|
|
Posted by Haddatten Huttendrut on 12/06/06 01:45
In article <1165335733.273390.211630@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"TH" <thehendersons44@aol.com> wrote:
> Haddatten Huttendrut wrote:
> >>
> > It's really simple. "Unlimited" is exactly that for folks with normal
> > renting/viewing habits, and allows for the odd spikes of a flick or more
> > per day
> > (within the limits of postal service). What's "reasonable" is what allows
> > the
> > company to make a profit while serving most customers - without that,
> > there'd be
> > no company, service, selection, etc. If you aren't getting your desired
> > number
> > of discs per month, try the 8-out plan, or see if you can do better with a
> > competitor.
> >
> Again, YOU do not get to determine what the word "unlimited" means.
> According to you, "unlimited" is the amount of disks you apparently
> deem "reasonable." Got news for ya, buddy. That's not "unlimited"
Let's try this again. What is "unlimited" is, for practical purposes, what is
"effectively unlimited" for those with "normal" (within some range of the
average, as defined by the marketing wonks) viewing habits. Netflix isn't alone
in employing this concept. I get as many flicks as I have time to watch, and
can keep any individual disc for as long as I want with no late fees. Add the
largest DVD library in the world and service practically at my doorstep, and it
seems like a good deal. Millions of Netflix customers think so. If you don't,
find a different supplier. If you think you know how to do better, start your
own company - if you're right, you'll make a lot of money.
What's "reasonable" is what allows the company to make a profit, without which
they have no reason to exist. You and others who share your opinion that post
here seem to think you should get your DVDs for pennies over postage or even
less than postage, if you can turn 'em around fast enough.
I don't want a set limit. As things stand, if I have a stretch of time off and
feel inclined to watch a lot of movies in a short period of time, Netflix
absorbs that, and I get what I want. It's only folks who want sustained high
service levels that get throttled. I can live with that.
They should probably change their advertising, but it would have no impact on me
(or most other NF subscribers), and you still won't get what you want. If you
want to make speeches and march up and down about advertising, why don't you
take on the car companies that show their vehicles driving underwater, or
climbing vertical stone cliffs?
> > Maybe Netflix should change their advertising, but it doesn't seem to be a
> > problem for any but a few determined to push it to the limit.
> >
> Few, huh? Yeah, that's why there was a class action law suit that
> Netflix lost. Class action generally means a lot more than a "few" but
> then again, you don't know what "unlimited" means either. You are
> correct, though. If Netflix changed their advertising to "You can get
> up to (so many) disks a month" instead of unlimited, no one would have
> an argument. As it it, they lie in their advertising and then pull
> scams, which they admit to, to people who have a high turnover rate.
> If it was a "few" as you pretend, Netflix wouldn't be throttling, they
> wouldn't care.
They didn't lose, as it has never gone to court. A settlement was proposed,
though I don't know the current status and don't care. It will never go to
court - it's a nuisance lawsuit that would cost more to fight; a law firm gets a
large windfall, and members of the class get something worth a buck or two.
You apparently don't know how little it takes to launch a class-action suit and
how few direct participants are required, or you wouldn't be so impressed.
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|