Dear Netflix: An Important Message from a Paying Customer

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:25:06 -0500

On June 19, 2008, thousands of Netflix subscribers received the following notice via email:

We wanted to let you know we will be eliminating Profiles, the feature that allowed you to set up separate DVD Queues under one account, effective September 1, 2008.

Each additional Profile Queue will be unavailable after September 1, 2008. Before then, we recommend you consolidate any of your Profile Queues to your main account Queue or print them out.

While it may be disappointing to see Profiles go away, this change will help us continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

In essence, the Profile feature allows a family with one account to operate multiple individual queues. So, for example, it’s possible for me to set up a queue, while my wife operates an independent queue of her own. We currently pay for a plan which includes two rentals at a time, and the Profile system won’t choose a movie off of my queue unless the returned movie came from my queue.

My wife and I also happen to have different taste in movies. Thus, the benefit of separated profiles lies in each of us getting movie recommendations based on our distinct interests. Unfortunately, once we merge our queues, Netflix is going to recommend that I give Bollywood a try and dear God I do <em>not</em> want to give Bollywood a try. We’re also going to fight about who is dominating the queue, and which of us is getting more movies geared towards our particular interests.

There’s also a practical matter: We rent a lot of Season DVDs of various TV shows that we’d like to catch up on, or which, for whatever reason, we didn’t get around to watching while they were airing. Adding an entire season of any given program adds, on average, 5 or 6 DVDs to a queue. The benefit of Profiles is that one of us can add the series while the other will still get movies, thus balancing out our consumption. Merging our queues will mean manually staggering movies between series DVDs, so that we don’t have a few weeks in a row of nothing but one TV program, over and over.

As usual, the internet has spoken out: Twitter posts about Netflix went up drastically, shortly after the email was sent out to customers. Twitscoop, a website which analyzes popular topics on twitter via a graph of activity surrounding a given keyword, provides a great visual representation of the popularity of this decision:

Many of the initial reactions have been along the lines of georgenemeth’s tweet:

• jmissig : I wonder if it's coincidence that I received my AppleTV the day Netflix announced the removal of Profiles

• billstreeter : I can't believe Netflix is canceling their profiles feature. Why are they going backwards?

• jeremya : Netflix is eliminating their Profiles feature... I will either be downgrading or canceling my account.... http://tinyurl.com/53cell

And on and on.

Doing away with a popular feature is one thing, but claiming that the reason is because “the change will help us continue to improve the Netflix website for all of our Customers” is downright absurd.

How? What does my ability to utilize separate profiles -- a feature that is invisible to anyone who doesn’t share my account -- have to do with any other Netflix subscriber? How will taking that feature away benefit others enough (or even at all) and thereby justify the annoyance of thousands of other customers?

It’s possible that Netflix has some feature in mind to compensate for the loss of Profiles, but the wording of their email notification is baffling, at best. At worst, the suspicion is going to be that they’re somehow losing money and are thus taking their ball and going home. They’re going to lose a lot of customers over this, unless there’s an immediate attempt at damage control.

The Apple TV is suddenly seeming like a compelling option, not as an addition to my Netflix subscription, but as a complete replacement. I’m intrigued by the HD downloads, even at the relatively low resolution that the HD content is served up at, and despite the current lack of content. In short: The potential is there.

If Apple would get on the ball, and allow me to pay a $15-$20 monthly subscription and queue up the movies I want to watch so that I can have two out at a time, and so that a new movie begins to download as soon as my window expires on a currently downloaded movie, I’d switch without hesitation. This system would even alleviate some of the concerns with download speeds, as you’d always have something downloading in the background, as you watch the content that has already been downloaded.

As it stands, Netflix’ idiotic move may get a pass simply because Apple TV isn’t quite where I want it to be yet, and Blockbuster Online isn’t even an option, for me. Then again, it may not. Forcing me to manually merge our queues certainly isn’t a good sign.

iPhone 3G: What’s With the Total Cost of Ownership Argument?

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:05:01 -0500

So, Apple announces the iPhone 3G (does that make the 1st Generation iPhone the 1G iPhone or the iPhone 2.5G and is the iPhone 3G the 2G iPhone 3G?) and alongside the new look, the new software and other improvements, a svelte-looking Steve Jobs confirmed early reports that the price would drop to an unbelievable $199 for the 8GB model and $299 for the 16GB model.

Predictably, the price drop is due to a new subsidy deal with AT&T, as noted in this recent CNET article:

But the new deal comes at a price. AT&T executives said on a conference call with analysts and investors on Monday that the arrangement will put pressure on the company's profit margins and dilute earnings for the next year and a half. That said, the company believes that the new price point and improved Web surfing experience of the iPhone on AT&T's 3G wireless network will drive sales of the iPhone and get more customers using its data services.

An update toward the end of the same article makes note of a concern that has been dominating the technology blog circuit for the past week or so, starting from about t-minus one second after Jobs announced the price drop: Due to the upgraded 3G network, AT&T will no longer offer iPhone specific service plans, and (gasp!) data service rates will go up by a minimum of $10 a month. As a result, the total cost of ownership of an iPhone 3G will ultimately go up over the course of a two-year contract when compared to a 1G iPhone utilizing the slower EDGE network. To add insult to injury, 200 text messages will set you back another $5 a month.

To be precise (and plenty of people are being very precise) the iPhone 3G will set users back $160 over the course of a two-year contract, when compared to a standard 1G iPhone contract, once the subsidy and extra costs are taken into account.

$160 dollars isn’t exactly chump change but looking at total cost of ownership simply isn’t a realistic way of gauging any given consumer’s willingness to purchase a product. Ultimately, pointing out a long-term cost is little more than nit-picking in order to find some way to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and spending habits don’t support that sort of thinking.

For example: Let’s say my Netflix subscription is $10/month. (It’s a little more than that, but the math is easier.) For 24 months, I pay $240 to get 2 movies at a time, as many times as I want in a given month. That’s a good deal for me, because I can always afford to spend $10 a month. But wait! Let’s assume that Netflix will allow me to pay an upfront fee of $200 and upgrades my account to 3 movies at a time, for a two-year contract. Great deal, right? I’ve just saved $40 and earned an extra movie, meaning I could, at a minimum, watch an extra twelve movies a year.

Except, that isn’t a good deal for me at all, because I simply don’t have $200 to plunk down on a luxury.

Another example: Ask any average joe on the prowl for a new iMac whether they can afford to get a mid-range setup for $1500 via a cash payment, and most people won’t have it in their budget. Those same people can “afford” to take out a line of credit, pay off the iMac in $30-$50 increments, even at an ass-rapingly ridiculous APR of ~ 19%. In two years, that unaffordable $1500 iMac is going to have set back our average joe more than $2000.

That same average joe may have balked at spending $499 for an 1G iPhone, but will gladly consider spending $199 -- even with an extra $10 or $15 a month -- because the immediate savings seem so drastic while the monthly increase simply doesn’t seem that bad and, the fact of the matter is, $160 spread out over two years only amounts to $6.66 more per month. (Nice.)

Essentially, anyone who wastes their time setting up a total cost of ownership chart either 1) doesn’t understand the way we spend our money in America or 2) is nitpicking the iPhone because it’s a convenient way to earn some page views. Either way, even with the two-year increase, Apple is about to sell a butt-load of iPhones.

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that AT&T’s service plan for 3G Data is in-line with just about every other provider, when compared to their high-speed offerings. There’s also that AT&T is charging their standard rate for a 3G data package, and would have charged the extra $10 with or without the subsidy.

That $160? It could have been $460.

The Clear Plastic Binder

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:22:20 -0500

As a Trial Support Specialist (TTS), the general rule of thumb has always been that a "seamless" presentation plays best in front of a Jury. This means, in part, avoiding the use of on-screen toolbars and minimizing vocal communication between the presenting attorney and the tech specialist.

Experience has proven otherwise, though: Jurors are (and should be) focused on the evidence, more than how seamlessly it is presented. While it is true that a well-oiled presentation certainly can’t hurt, these factors are nowhere near as important as the overall quality of the evidence, and the care that has gone into designing demonstratives, long before they’re presented to a Jury.

Assuming the latter, a slight lag or visual hiccup isn't going to mean much to a Jury dedicated to a contemplation of the facts and a fair interpretation of the available evidence.

I'm sorry to say that I have never worked alongside an TSS for an opposing counsel who seemed to have a solid grasp of the technologies being utilized (slow loading times, fumbling through a list of documents, etc.) and -- barring a major technology disaster -- the Jury just doesn't seem to be affected by a seamless presentation vs. the all-too-common instances in which "the tech guy" is utilizing a visible tool bar or an on-screen drop-down menu. We give ourselves too much credit to assume otherwise, and I've long since stopped patting myself on the back regarding my “superior” grasp regarding the idiosyncrasies of trial presentation software.

I’d rather pat myself on the back for understanding the attorneys I’m working with, and what they need from me so that they can be at their best.

While it's nice to believe that an invisible presence is the "clear plastic binder" that will make all the difference (this always sounds good as a sales pitch to an attorney who is contemplating the use of a TSS) I'm convinced that it's far more beneficial to do everything in my power to make the attorney's life easier -- i.e. disturbing them as little as possible as they prep a witness -- and that doing so will ultimately make a bigger impression on any given Jury.

One aspect of this strategy involves maintaining a close relationship with a paralegal and/or associate and, yes, working a bit harder the night before to familiarize myself with the documents, videos, and demonstratives which will be utilized, without ever having to interrupt the presenting attorney's preparation.

(Every attorney is different, but few, if any, have as much time as we would all like to dedicate to the little things such as going over documents, etc. As is often the case, the "ideal situation" is very different from the real world situations we tend to find ourselves in during a trial.)

Ultimately, the less an attorney has to think about or deal with technology, the more impressive he/she will appear in front of a Jury, and this is true even when it comes to a less-than-seamless presentation. On that front, I feel it is more important for a specialist to be comfortable than it is to be invisible and thus I would never discourage the use of on-screen displays when it comes to a novice TSS who is nervous about relying on key commands.

I don't mean to rule out the concept of seamlessness because, again, it’s a good thing to come across as professionally as possible in front of a Jury. I do mean to stress that most attorneys will be at their best when allowed to prepare without distraction, and without having to consider how to operate (say) a handheld scanner.

This behind-the-scenes scrambling will always mean more work for the specialist, work which will be (by design) invisible to the attorney because, in the end, the work we do as specialists the night before (often right through to the morning of) a long day in the courtroom is far more important than hiding every tell-tale sign of our presence from the Jury, which knows we’re there despite our best efforts.

Technology, no matter how precisely driven, will never win a trial and the belief that we can affect a deliberating Jury via smoke and mirrors simply doesn't hold water, even if it sounds great as a sales pitch. In practice, I can sell myself as an TSS with much more confidence by utilizing the above strategies than I can by highlighting hollow techniques centered around impressive technology.

Personal Branding on the Web

Thu, 22 May 2008 10:50:28 -0500

Most of us are now participating in various aspects of the “social-web” and part of that process involves managing our own personal brand, on one level or another. Like any other product, we represent ourselves via various methods, in an attempt to earn greater recognition, whether it be by a symbol or a photograph.

Should we treat ourselves like we would treat any other brand? Is it important to stay consistent, or is it acceptable to change our avatars like we change our clothes? Does one choice over the other say something about the person making the choice?

I used to have an avatar for Flickr that was different from my avatar on Newsvine that was different from my avatar on iChat. With the relaunch of my personal site, and my activity on twitter, I’ve attempted to reconcile my various personas, using the logo which I originally created for Newsvine, and which has since become a major aspect of the identity of this site.

Doing so is my way of saying that the content I post in *this* space is coming from the same person who is posting content in *this* space. If you like me here, you’ll probably like me there.

I once got into a heated debate with another member of Newsvine, after I suggested that his online presence was essentially a brand. He was adamant that his participation in social-media wasn’t a product, that he wasn’t a brand, and this led me to suggest that his failures on Newsvine were probably due to his unwillingness to sell himself properly, to create a consistent image of what he was about. His constant shifts in identity were jarring, and they projected something that precluded people from settling down with his content.

Everyone who participates in social-media is selling something, whether they want to admit it or not. It doesn’t matter if that sale is taking place on Twitter, Newsvine, Myspace, a personal blog -- or all of the above -- as always: The stronger the brand, the better that something, whatever it is, will stand to sell.

(That isn’t to say that content doesn’t matter, because it does. A strong brand can prop up mediocre or even bad content, but only for so long. On the other hand, great content can thrive absent a strong, cohesive brand, but why rely on that?)

If Apple Makes It, I Will Buy It

Wed, 21 May 2008 11:31:02 -0500

I listen to my iPhone and iPod Nano fairly regularly. In the car on the way to work, while we’re at the gym, while I’m working, etc. Hands down, I spend more time listening to music while driving our cars than I do while engaging in any other activity. Unfortunately, listening to music while driving also happens to be the jankiest way to enjoy the music on our iPods. The experience pretty much sucks.

My wife and I own two cars, neither of which contains a cassette deck or an auxiliary input. I was able to use a cassette adapter in my last car, which sounded pretty good, and have used an auxiliary input in a rental vehicle, which sounded really good, but I’ve never come across a single experience that matches the “Apple” experience. I’m currently using a RoadTrip FM transmitter which is awful at worst, and passable at best. (But usually awful.)

I think the sticking point, for me, is that a large part of the iPod/iPhone’s appeal is software: Great integration with iTunes and (especially when it comes to the iPhone) a really slick interface on the device itself. There are some 3rd-party devices which offer the ability to control an iPod via an installed deck, but nothing that compels me to spend money and replace my current setup, as bad as it tends to be.

So, as usual, the best solution is probably going to have to come from Apple, though I’ve never heard any indication that they are developing a device which would interface an iPod with a car.

Features that would see me parting with up to $1000, instantly:

iPhone-like industrial design: Minimal visible bevel. Essentially, a beautiful, dark screen in place of my current, ugly, unit.
Wireless pairing: When I get into my car, my deck should auto-detect my iPhone or iPod Touch, and just like airtunes via iTunes, I should be able to output any audio on my iPhone to my car’s speakers.
A touch-screen display that wirelessly replicates the screen of an iPhone, and controls any paired iPhone or iPod Touch wirelessly. Album art, cover flow, album listings, etc.
Email indicator on the display, and the option to have emails “read” to me via a system voice. (Music fades in and out to allow for this.)
Turn-by-turn GPS built-in.
A built in Microphone for voice commands. (Next song, Pause, Volume, Play, Artist Select, etc.)
The ability to pair multiple iPhones, and to switch between them via a voice or on-screen command.
Received calls answered (and ended) via voice command, and then routed through the car’s speakers coupled with the ability to talk naturally, using the built in Mic. (Music fades in and out just as it does when a call is picked up on the iPhone.) Essentially, the car acts as a wireless headset.
Caller ID on the display, so that I can choose to ignore a call, or send it straight to voice-mail.
Voice mail played through my car speakers, with voice navigation.
Pictures displayed on the deck when calls received, if they are set up in my iPhone contact list.
USB connection for charging my iPhone or iPod Touch/iPod.
Some sort of wired connection to facilitate iPod/iPod Nano use and control.
Stickiness: Audio books should begin where I last left off, whether I last listened while driving, or not.
I’m willing to concede that movies might not be the best idea, while driving.

Ultimately, this would be a device, powered by OS X, which would allow me to extend the great user experience I’ve come to expect from my iPhone to the location in which I am most likely to be found listening to and enjoying music.

Obviously, Apple would have to work with auto manufacturers to create face plates which would look good with their device, and which would allow the device to work across various automobiles.

The thing about Wikipedia...

Tue, 20 May 2008 12:00:24 -0500

Academics will beg to differ, but: It’s simply not necessary for Wikipedia be 100% accurate in order to be useful and, yes, reliable as a resource.

As Jeff Croft put it: “Some things don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be good enough.”

I posit that Wikipedia is almost always better than good enough, though, and that -- for the vast majority of us -- it’s more useful (and thus better) than a traditional encyclopedia, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons.* Further, I believe that the (minor) risk of being grossly misinformed by a poorly researched/written wiki is greatly outweighed by the vast and open dissemination of knowledge fostered by Wikipedia as a whole.

In other words, a person is better off having relied on Wikipedia for knowledge on any given topic than the person who didn’t bother to look at all, because of the threat of unreliable information. This is true even if that first person is occasionally misled by unreliable information.

Of course, this supposed “threat” ignores the fact that citations are usually provided with content, and the ability to further research beyond the scope of any given wiki via those source materials.

Those who decry the use of Wikipedia as a source often either 1) don’t know much about how Wikipedia works or are 2) trying to dodge having been proved wrong in an argument by refusing to recognize a generally valid, but popularly frowned-upon source. Ultimately, any teacher worth his/her salt should be able to distinguish between an essay plagiarized from a Wikipedia entry (a bad thing) and an essay which was inspired by a student having referenced Wikipedia while brainstorming topics (a good thing). Which, in turn, means teachers ought to learn about the pros and cons of Wikipedia and devise a responsible method of working it into curriculum as a resource, rather than banning it outright.

And, of course, I’m a firm believer that “the living encyclopedia” would be much better (and more accurate) as a tag-line than “the free encyclopedia...” (Free carries the connotation of cheaply made.)

*Wikipedia is 1) current, often updated within minutes of an event 2) extensively hyper-linked 3) exhaustive in reach and 4) much more compelling when it comes to the minutiae of various topics -- all points in which it bests even the most highly-regarded traditional encyclopedias.