier services for the rest (and yes sending a letter by courior will be expensive so you will only do it when it absoloutely has to be both fast and on paper).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:At least... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You arent thinking clearly enough.

      If Redbox stuck disc burners in every kiosk, then right from the get-go there will be a lot of folk knocking on their door for access. Redbox would take care of both just-in-time manufacturing AND full scale distribution network for whoever is willing to haggle over percentages above profit. The RIAA would also be standing in line to get a chance to haggle.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Overvalued for 10 years by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anytime I ran any kind of "rational valuation" calculation on NFLX based on subscribers, income, potential for growth, etc. the market seemed to be out-pricing my ideas by a factor of 3 to 7... NFLX has been a very expensive stock for a very long time, I'm surprised it took this long for the bubble to deflate.

    Still a good business model, when they aren't spouting off idiotic ideas about breaking it.

    1. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

      Market imbalances is how money is made in stocks. An overpriced stock that pays no dividend has "short me" written all over it. I am never surprised when a stock falls in line with performance metrics, but I am often surprised at how long it takes before that happens.

      NFLX has been a screaming short for a long time. The service split and price increase was so incredibly harebrained, it's almost as if management wanted to fail.

    2. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imagine the tax cuts they're going to get though!
       
      As I sat at submit, I sadly realized I may get modded insightful rather than funny. :(

    3. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by vought · · Score: 1

      If anyone has ever seen the asinine PowerPoint on the "Netflix culture" (follow their careers link), you'd understand why this company has been screwed for a while.

      A more self-entitled group of assholes is hard to find south of Menlo Park.

    4. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't get called back for that 2nd interview, huh?

    5. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      The service split and price increase was so incredibly harebrained, it's almost as if management wanted to fail.

      The service split and price increase was so incredibly harebrained, it's almost as if management (and their friends) was holding onto a short position that was about to expire.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    6. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Market imbalances is how money is made in stocks.

      Which seems to cause some awfully perverse incentives.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by vought · · Score: 2

      Luckily I am friends with some people who worked there (2/3 have left since) and I'm thankful I didn't pursue the job.

      Anything constructive to add? I maintain that they're wildly self-entitled based on their own 'cultural' guidelines, which led to bad decisions like Qwikster. They're just like Apple in the 90s.

    8. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

      The service split and price increase was so incredibly harebrained, it's almost as if management (and their friends) was holding onto a short position that was about to expire.

      The real uppity-ups are never short. They receive options and free stock to the point where they can never get rid of it all. Part of the justification for ridiculous CEO compensation is that the board never wants the CEO to profit from diminishing the business. Looking at Netflix, you would never know it, but senior management was not short.

      That's not to say that people in middle management didn't know what was happening or how to profit from it. When a company defies common sense as much as Netlflix did, it's usually because senior management dragged middle management kicking and screaming into the quicksand. At the end of the day, scapegoats will be selected from middle management, the uppity-ups will have golden parachutes, and a new owner will try to reverse the stupidity.

    9. Re:Overvalued for 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh, no idea how Netflix looks like (since its so cheap i would probably try it if it was available in my country)
      but now checked https://signup.netflix.com/Jobs
      that you mentioned (one titled "Netflix culture"
      seems very good from standpoint of intelligent/capable employee, i know it would attract me (working for fortune 500, and i am capable to finish amount of work other peers do in 8 hours in maybe half of hour, and since it does not have any benefit for me if i do ten times more work i simply work same as everyone else, place like this with several times more money if i work "full time" would definitely attract me and make me do my best

      If i had my own company and wanted to employ someone i would definitively prefer/like having people Netflix attracted instead of average group where 1 in 10 is "keeper" (for market pay off-course i do not think i would be able to pay them what Netflix says they pay and still earn a lot of money for my private jet)

      when comparing Google, Netflix, and "normal company" i can see as employee this:
        - Google - socialist Sweden/Canada type of environment with a lot of perks, toys, extensive medical, catering ... dream come true for bottom 98% of people, and very nice(not perfect) place to work for top 2%
        - Netflix - capitalist USA get rich or die trying the more you do the more you get rewarded ... dream come true for top 2% of people, very bad place for bottom 98%
        - "normal company" - good enough(not great or perfect)/stable for bottom 98% of people and also people with family (especially girls/females having/planing kids), boring/not incentive-ing enough for top 2% to make them do amount of work they actually could

      sorry for bad English, it is not my primary language, and browser spell-check only goes so far :)

  4. Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who got upset over their subscriptions going up a tiny amount. If those people wanted to protest something really gouging, it'd be the gas prices. Or the costs of medicine. Or fuck, go out and yell at the government or the banks.

    1. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by localman57 · · Score: 2

      Or fuck, go out and yell at the government or the banks.

      Actually, they're doing that. With sit ins, and tents, and pepper spray, and all the fixins...

    2. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who got upset over their subscriptions going up a tiny amount. If those people wanted to protest something really gouging, it'd be the gas prices. Or the costs of medicine. Or fuck, go out and yell at the government or the banks.

      I think it's more that Netflix was valued by investors based on the number of subscribers, but not on the willingness of those subscribers to pay for content. Netflix was a good deal for subscribers, but the stock price didn't reflect that. Investors thought that Netflix would grow into a money-making machine, and when that didn't happen, they split. The reality is that the business model Netflix is using is deflating--the profits are declining since there is so much competition in content delivery. They can only keep their subscribers by continuing a business model that doesn't return what their investors ultimately want. That is a recipe for collapse.

    3. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by hejman08 · · Score: 2

      On what plane of existence is 60% a tiny amount? I was actually a faithful customer since its inception, but raising prices that much out of nowhere when neither service is THAT worth it is probably why most subscribers left.

    4. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by JWW · · Score: 2

      On the plane of existence where if the studios get their way Netflix dies and they implement their own streaming services for $50 / month, or for $3 per movie streamed.

      The studios are incorrect by nearly an order of magnitude with respect to what streaming services should cost. Netflix has set the price level, the studios better start offering them content at rates that let them keep their prices lower than twice the amount they are charging now (yes I will pay twice as much for Netflix, but not 10x).

      Apple set music prices at 99 cents a song when the music industry wanted more (sure they got their 30 cents, but the music industry thought some songs should be 2-4 bucks!). The movie industry is wrong too. What the content idiots have consistently failed to do is set fair prices for the way people want to get their content.

      It is far easier and more desirable for me to stream a movie over Netflix than it is to torrent it!!

      Let me state that a different way. Movie studios, the good news is your privacy problems are solved, the bad news is you content isn't worth what you think it is.

      If the studios succeed in killing Netflix. I will stop watching the big studio movies. Forever.

      Conversely, as Netflix brings in its own original shows, I will be watching.....

    5. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by fotoflojoe · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was the hubris of Reed Hastings and company that drove customers away.

    6. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by DigitalGoetz · · Score: 2

      If you pay a mere pittance for a service, and it goes from that to a paltry sum... it's still cheap. Sure my netflix went from 8 to still under 20, the only basic cable package in my area went from 20 per month in 2001 to it's current 140 per month.
      Netflix may not work for some, but it cant match the greed exhibited by your average local-monopoly cable providers.

    7. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Becasue it was a few dollars. Raising penny candy from a penny to a nickle was a 500% increase!!! OTOH, is was 4 cents more.

      So 60% s a large percentage, it wasn't a large amount of money.

      The issue is they didn't dad anything, AND there is not inflationary justification for the increase.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it was the higher subscription cost.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    9. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Karlt1 · · Score: 0

      On what plane of existence is 60% a tiny amount?

      It's freaking 8 dollars!!!!

    10. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or fuck, go out and yell at the government or the banks.

      Actually, they're doing that. With sit ins, and tents, and pepper spray, and all the fixins...

      And what's that getting them, again? I've yet to see even a hint of any talk of any action.

    11. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And this is why they are going to tank in the UK. Here we have already have Lovefilm, which was recently bought by Amazon UK, and is now an amazon subsidiary. Lovefilm already has a combined disc by post and streaming service. It is already usable on the iPad iPhone ps3 Xbox, and many tvs sold here already have support for Lovefilm.

      And unlike netflix, Lovefilm have recently increased the number of discs you can have each month at no extra cost.

      Competition is primarily blockbusters, who are doing great on there own. I fail to see how Netflix can make it.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    12. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plane of existence where people look at the PRICE, not the percentage. Let's take a look at some things that the increase could buy:
          - Half of a new DVD/Blu-Ray
          - A weekend of Redbox/Blockbuster/Hastings rentals
          - Half a month of WoW
          - 1/5 to 1/10 (or less) of a cable subscription
          - 2-3 lattes, 4-ish energy drinks, or a case of Mountain Dew
          - 1/5 to 1/8 of Skyrim, MW3, or Skyward Sword
          - 8 songs on iTunes
          - A decent cheeseburger

      Apple bitchslapped the music industry so that we're not paying $3/song. Netflix is trying to do the same thing with the movie industry, but all the "60% increase OMG the sky is falling" bullshit isn't helping at all (yes, go stream your $3 movies from Amazon or Hulu, that's exactly what the studios want).

    13. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it was the higher subscription cost.

      At least for me it was a couple of things:

      1) The price increase for a very marginal service (poor selection, poor quality)
      2) Poor selection and poor quality
      3) Netflix acting like a bunch of jerks - it DOES make a difference. Especially when it's easy and trivial to dump them.

      Remember, this isn't your power bill, it's not even cell phone. It's entertainment.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it was the higher subscription cost.

      Not in my case.

      I had cable and Netflix for awhile. I would have kept both, because Netflix was inexpensive enough for me to disregard. However, when what's-his-name told me I should give up a couple of lattes in order to pay him, I immediately decided that I didn't want to do business with him or his company any more.

      I quit Netflix to send a message to them, and every other media company, that they won't get any money from me if they mistreat me.

    15. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Honestly, Netflix isn't going to die. There's a big demand for their service, it's just the movie studios that don't want to cooperate. So Netflix has two competing pressures (one that wants as much money as possible and one that wants to give as little money as possible) and must adjust their market to equalize those pressures. Eventually, Netflix will have all the latest and greatest movies, but you'll end up paying $40/month for it, and they'll regularly break everything in the name of DRM.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    16. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious trolling, but I'll bite.

      I've been with Netflix since the _very_ beginning... and just this week switched to Dish's Blockbuster partnership service.

      Why? Certainly not because I couldn't afford the extra $9 or whatever. It really was more about their general view towards their customers. They have been jerking us around quite a lot over the last year or so... introducing extra fees for blurays, increasing bluray fees, increasing fees in general, talking about splitting the service... then not, etc. Overall it feels like they are taking their customers for granted while they flail around looking for more cash through a different business model.

      It really wasn't the money... it was just the instability. I don't do a ton of streaming... I just want blurays in my mailbox for a reasonable price without all of the price change / business plan change hassle...

    17. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Its getting plenty of pepper spray, batons and jackboots. That gets attention and sympathy (from those who are not psychopaths incapable of real sympathy). In the long run things will change, though we may go through a period of authoritarian fascism first.

    18. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for rational human beings who want to watch movies and TV it wasn't. There is no comparably priced and equivalent service you could have switched to. Therefore you cut off your nose to spite your face. Like a child who smashes his toys so he doesn't have to share.

    19. Re:Netflix pissed off all the whiny brats by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      On the plane of existence where if the studios get their way Netflix dies and they implement their own streaming services for $50 / month, or for $3 per movie streamed.

      $3? Surely you jest!

      I was bored the other night and decided to check out the options/apps that come with my PS3, and lo and behold, they rent HD streams for $5.99 for a decent movie. $4.99 for a shitty one. For RENTING a damned stream.

      That's what the movie companies think is fair -- as long as it's cheaper than a theater price, it's a bargain.

  5. Netflix still in a good position by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They lost a lot of subscribers due to their split-service gap, and they look to be having content issues...

    However, they still seem in a good position to me. The service is fundamentally good, they still have a lot of ratings from users to help determine what content makes sense for them to buy, and (most importantly) they have a LOT of paths into the home - just about any device you can name supports Netflix.

    They are in a rocky spot now but I just can't see who can replace them easily, or even reach the position they currently hold within a year or two.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Netflix still in a good position by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are in a rocky spot now but I just can't see who can replace them easily, or even reach the position they currently hold within a year or two.

      You seem to forget Netflix' existance is allowed solely at the discretion of the MPAA. They're becoming unprofitable right now because the MPAA decided to charge more. They're like the OPEC of the content world. They don't care who lives and who dies, as long as they can keep writing their own paychecks.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Netflix still in a good position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > just about any device you can name supports Netflix

      Linux PC!

    3. Re:Netflix still in a good position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had Netflix for a few years and defected when they decided to raise the price by 60% without any additional service. It really pissed me off when the CEO talked about it being the price of an extra coffee or two for most users. I'd rather have those extra coffees to myself rather than give it to Netflix CEO. Since then they came out with an even dumber idea of splitting to QuickStar!

      Since then they have lost Stars, Sony? so if I were to go back, its for less service than I had before with the increased price! I have tried streaming, and the quality is not there. Its fine to watch on iPad or computer, but when you want to watch on a big screen TV, the quality just sucks. Even worse, the selections on Netflix are very limited and old movies that nobody really wants to watch.

      I've switched over to BlockBusters and enjoy the much newer selection of movies on BlueRay. I can also get exchanges in-store, so this works out much better for me. I dont think streaming is going to help out much in the near future, as the current quality is low and ISP's will start capping or charging more for bandwidth sooner or later.

    4. Re:Netflix still in a good position by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget Netflix' existance is allowed solely at the discretion of the MPAA. They're becoming unprofitable right now because the MPAA decided to charge more.

      That is just a pricing issue though. Netflix have taken those lumps already. As stated, the fundamentals of what they offer (device reach, still lots of content) mean they will survive, and probably thrive since there is no other company in the position they are in, nor will there be for some time due to the very difficulties you mention.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Netflix still in a good position by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      I have tried streaming, and the quality is not there. Its fine to watch on iPad or computer, but when you want to watch on a big screen TV, the quality just sucks

      I watch it on a projector with a 5 foot diagonal. The quality is OK, especially the HD content.

      Even worse, the selections on Netflix are very limited and old movies that nobody really wants to watch.

      If all you are in it for is the movies, it's not enough by itself.

      But what you and many other people seem to be ignoring is the vast amount of TV content - including very good TV content from other sources, like the BBC. Also there is a TON of kids programming, meaning Netflix is well positioned to capture the market of anyone with children... would you say that is a small market?

      Netflix does not have a full range of movies right now, no. But If Netflix can keep expanding at some point top-tier movies not being on Netflix becomes a studio problem more than a Netflix problem.

      I've switched over to BlockBusters and enjoy the much newer selection of movies on BlueRay.

      I still like BluRay discs for some movies myself. But you seem to forget Netflix has this offering already... it would be possibly convenient to be able to return discs to a Blockbuster store if so many of them were not closed.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is why people should not be so quick to get rid of physical media. Physical media is personal property and comes with first sale rights and a large group of diverse sellers. You can buy just what you need, pay the market price for it, and find a 3rd party willing to sell it to you.

      You don't have to put up with any of this "it's their content, they should be able to exclude you" kind of nonsense.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jythie · · Score: 1

      If they had kept Starz, they would have had a MUCH larger increase in price...

    8. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Also there is a TON of kids programming

      Which might be limited to 2 seasons out of 10, or similar such nonsense.

      Then stuff "expires" and you can't watch it anymore.

      Netflix streaming is like a single independent local broadcaster that might have a lot of diverse things but might have nothing that you actually want to watch.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Netflix still in a good position by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to put up with any of this "it's their content, they should be able to exclude you" kind of nonsense.

      Except it's probably infested with DRM. This is one reason why I still buy more DVDs than Blu-Rays, since DVD DRM is pretty much dead.

    10. Re:Netflix still in a good position by delinear · · Score: 1

      There's a trade off for a lot of people though - the convenience of getting content at a price you're happy with versus the hassle of getting the torrent for free. Mess around with the price of the former and the hassle of the latter suddenly starts to look like less of a barrier. If the MPAA succeed in killing off Netflix they'll just foster a whole new bunch of downloaders (conversely they could try dropping prices still further and see if their uptake soars as people feel it's less risky to take a punt on their content, but that seems like far too radical thinking for the MPAA).

    11. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Is the mail portion of Netflix no longer profitable? The MPAA can do nothing to stop Netflix. The only thing they can do is make a deal, they sell DVDs to Netflix for cheaper prices and Netflix doesn't make them available for 30 day or whatever.

    12. Re:Netflix still in a good position by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Linux is not a device. The computer itself is the device. The computer will run Netflix just fine as long as you load the right software on it. You complaining that it won't run on a Linux PC, is the same as me complaining that it won't work on my Nokia Symbian phone. Sure it would be nice, but I realize that it will probably never happen because the market for people with Symbian phones is just too small.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    13. Re:Netflix still in a good position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MPAA can do nothing to stop Netflix.

      Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of a naive idealist who has yet to experience the full range of connections, money, power, and entrenchment of the MPAA. Delectable. Simply exquisite.

      We don't get many of you around here these days. Thanks for stopping by. I'll pop some Hollywood-Fried Reality in the oven for later. It'll be topped with your crushed dreams and pureed utopian ideas, seasoned with just a hint of your bitter, bitter tears as you realize the truly Lovecraftian horror that IS the movie studios your blue-sky world is up against. Haven't enjoyed a dish like that in a while.

    14. Re:Netflix still in a good position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you claim to know why they are going to be unprofitable?

      The article says that they PLAN on being unprofitable for the first two quarters of 2012. It says that this is because they are making very big investments (taking on risk).

      Please cite your source for the MPAA charging more. I didn't realize the MPAA charged at all. I thought the studios / distributors handled that. I understand your hate, but making false claims doesn't really help your argument.

    15. Re:Netflix still in a good position by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Which might be limited to 2 seasons out of 10, or similar such nonsense.

      Then stuff "expires" and you can't watch it anymore.

      The problem is far worse with any other system - but it doesn't matter as much with kids programming because you find something else. It's not like offering Lost without the first two seasons... how much backstory is there to catch up on with the Teletubbies!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    16. Re:Netflix still in a good position by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      They're becoming unprofitable right now because the MPAA decided to charge more.

      They're unprofitable because their business is a pure middleman strategy, and the content creators are discovering ways that don't go through Netflix to get people to watch their movies, and Netflix distribution is a losing proposition from the perspective of for most commercial producers.

      The only people that made real money off instant queue -- people who made streaming sales that didn't replace a DVD sale or rental passthru revenue -- were people who owned the rights to long-tail content that required no advertising and had zero marginal cost (like Criterion and the studios' various classic TV franchises, or my personal favorite, cable series that had zero DVD viability, like "How it's Made".) Distributors like Starz, who made expensive original content, called Netflix what it was, a gyp.

      I work with a lot of independent filmmakers and they consider the Netflix distribution process a joke, there's no money in it, but they're obliged to give it a try if only to catch the occasional random viewer, in effect using Instant Queue as a marketing channel.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    17. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That's only true of the streaming service. For the DVD service the MPAA can't touch them because they just buy retail discs in bulk and mail them to you. That was the real beauty of Netflix: They weren't in bed with the studios and could instead focus on what the customer wanted. However the streaming service changed that, and it's a cancer that is killing Netflix. Unless they can somehow manage to get fair treatment from the MPAA (after killing off their lucrative DVD sales market) the streaming service is doomed and could drag the whole company down with it.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    18. Re:Netflix still in a good position by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Netflix is the reason I have a Virtualbox VM running Windows XP on my machine.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    19. Re:Netflix still in a good position by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      It's not that it would have cost more necessarily, it's that Starz wanted to be a premium service for for which the subscriber paid more, at their option. Netfilx, probably correctly, saw this was unworkable and would have ruined the Instant Queue user experience, and Starz/Liberty Media, probably correctly, saw that their content was being sold at a discount to it's value, give what people are willing to spend on Starz content on pay cable, even though it's less convenient. But now Starz is starting its own streaming service, which will probably be better for everybody -- Starz can charge whatever price it pleases, and reap the rewards (or endure the consequences) of that, and Netflix doesn't have to change its pricing.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    20. Re:Netflix still in a good position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching netflix is not necessarily giving up on physical media and the price delta makes it a no-brainer. The price of a single new blu-ray movie could pay for 2-3 months of Netflix. So at the cost of 4 new blu-ray movies a year, you could have ~1 year of netflix. Moreover, if there is a movie I really really like I will go buy the blu-ray.

      I can do both.

    21. Re:Netflix still in a good position by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Netflix is also somewhat dependent on their customer's ISP to pass the service through. With current and future consolidations this may no longer be something that is all that helpful for cable companies to effectively "sponsor". Which they are currently.

      There is a serious change coming as well. Netflix streaming works fine in the US in early-adopter mode. There is plenty of bandwidth to go around when 10 people in a neighborhood are watching some sort of streaming video content at around 5-6Mb/sec. However, most neighborhoods are served by a node with around 1000 homes connected to it. The node might have as much as a 3Gb/sec feed. Divide 3Gb/sec by 1000 and you get around 3Mb/sec possible if nearly all of the homes are streaming. Goodby streaming HD content, it's been nice.

      Can the cable systems upgrade to supply HD streaming to every house? Maybe. Cox in Phoenix is moving to 500 homes at 3Gb/sec feeds to their nodes, but it is taking them a long time to get there. They also have it pretty easy in Phoenix, whereas say in Chicago it would probably be a lot tougher to do.

      The important note for Netflix is that if everyone in a neighborhood tried to watch Netflix streaming, everyone would be looking at huge delays and lots of "buffering". It gets worse if a small number of homes are trying to watch two streams. Netflix got a reprieve when they increased the price but they are competing with Hulu, Crackle and every other streaming content provider.

      The last time the cable companies substantially changed the infrastructure they went from analog to digital distribution and needed to increase the number of nodes a lot. It took around 15 years for this to happen nationwide. I wouldn't expect much less than 10 years for the next big upgrade. Netflix, Hulu and the rest are a brief fad and cannot survive mass adoption.

    22. Re:Netflix still in a good position by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Works on Boxee Box (not linux boxee software) and Roku, which is linux-based.

      There are lots of articles online about how to rip streaming netflix shows using windows, so my hunch is that Reed Hastings' seat on the Microsoft board is hindering a Linux Netflix client.

    23. Re:Netflix still in a good position by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That is just a pricing issue though. Netflix have taken those lumps already

      And if netflix survives at the current pricing level what is stopping the content owners for cranking up the price again at the next renegotiation to force them back into losing money?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    24. Re:Netflix still in a good position by fferreres · · Score: 1

      My kid watches Dora now. He will move to something else in a year. I only need one hour a day of content I want to carefully feed to my children. I don't like the TV. Just the commercials are a risk, and not being available exactly were I want the content (tablet? phone?), and when I want it, is also a downside for the cable companies. For me the comparison is more like:

      Cable:
      - Pay $50 or more in cash
      - Bundle with Internet and phone so switching cost is higher
      - Try to lock me into something that will pike next year
      - Make $20 more on ads that cost me $300 for what my time is worth (if i where a coach potato)

      Netflix
      - Pay $22 (2+Streaming)
      - Get 10-12 movies a month blu ray to watch on 120" screen/projector
      - Get enough good content for kids / 1 hour a day at most
      - Instant Play lesser know movies that I would have never bought, experience on cinema or rented (and that in many cases where great finds)
      - Instant Play movies I wanted to watch, maybe 15% of what I would like but for $8 a month who cares (I would pay more for better movies, even if no blockbusters are to be found, just get the underdogs in)
      - Avoid buying DRMs movies locked to 1 software (like Vudu)

      Now, I do see problems because there's no throttle like the mail service has. There should be. people consuming more, contribute less per movie or show. And the studios do not like the prospect of a Netflix that is growing and cannot command more rates per view. I say By Mail worked because (among other things) it had a limit. If I could have 5,000,000 at a time at $8 a month (say having all movies released on DVD/BR that Netflix has by Mail), as a studio, I would say this is not sutainable and Netflix is a dead end for me content creator. But at options like 8, 15, 22 and 30 a month for $8, $15, $22 and $30 a month, then as a studio, I would say then maybe this model is viable. And if Netflix shares a % of that, some studios will see more value, and more content avaiable. After all, it's better to have 5x the sales at 50% the price to the user, than 1x at 100%.

      Will the 22 million users that Netflix has buy that model? I would if they have a very generous selection to pick from. Many would not. But it would be the equivalent of the Mail service that I like so much. They could charge me more for HD streaming as well (like Blu ray costs a bit more). Some people do not use it, so why charge them more? All in all, I hope Netflix does well AND does the right thing. The alternative is the "good" old $3 per movie rental, $12-25 per movie (with incompatible DRM systems that may disappear tomorrow) or the proven "channel" approach full of ads by the cable companies. If would prefer the Netflix 2.0 I described.

      Anyway, for now, Netflix is the best option for me and ...Verizon, I am sending the DVR back in about a month and may look at switching internet provider if not offered something reasonable.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    25. Re:Netflix still in a good position by tgeek · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. I'm pretty sure the discs you get in the mail are licensed to Netflix under very specific terms. Once that license runs out, it would be quite reasonable to presume the discs no longer under license couldn't be rented out any longer. You may be thinking of the old mom-n-pop business model where once they had purchased a VHS tape they could re-rent it as many times as they liked until the tape failed. The studios hated that. In fact I recall hearing a radio piece back in the late 80's/early 90's regarding a new type of tape technology that could only be played a fixed number of times until it became unplayable. The studios were drooling over this way to stick it to the mom-n-pop shops. Had Blockbuster not become as successful as it did with it's licensing and per rental payments back to the studios, this technology probably would have been pursued more vigorously. Unfortunately for the mom-n-pops, they were going under either way.

  6. Obligatory Oatmeal reference by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Funny

    They had it coming. Oatmeal Netflix parody:

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/netflix

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      To be more fair, and what a lot of people seem to forget is this. Their original price was for mail only, then they added streaming for free. Later they decided that wasn't viable and split the two, charging two different rates for the two separate products. To use the hamburger analogy from the comic you linked to. It's like the hamburger restaurant selling hamburgers for $X. They they start giving away free milkshakes with the hamburgers for $X. Then, they find out the price of milkshakes skyrockets because the milk cartel didn't like people getting free milkshakes, so they split the services, and now they go back to selling hamburgers at $X-Y, and have a different place to sell milkshakes at $X-Z. Sure you end up paying more if you want both, but what you forget is that the milkshake was thrown in for free at some point, and that you got a lot of free milkshakes out of it. Also, in this analogy, you should be angry at the Milk Cartel who raised their rates, not the people selling burgers and milkshakes, because they don't have ultimate control over all the pricing.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An Oatmeal link. Well, there goes all my productivity.

    3. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by delinear · · Score: 1

      A lot of people were upset that they were now expected to pay for something that they previously got for free, but what really turned that disappointment into anger was the condescending way that they played the PR game. "Sure, our prices have gone up, but only by the cost of a couple of coffees", suggesting that people's complaints were warrantless. What they should have done was played it straight, pointed out what people had been getting for free, pointed out all the costs involved on their side, the non-viability of that business model etc - it would still have gone down like a lead balloon but there would have been far less genuine disgust on the part of their customers. We're used to prices going up, what we don't like is smug CEOs telling us to stop whining and take it (note, I'm not a Netflix customer, they've only just appeared over here, but this is what I observed of the situation at the time).

    4. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^This. Whoever allowed their CEO to go on the record saying all of that nonsense should be fired.

    5. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not exatly a valid comparison. They "gave it away" to lure customers thru bait and switch. Once you get hooked, then start charging. The same as the free give aways .coms did to get eyeballs. I watched a few movies occasional while it was free, but never enough justify paying anything over $1. It was a nice to have in case you wanted to see a pixilated movie and thats just it. They could have given a discount to the existing customers, but the greed and arrogance got to them.

    6. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by microbee · · Score: 2

      In that case you shouldn't care about the extra charge, since you don't have to have the service.

      Your complaint WOULD be valid if they bundled the two and didn't give you a choice to only get the mail only option.

    7. Re:Obligatory Oatmeal reference by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Reminder to Myself: Mod Up if I get Mod Points Later On

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  7. I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead moves by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I understood when they had to raise prices. The studios have gotten crazy greedy on the whole streaming thing and their costs have gone through the roof. Netflix streaming is still BY FAR the best deal around. You can watch the entire runs of shows like Battlestar Galactica (original AND new, even 1980), The X-Files, Twin Peaks, Firefly, Family Guy, etc (many of them in HD, no less). Nothing else even comes close to the selection or quality of Netflix's streaming library.

    But I'm a lot LESS sympathetic with some of their bonehead moves--like trying to separate their by-mail/streaming divisions with annoying separate websites and queues (a move destined to serve little purpose other than pissing off loyal customers like me) and paying $40 million for a bunch of shitty Dreamworks streaming rights (a move that's only going to encourage the greed of the other studios in the future).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Good luck Netflix by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They face very stiff competition from other companies with much deeper pockets, so they are going to have it tough for a while. I like Netflix (their latest snafu with splitting the DVD rental / streaming plans didn't affect me - I'm streaming only), and as a technophile, I'm pleased that they have gone to great lengths to support such a diverse range of hardware. A lot of companies wouldn't have bothered with Wii, XBox, Android, etc. Netflix's decision to split off their DVD rental was simply waaaaay too early. That is an inevitability of course - anyone with the least bit of foresight can see that demand for physical media is going to drop off a great deal in the near future. However, Netflix must provide a mechanism to bolster the streaming support since the movies offered online are so hit and miss, and the only choice is DVD for now.

    Take Lord of the Rings for example. Did you know that you can watch The Two Towers online, but not the first or third movies? Now what in the world is that about??? As long as that sort of garbage is going on, customers need a single unified interface and billing to get movies in whichever format is available.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Good luck Netflix by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Damn this computer. I accidentally modded this redundant instead of insightful. Posting to undo.

      While I'm at it, I really have to agree here. I feel bad for Netflix because I know it isn't entirely their fault. The studios are really screwing them over and quite frankly it's almost criminal what they're doing at this point. God forbid they give reasonable pricing and just let us have what we want. No, they need to make 10x as much money while the number of people willing to pay for these ridiculously limited services dwindles (selection sucks because of their shitty contract deals). The greed of Hollywood rears its ugly head once again. Your Lord of the Rings example perfectly illustrates what a steaming pile of shit the negotiation and contract thing is. I honestly can't decide if they actually want more money from Netflix or if they're just trying to kill them off.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    2. Re:Good luck Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      customers need a single unified interface and billing to get movies in whichever format is available

      it's called UV

    3. Re:Good luck Netflix by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      Take Lord of the Rings for example. Did you know that you can watch The Two Towers online, but not the first or third movies? Now what in the world is that about???

      The Two Towers was released in that tiny window when New Line Cinema was under AOL-Time Warner's corporate umbrella instead of Time Warner proper, which controlled New Line when the first and third movie were released. During the time AOLTW ran the distribution for Warner Bros and New Line, they were much more aggressive about getting the production people and rightsholders to agree to online distribution, and at the time the terms they could get for this were much more favorable, because nobody knew how much money was involved

      On the first film, nobody probably thought to ink an online distribution agreement with the producers; on the second, it was easy to get one that didn't pay New Line and Wingnut much at all, so it's still economical to rent it on Netflix; on the third, Peter Jackson knew what the game was and probably refused to take a cheap deal, the sort of deal that would allow TW to show the film on Instant Queue profitably.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  9. Tivo Redux by localman57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here we go again. Netflix (streaming) is going to follow the same path as Tivo. Innovate at the beginning, then get to a point where you have trouble growing your audience. Then bigger companies, such as the cable companies, come in with a comparable product, and eat your lunch, because they already have a relationship with the customer, and deeper pockets than you which will help them bid up content license prices. This makes the streaming side of NFLX negative growth in the middle term, as they have the same problem in other countries, despite their efforts to expand.

    The disk mailing side of the company is already saturated from a customer base side. Increasing postal rates and the eventual end to saturday delivery will make the service less viable. Eventually the postal service will go to every-other-day delivery of first-class mail, in order to reduce the number of carriers and mail trucks by 30 to 40 percent. The disk mailing side of NFLX is therefore a revenue stock now (with that revenue being eatten by the streaming side), and negative growth in the future. Sell...

    1. Re:Tivo Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Eventually the postal service will go to every-other-day delivery of first-class mail

      Not this nonsense again. Holding-back half of the mail for a day just means that the USPS would need more warehousing, and more operatives to stack and de-stack that mail, and less efficient routes for the delivery vehicles because they have to drive past off-day locations to reach on-day locations.

      The same number of vehicles would be required because the same volume of mail would be delivered each day.

      It would not benefit them in any way and would probably add cost. The current mail delivery system is predicated on not backing-up vast quantities of mail anywhere in the system.

    2. Re:Tivo Redux by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Holding-back half of the mail for a day just means that the USPS would need more warehousing, and more operatives to stack and de-stack that mail

      True, there is a cost of holding mail. But the current resources would be sufficient when mail volume drops in half. The USPS is not continuous delivery. They hold your mail now for up to 1 day. Eventually, they'll hold it for up to two days. They also hold mail now on Sundays, which doesn't seem to be causing them too much trouble. They actively want to eliminate saturdays.

      less efficient routes for the delivery vehicles because they have to drive past off-day locations to reach on-day locations.

      Only if you don't understand operations management. You wouldn't do something stupid like even/odd addresses, side of the street, etc. You'd segment by entire neighborhoods around your hub (post office) to minimize non-delivery distance. Take a look at the way that the sanitation department runs garbage trucks. Like the post office, they all start out from one hub, and use the same trucks to cover multiple routes. The number of trucks, number of employees, and number of routes is based upon the volume of garbage generated, and how long you're willing to let it sit.

      The same number of vehicles would be required because the same volume of mail would be delivered each day.

      That's the rub. It won't be the same volume of mail every day. It's dropping every year. We may see a bump some year in the future, but don't read it as a recovery of the post office; it will be a return to economic normal, as the past few years have deteriorated faster than expected due to a slow economy.

      It would not benefit them in any way and would probably add cost. The current mail delivery system is predicated on not backing-up vast quantities of mail anywhere in the system.

      The quantities will not be vast in the future... Mail volume is dropping every year. When it gets to half of what it is now, expect to see alternate day delivery.

    3. Re:Tivo Redux by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sure, assuming mail volumes don't go down.

      And given that they have gone down by 20% in five years that isn't a good assumption.

  10. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hi grub, nice to see you haven't given up the shtick.

  11. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, removing my mod. It was OK until he started talking about subluxions.

  12. Netflix GoogleTV API? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I want to ride the wave of Netflix serving content at a loss for my own profit. Is there an example (preferably Eclipse) Google TV project demonstrating an app that accesses the Netflix catalog and streaming content?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  13. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by cjcela · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I agree people in the US should in general exercise more, I do not think you can regulate people's lives with a tax increase. People getting to exercise requires a change of attitude, values, and likely education, not more taxes. Ask yourself how many smokers stopped smoking because of the tobacco tax, or how many heavy drinkers stopped drinking because of alcohol tax - it just does not work like that. Netflix is positive in which it gives you the choice of what to watch, and you do not have to endure commercials, which arguably have a worse effect on people than the movies themselves.

  14. Netflix is great for active people by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that Bob is a regular troll here, but I'm a sucker and will respond anyway.

    As an active individual I have no desire to adjust my life around a television schedule, nor pay $50+ a month for a cable service that I rarely use. Cutting that expense to $8 a month makes much more sense for a casual TV/movie consumer. It allows me to not worry about getting "behind" in a series as I can watch it at my own pace, and leave the house at any time without concern about what I am missing. It allows me to have down time when I need it (and as you should very well know, having relaxing time is very important for physical and mental health).

    1. Re:Netflix is great for active people by PortHaven · · Score: 0

      Just do what I do...

      Watch Netflix during you 2-3 hour daily commuter drive. Seriously, watching old Star Trek re-runs is a lot easier than texting while driving.

      You should try it sometime!

    2. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Aye.

      I exercise a lot and average watching less than an hour of Telly a day... probably quite a bit less than an hour.

      The only reason I do watch television ever is to spend time with the wife and kids- otherwise we're all off in different directions.

      Experts recommend you take some time to relax and don't spend all the time on the go. $8 a month is a good price for the casual TV watcher who doesn't need/want to be watching all the time.

      You can subscribe to netflix and be a healthy individual who is not a couch potato.

      Disclaimer: not currently a netflix owner- waiting for current cable subscription to run out first so I'm not paying for two services when I hardly watch one.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      The only people in 2011 who live around a television schedule are elementary school kids who haven't figured out how to use their parents dvr yet.

      Netflix is great don't get me wrong, but TV has a lot more like... sports, news -- pretty lame, and movies that aren't on netflix or in my case movies on tv that are ONLY on dvd on netflix, which I don't pay the extra $8 for.

      P.S. google dvr

    4. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's actually illegal http://www.mnsportcompacts.net/forum/showthread.php?51865-Is-it-Illegal-to-watch-a-video-while-driving

      if it's built in you'd have to illegally mod it to not pay attention to the car start / stop, there's an extra wire that does this in car dvd players.

      Have I ever known anybody to get a ticket for this? No... still best not to give a reason.

    5. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not everybody who commutes is behind the steering wheel.

    6. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You pay almost as much per month for a DVR as you do for a Netflix service (unless you build your own) - DVRs actually seem a bad price to me.

      Sports and News is all available for free (in most cases) online- at least any game I've wanted to watch I've been able to locate a free stream for.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Netflix is great for active people by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Netflix is not going to replace an 'overpriced cable service'.

      You're just kidding yourself if you think it can.

      An antenna and a Tivo would probably be more effective.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Netflix is great for active people by crakbone · · Score: 2

      Some people listen to it while driving instead of watching as well.

    9. Re:Netflix is great for active people by frozentier · · Score: 1

      It allows me to not worry about getting "behind" in a series as I can watch it at my own pace, and leave the house at any time without concern about what I am missing. It allows me to have down time when I need it (and as you should very well know, having relaxing time is very important for physical and mental health).

      People have been able to do that since around 1980 with the VCR.

    10. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm aware you can build your own.

      If you have a spare $200-300 laying around to build a system.

      At $5 a month that takes 40 to 60 months to break even- not to mention extra power consumption that would take for an always on device- although new HTPCs save a lot of money on those. Even if you have an old PC you can convert- the older ones were power hogs and would cost you a couple bucks a month just to run.

      Most people would break even with time- and it's worth it to upfront money so the cable company can't extend your bum hole- but still, when you can get a Roku for $50 (or use a Blu-ray, Wii, etc that has built in support)- netflix isn't $8 a month more than a DVR.

      For most people, who are bending over for uncle cable company, the difference in price is minimal.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Lol, I must be talking to a non-IT person here, which is rare on this site, but here you go dude, let me break it down for you.

      1. you don't need a separate computer
      2. you need something like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815100049 at under $100, if you can't / don't want to do HDMI divide that cost by 2 for analog connections. Notice the IN & the OUT connectors. Find free software, though I hear the paid stuff is much nicer, I wonder if VLC can do this? :)

      Kind of, might have to play w it to do it direct, http://www.ehow.com/how_7162998_save-comcast-dvr-pc.html

      Seriously the reason I DONT do this is cause i can watch netflix on any device anywhere, not so w the dvr unless I want to set up a media server kind of app which to me on the trade off is worth $8 a month, not $16 though.

    12. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was responding to someone who said "watching old Star Trek re-runs is a lot easier than texting while driving." It's pretty clear he's driving while watching TV.

    13. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You need a computer to put that card into!!!!!!!

      How many people have a computer sitting in their living room next to their television.

      I must not be talking to an IT person ;) so let me break it down for you.

      1) Regular PCs use quite a bit of power- after the Telly, the heating and major appliances- it's the biggest power hog in the average house. You will use several dollars a month just running one- especially older ones.

      So unless you buy an HTPC- you'll be pouring money out that way in a hidden cost.

      Sure you can turn PC off when not in use- but if you're using it as a DVR this would be a major pain- and I know I couldn't stand waiting 2 mins before sitting down to watch television.

      2) Regular PCs have fans that make more noise than you would like to have in the same room as your television anyway

      Again - you want an HTPC so you don't hear fans running along during your TV shows.

      So you're looking at a couple hundred dollars.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    14. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My son was in the first grade when he figured out how to use our DVR. Had to have a talk with him about why he couldn't just record every program that he wanted to without asking Mommy and/or Daddy. Not sure even elementary school kids live by TV schedule anymore.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      Let's just assume (or hope like hell) that PortHaven is joking.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    16. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends where your at. I get 2 channels, and ones Spanish.

    17. Re:Netflix is great for active people by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

      I'm loving the Star Trek Reruns on Netflix too!

      --
      An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    18. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      AppleTV - $99 for a standalone streaming device (Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo in addition to Apple Store content)

    19. Re:Netflix is great for active people by evilviper · · Score: 1

      As an active individual I have no desire to adjust my life around a television schedule, nor pay $50+ a month for a cable service that I rarely use. Cutting that expense to $8 a month makes much more sense

      You do realize you can put up an antenna, don't you? $0 a month.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yup- and Roku is cheaper and gets better reviews.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      The only issue is the initial cost for an HTPC vs the ongoing rental costs for a DVR box. Power consumption is not a factor. I'm not saying don't worry about power consumption at all though. I had a DVR box from the local cable company. I plugged it into a power consumption meters at the outlet. The DVR used ~40 W of power constantly. This was whether it was "On" or "Off". Modern DVRs are in fact always on devices. They have to be to monitor if they need to start recording a show. When the box was actually turned on to watch something on the TV an extra ~3 W was used. I think it's very possible to get an HTPC that consumes that amount of power. In addition, if the HTPC uses comparable power to a cable DVR it would have comparable cooling requirements and comparable fan noise.

      It would take a couple of years for the $8/month box fee to be more than the couple hundred for the HTPC, but if you are in an area with good broadcast signals, you could drop the cable completely, buy an HTPC for over air broadcast DVR, get netflix or a Roku box for additional content and be way ahead due to not paying for 200 cable channels that won't get watched. If we had ala carte cable pricing it would be a different story.

    22. Re:Netflix is great for active people by adolf · · Score: 1

      Right. And some people look at Playboy just for the articles.

    23. Re:Netflix is great for active people by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      True...

      So much is illegal these days.I keep getting fines for stupid stuff (e.g. I: window gets cracked and replaced, gets cracked again, natural disaster hits region, I fail to get my stickers replaced in the required 5 days. $110 fine. e.g. II: dumpster diving, get arrested.)

      So I've decided. I want to do more illegal things. And hopefully someday, I'll be penalized for something that is actuall "wrong".

      Our legal system loves to throw people in prison for victimless crimes. A friend's youth group member got threatened with a year in prison. His horrible crime? Got pulled over for expired registration. Immediately fixed the problem the very next day. Due to a computer glitch regarding his name. It never got reported properly. Then due to the same glitch he never received notice that his license was suspended. Nor received notice for a summons in court. And because the state's computer system was !@#$% up, the DA wanted to give this decent kid a year in prison.

      Mind you, one of our company's employee's was recently robbed and shot by a man just released from prison. Ironically, man was just released from prison for armed robbery. He served 9 months (time-served) of a 10 year sentence.

      Why is it America's legal system wants to throw good people in prison. And constantly releases the bad ones.

      I am being inspired to become a criminal. They don't seem to be prosecuted as harshly. ;-)

    24. Re:Netflix is great for active people by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Oh, well there is his problem.

      The display screen in order to be safe must be directly in the driver's view. Otherwise it's extremely dangerous as it will draw the driver's eyes away from the road.

      However, a small screen like an iPhone held directly in front of the driver's view is fairly innoculous. I've found that I still maintain a strong view of the road, and have full peripheal vision.

      I found if I set the screen to the side of my view on the center console that it posed a significant risk.

      (Give it a try, test for yourself. You may be surprised.)

      In fact, from this experiment I have realized that all of our new automobiles with navigation systems are dangerous. They're designed wrong.

      The navigation display should actually be on the wheel or the dash directly in front of the driver. This will improve safetly dramatically. (More akin to the use of a HUD display.)

    25. Re:Netflix is great for active people by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      100,000+ miles while talking on the cell = zero accidents.

      ST: Original Series + 1st season TNG = zero accidents.

      ---

      Ironically, I did have to stop watching the other day. A mini-van was swerving all over the road. I followed the van across half the county waiting for the police to respond to my 9-1-1 call. Having commented that there could be children in the mini-van.

      Flashing them every time they moved to the edge of the road or toward a car. Prevented about 6 accidents. Apparently, the bored police were uninterested in responding to the call and protecting the passengers of the weaving vehicle or the other cars on roads.

      *sighs*

      It's not about safety, it's about harvesting fines $$$ for the county.

    26. Re:Netflix is great for active people by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Good point, there is some logic behind this though,

      think about it, a crime by definition is the breaking of a law, a law is made by society. Thereby committing a crime has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with going against society. If we could justify murder as a society, it would not be a crime in an extreme case. However, obviously our instincts repulse us at the idea (well most of us anyways). So when we apply this to the legal system, the "bad" people will know the system and work it. Robbing a house and robbing a house with a gun are two different categories of offense for example. Scoping and robbing an old lady doesn't require a gun so why risk the penalty? On the other side you have people trying to live their lives who through circumstance or bad luck get tangled w the system and have no idea what to do cause they haven't spent a life time trying to circumvent it. Money helps get those that can but 90% of the time it isn't available, thus the "good" person goes to prison / jail. This is why so many people say our legal system is f'ed up (well one of many), fixing it would require a truly gargantuan effort.

  15. Two OK Ideas by AdamJS · · Score: 1

    That turned to crap by pursuing both at once.

    Netflix had ALWAYS planned to ditch their DVD service in favor of streaming; the original idea was to be done by 2007.
    But the general infrastructure did not progress as fast as had been forecasted.
    So divesting themselves of their DVD side was the logical progression. Except that their entire plan was ill-formulated and just altogether sloppy. Poorly timed, too, considering their loss of Starz and such.

    Raising fees to accomodate the general paradigm shift - where the majority of their consumers and money were now mostly only streaming - was also smart. It was, on the whole, much more profitable and growth-sustaining even with a very, very modest assumption of potential customer losses.

    But doing both of these very large "PR-disasters in the making" within such close proximity of each other?
    Jesus, that's a special level of incompetence right there.

  16. Too bad, cable needs competition by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    I think they have a couple problems. First their library isn't great. It's $8 a month for all the b movies you can watch. They'd be better off raising the prices and consistently having new movies in stock. Indeed, I hope they are going unprofitable to get more content.

    I think their second problem is that if you have cable, your On Demand is probably as good as Netflix and if you get a premium channel, it comes with an On Demand that blows Netflix out of the water.

    I wish Netflix was going to give the cable companies a run for their money. I think it would be great if the service provider wasn't so tied to the content providers, but I guess Netflix isn't in a position to take them on at this time.

    1. Re:Too bad, cable needs competition by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Calling bullshit on this one.

      Netflix has tons of first-class television programming (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead) and is going to produce new episodes of Arrested Development on its own dime. Lots of incredible documentaries from National Geographic et al, as well as a huge selection of movies (both good and bad).

      I have looked at the offerings available on cable on-demand systems and they do not begin to approach the level of programming available on Netflix. You get a few recent episodes of television shows and a smattering of movies, many of which you have to rent on a pay-per-view basis.

    2. Re:Too bad, cable needs competition by DigitalGoetz · · Score: 1

      I think the problem also arises that many of the newer content that Netflix may want, is in some manner owned (either via corporate connections or already outbid streaming licenses) by the cable companies. They, in turn, want to kill off Netflix and feed their own streaming services. All in all, I do like netflix and it's pricing scheme (even the new cost increase is affordable) but I simply can't see them outlasting the deep-pocketed Cable companies.

      Either they'll dwindle in numbers of subscribers or simply be bought outright, we'll be paying 50+ for the same service Netflix provides right now in a few years time.

  17. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by arkane1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Buddy, I watch netflix for the 2 hours I have to watch a movie between errands, work, and sleep.
    It's not a lot to ask, and I'll be damned if I'll have someone with your attitude treating it like I'm doing something wrong.
    Fuck you.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  18. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Folks, it's a measly $8/month for unlimited TV and movies.
    How enticing is that? You know what's even cheaper? GETTING OFF YOUR BUTTS
    AND MOVING! Instead of asking the family "What do you want to watch
    tonight?" ask "Where should we walk to tonight?"

    You know, when I get home from work in the winter, it's dark, and usually cold. I do like to get the kids out when I can, but pushing it against the dark and cold leads to sick kids as often as not. And, so, then, we can hop in the auto and pop round to, well, where? The shopping mall? A restaurant? Just the petrol cost will dwarf $8/month.

    Golden Girls quote: "What did we do before we sat around like dolts staring at the Television?" "Oh, I remember when I was a kid, we sat around like dolts staring at the Radio."

    Get a hobby, build a workshop, wash your dishes by hand and mop the floor - yeah, these are all good alternatives, but for the hours between 6 and 10pm, there's not a lot of decent outdoor activity available in the winter.

  19. Netflix Did It Wrong by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Netflix clearly wants to get out of the DVD business and into the more profitable streaming-only business. Netflix could have just raised its streaming+DVD prices a little for a little while, say +$2 for 6 months. Then started charging a little more for DVD deliveries, while offering a rebate to streaming-only customers. After a few months of that structure, they'd have a distinct streaming-only customer group. Then they could have raised prices on streaming or DVD independently. Voila! Two distinct, differently priced products, each profitable, with DVD delivery able to be wound down while making the streaming-only product look better.

    Instead they did it in a way that told their customers that they had to take whatever Netflix shoved at them. "Where ya gonna go?" Well, many went, and the brand is damaged even for those who stayed.

    It's not too late for Netflix to do the underlying biz transformation right. But the marketing and corporate execs who backed the debacle should take a big hit. The marketing people should probably go, unless the corp execs want to give them a second chance on something like what I described. But probably they should go. There's never any reason to keep a marketer unless they're really a star (which is extremely rare) - there are plenty of non-stars who can take a crack at the next marketing bungle.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  20. Boneheaded Movies by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If I could sort Netflix streamers by ratings (or by anything other than Netflix's lame categories), it wouldn't bother me that 99% of the streamers are crap. And if I could weight other people's ratings by raters who rate similarly to how I rate, then I might better find crap that I'd like anyway.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Boneheaded Movies by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      And if I could weight other people's ratings by raters who rate similarly to how I rate, then I might better find crap that I'd like anyway.

      Doesn't it theoretically do that already? I know it gives star rating estimations for stuff that we haven't watched yet based on past ratings. I thought that was done via the ratings of people similar to us, but i admit that i haven't really looked into it much.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Boneheaded Movies by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Try instantwatcher.com It uses NYC Times Picks, RottenTomatoes and Popularity. Has many other filters. A godsend to me, found great things that way. By Actor is also great. Sometimes Actors can spot good movies, and while some aren't great, some ended up being great movies that for some reason many people unlike myself didn't like.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    3. Re:Boneheaded Movies by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That looks cool. Except Netflix sucks so bad that using it on my Google TV to play a movie takes me to a page that says only Windows, Mac and ChromeOS are allowed to play movies. Even though I use the Google TV Netflix app (which sucks) to watch movies all the time.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  21. Re:What is Netflix? by arkane1234 · · Score: 2

    No, Netflix is a place you can watch it TODAY without waiting for the queue.
    For the price of a double whopper combo at burger king, essentially.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  22. A large part by AdamJS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A large part of their problems, ironically, can be blamed on iTunes. Or rather, what iTunes did.

    Apple came into the market and swept a massive position of power and influence right out from under the music (or rather, content) industry's feet. Apple gained a novel and unrivaled position to dictate the terms of negotiation.
    They're still stinging from that.

    As a byproduct, they were far more 'prepared' for Netflix. Well, not prepared, as the industry is ancient, slow, bloated and generally can't see "the next big thing" until it's already slapped them across the face and taken their daughter out to dinner.
    They were more Apprehensive, really.
    They may not have known if Netflix would be a success (by-mail services could never be a threat, and when the streaming came about, similar "on demand" services were rather mediocre) but they knew well enough to keep the reigns on a potentially unwieldy beast.

    So Netflix' (possibly unexpected to the Industry) fast growth and explosion in the public mindshare did not end up giving them anywhere near the same control and leverage for negotiations with content owners and producers. Netflix did not secure a completely dominant position, and were unable to supplant the general DVD purchase/rental and theater-going parts of the industry, or at least nowhere near as successfully as iTunes snowballed over CDs.

    As such, they're entirely at the whim of industry conglomerates that view them now as something of an enemy, or an annoyance that is profitable enough not to deserve a swat yet.

    If the industry wasn't so generally inept, there would have been an MPA-aligned style service already out and Netflix would be deprived of most of its content almost immediately.

    1. Re:A large part by tibit · · Score: 1

      The problem with the content industry is that they have always sucked with their digital delivery. This is, unfortunately, a generalization that has no exceptions, and has equally applied from the time the first network set up a website till now. Jobs had repeatedly bashed them about it, and they still haven't learned their lesson.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:A large part by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      The important thing is that they learned to leash anything that proposes to use their content in a new way. In doing so, they do not need to actually care about where the industry goes as the golden goose itself is always held close to their breast.

    3. Re:A large part by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      That's so not true. The golden goose has long escaped, and they've been complaining about it for some time. What they really need to do is stop trying to cling to what's already escaped them (control of their content) and start at least pretending like they themselves want to distribute their content in a new way. There's new revenue to be generated if only they'd embrace the technologies which *already* serve to distribute their content.

    4. Re:A large part by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It extends far beyond iTunes, the TV and movie industry look at the music industry as an experiment, both when it comes to DRM-free content and streaming services. Netflix is after all more like Spotify than iTunes. What are they seeing? A recording industry that's facing massive decline in revenue. CD sales are dying fast and digital streaming and sales aren't making up for it. They're worried they're pushing people from expensive cable TV subscriptions to cheap streaming subscriptions, less premium channels, less PPV, less ad revenue.

      For the movie industry it's even clearer, do people take their kids to see Harry Potter? Yes. *ka-ching* both for the kid(s) and adult(s) and you only get to see it once - there's probably some other sale there in the future. Are they going to pay the same for a PPV ticket as the whole family in total spent at the cinema? For an expensive ticket, would the kids have 2-3 friends over to watch it with them leading to more lost cinema tickets? Yes. They know what they're doing with the BluRay only coming 3-6 months later. And they're afraid that while making a good Spotify-like service will bring some pirates to it, but it'll also kill their DVD/BluRay sales just like the music industry and CDs.

      Just about everything we've seen as progress about the music industry is what they've seen as less control and most importantly, less profit. They can't ask for time to be turned back, but they can make sure it goes very, very slowly....

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:A large part by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      Not really escaped. They could slash and burn every single content production mechanism in existence and dismantle every component of the industry, burning it to the ground and salting the Earth if they wanted to go out in a blaze.
      And it would work for a while. Recovery would happen, with far better models in place, but it would take a little while.

      In that sense, they have control.

  23. Not this time by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Then bigger companies, such as the cable companies, come in with a comparable product, and eat your lunch, because they already have a relationship with the customer

    But what kind of relationship is that? It's not a good one.

    TiVo was wiped out because all they could fundamentally do is offer a slight improvement to the cable box, once the cable companies started also including a DVR that was it. They couldn't offer additional content, just extra convenience.

    Netflix is more than that, they offer a vast array of content that each cable company in turn would have to seek rights for to use the same way. The cable companies can't get a leg up on Netflix in terms of pricing or content because content providers have no motivation to treat them differently or charge them less.

    Also Netflix offers a service that I can easily watch on an iPad/iPhone or Roku box or AppleTV or computer, and cable companies are only just starting to think about that stuff. But they will be hampered by the desire to have people watch content on THIER network, not just an arbitrary one. Netflix is the only cable-like company not bound to old-school physical network thinking.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not this time by tibit · · Score: 1

      I tried TiVo once, and had to return the equipment for a refund. The firmware was crappy, and the user experience was abysmal. This was their 2nd generation system, no less.

      As much as I'd like to see competition out there, I think the only company with the understanding of how to satisfy a customer is Apple and their iTunes service. I seriously think that they are the only ones who understand how to offer smooth experience for users of their technology, in spite of whatever snafus they have committed in their history. All of the DVRs that my friends have are irritating in their UI response lag. Seriously, it's 2011 and you can't make a fucking GUI that takes less than 150ms to react to a keypress on the remote? Fucking seriously? I shudder to think what sort of lame engineers guide the teams that make DVR software. It's like they never heard of a state machine and pushing events between state machines. It's not hard. Don't block the UI when waiting for network or mass storage. Sheesh.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Not this time by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since my Cable Companies DVR IS a TiVo, I wouldn't call them 'wiped out' TIVO is fine, the consumers are screwed. I mean, seriously needing a specific type of recorder to record channels? WTF. I SHOULD be able to by any DVR, plug it in and it work.

      But no, I need to have a special DVR for direct TV the costs 200 dollars. That's why I don't ahve one

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Not this time by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      Well, the cable companies are not the only possibility.

      There's competing streaming video from Amazon, which can stream both rentals and streaming versions of DVDs you buy from them, and audio. It's also not hard to imagine a significant expansion of video for iTunes. Amazon and Apple seem to have good relationships with their customers, so this is a serious issue.

      There's also Hulu+, and it's pretty clear that Google is trying to integrate YouTube movie streaming into G+.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    4. Re:Not this time by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's 2011 and you can't make a fucking GUI that takes less than 150ms to react to a keypress on the remote?

      Okay. No more coffee for you.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Not this time by edmicman · · Score: 1

      It may be 2011 I'm betting it's because the DVR GUI is at least as old as 2005. I've had the same model of shitty Motorola digital cable box for both Comcast and now a local cable company, and it's the exact same interface, style, and GUI mechanics as when we signed up in 2005. And it seemed dated then.

      I might argue that the Google/Motorola partnership could make inroads to the cablebox problem with some sort of slick GoogleTV DVR thing, but you still have to rely on the cable companies to update their hardware. Why would they do that if their 10 year old digital boxes are still working and people can't get an alternative?

    6. Re:Not this time by tibit · · Score: 1

      Sigh. You had lower GUI response lag to pressing keyboard or joystick buttons on freaking JetPac on ZX Spectrum 2.5 decades ago than you have on a DVR box from 2005. If that's not fucked up then I guess one's definition of "fucked up" needs to be sent back to the calibration lab.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:Not this time by tibit · · Score: 1

      I'm serious. People who write GUIs for those devices have no clue about doing their job right. None at all. And I mean what I say.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:Not this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then obviously your opinion doesn't matter here. TiVo was the best thing you could get, especially at the time. I could telnet into my tivo, do all sorts of stuff on it. The UI was great, it worked absolutely amazing. This was a directv tivo unit.

    9. Re:Not this time by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I hear you on the response times. Probably one of the things I love most about MythTV is that when I hit the button on the remote something happens. There is a slight lag when I actually hit play while it buffers, but less than the cursor movement delay on most DVRs. I can hit the browse-all-shows function and the list loads in about two seconds, with instant cursor movement thereafter. All this on an Atom-based system that pulls all of 10W (granted, just the front end). If they spent an extra 75 cents on the CPU/RAM I imagine that most DVRs could compete.

      Oh, and my MythTV system doesn't mess up the schedule if I have more than 15 shows scheduled to record unlike cable company DVR I once had (20 programs sounds like a lot until you have a family of four with different viewing habits).

  24. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by mr1911 · · Score: 2

    GETTING OFF YOUR BUTTS AND MOVING!

    Says the chiropractic troll while sitting in front of his PC writing furiously to get the first post at Slashdot!

    Note to Dr. Bob -- your posts lose most of their enduring qualities when they contain material that may indeed be factual or relevant. Please skip all of that and get straight to subluxions.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  25. More money for less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with them raising their prices if they kept up with a good selection of movies but they don't. I have looked for movie after movie to only find it is either not available at all or DVD only. Their selection at best is sad. Most the movies are from the 90s and 80s with very few newer movies. I am not going to keep paying more and more for the same quality of service or less. You want to raise my price fine, give me a better selection. I'm done with them. They can keep their inflated prices and crappy selections.

  26. Re:What is Netflix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you can watch it TODAY

    if today is 28 days after the DVD comes out

  27. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Im going to be charitable and assume you are not a troll.

    Netflix should be taxed like tobacco and liquor: it's a destructive, disease causing force causing people to fall to pieces.

    Part of freedom means the freedom to make your own mistakes and run your own life. I could probably look at your life, were it all visible to me, and see several areas where you could do much much better, but that is in no way a good reason for me to have executive control of your life-- that would in fact be one of the worse crimes, slavery.

    So go ahead and encourage people to live better, to exercise more. Tell them the dangers of a sedentary life. But encouraging the government to step in and start regulating how people live is always dangerous business, and makes me deeply uneasy. Its really not their place to determine what lifestyles are "better" and "worse", but to determine what laws need to be in place in order to hold society together. And as long as people need to hold a job to support their lifestyle, I do not see "being sedentary" as a big risk to society.

  28. Biz Plan Help for Netflix by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    The Netflix streaming library is poor. There is not much there worth watching, unless you are in the mood for an old movie, and then it is still a coin toss if you can find what you want. Expansion to the UK and Ireland will not bring profitability. Expanding content will.

    I pay for the Nexflix streaming, but only because I have a 4 year old and the selection of content for that age range is decent and worth the price.

    If you want profitability, look at tiered streaming pricing. Add a couple of bucks a month for a plan that has access to new content. Drop a couple of bucks a month for a tier that is only kid's programming. Create a low price tier with access only to the old stuff. Keeping your "one size fits none" model will continue your death spiral. It is pretty obvious that the "take it or leave it" approach you took has far too many choosing the "leave it" option.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    1. Re:Biz Plan Help for Netflix by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      Netflix has lots of new content. See this comment from the last time someone said all they have is old stuff. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1957446&cid=34931440

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    2. Re:Biz Plan Help for Netflix by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      I don't need a link. I can pull it up on my Roku. The short list is why they are suffering.

      Maybe I should have been more clear. Nexflix needs new content that people want to watch.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    3. Re:Biz Plan Help for Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop a couple of bucks a month for a tier that is only kid's programming.

      very, very wrong, parents are prepared to pay more for kids than for themselves, and if kid asks persistently it gets what it wants, for example kid oriented pop stars get much more concert ticket sales than grownups since kids badger parents for money, so any intelligent content seller would use this as advantage and ask as much as possible for kids oriented content
      i would say split it in 3 packages
        - kids only, say 10 bucks minimum (when they have decent-Disney like content off course)
        - grownups only package 5 bucks (standard drama/comedy/action)
        - porn package 10 bucks
        - all 3 20 bucks (instead of 25 bucks 20% discount)

      i think kids package could even go more expensive than porn package, babysitters are very expensive, and majority of population use TV as replacement, market research would be needed to find optimal amount to extort from parents, good starting point would be checking with Disney Chanel

  29. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think there's any reason to believe that being out in miserable weather will make you sick -- not if you're maintaining proper body temperature, at least. That's some wives' tale that has lived way past its expiry date. I know not everyone can live in a place where there's a walkable neighborhood, but perhaps you have a public park somewhere?

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  30. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actual it has been shown pretty well that you can change peoples lives with a tax increase.
    I'm not sure where the idea that you can't got started, or why people ignore all the times it has worked.

    "Ask yourself how many smokers stopped smoking because of the tobacco tax"
    It was something like 12%, over a decade. But that's icing. The real number are the amount of people who did't take it up.

    Drinking as well.

    Of course, that's just one aspect. The tax for tobacco goes to pay for education and medical treatment.

    I'm not advocating the tax the OP talks about. Just pointing out the raising taxes reduced smokers and liqueur drinkers. Increase in fuel prices, tax or otherwise, decrease peoples driving.

    I would argue for a tax on prepared food to help pay for medical treatment, dietary education, and general education. 10% or so.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  31. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I am sure one motivation for sin taxes is to regulate behavior, from a societal perspective taxing unwanted behavior will increase revenue to supplement detrimental social effects of the unwanted behavior. Sure, most smokers probably won't quit smoking by raising tobacco taxes, but the increased revenue could (should) be used to prop up health care for future lung cancer cases, both from first hand and second hand exposure.

  32. cable is over priced!!! Re:Tivo Redux by Bryan-10021 · · Score: 1

    Netflix streaming is $7.99 for an entire *month* compared to the cable companies who charge $5.99 *per* movie or $12.99 and up for movie channels such as Showtime or Cinemax. So explain again how cable companies are competition to Netflix??

    Netflix has had a perfect storm of problems including a buyback of shares when the price was in the $200's. Just like Amazon if you put money into the long-term profitability of the business it's going to hurt the bottom line *short term*. Wall St only cares about the short term hence Netflix trading in the low $70's while Amazon with a recent high of $246.71 is trading in the high $180's.

    Every BluRay player, PS/3, Xbox, Wii, Roku, Netflix-enabled HDTV, iPad, Kindle Fire, Nook Color/tablet sold is a potential customer. The recent trend has been to ditch cable and go with Netflix and Hulu-plus to save money.

  33. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Pope · · Score: 1

    Tobacco consumption in Ontario went down when increased taxes lead to high per-pack costs. The Feds cut their portion, resulting in cheaper smokes, and increased consumption. Stricter laws about not smoking indoors also brought about decreased consumption. Most smokers cut down, but they didn't quit.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  34. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im going to be charitable and assume you are not a troll.

    You should be less charitable sometimes. Dr. Bob is a known troll whose rants devolve into his famed "War On Subluxations". You can safely ignore any posts by him.

  35. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "against the dark and cold leads to sick kids as often as not"
    no. In fact, they are less likely to get sick.

    Yeah it's a pain, I get it. I have 2 kids and live in Oregon, so it's dark at 5, rainy and often cold. However, the cold doesn't make people sick.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  36. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > Folks, it's a measly $8/month for unlimited TV and movies. How enticing is that?

    It depends on what the movies are.

    If I am only interested in the cheapest available option and am willing to tolerate other people's limited choices, then I can just put up a big antenna.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  37. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    You can watch the entire runs of shows like Battlestar Galactica (original AND new, even 1980)

    If Netflix are relying on Battlestar Galactica 1980 as a way to draw in customers, that explains why they're doing so badly :).

  38. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by wygit · · Score: 0

    In California, the tax on tobacco was promoted by ad agencies because the money, hundreds of millions of dollars, GOES to ad agencies, for stupid billboard and TV ads that are worthless.

  39. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    Don't talk about greedy this or greedy that. Netflix is not a not-for-profit, they are greedy too. A lot of social scientists agree that men are mostly egotistical and driven by greed.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  40. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Atticka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, its healthy for your kids to be exposed to cold, germs, etc...

    Get them outside, go skating at the rink, go tobogganing, cross country skiing, downhill skiing, snowshoeing, sign up for a winter survival course just for fun, build a snowman....

    Lots of stuff to do!

    --
    No sig here...
  41. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're posting this on Slashdot. News for Neckbeards, stuff that doesn't matter to anyone important.

  42. They have a lot of options to become profitable. by Viewsonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix has yet to offer video games or adult movies. Both those avenues will bring in tons of cash.

  43. Reed Hastings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason for the NetFlix nosedive.

  44. My guess ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    My guess is that they signed some deal with the content providers that they'd pay them for streaming their movies based on the number of Netflix customers ...

    So, you unload the DVD customers to a separate company, and suddenly, they don't have to pay for the people who never would've been able to stream in the first place.

    Of course, if this were the case, they should've said something ... telling the customers that it was a move to screw over the distributors might've given them some goodwill rather than just piss people off.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  45. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    This was done, because the studios were trying to devour the DVD business income in their negotiations for streaming content.

    Hey you made $400 million, We want $200 million. But streaming only accounted for $40 million. So how do you keep the studios from digging into the pockets of the DVD side to gouge for streaming.

    You split the company. Then the profits are held separately.

    They just botched the explanation of why.

  46. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by delinear · · Score: 2

    Being out in the cold does have some affect on your immune system. Not generally enough to affect a normally healthy person, but I'd guess the combination of the new school years introducing lots of new virus carrying people to everyone, coupled with the fact that people tend to visit relatives etc over the holiday period means that you're exposed to more risk at the point when you're most likely to catch something. There's also the fact that the colder weather and shorter days psychologically make you feel more ill if you do catch something. A cold you write off as nothing during the summer my have you feeling very sorry for yourself during the winter, and over time it's the winter illnesses that stick in the mind. You're right that there's absolutely no reason to believe just going for a brisk walk in a cold park will give you a cold or flue, though.

  47. Damn! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I wish I could say I am going to lose money the next several years, please give me 400 million to tie me over!

  48. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by slapout · · Score: 1

    You're not thinking outside the box. During the winter you simply have to get a different job, one were you have time to spend with your kids during daylight hours.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  49. Re:What is Netflix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't that come out years ago?

  50. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Tobacco consumption in Ontario went down when increased taxes lead to high per-pack costs.

    Isn't that just because they started buying cigarettes from America instead? I know cigarette smuggling from cheaper countries in mainland Europe was big in the UK a few years back, even to the extent of competing gang members murdering each other.

  51. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    Wait, wait. I watch Netflix a lot and I think it's a great deal. I also run 20+ miles a week, have a resting heart rate in the 50s, and am in the best shape of my life. Would I have to pay your ridiculous tax, too?

  52. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by mjr167 · · Score: 0

    So you are saying I should take my 18 month old baby outside and let her play in the park when it is pitch dark, sub-zero temperatures, and snowing? That sounds like a great way to either give her hypothermia or lose her.

  53. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many forces working against the Tobacco industry. It's inaccurate to credit any decrease in smoking solely to tax increases since multiple factors were in play at once.

  54. NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In NYC, the government has actually created a black market for tobacco, complete with all the crime that comes with it. How did they do it? By making it too expensive to legally acquire tobacco -- same as any other instance of prohibition -- except that this isn't full prohibition, but some kind of quasi-prohibition where it's both legal and illegal.

    This is what prohibition does (create a black market), whether you're talking about "sin taxing" or outright criminalization. If you look a little closer, you'll realize that creating a black market -- and all the violence and injustice that comes with it -- is actually more profitable than taxing and regulating. It simply depends on the drug and whether or not they can "pull it off". They tried it with alcohol and actually succeeded for 10 years until the people started waking up to the violence and the root cause of it all.

    What they are doing in NYC is testing the waters, not reducing the number of smokers. They are looking for the sweet spot between legalized/regulated (tax revenue) and criminalized/prohibited (law enforcement revenue) that will simply rake the most money through the business of government.

    Not quite as romantic as you pictured, is it? Don't think for a second that prohibitionists and "drug warriors" are after anything but cold hard cash, because you're fooling yourself.

    1. Re:NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and nothing of value was lost.

      where it's both legal and illegal.

      This quote both makes sense and it does not. The higher price is to give people some incentive to smoke less. Think about it as proceeds going to compensate hospitals for higher incidence of lung problems.

      There are many things with artificially higher price to stimulate change of behavior. To name a few are gasoline tax (especially in Europe), tall on bridges and tunnels, incentives for farmers not to overproduce... err... you got the point. This has nothing to do with prohibition. This policy does not work well in a stand-alone city because of ease of purchasing of the same thing across the state line. This should be made into a national strategy.

      Disclamer: I live in NYC and do not smoke, but my father does, and he already developed some lung problems. I welcome the higher tobacco prices, as the only thing that can make him cut back a little :)

  55. Better Content by ironicsky · · Score: 1

    Maybe Netflix should worry about offering content people actually want to watch instead of expanding in to new markets. I know Netflix Canada sucks... Dated movies, B-Grade movies and kids movies do not appeal to people who have video on demand subscriptions with their cable company. For $12 a month I get unlimited access to my cable companies video on demand library, which includes newly released videos.

    1. Re:Better Content by aclarke · · Score: 1

      For $12 a month VOD you have to *pay for cable* (AFAIK, anyway), which is a very significant base cost.

      I'm in Canada, and I think Netflix is awesome. I'm very happy with it. I'm not the sort of person who has to watch "show x" every week, so I couldn't care less that it's not on Netflix. I just go on, find something I want to watch, and watch it.

      I can rent/buy whatever the heck I want on iTunes, and I'll still never come close to what I was paying for satellite TV before.

  56. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    Being in the cold can make noses run, leading to an increased rate of people's hands coming in to contact with germs. Good hand washing pretty drastically reduces this risk.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  57. Non-starters by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There's competing streaming video from Amazon, which can stream both rentals and streaming versions of DVDs you buy from them, and audio. It's also not hard to imagine a significant expansion of video for iTunes.

    Both of them are pay-per-view, at prices (set by the content providers) that are WAY too high.

    Note that Apple just dropped rentals... the prices the studios want are not reasonable.

    There's also Hulu+, and it's pretty clear that Google is trying to integrate YouTube movie streaming into G+.

    Hulu+ is focused on TV, and a very limited set of TV. People complain about Netflix not having enough content? Try Hulu! Also Hulu is prone to removing older stuff, where Netflix tries to keep as much older TV content around as possible.

    G+ is a total wild card but they face a massive uphill battle in device distribution. Google TV unit sales have been abysmal and companies are scaling back integration. And they face EXACTLY the same content price issues that Netflix faces, only again without any kind of wide TV subscriber base or device support.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  58. Funny enough by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    The whole reason why so many people never caught on to Netflix was the lack of up to date movies, all these b budget old movies are not cutting it...sounds like they should have gotten the content first, before making a name for themselves as being useless movie provider....once your reputation is made as xxx...changing it costs even more!

  59. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, the cold doesn't make people sick.

    I don't understand how your statement could possibly be correct.

    1) Your body has finite energy.
    2) When it is cold outside, more energy must be expended on warming yourself.
    3) More energy THERE means less energy EVERYWHERE ELSE, including your immune system.
    4) With an immune system compromised by lower energy levels, germs / bacteria / viruses can more easily make you sick.

    What is wrong with that logic? Is it that #2 isn't that big of a deal? TELL ME!!!

  60. BwaHaHaHaHa! by hduff · · Score: 1

    Sorry. As a former NetFlix customer who left because of their policies, I had to gloat.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:BwaHaHaHaHa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you gloating about? this affects their stockholders not their customers.

  61. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you KNOW people like us are in the minority dont you? sedentary intellectuals are far more common.

  62. Re:They have a lot of options to become profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adult movies? Really? Who pays for porn?

    Once the generic Internet plebes figure out that you can get it for free they won't be paying jack shit. Pay-for-porn itself is dying.

    Porn is like open-source, it wants to be free (amateur).

  63. Remember when Netflix was innovative? by wealthychef · · Score: 1

    Now they have gone the way of all growth-oriented companies: they are chasing profits uber allen. Because of this, they see innovation as a way to profit, as opposed to a good thing in itself.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  64. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Raenex · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not your buddy, guy.

  65. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by nschubach · · Score: 1

    "Sorry boss, it's winter and I need to work earlier daylight hours. Can you open at 6am?"

    "No problem (ex)employee, here's your last check. Feel free to bypass us when you are job hunting this coming spring."

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  66. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... build a workshop...

    That sounds like a lot more money than $8/month. Just sayin...

  67. Unlimited content != good content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lack of content in Canada is staggering.
    So I looked for "Idiocracy". Then I looked for "The day after tomorrow". Then I looked for "Hitman" (and so many others). Then I clicked the cancellation button. What pissed me off besides the lack of content was the fact that now they don't even have the decency to return 'not available". No, the result for "Hitman" should not be "The Day of the Jackal".
    So now I go out more. I am reading more. Hell, I actually went bike riding last week. And it is not about the $7.99/month, but it feels better to grab a cup of coffee and go for a walk for an hour instead.

  68. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i often defend chiropractors but they dilute their credibility with their "war on inoculations" and their contention that chiropractic care can solve more problems than it does without other types of care. I go to mine in the rare instance 3x a year that i jar my lumbar or thoracic region. but many of them contend that no core strengthening is necessary for those with really loose spinal muscles. i used to be really really flexible as a younger man. like fold-hands-behind-the-back-and-bring-them-around-front flexible. this flexibility can translate to really loose ligaments in the spine and if you get even the slightest muscular imbalance like strong abs and a weak back, then you get repeated subluxations.. problem with chiros is they'll convince you to just keep getting snapped back rather than taking up an activity that solves the problem by bringing balance to all muscles of the core. i do a little yoga and rock climb. static strengthening associated with hanging off a rock really forces those muscles to adapt and relieves the discomfort from the cause, not as a patch. but if i sat in his waiting room and encouraged any of my chiro's patients to do yoga or rock climbing or martial arts, he would have a stroke.

  69. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, don't tell me you didn't like that episode where the Galactica superkids formed a Bad News Bears-esque little league team. The fact that that episode didn't win the series an immediate Emmy is just a travesty.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  70. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    There's greedy and then there's crazy greedy.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  71. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    I do. Just making the obvious point that Netflix doesn't make one sedentary or fat. Not exercising makes one sedentary (by definition) and persistently eating more calories than you burn makes you fat.

  72. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Nothing else legal even comes close to the selection or quality of Netflix's streaming library.

    FTFY

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  73. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by aclarke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Put a bike trainer or treadmill in your garage, and watch Netflix while you exercise. Problems (real and perceived) solved ;-)

  74. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by aclarke · · Score: 1

    Why not? I do. I make sure they're bundled up properly with the right gear, and I check on them regularly to ensure their comfort and safety. I make sure they're having fun so that it's a good experience for my two little girls. Cross-country skiing, hiking, tobogganing, skating and snowshoeing are all activities that are possible at night in the snow, with the right gear and a careful attitude toward safety.

    Of course you need to live somewhere where the activities are practically available, but that's a different problem.

  75. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    I can't recommend New York City parks for children after dark. Is there really any public park in the world you can 100% safely bring children after sun down? I'm definitely not into over-protecting children but as a grown adult I generally avoid parks and poorly lit areas after dusk. Just plain old self preservation.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  76. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    I quit smoking because it was far too expensive now we know the cost of a carton of smokes is far more then half taxes so yes taxes had a huge part in my quiting.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  77. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    My apologies. The spelling errors are caused by my subluxations. I soooo need a chiropractor right now.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  78. We dropped them and aren't going back by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    We dropped them not when they doubled our fees, but when they piled onto that the fact that we'd have to use two different user interfaces to interact with our services.

    Rather than put up with that added level of unnecessary complexity that had no benefit to us as users (and only to bean counters who wanted to keep the buckets separate solely to have two shells under which to hide money), we just turned them off.

    It doesn't matter that they've reversed on the latter. We're not going to go through the trouble of signing back up only to have the sword of damocles hanging over our heads - what would be the next huge inconvenience we'd be threatened with?

  79. Re:They have a lot of options to become profitable by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    No one would pay for it directly, but if they add it to the service, it would probably gain them millions of subscribers because that extra incentive. I would also suspect the Adult Film industry would probably be a lot easier to work with over licensing considering as you said, everything is already virtually free. They will always take something over nothing.

  80. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    I submit to you that it is possible for a person to live a healthy lifestyle and still have a Netflix subscription. People can not and will not be physically active for 100% of their spare time; in fact, an important aspect of both physical and mental health is REST. To relax and have some time of relative inactivity each week is important for a person's well being.

    Whether this time is better spent watching a TV or doing something equally relaxing is subjective, however this doesn't appear to be the point you're driving toward.

    There is no doubt that Netflix fuels the temptation to be a lazy slob, but so do a lot of things. Why don't you target people who overuse Internet, cable TV, and video games? Hell, even bookworms?

    I know I'm feeding a troll here, but while your opinion of sedentary habits is (mostly) in the right place, your decision to target Netflix is fairly misguided.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  81. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    He always talks about subluxations.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  82. Blockbuster is out by phorm · · Score: 1

    Well, with video chains falling like flies, perhaps they media corps will have to reconsider a bit.
    Many small chains have disappeared over the past few years. Blockbuster is gone. I've heard rumours that some of the other bigger chains are set to follow.

    Sure they can screw with Netflix now, they still control the content. But when Netflix becomes the major source of distribution, they'll have a lot of push back against the media corps, similar to what has happened with iTunes and CD's, etc.

  83. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The studios have gotten crazy greedy on the whole streaming thing and their costs have gone through the roof.

    Sure, but how could we fight back against a studio price hike without harming Netflix? That's a really unfortunate position for both Netflix and its customers.

  84. History by phorm · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if they disable the "history" feature.
    My GF has a much different taste in movies than I do, and sometimes watches shows with my niece as well, so my history and suggestions are often skewed towards musicals and cartoons.
    It took me awhile to figure out how "my big gay wedding" ended up in the list. I'm pretty sure many husbands wouldn't want to share with their wives that they watched the latest "girls gone wild" last Friday, or have the relatives come over and then pop on Netflix, only to have the history display with bold titles and a nice graphic that the last watched show was "Barely legal co-eds 3" or something of the sort.

  85. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    I don't think any of those activities sound appropriate for a toddler... Nor do they address the fundamental problem of it being night time, hence the sun has set and it is now dark because we don't have street lights. While I'm sure hurling oneself down a mountain is grand fun, it probably helps a great deal to be able to see the trees before you run into them.

  86. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, when your out in the cold your body stops pumping blood to your outer extremities. Your nose (one of those outer extremities) is sort of a front line for infection (colds), where your body is constantly reinforcing your defenses (antibodies in blood). The cold causes the reinforcements to be cut-off and viola, you are much more likely to catch a cold.

  87. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Fned · · Score: 1

    I don't think there's any reason to believe that being out in miserable weather will make you sick -- not if you're maintaining proper body temperature, at least. That's some wives' tale that has lived way past its expiry date.

    When was that expiry date, again?

    Turns out Influenza, at least, depends a lot on air temp and humidity. Regardless of your body temperature...

  88. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by Fned · · Score: 1

    You can watch the entire runs of shows like Battlestar Galactica (original AND new, even 1980),

    I was trying to finish the last bits of Galactica last year, and was unbelievably frustrated that they didn't stream any of the x.5 seasons. I have disk service too, but it was annoying to get partway through season 4 and then have to wait for disks all of a sudden. I hope they've fixed that since then.

  89. Re:They have a lot of options to become profitable by Fned · · Score: 1

    Adult movies? Really? Who pays for porn?

    Someone has to, you worthless parasite.

  90. But that's not what they're seeing. by AdamJS · · Score: 1

    The recording/music industry boasted standard profits before taking iTunes into account.
    After taking it into account, they have sold more music and made more money than any other decade in history.

    When they say they are being harmed by digital sales, they are 100% lying.

    As I said before, if this conglomerate of rights-holders and content producers wanted, they could withhold everything they needed to stop newer ideals in their tracks; if that failed, they could simply legislate their way to total control.

    1. Re:But that's not what they're seeing. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The recording/music industry boasted standard profits before taking iTunes into account. After taking it into account, they have sold more music and made more money than any other decade in history. When they say they are being harmed by digital sales, they are 100% lying.

      I recommend reading this. Yes, the 90s and early 00s were good but they're now at an all-time low in inflation-adjusted dollars, below the vinyl and cassette era. And it's not like the cost of living has gone down from the last low in the 1980s either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  91. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Apu+de+Beaumarchais · · Score: 1

    Not sure that you're not trolling, but your argument's just silly. We don't tend to operate at peak efficiency such that if you expend more energy in one way it needs to reduce the ability of the rest of your body to function. More energy to warm yourself will cause your metabolism to rise especially since we're talking about getting exercise. This will in fact help the body in various ways including improving immune response.

  92. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    Ahh, but you see, I gave a disclaimer: "not if you're maintaining proper body temperature, at least". Darkness is mostly irrelevant unless you want to use solar light for keeping you warm. With sun below the horizon, life gets somewhat easier as clouds will not change the heat flux that gets to your body. As long as you can keep your 18 month old properly insulated, you'll be OK. We've been talking hour long walks with our 1 week old in sub-zero temperatures and he has done fine. It's all a matter of proper clothing.

    As for losing the kid: in a way you must be lucky that you live in a setting with so little light pollution that you can actually lose the kid in a metro park ;)

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  93. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    Sure, if the area is so dangerous that you can't see the kid and everywhere is close to falling off a cliff, then I agree. If you wait a bit with the kid in your arms, in most any large urban setting you will soon see the surroundings well enough to know what the kid is doing.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  94. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    I think you've got it backwards, unless you're talking about noses of others running, and their germs transferring onto you by hand contact. If so, then of course there's truth to that, but still it doesn't make the cold itself a cause of getting sick.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  95. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    At least around here, you can't go to many parks too long after dark because they are closed by then and you'll get arrested for criminal trespassing if you get caught. The "closing" is on paper, as there's no fence and no gates, only a proclamation on a sign somewhere where you may well miss it :) I'm not arguing about general safety of parks, that can't be generalized. Substitute a humongous backyard for a park :)

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  96. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Backyard? Yeah, right!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  97. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    When you're improperly dressed in the cold, yes. I think that generally if you're out there in bad weather and feel miserable due to thermal discomfort, you're not appropriately dressed.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  98. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by tibit · · Score: 1

    Looking at anecdotes in my immediate family, we were catching flu approximately once every 15 years per person, and that was before the flu vaccine was available. Ever since we have been vaccinated, we have never had anything that resembled a flu (where you're miserable for more than a week). While your reference about flu is interesting, I don't think that there's enough flu out there for weather to make a big difference. Surely if the situation is close to an epidemic than a weather change will exploit the sensitivity in the system, but otherwise I'd think that you've cited something that's fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    So let me rephrase my assertion to be more specific: our body is not inherently likelier to get sick merely due to cold weather.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  99. Re:They have a lot of options to become profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Videogames really aren't that profitable really. Takes way longer to recoup each game purchased than movies. Gamefly for instance has been struggling to survive since a scratched or snapped disk costs them way more than a DVD.

  100. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Netflix streaming is still BY FAR the best deal around. You can watch the entire runs of shows like Battlestar Galactica

    Maybe that's true, but you didn't pick a verry good example, since Hulu has BG too.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  101. Microsoft by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    He could also work at Microsoft. Do your time then your 100 day break.

  102. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not your guy, friend.

  103. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by aclarke · · Score: 1

    Nowhere did I suggest anything even remotely approaching "hurling oneself down a mountain". You'll see that I specifically excluded downhill skiing. Tobogganing can be as tame as going down a 1 metre tall hill with your toddler. I have child backpacks for hiking and plan to get a pulk for pulling kids behind me while (cross-country) skiing this winter. Most cities and towns where it's cold enough have well-lit indoor and/or outdoor skating rinks.

    Far be it from me to tell you how to raise your children (really, I hate that), but my kids love all these activities. The trick is to do them in a way that's age-appropriate, fun, and safe. If you fundamentally don't WANT to go outside when it's dark and cold, fair enough. But then it's "I don't want to go out", rather than any of the other reasons you've given. The flip side of that is that if you really DO want to go out (I do), there's usually a safe and fun way to do it.

  104. Re:They have a lot of options to become profitable by Mitreya · · Score: 1
    Netflix has yet to offer video games or adult movies.

    Oh, yes, video-game streaming :)
    Actually, I am surprised that they do not offer VGs. Blockbuster has been doing it for a while and that must be far more profitable as games tend to linger for a longer time than a movie.

    As far as adult movies - that could backfire. As another poster below pointed out -- they have history/suggestions mechanisms and many accounts may be used by more than one person. Even with non-adult offerings, I find that inconvenient.

  105. Time to put the telly set in the dustbin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the compulsory TV license in G.B to be perplexing. I calculated the exchange and found it almost exactly what I'm paying Netflix for unlimited streaming and 1 blu-ray disk at a time. I can see many Britons dumping their TV, buying a nice big computer monitor and hooking it up to any one of the many devices that will play Netflix. I'm sure a streaming account in G.B. will be cheaper than the Auntie Beeb's TV tax. How long until Parliament pass laws to harm Netflix's success there?

  106. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    I'm not weighing in one side or the other on whether being out in the cold will make you sick, but there is a flaw in your supposition #1. The body has finite energy.

    The body has a limit on the rate of energy consumption that it can sustain from buring fats, carbs, etc. A person is not near that rate when they are sitting still or even just walking around outside. The cold air will cause your metabolic rate to increase to stay warm, but it is still far from tapping the limits of your body. If you are running sprints and carrying around weights outside you might be getting closer to your physical limits.

  107. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's what I meant. I suppose it's more a contributing factor then an actual cause. The same could be said during times of high pollen counts.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  108. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    Or how many consumers stopped consuming because of the sales tax :)

  109. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by adolf · · Score: 1

    I live in flat country. The terrain here is essentially non-existent.

    We can sled down the side of an overpass next to a park, but the park closes at dusk (which makes it basically closed all winter for those who work during the day). Snowmen are fun to build, but they lose their edge after one has put together a couple of 10-foot-tall epic snowmen: The little ones just aren't very fun after that.

    So, as far as money is concerned: Netflix is cheap, and most of the things you mention are expensive because they're non-local, or impractical. (Where am I supposed to go cross-country skiing, exactly: Dodging cars down a rural road consisting of patchy ice, asphalt, and packed snow...or across a seemingly-endless field of corn stubble? Seriously, a Nordic Trac sounds like more fun, and I'm in no hurry to procure one of those.)

  110. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    I'm not your friend, pal

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  111. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by Syberz · · Score: 1

    Netflix streaming is still BY FAR the best deal around.

    Selection-wise, perhaps. But it really isn't if you have bandwidth caps. You can't watch that many movies/shows in HD if your limit is 20-30gb a month and you use your internet for other things than media streaming.

    --
    ~Syberz
  112. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    Yeah, going cross country skiing is a great idea when you have work at 8AM and want to relax before bed.

    Netflix is the best deal since a long time ago. Sure, one can live a happy life without it, but it's a wonderful luxury.

    I love slashdot for the technical articles, but love it even more for the crazy far fetched ideas.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  113. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I would argue for a tax on prepared food to help pay for medical treatment, dietary education, and general education. 10% or so."

    Yes! I have been envisioning taxes on fast food going to subsidize organic farmers.

  114. Re:I'm sympathetic, but stop with the bonehead mov by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

    My wife and I watched the entire series this past summer and it was all via netflix streaming.

  115. Wow by TheUSADebate.com · · Score: 1

    this is amazing to think that a company can blow up to $300 a share, drop to $60 a share and then announce it will become unprofitable (all within 2 years)... it seems we are at a time now where these companies such as netflix, social networking sites, etc. are quickly blowing up a massive bubble that can't be too far from a pop. I mean people are paying a market cap of $6+ billion for Linked in, i mean its a good site but come on they will never generate the profits to warrant that kind of pricing.

  116. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, its healthy for your kids to be exposed to cold, germs, etc...

    Yeah! Lets all go get exposed to some Tuberculosis and maybe some Ebola, it is healthy for you!

  117. Re:Good, but not for the reasons I had hoped for. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    I'm not your guy, pal

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)