Media Decoder Blog: A Resurgent Netflix Beats Projections, Even Its Own

1:51 p.m. | Updated For all those who have doubted its business acumen, Netflix had a resounding answer on Wednesday: 27.15 million.

That’s the number of American homes that were subscribers to the streaming service by the end of 2012, beating the company’s own projections for the fourth quarter after a couple of quarters of underwhelming results.

Netflix’s growth spurt in streaming — up by 2.05 million customers in the United States, from 25.1 million in the third quarter — was its biggest in nearly three years, and helped the company report net income of $7.9 million, surprising many analysts who had predicted a loss.

The results reflected just how far Netflix has come since the turbulence of mid-2011, when its botched execution of a new pricing plan for its services — streaming and DVDs by mail — resulted in an online flogging by angry customers. Investors battered its stock price, sending it from a high of around $300 in 2011 to as low as $53 last year.

“It’s risen from the ashes,” said Barton Crockett, a senior analyst at Lazard Capital Markets. “A lot of investors have been very skeptical that Netflix will work. With this earnings report, they’re making a strong argument that the business is real, that it will work.”

Investors, cheered by the results, sent Netflix shares soaring. By Thursday afternoon the shares were up more than 37 percent to $141.49.

Netflix’s fourth-quarter success was a convenient reminder to the entertainment and technology industries that consumers increasingly want on-demand access to television shows and movies. Streaming services by Amazon, Hulu and Redbox are all competing on the same playing field, but for now Netflix remains the biggest such service, and thus a pioneer for all the others.

“Our growth and our competitors’ growth shows just how large the opportunity is for Internet TV, where people get to control their viewing experience,” Netflix’s chief executive, Reed Hastings, said in a telephone interview Wednesday evening.

Questions persist, though, about whether Netflix will be able to attract enough subscribers to keep paying its ever-rising bills to content providers, which total billions of dollars in the years to come. The company said on Wednesday that it might take on more debt to finance more original programs, the first of which, the political thriller “House of Cards,” will have its premiere on the service on Feb. 1. Netflix committed about $100 million to make two seasons of “House of Cards,” one of five original programs scheduled to come out on the service this year.

“The virtuous cycle for us is to gain more subscribers, get more content, gain more subscribers, get more content,” Mr. Hastings said in an earnings conference call.

The company’s $7.9 million profit for the quarter represented 13 cents a share, surprising analysts who had expected a loss of 12 cents a share. The company said revenue of $945 million, up from $875 million in the quarter in 2011, was driven in part by holiday sales of new tablets and television sets.

Netflix added nearly two million new subscribers in other countries, though it continued to lose money overseas, as expected, and said it would slow its international expansion plans in the first part of this year.

The “flix” in Netflix, its largely forgotten DVD-by-mail business, fared a bit better than the company had projected, posting a loss of just 380,000 subscribers in the quarter, to 8.22 million. The losses have slowed for four consecutive quarters, indicating that the homes that still want DVDs really want DVDs.

On the streaming side, Netflix’s retention rate improved in the fourth quarter, suggesting growing customer satisfaction.

Asked whether the company’s reputation had fully recovered after its missteps in 2011, Mr. Hastings said, “We’re on probation at this point, but we’re not out of jail.”

He has emphasized subscriber happiness, even going so far as to say on Wednesday that “we really want to make it easy to quit” Netflix. If the exit door is well marked, he asserted, subscribers will be more likely to come back.

The hope is that original programs like “House of Cards” and “Arrested Development” will lure both old and new subscribers to the service. Those programs, plus the film output deal with the Walt Disney Company announced in December, affirm that Netflix cares more and more about being a gallery — with showy pieces that cannot be seen anywhere else — and less about being a library of every film and TV show ever made.

“They’re morphing into something that people understand,” said Mr. Crockett of Lazard Capital.

Mr. Hastings said this had been happening for years, but that it was becoming more apparent now to consumers and investors.

Mr. Hastings’s letter to investors brought up the elephant in the room, the activist investor Carl C. Icahn, who acquired nearly 10 percent of the company’s stock last October. Mr. Icahn, known for his campaigns for corporate sales and revampings, stated then that Netflix “may hold significant strategic value for a variety of significantly larger companies.”

Netflix subsequently put into place a shareholder rights plan, known as a poison pill, to protect itself against a forced sale by Mr. Icahn.

The company said on Wednesday, “We have no further news about his intentions, but have had constructive conversations with him about building a more valuable company.”

Factoring in the stock’s 30 percent rise since November and the after-hours action on Wednesday, Mr. Icahn’s stake has now more than doubled in value, to more than $700 million from roughly $320 million.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/24/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: A Resurgent Netflix Beats Projections, Even Its Own.

Read More..

Question Mark: Why Am I Making So Many Pit Stops?

There are those who have suggested that this feature appears to take an unseemly delight in the decline of the human body: ears that don't hear as well, spines that compress and curve, nose sensors that fade. And did we mention those hairs that start growing out of places other than the head? So we are happy to report on one thing baby boomers may find they do as well as well as ever: urinating. In fact, not only are they still doing it, they may well be doing it more often than ever. A lot more often.

Herman Wouters

Older men may feel more affinity for this  famous fountain in Brussels than they'd like.

O.K. It turns out this may be another one of those decline-of-the-human body pieces. Because for many people, their bedtime routine may now consist of reading, a strategic dash to the bathroom right before lights out, and a plea to Neptune to hold back the waters so they will make it through the night without having to get up.

Even if they do manage to do that, they may feel chagrined if they are parents and see their children roll out of bed, eat breakfast and head off to school without making a single pit stop. Your children may not be better people. But they may have better kidneys, said Dr. Sharon A. Brangman, a professor of medicine at SUNY Upstate Medical University.

People may urinate more as they get older for a number of reasons, including medical problems like hypertension or diabetes. It may also be a symptom of infection. “That’s often the first thing we look at when people complain of frequent urination,” said Dr. Tomas Griebling, vice chairman of urology at the University of Kansas and a spokesman for the American Urological Association. Some medicines can also be the cause.

Getting older, Dr. Griebling said, does not necessarily mean more trips to the bathroom. But many people do notice that they have to go more often, and often the explanation lies with normal changes in the body.

As people age, their kidneys may become less adept at concentrating urine and may draw in more water from elsewhere in the body, said Dr. Brangman, a past president of the American Geriatrics Society. This means more urine is produced and sent on to the bladder which, as it happens, is not getting any younger, either, and may be losing some storage capacity. The urethra, through which the urine exits the body, may also be shortening and its lining thinning.

Adding to the problem is that as people age, their bodies produce less of a hormone that lets them retain fluid. In women, estrogen levels also drop, a change associated with increased urination. And in men, as the prostate gets bigger, it may become harder to urinate, or to do so completely. (Men and women may also develop some incontinence, especially common in women who have borne children.)

Increased urination knows no time of day, but people seem to notice it more at night. The National Sleep Foundation says that when it surveyed people ages 55 to 84, two-thirds reported losing sleep at least a few times a week because of the problem.

Questions about aging? E-mail boomerwhy@nytimes.com

Booming: Living Through the Middle Ages offers news and commentary about baby boomers, anchored by Michael Winerip. You can follow Booming via RSS here or visit nytimes.com/booming. You can reach us by e-mail at booming@nytimes.com.

Read More..

The N.T.S.B. Sees Lengthy Inquiry Into 787 Dreamliner

Deborah A.P. Hersman, chairwoman of the board, said a battery that caught fire in a 787 parked at a gate at Logan Airport in Boston showed signs of short-circuiting and of a “thermal runaway,” in which a chemical reaction begins to overheat the battery and speeds up as the temperature increases. But Ms. Hersman described these as “symptoms,” and pointedly declined to say whether those problems were the cause of the incident, which, combined with a similar event in Japan, has led to the grounding of all 50 of the planes in service.

     “These are all symptoms that something’s  wrong,” she said. “Understanding what came first and what triggered the next thing, that’s information we are working to identify.”

     While there were no deaths or injuries, she said, “These events should not happen.”

“There are multiple systems to prevent against a battery event like this,” she said. “Those systems did not work as intended. We need to understand why.”

Ms. Hersman highlighted the seriousness of the problems more bluntly than other officials have, and her comments made clear that Boeing will not be able to get its planes back in the air anytime soon.

The battery damage was so significant, she said, that investigators are having difficulty retrieving information from the battery control system.

Japanese aviation authorities are leading the investigation into the second battery incident, which occurred earlier this month on a 787 flown by All Nippon Airways. It made an emergency landing in Japan after its pilot reported a burning smell in the cockpit while smoke alarms rang.

Ms. Hersman’s briefing, the first by the safety board on the batteries, fleshed out some of the questions facing the forensic engineers but did not identify any cause as particularly likely, or rule any out. And some of the tests on the design of the battery take a week to conduct, she said.

With 50 airplanes grounded and Boeing’s marquee new product in limbo, engineers working for Boeing, its suppliers and government agencies in this country and in Japan are scrambling to determine what happened. But Ms. Hersman was not making any promises.

“It is really very hard to tell at this point how long the investigation will take,” she said. “What I can tell you is we have all hands on deck. We are working hard to determine what the failure mode here is and what actions have to be taken.”

“Lithium-ion” is a vague term that is used in the battery industry to describe a variety of chemistries. This particular battery was built specifically for the 787 and, according to the safety board on Thursday, used an aluminum strip coated in lithium cobalt oxide in its positive electrode. That is an older technology and is more prone to thermal runaway; it also generates oxygen as it heats, making combustion more likely.

 

Hiroko Tabuchi in Tokyo contributed reporting, and Christopher Drew and Jad Mouawad in New York.

Read More..

The Lede Blog: Clinton Testifies on Benghazi Attacks

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Lede is following Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s testimony Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the American Consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Earlier today, she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee .

At a House Committee hearing last October investigating the attack, as reported on The Lede, State Department officials and security experts who served on the ground offered conflicting assessments about what resources were requested and made available to deal with growing security concerns in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Mrs. Clinton had been scheduled to testify before Congress last month, but an illness, a concussion and a blood clot near her brain forced her to postpone her appearance.

As our colleagues Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt reported, four State Department officials were removed from their posts on last month after an independent panel criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Sustainable Living in Your Headphones

These days, the look of headphones is as important as the sound they produce, and the House of Marley knows it.

The company, which was founded on the vision of the reggae musician Bob Marley, tries to incorporate earth-friendly materials and craftsmanship in its latest line of over-ear headphones, called Rise Up.

The new collection, which was revealed at the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, uses materials like canvas and bamboo fiber over a frame of aluminum and steel. The headphones, which sell for $160, have a comfortable, yet durable feel, as if they would outlast their plastic competitors.

The headphones have a standard mic with a three-button controller that is integrated into a four-foot-long, tangle-free fabric cord secured to the right cup. They are relatively light, weighing about 2½ pounds, and come with a canvas carrying case.

One of the models bears a resemblance to the bright Rastafarian flag, but the one I tested, called the Saddle, was of a more muted brown and gray. The Saddle includes Rewind fabric, the House of Marley’s brand of textile that uses recycled materials like reclaimed hemp and organic cotton combined with fibers of recycled water bottles.

But the appeal of Rise Up headphones is more than their appearance; they sound great, too. The headphones are not noise-canceling, but they do use 50-mm dynamic drivers, which offer a rich, bass-heavy sound.

So, you can sit on the couch and listen to your music, smug in the belief that you’re saving the earth while you enjoy your tunes.

Read More..

Phys Ed: Is There an Ideal Running Form?

In recent years, many barefoot running enthusiasts have been saying that to reduce impact forces and injury risk, runners should land near the balls of their feet, not on their heels, a running style that has been thought to mimic that of our barefoot forebears and therefore represent the most natural way to run. But a new study of barefoot tribespeople in Kenya upends those ideas and, together with several other new running-related experiments, raises tantalizing questions about just how humans really are meant to move.

For the study, published this month in the journal PLoS One, a group of evolutionary anthropologists turned to the Daasanach, a pastoral tribe living in a remote section of northern Kenya. Unlike some Kenyan tribes, the Daasanach have no tradition of competitive distance running, although they are physically active. They also have no tradition of wearing shoes.

Humans have run barefoot, of course, for millennia, since footwear is quite a recent invention, in evolutionary terms. And modern running shoes, which typically feature well-cushioned heels that are higher than the front of the shoe, are newer still, having been introduced widely in the 1970s.

The thinking behind these shoes’ design was, in part, that they should reduce injuries. When someone runs in a shoe with a built-up heel, he or she generally hits the ground first with the heel. With so much padding beneath that portion of the foot, the thinking went, pounding would be reduced and, voila, runners wouldn’t get hurt.

But, as many researchers and runners have noted, running-related injuries have remained discouragingly common, with more than half of all runners typically being felled each year.

So, some runners and scientists began to speculate a few years ago that maybe modern running shoes are themselves the problem.

Their theory was buttressed by a influential study published in 2010 in Nature, in which Harvard scientists examined the running style of some lifelong barefoot runners who also happened to be from Kenya. Those runners were part of the Kalenjin tribe, who have a long and storied history of elite distance running. Some of the fastest marathoners in the world have been Kalenjin, and many of them grew up running without shoes.

Interestingly, when the Harvard scientists had the Kalenjin runners stride over a pressure-sensing pad, they found that, as a group, they almost all struck the ground near the front of their foot. Some were so-called midfoot strikers, meaning that their toes and heels struck the ground almost simultaneously, but many were forefoot strikers, meaning that they landed near the ball of their foot.

Almost none landed first on their heels.

What the finding seemed to imply was that runners who hadn’t grown up wearing shoes deployed a noticeably different running style than people who had always worn shoes.

And from that idea, it was easy to conjecture that this style must be better for you than heel-striking, since presumably it was more natural, echoing the style that early, shoeless cavemen would have used.

But the new study finds otherwise. When the researchers had the 38 Daasanach tribespeople run unshod along a track fitted, as in the Harvard study, with a pressure plate, they found that these traditionally barefoot adults almost all landed first with their heels, especially when they were asked to run at a comfortable, distance-running pace. For the group, that pace averaged about 8 minutes per mile, and 72 percent of the volunteers struck with their heels while achieving it. Another 24 percent struck with the midfoot. Only 4 percent were forefoot strikers.

When the Daasanach volunteers were asked to sprint along the track at a much faster speed, however, more of them landed near their toes with each stride, a change in form that is very common during sprints, even in people who wear running shoes. But even then, 43 percent still struck with their heels.

This finding adds to a growing lack of certainty about what makes for ideal running form. The forefoot- and midfoot-striking Kalenjin were enviably fast; during the Harvard experiment, their average pace was less than 5 minutes per mile.

But their example hasn’t been shown to translate to other runners. In a 2012 study of more than 2,000 racers at the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon, 94 percent struck the ground with their heels, and that included many of the frontrunners.

Nor is it clear that changing running form reduces injuries. In a study published in October scientists asked heel-striking recreational runners to temporarily switch to forefoot striking, they found that greater forces began moving through the runners’ lower backs; the pounding had migrated from the runners’ legs to their lumbar spines, and the volunteers reported that this new running form was quite uncomfortable.

But the most provocative and wide-ranging implication of the new Kenyan study is that we don’t know what is natural for human runners. If, said Kevin G. Hatala, a graduate student in evolutionary anthropology at George Washington University who led the new study, ancient humans “regularly ran fast for sustained periods of time,” like Kalenjin runners do today, then they were likely forefoot or midfoot strikers.

But if their hunts and other activities were conducted at a more sedate pace, closer to that of the Daasanach, then our ancestors were quite likely heel strikers and, if that was the case, wearing shoes and striking with your heel doesn’t necessarily represent a warped running form.

At the moment, though, such speculation is just that, Mr. Hatala said. He and his colleagues plan to collaborate with the Harvard scientists in hopes of better understanding why the various Kenyan barefoot runners move so differently and what, if anything, their contrasting styles mean for the rest of us.

“Mostly what we’ve learned” with the new study, he said, “is how much still needs to be learned.”

Read More..

Phys Ed: Is There an Ideal Running Form?

In recent years, many barefoot running enthusiasts have been saying that to reduce impact forces and injury risk, runners should land near the balls of their feet, not on their heels, a running style that has been thought to mimic that of our barefoot forebears and therefore represent the most natural way to run. But a new study of barefoot tribespeople in Kenya upends those ideas and, together with several other new running-related experiments, raises tantalizing questions about just how humans really are meant to move.

For the study, published this month in the journal PLoS One, a group of evolutionary anthropologists turned to the Daasanach, a pastoral tribe living in a remote section of northern Kenya. Unlike some Kenyan tribes, the Daasanach have no tradition of competitive distance running, although they are physically active. They also have no tradition of wearing shoes.

Humans have run barefoot, of course, for millennia, since footwear is quite a recent invention, in evolutionary terms. And modern running shoes, which typically feature well-cushioned heels that are higher than the front of the shoe, are newer still, having been introduced widely in the 1970s.

The thinking behind these shoes’ design was, in part, that they should reduce injuries. When someone runs in a shoe with a built-up heel, he or she generally hits the ground first with the heel. With so much padding beneath that portion of the foot, the thinking went, pounding would be reduced and, voila, runners wouldn’t get hurt.

But, as many researchers and runners have noted, running-related injuries have remained discouragingly common, with more than half of all runners typically being felled each year.

So, some runners and scientists began to speculate a few years ago that maybe modern running shoes are themselves the problem.

Their theory was buttressed by a influential study published in 2010 in Nature, in which Harvard scientists examined the running style of some lifelong barefoot runners who also happened to be from Kenya. Those runners were part of the Kalenjin tribe, who have a long and storied history of elite distance running. Some of the fastest marathoners in the world have been Kalenjin, and many of them grew up running without shoes.

Interestingly, when the Harvard scientists had the Kalenjin runners stride over a pressure-sensing pad, they found that, as a group, they almost all struck the ground near the front of their foot. Some were so-called midfoot strikers, meaning that their toes and heels struck the ground almost simultaneously, but many were forefoot strikers, meaning that they landed near the ball of their foot.

Almost none landed first on their heels.

What the finding seemed to imply was that runners who hadn’t grown up wearing shoes deployed a noticeably different running style than people who had always worn shoes.

And from that idea, it was easy to conjecture that this style must be better for you than heel-striking, since presumably it was more natural, echoing the style that early, shoeless cavemen would have used.

But the new study finds otherwise. When the researchers had the 38 Daasanach tribespeople run unshod along a track fitted, as in the Harvard study, with a pressure plate, they found that these traditionally barefoot adults almost all landed first with their heels, especially when they were asked to run at a comfortable, distance-running pace. For the group, that pace averaged about 8 minutes per mile, and 72 percent of the volunteers struck with their heels while achieving it. Another 24 percent struck with the midfoot. Only 4 percent were forefoot strikers.

When the Daasanach volunteers were asked to sprint along the track at a much faster speed, however, more of them landed near their toes with each stride, a change in form that is very common during sprints, even in people who wear running shoes. But even then, 43 percent still struck with their heels.

This finding adds to a growing lack of certainty about what makes for ideal running form. The forefoot- and midfoot-striking Kalenjin were enviably fast; during the Harvard experiment, their average pace was less than 5 minutes per mile.

But their example hasn’t been shown to translate to other runners. In a 2012 study of more than 2,000 racers at the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon, 94 percent struck the ground with their heels, and that included many of the frontrunners.

Nor is it clear that changing running form reduces injuries. In a study published in October scientists asked heel-striking recreational runners to temporarily switch to forefoot striking, they found that greater forces began moving through the runners’ lower backs; the pounding had migrated from the runners’ legs to their lumbar spines, and the volunteers reported that this new running form was quite uncomfortable.

But the most provocative and wide-ranging implication of the new Kenyan study is that we don’t know what is natural for human runners. If, said Kevin G. Hatala, a graduate student in evolutionary anthropology at George Washington University who led the new study, ancient humans “regularly ran fast for sustained periods of time,” like Kalenjin runners do today, then they were likely forefoot or midfoot strikers.

But if their hunts and other activities were conducted at a more sedate pace, closer to that of the Daasanach, then our ancestors were quite likely heel strikers and, if that was the case, wearing shoes and striking with your heel doesn’t necessarily represent a warped running form.

At the moment, though, such speculation is just that, Mr. Hatala said. He and his colleagues plan to collaborate with the Harvard scientists in hopes of better understanding why the various Kenyan barefoot runners move so differently and what, if anything, their contrasting styles mean for the rest of us.

“Mostly what we’ve learned” with the new study, he said, “is how much still needs to be learned.”

Read More..

DealBook: Q. & A. on Wall Street's Untouchables

3:12 p.m. | Updated

On Tuesday, “Frontline” investigated why the leaders of Wall Street had escaped prosecution for their role in the country’s financial crisis.

Peter Eavis of DealBook moderating a conversation with the show’s producer, Martin Smith. Watch the show above and review the Q. and A. below.

Read More..

The Lede Blog: Prince Harry Compares War to PlayStation and Taliban Is Not Amused

A Taliban spokesman said on Tuesday that Prince Harry must have “mental problems,” following the broadcast of remarks by the royal in which he said that killing militants from an Apache helicopter was similar to playing video games.

As soon as Britain’s Ministry of Defense announced on Monday that Prince Harry had left Afghanistan, ending his four-month deployment there, the British news media rushed to broadcast video of the royal officer at war, which was recorded with his cooperation on the condition that it not be released until his tour was over.

Britain’s Channel 4 News broke into its bulletin on Monday night just minutes after the announcement to broadcast its edit of the footage, which was shot last month at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province by the British Press Association.

A video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News shot during Prince Harry’s recent deployment to Afghanistan.

The Channel 4 News report drew attention to the frequency with which the prince, whose mother was being chased by photographers when she died in a car accident, mentioned his distaste for the British press.

At one stage in the interview, Prince Harry said that he was not troubled by killing militants. “Take a life to save a life,” he said. “If there’s people trying to do bad stuff to our guys, then we’ll take them out of the game.”

In another edit of the footage, posted online by The Guardian, Prince Harry, who is known as Captain Wales in the army, explained that he was glad to have been “pushed forward to the front seat,” the one reserved for the attack helicopter’s gunner. That was, he said, “a joy for me because I’m one of those people that loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I’m probably quite useful — if you ask the guys I thrash them at FIFA the whole time,” referring to a popular video game series.

“This is a serious war, a historic war, resistance for us, for our people,” a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, told Agence France-Presse in response, “and now this prince comes and compares this war with his games, PlayStation or whatever he calls it.”

But the spokesman added, “We don’t take his comments very seriously, as we have all seen and heard that many foreign soldiers, occupiers who come to Afghanistan, develop some kind of mental problems on their way out.”

In another part of the interview, posted online by The Telegraph, Prince Harry said that his brother, Prince William, was jealous of him. “He’d love to be out here and, to be honest with you, I don’t see why he couldn’t,” Harry said. “No one knows who’s in the cockpit. Yes you get shot at, but, you know, if the guys who are doing the same job as us are being shot at on the ground, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us being shot at as well. Yeah, people back home might have issues with that, but we’re not special.”

Video of remarks by Prince Harry about how much his brother would like to serve in Afghanistan.

Read More..

Disruptions: Immediacy of Digital Media Helps Drive Spending

I was tallying my spending of the last year, and much to my surprise, I spent $2,403 in one category. No, that wasn’t on clothes. It wasn’t on my most recent vacation, either. And it wasn’t the total of all my parking tickets (though that did feel as if it came close).

The $2,403 is what I spent on digital media.

But wait, people are spending money online? On media? Didn’t music industry executives declare, “People won’t pay for things online!”? Yes, as did movie industry executives. TV, radio, book, newspaper and magazine bigwigs, too, have all made similar claims over the last decade.

Well, those apocalyptic predictions turn out to be wrong.

I am spending more on digital media than I used to spend on the physical stuff. (The federal government says the average American family spent $2,572 on all entertainment, not just digital, in 2011.) And I know why I am spending more on digital media.

Digital media, unlike its slow cousin, is immediate. In the past, if friends mentioned a good book they had just finished, people made a note (mental or on a scrap of paper) to pick it up during their next visit to the bookstore or library. The same went for other items like CDs, DVDs or magazines.

Now, when someone does that at dinner — “Oh, I just finished Cormac McCarthy’s latest book, you’d love it!” — we pull out our smartphones, hop into a wormhole to Amazon or iTunes and buy it on the spot. No notes; no forgetting the book’s name; no driving to a store. The book or song is just transported to our pockets.

With one-click shopping and smartphones, buying media online becomes an impulse purchase, like the candy or gum by the cash register.

And it all adds up, quickly. Last year, I bought 47 e-books. That’s $475 on digital books alone. In the past, I probably bought 20 physical books a year, at most, and given that half of those were from used bookstores, my annual literary budget rarely passed $200.

I’m paying less but buying more.

I also spent $359 on music subscription services last year, including Rdio and Spotify. Then I frittered away $318 on other music downloads. I paid $95 for a Netflix subscription ($8 a month adds up); $25 for Flickr; $396 on apps and games; $60 on an Xbox Live subscription; $316 on movies and TV shows; $239 for subscription or one-offs of several digital magazines, including The New Yorker, Wired, The Economist and Popular Photography. (As an employee of The New York Times, I have free access to its digital offerings, otherwise I’d gladly pay for that, too.)

I’ve had to pay $120 a year for online storage to back up all my media purchases. And these numbers don’t include the money I spent on the Internet — almost $100 a month for my iPhone, iPad and home connection — or the purchases of Kindles, iPads and headphones. Granted, $2,403 might seem high for a bunch of zeros and ones. That could be, in part, because I live in Silicon Valley, where people slurp up digital content with the same frequency that rock stars would inhale drugs in the ’80s. Out here, we all tend to live a few years in the future. If it’s happening here now, it will usually happen elsewhere several years later.

“This is the same thing we saw with e-commerce five years ago, where people said it was just going to be across a small segment of the Valley,” said D. J. Patil, a data scientist in residence at Greylock Partners, a prominent venture capital company based in Menlo Park, Calif. “Now we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in online transactions.”

So where am I spending less? On traditional media. I rarely go to the movies anymore, where I have to sign over the mortgage for my home for a bottle of water and bag of popcorn. I don’t pay for cable TV either.

Like the media moguls who once predicted that digital media would be the demise of their industries, I’m willing to make a forecast: that digital spending number will continue to grow, and it’s all thanks to the ease of digital media.

---

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 20, 2013

An earlier version of this blog post misstated the amount spent on the Internet. It is $100 a month, not $100 a year.

Read More..