Why Apple should love Netflix

Note how Netflix lurks under the iTunes Movies and TV Shows
on the default Apple TV interface layout

Some may wonder why Apple, never famous for supporting anyone else, allow Netflix, a kind of rival to iTunes, onto their Apple TV box. It might not be true, but my suspicion is that Apple is entirely aware of what you might call the Season 1 effect - and how it can positively influence their balance sheets.

Here's the thing. Netflix is a great place to consume a TV series voraciously. Once you pay your monthly subscription for Netflix you can watch as much as you like. But the service quite often doesn't have the most recent series of a programme. That's happened to us twice recently with shows that had a strong following when on 'normal' TV, but that we never got round to watching - Last Tango in Halifax from the BBC, and The Bridge from Sweden. In both cases we've cruised through season 1 on Netflix, and know that season 2 is out there - but it has already fallen off the BBC's very short iPlayer timescale. So we've ended up buying the second season on iTunes so we can keep feeding the habit.

I'm sure we can't be alone. You really get into a series, you know there's more, but Netflix hasn't got it yet, so you plunge in with the cash. (I had to do the same with Season 5 of Fringe, though for that I bought a boxed set.) And so Apple should be really pushing Netflix for all its worth. Okay, it means once something is on Netflix, Apple's sales drop off. But even so, as long as Netflix tends to be around a season behind the world, Apple will have the chance to make easy pickings.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog