38 ms·
That's been the case with books before Netflix too... To be fair, the quantity and availability of novels/fictions was pretty low before the fifties, so I gues
by 411111111111111 5y ago
That's been the case with books before Netflix too...
To be fair, the quantity and availability of novels/fictions was pretty low before the fifties, so I guess there is some truth to it... Though the timeframe is definitely longer then only Netflix's existence
- mc32 5y agoWith books you have to actually read. It’s an active thing. Vegging out on the couch or bed even, is passive. Often you don’t even have to think because it’s mostly action with lots of repetition and little mystery.
- senko 5y agoYou're moving the goalposts. Whether reading is better than watching is an interesting debate unrelated to the topic at hand. I'd happily veggie out on a couch with a favorite book series and live in fantasyland for days (alas, real world interferes...).
- mc32 5y agoI don’t think so. Of course we can read pulp. Evenso, I doubt people would read as much pulp as they’d watch all you can stream programming. Given the option of gorging on books or gorging on Netflix over a long weekend dawn till dusk, I bet most people would choose Netflix. If you randomly divided the people into those two groups and made them read and the others watch, more readers would wash out than watchers.
- Apocryphon 5y agoJust wait until VR fulfills its hype.