LG High-Def TVs To Stream Netflix Videos

DJAdapt writes to tell us that LG has launched a new line of high definition TVs that will be capable of streaming Netflix videos with no additional hardware. This is just another in a long line of expansions from the once DVD rental service, which has expanded to the Roku set top box, Xbox 360, PC, Mac, and Linux platforms recently. "Piping movies directly to TV sets is the natural evolution of the video streaming service, said Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix. "The TV symbolizes the ultimate destination," he said. That idea -- shared by Sony Corp., which already streams feature films and TV shows directly to its Bravia televisions -- is still in its early stages. Netflix's streaming service taps a library of 12,000 titles, while the company's DVD menu numbers more than 100,000 titles. Hastings expects that gap will "definitely narrow" over time, but he noted that DVDs maintain an advantage over streaming, which is that "they are very profitable" for film studios."

Comments

...and TiVo HD

[HaeMaker]

don't forget TiVo HD and Series 3.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[hansamurai]

or the Xbox 360. My wife and I have using Blockbuster the last two years for our movies and our switching to Netflix because of the streaming service (just got a 360 for Christmas). The only thing we're losing is the ability to trade our mailed DVDs in at the store for real rentals. Though we didn't do that often, what's the point of going to the store when they're mailed to us anyway?

Soon it will be what's the point of going to the mailbox when I can stream it. Though the current selection is not that great, I will admit.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[MBCook]

I've been using it quite a bit on my S3 lately (most recently I've been watching Amazing Stories season 1) and I must say I really like it. It's capable of very high quality video (I get almost full quality according to their little display, it looks like HD to me).

I only have two complaints about it. The first is it seems a little buggy. At times when I finish watching something instead of going back to the Netflix menu I'll be booted back to the main TiVo menu. Most of the bugs seem to be something like this. They don't effect viewing at all, which works perfectly.

The other is the "instant queue". You get your movies from your instant queue. That's all fine and dandy, but I don't care. I want to be able to search for a movie and watch it then. I want to be able to browse the instant selections. I don't want to have to use my laptop to find a movie and add it to my queue to be able to watch it. I understand some devices may be limited in their ability to do something like this, but TiVo clearly has the interface for it. Amazon doesn't need an "instant queue" for UnBox, I can search the whole collection.

Either way, it's an amazing feature. I'm really glad they added it. I just with it had more selection (will come with time) and they had added it earlier (like last year).

All that said, having it in the TV would worry me. It would prevent it from being updated easily (such as on the TiVo). The fact it sounds like it costs extra and requires extra hardware makes me wonder if this is just like the special DVD player some Sony TVs can take that just shows up in their crossbar menu and it's not really a feature of the TV at all.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[HaeMaker]

About 'Instant Queue', it's a security feature. They want you to queue your movies by logging into your account, because they assume you might attach your neighbor's TiVo to the service, but not share your NetFlix account details with them.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[kannibal_klown]

About 'Instant Queue', it's a security feature. They want you to queue your movies by logging into your account, because they assume you might attach your neighbor's TiVo to the service, but not share your NetFlix account details with them.

Sounds quite logical.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[david@ecsd.com]

I've only monkeyd around with it a little, deciding whether or not it's worth it. So far, it's only sending stuff to me in letterboxed 4:3, and I'm not liking it. It's easier to find a torrent and get the movie that way.

I much prefer Unbox's method of distribution (download it watch it and 24 hours later it deletes itself), but they don't send stuff in hi-def either.

Grumblings aside, I am pretty certain that these companies are coming up with a blue-ray killer, and online distribution for rentals is the way it's going to be in the future.

I feel like a pioneer.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[LandDolphin]

what's the point of going to the store when they're mailed to us anyway?

You don't want to wait for the mail.

I have netflix, and I've been known to fo to Blockbuster and rent a movie from time to time because I require instant gratification. I have to know what happens next in the series. I've also watched my movies and then had a friend that wanted to come over and watch a movie. In this situation, I've gone to rent a movie. Waiting for the mail was not a valid option to solve my wants.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Anonymous Coward]

or the Xbox 360. My wife and I have using Blockbuster the last two years for our movies and our switching to Netflix because of the streaming service (just got a 360 for Christmas). The only thing we're losing is the ability to trade our mailed DVDs in at the store for real rentals. Though we didn't do that often, what's the point of going to the store when they're mailed to us anyway?

Soon it will be what's the point of going to the mailbox when I can stream it. Though the current selection is not that great, I will admit.

Blockbuster also has a streaming dabba(box )

Re:...and TiVo HD

[causality]

About 'Instant Queue', it's a security feature. They want you to queue your movies by logging into your account, because they assume you might attach your neighbor's TiVo to the service, but not share your NetFlix account details with them.

This makes me think of security in general (not just this example of how NetFlix protects their own interests) and how it will apply to this arrangement.

This is the second paragraph of the fine article:

In a partnership to be announced Monday, LG Electronics will start selling high-definition TV sets that stream Netflix videos directly from the Internet, without an additional device. The deal marks the first time Netflix's streaming service will be embedded in a television.

A TV that has a network connection and can use TCP/IP to stream video from NetFlix can also be attacked over the network. The article is extremely light on any sort of technical details. That makes me wonder how "smart" these TVs will be, how much processing power they have, whether they will make use of an embedded general-purpose OS like Windows CE that could be made to do many things (like participating in a botnet) once a compromise has occurred.

Maybe right now that's not a likely scenario, but wait until this becomes cheaper and more widespread. When everyone or nearly everyone has network-connected appliances we're going to start seeing attacks against them. Those attacks will be largely successful, enough to ensure that malware actively thrives "in the wild", if security is an afterthought. Virus scanners and other removal tools are after-the-compromise damage control only and so they cannot decisively prevent this scenario, no matter how well implemented. This is a chance to learn from the mistakes made with both the culture and implementation of Windows security (I was going to say "PC security" and reconsidered) and avoid the endless "malware vs. antimalware" arms race and the cottage industry that perpetuates it. The only way to do that is to start thinking about this now, from the beginning, and design it that way from the start. That's why it bothers me a bit that I'm not hearing anything about this from the vendors. Anyone who thinks this is absurd or unlikely needs only to look at how quickly digital picture frames were compromised and used to attack other systems.

I'm not saying that the goal is to have perfectly secure systems. I'm aware that this is a fantasy. What I believe is attainable, though, is to make compromise difficult enough that automated malware cannot thrive in the wild. Building a real security model from the ground up, not as an afterthought now that something's happened, is a good way to do this. Avoiding a monoculture where a single exploit can target tens of millions of machines is another. I think it really would be inexcusable to repeat the mistakes of the past and cause that much grief for that many people when these are no longer new problems that we are facing.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[sexconker]

"what's the point of going to the store when they're mailed to us anyway?"

The point is:

Get X dvds in the mail on Monday.
"Watch" them.
Return them to the store on Monday and get X dvds.
"Watch" them.

Get X dvds in the mail on Wednesday.
"Watch" them.
Return them (and your previous ones from the store) to the store on Wednesday and get X dvds.
"Watch" them.

Get X dvds in the mail on Friday.
"Watch" them.
Return them (and your previous ones from the store) to the store on Friday and get X dvds.
"Watch" them.

You basically double the amount of movies you get per month.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[nabsltd]

A TV that has a network connection and can use TCP/IP to stream video from NetFlix can also be attacked over the network.

Not very easily, as it doesn't require the TV to have a public IP address. In addition, it doesn't require the TV to have any TCP ports listening at all.

So, the only way to attack it would be to spoof a packet from the steaming server. Getting the right sequence number plus the right port for a given source IP address (probably a firewall/router) so that you even have a chance to inject something is pretty tough. Then, there has to be a useful vulnerability in the software on the TV.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[LordKronos]

1) No you don't double it. There are limits on the exchanges***. The limit is 2, 3, or 5, depending on your plan. For the 1 disc at a time plan, you can only get 2 per month, so you might be surprised when you go to the store on Friday and find out you've already used up your in store exchanges. And with the other 2 plans, you'd only get X-1 on Wednesday and then you'd be done for the exchanges for the month.

***Yes, there are plans that allow unlimited exchanges, but when you consider each of those plans is more than double the base price of the plan, you are actually getting a worse value than you would just signing up for 2 separate accounts.

2) The exchanges aren't free. You pay $3, $3, or $4 for extra to add the service to the 1, 2, and 3 disc at a time plans. Yeah, that's still a great value ($0.80 to $1.50 per rental), but I just want to point out it is something you are paying for. And besides that, you'd probably get a better value by upgrading to the next plan instead. In fact, upgrading a 2 disc plan to a 3 disc plan rather than adding the in store exchange option would not only get you more movies per month, but it would actually be cheaper.

3) How many people get their full allotment of discs, with a new shipment arriving every other day, month after month? I've heard a lot of people say they get movies faster through Netflix than Blockbuster, and we all know how Netflix is with throttling.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[the eric conspiracy]

I found that switching to decaf is an alternative solution.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[ivan256]

I've been using it on my S3 a lot lately too..

I'll probably cancel my Netflix subscription after the second month.

The two big problems.... Selection... There's not a lot of good stuff that is streamable. When there is good stuff, it's only available for a limited time.

Quality... The quality blows. I get full quality based on the little meter that comes up on the screen. I would liken the quality to VHS, except that instead of analog noise you get digital compression and motion artifacts. I know that these don't bother some people, but my eye jumps right to them every time. It's not like I'm watching on a huge screen either. It's a 27" 720p 16:9 LCD from about 12' away. Compared to Amazon Unbox video, it's like night and day (Amazon's video is way better). But Amazon is Pay-per-view, so I don't want anything to do with that either.

It was nice to watch a few old TV series that I wanted to catch up on, but I'll be done with those soon and have no reason to keep paying for the service. Unless they signifigantly improve the quality/quantity of movies available, but that doesn't look promising right now.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[LandDolphin]

Maybe, But I still don't think it's going to solve my desire to watch the next episode when I just finished disk 4 of 5 on Friday night and I know I wont get another disk until Tuesday.

(Happens more often then I'd like)

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Anonymous Coward]

May I introduce you to the world of piracy on the internet. Go get a torrent client, and find a torrent tracker site. Perhaps one that is a bay of pirates? Then download all the movies you can find to watch at your own will.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[mattack2]

Seems like using a few of your DVD slots for the next couple DVDs of the series would help alleviate that.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like using a few of your DVD slots for the next couple DVDs of the series would help alleviate that.

For all we know, he had nothing but that series in his queue. You do understand how Netflix works, don't you?

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Specter]

I doubt that's the reason: you've already got an account with TiVo, so it would be trivial to compare the account ownership data between the two services and spot fraud.

On top of that I don't believe your Watch Instantly queue is per device; you've only got one as far as I can tell and so from a practical aspect your selections would be intermixed with your neighbor's. I'm sure a lot of folks would find that annoying enough to not share the service.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[cayenne8]

I still prefer to get DVD's from Netflix.

Sure, it might not solve the 'instant gratification' thing...but, since I can "back up" copies of the dvd's for Netflix (you know, in case they have an emergency and lose much of their inventory)...I can enjoy the shows much longer, while still having new ones come in.

:)

Re:...and TiVo HD

[hansamurai]

We actually only paid like 18 or 19 bucks a month for 2 discs at a time with unlimited exchanges, though we may have been grandfathered into the program. But seriously, now that we have a baby, we don't have time to run to the store to max out our movies. We barely find time to watch the DVDs that are mailed to us. But it's very convenient to have when we find time.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Specter]

We've had good luck with our quality. If it's available in HD we usually are able to display it as such. (40 in. Samsung 1080p.) It's very dependent on the network though so evenings are not always the best time to get great quality due to network congestion.

Older TV shows and movies not recorded in HD have displayed artifacts or 'upconverted' SD quality, but I pretty much expected that given the source material. I only rarely get the motion artifacts and so far I've not see any motion artifacts when the program is streaming in HD.

I _have_ noticed that some older movies are not encoded properly. They're showing up a 4:3 but stretched to fit my 16:6 instead of having the horizontal bars.

Overall, we're really happy with the service, though like you we with the selection was bigger.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[morari]

Throttling is not a problem if you keep on them. Call and complain when you begin to see slowdowns in your exchange rate. Not only will they quickly stop it, but they'll give you free rentals to apologize.

I pay $18 every month for the "3 at a time, unlimited per month" plan. I can go through six films a week because I mail them back out the very day they came in. Even with the cost of recordable DVDs, that's quite a deal, especially when you consider those frequent 100 DVDs for $20 deals that K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Kroger, and similar stores have all of the time.

Instant gratification is not a problem when you have a huge back catalog of movies waiting to be watched. Since I do not subscribe to any kind of television service though, I often do watch several films every week.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[MBCook]

That's been my experience. I haven't watched too many different titles on it, but it's highly dependent on the source. Amazing Stories looks fine even at half quality, but it's 1980s TV so it looks VHS quality all the time. Some of the transfers seem to be missing audio during part of the intro sequence too.

Meet The Robinsons looked fantastic and was clearly HD. I also have watched The King of Kong which also was perfect HD.

The connection seems to have a big part to do with it. My connection (6 Mbps DSL) is consistently at 9/10 bars of quality. It's been up to 10 a few times too. Last night my quality dropped to half for a few minutes while watching Amazing Stories. The picture wasn't very noticeably degraded, although motion wasn't quite a smooth. It looked like blown-up (though still good quality, no artifacts) web video. It lost resolution but wasn't hard to watch.

I haven't noticed problems with the aspect ratio, but I haven't watched much either.

I like it, it's VERY convenient, especially with TV shows. I'd love to use the Video on Demand I'm paying for with my cable, but of course that would require a 2-way cable card which Comcast of course wouldn't turn over even if I could get a court order.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[mattack2]

BTW, that wasn't very clear -- what I really meant was that I think you could have a few DVDs *simultaneously* at home that are related. e.g. watch a couple of movies, but have 2 out of 3 DVDs be from the TV series you're currently "into" or whatever.

I will eventually try out the streaming, but my Netflix is actually on hold at the moment since I have Tivoed tons of stuff and caught up on a few shows over the holiday break.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital picture frames were not compromised afaik. All that happened was someone shipped one with a virus on it.
The fact that it was a picture frame made no difference, the same would have happened with an IPod, Thumbdrive, SD card, gaming mouse with onboard storage, etc.

Maybe this tv will be attacked. Kind of hope it will, so that we can run custom third party stuff. I'm guessing to do anything you'd need control of its DNS and/or routing tables, which isnt hard to do but if an attacker can do that there is far better things to persue

Re:...and TiVo HD

[peragrin]

If your waiting for DVD's wait another week and you can get PPV in demand movies. Cost is similar to that of most rentals and you don't have to get up off of the couch.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[cgenman]

Also, it's generally easier to one-way stream video to a device than to support arbitrary HTML, especially as NetFlix might change their interface in the future. As long as the device can pick up a standard queue listing and show the covers, the device will continue to work. And if your device supports arbitrary HTML, it probably has a built-in browser anyway.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[rtphokie]

or the DirecTV HR-20 and HR-21. I'm watching Babylon 5 via Hulu using PlayOn (which I think is built on the same platform that this LG streaming capability is built on).

Re:...and TiVo HD

[sexconker]

Wrong.
If you bought into the plans early, or if you wait for a promotion, the unlimited exchanges plan costs the same (or less!) than the limited exchanges plan.

I had the 3-at-a-time, unlimited in-store returns plan from Blockbuster for quite a while, and on 2 separate occasions (quit then rejoined later in the year). They offered to change me to a 4-at-a-time (limited in-store returns) for the same price. I declined.

Nope. Service was the same cost when I got it, and is the same if you just wait for a promotion.
And check your math - 2*2 > 3. Even if you pay extra for the exchange programs, you come out ahead.

I did, and millions others did. That's why they implemented the limits on in-store exchanges. Keep in mind they also give (or used to) you a monthly free movie rental and a monthly free game rental, along with coupons for candies and other such treats. I got my movies like clockwork, for months. There were a total of 2 slip ups, that got back on track over 1 weekend (Friday - Monday).

I was paying $18 for 3+3+1m+1m.
Assume we're talking about a 30 day month, and Monday is the 1st.
1, 3, 5
8, 10, 12
15, 17, 19,
22, 29

You get 6 movies every day listed above, with 1 day to spare (to deal with a delay, or to deal with holidays). That's 66 movies. Plus your free monthly movie, and free monthly game (or movie), and you've got 68 movies per month.

Seems to me that's less than 26.5 cents per movie at $18/month.
They've jacked up the price to $35/month, and I see no mention of monthly coupons. That's still only 53 cents per movie. The limited (5) in-store exchanges comes out to be a fraction of a cent less, and is dead even if you factor in that extra day over an entire year.

In fact, it is apparent that Blockbuster bases their prices on an (approximately) 11.25 deliveries/month model.

Blockbuster does not currently offer a plan higher than 3 per month. If you want to quickly build a collection, you'll need to go for the 3/unlimited plan.

Keep in mind, you can always sign up for a free trial, switch to the highest plan immediately, and get 2 weeks FREE. Playing it safe on when you cancel, that's 5 deliveries, or 30 movies, for FREE.

Trust me, I've done the math.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[LordKronos]

I see no option for a same price unlimited plan on the website, so how is supposed to know such a promotion will come along if you don't mention it?

And yes, I did do my math. Reread my post. I said you would be better off switching to the X+1/month with no exchanges than you would with the X/month with ***limited*** exchanges. I also said that you would be better subscribing for two separate X/month no excahange plans than you would a single X/month plan with unlimited exchanges. Nowhere did I say the X+1 was better than the X with unlimited exchanges.

And again, that statement was based off of available pricing since you failed to mention any sort of promotion. When you mention the benefits of being in a grandfathered plan, you need to actually point out that you are talking about a grandfathered plan.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[sexconker]

No, idiot.
I showed the math with current prices.
You're wrong.

Re:...and TiVo HD

[LordKronos]

Wow, I tried to be nice, but now you have to resort to calling me an idiot? OK. Lets see about this. I'll use your estimate of 11 shipments per month. Prices taken from:
https://www.blockbuster.com/signup/rp/regPlan

If you are on the 1/month:
no exchanges = $9/11 = 81.8 cents per rental
limited exchange = $12/(11+2) = 92.3 cents per rental
unlimited exchange = $22/(11+11) = $1 per rental

If you are on the 2/month:
no exchanges = $14/(11*2) = 63.6 cents per rental
limited exchange = $17/(11*2+3) = 68 cents per rental
unlimited exchange = $30/(11*2+11*2) = 68.1 cents per rental

If you are on the 3/month:
no exchanges = $16/(11*3) = 48.4 cents per rental
limited exchange = $20/(11*3+5) = 52.6 cents per rental
unlimited exchange = $35/(11*3+11*3) = 53 cents per rental

So, in every single case, adding the exchanges translates into a higher price per disc, and adding the unlimited excahanges is worse than the limited exchanges. But in every case, moving up to the next plan is cheaper.

So, if you have 1+no exchange, you get 11 discs/month. If you go to the unlimited exchange, you now get 22 discs for a higher cost per disc, where as going to the 2 disc no exchange gets you 22 discs for a lower cost per disc. Which one makes more sense from a purely economic standpoint?

Likewise, if you have 2+no exchange, you get 22 discs. Going to unlimited gets you 44 discs for a higher cost. Getting two separate 2+no exchange plans gets you 44 discs for the same cost per month, or getting a 3+none and 1+none gets you 44 for a lower (cost-averaged) cost per disc.

If you are on the 3+none, you get 33 discs. Going to unlimited exchanges gets you 66 for a higher per disc price. Going to two separate 3+none planes gets you the same 66 for the same cost per disc.

So please show me (based on current pricing) in what case the unlimited makes sense financially?

You might want to check to make sure your house isn't made of glass before tossing those idiot stones around

Linux?

[smartin]

Is this available or does the poster mean Tivo?

Re:Linux?

[SlashdotOgre]

In Linux I've been running a Windows VM via Sun's VirtualBox to stream netflix. Unfortunately it's not HD yet (even in native Windows), but it gets the job done. It's a bit overkill to need a VM to stream netflix, but I have to admit VirtualBox is pretty sweet.

Re:Linux?

[wile_e8]

Boxee

Re:Linux?

[FunkyELF]

Same here. Its the only thing I use VirtualBox or Windows for. What a huge waste of disk space. I'd be happy if my PS3 would stream it or my Linux laptop.

Re:Linux?

[Andy Dodd]

Many news articles about Netflix moving to Silverlight were titled, with "Mac and Linux" in the article title, but at that point (and still), the Silverlight version of the Watch Instantly service supports only Windows and MacOS, not Linux. Linux support was planned but no news on that yet - in theory Monolight provides Silverlight support under Linux but I wouldn't be surprised if the DRM component were missing.

Interestingly enough the Flash-based system used by CBS and Hulu has no DRM (other than some rudimentary anti-ripping features) but the studios still seem to be OK. As a result they work in Linux... Sort of. Flash under Linux has insanely high system requirements for video playback. My old desktop (which is now my HTPC) can't playback directly via the site (incredibly choppy), but if I rip the video on another machine (as I said, rudimentary anti-rip), it plays back happily in mplayer on the aforementioned Athlon XP 2800 machine.

Ripping is a pain in the butt, I wish I could just playback directly on that machine. Hulu's commercials are minimally intrusive.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is software available called PlayOn (http://www.themediamall.com/playon) the will run on Windows and stream Netflix or Hulu.com to a PS3 or Xbox 360

Re:Linux?

[Nurgled]

Novell's build of Moonlight ships with licenced Windows Media support in the form of binary blobs, which was intended to allow DRMed video content to be used on Linux via Silverlight. I don't know whether it does in practice because I've never actually encountered a site that uses Silverlight for streaming video other than the handful of demos on the Silverlight site.

Re:Linux?

[Killer Orca]

How did you manage to rip/save Hulu and CBS videos? I've tried searching for how-to's but keep coming up with nothing.

Re:Linux?

[Andy Dodd]

Unfortunately, so far I have only been able to find commercial software for Windows that will do this. Replay Media Catcher will save Hulu and CBS FLVs, and there is one other commercial package that will do it.

It looks like some of the open source downloader packages are adding RTMP support, so I have a feeling an OSS solution is coming soon.

MCE app please!

[Dynedain]

I wish Netflix would make their video streaming be integrated into Windows Media Center (and MythTV while they're at it). They already have in-browser working so it should be relatively trivial to make a plugin app. They're already spending so much money and attention on the set top boxes and now this.

Re:MCE app please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? Check out http://myweb.cableone.net/eluttmann04/projects/vmcNetFlix/default.htm

There are several other projects out there, but this is the most mature.

Re:MCE app please!

[MistrBlank]

I wish they'd make the XBox360 streaming option much more robust.

Currently you're limited to one Watch It Now Queue and can only view movies on the Queue. So you can't even browse their selection for something on the XBox.

There is also no "Favorites" Section to save movies to in case you want to watch again another time.

It might be nice to have random or suggested movies displayed and ratable for you as well, right on your TV.

The Quality of video is however much better than I can get any of my other computers connected to my TV and well worth the $50 I spent on Live that I might not have otherwise (already had the Netflix account and the Xbox360).

Re:MCE app please!

[thrillseeker]

I wish Sony would abandon their silly roll-their-own video service and offer this via the PS3.

Re:MCE app please!

[morgan_greywolf]

I wish Sony would abandon their silly roll-their-own video service and offer this via the PS3.

Sony owns half of Hollywood (Disney owns the other half). Why should they?

Re:MCE app please!

[thrillseeker]

so they could make more money?

Re:MCE app please!

[timeOday]

I wish Sony would abandon their silly roll-their-own video service and offer this via the PS3.

After winning the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war, Sony will probably be worse than ever now.

Which reminds me, over the holidays I was unable to copy the pictures off a relative's camera because she has a Sony, which uses their Memory Stick instead of the nearly ubiquitous SD card. Domo arigato, Sony.

Re:MCE app please!

[Anonymous Coward]

you are aware that a decent computer monitor can pump more pixels than a 1080p TV... right?

Re:MCE app please!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also no "Favorites" Section to save movies to in case you want to watch again another time.

Uh, how about that Instant Queue that you were complaining about?

A good idea

[Dadamh]

Though it seems a bit silly to integrate this feature into the TV itself, streaming movies is a good idea. Even aside from the ease of use and general appeal to a fairly large portion of the populace, it's a step towards abolishing some of the older business models that exist.

Integrating into the TV also helps sign on those folks who just aren't savvy enough to hook up DVD players or other external devices.

Oh no, not again.

[GeneralEmergency]

Yet another bad idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Why not add in a DivX player too while you're at it?

Now...if the $300 bought me a built in open source DVR and the Netflix gateway was included, I'd be interested.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[kannibal_klown]

Yet another bad idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Why not add in a DivX player too while you're at it?

Now...if the $300 bought me a built in open source DVR and the Netflix gateway was included, I'd be interested.

Explain to me why this is a bad idea.

Netflix is about RENTING movies.

They (currently) offer their OnDemand service for as a free bonus to your rental subscription. It's better than the free OnDemand services your cable provider offers.

Until recently, their OnDemand service was only available on PCs using Silverlight. Little-by-little set-top boxes are being released to allow viewing on the TV.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[crabbz]

Why not add in a DivX player too while you're at it?

already announced from samsung! http://www.twice.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6605719&rssid=84

Re:Oh no, not again.

[afidel]

Because the extra cost becomes a complete waste when Netflix shuts down or changes their site or DRM scheme in a way that's incompatible with the TV?

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Lumpy]

How do I upgrade that little thing inside the TV? I can throw out a roku box and replace it with ultimate roku super HD happy fun time version next year without issues, if I buy LG, I gotta throw out a TV or have it with a useless out of date system in it.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[91degrees]

Hopefully DVD streaming services will standardise and any TV will work with any streaming service.

Hopefully that $200-300 extra on the price tag comes with other benefits like a built in hard disk.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[commodore64_love]

Actually he meant DIVX (all capitals) which is short for DIgital Video Xpress service.

It's a disc like DVD but you rent it rather than own it. When you pull the DIVX disc off your shelf, you can't just play it. Instead you (or your player) call into a central phone number and pay $3 which unlocks the DIVX disc.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Neoprofin]

You mean like all the TVs that have analog tuners in them?

Don't be a cry baby, I'm pretty sure having it in there isn't going to hurt your future video watching ability, and it's not like it's taking up space.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[crabbz]

Oh, THAT Divx. Yeah, i remember that. It was one of the reasons I bought a dvd player actually.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, it's an LG it only works for about 6months anyway. At least if you listen to some people that work in their support/repair department...

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Sneftel]

That's what firmware updates are for.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Lumpy]

What are you talking about. you can buy set's without the NTSC and ATSC tuner in them. In fact they are incredibly common if you actually try.

so what was your point again? because only about 50% of all tv's have the tuner in them. Unless all you shop at is walmart, then yes, you cant buy a non tuner TV there. but Panasonic, pioneer, sony, LG, and all the other real brands carry the set's sans tuner.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do have the choice to NOT BUY THIS TV.

Re:Oh no, not again.

[Neoprofin]

Analog tuners are non-upgradable components that exist in TVs, very shortly they will be pointless, does that mean that people should have spent the last decade not buying any TV that came with one rather than be burdened by the horror of obsolete components?

What does it matter if there's some "out dated system" in the TV? Does that throw the colors off? Melt the inputs? Is there any difference between a system that no longer works and one that you weren't using in the first place?

They still use the mail!

[Anonymous Coward]

They still use the postal service to send you a specialized "on" button for each movie.

They don't charge any late fees on button returns, so it is pretty cool.

DVDs

[iluvcapra]

but he noted that DVDs maintain an advantage over streaming, which is that "they are very profitable" for film studios

And you can hold them and touch them, resell them, and duplicate them for safekeeping, and you can play them a thousand times without having to engage a "service." They are property. How is this latest innovation any different from the old Divx?

Re:DVDs

[badasscat]

And you can hold them and touch them, resell them, and duplicate them for safekeeping, and you can play them a thousand times without having to engage a "service." They are property. How is this latest innovation any different from the old Divx?

Uh, what? You realize we're talking about a rental service here, right? And one that's been fairly successful? (And by that I mean actually profitable?)

Re:DVDs

[iloveyoutothemax]

Because this service will earn cash money...

Re:DVDs

[MBCook]

I think they meant that comparison for people who are interested in renting a movie, not purchasing a movie.

Re:DVDs

[Hodar]

I use this service, and I love it.

I subscribe to the cheapest program they have, I get 1 DVD at a time - which with several Redbox units nearby, is really not that big of a deal.

However, I can que up 50 or so movies from my account that I 'might' want to watch on my XBox. Like, seasons 1-4 of The Office. I watch each episode when I want, no rental, no return, no hassles. The quality was about the same as watching a VHS tape player when I had 4 Mbps internet service, and improved remarkabaly when I upgraded to 6Mbsp cable.

Is it blue ray? Nope. Is it as good as DVD? Depends - some yes, most no. Typically, it's about the same quality as over the air programming - but it's a listing of what I care to watch, when I care to watch it.

If it weren't for this feature, I'd drop Netflix. Streaming movies is so much more convenient than adding movies to my already obscene collection. Some movies you may want to watch 1 or 2x and are not worth buying - this fits this niche perfectly.

Re:DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they're possessions to you and property to the studios

Re:DVDs

[LWATCDR]

This replaces renting. Legally you can not copy or resell NetFlix disks.
Of course I wonder if anybody has studies just how many NetFlix DVDs are copied?

Re:DVDs

[mr_matticus]

How is this latest innovation any different from the old Divx?

Because there is no waste--no physical medium, no risk of damage before being able to watch. There is also no time limit. You can stream any title as long as it is available.

And you can hold them and touch them, resell them, and duplicate them for safekeeping, and you can play them a thousand times without having to engage a "service."

There are drawbacks to everything. Yes, you can hold and touch DVDs, which means you can lose and break them (and even with backups, you still have to be able to prove legitimate possession). You can resell them, yes, but you also have to pay a one-time fixed amount for production and higher distribution cost, as well as wait for them to arrive (or leave your home to acquire them), and buy them individually at the same price, whether you want to watch it twice or two hundred times. You can play them until you damage, sell, or lose them--but you also need a player that will break down or become obsolete.

On the other hand, with digital subscription services, you can watch a huge library of titles at any time on any compatible player (which Netflix is expanding). Sure, they also save quite a bit of money and the enjoyment of the service is dependent on the existence of both the service and Internet connectivity. Connections are insufficient to match BD quality. The library of tiles kind of sucks (much like BD!). But many of the big drawbacks are a result of newness.

Yes, streaming systems will likely always have some kind of DRM to prevent reproduction, and will require an ongoing account. But if you can play any one of tens of thousands of films on screens small and large, there's no actual need to "own" any slice of the content.

Selling limited-rights copies was a compromise to get people to pay for productions that cost more than theater sales could recoup, and where customers wanted to see films after the theater run. The studios need to run a business, the artists need money to produce their works, and consumers want to be entertained. In the 20th century, there was no real way for consumers to get value except by owning a limited-rights copy (essentially derived from a regular shareholder investment scheme, where the profit is entertainment instead of monetary profit). In the 21st century, there's no longer a need for a physical object to achieve this, and since consumers never owned any of the intellectual rights to begin with, there's no longer anything left worth "owning" for the consumer.

You're paying to bring the theater home. For the price of a DVD a month, you get access to thousands of films. You get quite a bit more, but there's no free lunch. Something's gotta give, and in this case, that's persistence of ownership. Some other system has to be created for true fair use (e.g. an online service available at public libraries that allows you to export clips of films to DRM-free digital files) and personal use (e.g. iTunes-style CD burning for mixes and syncing to portable devices).

Re:DVDs

[0xdeadbeef]

And you can hold them and touch them, resell them, and duplicate them for safekeeping, and you can play them a thousand times without having to engage a "service." They are property. How is this latest innovation any different from the old Divx?

It has nothing to do with the kind of morons who believe people want to buy the movies they'd rather rent.

Re:DVDs

[iluvcapra]

I'm comparing netflix to DVDs, not Netflix Instant Queue to Netflix by mail.

Re:DVDs

[commodore64_love]

>>>How is this latest innovation any different from the old Divx?

It isn't. DivX Discs were about renting, and Netflix is also about renting. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you still have the option to BUY the movie on DVD or Bluray. If they stopped customers from buying movies, then I'd happily join you in protesting, but that's not the case here.

Re:DVDs

[maxume]

It isn't wasteful and insanely misleading (people are dumb). Also, it is probably cheaper.

As someone who doesn't watch many films more than once, I really don't want to pay $10-20 per movie just because you insist that a tangible, owned product is better.

Re:DVDs

[fm6]

For a lot of people (including me), "DVDs" means "DVD rentals". We're the people who don't watch the same movies over and over, so it makes no sense for us to buy DVDs.

For us non-buyers, watching online is a lot more convenient than waiting for Netflix to deliver a DVD or searching for the DVD in video stores. If all the movies I wanted to watch were available online, I probably wouldn't even own a DVD player. Or it would be unplugged most of the time, the way my VCR is.

If owning DVDs is what you want, fine. But not everybody wants what you want.

Re:DVDs

[MBGMorden]

If owning DVDs is what you want, fine. But not everybody wants what you want.

Not everyone does, but a majority of people who own a DVD player own at least some DVD's. Most people rent some too, but they still buy at least some movies.

So while your point is true, it hardly invalidates his argument.

Re:DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume by the "old" DIVX the poster is referring to a rental service that was offered by Circuit City and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX_(Digital_Video_Express)

Re:DVDs

[MBGMorden]

I think his point was rather than Divx failed, this is roughly the same thing, so Netflix's online streaming will also fail.

While possible, this leaves out a crucial element: Divx discs confused the user in a very profound way. You were BUYING something. Divx discs were real, actual discs that you purchased, took home, and put on your shelf. There was a sense of entitlement since you had physical property. So when that became unavailable after a few days there was a feeling of being cheated. Afterall: I still have this disc. The ability to reactivate it proves that it still works. Yet these people are turning of MY disc and making me pay to watch it again? That was a lot for consumers to swallow because, without really knowing it, they were being exposed to the whole "you're buying a license and not a product" mentality for the first time.

People didn't mind renting - it's just that the Blockbuster scheme made more sense to them. I rent a movie disc, but with the understanding that it's not my disc; it belongs to the store and I must return it to them once I'm done with it. Even the disc-by-mail Netflix idea operates on the same principle. I get a disc, and I understand that it's not mine and I have to give it back later.

In essence, it's the same reason so many people just don't care about downloading movies or music off the internet. To the populace, by default who ever owns the physical property owns the item. Imaginary bits and bytes don't interest them.

This new scheme - I'm not sure. It might catch on, it might not. On the one hand, they're never getting a physical item that's going to "break", so that's a plus, but it's still an instance where it's going to be painfully clear to them that there's no reason the little movie that they paid $5 for should stop working expect because people are deleting it on purpose.

Re:DVDs

[iluvcapra]

I never said I wanted it or represented as much, though I do, because I think if you hold the work of filmmakers in such low regard that you never make an effort to possess a copy of their work, you can expect the Netflix jukebox to eternally hand you a rotating collection of mildly-satisfying trash, essentially completing the transition of high entertainment to the pr0n business model. Making movies inexpensive and un-ownable is just a way for the distributors to ease you into paying for bad movies, because you have no investment.

it's clear to me that as long as people are happy with disposable entertainment, the quality of that entertainment will be equally disposable.

Just my opinion of course, but haven't you ever wanted to own the movie? You own books, don't you? Or is the library enough? I would think not.

Re:DVDs

[krull]

Well, I think many people have realized there is not much reason to own a DVD / Blueray disc. There are very few movies I will rewatch, and of those I do rewatch the frequency is so small (order of years) that an instant rental is a perfectly good option... For me it made more sense to buy a Blueray player and add Blueray access on Netflix than to spend lots of money buying Blueray discs I'll rarely watch.

With movies I prefer to see something I haven't seen than to rewatch one I have seen for the tenth time. But of course this is a personal preference, and I can understand some people like to repeatedly watch certain movies over and over.

Books and music are different. Books require a significantly longer time investment to finish, and music I will listen to over and over... Owning a copy is much more useful here.

Re:DVDs

[the eric conspiracy]

My guess is that the survey would quickly determine that all of them are copied.

Re:DVDs

[cayenne8]

"For us non-buyers, watching online is a lot more convenient than waiting for Netflix to deliver a DVD or searching for the DVD in video stores. If all the movies I wanted to watch were available online, I probably wouldn't even own a DVD player. Or it would be unplugged most of the time, the way my VCR is."

Ok...just curious, why would you unplug your VCR or DVD player???

Re:DVDs

[fm6]

Because I live in a tiny apartment, own too much crap, and am always moving stuff out of the way.

Re:DVDs

[gordyf]

I don't own any movies, but that doesn't mean I hold them in low regard. I don't own them because I don't want a stack of DVDs sitting on a shelf. Seems like a waste of money. Do you routinely watch the same movies over and over?

Re:DVDs

[cgenman]

Divx had the drawbacks of both physical media and network media... I.E. you both had to buy a disk, and you had to dial in through Divx's modem to validate that disk.

My experience with Netflix's streaming video: You're wandering around a house, thinking "gee, I've got some cleaning to do, but it would be nice if Groundhog Day was playing in the background." Turn on the TV, and Groundhog Day is playing. You don't horde the movie now and forever, keeping it pressed tightly to you like some sort of video gollem. You just watch something, like it, and leave. It's kind of like those days when everything on cable happens to be pretty good. And the cost is roughly equivalent to buying 1 DVD per month.

It's the one-night-stand equivalent of movie watching. You don't marry the thing, you just experience it and move on.

Re:DVDs

[feepness]

It's not like DVDs killed cable or Tivo killed DVDs. One is good for one thing, which is satisfying an immediate demand to watch something, while the other is good for getting a higher-quality experience, with the potential for long term ownership.

They go hand in hand, not against each other.

Re:DVDs

[mr_matticus]

Today they do. Tomorrow there's the potential for them to be one and the same.

As soon as digital delivery of 50GB films becomes fairly trivial on the typical Internet connection, there's no longer a need for the disc. Long term ownership only has value if there's something to own. This is a transition in progress. It won't happen in one year or five, but it's definitely happening.

If your cable company switches to all digital on demand programming (with a cursory set of scheduled broadcast programming for e.g. news, sports), and the content library and infrastructure is designed to handle it, then there's very little point to discs.

If you're going to be paying the cable subscription anyway, and that film is available any time you want to watch it from that provider, in full HD quality, it's plain to see that customers on the whole aren't going to be buying discs.

Re:DVDs

[UziBeatle]

  People are claiming no need for this service or physical disks because their ISP will be delivering
all this wonderful 20 to 50 gigabyte per episode HD content are missing one huge fact.

  Today's ISP's, such as Comcast, are limiting typical household internet accounts to 250 gigabyte per month or
else the offender gets spanked or a whipping.

  Sure, you can get more bandwidth by upping the expenditure. My base cable (just for internet access ) with Comcast here
in Houston runs 60 dollars a month now.
    Comcast in Houston also has throttled the connection speed. The idea of downloading 50 gig HD content on this slow
cable connection makes me laugh. It would take a day or more at the rate they throttle now. back when RoadRunner was running the
show here the connection was MUCH faster.

  If I tack on the HD package that other people are claiming is a way to the wonderful future the cost per month
rises to 125 to 150 dollars and it can be even higher depending on what fancy package you select.

  I don't know about the rich kids posting here on Slashdot that find this cost effective but the idea of blowing 1500.00 or more
dollars a year on cable is absurd in my view. Yes, of course in my view most of what is on cable tv is not worth watching therefor
I only pay for internet only services.

    Oh, and I could afford to blow that much, easily, however I do not find value. If a movie is worth viewing I'll buy it and view
multiple times, eventually that pays out. I spend far less per year on disks I'd find worthwhile then I'd blow on on HD cable costs
with all the bells and whistles.

    So to summarize the main factor working against the pie in the sky enthusiasts posting here is the fact ISP's are limiting
download capacity per month. HD will chew up 250 gigs in a heartbeat.

Re:DVDs

[mr_matticus]

People are claiming no need for this service or physical disks because their ISP will be delivering
all this wonderful 20 to 50 gigabyte per episode HD content are missing one huge fact.

People who claim others are missing one huge fact are, in fact, themselves missing one huge fact.

As bandwidth increases and infrastructure is improved, both download speeds and data transfer caps increase. Remember when you paid hourly for dialing into ISPs at 9600 baud? Music download services were quite impractical then, too. Now the barrier is gone, and CDs are dying. You are poo-pooing a 6Mb, 250GB delivery system for HD content.

Well, surprise, professor! There's a reason why these services don't exist for HD content today--and it's exactly that, as I and others have already stated. Shockingly, it's download speed and low transfer caps. So to summarize, the main factor working against your post is that you're not actually arguing with anyone.

Moreover, if you're the kind of person who does not spend $75+/month on a combined cable/Internet package, and who does not buy more than a handful of DVDs a year, then you're not even in the demographic this post is talking about.

Talking about future products with today's limitations is like saying that television will never take off because AM radio doesn't have enough bandwidth for both picture and sound.

No thank you

[Hatta]

These integrated devices are never a good idea. Go all the way back to VCR/TV combos. What do you do when the VCR breaks? Throw the whole thing out and get a new one. What do you do with this thing when you cancel netflix and get service from another provider? At the very least you'll have to get a new set top box, which you should have done at first anyway. This is just one more complex and expensive component on an already expensive and complex piece of technology.

AV components should be like UNIX tools. Do one thing and do it well. My TV should display video and that's it. If I want to stream video to it, I'll get a device that can do so. XBMC, AppleTV, whatever PVR my cable company has, etc.

Re:No thank you

[Dadamh]

Your comment would be a bit more relevant if a streaming video codec was anything like a VHS deck. The VHS decks tended to break due to lots of moving parts and little kids jamming toy cars into them. They were a physical aspect and required physical fixes that generally weren't worth the money it would cost to repair. A streaming video codec has no moving parts to speak of, though being similarly susceptible to toy cars, I suppose. Regardless, I see them being a lot less likely to break, and probably a great deal more able to be repaired.

Re:No thank you

[MBCook]

On the surface I agree. I think we've all used those combo devices where one part of the combo was failed.

However if my TV already has all the necessary power to do the job and all it needs is a little software, I'm all for it.

Take my TiVo Series 3. It does Amazon Unbox and Netflix streaming. It already has all the hardware it needs due to it's other purpose (DVR). There is no reason not to include the feature if people want it and the device is capable of it. If it's only an extra $50 on this TV, I'd be in (if I didn't already have my S3).

Also, don't forget, that the problem with the devices you mentioned is usually hardware going bad (like the tape mechanism). In these cases where it's all CPU and RAM they shouldn't have much of a failure rate at all, and it's not effected by use (where VCRs are more likely to fail the more they are used).

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Different people value different things. Personally, I like my integrated TV/DVD player. I don't want another ugly box sitting around my living room. I'm already surrounded by too many glow in the dark clocks.

If the DVD player breaks in a few years, I can either buy an external player at that time or buy a new TV with DVD player. What I want in my living room tends to change over the years and I end up buying different gear anyway.

Re:No thank you

[Hatta]

Software has bugs in it. The more software, the more bugs. Personally, I don't want to have to worry about security updates on my TV. It should be a dumb device, period. If a bug happens in software/firmware, or someone releases a virus, I'd rather replace a bricked $50 set top box than a $500 TV.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

My Samsung Blu-Ray player has an Ethernet port and in addition to being able to do automatic updates of its firmware it is able stream both Netflix movies and Pandora music over that connection.

As for your concern that the streaming feature might break, the player was not able to stream either service out of the box, those features were added in the firmware update that it downloaded the first time I connected it to the Internet. I'm sure they can add/swap/remove those features just as easily with future firmware changes and I expect that the TV in the article offers the same functionality.

Re:No thank you

[Ross D Anderson]

If the VCR breaks and you throw the whole thing out then you're an idiot. Whats stopping you from buying an extra external VCR? Similarly here, you could buy an extra set top box, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Personally I think this is neat. This is for people like me who want stuff integrated. We'll pay the extra for doohickies with these features and you can pay less for those without.
I really don't get what you're bitching about.

Re:No thank you

[MobyDisk]

What about his point about tying it to one particular service?

He is right - LG should instead make a TV that speaks a standard streaming protocol, and let various vendors implement it. Of course, then when a new protocol comes out and the TV doesn't support it, you buy a new TV. ugh.

Re:No thank you

[tgd]

Some people like to live in houses with better design sense than a 80's-chic man-cave black entertainment center tower with 12 big black ugly devices all blinking lights into the room.

While this seems a little extreme since the odds are very low that someone using this wouldn't have a DVR box (which is a better place for it), the desire to get rid of components is something I completely understand now that I have tried to live in a house that isn't decorated in "college bachelor pad chic".

Re:No thank you

[timiscool999]

The more software the more potential for bugs. I've had to run a software update on my Sony Bravia because there was a software bug that after 1200 hours of use it wouldn't get out of sleep mode. In the end they sent me a USB drive with a firmware update and when I tell people what happened I explain it as "I had to do a Windows Update for my TV". Funny enough, people understand perfectly :).

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

TV: "W-w-w-what?!"

Jules: "RTSP/RTP, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!?"

TV: "W-what?!?"

Jules: [click] "Say 'what' again!"

Re:No thank you

[maxume]

There is a price threshold. For $20, who cares. For $200, yeah, leave it out.

Re:No thank you

[redxxx]

Of course, then when a new protocol comes out and the TV doesn't support it, you buy a new TV. ugh.

Codex packaging is already standardized, unless i'm totally mistaken, so there isn't anything preventing them from allowing users from installing their own. They can host some signed ones themselves, and allow users(probably after checking a 'I'm not a clueless retarded' box) to install their own. If they made it simple to reset back to only signed ones, tech support wouldn't be too rough.

Of course, there's a risk of getting malware on your TV, I suppose. Unfriendly codexs exist to some extent, and with each tv being set up identically(and holding sensitive info, eg netflix login) it could make an attractive target.

I wouldn't want it if I was locked into netflix and particular codexs. Of course, i don't really want a locked down media center with security and such I don't control either, so I can't imagine any form of this that would be for me.

Re:No thank you

[bendodge]

They won't break like moving-part devices, but on the other hand, I highly doubt these beefy, net-connected TVs will have much in the way of software security. TV botnets, anyone?

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Codex packaging is already standardized

Unfriendly codexs exist to some extent,

I wouldn't want it if I was locked into netflix and particular codexs.

Just wondering if you are referring to a COder/DECoder of media streams, which is called a codec . So far as I know, a codex is what the first books were called to distinguish them from scrolls.

I'm not trying to grammar/spelling nazi you. When I see things like that I assume that I really don't know whether it is an error (just because it looks like one) or whether it's a term I have not come across before.

Posting anonymously because I don't mean to nitpick or to be known as a nitpicker.

Re:No thank you

[cgenman]

My mother could probably get an all-in-one device working. She would have little chance of getting an Xbox or Tivo connected to her TV, however.

Re:No thank you

[DrZook]

What do you do when the VCR breaks? Throw the whole thing out and get a new one.

I'd just get a new standalone VCR, if I were you :)

Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

As of the time I read this post, I am unable to view Watch Instantly content from my Hardy Heron (Ubuntu Linux) installation. Have I missed something?

The reason it's integrated into the TV

[Benanov]

The TV supports the DRM scheme used. It's going to be *that much harder* to put some box in between the TV and the servers in order to capture, rip, and copy the movie.

That's why this is important. Before, TVs were just dumb display devices. Now that most have firmware instead of just solid state circuits (hell my parents TV has a bootup sound) this sort of thing is possible.

The push to having every little device do everything is that these days devices start out obeying their creators instead of their owners. Eventually many devices end up being Freed or at least placed more under consumer control, but it'll be a harder effort for consumers to hack everything all at once.

Re:The reason it's integrated into the TV

[Dadamh]

While I can see where you are coming from, in a reactionist YRO sorta way, there is something odd about complaining about inability to copy a rented film. You aren't even talking about making a legal backup of a movie you own, you are talking about outright theft (duplication not being theft aside). I don't think having some DRM on a movie that is inherently rented is exactly a bad idea. I agree that purchased hard copies (CDs, DVDs, Games) should be copyable, but whining because you can't copy a rented DVD is a bit of a stretch.

Re:The reason it's integrated into the TV

[deraj123]

That didn't look to me like an argument that he wanted to copy a rented film - it looked like an explanation of why it better suited the providers to do it that way.

Personally, I want my TV to be a dumb display device because I want to be able to control the "experience". I would prefer to have my own "set top box" that runs my own software, consumes services that I pay for, and outputs to whatever sort of viewing device I choose (whether this is a TV, or my stereo, or my computer screen, or a projector, or some newfangled intercranial content delivery system).

Re:The reason it's integrated into the TV

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be a sanctimonious asshole about it, at least call it by the proper name. It's not "theft", it's copyright infringement.

Re:The reason it's integrated into the TV

[loafula]

I kinda got the same impression. Then I was thinking, if you had a netflix subscription what would the point of copying be? You could stream the same movie over and over and not pay a cent more.

Re:The reason it's integrated into the TV

[AmberBlackCat]

I think, (assuming the video plays at the right resolution and frame rate, without slowing down the playing device) it doesn't matter if DRM is there or not on a rented video. What drives me crazy is how much waste there is in the LCD televisions. I am considering buying a Samsung LN40A750 television. The thing has a gigabyte of memory and an ethernet port. And what do they do with this? They have some built-in games and a list of recipes. It also has RSS support built in. But the only RSS feeds you can subscribe to are those provided by USA Today. Why not let users select what RSS feeds they want? The TV could probably pick up video podcasts and have a gigabyte of memory to store them. And if there were an SDK, I could probably think of a few more things to do with a gigabyte of space than just recipes. They could probably fit Opera in there with room to spare. And the thing has a USB port, which means you could actually download and save files. The fact, that they took basically a computer without a keyboard and are limiting it to just a television, really drives me up the wall in a similar way as the X-Box did when they called it a video game system. I hope the deal they worked out with USA Today is more valuable to them than the value lost by restricting all of that hardware.

Buffer space?

[Locke2005]

How much data can the TV buffer? I already have a problem with the occaisional pauses while streaming HD video to my PC 'cause my network connection sucks... I suspect it would be even more annoying while having friends over to watch on the big screen. Does the TV have a hard drive, so that it can buffer the entire movie ahead of time?

Re:Buffer space?

[JCSoRocks]

Netflix never buffers the whole movie ahead of time - not even on the PC. On the PC you can usually at least move forward or back about +/- 10 minutes. On xbox 360 if you FF or rewind at all it has to re-buffer. I'm guessing the experience on the LG will be similar to the 360.

Re:Buffer space?

[Chris Pimlott]

On the Roku device, you have to rebuffer even to jump back a few seconds.

Re:Buffer space?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I already have a problem with the occasional pauses while streaming HD video to my PC 'cause my network connection sucks... I suspect it would be even more annoying while having friends over to watch on the big screen.
>>>

I think it's funny how technology seems to be moving towards WORSE performance instead of better. Yes it's convenient to stream a movie, but my old VHS deck never suffered from random pauses. Or macroblocking. You pressed play and it continued playing all the way through - even if the video had suffered some damage because the kid got his sticky fingers on the tape, the deck would just plow straight through it as if nothing was wrong. I have some ancient VHS-C home movies that got rained on when the roof leaked, but they still play and preserve the family memories from the 1980s. I doubt a modern DVD-R would still work (most self-erase after just five years).

(shrug). Well you young'uns can embrace your new, barely-working technologies that randomly freeze or devolve into macroblocking. I'm quite happy with my VHS players and camcorders, thank ye very much.

Oh.

And get off my lawn! ;-)

=====
Commodore 64 - Where the songs are only 0.03 megabytes in size, and we like it that way.

Re:Buffer space?

[timeOday]

I hope they don't use a hard drive - too complex, expensive, noisy, power-hogging, and prone to failure. Consider that an 8GB flash - more than enough to buffer an entire DVD - is under $20.

Re:Buffer space?

[Gizzmonic]

I think it's funny how technology seems to be moving towards WORSE performance instead of better.

Sad but true. Convenience trumps quality and compatibility. As long as it works IMMEDIATELY, who cares about the future?

Re:Buffer space?

[Pollardito]

The time that it takes you to fast-forward or rewind your VCR to that spot in the movie that you want to watch is the VCR equivalent of a random pause. VCRs have been replaced in most households, sticking around in a few for the same reason that the plaid couch from 1970 does. They had an extended lifetime past their usefulness as a movie player, because DVD recording never hit its stride. But a DVD + DVR combo is really the way to go for most people, blowing a VCR out of the water for features and usability.

Re:Buffer space?

[Locke2005]

Luckily, we don't have a problem with waiting while fast forwarding DVDs, because the #*%! pieces of $%&* won't let you fast-forward past the crap they forcibly subject you to before the movie! You would think technology would evolve in the direction of more convenience to the user, not less...

Re:Buffer space?

[Anonymous Coward]

With movies I want to be fully buffered in netflix , I just start them and let them stop/start until the end. Then I just move it back to the beginning and watch it without trouble.

You can also kill the browser and watch the file in RealPlayer or WMP. It would be under %temp%\axplayer and be the file call pbuffer.tmp, but you still need an Netflix account as it may ask you for your user/pass. Your not actually downloading the file, Axplayer is and as long as you are not copying the file to somewhere else you are not breaking the agreement. (I have read the agreement.)

Re:Buffer space?

[commodore64_love]

Yes. The disadvantages of DVDs and DVD-Rs, such as disabled fastforward, self-erasing discs that lose family home recordings after just five years, and annoying compression artifacts, all outweigh the disadvantages of VCRs in my humble opinion.

For example the "pause" while I rewind my VCR one hour and cue the tape occurs offline, not in the middle of the damn movie! I am sick of renting DVDs that refuse to play straight through with some kind of stutter or freezing. That's not a problem I ever had with VHS rentals.

So I will continue using my VHS-C to store family memories for 25 years without loss, and my Super VHS to capture DVD quality off the air and store favorite programs in my library.

No streaming yet on Linux

[shoegoo]

I am pretty sure the summary is incorrect in stating that Netflix supports streaming on Linux. There was some confusion recently about that when boxee announced Netflix support, but their announcement clearly states that it is only for their Windows version.

Bad summary, bad!

[JCSoRocks]

Also don't forget that PC streaming isn't new. I've been using it for over a year. I suppose the other things in that list are, but PC streaming isn't.

paranoia, paranoia everybodys coming to get me!

[rev_g33k_101]

[humor]
[hat substance="tinfoil"]
Before this the T.V. was an isolated appliance only physically attached to anything else by the power outlet.

Meaning that they had to transmit the video and audio monitoring signal over the airwaves on the secret gov frequency.

Now with the ability to interlace CCD sensors between the pixels of the LCD T.V. and hook the T.V. up to the internet. Now they will transmit those images back to the gov with out fear of the frequency being jammed or discovered.
[/hat]
[/humor]

!linux

[ericrost]

Boxee (as I finally garnered an invite) does not stream netflix movies on linux. It relies on Silverlight 2.0 support which is not in Moonlight. The previous stories about this were based on badly worded blogs.

but how

[bugs2squash]

do you get the videos into the TV in the first place to allow it to then stream them.

their streaming selection is somewhat skimpy...

[aapold]

(this is based on using it on my 360...)

at least in terms of "name" movies.

There is a wealth of stuff like old tv shows, documentaries, etc, but in terms of recent movies that you missed in theaters, forget it. Its not going to be there 95% of the time. You'd have better luck selecting their instant movies as a search item and hope there's something there you want to see.

In terms of video quality... its not great. I have a pretty good connection (okay, the fastest that is offered in my area in terms of DSL), I usually get 4 or 5 bars (out of 5) in rating quality. It is definitely watchable, but no one's going to confuse it with high-def. Maybe if you had an older non-hd tv.

There is an option to view it in "original size", and when you do you get a small box, less than a quarter of your screen, so you see the resolution you're actually streaming at.

That being said, its a pretty good deal if you're someone like me, who already had a 360 and a netflix membership.

I wouldn't pay a ton extra to get a TV just because they offered this, even if I didn't have a 360. But I'd use it if it were there.

Re:their streaming selection is somewhat skimpy...

[dangerz]

I stream it on the 360 and I've gotten HD. The OP is right in that the selection is skimpy, but I'm on the $9 a month plan so I'm not complaining. I don't have cable or anything so I usually just throw a random movie on that I've never seen. I hope that they start porting more and more movies over. I rarely even use the dvd option of netflix.

mo money

[dontPanik]

Tim Alessi, director of product development for LG Electronics USA, said the broadband TVs will sell for roughly $200 to $300 more than a regular HDTV set.

hmmmm sounds steep to me.

I actually use this service ...

[Hodar]

So many comments, so many people who have not tried this feature.

When the XBox 360 update came out, I was one of the first to download it. After the download, I saw the Netflix feature and decided to try the free 30 day offer. I opened my account on my PC, selected a host of movies to stream (Heros seasons 1-3, The Office seasons 1-4, Logans Run, Kelly's Heroes, ect.) and finished the setup with my XBox.

There is some buffering done, I don't know how much is buffered whether it's 3 seconds or 10 minutes - don't know. I do know that my cable ISP had my limit set at 4 Mbps, so almost every time I would watch 2 minutes, then be alerted that my cable speed had 'slowed' so the download was changing to support my lower cable speed. Usually, this wasn't really visually obvious (I have a 120" HD 1080p projector) - the picture quality was what one would expect on an over-the-air antenna. Not great, but certainly watchable.

I later upgraded to a 6 Mbps internet package, and the picture improvement did improve. Sometimes I'd say that it was comparable to a DVD, other times more like a good VHS tape. All in all, viewable by any person who doesn't want to whine about non-Blu-Ray quality.

On my screen, the picture was perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't keep Netflix around if it weren't for the streaming video. I get UNLIMITED streaming with the lowest package they offer (~$8/month). The movie selection on streaming is extensive enough that when there isn't anything to watch on my Dish - I keep myself perfectly content watching something from the 10,000 movie selection. The contents do change every couple of months - so there is always a variety of stuff to stream.

Is it better than owning the DVD? yes and no. No, the quality isn't always as good as a DVD. But, yes in that a great deal of what I watch are movies I wouldn't be interested in buying and storing. Some movies are watched simply because they are 'classics' and you need not own them. Like "Logan's Run", "Clockwork Orange", the original "Omega Man" - for me, watching them once every 'x' years is often enough.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[LandDolphin]

Is it better than owning the DVD?

Obviously the answer is no, because you don't own the movie. This is not an attempt at replacing the home dvd market. It's and attempt at improving the home dvd rental market.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use this service too. In answer to the question "Is it better than owning the DVD?", my experience has led me to reply "seldom". The picture quality is comparable to that from a VCR most of the time and Netflix has serious quality control issues with the streaming content. Sound disappears half way through every episode of one TV show in particular, or is out of synch. with the picture in another. For another show, the episodes play but the picture is sheared diagonally. Fortunately, I can add the DVDs to my queue and enjoy them without any problems.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[PrescriptionWarning]

As things go digital the concept of ownership begins to slip away because it requires something to be physical in representation and not easily duplicated (DVDs are easily ripped, so they truly are not just a physical representation), so maybe replacing your at home DVD collection is precisely what may occur at some point in the future.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[LordKronos]

The answer isn't OBVIOUSLY no. Owning the DVD can be worse because you pay a higher rate and aren't guaranteed that it will work forever (if it breaks or gets stolen when you've only watched it once or twice, you are actually worse off than renting). Likewise, if you only watch it once in the first year or two, you might be better off renting it at first and then picking up the DVD if it moves down to a discounted price.

So there are just a couple examples where owning isn't obviously better. That's the problem when you try to make absolute statements like that...you are likely to run into some case where it's not true.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[LandDolphin]

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see DVD/Physical Media ownership as we know it disappear.

*insert buggy whip comment*

Re:I actually use this service ...

[LandDolphin]

Yes. yes. I forgot to include being mugged on you way home from Best Buy.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[tzhuge]

err... if they're apples and oranges, and you want to know if the orange is better than the apple...

Obviously the answer is no, because the orange is not an apple, and the orange is really an orange?

Re:I actually use this service ...

[Tingler]

Obviously you are not looking at all aspects of ownership. The users of this service don't have to deal with the costs of obtaining and storing the media that the movie is on. I just got rid of over 50 DVDs of movies I had only watched once or twice. In retrospect, I would rather have kept the money I paid for these movies and rented them.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[LandDolphin]

The point I was making was that renting a movie does not replace ownership of the movie.

So to go with the mandatory car reference, renting a Ferrari to drive around the track for the weekend does not replace owning one. Sure it gives you a taste, but that is all.

If you have the desire to own a movie, then a rental services (like Netflix), is not going to be a valid replacement.

Re:I actually use this service ...

[bwalling]

the picture quality was what one would expect on an over-the-air antenna.

I have an OTA antenna, and I get a better HD picture with it than I do from the compressed signal that the cable provider sends me.

From the article

[internerdj]

"Tim Alessi, director of product development for LG Electronics USA, said the broadband TVs will sell for roughly $200 to $300 more than a regular HDTV set."
So let me get this straight. I can get a Roku for $99 that I can move between TV sets, offers more than just netflix for $100-200 less than this? I guess not having another box on my entertainment center would make my wife happy, but really what is having another box, especially as small as the Roku?

Re:From the article

[Anonymous Coward]

and anyone with a HD Tivo gets it for free, with NO additional hardware (also the xbox, etc).

Tim Alessi strikes me as a clueless jackass that needs to be fired immediately. The idea that you can jam hardware that has a value of no more than $100 (arguably $0) into a TV set, then charge $300 more for it is what is currently driving companies out of business. And this is their director of product development.

They have to learn a hard lesson, features like this are a loss leader. You have to EAT the cost of it, not pass it on to the consumer because you want your TV's to have added value, not added cost.

Re:From the article

[FrostDust]

I do agree the price should be a bit lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the price was higher the individual box. Many people, including Slashdotters, do value the aesthetics of not having a half-dozen boxes cluttering their entertainment center, each with their own power cord and remote.

Also, not everyone has a TV with multiple high-def inputs. Owning a Blu-Ray player, a Tivo, and a game console, may force you into compromising the quality of one by using a composite cable.

This parallels the bundling of integrated bluetooth and wifi on laptops: You may save money by buying a USB dongle, and gain the ability to imbue any other system of yours with wireless capabilities. However, it would occupy one of a limited number of USB ports, plus stick out the side/back, and give you one more thing to worry about carrying around or losing. Because of this, many users prefer the convenience of an integrated unit instead.

Re:From the article

[MrMunkey]

Roku also announced today that it'll have a software update allowing all boxes access to the Video on Demand content at Amazon: http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=169871

The movies there aren't free, but it's even more content on my Roku box, which I say is a great idea. Now if they'd just get the TV station's online content I'd be all set.

Re:From the article

[bws111]

Um, no. What drives companies out of business is short-sightedness like you display. The one thing you got right is that the COST of this is very low (probably way less than $100). And for that very low COST, they are estimating that the VALUE increases by $200-$300. That leaves several hundred dollars of profit, which keeps companies in business. And what if they are over-estimating the value? Drop the price. They can chop a few hundred dollars off the price and still be profitable.

If your argument is that there is 'no value' to this, you are wrong there as well. True, you could buy a $99 Roku box that does the same thing, but that is not the whole story. You still need somewhere to put the box. You still need to supply power to the box. You still need to have available inputs on your switch/receiver/TV to connect the box. You have to do something with all those cables. You have yet another remote control laying around/getting lost/getting broken. You have to know how to hook it up in the first place (Roku has 5 FAQs on this subject alone). What if it isn't working correctly?

Tim Alessi is guessing that there are many, many people who would consider it well worth $100-$200 dollars above the cost of a Roku to solve all of the above problems. I think he is probably right.

Finally, learn what a 'loss leader' is. It is something you sell at a loss, expecting it to lead to sales of other, more profitable things (like consoles and games).

with no additional hardware.?

[rossdee]

It woulg be cool if they could stream video with no additional hardware... Does the TV contain its own satellite aerial? Or does it use IP over power lines?

Video buffer anyone?

[cat_jesus]

What I don't understand is why no TV manufacturer has put in a video buffer. Ram is cheap and you could pause/FF/RW live tv rather easily. Especially with HD sets.

Re:Video buffer anyone?

[dangerz]

Someone probably owns a patent for it and they dont want to pay.

Re:Video buffer anyone?

[Lumpy]

HUH? My old RCA scenium HD set has had this for 4 years.

Install the Firewire HD10 add on and now I can pause any digital TV channel I am watching. I can easily extract the video from the hard drive if I want it.

I'm guessing that most dont because they hate their customers and love DRM.

Re:Video buffer anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is expensive. Uncompressed/Low compressed video takes up alot of space and it's not like most tv have the proc to handle h.264 compression unless you were willing to spend even more. It would be alot of extra cost for a limited feature some may or maynot use. Also, rewinding in terms of streaming is limited as you can not pause the streams itself (meaning if you pause or rewind long enough, you would missing some of the stream anyways). pause/rewind/fastforward doesn't work on streams in which you can't re-adjust the timeframe to stream from.

Re:Video buffer anyone?

[cgenman]

I would be impressed by fast forwarding live TV.

The problem with Netflix streaming service

[DreadfulGrape]

...is that the movie selection is mostly crummy. A few diamonds in the rough ("No Country for Old Men" is in there), but the selection is nowhere near as broad as the DVD service. I guess that the licensing fees are to high for them to stream just the good movies.

To me, that makes the LG-Netflix-o-box not nearly as desirable.

Awesome

[man_ls]

I was concerned for a while about how Netflix would handle the transition from media being consumed primarily on disc, to being consumed over a network. It looks like they're handling the change extremely well.

What I'd absolutely love to see would be the protocol used to do the streaming to be released, and for there to be some sort of option in the TV's set up to specify your own server if you're so inclined. Then, the TV could stream movies from your computer by itself.

bob

[Anonymous Coward]

problem is netflix on demand still sucks selection wise at they force you to get discs snailmailed for new releases and shows that do not suck. lol.

XBox 360 Support

[TheNinjaroach]

XBox 360 streaming requires a monthly "Gold" subscription fee from Microsoft, who provides nothing in this situation but the hardware I've already paid for. Great. Looks like I won't be subscribing to Netflix this year, either.

working towards the day when tv watches you

[Anonymous Coward]

like in those sci-fi movies. what a 'job', watching people watching their tv. yikes

Meh.

[argStyopa]

I just got a Roku for Xmas, and I'm quite pleased with it.

Frankly, I prefer my hardware modular. I understand the appeal of having "all in one" boxes, but if I have a DVD player, and a monitor, I'd rather they be SEPARATE (at least insofar as the separation doesn't impair quality) so I can upgrade/replace parts as needed.

And FWIW: "...Netflix's streaming service taps a library of 12,000 titles..." of which about 11,900 are truly SUCKY MOVIES.

Most of the good ones are STARZ-licensed, meaning they are only available for as long as they are up on the STARZ network, meaning a handful of months at most.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Netflix, and I really like Roku (lots of good TV stuff there), but don't for a minute think 12,000 movies means anything close to 12,000 GOOD movies you want to watch.

Re:Meh.

[the eric conspiracy]

Personally I rarely use the Netflix streaming service. Even though I have a 5/30mbps internet service, the movies often stutter or drop frames, the playback often stops to rebuffer (usually at a lower quality level) or just simply quits, and Netflix doesn't offer 5.1 surround sound in the download stream. The movies quality is also not nearly as good as what I get from my upconverting DVD player.

Couple that with a sucky selection of titles and there just isn't any attraction. If this is the world of online streaming it isn't going to replace DVD and BluRay anytime soon.

So who will be...

[SGDarkKnight]

the first company to interface AppleTV directly into a TV system. As nice as NetFlix is for rental, I think the first TV manufacturer to team up with AppleTV might be able to make quite the profit here. I mean, renting is nice, but for those that love their TV series, having the option to purchase a tv series and watch it whenever you like, without going through a rental tpye of device, well, that would just be neat.

Re:So who will be...

[Yvan256]

I'm waiting for the opposite: I usually watch a TV show only once, and I'm not gonna pay 1.99$ per episode for that. Even with season passes, it's way more expensive than a satellite dish or cable.

Re:So who will be...

[earlymon]

Took me a second, but I get your question, and it's a good one.

Personally, if the entire TV-iverse were to go to the hulu.com model, I'd be pretty happy. I have occasions where I want to watch something, like an old ST:TOS or Bab5 or whatever - and I don't want - nor see the sense - in either renting it or buying the DVD set, because it will eventually come around again on broadcast TV.

When a good show comes around via broadcast, I buffer it and skip commercials. They're too many of them, and they're just too annoying. But the hulu.com model for commercials is livable for me. I could install XXX and filter them out, but I want the service to be successful, so I allow them.

Advertising actually reaches me via my hulu/streaming viewing than by broadcast/cable/satellite, thanks to DVRs. And I'd very much enjoy more of my viewing on-demand, appliance-delivered, at minimal cost provided the business model includes a reasonable entertainment model.

I'm prolly coming across as socialist or something else I don't intend, so I'll stop.

Just what we need

[CaptScarlet22]

More compressed HD content...ugh

No Closed Captions, and use PlayOn for $30.

[mishikal]

Another missed issue with streaming netflix programs is there is no support for closed captions, which some people rely on, and other like. I personally like captions when watching British programs, since they often use phrases I'm not familiar with. Also, why pay $300 for a netflix TV when you can purchase PlayOn for $30, and stream a whole lot more, including netflix?

why is Netflix Instant so lacking?

[ACAx1985]

What is the technical/financial/business reason that Instant Stream on Netflix isn't up to par with their DVD collection?

Re:why is Netflix Instant so lacking?

[PrescriptionWarning]

bandwidth/money/lawsuits

i think the idea is that as more people are lured by Netflix with a major reason being the online streaming service, this will increase their moneys, make them improve their network infrastructure, and settle anything they need to with the movie studios.

Dumb Devices

[Ohio Calvinist]

TVs have always been one of the most reliable appliances in ones homes specifically because they don't have updatable components and had "better be right" out the door. Firmware upgrading has allowed companies selling hardware to control what users do with their devices, prohibit legal modification, introduce poorly developed products with a promise that 1.1 will be better, and introduce planned obselescence when 2.0 requires hardware rev. 2.0. HDTV has already had a hard enough time gaining widespread adoption in the US; the single most TV obsessed nation with a high per-capita income in the world. One of the few things that inspire consumer confidence is that TVs are built-to-last and they are a zero-maintainence piece of equipment. Even a stove requires more maintainence.

Most folks I know have the ugly wooden console set that is almost 25 years old, and won't replace it until it breaks or bit the bullet on a 27"-32" when their console died. They aren't going to go out and drop $2,000 for a set that has feature X,Y,Z to have features suddenly drop because Sony or Universal decide to take their ball and go home; or have it bricked by a hack programmer trying to patch a DRM flaw before his boss fires him because Big Content is going to walk if they don't fix it.

They should work with cable/sat providers to include the software in their boxes because most folks have digital cable or satellite and need some kind of reciever box anyway, and other than the TiVo loyal; the market has proven folks would much rather rent than buy these boxes, and if bricked they can take it back to their Cable Co for a new one and let them worry about getting it fixed. I would think this would only drive acceptance of PPV purchases for those not on NetFix yet if people can be swayed from the physical media and/or physical video store habit of entertainment. This way no TVs are harmed or depreciated while those displays still work, and I can let the provider worry about getting the content to my screen... whatever that form takes or changes in the 10-20 I've got this display.

Re:Dumb Devices

[cgenman]

I've had two tubes catch fire, and quite a few others break in different ways. LCD TV's have to have their light source replaced faster than you'd think, and projectors are constantly in need of new bulbs.

A 25 year old set would be built in about 82, or just before TV manufacturers realized you could sell more by making things break. Don't expect a modern set to last you more than 10 years, tops, no matter the bells and whistles.

You can count on it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the cracker who infects high def, large screen TV's all over the world with goatse will get mucho cred in that community.

TV's that Lose Features Over Time

[bill_mcgonigle]

That's why this is important. Before, TVs were just dumb display devices. Now that most have firmware instead of just solid state circuits (hell my parents TV has a bootup sound) this sort of thing is possible.

And since just about every DRM system to date has been broken, we'll expect the TV will be doing Internet-based firmware upgrades. Until LG loses interest in the model, and then it'll just stop being supported by Netflix.

This is the most dangerous part: the TV you buy today, expecting it might last 15-20 years, won't be the same TV you'll have later.

Saw This comming...but it's just the beginning!

[JRGhaddar]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=377637&cid=21558759

HD channels = Same stupid channels

[zymano]

i was hoping for NEW not weather channel in HD.

Same stupid channels. I would like more different channels.

We will not have it till the corporates and their tentacle reach on cableco's die out.

The cable companies won't stand for this!

[aggles]

When I bought my ROKU, I was just about to purchase HBO from Time Warner because I couldn't find anything good to watch on TV. Granted, ROKU/Netflix has a limited selection, but its enough to get by. As content gets better and the masses start going to steaming video, the cable companies get positioned as bit slingers and cut out of the middle of the content cash flow. I'm all for that after the high subscription fees I've paid for crap, but Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon and others are not going to stand for this attack on their revenue streams. Not only do they lose premium subscription revenue, but the streaming is going to consume way more of their bandwidth - especially as better quality HD becomes available. The cable companies will shape the bandwidth or start charging by the gigabit, and that is just a start. Their model is to attack by creating regulations that favor their business model - and that will slow down Netflix and others.

I'm already suspecting Time Warner of shaping ROKU/Netflix traffic. My ROKU/Netflix movies start out at "four dot" quality and quickly shift to "two dot" quality - with the ROKU reporting 0.5 megabits/second throughput at the same time my PC can get 5-7 megabits/second to various speed test sites. ROKU is unusable until the throughput issue is fixed - but neither ROKU, Netflix or Time Warner has determined what the problem is.

Re:The cable companies won't stand for this!

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, the limit won't be from the cable companies but from Internet Service Providers.

The reason is simple: all that video downloading could put a strain on the network infrastructure that it might not be able to handle currently. That's why ISP's are starting to impose monthly download capacity limits, not only to discourage this traffic but to discourage torrent traffic.

Until we get a huge increase in bandwidth capacity plus making everyone switch to IPv6 addressing, downloaded HD videos through the Internet are a non-starter, in my opinion.

Obligatory Penny Arcade

[Yvan256]

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/9/27/

Re:Reading is your friend, you should try it

[hansamurai]

The comments are always much more interesting than the summary or article will ever be. I always skip right to the meat.

No glitches here (5/20mbps service)

[thule]

I have the 5/20mbit FiOS service and I have not seen a single glitch. I have a bridge between my network and the ONT and it can see that the "HD" movies burst up to 10-11mbit/s. The stream seems to go in bursts. I'm guessing that it fills up the buffer in the Ruko and requests another block when it frees up space. I never see this stop and go streaming in the playback.

This wasn't the case when I was running on my 1.5mbit DSL connection. It appeared to be a continuous stream -- at much lower quality. At 1.5mbit the quality was somewhere between VHS and DVD.

I am impressed with the "HD" movies. It is not BluRay, nor does it have AC3, but it looks good on a 52 inch screen from a comfortable viewing distance. Now if they could only add AC3, I would be totally happy.

I have tried the DirecTV VOD which streams over the Internet. The standard def stuff streams perfectly. But the HD stuff doesn't stream fast enough for immediate playback. It appears that DTV is limiting the bandwidth on their streaming servers. They seem to be depending on the fact that the video is being saved to a HDD for later playback -- not immediate playback.

The TV symbolizes the ultimate destination

[Culture20]

No, people's brains are the ultimate destination. I doubt anyone would want to stream a movie to a TV when no one, not even a dog, is at home.

New word

[eliphalet]

The article at TG Daily http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-40823-97.html is headlined "LG to unveil netflixed HDTVs".

Re: Netflix and Roku rock

[colinnwn]

I got a Netflix player for Christmas too, and I'm sold on Roku. They seem to be committed to supplying quality products, communicating with their customers, and being part of the Open Source community. Check out their website and user forums. Too bad their other hardware is pretty pricey. The box is rock solid in build, software quality, and usability.

Currently there are 1,140 Starz movies, so if you agree with Styopa, that leaves 10,860 "sucky" movies. A considerable number of those 11k movies are independent or foreign, and have more than 3.5 stars. So there is a lot more quality content than Styopa implies. Personally I think a lot of the big hollywood, mass market movies the Starz channel carries is the real dreck.

I've been using the box on my 6mbs/256kbs cable connection and have mostly had a good "3 of 4 stars" picture quality. I've never had a stutter or dropped frame, and only once had rebuffering while I was also downloading an Ubuntu distro. Using QoS fixed that. It sounds like the eric conspiracy's real problem is either his internet service, or his computer if that is what he is using.

Technical details on NetFlix encoding

[benwaggoner]

If anyone's curious about what's going on under the hood, I did a blog post a bit ago about how Netflix does their VC-1 encoding for the service and how it's evolved over time.

http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Netflixrsquos-Neil-Hunt-shares-encoding-workflow-info/

For those talking about quality, a few points I want to make:

It won't ever look better than the source; some stuff is only availble in lower quality SD masters. Stuff like "The Office" that comes in as HD looks spectacular at the highest bitrate.

HD (up to 3800 Kbps) quality today is only on devices, while the desktop version only goes up to SD (1500 Kbps).

Those bitrates are averages, with the peaks higher. You'll generally need to be able to sustain 1.5x the listed bitrate in order to reliably get the maximum bitrate band for that content.
Today, the desktop version is SD only