Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Gauging Interest In an iPhone App

gollum123 writes "A new survey sent out to Netflix subscribers indicates that the iPhone might be the next device that its streaming service rolls out on in the coming months. (The NY Times credits Hacking Netflix for the tip.) According to a tip sent to Hacking Netflix, the subscription video company is now asking users how likely they would be to use an iPhone app to view movies via its online streaming service. According to the survey, an iPhone app would give users all the same functionality that they have when streaming on a PC or other device, including all the same movies and TV shows without advertisements or trailers. If the app is rolled out, the ability to watch on the Apple mobile device would be offered at no additional charge to existing Netflix subscribers. There is good news for AT&T implied in the survey questions: it appears that the app would require users to be connected to a Wi-Fi network."

22 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. iPad? by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Screw the iPhone. This would actually make me want an iPad (and was actually the killer app I was expecting to be previewed when the iPad was demonstrated).

    1. Re:iPad? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd still need hulu in addition to netflix. Then add in orb for local files, and I think it'd be an ok media device once it was jailbroken to allow for backgrounding. Still, all in all if I was going for something like that I'd really just rather go with an android based device.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  2. Doubt it would be approved by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't this be similar to 'offering a function alreday available' a la iTunes movie rentals? While it would stream where the iTunes won't, it still will directly compete against Apple's iTune movie rentals.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  3. Why not an app that is platform neutral? by cavehobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why all the love for a single platform? Is it so hard to write an app that will run on multiple platforms? Rim, WinMobile,, Symbian, Android/Linux.... Why all the hate for other platforms? Most outsell the iPhone

    1. Re:Why not an app that is platform neutral? by brainboyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can tell you from experience that they all have vastly different SDKs and writing for a mobile platform requires some thought to efficiency so writing an interface class isn't always an option.

    2. Re:Why not an app that is platform neutral? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Good luck finding an API or IDE that is compatible with all those platforms at once
      2. Good luck finding similar functionality across all OS'es let alone all devices
      3. Good luck finding the same performance across all devices

      Each platform needs to be developed for separately because there's no 'gcc' or 'gtk' or 'qt' that makes anything uniform across all platforms.

      Besides, almost none of the devices out in the market besides some Nokia, Apple and Android devices even have the power and the chips capable to download and play back videos AT ALL. None of the other devices (WinMo, Symbian, ...) even have standard browsers with support for Flash OR HTML5 so web developing is also out of the picture.

      And the iPhone has the biggest marketshare in 1. "smartphones that you can develop for without corporate support ($$$)" or 2. "smartphones with a viable marketplace" (of course success of 2 is because of 1). Also the Maemo, Android and iPhone's are the only phones where the device is not locked down by default by the provider.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Why not an app that is platform neutral? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Java will run on all platforms except (non-jail broken) iPhones, although even this can be gotten around via some tools (xmlvm, metismo, etc). BTW, java could technically run on the iPhone but Apple won't allow it (for a boatload of BS reasons, when in reality it boils down to greed and customer control). Just another reason to skip the iPhone.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    4. Re:Why not an app that is platform neutral? by Karlt1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh there is - Java runs on just about all phones. The Iphones can't support it though, which is why custom apps have to be especially written for them instead.

      Have you actually used Java to develop for multiple phones? The "Write Once Run Anywhere" mantra of Java is definitely not true for mobile platforms. Netflix can't just write a streaming media app in Java and it will run with every J2ME platform -- or even every phone from the same vendor.

  4. Wi-Fi somewhat defeats the point. by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're at home, you've got a bigger screen. If you're at work, or a McDonalds/Starbucks/whatever, you probably won't be watching movies. I can see some applications for this, but not being able to use it outside a hotspot certainly hobbles it.

    On the other hand, I'm sure a lot of AT&T customers won't complain, as US cellular bandwidth is already spread thin.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  5. Am I the only one? by straponego · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know that some people really do, apparently, want to watch full length movies on tiny, tiny, tiny devices. I know that eventually these devices will have decent video out or projection capabilities. I get that I'm not the only market, and I'm totally fine with that.

    But what I don't understand is... the media is really putting out the impression that everybody wants to consume TV/movies/books on miniscule screens like the iPhone. Even on an airplane I think that'd get tedious quickly. And I've seen nothing to indicate that the iPhone is competent to deliver video on that scale, even over wifi (if you're on a plane that's serving wireless movies, how busy is that wifi?). Oh well, at least Netflix has the sense to gauge how big the market is.

    Can the iPhone battery even make it through 75 minutes of video + wifi?

    Maybe this is all really for the iPad. That would make more sense.

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by jisatsusha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really? I've had no problem with watching BBC iPlayer on my 3GS for a couple of hours at least, and I've had it since June.

  6. Is NetFlix big enough to avoid the fickle banning? by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So is NetFlix big enough to avoid having the app pulled when someone realizes you can see non-PG13 films?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  7. how about improve the mobile site first? by phideaux3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It'd be useful if the home site detected the browser and redirected to the mobile site. Many probably don't even know about mobile.netflix.com because they don't get redirected. Would be great if sub-queues could be accessed when mobile, but they wanted to kill those anyway... :(

  8. Re:Something I am actually interested in by Nikker · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have to say as an owner of a 3GS battery life watching mp4's is amazing. I've used it on its own watching video in the car and hooked up via media cable (RCA) to my TV and both seem to play 10% battery life / hr viewing. I've watched 2 movies each about 1 1/2 - 2 hrs long and still had 50%+ left. As far as streaming goes I get about 400-600KBs average from Fido/Rogers and it's not very likely you'll be streaming anything over 420i so it shouldn't be that bad with 3G. If you're looking for a higher res video then I'm not sure how it will handle but the mp4 hardware decoding really helps out on this device(can't say the same for other iPhone models though).

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  9. No Silverlight! by Verdatum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I should hope that an iPhone app would mean that the streaming would not take place over silverlight. If that's true, there's a much better chance that an app that emulates the protocol can be written for things like Linux (Including Maemo) and Android. If they could just bring back streaming over Flash (or add streaming over HTML 5), then it would be much more trivial to grant support for all these other platforms.

    Ah well, I dream with fingers crossed.

    1. Re:No Silverlight! by Karlt1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that's safe to assume. Apple won't let Flash on the device and I really can't see them allowing Silverlight.

      They don't have to. Silverlight can stream a regular old H.264 video and use HTML 5 when targetting the iPhone:

      http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/28/microsoft-brings-silverlight-video-to-the-iphone-without-a-plug/

  10. Re:Something I am actually interested in by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Informative

    video over 3g would be questionable

    Dude, both TFA and the summary point out that it is only for WiFi.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  11. Myth TV! by jtosburn · · Score: 2

    I'd so much rather be able to watch Netflix stuff via MythTV that it's not even funny. My iphone is for only worth using for 15 minutes or less at a time. After that, the small screen wears on me, and I realize that that may just be me. I guess an iPad would solve that problem, but really, I'd rather watch movies across the room on the tv, rather than on my lap, unable to move my arm, with my spouse looking over my shoulder.

    Hey Netflix! Let us watch stuff on linux!

  12. How about Linux support? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    There are more linux desktop support than iphone owners, yet we still get no netflix client.

    Or hell they could roll out HD on Mac or Windows.

  13. Parent is not a troll by raddan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've converted a variety of media to be played on small screens with the thinking that it would be great for when I have travel-downtime. For me at least, it does get tedious. I just don't enjoy such a small screen. Someone else mentioned an iPad, and for me, that would probably be the tipping point (I'd think about getting one), but a cellphone screen doesn't cut it. Especially since I tend to prefer reading during downtime than watching TV.

    On the airplane wi-fi front, I was on a US Air flight recently, and they had wi-fi onboard. Since it was new, they were running a promotional deal where you get one free flight's worth of wi-fi if you give them your email addy (little do they know I'm an email admin... and have virtually unlimited email addresses!). I was floored at how fast it was, considering that I was, you know, hurtling through the air at 30,000 ft. I transferred files to and from my fileserver, I had an SSH session open, and the latency didn't seem any worse than my connection at home. Impressed... but I probably still wouldn't pay for it (just as I don't pay the extra $60 for 4 more inches of legroom; the $6 Jack Daniels can easily compensate for that). Now, granted, this was all subjective-- I didn't run any speed tests-- but I was expected something like modem-speed, so I was pleasantly surprised.

  14. Re:Hey, Morons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about you go 5 seconds without having mindless drivel streamed into your fucking brain?

    I would if you'd post anonymously!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  15. Re:Gauge it out! by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

    Either you're mistaking 3G coverage for total coverage, you're lying, or your phone is massively broken. As in the antenna must be missing entirely. I'm only aware of one dead spot in that general area, and that's a weak spot for a few hundred feet causing a problematic tower changeover on De Anza Blvd just south of Fremont. Even sunk down below the ground on Central, 280, etc. I get completely solid coverage. There are a couple of glitchy spots, mind you (880 just north of 85, 101 somewhere around the airport, and Lawrence expressway at the 101 offramp), but those are just spots where the tower handoff can cause the occasional call to drop while driving. When stationary, you should never have any real problems with coverage in your area.

    Further, I think that there's actually an AT&T cellular tower on TOP of one the Apple campus buildings. Unless there's something seriously wrong with your phone, you shouldn't be able to get anything less than perfect signal strength near there. In fact, you should just about be able to crack the thing open, cut and tear the antenna's trace entirely off the circuit board starting right where it goes into the GSM chip, and still have enough signal to place a call successfully in Apple's parking lot.... I've gotten 3-4 bars inside concrete elevator shafts and other solid concrete structures in that area.

    Seriously, if you're having connection problems within five miles of Apple, throw your phone in the trash and get a new one. There's something very, very seriously wrong. AT&T's coverage around here is quite solid and has been for many years.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.