Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Epix Provides "Free" HD Studio Content Via TV and Internet

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the experimenting-with-definitions-of-free dept.

It looks as though the movie studios are at least trying to learn from past failures and others' success with the upcoming launch of Epix (beta starts today), an HD television channel and accompanying online 720p service. The good part about this service is, if you are lucky enough to have a television provider who decides to become a partner, you wont have to pay extra to get it. The main downside, of course, is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe. "Like Hulu, the Epix movie service is a joint venture formed by the content owners; in this case, the service is powered by the movie studios Lions Gate, Paramount, and MGM. The Epix TV network will air movies that are in the "pay-TV" window — those weeks before a film appears on DVD in which it is available on pay-per-view or HBO, among others."

68 comments

  1. Only for already subscribed users, not free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I don't see any good parts about this service.

  2. Sweet! by imajinarie · · Score: 1

    I'll set up my Boxee tonight to pick up these streams! Which will probably work for about 1 1/2 days before being blocked!

  3. ESPN Now Has this Model... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

    "The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."

    Yeah, that's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360. The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck. ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege.

    1. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360. The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck. ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege. Here is the quote from the article Pushing out that sort of data is bandwidth-intensive, and Epix would love to avoid streaming HD content across the public Internet wherever possible. One way to make that happen, which the company is currently pursuing, is to install caching servers directly in the data centers of ISPs with whom Epix has a relationship. (Rensing says that Epix does not require any sort of quality of service guarantees or bandwidth prioritization from ISPs.) This is nothing but there own way to stick it to Net Neutrality.

    2. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by mpapet · · Score: 1

      Do you see how that would empower the telcos who own most of the network needed to do what you describe?

      Remember that the telcos are trying to extend their monopoly into entertainment while POTS service slowly dies. The entertainment conglomerates would rather maintain their own monopoly over the distribution of entertainment at the expense of the telcos.

      Do you see how a-la-carte media distribution will probably never come to pass in the U.S.?

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    3. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but there own way to stick it to Net Neutrality.

      However this is the 'proper' way of doing it.

      I have no problem if a content provider wants to try to reinvent the wheel and make the new AOL. It's their content, it's up to them to 'sell' it as they best feel they can.

      It's when someone I pay for a connection to the internet turns around and tells me that I can't access content or that I can only do so in a degraded manner, because someone hasn't paid the ISP some 'protection money', that I get a bit irritated. I'm already paying you to provide something, provide it. If you think you aren't getting enough moola from ME, then raise your prices and watch me leave for another provider that isn't as greedy. Don't pull this double-dipping bullshit, don't sell me something and then refuse to provide it under some mistaken idea that you don't have to unless you get even more money from someone else.

    4. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you think you aren't getting enough moola from ME, then raise your prices and watch me leave for another provider that isn't as greedy

      So what will you do when the other provider doesn't have the titles you want or the titles your SO or children want?

    5. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      If you think you aren't getting enough moola from ME, then raise your prices and watch me leave for another provider that isn't as greedy

      So what will you do when the other provider doesn't have the titles you want or the titles your SO or children want?

      Ignoring the fact that the quoted sentence has nothing to do with the idea of being signed up for a service such as this:

      The same thing I'd do today without the service?

      Either get over it, get a copy of the movie from the DVD rental store, buy it from Best Buy, or order it online, or sign up for your service depending on how urgently I cared about fullfilling our every whim.

      Hint: The last option is very, very unlikely.

      Given that this is going to be competing against things like NetFlix and Amazon's online offerings much less their physical offerings, I seriously doubt that a service limited to a smaller selection of material is going to have the leverage to pry anything out of anyone's wallets.

      PS. if you slow down and actually read my previous comment, you'll realize that the snippet you quoted from it was refering to an ISP that raises prices simply because they think they aren't being paid enough for the traffic they are seeing, not one that raises prices due to adding features such as this.

    6. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by soren202 · · Score: 1

      Except that when shit like this catches on, we all lose when we get weighed down with websites that get bundled with our connection, raising prices for all of us - including the ones that don't care, while simultaneously lining the pockets of people who already get too much money off their content.

      It's nice that someone's attempting to get movies on the internet, but the distribution method is still a dick move, regardless of the content behind it.

    7. Re:ESPN Now Has this Model... by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is this any different from AOL, CompuServe, Delphi, our ghosts in the past?

      "Get access to our exclusive content, and internet too!" has been around for a long time and it's never (since there was an option) ever beat out vanilla internet.

      It's hardly likely this to catch on either, and even if it does, it won't be universal by any means. They'll be companies out there willing to work for your buck by selling you 'cut rate connections without all that overhead' just as there will be companies out there telling you they have access to every 'sub-network' out there.

  4. Why? by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would they do this? This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue. Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss? Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Why? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cable company pays them for the right to carry the service/channel. By bundling the paywall in with your cable, they (in all fairness) open up a cheap and legal means for a large number of people to watch network shows online. On the downside (and more cynical side), this is now being bundled with your cable bill whether you like it or not, essentially forcing all cable subscribers to subsidize the program.

    2. Re:Why? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that they're looking at how much revenue they're losing to online torrents and asking themselves, "Is there any way we can get that business?"

      As for the alternatives, they don't care about cannibalizing DVD rentals, because they don't really make money from them. They could license the same content to HBO, but then they basically have to take the cut of profits that HBO gives them. Why not just start your own channel and keep all the profits for yourself? They might hurt DVD sales, but they might believe that DVD sales are already on the way out.

      Ultimately they're faced with a problem. Their old business model depended on having complete control over distribution, so if you wanted to see a movie just out in theaters, you had to rush to see in in theaters or else wait a year for it to come out on video. If you wanted to see the movie during the time between theatrical release and video release, well... tough. These days, if you really want to see a movie, you can often get it online before the theatrical release, most likely before it comes out on video, and certainly once it's been released to video. The movie studio has to make it a little more pleasant and convenient for people to see the movies they want to see, when they want to see it, and how they want to see it, or risk having their current business model fall apart.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that they're looking at how much revenue they're losing to online torrents and asking themselves, "Is there any way we can get that business?"

      I suspect that they are looking at NetFlix (and Apple, Amazon, and whoever else offers HiDef movies) and are trying to figure out a way to compete against them.

    4. Re:Why? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately this will probably be the post-cable model for video. Your ISP will sign contracts with video providers and the price will be implicitly included in your bill with no ability to opt-out or choose your own video providers "a la carte" without switching ISPs. This "guaranteed revenue" model is just too profitable for the ISPs or the media companies to give up.

      If the ISPs had any sense they'd implement their own open payment system where third parties could charge consumers via the ISP and have the charges appear on the consumer's bill, bypassing the Visa/MasterCard payment service cartel. That way the ISPs could still get their cut (it would be a gold mine for them), but consumers would actually have choice in their service providers.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  5. Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why should I aim for this and not... say, use an alternate means of watching films?

    Serious question.

    1. Re:Question: by soren202 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that this isn't up yet, and you need to have both cable and internet from the same company if you want it to work, bragging rights, assuming you have the ability.

  6. Learn from past mistakes? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think not. This is the content providers selling access to their cable arms. This is just another attempt to turn the internet into AOL.

    If they had learned anything the films would be available to anyone with the cash in hand and would be in an unDRMed format.

  7. Cable providers biting the hands that feed them? by imajinarie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really, though. I can't imagine cable providers wanting to upset the likes of HBO, Showtime, Max, etc, by agreeing to an untested service that directly competes with those? Have to wait and see, whenever they announce the partners.

  8. Just like Hulu by davidwr · · Score: 1

    They both rot your brains.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Just like Hulu by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If it's just like Hulu, then the content won't be available to non-USians.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Just like Hulu by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere.
       

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    3. Re:Just like Hulu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere.

      Woooooosh!

  9. No chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Cable companies make money on pay-per-view. This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it. Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.
    2. The article says that Netflix isn't a viable outlet for the studios because it doesn't have many new releases.

    "the real question is why the studios would launch their own distribution network instead of just offloading the films to partners already equipped to handle them? Rensing insists that the services are just too different. While Hulu does offer some films, it's focused almost exclusively on TV at the moment and is ad-supported. Netflix On Demand doesn't have access to the same super-recent hit titles." [FTFA, no edits]

    How is that a reason? The studios don't let Netflix stream the new movies. That's not a distribution system issue, it's a policy decision by these very studios. It's just sloppy reporting, I guess. It should just say "The studios don't want to use Netflix On Demand."

    1. Re:No chance by GeorgeS · · Score: 1

      1. Cable companies make money on pay-per-view. This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it. Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.

      They don't have to offer this channel in the "basic" package so they may be "making money" by selling the higher priced packages to more subscribers.

      --
      "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
    2. Re:No chance by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's "free" but probably only with higher priced cable packages. They're only saying that it will be included with a package, not that it's really free. I'm sure it wouldn't come with basic cable.

  10. And when it dies by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    we can all say, "Epix Fail!"

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:And when it dies by minijedimaster · · Score: 0

      A swing and a miss!

    2. Re:And when it dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For right now its "Free Epix!"

    3. Re:And when it dies by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I predict it still won't be recordable over Firewire on a PC or Mac. Wherever it fits in the tiers of service and where amongst the switched digital video channels, it'll still be encrypted.

      (I had accidentally typed "channels" as "chanels" and was tempted to leave it like that.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  11. Seriously? by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is this really a good idea?

    Upsides:
    No fees listed on cable bill
    Can stream to computer or watch HD channel directly
    No ads

    Downsides:
    Service is -not- free. Only way to get it is for your Cable provider to subscribe and pass that cost on to every single subscriber, whether they want it or not, as part of their standard cable bill.

    This could be a nice service, if you could sign up for it as an individual and it was reasonably priced. I can't see how it could possibly be reasonably priced, though, since they are putting up movies that compete with rentals and PPV. Unless, of course, it's only old crappy movies, and then it's crap you could watch anyhow, but with ads.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Seriously? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree.

      How about the movie studios stop being raging assholes and allow Netflix to stream the new releases?

      No need to create a new model, if you want it you can subscribe. Everyone is happy.

      Plus I dont have to make the old lady down the street pay for my movie subscription with their trickle down pricing pyramid scheme.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  12. Someone is about to get paid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Epix is about to be rich!

  13. Could be nice in the begining. by gubers33 · · Score: 1

    This could be great at first if it works and gains ground, but I don't foresee this service staying free for a large period of time. I mean look at Hulu, It has not been around long at all and already they are considering changing the service from free to paid. Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:Could be nice in the begining. by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long.

      Greed and capitalism is the reason most products exist in the first place. Do you think these millionaire socialists and communists in Hollywood make these massively expensive movies just to release them for free? Why bother? Even the quasi-communistic F/OSS we all know and love is driven by certain types of greed, and increasing amounts of capitalism.

      • Why Open Source? Altruism, sure, validation of your programming prowess, sure, but the main reason is free labor. Every participant gets the free work of others. Wanting more and better software than you can afford or make yourself sure sounds like greed. Money isn't the only thing you can be greedy about.
      • Greed and capitalism is the only reason that companies like Red Hat, IBM, Sun, and hundreds of other companies contribute to F/OSS projects. They perceive it as a strategic move that will or does somehow positively impact their bottom line. In the days before they saw the profit motivation, they didn't contribute. (Red Hat was formed because they saw the profit potential, where the IBMs and Suns of the world had to be convinced.)

      I don't know where people get off thinking others shouldn't try new strategies to compete in a free market. My problem is when these guys try to use the power of government to help them "compete" by creating favorable regulations or mandates, but that's not capitalism, nor is it free market. Greed and capitalism are wonderful motivators, properly channeled.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
  14. The new meaning of Free by mpapet · · Score: 1

    No, this isn't a RMS-style rant.

    Most of you gladly pay for your cable/satellite services. You watch maybe 10% of the stuff in a given package as sold by the providers. If, in some fairy tale, this service were actually to be bundled for the vast majority of you, it's hardly free.

    Is this what 'free' has come to mean? It is a dumb question, but I just don't see how it can be rationalized as free to the point that editors will just let it go. OTOH, it could be a slashvertisement.

    Still, I want to know. Is this what 'free' means to most people when they think about entertainment media?

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  15. binary in their HTML code by bwindle2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anybody else notice the binary block in their front page's HTML code ( 01010111011001010010011101110010 01100101001000000110111001101111 00100000011100110111010001110010 01100001011011100110011101100101 01110010011100110010000001110100 01101111001000000110110001101111 01110110011001010000110100001010 01011001011011110111010100100000 01101011011011100110111101110111 00100000011101000110100001100101 00100000011100100111010101101100 01100101011100110010110000100000 01100001011011100110010000100000 01110011011011110010000001100100 011011110010000001001001)? It translates to "We're no strangers to love You know the rules, and so do I"

    1. Re:binary in their HTML code by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It translates to "We're no strangers to love You know the rules, and so do I"

      Really? Then is this all some kind of late April Fools joke?

      Why would they be rick-rolling us?

    2. Re:binary in their HTML code by crossal · · Score: 1

      Long Live Rick Astley

    3. Re:binary in their HTML code by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

      i think what they meant was 0111011101100101 0010000001100001 0111001001100101 0010000001110100 0110010101101000 0010000001100111 0110000101111001 0010000100001101 0000101001011010 0100111101001101 0100011101000110 0101010001010111

      --
      "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    4. Re:binary in their HTML code by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think about it: there are numerous folks on places like /. that would never DREAM of visiting a page like this under normal circumstances.

      However, let one geek work out what that binary is and post it, and suddenly a large fraction of those folks will thunder over there to confirm it for themselves.

      AAAAANNNNNND, those folks will be amused, and thus will be in a more receptive frame of mind to accept the sales pitch.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    5. Re:binary in their HTML code by oh_bugger · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone do such a thing?!

      --
      Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self
    6. Re:binary in their HTML code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, hate everything. Cynicism is the only true religion. Never smile or be appreciative. Laughter is forbidden. It is only reserved for irony or others' misfortunes. Everything is marketing. That is why we must hate everything.

      You must be a riot at parties.

    7. Re:binary in their HTML code by Killer+Orca · · Score: 3, Funny

      Am I the only person who doesn't browse by viewing pages' HTML?

    8. Re:binary in their HTML code by bwindle2 · · Score: 1

      Sales pitch? I Googled the translated phrase.. turns out I got Rick Rolled via binary.

    9. Re:binary in their HTML code by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      The binary isn't the sales pitch. The binary is the means to get the reluctant to visit their site. Once there, the sales pitch begins.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    10. Re:binary in their HTML code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows line ending? They failed to roll this slashdotter.

    11. Re:binary in their HTML code by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  16. Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin'

  17. International? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    This won't be launched internationally. right? :-p

    I mean, then they'd risk competing with piracy at large, and it seems like they prefer pissing people off instead to get their way in that area. :p

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  18. Like ESPN360? by antdude · · Score: 1

    I think this is like ESPN360 like AT&T ISP can show this, but not TWC's RoadRunner.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  19. Lionsgate by kenp2002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh great Lionsgate is involved. That means 99.9995% of the content will be crap. .0001% will be decent and .0004% will do nicely in overseas markets when put on DVD.

    A "Polished Turd" will stink up the basket no matter how many flowers you put in the basket with it....

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Lionsgate by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What if the turd IS the basket?
      http://www.cowpots.com/

  20. Not The Phone by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Protip: This is unrelated to the Samsung Epix (i907) cellphone.

  21. if you can't subscribe... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."

    So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:if you can't subscribe... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      "The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."

      So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".

      When would you stop torrenting?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:if you can't subscribe... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      When would you stop torrenting?

      Do you want the smart-ass answer or the serious answer?

      The smart-ass answer involves seeding percentages.

      The serious answer depends upon when traditional delivery channels resume being reliable.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:if you can't subscribe... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like to think that one would stop torrenting the moment a reasonable substitute becomes available at a reasonable price.

      Potential providers have to realize what their competition is. Common codecs that play in many different players on practically every platform. Total lack of DRM (or total DRM transparency). High quality video and sound. A huge, easily searchable library of immediately available content. Seamless integration into your media center.

      What legal services I've seen so far are:

      Movie downloads that cost more than buying the DVD, and can't be backed up to DVD.

      "Online" video with artificially reduced resolution, using proprietary players that only work on one operating system, and do not integrate with any media center package.

      In general, just real piss-poor tries at providing online content, demonstrating an overriding take-it-or-leave-it mindset that's no better than the pay-for-view available for a decade on cable, and in some cases more expensive. Here, this is what we're offering. Deal with it. Is there any surprise that so many people decline?

      The competition (in this case torrenting content encoded with standard, non-DRM-laden codecs) unquestionably has better quality and a better selection and better integration and better functionality. The practice of downloading content illegally doesn't even have to compete on price -- it can compete successfully on every other aspect of home entertainment.

      For instance, it's so bizarre to me that Windows Media Center excels at playing illegal content seamlessly with a conventional remote, (I've seen it work -- download, drop in Movies folder, and it magically shows up in the menu) but when I try to go the legal route, with Netflix video on demand, I have to dink around with a wireless keyboard trying to play the movie in a browser. It's so incredibly inconvenient, I don't know why anyone would bother with it.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:if you can't subscribe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When would you stop torrenting?

      When their content is just as good (that means: it'll be a in a format I can play w/out any weirdo software, and it doesn't have DRM) and it downloads faster (which means they're setting it cacheable so that it's coming out my my ISP's Squid cache).

      No-DRM matches the pirates. Combine that with http to beat the pirates (because bt sucks). That's how to make money. Anything else is how to lose money.

    5. Re:if you can't subscribe... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Is MCE really this bad at playing stuff through netflix?

      Hell, it's not that much farther from what you are describing to just plain running
      Internet Exploder in MythTV through wine in order to get to that sort of content.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:if you can't subscribe... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Caveat: I'm still using Windows XP Media Center Edition. After reading reports about DRM, performance, media and network issues with Vista, I decided to wait for Windows 7. Parenthetically, if rumors turn out to be true and Windows 7 media center won't work with third party codecs, that's an automatic fail and I'll then be looking at MythTV and it's ilk.

      So anyway, it's not that MCE is bad at playing video-on-demand. MCE (at least the XP version) has no awareness of the service. There just isn't any way to get from the blue menu to Netflix. You must dismiss media center, bring up explorer, navigate to the netflix site, log in, choose your video, start it going, hit fullscreen, then move the pointer out of the way. Your "remote" is the keyboard. Fine for laptops, sucks for home theater.

      Last time I checked, (admittedly awhile ago) this was true for Vista as well. It's just not a feature. There exists a plugin, but it's for managing your queue, not for viewing content. If this has changed for Vista or Windows 7, it'd almost be a reason to upgrade.

      As it currently works, Video on Demand is pointless for home theater, as it fails ergonomically. (Video quality sucked also, but one thing at a time.) The normal Netflix DVD delivery service works well enough, and Media Center will play a DVD directly, from the menu, with the remote.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  22. Useless by yawn9 · · Score: 1

    I use DirecTV as my TV service. Even if they add this channel (they wont because it competes with pay per view), they would use it as another reason to raise my bill. I also wouldn't be able to use the online streaming, as a techie with other options is obviously not going to use satellite Internet.

  23. space alien commercials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't seen Hulu's commercials, have you?

    1. Re:space alien commercials by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I am a Tivo/MythTV user.

      I haven't seen a commercial since the last Millenium...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  24. Woot! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Finally we can play Lunar Outpost again?

    Oh... not that Epyx. Nevermind.

    --
    Comment of the year
  25. Oblig Nightmare Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/1418564994/sizes/o/

  26. SO let me get this straight... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    New HD Movies!! Yay!!

    Well, just the PPV for them but you know, online..

    Oh..

    Right before they go to DVD

    Oh..

    And only if your cable company subscribes to this..

    Oh..

    So if I already have cable with PPV, why do I need this again? Is it that the cable companies who do sign up wont have these available as regular PPV? I doubt it..

    This is stupid in too many ways..

    Aborting/Retry/Fail (Y) to all.