Calling this the "Netflix Model" seems naive. When Netflix initially launched, there were two major drawing points.
1) Access to a large library/inventory. Traditional rentals were limited to mainstream/popular film and newly released films required luck to rent. Netflix made cult films easily accessible (Eraserhead, Cannibal, etc.).
2) Price savings in comparison to traditional Brick-and-Mortar Rentals. Netflix Subscription fees were equitable to two movie rentals a month. Two movie rentals a month seems like a number not outside the norm.
The service they discuss would require seeing approximately 5 movies a month just to equal the subscription fee. That is a large number.
Secondly, they aren't giving access to any more product. Just the same movies that weren't worth watching before. With the exception of oscar season I think watching five newly released movies a month would be more of a punishment.
Their shameless promo integration (pre-selling DVDS, "early access to trailers", merchandise sales) only serves to further devalue the user experience making $50 seem far too high.
As a final note, I do believe the pricing structure/experience of theaters should be re-examined and this is a start. Personally, subscription concessions could be a cool place to start. I would really consider paying $30 a month for 5 large popcorns and drinks (and that would still leave a huge margin).
Agreed. You need to remember that all the stations are separate objects. So, on your techno stations, don't favorite soft rock. Oh, and pony up the cash for the paid service; it is worth every penny to not have commercials for business cards.
But if you zoom all the way into the Hacker News image it doesn't implement anti-aliasing! Lol, that was my favorite complaint on this article; talk about digging for an excuse.
Facebook has been aching for my phone number and other details. Do you think this is security driven or put out as an entryway into greater interaction with your phone? I should note that I am old school and don't use a smartphone so that is part of my approach to thinking about this.
The 2nd chapter in Head First Java has a competition for an Aero chair between a procedural programmer and an OO programmer. The narrative describes how the OO programmer dominates the procedural programmer throughout the competition. So, who won the chair? Well, according to the book it was the 3rd programmer neither knew was offered the contract.
Seriously, I guess this would be fun if you and a few buddies were bored and in school. Otherwise, no thanks.
Interesting read. But the best part for me was learning about a new free 411 service. At least once a week, I start to call Goog411 before sadly remembering the service was discontinued.
1) Access to a large library/inventory. Traditional rentals were limited to mainstream/popular film and newly released films required luck to rent. Netflix made cult films easily accessible (Eraserhead, Cannibal, etc.).
2) Price savings in comparison to traditional Brick-and-Mortar Rentals. Netflix Subscription fees were equitable to two movie rentals a month. Two movie rentals a month seems like a number not outside the norm.
The service they discuss would require seeing approximately 5 movies a month just to equal the subscription fee. That is a large number.
Secondly, they aren't giving access to any more product. Just the same movies that weren't worth watching before. With the exception of oscar season I think watching five newly released movies a month would be more of a punishment.
Their shameless promo integration (pre-selling DVDS, "early access to trailers", merchandise sales) only serves to further devalue the user experience making $50 seem far too high.
As a final note, I do believe the pricing structure/experience of theaters should be re-examined and this is a start. Personally, subscription concessions could be a cool place to start. I would really consider paying $30 a month for 5 large popcorns and drinks (and that would still leave a huge margin).