«

"Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> HoMoon115 wrote:
>>
>> READ THE FULL AP Article
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-
>
> And notice how most of the complainers uncannily fall into the
> "B-but...they SAID 'Unlimited rentals'!--WHY can't I rent 20 movies a
> month, why, why, why??" lockstep.
>
> (Because...you're a greedy self-indulgent idiot who doesn't care about
> running the company profits into the ground, that's why?)
>
> Derek Janssen (remember, you treat your companies like you treat your
> friends--And if your short attention-span leeches off *them* too, well...)
>

Probably some of the most assinine analogies I have ever heard!

"Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
news:4fadnRyDRf5N3XDeRVn-...
> Zodiac wrote:
>>
>>>>READ THE FULL AP Article
>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-
>>>
>>>And notice how most of the complainers uncannily fall into the
>>>"B-but...they SAID 'Unlimited rentals'!--WHY can't I rent 20 movies a
>>>month, why, why, why??" lockstep.
>>
>> So the consumer has to figure out what a company means by "unlimited" ?
>> Maybe they mean slightly unlimited.
>
> Maybe they'll either:
> A) remember that the "unlimited" term dates back to the single-rental
> days, or
> B) that it distinguishes from the bare 2-out plan that only gives you four
> movies a month, set.
>
> Much the same theory as when a restaurant advertises "All You Can Eat",
> they assume MOST of their traditional customers will interpret it in the
> *proper* fashion...
>

The *proper* interpretation would be ALL YOU CAN EAT, at least for those
that speak *proper* and honest English. If they meant otherwise, they should
advertise it as such.


> Derek Janssen (ie., not forcibly stuff themselves like bulimic razorbacks,
> just because to validate the price)
>

Or as one of those consumers that is tired of of all the bait-n-switch
advertising that runs rampant in American business these days. Like Rebate
in 4-6 weeks really means 10-12 weeks, Unlimeted bandwidth really means 'at
our discretion', etc, etc.

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-> wrote in message
news:...
> On 10 Feb 2006 13:19:08 -0800, "HoMoon115" <>
> wrote:
>
>>Advertising the service as "unlimited" is misleading and unethical.
>
> Perhaps, but it's the same old story... It's all about managing a
> shared resource. There's going to be some people who use it
> responsibly and others who hog it. Netflix is just trying to make the
> system fair for everybody without raising prices.
>

I have a family member with health issues that is confined to the house,
reading and Movies are their main escape and only real form of
entertainment. Netflix offers a service that at one time was a blessing to
them as the movies arrive, they watch them and we drop them back in the mail
(Generally, but not always the next day). I live about 60 miles from their
distribution center and USED to be until about a month ago, that within a
day they would receive and send out the next 3 selections. This has now
changed to a trickle of maybe being able to turn movies over once a week
often taking 2-3 days from time I drop them in the mail to them saying thety
have received them and then another day (sometimes two) before the next ones
ship out.
I would say our use is far from irresponsible, but apparently you (and
Netflix) feel differently.

I will do the responsible thing and return my current selections at the end
of the month. If enough of us do this, hopefully some 'responsible', less
frequent renter will be left waiting because the movie is not in stock.

Sam Rouse wrote:

>>Derek Janssen (and that's WITHOUT the whole "price" thing)
>
> OTOH, who are these people that pay $1.99 to download an episode of Lost into
> their cell phones, and are they the wave of the future?

Not cell phones, iPods, and there's getting back to the key difference
again:

The cellphone-video marketers have been like the studio-VOD nuts, ie.
"Wow, you can have MOVIE TRAILERS and MUSIC VIDEOS, and carry them
around! "...
While iPod Video is targeting the specific mindset of the Apple iPod
user who is, like the disk fan by nature, a collector--iPod users pride
themselves on having an eclectic collection of music on their portable
drive, and the same goes for video...Some go to the Apple store to
rent-and-burn the latest "Desperate Housewives", just for net-access and
avoiding TV schedules, while others might collect a vintage "Munsters"
episode, just to make the stash a little more random.

Which parallels the last post:
Cellphone companies want to sell us shallow corporate licensing deals
because they think we'll drool at any mention of Beyonce' or ESPN, while
Apple gives us a library to browse through.
But unlike the home disk shelf, it's still disposable material, and
treated disposably, since even an iPod can only hold so much...It's not
going to replace permanent material, so long as the disk user still
believes in the Collection.

Derek Janssen

I don't believe that Netflix "throttles" their high usage customers. I
don't believe they decide to hold up a customer's shipment. But what are
they going to do when they have but 100 copies of a DVD and 500 people want
them? They have to choose who will get the 100 copies first. How would you
do it? Here are some possibilities:

1. Those who have waited the longest.
2. Those who tend to return discs ASAP
3. People who have the most expensive option package
4. Customers who leave the most useful reviews
5. The ones most apt to drop the Netflix service if unhappy
6. Those with the shortest queues
7. (Fill in the blank)

Norm Strong

PC Medic () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > Much the same theory as when a restaurant advertises "All You Can Eat",
> > they assume MOST of their traditional customers will interpret it in the
> > *proper* fashion...
> >
>
> The *proper* interpretation would be ALL YOU CAN EAT, at least for those
> that speak *proper* and honest English. If they meant otherwise, they should
> advertise it as such.

Restaurants have been sued about this, and the customer has lost every
time.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...ricaOnline.gif

"Jeff Rife" <> wrote in message
news:...
> PC Medic () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>> > Much the same theory as when a restaurant advertises "All You Can Eat",
>> > they assume MOST of their traditional customers will interpret it in
>> > the
>> > *proper* fashion...
>> >
>>
>> The *proper* interpretation would be ALL YOU CAN EAT, at least for those
>> that speak *proper* and honest English. If they meant otherwise, they
>> should
>> advertise it as such.
>
> Restaurants have been sued about this, and the customer has lost every
> time.
>

Hmmm, may want to check your references because I can think of two recent
incidences here in the Virginia Beach area where restaurants lost. They can
limit the time in many cases in that you may be asked to leave(ie; at lunch
buffet if you arrived during breakfast buffet), but all you can eat would
mean all you can eat.

PC Medic () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > Restaurants have been sued about this, and the customer has lost every
> > time.
> >
>
> Hmmm, may want to check your references because I can think of two recent
> incidences here in the Virginia Beach area where restaurants lost. They can
> limit the time in many cases in that you may be asked to leave(ie; at lunch
> buffet if you arrived during breakfast buffet), but all you can eat would
> mean all you can eat.

All restaurants have the standard "right to refuse to serve" clause
which is what allows them to cut you off. I suppose that if they did
so before a "reasonable" limit then they might not win, but all the
"I can eat 40 pounds of food" people have always lost if it went to
court.

Thus, the analogy with Netflix.

You might want to check if those cases actually went to trial or if the
restaurant just decided to settle in some way that made it look like
they "lost".

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActionItem.gif

Jeff Rife wrote:
> PC Medic () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>
> All restaurants have the standard "right to refuse to serve" clause
> which is what allows them to cut you off. I suppose that if they did
> so before a "reasonable" limit then they might not win, but all the
> "I can eat 40 pounds of food" people have always lost if it went to
> court.
>
> Thus, the analogy with Netflix.
>
> You might want to check if those cases actually went to trial or if the
> restaurant just decided to settle in some way that made it look like
> they "lost".

Ie., "Settle" = "Paying off the attention-struck whiners with a not
particularly damaging promo deal, so they'll shut up and go home", thus
*also* the analogy with Netflix.

Derek Janssen (but don't worry, the MGM-suit "winners" felt the same
sense of accomplishment)

Bob wrote on [Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:27:54 GMT]:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:28:35 GMT, "NFord"
> <nrfordsbcnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
>
>>Promising 1-day delivery and taking 3-4 days?
>>Off with their heads!!
>
> In East Texas they would get chained to the back of a pickup.

Ah yes, that's the perfect reason to kill someone. No wonder Texans get
a bad name.