backtop

Print 79 comment(s) - last by shortylickens.. on Oct 8 at 11:22 PM

Netflix's CEO thinks that Americans are too "self-absorbed" to realize that they're paying more for the same service than Canadians.  (Source: The Hollywood Reporter)
CEO hopes to put controversial comments behind him

Netflix Inc. has plenty to cheer about.  As was expected for some time now, its largest competitor Blockbuster Inc. filed for bankruptcy to tried to shed its onerous debt and regain a competitive footing.  With new streaming options and a growing presence on consoles, mobile devices, and set-top boxes (even its content-distribution rival Apple's new iTV) Netflix seems poised to continue to punish its less “net-ready” rival.

However, the company should perhaps be a bit concerned about comments delivered by its chief executive officer, Reed Hastings.  According to the The Hollywood Reporter, when Mr. Hastings was asked about whether Americans would be offended that they were paying more that a dollar more than their Canadian peers -- $7.99/month CAD ($7.76 USD) versus $8.99/month USD -- and responded:

How much has it been your experience that Americans follow what happens in the world? It's something we'll monitor, but Americans are somewhat self-absorbed.

So are Americans too self-absorbed to notice that their foreign competitors are getting better deals? Or is the CEO of Netflix mistaking apathy for self-absorption?

It's important to note that the movie selection in Canada is slightly different due to licensing.  Also, Canadians don't have the option of receiving DVDs by mail with their Netflix subscription.  But given the fact that Netflix dropped new DVD releases in favor of greater streaming, it still seems that the U.S.'s northern neighbors might be getting a bit better deal.

The complaint brings to mind automaker General Motors' recent gripe that the U.S. government was giving tax breaks to Chinese EVs, but China was not giving taxbreaks to American EVs.

Update: Friday, Sept. 24, 2010 11:20 a.m.

Mr. Hastings has since apologized for the statement, writing in a blog post:

I was wrong to have made the joke, and I do not believe that one of the most philanthropically-minded nations in the world (America) is self-absorbed or full of self-absorbed people. The pricing Netflix is offering in Canada, $7.99 per month, does not include any DVD-by-mail option, and that is why it is cheaper than our $8.99 USA plan which has both DVD-by-mail and streaming in one plan. We are looking at adding a streaming-only option for the USA over the coming months.

 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
He's right
By TheBaker on 9/24/2010 10:33:23 AM , Rating: 5
Well, he is.

This won't touch Netflix's bottom line in America. There may be some complaints, but the vast majority of users probably didn't even see the announcement that this is even happening, much less the pricing. Even if they did complain, who stops using a service they like over two dollars a month?




RE: He's right
By theslug on 9/24/2010 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
Even if he was being serious that doesn't make him right, because the stereotype of being 'self-absorbed' is just that - a stereotype. It only applies to a subset of the population.


RE: He's right
By Deville on 9/24/2010 11:14:09 AM , Rating: 5
I think you might be taking this a bit too personally. It's a generalization. Stereotypes exist because they're generally true.
Americans as a whole are generally pretty self absorbed, and don't really pay much attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.

"Keeping up With The Kardashians" and "Jersey Shore" are actually quite popular TV shows here. That should give you a clue as to how self-absorbed we are, as a country, in general.


RE: He's right
By eskimospy on 9/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: He's right
By Hieyeck on 9/24/2010 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
Stereotypes only continue to exist when the 'victims' continue to live the definition of those stereotypes. One can safely apply a stereotype to a population of people and they will probably be correct.

However, like all generalizations, there will always be exceptions (including the generalization about generalizations, which never has exceptions, which causes the generalization to have an exception and therefore can be defined as a generalization). 90% of asians may be good at math, but an asian can't be 90% good at math. He (or she) either is or isn't.


RE: He's right
By eskimospy on 9/24/2010 2:52:53 PM , Rating: 1
No.

Stereotypes frequently continue to exist because of a group's continuing ignorance of another culture or because that culture is an out group, along with a healthy dose of the normal vulnerability to confirmation bias. For example there is a stereotypical association that gay men are more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles despite a complete lack of evidence for that.

Some stereotypes are true, because of course different cultures behave in different ways. A huge proportion of them however are little more than urban legends.


RE: He's right
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/24/2010 11:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Stereotypes exist because they're generally true.

Agreed. Stereotypes are things that are true frequently enough for people to take notice.

quote:
Americans as a whole are generally pretty self absorbed, and don't really pay much attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.

"What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual.
Someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual.
Someone who speaks one language? American."
~Neil Postman (I think...)


RE: He's right
By StevoLincolnite on 9/24/2010 3:18:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Agreed. Stereotypes are things that are true frequently enough for people to take notice.


Or, they are about things that people simply do not fully understand, so they bin them as a stereotype.


RE: He's right
By SlyNine on 9/26/2010 10:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
America has what, around 22 countries. I pretty sure more then one language is used. But thanks for playing GOTCHA.


RE: He's right
By Spuke on 9/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: He's right
By mfergus on 9/24/2010 12:31:20 PM , Rating: 5
The stereotype is always that asians have small dicks and blacks the biggest putting white somewhere in the middle.


RE: He's right
By Flunk on 9/24/2010 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 4
I think the real question is that if I love chicken and watermelon (which I do) then am I black?


RE: He's right
By Fleeb on 9/24/2010 12:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Since stereotyping is more of generalization than deduction, I can put it as: if you are black you most likely love chicken and watermelon. However, if love chicken and watermelon it does not immediately mean that you are black.

(Most blacks love chicken and watermelon, you love chicken and watermelon, therefore you are black - not true.)


RE: He's right
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 1:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since stereotyping is more of generalization than deduction
Interesting, so most people believe stereotypes have truth in them. I place no truth whatsoever in a stereotype but it seems that I will be held to them regardless. In other words, I'm working against stereotypes and that sucks. Humanity just lost some points with me today.


RE: He's right
By Hieyeck on 9/24/2010 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. Stereotypes have truths in them over a large enough sample size (What Fleeb said). To apply them to a single person is where they fall apart (What you said). You're both right.

For the sake of demonstration: 90% of blacks like chicken. You meet 10 random black people and guess they all like chicken. You will be probably be correct 9 times out of 10, but they EACH only have a 50% chance of answering your guess with a yes (assuming only 'yes' and 'no' are the only answers possible).


RE: He's right
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're missing the point. Stereotypes have truths in them over a large enough sample size (What Fleeb said)
Not sure I am missing the point. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how some generalization originating from some errant neuron has any basis in fact or reality. They could be correct but only by sheer luck. Stereotypes have no basis in science but plenty in opinion. Sorry, I just give no credence to them. Rest assured that I take each and every one of you on your own merits (at least I try...no one's perfect, well at least I'm not).


RE: He's right
By Calindar on 9/24/2010 6:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Our brains like to associate things with other things, it helps us quickly assess people or situations that we come upon. Most stereotypes exists because they either are or used to be true more often then not(or at least portrayed that way) when applied to a significantly sized population. The stereotype means nothing to the individual.


RE: He's right
By rsmech on 9/24/2010 10:22:12 PM , Rating: 5
You are missing the point. You are just trying to sound o so noble. To say you judge individuals isn't an epiphany it's moraly right. Negative preconceived ideas about any individual or group isn't fair but life. Many stereotypes aren't negative, but most have basis in common sense not science.

If you were male would it be odd for me to assume you are attracted to women.

Would you find it odd to hear of a women raping a man?

Would you feel as comfortable in a prison luch room or a school luch room? You can feel free to get to know them all as individuals & give them the same chance you would the students if you wish, but common sense stereotyping will do just fine for me. Better yet have a sleep over. Are you understanding yet.


RE: He's right
By TSS on 9/24/2010 3:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
So because you place no truth in stereotypes, means that stereotypes aren't true, and even means humanity should lose some points over this?

Are you, by chance, an American? :P

Sorry i couldn't resist, but really, stereo types exist for a reason. Because they exist! However, every person with a bit of "points" for humanity should know that everybody should get an equal opperunity to prove themselves. To be the stereo type they are or otherwise.

Is it guilty untill proven innocent? Yes. But this isn't the legal system where talking about here.

Why don't you do business with a shady figure? because it's a shady figure. It's called caution. However, if you strike up a conversation and check things out, and he proves legit, you can come to the conclusion that he's not a shady figure after all.


RE: He's right
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 5:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why don't you do business with a shady figure? because it's a shady figure. It's called caution.
That's not stereotyping, that's sound reasoning.

quote:
So because you place no truth in stereotypes, means that stereotypes aren't true
No.

quote:
Sorry i couldn't resist, but really, stereo types exist for a reason. Because they exist!
They exist because we humans perpetuate them. The mere existence of something doesn't automatically denote value. See Barbara Boxer.


RE: He's right
By Deville on 9/24/2010 5:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mere existence of something doesn't automatically denote value. See Barbara Boxer.


Oh, SNAP!!!

LOL!


RE: He's right
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 12:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the real question is that if I love chicken and watermelon (which I do) then am I black?
Yes.


RE: He's right
By cknobman on 9/24/2010 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, is your name Jamal?


RE: He's right
By mfergus on 9/24/2010 4:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
90% of people love chicken and watermelon. The stereotype with black people is just that they really love it :p


RE: He's right
By QueBert on 9/26/2010 2:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't own a TV, but if I did I would probably watch the Kardashians show. But only because Kim has the best body of anyone in hollywood. Does loving a juicy ass make one self absorbed? If so I'm guilty as charged :D


RE: He's right
By zofodraziw on 9/26/2010 2:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment about "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Jersey Shore" is predicated on the assumption that there aren't loads of people watching the shows to mock/pity the stars' self-absorbed lives, or at least to help remind one's-self of being one of the more well-grounded folk. That's the main reason I'd ever watch one of those shows, anyway.

I tend to think of TV as a fairly inaccurate portrayal of daily reality overall, as most people watch TV as an escape from their daily lives, and a ton of the most popular shows are over-dramatized fiction. Rather than just dismissing your theory about Americans (specifically, and presumably Hastings would argue that Canadians on the whole are not) being self-absorbed based on the popularity of a couple TV shows, though, let's explore it a bit deeper:

* 60 Minutes had about 4 times the viewers of either of those shows last week, and 20/20 had almost twice that of either show, according to Nielsen. These shows are both dedicated to investigative news-journalism, and I think most would agree they tend to cover worldly topics quite often. (tvbythenumbers.com)

* (Since this whole thing brewed out of a "Canada v. USA" themed story...) All of the top-10 TV shows in Canada last week were American. Furthermore, this apparently happens with non-trivial frequency: http://www.bbm.ca/index.php?option=com_content&tas...


RE: He's right
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 6:30:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Americans as a whole are generally pretty self absorbed, and don't really pay much attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.


When more people start leaving the country than come in, I'll believe that we need to care about what the rest of the world is doing.

Look at it this way, there are 7 continents on the planet. Out of those there are maybe 3 I would even consider living in, and one of them are about 1/2 ruled by Communists. So let's call it 2 1/2 Continents that aren't complete shit. One of these, of course, is North America.

Africa - now honestly, who wants to live there!??
Antarctica - barren frozen wasteland, no brainer here. No thanks
Europe - socialized continent that's currently self destructing from the inside.
South America - shit hole. 'Nuff said.

Aside Asia and Australia there aren't really many places out there that an American would prefer living in. Sorry I'm just being honest here. You can have the rest of the world imo, I'm happy where I am.


RE: He's right
By The Raven on 9/24/2010 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
We Americans are so self absorbed and aloof of what is going on in the world to know that we are in the middle of an economic recession and maybe heading for more trouble.

Have you seen the lines at the Apple store? The lines at Starbucks? The lines for Avatar, Halo: Reach, or what ever the flavor of the day is? People have no idea of what is going on even in their own country.

If we had bread lines and he make s a comment like that then I would disagree. But I haven't seen a line for bread yet.

And if someone is offended by his comment, then they obviously ARE self-absorbed because they think that he is talking about THEM.


RE: He's right
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/24/2010 11:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if someone is offended by his comment, then they obviously ARE self-absorbed because they think that he is talking about THEM.

Too true. Ain't irony a b1tch?


RE: He's right
By The Raven on 9/24/2010 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I'll keep paying for Netflix because I think it is a great value for myself. That is how a free economy is supposed to work.

Besides, in the US we get a discount on our heating bills included in the $8.99 ;-)

(Though I would rather have the free ice time!)


RE: He's right
By zofodraziw on 9/26/2010 3:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, we're not currently in a recession. A recession is defined by negative GDP growth over 2 or more consecutive quarters. The "Great Recession" as it is called was over last year.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/nber-great-reces...

I'm Not sure about anyone else, but I wasn't offended by the original comment...I just didn't agree with it.

On the other hand, I usually get a little miffed (not really offended per se) by much of anyone putting words in the mouth of someone else. Like you just did.


RE: He's right
By marvdmartian on 9/24/2010 3:24:51 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmmm??? What? Sorry, I didn't hear what he said.....I was being too self-absorbed!!


RE: He's right
By knutjb on 9/24/2010 7:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
You, and he, are correct. We do need a little more Deontology than the excess of Utilitarianism we have been spoon Fed.


Canada overseas
By knowitall on 9/24/2010 10:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So are Americans too self-absorbed to notice that their overseas competitors are getting better deals? Or is the CEO of Netflix mistaking apathy for self-absorption?


Can you please clarify which sea is Canada across ?




RE: Canada overseas
By frobizzle on 9/24/2010 10:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
The Sea of Apathy, of course!


RE: Canada overseas
By GaryJohnson on 9/24/2010 10:44:25 AM , Rating: 1
[self absorption]The Canadian Sea, duh.[/self absorption]


RE: Canada overseas
By whiteyd on 9/24/2010 11:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
I mean who knows exactly where Canada is? Tucked all the way down there


RE: Canada overseas
By Suntan on 9/24/2010 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but when has it been that Canadians were our "competitors?" Aren't we all just customers of Netflix?

Sensationalize much?

-Suntan


RE: Canada overseas
By SlyNine on 9/26/2010 10:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
Ask him if Russia has ties with any Asian country?


He's got a good point!
By Goty on 9/24/2010 10:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
He may have a point. After all, Jason missed the fact that it's actually TWO dollars more in the US, not one.

:)




RE: He's got a good point!
By vapore0n on 9/24/2010 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
He also missed the fact that Canadia does not get mail in movies.
We pay 9.99 and get unlimited 1 movie at a time, plus unlimited streaming movies.
They pay 7.99cad and only get streaming.

I think the media is just provoking for the sake of having something to talk about.


RE: He's got a good point!
By Jaybus on 9/24/2010 11:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
Which is a big deal, because they still have MANY DVD movies that are not available for streaming. I would say the pricing difference is a wash.


RE: He's got a good point!
By Kaldskryke on 9/24/2010 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just that. Have you looked at the selection for Netflix Canada? It's abysmal. I bet Netflix's licensing fees for Canada are a tiny fraction of what they pay for the United States, and yet they want to charge us almost as much.


RE: He's got a good point!
By Hoser McMoose on 9/25/2010 9:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet Netflix's licensing fees for Canada are a tiny fraction of what they pay for the United States, and yet they want to charge us almost as much.

Overall maybe because of the bigger population, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Canadian licensing fees are close to as much per capita despite having a much smaller selection.

Unfortunately us Canadians have a horrendously outdated legal system when it comes to media, and as such our costs tend to be through the roof! Media distribution companies get ridiculous amounts of government-enforced protectionism but are required to adhere to inane legal requirements for Canadian Content and French language distribution.

End result? We pay more for lack of competition and then we pay more AGAIN to cover the extra costs to meet legal requirements. Ohh, and then we pay more a third time in higher taxes to pay for the government bureaucracy that enforces the lack of competition and legal requirements.

There are a lot of things I like about Canada, but there are some things that desperately need to change here! Our media laws are among them, but sadly any changes to those laws have been made contingent on changes to our copyright laws and while our copyright laws are horribly outdated as well changing them is extremely difficult because the only laws deemed "acceptable" by the industry are, for good reason, political poison pills because they infringe on personal freedoms too much. If even just ONE of our political parties cared about doing what is right for the country, instead of doing what is right for getting themselves elected, we could make some progress here...

Sigh... </rant>


I have to agree
By DarkPhoenix on 9/24/2010 12:10:20 PM , Rating: 1
As a CEO, he can't say things like that. Unfortunately we live in a world where appearances are everything and where people usually have to say one thing, while in fact wanted to say another. Saying what goes on his mind, is a mistake in this sense.

However, I have to agree. US citizens (generally speaking obviously, this doesn't apply to every US citizen) - I use US citizen, because American really isn't thr right word here - are indeed self-absorbed. They have no idea what's happening in the rest of the world and usually don't even care. As long as it's not knocking on their door, then it's fine. Unfortunately for those that are self-absorbed, they have yet to realize that the US is having the same problems as the rest of the world.




RE: I have to agree
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They have no idea what's happening in the rest of the world and usually don't even care.
I disagree and Hastings mentioned in his apology about our countries philanthropic exploits. We are the most giving nation on the planet by far from poor to rich (percentage given is equal from billionaires to homeless people). Self absorbed people wouldn't know enough about the world or the next door neighbors to give!! We may like train wreck TV but that doesn't mean we don't care.


RE: I have to agree
By DarkPhoenix on 9/24/2010 12:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
But that's the thing. I'm not sure people give, because they know anything about the reasons why they need to give. People give, because a small group brought the issue up, and everyone else will just give to clear their conscience. And this applies to everyone, not just US citizen.

I'm talking about individuals here i.e. the majority. Not politicians forwarding help to a foreign country, if that's what you meant.


RE: I have to agree
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 1:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm talking about individuals here i.e. the majority. Not politicians forwarding help to a foreign country, if that's what you meant.
I'm talking individuals too.

quote:
People give, because a small group brought the issue up, and everyone else will just give to clear their conscience.
It's not possible to know of every detail of every need nor even a 1/16th of that. I'm glad there are people that dedicate their lives to keeping the masses informed. That said, it still doesn't indicate apathy towards those in need and our giving isn't limited to televised plights like Haiti. It's ongoing. In the military, you can actually donate X amount of money to charities of your choice automatically from your paycheck. And there was always volunteer work that we could do. None of that is televised. Charity happens everyday by people that you would never expect to charitable. We're just giving. I don't know why, maybe it's our religious roots. Whatever it is guys, keep up the fantastic work.


RE: I have to agree
By Chaser on 9/24/2010 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have no idea what's happening in the rest of the world and usually don't even care. As long as it's not knocking on their door, then it's fine.
And before we were "hated by the world" for involving ourselves in too many foreign affairs without gaining the consensus of the world or kissing the ring of the EU. Yet today our present leaders traveling the world apologizing and campaigning abroad.

The U.S. can't seem to ever get it right.

Is Dancing with the Stars on tonight? :)


We are self absorbed
By xxsk8er101xx on 9/26/2010 10:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why is telling the truth such a bad thing. He's right so why should he apologize for telling the truth. Just doesn't make any sense. Much like how much of America doesn't make any sense.




RE: We are self absorbed
By SlyNine on 9/26/2010 10:51:14 AM , Rating: 1
I swear it's bad when you don't even know what fucking country you live in!

So let me ask you this, If America is so insignificant and stupid. Why is it when you refer to a continent with 22 nations (I believe)only one of those nations is even comes to mind.

In other words, CANADIANS ARE AMERICANS. So now you just insulted 22 nations with your stupid ass comment. At least we're tought the difference between a continent and a country. To bad you didn't pay attention.


RE: We are self absorbed
By SlyNine on 9/26/2010 10:53:03 AM , Rating: 1
I swear it's bad when you don't even know what fucking country you live in!

So let me ask you this, If the USA (Do'h Do'h) is so insignificant and stupid. Why is it when you refer to a continent with 22 nations (I believe)only one of those nations is even comes to mind.

In other words, CANADIANS ARE AMERICANS. So now you just insulted 22 nations with your stupid ass comment. At least we're tought the difference between a continent and a country. To bad you didn't pay attention.


RE: We are self absorbed
By xxsk8er101xx on 9/26/2010 1:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
>.<

Go to any Mall, observe the people in America (or USA), that's my proof.

If you forgot USA stands for Unites States of America


RE: We are self absorbed
By xxsk8er101xx on 9/26/2010 1:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
You understand how self-absorbed we are now I hope? We call ourselves Americans but the whole fricken continent is called America. Yet our country, THe United States of America is only 1/5 of the whole American continent. You said yourself Canadians are Americans also and you're right.

Get it now? yes american citizens were born to be self absorbed. It's in our blood to be arrogant, greedy, bastards that wants to hog everything.

If you don't like it come invade us and take it away.

There's no reason to lie about it though and pretend we aren't self absorbed arogant pricks because we are.


Yes, he said Canada
By masamasa on 9/24/2010 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
It's that country up North if you look on your map. =P




RE: Yes, he said Canada
By Spuke on 9/24/2010 12:18:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's that country up North if you look on your map. =P
Too self absorbed to own a map...


Call it what you want...
By Motoman on 9/24/2010 10:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
...apathy, self-absorption, whatever. Probably, any such label you came up with would be accurate.

But in the end, the story will be that it made no difference. American Netflix customers aren't going to stop using the service because of this.




RE: Call it what you want...
By theslug on 9/24/2010 11:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
Accurate perhaps to a subset but not the whole.


apology
By theslug on 9/24/2010 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
The article seems to completely skip the fact that Mr. Hastings later apologized for the comment.




RE: apology
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/24/2010 10:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
And this news is days old already.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-CEO-Apo...

here is a more current mention


Compare selection
By PitbulI on 9/24/2010 11:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
Just compare the selection of what USA customers get and what Canadian customers get. Canadians shouldn't even pay the price they're being offered.




RE: Compare selection
By Hoser McMoose on 9/25/2010 9:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I'd take the U.S. service, even with JUST streaming, for $9.99 over the Canadian service for $7.99 any day! The Americans are *DEFINITELY* getting the better deal on this one.


All things considered...
By NicodemusMM on 9/24/2010 12:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
... like the fact that they have no DVD (or Blu-Ray?) option and the poor quality of the Netflix streaming, Canadians are getting screwed with this deal.

Perhaps when streaming is less buffering, more movie at a higher quality it won't be so bad.




RE: All things considered...
By GTVic on 9/24/2010 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
I watched a bit last night and it got up to "HD" quality according to the info at the top left turned on with the Select button.

This was definitely not Blu-ray quality but not bad for nearly instant streaming over a Wireless "G" connection.


I'm sorry
By phitzl on 9/24/2010 12:53:22 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry. I didn't hear what he was saying. I was too busy looking in the mirror.




Snub much?
By Silverel on 9/24/2010 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
This kinda seems like a cheap jab at Netflix just days after Blockbuster announces it's failure. The commenters on the source seem like some bottom of the barrel type folks. Hastings comment about Americans being self-absorbed relative to pricing structures of entertainment services really isn't that offensive. The point of the source article seems to be about the success of Netflix and their expansion into Canada, not how the CEO said something that might offend some very thin skinned people.

Then again, haters gonna hate I suppose. Welcome to the internets. I find it a more disturbing that Mick grabbed on to the hate and vitriol filled comment section of the source article to bring to DT, but it's really not surprising anymore. Good job Mick, oh, and you managed to sneak some US/China hate in there right at the end. Double rainbow!




From this quote....
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/24/2010 10:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was wrong to have made the joke, and I do not believe that one of the most philanthropically-minded nations in the world (America) is self-absorbed or full of self-absorbed people. The pricing Netflix is offering in Canada, $7.99 per month, does not include any DVD-by-mail option, and that is why it is cheaper than our $8.99 USA plan which has both DVD-by-mail and streaming in one plan. We are looking at adding a streaming-only option for the USA over the coming months.


it's 8.99 a month here...not 9.99

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-CEO-Apo...




By flatrock on 9/24/2010 11:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that with licensing issues there will be a considerably smaller selection of videos in Canada. Canadians will pay less, but they will also get less.




thanks for the omission mick
By invidious on 9/24/2010 12:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The pricing Netflix is offering in Canada, $7.99 per month, does not include any DVD-by-mail option, and that is why it is cheaper than our $8.99 USA plan which has both DVD-by-mail and streaming in one plan.
And this hugely important detail wasn't in Mick's original post... why exactly?




ha
By Zingam on 9/24/2010 1:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fist calling somebody names then apologizing publicly. Goddammit! A man should stand behind his words!




By Blackbird1996 on 9/24/2010 2:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously none of you understand how television works, and to use television as a means to judge Americans is ridiculous. Thats why foreigners have such a warped sense of America. They think were all spoiled brats with too much money instead of hard working friendly, humble people. According to Nielsen, 4.7 million people watched "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Thats 14% more than last season. There are 307 million people in the United States. About 240 million watch television. That means about 1.9% of TV viewers watched the show. There are only about 88 million people who have access to the "E" channel on which the show is broadcast. Please don't use television to judge Americans. Your only adding to the problem.




stereotypes
By snikt on 9/24/2010 4:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Stereotypes? What's that all aboot, aay?




By Wolfpup on 9/24/2010 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't use streaming at all, so we're getting the better deal it seems to me...




This coming from
By SlyNine on 9/25/2010 11:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
A stupid idiot that doesn't know Canadians are Americans. Who's self absorbed?

Most people, in every country are self absorbed. Am I wrong??




Another apology is required
By roykahn on 9/26/2010 11:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
one of the most philanthropically-minded nations in the world (America)


Is that supposed to be another joke? In 2008, American aid was 0.19% of its GDP, compared with the UN target of 0.7%. Its aid is comparatively very low as a percentage of GDP. Seems like the Netflix CEO needs to offer another apology.




We still get the better deal
By hemmy on 9/27/2010 12:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
I would never pay for Netflix if it weren't for the physical media. Heck, I pay extra so I can get Blu Ray.

The quality of streaming is pretty poor.




Charitable Donations are Like Taxes
By jdietz on 9/27/2010 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
...in that 42% of donations come from the top 1% of income earners. It's very possible that most Americans actually are self-absorbed.




By MarkK02474 on 9/27/2010 5:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Younger Yanks use the internet, but most still don't know what's going on beyond their immediate sphere, let alone their town, state, and country.

Lindsey Lohan gets more coverage than anything outside the US. Entertainment programs like FOX News are no better, unless the plight of Balloon Boy impacts your life.

Need to Know covered Bloomberg News lawsuit against the US Federal Reserve. The bailout wasn't $900 Billion, it was more like $12 Trillion taxpayer dollars - and our government doesn't want to tell us who was getting it for what. They are afraid people will lose faith in the banks that F'ed up. Since when does Americans with Disabilities Act protect incompetence? Are Lindsey and Paris more important, or weapons of mass distraction?

News programs like 60 min. and 20/20, or better ones like Frontline, Need to Know, Bill Moyer's Journal, Dan Rather's HdNet show and even nightly news shows are mostly only watched by "old" people, hence the advertising for age-related medicines, assisted living centers, and the like.




In general I agree.
By shortylickens on 10/8/2010 11:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Americans are spoiled and ignorant and self-absorbed. In general.
Yes, theres plenty of exceptions. I have one or two as close friends.
But overall, no, we Americans need to get over ourselves and I should think a bad recession would have done just that. I guess its not bad enough. Maybe a whole generation needs to suffer really bad for us to learn how to be more grateful.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki