Jump to content

Talk:Netflix/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Platform Limitations

I added a section under technical details to watch the evolution of things like Linux desktop support, additional browser support on Windows and static IP support for Roku players. Biturica (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could not find Roku on the page. It should be mentioned.

68.165.11.36 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fraud", "deceptive" POV additions

User NetFlixFraud has been adding what to me is some fairly obvious POV wording into the article. The current version is:

Many people assert that NetFlix continues to defraud customers: claiming "rent 'as many DVDs as you want'", when at the same time contradicting the marketing claim in their TOS. Promising one thing, and delivering another is bait & switch. This is fraud. Netflix has not yet been found guilty of fraud. The Netflix marketing campaign, "rent as many DVDs as you want" is not in line with their TOS. This is at the very least deceptive.

Some background for those just coming in - Netflix is settling the "Chavez" class action lawsuit mentioned in the article, which also prompted them to acknowledge in their Terms of Service what has become known as "throttling". Note that the lawsuit never reached any sort of judgement, and Netflix apparently felt no need to change their actual operational practices because of it, just document them. The US Federal Trade Commission was an intervenor late in the settlement, but only on how Netflix appeared to be using the settlement's free service to the affected members as a recruiting tool, not the behaviour alleged, and took no position on any sort of consumer fraud concerns, etc. It seems to be a classic "nuisance" settlement. Unlike, for example, Blockbuster, which was pressured by the various states over the introduction of their "No Late Fees" program, I'm not aware of any similar action against Netflix.

Whatever individual customers may think of such marketing terms as "unlimited" or whatever, they are fairly common in the online DVD industry (not just the US), and it seems to be not much different than "all you can eat" restaurants, or "unlimited warranties" on automobiles, where the fine print counts. Phrasing such as "fraud", "bait & switch" and "deceptive" would seem to have no justification in an encyclopedic article. - David Oberst 02:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV pushing, plain and simple. If there's a verifiable, NPOV way to put it, I invite the user to add it, but this shouldn't be left to stand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article reads to me as distinctly POV. At least half the article is written in an extremely negative tone -- I came here looking to find out how Netflix handles licensing to movie studios, and find out that some dude has a beef with "throttling." The POV here needs to be cut down, especially since some of it is redundant. 24.185.243.220 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While some of it might be redundant, Netflix's legally-proven practice of delaying the shipment of DVDs to people who tried to get the most for their monthly dues is a large part of the company's brief history. To lop it out due to the complaint of the person above would be rash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.218.226 (talk • contribs)

I'd never heard of all this throttling business. And I wouldn't complain about them sending me a DVD from all the way across the country. When I rent big name Hollywood blockbusters, they send them to me from Lansing and I get them the next day. When I rent obscure animé DVDs, they might send it from California and it might take a whole week. I'm just happy they even have the title to begin with. I can wait a week for something I thought I'd never get a chance to watch. Well, that's my POV. Michiganotaku 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just obscure movies (like anime) that are subject to throttling. They send many DVDs from across the country, including new releases. Blockbuster does the same thing. It should be pointed out, so people don't join with unrealistic expectations. Throttling is definitely real and most services do it. Some users never notice it, because they don't rent more than 8 or 9 movies a month. They would not be subject to throttling. They would always get one-day shipping both ways and high-priority for new releases. It's not a negative tone at all. People are just pointing out the fact that Netflix imposes artificial limits, while claiming unlimited service. They should be honest and just say you get 3x or 4x the plan (9 or 12 on 3-out). Then, nobody would have reason to complain. It's the fraud that bugs us and deserves to be noted..

Kitchen Sink?

Judging from that source cited (6) for the Kitchen Sink reference, it sounded to be purely metaphorical.

Ditto, I'm going to rev it out.---Jackel 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It actually *did* happen. It was a stainless steel double-bowl kitchen sink. Nsayer 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Libraries

"Free public libraries often lend out DVDs now. Some charge a small fee. They carry a variety of new and old titles from different genres - action, sci fi, drama, comedy, foreign, anime, horror, independent, cult classics, etc. Most allow you to reserve things online, and pickup locally when ready. They sometimes carry titles and versions that are Out-Of-Print or unavailable from Netflix."

Terrific - so public libraries lend DVDs. What has this got to do with Netflix? Public libraries also lend books - do they therefore get a mention in the entry for Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble? I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix, but whatever the reason, I don't think it belongs in the article because it doesn't have a single thing to do with the company. 12.162.189.80 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would highly agree.--Anthony 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, amazon does not ask for your book back once you have read it... the similarities between netflix and a library are more striking to me, and are worth being mentioned, but the paragraph you cite looks too loong and detailed than needed. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Libraries have many titles that are out-of-print or unavailable from Netflix. Also, they don't cost you anything usually. Many people can't justify the cost of a Netflix membership when they don't rent many discs a month. The libraries are part of Netflix's competitive environment. If that's off topic, then the whole section on competition should be removed.
"I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix,"
Sounds like you are trying to push Netflix and don't want it pointed out that they do not have certain titles that libraries do. If that "steers a few people to the library," I think they would be happy to know about it. Libraries are a competitor to Netflix. If that's not relevant, then remove the whole section. Personally, I think competition is relevant. It is biased, NOT to point out the alternatives to their service. The page isn't supposed to be an advertisement for Netflix. If libraries have some things NFLX doesn't and provide them free, that makes them attractive, IMO.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix has many more titles than any libraries. They're one of the the foremost distributors of independent films. What public library can attest to that? I vote that the library comment should be removed. It adds nothing to readers' knowledge on the subject of Netflix. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, everybody knows that they can get books from the library. Not everyone knows they can get Criterion DVDs and other things. If someone adds a section on "Competitive Environment" to the Amazon or B&N articles, I would expect the Public Library to be mentioned. It has nothing to do with having a "beef" against Netflix. Libraries have things Netflix doesn't. Libraries usually let you reserve things online and borrow them for free. They deserve to be mentioned.
No, I still disagree. If you want to read about libraries, go to the public library page. This article is about Netflix. Would a published encyclopedia include a comment that "Netflix rents movies. But libraries have different movies." No, they wouldn't. And the argument that people don;t know that they can rent movies form a library isn't true anymore. Sure, when people had no idea what a DVD was, they might not have known, but this is 2006. In any case, people know that libraries hold all kinds of multimedia (microfilm, newspapers, journal articles, lots of stuff). I'm going to pull the comment off. --Michael 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I belive that that comment should stand because; 1.no, not everyone knows that libraries have DVD rentals, and 2. There are plenty of movies that Netflix does not have the ability to rent out that libraries have access to. Here's an example; Netflix does not carry the 1989 movie Godzilla vs. Biollante, even though this movie is famous amongst godzilla fans. Even though this movie is hard to find outside of Japan, 2 of the libraries in my area have it. Also i didn't know libraries carried dvd and multimedia until after i started college. Also since netflix no longer has an option for people to suggest/request movies i find the library mention to be even more relevant. I request that this edit be reverted or put back in Killemall22 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How long should i wait with no objections to add that information back into the article? are there anymore opinions on this subject?Killemall22 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Paradox of Abundance

I think the piece of news reported here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1654258 (Netflix Users Experience Paradox of Abundance) should be mentioned in the article, but I do not have the time to elaborate it. If you think this is a good idea consider adding a reference to it. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gift subscriptions / Replacement DVDs

The fact that you will be charged if you do not cancel your gift/trial subscriptions goes with anything that has a trial (rhapsody and every porn site come to mind), and I think that someone got burned somewhere along the way and wants to express his anger. I'm deleting it. If anyone has a problem, feel free to discuss.

Second, is it really necessary to include all that information of replacmenet DVDs? So you lost a day because your DVD was broken in the mail. While it's not outwardly negative, I still feel that it's written in distaste. Anyone object to me editing it a bit?--Michael 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is the giver that gets charged if the gift is not cancelled by the recipient of the gift subscription. This is a very strange policy, and something that any potential giver should be aware of. It is not analogous to a trial subscription to a porn site or The Motley Fool newsletter. [—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.170.32.240 on 20:22, August 27, 2006]
That is not true. Nsayer 05:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

So what exactly is the reason this article has a neutrality tag? What was the tagger's reason? Has anyone done anything to address that reason? Michiganotaku 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that someone added the tag a long time ago and it's only undergone a few simple changes that have helped the POV issue. Still, reading over the article gives me the distinct feeling that it's still written in a slant. I don't know what else to do to help it. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm just used to reading biased stuff or what, but this is the first time I read this article, and it seems fairly NPOV to me. There was a lawsuit, in which the plaintiff alleged some things, NetFlix denied it and settled out of court. There's no bias to that. The only things that bothered me were the "see www.netflixprize.com" thing and the "cultural references" section (but only because I really can't stand that comic strip! :P) --RealGrouchy 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Throttling

I don't know about you guys, but I never experienced any of this throttling nonsense. But then again I don't care. Some people send a movie back and then have to wait for the stupid mail system to get the next one. I just make a copy a soon as I get the dvd and send it back the same day. That way I don't have to worry about when the discs arrive. They arrive whenever it's time and then a make a copy and send it back. When I want to watch something I just go to the every growing stack of burned DVD's. My only problem is that doing this has created more discs than I have time to watch and so I have twenty or so DVD's in my collection that I haven't seen yet and no pressure to get around to watching them. There is your paradox of abundance.--God Ω War 13:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "throttling" is that there's no accepted definition. Depending on what blog you read or what comment is posted, throttling can be as simple as them shipping a movie next day or shipping from a non-local distribution center to some complex conspiracy involving holding your rentals up in the system to delay shipments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, God of War? Evilrhino 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to do that, then you might as well just skip Netflix altogether and download movies from torrent sites...Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of how you do it.Dav2008 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality."

So... has anyone followed up on this? Anton Mravcek 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: need refs for citation needed tags, lead expanded and should summarize article, refs are not in a consistent format, refs come after punctuation-not in the middle of a sentence,

I provided a reference for the sentence requesting one. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but the rest of it isn't done and the lead does not summarize the article either.Rlevse 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed all the refs in this article and now all are in proper format (at end of sentence; etc).--Natl1 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Lead still needs work per above.70.160.188.138 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Rlevse appears to have left the project. I'm going to be bold and pass this, based on the work that's already been done -- I think it substantially meets the Good Article criteria. However, the lead does need a little more work in order to better summarize the article. On its way toward FA, I think it could also use some additional citing, especially in the Corporate History section, and a copyedit for manual of style and prose-tightening. Congratulations, and thanks for the hard work. Shimeru 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The article has an external link in the lead
  • Multiple onene sentence paragraphs, even a one sentence section
  • References in the middle of a sentence (should be after a full-stop or comma)
  • Some references aren't formatted properly, check {{cite web}}
  • Image lacks fair use rationale
  • Lead is too short
I haven't even read the text yet and would qualify this as a quick-fail. Deal with these issues ASAP or this will be de-listed. M3tal H3ad 09:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that cite-web format is not required by WP:WIAGA, nor are external links forbidden -- it isn't a reference -- though there's an argument for moving the link to a dedicated section and leaving only the text where it is. Images all have fair-use rationales. Above editor was correct about the two references in the middle of sentences; I have moved them. The article's lead is the major issue of note, and I am trusting that it will be expanded in the near future. Shimeru 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The lead, as noted by anon two days, still doesn't come close to GA quality. I'm listing for delisting. You should also not pass GA articles unless you are on the list of participants.Sumoeagle179 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The picture in the infobox doesn't have fair-use. However i was wrong about refs place as someone told me about it. There shouldn't be a external link in the text, it goes under the external link section for a reason. M3tal H3ad 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay... I'm confused. The image page I'm looking at tags that image as fair use as the logo of a corporation used to illustrate that corporation. Is the tag not showing up in your browser, or something? That would be strange... Shimeru 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I see the tag, but there is no fair use rationale, in the licensing, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale". M3tal H3ad 07:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's what you were talking about? All right. It's pretty clear from the tag and the file links, but I added the redundant block of text to make it extra-explicit. Apologies. Shimeru 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA delisting

See above entry and WP:GA/R concerning delisting nomination.Sumoeagle179 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse is not gone -it was a long wikibreak that was needed- and agrees with Sumo.Rlevse 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delisted per review discussion. Feel free to renominate once the others' objections are addressed. Shimeru 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference 11 Invalid

The 11th Reference link at the bottom of the page is an invalid link. It was supposed to lead to a Newsweek article, cited as a source for the throttling information. I suggest all information from that source be temporarily removed until a working link to that or another appropriate Netflix throttling-related article be found. Knightskye 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean BusinessWeek. I found the text of the article here, but on short notice couldn't find a reliable link to the story to replace the broken one. There's probably a copy on some news site somewhere if someone else wants to track it down. David Oberst 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Throttling' angers Netflix heavy renters external link points to http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1603927&business=true which is dead.

A google search of that headline reveals a few hits that appear to be about the same article beginning with "Manuel Villanueva realizes..."

I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Is it OK to just pick any one of them and update the link?

For example: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/02/10/financial/f112412S32.DTL&type=business

Modul8r 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pornography

The entry mentions that Netflix doesn't carry porn, but that wasn't always the case. In the early days of Netflix, they most certainly carried that sort of thing. IIRC, it had its own category. I'm having trouble tracking down a source for this so far. Thealien 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you use archive.org to look at old versions of the page, you can track down their "Mature" category: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117011532/http://www.netflix.com/ ("mature" under "featured genres" on the right-hand side) Dav2008 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It was never the case. Go one step further. Click on the "Mature" link in the archived page you mentioned, and it takes you to a listing of 30 or so extremely soft titles: 1999 Playboy calendar, 9 1/2 Weeks, etc. Definitely not porn. These are titles they continue to carry, and always have. They've never had any hardcore.PacificBoy 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the 1-800 number presented here goes to a adults-only phone number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.194.238 (talk) 17:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

You can still stream Caligula in 2010. Last time I checked that has some hardcore moments. Biturica (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

97 or 98?

Established 1997 or 1998? Text says one, sidebar says the other. Bhudson 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was 1998. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris! my talk 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Distribution Centers

The Distribution Center section was removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY shortly after it was added. This is valuable information and adds to the overall article by showing the growth of Netflix. It demonstrates Netflix distribution model, and it's reliance on USPS SCFs) far better than prose. (from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic") Yes there are directories on Wikipedia that are their for their own sake but this isn't one of them.--Rtphokie 23:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire distribution center list looks extremely trivial to me and I don't think it is valuable information like you said. Simply listing all the distribution centers doesn't contribute significantly to the topic. In, fact, inclusion of such information makes the article look like a yellow book, which is stated explicitly in the What Wikipedia is not. I think that it should be removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I won't remove it just yet and I await your response. Chris! my talk 06:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's give some others a chance to share their opinions. Is additional information needed to make it more valuable? Perhaps better tying this information to the related USPS SCF?--Rtphokie 11:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The distribution center for Montana is reported as Denver, CO. I would correct this, but don't know what the actual address is. IanHerriott 05:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a huge list of distribution centers. Instead, have a paragraph that describes the locations. Such as, "There are distribution centers in the following states:..." with the following states having multiple distribution centers:"..."Dav2008 05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Chris! ct 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of Directories in Wikipedia (examples: List of Dish Network channels 000-298, List of radio stations in California, etc.). How is this one different?--Rtphokie 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are given as a separate article. Feel free to start a List of Netflix distribution centers article if you feel it doesn't violate the "Wikipedia is not a directory" terms.Dav2008 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You are making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What other article have doesn't matter? The fact that this list of distribution centers is trivial and not notable warrants its removal. Also thanks for pointing that Dish network list. I will afd it. Chris! ct 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't recreate the article List of Netflix distribution centers. It has been deleted three times already. Chris! ct 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it is decided by consensus that the list is trivial, I am deleting it. Chris! ct 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold off, there are several suggestions on reatining the information in a form other than a list--Rtphokie 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Netflix.jpg

Image:Netflix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NetFlix does indeed carry "porn"

Based on Wikipedia's own definition of the word; NetFlix does indeed carry "pornographic" materials; "Pornography sometimes shortened to porn or porno, is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal...." . http://www.netflix.com/Movie/I_Spit_on_Your_Corpse_I_Piss_on_Your_Grave/60024010?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1619353733_0_0 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Anatomy_of_Hell/70019235?trkid=174833 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Pola_X/60003399?prid=108117472&trkid=217222&lstid=15163 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Baise_Moi/60022022?prid=108117472&trkid=217222&lstid=15163 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Cheerleader_Ninjas/60032818?trkid=64596 among many others. Each of these titles having scenes that are otherwise out of place if not used to stimulate for the sole intention to stimulate. Lostinlodos (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're argument is flawed; just because a film or movie may contain explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity does not define it as a de facto porno. Most American action films contain a sex scene, usually for plot, characterization, or an attempt to boost demographics, but this does not make them porn. Or take the award winning HBO/BBC TV series Rome which has full frontal male nudity at least twice, and more female nudity then I can count, sex scenes, orgies, rape, torture, elements of S/M, gay sex etc. etc. It is truly an adult work, but it is also completely brilliant as the above helps to portray the humanity of the ancient Romans. As such it is not porno, its more in the sense of sex as an artistic choice as opposed to just titillating material (compare for example the difference between artistic Nudity, and the physical Naked).
Also, I think the argument includes that there is no separate porn genre on Netflix, nor are the film explicitly and purely porn. I do know they carry certain films that may be considered porno among other qualifiers, but as unrated films (eg. Caligula (film)). Its the additional qualifiers that make them not porno. Zidel333 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Zidel333 couldn't have put it any better. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not trying to argue against what they carry. I believe that all people should have access to all film media at any age no matter what the content is and that there should be no rating system of age restrictions; personally. That said, the fact of the matter at hand is that what many would consider to fall into that term's definition IS carried by Netflix. Many of the titles that fall into that genre that I listed above are banned in some towns (specifically including the titles above) as being "porn". It was that reference, and wikipedia's own definition that I use in determining what is/is not considered for inclusion for a genre. They did many years ago have a category listed as "adult", 'though of those titles have been merged into other sections when they dropped that grouping. If by porn you only reference "xxx" titles, then no, they don't carry those, but they do carry titles banned in many locations for being "sexually explicit". To stay in line with consistency on the whole of the site, I would stay with what wikipedia lists as "porn". If you have an issue with their definition, I'd suggest that it be argued there, rather than here, and that for the time being (pending any change in that definition) that this page remain neutral in its mention (or removal of reference to:) of so-called "porn".Lostinlodos (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Releasing this week section

I couldn't find any non-blog sources to cite for this section. At any rate, the "releasing this week" feature is available now: http://www.netflix.com/AllNewReleases?lnkctr=NavAllNewReleases Crymerci (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Netflix Player Abroad

From the company: 

Hello,

Unfortunately this is a restriction placed by the Hollywood studios, and is not 
something that Roku or Netflix has control over. US Embassies are not supported. 
We apologize for any inconvenience, and appreciate your service. Please let me 
know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
...................................................................................
Heidi Freni
Sales Representative
Roku
12980 Saratoga Ave, Ste D
Saratoga, CA 95070 
toll free: 888.600.7658
tel: 408.556.9040
fax: 408.446.1735
www.roku.com
...................................................................................

Mike wrote: 
So much for us Americans serving abroad.  At least Vonage says it’s only for the 
US but wink, nod, lets us use it overseas as Americans.
 
What about a US Embassy abroad, that is legally physically US soil?
 
From: Heidi Freni [1] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:45 PM
To: Mike
Subject: Re: Netflix Player
 
Hello, 
Thanks for contacting Roku. Unfortunately, the Netflix Player by Roku is currently 
available for use only in the physical US. Please let me know if you have any 
further questions.   

Thank you,
...................................................................................
Heidi Freni
Sales Representative
Roku
12980 Saratoga Ave, Ste D
Saratoga, CA 95070 
toll free: 888.600.7658
tel: 408.556.9040
fax: 408.446.1735
www.roku.com
................................................................................... 

Mike wrote: 
Currently Netflix will send DVDs to US government employees serving abroad.  Most 
of these employees also have Internet connections fast enough for the Netflix Player 
and NTSC television sets.

Are there any ISP restrictions on the Netflix Player that would restrict it from 
working abroad if licensed by a US customer to plug into an NTSC TV?  We hope not 
as we miss US TV (we have AFN but it is limited).  We have Vonage out here and it 
works well.
 
Thank you.
Not surprising at all. Your location on the Internet is determined by IP address, not by the nationality of the user (which would be a logistical nightmare to verify). There would be no way to know whether you're a US citizen or a citizen of the country in question, as you would both have similar IPs. Sending DVD's through the mail is different as Netflix can be sure that the address they are sending to is an US Embassy. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is unfortunately original research and thus cannot be used in the article. If you can find a published, reliable source that states the above information it can be added. Plus, it is technically the Instant Play service (and not the Netflix Player) that won't work outside the US. -Zomic13 (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

elimination of profiles

Given that netflix has reversed itself, it seems to me that this is basically a non-event that doesn't really warrant a section at all, let alone one the size of this.... any comments before I delete it? Charles (Kznf) (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agreed with them getting rid of the profiles, the only "event" that has happened is that they bowed to the less than 10% of people who used them. Trash the section. Nothing happened! Lostinlodos (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it was an important event in their history. They removed an important feature; which got plenty of media attention. There was a customer uproar; which got media attention. They reversed their decision; which got media attention.
Maybe it should be trimmed or updated, but it should not be removed. Miami33139 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. They decided to remove the unimportant and rarely used (depending on which statement you cite, between 2% and 10% of users utilize it), and after those users complained and the general confusion they (the least of users) caused to the other 9% to 98% of users by claiming that "ALL THEIR/YOUR RATINGS" would disappear, resulting in more calls from the majority being concerned than the target minority group; they chose to reverse their decision. A quick call by anyone to their service number and a manager will get you aprox. that answer; the minority of users caused a panic among the non-affected users. The change was never enacted. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's quite a POV statement -- the opposite POV statement would be that the base customers (heavy users who heavily recommend the product they enjoy) lost a function for no good reason, complained and, not wishing to upset their base customers, the company had the decision reversed. Whichever POV statement you choose, it was, as Miami points out, the target of media attention and an important corporate event - an "irrevocable" decision was revoked. (A nerdy analogy, if I may -- Star Trek was cancelled after its second season. Fans wrote to complain. Company caved in, voila, third season. Should the cancellation be removed from the history of the show because it never happened?) Editor437 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"unimportant" is your own opinion. It was enacted, as well. New customers, and existing customers that did not already use profiles, could not enable them after the announcement.
The criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is notability. Things are notable when reported on by multiple reliable sources. The announcement, customer backlash, and revocation each were reported on by multiple reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing the link is not disabling it. See the section on releasing this week, and the links to the adult section of the site. < 10% usage over it's lifespan is unimportant by a statistical review, and has nothing to do with my opinion. I myself am one of the 90% of users that Netflix states was thrown into a panic; after reading an older revision of of the section on this site. I have not prior or since seeing the notice on Wikipedia seen any discussion in MAJOR news sources. It's a non-event.
As for the Star Trek comparison; I'm one of the fans who wrote to save Voyager, Enterprise, and Boston Legal. Statistically I am in the minority of television viewers. I am unimportant in the grand media universe and would never delude myself to thinking otherwise. Just because I think it's a major event doesn't make it so. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but the point is not who is correct here, but notability. Major news sources are not necessary for notability. Something affecting, say, 5%, of customers is a big deal to that company; risking the loss of 5% of your customers is a big deal. (and BTW, I think the Star Trek analogy still holds up - a minority of viewers demanded a retraction of cancellation and got it - a notable event in the history of the series)

P.S. - Please don't revert the section until consensus is achieved here. This debate may require arbitrarionEditor437 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "removing the link" - Please explain. Nor do I understand how, say 9%, could possibly be unimportant statistically, or what you mean by a "statistical review". Thanks Editor437 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up the section. Personally I don't think something that never happened is worthy of any mention; however others do. For that, I cleaned up the section slightly in order to shorten it, if people wish to read the blogs they can go to the blogs. It's still in a historical context, a non-event. Better than Star Trek comparisons, Microsoft makes announcements all the time, people complain, nothing happens, complainers claim victory. We don't have a separate section for every anti-petitioned action against Microsoft. And it's really not needed here.
As for the statistical issue, 9% is < 91%. That's all I meant. The links on the site where removed and/or disabled at various times between the announcement and un-announcement; however a user could still activate the option through a link in help or by entering the url by hand. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that this section needs to remain - but I condensed even further - one paragraph should be enough. --Trödel 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Now it seems overly condensed. There's no sense left of what Profiles are, or why they would matter to either Netflix or even its users to the extent of it being an issue at all. D. Brodale (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Trödel 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the boilerplate, but I was hinting at review of your own editorial approach to this section rather than leaving it to others to untangle. D. Brodale (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Netflix down?

Should there be anything about Netflix's inability to send out movies for the past couple days (as of Aug. 14)? Surely that's a notable thing … the website occasionally (as in once in a blue moon) going down for a couple hours at a time has happened before, but it's hardly notable since it happens to just about every Internet-based business at least once or twice. But I don't think a total inability to send out (and possibly receiving) DVDs for 72 hours (and counting) has ever happened to Netflix before. —MicahBrwn (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Novelty isn't always notable. I see someone else has since supplied a section covering this recent event, but I question whether this rather brief service interruption is truly noteworthy from the perspective of an encyclopedia ... is it? BTW, there was at least one somewhat recent instance where the Netflix website was basically down/inoperable for a day or two, which was far more immediately noticeable to users of the service than this hiccup; I don't think that interruption seems all that worthy of notice here on WIkipedia, let alone this most recent disruption. D. Brodale (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this became notable because of all the news reporting and the loss by Netflix of $1.8-$3.6MM in revenue because of the event. See Google News search. --Trödel 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not the spin of the section as currently written, which devotes (in my opinion) undue attention to a day-by-day recounting of the halt in order processing. I'm aware of pre-refund analyst speculation of possible losses, though the logic of those analyses is puzzling as portrayed by news outlets. Granted, Netflix did announce a partial refund that may well impact the company's bottomline, but the significance of that is undetermined as of yet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. D. Brodale (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that is just the result of it being a current event. Over time people will condense it as it fades into memory. :) --Trödel 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I posted this section, as it was the longest known outage for Netflix at the time and impacted their core business. I know that the site outages are likely more noticeable, but the ability to ship DVDs from across the country in a rapid manner is crucial to the business of Netflix and part of their competitive advantage, while site outages are fairly common on the Internet. Certainly there are other (stock and financial) implications to the outage, which I did not cover. I think covering the other implications would be appropriate. I fully expect the details to fall off over time, but I think there is still a place for the mention of this outage at some level. Gregmayer (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be a non-issue issue, but they did dole out a few million dollars in refunds, credits and rebates to users over the downing. It wasn't just the site that went down, it was the back-end computer system. Nothing went in or out for days. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Outages in 2007 and 2008

Under the headline "Outages and service interruption", three dates are mentioned in succession: August 12th 2008, August 15th 2008 and August 22nd 2007. The latter date is 2007 and not 2008, but is described as a follow-up to the outage of 2008. Is this a mistake, or is the August 22 date indeed 2007? If so, maybe a rephrase is in place. --Jussing (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Netflix online community

Nearly 6.000 users registered -- Shouldn't it be included in external links? I'm adding it; if there's a reason I shouldn't, let's discuss...Bustter (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Online service throttling

Has anyone heard of allegations of Netflix shutting down peoples access to their online movies if they watch too many? I've noticed that I can watch a few each week just fine then after maybe 5-7 hours worth of that I can no longer access their server even though my internet connection is just fine with any other website on the net (and I maintain a 1,000 to 1,500 kbps speed).(72.193.61.118 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Citation 39 down

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to manage this but I clicked citation 39 and the article in question has been pulled or moved. Just thought someone should know. Munkeegutz (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, fixed, thanks. What I usually do is Google for key words (headline, distinguishing content); often one can find another reliable source. Take a look at my edit to see what needed to be changed. Have fun! —EqualRights (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Limited instant view disribution of movies?

It says on the Netflix website [2] there (You have to click around a little, no way to directly link), that "While movie studios and television networks have great flexibility in what they offer on DVD, there are many limits to what they can make available to watch instantly due to long standing contractual obligations." It seems this should be noted and elaborated on, at least briefly, some where in the article. Why it is so and negotiations about it or something along those lines. I can't find any information on it at the moment, but if someone has any clue, an addition would be appreciated.VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

red envelope entertainment

I wikipediad the film producer red envelope entertainment and was linked to netflix. It appears netflix has their own production company. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? --76.230.50.44 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) --Lazydragonboy (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Screen shot

I wanted to add a screen shot of the home page during anoutage but I just don'tknow enough about fair-use license. image:Netflix website unavailable.jpg Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Video Mailbox

Here's an article with brochures and a YouTube advertizement from the 80s company "Video Mailbox," which was like Netflix. Perhaps mention should be made of it in the Netflix article as a precursor? http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2009/08/was-video-mailbox-the-first-moviesbymail-rental-company.html Included in the comments are some details by the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

List of outages

It's rather odd to have a list of outages under the heading "Outages and service interruptions". Such outages are not listed at the articles for competing services (such as iTunes), not at those for businesses with similar business models (such as Centrica) but for whose customers an outage is a far bigger issue. I guess this illustrates a certain demographic in Wikipedians editing this article...--Rfsmit (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and removed the section. Outages are not notable. They happen to nearly every online service at some point and none of the ones listed are significant, as they are all due to technical glitches or hardware failures. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated information.

"The new Blu-Ray pricing came into effect for billing cycles ending April 27, 2009." Is it just me, or is that out of date? Ending April 27, 2009? I'm too lazy to look it up the up-to-date info myself, so I thought I'd call attention to it here. 172.130.13.241 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Streaming -- please clarify any hidden limits

On Netflix's website, and in the Article, we see these claims:

“Virtually all subscribers now are entitled to unlimited hours of streaming media at no additional cost.” (In the Article.)

“With an Internet connected Netflix ready device, you can instantly watch movies (some new releases) & TV episodes (including current season) right on your TV - as often as you want, anytime you want.” (On Netflix's website.)

Why, I wonder, do both say the “number of hours of streaming” and “as often” and “any time”, while not at all mentioning the number of different movies that may be streamed? Unlimited streaming should mean that you could in theory watch 12 movies everyday (if 2 hours long each) for a total of up to 360 movies in a month, if at least one member of your family was always awake and watching. I find it hard to believe that Netflix and its suppliers would allow this at anything less than a very high price. Is there a hidden limit, or can you really watch 360 movies every month? If there is a hidden limit, please edit the Article to describe the limit. If there is no hidden limit, then the Article should clarify that too. Rahul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

Before canceling my account, for reasons not related to anything here, I averaged 90 streams, sometimes more per month. I never hit a limit, although the buffering slowed and many choices would disappear after you hit 40. So I would hazard the guess there's no real limit. That said, the agreement states that not all movies are available to all customers at all times, and film's I lined up in my queue to watch online would cease to be available after hitting that invisible mark. On the other hand, even though the more mainstream films would drop off the list of streaming options, I noticed that films buried deep in my queue (we're talking old 60s and 70s stuff) would suddenly become stream-able. None of this is encyclopedic, but it's worth some digging for a more interested party to find. More exactly, I was never cut off but the "Hollywood" films disappear after approximately 40 while independent and older films take their place. Probably a distribution limit more than a time limit. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of limits, are streams limited or reduced in quality? For example, if I stream a video to my PS3, is it in 1080P? That sort of information seems to be missing. 142.23.94.224 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How many DVDs are shipped a day?

This article needs some editing... the lead-in paragraph says: "The company has more than 55 million discs and, on average, ships 1.9 million DVDs to customers each day."

In the Corporate History section, the article says: "Some 35,000 different film titles are contained in the 1 million DVDs it sends out every day." — Mmathu (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Any such ephemeral numbers should be removed, as these things will never remain accurate. If anyone feels such numbers are necessary, then perhaps a dated graph drawn from reliable sources showing Netflix's growth over time should be devised. Anyone with the numbers and Excel could create a graph in minutes. Bustter (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1500 Terrabytes

I'd recommend the comment about 1500 Terrabytes a day being as much as what travels the internet be removed. That's in the range of 150 Gbit/sec and I've been in two datacenters which together push 100 Gbit/sec and there are many more of that size and wihtin an order of magnitude.

PS3

The article seems to suggest that PS3 support is coming soon. That should be corrected since a PS3 disc is available: http://www.netflix.com/PS3

neutrality: what is needed?

the neutrality tag is like a scarlet letter atop this article. The problem is, it is very difficult to describe what Netflix is and does without it sounding like an attractive & inexpensive service, because it is, objectively, both of these. The descriptions of Netflix gripes like throttling and limited selection are objectively described, what more do those who claim this article is not neutral demand?

Whoever re-added the neutrality tag in April seemed uninterested in even posting any explanation here on the talk page. If, for instance, the user who posted it was working from a Blockbuster IP, I would consider it vandalism.

Going through the page history, the word "neutral" appears in none of the edit summaries for the date given, and the neutrality tag was present well before the date given, so I assume someone probably accidentally removed and replaced the tag.

Does anyone still seriously dispute the article's neutrality? I'll revisit this question in a month's time, at which time I'll consider removing the tag unless substantive requests for changes are made. Bustter (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, though I add the disclaimer that all tagged unsourced statements should be removed from the article to help avoid this issue in the future. I don't see anything in this article that especially screams "advertisement." -- Ryankiefer (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising campaign

I'm not sure what the policy/consensus is regarding television/radio advertising with products, but should this article contain a section about the "quiz show" parody commercials that are heard on the radio for Netflix — not only their content (two totally nonsense questions posed to the contestant, followed by a question about one of Netflix's services) but about where the idea came from, etc.? It may be hard to research the idea behind the commericals, but just a thought. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)]]

If anyone doesn't mind, I'm going to set up bot archiving on this article.

This talk page is starting to get really long and unwieldy, so I'm gonna set up MiszaBot to autoarchive any threads older than 31 days. If anyone objects, please say so here within a day or two, otherwise I'm going to insert the necessary code and let the bot do its thing. elektrikSHOOS 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Figure for market share is wrong

The figure for market (c. 32%) seems to be wrong. It comes from a Reuters article which cites a 2013 study from Sandvine. In that study, downstream traffic is measured, not pure market share. Besides Netflix, the downstream peer group includes YouTube, BitTorrent, Facebook (among others) which are obviously no SVoD platforms.

Dot com company

I brought this up a while ago, but that got archived, so here I am again. Would Template:Infobox dot-com company be a better infobox template to use compared to Template:Infobox company? Please, somebody comment on this. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of encoded versions per title

The source, currently linked, doesn't support the following statement:

According to Netflix, the vast number of codec and bitrate combinations can mean having to encode the same title 120 different times before it can be delivered to all streaming platforms.

There is something in this source which is referenced in the same paragraph as the one above. But it just says: 40.000.000 viewers == 120.000+ viewables. I don't think you can deduce the number of encoded versions from that either.

--193.105.223.125 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Netflix content library changes

This article mentions Netflix having a lot of content deals with Disney. Most of the Disney Channel Original Series (including "Hannah Montana", "The Suite Life On Deck", "The Suite Life Of Zack And Cody", "The Wizards Of Waverly Place", and "Shake It Up") were removed from Netflix's streaming content library on January 4, 2015. Many Disney Channel movies (including "High School Musical", "High School Musical 2", "Camp Rock", "Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam", "StarStruck", and "Lemonade Mouth") are listed as available until 3/4/2015, meaning they are being removed as well. I contacted Netflix customer service multiple times, and they have confirmed that they are negotiating to renew their streaming license with Disney, but they could not give details of how that is going. This massive reduction in content is very relevant to an article such as this, which mentions their deal with the Disney-ABC television group. However, as an upset Netflix customer who enjoyed that content, I fear I am unable to add this information myself with a neutral point of view, and would end up criticizing Netflix harshly and then having my edit reverted. So, if anyone else wants to add the information, then the source is Netflix's website - so you need to be a customer if you need to verify this. Search for the titles of the movies, and they will have a removal date. Check that the TV shows are not on Netflix, except Hannah Montana, which is now DVD-only. Then search Google for "netflix" "hannah montana", and you will get numerous sources from when they added it years ago, and many of these sources will also list other Disney Channel TV series Netflix had acquired. Then, you will have verified that Netflix had this content available, and that they don't anymore. Combining those sources, you can logically prove that Netflix removed the content in question. If you need a source saying that it is because of expiring content licenses, just ask customer service via live chat and take a screenshot of their response. How much of this is needed depends on how strong a source is needed. There are no press releases from Netflix itself regarding any content removal, ever. They only draw attention to it when they add content, and they keep quiet and let everyone else figure it out when they remove it. My opinions about their honesty in that regard is another reason I cannot edit this article with a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.161.11 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Under content library the proposal there should be a section outlining controvershial/racist films Netflix has paid for to be in their library such as "White Chicks' where the Wayne's brothers dawn 'white face'.

24.23.146.196 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: That would be the definition of giving that undue weight. Cannolis (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Operations

The machines Netflix has commissioned on the DVD side are rather interesting. Brownway has also produced some videos, such as the Automated Rental Return Machine. This information is missing in the article. Also, I know from personal experience that Netflix's IT operations have been cited, namely the Chaos Monkey tool and AWS. — Dispenser 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/history-of-netflix. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —George8211 / T 14:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Yesterday, there was a small edit war after I added half the Emmy nominations to in the Awards section. After looking at the size of the the half completed 2015 nominations, I think one of two scenarios should happen:

  • The entire table is spin-off into a new article, titled something like "List of original Netflix programs Award Nominations".
  • The table only should show the programs that actually won awards and the nominations are removed.

I am not sure what is best, but keeping the status quo does not seem correct. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be difficult to know what to include; my intent was not a war, just a disagreement which I (hope) I had dropped. Personally, I think that ehaustive Emmy's lists and charts get over promulgated; the lists appear again and again over many articles. I think that including the number of awards with a link to the actual Emmy's page should suffice, but listing each award for every show produced is overkill. Perhaps even separating Netflix as a production company from their work as a streaming service would be helpful. The more they have diversified, the more unwieldy the page has become. Thoughts? Scr★pIronIV 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"chill" forced meme

I'd just like to thank all the vigilante critics defending this page from people (ab)using it to promote a Forced Meme. For anyone starting edit wars here over this issue, people are now trying to scrape together some legitimacy at Netflix and chill. Leave this page alone: it's about something that actually exists already.120.19.233.127 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Area served

I just made an edit to that section, listing the missing countries from the Netflix site (European microstates, non-Hispanic America American countries and 3 Oceanian countries). While editing, I thought of replacing all the American countries with "The Americas" considering Netflix serves all of the Americas. TVShowFan122 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive Stock info?

So I was looking at the history section and something caught my eye: Currently these are the last few paragraphs 

In April 2014, Netflix approached 50 million global subscribers with a 32.3% video streaming market share in the United States. Netflix operates in a total of 41 countries around the world.[56] In June 2014, Netflix unveiled a redesigned version of its logo (using a modified typeface, and removing the drop shadowing and red background of the previous logo) and website UI. The change was controversial; some liked the new minimalist design, whereas others felt more comfortable with the old interface.[57] In July 2014, Netflix surpassed 50 million global subscribers, with 36 million of them being in the United States.[58]

First news coming from the company’s first quarter earnings report for 2015. Netflix’s market value now stands at $32.9 billion; a number that exceeds the $30.6 billion value of the CBS network. According to a breakdown of the recent Q1 report from Deadline, the early part of 2015 has been more than good to Netflix. The company’s stock saw a 14.7% rise that cumulatively added $4.2 billion, bringing their market value to that $32.9 billion figure.[59]

On July 14, 2015, at the close of trading, Netflix did a 7-for-1 stock split by giving all shareholders an additional six shares of stock, effectively dropping the stock price to $100.[60]

I don't know enough about stock prices to actually determine whether this info belongs or not, but to have three straight paragraphs talk about the stock price seems excessive and possibly a violation of "What Wikipedia is Not" in so far that it seems like it's an excessive listing of statistics" but again I'm unsure of what this actually represents for Netflix.

Could someone that's more knowlegable about this take a look over this section and see if it needs to be trimmed down? --Deathawk (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

VPN Ban worth a mention?

From the Wired article released today:

Earlier this month, Netflix made its service available in 130 new countries—that is, almost everywhere around the globe with the notable exception of China. But fast on the heels of its expansion, the company last week shocked international users by announcing plans to crack down on the millions of people estimated who access Netflix via what’s known as a proxy server or virtual private network (VPN), which allow users to mask their locations.

Would this be notable enough to mention on the page? I would argue something that will affect "millions of people" could at least be worth a sentence or two. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It already is. Look under "VPN access" section. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

catalog

Does this multi-billion company provide a catalog of the things they licence? 87.78.175.108 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not "too long"

User:ViperSnake151: Why do you believe that this article is too long? I disagree. All articles should be long to reach GA status. If you can point to specific passages you'd like to remove, please let us know here. Otherwise, I believe the tag is unnecessary, and it should be removed. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria does not say article must be long. It says that the article must "[address] the main aspects of the topic" but "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The International Expansion section can be trimmed or split into a History of Netflix article, while the Legal issues and controversies section could also be split into a Criticism of Netflix article, and condensed within the main article. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151: Then please be bold and do it!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation 2 and Nintendo DS

47.136.59.84 (talk) added the PlayStation 2 and the Nintendo DS to the supported devices list, but I reverted that. However, in the PS2's case, I just noticed something. In an 2011 article from GameSetWatch, there's Netflix for the PlayStation 2, which was only for the Brazilian market. I'm not sure if I can cite this as a source, though. Also, the Nintendo DS was never supported by Netflix, so I believe it might be either a hoax or a factual error. – // Hounder4 // 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Technical details?

There is another article on Technical details of Netflix. I link to it is now the only contents of a section in this main article titled "User information". What is meant by "user information"? If the idea was to put some kind of "user guide" in it, that does not seem appropriate. On the other hand, an article that includes some description of the technology behind the company might be interesting. There does seem to be quite a bit, and a decent supply of sources. Probably only for a a limited audience, so some of those details might be moved from this main article, which might be more likely to regain its "Good" status by being more limited in its depth to a general overview. W Nowicki (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Meridian (film)

What is about this strange film "Meridian"? Film not for human. Анатолич1 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Netflix now allows downloads

Netflix now allows people to download select shows and movies when on their mobile (iOS/Android) device. This should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where. Sources: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13792376/netflix-offline-downloads-now-available, https://twitter.com/netflix/status/803962377997688832
— Gestrid (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Someone took care of it. — Gestrid (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New Section

No information about Netflix in different countries --Zlatatref (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Could someone who actually knows about Netflix do some work on this article? It reads like a cross between a FAQ and an advertisement. 202.161.22.250 (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Debt of neflix

The lead section states:

Their efforts to produce new content, secure the rights for additional content, and diversify through 190 countries has resulted in the company racking up billions in debt: $21.9 billion as of September, 2017, up from $16.8 billion from the same time the previous year.[14]

There is a pdf mentioned as a source for the article. It is this one: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/3688598571x0x924415/A5ACACF9-9C17-44E6-B74A-628CE049C1B0/Q416ShareholderLetter.pdf

If you jump to page 8, you ll see a balance sheet:

For Dec 31 2016 Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity = Assets are:

$ 13,586,610 in thousands.

Liabilities are: $ 10,906,810 in thousands.

This means debt is about $ 11 billion instead of $ 17 or 22 billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know when Netflix added language support for Bulgarian?

Just curious, I came to add Greek and noticed Bulgarian. It's there under language preferences, but I can't find any press releases or news stories (at least ones through google) about Bulgarian support being added. The media centre doesn't have Bulgarian support either. Bit awkward as it means the only citation for its support is the language preferences page on Netflix itself.--occono (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If Netflix is notoriously secretive about ratings

If Netflix is notoriously secretive about ratings how do we know if their programs are notable or not? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this a question regarding this article? In what context are you referring to a show being "notable"? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
In general how will we tell if their programming is "worthy of notice"? How do I know this show is "attracting notice"? What are the demonstrable effects of these shows on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education? Programming is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. Or is it presumed notable because of the presence of reliable sources? I am just seeking some clarification. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It'd be determined by how Wikipedia deems any TV show notable, reliable media source or academic coverage. Lots of extremely poorly rated TV shows are notable and theoretically some highly rated ones might technically not be, their secrecy about ratings isn't relevant.--occono (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ended/Cancelled sections

Do we really need them? why not enter this kind of information on List of Netflix Originals page in the "status" row? would be much better in my opinion, we could even use coloured cells (for example green=ended, yellow=ongoing, red=cancelled). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.107.20 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not needed and there's no reason for it being in this article. The split between "Ended" and "Cancelled" is also a bit strange, and as listed, not exactly accurate either. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. -Crabipedia (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch Version

Netflix version in Nintendo Switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B40F:70E1:E56C:1EEF:5B0F:2FD (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Map is unnecessary

The global expansion map is unnecessary, as only four countries lack Netflix availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.69.80 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The first mail based movie rental company?

It may have been one of the first who was offering DVD rentals over mail (other early examples are Magic Disc, DVD Express, and Reel.com., but the exact date when you could rent a DVD by mail is not mentioned), but was it the first to use the concept? There is something called the Video Mailbox, apparently created in the mid 80s where one could rent VHS-movies by mail in a similar way. If this is correct, maybe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. https://sites.google.com/site/videomailbox/home and https://sites.google.com/site/videomailbox/home/brochure-page-1 84.210.7.162 (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Time Warner section

I removed the "Time Warner" section and ScrapIronIV reverted. I thought this was worthy of more discussion...I don't think the personal opinion of the CEO of a competitor is inherently encyclopedia-worthy, only if they're saying something interesting. In particular, the 2010 quote is mostly speculation about how future competition would play out. There's a claim that Netflix "may" have impacted DVD sales...that's an interesting question, but we should source that to someone who is reporting data, not the offhand comment of an executive. It's an interesting point that Netflix can monetize older content more efficiently than older technologies. I'll try a shortened version of the section and see if that's better than completely removing it? -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I do see your point more clearly with this explanation, but I do not believe wholesale deletion is warranted. I would support trimming it. Scr★pIronIV 19:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality: Blim

@ScrapIronIV: Most of the paragraph that mentions Blim as a competitor describes it as "not understanding millenials", whatever that means. It sounds to me like it is (perhaps inadvertently) promoting Netflix's side in the competition between the two. It seems more neutral to just list it as a competitor and defer discussion of its quality to its own article, where more than one side can be represented in depth. Given you reverted my attempt to do that, I've temporarily tagged it as POV. I'm curious why you thought that content should stay? Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The second source cited is an article dedicated to that topic. I see where you see it as less than neutral, but sometimes non-neutral content should be included. Blim is, unfortunately, the subject of controversy and memes on this subject. It is openly derided in the source as a blatant copy of Netflix. Fully half of the prose of the Blim article is dedicated to the topic. Scr★pIronIV 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netflix/Archive_3&oldid=1137041577"