Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

appleoutsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#51

Post by pyoung »

ctdonath wrote: post #27

Unified queue. Regardless of media, business structure, delivery mechanism, company name, etc. methinks what all customers want is a single place to choose & queue content, filtered by whatever options they desire, delivered on whatever medium is available and they pay for via a spectrum of contracts (from unlimited-per-month to single order). Just make sure it's all on one queue. If multi-queue, then only because on…

My best guess as to why they are splitting the queues is due to the availability issues on the streaming side affecting customer 'morale', so to speak. i.e. when a streaming-only customer searches for a title, and then finds that it is only available on DVD, their perception of the service is diminished.

I think the end goal of this move is to kill off or sell the DVD portion of the service entirely, so by splitting the services, investors won't freak out when that eventually happens. This also is another reason for splitting the queues.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#52

Post by mdda »

Even if they're separate companies, Qwikster and Netflix should license (for pay) the queue information between themselves.

That way customers will remain happy, and the Qwikster brand could be sold to someone that wanted a business that has a sustainable deal with the content providers...

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#53

Post by c2 »

rumblestrut wrote: post #23

Reed Hastings makes me wonder what kind of company Netflix is. Does Netflix listen to its customers? I've hated the website redesign since it launched and from what I've read, I'm certainly not alone. I find the redesign to be much less user friendly than the old one, which I loved. I don't login as much as before to browse, review and add to my queue. I avoid the website and stick to watching stuff on my Roku. In my…

In my 3 or so years as a Netflix subscriber I have noticed an extremely disturbing trend of Netflix killing useful features simply because they aren't good for the business.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head:

- You used to be able to easily access a page of latest release DVDs. They killed this page because "too many people were using it" - and they had a pretty audacious blog post assuring that now it is a better customer experience claiming "it caused contention to ship" - although I never had a problem and sorely missed the feature when it was gone

- You used to be able to see the top 50 streaming movies. It almost always had the top new hollywood blockbusters which I really wanted to see. This feature vanished one day with no explanation that I could find.

The new site redesign is also a good example, making it harder and harder to find the movies you actually want to watch.

For these reasons alone I was a relatively happy customer but I would never have invested in them as a company due to their lack of customer focus. This latest price fiasco was the nail in the coffin. I cancelled my membership.

For the price of the streaming plan, I will just watch one or two movies a month on Amazon Instant Video with a much bigger selection and much stronger customer focus. All the nice features which Netflix killed for no reason are featured prominently on the Amazon web page for starters.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#54

Post by _pius »

Bud wrote: post #19
uptown wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that the difference between iPad, iPad, MacBook Pro and Qwickster is that it's very very easy to mis-spell Qwickster. It could be Qwickster, Quickster, Qwikster, Quikster, Qwickstr (if you wanna go the Flickr route) and probably some variations I haven't thought of. At the very least, Netflix should have made an effort to secure the domain-names for these alternate spellings to ensure their customers can fi…

The other difference is that Qwikster is a deeply stupid name. The other other difference is that iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc. actually describe their eponymous products, and Qwikster doesn't recognizably describe anything.

The other other difference is that iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc. actually describe their eponymous products ...

iPhone? Sure. iPad? Maybe. iPod? Definitely not.

It only seems that way because the iPod dominated the product category so strongly as to become synonymous with "portable digital music player."

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#55

Post by initself »

Jun8 wrote: post #43

"Common sense is not so common"! This is incomparable to the actual post, it highlights the positive points and addresses some (though not all) FUDs. Similar to HP, Netflix made the huge mistake of announcing big changes in one big lump, creating a chaotic reaction. They probably should have waited a little to announce the split. Keeping the Netflix name for both companies would have been a great idea (see the two Mo…

The gave their future competitor a pretty crappy name!

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#56

Post by jm4 »

lukifer wrote: post #24

It's downright embarrassing how badly Netflix has botched this transition. Not only was Netflix sitting on 25 million happy subscribers, but subscribers who were notoriously brand-loyal, and whose word-of-mouth promotion effectively acted as an unpaid sales and marketing force. Now they seem to be doing everything they can to alienate their most dedicated users, essentially saying "We don't want your business anymore…

As a Netflix user for 5+ years, I for one can't wait until a viable competitor with equivalent selection emerges.

Not trying to single you out, but let me get this straight... You liked the service enough to keep it for 5 years, the service has not changed substantially to the point where competitors have suddenly become attractive and you still want to ditch them?

It's just the company's new strategy. Do I think it was a good idea? Not really. But it's not like they're killing people. Is this really a good reason to go all nerd rage on a company and start cancelling subscriptions?

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#57

Post by jonnathanson »

rhizome wrote: post #46
joeguilmette wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget ratings. Many people have years and years of ratings that drive their algorithm. That is now gone. Good job guys.

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to throw that away, are you nuts? They had a big ol' contest a few years back to come up with a new recommendation algo. Further to what I assume is your point, we have a few years of practice in linking accounts, so a particular user's historical data can easily be integrated with this new corporate architecture. EDIT: I'm using the royal "we" to refer to technological techniques fo…

I have to believe this is true. Netflix has made no small bones about the fact that its recommendation / collaborative filtering algorithm is its strongest competitive advantage. To your point, they even sponsored that contest awhile back.

No way in hell they'd weaken, much less throw away, their golden goose.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#58

Post by soonerjm »

ctdonath wrote: post #27

Unified queue. Regardless of media, business structure, delivery mechanism, company name, etc. methinks what all customers want is a single place to choose & queue content, filtered by whatever options they desire, delivered on whatever medium is available and they pay for via a spectrum of contracts (from unlimited-per-month to single order). Just make sure it's all on one queue. If multi-queue, then only because on…

This. Ultimately, the splitting of the queues between two sites will be what drives me away from Netflix. As long as the streaming choices are only sporadically decent and intermittently available, having the DVD option as a backup is important.

Currently, if I come across anything I'd like to see at some point in the future, I add it to my Netflix queue and forget about it. I may watch it via streaming if and when available, or get it on DVD, or buy it...it doesn't really matter. The queue itself has value because it's a one stop shop for anything I may want to see (well, aside from things currently showing on television, which get added to Tivo in similar fashion).

Splitting the queues kills that convenience. Now I'll have to add it to multiple queues on different sites, and think about which list(s) something needs to be on, and maybe keep things in sync...it takes Netflix's single best feature to me and just kills it.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#59

Post by ctdonath »

pyoung wrote: post #51
ctdonath wrote: post #27

Unified queue. Regardless of media, business structure, delivery mechanism, company name, etc. methinks what all customers want is a single place to choose & queue content, filtered by whatever options they desire, delivered on whatever medium is available and they pay for via a spectrum of contracts (from unlimited-per-month to single order). Just make sure it's all on one queue. If multi-queue, then only because on…

My best guess as to why they are splitting the queues is due to the availability issues on the streaming side affecting customer 'morale', so to speak. i.e. when a streaming-only customer searches for a title, and then finds that it is only available on DVD, their perception of the service is diminished. I think the end goal of this move is to kill off or sell the DVD portion of the service entirely, so by splitting…

That is the main reason why I want a unified queue: inconsistent availability. I put "Scarface" on my queue, but being a low priority it's pretty far down; I was content that someday it would reach the top of the DVD queue and show up, or that on a whim I could hit "Play Now" and stream it. One day I noticed it was tagged for removal from streaming a few days hence, and didn't have time to watch it in the meantime. Streaming option disappeared. [shrug] Well, it's still available by DVD, I'll get to it. Then I get the "we're going to split the service" notice, note that I only watch 2-3 discs a month (lots of streaming instead) so the separate fee wasn't worth it and I canceled. Even if I want to pay a one-time rental to watch it, not available as an option and alternatives (sign up, get disc, cancel) are too much hassle now.

Huh, maybe I'll check Amazon, where I can buy "Scarface" new, buy it used, no-strings streaming rental, or maybe even Prime "free" streaming...and all from a single search...[clickety clickety]...ah, it's $3 to stream it once, and there's 53 purchasing/renting options from $0.01+shipping used VHS to $3 streaming rental to $700 including humidor. Pity it's not in the "free Prime streaming" option, but at least I know the options with one search.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#60

Post by Bud »

_pius wrote: post #54
Bud wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other difference is that Qwikster is a deeply stupid name. The other other difference is that iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc. actually describe their eponymous products, and Qwikster doesn't recognizably describe anything.

The other other difference is that iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc. actually describe their eponymous products ... iPhone? Sure. iPad? Maybe. iPod? Definitely not. It only seems that way because the iPod dominated the product category so strongly as to become synonymous with "portable digital music player."

Huh? The iPad is pad-shaped and "pad" is a commonly-understood noun in the tech world to refer to these devices.

Same thing for iPod. It's pod-shaped (or was when it was introduced) and it's a pretty simple mental leap to classify this "pod" as a thing that you put your music "into".

By stark contrast, "Qwikster" has absolutely no mental, cultural or conceptual link to the product or service it describes. It's worthless as a name in addition to being confusing, already taken by various other services, impossible to spell, and dorky.

Not really debatable.

Post reply on HN