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

Netflix kills Qwikster

allthingsd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#91

Post by ddw »

uptown wrote: post #5

While this rights the ship, Netflix made the colossal mistake of rocking the recurring-billing boat. Smart businesses know that when you've got a customer setup for recurring monthly billing, there's a certain percentage of these customers who will continue to pay even though they're not actively using the service. Part of it is laziness of figuring out how to cancel. Another part is the thought that they may someday…

This is correct and I can't imagine that Netflix didn't think of this as well.

I think what we (well, I) don't know are Netflix's costs for DVD rentals compared to streaming and how that will look in the future especially with the studios and channels negotiating new deals. Clearly they are trying to move everyone over to streaming and are now correcting because it appears that the public isn't quite ready for that yet. They found it necessary to shake things up when they could have enjoyed the gym model. I think they're a really smart company so there must be something behind it.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#92

Post by digikata »

angdis wrote: post #9

For now, they're far enough ahead of any real competition that the flip-flopping won't be too harmful in the short term. They have a great product and they know it. And, this isn't the first time Netflix pissed off customers. A few years back they tried to eliminate the ability to create multiple queues in one account-- they used some ridiculous excuse about technical issues. However, once Amazon and other comers sta…

At the time they back off of that, but I've been noticing of late that the secondary accounts aren't really working in an integrated manner. I used it to split the viewing habits of the kids and adults in my household. That split isn't supported by the streaming. And recently the secondary queues have been experiencing technical difficulties....

I've attended some technical presentations on Netflix's streaming infrastructure. It's very well executed. However, at the user interface to the queues, streaming, and dvd infrastructure, they seem to be having technical difficulty or are making some bad strategic decisions. It feels like the estimation is that it's too hard and they're backing away from supporting well integrated queues and/or they're underestimating the value of the integration they have provided to the user.

I think it's hard to integrate, but in the end worth the work. The harder you make a customer work to access programming, the easier it is to evaluate other competing services.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#93

Post by ja27 »

derekprior wrote: post #72
dpark wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to that seems (to me) to be to charge, e.g., $50/month flat, and pay the content owners based on usage. So if you don't watch HGTV, they don't get your money. This would allow access to all the programming without requiring that you pay for what you don't use.

The dirty little secret is that most of these channels are very cheap. The only expensive ones are ESPN and other sports programming. People who dont watch sports subsidize those that do.

We've been without cable TV for years. Any time I talk to people about cutting their cable TV the only objection is live sports.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#95

Post by Osiris »

biff wrote: post #45

The problem with Netflix is the problem with a lot of companies: the customers are taken for granted. If you have a Netflix account, look at reviews of The Black Tower or The Tudors. For weeks they've been broken -- out-of-sync audio/video on The Black Tower, mislabeled episodes of The Tudors season 2, I guess Whale Wars was also mislabeled ( http://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/i74kw/after_a_few_c... ). Use the…

Speaking of weird streaming issues, they recently added a ton of Star Trek content, so I went back to watch Enterprise. About half the episodes in "HD" were 4:3 and the other half were 16:9. I know the show was filmed and broadcast in 16:9 HD, so why the hell did they encode some of the episodes in 4:3?

With all the effort it takes to encode original content, you'd think they'd have really strict policies on how the content is encoded and QC procedures to make sure it's done right.

Note: I canceled my streaming subscription in favor of Blu-Ray rentals.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#96

Post by dpcan »

pragmatic wrote: post #57
mhb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled the streaming and kept the DVD plan since I could never find anything worthwhile streaming. Then I signed up for Amazon Prime which is cheaper, has roughly equivalent streaming content and the nice shipping. I don't see how Netflix streaming is a good deal unless there is a significant increase in the quality of available content and that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

Kids. If you have them, it's worth it. If not, it's harder to justify.

I have kids who watched the streaming service every now and then, but still canceled it and went Blu-Ray/DVD only because, in my opinion, 99% of the streaming content is awful. It's like the old cheap-rentals section at Hastings.

The selection for kids was just a bunch of the same cartoons the networks re-run all day long every day on cable that we don't like them watching, so it didn't seem to make sense to pay extra so they could re-watch more of the same junk more often.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#97

Post by pbreit »

hollerith wrote: post #53

In explaining the split, Hastings cited the need for the streaming business to stay focused. In other words, Netflix took away a convenience many customers wanted to address a need internal to Netflix's management. That's less than ideal, but I understand the need for the company to face up to reality and shortcomings in its capabilities. More worrying is what they did to the recommendation engine after the split. Al…

You'd think it wouldn't be that hard or hard on the UX/UI to add a button or filter of some sort.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#99

Post by macrael »

uptown wrote: post #5

While this rights the ship, Netflix made the colossal mistake of rocking the recurring-billing boat. Smart businesses know that when you've got a customer setup for recurring monthly billing, there's a certain percentage of these customers who will continue to pay even though they're not actively using the service. Part of it is laziness of figuring out how to cancel. Another part is the thought that they may someday…

The most convincing explanation of their actions I read was essentially:

1. they made streaming a free add on to DVDs to get people using the service, which resulted in streaming becoming popular.

2. The media owners started to (or perhaps always had) cut their deals with Netflix on a per subscriber basis rather than per view. So Netflix was paying the networks for everyone who subscribed, including evyone who only watched DVDs. This became unsustainable.

3. So, they needed to separate these people, thus the split.

I honestly don't see how they could have handled this differently, they needed to tack the service on to DVDs to get people on board, and they needed the services to be separate to actually make money on streaming long term. It might have worked if they had been able to pay for videos on a per view basis, but I'm not sure they have the clout to make that happen.

Re: Netflix kills Qwikster

#100

Post by losvedir »

Huh, I was one of the few who thought Qwikster was a good idea. I even bought stock a day after the announcement. Now what?

I was convinced that this was bitter medicine, but impressed that Reed Hastings was doing it. I figured if they separated out Qwikster, a solid, cash-generating business, they could sell it to raise capital to buy better streaming content.

I only use Netflix streaming, and Reed has stated from practically the very beginning that his vision was streaming in the future. DVDs clearly (at some point) will no longer exist, and I thought selling off that business now, while it still had some legs, was a good move for the long, long term.

Maybe they had a suitor for the DVD business that backed off. Or maybe it really was a change of mind. I don't know, but I'm disappointed overall.

Post reply on HN