Making Netflix.com Faster(techblog.netflix.com)
techblog.netflix.com
Making Netflix.com Faster
http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/08/making-netflixcom-faster.html
79 comments
The code may be faster but the user experience continues to get slower, i.e., it takes more time than ever to find something worth watching. The recent UI changes simply disguise the fact that there are less titles available. Especially movies. Lots of filler, straight-to-video content that never got theatrical exhibition because the content sucked. No way to filter it out. No way to tell Netflix I really do NOT want to see this, I will never watch it, I really am not interested. Netflix will continue showing these unwanted titles to you. This is not speeding up a user experience. This is not making Netflix faster. And the user experience is really the only thing that matters.
The lack of titles is the fault of the studios. Not much netflix can do about it. Which is why they are increasing production of their own content. From a UI/business perspective many people have argued that it's always better to show a user something than nothing. "We don't have the movie you are looking for but here are some you might like" is better than "We don't have the movie you are looking for."
With regard to the parent's complaint about movies, the biggest factor is probably the come-for-the-movies-stay-for-the-TV-shows effect. Consider having 100 40-minute episodes of a TV show vs a collection of 50 ~90 minute movies. Few people binge watch unrelated movies for hours on end compared to TV series. And that "there's still more episodes left" hook is great for retention too.
But especially in TV series, there's a lot more competition than there used to be, and so prices are being driven way up. And Netflix is devoting more of their budget to original programming as well.
There's probably very little due to studio nefariousness. The studios largely want to get paid, and creators being able to choose which studios to work with is a pretty big factor in keeping them mostly honest. It's like how TV studios are willing to sell shows to other networks if they'll make a better offer than the network under the same parent umbrella -- the studio has its own bottom line and future prospects to worry about.
But especially in TV series, there's a lot more competition than there used to be, and so prices are being driven way up. And Netflix is devoting more of their budget to original programming as well.
There's probably very little due to studio nefariousness. The studios largely want to get paid, and creators being able to choose which studios to work with is a pretty big factor in keeping them mostly honest. It's like how TV studios are willing to sell shows to other networks if they'll make a better offer than the network under the same parent umbrella -- the studio has its own bottom line and future prospects to worry about.
The selection used to bother me until I realized it was due to treating it as a replacement for a video rental store. Makes sense since the original DVD-by-mail service aimed to compete in that space.
But now I treat it more like a really cheap version of cable TV. With cable, I can turn it on at any given time and channel surf until I find something I wouldn't mind watching. The specific movie or show I want to see probably won't be on but sometimes it is and the rest of the time, I'd just flip until I found something interesting.
The thing is, just a basic cable package for casual browsing and watching shows costs at least like $30-50/mo and often more. Netflix is what, $10/mo? As a replacement for "all the random channels" I find it to be quite good. I usually have a better time finding something I'd enjoy watching compared to basic cable and it costs a good deal less. For the occasional movie or newer show, there are online purchases, rentals, and more "premium" services like HBO Now. Just like cable TV, you pay extra for the new stuff.
The only thing about the new Netflix website that bums me out is that it broke the "God Mode" bookmarklet that I always used. It got rid of the endless horizontal scrolling and showed several rows of titles for each category, making for much easier and faster browsing.
But now I treat it more like a really cheap version of cable TV. With cable, I can turn it on at any given time and channel surf until I find something I wouldn't mind watching. The specific movie or show I want to see probably won't be on but sometimes it is and the rest of the time, I'd just flip until I found something interesting.
The thing is, just a basic cable package for casual browsing and watching shows costs at least like $30-50/mo and often more. Netflix is what, $10/mo? As a replacement for "all the random channels" I find it to be quite good. I usually have a better time finding something I'd enjoy watching compared to basic cable and it costs a good deal less. For the occasional movie or newer show, there are online purchases, rentals, and more "premium" services like HBO Now. Just like cable TV, you pay extra for the new stuff.
The only thing about the new Netflix website that bums me out is that it broke the "God Mode" bookmarklet that I always used. It got rid of the endless horizontal scrolling and showed several rows of titles for each category, making for much easier and faster browsing.
Not entirely. Netflix can have it, but still tells you they don't because their entire streaming library is not simultaneously available.
Netflix rotates their streaming content in an attempt to make old content look new. A series or movie will disappear for a year or two only to re-appear as though it's something brand new to the Netflix lineup, rather than a case of Netflix shuffling great chunks of content in and out of play.
I don't mind them doing that, I can understand the improbability of supporting their entire streaming library at once, just from a management perspective.
The studios do give netflix grief. It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I can't foresee any future where each of the big studios can support any ~10 a month model to show only their content. Maybe a dollar or two. But definitely no more, and it would have to be commercial-free.
There will have to be an aggregate distrubtor, whether it's NetFlix or another company, or maybe just devices to access studio's streaming channels (Roku, etc.). I don't see each studio being able to maintain the revenue to make the required streaming infrastructure cost effective.
Netflix rotates their streaming content in an attempt to make old content look new. A series or movie will disappear for a year or two only to re-appear as though it's something brand new to the Netflix lineup, rather than a case of Netflix shuffling great chunks of content in and out of play.
I don't mind them doing that, I can understand the improbability of supporting their entire streaming library at once, just from a management perspective.
The studios do give netflix grief. It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I can't foresee any future where each of the big studios can support any ~10 a month model to show only their content. Maybe a dollar or two. But definitely no more, and it would have to be commercial-free.
There will have to be an aggregate distrubtor, whether it's NetFlix or another company, or maybe just devices to access studio's streaming channels (Roku, etc.). I don't see each studio being able to maintain the revenue to make the required streaming infrastructure cost effective.
For anyone curious as to why "the studios" are not giving their titles to Netflix is because they are developing their own, independent Netflix's (i.e. Comcast is has internet TV at tvgo.xfinity.com).
Comcast makes the mistake of using their online streaming as leverage to tie people to their cable subscription model. I wouldn't mind looking into subscribing to their streaming, but I'm not interested in cable TV so they're out of luck. IMO this gives Netflix the advantage for now at least.
Comcast can charge a crapload of money for cable.
If they offer internet services at netflix prices and are highly successful (lots of signups) - if this allows a small fraction of their cable customers to cut ties, Comcast loses money.
If they offer internet services at netflix prices and are highly successful (lots of signups) - if this allows a small fraction of their cable customers to cut ties, Comcast loses money.
I genuinely wonder who has a better brand image among the general population, between Comcast and Netflix.
Most definitely Netflix. But Comcast and other cable companies have long-standing ties to studios, and are betting that if they can secure the content rights, they can win regardless.
which is why it's so important that netflix can have their own original series. House of cards, and dare devil comes to mind, but they need to do more. Once they break the strangle-hold of studios, and have their own content, they can slowly leverage their large subscriber numbers and fight the studios on even terms. I wish HBO and netflix join forces, because i see them as being more similar than different. But of course, that'd never happen...
How is just the studios fault. Do any studios refuse to license? Or is Netflix not offering the fair value. 8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to.
>8 bucks a month doesn't buy as much content as it used to.
In music it almost buys you every song, ever.
In music it almost buys you every song, ever.
Music is vastly cheaper to produce than cinema and television.
Perminute yes. The cost of producing all music ever has probably been higher than all movies ever just because of volume. TV is less clear would be interesting to see the numbers.
I'm not sure why total volume really matters that much. A more relevant metric would be production cost compared to sale price. A music album costs about $15 at the most, and I would imagine that the biggest pop records only cost a few million dollars at the most. A new movie costs around the same, but a few million dollars is very cheap for a movie with a wide release. Of course, I could just be way off on my estimates of producing a major pop music album.
Music is like 2 magnitudes less costly than TV and probably three less costly than movies. Spotify charging 10 should show you how much a full movie subscription would cost.
I wish, there's tons of stuff that isn't on any given streaming music service. Spotify has tons of stuff I miss, and I'm sure the rest are similar.
Not really (plenty of artists opt out) and the big artists that remain bitch about the price. Just like the movie studios complain.
Eight bucks a month is supporting some good quality content they are developing themselves in addition to their third-party offerings. Much like HBO has done for many years now.
I would also say the market is a determining factor in the decision to make it eight a month.
Studios don't see Netflix as fair value no matter what they offer if they think they can go do it themselves. As if the market will support dozens of independent content channels at eight to fifteen dollars a month each. People are wanting to get away from cable, not find a way to recreate it.
I'm sure Netflix would be willing to bump up the price if they could get the content and the market would pay it. I have a feeling many studios would still say no as they explore their own options.
I would also say the market is a determining factor in the decision to make it eight a month.
Studios don't see Netflix as fair value no matter what they offer if they think they can go do it themselves. As if the market will support dozens of independent content channels at eight to fifteen dollars a month each. People are wanting to get away from cable, not find a way to recreate it.
I'm sure Netflix would be willing to bump up the price if they could get the content and the market would pay it. I have a feeling many studios would still say no as they explore their own options.
HBO supports a handful of shows and movies on double what Netflix charges. Netflix makes up a lot of that on increased marketshare, but still, I'm not sure they can afford to generate a lot of content.
>People are wanting to get away from cable, not find a way to recreate it.
But it's totally unreasonable to believe you'll get the same content as cable at a steep reduction in price. Sure you can take away cable profits and delivery expense, but you have to add in Netflix profit and delivery expense. It'll be cheaper, but not by a lot. Unless Netflix increases the subscriber base, but cable and networks already had a massive marketshare.
The value Netflix provides on 8 dollars is miraculous. But most of that pricing is hinged on netflix being a rerun service. Studios sell them stuff that is old and will never run on TV again. Netflix is sort of a parasite on cable and the movie industry.
If netflix actually kills cable and broadcast TV, then who is going to make all the shows for it?
As netflix becomes the normal way to consume media the expense of the content is going to shoot up. Because media is priced based on price discrimination. If netflix becomes the premium market, it'll have to pay premium prices.
>People are wanting to get away from cable, not find a way to recreate it.
But it's totally unreasonable to believe you'll get the same content as cable at a steep reduction in price. Sure you can take away cable profits and delivery expense, but you have to add in Netflix profit and delivery expense. It'll be cheaper, but not by a lot. Unless Netflix increases the subscriber base, but cable and networks already had a massive marketshare.
The value Netflix provides on 8 dollars is miraculous. But most of that pricing is hinged on netflix being a rerun service. Studios sell them stuff that is old and will never run on TV again. Netflix is sort of a parasite on cable and the movie industry.
If netflix actually kills cable and broadcast TV, then who is going to make all the shows for it?
As netflix becomes the normal way to consume media the expense of the content is going to shoot up. Because media is priced based on price discrimination. If netflix becomes the premium market, it'll have to pay premium prices.
If you are a cable subscriber there are ways to get HBO on a cheap monthly basis if you are willing to play the cable game. How many times have people called in threatening to cancel to get a deal? Cable treats full price as something for suckers and treats their customers as such. HBO Now is overpriced and I seriously doubt it'll make much headway unless they make some serious changes to justify it.
It is not totally unreasonable to expect Netflix, and similar services, to replace cable, because most of the content that cable provides these days is total rubbish. I've been a cable cutter for over five years now and every time I visit someone who has cable I scan the stations wondering why they pay so much for all that crap. Netflix has a lot of crap as well, but I don't pay $150 a month for it.
Although Netflix does offer a great deal of content that is considered old, but so does cable. A number of stations, that are not the traditional broadcast networks, features old content and a good number of stations that produce new content simple repeat it nonstop to fill in time.
I don't believe Netflix will necessarily kill cable by itself and broadcast is making a slow comeback. Although broadcast is still niche these days, much like vinyl. But as for content? I seriously doubt there will be a lack of new content in the new wild world of no cable TV. Especially since most of the content on cable today is not created by cable companies, just broadcasted by them. There's no reason any number of content creators couldn't make a deal with Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, or any future content broadcast method to show their stuff. They do it with Hulu now, which is how I watch my new content instead of waiting for it to show up elsewhere. Netflix has several deals with content creators now.
We no longer live in the world where someone with lots of capital is required to get a project started. There are several examples of people on low budgets making good content. Premium content will always have a premium cost, but that isn't necessarily just because of the cost of production. There are numerous reasons why one show would cost more than another show, not just the cost of creating the content in of itself.
It is not totally unreasonable to expect Netflix, and similar services, to replace cable, because most of the content that cable provides these days is total rubbish. I've been a cable cutter for over five years now and every time I visit someone who has cable I scan the stations wondering why they pay so much for all that crap. Netflix has a lot of crap as well, but I don't pay $150 a month for it.
Although Netflix does offer a great deal of content that is considered old, but so does cable. A number of stations, that are not the traditional broadcast networks, features old content and a good number of stations that produce new content simple repeat it nonstop to fill in time.
I don't believe Netflix will necessarily kill cable by itself and broadcast is making a slow comeback. Although broadcast is still niche these days, much like vinyl. But as for content? I seriously doubt there will be a lack of new content in the new wild world of no cable TV. Especially since most of the content on cable today is not created by cable companies, just broadcasted by them. There's no reason any number of content creators couldn't make a deal with Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, or any future content broadcast method to show their stuff. They do it with Hulu now, which is how I watch my new content instead of waiting for it to show up elsewhere. Netflix has several deals with content creators now.
We no longer live in the world where someone with lots of capital is required to get a project started. There are several examples of people on low budgets making good content. Premium content will always have a premium cost, but that isn't necessarily just because of the cost of production. There are numerous reasons why one show would cost more than another show, not just the cost of creating the content in of itself.
If you log into your netflix account and then go here: https://www.netflix.com/TastePreferences you can boost the algo accuracy.
I see the lack of titles complaint all the time but personally I just don't find this to be true. There are tons of titles of all quality levels and genres coming and going all the time on netflix. I've made great discoveries there for new content, foreign films and tv shows, independent titles, etc. It just takes a little digging. And there are a great many sites on the internet that will tell you what is coming and leaving netflix in any given month along with making recommendations.
The main thing that affects the titles you are shown by default are your ratings. You don't even have to watch a movie to rate it. But the rating will still be used to determine what they list by default. If you watch and never rate, the algo will make worse choices. I pretty quickly eliminated straight to tv shlock by giving 1 star ratings to that type of content.
I see the lack of titles complaint all the time but personally I just don't find this to be true. There are tons of titles of all quality levels and genres coming and going all the time on netflix. I've made great discoveries there for new content, foreign films and tv shows, independent titles, etc. It just takes a little digging. And there are a great many sites on the internet that will tell you what is coming and leaving netflix in any given month along with making recommendations.
The main thing that affects the titles you are shown by default are your ratings. You don't even have to watch a movie to rate it. But the rating will still be used to determine what they list by default. If you watch and never rate, the algo will make worse choices. I pretty quickly eliminated straight to tv shlock by giving 1 star ratings to that type of content.
Basically UX doesn't have anything to do with the site's performance. Netflix have been solving great problems in development lately but they're due a good user experience uplift. No wonder people enjoy browsing their content more from other devices.
I agree with your points but at the same time their UI is now so easy to navigate that my not so tech savvy 70 year old dad can use Netflix without ever calling me and asking me any questions. So my guess is, Netflix is trying to be more like a preprogrammed TiVo with lots of content than trying to appeal to the super users that may want those features.
I find their new UI cramped and more difficult to navigate. It seems like they are trying to bury some features like user reviews, now relegated to a secondary tab called "Details" and squeezed into a scrolling view that only show two reviews on my big monitor.
I agree. UK Netflix is pretty barren, to the point where I've only watched a couple of things on it in the past two months. There's a severe drought of new/interesting stuff. I'm now considering ditching my sub.
I have a NowTV subscription which costs roughly the same and there's loads more things to choose from. I also have Amazon Prime (which I accidentally ended up with because I forgot to cancel the trial). It's problem is that I find the UI a complete disaster (and how I wish they'd release a Roku version in the UK)
I have a NowTV subscription which costs roughly the same and there's loads more things to choose from. I also have Amazon Prime (which I accidentally ended up with because I forgot to cancel the trial). It's problem is that I find the UI a complete disaster (and how I wish they'd release a Roku version in the UK)
> The recent UI changes simply disguise the fact that there are less titles available
This is exactly the entire point of the UI changes. They just don't want to admit it (obviously).
This is exactly the entire point of the UI changes. They just don't want to admit it (obviously).
The more you watch, the less there is for you to watch.
There is an app for iOS (not sure about Android) called upflix that does a great job of filtering based on reviews from several sources.
For starters.. your comment is irrelevant to the conversation, eve with your attempt to make it so. Second, you aren't locked into any contracts and can cancel your subscription at any time. Pay for another streaming service with a better UI.
They need to make Netflix work first otherwise it'll just fail faster.
Netflix has been broken on the Nexus Player for a long time. Let any show run to the end and it logs you out.
Another Google platform with little to no support only a year after its release? I am shocked, shocked. This has never happened before! /s
In all seriousness though, have you contacted Netflix support? They have seemed really responsive in the past.
In all seriousness though, have you contacted Netflix support? They have seemed really responsive in the past.
Yes, that's a seriously annoying bug. Turn off auto-play in your settings and it will fix it. Not in the player, but on the actual netflix web site, log in and check out the "Playback settings", and you can turn off auto-play. Voila!
Just try out the Wii U version, it can be worse.
I don't know what that is but when Netflix got movies working in the browser on Ubuntu I was amazed and very pleased.
Kudos for not using the word 'isomorphic'. Most people use it (in the context of JavaScript) without understanding what it really means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism.
It really grind my gears because it's not even grammatically correct to say that "Isomorphic architecture". Isomorphic to what?. An isomorphism is a binary relationship... "A is isomorphic to B".
It's like saying "We run an equals to architecture".
It's like saying "We run an equals to architecture".
I see this argument a lot and I really don't get it.
In the context of JavaScript, Isomorphic means "runs on the client and server".
Here's an article from 2011 that uses the word in this way, and includes a definition: http://blog.nodejitsu.com/scaling-isomorphic-javascript-code...
The fact that isomorphic means something else in a different context seems irrelevant to me.
I did 5 mins of googling and found the following mathematical terms also have different meanings when used in a software engineering or computing context:
In the context of JavaScript, Isomorphic means "runs on the client and server".
Here's an article from 2011 that uses the word in this way, and includes a definition: http://blog.nodejitsu.com/scaling-isomorphic-javascript-code...
The fact that isomorphic means something else in a different context seems irrelevant to me.
I did 5 mins of googling and found the following mathematical terms also have different meanings when used in a software engineering or computing context:
* integration
* kernel
* product
* scalar
* module
* function"Universal" is the new "isomorphic": https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal-javascript-4761051b7a...
> a word that describes the same code but running in a different environment
Uhm, that's a wrong way to think about it. The same code can't run in a two different environments. If it does then it means that the environment is the same! The question then becomes what is an 'environment'.
Once you start explicitly tracking what the dependencies of your code are, in terms of language/runtime support, external libraries etc, it becomes very clear what the 'environment' is (though JavaScript as a language is exceptionally bad at expressing these dependencies). If your code runs in Node.js and latest Chrome, then the 'environment' is ES5 or even ES6. If it also runs in IE7, then the environment likely is ES3. If your code also needs access to the DOM and WebWorker APIs, as well as underscore, then the environment is ES3+DOM+WebWorker+underscore.
If only we had support in the language and/or tooling around it to express these dependencies and warn us if we try to use some code in an environment that is unsuitable for it...
Uhm, that's a wrong way to think about it. The same code can't run in a two different environments. If it does then it means that the environment is the same! The question then becomes what is an 'environment'.
Once you start explicitly tracking what the dependencies of your code are, in terms of language/runtime support, external libraries etc, it becomes very clear what the 'environment' is (though JavaScript as a language is exceptionally bad at expressing these dependencies). If your code runs in Node.js and latest Chrome, then the 'environment' is ES5 or even ES6. If it also runs in IE7, then the environment likely is ES3. If your code also needs access to the DOM and WebWorker APIs, as well as underscore, then the environment is ES3+DOM+WebWorker+underscore.
If only we had support in the language and/or tooling around it to express these dependencies and warn us if we try to use some code in an environment that is unsuitable for it...
Great example for why you might actually want to use node.js:
being able to ensure your rendering code runs identically on the client and the server. That's something no other language can offer as cleanly or natively for the next few years.
[deleted]
[deleted]
scala + scalaJS IMHO does it better right now (with a lot more type safety and a lot more performance on the server)
You can't actually run a JS framework faster from within the JVM than you can in V8. And if you're writing all your code in Scala, then you're losing the productivity benefits of having a real UI framework written in JS.
I think you are missing the point.
My server code is running Scala on the JVM on the server, which is JITted down with all the magic of the JVM into native, and running full steam.
My client code is cross compiled javascript that the browser does it's thing client side.
The magic is:
1) Both parts are the same codebase, I can share data objects and logic between platforms
2) I get actual static typing on everything. Not some kind of fake static typing like coffeescript. So just the fact that my code compiles makes my code roughly equal to a mess of Javascript with a bunch of tests hitting the happy path.
3) I get to write in an actual decent language, not Javasript, the worse language to ever write in.
Javascript is the new assembly. It's great, but I never want to touch it! If I can touch a higher level language, why wouldn't I?
My server code is running Scala on the JVM on the server, which is JITted down with all the magic of the JVM into native, and running full steam.
My client code is cross compiled javascript that the browser does it's thing client side.
The magic is:
1) Both parts are the same codebase, I can share data objects and logic between platforms
2) I get actual static typing on everything. Not some kind of fake static typing like coffeescript. So just the fact that my code compiles makes my code roughly equal to a mess of Javascript with a bunch of tests hitting the happy path.
3) I get to write in an actual decent language, not Javasript, the worse language to ever write in.
Javascript is the new assembly. It's great, but I never want to touch it! If I can touch a higher level language, why wouldn't I?
Not sure you understood that.
I've been doing this for a while, after being sick of all those poor quality JavaScript frameworks and it works perfectly fine.
Usually the "main" JavaScript framework code is bloated, but kind of working, but as soon as you need some add-on or extension you are entering bug hell.
I'll just write the code in Scala, and have the assurance that it works without having to deal with unmaintained, bug-filled JavaScript libraries.
I've been doing this for a while, after being sick of all those poor quality JavaScript frameworks and it works perfectly fine.
Usually the "main" JavaScript framework code is bloated, but kind of working, but as soon as you need some add-on or extension you are entering bug hell.
I'll just write the code in Scala, and have the assurance that it works without having to deal with unmaintained, bug-filled JavaScript libraries.
I'd be interested in seeing some actual numbers for their "time to interactive" metric. As far as I can tell, this article just says that they're monitoring it, not what x% improvement they've seen.
EDIT: Forgot about this at the top:
"The impact of this effort netted a 70% reduction in startup time" -- So is this the same metric?
EDIT: Forgot about this at the top:
"The impact of this effort netted a 70% reduction in startup time" -- So is this the same metric?
Eh... I think they're different. The startup time is probably the most-improved metric that's why they dropped the 70% figure. Maybe they hint at the "time to interactive" measure as a concern for the future for practical reasons. For example, startup time is probably way before the page is ready for user interaction (video playing, buttons clickable, etc.), yet the "time to interactive" is probably the most important metric to the everyday user.
Hi, author here.
Apologies for not making this more clear in the post. The 70% reduction is for time to interactive (tti).
Apologies for not making this more clear in the post. The 70% reduction is for time to interactive (tti).
Got it. Thanks for following up.
[deleted]
I love Netflix but hate using their website. It's a constant experience in annoyance. It's slow, buggy and gets in the way of discovering new content. (Chrome on Linux on an older Atom processor -- yes I know that this is a rubbish spec but other non-webapp media consuming methods work just fine.)
What about a cross platform libnetflix and let us build our own native apps? (Like spotify do.) Or even allow integration into e.g. Kodi media centre.
What about a cross platform libnetflix and let us build our own native apps? (Like spotify do.) Or even allow integration into e.g. Kodi media centre.
Even with a gaming PC, anything graphical on Linux doesn't feel as snappy as a Windows PC, with a fresh install.
(OTOH on Linux, every filesystem operation feels 10x as fast..)
I think my problem is more netflix.com or possibly web app specific. Desktop apps work just nicely.
For all the people complaining about the UI on netflix, there is a great alternative interface @ www.instantwatcher.com . Site is written in Haskell, and is quite snappy.
And yet they still fail to address the most irritating aspect of their video UI -- all too often the video timeline controls remain visible while movies are playing and don't go away. This has been going on for _years_. They seem incapable of combining the mousemove event and a timer to automatically hide the controls...
Across various browsers and operating systems I have never encountered this... As long as my mouse isn't hovering over the controls they work perfectly for me.
I've noticed a similar bug in Chrome on a Mac where the cursor doesn't disappear when you're watching a series, have finished one episode and continue to the next episode(s).
On the first episode in the 'chain' the cursor disappears after a few seconds of inactivity, but for all subsequent episodes it does not- very odd. You have to refresh the page to reload everything to make it start disappearing again!
On the first episode in the 'chain' the cursor disappears after a few seconds of inactivity, but for all subsequent episodes it does not- very odd. You have to refresh the page to reload everything to make it start disappearing again!
Never had this happen
Probably not the place to bring this up, but I am having so many issues with Netflix app on xbox 360 lately. I'll hit play on a title, it'll load to about 15%, then stop and take me to the "choose profile" screen. Anyone else seeing this?
You're right. This is not the place to bring this up.
EDIT: OK. I guess this is the right place so, my son's XBox hangs when switching between game playing and watching Netflix. Does anyone know how to fix that?
EDIT: OK. I guess this is the right place so, my son's XBox hangs when switching between game playing and watching Netflix. Does anyone know how to fix that?
So node.js can replace Java/Tomcat? I guess I'll have to pinch my nose and somehow start liking JavaScript. Typescript looks good, that might make it palatable.
I read the article and don't think they meant this. They wanted server side (selective) rendering and didn't want the hassle of two languages so they went with node.js.
quote"Without shared rendering logic we couldn't have realized the potential of rendering only what was necessary on startup and everything else as data became available."
quote"Without shared rendering logic we couldn't have realized the potential of rendering only what was necessary on startup and everything else as data became available."
I imagine a common architecture for universal apps will be to just use some sort of thin Node.js app to perform the actual app rendering, and have it communicate with a separate API app written in whatever language is most appropriate. Static files could either be served by the Node.js app, or even a different source.
And these days ES6/ES7 makes Javascript very palatable indeed. Check it out :-)
And these days ES6/ES7 makes Javascript very palatable indeed. Check it out :-)
That's exactly how you do it :)
You have one 'Universal Application', and then you have two small entry points: - server.js is a small (express) server to send a HTTP response to the client (server bootstrapping) - client.js renders a page and the mounts it onto a DOM node.
To get around the issues of database access, it makes it a lot easier to put all of that into an API that can be accessed by the server and the client.
Here's a very small project I build (and am continuing to build) to learn about this architecture https://github.com/joshhunt/reactapus
You have one 'Universal Application', and then you have two small entry points: - server.js is a small (express) server to send a HTTP response to the client (server bootstrapping) - client.js renders a page and the mounts it onto a DOM node.
To get around the issues of database access, it makes it a lot easier to put all of that into an API that can be accessed by the server and the client.
Here's a very small project I build (and am continuing to build) to learn about this architecture https://github.com/joshhunt/reactapus
For a non-signed in session I can see some advantage in improving the swiftness of implementing supporting changes on the server for the client developers. For signed in sessions, you can't get around the database and an API update for it when the client needs some new feature or access so in the signed in case; I think the benefits of this nodejs part would be diminished.
I'm not sure if I quite understand your comment.
You can still use authentication with an API... You don't need direct access to the database to do that.
You can still use authentication with an API... You don't need direct access to the database to do that.
Aha yes, I like the look of your project ... nice work! I've got something fairly similar going on.
https://github.com/madebycomrades/autokitty-react
https://github.com/madebycomrades/autokitty-react
Oh that's awesome. I'm still trying to learn and understand the Flux/Redux pattern, my project is essentially rewritten from this https://github.com/erikras/react-redux-universal-hot-example
Your project looks like it will be a very helpful resource for learning. Thanks for the link.
Your project looks like it will be a very helpful resource for learning. Thanks for the link.
Beautiful use of modern JS development techniques: client-side rendering, isomorphic JavaScript and smaller more-efficient libraries.
Even better to see these techniques applied appropriately, instead of slathered on to the point of being detrimental.
Also, +1 for using jQuery and being proud of it! :)
Even better to see these techniques applied appropriately, instead of slathered on to the point of being detrimental.
Also, +1 for using jQuery and being proud of it! :)
> Also, +1 for using jQuery and being proud of it! :)
That wasn't the takeaway some of us read here, and honestly, that's just foolish. Take pride in your craftsmanship, never take pride in your tools. I love my hammer, but when I need a screwdriver, it's a stupid choice.
That wasn't the takeaway some of us read here, and honestly, that's just foolish. Take pride in your craftsmanship, never take pride in your tools. I love my hammer, but when I need a screwdriver, it's a stupid choice.
On the other hand, don't be ashamed of using a tool that works for the job, even if it isn't the latest or coolest thing. jQuery is no longer the best choice for a lot or circumstances, but if it is for yours, go for it.
It reads like jQuery was part of the server-rendered Java stack, and there's no mention of it in their Node/React stack.
I use jQuery and am proud of it, but it looks like that may no longer be the case at Netflix?
I use jQuery and am proud of it, but it looks like that may no longer be the case at Netflix?