Netflix To Lift Streaming Limits

The AP has a story on Netflix's move to head off expected competition from Apple: the company will lift limits on streaming its movies for most subscribers. The story reports on rumors of an Apple movie-download service that may be announced by Steve Jobs on Tuesday. In the past Netflix has imposed limits on how long its subscribers could watch streamed movies; for example, those who paid $16.99/mo. could stream up to 17 hours per month. The limits will end on Monday for most subscribers (except for those paying $4.99 for two DVD rentals a month, said to be a small minority). The company has 6,000 movies available for streaming, compared to 90,000 that you can get delivered in the mail.

Comments

Awesome

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'll indulge as soon as they buy me a windows machine with IE and tasty WMP DRM etc.

Re:Awesome

[CastrTroy]

I'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

get your head out of your ass. no one cares about you.

Re:Awesome

[Rudolf]

i'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail.

Don't know about other services, but with Netflix, if you don't want them to mail any DVDs, just don't add any to your queue.

Re:Awesome

[BarryJacobsen]

I'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail. Why don't you ask your neighbor if they want some mail DVDs and then split the cost with them?

Netflix, not Fetilx

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

Typo in the story title.

[palegray.net]

I've seen some typos in story bodies recently, but not in a story title... who is Netfilx? Are they the new, hot, up-and-coming competitor to Netflix?

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Ken_g6]

who is Netfilx?

Surely, they must be an online filk music retailer.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[edwardpickman]

I don't know I use Blockbutser.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who?

Re:Typo in the story title.

[rustalot42684]

I hraed an inertsnig ieda the ohetr day: you can rragneaae all the ltetres in a wrod as lnog as the frist and lsat lrettes are the smae and it wlil sitll be raedlabe.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Enry]

O RLY?

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Your.Master]

What I find interesting is that not only did you rearrange the letters there, as per the usual form of this, but you outright dropped some from "interesting" and "rearrange".

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wnorg. A slpmie clpmaxeretnuoe: rsrevee the oedrr of the lrettes wihtin the wdros. Yruoe ulekilny to fnid it elisay rlbadaee.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[mobby_6kl]

I think he meant Cockbuster...

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Anonymous Coward]

> but not in a story title

You must be new here.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[Anonymous Coward]

I stulae you. Taht was mufretsal.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[rustalot42684]

Oh, sorry. That was unintentional.

Re:Typo in the story title.

[antdude]

I use RedBox for newer releases and low rental costs, without its dumb subscription.

Compete with Apple?

[Laguerre]

Of course, you can't watch streaming movies on Netflix with a Mac...

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Mateo_LeFou]

That's because only Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium's Digital Rights Management Trustation Computing can secure Intellectual Property for your Enterprise etc.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[hedwards]

I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.

It makes 0 sense to pay for a second DRM codec for a user base which is only 7% or so of the total. I don't like it either, but they can't just hand out free copies of every movie no strings attached, people who want that can already go with torrents.

Apple has chosen not to license any of the DRM types available to the rest of the mainstream computing world, it's unfortunate that the Mac users are ultimately the ones that lose out. 7% isn't really a that much leverage, especially since the majority of the account holders don't use the download service at all.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[palegray.net]

Maybe Apple cares about the issues surrounding this DRM (i.e. not supporting it), and its customers aren't complaining very loudly for support for it either.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[DAldredge]

Apple is one of the largest, if not the largest, sellers of DRM protected products on the entire Net.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Basehart]

On Tuesday at at the Macworld keynote you'll see why Mac users won't give a rats ass about watching Netflix movies, hence the timing of the Netflix announcement. As usual, too little too late.

FWIW Mac users still can't buy music from Napster, or any of the so-called "Plays Fer Sure" online outlets, and play it on an iPod.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[robbiedo]

Yes, you can. Install Parallels. Create a Windows XP Virtual Machine. Run all the setup from your Netflix accoount. Works just dandy!

Re:Compete with Apple?

[fermion]

That is what I would say, but I would go one step further. The point that most analysts and pundit miss is that, like the Windows desktop monopoly, users want thing to be cheap and easy. They have a MS Windows machine at home because that is what they learned in school and hove at work, and they get most software for free.

In the same way, most people have an iPod, most people have iTunes, and anything else is going to require extra effort, especially for those users that have Macs. I know the reply to that this represents few users, but these few users tend to spend money. Even if Amazon and Netflix did work with Apple, I would be hesitant to install any third party software. There are plenty of cross platform methods to stream video that are already out there, and adding another one just seems like adding more security issues.

Ultimately the issue is going to be the DRM. Many people happily paid $10 for an hour of music that they knew they could play on multiple devices, even on standard CD players. It seems to me that far fewer people are paying $10 for 90 minutes movies. The only reason I can think of is that the DRM is less forgiving. As far as rentals, why bother with $4 for 16 hours. One can buy many movies for less than $10, and rental at some places is still $1-2 overnight, and the pirates are free to rip and keep.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Your.Master]

To be fair, I would be willing to be that the average paid-for song is played many more times far more than the average paid-for movie, so one hour of music might represent more actual play-time than 90 minutes of movie.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[contrapunctus]

But I shouldn't have to.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure? 7% is Apple's total marketshare in the US. How many of that 93% marketshare actually use linux? How many of them are used as turnkey solutions like cash registers? How many are used in the enterprise where you'll get fired for watching rented movies on them? Add to that the fact that according to polls, Mac users spend more time online and are willing to spend more money per computer user and are notoriously loyal to companies that please them.

If you have a business targeting users in the consumer market, it'd be stupid to avoid investing in the Mac segment. Why do they need a second DRM? Yes, why indeed. Why not go with a cross platform solution to begin with. Apple has proven that you don't need an iron clad, bullet proof DRM, just some form of it that deters casual pirates is enough. It may be easier to license at the beginning, but as the history of the download music industry showed, being the first and being cheap without understanding consumer demands cost the players a huge chunk of the market to the one targeting both Mac and Windows market while trying to make DRM almost transparent. Spending money to develop cross platform DRM may actually benefit you in the long run instead of tying your future to Microsoft's DRM which may change at Microsoft's whim (e.g. PlayForSure.. ooops, Zune DRM).

Re:Compete with Apple?

[MBCook]

Really? I'd blame Netflix for using a de facto single platform codec. They could have used Theora, which is open. They could have used QuickTime, which has Windows support. They could have used RealPlayer (as horrid as that would be), because it's at least available on both platforms. There is also Flash which is immensely popular and multi-platform. Instead they chose the one that promised all the lock-in of Windows with all fun of Windows.

Don't blame Apple because their competitor who has been trying to squeeze them out of the market for 20+ years is trying to squeeze them out of the market. What makes you so sure Microsoft would even agree to it with any reasonable terms (you know, under $100 per computer).

Hell, Microsoft had a WMV codec for OS X. As OS X started getting popular they dropped it and farmed it out to a 3rd party who now sells it.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[robbiedo]

Well, this is ./ So can't and don't wanna are two different things.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[wish bot]

Can I ask where your sig is from?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[contrapunctus]

It's funny:

I can watch new theatrical release movies on my mac. All I have to to is take it with me to the movie theater and watch the movie there...

Sorry, couldn't help (please take this as trying to be funny, not as trying to argue with you).

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course, even though we non-Intel-based Mac users can't get the streaming films, we don't get a discount on our monthly fees. What a ripoff.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but they can't just hand out free copies of every movie no strings attached, people who want that can already go with torrents.

So they can't hand out free copies to paying customers because free movies are already available illegally? *scratches head*

That seems to needlessly penalize paying customers.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have used RealPlayer (as horrid as that would be), because it's at least available on both platforms. RealPlayer is only a PoS on Windows. The Mac and Linux version are lightweight with decent user interfaces that match the platforms. Still, VLC beats it in every way.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Dude,

Netflix is forced to use Windows because the MPAA only allows windows DRM to be used. So they aren't mandating the codec, the MPAA is. They would love to use everything if they could, but the restriction is coming from the movie industry. So complain to the MPAA who seems to be propogating a (former) monopoly.

sri

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd blame Netflix for using a de facto single platform codec. They could have used Theora, which is open. Theora doesn't have RIAA-approved DRM. Netflix is required to use RIAA-approved DRM if they want to offer RIAA movies. Apple and their iTunes Store have this same requirement.

They could have used QuickTime, which has Windows support. Apple won't license their RIAA-approved DRM for Quicktime to Netflix, so blame Apple for this.

They could have used RealPlayer (as horrid as that would be), because it's at least available on both platforms. There is also Flash which is immensely popular and multi-platform. More of the same.

Instead they chose the one that promised all the lock-in of Windows with all fun of Windows. They chose the codec/DRM solution that served more of their customers than any other. The point you missed in your comment is that RIAA-approved DRM must be used. The alternatives you suggested either don't meet this DRM requirement or, in Quicktime's case, refuses to license its DRM to Netflix.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just quote a statistic and say how the statistic was useless in the next sentence?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[644bd346996]

Apple cares a lot more about the iTunes revenue than the computer hardware revenue. For it to be worth their while to sell a WM codec with DRM support, they would probably have to charge more than they currently do for QuickTime Pro ($30). I really don't see how that could work out for Apple customers.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[evilviper]

I'd blame Netflix for using a de facto single platform codec.

VC-1/WMV9/WMV3 is an open, SMPTE standard. Licensing is handled by MPEG-LA, just like h.264 (used by Quicktime) and under nearly identical prices.

They could have used Theora, which is open. They could have used QuickTime, which has Windows support. They could have used RealPlayer (as horrid as that would be), because it's at least available on both platforms. There is also Flash which is immensely popular and multi-platform.

None of which provides any built-in DRM system, which makes them complete non-starters for Netflix.

Windows XP/Vista is the only platform supported, because that's what Netflix wanted to support. They could very, very easily have supported Windows 2000, 9x, etc. I imagine they could also have supported most Macs, via the rather old Mac WMP release. They could also have supported web browsers like Firefox, rather than being IE-only quite easily.

Netflix chose, instead, to write their player to exclude all other possible platforms, and browsers. It's a very explicit decision. Choosing a different codec wouldn't have helped or hurt.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[hedwards]

I don't think so, the alternative would be to just wait for the next movie to arrive in the mail and not have the service available at all. Before the net, one dealt with the problem of copies, by bringing the physical tape back to the rental shop having rewound it, the shop would then lend it to the next person. And most people didn't make copies of the material. With digital media, the ability to make copies is much more accessible, and as a result services like this need a way of keeping the casual copying down so that they can license the material at an affordable rate.

Yes, it probably is less convenient than downloading a file from a torrent, but it is essentially a free add in to the normal service. The service is being added without raising the rates for the people that are subscribing. For that reason I would suggest that it really isn't that much of a convenience, and probably a lot more convenient than worrying about whether the MPAA is going to come knocking on ones door asking to see the harddisks. In all likelihood, the download service is being paid for by gains in efficiency and the larger subscriber base.

That being said, this is really the only sort of situation where I'm OK with DRM. A couple of others being completely ad supported media and times when an individual is paying for an all you can eat buffet style music or video experience. Definitely not, when I'm paying for a single copy in perpetuity.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

What makes you think that Apple is completely at fault here? You're going on assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

A Telestream rep said that Microsoft will not license WM DRM to be operable on any non-Microsoft platform. That's all there is to it. Whether Apple would license it if they had the opportunity, I don't know. But there are two sides to this situation.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

RIAA-approved

Get your organizations right.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Apple cares a lot more about the iTunes revenue than the computer hardware revenue.

iTunes isn't that profitable. Apple makes much better money on the hardware, in margins and revenue. To make a comparison, the gross income from iTunes works out to something like $10 (or so) per iPod sold.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Blue_Wombat]

"but they can't just hand out free copies of every movie no strings attached...." Of course they can, they essentially already do! I can't get Netflix (wrong country) but I understand that they have a postal DVD rental business as well. The DRM on DVDs is so broken as to be irrelevant to anyone with five spare minutes and the ability to conduct a couple of searches on Google. Anyone who wants to pirate could just rent the DVD. So who are they "protecting" by making the downloadable product so user-unfriendly? It looks like the music biz is finally seeing the light on DRM-less downloads, how long before the film biz does as well?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I say statistics is useless? I am arguing against his use of 7% market share which according to him, the majority don't use download service. I say that the statistics that matters is not 7% of the overall market share, but the percentage in the consumer space which is further limited to those willing to spend money for download services. I used iTunes Music Store as an example how using the percentage of the overall market share was misleading. iTMS sold the 1 millionth song in a month, beating the 6 month expectation by the industry insiders. It beat the combined sales of all music download services focusing on the bigger computer segment, the Windows platform. You've got to ask yourself, if Mac market was too miniscule to be important, how could that happen (remember the Mac marketshare doubled since then)?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

VC-1/WMV9/WMV3 is an open, SMPTE standard.

VC-1 is based on WMV9, but they aren't necessarily the same thing.

Windows XP/Vista is the only platform supported, because that's what Netflix wanted to support. They could very, very easily have supported Windows 2000, 9x, etc. I imagine they could also have supported most Macs, via the rather old Mac WMP release. They could also have supported web browsers like Firefox, rather than being IE-only quite easily.

WMV DRM is just simply not available to Windows older than XP, by Microsoft's choice. Netflix has nothing to do with that. None of the Plays For Sure devices will work with my W2k computer either, for the same reason, MS won't release the files to be installed, though maybe I can do some shoehorning, it's not a trivial action.

Also, Microsoft won't license it to be used on non-MS platforms, period.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[coolGuyZak]

It makes 0 sense to pay for a second DRM codec for a user base which is only 7% or so of the total.

That's interesting, because when I mentioned that I'd love to have instant viewing supported by Macs, the customer rep says that it's the feature most requested by their userbase. (Note: the rep said they were looking into it).

Re:Compete with Apple?

[evilviper]

WMV DRM is just simply not available to Windows older than XP, by Microsoft's choice.

That's simply not true. WMP has included DRM for years... I've been playing DRMed WMV files from long before XP even came out. There are numerous WMVHD DVDs out there that are, of course DRMed, but will play in WMP on versions of Windows before XP.

No doubt WMP for MacOS includes at least some older version of Microsoft's DRM.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[dookiesan]

I'm so glad they don't use quicktime. My 3ghz machine can't play TV shows in iTunes without the sound going out of sync. Last time I used quicktime I couldn't figure out how to make the movie fullscreen either.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[moosesocks]

I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.

You're absolutely right. Apple should start giving tons of money to its biggest competitor to license an inferior technology.

WTF are you smoking, mate?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof?

Re:Compete with Apple?

[BraksDad]

Sort of like how my iPod Shuffle can only be loaded by that brilliant iTunes software.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[aka-ed]

People want a large local music library. For movies, an immense remote library with immediate access is preferable to a large local library. Selection and image quality issues exist, but don't seem insurmountable. Those who believe hdtv streaming is not presently available need to check the demo here:

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

God help Apple if it still looks like the average movie from iTunes. They're made for iPods, and it shows. I think even Unbox looked better.

Meanwhile I'm watching movies in crystal clear high-def on my XBox. But of course after tomorrow, Apple will have invented it.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[crocodyl]

I don't know about you, but I am videotaping movies from my computer screen 24hours a day and uploading them to piratebay...

Re:Compete with Apple?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Netflix is forced to use Windows because the MPAA only allows windows DRM to be used. So they aren't mandating the codec, the MPAA is.

Bullshit. The MPAA sells movies protected by CSS, MS's WMP, and Apple's FairPlay. What makes you think they wouldn't approve another DRM format if someone presented it to them? It is in their best interests, in fact, to have as many stores and DRM types as possible for two reasons. First, they are a cartel that makes money by being gatekeepers and having a single DRM as a choke point would give another company as much power as they have. Second, they make money when consumers repurchase content because the DRM hinders their switching to other devices.

To me this seems like a plain old case of NetFlix foolishly listening to MS and being suckered by them. NetFlix did not innovate, nor did they find a DRM scheme that is not controlled by a direct competitor (I'd look at Sun's DReaM). They simply made a stupid choice and it will probably kill them in the long run. It's too bad, in the early days NetFlix made some really smart and bold moves, innovated and listened to customers. Sadly, when companies get bigger, they tend to stop doing any of those.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Basehart]

Ignorance is bliss for sure.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Sure.

When you're done, can I ask why you are apparently barred from accessing google?

just a joke, all in good fun.

Re:Compete with Apple?

[wish bot]

Conversation is a lost art in this day and age. I talk to google and all she gives me are one liners.

God those summaries are entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past Netflix has imposed limits on how long its subscribers could watch streamed movies; for example, those who paid $16.99/mo. could stream up to 17 hours per month.

That's an example of how *much* movie-time you can stream, not how *long* you have to watch it.

But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

System Requirements:

• Computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
• Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
• Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later

Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV. No thanks. I told them a year ago that if they didn't come up with viable solution Blockbuster or Apple would and that would probably be enough to make me switch. They replied back with a comment that it was impossible but that as soon as MS's silverlight technology was good enough they'd use that. Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Sancho]

Since Netflix streaming is only a value-add, I don't think it's a big deal. Their core business is DVDs through the mail. Hell, their streaming selection is piss-poor, anyway.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[anotherone]

The overwhelming bulk of their library works just fine on your Mac, and will play on your TV. Netflix is a DVD rental company that offers streaming movies as a sideline- not a streaming video company. Suggesting that they'll go out of business because 7% of their audience can't use a tiny portion of their service that actually doesn't earn them any extra money is ludicrous.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[the-ambiguity]

They are also developing some sort of device that can be directly connected to the TV and would connect to the internet. That would make a service like this quite useful, however till then I will be stuck watching them in a Windows VM.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Yold]

Umm... buy an s-video cable and a mini-jack to rca converter, grand total $15. Watch it on a television. And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway.

Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users. They don't have the luxury Apple does, that is to say controlling the source of a widely popular media player. And software development, especially a cross-platform DRM system, isn't cheap or easy. Can you suggest any viable alternatives to Microsoft DRM?

Netflix has a great business model, returning movies in 3-days is a pain in the ass. The on-demand is just a nicity that a minority of customers use.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[gEvil (beta)]

For movies, yeah, the selection isn't that great. But as far as classic TV shows go, they have tons and tons of stuff to dig through. All the old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Lots of stuff from the BBC, including what looks to be nearly every episode of Dr Who. And they seem to have a deal with NBC/Universal, whereby they were posting episodes of Heroes up a few days after they aired. Not to mention, as someone else already did, this service is the 'value added' upgrade to the primary service that you went to them for in the first place. Yeah, it sucks that it's Windows only, but if you have a Windows machine hooked up to your TV (or you don't mind watching on a monitor), it's a great service. And without any time limits, I'll be using it even more!

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[YrWrstNtmr]

unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV

Netflix streaming + spare laptop + video out + (gov surplus)projector + wall = 100" movies. Sorry if this doesn't work for you. All these parts are easy and cheap to come by.
Yes, it is a bit esoteric for Joe SixPack, but not that bad.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[wmwilson01]

Yeah, sure. Apple will come up with a viable solution.... Fabulous thought, but wake me up when I can use f*ing iTunes from my Linux laptop. Apple could give a sh*t about Linux. If you're using Linux then you should know this. If you're using Mac, welcome to the Island of Misfit toys....

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree... I love Netflix and between me, my wife, and three kids, we have multiple queues. We could watch over 20 hours per month on the streaming section. I even have a PC hooked up to my PC to stream avi to my TV that we stream the Netflix movies on from time to time. I'll bet we stream 2 hours of movies from Netflix because the selection sucks. I don't think this will harm Netflix in any way.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop Well gee, why don't you go and get yourself a Windows XP machine like the majority of other users then? Nobody is forcing you to use what you are using. It's all about choice right? You can choose to use Windows (on bare metal, in a VM, or whatever) if you would like to use this service or you can choose to come up with an alternative.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Anonymous Coward]

that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV. No thanks. I told them a year ago that if they didn't come up with viable solution Blockbuster or Apple would and that would probably be enough to make me switch. What RIAA-approved DRM do you think Blockbuster is going to use? Is there a cross-platform DRM solution that Blockbuster can license? Unfortunately, Windows Media DRM is probably the most usable solution for their customers.

Also, since Apple keeps their DRM all to themselves and (unlike M$) refuses to license their DRM to Netflix, you should be bitching to Apple.

They replied back with a comment that it was impossible but that as soon as MS's silverlight technology was good enough they'd use that. Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? Did you miss the part where Silverlight has RIAA-approved DRM and will be compatible with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. I'm sure Netflix mentioned this in their reply. Can you suggest a better technology that meets the RIAA's DRM requirements, supports mulitple platforms, and will be available for Netflix to license?

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Umm... buy an s-video cable and a mini-jack to rca converter, grand total $15. Watch it on a television. And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway.

I already have a dedicated media server machine hooked up to my TV for movies, streaming, music, etc. It is a Mac. I'm not going to go to the effort of hooking up a second machine solely for the purpose of watching the occasional video that requires Windows. Rather, I'll do just as I do now and ignore that aspect of NetFlix... until someone else comes along and makes it convenient. It looks like Apple might be about to do that, which might lead to my NetFlix subscription being cancelled.

Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users.

I'm sure they did.

They don't have the luxury Apple does, that is to say controlling the source of a widely popular media player. And software development, especially a cross-platform DRM system, isn't cheap or easy. Can you suggest any viable alternatives to Microsoft DRM?

Sure, there is Sun's DReaM platform which is cross platform and open protocol. There are also NetFlix has the cash to invest in making a software player, they just decided it wasn't worth the trouble. They have the money to invest in a hardware solution after all. I feel, however, they have been shortsighted and foolish to put themselves at the mercy of Microsoft who already has a competing offering in the Zune Marketplace. I'm sure MS is happy to have found a big name stupid enough to buy into Silverlight, but what is to say they won't break compatibility the next time they go to market, just as they did with PlaysForSure when they came out with the Zune? Nothing, that's what.

Netflix has a great business model, returning movies in 3-days is a pain in the ass. The on-demand is just a nicity that a minority of customers use.

NetFlix has a good business model and a well regarded brand. They have, however, ignored the requests of their users (like me) and if someone comes out with something better, I'll switch. On-demand is used by a minority of users because it has a very poor selection, and only works for a subset of users, most of whom don't have a TV plugged into their television. The thing is, every day more people get a fast Internet connection and more devices come out to hook TVs into that. Anyone can see it is the future and getting a movie in a few minutes is a lot better than ordering it and waiting a few days then shipping it back and waiting a few days. The future is downloads, which is why everyone is pushing to have a solution. I just think NetFlix picked the wrong path for the long term and it will crush them some day.

As for Apple, they may or may not come out with a better solution this week and it may or may not cause myself and others to take our business away from NetFlix, but if they don't it won' be because NetFlix has not given them the opportunity by their poor choices.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[evilviper]

System Requirements:

        * Computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
        * Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
        * Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later

Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV.

You need XP, but if you're willing to do just a small bit of work, you can use with Media Player 9 or above (I use v10), and Firefox or any other browser.

With anything but IE, you just change the user agent, and then parse the HTML to find the links to the media. I do this regularly with Firefox on FreeBSD6.2. I simply transfer them over the network to the XP box, strip the DRM, and transfer them again to my DVR PC, and watch them on my TV. Needing XP to remove the DRM is an irritating step, but a relatively small one.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well gee, why don't you go and get yourself a Windows XP machine like the majority of other users then?

Everything I want my media server to do, it does just fine, right up until NetFlix offered a service tied into just one browser with one media player on one OS. I'm not going to scrap my expensive and time tested server to accommodate their stupid choice. Rather, I'll ask them to support more systems and if they don't I'll take my business to someone who will.

Haven't you heard? Business is about giving the customer what they want. In this case, I'm the customer, so either they make their service convenient for me and those like me (people using Macs, Linux, Windows+Firefox, etc.) or they risk losing those subscription dollars to a competitor like Apple. Aside from that choosing to partner with Microsoft and rely upon them, while at the same time competing with them seems pretty idiotic to me. I realize it is not NetFlix's core competency, but it seems to me like they made a fatal error. MS's "partners" in the music business will tell you how well sinking all that money in PlaysForSure based music solutions has worked out for them.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[roguetrick]

PC hooked up to your PC to your TV? I heard mythtv was tough to work, but I didn't know how tough.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[rdoger6424]

they could start by having better windows programming in iTunes. That's the whole reason why iTunes sucks in wine anyways.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[instarx]

Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix. Good grief! No one is betting the future of their company on that. These Netflix streaming movies are FREE! In fact, their strategy for moving into streaming seems pretty smart to me - go slow, don't try to be all things to all people right from the start, gauge demand, don't risk a major newsworthy failure (like Wal Mart), etc.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[klausboop]

Netflix streaming + spare laptop + video out + (gov surplus)projector + wall = 100" movies.

Wow, that would make the artifacts on the SDTV resolution of the streaming Netflix movies something like three inches square!

I like Netflix streaming, and I use it frequently to watch/listen to documentaries at bedtime with a laptop on the nightstand. However I don't see the need to hook up to TV through laptop or forthcoming set-top box until they get some better resolution.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Good grief! No one is betting the future of their company on that.

I disagree. The future of video rentals is downloads. It is faster and more convenient. It is held back by three factors: lack of high speed internet, lack of internet skills, and technology hurdles such as getting video from the internet to the TV. Every month a new device comes out to connect TVs to internet content. Every day, more people get broadband access. As people age, fewer and fewer are lacking internet skills. Eventually, Netflix needs to have attractive online downloads or they will perish.

Given that this is the future of the market, betting on Silverlight which is completely controlled by Microsoft, while at the same time Microsoft offers the same service via the Zune Marketplace and has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and offers a hardware device for portable viewing (Zune) and offers a hardware device for getting video on the TV (xbox) and completely controls the WMP software needed to play the content, well they can use any one of those things to crush NetFlix at their leisure.

their strategy for moving into streaming seems pretty smart to me - go slow, don't try to be all things to all people right from the start, gauge demand, don't risk a major newsworthy failure (like Wal Mart), etc.

Yeah going slow is fine, right up until you lock all your customers existing content and hardware into a proprietary format someone else controls. That means by the time downloadable video is a major part of your business you have to choose between screwing all your existing customers by switching to a different format and DRM (major bad press and brand poisoning) or sticking with Silverlight and letting MS kill you by making your service suck compared to theirs for technical reasons you can't control. They've done it to partners over and over again and I don't see why NetFlix would be an exception.

Look I'm a current NetFlix customer and have nothing but goodwill for them. I'd love for them to succeed in the long run. I don't, however, let that blind me to the realities of their choices and I actually hope they don't stick around just long enough o help MS create another monopoly before MS kills them.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What RIAA-approved DRM do you think Blockbuster is going to use?

Umm, perhaps you mean MPAA? I'm sure they can get the MPAA to sign off on any restrictive DR they choose. There are several offerings, like Sun's DReaM, which are not tied to a vendor who is also a competitor.

Unfortunately, Windows Media DRM is probably the most usable solution for their customers.

NetFlix has the money to fund the development of hardware devices to connect to the TV and internet and use to download shows, they have enough cash to to develop their own DRM if need be.

Also, since Apple keeps their DRM all to themselves and (unlike M$) refuses to license their DRM to Netflix, you should be bitching to Apple.

Why? Using Apple-controlled DRM while competing with Apple would be only slightly less risky than using MS-controlled DR while competing with MS. Neither is a good move. And Apple has no responsibility to license their technology to anyone. NetFlix should have adopted a vendor neutral DRM or invented their own.(As an aside, you're incorrect about Apple, they did license their Fairplay DRM to several cell phone manufacturers.)

Did you miss the part where Silverlight has RIAA-approved DRM and will be compatible with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.

Again, I think you mean the MPAA. And no, I did not miss that. Microsoft often is generous in licensing their technologies and making them cross platform in the beginning. It is only once they gain a large share of the market they start breaking compatibility with competing services and dropping support for OS's. In my opinion you'd have to be a bloody idiot to adopt Silverlight for such a service, less than a year after MS broke compatibility with PlayForSure audio DRM, screwing over all their partners to promote their own Zune hardware and Zune Marketplace service. You'd think by now people would know MS won't play by the rules and the courts are not going to stop them.

Betting the future of your company on MS not abusing their monopoly is moronic.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[cthulhu11]

I submit that the world would not come to an end if you were to get off your high horse and plug your laptop into your TV. VMWare Fusion can be had for $30 and runs great on my Macbook Pro. The Netflix streaming service works as expected on M$WXP on a virtual machine. I'll stick with DVD's, though, to avoid network-related jerkiness and as they're more convenient. Yes, the limitations of the Netflix streaming service are annoying, and I've complained to them myself.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I submit that the world would not come to an end if you were to get off your high horse and plug your laptop into your TV.

No the world would not end, but that would be inconvenient. I don't know about you, but the whole reason I use NetFlix instead of walking down to the video store, is because it is more convenient. I don't want to bother plugging in cables and adaptors and unplugging my normal media server. I also like having m laptop handy when I watch a flick, in case I want to use IMDB to figure out where I've sen that actor before, or for some other reason.

I think you missed the point of my post. NetFlix is not listening to users, not innovating, and has made a decision to trust their business by relying on a partnership with MS, which they will not easily be able to abandon due to MS's lock-in strategy. Anyone who bets on simultaneously relying upon and competing with MS, with their history of screwing over competitors, is probably doomed. MS's entire business strategy relies upon luring in partners in new markets to help them make their protocol or format or whatever a de facto standard, then using their monopoly influence in other markets and control of the protocol or format to screw over those partners and take the entire market for themselves. If NetFlix actually goes through with committing to Silverlight, they're probably as good as dead in 5 years.

Re:But is it still IE and Windows only?

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway

That, good sir, is a massive understatement. Although they add new movies reasonably regularly, and aside from a few gems, the vast majority of stuff that you can "Watch Instantly" is B- and C-grade crap. I'm not talking esoteric tastes either, I'm talking serious crap that probably never made it to a theatrical release.

I'd be interested, but...

[jd]

None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix. None of the television shows, either. Sure, I'm only one person out of, oh, seven billion or so on the planet, but it would seem to indicate that Netflix have scope for improving their range. Given the power of data mining techniques and the ability for an Internet-based system to get direct feedback, one would have thought that they would have ways and means of predicting what would be good to add to their service, but given that my interests are not quite that bizarre, I can only assume that no such intelligence has been added.

Re:I'd be interested, but...

[YrWrstNtmr]

None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix.

Really? Nothing? Seeing as they do have a pretty wide selection, that's interesting.
What do you like, specifically?

Re:I'd be interested, but...

[Dynastar454]

Indeed. If nothing else, they have The Office (both versions) available for streaming.

My only complaint about the streaming service, being an Anime guy, is the inability to pick which language I get to listen to. In general the streaming is great, if low quality, and "free". It's the reason I finally killed my excellent but uncompetitive Greencine subscription.

Re:I'd be interested, but...

[SageMusings]

None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix

Yes, their snuff film collection is rather weak at the moment but I understand the studios in East Los Angeles are picking up the pace.

Re:I'd be interested, but...

[yabos]

I guess they don't have hentai pr0n

Happened last month...

[Anonymous Coward]

Got this email from netflix last month:

12/17/07
----------------
Now you get even more

As part of your current Netflix subscription, you have the option to watch some movies and TV episodes from the Netflix library instantly on your PC at no additional charge. Now, we've made it unlimited!

So watch instantly on your PC when you want, and as often as you want. Select from our separate, smaller library of over 6,000 familiar movies and TV episodes available to watch instantly.

- Your friends at Netflix
----------------
I checked my account last month and they added 1000 hours +17.

I am on 3 at a time unlimited.

Great! Now how about better OS support?

[proxima]

It's a shame that Netflix only supports Windows XP/Vista for streaming. I'd love to have a Mac OS X or Linux client.

Of course, I consider the mailed DVDs worth the subscription price, so Netflix doesn't have much incentive to make clients for people like me. I wonder if they would get many more subscribers if they offered a Mac client.

I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[bigtangringo]

Seriously, the "Watch Instantly" selection sucks. I have 24hr/mo and I think I've used maybe 24 hours since I signed up for the service 6 months ago.

On an unrelated grammatical note, should that be Netflix' or Netflix's?

On yet another unrelated note: I wish people would stop editorializing in tags. I'm looking at you Mr. "!netfilx"

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[X0563511]

Too bad.

Several quotes:

We don't know exactly how this will all work, and a lot of it really depends on you.

We're excited about this, and see huge potential for this system. From user feedback on articles, to comment moderation, the system is really limited only by your participation, and our database hardware!

Other tagging systems let users make up any tags they want, and punt on the issue of objective meaning. So the tag "foo" means for each user whatever they want it to mean, and to the system it means nothing at all, it's just an identifier.

Yes, that's pretty arbitrary. We'll spell out policy as this evolves. For now, the deal is: tag in good faith, and if there's abuse, we'll deal with it in good faith.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[palegray.net]

On an unrelated grammatical note, should that be Netflix' or Netflix's? According to Dictionary.com, it should be "Netflix's" (as you used it).

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[Osty]

Seriously, the "Watch Instantly" selection sucks. I have 24hr/mo and I think I've used maybe 24 hours since I signed up for the service 6 months ago.

I'm in a similar situation to you. I've watched a few streaming videos from Netflix (BBC's The Office, Super Size Me, Maxed Out, and a few others), but most of the items in my queue are not available for streaming. Even when they are, it's not a comfortable way for me to watch videos. I'm in the minority of folks with a Windows Media Center PC connected to my TV, and most of the time when I want to watch videos on a PC I either watch them through Media Center or stream them to my Xbox 360. In either case, I get a nice full-screen display on my TV with standard media functionality (FF/Rew/Pause/etc) via remote control. To stream a Netflix movie, I have to dig out my PC's keyboard and mouse and watch from a browser. While I can still play the movie full-screen, I can't fast forward, rewind, pause, stop, or start with a remote control, and that sucks. I realize LG is planning a set top box specifically for Netflix, but I really don't want yet another box in my media cabinet.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[bigtangringo]

Well, I watch all my movies through a windows PC attached to the TV anyway, and I used my Nokia 770 + VNC (up until the dog ate the charger) as a remote. Now I just launch movies from my desktop or laptop.

If you're a techie, the format isn't TOO inconvenient, the selection is just pitiful. I'd really like to get a lot more Discovery/Natl. Geographic type stuff on there.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[zerocool^]

We (my coworker and I) used to watch streaming netflix at lunch at work. We stopped going out to eat because the cost of a decent lunch has basically tripled in the past 5 years, both of us started bringing lunch, and then we realized we could just watch TV or movies at lunchtime. It was pretty cool, actually.

~WX

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[bigtangringo]

Oh, and now I need Windows Media Player 11, which I can't install because I refuse to install WGA.

Broken by design.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Netflix's. The sound at the end of the word doesn't matter if it's not there because of the letter s.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[TimboJones]

The letter s at the end of the word doesn't matter unless it's there to pluralize.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones have a house, that's the Jones's house.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[aka-ed]

"If you don't like Sam Fuller, you don't like movies." -- Martin Scorsese

Aside from Fuller, search Hitchcock, Herzog, david lean, billy wilder, tsui hark. You can sort all available movis by "star rating" -- If you think all the 4-star and 5-star movies are crap, you'll just have to wait for a niche service, like Emusic is for people who hate pop.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[Anonymous Coward]

I kinda' dig the way tags have evolved into commentary of their own. Just the other day I read some poetry:
makesnosense, makesalotofsense, poundandfourpence, chewbaccadefense

The order has changed since then, but the original lineup made me chuckle if read in an escalating & confident tone.

Re:I am Netflix's complete lack of selection.

[fm6]

The selection has improved drastically in recent months. Of course, they'll never have most of the big hollywood movies, not as long as the studios remain uptight about online distribution. But there's lots of good foreign, indy, and classic stuff, with a fair selection of documentaries.

If WI were a separate feature I had to pay extra for, I wouldn't pay very much for it. But they just threw it in about a year ago, without raising rates. (They've even knocked down rates slightly since then.) It's nice to watch the odd Bollywood movie that doesn't quite rate a place in my queue, and sample a lot of movies that might or might not totally suck.

Caveat: if you're picky about compression artificats, you need at least a 2Mb connection.

Re:For more information

[beckerist]

Wow...a virus?! I have Noscript and Adblock plus in Firefox and it STILL got all the way to my Avast before aborting the connection.

Unlimited doesn't help much...

[rale, the]

While netflix does currently offers such gems as 'Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter' and 'The Glamorous Life of Sachiko Hanai', a quick look at the top-50 for streaming shows just how hard it would have been to even use up 17 hours with their selection of movies. It'd also be nice if there were more options for playback, instead of just windows+ie, but I already have a laptop running windows hooked up to my display full-time anyway, so it's not a big deal to me.

Still, can't complain too much about it, as it's pretty much a free perk to the netflix membership that I have anyway.

Re:Unlimited doesn't help much...

[UCFFool]

I watched the entire Series 'Coupling' from the UK, 4 seasons. I'm now working through SLIDERS. There is a lot of good content out there in television. I'm looking forward to some other shows and their first seasons, like Entourage.

Re:Unlimited doesn't help much...

[aka-ed]

sheet! I can use up 17 hours just watching 'Drunken Master' over and over.

Add HD and I'm there

[llZENll]

Sadly their streaming movies are crappy quality I've read, put up some HD movies, 720p even, and I'll gladly pay $20/month. http://www.vudu.com/ seems to be the only doing this, and its expensive as hell, then there is the 360 downloads, but their selection is crap and its still quite expensive at 3-4 bucks per movie.

Re:Add HD and I'm there

[anotherone]

The quality actually varies based on your connection speed. When I was on slow DSL the quality was pretty poor but since I got cable and have been able to pull 10mbps pretty consistently, I've noticed much higher quality streams. Not quite 720p of course, but easily on par with or better than broadcast TV.

Re:Add HD and I'm there

[Kopiok]

It's crappy quality if you have a slower internet connection (they change the movie quality based on your download speed) and have it going out to a large TV. For Joe Computer, the quality is great and it's an extra perk of their subscription. I recently watched Season 1 of Heroes on the download service and it was great. Great quality, great sound, and I didn't have to wait days for the new discs to arrive.

Re:Add HD and I'm there

[Eddi3]

All the movies are 3-4 dollars because that's in their contract with the movie studios. They *can't* offer them for a lower price. If they did, they'd be in breach of contract.

If there was a price drop at all, *everybody* who sells those movies would also get the price drop.

Re:Add HD and I'm there

[CastrTroy]

Apart with the obvious bandwidth issues with streaming HD video, why would you really need HD video. Most of the stuff you're getting from Netflix in the mail is only 480p (DVD). Why are you complaining that the streaming content isn't HD, when most of their in-the-mail selection isn't HD either.

I am Netflix subscriber, but probably will not use

[SuperKendall]

I already subscribe to Netflix, but will probably still use whatever Apple service comes along over this one. Mostly because it wouldn't work on my media center Mac or PS3...

Obeying copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Before, when Netflix streamed a movie for 24h to someone, all they had to do was put a DVD of the movie under lock for 24h to be in the clear vs the copyright law. Now that the duration is unlimited, they actually have to purchase and destroy a physical disc each time they stream a movie to you.

Re:Obeying copyright

[ScrewMaster]

What? I assume you're shooting for a +2 Funny or something. Copyright law doesn't make any statements about how content must be distributed ... it just says that the copyright owner gets to set the terms. Presumably they have deals with the major studios that allow them to stream content for a set fee.

Re:Obeying copyright

[Doctor-Optimal]

Before, when Netflix streamed a movie for 24h to someone, all they had to do was put a DVD of the movie under lock for 24h to be in the clear vs the copyright law. Now that the duration is unlimited, they actually have to purchase and destroy a physical disc each time they stream a movie to you. Every time you stream a movie, Netflix kills a DVD.

Please. Think of the DVDs.

selection sucks!

[theneb]

i have like 24hrs or more/month and i have seen 2 movies in the past year or so and those two were the ones that were conincedentaly on my movie queue. Netflix online movie selection is so fucking bad, that instead of painfully browsing through them i end up watching drm free movies on sites that link to stage6 (divx player is much better imo) since i do get
"legal: dvds through them, there guilt factor is reduced substantially. also the netflix player doesnt work with firefox.

Re:Great! Now how about better OS support?

[NothingMore]

Id love to see a Linux client for this service. Especially if it could be built into a MythTV box (and there selection was a bit better). It would be awesome to have a large selection of movies that i could watch without even putting down the remote.

Let's Check

[markdavis]

DRM: Check
Low-def only: Check
Low bitrate: Check
Watch only on computer: Check
Poor selection: Check
No non-streaming option: Check
No Linux support: Check
No MacOS support: Check

I am ***so*** excited about the limits being lifted on my Netflix account!! Guess I will continue to use their old-fashioned DVD's. I *do* like Netflix, have used them for years, but this whole "Watch It Now" thing is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow.

Re:Let's Check

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

DRM: Check
Low-def only: Check
Low bitrate: Check
Watch only on computer: Check
No non-streaming option: Check No awareness of what 'on-line rental' means: Priceless.

Re:Let's Check

[gnuman99]

Just a reality check, but would you be happy with HD 1080p movies at 500kbps?? I thought not. Low resolution is there because of low bitrate. High resolution low bitrate is same shit.

But yes, "Watch It Now" sucks. Easier for find some interesting crap on youtube or somewhere.

Re:Let's Check

[LaskoVortex]

> No awareness of what 'on-line rental' means: Priceless.

Reason for no interest in 'on-line rental': explained.

Re:Let's Check

[i_liek_turtles]

"Watch It Now" thing is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow. That's my favorite show on TV, you insensitive clod!

Re:Let's Check

[TooMuchToDo]

Fortunately, this "non-interest" in online rentals is limited to Slashdot users who whine and complain that something doesn't work on linux nightly build X (or, gasp, a Mac), a minority in the market.

Re:Let's Check

[markdavis]

>Just a reality check, but would you be happy with HD 1080p movies at 500kbps??

No. But there are other models for on-line service that don't require streaming. Downloading, for example. Of course, that does kinda defeat the whole watch-it-NOW concept.

With x264, DVD res+ac3 has a reasonable bitrate at about 1Mb/s. But even with x264, reasonable 1080i/p+ac3 bitrates have to be, what, 5Mb/s or something? That is the absolute max of my cable modem service! I don't think Cox would be very happy :)

Re:Let's Check

[markdavis]

1) I know many non-MS-Windows, non-Slashdot following, Netflix users that have expressed disgust.

2) If Linux + BSD + MacOS users represent even 10% of the users out there, that is still a LOT of people to ignore. Let's say one out of every 10 mall shoppers have tattoos. Would piss off a lot of potential customers and businesses if security guards at the entrances turned them all away.

3) *THIS* Linux user made my concerns expressed directly to Netflix long before Slashdot postings.

4) Multi-platform was only 2 of the 8 points I made.

5) It doesn't have to work on a "nightly build" of Linux to be a useful and compatible Linux application. An app can include libraries or be compiled statically with wide compatibility- working on nearly all Linux distros for many revisions/releases backwards and forward.... just like in MS-Windows.

Re:Let's Check

[TooMuchToDo]

I wasn't picking on linux users specifically, I was just using that as an example. If it costs me X to service 85-90% of the computing world with my service and X * 2 to cover 100% of the computing world, why bother with that last 10-15%? Especially if I'm already making money hand over fist. Would it be nice for Netflix to be able to provide Watch It Now to everyone? Definitely. I would love to be able to stream it to my Myth box. But I'm pragmatic (I think it occurs after you turn 25), and realize that Netflix is beholden to content producers. Perhaps, one day it will happen. But I don't see it happening in the short term.

Now, on to your points:

DRM: Check

Mandated by studios. See: itunes store. One day when studios lighten up, hopefully this will go away. Don't blame Netflix though. And if you only watch Watch It Now on your PC or a Windows PC hooked up to a TV, not a big deal, since you're just watching the content (you don't own it, which I could then understand being pissed about DRM)

Low-def only: Check

Bah. It's "good enough" quality. As with the DRM, it will get better over time. Customer expectations for 780i/p or 1080i/p via streaming aren't realistic, at least not till large cable providers roll out DOCSIS 3.0 (allowing 100Mb/sec downloads over cable).

Low bitrate: Check

See above

Watch only on computer: Check

LG should have an appliance out shortly that lets you watch Watch It Now on your TV. Don't whine about it. You need a cable box to get digital cable, no?

Poor selection: Check

Their selection will only grow with time, and I believe they currently have around 6,000 movies available. Not slim pickins'.

No non-streaming option: Check

So? If you want a non-streaming option, use Amazon's Unbox and pay for each movie.

No Linux support: Check

Addressed at top of comment. Linux users will still end up watching DVDs via mail.

No MacOS support: Check

Addressed at top of comment. Mac users will still end up watching DVDs via mail.

Re:Let's Check

[aka-ed]

Netflix did not create the tools they are using to implement the service.

It isn't their choice that these tools are Windows-only.

Save your "disgust" for things that matter a bit more, you will live longer.

Re:Let's Check

[keytoe]

This has been my beef with this new 'feature' from the get go. I have Mac systems and I have several MythTV boxes - none of which are even close to supported at this point. Hell, if they DID start supporting this on Mac systems - which is realistically the only move they'll ever make - it would STILL not work for me since all my A/V is done in Myth. I don't want to watch movies on my laptop or in my office - I want to watch them on that big flatscreen in the living room.

I have to presume that this value added option they have is in some way being 'given' to me in lieu of, say, reducing my monthly rate. Great. Thanks for nothing.

Ultimately, I don't understand what all the fuss is about this. I'm not remotely interested in keeping copies of everything they send me - and why would I be? If I wanted to watch a movie and/or TV show again - I'll just 'rent' it again! This has already happened to me with their physical service - I don't ever buy actual DVDs any more. Why would I want to purchase and store boxes upon boxes of physical media on the off chance I'd want to watch something again when I can let NetFlix keep all that crap in THEIR warehouse? Moving to pure digital distribution simply eliminates the only irksome side effect of that arrangement: having to wait for the physical object to be delivered.

Instead, I get to 'pay' for a service that doesn't work at all for me. Because I might be a dirty pirate - or something. I'm not even sure what the argument is at this point. Seems that if we all go the NetFlix sanctioned way, we get it to work the way I want anyway - as long as we use Windows.

In Summary:

$25/month NetFlix + Windows Only = Cranky Customer who doesn't pirate

$25/month NetFlix + Any Platform = Happy Customer who doesn't pirate

Re:Let's Check

[thomas.galvin]

I *do* like Netflix, have used them for years, but this whole "Watch It Now" thing is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow. On someone else's computer...

Won't work on macs

[goombah99]

Netflix streaming won't work on macs (or linux). It also requires you to watch from a computer. Most cheap PC computers--that is to say most computers--are not fit company for the living room. The idea of the media PC has always made me laugh. Too noisey. (in contrast all but the powermacs which sound like windtunnels, are very quiet and welcome in the living room). SO it's ironic that the computers that netflix is suited for are the ones it does not support.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Anonymous Coward]

it's more ironic that LG is making a set top box to stream from Netflix for this very reason.....

And that you didn't read far enough to even see this in the story.....

Re:Won't work on macs

[gabebillings]

My media PC is in a nice case that even the wife approves of, and is cooled by one nearly silent 120mm fan. Being able to stream movies directly onto my 52" LCD is very nice.

Re:Won't work on macs

[robbiedo]

Yes, it works just fine on a Power Mac. Just install Parallels. Create a Windows XP WM. Enjoy!

Re:Won't work on macs

[leamanc]

Parallels doesn't run on Power Macs, which are PPC based. :-)

Re:Won't work on macs

[aztracker1]

My mce pc is pretty quiet... however, I replaced the cpu fan with a quiet cooler master fan, reversed the flow, and fasioned a cowl to direct the air from the cpu out of the case.. also removed the two 60mm fans on the back.. I have one 80mm fan for intake, and the psu has a relatively quiet 14cm fan...

Now, the default design of the case etc was noisier.. but it isn't too hard to do.. One thing that kind of upsets me is that all the cpu fan designs blow towards the cpu, instead of up and away from.. yeah the hotter air going by the fan reduces the lifetime, but it's more effective in cooling.. and with good airflow in the case works better... It would be cool if cases were designed with a vent, similar to the plastic ones for the back of a clothes dryer, to attach to an 80-92mm fan, to blow straight from the cpu out of the case.. I know dell and others have done machine for this, but home-brew support would be nice...

Though, it would be nice to use my other machines for it.. I just happen to use mce in the living room, and do watch netflix online.. discovered Utawarerumono via the watch now... Was also watching red dwarf... so it's pretty cool... Personally, I would prefer to see higher resolution support from flash... at least it can be viewed cross platform... though silverlight may help there... I know it's DRM vs. not, but to be honest, if I'm watching a stream, I'm not generally trying to record it.

Re:Won't work on macs

[robbiedo]

I meant Mac Pro , like I own, or my MacBook, or any MacIntel. Pardon my fox pox.

Re:Won't work on macs

[kefler]

If you think a PC, even a cheap PC, is too noisy for use in a living room, then you're doin' it wrong. Any of the modern cases w/ 120mm fans are going to be extremely quiet. And as long as you pick a graphics card geared towards TV and not 3d gaming (i.e. 8600GT from Gigabyte) they will be silent as well.

Re:Won't work on macs

[khephera]

I got it to work on a Macbook under Parallels, but it heats the machine up. The fan kicks in and the "mooing" of the fan is too loud to enjoy the flick.

Re:Won't work on macs

[webmaster404]

But thats still Windows... Even if it ran in WINE it would still be Windows only. Just say no to Netflix if you want the Mac/Linux platform to be supported.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Fratz]

Media-capable PCs are only noisy if you build them as if they're servers. There are plenty of quiet parts: drives, fans, heatsinks, etc.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Dare nMc]

be very interesting when http://slingmedia.com/go/slingcatcher is released.
If it truly works as advertised then only quality, and the need to leave the PC always on remain.
Although all other Sling products claim Vista compatibilty, I doubt this one can deliver Vista and "can project anything that's playing on your computer screen"
Vista is not a issue I will personally worry about in the next couple years.

Re:Won't work on macs

[NSIM]

Hmm, I bought a pretty cheap dual-core Intel system with 2GB of memory a decent ATI graphics card, 300GB drive, and DVD write for about $600 and have it hooked up to my living room system. I cannot hear it even when the room is quiet (i.e. not playing or listening to anything), so I don't buy the "too noisy" argument. he things that hold me back on Netflix video on demand is the lack of integration with MediaCenter in Vista and relatively low quality, if they fixed those issues, I'd start downloading. Meanwhile I'll carry on using it for stuff that I get from torrents which it does an excellent job of playing back at 1080x1920 resolution (and guess what folks, no issues with Vista's DRM when playing back torrented video ;-)

Re:Won't work on macs

[The Great Pretender]

Hmm,I stream netflix regularly through my old Dell Dimension 8400 (purchased as a refurb >4 years ago) with it's original ATI 9800 and XP. Going through s-video. The only thing I did was bump up to 3 Megs of ram and add a 5.1 M-Audio card for co-ax sound ($30 after rebate). The computer makes no noise that I or the wife can hear and it sits right by the couch, with the cables fed to my old 42" LRP Mitsu TV. So I given that I'm using what would now be a cheap PC (you can buy the PC for $311) I think that I'm missing your irony.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Anonymous Coward]

Most media PCs are silent...see, when you make your own computer, you can do that. If you're stuck pulling Macs out of the Jobs-Dumpster, you get what they give you.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Facetious]

If I had a 52" LCD I would brag about it on /. too ;-)

Re:Won't work on macs

[mandelbr0t]

Why hate WINE? Sometimes the software you need was developed in Windows. If you can run it, why worry? If you've got some sort of FOSS idealism going on, you might have a bit of a point; but what are the odds that the newly supported platforms would come complete with FOSS code?

Re:Won't work on macs

[Joe Tie.]

There was a port of their player to osx a while back which was demoed at shows a few times. Not sure what ever became of it, but they should be able to get it to that platform pretty easily if they ever feel like it.

Re:Won't work on macs

[The Grim Reefer2]

It's not hard or expensive to swap out the fans in most PCs, cheap or otherwise, to make this a none issue. I've had a "Media PC" for well over a decade. The one that currently resides in my entertainment center is not audible from where I view movies, and barely so unless I'm within a few feet of it and everything else is off.

Re:Won't work on macs

[geniusj]

Dell XPS 410 (gaming) is eerily silent. I didn't expect it, it was quite a shock. It uses a BTX motherboard and large fans, which are probably the reasons for it, but it is quieter than my PowerMac G4, my new iMac and my macbook pro. Pretty crazy.

Re:Won't work on macs

[(negative video)]

Oh. I thought he was bragging about having a wife.

Re:Won't work on macs

[Seumas]

I'll be happy to buy the new machine they plan on putting out, because I do not use rental stores and I do not care to use netflix's mail service and Comcast's "on-demand" crap is unbelievably weak and limited (for example, I just watched every horror-ish movie on the entire system in one weekend). But as soon as I can plug a little box into my home theater and instantly watch anything I want, I'm there. Although probably not for 6,000 movies. One of the big things holding me back from the kindle is that 90,000 books is not many. They don't even have all Douglas Adams or Heinlein books and are missing a LOT of Asimov. Likewise, with only about six percent of their collection online, I won't have much interest in the netflix online system right away.

Not to mention, since it'll probably suck the movies down over your broadband connection, I'm not looking forward to Comcast calling me to threaten to ban me for a year because I watched fifty netflix films during the month and used too much bandwidth.

Re:Won't work on macs

[mortonda]

One thing that kind of upsets me is that all the cpu fan designs blow towards the cpu, instead of up and away from.. For lack of better terminology, I thought fans work better at creating higher pressure than at creating a vacuum.

Re:Won't work on macs

[aka-ed]

"It also requires you to watch from a computer." Do they still make video cards that won't clone to S-VHS out? I watch netflix on my 52' Mitsubishi. Can't touch hi def, but comparable to analog broadcast. The selection is a little thin but interesting. Lots of Herzog, early Sam Fuller, some Hitchcock...Netflix's film production division, Red Envelope Entertainment, produces some decent documentaries and indies that go directly to the 'instant' library.

Re:Won't work on macs

[MistrBlank]

I wouldn't worry too much, your parent poster was too ignorant to realize there is a whole market for fanless systems as HTPCs.

Re:Won't work on macs

[mrand]

One thing that kind of upsets me is that all the cpu fan designs blow towards the cpu, instead of up and away from.. For lack of better terminology, I thought fans work better at creating higher pressure than at creating a vacuum. That is correct. The danger with vacuum is that you get uneven cooling - some (much?) of the moving air is going to come from all gaps around the heatsink, rather than forcing air through the fins.

      Marc

Re:Won't work on macs

[Buelldozer]

I thought he was bragging about having a wife with 52"...nevermind.

Re:Won't work on macs

[rjstegbauer]

OK...I'm not a physicist, but...

How does the air flow around the fins depend on whether it's sucking or blowing?

It seems to me that the path of least resistance will be the path of least resistance in either direction.

Curious,
Randy.

Re:Won't work on macs

[webmaster404]

I don't hate WINE, but too many times companies rely on the FOSS communities to make drivers and such while not giving support to people running Linux. WINE is not a bad project, I myself run and recomend it, but sometimes you have to say enough and make a company make a cross-platform product (or at least not blocking third-parties) to work on all 3 major platforms, Windows, Linux and OS-X.

Re:Won't work on macs

[mrand]

Find a box fan and stand a few feet in front it. Put your hand between your legs at knee level and feel how much air is flowing between them. Now go stand behind the box fan and do the same thing. Your legs are the fins of a heatsink.

The velocity and pressure of the air coming out of the fan is different. It forces more air into places that it would otherwise would have never reached (be it due to distance, or due to resistance).

      Marc

Re:Won't work on macs

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, iMacs and minis are built as if they're laptops. A PC desktop isn't going to get that quiet, the power supply alone would kill it.

Go to an Apple store during off hours and try to hear one running.

Re:Won't work on macs

[mortonda]

Not only that, but it seems like there should be something along the lines of "There are more air molecules in a high pressure area than in a low pressure area to collect heat". Given an adequate intake, you can push more air into a space, but you can only suck so much out. (and certainly one side of a CPU fan has a more restricted flow!)

Re:Won't work on macs

[aztracker1]

While this is true, that the core part of a cpu heatsink won't get as much airflow... The air that does go past the outer portions of the fins will cool those parts, and allow for heat to draw into those areas... The cooler being a conductor will distribute the heat outward... as to the better airflow, I think this would be offset by drawing the hot air out of the case, rather than have it haphazardly recirculate around the motherboard... drawing air through a cowl around the cpu heatsink/cooler and directly out of the case is imho more effective than having hot air circulating through the case, and likely re-run through the fan/heatsink multiple times... for that matter, a heat pipe could connect the plate against the cpu to a raised raidiator, with the fan under the radiator, and same cowl drawing the air directly out of the case... many heatsinks have similar designs, but very few in such a manner as airflow from one side of the case, across the motherboard/components, and out of the case.... most will cause air to recirculate inside the case, spreading hot air out, and making it hotter than need be.

In my MCE example, the temperatures for the cpu, and inside the case dropped about 15 degrees in the case, and almost 20 on the cpu... I turned the fan around, and made a cowl to send this air out of the case.... this made a significant improvement in airflow... Another thing that does help in existing designs, is the cases that have a cowl on the side, over the cpu, and draw fresh air in, over the cpu... which can be very effective as well, but still pushes warm air out into the area, though many cases don't have such a design.

For all the things I don't like in dell, I find their design with a rear case fan, and a cowl over the cpu heatsink do work very effectively... I just wouldn't mind seeing similar focus in homebrew setups...

Re:Won't work on macs

[aztracker1]

while standing behind it, put a cardboard box, open on both ends from the outer edges of the fan, to the back of your legs... how well does it work now? I'm talking about directing airflow, not just letting it float in/out anywhere.

They are LYING.

[SanityInAnarchy]

If that is actually a reasonably accurate description -- that it's "impossible" -- well, there's Flash, which sucks, but works for YouTube, and there's a good ol' tag, with some actual mpeg streaming. I bet most machines would do well if you stuck a .mp4 file in there.

And before people start bitching about having to install a player... They're forcing what for many people is an OS upgrade (or wholesale switch), browser upgrade, and/or Windows Media Player upgrade (or fresh install). If they're going to force a download anyway, why not force one that will work anywhere, like, oh, VLC?

Oh right -- piracy. But then they should be saying "We don't want to", not "it's impossible". And besides, none of the technologies I suggested prevents you from watermarking, which is a much more effective piracy deterrent anyway.

Re:They are LYING.

[samweber]

Do you really think netflix could offer non-DRMed movies without permission of the studios? And, just look at the recent writer's strike -- there's no way in hell the studios are going to allow mpeg streaming!

There's more meanings to "impossible" than just technologically impossible.

Re:Burning that karma.

[zippthorne]

Gaa, when will slashdot let us put some basic filtering in our comment preferences. I've never seen a post with that word in it that was worth reading, and they're almost as prevalent as that stupid minicity dealy was a couple of weeks ago.

If server side filtering is too expensive, then maybe they could shove a couple of routines in with the javascript includes for client-side regex filtering.

This will cause the end of the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

They predicted that the Internet would grind to a halt in 2008. This is the first nail in the coffin. Netflix should definitely reconsider, for the sake of internet users everywhere.

Social conditioning my ass.

[palegray.net]

I'm keenly aware of the fact that the Civil War was largely fought over cotton, not slavery. Doesn't make idiotic and offensive jokes concerning anyone's race any more acceptable. Perhaps you could stop judging people you don't know based on a few characters typed in a browser. In other words, shut the hell up.

Re:Social conditioning my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you could stop judging people you don't know based on a few characters typed in a browser.

...unless those characters spell "nigger," that is... then it's fine and dandy to judge away...

Re:Social conditioning my ass.

[MBraynard]

No, dummy, it was fought over access to a warm-water port.

That's a great movie for tribalists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Birth of a nation is a great flick for tribalists/collectivists types who lack the balls to stand in this world as their own person.

Racial pride is for those who are incapable of doing anything of themselves worthy of being proud of. The new slogan of the racial pride types should be "Be proud of your race, because succeeding in life as an individual is too damned hard."

...or charge me less.

[xh3g]

To me the real issue is that I've been paying the same amount for a lesser service. If they can't offer me the streaming that they offer Windows users, they should charge me less. Certainly they can see that I've never streamed a single movie.

Re:...or charge me less.

[proxima]

To me the real issue is that I've been paying the same amount for a lesser service. If they can't offer me the streaming that they offer Windows users, they should charge me less. Certainly they can see that I've never streamed a single movie.

The marginal cost of the service to you is probably minimal. Unless, of course, they pay per-view licensing fees, which I doubt. Everything about the streaming service indicates a large fixed cost (setting up the software/interface, ripping movies into the appropriate format, setting up the hardware infrastructure). So rebating that marginal cost to you wouldn't translate into much of a savings.

Re:...or charge me less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then stop being a mindless drooling Steve Jobs worshiper and get a real computer with an OS that handles all the content out there. Sorry, you insensitive clod.

Re:...or charge me less.

[Achromatic1978]

That's silly. You were paying $x before streaming was an option, and now they're making their service include streaming, for free. That you are not using your service (for whatever reason) completely does not mean that you were offered less service, a simple comparison to the cost before it was even an option shows that. They aren't charging more to use it, why should they charge less not to? Should they also charge less if you only exchange movies once a month, too. After all, that's less than some people are.

So Ron Paul should like it then, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Birth of a nation is a great flick for tribalists/collectivists types who lack the balls to stand in this world as their own person.

Sounds like a match.

Re:So Ron Paul should like it then, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but laugh at the Randroids and libertardians that got suckered with the Ron Paul thing.

Those stinking turds have been floating in his punchbowl for years, but you all just drank up anyway.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 6000 movies they make available for download are not a random sample of their DVD catalog. Few movies of any quality are in the list. It's mostly junk. A good guess would be that they are having difficulty persuading the owners to license for streaming. After you've viewed the handful of flicks worth watching, you quit. So it makes no difference whether you get 17 hours a month, or unlimited access.

Is it just me, or is 90000 movies just silly?

[icebike]

I find it amazing there are 90 thousand movies that (some) people might actually PAY to view.

There aren't 5 movies made per year that I would invest two hours to watch, let alone pay money on top of the time wasted.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which might mean something if Netflix actually owned the rights to these movies. They don't. They're a licensee, completely bound to the terms of whatever agreement they have with the rights owners.

Who Cares

[foo fighter]

It is still only works on Windows with Internet Explorer. I have to assume Apple's solution will work on my Macs running OS X.

Re:Who Cares

[YrWrstNtmr]

Who cares

Probably 95% of the Netflix customer base.

Re:Who Cares

[TooMuchToDo]

Keep in mind, Apple still has a fairly insignificant market share. And now that Amazon is offering cheaper, non-DRMd music, I see Apple losing their grasp on the music industry.

Won't work on my mac...

[Born2Code]

so the announcement makes little difference to me.

Re:For more information

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Ubuntu Linux and Swiftweasel (optimized Firefox build), but it crashed it.

No, but the people who...

[Anonymous Coward]

...believe everything they read without questioning will LOVE it. Kinda like people like you. lmao.

Ron Paul: "Duh, oops! Let me be President!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oops, I accidentally published a racist newsletter named after myself! I had no idea what the content was! Of course I won't let you see any other back issues! Let me be President!"

Seriously, what species of human could possibly accept this as a reasonable explanation?

Stormfront supports Ron Paul. For a reason.
The Ron Paul Racist Report

Ron Paul: Racist and ashamed of it.

Re:Ron Paul: "Duh, oops! Let me be President!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oops, I accidentally published a racist newsletter named after myself! I had no idea what the content was! Of course I won't let you see any other back issues! Let me be President!" Seriously, what species of human could possibly accept this as a reasonable explanation?"

Don't be an unthinking shit. It was before the internet age and things could get published to a small group of subscribers and not have it come to light until much later. Totally different era.

"Ron Paul: Racist and ashamed of it."

Actually he has very strongly disavowed such view points. As for racists supporting him... GW bush was supported by Stormfront. If Stormfront comes out tomorrow and says we should pull out of Iraq, will that make pulling out of Iraq a racist viewpoint? If stormfront comes out tomorrow and supports John McCain, will that make McCain a racist?

What kind of a unthinking clod closes their eyes to 20 years of solid service in the public eye that shows no sign of a racist agenda? His record is extremely rare and speaks for itself, and his actions ought to be speak louder than words attributed to him in any reasonable persons mind. But you're a partisan shrub, not a reasonable person, I get that.

That's your right, this is America. But I call your bullshit for what it is.

Re:Ron Paul: "Duh, oops! Let me be President!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul has never had any real political power. He's been a backwater congressman for 20 years. You can't deduce much about how he would perform in the office of President from his actions - but from his explicit political philosophy published in his personal newsletter, you can learn a great deal.

You don't get to do any real damage until you get elected President. Best not to let a dangerous racist get that far.

The only suckers are turds like you who believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a short bus type of person to give more credence to words than to actions. His record speaks for itself.

But that's the type of populace we have now. People judge based on words, not on actions. That's why the other candidates are more palatable to most. They're soothsayers, nothing more. They spew empty promises about change and there is no logical reason at all to believe they will bring change given their records. But that's what being a mainstream dipshitted partisan is all about. Fantasy, make believe, and unquestioning belief in stories and opinions that their "side" spouts out their rear ends. That's what being a sucker is all about. listening to words and ignoring deeds. Basically, the supporters of every other candidate who believes they will bring change. Those are the suckers.

Re:Censorship = Blockbuster

[Macrat]

That would be the chain that forces the distributors into editing for "family friendly" videos.

Paul's action: Publishing a hate-filled newsletter

[Anonymous Coward]

You may as well throw your vote into the Libertarian Party dumpster this election, because nigger-hatin' Ron Paul is not getting the GOP nomination. He's been outed. Spin it all you want.

Re:Let's Check Facts

[mrslacker]

> DRM: Check

Strip with Mirakagi, et al, Uncheck.

> Low-def only: Check
> Low bitrate: Check

No, varies. About 2GB per movie. Not DVD, but plenty watchable.

> Watch only on computer: Check

See above, uncheck.

> Poor selection: Check

Limited yes, but I'm still finding stuff. And it's being added to regularly.

> No non-streaming option: Check
> No Linux support: Check
> No MacOS support: Check

See above about unDRMing. True, you need to do this in Windows (PITA), but this is one off.

hth.

Well, I'm excited about it.

[jred]

I hate DVDs. I actually looked at Netflix, but the streaming limits turned me off. I watch all my movies on a laptop, anyway, so that's not an issue for me.

The Windows only aspect *may* become an issue for me at some point, assuming I ever get the wireless working under Linux .I'm not spending a lot of time on it, though. Pretty much just trying each version of Ubuntu as it's released.

Re:Burning that karma.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care? Is your time so valuable that you seriously find it to be a PROBLEM that you have to spend two seconds reading a "nigger-post" once in awhile?

You're a college student, aren't you, you bleeding-heart, politically-correct, starry-eyed fuck? I can't wait for you to enter the real world.

"I am eighteen, I know everything now because I am finally an adult! Mommy doesn't breast-feed me anymore! She stopped last weekend!"

Oh my God. Why am I so angry at you? I AM SO FUCKING ANGRY... ARGH!

Re:Great! Now how about better OS support?

[Anonymous Coward]

t's a shame that Netflix only supports Windows XP/Vista for streaming. I'd love to have a Mac OS X or Linux client.

I wonder if they would get many more subscribers if they offered a Mac client. Of course they want to offer a Mac client. They can't because there is only one RIAA-approved DRM available for OS X, and Apple won't license it to Netflix. They can license Microsoft's DRM, so they use that. I don't expect a company like Netflix to create their own RIAA-approved DRM.

I just watched 3 hours today!

[exhilaration]

I've been watching MI-5 using Netflix streaming. It's a great show and I love that I can get my fix instantly! Both seasons 1 and 2 are available to watch online. I'm on the $10/month plan so I'm very happy to see the limit eliminated.

Re:For more information

[Anonymous Coward]

That site works for me. I have Windows xp with internet explorere. Had to eneble java or whatever it's called.

As a netflix member...

[JustNiz]

They need to make more films available using streaming. Most if not all of the 6000 movies available are really old or the least popular.
Also they REALLY need to get away from IE-only technology.

Re:Let's Check Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, if you're willing to spend more time and expense than it takes to put something in your Netflix DVD queue and wait for it, you can illegally acquire a highly inferior version. Fantastic!

Re:Great! Now how about better OS support?

[proxima]

[...]RIAA-approved DRM[...]

You mean the MPAA, not the RIAA.

I don't expect a company like Netflix to create their own RIAA-approved DRM.

I don't either. I'm not really up on the latest DRM video formats, but I bet a reasonably large player like Netflix could put some money down to make a Mac OS X client happen in some MPAA-acceptable way. It's probably just not worth it to them at this point, which was my point.

It's also a shame that Apple likes to do everything itself with ITMS. Tacking on video rentals to the iTunes setup would be really nice - it would interface nicely with Apple TV I'm sure, increasing the usefulness of the streaming service.

Re:Censorship = Blockbuster

[MBraynard]

Even if they didn't do that, I get the sense they still wouldn't have the kind of films that interest you. You know, the kind of stuff in the first post of this article.

Re:Centralia, Pennsylvania

[Anonymous Coward]

A troll that watches C-SPAN?!?!

No subtitles/closed captioning

[Trecares]

None of those are provided with the Netflix Streaming service which makes it even less pointless for people who need to use such services. I dont understand why they cant just rip the subtitles and sync em with the video. If someone wants a certain subtitling or captioning they can just tick it and it renders it on top of the video. Come on already.

Re:Paul's action: Publishing a hate-filled newslet

[rkcth]

2 states is "outed". You need to brush up on how politics work. Its very early in the race still.

Re:Censorship = Blockbuster

[Blakey Rat]

Blockbuster.com has the same selection of non-censored videos as netflix.com. The Blockbuster retail stores and Blockbuster.com operate more or less entirely independently-- which is quite annoying, since you can't just walk into one and ask them to look up your coupon online, you have to print it out.

In any case, if Blockbuster didn't ask for "family friendly" videos, as you seem to think they do, Wal-Mart would. I don't see the problem, frankly. If you don't like it, don't buy there. If enough people don't like it, they'll go out of business.

Re:Burning that karma.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're some dumb suburban American who doesn't know jack shit about the world, what's your point?

"Wow look at me, I am so cool, I think being able tolerate/not care about the word nigger makes prepared for the real world."

What we need to do is ship your stupid ass to somewhere like Congo or North Korea, we'll see how cool you'll be then. Let's see how you'll be bitchin about what a man you are when some rabid militia nigga chops your legs off.

P.S. I actually think there shouldn't be any big deal about the word nigger. It is the ultimate form of racism to think that a word has different meaning depending on speakers skin colour. But I do have a problem with your pseudo-matcho BS. You're acting like dumb trash, like 90% of the USA.

It's a BONUS

[saikou]

Yes, it's very limited (OS/Browser/Media Player) but remember, this is NOT a standalone service. People do not subscribe to Netflix to "watch streaming movies". No. The only purpose of streaming at this time is to provide a bonus extra feature. For those cases where you sit at the computer and want to run some movie in a background.
For those who really really want to watch it on TV there'll be a set-top box.
For everyone else, Netflix will remain a DVD rental service.

P.s. do they already make an iTunes for Linux? I thought so. So no matter what Apple announces, it'd be just as useless for the Linux crowd.

Re:It's a BONUS

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yes, it's very limited (OS/Browser/Media Player) but remember, this is NOT a standalone service. People do not subscribe to Netflix to "watch streaming movies". No. The only purpose of streaming at this time is to provide a bonus extra feature. For those cases where you sit at the computer and want to run some movie in a background.

Yeah, that is how NetFlix treats it now, but I think it is clear to everyone that movie downloads will be the future. I'd much rather download a movie in a few minutes than wait for it to come in the mail and then wait for it to get back to them in the mail. I already have a computer hooked up to my TV/stereo full time, which I use as my DVD player, music server, etc. So if Apple or anyone else comes along with a solution that will let me download movies to a Mac media server, and the cost is not prohibitive, and they can get the interface/queuing right, NetFlix will lose my business and probably that of many other people. As the market matures, that trend will continue.

For those who really really want to watch it on TV there'll be a set-top box.

Who wants yet one more set top box from another vendor? I want one box plugged into my TV that is a DVR, DVD player, streaming media server, MP3 player, CD player, and everything else. I already have such a box. I'm not going to buy another one just for NetFlix streaming because they can't manage cross/platform compatibility with OS X.

For everyone else, Netflix will remain a DVD rental service.

Which they will be, and they'll slowly die as they are outcompeted by download services that work.

P.s. do they already make an iTunes for Linux? I thought so. So no matter what Apple announces, it'd be just as useless for the Linux crowd.

Probably, which is why a lot of us were hoping NetFlix would listen to their users and make a cross-platform solution not tied to MS and not tied exclusively to them. It would be awfully nice to have a real DRM standard adopted by a major player instead of yet another victim foolish enough to partner with MS, rely on MS, and compete with MS at the same time. RIP NetFlix, you were really innovative and cool for a while.

PC/Mac only

[Foodie]

I'm surprised that almost everyone just talks about IE only compatibility with Netflix, and no support for Mac and Linux. I would be willing to bet that if the next company that has a solution for not only Windows, Mac and Linux, but also for browsers on the Wii, PS3 and Xbox, or whatever devices that are already connected to the tv/entertainment center, then that will really be the real winner. Why add one more device, to the entertainment center some of us are "port challenged" (eg, I'm already out of hdmi ports on my receiver).

Care for who again?

[SuperKendall]

I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.

Apple would do that if they cared for WHO? Given the ultra-low adoption of paid Windows-DRM media, the only people Apple would be helping out in that regard is Microsoft! Not sure if you've seen the NPD numbers, but the leader in DRM laden video sales is actually Apple, by a wide margin. Why should they adopt some podunk DRM system consumers don't use nor want and doesn't even work on an iPod (or Zune!!)?

Perhaps Apple's update allowing rentals will change things and open up some avenue for Netflix, but I doubt it. Netflix either has to start getting content providers agree to You-Tube level flash video of content, or just give it up. This move is obviously a move to try and make the service more popular.

Disclaimer: I have both Netflix (which I've had and enjoyed for years) and an Apple media PC (mac mini dedicated to the TV).

Cockbuster

[Paul_Hindt]

One time a few years ago in my town some vandals managed to get up on the roof of the local Blockbuster and change the main huge marquee to say Cockbuster. It stayed up for a few weeks until they finally got it reverted back to normal.

RTW

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'd rather they just brought back the "Releasing This Week" page instead of that Fisher Price Activity Box style of New Releases (which has releases a year old) page with its "gee whiz" effects that makes web designers orgasm and gives web users headaches.

Re:RTW

[earborne]

The new releases list still works, they've only stopped linking to it from the new releases page.

http://www.netflix.com/AllNewReleases?lnkctr=NavAllNewReleases

Re:RTW

[Quiet_Desperation]

I know, but if you've been reading the blog, they clearly intend to get rid of it eventually. I dunno... maybe the outcry will make them leave it there for those that know, sort of like the 30 second skip on Tivos.

Can't watch streaming videos from netflix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I run Linux. But everything is available from bittorrent so it's all good.

Obsessing over trivia.

[argStyopa]

Don;t forget: I can watch a movie when I've got nothing else to do: Check

Look, obsess all you want about
DRM (why, did you pay for the movies and want to make copies?),
low-def (TV resolution... maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but as much as I love watching movies in high-def, moderate resolutions - esp if I'm watching on a 15-17" monitor or laptop - are perfectly fine)
Watch only on computer (simply wrong - dude, buy decent video card and a cable?)
Limited Selection: true
No non-streaming option: well, no, it's a 'streaming movie service' not a video download service. Your computer doesn't make orange juice, either.
No Linux/Mac: your choice to run those OS's (shrug) ....but the fact is that after the TV news is over and I have the choice of watching crappy TV or DVD's that I've already viewed, I can browse around Netflix and find a Jim Gaffigan video or perhaps Last of the Mohicans - well, it's better than nothing and it's FREE.

Bandwidth and Comcast?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much bandwidth would this use? Could a Comcast user expect to fully use this service (say, watching 2-3 movies a day) without violating Comcast's AUP and secret bandwidth limits?

It Doesn't Mean Anything Until....

[svtmunk]

Subscribers can watch the whole catalog of Netflix movies. At the moment, they have a very limited selection of what you can stream, and 95% of it is crap nobody wants to watch...

Wow, just wow...

[Jinjuku]

Netflix has a streaming service that works for watching something that you like out of their 'Watch Now' library. A library that they are going to continue to grow. A service that now lets me watch an unlimited amount of streamed content for $8.99/month. And all the majority can do is BITCH about it.

It sounds like you found a better, legal version, for less money with all the features (5.1 surround, subtitles, 720P, multi-platform, multi-browser etc...) That all starts within a few seconds of selection. So why are you here bitching about Netflix? Just fucking use the better service you found. I have sales leads tell me they found product X cheaper somewhere else, GREAT GO BUY IT.

I have a news flash for you: Netflix doesn't want you as a customer. I have no idea why you haven't seen the GO AWAY sign they have posted for you.

Me, I have an HTPC with a Netflix account. I just finished watching Heroes season I and II. The Office is next. It looks good on my 37" lcd. For $8.99 a month I am damned satisfied.

Just speculation...

[blueZ3]

I've wondered about this since they started the streaming deal.

It looks to me like they are adding stuff to the list all the time, but slowly. Does that mean that there's one guy in a back room at the Netflix headquarters who is ripping these DVDs to their format and then uploading them to the server farm, all by hand? I mean, the selection is getting bigger, but it's slow going.

I've also wondered about the choices of what they're offering first. I mean, if my speculation above is correct, maybe the one guy in the back room has to pick DVDs he's sure nobody is going to ask for on the day he's doing the burning? Or the studios have agreed to allow older/less popular stuff as a trial balloon so they can see if it's worth allowing/charging extra for?

I've appreciated Netflix for the last couple of years, but streaming directly to my (non-Windows) HTPC would be nice.

I want Netflix-queue-like downloading

[blueZ3]

What I really would like (and be willing to pay money for) is a downloading system with a Netflix-queue-like method for queuing movie downloads. I want something other than a torrent site (where the quality, legality, actual content, etc. are unknown) where I can view and queue movies for download, then have 2 or 3 downloaded in the background. Next time I want to watch something from my HTPC, the ones at the top of the queue will be ready for viewing. When I'm done, I want the system to delete the viewed movie and download another.

I don't want streaming, because it's unreliable (bandwidth may be in use by someone else), I don't want a torrent (for reasons stated above), and I don't want the hassle (however minor) of sending and receiving DVDs.

If some company could provide this, with a large library of titles, for something close to what Netflix charges, I would subscribe in a heartbeat. Anyone out there know of something along these lines?

Re:I want Netflix-queue-like downloading

[Buelldozer]

If the cable companies would execute it properly what you're describing is pretty much a Video On Demand system.

This is great!

[hivemind_mvgc]

I recently discovered the on-demand feature of Netflix. Yesterday, I watched half a season of The Office from a laptop plugged into the LCD TV in the living room, and it was great! No streaming interruptions, no ads in the player... thoroughly enjoyable. In fact, it's jumpstarting my plans to build a small PC for the living room; I'm building a small Shuttle box on NewEgg right now.

XBox360 Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish Netflix and Microsoft would get the streaming-video service on the XBox360 and XBox Live. Netflix's streaming service is practically useless to me, since I find it very uncomfortable to watch movies at my computer.

Re:Burning that karma.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that you assumed that I am an American. Canadians, and white Europeans, are incredibly racist, because there are no black people in their societies.

I am not American, I am from Ireland, and I *am* a racist. Just like you, apparently.

Fuck you and your pussy postscript explanation.

I guess I was right. You are eighteen, and in college, and a faggot.

Blockbuster

[kellyb9]

I know I'm probably going to get bashed for this comment, but I actually really liked Blockbuster's online service up until they limited it. The plans were comparable to Netflix and I could exchange movies in the store on an unlimited basis. One other thing I noticed is that the movies just seemed to arrive sooner through the mail. Bottom line is, I feel as though there were quite a bit of Netflix fanboys that wouldn't admit that Blockbuster had the better service, but now that they've both switched around their services, Netflix has far surpasses Blockbuster again. I'm probably going to switch back - but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the quality of their movie streaming service?

Media Laptops

[sarysa]

I have a Windows Media Edition laptop with a dedicated video card, purchased specifically for media and gaming. Assuming the titles it offers are decent, I will definitely take the plunge and subscribe to this. My 17" widescreen laptop is not loud at all, only gets hot after hours of gaming(only), and I could take it anywhere -- watch movies while doing chores or just relaxing in bed. Don't underestimate the power of the small screen. (if 17" at HD resolution is really that small) Going beyond YouTube-type services, there's been successful technology for streaming video to cell phones for years.

But you're right that they do need to support Macs, if it's not already too late.

Re:Let's Check Facts

[mrslacker]

> So, in other words, if you're willing to spend more time

Considerably less time, as you say below:

> and expense than it takes to put something in your Netflix DVD queue and wait for it,

No expense.

> you can illegally acquire

Where is the illegality? Against TOS, perhaps.

> a highly inferior version. Fantastic!

I already pointed out that that wasn't the case. Just today I showed a movie to someone and he was surprised at how high the quality is.

Fantastic set of non-facts! Next time, try checking. Oh wait, this is slashdot.

I think you're only slightly right.

[arete]

I agree with the sibling post that there already ARE other formats that are allowed. Including iTunes. I would presume the difference is all in the price. I would NOT be surprised, at the idea that* Microsoft convinced the MPAA that their DRM was "better" and should therefore be the one that has rentals at the lowest price.

*Until tomorrowish, when Apple will announce they negotiated a better deal for essentially business reasons separate from claiming their DRM is really "better".

In other words, the lower the price, the harder to keep/copy/distribute it should be. The same principle upon which nonDRM iTunes songs cost more. DVDs at this point should essentially be benchmarked as "almost totally unprotected in a technical sense, but protected in a legal sense"

And if your definition of "better" DRM is "most annoying to remove" I believe that in a broad, general way they're going to be right about Windows DRM being generally better than anything Apple is ever going to use. Now, obviously it's all breakable, and most of it isn't even especially hard. But we're talking about a big curve of users who have problems just USING Windows, much less doing stuff it's actively trying to stop you from doing. And I'm not trying to say Microsoft has better engineers.

I'm about to tell you another reason I think Apple is awesome, but let me lead by saying this isn't a claim that they're just being benevolent; I think they see what we all see in terms of the way things are going. Apple fundamentally believes that when you buy a general purpose computer, you should be able to do with that computer whatever you like. It's not perfect, but it's designed to do YOUR bidding. As is Linux, of course. (Apple does not believe this for appliances like an iPod - or an iPhone, but I hold out hope there.) They make sure you can actually use the media you have, even if that comes at some sacrifice. You can burn a backup CD of anything you buy on iTunes.

Microsoft has shown they fundamentally do not believe in this, which is funny considering they don't actually sell you the computers. But they continuously show themselves to be in the pocket of big media - or at least having no spine - installing more and more things on your computer that try to limit what you can do - and breaking compatibility with their own stuff a few years later to try to make it more secure. Obviously this never serves the user, and it just makes things worse for them.

And I'm CERTAINLY not saying you can't break Windows DRM per se, but I'd be willing to firmly bet that someone with equal skills doing equal research would be far more likely to corrupt Windows somehow trying to disable all the various DRM-related operations than the equivalent modification to OS You don't have the source, but you're basically allowed to change whatever OS X files you want, and Windows is just fundamentally, philosophically not like that, it tries to detect and prevent certain changes.

The motherboard manufacturers aren't necessarily onboard with all this, because since the users don't want it, it doesn't help them sell motherboards, which is good for the user, at least.

Apple obviously lives in a world of compromise, unlike, say, Debian, so Apple does give you DRMed stuff because that's the only way to get the mainstream media's content. They have never been in the forefront of this the way much smaller, more fringe competitors (e.g. eMusic) can be, but they have always been steadily pushing that boundary. (Again, I think at least in large part because they see the reality of where this is going.)

Except that's not impossible.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The studios are extremely unlikely to change their minds...

But "improbable" is not "impossible".

I also kind of fail to see why the studios would have a problem allowing mpeg streaming, and what that has to do with the writer's strike. I mean, do they (studios or writers) not like money?

Ah, so you mean...

[SanityInAnarchy]

"We're not allowed to"... still not the same as "impossible". Just means "if we did it, we'd go to jail."