As a technologist I couldn't be more impressed by Netflix's rise over the last decade, but the old film artist in me kind of despises the direction they are taking motion pictures.
I recently stopped using it and it was like walking out of an incredibly comfortable, yet subtly depressing cave. I found it hard to get out of the cycle of watching only films that I was likely to watch.
What humans will eventually discover after we've squeezed every last drop of value out of the monolith ML systems of today is that many facets of our culture do not benefit from traditional recommendations systems. Maybe a more democratized and transparent system for model consumption could help. If indie researchers and hackers can integrate their ML models into existing systems and offer truly diverse ML models then maybe recommendations systems have chance. But in their current state they are laughable representations of the average taste of its users, which is generally not great.
I agree. I think all data can tell us is what people _are_ watching, not what people would get the most enjoyment out of watching.
It's like if a chef based a restaurant menu on the average diet of the average person. You may find neat patterns and be able to hyperstimulate some drive in people, but that's a very different thing than carefully designing a new or engaging thing people didn't know they wanted.
It's sort of a guaranteed averaging feedback loop.
> I think all data can tell us is what people _are_ watching, not what people would get the most enjoyment out of watching.
Just to be clear/nitpicky, you're talking about an algorithm that starts with the catalog Netflix could afford to license at some moment in time, and then maximizes the viewer's enjoyment for that limited set of content.
That's probably a vastly different level of enjoyment than starting with, say, the catalog of available content listed in IMDB and maximizing for the same thing.
Sure. But they are still at best delivering "the most enjoyable experience where the enjoyment is bounded by the content that Netflix can afford to license."
A user can hit those constraints when they search for something that exists but is not available on Netflix.
That point becomes noteworthy when that same content (or portions of it) are available elsewhere on the net. In my experience this is typically through:
a) downloading a torrent of the content that is missing from Netflix
b) watching all or some portion of that content on Youtube
It only tells what people are watching from an extremely limited data set. I would have much different viewing patterns if Netflix streaming was anywhere near what their DVD selection was. You could watch all manner of obscure films that aren't worth buying and streaming services aren't going to carry.
Yup. The endgame for this type of content if there is one is probably dynamically generated shows that adapt story lines and characters to need your mood and desires, even the unconscious ones.
Just simply occasionally injecting something randomly chosen from the catalogue would probably do wonders. I do find that these systems as they currently exist tend to sate your appetite for a particular thing until you are fatigued by it and no longer wish to engage. Maybe it's a sign of how rudimentary their recommendation systems really are, as you say. My use of Netflix and Youtube have both dropped off precipitously because of this over-feeding of my appetite for certains types of content.
However, I've also gone back to Netflix DVD. They have such a massive catalogue of movies and it seems easier to just skim through genres and find weird gems.
You can inject your own novelty. Youtube does the same thing and after a while I just clear out its recommendations and start over.
The non-customized (viewed in incognito) main page of Youtube that is the recommendation for the average viewer is even worse, nobody should ever touch that horror show.
Ublock origin with all filters enabled is the only thing that makes Youtube usable in my opinion.
Youtube is a horrific service. The recommendations are terrible, the UX sucks, too many ads, they dont know how to use the sreen real-estate.
I freaking hate youtube.
WRT to real-estate, I see that the video I am wanting is taking up ~20% of the screen, then there is a list of completely unrelated content, and I have to click to see the date of the submitted video.
The UX is different on every single device. Phone, machine, ipad, browsers differ... its just a mess.
I think it would rather help if there was two buttons; "watched" and "hide". Both remove the item permanently from the visible catalog for you, "watched" adds it to a profile-private list of things you have watched.
This would help me to quickly sort out if I would consider watching something and I could reduce my watching list to the things I'm actually currently watching instead of abusing it for "might watch at some point".
If I have watched something I don't want it to be recommended to be and if I don't like something I don't want to see it again.
> Just simply occasionally injecting something randomly chosen from the catalogue would probably do wonders
This is a standard ML practice, otherwise ad networks would be stuck showing you the same ads (even though it feels that way sometimes). I'm willing to wager large sums of money that Netflix has tested EVERY idea mentioned anywhere in this thread and many others you couldn't guess.
You're probably right, but then the recommendations seems to just boil down to what other people are watching, what Netflix has recently produced and things in the same genre as what I'm watching a lot of at the moment. Seems like a pretty rudimentary output for such a sophisticated system.
Steam does this. I honestly didn't get a ton of use out of it, but I only really followed Jim Sterling, Total Biscuit and TB's 30 FPS Locked curation list. The latter was the only one I found particularly useful because it turns out I have pretty different tastes from both of them and just enjoyed their critique.
It seems to be evolving the same way that Hollywood and the AAA game industry did. Which optimizing for safety as budgets increase. So it's mostly just the same stuff over and over - things that have been previously proven to work. As a result you get movies/games that you don't hate, but also don't love.
Surely the point of a recommendation system is that it is just that, a recommendation?
I find a lot of my joy in watching netflix is randomly browsing through the catalogue and selecting a random film that I would never watch if I had to either schedule watching on TV or pay to watch at the movies.
The fact that Netflix brings together a wide range of different movies and television programs in one place where for no cost I can watch something you may not like has opened a world of media I would never have found before.
Absolutely, watching a stand up comic show from Poland in Polish via English subtitles is a hoot just in itself. Could never do that prior to the Netflix streaming era.
Also highly recommend the Norwegian “Occupied” series.
This is a good observation and I share the sentiment.
AI/ML is great at optimizing what you're currently doing. While it can also find correlations and connections that you may miss without it, it's unlikely that it will make any radical recommendations.
IMO this is ok because AI/ML can evolve into that capacity - you have to take baby steps after all.
But in the interim, it's definitely something to watch out for - you don't want to take away the element or principal of randomness out of life - it's at the core of how we operate, innovate, and (almost quite literally) how we evolve.
It would be interesting to see ML recommendations of the form "There is a 75% chance you'll LOVE this movie, 25% chance you'll hate it" rather than only "98% chance you'll like this movie". Right now those 75% movies are actively hidden, as 75% is considered a bad prediction.
In other words, rather than optimizing for zero risk of disliking something, allow the user to optimize for the possibility of truly loving something, or being surprised. Especially on Netflix, where the risk is you stop part way through and switch to something else!
I'd like to see Netflix invest more in making a great browsing discovery experience. I feel like their UI is really optimized to the watch something quick metric now. It seems like search is pretty well implemented these days and both YouTube and Netflix recommendations have come a long ways but it still seems hard to replicate that browsing experience that I get at the local bookstore with some rudimentary sections and staff picks.
I do agree with what you say. On the flip side of that, I also think Netflix has been greatly beneficial in offering the opportunity to both produce and distribute movies that would have had a hard time getting to market otherwise with the current studio oligarchy. Going away from the recommendation topic, this enhances the types of movies available, which is direly needed in the age of superhero dominance.
I still get loads of recommendations from friends - often for shows on Netflix but friends are still a pretty big source of inspiration for what to watch.
Agreed - I do miss the days of Netflix's star ratings. I would be able to browse content I wouldn't necessarily be drawn to, but would consume anyway because, 'oh wow - tons of people gave it a great rating.'
I get why they've moved to 'this content matches [x%] to your tastes', but I'm watching similar stuff over and over again without any insight into whether other content is also good, unless I want to spend hours pouring through IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes.
There is the filter bubble paradox - the stuff that we need to learn is what we have never encountered before, but the ML filters can only learn from our past opinions.
If the problem is the recommendation system, you can still get recommends the old-fashioned way, like by r/NetflixBestOf. A glaring deficiency for me in Netflix's dashboard are the presence of various consumer opinions and reviews.
Netflix definitely found greenfield with their business model, however the next few years will be decided by who can create the best original content. Netflix has spent billions on content: signing popular writers / show runners to long term contracts and picking up movies in the indie scene for distribution. However I still don't think they've had a massive hit, nothing Netflix has made can touch Game of Thrones or the Sopranos for cultural impact, and critically even Amazon Studios has had an Oscar nominee (although I think Beasts of No Nation was robbed for not getting a best actor nom).
Disney is rolling out their own streaming service and I'd bet that eventually they will roll ESPN+ into the deal and maybe even ESPN entirely itself. I think once sports gets into the mix the entire streaming domain will radically change.
nothing Netflix has made can touch Game of Thrones or the Sopranos for cultural impact
I think House of Cards was at least in the same ballpark as GoT and Sopranos. I think there is something to be said for brand affiliation as well, HBO was already considered a great source of TV while Netflix was only starting to get a fraction of that credibility. I could easily imagine an alternate reality where we would say:
nothing Netflix has made can touch Game of Thrones or House of Cards for cultural impact
with the implication being The Sopranos being a Netflix property.
As with homeruns, HBO has more than its share of (sometimes critically acclaimed) base runs (Veep, Boardwalk Empire, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc...) as is does strikeouts (Vinyl).
I don't think House of Cards comes close really, especially now that Spacey is out. Game of Thrones is a movement: cosplay, crazy fan forums, ultra wide appeal, the filming location of King's Landing in Croatia is constantly flooded by tourists because of GoT. House of Cards is a solid show, especially season 1, but I'd say GoT is the biggest show in the world culturally right now.
Good point regarding HBO's brand and their "good" shows; and I think it helps to illustrate my point: Netflix has a lot of good shows, maybe even some great ones, what I think they need, and what I think the other streaming providers will need is really big generational hits that come out every five years or so.
I don't think House of Cards comes close really, especially now that Spacey is out. Game of Thrones is a movement: cosplay, crazy fan forums, ultra wide appeal, the filming location of King's Landing in Croatia is constantly flooded by tourists because of GoT. House of Cards is a solid show, especially season 1, but I'd say GoT is the biggest show in the world culturally right now.
Both good points, too bad that HoC looks to be Spacey's swan song (and deservedly so).
Game of Thrones was already popular before HBO touched it however. Not to the degree that it is now, but it was one of the most talked about books since Harry Potter.
The worst thing is I have not found the next Game of Thrones/Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings. Lots of good books have come out in the past few years, but nothing has had the same impact yet.
The upcoming Amazon production of the Tolkien series is an obvious attempt to ride the GoT coattails. I'm putting the coattail credit to GoT rather than the Jackson trilogy.
Yeah, I think some of the factors that determine if a show is a massive hit is outside of the direct control of the producer. I think Netflix will get some home runs if they continue to invest in them, and keep giving directors creative freedom. Stranger Things was a really popular tv series.
And Netflix has got options for critically acclaimed tv series that traditional networks can't fully utilize. They can and do import foreign tv shows to an American audience without worrying much about taking airtime away from other shows.
Do they need a massive hit though? I for one appreciate the diversity that is available on Netflix. Surely they can match people's tastes better this way.
Still I'm rooting for the Witcher to be a big hit.
I'd say no, because they aren't dependent on advertising. Taking ads introduces a kind of competitiveness within the seller's financial heads. It's an irreversible state change that works for some companies, but -- and I'm no econ -- Netflix might be banking on not needing to do that for as long as they can. We see them dancing with the fire in their menu behavior and intercalary promos[1], so we'll see.
I think so, as mentioned Netflix has definitely changed the game but when it comes to awards success and cultural impact I think they've been lacking. Netflix doesn't release viewing numbers so it's hard to tell but traditionally every big network provider has had a generational hit now and then (Grey's Anatomy, Big Bang Theory, Family Guy, etc.). As other streaming services catch up (and I think they will) services will need to differentiate with original content that you just can't miss.
I kind of wonder if Netflix's decision to release a show a season at a time changes cultural success. All of those shows were weekly, so they stuck around in your head and in general conversation. Netflix you can binge watch, so after a month or two you probably aren't watching it anymore.
I think there's 2 problems with your problems. Firstly, that Netflix even needs to have 1 big hit when they have quantity over quality of shows, which is honestly far far more important, at least in my opinion, because I buy the service to have a huge variety. I'm never going to pay for one show. The second thing is that you assume people are going to choose Disney over Netflix when they can reasonably have both ($12 a month is pennies). Netflix have far too many loyal customers on their hands, thanks to their (frankly) genius profile-sharing system. The streaming game will change over the next decade, but not in a way random people can seriously predict, and definitely not in a way that will kill Netflix. Think of it in terms of all the shitty streaming services that are only alive because of one show... If they can stay alive, it's reasonable to expect Netflix to stay alive even without a hit show.
Important to also consider markets outside W. EU and the US where $12 a month might not be pennies after those markets are totally saturated and Netflix and others look to continue boosting subscriber counts
I'm nearly ready to cancel my streaming subscription. There is less and less studio movies I want to see on there, and more Netflix originals. Not that I have an issue with the originals, there are good ones, but there is seriously nothing else worth watching. I still subscribe to Blu-Ray rentals for the following reasons.
A. Streaming quality is still poor, particularly audio. The bitstreams are compressed beyond normal DTS/DD compression, and it sounds like garbage in comparison to the lossless tracks on physical disks. To me the audio track is 90% of any movie.
B. It's impossible to find the vast majority of movies on streaming. If something pops up, it disappears in a month or so. Out of FIVE HUNDRED physical discs queued up, only TWELVE are available on streaming. I seriously fear the day they get rid of physical disk rental all together. Their catalog is expansive, and we have ZERO other options now.
I just bumped from 2 discs to 3 discs out at a time, because we no longer have 1 day turn around times on returning and sending out discs. It's nearly impossible to get one back the same week unless you send it out Monday or Tuesday.
I still get disks for the same reason. Unfortunately they're literally letting their back catalog rot with more and more in-print films no longer available. Unfortunately at least some of them aren't available on a la carte streaming services.
Really not sure what is going to happen to the cinephile demographic if they do away with their physical library. I'm not going to deal with 8 different streaming sites, all with poor quality.
Which is pretty marginal for non-mainstream content. The answer is that you're probably buying anything on disc that is at all obscure. Which isn't actually that bad. DVDs aren't super-expensive for the most part.
I think the "outsmarted" part is absolutely correct to an extent. They definitely saw an opportunity that an entire industry didn't. They have absolutely changed the direction of television in pretty much all respects, from release cycle, to delivery to even marketing. However, I think the issues that Netflix has largely encountered now that others are catching on are a result of them not pushing hard enough. It's readily apparent that Hastings and his team saw this opportunity, and were in perfect position to capitalize on it but they didn't show enough faith in the model to make the sorts of long term bets that could have built them an unassailable moat. You get all these shows for whatever crazy amount that no one else would pay but you do relatively short term deals? Certainly Netlfix was ready when the deals started to expire to go all in on original content to replace the stuff they lost, but knowing that the major networks were going to come at you hard once they realized the opportunity they had signed away why wouldn't you push for longer deals? I recognize the sheer economics of the issue but outside of the originals Netflix is losing all the things that originally brought people to the service. If they did 10-15 years it would have been impossible for anyone to catch them as they are doing now.
Perhaps the people selling didn't want to sell for long contracts because they knew that once what Netflix was doing caught on, the value of their own properties would skyrocket. Why lock in for a 10 year contract at $X when you can get $(.1)X for 2 years and then $(10)X for the next 8?
I don't see why one would assume that Netflix had enough funds at the time to secure rights for longer periods of time. Obviously it is Netflix's interest to have as much content for as long as possible, so the only explanation for why they secured rights for as long as they did was because they didn't have sufficient resources.
I'm sure economics played a role but I don't overall find that to be a compelling reason to not shoot for longer deals. They are any number of ways to generate the money necessary and contractually they could have structured things such that there were automatic extensions built in based on arbitrary criteria. I think Netflix took a huge bet, and knew they were doing so and thus hedged their bets. They either hoped they could re-negotiate better deals later on or were scared the service would fail leaving them with huge liabilities.
I would bet the media owners had some inkling that the internet would change the nature of the game and the elimination of a middle man was on its way (assuming net neutrality, but that of course has changed). Anyone in their position would have been wise to let Netflix have the rights while they tested the business model and/or the media owners themselves built their product, but definitely not let them have it for any longer than necessary.
The problem is from all the evidence we have (granted it's all anecdotal) that wasn't the case. Every interview, every story from this period times reinforces the fact that Network execs thought they were getting a great deal from a company that would never work. Every bit of data we have says that the networks fundamentally believed there was nothing that was going to change the status quo. They had every incentive given that belief to get as much money from Netlfix as possible because what did they care. They already assumed Netflix would fold anyway, so why not license things for 10 years or 15 or however long netflix wanted if it got you x million dollars more. When netflix went under they would have got back the content and kept the money.
I hadn't heard of that, and if that's true, then I see your point. But I'm sure there were also hard decisions being made at Netflix about how much of their limited resources to devote to developing their own media versus how much to license.
>They have absolutely changed the direction of television in pretty much all respects, from release cycle, to delivery to even marketing.
A lot of this is the classic play of using investor money to buy users. Netflix has been burning billions because they don't charge enough for the content they provide. That problem is getting worse as the streaming market becomes more of a primary distribution channel driving the cost of streaming rights up. We've already seen that happen as Netflix catalog shrinks despite all of their original programming.
Basically, Netflix's product is getting steadily worse while their costs are going through the roof.
Probably more, since your cable company (sorry, that should read broadband provider) will raise their rates to make up for the lost revenue in TV services.
This is actually not true. Smaller cable companies (so anyone smaller than Comcast) traditionally make very little if any profit on cable TV. The entire cost of the cable TV package is made up of the licensing and distribution fees charged by the studios. A (will remain) unnamed provider in the northeast region actually looses money per cable TV subscriber so they can stay competitive against Comcast. They're very excited for the day they can drop their Cable TV packages entirely and solely become a pipe.
I subscribed to Direct-TV-Now to save money on television but then hit the bandwidth cap of Cox Cable internet and so now I pay an extra fee for unlimited bandthwidth. I never realized there was a cap until we had multiple tv sets streaming HD video on top of other Internet use.
You also get choice, ability to cancel stuff you don't like, avoiding ads (at least for now, and then you can cancel if it starts back up again), access whenever you want wherever you are, etc. Many more benefits than the old model.
I definitely prefer their product placements over traditional ads. Some of them are very jarring though, and you can feel the actors' pain reciting the lines -- like the KFC in season 2 of Stranger Things, in a dinner scene all the shots are obviously centered around a bucket of KFC. For some reason they felt that wasn't enough and drag you straight out of the scene saying "finger lick'in good!!!".
If I were paying for Netflix (it’s free from T-mobile), I would be paying roughly $55 for all of the streaming services we have DirecTVNow, Hulu, and Netflix. On the surface that’s the same price as bundled cable. But with cable I would also be paying for multiple cable boxes each month, network access fees, regulatory fees (not state mandated taxes), etc. by itself that would be an additional $50.
Truthfully I couldn't be arsed to see 99% of Netflix shows leave. I will pay for a subscription to watch one show then change to a different provider when I'm done and want to watch another. Cable doesn't let you do that.
The other day I noticed the drama films on Netflix this month are very strong. Led to realization that as time passes, the licensing costs for media often decline. When Netflix started streaming in 2007 films that were 5, 10, and 15 years old (less expensive) were produced in 2002, 1997, 1992 respectively. Someone starting college in 2007 would have been between 4 and 14 years old when those films were released. Today, the same 5, 10, 15 targets hit years 2013, 2008, 2002. That user from 2007 is now ~30, and would have been between 14 and 25 when those films were released. As time passes, Netflix will be able to offer more relevant content to their core users at a lower cost. It seems some of their recent original content fills some of the programming gaps for younger users. They are positioned very well.
Interestingly though, they have very little content that is 40+ years old. In the United States, there are currently just 10 films available from the 1960s. Five of those are Bollywood films and three concern Barbara Streisand. There are only four films from the 1950s, including White Christmas, which always make good August viewing.
There are so many amazing films from those two decades. Where are they?
Locked in vaults on deteriorating film masters. It's really hard to find original masters to digitize the older you get. You can't just grab an old laserdisc and encode it -- the resolution isn't good enough. You need to find the old high res film masters.
As the AI gets better for restoring old film, it might become possible to find old laserdiscs or even VHS to use as a master, but right not, that's not really possible.
I mean the work has already been done for a heck of a lot of those films though right? A quick search shows oldies.com having 500+ movies from the 60s available in blu-ray. I would assume the rights to those digitalizations belong to the same owner as the rights to stream in most cases.
> I would assume the rights to those digitalizations belong to the same owner as the rights to stream in most cases.
Not in most cases, no. Usually everything is owned by someone else -- even the audio and the video are usually owned by separate companies.
Also, the originals that those blu-rays were digitized from are most likely the film masters themselves, which would have to be found again, and possibly restored again. You'd be surprised how easily studios lose their film masters.
I'd say they are on FilmStruck with the Criterion Channel. I subscribe to it in addition to Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now precisely because the other services don't have much in the way of older films.
Maybe the Netflix crowd is more into TV shows. They have/had a decent selection of shows from the 80s and 90s: Cheers, Bob Ross, Friends, Full House, 3rd Rock. Which suggests that the person you're replying to is onto something.
The 'old guard' wasn't wrong; Netflix pretty much were suckers for licensing a bunch of old content. The part in the transcript where he presents this as a stroke of genius that led to the pivot to original content is a rosy-glass view that gives Netflix too much credit. In my opinion, this fate came about entirely because of the content owners and not because of Netflix.
Netflix basically needed to bootstrap its streaming service with content, so they paid a bunch for syndication. They then sold an all-you-can-eat plan at a low price. Their success butted against pay-per-view providers, other syndicators, and content owners: Netflix blazed the trail and proved that people sign up for video-on-demand in droves if it carries content people want to watch, and is cheap enough to where one doesn't have to think about every view. But this devalued the content, so studios yanked their newer seasons and put them on knock-off platforms for a separate subscription.
This development meant Netflix had to start making deals with less controlling content providers, or produce content of their own. On the other side of the house, Hulu was able to justify its price point by offering current seasons of popular shows, and being a joint venture of influential content owners, but single-owner offerings struggled for customers, unless the IP was exceptional. This is why HBO hasn't yet died in this space, and Disney will likely succeed on their own, but also-rans no longer offer enough in a crowded market.
By the end of the article, they do descend to reality and identify the magic formula: Netflix makes money from the subscription, and a constant flow of offerings both strong and mediocre will tide the user over to make them not consider cancelling. And in time, the ever-expanding catalog is insurance for a change in market headwinds.
The key, though, is will Netflix be able to convince the consumer to part with their money when other platforms with the same business model offer a more compelling catalog? In the long run, that remains to be seen.
Very much so. Netflix was strong when they ran the DVD business as they could show almost anything simply by buying a copy. But the licensing deals have obscure time limits (and once the licensors saw how Netflix was doing they of course raised the prices, held back key content, shortened the windows etc).
They downside of showing only your own content is that you need a pretty high percentage of winners (diversity of viewers increases your odds, but still). A "drought" can kill you. And as a result, Paramount, 20th century Fox, MGM etc are irrelevant to the viewers' choices.
I’m not seeing a better catalogue for comparable money, just endless fragmentation with layers of paywalls to access content. What Netflix and emerging platforms have convinced me of is the value and necessity of piracy, ormthe promise of a better future of media consumption will be undermined by greedy rent-seekers. I have no doubt that within a decade they’ll have managed to make the price of access to content more expensive in terms of money and effort than cable ever was.
If you can click a button and get the content, then there is no necessity of pirating. Perhaps you don't want to pay what the owners are asking, but that doesn't "necessitate" stealing it.
The only time I can think of being forced to pirate is when legacy licensing crap keeps you from being able to watch it where you want, when you want it. But if it's available to buy on iTunes or Amazon or wherever, and all you have to do is pay, then you're either choosing to pay what the owner is asking, or steal it.
Well, I don't agree on the "outsmarted" part. I have basically seen all there was to see and new material trickless too slow to keep me. My family is still hooked but they aren't too happy either. If they don't find a new way to keep audience they will soon face prospect of people being bored and leaving for somewhere else.
All my recents searches for old movies were vain. Last Sunday, I wanted to see 'Little Miss Sunshine (2006)', result: not available (in Canada anyway). Unsubscribing has started to cross my mind.
When I subscribed for Netflix, the motivation was a large catalog of old movies, cool stuff from other countries (I remember watching TV series from Iceland that were great), no ads. But the greatest selling point: it was more convenient than pirating.
Now, it's all about pushing Netflix produced content down my throat using whatever trick possible, and pirating is again more convenient (large catalog, no ads) even if less user-friendly.
So yeah, "outsmarted" is really pushing it. I'm not the only one getting bored by the current Netflix direction.
> I'm not the only one getting bored by the current Netflix direction
The current Netflix direction is the only one possible; one big catalog only worked before they had proven the viability of mass streaming—once that happened competitors bidding for exclusives (and content owners reserving material for their own services) was inevitable.
I feel like there's more content in Netflix that I would be interested in but have never seen, but they've increasingly made it so Goddamn hard to find anything while endlessly recycling low-quality content I would never watch and a bunch of content I've already watched on the primary section views.
I agree. It would be so nice to have alphabetical index or something akin to that. Instead it seems they care more about hiding the true size of their library than the discoverability of the content within.
I wouldn't even need an index. Just a simple "stop recommending this to me" checkbox would be enough to force the front page to stop cycling through the same 50 items endlessly.
if their UI would let me browse in peace I'd spent 10-20 minutes looking deep for interesting things to watch. Instead they autoplay everything which I find massively distracting like a used car salesman screaming "Watch This!" so after about 30 seconds I give up and cancel my subscription. Try again in 6 months when there's something I know I want to watch. Always cancel immediately after watching
I am always going to disappointed that in the end the only model Netflix could follow was that of the cable companies by having its own locked in content. The cable companies didn't want to share their media via the internet and hoarded it and Netflix's attempts to be a modern delivery service failed, so they became a cable TV company over the internet with their own locked in content.
There's a lot of hype about Netflix, but beside Stranger Things, and some "old" movies here and there, I'm not that much impressed. After I watched what interested me, I cancelled my subscription.
I agree. My watch list is like 40 films or series' long. A lot of that is Chinese kung fu movies, but I really love the cinematography and locations. Additionally, Netflix provides me my BBC mystery fixes (Shetland, Midsommer Murders, etc...)
If you're a 30-something white male who likes comedies and fantasy, you'll never want for content on Netflix. I can tell that other demographics are not nearly as satisfied though.
One thing I lament about Netflix is how people's watching habits have changed around it, and how the programming has also changed in response.
A lot of people like to have something playing on the TV that they passively watch while also doing something else. Maybe they put on a show while they browse Instagram, or do house work/cook dinner, or while hanging with friends.
Seemingly as a result of this, there are a lot of shows/movies where you don't really need to pay close attention to get the plot because it has been dumbed down, reduced to the most basic strokes. There's more filler in between plot developments. It's like a lot of B-movie schlock with high production value.
These shows/movies don't interest me. When I put something on to watch, I sit there and watch it. I want deep plots and fleshed out characters and a lot of Netflix originals seem to lack this.
I don't think that in itself is a change in viewing habits. There's been plenty of filler tv trash for the last half century, and I've used it in the way you describe even before netflix existed
True. I guess I wish their original programming didn't skew so heavily that direction. It wasn't as much of a problem for me when they still licensed a lot of non-original programming.
> I guess I wish their original programming didn't skew so heavily that direction.
no it really did.
"Shipping" is a classic trope where 2 characters have a will they won't they relationship for several seasons. It is always a good B story to fill otherwise empty space with when writers run out of material.
The name literally implies what it is, you are "shipping" a script. quality is slightly irreverent
I am pretty sure the term comes from "relationship" - I remember it being used in alt.tv.x-files about Mulder and Scully, though I don't know if that was its first use (their relationship was/is very much as you describe): certainly people who wanted the two to get together were known as "shippers".
I was once told soap opera is literally named for disposable shows that people at the laundromat would have on while waiting for their clothes to finish drying. That turns out to be a folk etymology, but it's believable.
As for original programming seemed dumbed down, I'd argue that for whatever reason (general technical advancements, maybe), it's far easier to make dumb shows, with higher production values. That's how you get wannabe prestige dramas that ape the style of The Sopranos, Mad Men, even costume epics like Game of Shows, but end up being far more vapid and worse in writing or plot. It's sort of how even box office stinkers these days look much better than bad movies used to do.
I don't mind over-the-top drama. Drama does not need to be dumb. One of my favorite series is Downton Abbey. The rule of that show seems to be that given a situation, always take the most dramatic route. This isn't bad though, the characters react realistically, they have depth, the show is wonderfully well acted. If you're not actively paying attention you will miss subtle facial expressions and looks that the characters show, giving more insight into what they are really thinking.
I feel more and more done with paid streaming services. Even Netflix seems to make their interface progressively more intrusive and less useful. Their content seems to vanish and get replaced with "original content" - conspiratorial documentaries, mostly.
For sure there is still some value there, but it's more and more distributed across platforms, with worse and worse usability. Often I find I'm paying for multiple expensive services and can't find a way to stream what I'm looking for. Or (Amazon Prime!) I can rent it from a service I already pay monthly for.
TV had lower expectations. On-demand but sort-of-not-really-and-you-have-to-pay-again-and-watch-more-ads is frustrating.
Netflix hasn't outsmarted anyone really. They are still dependent on the studios for AAA content. It remains to be seen how successful Netflix remains once studios ramp up their own streaming services and start pulling their content from Netflix. I predict it will become another HBO with similar subscription rates.
Stock market aside, it is yet to be seen if Netflix model is viable on long term. Current content budget growth is larger than revenue growth and lot of the new memberships are coming from International market which will saturate at some point. The basic hypothesis here is that $10/mo per subscriber would be enough to sustain roughly $700 million/mo content budget. This is quite possible if you had 70 million subscribers. HBO on the other hand 130 million subscribers but they do this by sneaking in package deals with cable plans. However there is no magic here with idea or business plan. You can think of whole deal as Netflix turning itself in to Internet version of HBO. It will just work as good or as bad.
9 minutes of commercials per 1/2 hour? Ice road truckers level content? The bar was really low here. I wouldn't give Netflix too much credit, although IMHO they are doing the best out of their competitors (AMZ, Hulu, etc..).
Tough times ahead for Netflix. Their model is broken and smart money is leaving the service. Why pay monthly for a bunch of crap shows I don’t like. They have no edge vs competition. Prime, Hulu, etc all offer the same thing it’s just a matter of whose lineup is better and Netflix can’t produce enough content to compete on that.
Exactly what I was thinking the last time I was on Netflix, which was a couple of weeks ago at this point and spent a good 40 minutes realizing that Netflix had now become the "vast wasteland".
With delivery platforms all now funding their own content, the streaming entertainment landscape starts to look ... exactly like the old TV networks. Just the names have changed - replace 'ABC', 'NBC', 'CBS' with 'Netflix', 'HBO', 'Amazon'. It convergent evolution, and all of the things that drove the dreck that was on broadcast TV in the old days are there to drive it now, only with even better and realtime ratings data and targeted ads.
I mean this is such a straw man argument. It's simply impossible to maintain HBO level quality putting out the amount of content they do. And to make it clear they have no choice but to greenlight that amount of content.
Autoplay though was a profoundly good idea. It's literally the reason binge watching exist, which from a business is genius. For what reason do you dislike autoplay?
I see nothing wrong with search either. I mostly use the PS4 app in which in works fine. It's admittedly not the best but certainly no worse than any other streaming service and worlds better than what my cable provider has.
The whole streaming industry is a joke. It's like fast food for the brain, and I include HBO in it. Where are the documentaries, where are the interviews, there are so many good stuff to watch out there, why the only thing available on all those services is junk, stupid nonsense fiction? I include amazon in that critic.
>For what reason do you dislike autoplay?
Because it doesn't bring anything but distraction. If I want it to play, I can click, if I want to browse, I don't need a preview. Most of their movies is shit anyway so why would I need to preview them?
> It's admittedly not the best but certainly no worse than any other streaming service
Amazon is way better, both on their app and website.
EDIT: amazon (prime) is better for the search, content wise, it's the same poor selection of violent movies and idiotic documentaries.
I recently stopped using it and it was like walking out of an incredibly comfortable, yet subtly depressing cave. I found it hard to get out of the cycle of watching only films that I was likely to watch.
What humans will eventually discover after we've squeezed every last drop of value out of the monolith ML systems of today is that many facets of our culture do not benefit from traditional recommendations systems. Maybe a more democratized and transparent system for model consumption could help. If indie researchers and hackers can integrate their ML models into existing systems and offer truly diverse ML models then maybe recommendations systems have chance. But in their current state they are laughable representations of the average taste of its users, which is generally not great.