Web Concepts

Posts Tagged ‘tv shows’

Netflix just divided in half: "Netflix" is now streaming only, while the DVD-by-mail service is now an entirely separate service called Qwikster

This is dumb.

The price hike Netflix underwent back in July aroused a sort of media-centric kerfuffle, despite the fact that the tech media, of all people, were surely aware that the ludicrously low prices Netflix was charging could not possibly stay so low if Netflix was to expand. (The same problem applies to music services like Spotify, Rdio, and MOG.) Aside from the day long eye-rolling about a raise in price, I doubted at the time that there would be any significant problem for Netflix down the road. Their service, especially compared to, say, cable TV, is insanely cheap, and I assumed people would grumble and then get used to it.

Apparently not, because this morning, Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, sent out an email to subscribers notifying them of a pretty significant change: Netflix will entirely separate the streaming and the DVD-by-mail services. And not like they were before: the DVD-by-mail service is getting a new name, a new site, and will show up on your monthly statement as a separate bill.

This move doesn't solve anything, doesn't alleviate the woes of any of the crazies who cancelled their subscription to Netflix (which, might we say again, is amazing, and an amazing deal) over a four-dollar price hike. It simply makes it more difficult to have both a streaming and DVD service--and as many of the content providers (TV conglomerates like Viacom, movie studios) are being very obstinate about licensing content for streaming, a lot of movies and TV are still only available on discs, so it's not crazy to want both services.

Why does Netflix want to separate its streaming from its DVD service so completely? It's not for the customer. The DVD-by-mail service is dying slowly, and Netflix has made a whole mess of changes, some obvious and some not, to encourage people to think "streaming," and not "red envelopes," when they think "Netflix." And that's fine, but this separate services thing seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth just for some clear-cut severance.

Before the change, if you wanted to play, say, The West Wing, which you probably do because it's amazing, you'd go to Netflix, search for "the west wing," and find that, oh no, it's not available for streaming, but you can rent it on DVD. Easy! Now, if you did the same thing, Netflix would tell you "this title is not available." Then you can go over to Qwikster and search, if you remember that you pay for two separate services. Oh, also, ratings and reviews (which are pretty important, especially for Netflix's recommendation algorithms) will also be entirely separate, even when the exact same title is available both for streaming and on disc.

This isn't the end of the world, and I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is. But here's why this is annoying: it is totally unnecessary. Aside from some psychological benefit of separating the DVD and streaming services in the customer's mind more thoroughly, there is no benefit to doing this, and it definitely makes using these services in tandem less convenient. Hastings did toss in a legitimately nice upgrade: Qwikster will also rent video games for Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360. That is great! Very exciting! But there's no reason that couldn't have been integrated with the streaming service as well.

Is this a reason to abandon Netflix? No. Of course not, don't be ridiculous, I don't know why you'd even ask that rhetorical question that you didn't even really ask. But come on, Netflix. Focus on getting more content and stop worrying so much about what the tech press (yeah, I know) writes. The one big benefit I see from this is that it'll be easier, in the future, to ignore what's going on with the DVD service as fewer and fewer people care about it--though I do wonder why this move is coming after the price hike and not before, and why it seems so oddly haphazard (Netflix didn't even bother to secure the @Qwikster Twitter handle, which is currently occupied by a stoner with lousy grammar). Let's just hope this is the last shake-up, and we can all go back to streaming episodes of Roseanne instead of venturing outdoors.

[Netflix]

AI in prime time

Today at 7PM Eastern, the three-day mini-tournament will kick off, pitting IBM's supercomputer Watson against the two greatest modern Jeopardy! champions: Ken Jennings, who holds the record for longest winning streak, and Brad Rutter, who has taken home the most total prize money. It's an epic battle we've been looking forward to ever since we say Watson take on the champions in that preview battle last month--and it's finally here. But actual trivia knowledge may not turn out to be the deciding factor in the contest.

Over at Boing Boing, former champion Bob Harris (the 13-game Jeopardy! winner, not to be confused with the Lost in Translation character) lays out perhaps the most overlooked variable in Jeopardy!: the buzzer. We've been concentrating largely on the task of actually figuring out the answers to the questions (or questions to the answers--thanks for that weird rule, Jeopardy!), which for the layman is certainly challenging. The mix of trivia, riddles, puzzles, irony, and wordplay were assumed to be the toughest part of the game, but Harris lets us in on a secret: It's all about the buzzer. As he says, "At the top tournament level, every player can figure out nearly all of the correct responses, no matter how arcane."

When Trebek finishes reading a clue, a producer hits a button that flashes a light, telling the contestants the buzzers can now be triggered. Once you're at this top echelon of trivia mastery, the questions aren't the deciding factor--it's all about timing. Harris notes that "Since a computer can obviously react to the 'go' lights more rapidly and consistently than any human, it will probably win," providing Watson is allowed to buzz in as fast as possible. That corroborates what I saw in the practice match: None of the contestants, man or machine, actually got a clue wrong, and none went unanswered. This game may turn into a speed contest.

But that doesn't mean it won't be incredibly fun (and romantic) to watch.

MIT wants to take your viewing experience outside of the box

A handheld Internet-connected device such as a smartphone could provide a personalized viewing screen, in addition to the main TV. Looking off toward the left or right would cue a new camera angle for the same scene to pop up on the handheld device.

The concept comes courtesy of Santiago Alfaro, who developed the thesis project under MIT Media Lab scientist Michael Bove. They envision the extra video perspectives streaming over the Internet to the handheld devices, so that there's no modification needed for the main TV broadcast or set-top boxes.

Such technology takes advantage of magnetometers built into handheld devices, such as the most recent iPhone. The magnetometers act as compasses that can detect the handheld device's orientation relative to the TV.

Alfaro and Bove already have user studies planned for the spring and summer, and have brought in content partners to experiment with sports, live action shows, cartoons and even studio-like talk shows. People who don't have the technology won't even know they're missing it, but the pilot program could lead to a new level of viewer interaction with their televisions.

[MIT]