Talk:Netflix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Netflix is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{GAnominee|insert date in any format here}}
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Wikipedia CD Selection Netflix is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Archives

/Archive1 - Through March 2006

/Archive2 - April 2006 - the "Hacking Netflix Link" debate, including the an RFC.

[edit] "Fraud", "deceptive" POV additions

User NetFlixFraud has been adding what to me is some fairly obvious POV wording into the article. The current version is:

Many people assert that NetFlix continues to defraud customers: claiming "rent 'as many DVDs as you want'", when at the same time contradicting the marketing claim in their TOS. Promising one thing, and delivering another is bait & switch. This is fraud. Netflix has not yet been found guilty of fraud. The Netflix marketing campaign, "rent as many DVDs as you want" is not in line with their TOS. This is at the very least deceptive.

Some background for those just coming in - Netflix is settling the "Chavez" class action lawsuit mentioned in the article, which also prompted them to acknowledge in their Terms of Service what has become known as "throttling". Note that the lawsuit never reached any sort of judgement, and Netflix apparently felt no need to change their actual operational practices because of it, just document them. The US Federal Trade Commission was an intervenor late in the settlement, but only on how Netflix appeared to be using the settlement's free service to the affected members as a recruiting tool, not the behaviour alleged, and took no position on any sort of consumer fraud concerns, etc. It seems to be a classic "nuisance" settlement. Unlike, for example, Blockbuster, which was pressured by the various states over the introduction of their "No Late Fees" program, I'm not aware of any similar action against Netflix.

Whatever individual customers may think of such marketing terms as "unlimited" or whatever, they are fairly common in the online DVD industry (not just the US), and it seems to be not much different than "all you can eat" restaurants, or "unlimited warranties" on automobiles, where the fine print counts. Phrasing such as "fraud", "bait & switch" and "deceptive" would seem to have no justification in an encyclopedic article. - David Oberst 02:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV pushing, plain and simple. If there's a verifiable, NPOV way to put it, I invite the user to add it, but this shouldn't be left to stand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1500 Terrabytes

I'd recommend the comment about 1500 Terrabytes a day being as much as what travels the internet be removed. That's in the range of 150 Gbit/sec and I've been in two datacenters which together push 100 Gbit/sec and there are many more of that size and wihtin an order of magnitude.

[edit] POV

This article reads to me as distinctly POV. At least half the article is written in an extremely negative tone -- I came here looking to find out how Netflix handles licensing to movie studios, and find out that some dude has a beef with "throttling." The POV here needs to be cut down, especially since some of it is redundant. 24.185.243.220 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While some of it might be redundant, Netflix's legally-proven practice of delaying the shipment of DVDs to people who tried to get the most for their monthly dues is a large part of the company's brief history. To lop it out due to the complaint of the person above would be rash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.218.226 (talk • contribs).

I'd never heard of all this throttling business. And I wouldn't complain about them sending me a DVD from all the way across the country. When I rent big name Hollywood blockbusters, they send them to me from Lansing and I get them the next day. When I rent obscure animé DVDs, they might send it from California and it might take a whole week. I'm just happy they even have the title to begin with. I can wait a week for something I thought I'd never get a chance to watch. Well, that's my POV. Michiganotaku 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just obscure movies (like anime) that are subject to throttling. They send many DVDs from across the country, including new releases. Blockbuster does the same thing. It should be pointed out, so people don't join with unrealistic expectations. Throttling is definitely real and most services do it. Some users never notice it, because they don't rent more than 8 or 9 movies a month. They would not be subject to throttling. They would always get one-day shipping both ways and high-priority for new releases. It's not a negative tone at all. People are just pointing out the fact that Netflix imposes artificial limits, while claiming unlimited service. They should be honest and just say you get 3x or 4x the plan (9 or 12 on 3-out). Then, nobody would have reason to complain. It's the fraud that bugs us and deserves to be noted..

[edit] Kitchen Sink?

Judging from that source cited (6) for the Kitchen Sink reference, it sounded to be purely metaphorical.

Ditto, I'm going to rev it out.---Jackel 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Libraries

"Free public libraries often lend out DVDs now. Some charge a small fee. They carry a variety of new and old titles from different genres - action, sci fi, drama, comedy, foreign, anime, horror, independent, cult classics, etc. Most allow you to reserve things online, and pickup locally when ready. They sometimes carry titles and versions that are Out-Of-Print or unavailable from Netflix."

Terrific - so public libraries lend DVDs. What has this got to do with Netflix? Public libraries also lend books - do they therefore get a mention in the entry for Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble? I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix, but whatever the reason, I don't think it belongs in the article because it doesn't have a single thing to do with the company. 12.162.189.80 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would highly agree.--Anthony 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, amazon does not ask for your book back once you have read it... the similarities between netflix and a library are more striking to me, and are worth being mentioned, but the paragraph you cite looks too loong and detailed than needed. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Libraries have many titles that are out-of-print or unavailable from Netflix. Also, they don't cost you anything usually. Many people can't justify the cost of a Netflix membership when they don't rent many discs a month. The libraries are part of Netflix's competitive environment. If that's off topic, then the whole section on competition should be removed.
"I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix,"
Sounds like you are trying to push Netflix and don't want it pointed out that they do not have certain titles that libraries do. If that "steers a few people to the library," I think they would be happy to know about it. Libraries are a competitor to Netflix. If that's not relevant, then remove the whole section. Personally, I think competition is relevant. It is biased, NOT to point out the alternatives to their service. The page isn't supposed to be an advertisement for Netflix. If libraries have some things NFLX doesn't and provide them free, that makes them attractive, IMO.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix has many more titles than any libraries. They're one of the the foremost distributors of independent films. What public library can attest to that? I vote that the library comment should be removed. It adds nothing to readers' knowledge on the subject of Netflix. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, everybody knows that they can get books from the library. Not everyone knows they can get Criterion DVDs and other things. If someone adds a section on "Competitive Environment" to the Amazon or B&N articles, I would expect the Public Library to be mentioned. It has nothing to do with having a "beef" against Netflix. Libraries have things Netflix doesn't. Libraries usually let you reserve things online and borrow them for free. They deserve to be mentioned.
No, I still disagree. If you want to read about libraries, go to the public library page. This article is about Netflix. Would a published encyclopedia include a comment that "Netflix rents movies. But libraries have different movies." No, they wouldn't. And the argument that people don;t know that they can rent movies form a library isn't true anymore. Sure, when people had no idea what a DVD was, they might not have known, but this is 2006. In any case, people know that libraries hold all kinds of multimedia (microfilm, newspapers, journal articles, lots of stuff). I'm going to pull the comment off. --Michael 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox of Abundance

I think the piece of news reported here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1654258 (Netflix Users Experience Paradox of Abundance) should be mentioned in the article, but I do not have the time to elaborate it. If you think this is a good idea consider adding a reference to it. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gift subscriptions / Replacement DVDs

The fact that you will be charged if you do not cancel your gift/trial subscriptions goes with anything that has a trial (rhapsody and every porn site come to mind), and I think that someone got burned somewhere along the way and wants to express his anger. I'm deleting it. If anyone has a problem, feel free to discuss.

Second, is it really necessary to include all that information of replacmenet DVDs? So you lost a day because your DVD was broken in the mail. While it's not outwardly negative, I still feel that it's written in distaste. Anyone object to me editing it a bit?--Michael 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is the giver that gets charged if the gift is not cancelled by the recipient of the gift subscription. This is a very strange policy, and something that any potential giver should be aware of. It is not analogous to a trial subscription to a porn site or The Motley Fool newsletter. [—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.170.32.240 on 20:22, August 27, 2006]
That is not true. Nsayer 05:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

So what exactly is the reason this article has a neutrality tag? What was the tagger's reason? Has anyone done anything to address that reason? Michiganotaku 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that someone added the tag a long time ago and it's only undergone a few simple changes that have helped the POV issue. Still, reading over the article gives me the distinct feeling that it's still written in a slant. I don't know what else to do to help it. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm just used to reading biased stuff or what, but this is the first time I read this article, and it seems fairly NPOV to me. There was a lawsuit, in which the plaintiff alleged some things, NetFlix denied it and settled out of court. There's no bias to that. The only things that bothered me were the "see www.netflixprize.com" thing and the "cultural references" section (but only because I really can't stand that comic strip! :P) --RealGrouchy 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throttling

I don't know about you guys, but I never experienced any of this throttling nonsense. But then again I don't care. Some people send a movie back and then have to wait for the stupid mail system to get the next one. I just make a copy a soon as I get the dvd and send it back the same day. That way I don't have to worry about when the discs arrive. They arrive whenever it's time and then a make a copy and send it back. When I want to watch something I just go to the every growing stack of burned DVD's. My only problem is that doing this has created more discs than I have time to watch and so I have twenty or so DVD's in my collection that I haven't seen yet and no pressure to get around to watching them. There is your paradox of abundance.--God Ω War 13:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "throttling" is that there's no accepted definition. Depending on what blog you read or what comment is posted, throttling can be as simple as them shipping a movie next day or shipping from a non-local distribution center to some complex conspiracy involving holding your rentals up in the system to delay shipments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality."

So... has anyone followed up on this? Anton Mravcek 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/Talk%7ENetflix_2ddd.html"