'Single currency experiment has been a disaster' admits economist Stiglitz - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/single-currency-experiment-has-been-a-disaster-admits-nobel-priz/ <comment><USER2> > Stiglitz points his finger squarely at "the fatal decision to adopt a single > currency, _without first providing the institutions to make it work"._

The second part of this quote means something quite different from what the headline implies. He isn't advocating an end to the single currency, he wants stronger institutions, which the Eurosceptics have undermined at every opportunity.

<comment><USER3> Something I don't understand, as somebody who's not a European, is that stronger institutions, more centralization of power in some European-wide political body, more executive control in crisis situations, etc. all points very clearly to a European-wide Federal System a la the U.S., or maybe Australia or Canada, with a centralized Federal government, and some executive position -- all able to overrule local state autonomy.

But even many of my European friends who favor these things seem to not agree that that's the inevitable vector that these institutions point to. I'm certainly not saying that the system will mirror the U.S. system, but it certainly will end being a system _like_ this if Europe continues on the present unification course.

Is there some nuance of the direction that I don't understand? It seems like as every crisis comes to Europe, advocates of pro-Europe seem to continue to point to centralization and empowerment of a single over-arching European government.

<comment><USER4> Voters are often not keen on being governed by another nationality or culture. The US only managed to keep their federal system by fighting a war to prevent the south doing their own thing and the Brexit vote is another sign the voters are not keen. Much of the European project has been pushed through without voter consent but there are limits.

<comment><USER5> Voters are not keen on being governed by a government they didn't elect, if you look at it that way then you can see the civil war as the final step in the consolidation of the democratic authority that was vested in the US president as the only directly elected official in the federal government.

The south didn't vote for Lincoln and attempted to secede with the US president initiating the war to overturn the local state's right to do so.

I think a lot of europe's problems would be fixed by making the office of the EU presidency a directly elected office in a similar fashion to the US presidency. The EU would still require further centralization to maintain the eurozone and to further deepen the EU single market. They are just required to maintain our current levels of wealth and to fix the banking crisis that has never really been solved in the EU.

A single individual with a policy platform that has gained legitimacy through campaigning in all EU member states would settle questions related to the future of the union and will be best placed to implement and direct policies that benefit the majority of the EU population.

<comment><USER2> That kind of comparison to American history could as easily imply a civil war is the next step to consolidate the EU. It sounds ridiculous, but it's also hard to imagine a peaceful federal unification of Europe.

<comment><USER5> The US declared independence in 1776 and had the unification civil war in 1861. The political process is very gradual and even if a divisive issue such as slavery would pop-up in the EU then I doubt it would escalate into civil war. The EU has a lot of scar tissue related to wars.

If you consider that the US took 4 generations to unify and you consider that present-day it is hard to imagine a peaceful unification then you should also consider that the way you think about things is dramatically different then the way your grandchildrens' children will perceive things.

For example, currently a large part of the EU population speaks english as second language but it's hard to imagine that majority of voting-age EU population to not speak english as second language in 80 years from now.

Speaking a single language will probably clear the biggest hurdle for effective political union.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone who did an economics 101 class could predict that forcing such diverse economies with populations reluctant to move to richer parts of the union into a single currency would result in net wealth reduction. [1]

Even the bureaucrats in Brussels knew about this. It was still pushed through because they wanted to accelerate the political union via the currency union, ignoring the financial costs. What they did not expect was the US subprime crisis to hit europe that hard and that early.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area)

<comment><USER7> I don't disagree with your point, but just wanted to point out that "Anyone who did an economics 101 class" is usually not the best people to get advice from. Economics is field where the agreed mainstream consists of some simplistic views of how an model economy could work in a sort of "perfect vacuum" where certain unrealistic parameters apply: perfect information and perfect competition, for example. The real value to economics as a discipline does not lie with the introductory concepts, but rather on everything learnt after Economics 101, i.e. the mess that is the real-world economy which features transaction costs, political institutions, and all of the aggregated effects of 7 billion agents with different psychology.

<comment><USER8> Is there anything in ECON that's good then? I'm thinking 70% of first-year ECON would be bullshit, but surely some ideas about demand and supply are useful. Are you an economist? Or did you study economics? I'd like to publish a book in the spirit of "Economics, only the good parts," and would be interested to hear your opinion what to include.

For example, I really liked this class: [https://www.edx.org/course/principles-economics-calculus- cal...](https://www.edx.org/course/principles-economics-calculus-caltechx- ec1101x-0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> One of the surprising things in history is how well the Dollar has worked out, and I think it's probably very instructive to study it.

The U.S. Dollar has a long and surprisingly complicated history as it worked its way up to becoming the official currency of the U.S., and at each stage, there was some _reason_ for it to move forward to unification.

For example, the U.S. civil war was one of those reasons. Before the war, the U.S. had standardized coinage, but not paper money. After the war the U.S. ran, effectively, two different currencies that exchanged between each other (coins and bills). After dropping the gold standard, the exchange between the instruments was pegged at 1:1.

But before this, paper money was issued by local banks, exchangeable for some weight in silver (or other precious metal) coinage. Notes taken from one region to another devalued simply because of distance from the issuing bank. At one point there was thousands of different kinds of paper bills in circulation, and several kinds of coinage (Spanish, Mexican, U.S., etc.)

I think as Europe slowly gravitates towards some kind of unified system, it would have been far better for blocks of nearby or economically similar countries to each adopt locally unified currencies and controlled, as a block, exchange, duties, interest rates, etc. Thus we should have had a West Euro, Greater Pound, Romancis, New Rubles, Drachmas, New Thalers, etc. and then another couple steps of intermediate currencies and economic blocs.

Furthermore, the overlapping optional unification layers: EU, Eurozone, Shengen, NATO, etc. was also a mistake. Economic, political and other ties really need to be accepted all at once. Partial acceptance hasn't worked as well as might be expected, and has only introduced complexity and confusion over who gets say in what (these things are all deeply interconnected).

The unification experiments in Europe are noble, and are supposed to prevent future crises, but when met with real crises (both internal and external) has shown that the system put in place is overly fragile and not as normative as had been hoped.

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's what Milton Friedman said about it in _1997_ : [http://www.greekcrisis.net/2012/08/the-euro-monetary- unity-t...](http://www.greekcrisis.net/2012/08/the-euro-monetary-unity-to- political.html)

<comment><USER10> Thanks, impressive foresight in the last paragraph (as of today; the picture might yet get bigger of course):

 _The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe. I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity._

<comment><USER11> I think it's not all black and white, and there's actually a bit of both at play. Eurozone Countries now have no choice but to achieve increased levels of fiscal and political coordination. That process will inevitably produce friction, but this would have happened even without the currency. If anything, a heightened level of friction creates an urgency that would not otherwise be there.

If you are looking at it from a Brexit perspective, consider that shedding skeptic countries that never joined the Euro is a _good thing_ in a federalist sense, since it makes it easier to achieve consensus in a smaller and more committed group.

In a way, losing Greece or Italy would have proven Friedman right, but the opposite happened: the Euro survived, Greece and Italy now are forced to drive their economy from a European perspective. De-facto political unity is happening, country by country.

<comment><USER12> It's interesting that despite it's economic difficulties Greece doesn't seem want to leave the Euro.

<comment><USER4> Greece leaving would be problematic as Greece owes a lot of euros. If they leave, Greeks earning devalued drachmas would probably default, causing the German banks they owe money to to fail and generally causing a lot of issues. I think they'd quite like to if it wasn't for such problems.

<comment><USER12> I can't imagine the Greeks are too worried about what happens with the German banks, it seems far more likely they just don't trust their own government to run a fiscally sound monetary policy.

<comment><USER11> For southern countries, there is also an aspirational element. Knowing you are guaranteed the same rights and privileges as people living in Paris, Berlin or Stockholm is a powerful motivator -- if anything because you know that, should things become completely unsalvageable back home, you can always up sticks and leave to better-run countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This claims the differences in language and culture provide enough friction to keep people from migrating efficiently throughout the union. This seems at odds to me with what has happened in the EU (especially Britian) - many who voted for Brexit seem to have done it because they felt overwhelmed by the foreign hordes.

<comment><USER14> Ironically the areas of the UK that most strongly voted for Brexit are also generally the areas which see the lowest levels of immigration.

<comment><USER15> The areas that voted most strongly for Brexit are the areas that have seen the highest rate of change in immigration levels. It's the derivative not the absolute value that causes pushback.

<comment><USER14> Since when though? Free movement within the EU has been in effect for 30 years.

<comment><USER15> Since the EU expanded in 2004.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Euro project has basically demonstrated that a common currency ia not possible sustainably without an fiscal union - ie. Willingness to underwrite each others debt and transfer wealth from richer to poorer areas.

A fiscal union requires a true political union and it is very doable given the right political stimulus - the most successful recent major example being India which unified dozens of princely states (a couple of them merged forcefully) and provinces speaking dozens of languages and having wildly different cultures into a federal political union - the unifying political stimulus being throwing out the British :-)

<comment><USER16> Carrying the analogy further, what would have made Euro work I guess is pushing hard for political.a nd fiacal union during the 60s/70s given the threat of Soviet Union and the recent experiences of wars.

There's no real driving factor today for political union today so it is likely Euro as it stands may not last our lifetime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "The Telegraph finally admits left-wing economist had it right all along."

<comment><USER4> Funny seeing The Economist as left wing. Wikipedia has it as "It takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism which is supportive of free trade, globalisation, free immigration and cultural liberalism." Guess it shows how right the right has gotten.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So his idea is that, if the common currency did not exist, eurozone would be better. Yet, the most affected people (the Greeks) are staunch supporters of the Euro, and willing to suffer for it.

<comment><USER19> Are they? from my (non-local) point of view, it only looks like they prefer the Euro _now_ (i.e. they're unwilling to be the only ones leaving it), not that they think it was a good idea in general.

<comment><USER12> If I was Greek and had savings I would want to stay in the Euro, the idea of switching back to the drachma with it's likely inflation would be worrying. On the other hand I wouldn't leave my savings in a Greek bank.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with economists is you get a different answer to the same question depending on their political leanings. No wonder it's called the dismal science.</comment>


Ask HN: How to make bookmarks useful. - <AUTHOR>

Here's a concrete example. Particular details are irrelevant and are intentionally absurd:
Say I'm debugging my halting_problem_decider.cc when I get some obscure compiler error. Googling it, I somehow stumble on a site that offers all of Britney Spears's music for download--a true diamond in the rough for a true britney fan (assume I know nothing of bittorrent). I'm absolutely ecstatic, but since my boss wants the halting problem solved by lunchtime, I must restrain myself to bookmarking it for future enjoyment and return to work.
Years later I'm looking for an mp3 version of "you drive me crazy" (still no bittorrent). By then I've forgotten all about the life-changing site I had discovered in my youth. So instead of going directly to it, I'm ignorantly wading through bait-and-switch-type ad-infested sites purporting to have my song for download. Meanwhile the site I need is uselessly taking up space in my bookmarks, never to be used again.
In effect the problem is this: it's not enough to store useful resources if you don't remember to use them. Bookmarks store things, but they don't remind you of the things you've stored (address bar autocomplete is a first-approximation solution to this problem).
Possible solution: Since my go-to place for anything is Google, why not bring my bookmarks to it? That way when I google "you drive me crazy mp3", the site I serendipitously found years ago will float at the top of the search results. One possible implementation of this could use Google custom search to index personal bookmarks. But this would merely create a separate Google for your bookmarks instead of bringing your bookmarks to /The/ Google. Another, more promising approach would be to use subscribed links (http://www.google.com/coop/docs/subscribedlinks).
Before I waste a weekend on this only to reinvent the wheel: Anyone seen anything like this? Any suggestions? (and can you help me debug my halting problem solver?!!) <comment><USER2> These guys agree with you: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1941823>

An by these guys I mean: Pinboard, Diigo, Historious. And there are the less known: ScrapBook and Greplin. And the traditional, and weakest of all: Delicious

Problem: bookmarks from 3 years ago are hardly relevant. I have to clean my delicous from time to time, as these links not only go stale, but even if the did, they are just so horribly outdated, that the information is just not relevant. This does not happen to all of them.

Deciding which is which is the really interesting part. Even on Google now I often find myself pruning things that are more than 2 years old. But they can just give a higher weight to its freshness score (something they showed that is very important to them on their paper on Percolator).

<comment><USER3> "Even on Google now I often find myself pruning things that are more than 2 years old."

Google's time-based searching (hidden beneath the "More Search Tools" sidebar link) is the greatest thing to happen to programming in years, I depend on it daily.

To the OP: Completely agree. Marking something on a bookmarking service is more akin to toe tagging than "save for later." I would gladly welcome a browser extension that would put matching bookmarks (on Diigo in my case) at the top of my google search results.</comment></comment>


Why Anonymous claims Nasa is about to announce the discovery of aliens - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-alien-life-why-anonymous-discover-hackers-et-extra-terrestrials-space-agency-a7808406.html <comment><USER2> Out of context quote. Refuted by NASA: [http://www.independent.co.uk/life- style/gadgets-and-tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life- style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-anonymous-alien-life-discovery-claim-reveal- hackers-space-agency-a7809791.html)

<comment><USER3> Yup. This submission should be flagged because it's fake news.</comment></comment>


Rick Levin as CEO of Coursera - <AUTHOR> http://blog.coursera.org/post/80601201906/welcome-rick-levin-as-ceo-of-coursera

<comment><USER2> It is an interesting move. Rick Levin seems the right person to help Coursera with his experience and his network.

It would have been nice though to have a blog article directly written by him to know what he wants to do as the CEO.</comment>


Use Your Raspberry Pi as Your Local Node.js Webserver - <AUTHOR> http://blog.derhess.de/2016/06/12/use-your-raspberry-pi-as-your-local-nodejs-webserver/ <comment><USER2> I have a Pi 3 that I use for this. It runs a number of apps and is a very good Node Server.

I also run IBM's Node-Red on the same server as part of my home control system</comment>


Why I stopped using the phrase "This is not rocket science." - <AUTHOR> http://anjaligupta.com/2012/07/26/this-is-not-rocket-science/ <comment><USER2> Rocket science is hard because the slightest error will trash your multi- billion-dollar mission. See Feynman and the O-Rings, for instance. Ironically, social science would be easier if it was that rigid. What makes it hard is that even very bad models seem to sort of explain some things, sometimes, or make predictions that come true _despite_ the model being blindingly wrong and stupid, instead of blowing up badly. And a bit more controversially, it doesn't help that social science's "blowups" can be a lot more subtle, and frequently actively shuffled under the carpet. Sometimes it seems like a bad idea in economics or social science can't be discarded until it has completely destroyed an entire civilization, and even then some of them keep popping up... of course, there's little agreement on exactly which ideas those are.

<comment><USER3> Add to this the fact that those who champion certain social science theories at the expense of other theories can never _really_ be proven wrong. Physics, math, and engineering on the other hand can be proven -- at least insofar as the airplane flies, the bridge doesn't collapse, etc.

In the most recent American political debate, we had two candidates describing different political philosophies for the role of government and the future of this country. Notice that instead of attempting to judge those positions, the media commentary simply "scored" the candidates on debate points and "gotcha" moments, assigning a "winner" based upon polls and these imaginary points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Rocket science" _was_ esoteric and super-complex, at least to the educated masses in the 40s and 50s when this phrase seemed to be coined (<http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/166731?print>). Think secret German technology, V2s, von Neumann, the space race, etc. Nowadays we tend to regard the complex Curiosity landing as ordinary.

But the more important point is: It's never pointed in the OP _why_ rocket science is simpler than social problems, e.g. solving world hunger (didn't watch the linked TED talk, though). I think that the reason is that most social problems are "Wicked Problems" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem>). The most important difference between a problems such as solving religious extremism and putting a satellite in orbit (or nuclear fusion or brain surgery) is that in the latter case you can isolate affecting factors and study them in (relative) isolation and sub- problems are well-defined and have well-defined answers, at least compared to social problems.

</comment><comment><USER5> Rockets used to be hard. Really hard: they mostly blew up, especially when the various agencies were trying all sorts of weird and wonderful fuel / oxidiser combinations in the search for the best possible specific impulse. See the book "Ignition!" by John D.Clark for some of the details.

Interestingly, poking Google's ngram search suggests that whilst the phrase "rocket science" saw a little use around 1900 (I've no idea why: HG Wells?) and some use around the 1940s and 1960s, the phrase "not rocket science" is a far more recent coinage & only appears in the text corpus from the 90s onwards:

[http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=not+rocket+scie...](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=not+rocket+science%2C+rocket+science&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=2)

<comment><USER6> That's the second time recently I've seen that book mentioned. The first was in a couple reddit comments, with high praise.

I wish the cheapest price on amazon wasn't $229.97.

<comment><USER5> Ridiculous isn't it? A little searching will lead you to a pdf if you're willing to channel your inner pirate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The rocket always lands as predicted? He didn't pay much attention to the Space Shuttle accidents, did he?

Perhaps he's referring to ballistics. Rocket science generally refers to designing the rockets, which to this day sometimes blow up, lose engines, spiral off course, and suffer various other catastrophes.

<comment><USER7> * blog refers to husband--should it be a "she"?

<comment><USER8> Men can have husbands, too, you know.

<comment><USER7> Percentages are small, and the name was not male. See further comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I believe the author of the article misses the mark on many situations where the expression is used.

In the technical domain, when my colleagues or I use the phrase, it's usually in disdainful reference to an inane request or situation where someone can't accomplish or learn a very basic task that they should know due to their lack of effort or attitude.

Example 1: "The project manager needs help in formatting worksheets in Excel. It's not rocket science."

Example 2: "The client's network admin can't figure out how to open a file with a .zip extension. It's not rocket science."

</comment><comment><USER10> It's odd to me that everyone comments on the phrase "rocket science", when hindsight bias is a much meatier subject to discuss. I've learnt (by reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality[1]) that hindsight bias is pervasive, yet easy to get rid of.

Whenever you find that something is common sense, reverse the outcome and see if it's still common sense or not. If you find both cases equally (very) likely, then you've just fallen prey to hindsight bias. Here's an excellent post about it: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/im/hindsight_devalues_science/>

Something can't be common sense both ways. If one solution is obviously extremely likely, all the others must be equally unlikely.

[1] <http://hpmor.com/> It's a fantastic Harry Potter fanfiction novel, around 1500 pages and just amazing. If you've liked the original series, you'll love this. I read this before reading Harry Potter, and now the latter seems childish. Definitely recommended.

</comment><comment><USER11> I disagree with OP. I think the phrase "rocket science" is still valid as a stand-in for the performance of a complicated task with high accuracy. In terms of the effort required to create a useful prediction, I agree that many things are more complicated than rocket science (often by virtue of being intractable). However, in almost all of these things success is not as highly correlated with the performance of some mental/engineering feat. If a rocket correctly performs a non-trivial task (i.e. gets to a specific orbit/planet/location), we know with certainty that the rocket scientist created a valid physical model and performed difficult calculations on it with high accuracy (ditto for other parts of the engineering). Testing rockets is expensive and the likelihood of making one that works by trial-and-error is zero (I'm referring to rockets on the scale that put satellites into orbit, launch probes thorough the solar system, etc). In comparison, common wisdom holds that startups usually launch with poor product/market fit and pivot until they find something that works. Eventual success doesn't correspond nearly as well to the performance of mental acrobatics.

Don't get me wrong, both tasks are difficult, require "guts", and so on. But I think a direct comparison of the difficulty is disingenuous. To me, "This isn't rocket science" doesn't mean "this is easy", it means "we should be able to eventually succeed by trial&error".

@pja: your observation that "not rocket science" only became popular in the 90s jibes well with associating "rocket science" with "low margin for error", as challenger exploded in 1986.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've always preferred to use "rocket surgery".

ThinkGeek have a relevant t-shirt: <http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/ea8c/>

</comment><comment><USER13> I never understood this idiom; to me, 'rocket science' seems to be a fairly well understood issue compared to i.e. the (human) brain.

<comment><USER14> There are similar idioms about brain surgery and brain surgeons. It's been around for a while, since the time when rockets did blow up with a bit more regularity. Now it's just a thing people say without considering whether it's an accurate expression or not.

<comment><USER15> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have personally always found that the phrase "It's not rocket surgery" gives a deeper and more wide-spanning explanation of the issue.

<comment><USER17> I place "it's not rocket surgery" in the same class as "redonkulous" ... mildly clever the first time or two I heard it.

<comment><USER16> That's redonkulous, rocket surgery is timeless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I like saying "We're not landing a rover on Mars."

</comment><comment><USER19> And I never use the Edmund Burke quote, _"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"_. I've never liked that phrase because it's overly simplistic. The vagaries of human nature and the shear number of variables that influence world events are much to complex to model as a simple _"speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out"_ equation.

</comment><comment><USER20> I never liked this phrase; my friend & I (as probably many other HN'ers) were building small solid-state fuel rockets at the age of 15. There's nothing inherently difficult in the _basics_ of rocket science and rocket engineering. Frankly, I find cooking more difficult than making a solid rocket motor land at my neighbour's backyard.

<comment><USER15> You can't compare toy rockets with real rockets any more than you can compare toy trains with real trains.

<comment><USER20> No, but I think people see rockets as magic they aren't.

I think toy trains and real trains scale differently than "toy rockets". A home-made SRM is a more powerful version of fireworks SRMs, and then there's a thin line between home-made SRM design and things you could stack on car or helicopter to fire at things. Not every rocket is a space rocket, and depending on size and cost tradeoffs required, you get more and more complicated designs, creating a spectrum from a home-made 1km rocket to Falcon 9 & stuff.

I'd say that the real problem with rockets is not that they're inherently magical/difficult, but dangerous and costly to develop. We can say a lot about great engineering that went into things like fuel, nozzles, fins, etc. etd. but the same if not more engineering went into internal combustion engines, and I don't see people saying "it's combustion engine science".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Because it trivializes the current problem. Some everyday things are as important as getting your rocket built correctly. Like driving.

Baking isn't rocket science, but knowing about food allergies and proper preparation and substitutes can save someone's life.

Also: "It's not rocket science. You just have to... Actually, I guess it is rocket science. No fuel rods, Sheen."

</comment><comment><USER22> Duncan Watts has a book titled __Everything Is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer __Very good and interesting read.

[http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Is-Obvious-Once- Answer/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Is-Obvious-Once- Answer/dp/0385531680)

</comment><comment><USER7> As an economist, I salute this post. While common sense will get a person far in life, strategic decision making is a hard process to model.

<comment><USER23> That is probably the reason new models are en vogue every other decade.

<comment><USER7> Not quite. Models advance as their conclusions are shown to not hold in reality.

You may be thinking about macroeconomics, in the which there seems to be a fad cycle of models, and a hyped up difference of assumptions. I assure you macroeconomics doesn't actually have a fad cycle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> this article includes the phrase "it turns out common sense is [often] wrong."

when people collectively understand this sentence, politics will stop being such a hard problem. I'm not sure this will ever happen, sadly.</comment>


A Paper Enigma Machine - <AUTHOR> http://wiki.franklinheath.co.uk/index.php/Enigma/Paper_Enigma <comment><USER2> Site's kerplunk'd. Shame, that sounds cool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Works for me now - may have gone down under the load.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, just got it back.</comment></comment></comment>


The NSAs voice-recognition system raises hard questions for Echo and Google Home - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/22/16920440/amazon-echo-google-home-nsa-voice-surveillance <comment><USER2> There are no "hard questions" about this. These devices will be abused by, at a minimum, nation states. It's not a question of "if" or "how" (or likely not even a question of "when" since we won't hear about it unless there's a "leak".)</comment>


Startup CEO fired: Plan on it, just a matter of time - <AUTHOR> http://nesheimgroup.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/startup-ceo-fir.html

<comment><USER2> Not all that surprising, although I'm sure it might come as a shock to some folks who have less startup experience (no disrespect intended).

In the previous startup I joined, I asked the founder and then-CEO when it was expected they would hire a more seasoned CEO (in a polite) way. I wanted to see what their plans were, if they had thought of this yet, and if the question would offend them.

People who start companies aren't usually great at running them (once things begin to achieve a regular cadence) and people who run companies aren't usually all that great at starting them.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is kind of the point, as most start-ups are mostly technical people who only appoint one of themselves as CEO because _somebody_ has to be. It's not a question of ability but of desire; lack of experience is obviously to be expected, and you could never get any NEW CEOs if that were a disqualification. Every CEO was a first-time CEO at _some_ company.</comment>


An app for sending ICe bucket challenge invite - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dynamicstm.photosend

<comment><USER2> Just installed it. Let See how it rolls

</comment><comment><USER3> any thing new from all those ice bucket apps in the app store?</comment>


Ask HN: What are the ingredients in a brilliant elevator pitch? - <AUTHOR> What are the things to have and what to avoid?<p>Are there any great online resources for getting started with this kind of writing? <comment><USER2> No business idea that can be pitched in one sentence can be brilliant. Any idea that can be shortened down that much is not brilliant, which is why so many pitches are of the kind "We are an ex-Google/Facebook/Amazon team building the Uber/Airbnb/Facebook for niche x". Yawn.

Truely brilliant ideas are very, very rare and take quite a long time to explain.

Edit. My approach is to say that I have solved problem x. If the person is interested in this then I then ask if they want to learn more and tell them approximately how long it will take to explain. Most people aren't interested, but for those that are it is always a productive and enjoyable experiences to talk to them about the idea in depth.

</comment><comment><USER3> In business school (I know, shudder, I went to biz school), there's a pretty textbook formula of "[Product/Service] does [what's unique about the product/service] to [competitive advantage/how it's solving the problem]." It's simple, but it's actually much harder to do than you'd think. When you nail it, it's incredibly compelling.

After you build a draft, you have to ask, "Is anyone out there already saying this? Do they have our [what's unique] or [how it's problem solving]? If so, you need to either keep workshopping and thinking about what's truly unique to your product, and if the problem you're trying to solve is 1) actually a problem or 2) a thought-out solution.

If you're really struggling to answer those questions or come up with a unique statement, it's a good indicator that your product/concept may not be viable.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd say keep it to one sentence. I heard some one say that if you can't tell me what your business does in one sentence, you haven't found the niche.

[https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/24/one-sentence-pitch- winners...](https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/24/one-sentence-pitch-winners/)

Google: one sentence business pitch

<comment><AUTHOR> Funnily enough none of those pitches resonate with me. They all seem a bit long

<comment><AUTHOR> Just found this video, it's pretty good advice [https://clip.mn/tag/MDhkMDQ2ZTI](https://clip.mn/tag/MDhkMDQ2ZTI)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Density of information. It needs to not only be short, but to convey a lot at the same time. This is why analogies (like "Uber for x") are popular. You need to capture something of the spirit of the venture, as well as what differentiates it from its competitors.</comment>


Netflix Splits DVD And Streaming Businesses - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/18/netflix-qwikster/ <comment><USER2> It seems I'm in the minority who thinks this is an over the top reaction to Wall Street pressure. It was clear for a number of years now that Netflix saw streaming as the future. But cutting off the DVD business like that... it's extreme. A _lot_ of the movies are not available for streaming. Yes, their streaming portfolio is probably still the best (and has excellent children's content, my son watches it every night) but why force your users to decide?

The problems, as I see them:

1\. The two parts (DVD & streaming) had different characteristics (bigger collection vs. instant gratification) that balanced each other. This synergy is now gone.

2\. The attack surface for other companies has just doubled. Netflix's DVD handling is super streamlined (they have special sorters in postal centers) but there are other strong players like Redbox here. The streaming biz is nothing unique, Amazon can easily get to that level of collection in a short time. Divide and conquer? They just did it to themselves!

3\. As others have pointed out, the reviews, and user histories will be split. From a subscriber perspective this is most undesirable, now I have to deal with two sites.

4\. The quality of recommendations will suffer with less data (they weren't great to start with) after the split.

5\. How will this affect developers using the Netflix API?

6\. What will happen to Netflix's original content creation efforts, this will be a _huge_ distraction to those. And they are vital.

Overall, this has a heavy handedness to it that makes you wish for the comfort of the likes of Amazon.

EDIT: This also makes my suspicions that Amazon is gearing up to a massive upgrade of their offering soon. Netflix probably tried to focus on streaming and stay ahead in the game. How? I don't know.

<comment><USER3> _The attack surface for other companies has just doubled_

If anything, that is an underestimate. I really can't understand what they are thinking. Since I am interested in both DVD and streaming, up to now I was completely locked into Netflix because of the integrated system - my "Instant" queue is just the subset of my DVD queue that is streamable.

If they break that link, and I derive no gain from being BOTH a Netflix-DVD and a Netflix-streaming customer, what is there to stop me switching to Amazon or other competing streaming service tomorrow? Absolutely nothing.

This is such a bad decision I actually can't even begin to understand how it made sense to the dude for the whole length of time it took him to write that announcement.

Edit: and another thing. Am I expected to believe that a technology company cannot figure out how to run two different business arms with a single customer-facing UI/website? This is something frigging clothing companies do every day.

<comment><USER4> What's to stop you from switching to Amazon? Have you tried watching a movie on Amazon? Way less usable and its hard to find movies sometimes. Netflix has a way better interface and what I find myself doing is checking on Netflix first, and then only if they don't have it, do I go to Amazon.

<comment><USER5> I've watched things on Amazon Instant in the past and didn't find it any less usable. In fact, I actually find Amazon more usable since it works on my operating system.

It's kind of a moot point to say "Well, Amazon has a crappier interface, so Netflix is safe", since Amazon can always update its interface to something more friendly. The important point is that Netflix has given up one of the major incentives to use its service -- the integration of DVD and streaming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll throw it out as a side note, because in all the discussions I've read on Netflix of late no one seems to mention it: Netflix has FANTASTIC kids content available for streaming. My kids would revolt if we cancelled our service. That alone guarantees my business until there is a truly compelling replacement. I cannot believe we're the only family like this. And while this is probably not a large enough market to sustain them (let alone power growth), they do seem to have a pretty good sense of how people engage with their content - and my guess is that their deep long-tail of streaming content actually holds more appeal than might be guessed. To be honest, my only frustration with them of late has been the fact that my streaming queue is overrun with "Bob the Builder" & "Caillou" when _I'm_ actually looking for something to watch. Perhaps this new, sharper focus on the streaming side will enable them to improve things like this? Here's hoping they survive this transformation and emerge stronger for it.

<comment><USER7> Yup. My kid is only two, but even I have noticed that Netflix has 6 full seasons of Spongebob and nearly 100 full episodes of Seasame Street. It's pretty important to me that my child not be bombarded by advertisements before he gains any critical thinking skills, so I'll be a Netflix customer for a long time yet, I'm sure. I'm just hoping they use this extra cash to get some better content (or create it themselves) for me.

<comment><USER8> Wow. I have a 4 year old and a 5 year old, both love getting to pick stuff off Netflix and not once did I think about the fact that there are no ads... that's such an awesome point in Netflix's favour and I can't believe I never realised it before.

Plus, for me at least, it's good in that it forces them to compromise and work it out among themselves. They can watch whatever they want on it (obviously, within their genre) but they have to work it out between the two of them what they are going to watch. With the TV, it's closer to "on or off".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In my opinion, this is definitely the obvious and correct move. It isn't a surprise that Netflix wanted to head towards a stream only business model, but this makes it crystal clear that Netflix _is_ (at the moment) a premium streaming video company. I mean look at them, thats all they do now!

The still face some big hurdles with all their streaming content deals, and the outcome will likely be what makes or breaks the Netflix we all know and love. Premium content providers (HBO, Starz, and now AMC, etc...) will always hold the upper hand here, and many already have streaming products in place. If not, its rather trivial to create nowadays.

My prediction: Netflix becomes an original content powerhouse that harnesses the sort of democratic whimsey of the web. "House of Cards" is their toe in the water. I really see no other direction that is feasible with content providers fragmenting into their space _and_ hoarding their popular original content.

<comment><USER10> _"this makes it crystal clear that Netflix is a premium streaming video company. I mean look at them, thats all they do now!"_

Yeah, well...now they're providing a commodity service. Renting DVDs through the mail has/had a _huge_ infrastructure advantage for the established player. Streaming video over the internet? There are dozens of sites that do it well. The technical advantage is far less sustainable, because it isn't nearly as difficult.

Once you're running a streaming-video business, the only differentiating advantage is _content_ \-- and you're in a weak position to negotiate for that content. Whereas before, the studios needed Netflix to distribute their content to consumers, the internet has turned the tables.

<comment><USER11> Netflix has one thing that most streaming video sites don't, and that's _massive_ market penetration. In my living room, I have 5 devices capable of Netflix streaming, as well as every mobile device I own.

Amazon is probably second with their offering, and even then I don't own any devices that can stream Prime Instant Video (my TiVo can download from Amazon, but isn't compatible with Prime's streaming). Any Netflix competitor has a _huge_ hurdle to overcome to be as successful as they've been.

<comment><USER12> They first obtained that advantage through their infrastructure investment in DVDs though, not through steaming. Any Netflix competitor now has a much smaller hurdle to overcome to be as successful as they've been. From the customer's viewpoint they went from having a relationship with a single company that had two offerings to a relationship with a company with a single offering that is somewhat lacking.

If I were the new CEO of Quixster or Kwikstr or whatever the hell it is, I would immediately start looking around at who I can partner with to get streaming content. Actually, isn't Quixtar the name of a MLM scheme?

This move makes no sense. Seems like Wall St. pandering garbage.

<comment><USER13> > Actually, isn't Quixtar the name of a MLM scheme?

Yes, Quixtar is Amway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this is a good move simply because the two divisions have contradictory goals at this point.

For example, the Qwikster division should be looking at finding ways to deliver DVDs quicker (Kiosks for example). But that's not something that would ever occur to Netflix because they're focused on streaming as the future.

Which is where the contradiction comes in. It is hard to run a business unit when the goal of the company overall is to kill off your unit.

That said I think announcing it today is foolish. Even if it was their original plan to do so announcing it right after a stock drop makes the decision look rash. IMHO they should have put this announcement off for a couple weeks.

<comment><USER15> I don't think any shareholders of consequence are going to think they just made this decision a day ago. Maybe they announced it after the stock plummeted because the assumption is it won't go down that much further, where a 2nd announcement after it rebounded might send it down yet again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "...the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated. So if you subscribe to both services, and if you need to change your credit card or email address, you would need to do it in two places. Similarly, if you rate or review a movie on Qwikster, it doesn't show up on Netflix, and vice-versa."

Wow. I had previously thought that their pricing change was forcing consumers to effectively choose between streaming and disc-based services, but didn't expect that they'd actually go this far and completely cut the cord between the two.

Considering the how much less efficient it is to mail movies than it is to download them in an age of high gas prices and fast internet, Netflix killing or spinning-off it's dvd service was an inevitability. I'm just not sure that right now the streaming service by itself has the selection to keep subscription numbers high enough to maintain sufficient leverage with content providers.

Momentum is very important with the type of model they have: the more content Netflix loses to studios who start their own streaming services, the less appealing the Netflix service becomes to subscribers, which both weakens the argument for studios to stick with them due to the size of their subscriber base and also sets a positive example of succeeding without Netflix that other studios can follow.

<comment><USER17> My guess is that the logical split has to do with future contract negotiations. Netflix has no ties to DVD rentals, so maybe this aids them in the deals they are able to make.

<comment><USER18> As I understand it, most of the deals between Netflix and the studios are revenue sharing deals. So the studios have a vested interest in increasing whatever metrics they are basing the revenue sharing on. They could see streaming availability as hurting the DVDs 'sales.' Though this would apply industry-wide anyways, so I don't know if this would really put the streaming side of things in a better negotiation position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Biggest downfall here will potentially be the separation of ratings. Dvd and streaming customers will have to rate dvd first and then see it as unwatched in streaming later?

I think of Netflix as my repository for "what I have watched" and teller of "what you will want to watch". I don't tie the brand to a specific delivery mechanism (dvd or streaming).

</comment><comment><USER20> Qwikster is a terrible name, and this is a terrible move.

Hastings is now in competition with that guy running HP to see who can destroy their company first.

Maybe Ballmer will get in the game and spin off Windows/Office from Microsoft, and rebrand them "Facetown", while proclaiming Bing to be the future of the company.

Unbelievable.

Update: I predict Qwikster is dead and buried within 5 years, and someone else pushes past Netflix on the streaming side to be the leader there.

This move is unbelievably stupid. Any trust I had in Netflix over the long haul is gone.

<comment><USER21> Netflix employee here.

I've been reading all the comments here and at Reed's blog to understand what everyone has to say about the split. Internally, we've known about the split for some time now.

Why do you think this is a terrible move? Your comment has a lot of unflattering comparisons, but doesn't explain why the move is stupid.

Also, you're probably right that DVD as a service will not last forever, and Reed understands that too (he mentions this in the post as well - [http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some- reflect...](http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some- reflections.html)). DVD service may not last very long, but right now, it is a growing business.

<comment><USER22> Just to share my personal experience: My wife and I have been Netflix customers for years. Streaming is pretty convenient for us, but two major problems: 1) lack of content and 2) lack of subtitles / closed captions. Captions are important because we watch movies at night, after the kids are in bed. That means we keep things are quiet enough that you occasionally miss a line of dialog. Because of those two issues we're back to DVDs in the mail. Here's my point:

While the services were integrated we could play with the online service (wait for it to improve) while still getting DVDs through the mail. It didn't cost any extra to try a streaming movie or two. Now that they are separate, checking up on the online service has a much higher cost, both monetarily and in terms of effort. Personally I'm disappointed, I liked streaming a lot, but for us it just wasn't quite there yet.

As others have said, the two services are complementary. I might like to know that I could watch a movie instantly instead of waiting for it in the mail, even if that's what I'd planned to do. Or that I could get a DVD in the mail because it isn't available for streaming.

As a customer I feel Netflix cares more about promoting streaming than keeping me as a customer. Rather than holding the door open so I can take my time converting to online content, I'm being pushed. Maybe right into a the arms of a competitor, because I'm not feeling the love from Netflix.

<comment><USER23> I think Netflix has basically two kinds of customers: mainstream customers and long-tail customers. The mainstream will be fine with this, but for those of us who like to draw our content from the long tail, it sucks.

My wife and I were on streaming-only for a few months, but last month I upped our account to streaming+DVD again for just this reason -- the stuff we wanted to watch just wasn't available, and didn't look like it was going to be anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The elephant in the streaming office is the lack of blockbuster titles, many of which are only available through their DVD by mail business. If they're betting everything on streaming i'm guessing (hoping) that they've also figured out a solution to this problem. Otherwise, they've lost the big benefit of credibility that DVD by mail brought to their service.

<comment><USER7> Eh. I'll just use Redbox for that. Faster anyway.

<comment><USER25> Redbox is great. I love it. Redbox + Netflix Streaming + Hulu Plus should get you most of the movies and TV shows that you need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just for posterity's sake, I'll join in on the "this is a great move" side.

I know there's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by current Netflix customers with established movie watching habits who will now face more inconvenience.

However, I use Netflix exclusively for the streaming, so I'm very excited about the future here. If they can sell off the Quikster (sp? dumb name) business and then use that capital for all sorts of good streaming stuff, then that's good for me.

I remember reading an interview with Hastings a _long_ time ago where he said his vision was all about streaming content (hence the name, "Netflix" from the start, and nothing locking him down to DVDs, which he felt would someday be obsolete leaving his company with an anachronistic name). At that time, though, so many people only had dial-up that it just wasn't feasible.

It's interesting and somewhat amusing to me that the interim "send DVDs by mail" business got to be so huge and successful, but I see Hastings as _finally_ trying his hand at his initial dream.

More power to him, I say, as a decade or two down the line, it will be streaming all the way, no doubt.

</comment><comment><USER27> I posted this on their blog before I saw the thread here:

Remember the quote by Henry Ford? It went more or less like: "If I asked customers what they wanted, they'd have told me a faster horse." The truth is, all the customers here -- myself included -- are probably the least qualified people to say this is a bad idea.

I do think that some communication between the 2 sites is important. But it's not as if that's off the table. Once they get around to developing it, it won't be hard to have an "Available On Netflix" link beside entries on your Qwikster queue. In fact, doing so would be effective cross-promotion.

The truth to me seems to be this: These really are very different businesses. And it's true streaming is the future. I expect Blu Ray to be the last optical disc player people ever buy. From there on, it's all streaming.

A future we could've faced is one where Netflix devotes more and more resources to streaming license fees and data centers, they close regional netflix warehouses, dvd delivery goes back to 2+ days instead of the 1 day it currently is for most the US population. In general, the DVD service is choked of leadership talent within the company and capital improvements.

Now, there's a CEO of DVD's by mail. A man who has full budgetary powers over just the DVD business. A business NFLX KNOWS how to run profitably and repeatably. It's a franchise. They've got that stuff DOWN.

I'm not an apologist. I currently opted to pay for both services and I'm not happy about the price increase. But, I'll wait and see. In 6-12 months, if we don't see some big improvements in stream selection, I'll probably chose to cancel that side of my account, and use Hulu Plus and Amazon instead. But for now, I respect the hard decisions businesses make when they see the need to pivot.

</comment><comment><USER28> This decision was not made over night, and this change has been coming for quite a while. In fact, if you go look at this post on Netflix's API blog dated 27 June 2011[1], you'll see:

 _As of Oct. 14th, 2011, the Netflix API will be focused exclusively on offering content and functionality from the streaming catalog. As a result, we will be discontinuing the support of DVD-related features in the Open API._

They go on to say that this is to support long term goals around internationalization, but that does not, by any means, preclude this split.

[1] [http://developer.netflix.com/blog/read/Upcoming_Changes_to_t...](http://developer.netflix.com/blog/read/Upcoming_Changes_to_the_Open_API_Program)

<comment><USER29> Qwikster.com was registered in May 2010. This was not an overnight decision and I doubt even the contrition in the blog post wasn't well planned.

<comment><USER30> I strongly suspect it's related to negotiating royalties for streaming based on streaming subscriber numbers, not the combined numbers.

That was the reason behind the original split in the services, so it's probably why they're actually splitting the accounts.

<comment><USER31> > That was the reason behind the original split in the services

No. Not at all.

The plans were split in preparation for the company split. This has been in planning for a long time.

<comment><USER32> And the company split isn't "related to negotiating royalties for streaming based on streaming subscriber numbers, not the combined numbers" as waterlesscloud indicated? The public explanation of better focus for each business is sensible, but I think there is a not insignificant impact to licensing that drove the decision as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> People always go up in arms about change of price like this. For a long time, the prices at Netflix mostly stayed the same because they started with DVDs, and later added streaming. The streaming catalog wasn't built out enough for them to monetize it with confidence. So what did they do? They gave us a break and let us have free streaming. Now that it's a significant catalog, they want us to pay for the service... which they have to license! And it aint cheap for them to do that.

Now that it's doubled, people feel it's outrageous! But it's not because of the value they're receiving, it's because they're conditioned to expect one price and it's now higher. They lost a million subscribers, but Netflix will get those back after people realize they were being idiots.

Let me ask you a question, would you rather pay $15 a month for unlimited streaming and DVDs, or $50 to Comcast for basic cable? In my book, $15 is a pretty damn reasonable price.

<comment><USER13> It's not the change of price that has everyone upset tonight. That already happened.

What has people upset tonight is what customers will lose in this change: the convenience of a single website to find interesting movies and TV shows and arrange to view them by whichever delivery means is available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I read this and my brain immediately thought it had to be an April Fools joke. It took a second or two to remember it is September.

Regardless, my hat is off to them for betting the company's name on their streaming business. I know that's the only part of their service I use anymore -- I've had the same DVD checked out for over a year because I couldn't be bothered to deal with the perceived hassle of managing my queue and planning what I want to watch in advance.

<comment><USER16> Same here - I actually caught myself looking up at the date on the taskbar before realizing the same thing. I think the ridiculousness of the 'Qwikster' brand name was what made me doubt it at first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I researched Netflix for a project back when they had around 8 million subscribers and the biggest part of their business was direct mail DVD.

The strides they've come to have the Netflix brand as more than just a DVD rental service are immense. My only worry about this move is that they lose all of that brand recognition with "Qwikster."

</comment><comment><USER36> I kept my account even after planning on dropping it when the price increase happened, but now I don't really see any reason to keep my streaming account. At least when they were integrated, searching in one place, and having all my reviews in one place provided some additional benefit for me.

Now I don't really see any benefit at all for keeping the streaming portion over Amazon Prime (which I have) and maybe adding Hulu Plus. I'll have to see if having the game option makes it useful for me to keep the DVD portion of my account.

As soon as the sites split, NetFlix looses a great deal of value to me as a customer. Before it was a single place where I could pick movies to see - whether streaming or on DVD, now it becomes a repository of a bunch of okay television shows and (esp. once they lose Starz Play), a mediocre movie selection.

</comment><comment><USER37> What an absolutely awful name "Qwikster". I'm still frowning in disgust.

<comment><USER38> Totally agree, I know first-hand how hard it is to come up with a good name coupled to an available domain name, but I would expect better from Netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The real question to ask is: Is this good for customers? It doesn't matter if the goals of the two businesses are different. What matters is how it affects customers. Do customers consider the services as separate entities or as two parts of the same whole? I think they'll lose a few customers who like both services, but feel awkward about dealing with two companies now instead of one (like me).

</comment><comment><USER40> For the record, since Netflix Canada launched sometime last year, it has been a streaming-only service. We have a kind of sucky selection that is getting better as time passes, but I can understand why they went streaming-only. From this perspective, it's pretty odd seeing people disapproving of the choice or showing attachment to the DVD service.

<comment><USER41> Totally agree. There is so much to hate about the DVD watching experience - the menus, unskippable ads/trailers, poor image quality, getting stuck on a scratch - I can't wait for them to disappear.

But, i'm guessing the DVD fans are actually arguing for the larger catalog, not for plastic discs.

<comment><USER42> For me, it most definitely is the large catalog size, easily 10x the streaming size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> In theory, however, Qwikster doesn't have to limit itself to DVD's in the future. If it's real focus is shipping speed for items that are rented (or more likely purchased), it could expand into other product lines. Speed of shipping is a process in and of itself, something that very few companies, like Amazon, have gotten down.

</comment><comment><USER44> "Qwikster will also now offer video game rentals through the mail"

While I wouldn't sign up full time for a game rental service I would be interested in getting a game now and then rather than a dvd. Suffice it to say for my needs a dvd in the mail fit my needs exactly and I will continue paying for that.

Edit: not to mention from what I hear games always have a _long_ waiting list on other services. I am more than happy to put a game at the top of my list and getting it at some point in the next two months, but meanwhile getting dvd's that I want.

<comment><USER45> I'm hoping it comes with the requisite netflix...err qwikster... efficiency that I've come to expect. We tried Blockbuster for this, and it was a nightmare. Getting a game from them was an exercise in patience. We were with them for two months and didn't receive a single one:)

<comment><USER31> I believe speed was one of the things Netflix wanted to communicate with the otherwise unfortunate name "Qwikster".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Every time I've looked at my Netflix queue and seen how few of the items in it are available via streaming, I've question whether to drop Netflix streaming now that it's a separate plan. Now that it's a separate non-integrated service, it's an easier decision for me. I wonder is this is part of the plan though? If you can't add non-streaming content to the streaming queue in the first place you're not constantly being reminded of what's missing or how little is available to stream.

Every conversation of late about Netflix streaming seems to focus on the lack or pending lack of content when the Starz deal expires. A streaming service that didn't make lack of streaming content front and center to the user experience would seem to have a better chance of succeeding, especially for new users that quickly try and build up a queue only to find that particular item they now browsing isn't available to stream. Once you separate out the everything's availability of a huge DVD catalog, perhaps user won't miss what's not there quite as much.

I also wonder if those users that care about DVDs primarily care about having access to more than just recent movies and content that will never stream via Netflix (HBO shows?) and that perhaps the future of streaming is more about more recent movies and TV shows. However, if Netflix streaming doesn't progress to the point where it has a catalog breadth like the current DVD catalog, I worry what that means for those who enjoy having access to all of that long-tail content, especially now that local DVD stores with large catalogs are pretty much non-existent.

</comment><comment><USER47> That Netflix needs to keep making these changes is simply a symptom of a brutal endemic problem:

        In general, subscription business suck.

Most subscription businesses suck because they are dependent on CAC (customer acquisition costs; the cost required to land a new sub) and churn (the percentage of subs that leave the service).

For example, a typical gross CAC for a business like netflix is $200. At $10/mo the subscriber has to stay a sub for almost 2 years before any profit is made. Meanwhile the company had to spend the $200 _up front_ , burning through capital. Also, meanwhile, 15-20% of the customers leave every month. Those customers will never pay off the costs the company spent to aquire them. It's an never-ending spiral of death. As seen by Vonage, Netflix, etc...

But Netflix has another endemic problem: They are the bitch of the content providers. Netflix owns NOTHING (especially in their streaming only biz). All it takes is one content provider to balk (Starz) and the only way they'll get new subs is to _spend more on marketing_ which raises CAC. Which accelerates death.

Name a few successful subscription businesses. Successful (in my mind) means PROFITABLE. Revenue does not mean sh __. Come-on, name 'em. (Those that you do name will have some sort of monopoly or exclusive right to a physical asset).

This is why, as an investor, I will never invest in companies that think they can be successful with a subscription business model.

This is also why Apple is kicking ass. Apple gets paid up front. The only way to go.

<comment><USER48> Oh dear...where to start: * 37Signals * Salesforce * <insert name of food product> of the month club (you said profitable - not Fortune 500) * <insert name of major gym> membership * Does Amazon Prime count? * Costco - you need to pay to be a member, whic his, by definition, a subscription business * Successful hosting providers - I myself use the great Bluehost.com

Though you could argue that paying for and building a gym gives you exclusive right to a physical asset.

Out of hand rejection of subscription businesses is your prerogative, but there are businesses which charge monthly rates that have surperior proritary products or services, or which use the membership as a means to incent more purchases, that can be very successful.

<full disclosure - I love CEK :)>

<comment><USER47> I have no way of knowing whether 37signals is actually profitable or not, but perhaps Salesforce is a real example. You found ONE.

Your gym membership does not count: Physical asset.

Amazon Prime is not a business. And I guarantee you it is NOT profitable anyway. It's a marketing program.

Hosting does not count: It's a physical asset.

Costco is not a subscription biz. It's a retailer that uses membership as a marketing ploy to drive loyalty.

<comment><USER49> You said, subscription based businesses. I am not sure what physical assets have to do with anything. Even ignoring Netflix's physical DVD library, if you consider hosting a physical asset, then I think you'll also have to qualify Netflix as a "subscription service which provides automated hosting & licensing of select content for subscriber's convenience".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Gasp, this is turning into a joke!

I had Netflix for a few months, I used it to watch the entire Battlestar Galactica. After that, I went through and searched for 30 different movies to watch, and they weren't available, and I'm not talking about new movies. None of the Indiana Jones', Star Wars', Rockies, Bladerunner, etc. Now with the Starz debacle, and with content providers getting ready to pound them with price increases, Netflix is in real trouble.

Yes, streaming is the way to do it. I love streaming. But I don't think it will be through Netflix. This sounds like a company in its death throws.

I simply don't understand why they would split themselves up into 2 companies. The only reason why I can think of why they would cut themselves into 2 companies, is so that the content providers can't use the DVD business' cash flow to pay for the content. So content providers can't charge an arm and a leg because the cash flow of the streaming side would be much smaller.

However, the miscalculation here is that content providers can simply make their own content available themselves through streaming. Which is already happening in other continents, and even in the US through Google, Facebook etc. I think Netflix has severely miscalculated itself, and this may be the end.

<comment><USER51> _The only reason why I can think of why they would cut themselves into 2 companies, is so that the content providers can't use the DVD business' cash flow to pay for the content._

My thoughts exactly, I assumed the original separation was done so hollywood couldn't bargain over dvd profits, perhaps this move was done to make that wall even stronger. I fear for the future of netflix, it's an easy choice to have a subscription now, but what happens when the major studios get involved and start demanding serious money for their content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> The greatest opportunity for netflix is to become the global leader in streaming films. They've been slow to expand in this regard. I've been waiting for netflix to hit the UK for a long time. By dropping DVDs they avoid any expectation of a service that requires significant investment in infrastructure. This presumably also makes negotiations far simpler and faster. With a race to penetration in each new market this could be critical.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder what Netflix will show for search results that are only available on Qwikster.

<comment><USER54> Hastings replied to that question in the Netflix blog post's comments: [1]

Question: _"If a film I search for on Netflix is not available for streaming, will the website still tell me if the DVD is available? Or must I search twice?"_

Reply: _"ouch. You'd have to search the second place if we didn't have it in the first place."_

[1] [http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some- reflect...](http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some- reflections.html)

<comment><USER49> That's pretty bad. You'd think they could integrate an API system that at least allowed for the two services to interact with each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Seems pretty obvious that the plan here is to sell the DVD business (perhaps to PE), raise capital, and use it to do a combination of original content creation and for leveraged with the main studios to get the same premium titles into the streaming service that would already be available on the DVD service.

However if I'm right the CEO Reed isn't being any more forthcoming or communicative about his true plans then he was before.

</comment><comment><USER56> has everyone forgotten how limited the streaming service is? They should have waited until they at least have a selection. I'm going DVD service, and Amazon for streaming.

<comment><USER57> It may be limited if you only watch movies, but If you like, say...British detective shows, there's enough episodes to keep you busy for a while.

<comment><USER58> Or Dr. Who, or all seven seasons of Star Trek Voyager.

<comment><USER59> Until you want to watch the latest season of Doctor Who, which is currently available on DVD, but not on streaming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This move is simply idiotic. It doesn't matter what netflix wants, it matters what the customers want. Now I have to go somewhere else to manage DVD's by mail? With a horrible name like kwikster?! Are you serious? Why do I need netflix again? They don't have the budget to get the best movies and now they are making my life harder. They are like the opposite of Apple. I didn't mind the price increase from a couple moths back at all, I know it costs money to have a good selection. But now they have basically said "Oh hey we made a really stupid decision before so we're gonna make things better by making a worse decision."

I now hate netflix, I can cancel everything and move to amazon's streaming service. I think it's hilarious that an employee of netflix on HN said that netflix excels by being very focused. That makes no sense. You can't just treat your customers like crap and expect them to love you. I shorted their stock before the 20% and I can't wait to watch it go down further.

</comment><comment><USER61> Question for anybody more familiar with the content licensing business:

How does Netflix becoming stream-only affect their negotiating position with the content license holders?

One comment points out that both Netflix and content holders can't lean on the DVD mailing business to supplement licensing costs. Is it really the case that content providers could hold Netflix to higher licensing costs or more catalog restrictions if they (both sides) know Netflix has the DVD mailing business to supplement the streaming business?

I wonder if there are other reasons behind this split more directly tied to licensing. Would content providers be more willing to open up their content catalogs with a stream-only business?

</comment><comment><USER62> Clearly this will be disheartening to the true user such as myself. By splitting functionality as to prevent easy access to either material nor allowing usage of existing ratings they're continuing the trend toward customer alienation.

I say this almost all the time, but even if Netfix renegotiates for retaining Starz it is still not yet an adequate amount of viewing content for me to wholely dismiss DVD by mail, regardless of where I even stand on the matter in terms of philosophy.

In the end I still gain a larger bill, continued limited streaming content, and a split in usability.

And what of netflix when Hollywood continues to charge into extinction taking Netflix with them?

</comment><comment><USER63> As a once happy customer turned unhappy customer for a variety of reasons, I believe this signals the beginning of the end for Netflix.

By the way, thanks for destroying Blockbuster on the way down. I had more options 2 years ago than I do now.

<comment><USER64> It's interesting that they save the big price hike until after they bankrupted Blockbuster. Well played, in an evil-genius sort of way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Something just doesn't seem right here. Netflix could have easily worked on both DVD and streaming and each team could have focused on strengthening their services without causing any inconvenience (2 separate websites and queues?) to the customers. Had this been an Merger between two companies who were in DVD and streaming business, markets would've hailed the decision (just because of the synergy).

I am sure Hastings is not naive enough to not think about these obvious things, which makes me think, how does this help them? I can't think of even one angle where splitting the companies makes sense?

</comment><comment><USER66> I really wish they would address the lack of many movies and TV shows for streaming. I'd love to just subscribe to Netflix instead of Qwikster, but the streaming catalogue is just not there right now.

</comment><comment><USER67> As a user of their service, I found it very frustrating when they removed the ability to add movies to your dvd queue that were not available via their streaming service from within the streaming service interface on the ps3, xbox 360, etc. A further separation will probably just force me to drop the disc by mail service altogether, since I really, really, don't want to put up with the hassle of logging into an entirely different site to manage my queue.

</comment><comment><USER68> To reduce risk, I think they could have pushed the Quickster brand _within_ the Netflix UI harder before putting all this on its own domain.

</comment><comment><USER69> Side note: TechCrunch got back to doing real news. Good for them!

</comment><comment><USER70> what a terrible idea. the best part of Netflix is that it was integrated between DVD and streaming queues. dfm. how much does Amazon cost with Prime?

<comment><USER71> I too think its a terrible idea but, What a stupid question. (how much does Amazon cost with Prime?) I hope you realize that if you cannot figure out an answer to that questions in like 10 seconds yourself, you probably shouldn't be commenting things like companies pivoting.

(And an equally stupid answer. Prime is $79/year if you are not a (mom or a dad or a student))

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> This reminds me of Apple killing the floppy.

Anyway, this is all about negotiations to get more content in the streaming service. If newer movies and more tv shows appear in the streaming service, no one will care about DVDs by mail.

<comment><USER64> Really? This reminds me of Tivo, who thought they had a great way to monetize the middle between content and the cable companies.

Netflix is on it's way out, just like Tivo. They have ZERO leverage and are doing everything they can to turn away customers (price hike, worse service, god-awful PR...).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> For those who think Netflix has been smoking a bong with this move: <https://mobile.twitter.com/Qwikster>

</comment><comment><USER42> To me, dvd+streaming is worth more combined than separate. I guess Netflix will find that out. Without the DVDs, Netflix is just another streaming company with little to differentiate it. There will no longer be any barriers for me to switch to another streaming service, like Amazon.

80% of what I want to see is DVD only. It is far, far too soon to dump that - I'd dump the streaming first.

</comment><comment><USER73> I never signed up for Netflix until they offered the streaming service, and then never used the physical DVD delivery option - and changed to streaming- only as soon as they made it available. Some of us don't _want_ physical discs. Having such a wide variety of content - even if it's not as varied as the physical media selection - for less than $10 a month is _awesome_.

</comment><comment><USER74> Sidenote: <http://instantwatcher.com> is a great companion site to Netflix streaming.

</comment><comment><USER75> Whatever happens this will make a B-school case study very soon. The case where a company decided to be pro-active in picking a market vertical based on incomplete data. Weather case will have a positive spin or a negative one, only time will tell. As a streaming customer I hope they will work on enriching their library.

</comment><comment><USER76> I think that everyone is missing the really big thing here, the US Post Office is screwed...

</comment><comment><USER77> Why is Netflix performing seppuku?

</comment><comment><USER78> tldr;

I read through probably half of the comments and then skimmed the rest, so sorry if this was already mentioned:

What if Netflix streaming service improves A LOT, and their movie collection grows to encompass pretty much every movie out there? A lot of the discussion has assumed that Netflix would remain the same, but with their focusing exclusively on streaming, I could see how they would have more leverage to negotiate with content owners to license movies--for one, they could charge a higher subscription fee and offer more revenue share for streaming and a more comprehensive catalog, something that I'd be very happy to pay an extra $5 for (I currently only have the streaming plan)

</comment><comment><USER79> Does anyone else see ISPs putting caps on bandwidth restrictions in the future and thus hampering Netflix (and other streaming companies) effors? I thought some residential internet plans already have caps in place.

</comment><comment><USER80> I'm buying NFLX shares at $147. Down from $300, I think people are overdoing how much impact the recent issues will have on the company value and future prospects.

</comment><comment><USER81> Early morning my phone buzzed that i got this email from: Reed Hastings, Co- Founder.

only reading the title, i thought poor prince of Nigeria...

</comment><comment><USER82> Looks like Netflix is killing its DVD branch and focuses on streaming branch.

It's hard to say yet how it would work out.

</comment><comment><USER83> I wonder what they'll do with customers who are already signed up for both...

</comment><comment><USER84> Video:

[http://mashable.com/2011/09/19/netflix-reed-hastings- video/?...](http://mashable.com/2011/09/19/netflix-reed-hastings- video/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29)

</comment><comment><USER68> Make your bet. Two years from now, is Netflix still going to be doing DVDs in some form--whether via Qwikster or otherwise?

I say yes.

</comment><comment><USER85> A poorly thought out point: a defensive move against the whole company folding due to some reason?

</comment><comment><USER86> This seems like an act of desperation.

</comment><comment><USER87> Netflix steaming is the new Blockbuster. I disliked Blockbuster because their stores had many copies of currently popular movies and not much else. I liked Netflix because it had an enormous catalog that let me work on seeing all of the great films that had been made in the last 100 years that I'd missed. Netflix streaming is like Blockbuster. At any given time it lets me access only a fraction of its catalog and that fraction is biased toward what is popular. Netflix steaming is the new Blockbuster. :-(

<comment><USER7> I'd love it if Netflix streamed popular movies.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best practices for SaaS billing with Stripe - <AUTHOR> Hi HN -- hoping someone could help us understand the best practices for doing SaaS billing with Stripe.
We charge a monthly fee ($100) per "team" for the customer (w/unlimited users).
Customers can have different numbers of teams but it ranges from ~10-50.
I'd like to set it up so that there is a monthly subscription ($100 per team per month) but we also offer 10% off if you pay 6 months up front and 20% off if you pay 12 months up front.
So my question: In Stripe should the 6 month and 12 month discounts be SUBSCRIPTIONS or COUPONS? The 10% and 20% discount would be applied one-time (vs. prorated) so customer would be invoiced up-front in one payment for the 6 or 12 month block.
I could create a standard month-to-month and then customize the 6 or 12 month pre-payments based on # of teams the customer uses but then I'll wind up with many SUBSCRIPTIONS since each customer has a different number of teams, which feels messy...
Hope that makes sense -- really appreciate advice!! <comment><USER2> Use subscription IMO

Have you tried Stripe [https://stripe.com/docs/billing/subscriptions/integrating- se...](https://stripe.com/docs/billing/subscriptions/integrating-self-serve- portal) ?</comment>


The New Go Developer Network - <AUTHOR> https://blog.golang.org/go-developer-network <comment><USER2> one of the perks of having big company sponsor the programming language. There are downsides, but there are some perks as well.</comment>


Suggestions for smart people to follow on Google+ - <AUTHOR>

looking for smart science/tech people to follow on google+. So far have Terry Tao and Scott Aaronson. Any other suggestions? <comment><USER2> I found an interesting profile for "Space Chronology" on G+ <https://plus.google.com/102560378763128345323/posts>

</comment><comment><USER3> You can choose some at www.socialstatistics.com</comment>


Website reveals even your private IPs. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/

<comment><USER2> It seems to ignore fact most consumers are on dynamic IPs. That makes it worse than the RIAA's technique - at least they try and get an ISP to lookup who was using an IP at the time.

<comment><USER3> While IPs are dynamic these guys do have timestamps so it does correspond to a particular computer at a particular time. You can also get addresses from DHTs...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It certainly is accurate, but incomplete.

It is only showing 1 of the 25 torrents I added to my list in the last 24 hours and have completely finished downloading.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is the best link I have ever opened at work.</comment>