Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Issues (Score 1) 158

Nice theory, but we're talking about Netflix. They make money from subscribers, not ads. In the end it doesn't matter how much or how little a Netflix customer watches, only whether they continue their subscription. In fact if Netflix could somehow convince everyone to keep paying for subscriptions without actually watching any content it would be a dream come true for them.

Comment Issues (Score 3, Insightful) 158

There seem to be a lot of problems with this argument, at least as presented in the blurb (TFA is blocked at work.)

First, the amount of time spent watching stuff is a poor metric by itself. What you really want to know is the amount of enjoyment people get out of the service. Admittedly that is very hard to measure accurately, which is why they want to use "hours spent watching" as a more easily determinable value. However they shouldn't forget that the map is not the territory.

As long as people are subscribed to the service they're going to feel compelled to get something out of it. It's the old complaint of "a hundred channels and nothing is on", and yet people kept watching, at least until something better came along. For a lot of people if they have Netflix and they feel like watching a movie they're going to browse around until they find _something_.

And there's a strong corollary, if people feel like they _aren't_ getting their money's worth out, they're probably inclined to cancel the service. Which means suddenly they're not being measured in your survey anymore.

Of course what's being measured here is the balance between movies and TV, which _might_ not be affected by people deciding there aren't enough good movies on. However the above would still hold true if their (non-original) TV content had also seen a similar decline. I know a couple shows i used to watch have disappeared off of Netflix. Are there actually any statistics about the number/quality of TV shows they've had available over time?

Finally, saying that "a majority of fans" have already seen blockbuster movies is just dumb. Of course the "fans" who were "passionate" about the movie have already seen it. They're probably also the people who are going to buy it on DVD or BluRay. They are not your customers in this particular instance. The people who are waiting until the movie is on Netflix/Cable/broadcast TV are the people who said "that sounds kind of cool" but never got around to watching it before it left theatres. Given that they weren't gung-ho about it in the first place they're probably not going to want to rush out and buy the DVD sight-unseen, they're just going to wait until they can rent it or catch it on something they have a subscription for. There may be no one particular blockbuster movie that audience especially cares about, but if your service doesn't carry _any_ of the blockbusters then i expect that that's a serious mark against it in the eyes of many consumers.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

"Is the Reward for smoking pop, worth the risk of its side effects should be the real debate."

I hadn't heard about this new drug, but smoking pop seems like it would be challenging, what's the process? And does the brand or flavor matter? How about diet vs regular?

Given its history i would guess that Coca-cola would be an upper. And since Pepsi is supposed to be cool and different from Coke it must be a downer. Is Diet Dr Pepper a hallucinogenic?

Comment Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest (Score 1) 600

Do you agree with Sony's well-paid and successful lawyers about their interpretation of copyright law just because they're well-paid and successful, and thus must be smarter and know more than us "basement dwellers"? (I thought Trump got really mad about that term when he thought Hillary was using it disparagingly, but i guess the rules have changed now.)

I'm not going to claim I know more than the Sony lawyers or Trump, but opinions about IP law seem to differ quite a bit not based on intelligence, but on whether you've become wealthy because of big corporations (either owning them, getting paid a large salary by them, or getting lobbied by them.)

On top of that, there's at least some correlation between being old and not understanding computers and the internet.

So even if Trump is very intelligent and successful (citation needed,) as a very old and relatively rich corporate owner i would not necessarily expect him to understand why it's bad to let corporations sue people into the ground for things that ought to fall under Fair Use.

That said, even as someone who voted for Hillary, I'm glad Trump (seems to be) carrying through on his promise to block the TPP, regardless of what his reasons for doing so actually are. I don't disagree with _everything_ Trump does and says just because Trump is the one doing and saying it.

Comment Re:Never Got It (Score 1) 227

I agree 100%. I'm a huge fan of Heinlein's early period books and some of his middle period books. However Stranger in a Strange Land is, to me, exactly the point at which the quality of his books started to go down. Combine that with it also being the most hyped of all his books definitely left me with a bad taste in my mouth. (Insert jokes about cannibalism here.)

He produced a couple good books after that (most notable the Moon is Harsh Mistress) but far too much of the time took a couple good ideas and then stuffed in a bunch of weirdness about sex.

Not that i have a problem with sex in books in general, but Heinlein always had to make the sex "edgy", and unfortunately wasn't very good at writing it IMHO. In particular if i'm reading a book for the story (rather than just erotica/porn) i prefer to have better developed relationships than he was ever willing to take the time to invest in.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 227

I'm never going to forgive them for that stupid fucking name change, but they actually seem to have gotten their act together recently. Season one of "The Expanse" was great, (going by the post-analysis it probably would have been nominated for a Hugo if the fans could just have agreed on which episode to vote for) and I've heard mostly good stuff about their other new shows too.

Comment Re:Hoping (Score 1) 269

#1 You stated something that was factually incorrect. "Their profits are always high". I used as much data as was necessary to show that you were incorrect.

#2 I started at 2012 because I stated "Not anymore they aren't," implicitly accepting that earlier in time they were making money and arguing that a change had occurred. And 2012 was when that change occurred. Namely, the release of the Wii U. I never claimed that they never made money, only that they sometimes lose money.

#3 I then said "Yes, they made a lot of money before the Wii U and still have a lot in reserve, but if the Switch follows in the Wii U's footsteps and performs poorly Nintendo can't afford to keep losing money forever."

Thus explicitly acknowledging that they made a lot of money before 2012, but arguing that if they continue the trend of 2012 and on then they will continue to lose money.

Countering an argument of "recently they've been losing money or only making a small profit" with "but at times in the past they made large profits!" proves nothing other than that it's _possible_ for them to make money, which no one here was disputing. But if they're going to do that they're going to have to address some problems, and the question is whether or not the Switch will do that. Since it hasn't actually been released yet it's all just speculation.

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.

Working...