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

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

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