« Netflix's List of Movies & DVD Players Affected by Sony DRM | Main | DMNews on the USPS DVD Mailer Report »

Comments

gir

Facts? On a subjective concept like fairness?

I believe light users should get dibs on high demand titles to balance out the fact that they're getting fewer disks for their money. I believe that is more fair than any other approach I've seen suggested.

What facts are in dispute here? Are you going to tell me that isn't what I believe? Or are you going to tell me you don't agree, which is what I've been saying all along? *Is* there any point in discussion?

M.

Fact: Netflix uses the term "without limitation" in their terms of service.

Fact: Netflix uses some sort of formula puts high-rate users below low-rate users on a routine basis. In other words, a limit.

Fact: We all pay for a monthly service. We do not pay "per DVD". Therefore, "Fewer disks for the money" does not logically apply in this case.

Fact: All users have the option to return disks immediately or to hang on to them for awhile. This behavior is guided by personal choice. It is, therefore, personal choice that determines what "value for the money" any one customer receives.

Can you refute these things factually? (Preferably without the name calling? Logic doesn't make me a sociopath.) Taking a perceived moral high ground in order to avoid discussing legitimate issues doesn't really advance the discussion.

gir

Nope, I can't argue with your facts.

M.

Your silence speaks volumes.

Scribe1964

Some Netflix customers are simply satisfied with the service. I'm one of them. I've been a member for almost seven years and they can keep doing what they're doing as far as I'm concerned.

Sagodjur

I think what people are missing here is that customers are misunderstanding the Netflix business model. Netflix is not Blockbuster. They obviously aren't stocking up on new releases like Blockbuster stores do. They don't guarantee any particular availability for any particular title. Netflix is for people who like to watch movies, not just new releases. If you can't wait for a new release, you need to spend the $10 a pop going to the theater when the movie comes out. Netflix's unlimited terminology seems to apply to getting you *a* movie, not the new releases. There are tens of thousands of other movies available. Since you determine what's in your queue, you should never receive a movie you didn't want to receive. They don't guarantee that your queue will ship in order. I've had a bunch of stuff skipped over and I still get movies I want to watch.

The per dvd cost to customers is a significant detail if Netflix's algorithm takes it into account. Complain all you want, but the system works the way it does and it's obviously quite profitable and successful. If Netflix still survives despite Blockbuster's marketing and some customer's complaining about not getting new releases when they come out, then something is obviously working well.

I'm on the 8 at a time plan. I've returned things quickly and I've returned things slowly. I've had to wait for some movies I'd like to see (like the final cut of Blade Runner right now), but I have a bunch of movies that I do want to see just waiting to be watched. I think I'm getting a great value for my money and I don't get the new releases immediately when they come out. If you're into the instant gratification thing, you're with the wrong service. Grow some patience or take your business elsewhere. Quit gumming up the works for the customer's who actually like movies and aren't just desperate to have something to talk about at the water cooler on Wednesday morning.

Rich

With the quality of most new releases nowadays, why is this even a concern? I've haven't seen a new release in the past few years that was worth getting into an uproar about not getting right when it comes out.

The casual customer that has NF but doesn't rent as much is more than welcome to them as far as I'm concerned. I'll stick with my old sci-fi and horror films. I usually turn them around twice every week-and-a-half on a three-out plan, and if I get throttled a little, what the hell? I'm still getting a damn good value for my money (considering rental prices at BB or Hollywood Video brick and mortar joints), so it's not impacting my bottom line.


Sam

Fact: "unlimited" does not mean what you think it means.

Fact: any reasonable person understands that "unlimited" does not mean infinite, i.e. that you can watch movies 24x7 using the Netflix system.

Fact: we do not pay "per DVD", but the "per DVD" cost is highly relevant when discussing fairness.

Netflix's distribution is certainly limited by the number of copies of a given title, by the handling process and the delivery speed of the USPS. So anyone who believes that they should have every title they want instantaneously is a needy, greedy bastard (and not too bright). With me so far?

Given limited resources (and the laws of time and space) it is up to their discretion how to prioritize their delivery in the most profitable way while still being arguably fair.

You may not think it's fair, just as the buffet glutton I mentioned before. But this prioritizing is not a "limit." If you truly believed this you would insist that Netflix have no waits on any title, ever and that they guarantee to ship out a new disc on the day they received the old one.

They claim not to have a hard limit on the number of discs, and I believe them. But there is a practical limit and anyone who doesn't accept that is just selfish or naive.

Final Fact: The only "annoyed customers" in the current prioritizing model are those who are most unprofitable for Netflix. If they change it to being totally random they will annoy their best customers and instead they will leave.

What do you think they'll do? Listen to the glutton at the buffet who insists that he has equal dibs on the next plate of shrimp cocktail or let those modest eaters get first crack and let the pig have what's left.

profpudwick

Fact: M. and I have both seen Memento.

M., I don’t think we really disagree on anything. Everything you posted in your 0850 and 1129 messages is correct as far as I can see.

I agree with you on the use of the word “unlimited.” It’s not strictly true. I’m ok with Netflix using it, but I agree with you that it is not literally true.

How about a different example. You and I have a library card to the same public library. We have unlimited service at the library—every service they offer is available to each of us. We pay the same for this unlimited service. You live next door and are there every day. I stop by only a few times a month. Neither of us wants to look at the old worn books. We only want to talk to the reference librarian. You are there sitting at the reference desk with her whenever I stop in.

One day, we walk to her desk at the same time. She chooses to help me, explaining that she has helped you many times since she last helped me.

Would you then complain to the library director that the services were unfair?

Sam

Prof, I would also complain about the library using the term "unlimited". They only have a finite number of books, they don't always have the book I want exactly when I want it, and it takes at least 5 seconds a book to check them out.

"Unlimited"? I think not. Those lying four-eyed scumbags.

M.

Sam,

Please note that at no time did I resort to condescension or name calling.

"Unlimited" means exactly what I think it means and exactly what the dictionary definition states:

Unlimited -
1)not limited; not restricted; unconfined;
2)boundless; infinite (hmm...interesting!); vast;
3) without qualification or exception; unconditional.

The heart of my argument, which has been ignored in your response, is that Netflix claims service "without limitation" but has created an algorithm which limits/restricts/confines/binds/adds conditions to the shipment of new releases to some customers. Frankly, I'm rarely affected by delays in receiving DVDs of any sort. I am actually a very satisfied Netflix customer 99 days out of 100. I am simply pointing out that there is an inherent contradiction in the terms of service which opens Netflix to criticism. My noticing this contradiction does not make me a glutton, a pig or a greedy bastard.

Speaking of fairness, you have unfairly misrepresented my argument. At no time did I ever state that I "would insist that Netflix have no waits on any title, ever and that they guarantee to ship out a new disc on the day they received the old one." If you go back and reread my posts, you'll see that I clearly do understand there are only so many DVDs available and make no claims to an "infinite" right to every new release. My point is that if they are going to continue to use the term "without limitation", they must eliminate the contradictory algorithm because it creates a systematic limitation on some users. (Yes. It does.) Randomization is a solution to this problem - with this method, new releases don't always go to one user category or another. A mixture of heavy and lighter users would receive new releases; heavy users would likely send them back right away, freeing up the limited supply more quickly for the next people in line.

I'm not sure how you would define Netflix's "best customers". Are they the ones who make Netflix the most money by returning fewer discs? Or the ones who are loyal and who have subscribed for years? Or the ones who tell their friends and family about the service and buy gift subscriptions to bring people into the fold?

M.

Prof.,

Thank you for you respectful response. Would I complain to the library in the case you describe? Of course not. The difference between your example and the Netflix example, however, is that you're describing a one-time incident, while Netflix is applying a systematic algorithm in a recurring fashion. If I was always served last every time I arrived at the reference desk at the same time as someone else, I would feel less valued as a patron and would consider taking my patronage to another library.

Scribe1964

<<>>

I have a friend in California who would be a perfect example of one of Netflix's best customers. She has the three out plan, but it takes her MONTHS to watch them. And I wouldn't mind her getting a new release over me simply because she so rarely has time to watch anything.

Sam

M, I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency and the irrationality of your arguments.

Your first error is that you continue to confuse the discussion of the definition of "without limitation" and the discussion on what is fair (fairness amongst all customers, not fairness between you and the company).

I am not misrepresenting your argument on limitations, just bringing it to its logical conclusion. You argue that their claim of "without limitations" is misleading, but no reasonable person could possibly take that literally. It is marketing shorthand and is like every other, backed up by a million restrictions which are either listed in the "fine print" or just plain common sense.

It never was "without limitations" in the purest sense of the term and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That is one of the logical contradictions in your argument.

You are taking issue with one of the restrictions that works to your disadvantage. Tough. Those restrictions are not there to gouge and deceive customers, they are there to ensure reasonable fairness and prevent users from taking advantage.

Fairness is completely different. It is unfathomable to me that you could argue that it is unfair that a person paying $20/mo for 5 discs gets newer releases slightly more quickly than another person paying $20/mo for 25 discs.

If you have been with Netflix for 5 years and have been getting 25 DVDs/mo on your 3 disc plan then you may be loyal, but you are not one of their "best customers" as far as Netflix is concerned. You are unprofitable for them and the more "loyal" you are the more you are costing them. If you recruit other customers like yourself (i.e. unprofitable) then you would probably qualify as one of their worst customers.

Of course, they're too nice to say so. But I can.

M.

So what you're saying, Sam, is that Netflix can redefine words and phrases like "without limitation"? I'm sorry, but words mean something. Your argument, that I'm not supposed to take a legal document (such as a Terms of Service) literally, is the irrational one. And it reminds me of when Bill Clinton asked what the definition of "is" is.

If you'd kindly read my last post, you'd see that I'm not even really all that affected by Netflix's algorithms. As I stated, I rarely, if ever have delays in receiving whatever's at the top of my queue, new release or not. I'm not sure exactly where I'd fall in the algorithm, but my guess is somewhere in the median usage range. (I don't let DVDs sit for weeks, but not everything goes back the day after I receive it.) This system hardly ever works to my disadvantage, no matter how much you'd like to paint me as some sort of greedy pig. I'm simply pointing out - again - that words have meanings and because of that, Netflix's own document contradicts itself. Remove the problematic language or the algorithm, because you can not logically have both.

Finally, by your argument of what a "best" or "worst" customer is, I suppose a healthy person is the best customer of an insurance company while a sick person is the worst customer and therefore should have more limited service. Just taking your argument to its "logical conclusion". Except I did it without throwing insults around.

M.

P.S. If people are paying $20 a month for 5 discs, they should probably lower their service level, because they're not using the level they're at efficiently. Under a flat rate system, one customer's choice of service level and/or perceived value (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to another's. Each customer has the responsibility to make the appropriate choice based on their own personal usage.

Old Timer Too

Some interesting discussion here...

First - the class-action lawsuit was settled a couple of years ago and the changes demanded put into place. It is not on-going and will not have a reprise or any impact on what NF is now doing.

What has not been completed with respect to the class action is the payout to the customer base affected by NF's (lack of) action. That is still going through the courts.

M and others - it is an unfortunate fact of life that companies (and NF is no exception) redefine terms to their liking. It is part of the human condition/experience, so if a word like "unlimited" means "without restriction" to you, it does not necessarily mean the same thing to the person applying the term.

I find that as irritating any anything any company does. The only way to battle that type of redefinition is to lodge complaints with the FTC over internet fraud. But, be sure you have actual, verifiable proof of your claim or the FTC will simply ignore your "whine" (complaint).

The balancing act between being throttled and not appears to be a turn a week. If you turn one title each week per slot, the likelihood that you will be "throttled" is reduced. That does not mean that every film that is shipped will come quickly, only that your mileage may vary from that advertised.

There are some important keys to successfully getting the films you want (and this applies equally to BB):

Don't have your returns hit the DC on Mondays. That is the worst possible day, since they receive the most returns and the available stock is the lowest. If you have one-day delivery service (like I do), send the films back so the post office has them on Monday and delivers to the NF DC on Tuesday.

If your returns hit the DC on Monday, regardless of your status as a renter, and you have an 8 at-a-time program (which is what I have), I can be pretty sure that one or possibly two titles will ship a day later from a distant DC.

If your returns hit the DC on Tuesday, then it is more likely that ALL your next selections will ship that day.

Heavy renters will see more delays and wait times - juggle your queue to avoid delays. If you want to see new releases when they come out, don't be a heavy renter.

"Unlimited" is not without limits in NF's book. Accept that as fact and plan accordingly. I have and it works for me.

Getting back to the class action, here are the highlights and results: NF was advertising Unlimited and had nothing in the TOS covering how they allocate titles. As a result, any delays (regardless of the reason) was seen (by the courts) as a problem. The result was that NF could no long emphasize "unlimited" (they could use it, but in a limited sense) and they had to put the details of their allocation in their TOS AND point to the TOS in their advertising so that people would know up front that the allocation program was in place. In return, NF can continue to use "unlimited" or "without limits" (or some variation) as long as the details of what happens when they run out of titles or manpower is in the TOS.

Do I like it? Nope. Do I have to like it? Nope. I can just as easily take my money somewhere else, but I do know what is going on and do know how to work the allocation system to meet my requirements.

If I had something to change in NF, I would add a premium price category for those who wanted to always be served whenever they stepped up to that counter.

But at the same time, I credit NF with being fair to everyone in this matter (whether you accept that or not is your problem) and not continually doing things "in the dark" like BB has been doing lately.

Edward R Murrow

Similar to Newspeak that George Orwell wrote about in 1984, we now have NetflixSpeak where "Unlimited" actually means "Limited".

Sam

They are not redefining the term. It is a shorthand for saying that there is no hard limit on the number of discs you can get per month. But it is always limited by the terms of use, which goes into great detail to clarify the practical limitations.

When you see Amazon advertise "free shipping" do you complain that you have to buy something before they give you free shipping? Or that you can't ship to Spain, or that their free shipping takes a little longer than the other options?

Did you cancel your Visa card because it turns out that there are indeed some places where "you want to be" and that they are not in fact "everywhere." They're not in my garage, for one. Is Visa redefining the word "everywhere" or telling me that I don't really want to be in my garage?

Did you harass the employees of Burger King when "Have it your way" did not apparently include serving your Whopper on a silver platter while singing "Happy Birthday" in the nude?

A reasonable person sees "without limitations" and doesn't think that means they get the everything for free. Only the most naive or selfish would truly think there were absolutely no limitations on the service.

They reserve the right to prioritize shipments in the terms of use (which is exerpted above).

You honestly cannot believe that if they changed this one little policy that Netflix customers would suddenly truly be "without limitations."

Sam

"I suppose a healthy person is the best customer of an insurance company while a sick person is the worst customer and therefore should have more limited service. Just taking your argument to its "logical conclusion". Except I did it without throwing insults around."

Well, of course. Do you think an insurance company considers it's chronically sick customers its "best" customers? "Best" customers in the business sense are those who are most profitable and provide the least hassle for the company. It does not mean you're not a decent person or that you're going to hell, so don't take it personally.

Businesses reward their "best" customers to keep them happy and you should be thankful, rather than ungrateful that there are those who help pay your way. I.e. those who underutilize their Netflix accounts or those who fly first class.

Do you begrudge the frequent flyers their right to board before you? After all, you paid the same fare for your seat, didn't you?

"If people are paying $20 a month for 5 discs, they should probably lower their service level, because they're not using the level they're at efficiently."

Not necessarily. Perhaps they like having more choices or perhaps they get 10 discs one month and none the next.

"Under a flat rate system, one customer's choice of service level and/or perceived value (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to another's. Each customer has the responsibility to make the appropriate choice based on their own personal usage."

And part of that choice is that by getting fewer discs per month they have a better chance of getting the discs they do want quicker. In fact, it's right there in the terms of use. But even if it weren't obvious, this prioritization keeps them marginally more happy and I am thankful that this added value keeps them subscribing.

Those who are getting 25 discs per month will bitch and moan about it, but since they are already getting tremendous value for their subscription they won't actually cancel. (Which as far as Netflix and I are concerned would be a double bonus.)

Sam

Old Timer, you already have a premium option available to you. Just add one more disc to your plan while keeping your old viewing habits. If the Netflix algorithm works properly then you will be bumped up in the queue.

This may not be attractive to you cost-wise, but what is it worth to you to have guaranteed immediate access to new titles?

The problem with Netflix explicitly offering that option would be that the complainers would have one more thing to complain about. Getting passed over because you happen to pay more doesn't seem fair to them.

M.

Sam,

Would you then also agree that an insurance customer who needs a expensive treatment should be denied that treatment because it's too expensive and they're using too much of the system? Because the bottom-line-only stance you're taking leads insurance companies to make those types of decisions. Is this single-minded business model truly what you're advocating? And where does the widely accepted adage that it costs far more to get a new customer than it does to satisfy a current customer play into this strategy? If all of the long-time subscribers you seem so upset about left Netflix, wouldn't that be worse for the company than randomizing the allocation of new releases?

The advertising slogans you mention are slogans, not legal documents. Netflix uses the term "without limitations" in their *Terms of Service*. Big difference there. It's still a verbal and conceptual contradiction, no matter how you or others try to explain it away. Words mean something, and if Netflix truly wants to redefine "unlimited", they have to spell out exactly how they're redefining it. They're not doing that currently, hence the ongoing debate.

- "Do you begrudge the frequent flyers their right to board before you? After all, you paid the same fare for your seat, didn't you?"

Interesting example you bring up here, as it's an argument I could use to support sending new releases to long-standing customers first. One could argue that a heavy Netflix user and long-time customer has built up credit or seniority over time, so therefore they should always move to the head of the line. I'd never argue for that. I'm arguing for randomization of the process. What are you arguing for? Because after that example, frankly I'm a little confused.

-I said,"If people are paying $20 a month for 5 discs, they should probably lower their service level, because they're not using the level they're at efficiently."

You sad, "Not necessarily. Perhaps they like having more choices or perhaps they get 10 discs one month and none the next."

And to that I say, that's a personal choice that should not have any bearing on how other people chose to subscribe. The per-DVD cost is irrelevant from a consumer standpoint when people are paying flat rates.

I shouldn't be surprised by now that you're still characterizing arguments you don't agree with as mere "whining" and "complaining". Again, I'm simply stating that Netflix opens itself up to criticism by describing their service as "without limitation".

Those who are saying the class action is settled - that's not what it says on the class action web site. The site says the decision was appealed. What I was asking above was an honest question because I simply don't know - isn't some of this still being hashed out?

Sam

"Would you then also agree that an insurance customer who needs a expensive treatment..."

The customer should get what they paid for. If the terms of service says that they are capped after a certain dollar amount then they should be denied the treatment, as heartless as that sounds. And if the terms of service state that customers who have not made huge claims get priority for limited resources then that's how it should work.

Businesses are not charities and those who do let customers take advantage of them go out of business quickly. A business who gives priority to some customers over others (as long as it doesn't discriminate against certain protected classes) is only being smart and it is absolutely fair for them to pamper their most profitable customers. There is nothing unethical or deceitful in how Netflix (and millions of other businesses) handle this.

"And where does the widely accepted adage that it costs far more to get a new customer than it does to satisfy a current customer play into this strategy? If all of the long-time subscribers you seem so upset about left Netflix, wouldn't that be worse for the company than randomizing the allocation of new releases?"

Why can't you understand that Netflix doesn't want you? Not from a pure business standpoint, that is. It may cost them to get a new customer, but it will save them in the long run since you are not a profitable customer anyway. If all the long-term high use Netflix customers are planning on jumping ship, please let me know so I can buy some stock.

Sam

"The advertising slogans you mention are slogans, not legal documents. Netflix uses the term "without limitations" in their *Terms of Service*. Big difference there. It's still a verbal and conceptual contradiction, no matter how you or others try to explain it away. Words mean something, and if Netflix truly wants to redefine "unlimited", they have to spell out exactly how they're redefining it. They're not doing that currently, hence the ongoing debate."

Are you using the same Netflix that I am? Where in the Terms of Service (or Terms of Use) does it state anything about the user being able to use the service "without limitations"?

If it does say anything on that topic it will almost certainly go on for another 50 sentences with "except for ..., ..., ...".

And they really can't be much clearer when they state "In our unlimited plans, we do not establish a monthly limit on the number of DVDs you can rent, however, the actual number of DVDs you rent in any month will vary based on a number of factors (See "Allocation, Delivery and Return of Rented DVDs" below)."

You can stop reading after "unlimited plans" and have illusions about what that means, but neither Netflix or any reasonable customer would construe it the way you have.

Sam

"Interesting example you bring up here, as it's an argument I could use to support sending new releases to long-standing customers first. One could argue that a heavy Netflix user and long-time customer has built up credit or seniority over time, so therefore they should always move to the head of the line. I'd never argue for that. I'm arguing for randomization of the process. What are you arguing for? Because after that example, frankly I'm a little confused."

Your misunderstanding of business carries over into the airline industry, I see. Frequent flier privileges do not reward customers who have flown home to visit Grandma once a year for 20 years. They may be loyal customers, but they are not the airlines "best" customers. The airlines will fight desperately to win over a business traveler who buys expensive tickets and flies 50k miles every year and he will definitely board the plane earlier, be offered upgrades and be given many other perqs because he is far more profitable to them.

No doubt you are offended that he gets seated before you do, but that's the way it is. His car is nicer and his house is bigger, too. Which also isn't "fair."

Hence the analogy I made fits perfectly.

Sam

"And to that I say, that's a personal choice that should not have any bearing on how other people chose to subscribe. The per-DVD cost is irrelevant from a consumer standpoint when people are paying flat rates."

Customer satisfaction may be irrelevant to you, but you're not trying to run a profitable company. If the company can keep their highly profitable customers by offering them such a perq I'm all for it. Especially if the only downside is to aggravate those customers who already push the service to their limit (and are thus getting great value for their money) AND who feel an urgent need to have every release immediately.

"I shouldn't be surprised by now that you're still characterizing arguments you don't agree with as mere "whining" and "complaining". Again, I'm simply stating that Netflix opens itself up to criticism by describing their service as "without limitation". "

It's not a complaint then? Just an observation? It sure sounded as if you were being critical, but perhaps you were just pointing out how others might take issue?

Yes, they open themselves up to criticism. Not valid criticism, but criticism nonetheless. Fortunately for Netflix the only ones who are complaining are those customers who are not very profitable and those people can't leave because they are getting a fantastic value (and not appreciating their fortune).

Sam

M., can I assume that you are just as upset over Netflix redefining the word "instant" (as in "Instant Viewing") or "now" (as in "Watch Now")?

You do realize that the videos do not literally start playing instantly on any computer, on some computers it might take several minutes, and on some it might not even work at all?

Now's your chance to be first with the class action suit.

M.

Where does it say "without limitation"? In the very first sentence of the quoted terms of service in this very blog post. I suppose now you'll tell me it's not really there? Or that it means something else? Sorry, but it's written in English and those words have meaning that you and/or Netflix can not wish away. My argument stands.

I stopped reading the rest of your posts after you asked where it says "without limitation" because you proved once again that you don't actually read my posts or, evidently, anyone else's.

I've been nothing but respectful to you, despite your gross misrepresentations of my arguments and your logical fallacies. (For instance, you still don't get that you argued against your own point when you introduced the example the frequent flyers getting seated first - long-standing heavy users getting preferential treatment!). To tell you the truth, I only kept posting to you because I had a double shift at work today. It was a really slow day and I was bored.

My advice to you is that you step back, take a deep breath, and figure out why you're so worked up over all of this. Also, your arguments would be far more effective if you supported them with facts instead of ludicrous examples and insults Attempting to belittle your opponent because you can't win a logical argument is rarely effective.

Peace.

Sam

All this time that was the "without limitation" you were referring too? That is just too funny.

Well this explains the mixup, not only is your logic and analysis suspect, but your reading comprehension is nil. I suggest you read that paragraph of the Terms of Use again to see if you gather any new insight into what Netflix (and every lawyer in America) means by "without limitation".

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that as a long-standing user of Netflix that you were referring to ads or documents that I was unaware of. My bad.

But your continued inability to grasp the frequent flier concept tops it. Let me explain it clearly:
heavy users on netflix -> bad for netflix
heavy users on airline -> great for airline

Your interpretation is completely backward and out of touch with reality. It's almost willfully ignorant, in fact. Perhaps there is a close friend or relative who will be more patient in explaining this concept to you.

Will you next be telling me that those who pig out on $40 worth of food at a $10 buffet deserve some extra appreciation from the restaurant for their loyal patronage? Shouldn't "heavy users" of buffets benefit just like "heavy users" of airlines?

You lost my respect when you posted a list of dubious "facts" and then dismissed another poster with the condescending "Your silence speaks volumes."

gir

That took a while.

Good effort Sam. Can I ask you a question?

After all that, do you think this can be decided objectively (dubious facts not withstanding)? Or is it purely subjective - a matter of opinion?

Tester

"After all that, do you think this can be decided objectively (dubious facts not withstanding)? Or is it purely subjective - a matter of opinion?"

If you don't mind Gir, I'd like to give you my opinion on what you've asked Sam.

I may be in a unique position because I have been able to see "both sides" of Netflix. I have been a heavy user who has been throttled and also a not so heavy user that was not throttled.

In my case, when I was being throttled it meant receiving fewer movies because most of them were being shipped from remote locations. I did have long waits for most of the movies I placed in my queue.

When I started to ship the movies back about once a week the throttling stopped and more movies became available to me.

Keeping track of the discs showed me that, on average, I received the same number of discs while I was throttled as I received when I cut back to turning them around once a week. On the plus side, cutting back my returns caused me to receive more of the DVD's that I previously had to wait to receive.

All of that said my answer to your question is that I feel there is no right or wrong answer. It seems to be purely subjective and a matter of opinion.

On a side note; Mike, I think you should look into Typekey again. It seems the weird ones are slipping into this blog again.

Old Timer Too

Sam wrote: "Old Timer, you already have a premium option available to you. Just add one more disc to your plan while keeping your old viewing habits..."

That's exactly what I did, Sam, and that is why the NF program works for me. At least they offer the option of getting more discs shipped, and since I turn discs about once a week (on the average), I'm happy with the service. I'm on the 8 at a time plan and so always have plenty to watch over the week's time.

BB, on the other hand, may not "limit" in the same sense that NF does, but there is no option for upping the program past 3 at a time, which is aggravating when I want to watch the majority of a season at one time. I can do that with NF and my program, but can't with BB.

I'm not happy with the allocation program, but it makes the most sense. I mail my returns on Monday (or so they go out on Monday) and always have my full allotment of 8 discs by the end of the week.

Sam

Tough question, gir. Some fairness problems you can decide just by understanding the whole issue and perhaps doing a little math. But there are fundamental differences of opinion that are shaped by our cultures, our economic circumstances, and a million other factors.

Quite often people's sense of fairness is determined by whatever is most advantageous to them and the rest is just rationalization.

In an absolute sense, Netflix's current policies are completely fair because they are for the most part transparent and anyone can make an informed choice as to whether it works for them.

They may change their policies over time so that it no longer makes sense for me to be a customer and that will be unfortunate. But they are a business and I understand their need to set reasonable policies to make a decent profit.

All this is just my opinion, of course. I don't claim to have any absolute knowledge, but at least my rationalizations are self-consistent. ;)

gir

Too much to respond to concisely.

I too was once a heavy user. I switched shortly after the throttling controversy came out (though I still don't like to call it throttling; it's merely how the service balances itself amongst users).

I too realized the wisdom of turning myself into the equivalent of a premium customer by upping my plan without increasing the number of disks I rented. It's a simple solution, and I was willing to pay a little more for premium service, so I did.

And I agree people tend to rationalize their predetermined decisions. Heck, I do it myself quite often. But that doesn't mean I want to get into an argument under those conditions. Better to exit gracefully (as gracefully as you can, anyway).

Adrian

What's the point of a blog if people can't comment or discuss or even argue? Please DON'T restrict comments. If you want to censor, you might as well make this a read-only site.

Sam

M., your silence speaks volumes.


(sorry, everyone, I couldn't resist)

Lee

Sam,

M. made it pretty clear he was done with your b.s. I've been reading these posts while studying for my clinical psych class. I'm going to use your posts as an example when I have to write my paper on oppositional defiance.
(http://addadhdadvances.com/ODD.html)
The part about "They are easily annoyed and blame others for their mistakes" seems to apply here...

Gir

Now that's some serious flame bait.

Don't feed the trolls.

Nipsey Russell

ooof! i was with M (as his characterization of some of Sam's posts as straw man arguments was correct), until he royally shot himself in the foot by saying that the "without limitation" was the one above! oh man, thats gotta hurt!

Asics shoes

When work is a pleasure , life is joy ! When work is duty , life is slavery .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors

Third-Party Netflix Sites