Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix: 'Arrested Development' Won't Crash Our Service

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the unless-you've-made-a-huge-mistake dept.

Television 127

Nerval's Lobster writes "No, the latest season of 'Arrested Development' won't fatally crash Netflix, despite comedian David Cross's tongue-in-cheek comment that the series will melt down the company's servers on its first weekend of streaming availability. 'No one piece of content can have that kind of impact given the size of what we are serving up at any given time,' a spokesperson wrote in an email to Slashdot. Although 'Arrested Development' struggled to survive during its three seasons on Fox (from 2003 to 2006), the series has built a significant cult following in the years following its cancellation. Netflix commissioned a fourth season as part of a broader plan to augment its streaming service with exclusive content, and will release all 13 new episodes at once on May 26. Like Facebook, Google, and other Internet giants, Netflix has invested quite a bit in physical infrastructure and engineers. It stores its data on Amazon's Simple Storage Service (S3), which offers a significant degree of durability and scalability; it also relies on Amazon's Elastic MapReduce (EMR) distribution of Apache Hadoop, along with tools within the Hadoop ecosystem such as Hive and Pig. That sort of backend can allow the company to handle much more than 13 seasons' worth of Bluths binged over one weekend — but that doesn't mean its streaming service is immune from the occasional high-profile failure."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539113)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539303)

Linux sucks. Get a life, fag.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43541131)

Linux is awesome, but I concur with the second sentiment. Trolling message boards for donations is scummy.

isn't the content streamed via CDN? (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43539141)

I was level 3 a few years ago and i have read that netflix has developed their own CDN as well
the content is inside most ISP's networks. Amazon is used for authentication and to store the viewing data

Re:isn't the content streamed via CDN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539187)

Yes, it's a very large lustre data store going out to many layers of CDN network. Netflix could crash the injest nodes but it's unlikely.

Re:isn't the content streamed via CDN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539287)

We paid a fortune for our worldwide network of injest nodes. The first time the traffic really started peaking the whole fucking system crashed. So we rang the supplier and they just laughed their asses off. "What the fuck, you didn't think they were real did you?", and so on. Won't make that mistake again.

Re:isn't the content streamed via CDN? (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43539233)

Yep. Netflix has Open Connect CDN [netflix.com] to help serve up content to the users at individual ISPs. As I recall, they give away server appliances [netflix.com] that hold a bit over a hundred TB of video to the ISPs, who then host it at their own expense at a peering facility they share with Netflix. One appliance is roughly capable of covering 70-90% of the content requests, according to some of the other documentation.

Re:isn't the content streamed via CDN? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43539955)

I think each one is good for around 10Gb. For large networks, the recommend putting a different server at each logical choke point. The ISP does need to show demand before getting a free server.

I also read that if your upstream provider is L3, you may already be making use of one of these, and since Netflix is already paying L3 to be a CDN, if your upstream is L3, bandwidth consumed by Netflix doesn't count towards your bill. If you need to upgrade your connection to L3, you're still responsible for those costs.

Re:isn't the content streamed via CDN? (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a year ago | (#43540219)

Show demand? Netflix does only offer their "Super HD" on ISP:s that use these free servers. So "show demand" is probably no more than showing that they really are ISPs.

You mean like last Christmas? (3, Informative)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43539147)

Yeah, I was reminded how durable Netflix was last Christmas when the ghosts of Christmas showed me the true meaning [digitaltrends.com] of bulletproof uptime.

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43539169)

Still less outages than I had with cable.

Mind you I had TWC, so if you had a reputable provider instead you may have not had this level of outages.

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539549)

Mind you I had TWC, so if you had a reputable provider instead you may have not had this level of outages.

There's a reputable cable provider?

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539437)

I don't have my entertainment 24/7. WAAAAAA!!!!! WAAAAAAA!!!!

What a jerk you are. More people will die today from lack of food than you'll ever know in your life and you have your panties in a bunch over a single outlet of the dozens you have to choose from for instant entertainment being down for one friggin night?

What a pig.

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539567)

Yes, we shouldn't ever complain about or criticize anything because some leper is starving in Africa. Let's all just shut up, everyone!

Close down Slashdot, we're all done here until we fix all the problems in the world.

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43539685)

How many lives have you saved today my bleeding sweetheart?

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (3, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43540225)

I don't have my entertainment 24/7. WAAAAAA!!!!! WAAAAAAA!!!! What a jerk you are. More people will die today from lack of food than you'll ever know in your life and you have your panties in a bunch over a single outlet of the dozens you have to choose from for instant entertainment being down for one friggin night? What a pig.

What a jerk you are. More people will die today from lack of food than you'll ever know in your life and you have your panties in a bunch over a single guy complaining about entertainment options?

What a pig.

Re:You mean like last Christmas? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43541287)

At least he's not a cock smoker like you.

Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539155)

"Cross's"

I does teh good grammars.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539173)

it is perfectly acceptable to end a possessive with an 's even if the word already ends in an S.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539201)

"Cross's"

I does teh good grammars.

Both Cross's and Cross' are correct, but the former is actually preferred. Typically you drop the s if the name is biblical, like Jesus'. But no one really cares about that anymore.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539423)

But no one really cares about that anymore.

Apparently so since there are 3 fucking posts about it in a row.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539579)

You're right, no one really cares about Jesus' anymore.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about a year ago | (#43539629)

No. "Cross'" is incorrect. You only use "s'" when the subject is plural.

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43540221)

Here are the magical English possessive rules:

* Indicate the possessive by appending 's

* Unless it's a plural noun ending in s: the nuns' habits, but the people's court.

* Proper nouns ending in s still take the appended 's normally. It's the plural that's important, not all words ending in s.

* Except for well known historical/mythological names. So it's Davy Jones' Locker, but Bob Jones's locker; Willis's heel, but Achilles' heel.

In all cases it's spelled as it's pronounced!

Re:Do these articles see any editorial oversight? (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about a year ago | (#43539583)

"Cross's" is the only correct way to make the possessive in this case. Anything else would be confusing.

No WAY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539157)

That sort of backend can allow the company to handle much more than 13 seasons' worth of Bluths binged over one weekend

They are going to make 10 MORE *SEASONS* of arrested development???!!!??!!

Let's not kid ourselves here (4, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a year ago | (#43539165)

Arrested Development is in the same boat as Firefly. It has hard core devoted fans, but there have never been enough of them. If it was really and truly as popular as its fans seem to think, it would still be on the air and it wouldn't be having to rely on Netflix to get available again. I watched the show a few times and it just didn't work for me at all. I really do not get what the big deal was. Let me put it another way - All you guys who posted about how Futurama sucks, so you're glad it's off the air - yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about Arrested Development. I will say that I really cannot think of any other show that Fox tried for so long to shove down its viewers throats despite plenty of evidence that most American TV viewers really did not care at about it and never were going to care about it no matter how long they kept it around and how many promos they ran for it.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43539177)

Most American TV viewers watch Idol and Dancing with the stars, so we can ignore their judgement as a baseline for what is good.

I am pretty excited about this, I never watched the show on TV, but found it on Netflix and loved it. Netflix has recently been doing a great job creating content so I am pretty hopeful. I am really looking forward to next season of House of Cards.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539227)

More AD? Goody!

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#43539293)

You mean the public that watched a rerun of the Big Bang theory over American idol?

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/19/american-idol-big-bang-theory/ [ew.com]

That said, I don't like firefly, though I do like Arrested Development.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43539337)

Is that supposed to be an improvement?

If slashdot allowed images, I would place the "Your not helping" meme right here.

Wow, they watched a show that belittles folks like me, instead of watching idiots sing. I guess it is better than mistrel shows.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (5, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#43539443)

One of my good friends refuses to even consider watching big bang theory, he calls it "black-face for nerds."

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (4, Insightful)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43539669)

One of my good friends refuses to even consider watching big bang theory, he calls it "black-face for nerds."

You know, that's a pretty good description. The show is full of the most ridiculous over-acting with one-dimensional (if that) characters with obnoxious voices and idiotic plotlines. I actually was looking forward to a sciency-type sitcom, but was disappointed to see it was the same traditional dross, only with "nerdy" characters. I put "nerdy" in quotes because they seemed more like socially maladjusted outcasts than nerds.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the new Arrested Development. I'm both pleased and displeased all the episodes will be released at once. I like being able to watch them without waiting a week between each airing, but the suspension is nice to savor it, and I know I won't have the self-control to make it last more than at most a week.

That said, I'm also a little worried about it. I was one of those who didn't like the new Futurama episodes (not even The Late Philip J. Fry, as it was quite depressing, even if touching), and I worry that with the actors being so much older now, some of the flair of the original show will be lost.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (2)

TJamieson (218336) | about a year ago | (#43539953)

The reason given for releasing them all at once is that while there is an order they expect them to be viewed, they can be viewed in random order to get the stories in different perspectives. Portia de Rossi said something to the effect of if you watch her episode first, Lucille ends up looking particularly bitchy, but if you watch Jessica Walters' episode first, Lindsay ends up looking bitchy.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540449)

My sister i law does not understand why I dislike Big Bang Theory (same reason you do). She enjoys the show a lot....but what really gets me is when she says that watching it is like having a conversation with me.

That really hurts.

And she means that as a complement.

That hurts even more.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#43540653)

This [youtu.be] is what that reminds me of. I think that's why they had to get Barenaked Ladies to do the theme instead of TMBG.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (2)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year ago | (#43541537)

... they seemed more like socially maladjusted outcasts than nerds.

Not to defend that stupid show, but honestly, I know some people from my Uni who (in terms of social adjustment) are way worse than Sheldon.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540009)

That's exactly what one of my former coworkers used to say.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | about a year ago | (#43540021)

posting to undo "slippity-finger-mod"....

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540621)

If your friend has never watched the show and never considered watching it, then how does it know how to characterize it?

I used to watch TBBT, kind of enjoyed the first season or two, if for no other reason than it was nice to see a show where the characters talked about science, math and video games in a positive sense. I thought that was a nice change of pace. As others pointed out, the show quickly lost its mojo and just started recycling the same stuff. I've stopped watching, but I sort of wish they had kept going, just focused more on the science/math/computers side of things instead of becoming another relationship focused sit-com.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539529)

they watched a show that belittles folks like me

You work at the cheesecake factory?

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (2)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year ago | (#43541593)

I would not say that it belittles, it just emphasizes the wrong things. Being geek is not about reading comics and playing D&D, even if many geeks do like it.

The reason I don't feel belittled by that show is because *any* TV show is like that. ER and Dr. House has nothing to do with real doctors, CSI with real cops, American Idol with real musicians, Dancing with the Stars with neither dancers nor stars.

So, cheer up, it is business as usual.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43539445)

Big Bang Theory jumped the shark the moment they started to recycle their jokes because they know the average viewer is too stupid to recognize the same scientific mumbo jumbo from season to season.

Re: Let's not kid ourselves here (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43539631)

The average viewer is not watching for that reason, they are watching the equivalent of a minstrel show but with nerds instead of African Americans. They only want a caricature of what nerds are, and they want to laugh at them, not with them.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43539327)

yep

my wife hogs the TV for AI and Dancing while i stream MLB TV on the iPad

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539415)

Most American TV viewers watch Idol and Dancing with the stars, so we can ignore their judgement as a baseline for what is good.

It's not just that Idol and Dancing are popular. They are super cheap to make. One film studio and a bunch of morons is most of what it takes. Fiction requires writers actors and sets and scripts and takes lots of other costs. Reality TV can be profitable even when very few people watch.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | about a year ago | (#43539489)

Most American TV viewers watch Idol and Dancing with the stars, so we can ignore their judgement as a baseline for what is good.

Not to blatantly contradict your logic too harshly...but you said it yourself. Most American TV viewers watch Idol and Dancing with the stars

So, yeah, I'd agree with you that most Americans wouldn't know good TV if it walked up and punched them in the face, but as long as networks base the continuation of a series on ratings, if people continue to watch Idol over something else, there's a good chance that something else is going to get the axe.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43539605)

Sure, but that does not mean these shows cannot exist on Netflix.

House of Cards does well on Netflix, Boardwalk Empire does well on HBO, showtime has seen much success with The Borgias. None of those shows are ever going to be what most Americans watch. Yet, enough do watch to make them profitable to continue to produce.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | about a year ago | (#43539947)

Right, I was speaking to the more general discussion in the thread where folks were commenting on Futurama and Arrested Development and whether or not they should be cancelled. In that sense, when you're talking about cable or especially network TV, they've only got so many timeslots to work with so they have to keep their number of shows trimmed down and consequently they want to make sure they only keep the solid performers. I totally agree with you that online distribution changes the whole game because it allows you to have an infinite number of shows and folks can pick what they want to watch. Now more shows can be produced because you've eliminated the constraint of only having XX number of timeslots in which to run shows. Shows still have to produce enough revenue for them to be profitable, but the bar for a show making the cut has been lowered.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539701)

Singing, dancing, competition, rooting for someone to succeed, laughing when others make fools of themselves, cheering, criticizing, and talking about all of the above with your friends have been part of human entertainment for millenia, and will continue to be part of human entertainment long, long after 'Arrested Development' and 'Firefly' cease to exist in our memories. Who are you to decide that the millions of people who enjoy something don't know what 'good entertainment' is? Who are you to define 'good'?

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539751)

Most American TV viewers watch Idol and Dancing with the stars, so we can ignore their judgement as a baseline for what is good.

The only way the latter statement follows the former is if you are an arrogant jackass who's stupid enough to assume that his own tastes have any measure of objective reality. It's blatantly false, and proves you to be as being far less sophisticated than the so-called Philistines you're looking down your nose at.

And I say that as someone who loved Arrested Development and has never watched a single episode of Idol or DWTS.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43539331)

Star Trek.

That being said, that was the 1960s and it's possible the show was really a victim of both poor scheduling and poor data collection.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

therealobsideus (1610557) | about a year ago | (#43539613)

I love how Netflix has most Star Trek movies available on Instant, with the exception of First Contact. Not that it was a great movie, but it really messed up my ST movie marathon.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year ago | (#43539397)

I don't think any of us are thinking that it's popular; we all realize that it wasn't popular and that's why it was cancelled.

We just realize that's it's so good it shouldn't have been cancelled.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539399)

Arrested Development is in the same boat as Firefly. It has hard core devoted fans, but there have never been enough of them. If it was really and truly as popular as its fans seem to think, it would still be on the air and it wouldn't be having to rely on Netflix to get available again. I watched the show a few times and it just didn't work for me at all. I really do not get what the big deal was. Let me put it another way - All you guys who posted about how Futurama sucks, so you're glad it's off the air - yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about Arrested Development. I will say that I really cannot think of any other show that Fox tried for so long to shove down its viewers throats despite plenty of evidence that most American TV viewers really did not care at about it and never were going to care about it no matter how long they kept it around and how many promos they ran for it.

You really want to start a Futurama vs Arrested Development pissing match? On *slashdot*??? Never mind that plenty of people like both series', you sir are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43539401)

It has hard core devoted fans, but there have never been enough of them.

How many is enough? If they're meeting payroll, that's enough.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43539463)

How many is enough? If they're meeting payroll, that's enough.

Indeed. When an unprofitable show gets cancelled -- that is totally understandable, networks are not charity organizations.

The real tragedy is when a show with low profit margin gets cancelled, because some executive decided to get a bigger bonus. That's why crap reality shows are all over the place - they are dirt cheap to make.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43539959)

This is something that Netflix can break that mold. No longer are shows competing for prime time, or competing for any time. There's only 24 hours in a day that a legacy channel can air shows. Netflix based steamed shows just need to attract subscribers, and they can show an unlimited number of different 1 hour shows in one day.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43539719)

These are for-profit businesses, and you have to look at opportunity costs. If a show only breaks even, then you may (and probably will) make more money with a different show. This is even true when showing a profit; what would you rather have, a show with $1M in profit, or a show with $20M in profit?

It sucks for the fans, but it's not illogical.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539559)

It has hard core devoted fans, but there have never been enough of them.

Arrested Development never had enough for a primetime show on a major network, but it has plenty for a distribution channel that doesn't have the same viewership requirements. The beauty of Netflix is that there's no time slots and no advertising, so viewership only needs to be high enough to justify the cost of producing the show. Netflix only needs to get or keep roughly 1 extra subscriber per $100 ($8.95 * 12) they spend on the show.

Fox, on the other hand, has to consider whether there is another show they could put in the same time slot that would be more appealing to advertisers, which either means that it targets a more profitable demographic or simply gets more viewers.

I will say that I really cannot think of any other show that Fox tried for so long to shove down its viewers throats despite plenty of evidence that most American TV viewers really did not care at about it and never were going to care about it no matter how long they kept it around and how many promos they ran for it.

They kept The Bush/Cheney show on the air for 8 years despite the fact that the majority of Americans consistently voted to take it off the air.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43539589)

We fans KNOW it wasn't as popular as a mainstream show. So because the mainstream has deemed it a failure it should die a noble death and just be quiet? Sometimes the minority demands to be heard. Sorry your delicate sensibilities are getting damaged. Probably best to move on in life.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a year ago | (#43539599)

This is one of those subjective things that you are wrong about.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (4, Interesting)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43539883)

I'm not going to pretend that everyone will, or should, like the show, but:

The reason I liked Arrested Development is because it's a serial sitcom with no laugh track that doesn't rely on vulgarity or shock value to deliver its laughs to anywhere near the same degree as other shows (see: How I Met Your Mother). I care about that not because I'm a prude, but because I appreciate that it forces the writers to be more creative, rather than regurgitating the same base jokes over and over again. AD also doesn't string the audience along for so long; again picking on HIMYM, that show will be in its 9th season before we actually meet the titular mother. Finally, I like the more varied cinematography that AD's use of single-camera shots allows.

At the same time, I think some of the above made it hard for AD to find a large audience. I know the lack of laugh track alienated some people, incredible though that seems to me, as I find laugh tracks to be an abomination. The serial nature makes it hard to pick up in the middle of a season, let alone the series, and the (slightly) more subtle humor might not be what Americans are looking for. The single-camera shots also made for higher production costs, which in turn hurt the bottom line.

How did you watch the series? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about a year ago | (#43539895)

If you saw some random episodes, then there was really not much chance to like it. That is one of the reasons the show did not pick up more viewers during its run (along with the fact that its schedule was not consistent of course).
The series is pretty self-referential as it goes on, so some of the best jokes cannot be appreciated. Also, its strength is that there is a design, things don't just happen at random. For example a certain Korean character sort of stops appearing on some episode and is not mentioned for quite a while. Many episodes later you find out the reason.
Also, the characters are so extreme that for the first few episodes you can't easily "feel" them (or for them) which sort of kills it. I started watching the show because a friend of mine (Seinfeld fan) told me it was great. For the first couple of episodes I was really unimpressed and it was mostly for the aforementioned reason. But I watched another, then another and got hooked. I now yell at my friend when he tries to compare the best American comedy series (Arrested Development) with stuff like Seinfeld.
But of course it is a comedy and humor is highly subjective. And I am also very subjective when I tell you that if you don't like it (after watching at least the first 3-4 episodes) you are probably a humorless idiot. Or you might need to see an analrapist.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43539931)

Nah, Fox royally fucked up Firefly. Arrested Development had three seasons to do it right. Fox didn't even finish airing Firefly's first season.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43540415)

Indeed, it is in the same boat as Firefly. Like Firefly, I had never even heard of Arrested Development until long after it had failed to attract enough attention to survive on the air, and immediately fell in love with it once I had been introduced. I claim that, in both cases, it was less about being too much of a niche show, and more about completely failing to ADVERTISE just what an awesome show it was. It doesn't matter how many people *would* have loved it, if they never even knew it existed (or, frequently in the case of Firefly at least, knew it existed but thought from the ads that it was a completely different sort of show than it was.)

Re:Let's not kid ourselves here (1)

fazookus (770354) | about a year ago | (#43540701)

I think you have to come from a highly dysfunctional family to really appreciate this... I did have a really dysfunctional childhood and loved the show, two friends from relatively normal families just didn't get it.

13 seasons? (2)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#43539171)

Sounds great to me!

Re:13 seasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539627)

Apparently, they never stopped making them, they just stopped airing them.

Free Advertisement (1, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#43539203)

You realize that this is a non-paid advertisement for Netflix and 'Arrested Development', right? This is in no way news. It is in no way for nerds. The nominal tie-in to "cloud computing" doesn't change that.

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43539251)

You do realize this was posted to the "entertainment" section, right? Nerds watch TV for entertainment, and this is new, so this is news for nerds. That you don't care about it doesn't change that.

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539299)

"Free"? I've always assumed slashdot gets paid for posting these "articles".

Re:Free Advertisement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539311)

... and yet *you* read, and dignified it with a comment.

Working as intended.

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539393)

No shit, sherlock. why the fuck did you comment?

Re:Free Advertisement (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#43539573)

Same reason you did. No life and nothing better to do. Thanks for asking.

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539897)

Same reason you did.

Not really no.

I would be interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539473)

I would be interested in NetFlix' data center configuration.

They are on of the very few online businesses where I'm impressed what they are doing and interested - technologically.

Since what they do - exactly; like their network topology and data systems - this little piece of information will help me get an idea of what they're capable of handling.

What would REALLY impress me is if NetFlix hosted the premier of some blockbuster movie - like the next Star Wars movie.

That, I think, would tank their systems.

Re:Free Advertisement (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | about a year ago | (#43539515)

It'd be useful if the article mentioned WHY a netflix spokesperson went this e-mail to slashdot. If they did it out of the blue, then you're right. If slashdot for some reason reached out to them for comment, then yeah it's still unpaid advertising, but it's unpaid advertising because slashdot decided for some reason that this was newsworthy.

Re:Free Advertisement (4, Insightful)

CODiNE (27417) | about a year ago | (#43539587)

It's news to me that Netflix can pick up new seasons of canceled shows. That's great news for shows that do better on DVD than on the air.

Re:Free Advertisement (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43539735)

I don't like the show at all, but I find it interesting that Netflix has picked it up because I know a couple friends that love the show to death.

Re:Free Advertisement (1)

ChronoFish (948067) | about a year ago | (#43539761)

Computer Nerds are a large part of the Arrested Development "cult" and every mention of the show/movie is considered news.

-CF

It is news for nerds (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43539795)

News that was just about House of Cards of the other Netflix shows, I'd agree with you.

But among "Nerds", Arrested Development seems REALLY popular, and so even arbitrary news about it would apply - and an article related to server configuration and Arrested Development DEFINITELY is News for Nerds.

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539923)

> You realize that this is a non-paid advertisement for Netflix and 'Arrested Development', right?

What makes you so sure it is non-paid?

Re:Free Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540755)

Said the comment that is in no way relevant.

Gob? (4, Funny)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about a year ago | (#43539243)

'No one piece of content can have that kind of impact given the size of what we are serving up at any given time,' a spokesperson (Gob Bluth) wrote in an email to Slashdot.

to be soon followed by "I've made a huge mistake."

Re:Gob? (1)

ChronoFish (948067) | about a year ago | (#43539789)

I think I just blue myself

Nothing to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539367)

Most people under 30 have never even heard of this show, and the rest of us are too busy with real lives to be patiently waiting to load the first new episode at the stroke of midnight on the day they're released.

Re:Nothing to worry about. (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#43539451)

You obviously don't know many people under 30

Re:Nothing to worry about. (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43539737)

I was always under the impression that it's the under-30s who like the show the most. At least, that's been my general observation.

Re:Nothing to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540389)

It's unlikely, because it went off the air a decade ago, and most 20 somethings today wouldn't have been into a show like this.

Re:Nothing to worry about. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#43541411)

it went off the air a decade ago

It actually started on the air a decade ago, and was canceled seven years ago.

most 20 somethings today wouldn't have been into a show like this

It was a later-night comedy, and not obscene, so teens in 2003-2006 would have been the perfect demographic; they could watch it after the 'rents went to sleep, laugh, and feel like they're older with all the "adult" themes.

No one piece of content can have that kind of ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43539511)

Challenge Accepted.

Re:No one piece of content can have that kind of . (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43539725)

Wrong show.

Expectations... (1)

lucmove (757341) | about a year ago | (#43539781)

I love AD, but I am quite ready to be disappointed. I suspect these so-called new "episodes" will just be some kind of mock promotional short content made to create some hoopla and... in short, a publicity stunt. Not real episodes.

Now, are American Idol and DWTS really that cheap to make? I've read that the judges, celebrities either we like it or not, make some pretty high salaries for just sitting there and going all blah blah blah about whatever it is they talk about in these shows. Doesn't seem so cheap to me.

The news for nerds angle: Netflix may kiss my ass until Linux is supported. I will get my copies in teh torrents and watch the episodes for free simply because that will be the only way for me. I wouldn't install Windows just to see Arrested Development, even if Portia de Rossi were completely naked in it.

Amazon? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43539793)

Amazon has been beefing up their video services lately (see the pilots they released yesterday) and will be releasing a set-top box for amazon video. It's well known that they fuck over 3rd party sellers (monitoring what's popular and then selling it themselves). If I was Netflix, I would find somebody else to do business with.

Show that good? (1)

darth_borehd (644166) | about a year ago | (#43539831)

I've never watched Arrested Development. I didn't think it was that popular.

Re:Show that good? (1)

Jerslan (1088525) | about a year ago | (#43540665)

Critically acclaimed but didn't do well in ratings. One of the problems is that it really was a show structured for binge watching. Sometimes they would setup a joke in an episode that wouldn't pay off until 3 episodes later.

Personally, I loved it, but I caught it after it was cancelled when I rented it on DVD.

Big Data wordwank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43540357)

Mapreduce, Hadoop, Hive and Pig have precisely *nothing* to do with how capable Netflix is of serving traffic. Those are non-realtime data warehousing and query systems, and are most likely used for analyzing usage logs in various ways. S3 by itself is more than enough justification for Netflix being prepared to handle the onslaught.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43541171)

People watch that show? I thought thats why it went off the air... nobody watched it...

People want to pay money to watch it again? Dont they know you can go get a torrent of the entire complete all seasons in one pack? Free...

So now they want to give money to the people who canceled the show in the first place?

No... no... this entire story makes no sense at all... I don't believe a word of it.
Nobody can be that all around stupid...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?