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

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#61

Post by joeguilmette »

phil wrote: post #37
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.

We don't know that yet! I'm quite interested to see how they handle user data in the split -- will each company get a copy? Will the Netflix side maintain a complete database of movies, even if it can't stream them, so that you can continue to rate freely and get recommendations? There are some thorny user experience problems here for sure, but they are not unsolvable.

they are clearly not unsolvable, and in my view they aren't even thorny UX problems. they are clear cut.

the issue is that Netflix thus far has done zero to try to make them better and has, ever step of the way, created these issues when a simple, customer friendly workaround seems apparent.

what to do about ratings? make the two sites interoperable. hell, create an API for Netflix ratings.

what to do about the two Queues? i already have two Queues on Netflix. make the two sites interoperable. seems pretty basic for a big league company.

whatever. i am not shedding any tears. I've been watching movies online for almost 10 years now and I'm going to continue doing so. whether i pay netflix money or fire up a BT client, i don't really care.

the real question is: does Hollywood want my money?

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#62

Post by qjz »

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…

When I put something in my DVD queue, it automatically appears in my streaming queue when it's available. This makes me happy, I watch the movie online, then delete it from my DVD queue. If the new system no longer supports this, it will affect my morale.

But I suspect you're right about killing off or selling the DVD service, and I think they're intentionally trying to sour customer opinion to bring about this end. It's a shame, because Netflix, as it previously existed, was one of the few subscription services I was happy to pay for. After the site redesign, everything's gone to hell (instantwatcher.com is the only useable interface I've found, on any platform). Oh, well, it was good while it lasted...

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#63

Post by tyree732 »

Elfan wrote: post #30
tyree732 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any of the serious complains about the letter had to do with the new name or the tone in which it was delivered. I don't think anyone would cancel their service over the name Qwikster or because the CEO is a jerk. The real complaints dealt with the separation of the services and thus the separations of the ratings system and of queue management. This letter does not address either of those issues, and t…

The fake letter doesn't separate them: > Members can log into both sites using the same login. This will allow streaming-only members to add DVD by mail, and DVD-only members to upgrade to streaming, at any time. The websites, however, will remain separate, so that we can start giving these different worlds the unique attention they deserve.

> The websites, however, will remain separate, so that we can start giving these different worlds the unique attention they deserve.

Sounds like they are being separated to me.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#64

Post by nooneelse »

ShawnJG wrote: post #42
Tloewald wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. In the end this is all about Netflix and not about its customers. If any of this had anything positive to offer customers it could have been spun better, but it doesn't. I think netflix is actually in deep trouble. It's lost Starz, and could be losing other valuable rights, it's changing its business model in a way tha damages its own stickiness, and it raised its prices in a recession for reasons that make n…

Not to mention that a lot of there growth was due to the fact that they had a fiercely loyal cust base that proselytized endlessly for them. I remember getting an email from them years ago that said in essence, "We've upgraded our systems and are now more efficient. because of this your plan will be reduced by xyz." Better service and cheaper, i thought they had me for life...until recently.

> Not to mention that a lot of there growth was due to the fact that they had a fiercely loyal cust base that proselytized endlessly for them.

Yeah, that was me a week ago. Now, I just dread explaining to my other half that we will need to manage two movie queues.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#65

Post by adharmad »

deweller wrote: post #14

Keeping the logo and the word Netflix in the new company name makes it less attractive should they wish to sell it off. Just sayin'.

Rebranding the DVD company is relatively easier than the streaming one due to the many devices in people's homes which are "netflix enabled"

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#66

Post by maratd »

BlazingFrog wrote: post #48
maratd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't botched. Everything is by design. Qwikster or whatever they are calling, is a direct competitor to Netflix, in the same way that Blockbuster was a direct competitor to Netflix. It's the last generation tech. They want to kill it. They want to kill it fast because streaming customers are more profitable. They want you to switch from physical media to streaming NOW. Yes, yes, I know you can't get that esoteri…

I'm curious, do you have numbers backing the higher profitability of their streaming business over DVD-by-mail? I do agree that, if they wanted to get rid of their original line of business without looking like that's what they were doing, this would be the best way.

> I'm curious, do you have numbers backing the higher profitability of their streaming business over DVD-by-mail?

Simple reasoning will get you to that conclusion. There are no physical plants to maintain. No physical inventory to maintain. No postage costs.

You do have the costs of bandwidth, computing power, and licensing fees. I would imagine those are less than the above.

On top of that, they wouldn't be throwing everything into streaming unless they were making more money there. Even the most retarded of businesses will focus on a more profitable line than a less profitable one.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#67

Post by qjz »

jonnathanson wrote: post #57
rhizome wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think their recommendation system is too limiting. At least give me a random button so I can see what else is available besides the same 37 selections they constantly shove in my face. Selection is king in on-demand streaming. Some people like to discover their own style instead of wearing the clothes their moms lay out for them.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#68

Post by qjz »

nooneelse wrote: post #64
ShawnJG wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that a lot of there growth was due to the fact that they had a fiercely loyal cust base that proselytized endlessly for them. I remember getting an email from them years ago that said in essence, "We've upgraded our systems and are now more efficient. because of this your plan will be reduced by xyz." Better service and cheaper, i thought they had me for life...until recently.

> Not to mention that a lot of there growth was due to the fact that they had a fiercely loyal cust base that proselytized endlessly for them. Yeah, that was me a week ago. Now, I just dread explaining to my other half that we will need to manage two movie queues.

We have four queues, DVD + streaming (for a family of four). We may ditch DVDs altogether, and switch to 2 separate streaming-only accounts. Maybe this is what Netflix is hoping will happen.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#69

Post by steve8918 »

I still think the separation of the DVD and streaming businesses was to "firewall" the cash flow of the DVD business, so that content providers couldn't use that against the streaming business in negotiations. This would severely limit the amount of money that a content provider could charge Netflix streaming.

But it's fairly obvious that this plan was too qwikly put in place, without proper due diligence. They didn't even bother to get the rights for @Qwikster on Twitter BEFORE announcing this, which was a huge PR blunder. 2 weeks ago, they could have bought the name for $1000 from this pot-smoking kid, but now I think it's worth at least 6 digits to them, just to end the embarrassment.

Re: What Netflix Could Have Said This Week

#70

Post by uptown »

glhaynes wrote: post #36
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…

Netflix should have made an effort to secure the domain-names for these alternate spellings And the correctly-spelled Twitter name! http://twitter.com/#!/qwikster

That's the second time I've botched their name while trying to type it correctly. Guess I'm proving my own point.
Post reply on HN