Kyle Brady: Blog » Netflix

“What Of Longterm Cached Video Streaming?” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:55:12 +0000

New column at Technotainment Revelations on True/Slant:

Hulu has long since reigned king in the streaming video market, and seems intent on growing at an outrageous pace until it reaches sublime market saturation – so long as its investors and parent companies don’t shut it down, or cripple it, long before the point of critical mass. But while 2010, and the foreseeable future, is considered part of the age of connectivity, there are often long periods without a network connection that could be better used: planes, cars, trains, buses, etc. In light of this situation, why should content delivery services not implement a longterm caching mechanism for streaming video?

Go check it out.

“Netflix’s DVD Agreement Sets Bad Precedent” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:04:36 +0000

New column at Technotainment Revelations on True/Slant:

Netflix has singlehandedly destroyed any hope that forward-thinking consumers had for bringing Hollywood to heel, as far as movie distribution is concerned, by agreeing to a delayed-DVD delivery scheme for new Warner Bros. movies in exchange for the ability to stream from that studio’s catalog. While Netflix is obviously attempting to parade this as a “win” for its customers, do they not see the cascade of effects they’re now responsible for?

Go check it out.

“A Free Idea For The Movie Industry” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:32:14 +0000

New column at the Inquisitr:

Netflix, despite the protestations of movie studios, has done wonders for the industry, resulting in millions of Americans that now watch DVDs on a regular basis who would otherwise probably watch whatever made-for-TV movie was on AMC...

Go check it out.

The Increasing Problem of Knee-Jerk Copyright Reactions [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:05:04 +0000

Copyright has been a sensitive issue for the last decade, but the actions taken by both governments and corporations are increasingly worrisome for their willingness to use extreme measures that are typically nothing more than knee-jerk reactions, rather than taking well-reasoned measures, that result in the inconvenience, at best, of citizens from all backgrounds, while the future of rich media is threatened. The arenas in which consumer rights, freedoms, and enjoyment are being threatened are many, but include DVD purchases/rentals, Internet usage, digital books/e-books, and music.

The so-called “piracy” of music via the Internet, specifically filesharing protocols/programs, have seen the ire of the recording industry, via the RIAA, for the entire span of the last decade, and arguably initiated the current war of copyright escalation. Regardless of the legality, or individual opinions, on the claim of Fair Use Doctrine by many pirates, the fact remains that access and distribution methods cannot be subjugated for purposes of copyright defense – no matter how much profit the corporations or individuals in question believe they are losing because of it.

This applies mostly to the Internet, as filesharing is now done via the global network. And while organizations, governments [1] [2] [3], and corporations believe that the Internet can simply be filtered, controlled, or managed to prevent actions of presumed wrongdoing, this cannot be. It’s not that this cannot be implemented on a technical level, because it can and is, but rather that the ethics of taking such actions are ethically questionable – how come CD-R’s continue to exist when they can, and are, used for purposes of piracy? What makes the Internet any different?

The technology exists to prevent certain types of traffic over connections, but this assumes that these methodologies are wrong or illegal in the first place, when many legal uses of peer-to-peer networks exist. Subjugating the populace to the benefit of corporations or profiteers is simply unacceptable, especially when throttling connections results in limited freedoms, as it so often does, yet the ignorance of this issue in many courts worldwide continues at an appalling rate.

DVDs are not exempt from the copyright overzealotry either: Redbox, a popular DVD-on-demand rental kiosk service, is now being sued by multiple movie studios to stop the rental of studio releases. The reasoning is essentially the same as that of Internet filtering and litigation, having a basis in profits rather than legality or common sense. Studios have a long history of controlling how their movies are released to the public, with specific timetables for theaters, airplanes, video-on-demand television, home movies, and cable television, but had been slowly adapting to modern times, until recently, due to deals with Netflix, faster DVD releases, and other “new media” distribution methods.

The idea of copyright holders being paid for every single usage of their property is not new, especially to movie studios, and they seem intent on continuing this pattern of behavior, to the detriment of consumers. Redbox is flourishing as customers discover the convenience, just as Netflix has all but decimated traditional video-rental competition, but these are methods which the studios cannot exert absolute control over, and are therefore dangerous entities from their perspective. The difference, however, between filesharing and the Redbox/Netflix issue is clear: interaction with these services is unquestionably legal and cannot be interpreted otherwise – especially since the companies purchase licenses to distribute the content. Yet the persecution continues, as does the war on customer satisfaction.

The fact that this war has bled over into other arenas is not surprising, but that Amazon.com has become embroiled in it is. Amazon has a strong history of forcing publishers, distributors, and studios to do what they want, such as their DRM-free MP3 music store, and yet their Kindle product is heavily DRM’d. Even worse, the digital version of 1984 was recently removed from the devices of customers that had purchased it, because the publisher decided an electronic version of the book was simply no longer interesting, forcing Amazon to “fix” the “problem”. The problem here is potentially worse than that of Internet filtering or DVD distribution restrictions: legally purchased property was later taken from customers without reason or explanation, thanks to its digital nature and the control strings attached. Not only is this ethically wrong, but how is this not theft? If a carpet retailer came in the middle of the night and removed the carpet from a customer’s house without permission, regardless of reason, this would be considered highly illegal – Amazon’s 1984 actions are no different.

There is a disturbing trend buried just below the surface of these actions, and it ironically gives credence to George Orwell’s vision of the future: the freedoms and rights of citizens are being subjugated for higher corporate profits and the benefit of murky interest groups. Even worse, these actions occur with troubling regularity and without any attempt to solve the problem before litigation arises. In the case of filesharing, legal options appear to have stemmed the tide of media piracy (music in the UK, music in the US, and television/movies in the US), but the legal persecution of individuals has done nothing but tarnish the industry’s reputation.

If legal alternatives to piracy can be successful, they should be given the time and ability to be so – not forcibly shut down, or heavily handicapped, due to corporate greed and a supreme loathing for new distribution or business models. This is true not just for music, but movies, television, radio, and digital books as well. Most of the digital markets, or new physical distribution methods in the case of movies, are too young to have reached a level of profitability and success that would placate the publishers and studios, so they need to be allowed time to develop and discover their full potential - which is currently in jeopardy. Individual-label (or studio) entities for digital distribution will never be successful, if only because of the level of inconvenience, so the hope, for both consumers and producers, lies in companies like Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.

Piracy is not the problem, but rather a symptom of a broken system – going after the biggest supporters, and purchasers, of content is not going to make their love for the system any greater. Neither is removing their self-created solutions, like The Pirate Bay, and disconnecting these individuals from the Internet is only going to further enrage them. It is in the best interest of movie studios, record labels, book publishers, and other media companies to look to peaceable solutions to the current problems, rather than wielding governments or courts as a weapon.

Customers worldwide will appreciate the effort, and those that enjoy freedom will breathe a sigh of relief.

Hulu Needs Microsoft [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:51 +0000

My idea is not as evil as it sounds. Granted, Microsoft is campaigning to change their image, and their driven nature scares me, but that's a different story for another day.

I've mentioned Hulu here before, in a plea for them to help networks understand the importance of their service, and their response (although in hindsight, Dollhouse sucks and deserved to be canceled). And we've all heard about how Netflix's streaming video service boomed after being available on the XBOX360 network.

Personally, I prefer to watch Netflix streaming movies on my TV/couch setup than on my computer/chair setup, and I'm sure many other people feel the same. In fact, I even feel like I get better quality through my XBOX than my actual computer! (Note: "differing quality based on device" is a legitimate claim.)

But my point is this: Hulu has seen great growth, but they're going to reach a point where the geek-circles are saturated with the use of the service, and they're going to need to expand. Both to continue growth of the userbase, as well as find more (and better) advertiser dollars.

And the XBOX network is a perfect way to do that.

If there was a Hulu application on my XBOX, I would use it even more than I watch Hulu on my computer now. Even if it had limiting features (like Netflix), such as only watching content, not browsing, I would still love it. And I'm willing to bet that's something they'd see across the board.

Additionally, they'd have access to a userbase that's not necessarily the same as they currently have, since the "gaming nerds" are typically separated from "computer geeks" in terms of digital interests, as well as those "weekend gamers" in their 30's and 40's.

It all comes down to where people would prefer to view their content, and the answer is almost always going to be "on TV, sitting on a couch" over a computer... having a method for Hulu to do this is crucial.

So, Hulu, please start talks with Microsoft to make a deal.

They'd get more "street cred", and we'd get a bucket full of awesome.

Thanks.

--- --- ---

Update (4/11/2009 7:15pm PST): As "the3rdsam" points out below, Netflix obviously had connections to get the cross-platform distribution deal with Microsoft (which I didn't previously know). But as I say in the reply, they were a good test case... we'll probably see this happen again with other people, or similar concepts, even if they're less connected. The vehicle was tested and found successful, now it's time for the mainlining.

Update (4/12/2009 2:30pm PST): I got a response from Varun at Hulu about this post/idea-

We're focused on the free streaming experience on the computer today, but our overall mission at Hulu is to help people find and enjoy great content when, where and how they want. That means we’re continually listening to user feedback and evaluating new technologies to develop new experiences for users to enjoy Hulu.

To me, that sounds like dancing around the subject. Maybe something's already in the works?

Netflix Shipping Change [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:44:16 +0000

Imagine my surprise today, when I saw that Netflix has updated their shipping rules to adapt to locally unavailable DVDs.

Why am I surprised?

Because, not long ago, I had an issue with this and made a suggestion along the lines that they implemented.

Hooray for my awesomeness.

Netflix Feature Request: “Follow” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:37:16 +0000

Netflix, oh Netflix. Will I ever stop loving thee?

As I've mentioned before, I not only love Netflix, but I also have what many would probably call an "obsession" with certain actors or directors... I'd prefer to call it "extreme favoritism for the individual in question's genius", but whatever. Because of this "obsession" I have a habit of adding all the movies from the actor/director's cinematic history, and brings me to the point...

If you're like me and love how Sylvester Stallone plays the same role in all his movies, and want to see every one... you've added all his movies to your Queue. But what if he comes out with a new movie, and you don't keep an ear close enough to the ground to hear about it?

Stallone is a bad example, because his modern movies tend to have astronomical amounts of marketing behind them, but the principle is the same. It can be very difficult to keep track of what movies your favorite actor, actress, or director is involved with, especially if they keep themselves very busy.

The idea comes from Hulu's "Subscribe" option, where you automatically get the newest releases from any given show added to your Hulu Queue. Programatically, it shouldn't be difficult. Either there's a nightly "oh crap, any new movies with [x]?" CRON Job that runs across the whole site, or a special script is run individually whenever new content is added.

For example, I only found out that Brad Pitt is in "Burn After Reading" a few days before it opened in theaters, and even then only because I keep an eye on a large number of blogs. Not having TV and not going to the movies very often make finding information like this difficult, and I feel that this feature would be very useful to a large part of the Netflix customer base, given my previous thoughts.

This could work for directors, like Guillermo del Toro, or anyone else who makes it in the "Netflix name box" (see below).

So, Netflix, please, pretty please, will you implement this feature?

I asked nicely!

Come Again, Netflix? [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:03:14 +0000

Apparently me wanting to investigate "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" isn't supposed to be easy. See if you can follow the logic on this one.

First, I get an email saying Disc 1 is going to ship from Phoenix, AZ. I didn't really give it much thought at the time.

Then I get this email today, saying it'll be here on Monday.

Monday? Really? What happened to "Next Day Shipping"? I didn't realize that your promises to your customers had a geography clause.

I had previously wondered what happened if a disc in the middle of a series is missing, like "Stargate: SG-1" has a few "long waits" at the moment. Here's what I had found.

So I have a question for you, Mr. Netflix. How can you be intelligent enough to not ship a series when it's not fully complete and waiting for me, but you're not intelligent enough to not ship something when it's "too far away" (geography clause!) to be here on the normal schedule?

Right. Because that makes alot of sense.

--- --- ---

Update (9/25/2008 3:15pm PST): I just got off the phone with Customer Service (no hold times or phone menus!), and they supposedly have a system in place that looks for these sort of things. They didn't comment on the "Next Day" geography clause, but instead said that they usually don't remote-ship things if it's approaching a weekend.

They apologized, and are supposedly shipping out a "Bonus Disk" from my Queue tomorrow.

Hopefully it's one that's local and won't be here next Wednesday.

Update (9/29/2008 9:00pm PST): The disc isn't here yet! Just kidding. I got it on Saturday, and was very surprised that it all went down so smoothly and properly.

Thanks, Netflix, for being awesome. This is why no-one goes to Block...who? anymore.

Netflix Downtime [Self]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:39:27 +0000

As I'm sure you've noticed from any number of sources (blogs, newspapers, word of mouth, etc.), Netflix had a 3-day shipping problem which they've apparently resolved today.

Their answer to a week-long situation (depending on who you are and where you live it could have been longer than the 3-day period) is to give a refund of 15% from the next billing cycle.

It's a good idea, but I have a better one: why not double the movie output?

If Netflix were to double the movies for each customer, on a one-time basis, I think that would cover their refund needs, as well as provide instant gratification for their userbase. As it is, people are complaining that 15% should be closer to 25%, based on the average 4 weeks in a month, as well as wondering if it will actually happen, since there's rumors of them not following through on other refunds/fixes previously.

So, in short, if you were a 2-at-a-time plan, they would ship the one or two you already had waiting to go out to you... but also 2 more from the top of your queue.

Before anyone decides to try and argue with me:

yes, they would temporarily have a smaller inventory

yes, it would cost them a little more money than the average day of shipping

yes, it might take longer than usual for those extra movies to come back

But I still think it would have been a better choice than the future refund.

And they didn't do this because... why?

------

For some echo chamber coverage, see The Consumerist, Epicenter, BoingBoing Gadgets, NewTeeVee, Valleywag [1] [2], and The Inquisitr.

------

Update (8/15/2008 6:04pm PST): NewTeeVee tipped the hat.

Netflix: Two Feature Requests [Self]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:45:08 +0000

I've said it before in my rants/observations/whatever: I really love Netflix. Not a teenager-and-it's-summer kind of "love", or a we-met-in-Cancun-a-week-ago-then-got-married kind of "love"... but it's still love all the same.

Anyways, besides the obvious need for "Watch Now" to work on Linux, I think there's two things that they should throw in...

User-Rating Feed

In this lovely era of Web 2.0 (note the sarcasm?), not having APIs and Feeds is akin to being a data mongerer. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I'd love for a way to automagically say "yeah, here's all the movies I rated as 4 or 5 stars... great movies!", like, say, for use in an open-standards profile.

Stars are important. Not these though.

Netflix, you come so close to doing this that I've gotten my hopes up many times. Hoping that maybe you changed something, or momentarily forgetting it's not what I think... you have feeds for "Recently Activity", "Queue", "Movies at Home", "Movie Reviews", and "Recomendations". You'd think "Movie Reviews" would have it... right?

Nope. Apparently it's only for if you actually write a review. To me, it would make sense to include at least the rating you give a movie (since that is a review in itself)... even if there's no writeup associated with it. But a "filterable" method for pure star-ratings would be best.

Insta-Ship

Sometimes, you just want a movie sooner than you know you'll get it. One of the things that has always frustrated me about Netflix has nothing to do with them: the USPS.

The mail service is so inconsistent and incompetent that I tend to get my movies a day later than Netflix thinks I should, and it takes 3 days for Netflix to receive them. What happened to "Next-Day"?

This baby loved his insta-shipped movie!

But I have a solution. Ship the next queued movie as soon as the customer rates one in their "At Home" category, on the assumption that they'll be shipping the old one within 24 hours, instead of shipping on receipt. Keep track of a user's "karma"... if they typically hold on to 3 movies at once when they have a 2 movie plan, stop rating-shipping them and flip back to receipt-shipping.

This would not only be awesome, but it'd be a smarter and more efficient way to deliver rental DVDs by mail... also eliminating most of the excuses "brick and mortar" stores have given for why people shouldn't use your service.

Different Packaging

sweet a bonus third suggestion!

I can't help but feel that I'm killing the environment while using Netflix. Yes, I recycle the rip-open covers. Yes, I realize you probably reuse the envelopes, to a certain extent, whether through recycling or magically adding new covers... but still.

Why not ship it in a lockable flat DVD case? The kind that's something like 1/4" thick. It would almost always get returned to you, because the system won't change.

Don't make the trees hurt you!

I realize it might be a few cents more expensive to ship it... but if you reuse one box 1000 times, how many envelopes does that save? How many DVDs don't get broken because they aren't in a paper envelope? How much money is saved from not making new envelopes?

It might even make your customers feel better. Feel more "green".