Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

It doesn't matter what stream stuff means. It is still an impressive number for what was once a small secondary benefit. It shows growth of the platform and it is silly to always find ways to tear it down for whatever reason. What is wrong with allowing Amazon to have success?

Nobody is talking about not "allowing Amazon to have success". Where's that coming from?

"Members have streamed shows" is a very vague metric, is all I'm saying. We have no idea how many of those 175 million people clicked on Prime Video to see what it's about, saw a rolling ad or whatever but never actually watched anything, yet now get counted as "having streamed a show". Of course that's an extreme example - that's my point. You saying "but it's an impressive number!" is logically fallacious here, because my whole argument is that we don't know what that number really represents. I'm not saying it IS inflated or by how much - I don't know. But neither do you.

This isn't about sticking it to Amazon, this is about what data we have, and what claims we can reasonably make.

[rhorle]

Nobody is talking about not "allowing Amazon to have success". Where's that coming from?

From trying to * a statement to investors for no real reason? It says streamed show or movies and not "opened up Prime Video interface". You aren't even suggesting things that fit the statement to investors. It is an impressive number. It isn't logically fallacious to state that. We know what the number really represents. 175 million accounts have used Prime Video to stream shows or movies for that yearly period. A 70% growth for the service.

[Biomega]

From trying to * a statement to investors for no real reason? It says streamed show or movies and not "opened up Prime Video interface".

We have no idea. You are INTERPRETING it that way - my point is that they could mean any number of things with "streamed a show or movie", including things that introduce distortions that run counter to your interpretation. DID they? I don't know. Neither do you.

It is an impressive number. It isn't logically fallacious to state that.

Yes, it is, because you don't know if it's impressive or not. What if 100 million out those 175 are people who watched less than 5 minutes? That wouldn't make it an "impressive number". Is that what's happened? I don't know. AND NEITHER DO YOU, but you ASSUME that it's not like that despite you having no idea about the deeper meaning behind the metric - that's why it's fallacious to just call it "impressive", because we don't actually have information that warrants such a verdict.

[rhorle]

We have no idea. You are INTERPRETING it that way

Are you suggesting that a CEO of a company lied to investors during federally regulated reports? It being 1 minute or 1 year of content for those users is irrelevant to the statement. You keep trying to bring in things to make the statement less impressive. 175 million of a 200+ million user base using a service is impressive. 70% growth year over year is impressive. That is 87% of subscribers using Prime Video (cutting off at 200 million even though Amazon announced 200+ around the same time). That isn't impressive?

You are trying really hard to spin it into a negative.

[Biomega]

Are you suggesting that a CEO of a company lied to investors

If I'm suggesting anything, it's is that you apparently didn't carefully read my previous comments, where I specifically mentioned how numbers can be used to seem a certain way WITHOUT ACTUALLY LYING.

I'm in no way saying or suggesting that they're lying. I'm saying that the way they present that number lacks sufficient context or explanation for it to lend itself to any kind of reasonable data analysis. I don't know what to do with that number, because it could mean anything.

It being 1 minute or 1 year of content for those users is irrelevant to the statement.

But not to the interpretation. There's a VAST difference between 175m users watching for 1 minute each or 1 year each. Suggesting that it's all the same does nothing except betray gross ignorance about the way statistics or data analysis are done.

You keep trying to bring in things to make the statement less impressive.

No. I'm not making any value judgement at all. I couldn't, reasonably. There's not enough data for me to know if it is or isn't impressive. Nor for you to know, either. THAT is my point.

[rhorle]

If I'm suggesting anything, it's is that you apparently didn't carefully read my previous comments, where I specifically mentioned how numbers can be used to seem a certain way WITHOUT ACTUALLY LYING.

Giving misleading information is still a no-no in SEC reports. This isn't a forwarding looking statement that would be covered by that general warning either. The statement doesn't need more context. 175 million of Prime subscribers used streamed something on the Prime Video platform for that period. A 70% growth for the service. There is nothing more that needs to be said for it to be impressive numbers for what started as a small side benefit 10 years ago.

There is enough data to know it is impressive. Why wouldn't a 70% growth or about 87% of total subscribers using a secondary service be unimpressive? You keep trying to be negative here while refusing to admit that is what you are doing. Anything that doesn't meet your negative viewpoint is labeled illogical or fallacious.

[Biomega]

There is nothing more that needs to be said for it to be impressive numbers
[...]
There is enough data to know it is impressive. Why wouldn't a 70% growth or about 87% of total subscribers using a secondary service be unimpressive?

I didn't say it was "unimpressive". I said I don't know if it's impressive or not (and neither do you). It certainly SEEMS impressive if you interpret it strictly the way you're doing, but the data in and of itself allows for other interpretations as well, which you simply discount or disregard. Objectively speaking, there is no way you can reasonably make that assessment. I don't know if the investors had access to more data than a condensed, simplified press release. It's very common for press releases to just go "80% growth!" but that's not real data. Real data is pages upon pages of tables and graphs, with tons of context and detail. With that, you may arrive at some kind of value judgement; with a PR-sanitized single-number label without context or depth, you cannot (not reasonably anyway).

You keep trying to be negative here while refusing to admit that is what you are doing. Anything that doesn't meet your negative viewpoint is labeled illogical or fallacious.

I don't have a negative viewpoint. I have a neutral one. Refusing to underwrite a positive viewpoint does not equal endorsing a negative viewpoint. The negativity comes from YOUR interpretation - in fact you're doing the very thing you so haphazardly accuse me of, namely immediately assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your positive interpretation of things must therefore have a negative one. That's just not how it works. And that's why you're running into illogical statements and fallacies.

[rhorle]

I agree that some changes are fine, and Jackson’s work illustrates that.

Which is amusing since the Tolkien estate feels Mr. Jackson didn't capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. It really shows how "spirit of Tolkien" is a nebulous thing that each fan uses has a different definition for depending on how they perceive an adaptation. If the work is liked then it captures that spirit even if those closest to creator disagree. If a work is disliked then it goes against that spirit and things are nitpicked that otherwise wouldn't matter.

A trip to Valinor as a reward can make sense if there is not an unlimited amount of ships to make the trip. Instead of waiting in "the queue" they were rewarded with priority access. The next available ship. Did Tolkien ever write about the exact process for deciding who goes on what ships? What you are calling a misrepresentation is something you are actually projecting onto the encounter. As the show never says that Elves can't go back at will only that a trip back is given as a reward. An honor that has a secondary purpose of stopping them from "seeking evil" that the elven council wanted them to no longer do.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say it was "unimpressive". I said I don't know if it's impressive or not (and neither do you). It certainly SEEMS impressive if you interpret it strictly the way you're doing

So if we interpret plainly with no ulterior motive it is impressive. Yet we can't know if it is impressive? Lmao. You really are trying your hardest to come off as neutral even though every response is you trying to find a way to "interpret" it in a negative fashion. This wasn't a press release. It was part of the official Quarterly Report in 2021. It doesn't need real data in order for the summary to be impressive. As you even said that it is impressive with out the bias of interpretation. Strange, right?

That when you interpret it is no longer impressive yet you are neutral and free from bias.

[Biomega]

So if we interpret plainly with no ulterior motive it is impressive.

What "ulterior motive"? What's that about?

You cut off the most important part in that quote: you disregarding other possible interpretations. You can't just go "well it could be all roses and sunshine!" and ignore the possibility of thorns and rain. You don't KNOW it's all roses. Nor do you know it isn't. But you turn your ignorance into a selective bias. That's the problem here.

even though every response is you trying to find a way to "interpret" it in a negative fashion.

I'm saying those are all POSSIBLE outcomes that you simply ignore or assume are not true, at least not to any significant degree. But you don't know that. You just ASSUME so, and accuse anyone who doesn't simply discount all the possible negative interpretations as having "ulterior motive". That's disingenuous and fallacious.

This wasn't a press release. It was part of the official Quarterly Report in 2021. It doesn't need real data in order for the summary to be impressive.

It does. You just either choose to ignore other possible interpretations, or you just don't know how data analysis works, and are happy to just go with underinformed and/or biased interpretations. Which you're free to do. If I was an investor, I'd want more data; I don't know if I'd get it, but a one-sentence wishy-washy number hit real data does not make. Business data is very complicated. There's entire companies with entire teams of people trying to get behind what various metrics really mean and how they come about.

You apparently are content to just stick your fingers in your ears, go LALALA real loud, and somehow know the truth. That's great. I myself am not gifted with such clear insight, so I need more information if I'm to make a value judgement. Until then, I simply don't make one.

[rhorle]

A trip to Valinor is not a reward if a core part of every character’s identity in that discussion is that they don’t want to go and have refused opportunities to go in the past (which every single one of them did at the end of the War of Wrath).

Right. Their service to the High-King and Galadriel kept them from going for years. Their service is over and they are given a reward of a priority trip. That doesn't contradict anything from Tolkien. Unless you have some direct passages rather then your opinion. If Tolkien says that some cling then what has the show shown to be a contradiction from that? Some cling, some have not. A trip is given out as a reward to encourage some who were "clinging" for various reasons to make the trip.

If you set aside biases against the show then it doesn't appear to go against the spirit of Tolkien.

- - - Updated - - -

What "ulterior motive"? What's that about?

How do you not even acknowledge this? You keep trying to interpret it as something other than face value. When taken at face value you have admitted that it is impressive. This entire discussion is about you trying to find ways to discredit that face value and argue why it can't be used. Even saying it is a fallacious to take it at face value and instead it needs to be interpreted according to your opinion to be logical.

There is no other possible interpretation that matters. Prime Video saw 175 million users streaming content as of Q1 2021. It saw a 70% growth year over year. That was 87% (or less) of the 200+ million Prime subscribers using the service. An impressive statistic that isn't any less impressive if they only watched 1 min or an entire year. They were still active users of the platform at some point over the year.

[Biomega]

How do you not even acknowledge this? You keep trying to interpret it as something other than face value.

I'm not acknowledging this because that's not what I'm doing. It's what YOU are doing, by asserting that the "face value" means what you think it means, and couldn't possible mean anything else.

I've been saying repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that I don't know one way or the other, and that's WHY I choose not to go with a particular interpretation the way you are (let alone asserting that's the "face-value" one). If I give negative examples it's not because I believe those to be true, but because I don't know them NOT to be. You seem to be convinced that they're not in play; but you have no reasonable basis for that assumption, given the data provided. That's called a bias. Not a "ulterior motive".

If anything, my "motive" is sound epistemology. I want to KNOW, to the best degree possible, what's actually the case. If I can't, because the data isn't good enough, then I'm fine saying "I don't know one way or the other". You don't seem to be, and prefer to go with interpretations you have no reasonable justification for.

When taken at face value you have admitted that it is impressive.

No. When taken THE WAY YOU INTERPRET IT, it seems impressive. You cannot simply assert that is the "face value" of it without being biased.

There is no other possible interpretation that matters.

You're certainly free to think so. You have no objective, reasonable justification for that assumption, but you're free to make it. I choose a higher standard of evidence, and demand better data before I make value judgements. You don't have to. You're free to take any data and interpret it in any way you like - even unreasonable, unjustified ways.

[rhorle]

No. When taken THE WAY YOU INTERPRET IT, it seems impressive. You cannot simply assert that is the "face value" of it without being biased.

What? Face value is biased now? How can you keep claiming you don't have a negative view when a neutral view is biased. Lmao. It doesn't matter what the underlying data is for the statement to be impressive or not. 70% growth is still a good thing, right? What % of growth would be impressive? How many users using a secondary benefit would be impressive to you? You keep bring up "we need more data" as a way to discredit a simple statement.

[Koriani]

Right. Their service to the High-King and Galadriel kept them from going for years. Their service is over and they are given a reward of a priority trip. That doesn't contradict anything from Tolkien. Unless you have some direct passages rather then your opinion. If Tolkien says that some cling then what has the show shown to be a contradiction from that? Some cling, some have not. A trip is given out as a reward to encourage some who were "clinging" for various reasons to make the trip.

- - - Updated - - -
How do you not even acknowledge this? You keep trying to interpret it as something other than face value. When taken at face value you have admitted that it is impressive. This entire discussion is about you trying to find ways to discredit that face value and argue why it can't be used. Even saying it is a fallacious to take it at face value and instead it needs to be interpreted according to your opinion to be logical.

There is no other possible interpretation that matters. Prime Video saw 175 million users streaming content as of Q1 2021. It saw a 70% growth year over year. That was 87% (or less) of the 200+ million Prime subscribers using the service. An impressive statistic that isn't any less impressive if they only watched 1 min or an entire year. They were still active users of the platform at some point over the year.

Sorry, you're not 'getting' Biomega's point at all. That is either purposefully because you just want to argue, or because you don't understand.

If you can't understand why that statement is less impressive if it means 175 million users watched for 5 minutes vs 5 hours then I don't think anyone will be able to explain this to you.

If you can't understand why (for example) the pandemic might pad those numbers (as they are reporting on 2021), in that 'year over year growth' and thus, being a 'one time' occurance, means that 'growth' means less than it would if it was a year without the world being locked in - then I don't know how anyone can explain it. ALL Streaming providers (i'd wager) saw subscription and viewing growth after 2020/early 2021 so if you don't see those numbers in comparison to other companies you don't know how impressive, or how 'common' it might be.

But looking at stats and data, studying stats and data, the 'unbiased' look is that yes, that appears to be a high number and COULD be impressive but without more actual detail and comparison with other companies we don't actually know how much better, or not, that is then say for any other company on any other year.

Data and Stats can be "interpreted" to mean all sorts of things depending on who's looking at them and the way they are being used. All of those interpretations could be 'true' given a certain set of conditions, and then 'not true' in other conditions. That's just how stats works (unfortunately). If you don't believe me, go google a few "Worst Violent Crime City" lists and watch how many different rankings and cities you come up with even though they are all supposedly using the "same statistic".

It IS Growth for Amazon, sure, but that's all it means. If you find it impressive, great, but as someone who has been trained with/on statistics, I'd need more comparisons to find it 'impressive.' (For example - if Apple+ and Disney had 80% growth, or 245 million subscribers, or 'none watched less than 10 hours' in that same time period, Amazon is no longer 'impressive.' Hell, if Amazon had an 80% increase each year in the first three years and now has 70% it would be less impressive.)

And, depending on what happens post-pandemic as people return to theaters and "normal indoor time" habits (ha), that giant number could SEEM like a huge loss/crash if the numbers suddenly go down. When really it might just be a 'return to normal' and not even a concern to investors or to Amazon - though media/common folks might see that 'big down turn' and think it means SOMETHING.

Stats are funny like that. You think you can trust the math on surface value, but you really should look deeper if you want to know whatever 'truth' its talking about.

[rhorle]

The Nielsen numbers are in for 10/10 to 10/16. There was 1,137 million minutes with 8 episodes. An impressive comeback from the 966 slump the week starting 9/26. It will be interesting to see how the numbers hold up post-finale. They should at least grow for one more week since episode 8 was only out for 3 days of the current numbers.

https://www.nielsen.com/top-ten/#streaming

- - - Updated - - -

Your threshold of "that doesn't contradict anything from Tolkien" stance is hopeless to argue with.

Right. Because your threshold doesn't actually exist to begin with. It is your opinion rather then something tangible. Don't try to put this on me when the little evidence you've provided doesn't actually contradict anything.

[rhorle]

If you can't understand why that statement is less impressive if it means 175 million users watched for 5 minutes vs 5 hours then I don't think anyone will be able to explain this to you.

70% growth isn't impressive because not everyone might have used the service 100% during that growth? All you are doing is trying to spin it in a negative fashion and explain why that negative spin could apply. It still doesn't make the statistics less impressive then they are. Given the context that spawned this tangent was people calling it a "Secondary benefit few likely use".

Yet when met with a statement that contradicted their opinion of the service they try their hardest to discredit an impressive statistic. It being boosted by the pandemic is irrelevant. It potentially being 175 million people watching 1 minute of one movie is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. I'm not interested in what you have to say. I very, very rarely see anyone in this thread agree with you, you just argue with everyone and ruin the level of conversation in the thread. Right now this thread is about you arguing with me, Biomega, and Koriani. It's tiresome.

So I'm ruining discussion when you are the one arguing about me rather then the discussion? Lmao. At least have the decency to take accountability for your own posts. I can't control you no matter how much you want to blame me for your own posts.

[rhorle]

So please, leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Troll elsewhere.

I can't force you to stop responding. If you don't want to discuss then don't. If you ignore when I post then continue to do so or let the forums do so. Continuing to derail the thread to just to blame me is silly. It is amusing much you have strayed from the topic simply because I asked you to prove how it contradicts Tolkien's writing.

I will even make it easy for you. The following link should add me to your profile's ignore list. You'll never have to see a post I make again unless someone else quotes it. https://www.mmo-champion.com/profile...gnore&u=534195

[Biomega]

What? Face value is biased now? How can you keep claiming you don't have a negative view when a neutral view is biased.

But you're not espousing a neutral view. You're claiming that the "face value" of "175m users streamed a show" isn't subject to distorting effects like very low views per person etc. to any significant degree. That's already a particular interpretation (and the implicit exclusion of other intepretations) that you somehow purport to be "neutral". That's the bias.

And by the way: "face value" means nothing. It doesn't somehow give more legitimacy to something, or make data more accurate, or exclude problematic interpretations. It's a meaningless red herring from the get-go.

It doesn't matter what the underlying data is for the statement to be impressive or not.

"Impressive" is a value judgement, which in turn means it's intrinsically contingent on the underlying data. It's impressive IF AND ONLY IF the data is interpreted in a certain way; as proven by my earlier example that if you interpret it differently, it ceases to be impressive. Your claim of it simply being impressive as a default obscures that contingency. That's why it's a bias - it holds true only for certain interpretations, which are NOT derived via objectively justifiable conclusions from the given data.

Your mistake is simply the constant return to it being "impressive" as though that was self-evident fact, when the whole point I'm making is that it can't be evaluated as such. Not with the given data.

70% growth is still a good thing, right? What % of growth would be impressive?

That depends entirely on context. "Growth" is another very vague metric. It's used in shorthand, or summaries, or simplified statements. It's MEANT to sound impressive given the kind of document it appeared in, but the absolute number means very little without crucial details.

What's especially ludicrous in your example is that those 70% are in reference TO THE DATA ALREADY IN QUESTION, which means we have no idea how to interpret this.

What if of those 70% extra "stream hits" 60% tried watching for 5 minutes, then never came back? They'd show up the same way in this data, and it'd be treated as "growth", but what that would actually MEAN is that the company massively FAILED in conversion rate because 86% of the people who gave it a shot turned it off immediately. Of course I don't think that's the case, but it's at least a POSSIBLE interpretation of the same data that you cannot exclude, and that has relevance even at much lower degrees of realization. So, again - I don't KNOW what this means, because I can't tell from the data provided how good of a thing this is or isn't.

You keep bring up "we need more data" as a way to discredit a simple statement.

That's sort of the point? I'm saying the statement is too simple to allow for a value judgement. Your response seems to be "lol look at this guy saying this simple data is simple!" which only reinforces my impression that you are simply completely out of your depth here. You just don't know how data evaluation works. Many people don't. Statistical (and stochastic) illiteracy (or innumeracy) is one of the biggest shortcomings of most contemporary education systems. It's WHY companies push simple numbers so much - it's easy to create any number of impressions with them, without ever actually telling lies.

[rhorle]

But you're not espousing a neutral view. You're claiming that the "face value" of "175m users streamed a show" isn't subject to distorting effects like very low views per person etc. to any significant degree.

No. I am saying regardless of anything of that it is an impressive statement. 70% growth and 85%, or whatever, of total Prime subscribers using the service. That is impressive at face value. All of the other data, to make that statement false/negative, is irrelelvant. There is no way to ever report an easy to share statement if you have to always account for every little deviation. You are saying we can't take the statement at face value because Amazon didn't provide the impossible by breaking down every data point related to those 175 million users. Lmao.

Remember this started with you making the statement that most customers think of Prime Video as a secondary benefit. Yet it isn't impressive that a lot of those customers have actually engaged with the service?

- - - Updated - - -

Done. Guess it's the best I can hope for, huh?

If you can't actually control yourself and do what you say you want then yes. The forum forcing you to ignore me is the best you can hope for. I'm not sure why that is a question that needs an answer.

[Triceron]

Sorry, you're not 'getting' Biomega's point at all. That is either purposefully because you just want to argue, or because you don't understand.

He just wants to argue.

He's done this multiple times, practically every time, in any discussion that involves speculation or unknown factors. He will try to disprove people's arguments on the blatant fallacy of absence of evidence, and it's incredibly ignorant.

At this point it's impossible for him to not be willing to change his ways. He's doing it on purpose because he literally has nothing else to do but argue and try to prove people to be wrong, because shitposting and trolling is literally the only think he's invested in at any conversational level. It's like some OCD bullshit.

[Biomega]

No. I am saying regardless of anything of that it is an impressive statement.

And that's just plain unreasonable, as I demonstrated with concrete examples that would immediately make a judgement of "impressive" false if they were true (and we have no way of knowing that they're not). You simply don't have the information required to objectively justify this kind of value judgement - you CHOOSE to have a positive interpretation that ASSUMES no significant distorting effects which would disqualify a judgement of "impressive".

70% growth and 85%, or whatever, of total Prime subscribers using the service. That is impressive at face value.

Just out of curiosity: did you not understand my explanation in the previous post as to why that data isn't good enough, or did you simply not read it?

There is no way to ever report an easy to share statement if you have to always account for every little deviation.

Nobody is saying they can't report simplified data without enough context. It's done all the time.

All I'm saying is that a reasonable person has not enough objective justification to judge that data "impressive" in its value. Most people aren't reasonable, and most people don't care about objective justification. That's, uh, WHY they publish data like that.

You are saying we can't take the statement at face value because Amazon didn't provide the impossible by breaking down every data point related to those 175 million users. Lmao.

I'm saying that in order for me to accept this is impressive, I'd need more data. "Lmao" indeed. You're free to take less reliable data, and interpret it any way you like. I'm not here saying people HAVE to use sound epistemology. I'm saying I try to, wherever I can, and I point out when people don't. That doesn't make me the authority of how people should react to data. Evidently a large number of people are entirely fine with just going with facile, biased interpretations for all sorts of reasons. I think that's a problem; other people disagree.

Yet it isn't impressive that a lot of those customers have actually engaged with the service?

I'll do you the courtesy of repeating my previous explanation on this:

We don't KNOW that this is impressive, because the data we have COULD LOOK THE EXACT SAME for a case where people engaged with the service briefly, decided they hated it, and never came back. Which isn't "impressive", but a glaring red five-alarm-fire warning signal. BUT COULD LOOK THE SAME IN THIS KIND OF DATA. Of course I don't think that kind of extreme scenario is the case here (simply by virtue of extreme scenarios generally having low probabilities) but I can't exclude it, and, more importantly, I can't exclude the countless similar scenarios that differ only in degree.