I would say they are using the term more broadly than they should to keep with their marketing/branding of things. Basically, it is stuff Netflix spent a lot of money to make or have in their walled garden.
They have a label "Netflix Original" and they are applying it to 1. things they make themselves.... 2. things they they didn't start out making but are continuing production on and 3. Old dead series they outright buy and can only be viewed on Netflix.
"Netflix Originals" in essence is a marketing term to differentiate between Netflix Proprietary stuff and stuff they are licensing.
It wouldn't make sense for them to muddy the waters with a bunch of other terminology to define their main thrust of supplying OC for their viewers. However some people may wish to spend time simply parsing definitions and that is fine.
Although an important question as to how OC drives new subscriptions I believe OC is also about keeping active users on the hook.
Netflix subscriptions continue to grow and I seem to vaguely remember reading something about an acceleration in growth coinciding with the advent of OC on Netflix.
Since Netflix seems to have a declining streaming catalogue and and increasing OC catalogue, it would seem that current users are staying put because there is new material to watch and those signing up could be coming to Netflix for the existing catalogue with its convenience of streaming or/and the OC.
Might be hard to separate why new people are signing up without a formal survey.
Yep.... Netflix and Prime and Apple are buying up content and repackaging and also producing their own. Pretty soon there will be a bunch of fiefdoms where all the content will be locked away in exclusive domains and to have access you will have to pay the gatekeeper.
I think Netflix buys into the production. Sometimes they just buy out an already popular show and take over production for the future. This has happened for some shows that were about to cease being produced, but Netflix picked them up and extended their production.
Reminds me of the rebranding at Trader Joes. If a product is very successful in their store.... then they will repackage it and sell it in their store, but under their own label.
Most Original content is all Netflix however.
So far their content is oddly and consistently of a fairly high quality. They are making some interesting things that I would not expect to see. A month or so ago I watched an Arabic post apocalyptic movie that was entertaining. I had never seen a movie in Arabic. And the storyline was much as one would expect from the western world. I hope they keep making films by people from everywhere in the world. I like new perspectives.
I switched 3% to Portugues on my Apple TV to watch it in Portugues instead of the lame dubbed version they had. Just put the english subtitles on so my wife could follow along.
Not a big fan of dubbed things except when it is Anime or something.
Most Trump supporters didn't know how they felt about TPP because they simply didn't know what it was until he started banging on it. Most still don't know what it is or would have done ultimately. Neither does Trump.
Bird flu amongst other diseases I would think. With people packed in as they are in China, it seems like the spread of things could be a bit easier and quicker.
An old epidemiology professor reminded me that any single study is not often correct. Once their are 20 studies that back it up one may be on to something. But alas, our anti-science society seems to latch on to every new study as if it is absolutely how things are rather than a study which points in a direction there needs to be more study.
Every time I see someone hacking up a lung on a plane I wonder how big a radius has that one person infected. Then I think about how long the duration of the virus on a surface is.
Then I think of my inadvertent hand contact with such surfaces and the innocent brushing of my eyes or handling of something I might stuff in my mouth along with he virus.
I just don't buy what they are selling and I got my masters in public health with an emphasis in Tropical Disease.
Maybe diseases and their spread has changed somehow since I went to school?
That is good that Apple has jettisoned audio jack. For the most part it seems that rooted phones for Apple are becoming less and less of a things making them not very useful as hackable tools.
It makes it simpler to chose a device that actually has a headphone jack is all. Were you likely to choose an Apple phone anyway??? Really? Aside from that, it still seems more likely that 99.9% of people would mostly use a minijack for earbuds or headsets. I know my kids do. These are commoditized devices.... Like Toasters.
As for light meters, thermometers, hacking tools, oscilloscopes, etc. there are better hacking phones for all of that. I would pick a hackable Android over an Apple phone for such extraneous things as doing the cool junk mostly geeks know about. Apple makes less sense for such things and is only getting less so.
All it takes is a big enough state and then things change.... like say California. If any internet provider wants to do business with the government of the 8th largest economic power on the planet, then they must follow net neutrality in their business practices.
This would have an effect on all big providers wishing to do business with the state government and hence might likely be de facto Net Neutrality for the rest of the country as well.
The citizens really don't want net neutrality by a wide margin even if politicians find it to their monetary benefit to support getting rid of net neutrality.
Umm didn't the voters vote for the people in office to do what they are doing?
Our community did the same thing but got blocked by the state who wrote a law to forbid local municipalities from building internet infrastructure the voters approve. That seems more like over-reach because that decision was written and pushed by companies and not the voters.
No government is best government sounds more like anarchism than old school libertarianism which seeks maximum personal freedom and choice. I guess modern libertarianism has morphed.
Up front I am not a huge proponent of peoples rights to pirate/share even though my commentary below would tend to contradict what I am saying here. But there is some nuance to the issue. And I say this at a time when I am now replacing all of my 800 plus legit DVD's with legit 1080P and 4K copies.
Way back in the day everyone bought a bunch of programs and games for their computers. They cost like $50 bucks each and so as geeky teenagers with not a lot of funds from lawn mowing and oddball chores we also collected programs. Personally, I bought up stuff as my money allowed and collected lots of game copies from other collectors.
But the thing is the bulk of what I collected was largely an archival collection.... I never even used most of the programs and I didn't play many of the games other than to see the disk worked. I generally had to own my favorites which I purchased and played all of the time. I even find myself seeking out copies of the games I enjoyed wasting weeks and months on now to play again under emulation or as apps.
Just got Dragons Lair on iOS. Got Worms Armageddon also because I was obsessed with that game. Got Duke Nukem from GOG. What I posit is that, I am not certain the actual damage to the industry is. Is such damage really so great as the numbers the industry puts forth? I remain doubtful.
Now I knew of a guy who was supposed to have collected over 10K programs for the Apple 2. He was a true collector. Made me a mere speck in terms of collecting. How many did he actually use? Probably not many since he was spending all of his time collecting programs.
Sometimes when I hear how much damage to the industry is going on, I think about this guy because he really wasn't doing damage to the industry at all. Just the amount he was spending on Floppies and Hard Drives was maxing out his budget. So to me, the industry was getting his money on aggregate anyhow.... just in a tangential way. His joy was in collecting... not so much in playing or using. To collect, one spends an inordinate amount on hardware and media.
Were those 10k content creators losing out on real sales from him? Perhaps marginally or maybe not at all, but if you think of a guy collecting 10k games and programs, he isn't actually deriving benefit from the copy sitting in floppy case. He is merely collecting because of an odd penchant to collect. More of a fetish.
"Seven and a half million people saying "ditto" just increases the workload and adds nothing to the argument."
Perhaps you miss the point of public comment. It is a chance for people to voice how they feel about the proposed changes. And it isn't an argument. It is expression of support or not.
"Who cares what your opinion is, if you can't make a factual argument based on legal principles, don't waste your time." Opinions and commentary is what they are asking for that is why it is important.
What do you mean about factual argument or legal principles exactly? Public commentary is virtually never about legal principles.
This is public commentary about a policy change. It is about what people want and how they feel about the policy change that they are expressing. This simply is not about having a novel approach to an argument. Certainly some may choose to elaborate extensively on the ins and outs of the legality largely out of ignorance, but if some people take a more succinct approach like "This sucks" they have every right to do so and it is a synopsis of their desire on the proposal. Why? Because these things affect our lives and it is important to acknowledge how people feel.
How many actual factual / legal arguments can be made anyhow? 2-3.... 5 possibly??? No matter how many factual/legal arguments there are.... each will be repeated hundreds of thousands to millions of times saying fundamentally the same thing. But public commentary simply is not about that. It is about registering whether one agrees or not. A tally of the sentiment of the population if it were. Thus it doesn't matter if people wish to jump ahead and put forth something which expresses their viewpoint such as a chain letter. That doesn't invalidate the fact that they chose to express themselves in such a way. How many people didn't express themselves at all because they found the process too tedious to do.
Ditto does add to the equation when individuals in the millions choose to say "Ditto".
"How long must the council members sit there and listen to the same argument over and over again?"
As long as it takes. That is part of their job... Otherwise why are they there? Why even bother with a public meeting? Why even listen to constituencies if the politician or policy maker doesn't need input by the citizens. Why... because it matters and peoples voices should be heard.
Who has the time. The FCC made it so difficult for me to comment. I can see why lots of people had to resort to form letters and spam-like tactics.
It took me about 15 minutes of life just to wade through the obstacles thrown in front of me to voice my displeasure with this decision.
And I am not a lawyer so framing things in a legal jargon context is not really in my wheelhouse.
But I do have an opinion as do the many other millions who voiced their opinions and those are as valid as anything.
This is all just smoke and mirrors, but if people remain angry enough about this sort of thing, then vote congress out and get a new congress which will actually pass legislation that betters things for the citizens over corporate interests in gouging every last waning cent our of a declining middle class.
Business can really invest when people just continue to lose ground and find themselves having to choose whether any service is worth their while. A downward spiral on society does nobody any good.
I think it is just the FCC changing definitions... nothing to do with congress voting on anything. Congress already vested authority to do this sort of thing to the Executive Branch via the FCC. Or am I misunderstanding how this works.
Slashdot Mirror
"Democrats are the ones who pushed the narrative that we are at war with Russia"
They did?
I would say they are using the term more broadly than they should to keep with their marketing/branding of things. Basically, it is stuff Netflix spent a lot of money to make or have in their walled garden.
They have a label "Netflix Original" and they are applying it to 1. things they make themselves.... 2. things they they didn't start out making but are continuing production on and 3. Old dead series they outright buy and can only be viewed on Netflix.
"Netflix Originals" in essence is a marketing term to differentiate between Netflix Proprietary stuff and stuff they are licensing.
It wouldn't make sense for them to muddy the waters with a bunch of other terminology to define their main thrust of supplying OC for their viewers.
However some people may wish to spend time simply parsing definitions and that is fine.
Although an important question as to how OC drives new subscriptions I believe OC is also about keeping active users on the hook.
Netflix subscriptions continue to grow and I seem to vaguely remember reading something about an acceleration in growth coinciding with the advent of OC on Netflix.
Since Netflix seems to have a declining streaming catalogue and and increasing OC catalogue, it would seem that current users are staying put because there is new material to watch and those signing up could be coming to Netflix for the existing catalogue with its convenience of streaming or/and the OC.
Might be hard to separate why new people are signing up without a formal survey.
I think OC is also about keeping the subscribers one has.
Subscribers stay put the more there is a steady flow of content.
Yep.... Netflix and Prime and Apple are buying up content and repackaging and also producing their own.
Pretty soon there will be a bunch of fiefdoms where all the content will be locked away in exclusive domains and to have access you will have to pay the gatekeeper.
Lying seems a bit over-used in such a case. Parsing.
I think Netflix buys into the production. Sometimes they just buy out an already popular show and take over production for the future. This has happened for some shows that were about to cease being produced, but Netflix picked them up and extended their production.
Reminds me of the rebranding at Trader Joes. If a product is very successful in their store.... then they will repackage it and sell it in their store, but under their own label.
Most Original content is all Netflix however.
So far their content is oddly and consistently of a fairly high quality. They are making some interesting things that I would not expect to see.
A month or so ago I watched an Arabic post apocalyptic movie that was entertaining. I had never seen a movie in Arabic. And the storyline was much as one would expect from the western world. I hope they keep making films by people from everywhere in the world. I like new perspectives.
I switched 3% to Portugues on my Apple TV to watch it in Portugues instead of the lame dubbed version they had. Just put the english subtitles on so my wife could follow along.
Not a big fan of dubbed things except when it is Anime or something.
I don't pay $14/month.
Silly AC trolls.
67% growth year to year then... that is pretty amazing.
Bet the rest of the content makers would hope for such explosive growth year over year.
Combine that with making a sizable profit to boot and there-in lies a recipe for a new paradigm for how people consume content in the future.
Most Trump supporters didn't know how they felt about TPP because they simply didn't know what it was until he started banging on it.
Most still don't know what it is or would have done ultimately. Neither does Trump.
Bird flu amongst other diseases I would think. With people packed in as they are in China, it seems like the spread of things could be a bit easier and quicker.
An old epidemiology professor reminded me that any single study is not often correct. Once their are 20 studies that back it up one may be on to something.
But alas, our anti-science society seems to latch on to every new study as if it is absolutely how things are rather than a study which points in a direction there needs to be more study.
So how long does the flu virus sit on a surface?
Every time I see someone hacking up a lung on a plane I wonder how big a radius has that one person infected.
Then I think about how long the duration of the virus on a surface is.
Then I think of my inadvertent hand contact with such surfaces and the innocent brushing of my eyes or handling of something I might stuff in my mouth along with he virus.
I just don't buy what they are selling and I got my masters in public health with an emphasis in Tropical Disease.
Maybe diseases and their spread has changed somehow since I went to school?
That is good that Apple has jettisoned audio jack. For the most part it seems that rooted phones for Apple are becoming less and less of a things making them not very useful as hackable tools.
It makes it simpler to chose a device that actually has a headphone jack is all. Were you likely to choose an Apple phone anyway??? Really?
Aside from that, it still seems more likely that 99.9% of people would mostly use a minijack for earbuds or headsets. I know my kids do. These are commoditized devices.... Like Toasters.
As for light meters, thermometers, hacking tools, oscilloscopes, etc. there are better hacking phones for all of that. I would pick a hackable Android over an Apple phone for such extraneous things as doing the cool junk mostly geeks know about. Apple makes less sense for such things and is only getting less so.
I love tangled audio cords. Remind me of my first walkman.
All it takes is a big enough state and then things change.... like say California. If any internet provider wants to do business with the government of the 8th largest economic power on the planet, then they must follow net neutrality in their business practices.
This would have an effect on all big providers wishing to do business with the state government and hence might likely be de facto Net Neutrality for the rest of the country as well.
The citizens really don't want net neutrality by a wide margin even if politicians find it to their monetary benefit to support getting rid of net neutrality.
I think I have a Japanese gene. I love love love salt. No amount seems to be too much except drinking pure ocean water. That is a bit edgy.
Umm didn't the voters vote for the people in office to do what they are doing?
Our community did the same thing but got blocked by the state who wrote a law to forbid local municipalities from building internet infrastructure the voters approve.
That seems more like over-reach because that decision was written and pushed by companies and not the voters.
No government is best government sounds more like anarchism than old school libertarianism which seeks maximum personal freedom and choice.
I guess modern libertarianism has morphed.
Up front I am not a huge proponent of peoples rights to pirate/share even though my commentary below would tend to contradict what I am saying here. But there is some nuance to the issue. And I say this at a time when I am now replacing all of my 800 plus legit DVD's with legit 1080P and 4K copies.
Way back in the day everyone bought a bunch of programs and games for their computers. They cost like $50 bucks each and so as geeky teenagers with not a lot of funds from lawn mowing and oddball chores we also collected programs. Personally, I bought up stuff as my money allowed and collected lots of game copies from other collectors.
But the thing is the bulk of what I collected was largely an archival collection .... I never even used most of the programs and I didn't play many of the games other than to see the disk worked. I generally had to own my favorites which I purchased and played all of the time.
I even find myself seeking out copies of the games I enjoyed wasting weeks and months on now to play again under emulation or as apps.
Just got Dragons Lair on iOS. Got Worms Armageddon also because I was obsessed with that game. Got Duke Nukem from GOG.
What I posit is that, I am not certain the actual damage to the industry is. Is such damage really so great as the numbers the industry puts forth? I remain doubtful.
Now I knew of a guy who was supposed to have collected over 10K programs for the Apple 2. He was a true collector. Made me a mere speck in terms of collecting.
How many did he actually use? Probably not many since he was spending all of his time collecting programs.
Sometimes when I hear how much damage to the industry is going on, I think about this guy because he really wasn't doing damage to the industry at all. Just the amount he was spending on Floppies and Hard Drives was maxing out his budget. So to me, the industry was getting his money on aggregate anyhow.... just in a tangential way. His joy was in collecting... not so much in playing or using. To collect, one spends an inordinate amount on hardware and media.
Were those 10k content creators losing out on real sales from him? Perhaps marginally or maybe not at all, but if you think of a guy collecting 10k games and programs, he isn't actually deriving benefit from the copy sitting in floppy case. He is merely collecting because of an odd penchant to collect. More of a fetish.
Yep.
Form letters let people have a voice even if it seems rather mundane.
"Seven and a half million people saying "ditto" just increases the workload and adds nothing to the argument."
Perhaps you miss the point of public comment. It is a chance for people to voice how they feel about the proposed changes.
And it isn't an argument. It is expression of support or not.
"Who cares what your opinion is, if you can't make a factual argument based on legal principles, don't waste your time."
Opinions and commentary is what they are asking for that is why it is important.
What do you mean about factual argument or legal principles exactly? Public commentary is virtually never about legal principles.
This is public commentary about a policy change. It is about what people want and how they feel about the policy change that they are expressing. This simply is not about having a novel approach to an argument. Certainly some may choose to elaborate extensively on the ins and outs of the legality largely out of ignorance, but if some people take a more succinct approach like "This sucks" they have every right to do so and it is a synopsis of their desire on the proposal. Why? Because these things affect our lives and it is important to acknowledge how people feel.
How many actual factual / legal arguments can be made anyhow? 2-3.... 5 possibly??? No matter how many factual/legal arguments there are.... each will be repeated hundreds of thousands to millions of times saying fundamentally the same thing. But public commentary simply is not about that. It is about registering whether one agrees or not. A tally of the sentiment of the population if it were. Thus it doesn't matter if people wish to jump ahead and put forth something which expresses their viewpoint such as a chain letter. That doesn't invalidate the fact that they chose to express themselves in such a way. How many people didn't express themselves at all because they found the process too tedious to do.
Ditto does add to the equation when individuals in the millions choose to say "Ditto".
"How long must the council members sit there and listen to the same argument over and over again?"
As long as it takes. That is part of their job... Otherwise why are they there? Why even bother with a public meeting? Why even listen to constituencies if the politician or policy maker doesn't need input by the citizens.
Why... because it matters and peoples voices should be heard.
Who has the time.
The FCC made it so difficult for me to comment.
I can see why lots of people had to resort to form letters and spam-like tactics.
It took me about 15 minutes of life just to wade through the obstacles thrown in front of me to voice my displeasure with this decision.
And I am not a lawyer so framing things in a legal jargon context is not really in my wheelhouse.
But I do have an opinion as do the many other millions who voiced their opinions and those are as valid as anything.
This is all just smoke and mirrors, but if people remain angry enough about this sort of thing, then vote congress out and get a new congress which will actually pass legislation that betters things for the citizens over corporate interests in gouging every last waning cent our of a declining middle class.
Business can really invest when people just continue to lose ground and find themselves having to choose whether any service is worth their while.
A downward spiral on society does nobody any good.
I think it is just the FCC changing definitions... nothing to do with congress voting on anything. Congress already vested authority to do this sort of thing to the Executive Branch via the FCC. Or am I misunderstanding how this works.