Author: John Roberts

I’m a bit late here, but the new design hasn’t rolled out yet.

CNET’s decision to announce a coming redesign ahead of time is admirable. It shows a new respect for how disruptive change can be to an existing audience.

Current CNET logo, in context

New CNET logo, in context (proposed)

I have a few comments, but IANAD (I am not a designer).

• New logo drops the pipe ( | ) between the letters c and n: +1
  About time! Few things confused the brand more than that pipe.
• Sticking with all lower-case letters in logo, as cnet: -1
  I appreciate the nod to the original (and current) logo, but grab the chance to change to all caps, CNET, like every single text reference in the last several years.
• Logo is updated, making the red ball more obviously a ball: +1
  I wasn’t sure about this change, but when I went back to compare, I realized how flat and dated the existing red ball logo looks… and the glow behind the current red ball isn’t fantastic.
• Color scheme drops yellow and green: -1
  Yellow and green are signature, just like the red ball. Both colors have been toned down, appropriately, over the years. Dropping them altogether? Well, if it weren’t in favor of a color scheme straight out of Axe body care products, I’d probably find it more acceptable.
• Header is taller: -1
  Only reason is to fit a leaderboard advertisement. That’s the business, of course, but… sigh.

The best news? These are just opinions about the skin. That matters, but the content inside the skin still decides whether I read or not. And I continue to, mostly via the News.com RSS feeds (choose one) and occasional email newsletters (subscribe).

Note: as someone who’s led previous site redesigns at CNET, I’m not throwing stones from afar. I can only imagine the internal discussions. I hope the transition goes well, whether with the demonstrated changes or some additional nips and tucks.

My thanks to the anonymous commenter who alerted me that my RSS feed was borked. It’s fixed now, with thanks to Otto for the tip.

Now I just have to blog the 17 books I’ve read in the last few months.

Kung Fu Panda was today’s film. After a sick boy missed Saturday’s outing to see this animated movie, I accompanied him to an early evening showing. The boy hasn’t learned to restrain his reactions, so there was some shouting at the screen, some tears, and some outright laughter. I didn’t enjoy it much, but the boy certainly would give Kung Fu Panda higher than Metacritic’s 73.

Wall-E is next up on the parent-child movie schedule, though not opening weekend.

Update: Netflix reversed the decision, and is keeping Profiles. Good news!

Important starting point for this post: I’m a Netflix customer since November 2000, nearly eight years. Netflix celebrated its 10th anniversary two months ago.

Wednesday’s email announcing the September 1 demise of Profiles landed with a thud, in this household and far beyond. Separate queues and recommendations for my wife and me increased the value of Netflix’s service enormously. Prior to the introduction of Profiles, queue juggling was one more thing to think about in a world that doesn’t need one more thing. The only reason given for the change?

While it may be disappointing to see this feature go away, this change will help us to continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

Hmmm… all customers except me, and everyone else who uses the feature. However few we are (rumors are “only 1%” of Netflix customers use Profiles), Netflix is not improving anything with this move. And, frankly, in a paid service that thrives on personalized recommendations, being selfish is part of the point: why would I care about “all” customers? This isn’t water conservation or a tragegy of the commons issue.

In a TiVo world, Netflix is a supreme luxury. I have only so much time to spend in front of the (bigger) screen. With the various Season Passes running, we never lack for something to watch when we want to lean back. Choosing to watch a Netflix movie is a conscious choice, and one we’ve made less and less often over the years. By dumping a feature which I consider core to the service, Netflix encouraged me to calculate just how invested I am in my subscription.

The scorecard? Nearly 400 movies rated. Not a large number, but an interesting corpus to me all the same. I’d like this data to be portable, though I’m not focused on the issue.

Side note: proving “all politics are local,” Dave Winer — who probably doesn’t need/use Profiles — hasn’t commented on this issue, despite being an otherwise vocal, engaged Netflix customer. He should be selfish about what he wants, just as I am.

The problem is Netflix’s decision that it doesn’t want to support our diverse needs.

Returning to the scorecard… I should ignore the sunk cost of past subscription fees. Still, I’ve spent $1,239.18 (!!) at Netflix. I’ve never done the math before. This Profiles decision prompted my fact-finding, and that’s not a good thing for Netflix. Can you say recurring revenue?

I’m not quite at the point of canceling my $150/year in Netflix payments, but I’m paying close attention. The deadline on Profiles is September 1, so let’s see if this buffer period allows Netflix a way to change course.

It’s unfair to expect, but I have a mild hope that JR Conlin, newest Netflix employee, can contribute to what’s sure to be an ongoing internal Netflix discussion on this move. At the very least, Netflix needs to stand up and explain their decision more directly.

It’s possible that Netflix may be trying to fire its Profiles customers. If they are, it would be wise for them to pick up a copy of “The Right Way to Manage Unprofitable Customers” in the April issue of the Harvard Business Review, a small investment with large returns. The lead sentence from the abstract?

Problem customers can cost your business lots of money, but quickly ejecting them may not be the best way to relieve the burden.

Netflix? We’re listening.

I won’t be struggling up the Tourmalet this year, but I’ve added L’Ã’tape du Tour to my mostly-in-my-head life list. I’ve heard about various tour companies which help you ride along the Tour de France course. But it wasn’t until I read the NYTimes blog The Climb that L’Ã’tape crossed my radar. I strongly recommend the blog; it’s reaching its final weeks of life, as this year’s Ã’tape is July 8th.

L’Ã’tape is one full Tour de France stage open to 8,500 amateurs a few days before the pros come through. The roads are closed, and you ride the exact course…if you can finish it. The time checkpoints are ruthless, apparently, and the organizers make a point of picking one of the legendarily difficult stages each year.

I enjoy climbing, but I’m not blind to the fact that my training would need to ratchet up to about double what I’m doing now before this fantasy race would be realistic. Convincing the wife to join me in France wouldn’t be hard, despite her personal revulsion at the catalyst for such a trip.

If you really want to soak in the ethos of cycling, specifically climbing, enjoy the guest post from former pro rider and current team director Jonathan Vaughters. Read the whole thing for tidbits like this:

…the most important parts of bicycle races are always uphill. The tactical genius of those who stealthily hide behind the dolt plodding away into the wind up front is lost on hills. Hills put bike racing back into the realm of Darwin and the grunting cave man. The laws of nature rule on the hills, and only the strong will survive.

and

Training and techniques will make you suffer slightly faster up hills, not suffer any less.

Next Sunday, I’ll try to suffer as fast as possible on Mt. Diablo. I rode the course and the extra grueling 4.5 miles up Summit Road this morning. Glad to have the lay of the land, but I’ll be thrilled to stop before Summit road next weekend.

A few weeks ago, I stepped inside Costco for the first time in years. I avoid most of the impulse purchases which inflate the bill (exception: dried blueberries, with added sugar… blech). But for less than $10, I couldn’t pass up the bundle of The Pink Panther and The Curse of the Pink Panther on DVD.

After watching The Pink Panther, I realized that most of my memories (Cato!) must be from one of the other Sellers-as-Clouseau films. Still, the Inspector’s inspired clumsiness amuses throughout. The costume party at the end included this groaner, which I loved:

[At a costume ball, a police sergeant costumed as a zebra drinks from the punch bowl]
Inspector Jacques Clouseau: Any more behaviour like this and I’ll have your stripes! (via)

Now I have to find out which is the right Panther film to match my remembered laughter more exactly.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull earned a Metacritic score of score of 65. I had to see it because Raiders is one of the best movies ever made. And because I find myself sharing the phrase “He chose…poorly” from Last Crusades all too often.

Not much more to say than Roger Ebert already did.

I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you.

I am curious to see if these movies grab the kids the same way. USA is running the first three all weekend, which doesn’t hurt…but it’s still too early to indoctrinate them. So just our guilty pleasure.

I almost forgot I’d seen this movie a few weeks ago. Horton Hears A Who wasn’t on my must-see list, even with the kids. But when a friend wanted to see a movie, and I’d already seen The Bank Job and In Bruges, I was willing to catch this animated Dr. Seuss story. (My friend’s friend did some audio work on the film at Skywalker Sound.)

The movie is about what you expect, with visual splendor and imagination. The first glimpse of Whoville is overwhelming…you don’t know where to look. Steve Carell’s voiceover as the Mayor is more fun than Jim Carrey’s Horton. Metacritic reports a 71, “generally favorable.” I’ll go with that, and I would take the kids if I ever see it again.

After years of listening to the soundtrack, I watched the movie Garden State last night. Enjoyable small, character movie, which earned a 67 from Metacritic. That dives a bit under my score, but so be it. Peter Saarsgard, as always, sounds like John Malkovich all the way through. I wondered if they shot two (or more) endings, and then picked the obvious one after test screenings…but that’s a mild complaint.

Marvel ramps up its movie-making arm, and Iron Man is the most recent result. 78 from Metacritic feels spot on, based on what I saw two weeks ago. This is a comic book come to life, in the best way. Fun, funny, and connects the action dots pretty well. I’m not as familiar with Iron Man, so seeing Robert Downey Jr. as a high-tech MacGyver worked for me…not sure how original fans feel. When it comes to attitude, Downey’s Stork and Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine would probably get along.