[jerf]

Robotguy12 did not describe a UI problem. First there was a licensing problem, then there was a technical playback problem. The movie was nominally legally available, but it might as well not have been, for how hard it was to find and then playback.

The technical problem is relatively easily fixed and probably just an isolated local issue. The licensing problem is a bigger one. For rentals, you have the problem of having to create accounts for all the places it may be, assuming you've even got the searching chops to do it (presumably one gets tired of just trying all of them by hand), and for subscription services you have the even larger problem of accumulating a $10/month service here, $10/month service there until you're talking about real money.

That reminds me, I need to turn off my Hulu service. (Seriously, not just for rhetorical point. Literally gonna go do that next thing. Edit: Yup, just did it.) We're not using it in the current season.

(Edit: Incidentally, Hulu really cut itself off here. Because so many of the shows, even with the paid subscription, only have the last 5 episodes of the most recent season, and then aggressively disappear once the season is over, I have no reason to stick around if I'm not watching anything that's on right now. There's actually two shows that I did not watch as they came out, but might have left on my subscription for if they were still available, but now they're gone from the service like they never existed, so.... cancelled. See ya next season, maybe.)

[pkroll]

Is that Hulu making the decision, or the content owners? I'm guessing they're going to keep making the wrong decisions, while the various services throw up their hands trying to deal with the insanity.

[jerf]

As a customer, I don't care. Tone note: I don't mean that snarkily, sarcastically, or dismissively, I simply mean that, I don't care. Or if you prefer, I can't care; there's nothing I can do to fix it short of what I just did.

It really is bizarre to me how protective the entertainment industry can get of its content, in a context that I am paying for it (in fact I buy the Hulu non-commercial plan, upon which they make much more than they ever could dream of with commercials, especially given I tend to watch at most two shows per season on them, so I'm really paying for it). I assume Hulu has some sort of arrangement where payment is based on viewership. Why would a TV show not want all of its episodes from at least the last season up on Hulu, prior to its distribution in some other format?

I'll be specific. I enjoy Penn and Teller's Fool Us; not necessarily my favorite show ever (and yes, I'm aware of the at-least modest amounts of kayfabe going on) but a fine late-night relax-before-bed show. A quick search suggests that it is not currently legally available in any format, though I welcome corrections. What's the motivation for taking it off Hulu? Now they certainly aren't making any money from it.

I mean, I understand greed in the general sense. I understand the principles of differential pricing for different markets and the way the entertainment complex uses time to do that with movies and such. (i.e., it's why movies come out in theatres, then on expensive pay-per-view, then DVDs, then streaming services) What I don't understand is the motivation for taking down content that is not legally available anywhere and making it impossible to make money off of, especially in light of content not likely to be available in any other way in the future (there does not even seem to be DVD sets or anything, there does not seem to be a "downstream" for this to go in the differential pricing). A similar trajectory has been followed with Good Eats, which is only very spottily available legally. (A quick search to make sure I'm not shooting my mouth off shows that seasons 1 and 2 were available but are now $100+ to buy used, because they're out of print.)

Oh, and while this may be perhaps neither here nor there, huge, huge chunks of the show are readily available on Youtube. (Not the paid part, just normal free Youtube.)

[ghostly_s]

The problem is, the whole way licensing is conceived in this industry is not for any individual property to individually generate an income. That's not good enough for studios or networks. They perceive some tremendous added value in the portfolio of shows or movie properties they have to offer. Consumers, of course, don't give a shit about this, as evidenced by their willingness to jump out of cable-land for anything that offers a modicum of greater purchasing power.

Hulu or the network are likely not making any more money off of you watching Penn & Teller's show. Penn & Teller's show is probably less-profitable per-viewer to the network, because Penn & Teller are stars with great agency who can demand a large cut of the pie. Hulu's and the network's incentives are largely to get away with offering you the properties from their portfolio with the lowest market value, without you deciding to cancel entirely. While you and many other readers here are willing to re-evaluate and cancel your streaming subscriptions on a regular basis, I suspect their average consumer does not behave that way.

[ericd]

But that hurts their brand, long term, as people get the sense that Hulu never has the things they want to watch.

[graton]

Hulu at least makes the decision to agree to those types of restrictions.

[Xorlev]

Parent said "UX" not "UI" problem. UX broadly encompasses all aspects of the experience, not just the UI. Sucky licensing hiccups, buffering, etc. all lead to poor UX.

[peeters]

Yeah but you really don't need "UX designers" to tell you any of that, nor can UX designers fix it.

[ftrflyr]

> Really don't need "UX designers" to tell you any of that

1.) Really? Would love for you to elaborate more. If you don't have a team trying to improve the user experience (i.e. user experience designers) then who will? Will you just wait for you users to tell you there is a problem? If so, then you aren't actively meeting the needs of your users insofar as you are not meeting their goals.

2.) If you are going to downvote me based on an opinion that you have about UX that defeats the primary purpose of downvoting. What I say is true, I work in HCI and UX. You very much need a team who is meeting / understanding the needs of the user. If not, the result is a disconnect between what the user actually needs and what you provide (you being Netflix).

3.) > nor can UX designers fix it. This is just not true. It is the job of UX designers to work closely with the engineering team to meet the needs of the users. I am not sure what experience you have with UX designers, but they should and often do work actively with engineers to "fix it."

So my question for you is: If you don't need UX designers (forgot about the term UX designers as it seems you clearly have a problem with how we are defining a group of people who are actively attempting to design experiences around meeting the needs of the user), then who will you rely on to ensure that the user's needs are being met? The engineers?

[peeters]

Ok, apparently I touched on quite a nerve here.

1.) I never said you don't need UX designers, I said you don't need UX designers to tell you that your video shouldn't stutter in the middle of playback.

2.) I didn't downvote you, nor did I respond to you.

3.) Yes, exactly. They can tell you there's a problem and monitor whether it's being solved but it's up to the engineers to fix it. Furthermore, I reject your implication that engineers nor anyone who isn't a UX designer (e.g. a PM) is sticking up for the customer. I wasn't belittling UX designers, but you're sure as hell belittling others.

Sorry you have had such a bad experience that you need to attack a strawman to stick up for UX designers. I know the value of UX designers. I stand by my opinion that they don't need to have ANYTHING to do with fixing a video buffering problem, or recognizing that it is a problem.

[jerf]

Fair enough.

[toyg]

> The technical problem is relatively easily fixed

except it's not. When content has to flow through umpteen layers of draconian DRM software and hardware, the chances of things going badly are very high. Will the DRM layer in your 2010 tv work with 2020 DRM "standards"? Will some 2016 proprietary DRM solution work on your 2014 OSX that you can't upgrade on your 2009 MacBook Pro?

> The licensing problem is a bigger one.

The licensing problem is the original one from where all the madness flows, but it's actually the simplest one to fix from a technical standpoint: Hollywood just has to write simpler contracts and poof, everything else fixes itself.