Net Neutrality is Live
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller I don't understand why you are so adamantly against this idea. I guarantee you more MANY Netflix users would want this. I would not take alot of effort on Netflix's end to make this happen.
The whole point if you don't know what you want to watch, Why not have a constant stream you can peek in on. You don't have to peek in on it. You could still have all your content on demand. This is in addition to the way Netflix works. I am not saying to replace the current way Netflix works.
What I keep saying is... that's not the point. You keep saying reasons that you want channels, but we keep pointing out that channels aren't needed for the features that you want. All of that can be done with on demand systems. You want to know why I am so adamantly against it... it's because there is no reason presented for why it is superior. Flip it around, why are you so adamant about channels when every feature you mention can be done the same or better without traditional channels?
Netflix could make "channels" but it could make superior options for the same or less effort. What I'm saying is that channels are not necessary, playlists and an option to have things start "randomly" mid-stream cover all of those bases.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller I don't understand why you are so adamantly against this idea. I guarantee you more MANY Netflix users would want this. I would not take alot of effort on Netflix's end to make this happen.
The whole point if you don't know what you want to watch, Why not have a constant stream you can peek in on. You don't have to peek in on it. You could still have all your content on demand. This is in addition to the way Netflix works. I am not saying to replace the current way Netflix works.
What I keep saying is... that's not the point. You keep saying reasons that you want channels, but we keep pointing out that channels aren't needed for the features that you want. All of that can be done with on demand systems. You want to know why I am so adamantly against it... it's because there is no reason presented for why it is superior. Flip it around, why are you so adamant about channels when every feature you mention can be done the same or better without traditional channels?
Netflix could make "channels" but it could make superior options for the same or less effort. What I'm saying is that channels are not necessary, playlists and an option to have things start "randomly" mid-stream cover all of those bases.
The thing is I still have to chose what goes on there and where everything starts. That is the whole problem, I cannot chose what I want. Because I don't know what I want
-
I think its a million dollar idea and its what Netflix needs to knock down the TV providers.
I might go pitch the idea on shark tank....uh never mind. Well maybe, if I add a QVC channel to the idea......
-
@IRJ said:
The thing is I still have to chose what goes on there and where everything starts. That is the whole problem, I cannot chose what I want. Because I don't know what I want
You are combining the concept of channels with what Netflix offers today. You are missing that we keep saying that Netflix, with no effort, could offer everything you mention - literally everything, every feature, every caveat, without needing channels. Just because they don't do it doesn't mean that channels are the answer. They won't offer channels because it doesn't make sense. If channels made the slightest sense, they could offer every channel "feature" easier without using channels. That's what we are saying. Don't mix what they are offering with what they could offer.
Everything you've asked for with a channel can be done without a channel. Why do you keep insisting on the channel mechanism?
-
@IRJ said:
@IRJ said:
I think its a million dollar idea and its what Netflix needs to knock down the TV providers.
I might go pitch the idea on shark tank....uh never mind. Well maybe, if I add a QVC channel to the idea......
Trust me, everyone who has used on demand services for the past fifteen years has thought of this, worked out how to do it and thus far, determined that it isn't worth any money. What you are proposing has been discussed a lot and always comes out to "no vendor cares because the value is too low." Trust me, I know exactly what you are asking for and it takes absolutely nothing for the vendors to provide. But they just aren't seeing a market for it. This idea goes back to the earliest days of Internet streaming services. @AndyW and I were working in this space, doing actual channels for radio, in the early 2000s - and even then no one would use them versus on demand based systems.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller I don't understand why you are so adamantly against this idea. I guarantee you more MANY Netflix users would want this. I would not take alot of effort on Netflix's end to make this happen.
The whole point if you don't know what you want to watch, Why not have a constant stream you can peek in on. You don't have to peek in on it. You could still have all your content on demand. This is in addition to the way Netflix works. I am not saying to replace the current way Netflix works.
This describes the autoplay feature on YouTube pretty well. Choose something you like and it'll make a playlist of similar things.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller I don't understand why you are so adamantly against this idea. I guarantee you more MANY Netflix users would want this. I would not take alot of effort on Netflix's end to make this happen.
The whole point if you don't know what you want to watch, Why not have a constant stream you can peek in on. You don't have to peek in on it. You could still have all your content on demand. This is in addition to the way Netflix works. I am not saying to replace the current way Netflix works.
This describes the autoplay feature on YouTube pretty well. Choose something you like and it'll make a playlist of similar things.
That's a good start, but only does part of what he wants. It isn't curated (the "next" item is always garbage) and it never starts in the middle of a show. It's good, but not what he wants. But you could take that, use curated playlists and add a "start in the middle" feature and you meet or beet any channel system feature for feature, caveat for caveat.
-
Other than the "starting in the middle" thing which I would hate, the idea of strong, curated lists that act like a channel but are selectable to be "in rotation" or "pick up where I left off" would be awesome. The nice thing about not using a channel mechanism is that you can select how you want the mechanism to behave so that you aren't making something that only applies to a handful of people.
The problem with the channel mechanism is that currently, the market shows that when alternatives exist, no one chooses that. So replicating it won't make money.
-
I see something that I think IRC wants that the curated list can't provide, and that's random compromise based on individual emotions of the moment by all parties watching TV.
That combined with the extreme limited nature that is the channel selection allows for a selection that neither party might want, but one they are willing to live with.Now let me say that in plain English.
Let's say my wife and are bored, etc, etc.. and we're going to watch TV, there is nothing left on the DVR we both watch to watch, so one of us grabs the remote and starts channel surfing and I ask my wife if she wants to watch xzy that I see that I like. No No No she says as I continue to flip down the channel list. I reach the end and say fine, you suggest something. Same thing happens, she flips suggests I say no to the end.. well now we're at an impass - one of us will take control and simply pick something. If we're lucky the middle of the show that I pick will provide enough interest to my wife that she'll watch it without complaining.
If I remove the limited channel line up and only use content on demand, there's a higher than normal chance that I will choose something that she doesn't like - additionally, currently it's not standard to start at anyplace but the beginning of a show (but you can fix that by simply hitting fastforward for a random amount of time on the show YOU"VE chosen, or that SHE chose in the efforts to endure them to watch the show - but that is more effort than IRC wants to employ. and frankly the random factor here really isn't random, but putting a random start time on a show is something I never see being truly useful so why would any streaming media provider include it.
Also, if you're so fickle to allow a title/synopsis, etc stop you from watching a show you haven't seen before, what is going to change if that show is now on demand instead of forced upon you by a channel? Why would you stay on that channel? I certainly don't, I surf until I find something that does seem to interest me.
Now if you're still with me - I think that Netflix could actually provide you with content you both would like based upon your moods, but it will require a fair amount of work on your part. when you are watching netflix you'll need to tell it your mood, and who's watching.. then over time netflix will learn things about you.. and be able to provide suggestions that will fit you both. This technology already exists, maybe not commercially, but technically, it just takes implementation. Unfortunately that cost of entry is probably to high, do you really want to spend time telling the system who's watching and what their mood is when you start watching, of course not, who's got time for that?
So while I think I see what IRC wants, I consider it completely impractical, but not enough of a demanded feature to keep the channel idea alive.
-
@Dashrender said:
Now if you're still with me - I think that Netflix could actually provide you with content you both would like based upon your moods, but it will require a fair amount of work on your part. when you are watching netflix you'll need to tell it your mood, and who's watching.. then over time netflix will learn things about you.. and be able to provide suggestions that will fit you both. This technology already exists, maybe not commercially, but technically, it just takes implementation. Unfortunately that cost of entry is probably to high, do you really want to spend time telling the system who's watching and what their mood is when you start watching, of course not, who's got time for that?
The Playstation Netflix App has a really cool feature called Netflix Max. It allows you to answer two or three questions then it gives you suggestions based on how you rated other shows/movies. It is a really nice addition especially during that time where you really don't feel like finding a show to watch.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
Now if you're still with me - I think that Netflix could actually provide you with content you both would like based upon your moods, but it will require a fair amount of work on your part. when you are watching netflix you'll need to tell it your mood, and who's watching.. then over time netflix will learn things about you.. and be able to provide suggestions that will fit you both. This technology already exists, maybe not commercially, but technically, it just takes implementation. Unfortunately that cost of entry is probably to high, do you really want to spend time telling the system who's watching and what their mood is when you start watching, of course not, who's got time for that?
The Playstation Netflix App has a really cool feature called Netflix Max. It allows you to answer two or three questions then it gives you suggestions based on how you rated other shows/movies. It is a really nice addition especially during that time where you really don't feel like finding a show to watch.
Interesting, now IRC and wife need to agree to not give the title any credit good or bad, and not read the synopsis and just start watching the show and he'll have nearly what he wants.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@IRJ said:
I think its a million dollar idea and its what Netflix needs to knock down the TV providers.
I might go pitch the idea on shark tank....uh never mind. Well maybe, if I add a QVC channel to the idea......
Trust me, everyone who has used on demand services for the past fifteen years has thought of this, worked out how to do it and thus far, determined that it isn't worth any money. What you are proposing has been discussed a lot and always comes out to "no vendor cares because the value is too low." Trust me, I know exactly what you are asking for and it takes absolutely nothing for the vendors to provide. But they just aren't seeing a market for it. This idea goes back to the earliest days of Internet streaming services. @AndyW and I were working in this space, doing actual channels for radio, in the early 2000s - and even then no one would use them versus on demand based systems.
I was joking about the million dollar idea think. It was just an attempt of humor at Mark Cuban's expense.
-
I'm not sure there will ever be an algorithm that will give reliable recommendations on what I'd like. I dunno, maybe I have less predictable tastes than most people. Spotify, Amazon and Netflix all seem well wide of the mark.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm not sure there will ever be an algorithm that will give reliable recommendations on what I'd like. I dunno, maybe I have less predictable tastes than most people. Spotify, Amazon and Netflix all seem well wide of the mark.
OK I can see that, and even agree that it will be painful at best to get them to give you something that will fit your mood at the time you're looking... but really - channels DEFINITELY don't do that for you now. You're forced to choose only from the selection that they have playing at the moment you're looking.
So look at Netflix, Hulu, etc the same way - that you're forced into this small focused list that they are providing you - really it' no different than what is on the channels on the cable box.
-
I rely on recommendations and reviews in the TV listings of my newspaper. They don't tend to review Netflix programs to the same extent. I'm sure they will as Netflix becomes more popular. Professional critics always beat algorithms for me.
For me, art is either good or it isn't. There isn't any particular genre I like over another. So an algorithm would never work. There will never be a computer that can calculate why I love Breaking Bad and Seinfeld so much more than other series.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm not sure there will ever be an algorithm that will give reliable recommendations on what I'd like. I dunno, maybe I have less predictable tastes than most people. Spotify, Amazon and Netflix all seem well wide of the mark.
Same problem. those algorithms can't figure out what I like at all.
-
So forget the algorithm and simply watch what it puts in front of you, just like cable does.
-
I'm not sure how preventing paid prioritization == preventing content... but I guess this is a thing now.
-
@coliver said:
I'm not sure how preventing paid prioritization == preventing content... but I guess this is a thing now.
I think they are just worried the government will over reach like they do in many other things. And the fact that the FCC has no enforcement power especially when it comes to companies like Comcast who get around things.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I think they are just worried the government will over reach like they do in many other things.
This is why I did not want Title II applied. I worked for an ILEC for years and I know just how much of a f[moderated]ed up mess that it made of things when DSL was rolled out back in 2000.
I have never been against network neutrality principles, but Title II was not the best way to go about it.
By using Title II, I expect the ILECs to bring all their lawyers in, and those lawyers already know Title II inside and out. This is going to turn in to a complete cluster f[moderated].
