Slashdot Mirror
Uproar Over Netflix's New Instant Viewer
almechist writes "Many Netflix customers are up in arms over the new instant-watch player powered by Microsoft's Silverlight. The official Netflix blog is full of complaints from users who decry not only the new player's quality but also the way it's being distributed, with many claiming they were deceived into downloading it. Once you opt for the new player, the old Windows Media based player won't function, not on any computer associated with the account. The new player is supposedly still beta, but NF members are strongly encouraged (some say tricked) by NF into the so-called 'upgrade,' which is permanent — there is no way to opt out. The marked decrease in video quality seen by those who have switched is perhaps not surprising, since the old player could utilize bit streams up to twice as fast as the new one, but this information is nowhere given out by NF. So far NF has been answering all complaints with variations on 'tough luck pal, you're stuck with it,' but many customers are so disgusted they're ready to cancel their NF membership. This could be a public relations disaster in the making for Netflix."
I see comments in the thread linked to by the original post. But I don't see any information saying there's really widespread unhappiness. There are 483 comments in the thread, most negative but I have no idea how large or how representative a sample that is. I can't tell how much of this is the standard negative reaction to any major upgrade. Does anyone have any data on complaint levels for prior Netflix upgrades?
when i first saw the silverlight player i considered trying it out. but when i looked into it, netflix made it clear that this would make silverlight your only option. i didn't really want to go full-on with silverlight so I just passed up on it.
it's not like netflix hid the fact that you couldn't use the WMP version. it wasn't discreetly placed in the fine print.. it was pretty clear.
now, i don't really understand why they are forcing it to be an all-or-nothing decision.. but don't blame them for something they told you ahead of time about, and you had to opt into.
frog blast the vent core
Even though they were running both players... This situation certainly associates silverlight with poor quality.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
>"This could be a public relations disaster in the making for Netflix."
>"...consumers taking their money elsewhere does everything."
I'm sure there are 'investments' in place by MS that will ease any pain in the short term.
Reed Hastings, Netflix founder and CEO, holds a seat on Microsoft's board. Microsoft purchased, (purely for investment reasons) 1% of Netflix stocks. Netflix will do what MS wants.
We are talking about Netflix. Yes, they are a company looking for making profit, but they are also one of the few companies who have a solid record of listening to their customers. I have nothing but positive experience with Netflix. Give them a chance - let's see how they will react to this.
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but this post is from last October.
MLB.tv did something similar a year or so ago where they switched from something that is actually meant to play video (WMP) to something that I can't really tell what it's meant to do (Silverlight). They had a similar deal where once you opted in you couldn't change back to WMP. They had (have?) all the same kinds of problems with it not working for people or just being worse quality.
Now this has happened a second time with a completely separate content provider and I don't know what to think other than that Silverlight is synonymous with crummy picture quality and choppy playback.
Sick of people knocking on Gentoo's greatness in completely unrelated
That's odd since I currently have three queues on my account.
Got just one on mine, and when I asked about it, I was told it was history.
Perhaps the decision to keep them was limited to grandfathered cases, new enrolls don't get the option.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
I tinkered with Silverlight some back when it first came out (before it was even .NET integrated), and I wonder if someone using a utility such as wget could simply retrieve the Silverlight XAML file, view the source and then retrieve the video file from the URL shown in the source. Unless the newer silverlight is compiled or something, it theoretically should work since, unlike trying this with PHP or ASP.NET code, it is up to the browser/plugin to interpret the XAML not unlike regular JavaScript.
And if the Silverlight app is embedded within another (binary) app for display or some other means of obfuscating the location of the XAML file, couldn't Ethereal/Wireshark simply reveal the location of it granted the traffic is not encrypted? Anything can theoretically be cracked.
I would open another Netflix account and sell my old-school-player account on Ebay. New accounts now are Silverlight-only and the ability to use the old player has market value.
... or they could just conform to open standards.
"open"... "standards"... Two words that should really only see each other every now and then, and always with court-ordered supervision. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
For very high quality encoding, you really can't even theoretically do much better than MPEG-2 already has. All newer codecs can really do, that old ones couldn't, is to do a better job of masking digital artifacts, when using bitrates so low that they can't be avoided (1.5MBps should be high enough not to require it).
This is simply not true for any practical application. If you pump up the bitrate high enough, MPEG-2 and h.264 will both produce just I-frames encoded pretty similarly. But at those bitrates people will be using something like MJPEG, or a lossless codec.
H.264 has a significantly better motion vector system at practical bitrates that will produce a far superior image than MPEG-2. When Blu-Ray was first came out, all of it's movies were in MPEG-2 for some reason, while HD-DVD was in H.264, and the HD-DVD movies had significantly higher quality. It wasn't until Blu-Ray producers switched to using H.264 that they were able to make movies with excellent quality. (This despite more than a decade of development on MPEG-2 codecs.)
WMV3 (aka WMV9, VC-1, etc.) suffers from the fact that practically nobody but Microsoft chooses to make an encoder for the format, and Microsoft isn't interested in the endless testing a tweaking that it takes to really squeeze the maximum quality out of it.
VC-1 actually has pretty good quality. (I have no idea if further development could improve it much though.) VC-1 is almost as good as H.264 for quality at a given bitrate. Where it shines though is that it takes significantly less CPU power to decode. It's not uncommon for a PC to be able to decode a VC-1 1080p stream, but not an H.264 one.
Still, Netflix is the only major system that I know of that uses VC-1 heavily. Blu-Ray CAN use it, but most producers seem to use H.264 instead. I suppose they figure that they might as well get the extra quality as they know hardware players will be able to play either back fine.
Not really.
I spend >$10 on a DVD that usually only watch once or twice.
I spend ?$13 on Netflix per month and watch 5 or 6 streaming movies. Or for $10 I could watch 3-4 Movies on XBox marketplace.
Do I spend more on pay per view? Yes. I usually rent more than I buy. But largely because I pirate less. It's supporting the content providers and they're offering me an affordable, reasonable service.
I don't see the problem. They're offering me a better experience than the previous model (buying DVDs) at a discounted price. How many movies do you own that actually were cheaper than $2 per viewing?
Pay Per View should cut piracy because the entry cost is lower. $2 for a possibly mediocre movie vs $18. If you aren't willing to spend $2 on a movie then you don't really deserve to watch it, it's almost impossible to not get your money's worth at $2.