New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Netflix VS Walmart

post #1 of 30
6/11/03 at 6:26am
Thread Starter 
For those that haven't read the news <a href="http://www.chud.com/news/june03/june10walmart.php3" target="_blank">http://www.chud.com/news/june03/june10walmart.php3</a>

Being a corporate lemming I'm a bit more open to the service than Devin, but he makes some good points with his reservations about the service (P&S, "Family Values"). However, a quick look at their site has me interested. Almost everything is widescreen (even Silence of the Lambs, which I tried to get WS from Netflix 3 times before giving up in disgust). I haven't checked their selection yet, but the site states 13000 titles, so it can't be too bad for those interested in mainstream titles. I also noticed that it still says $18.76 for 3 movies, $15.54 for two.

But what really peaked my interest besides the lower price was this bit from the FAQ:

Quote:
The USPS will track return envelopes. When we receive information from the USPS that it has received a return envelope from your account, we will ship you the next title from Your DVD List. When we receive the return envelope at our processing center, we will remove the title from the list of DVDs You Have Out. Please be aware that Post Office tracking time and accuracy varies. If the Post Office does not track the return envelope, we will ship the next title from Your DVD List once we receive your returned DVD at our processing center.
Of course USPS sucks at tracking so it could be worthless, but it could also be a way to reclaim the "already mailed it back" feature of Netflix's early days. A feature that was very useful for those of us who's movies spend a few days in transit. Perhaps it will also help those who seem to have a high loss rate for movies, since they are tracked on an individual basis. (I know the NY area has a bad rep for movies lost in the mail).

I'm going to check out the site some more and probably give the free trial a shot. But if anyone here has tried the service let us know how it worked out. I know Netflix use to give trial members an advantage when it came to movie availability (everything was available "now" until your trial was over), so I'd really like to hear from those people who are actual members.

EDIT: while looking around for more info I ran across this site:

<a href="http://www.dvd-rental-guide.net/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.dvd-rental-guide.net/index.html</a>

Which has a nice list of DVD online rental services, unfortunately there are no reviews, but a lot of good info.

I also forgot to say that even if I don't subscribe to Walmart I see this as a good move because Netflix really needs the competition. Perhaps they will drop their prices or bring back the already mailed feature as a response...well I guy can dream can't he.
Reply
post #2 of 30
6/16/03 at 2:42pm
Here's a Washington Post article about it:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57395-2003Jun13.html?referrer=emailarticle" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57395-2003Jun13.html?referrer=emailarticle</a>

Think Wal-Mart will censor their movies like they do their CDs?
Reply
post #3 of 30
6/17/03 at 4:39pm
i took a look at wal-mart's selection, and I hate to say it, but it actually looks decent. Somewhat obscure titles (not nearly as deep as Netflix, though), and it appears that they carry widescreen only. However, they only have Rated versions (i.e. Old School -- no unrated version)
Reply
post #4 of 30
6/18/03 at 12:51am
I'm no huge fan (or enemy) of Wal-mart, so I will be giving their service a try. Assuming the service is approximately the same, I'd rather save a few bucks. I will shed no tears for Netflix - they need to move out of the Bay Area to cut costs and stay competitive. Why should I finance their lifestyle? Plus, they got rid of the cool puppy on their website's frontpage.
Reply
post #5 of 30
6/20/03 at 3:32pm
WalMart is the anitchrist of the corporate world. I would not spend one red cent on anything they offer. If you want to support censorship in the name of family values then go right ahead.

Unfortunately you will not see the error of your ways until the juggernaught that is Walmart has already swallowed your soul.
Reply
post #6 of 30
6/20/03 at 3:50pm
I'll stick with NetFlix. Time prevents me from gobbling DVD's like candy so I have their basic package which is $11 for 2 out at a time with a four per month cap. That suits me fine.
Reply
post #7 of 30
6/20/03 at 4:27pm
Censorship in the name of family values? For every massive shipment of "Monsters Inc." I see, I can also get "The Crime of Padre Amaro", "Seven", and bunches more.

They're also the only big chain I've found that carries "Equilibrium", and $12 cheaper than "Barnes and Noble" or stores like that. They always have the widescreen along with their full screen.

They have really obscure titles for really cheap prices. Yep, demons they are. We should all shop at moral stores like Target, K-Mart, and Best Buy. Or pay twice as much as the DVD is worth to make ourselves feel more holy.
Reply
post #8 of 30
6/20/03 at 4:37pm
Stew, are you denying that Wal-Mart picks and chooses what they will sell under the tent of "family values"?
Reply
post #9 of 30
6/20/03 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Scott Roche:
I'll stick with NetFlix. Time prevents me from gobbling DVD's like candy so I have their basic package which is $11 for 2 out at a time with a four per month cap. That suits me fine.
Scott, check your PM's.
Reply
post #10 of 30
6/20/03 at 5:58pm
Walmart should be stopped.

If the major corporations had their way, we would all be eating/shopping/entertaining/living/learning/screwing in the same room with no escape. I will stay with Netflix, because (to the best of my knowledge) they are a start up without affiliation to a corporation that swallows up the mom and pop stores that I so miss from my youth.
Reply
post #11 of 30
6/21/03 at 2:10am
Quote:
Guttenberg Fan Club:
Stew, are you denying that Wal-Mart picks and chooses what they will sell under the tent of "family values"?
On rare occasions they might, so what? All I can think of is not carrying "unrated" versions of new releases. Other than that they have a huge selection of both new and old, mainstream and cult releases cheaper than anywhere else. I bought "Narc" today, they have "Mulholland Drive", "Seven", "Basic Instinct" and lots in between. So someone please cite some examples of when they were denied a new release (because that's what big chains mostly carry) on account of "family values".

And besides, if you refuse to shop Wal-Mart I'm assuming its for bigger percieved things than "family values", so why get your panties in a twist over an issue that doesn't matter at store you don't frequent anyways?
Reply
post #12 of 30
6/21/03 at 10:27am
For guys like Devin, I think the "bigger reason" is their abundance of sweatshop-made merchandise, poor pay scale, and elimination of choice in areas where competing stores no longer exist.
Reply
post #13 of 30
6/21/03 at 12:45pm
Yep, which is why their title selection process seems to be a silly thing to get miffed about.

For guys like Devin living in NYC, they can't relate to a small Ohio town with virtually no retail stores, meaning that to get things they either need to pay more to keep Mom and Pop in business or drive over an hour to get a decent deal. Wal-Mart, for many of these types of towns throughout the Midwest, is a good thing. Sweat shops? Regrettable to be sure, but that's a sin committed by just about everyone these days, so singling Wal-Mart out as the "anti-Christ" is pretty melodramatic.

And they don't eliminate choice, they just have a more attractive offer. I could buy my DVDs for $5 and $10 higher at Sam Goody (my town never even had a local movie retailer), but what would the point of that be?

Being a smart shopper and getting the best deal you can on an item is not a sin.
Reply
post #14 of 30
6/22/03 at 8:28pm
Well one recent example is Walmart stopped carrying Maxim magazine because they thought it wasn't "family Friendly" enough. Now I could care less about Maxim but when anyone starts talking about censoring it gets under my skin, whether its walmart or a politician!
Reply
post #15 of 30
6/22/03 at 11:28pm
Normally I do not side with Wal-Mart, but in terms of carrying what they want, they should certainly be able to choose. Why carry Maxim if the owners of Wal-Mart, a non-governmental organization geared for profit, be forced to carry something it does not want? Is there a Constitutional right to have a magazines readily available.

Similarly, Wal-Mart is legally required (per Supreme Court ruling) to carry contraceptives in areas where they are the only business. Personally, I don't feel that Wal-Mart should have to carry them if those in charge do not want to.
Reply
post #16 of 30
6/23/03 at 12:42am
Jwing I would agree with you 100% if they said "Maxim doesn't sell or its a poorly written sacrastic rag and we ain't gonna sell it" The thing that iritates me is the whole "family values" schtick. I just don't like companies, especially companies as big and influencial as Walmart deciding whats morally proper for me to purchase.

Is it their right to carry only family friendly products in their store? Absolutely and I am sure their are a lot of people who love them for it. I however am not one of them.
Reply
post #17 of 30
6/23/03 at 9:11am
So you have no problem with a store telling what's "intellectually proper" to purchase but "morally proper" is out of bounds? That seems to be pretty shaky logic. Besides, the "family values" thing isn't to protect or keep you from doing anything. Its for parents of little kids who shop these stores constantly and may not want their kid perusing adult-oriented magazines for tips on beer and sex positions. Its not censorship, its a business. When you can buy stuff like Maxim literally everywhere else, what coud it possibly matter to you whether or not a chain like Wal-Mart has it?
Reply
post #18 of 30
6/23/03 at 9:13am
I can't buy Maxim at Wal-Mart, but I sure as hell can find Guns and Ammo and plenty of car and truck magazines with bikini girls on the cover.
Reply
post #19 of 30
6/23/03 at 1:22pm
I don't have to shop at Walmart because I live in a huge metropolitan area. I do feel sorry for those who live in rural areas in which Walmart may be the only big store around. I mean you may want someone deciding whats morally OK for you to view or listen to but for me I like the option of buying the unrated versions of movies and uncensored versions of albums. I assumed movie buffs might be into uncensored, uncut versions of films but the amount of defense for Walmart states otherwise.
Reply
post #20 of 30
6/23/03 at 4:38pm
I'm all for uncensored, uncut films, but a store should be not be forced to carried them. There's no logic behind that in a free market society.
Reply
post #21 of 30
6/23/03 at 5:45pm
Quote:
JWinge1, Napoleon in Rags:
I'm all for uncensored, uncut films, but a store should be not be forced to carried them. There's no logic behind that in a free market society.
I couldn't agree more. Consider, however, that if a store that dictates what it will and/or won't sell to the general population and is the only option due to location (as someone here has said already) or price, then you are being cut off from any other option that having a competitive store in the area would offer. For example: Demon Knight (of questionable quality, but hard to find). If you try to rent this at any Blockbuster in my area, you are screwed. They've stopped carrying it. Blockbuster has driven every other small video store out of my area. Therefore, I cannot see Demon Knight. Blockbuster, through economic means, has censored what I can or cannot see. This is not done maliciously, but it is a byproduct of the mega store.
Reply
post #22 of 30
6/23/03 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Jesse Custer (formerly:LeeScoresby):
Quote:
JWinge1, Napoleon in Rags:
I'm all for uncensored, uncut films, but a store should be not be forced to carried them. There's no logic behind that in a free market society.
I couldn't agree more. Consider, however, that if a store that dictates what it will and/or won't sell to the general population and is the only option due to location (as someone here has said already) or price, then you are being cut off from any other option that having a competitive store in the area would offer. For example: Demon Knight (of questionable quality, but hard to find). If you try to rent this at any Blockbuster in my area, you are screwed. They've stopped carrying it. Blockbuster has driven every other small video store out of my area. Therefore, I cannot see Demon Knight. Blockbuster, through economic means, has censored what I can or cannot see. This is not done maliciously, but it is a byproduct of the mega store.
Your argument returns us to ground we have already covered in this thread. It is Wal-Mart's monopolizing practices that I think should be stopped, but not their decisions regarding what to sell.
Reply
post #23 of 30
6/27/03 at 12:13pm
On an actual thread-related note, Netflix won a patent for the subscription service they run. Here's the story from CBS MarketWatch.com:

"SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- In a move that could frustrate the efforts of Wal-Mart and other potential rivals, online DVD rental company Netflix on Tuesday said it won a patent for its subscription service.

Los Gatos, Calif.-based Netflix (NFLX, Trade) charges subscribers $19.95 a month to rent many as three DVDs at a time, sent via mail service, with no due dates or late fees. When a user has finished with one set of DVDs, they are sent back to Netflix. The service draws from a library of more than 15,000 titles.

Retail giant Wal-Mart (WMT, Trade), based in Bentonville, Ark., recently started a competing online mail rental service. Earlier this month, it announced two new price tiers, one that offers two DVD rentals at $15.54 a month and another offering four DVDs for $21.94 a month.

The patent could potentially force Wal-Mart to pay royalties to Netflix. Or, should Wal-Mart assert that its model is different from Netflix's patent, Netflix could sue Wal-Mart for infringement.

Netflix averaged 70,000 new subscribers in the first quarter of this year. Rich Ingrassia, analyst at Roth Capital Partners, estimates that Wal-Mart has picked up about 5,000 subscribers a month in the five months since it launched its service.

Shares of Netflix rose $1.35, or 6.3 percent, to $22.85, while Wal-Mart rose 94 cents to close at $54.68."

This was Tuesday, and Netflix's stock is up to $25.72 as of this morning...a 11% increase in 3 days. Good for them.
Reply
post #24 of 30
7/28/11 at 11:22pm

I am also a Netfix member, but when i heard the news that they are going to have a 60 percent price hike i cancelled my membership. My friends also do that. I think we are going to switch in wal-mart streaming video via VUDU. There's a news said that, Professionals believe that Netflix's recent news of a sixty percent price hike will start to send over 2 million paying customers toward the exits. With the gaping sinkhole opened, there's a possibility that businesses like Wal-Mart will pounce in to fill the break. Through the recently obtained VUDU service, Wal-Mart will provide consumers loading HD movies and TV through WalMart.com. I found this here: Wal-Mart introduces streaming HD content via VUDU
 

Reply
post #25 of 30
7/29/11 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desirey View Post

I am also a Netfix member, but when i heard the news that they are going to have a 60 percent price hike i cancelled my membership.

 

I am getting a little tired of hearing from everyone that its a 60 percent price hike.  Yes I understand that if one had the "streaming + 1 disk" its a 60 percent hike and that does suck.  However for those only had streaming there is no price change.  For those that have 3-4 disks the difference in price becomes way less than 60 percent.  Don't get me wrong I don't love the way Netflix announced their price change, but everyone keeps on saying its a "60 percent price hike for everyone" when its only for people with both streaming and a disk.

 

Reply
post #26 of 30
7/29/11 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekT View Post



 

I am getting a little tired of hearing from everyone that its a 60 percent price hike.  Yes I understand that if one had the "streaming + 1 disk" its a 60 percent hike and that does suck.  However for those only had streaming there is no price change.  For those that have 3-4 disks the difference in price becomes way less than 60 percent.  Don't get me wrong I don't love the way Netflix announced their price change, but everyone keeps on saying its a "60 percent price hike for everyone" when its only for people with both streaming and a disk.

 



I love that the straw that broke the camel's back on this for you was a shill post.

 

Reply
post #27 of 30
11/15/11 at 9:44pm

So I just got an email from "

Reply
post #28 of 30
11/16/11 at 5:29am

I got the same email; I thought it was spam.

Reply
post #29 of 30
11/17/11 at 5:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben W View Post

I got the same email; I thought it was spam.


Yeah, me too.  I deleted it.  Then my wife started reading me an article last night about it.  Whoops.

 

Reply
post #30 of 30
11/17/11 at 12:15pm

Don't sweat it; the payoff looks to be in the form of a $1.50 Walmart gift card.

 

http://www.avclub.com/articles/youre-entitled-to-a-meager-piece-of-the-walmartnet,65295/

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD General Discussion