Netflix Wants PS3 Users to "Let Max Be Your Guide"

[RoBi3.0]

While Max will likely be a useful tool for many people, there's just unsettling about putting your choices in the hands of a piece of software.

Doesn't Netflix already track what you've previously viewed and make recommendations on the top of the page? And it has you rate the movies/shows you've already watched and adjusts accordingly right now. I'm not sure if this is necessarily any more or less disturbing than what they already do, to say nothing of Google, Youtube, Apple, or the American government (hey hey, topical jokes). For real though, they're basically just putting a fresh coat of paint on an existing algorithm and trying to associate it with Siri in order to...well, I'm not really sure what their end-game was on this to be honest.

Yes, but it is absolutely useless if you have kids that watch a lot of cartoons. When I sit down to watch TV after my kids go to bed Netflix recommending a selection of shitty 80s cartoons does not do it for me. Unless they recommend He-man I am always in the mood for He-man.

 

[StewShearerOld]

On an related note: If I piss it off enough though, will it suggest Mad Max?

I wanted so badly to work a Mad Max reference into the article, but my brain failed. Thank you!

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

I don't know... it's like giving Clippy an annoying voice.

Maybe it'll work better for the Netflix For Kids or something.

 

[Zeren]

YES! I'm getting Max back! I got to try out the beta and it was AWESOME!

 

[Overquoted]

This is a very real phenomenon that impacts most elements of life. Especially commercial ones. Too many options, even bad ones, overwhelm most people.

Actually, my Netflix queue is filled with movies and tv shows I genuinely want to watch. These run from recent mainstream dramas to British crime shows to documentaries on FDR and Trudell to Korean romance shows to goofy/bad 80's horror and sci-fi. My problem is a major case of indecisiveness. I even have my queue of 221 titles sorted by genre (when I go Netflix-weeding, I usually can pare it down to about 135). The problem is that I usually have to be in 'the mood' for different things. Last weekend, it was Scream 4. This weekend, it might by Albert Nobbs or Surf Nazis Must Die. It takes me 15-45 minutes just to figure out what to watch.

So, if Max can be limited to what's in my queue, I'd probably get a lot of mileage out of it. As it is, most of the Netflix suggestions are only suggested because I've either already watched it, or I don't want to watch it.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

I was not aware the max I tried was a beta thing, because I had it about a year ago and it was kind of obnoxious. If at any point while browsing videos I accidentally pushed circle (which I often did to back out of things) it would start up max and force you to watch his intro video and let him jabber to you for a good minute or so before you back out to the original select screen. I really hope they fixed that.

Max is kinda like booting up a game of you don't know jack (complete with witty-ish host and silly think fast mini games) with the prize being a random selection of about 6 movies you might want to watch. I used it intentionally twice and both times it couldn't find me anything I wanted to watch, but it was at least mildly amusing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Actually, my Netflix queue is filled with movies and tv shows I genuinely want to watch.

Unless you are "most people," then there's no "actually" about it.

 

[Charli]

"Consumers are stupid and must be treated as such"

Is this what marketers being told nowadays? It's feeling like a trend.

The statement is a bit more loaded than that folks, you took it way too literally.

Also Netflix isn't worth what it gives in the UK. Not even close. Especially when most our TV Cable providers offer all those shows inclusive. They gotta go big or go home here, and it's looking worryingly close to that.

 

[Overquoted]

Unless you are "most people," then there's no "actually" about it.

*stares at you* Your reading comprehension could use some work. Here, let me rephrase.

I am often unable to choose what to watch, in spite of really good choices (rather than your assumed bad ones). [This was me partly agreeing with your suggestion that too many choices leads to indecisiveness.]

But hey, if you think 'most people' are only afforded bad choices...remind me again, why are they paying for the service? Last time I looked, Netflix was optional. Unless of course, you think 'most people' are paying for Netflix just in case something awesome is added around the corner? Preemptive streaming plan?

So yes, actually, I am most people in this instance.


Back on-topic: Personally, I think a better alternative to Max would just be a way to arrange my queue into lists or being able to sort what's in my queue by genre/keyword.

 

[Overquoted]

"Consumers are stupid and must be treated as such"

Is this what marketers being told nowadays? It's feeling like a trend.

The statement is a bit more loaded than that folks, you took it way too literally.

Also Netflix isn't worth what it gives in the UK. Not even close. Especially when most our TV Cable providers offer all those shows inclusive. They gotta go big or go home here, and it's looking worryingly close to that.

Think most places outside the U.S. has that problem. I know licensing is problematic once it crosses borders. Kind of like how here, we can't get a lot of European and South American tv shows. Sorta depends on the popularity (and whether or not BBC America ported them over already).

Do they manage to at least license local content for streaming there? With exceptions for the licensing brawls with Amazon and Hulu, they manage it for the most part here. Exceptions for certain cable channels with original dramas, of course (HBO, Starz, fX, etc). Those guys have a vested interest in not allowing their content to stream right now.

 

[Something Amyss]

But hey, if you think 'most people' are only afforded bad choices...

You probably shouldn't question my reading comprehension if you're then going to make a statement that isn't what I said at all.

Incidentally, the problem with your statement is it could be read two ways, I read the larger context instead of the narrower one. The use of "actually" still makes me believe this was the correct one and you are perhaps trying to retcon yourself, but whatever. The thing I'd point out here is that your question shouldn't be aimed at me as such, as I don't think most people are "only afforded bad choices." Unless were talking politics, but I'm pretty sure we're not.

With regards to Netflix, I am a long-time subscriber who has a queue that's hundreds of choices deep and growing faster than I watch stuff. You can at least verify the consistency of that by previous comments in this thread about this plan. Why would I subscribe to a service that only affords bad choices?

Well, I wouldn't.

One can reasonably conclude I don't believe Netflix only affords bad choices.

Now, I know you're probably trying to form a counter-argument because I said "even bad ones." That was a direct reference to what Alar said, when agreeing with Cidbahamut about the selection being terrible. But then, even if you don't want to look at the context and history of the comments, saying "even bad ones" is not an automatic statement of poor quality of Netflix.

So....

 

[Something Amyss]

Is this what marketers being told nowadays? It's feeling like a trend.

Nowadays? When were they not told that?

Think most places outside the U.S. has that problem. I know licensing is problematic once it crosses borders.

Actually, licensing is only "problematic" for these other countries because most industrial nations give better rights to the content producers. That makes it cost more.

Kind of like how here, we can't get a lot of European and South American tv shows. Sorta depends on the popularity (and whether or not BBC America ported them over already).

In fact, one could argue (correctly) that the lack of popularity of these titles is the only issue here.

Those guys have a vested interest in not allowing their content to stream right now.

Considering there's lag in qhat's streaming on Netflix, they really don't. In fact, allowing them to stream old episodes would very likely increase their subscribers. But more than that, HBO already has a streaming service they could provide for a fee if they wanted to, and instead lock people out of that service unless they're already subscribers through their cable.

Really, HBO is just backwards, like a lot of content providers. At a time where more and more people are "cutting the cable," HBO went and added more restrictions to their premium cable service (that requires you already have a costly cable package).

 

[Strazdas]

wait a minute, who turns on thier netflix and THEN starts looking for thingsto watch? i got a lnog list of stuff ill watch when i have time....

 

[Overquoted]

In fact, one could argue (correctly) that the lack of popularity of these titles is the only issue here.

Quite possible. But given the increasing population of Spanish speakers in the U.S., and the nearly complete absence of telenovelas and other content from channels like Telemundo, I wonder if maybe Netflix just hasn't considered trying to capture the market. I'm in Texas, and even English speakers here will sometimes watch Spanish channels (even when they don't understand 90% of the conversation). It's common enough that a lot of popular shows even come with English captioning.

And some European shows have proven popular enough, in some fashion, that they're being ported here as remakes. The Killing, Being Human, Shameless, etc. And yet, they have a pretty good selection of Korean and Japanese tv shows and movies (definitely a niche market). I wonder if maybe the licensing costs are prohibitive in general for European and South American content.

Also, I hate Netflix for never offering subbed anime. English dubs are terrible. >_<

Considering there's lag in qhat's streaming on Netflix, they really don't. In fact, allowing them to stream old episodes would very likely increase their subscribers. But more than that, HBO already has a streaming service they could provide for a fee if they wanted to, and instead lock people out of that service unless they're already subscribers through their cable.

Really, HBO is just backwards, like a lot of content providers. At a time where more and more people are "cutting the cable," HBO went and added more restrictions to their premium cable service (that requires you already have a costly cable package).

Well, by vested interest, I'd say it's a case of either being fully committed to the cable model (HBO, bafflingly), or an interest in preserving ad revenue (most channels only allow streaming of old seasons; as an example, AMC's Hell on Wheels has one season on Netflix but is about to start airing the third). And remember, these channels still air reruns with ads, too. So the lag is deliberate.

I'd say streaming is already being seen as a way to drum up subscribers rather than as independent revenue generation, but only by specific channels (others just exempting themselves entirely). Or maybe they're delaying content as a way to increase download and dvd sales. Either way, they all see a vested interest somewhere.

 

[Overquoted]

(snip)

So....

*eyes glaze* I was returning sarcasm for sarcasm. It's what forum posters do best. B) But my original statement, I think you read too much into 'actually.' And that was more or less because I only quoted you, rather that you and the original poster. Cleaner reading? Less comprehensive, too!

But I didn't retcon myself; my rephrased post was what I meant originally. I am not entirely certain what larger context you're seeing; the rest of that post was talking about being indecisive. I'm confused over this disagreement over a larger agreement.

Also, given the length of the thread and that I'd just gotten off work when I posted, I confess to both skimming and being brain dead. So nope, didn't realize you were even a subscriber, much less a satisfied one. (Should I mention I just got home an hour and a half ago?)


OT: Have you ever read Catch-22, Zachary?

 

[Something Amyss]

Quite possible. But given the increasing population of Spanish speakers in the U.S., and the nearly complete absence of telenovelas and other content from channels like Telemundo, I wonder if maybe Netflix just hasn't considered trying to capture the market. I'm in Texas, and even English speakers here will sometimes watch Spanish channels (even when they don't understand 90% of the conversation). It's common enough that a lot of popular shows even come with English captioning.

I get that. In fact, the hispanic market is considered to be one of the biggest growers for basic cable, but at the same time it's considered pretty low in terms of purchasers for premium, so I wonder if the interest would be there for the base market that leads to this.

At the same time, I wonder which came first: the chicken or the egg. Maybe spanish-speakers don't buy into these services because they don't offer enough product for them.

Also, I hate Netflix for never offering subbed anime. English dubs are terrible. >_<

Relaly? Most of the ones I have watched are subbed. It even surprised me when I found out Bleach wasn't. Mostly because I'm used to JYB as Ichigo.

I'd say streaming is already being seen as a way to drum up subscribers rather than as independent revenue generation, but only by specific channels (others just exempting themselves entirely). Or maybe they're delaying content as a way to increase download and dvd sales. Either way, they all see a vested interest somewhere.

I get that too, but I don't get the dedication to the cable model as it's failing, and I still think showing two season old episodes on Netflix might promote HBO subscriptions. I also think Go might be money straight to them. I could be wrong and all, but it's my spin.