3 ms·
I think he's saying NetFlix thought it wasn't adding value, which it clearly was.
by johns 18y ago
I think he's saying NetFlix thought it wasn't adding value, which it clearly was.
- jpeterson 18y agoI don't think so. The whole point of his post is that once you introduce a feature, users will demand you to keep it even if it doesn't add value.
- BRadmin 18y agowith 82M subscribers, 82-164K using this feature, and 1286 comments -- a large majority of the userbase was getting no value out of it, while a small proportion was.... it's not so easy to define 'value' in a scenario like this.
- ericb 18y agoPercentage wise, 164,000 is low for netflix. However, many people here would kill for 164,000 users.
- ajross 18y agoWell, no. I think the point of the blog post was that adding features is expensive (more so than the simple development costs) and that adding needless features is incurring needless expense. That much is spot on. The problem was that, as reality demonstrated, a "needless" feature is something that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some folks really loved this gadget, apparently (I know zilch about the whole affair). So maybe it's a poor example of an otherwise valid point.