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

[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

[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

[the eric conspiracy]

I found that switching to decaf is an alternative solution.

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.

Linux?

[smartin]

Is this available or does the poster mean Tivo?

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.

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.

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

[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

[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).

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:Video buffer anyone?

[dangerz]

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

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:MCE app please!

[thrillseeker]

so they could make more money?

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: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...