[danaris]

> won't it mean that people actually get art worth their time?

It optimizes for local maxima, rather than taking the risks associated with finding larger global maxima.

Or, in other words: It creates lots and lots and lots of pretty-good stuff of particular types with broad appeal, rather than allowing diversification into some stuff that appeals very strongly to group A, some other stuff that appeals very strongly to group B, etc.

It makes the publishing/Netflix executives richer, but our culture poorer.

[jacobion]

Analysis I have seen of the effect of streaming on programming choices has been the direct opposite of this:

1. Unlike network television, space isn't limited, so you can make a good show which will only appeal to 20% of the audience.

2. The amount people watch doesn't affect revenue, just whether they renew or not. So it's now better to make one show that someone will really love, than seven shows that they will be vaguely into, but see as interchangeable with seven others on a different platform.

If anything, I think Netflix originals are overoptimised for creating cult hits along niche audiences.

[ghaff]

I don't know how it plays out in practice, but I agree that it seems as if having the must-have subscription impact of a House of Cards or Game of Thrones when they first came out would trump having a dozen meh middle-of-the-pack mainstream network procedurals or sitcoms.