
Netflix kills Qwikster - sajid
http://allthingsd.com/20111010/qwikster-is-gonester-netflix-kills-its-dvd-only-business-before-launch/
======
uptown
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 use the service more than they are. This has been the model
for gyms forever.

What Netflix did was force people to re-evaluate whether they truly were
getting what they paid for, and in the process they added complexity to their
branding by spinning off part of the service into a hard-to-spell company that
had nothing buy a landing page.

While this may be good for today's stock price, I suspect many of Netflix's
customers that re-evaluated their needs may not come back for quite a while
... if ever. There's more options available for media than there likely were
when they first signed up for Netflix ... and if those competitors are smart,
they'll target those customers to ensure they're aware of the alternatives.

~~~
smoyer
We switched to the streaming-only plan before our billing cycle and have been
happy ... We weren't good at quickly watching the DVDs and returning them
anyway plus we saved a buck a month. How did other HNers respond to the price
hike? I would expect this group to be dominated by streamers anyway.

~~~
kbutler
We looked at the value: not-deep-enough streaming catalog plus deep DVD
catalog was a great service and a good value.

Either one alone? Incomplete service.

Both? Not enough value at the 2X price.

We kept our subscription open until the day the price hike would hit us (How
does Netflix get away with "the moment you cancel, your subscription ends, no
refunds for partial months"?!?), then canceled completely.

I tried to send them feedback explaining our decision, but I could not locate
a "contact us" via internet vs phone, and I didn't care enough to call them.

~~~
gallamine
Isn't "Not enough value at the 2X price." a bit hyperbolic? Most people would
say a 60% cut is "around 50%". I'm not trying to criticize you, but there
seems to be a systemic overreaction that I can't quite figure out.

~~~
kbutler
It's not hyperbole, it's historical prices & rounding.

I was on a $4.99 1-DVD at a time plan. Then I was on an $8.99/month unlimited
streaming plus 1 DVD (yeah, unlimited streaming is worth the extra $4).

Nov 2010 it up $1/month. Then this year it underwent mitosis , becoming two
$8/month plans.

Yes, $16 is less than 2 * $9, but the process feels like a 2X increase in
under a year.

------
ansy
As an outside observer, Netflix appears to be in a state of panic over the
content providers playing hardball with it. Much like Google, Netflix has such
a huge lead nobody wants to give it a fair break anymore. In many cases,
companies won't even give it an unfair break.

Without the support of content providers, Netflix went from disrupting the
cable TV industry to playing catch up with HBO. Its only hope now is to
produce some killer original content, license what it can, and sell its
premium "channel" as a supplement rather than a replacement. All of the upside
from its slowing DVD business will have to go into content production, which
will eventually put it on even footing with HBO, Showtime, NBC, CBS, Fox, et
al.

If I had to guess, the original plan was to sell off Qwikster. Get the cash up
front for the content push. But now that's not going to work, I guess they're
just going to milk it until it's done instead.

------
guelo
From the nytimes article [1] it sounds like the investors let him have it
"Three days after the announcement, Mr. Hastings wrote in a Facebook status
update, “In Wyoming with 10 investors at a ranch/retreat. I think I might need
a food taster. I can hardly blame them.”

[1] [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/netflix-
aba...](http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/netflix-abandons-
plan-to-rent-dvds-on-qwikster/#)

~~~
ramanujan
For anyone else who didn't get this right away: by "a food taster", he means
that he thought someone might have poisoned his food. (It only took me a
second, but it's not that common a usage today.)

------
hollerith
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.
Although I have yet to decide whether the recommendation engine is worth my
while, the positive PR created by the Netflix Prize convinced me at least to
give it a sustained try (and to encourage a friend to give it a try) which
means rating a whole mess of movies I had seen.

Well, guess what? After the split, streaming-only customers cannot rate titles
that are unavailable on the streaming service.

For example, when I find myself on the streaming service's page for _The Lord
of the Rings: The Two Towers_ , I see a message that says, "The Lord of the
Rings: The Two Towers is not available to watch instantly. Watch The Lord of
the Rings: The Two Towers on DVD! Add unlimited DVDs for only $7.99 more a
month." But I see no way to rate the movie.

Also if Netflix's negotiations with content owners means Netflix loses the
right to stream a movie I already rated, I guess I will no longer be able to
use Netflix's web site to see that rating.

In summary, as part of the split, Netflix management _hobbled_ the
recommendation engine for no good reason that I can see. Netflix seems to have
lost sight of the fact that people use their service because of their interest
in _movies_.

~~~
madebylaw
You actually can rate DVD only movies, but you have to click into the movie's
actual page (where all the reviews and comments are) to do it...

~~~
hollerith
I get it now. Thanks.

------
rfairfax
What's going on at Netflix? If you ask employees, they'll tell you that the
culture - often praised for its high performance standards - is a culture of
fear. It's a product management-driven organization where PMs aren't afraid to
use the poor performance card to remove subordinates who don't go along with
their ideas. The emperor has no clothes. In Netflix's case, the emperor is any
product manager. It's no wonder there was little pushback internally on
Qwikster - the name or the concept. Who has the guts to say no?

A company with a culture of fear is a company that is on a death spiral.
Hopefully Mr. Hastings has the self-awareness to recognize this problem and
the gumption to act on it.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I would hope Netflix would be a product management driven company. Companies
that aren't make far more stupid decisions than companies that are. I'm not
sure what that has to do with the rest of your post.

The culture of fear, OTOH, is problematic in the extreme. It doesn't matter
what the organization looks like if people are afraid to do and/or show their
research for fear of pissing off the powers that be.

~~~
rfairfax
My point on the company being PM-driven was not that PM-driven on its own is
necessarily bad. The point was that the organization responsible for ideas and
their execution (in Netflix's case, product management) combined with a
culture of fear is a bad thing. It means that ideas are not challenged or
questioned to the extent that they should. Apologies for not making that clear
... and no offense to product management as a discipline or career choice.

------
biff
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...](http://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/i74kw/after_a_few_completely_out_of_order_seasons_of/)).
Use the standard form to notify Netflix of the problem or even complain
directly into the reviews... you might as well talk to a brick wall. Same
thing if you're upset that they constantly wait until right before a series is
about to be pulled from instant streaming to post a notice.

None of that would take any significant investment to fix, just a commitment
to deliver an excellent customer experience. It's obviously not the reason why
the stock price halved itself lately but I feel it demonstrates the sort of
lazy arrogance towards the customer experience (as does the Quikster saga)
that will ill serve the company when it faces some real competition over the
next couple of years.

(I did keep my 2 DVD + streaming plan through the rate increase though.)

~~~
Osiris
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.

------
dasil003
They were just too ambitious is all. Hastings knows that streaming is the
future, and he went into startup mode to try to turn his ship in that
direction. The two problems are customer expectations and movies studios
demands.

Customer expectations are a bitch because people believe $10 is the right
price for Netflix and $16 is outrageous, even though this is a fraction of the
cost of all traditional options. Now that expectations are set, price hikes
just enrage people. But for a good selection of streaming content, people are
going to have to be enraged for a while. We already saw what happened to Hulu.
The reality is that studios are not going to let their revenues be decimated
just so that we can live in our utopian future of streaming anything we want
for $10/month. That is such a kick in their gut that they will be willing to
spend the money to all build their own shitty services that fail over the next
4-5 years, put up with rampant piracy, and take any number of viewer-hostile
actions all to avoid accepting Netflix's vision. Eventually I believe the
market will cut them down to size, but getting everything you want is going to
cost more than $10/month.

I give Reed Hastings a lot of credit for trying to bring the future faster by
focusing on streaming, but he overplayed his hand. Netflix's clout comes from
its user base size and the fact that it's DVD business is unassailable by big
media. They're not going to be able to throw their weight around on streaming
deals, and studios will be dragging their feet anyway. The smart thing to do
is to focus on streaming and always be aware that it's the future, but keep
DVDs as a value anchor so customers can justify the mediocre streaming
selection.

------
mathattack
Great companies can overcome Marketing mistakes.

Coca-Cola was one of the world's great marketers. How else can they get you to
pay so much for water + sugar + a jolt? (And how do they charge more for water
than Exxon charges for gasoline?) They made a huge blunder in the 80s
abandoning the classic formula, with a New Coke that was better by all
objective measures. Despite all their market research telling them how good it
would be (blind tests, etc) their customers revolted. Shortly thereafter, they
backed out of the decision. The Chief Marketing Officer (Sergio Zyman) even
turned lemons into lemonade, making a career as, "What we learned when we got
New Coke wrong."

Netflix made an awful decision. If they were a large static company (or
government!) they would have had a hard time backing out of the decision. I'm
sure there was plenty of research and consulting powerpoints explaining why it
was a good idea, so everyone was covered. Unfortunately, it was a decision
that could have destroyed the company. Bravo for Netflix acting decisively and
correcting it's course! They likely saved the company.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Ahem.

New Coke was a known bad transition. Why would I say that? All you need do is
to look on a Coke can ingredients list from before New Coke and after New
Coke. There will be one change:

High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Or if you wish to try the classic formula, try the Mexican version of Coca
Cola. They still use the old formula using cane sugar. There is also a Kosher
version of Coca Cola that uses the older recipe.

~~~
harryh
That's an urban legend.

<http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp>

(Not the primary focus of the snopes page, but they cover this sweetener
change and debunk the myth surrounding it.)

------
paul9290
At my friends today I checked the Netflix streaming catalog on her Roku. I was
wondering if they were offering any better content, but nope it's still the
same B grade level junk I canceled the service two months ago for.

I know their content problem is not completely their fault, though if they
offered higher priced plans I'm sure their content selection would improve.
Different price points should be offered from $8 to $25 or maybe $30.

Overall between these bi-polar business decisions and continual lack of good
content I'm happily getting my content fix from other online outlets. I was a
huge fan a year ago but in the summer it started to lose it's appeal.

~~~
talmand
What do you mean not completely their fault? It's not their fault at all. What
shows up on Netflix Instant is whatever they can get from the content
providers. If the content you wish to see is not on Netflix then blame the
creators of the content, not Netflix. I would bet that Netflix would be happy
to have every commercially-created video content ever made available on their
service.

In much the same way their billing is greatly influenced by the decisions of
the content creators. If the creators demand more money for content, well, for
Netflix to maintain profitability then the charge for service must go up.

Also, I guess what you want to see and what I want to see vary greatly as they
just recently added about six new shows (of several seasons each) to their
lineup that makes me happy and have gotten new seasons on others.

But hey, to each their own I suppose.

~~~
paul9290
It's partly their fault. They are trying to maintain this cheap $8 a month
flat fee, but that's not enough money in their pockets to secure HBO
offerings, a better movie selection and for me a better TV selection.

Hulu, YouTube and other streaming sites I won't mention offer me what I seek
at no cost(Mac Mini connected to LCD TV). Though when I first started Netflix
streaming in Nov. 2010 there were some great offerings (TV shows, super hero
cartoon series & movies) though by this summer I just kept seeing more B grade
level junk. Thus they lost me as a subscriber and Netflix promoter.

There current bi-polar actions just seem like a company with a once strong
brand name is imploding.

------
ck2
Wouldn't market questionnaire testing of just 100 people saved them this
expensive juggling act?

Anyway, I fear streaming price increases next year for sure as all the media
outlets start to gouge netflix and they pass it on.

Best thing netflix can do is make sure consumers know which distributors are
purposely giving them horrible contracts and that it's not netflix's fault.

~~~
redthrowaway
>Wouldn't market questionnaire testing of just 100 people saved them this
expensive juggling act?

Probably would've killed the ipad, too.

~~~
code_duck
The iPad was not revolutionary... it is a giant iPhone with no phone. I would
have said I wanted one beforehand, and believe probably 80% of the people who
have bought one would have thought it looked awesome. So no, I disagree.

~~~
josefresco
Today's numbers would seemingly contradict your statement about the iPad being
revolutionary;
[http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/10/...](http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/10/Smartphones_and_Tablets_Drive_Nearly_7_Percent_of_Total_U.S._Digital_Traffic)

~~~
code_duck
No, if I had said the iPad was not successful, perhaps the article would
contradict that.

------
jkkramer
As a customer, I'm happy. I loathed the idea of maintaining separate queues,
to the point where I started writing a unified queue web app in preparation.

As a developer, I wonder if they're still sticking to their plan to make the
API streaming-only? [1] As much as I didn't like the idea of Qwikster, I was
hoping it would provide a dependable DVD API.

[http://developer.netflix.com/blog/read/Upcoming_Changes_to_t...](http://developer.netflix.com/blog/read/Upcoming_Changes_to_the_Open_API_Program)

------
vsl2
Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, and pretty much any other digital media streaming
service will likely face a problem at some point fighting with content
providers about licensing costs.

If you're a content provider, why would you want to take anything less for
your content than everything Netflix could afford to pay? Particularly since
there are other options (e.g. Amazon, Blockbuster) that could grow to compete
with Netflix.

It will be interesting to see how things play out between the media streamers
and content providers. Unless a media streamer can get an essential monopoly
on its market (e.g. Netflix in movie/TV, Spotify in music) to be able to set
favorable terms, I think its going to be difficult for any streamer to be
really successful.

I agree with many others that Netflix is doing a fantastic job of destroying
its public image and goodwill, which is opening the door for other companies
to make a push. And their streaming selection is so limited - I got the
streaming trial, but couldn't find a single movie on which I wanted to spend
two hours of my life and cancelled the trial a week later having watched
nothing. I can't imagine paying monthly fees for this library unless I wanted
to watch a certain TV show - but I'd probably cancel again as soon as I
finished that show.

------
Osiris
I'm really surprised by all the mistakes Netflix has been making lately. The
mistakes aren't necessarily the direction they are taking the business, but
how they are _communicating_ that with their customers.

Couldn't they have done a little market research and discussed some of their
ideas with existing customers to solicit feedback and determine if what they
were thinking was going to be accepted by their client base? Microsoft does
this all the time, and I'm sure many other companies do.

Instead, Netflix is making hugely public announcements about changes in
service, and then backpeddling or apologizing when their customers get upset.

------
pragmatic
Wow. How can this get any worse. Netflix management has gone crazy.

They took a brand that (in my eyes) was almost as venerable as Amazon and just
thrashed it. They lost a ton of good will (and market capital).

People (including me) used to love Netflix. They, like Amazon, always seemed
to do the right thing for the customer.

I'm sad. They are too few good companies in the world.

------
bostonpete
I may be the only one who is disappointed by this. My impression (based on the
analysis of someone smarter than me) was that Netflix was having trouble
beefing up their on-demand selection b/c the studios were trying to put the
screws to them based on their _total_ revenues (not just streaming revenues).
I was hopeful that with this switch, they'd finally be able to make progress
on growing their on-demand catalog again...

------
blhack
The tone on this one is quite a bit different:
[http://blog.netflix.com/2011/10/dvds-will-be-staying-at-
netf...](http://blog.netflix.com/2011/10/dvds-will-be-staying-at-
netflixcom.html)

The email that came a few weeks ago actually had me stop what I was doing and
read it (I was walking in to grab coffee, and I stopped outside to finish the
email).

That message was full of excitement, and started with a proper "Dear
Customers: I screwed up".

Why haven't I gotten an email this morning saying something similar? This time
you _really_ did screw up. This time, I cancalled my service

(And there is about 0 chance that I'm re-instating it)

~~~
monochromatic
Why would this move cause you to cancel your service?

~~~
blhack
I cancelled my service when they announced qwikster.

I was in the "Meh, I'll keep this around because it's only a few bucks a
month, and, well...they _do_ have all of the firefly episodes. Maybe the
selection will get better eventually."

I wasn't really using netflix very much, and the qwikster announcement caused
me to re-evaluate wether it was actually a service I wanted.

I have a feeling there was a lot of people in my shoes that cancelled.

------
spacemanaki
Something that's totally missing from Netflix's blogpost is any mention of the
video games rental they were going to introduce with Qwikster. The NY Times
piece only quoted someone saying it may or may not happen, which is
disappointing.

From what I've read the current games-rental-by-mail offerings kind of suck,
which is why I've never bothered to try it. I'm kind of interested in a
Netflix-version of this so I hope they go forward with it. I was actually
almost ok with the split, and prepared to subscribe to both, specifically
because they were going to add games.

------
angdis
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 start establishing themselves in the
market, Netflix would do best to get its act together or perish.

~~~
veyron
Though it should be said that blockbuster is now running ads that criticize
quikster's move and the price increase

~~~
vsl2
Yes, but it should also be said that Blockbuster is offering its $10/month
streaming service only to Dish Network customers.

I don't think there are many people who are going to make the switch to Dish
Network because of the ability to pay to stream a very limited library. If
Blockbuster offered the streaming package to the general public (like
Netflix), then we may have some real competition.

------
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.

------
mcculley
This seems like a perfect example of a company that is too focused on what
Wall Street thinks and not being able to deal with the bigger picture and plan
for the long term.

~~~
talmand
I disagree, I think they had a long-term goal in mind without considering the
short-term consequences. I'm not a Wall Street guy and I could have told them
their stock would tumble immediately. Why? That's easy, if you split off a
significant amount of your business to a second company then the company is
worth less the exact amount you are splitting off. For example, $200 million
company splits off $75 million of its company to a second company. Original
company is now worth $125 million instantly. Wall Street does not react well
to that unless you can show such exponential growth that you'll make it up in
a quarter or two.

With their stock tumbling because of the price hike then anyone with any
common sense would have known that this would increase the speed of the fall.
In fact, the conspiracy theorist in me suggests that this was pushed in an
effort to build cash by shorting the stock.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
That's not true. If company A is worth $200M and you split it, (assuming no
other factors liked pissed off investors and/or customers) you'll have company
A worth $125M and company B worth $75M. There is no reduction in the value of
the companies. Investors get five shares in A and three shares in B for every
eight shares they held.

The problem here is everybody (customers, investors and pundits) thought it
was a horrible idea. They thought the value of two separate companies was half
the value of a single company. That is not the normal path when a company
spins off a piece of itself.

~~~
talmand
Well, I would say that a value change of $200 million to $125 million is a
reduction.

Although I didn't assume that investors would automatically get shares in the
new company to equal the value they lose in the original company. It's nice if
it works out that way but I just don't assume that kind of thing.

------
tonetheman
At least they have the nuts to change it back

~~~
paul9290
To me it seems like they are nuts - just wait for the upcoming SNL skits and
late night talk shows having a field day with this!

------
runn1ng
OK.

Netflix really doesn't know what it's doing.

~~~
Bloodwine
As a Netflix customer I applaud their 180 turnaround on their Qwikster plans.
It doesn't matter to me if their flip-flop makes them seem a little
scatterbrained, because the decision to keep both services bundled together
makes the most sense.

Perhaps they realized that if they spin off their DVD business that there
would be blood in the water and the likes of Amazon Prime and Blockbuster
would feast at their expense. While I do think that online streaming is
preferable to DVDs-by-mail, the fact is that there isn't enough online content
available for streaming and the DVDs nicely fill in the gaps and I honestly
don't think DVDs-by-mail will die off as quickly as they first thought.

It makes sense to keep DVDs-by-mail until their online streaming selection is
much more broad, diverse, and containing a lot more quality content.

------
jasonkolb
If they really wanted to hang onto their customers they would bring down the
cost of the one segment of their content they DO control--DVD by mail. As
others have noted this is their saving grace to plug holes in their streaming
lineup, they need to capitalize on it. Hell, give it to streaming customers at
cost if they have to.

------
wycats
The mistake Netflix made was adding in streaming to its DVDs-by-mail brand in
the first place. Had they launched Qwikster instead of adding Instant to
Netflix, Qwikster would almost certainly be a strong brand today, probably the
leading streaming movie brand.

If you doubt this, take a look at Hulu. Hulu's a strong streaming TV brand
because of its content deals; it didn't need to tack on the names of its
industry sponsors to become the place to go for streaming TV.

Now Netflix is saddled with trying to be two things at once. Just because one
company is trying to do two things doesn't mean it needs to stuff them both
into a single brand.

------
goodweeds
When I heard about this, I canceled the DVD service and sent back the 5 dvds
that had been on my bookshelf for 3 years. Then I started using the streaming
service again, and got frustrated. Silverlight is pretty bad, especially with
it's bizarre volume limitations. I realized that Netflix's streaming quality
matches it's streaming catalogue, in other words, it sucks, and I canceled.

Had all of these shenanigans not happened I probably would have been too lazy
to cancel Netflix for another year or two.

Dear Reed, Thanks for reminding me that Netflix sucks and I'd rather read or
exercise than watch movies!

------
cookiecaper
That $300 stock price was extremely overinflated, especially for a company
whose entire well-being rests squarely in the hands of the major media
companies.

------
ams6110
So just because they are ditching the Qwikster branding and keeping both DVDs
and streaming under one umbrella website, do we know that they are not still
spinning off the DVD business as an affiliated but largely separate business
operation? Seems to me they could achieve most of their perceived advantages
of splitting up, while keeping netflix.com as a common storefront portal.

------
dennisgorelik
Qwikster was "Lean Startup" methodology in action:

Netflix did not develop anything for Qwikster, but got meaningful feedback
[and reconsidered].

------
powertower
> And that price hike is what kicked off the company’s tumble from a peak of
> $300 a share.

Nonsense. Losing 1M out of 25M customers while increasing profit does not
translate to loosing $200 from a $300 share price.

This bad news is nothing more than an excuse for insiders to sell shares that
they otherwise would not be able to do.

There are more problems deeper inside.

------
chrchang
And so Netflix blinks. They are getting desperate. Will the subscriber count
increase as a result of this backtracking? My guess is no. There is still the
issue of the massive rise in rates, and the overwhelming negative consumer
sentiment right now. This must be reflected in the stock price which ended
down 5%.

------
davidrchen
This reminds me of when Gap tried to change their logo; making an unnecessary
change that consumers didn't ask for.

It's good they righted their mistake because nobody will be talking about this
in 6 months.

------
Retreads
For those who thought they would be OK with streaming-only or DVD-only
Netflix: Congratulations on your price hike!

~~~
ianferrel
You misunderstand. The streaming-only and DVD-only plans still exist. They're
just offered on the same webpage.

------
waterlesscloud
For Sale: Domain name, never used. (Apologies to EH).

------
igorgue
That was more like an abortion.

------
ascendant
Netflix made a bad decision, listened to the complaints of their customer base
and reversed course on said bad decision. Not sure why that's such a huge
ordeal.

~~~
yoda_sl
Simply because doing some research will have yield the same results without a
public embarassment! Netflix is quite a big player in user focus group and
testing different scenario before launching new features, but in this case:
total FAIL. Netflix constantly do major A/B testing on their web site to see
if any minor changes had impact on their users. They even have a conference
room for getting user focus group together and watch folks going over some new
Netflix features... Looks like none of that experience was used in the
Qwikster case.

------
aneth
Failing loudly and often is going out of style from overexposure.

------
dextorious
That was fast.

~~~
hugh3
Too slow for me though, I'd already cancelled my "Qwikster".

------
conspiracyview
Reed made a $100MM shorting the stock via a proxy and will make another $50MM+
as it rebounds. This in fact was the only way to save the company.

IF it doesn't make sense, it is a conspiracy by default.

