Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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).