I guess they could have, but data gets stale after a while.
I have to think that the real problem is that the things Netflix wanted to start to optimize for different things rather than recommendation accuracy. They have new metrics like watch time, time engaged with the app (binge watching), watch to completion, rewatch time, watch first weekend, etc. I don't think they care about offering the best recommendations anymore, just about doing whatever they can to keep you tuned into the app as long as possible. Those two things aren't necessarily at odds, but they aren't the same thing either.
Like, today Netflix is going to want to optimize for getting the most eyeballs on its originals versus content they've merely licensed from the catalog. When it was offering DVD rentals, it didn't have original content so having good recommendations was the sort of thing that would keep the service "sticky" and prevent subscriber churn.
> having good recommendations was the sort of thing that would keep the service "sticky" and prevent subscriber churn
It's the opposite. The primary cause of churn is that there is nothing a subscriber wants to watch. You might assume that a recommendation helps a user maximise the amount of the library they will watch but it actually helps the user conclude there is nothing they want to watch and leave.
Netflix wants their library to be more like a one-armed bandit. Users have to gamble on whether they will like something and they will never know they have run out. They want the user to keep hanging on, to keep scrolling, assuming something great is just around the corner, never getting to "I'm done with this".
I noticed this effect with the DVD subscription. If you added 3 discs to your queue, they would send the first two but not the third, waiting for you to add some less desirable titles to your queue, which they would send before they sent your high priority title. If your needs get satisfied, your subscription ends. It's a fundamentally user hostile business.
Netflix' key metrics are basically around retaining subscribers and attracting new ones. Except to the degree it supports those goals (and there's obviously a correlation), they don't actually care how much you watch, how much you like the content, how easily you find content you like, etc. Correlated, yes. But not one and the same.
You're touching on something I've always been fascinated about...the game being the collection and building of the library itself. I suppose it's not that different from any other hobby centered around collectibles and yet with media, especially digital media, it always felt a bit different. I'm not sure why.
I think Leo Laporte once said something along the lines of some people are tool people and other people are doing people. Some like to obsess over the tools, some just want to get work done.
I saw another similar quote about amassing knowledge is pointless if you don't actually do something with it.
I’m always amused at how home cooks all have the meme $300 knives, then you see a pro chef explain their gear and it’s a $30 knife with plastic handle.
I haven't seriously used Windows in a long time and vaguely remember some rumblings between Vista <> 7 <> 8 but have Microsoft ever really had a trust issue with respect to supporting their software? That's kind of their whole thing isn't it?
Yea, back in ~2004 it was I think $16 the first year, and if you were good, $18 bucks after the second year. If you did it for > 5 years you became something like a supervisor.
I don't miss cord noise at all. Not even a little, tiny bit. Or having it catch on things, or pull the earphone out of my ear. I'll take the miniscule risk of losing an wireless earphone (haven't yet...).
There are consultancies who provide these DD services certainly as a line of business, if not their entire business. Like any other professional services enterprise, a lot of it depends on your network and ability to generate new business, especially in the early days. If you're not in the position to do it yourself, perhaps there are opportunities to get involved on a contractor basis with firms that do.
I think YouTube, which has a paid and ad-free version along with its Live TV offering, somehow manages to still be a sleeper hit within the larger Google portfolio and doesn't get talked about enough.
What happened to the Waymo hype? If Waymo manages to break through and become a sufficient AI taxi, then car ownership becomes optional for a majority of Americans (unlike today).
1. Car infested ergo perfect venue area for testing autonomous cars, since the infrastructure is through and through car oriented at the detriment of every other form of mobility (walking, cycling, buses, trams, trains, etc)?
2. Super hot and sunny, ergo no fog, no rain, no sleet, no ice, no special weather conditions to handle.
3. Flat like a pancake, making terrain management, coupled with the nice, wide roads from point #1, so super easy mode.
Let's see them scale Waymo to at least 3 out of the following: San Francisco, NYC, Bucharest, Istanbul, Mumbai, St. Petersburg, etc.
Yes Phoenix is ideal, that is why they've been using it. I think it indicates they are more than 5% done though, is my point. Also they are operating fully autonomous public taxis in San Francisco, but not the run of the whole city, I think its just airport to downtown. But even navigating downtown SF I think is an accomplishment.
That maths sure make it a very hard problem to solve. But jokes aside I see your point. Isn’t that always the case with this kind of issues? Doing the first big chunk is relatively easy and then the final details are very hard?
Google is an ad-driven company and they haven't yet figured out to generate ad revenue from Waymo... (Having said that, it's cool that the Mountain View office building I used to go to is now occupied by Waymo).
"Urban" includes second, third, and fourth tier "cities" with low populations and no fleet of Ubers today. There won't be a market for automated ride share for most of the US.
