Netflix redux
June 7th, 2006 by MikeInteresting article in today’s NYTimes about Netflix and how they are succeeding despite the fact that the technology exists for digital delivery of movies. Interesting fact from the article: Netflix carries roughly 60,000 movies. How many of them are rented by users everday?
35,000 to 45,000.
Shocking.
Subscribe to my 
June 7th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I think two things make Netflix so appealing: 1) a truly deep library (of which those 15,000 unrented movies are evidence) and 2) the illusion of permanence (don’t return it until you’re done with it). Until a digital delivery system has a library - a real library that can address niche audiences - all of them end up feeling very similar to Spectravision. And, as a result, all of these inpermanent, on-demand systems will always remind me of being on a bad vacation and trying to salvage a rained out trip with a second-run movie.
When you’re done with your law quiz, you should put “Best of Youth” in your queue and find a 6 hour window to watch a wonderful film. Or steal a sunday and a box of tissues to to watch “Grave of Fireflies” or get indignant watching “Harlan County, USA.” These aren’t even very obscure films, but their films people who love movies want access to and that Blockbuster (and Moviebeam) aren’t likely to have anytime soon.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Grave of the Fireflies was fantastic (no one told me I needed tissues). Will check the others.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:57 am
there’s a Blockbuster store beside where i live now — it’s open, but no one is ever in it.
i remember when the first Blockbuster opened in my (admittedly small) hometown — everyone was hype. they sold popcorn and candy and soda, and people would buy it. now the idea of a HUGE store, so inefficiently designed and stocked, selling a limited-ass supply confections seems like a blot on humanity.