Why There's Still No Netflix App For Android

An anonymous reader writes "Why is there a Netflix app for iOS devices and Windows Phone 7, yet no Netflix support for Android? Well, Netflix has been working on an Android app but has run into a few technical hurdles because Android lacks a universal DRM solution which means that the company has to work with different handset manufacturers separately in order to ensure that the installed DRM protocol meets the requirements laid out by the movie studios."

Comments

I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the preponderance of Android devices where you really can't enforce DRM will drive companies like Netflix to start bargaining for the right to stream without DRM. Not that it'll probably happen, but it's a nice dream...

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[goombah99]

Maybe the preponderance of Android devices where you really can't enforce DRM will drive companies like Netflix to start bargaining for the right to stream without DRM. Not that it'll probably happen, but it's a nice dream...

Dream on just like everyone from napster to limewire did. It took apple's $1 song to make it easier to pay than pirate music. Everyone won. Moreover apple installed speedbump DRM (I.e. just a pain in the but to remove and not worth your time, but removable if you wanted. even apple's own tools could remove (e.g. imovie). ) then they pushed for drm free music.

Complain, but they moved the ball forward more in 1 year than all the attempts before.

On the otherhand the handsets present a new playing filed where it looks like lockdown platforms are going to be the norm for a variety of reasons.

Re:I Can Dream, Can't I?

[Tharsman]

When you talking about rentals or streaming only services, services where you did not buy the movie, can you tell me how you would expect people to, well, not just keep the stuff they downloaded without a DRM?

Call it what you want, but in the rental or pure streaming world, you are not buying the product and they are entitled to use DRM to keep it from becoming permanent in your system. Same way the video club would keep enough information on file to charge you for the movie and/or ruin your credit if you did not return the movie.

I can see people upset about DRM in purchased digital content, but in rented content?

Too Easy

[redemtionboy]

Seems like there could be some solution...staring me right in the face...I dunno....maybe no DRM....but nahhh. That's just crazy...

Re:Too Easy

[MoonBuggy]

I genuinely wonder what the execs have against that solution, in this case. They aren't morons, they know there are fifty different ways to get a movie up onto the torrent sites, and that grabbing a low quality stream from a phone handset wouldn't be the top of the list, so it seems a little odd that they'd be this bothered about it.

Put aside the "Lolz the MPAA are evil bastards" mindset (which, I must admit, I do often agree with) for a minute and try to work out the business logic behind this. The only thing I can think of is that they don't believe that allowing Netflix on Android will motivate enough new subscribers to be worth setting a "no DRM" or "lax DRM" precedent in one of their contracts. That's still working on the logic that DRM stops copying, though, which really doesn't appear to be the case.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Right now the torrent sites are filled with x264 rips of blurays, but if this netflix app came out on android with a flaw in the DRM, the torrent sites would clearly start offering these low resolution versions instead.

Re:Too Easy

[TheRaven64]

What evidence do you have for that? What things can you stream from Netflix that you can't already (easily) get hold of pirated copies of? I use a service like Netflix here in the UK - I could easily pirate everything I've ever rented from them on DVD or streamed with their Flash thing. The DRM in both cases is irrelevant - it doesn't stop pirates, it just stops me from using the streaming thing on all devices that I might want to use.

I don't pirate for two reasons. First, and most important, the legal streaming stuff is actually more convenient - it will start playing a few seconds after I press play. Second, I actually don't mind giving the studios some positive reinforcement (i.e. money) when they make stuff I like. There's little enough stuff that I want to watch being made, I don't want them to make less of it.

Re:Too Easy

[aliquis]

The library of the city, Örebro, Sweden, but most likely all the libraries in all other cities in Sweden to (maybe not school libraries and such.)

http://www.elib.se/bibliotek/

Our: http://www.elib.se/library/default.asp?lib=105

Readers: http://www.elib.se/library/get_install.asp?lib=105

Questions: http://www.elib.se/library/faq.asp?lib=105

Formats: Adobe encrypted EPUB and PFD or Mobipocket.

Re:Too Easy

[wrook]

Obviously I can't know exactly what they are thinking, but here's my guess. To us the business case is obvious: if you provide a service which is convenient and cheap enough, most people will opt for convenience and pay for the product. I mean you *could* have a garden and grow your own food, and you could prepare that food yourself. It isn't *that* much work and the result is very rewarding. But most people would rather get in their car and drive to Mac Donald's. Why? Because it is convenient. People are willing to pay for that convenience as long as the cost is reasonable.

But the media execs, even if they realize this, want the freedom to charge whatever they want for things. What is a movie *worth*? Well, since you don't need it at all it doesn't have any intrinsic value. It's only value comes from creating a desire to want to see it and limiting the availability to see it. The value of the movie becomes what the customer is willing to pay, not what it's intrinsic worth is.

The media industry has also realized that high prices serve their interest even if they don't directly make high profits as a result. People will want to see movies more if there are huge amounts of special effects, high priced actors, etc, etc. If the average movie costs $1 million to make, you will have a lot of competition from other companies. But if it costs $100 million, there aren't many groups with the capital to break in and compete with you. So if you can raise prices and spend all your money on production, advertising, etc, etc you still end up ahead. This is especially true if you are performing all those services and skim a profit at each step (i.e., the movie makes no profit but every service performed makes a profit and since you own those services you make a profit).

So in other words, they need to keep supply low to keep prices high to maintain their monopoly position in the industry. I believe this is their real interest in DRM. The "convenience" price point is too low to accomplish this.

Re:Too Easy

[demonlapin]

Don't confuse Hollywood accounting for a "loss" with actually losing money.

Re:Too Easy

[magus_melchior]

That's because the only "side of the story" they ever hear is from DRM salespeople, and because they only WANT to hear that side of the story. Media industry execs are still cut from the same cloth as the Disney execs who rejected a one-time-use VHS rental cassette because it didn't prevent group viewings-- if they aren't getting the same number of sales as there are eyeballs on the planet, sales are lost, ergo someone is stealing, full stop. They can argue that they're protecting artists and filmmakers until they're blue in the face, and we know they're lying when in reality they're thinking a backup copy of purchased physical media is illegal and that ripping off Peter Jackson for the LotR trilogy is SOP.

Even when it comes to sales and losses due to DRM or online file sharing, they're probably cooking the books anyway, because for some reason they don't want to admit that they are wrong in any respect.

PlayReady DRM

[Mulder3]

Netflix uses MS PlayReady DRM... Microsoft provides an implementation of a PlayReady client in ANSI C... Android has a NDK to write native apps.... So, what's the problem here?

Re:PlayReady DRM

[arivanov]

Having PlayWhatever is not enough. There is a req for it to talk to the device low level crypto. That is pretty much the standard req for stuff like that.

I would not be surprised if it is not properly standardised at that level and every manufacturer has gone his own way.

The other problem here may be the "trusted path" problem. While it is possible to have a trusted path all the way to the TPM (or whatever crypto element the phone has) the requirements for making sure it is unbroken are likely to be considerably more stringent if the phone can be reflashed with a third party build. This is one place where security through obscurity (as in closed phone OS) makes things much easier.

Re:PlayReady DRM

[MichaelKristopeit163]

MS PlayReady DRM requires standardized hardware and platform layer support that android doesn't provide.

the movie studios see a big difference between DRM that can be beat by jumping some leads with a soldering iron and DRM that can beat with a software update.

it seems netflix are not willing to release an "android app" until EVERY "android" phone can use the app. having to explain to users that they don't have the "right" android would make both netflix and the android alliance look bad. to me, forcing a hardware encryption chip for media signals that can easily be routed around is pointless... but this is what the studios are demanding... they make the movies, they can sell them to whoever they want.

Ubuntu instead!

[linuxwonder]

Forget Android...what about Ubuntu? Just once I would like to access my Netflix accnt. without having to start my VM for XP!

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[CAIMLAS]

Um, no? Believe it or not, there are quite a few households where there are neither game platforms nor trendy Apple gadgets (Adults typically live here.)

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[MBGMorden]

You speak like those devices are a given. It's a royal pain in the butt to get most Apple devices to sync with Ubuntu - so much so that anyone who uses Ubuntu probably is going to look for alternative options - like an Android phone for example.

That right there knocks the last 4 items off of your list. Now consider the possibility that he's not a gamer (I know - shock, horror), and then a PS3 or Wii becomes equally unlikely.

People aren't guaranteed to have all the hip devices.

Re:Ubuntu instead!

[eldepeche]

I heard they mail you DVDs if you want.

Do we want DRM on the platform?

[mlts]

My question is, do we want DRM on the platform? Slippery slope here -- First it will be to protect movies. Then it will spread to apps, and then to critical parts of the Android OS, which makes it easier for cellular carriers to force device makers to lock their phones down.

We have enough issues with lockdown, especially the fact that there are -zero- [1] Android phones shipping in the US that have the ability to support custom ROMs.

I'll pass on the DRM. Netflix can stream and cache or roll their own solution in the apk so it doesn't affect the whole phone.

[1]: Of course, you can get a N1 or something else via import, but no US cellular carrier sells an open phone, and the only phones Google sells are ones that are antediluvian in nature when it comes to Android versions.

and why do we need drm?

[Libertarian001]

All is hear is the studios screaming at me that they don't want my money every time I open my wallet.

Re:and why do we need drm?

[girlintraining]

All is hear is the studios screaming at me that they don't want my money every time I open my wallet.

Oh, they want your money. They just want it again, and again, and again.

Forget Android

[Yvan256]

I just want a decent selection from Netflix Canada.

Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[happymellon]

Netflix runs on the Google TV... http://blog.netflix.com/2010/10/netflix-on-google-tv.html
Google TV runs on Android... http://code.google.com/tv/web/faq.html
Thus Netflix runs on Android. I don't really know much about the whole pkg infrastructure, is the Android VM still close enough to Java for the write once run anywhere?

Re:Netflix does run on *some* Android devices

[happymellon]

Ok, I hadn't really looked in to this before. It seems like the Netflix app is an x86 compiled apk so it will not run on ARM. But if they ever get that compatibility layer for Ubuntu running, it would give you Netflix on Linux ;)

XDA already ripped the app from the Google TV. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=812601&page=6

Well... kinda...

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain, but they moved the ball forward more in 1 year than all the attempts before.

Only because they're big enough that the change matters. Services like LegalSounds have been selling songs (from large labels, too) without DRM for $1 for the better part of a decade. Of course, they never gained the publicity of Apple but for us who knew about them, Apple didn't really provide anything new. As for the prices, I think that Wallmart has done more work driving down the price of buying music in general...

I'm not trying to say that what Apple did wasn't good. Just saying that adding "...with a computer" to what Wallmart was doing wasn't that massive step, especially when smaller companies around the world had already began doing it.

Re:GoogleTV has Netflix. GoogleTV is Android

[jo_ham]

This is talked about in TFA, although not directly, that they can work with individual manufacturers to bring it to Android, but this is a slow approach and leads to some devices having access and others not. Clearly GoogleTV is one of the former, while other android devices are part of the latter group.

I think it really is self delusion

[Sycraft-fu]

Hollywood is one of the worst, but many game publishers, and others really do think the DRM war can be won. They think if they can just lock things down well enough, then it'll be over, people won't be able to pirate and sales will go through the roof.

This was real evident with Blu-ray. They went to some very extreme lengths to protect the discs. This wasn't a "Well it'll stop casual people at home," thing they really though they'd stop the pros. They flat out said BD+ would be unbroken for at least 10 years. Ya well we see how well that all worked out. They really had talked themselves in to it that if they just made the DRM good enough, they'd stop it.

It is a delusion that is encouraged by another delusion in that pirated copies are seen as lost sales. Many companies really do believe this. They do because it is such an attractive idea. I mean if your game sold 5 million copies but was download 20 million times, think how much more money you could have made! Gets them all excited with the thought that by investing resources in DRM you could literally increase your profits a few hundred percent.

Now of course that isn't true, even if there were perfect DRM you'd find only a fraction of those pirated copies would translate in to actual sales. People will try something for $0 that they won't for more. Even if perfect DRM could be a reality it wouldn't increase sales like they hope. However the idea is so attractive that many delude themselves in to thinking it is real.

Of course the DRM providers, and there are many, sell this too. They tell you how much more money you'll make with their DRM than without.

Ultimately it all culminates in an attitude that the objective is not to maximize sales and thus maximize profits, it is to minimize piracy, even if it reduces sales. Counter productive, but we know humans are good at that kind of thing.

Re:I think it really is self delusion

[dhavleak]

It is a delusion that is encouraged by another delusion in that pirated copies are seen as lost sales. Many companies really do believe this. They do because it is such an attractive idea. I mean if your game sold 5 million copies but was download 20 million times, think how much more money you could have made! Gets them all excited with the thought that by investing resources in DRM you could literally increase your profits a few hundred percent.

Very very tenuous logic. You don't need to assume that all the pirated copies = lost sales. You merely need to assume some kind of realistic percentage of the pirates would buy the game if pirating was not an option. Let's be ridiculously conservative, and assume that percentage is as low as 1%. Let's assume that this game costs $10. Going with your figure of 20 million downloads, at $10 per game, you're talking 200 million dollars. Now if you assume that only 1% of the pirates would actually buy, you're down to 2 million dollars in lost sales. So your DRM solution has to cost you less than 2 million dollars, for it to be worth it -- simple math

Now consider this -- nobody creates a DRM solution for a single piece of content -- they create it for a class of content (like say, all PS3 games use the same DRM solution, all iTunes songs use the same DRM solution, etc. etc.) -- so you're actually talking about multiple titles that would be pirated many million times -- and you're distributing the cost of your DRM solution across the "lost sales minimized" for all that content -- not just individual titles

The last piece of the puzzle you seem to be missing -- if you don't combat piracy, it's the same thing as endorsing it. If you never protect your content, and you never prosecute people that pirate your content, then the people who are paying for it start looking like suckers. Basically, when everyone around you is downloading music/movies/games for free, and you're the only one paying for it, and there's no penalty and no inconvenience for the freeloaders -- why would you pay for it? So it's not even just about the 20 million downloads -- the 5 million people who paid might also stop paying if you turn a blind eye to piracy.

Don't take this as an endorsement for DRM in general -- I hate FairPlay / PlaysForSure type DRM schemes as much as the next person. But any opposition to them has to make sense, for it to be taken seriously.

Good point, modern DRM is symbolic

[LostMyBeaver]

It's like putting a state of the art lock on a glass door. It'll keep the "honest people" out during the hours which the store isn't open, but even if you were to put bars behind the glass, cameras in the shop, sharks in the moat, etc... the guy who wants to get in to take something when the store isn't closed will find another way. Digging a tunnel underground into the shop is more work, but all it really takes is a shovel.

CSS is cracked, AACS is cracked, BD-J is more or less cracked (it's sloppy though, a real crack shouldn't require evaluating and fixing for each new patch, but since you can simply disassemble the BD-J algorithm and make a patch in 10 minutes, it doesn't matter much), HDCP is cracked (though we don't have a proper device for it), Windows Media DRM is not cracked, but it's hacked. Apple DRM isn't even worth mentioning as Apple doesn't invest heavily in its development anymore. Flash DRM is still a challenge, but why would you bother with better streams available on other formats? Audible DRM is still in tact... more or less, but creative people can strip that pretty easily.

In short, DRM is entirely ineffective. All it's doing is making it a hair more inconvenient to pirate than to buy. The only practical option for the movie studios is to offer an easily downloadable version of their films in good enough quality to be competitive with Blu-Ray rips that can be reliable downloaded quickly. With only a little effort, they can add measures to make it inconvenient to simple give copies to other people.

I for one would purchase movies online (for a little less than a DVD in the store, as I wouldn't receive the disc and I'd know the middle man was cut out) if I could easily burn them to DVD and/or copy them to iPhone. Additionally, if I were to start doing this, then I can name 30 direct acquaintances who would do the same. This is because for a number of people, they don't adopt technology until the "smart computer guys" say that it's the way to go first.

Here in Norway, we still don't have Norwegian e-books. Well we do, but the selection is piss poor and the publishers here are being childish. For example, if you want to buy an audio book in Norwegian, you go to the store and instead of CDs you can purchase these "special media players" which are really cheap flash based MP3 players. You pay about $80-$150 a book and you can't even return the player when you're done. This is their way of offering with DRM. Sure, you still have the analog loophole, but since the device only plays back in real time, it can take 40 hours to copy a single book. So, we as consumers don't bother buying it and instead opt for the English version of the book from amazon, iTunes, etc...

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[davester666]

Technically, music bought through iTunes still does include DRM, namely, it embeds your iTunes information within tags in the song file. So, there is some social pressure to not widely distribute the file that you've bought.

Re:Not "less invasive", it is GONE

[dhavleak]

Thank Apple for what? They were probably the single largest distributor of DRMed content in the world. When they started selling non-DRMed content through iTunes, it was only because non-DRM alternatives were starting to become more compelling (like the Amazon music store), and they were coming under regulatory scrutiny, and they had sufficient lock-in already achieved that it didn't matter much.

A lot of people fought long and hard for vendors to start selling music without DRM, long before Steve Jobs opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon and appropriated the movement for his own needs.

Dear Netflix....

[Lumpy]

If I WANT a copy of the movie I am streaming, I'm certianly not going to rip the 320X240 version you are sending to the phone. I'll add the DVD to my disc list and rip it when it shows up.

WTF is the paranoia over DRM on a very low quality phone video stream? Nobody will even WANT to rip that stream, That is the best DRM possible, make it a crappy quality.