Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Touts Open Source, Ignores Linux
Julie188 writes "If Netflix loves open source, where's the Linux client? Last week's post from Netflix on its use of open source has gotten a lot of coverage from the tech press. Too bad nobody's called the video giant out on its hypocrisy: They benefit greatly from open source, but really don't care to let their customers do the same."
Uh, go get the open source and build it yourself. Why should Netflix be obliged to implement a Linux port? Not doing something is not the same as preventing it from happening.
For example, where is my Linux version of SketchUp?
My blog
To be fair, one should also point out the hypocrisy in the summary: it requests a client for Linux (presumably of the linux-gnu flavour), but makes no demands on the client itself. To be consistent, should it not request an open source client? If one were written, it would at worst be a matter of time before it became portable, and thus independent from any specific system, such as those running on Linux.
GPL v.4 will fix this little loophole........
Their product is consumer-oriented, not enterprise. No doubt, they're seeking to make money, so they're targeting Windows and iOS users, not Linux users. From a first-mover, market-share and first-mover standpoint, it makes sense.
Especially when your business changed your 3rd party platform from Flash to Silverlight. Hopefully an HTML5 implementation of Instant Watch is in the works.
My little Roku box that sits next to my TV and plays Netflix is built on Linux apparently. In a developer discussion about why there was no Linux desktop player I got the impression that the sticking point was the ease of siphoning off the video stream in a system where you can compile your own kernel was the real problem.
a significant minority of their clientèle used linux distros as their main or media center operating systems.
Since when were companies obligated to cater to groups which hardly bring any revenue? It's all about the bottom line, and anyone who doesn't understand this likely isn't running a highly successful business right now.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Just because a company can say it supports open source doesn't mean it must make a Linux client or even have anything to do with Linux. To like open source doesn't mean you like Linux.
Sounds like they're letting their customers benefit from Open Source just fine:
> Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc.
That's a lot more than many companies that use Open Source (and have Linux clients or applications) do. Contributing back to the projects benefits everyone - not just users of FOSS desktop systems, but everyone that interacts with a system built on those projects.
Netflix make use of open source on the server-side. What on Earth does this have to do with supporting an open source client? They contribute back to the projects they use, which is all anyone can ask for.
It's like saying because you use Linux on your desktop, then you're a bad person for not contributing to Hadoop. Huh?
where's the Linux client?
Julie188 hasent started it yet.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Open source claims to let people do what they will with their product but act all hurt and sensitive if they're not part of the open source cult? Give me a break. No wonder most of the people I knew who used Linux have since turned their back on the OS.
I have been using linux exclusively since about '98 and also a Netflix fanatic with 3 Roku devices as well as a HD Tivo that play Netflix streaming. It would be nice if I had an ubuntu based Netflix player, but not having one for my linux systems does not stop me from enjoying Netflix. The Netflix website is easily to navigate using with Firefox, Opera, and Konquer . However, I don't spend a high percentage of time on the web site, using just enjoy watching the shows.
Netflix doesn't own the content. It's not their choice. If the licensors agree, or if Netflix can satisfy the existing contracts (prereq: DRM), then they can port to Linux.
mod parent up.
Read radical news here
Go buy yourself a $60 Roku box and be happy.
This article is everything that is wrong with the linux community. They are very vocal about touting the benefits of open source and linux, but when a company echoes those sentiments they lash out with demands and accusations of "doing it wrong"
I don't see any hypocrisy in netflix claiming it likes ant, tomcat, etc but not announcing a linux client. As far as i know they haven't said, "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client."
I could be wrong. I maybe missed part of the dialog, but it seems like a saner response to the netflix post would be something more like, "Hey, you guys sound pretty progressive with this whole open source thing. There's millions of us linux users out here who would really love a linux client."
From the Netflix website:
"The great thing about a good open source project that solves a shared challenge is that it develops it's own momentum and it is sustained for a long time by a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement. At Netflix we jumped on for the ride a long time ago and we have benefited enormously from the virtuous cycles of actively evolving open source projects. We benefit from the continuous improvements provided by the community of contributors outside of Netflix. We also benefit by contributing back the changes we make to the projects. By sharing our bug fixes and new features back out into the community, the community then in turn continues to improve upon bug fixes and new features that originated at Netflix and then we complete the cycle by bring those improvements back into Netflix."
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
They are mooching.
They have taken from the commons and aren't giving back.
Wrong. They contribute to the projects they use.
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
That, in addition to OSS's usual superiority on the server side vs. the desktop side, there is the ugly-but-not-at-all-little-for-Netflix issue of DRM.
You cannot build a DRM system that is both "OSS" in any useful sense and effective(you can certainly use OSS parts; but ultimately there will have to be a proprietary obfuscated portion or hardware tivoization and/or secrets if the DRM is to be more than a toy, disabled by using the --obey_DRM=no build option). There is simply no compromise to be had here. DRM attacks user freedom, OSS promotes it. Regardless of your stance on the validity of one or the other, they are not compatible.
Somebody with server operations on the scale of Netflix would be insane to not be using OSS, and it certainly never hurts to cultivate a good relationship with your suppliers; but we can expect an OSS client at approximately the point the sun expands and engulfs the inner planets(or when chinese holocube knockoffs with a bit-for-bit blu-ray rip of every movie ever made are selling for $10 on every street corner, at which point the studios might finally realize that stopping people from ripping streams is hardly worth the trouble). A tivoized linux client device has already been available for some time, and a proprietary client for linux might even appear, should linux get the market share needed; but OSS, not so much.
The Netflix streams are all have proprietary DRM protection. To write our own client we would have to reverse engineer this proprietary protocol (which is legal, but can be difficult), and then worse, we would have hack the authorized players, and to get the DRM keys out of them. This implementation would constitute a circumvention device, and using or distributing it would be illegal under the DMCA.
Asking open source customers to break the law to use your service isn't exactly friendly to open source.
It's not hypocracy to use open source for all it's benefits in development and deployment, while ignoring stuff that probably won't make any money. Making open source consumer software seems not to be good business practice. Or At least I've missed all the cash generating open and free software for end users that's out there. Yes I know that you can charge for stuff even if it's open source, but as I've said, I can hardly find any consumer oriented, end user stuff that uses this model. Perhaps the open source crowds should learn to accept all the downsides to an open source business model. Sometimes you just can't have it all.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
What's new. Big companies do this sort of thing all the time. They use Linux as the OS because it is free but then make everything else Windows only.
Qnap have a range of network video recorders for use in security systems. They rely on embedded Linux. Great! But what do you need to access them across the network - Internet Explorer and ActiveX. Bingo, another sale for Microsoft.
Just because a nasty little company makes use of Linux, it doesn't mean it is a supporter of Linux.
Also hypocritical: Company X that loves closed-source, proprietary software makes a Linux port? No?
Shall every company who uses Linux, BSD, Apache, Perl, Python, or whatever be required to keep mum about their satisfaction derived from the use of OSS, lest they be branded "hypocritical" for not making a linux client?
If that's the case, we use OSS only grudgingly. Exactly one individual us for Linux support. Sorry man...
This is a stupid article. Is slashdot getting stupider? Or, am I getting smarter? Whatever it is, the gap is growing bigger with each passing tweet.
It's all about DRM baby. With not consistent and enforceable DRM mechanism, the studios will not allow them to make the streams available on Linux. It's the same reason why there are Netflix viewers for iOS and Windows Mobile 7, but not Android.
Open source is a way of building software that some folks reckon yields a better quality software product. As a side effect lots of people are tend to benefit from it.
The four basic freedoms espoused by the GNU underpin a Free Software philosphy quite different. It's quite possible to derive benefit from open source and not give a damn about the Free Software movement.
Moreover though, it is not not *not* hypocitical for a company to benefit from open source but refuse to release a Linux client for their product. You may think it immoral, unfair, unjust, and a generally slimy way to do business - but if the behaviour couldn't conceivably be summed up as "those lying bastards are bullshitting me" it's not what I would mean by hypcrisy.
Netflix doesn't open source its client. This is not something that they control. They have various deals with various content providers that stipulate that they use DRM in their streaming solution. If they made an open-source client, it would defeat the purpose of the DRM. (Yes, DRM doesn't work and blah blah blah, but this is a business requirement, not a technical requirement. If you want to get mad at them about it, get mad at Hollywood instead.)
AFAIK, Netflix generally doesn't implement its own DRM, but instead uses the DRM from whatever platform they distribute on. The do have a "Linux" version if you count Android, but the company has claimed that they've had difficulty using it due to platform fragmentation and because it doesn't implement all of the features they need to satisfy their studio agreements. They've said they have to develop for one device at a time.
And that's with Android's libraries. So when you're asking for a Linux client for Netflix, you're not just asking for a port of their Windows or Mac clients, you're asking them to spend a lot of extra dollars to develop a closed-source DRM solution for a small market that hates DRM (and closed-sourced, to a lesser extent). Where is the sense in that? If Netflix did make a Linux client, submitters would be crawling on top of each other screaming, "Netflix Trying to Destroy Linux With Evil Client From Hell."
On the other hand, it's nice that they contribute to other projects.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I agree completely. There's nothing wrong with Netflix running Linux servers while not supporting Linux desktops. For all we know they're not even using X.org or any GUI whatsoever. The list of projects they contribute to does not have any GUI apps in it. (Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase)
probably because they estimate that the cost per supported customer would shrink the revenue to 0. *I* would be willing to pay for a linux client and *I* would be willing to pay 50% more for being able to use linux. However taken the reaction which slashdot and parts of the FOSS community have towards things like that i would not want to invest enough in marketing to overcome the negative publicity by sensationalist biased slashdot article. I would rather think that doing something like that (providing a linux client for a price which covers the costs) would actually drive away customers due to the "they are making us pay more when using Linux" argument, which exposes that more than "oh, they dont have a linux client".
Sorry fan boys.
Hopefully an HTML5 implementation of Instant Watch is in the works.
How would an HTML5 implementation deter people from keeping a permanent copy of a video and/or distributing copies over the Internet? The available HTML5 viewers don't have a defined digital restrictions management mechanism, and the providers of films to Netflix demand DRM.
I would love for Netflix to produce a Linux client (I was outraged to find there wasn't one), even though Netflix Canada still does not have anything to watch on it, so I'm paying $8 for about one movie every month.
Unfortunately, there are simply too many distributions to support. If we pay hard earned money for something, we demand that it works always, regardless of the distribution we may be using or what else we are running.
Saying that, It would be a joke to write a Linux client, especially since they already have some experienced developers as it would seem. I imagine there may be some lobbying that is keeping the service from coming to linux. Imagine the concept of dirt cheap netflix set top boxes using embedded linux. It may even be pretty easy to make with a wireless arduino module. I imagine it would completely destroy cable distribution as we know it (not that it isn't already dying), in America at least. The fact that most people still want to watch their tv on a tv, instead of having to hook up their wireless laptop to a wired tv to stream online media. If viewers could pay 10 dollars once for a set top box and 8 dollars a month for netlix, instead of 50 for cable, and a lot more for a crappy pvr. Imagine a set top box that is just a sheva plug using external flash storage, so you tv could go with you everywhere. I know I am a a dreamer. Linux opens too many possibilities.
I've been building and running linux servers for ISPs and enterprise customers for 12 years. I have servers doing web hosting, email, VPN, file and print serving, databases. But on the client, linux sucks. I've used fedora and ubuntu, and tried the others. There is nothing compelling about the linux desktop experience. at best, it's an acceptable workstation, but not better. Windows has its issues but it works and there are no formatting issues when you open a word document. recently i started rolling out macs (macbook air). So we have linux on the server and mac on the desktop as our preferred platform. but linux on the desktop? no way.
Microsoft. How is it Netflix's fault for Novell/moonlight not being allowed to have the proper DRM codebits from silverlight to implement into moonlight. Use google. This shit is all over the net.
From TFA:
It may not make business sense for Netflix to invest in a player for Linux, given the relatively small audience on the Linux desktop.
But if they were to use standardized program development models in a portable non-proprietary language, they would have minimal difficulty getting a common code base to work on BSD or Linux. Just hire programmers with BSD/Linux development experience and let them work out the remaining differences.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
How is it Netflix's fault for Novell/moonlight not being allowed to have the proper DRM codebits from silverlight to implement into moonlight.
Actually, it is their fault for choosing and standardizing upon Silverlight. They should have rolled their own DRM, used a portable one like Dream, or used a DRM plug-in so that they could easily implement different video/DRM combinations as needed for a platform. Back in the day, when they first were talking about doing streaming, I actually wrote to them an asked them to consider not using Silverlight because of the strategic lock-in it would result in. Today, I can stream to my Mac but not my Linux machine, and Silverlight is, well it's the only thing that's crashed my OS X system in years and the number one cause of browser crashes. It hangs and fails regularly and I don't have Windows on my media server. This is a problem of Netflix's own making.
The way to do it is to put it all into the video card. The app just specifies the area of the screen to use for this, and shuffles data back and forth between the video card and the source. The video card verifies keys from the source and the HDCP compliant monitor that is connected via DVI or HDMI. If all checks out, the video path to the monitor becomes encrypted per HDCP, and the specified area is replaced with the protected video. This is done after the read-back buffer, so if some program code reads back the video buffer, it just gets the contents with the DRM video part showing was is behind the DRM display area.
All you need to do is get the video card makers to go along with it. If they weren't in bed with Microsoft (who wants to keep all the DRM in software so they can keep the market strangled), it might happen. It's NOT technology that prevents it from working on Linux/BSD ... it's people.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Linux still isn't a big target market.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reed Hastings, co-founder and CEO of Netflix, sits on the board of directors of Microsoft.
Why do you think they went with Silverlight?
Why do you think the PS3 and Wii required discs to use Netflix for so long?
Blame the studios for the lack of a Linux client. Their insistance on DRM is why there is no Linux client as it would be very difficult to produce a client for Linux that runs on any setup (including open source graphics drivers, selfbuilt kernel etc) and still protects the content enough to satisfy the studios.
Windows has "protected media path" and other OS level protection and I believe OSX has OS level protection as well (for one thing it refuses to let you debug or trace iTunes IIRC)
Linux has none of that.
A lot of posts fixate on the windows client. However, they work on Roku, PS3, Wii, and a number of other platforms that are almost certainly not Silverlight and many of which use Linux under the covers.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Calling this OS "Linux" is incorrect. It's the GNU/Linux Operating System. Somehow the free software is forgotten about in all of this.
Let's not see everything always so black and white, can we? The linux/*OSS communities have different kinds of people. Not everyone there is like that. Add to that the simple fact that Linux based OSes now have much more non-programmer users, so you can't just tell them "hey! just write the client yourself, it's OSS!!", they are expected to whine to companies for not supporting their OS.
And besides it's true: a lot of software frameworks (for example Mikrotik RouterOS / VMware ESXi) that built their server side on Linux stacks are notoriously leaving Linux users in the cold when it comes to having a native client. And from that is perfectly understandable they won't be much happy about it, (me counted).
I don't think that's the kind of "progress" we want in our PC technology.
Remember, DRM is evil.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Mod parent up. If it had not been for this Netflix would have done what hulu did and used flash like every other streaming site out there.
You're grossly exaggerating.
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? They just drank the Microsoft juice (and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal).
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. But I think that's a flimsy excuse, perhaps completely invalid. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that. After all, Hulu uses it, and Hulu's a joint effort from the studios.
They need not say "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client." They've done worse than that: they used to support Linux, then they dropped it, leaving users with no alternative except dual-booting Windows, and now they have said that they have no plans to support Linux.
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Just set up a Windows DomU in a virtualized environment, and than stream the data going to the graphics card over to the Dom0 and watch it there. No circumvention required.
Then not "giving back" is perfectly fine.
The open source community WANTED that freedom for folks to do whatever they wanted, Netflix is doing it.
You arrogant assholes who think they "owe" open source can shove it.
Face it: they used to support Linux, then they chose to switch to Silverlight at Linux users' expense. Roku runs Linux and supports Netflix.
Netflix could support Linux users if they wanted to, but they choose not to. They just don't care. They care more about the bottom line than their customers. If they can increase their profits by dumping some customers at the mailbox, they will.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
It has everything to do with DRM (Or the lack of it in Linux). This is why they are slow to launch streaming for the android phones which is also a linux client: http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
It's not like you can't USE Netflix if you only have Linux. Just order the DVDs the way those without internet access do. Problem solved.
Where do you guys get off...
Open Source does NOT mean Linux.
Yes. And they have selected technologies that make their product compatible with what...perhaps 98% of consumer platforms?
Perhaps _you_ are the one who has selected incompatible technologies?
Could it be the same reason why they haven't released an Android app?
They stated that they're dealing with issues revolving around the security/DRM protocols. And not having access to an implementation, as all code has to be open source but most of the available DRM protocols are proprietary. Essentially DRM and open-source are at odds. And that is the crux of the issue, not Netflix.
They want Netflix on every platform imaginable, but in order to have content to deliver they have to agree to certain terms with the Hollywood studios with regards to DRM. Those term make it hard, or impossible, to deliver Netflix on some platforms. This is why not every Android phone will have the Netflix app and it's why there's no linux compatible way to view Netflix. It's unfortunate, but it's somewhat out of their hands.
Once you use open source, there will be whining from a peanut gallery of fucking losers. You see it with Apple all the time. They ship the only name-brand PC with open source software on it: Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, and more. They created WebKit and Bonjour. But there are some who will whine because Richard Stallman has not replaced Steve Jobs as CEO.
Netflix can't ship a DRM-free client due to the movie studios. Get a clue.
Like all things in life , if proper respect is not shown , people get their turn. If they run alot of opensource and do not contribute, then they only have themselves to blame when someone runs them off the road one day as an accidental death. We keep people around in life that respect all creatures and things that have helped them , no matter how small, people who walk over others to get to the top have "unfortunate" things happen to them or even worse we let them have alot of money to live a souless life after. Do not worry people, everyone has to own up when all their cards are played.
also, you can create a none OS application for Linux.
Linux for the desktop PC has far more places where the underlying operating system can be modified to in effect tee the decompressed video into MEncoder. You can do it at the level of Qt or Gtk+, at the level of X, or even in the kernel. There is nothing remotely close to the Protected Video Path under Windows; what is called DRM under Linux is something completely different.
It wasn't the parent that is everything wrong with the linux community - it's this guy.
"Microsoft Juice"
"I think it needs to be illegal"
Linux advocates - wanting to throw you in jail because you won't let them illegally copy and share stuff.
Just as the subject line says. Stop using netflix and use Amazon's video on demand instead. It works on Linux just great!
The movies are usually between $.99 and $4.99 / film so at least for me it is about the same price I paid for netflix.
Open Source != Linux
They are contributing to open source, sure they aren't specifically targeting Linux but why would they? It doesn't make sense. OP is an idiot.
It seems like silverlight on linux isn't a problem:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04silverlightpr.mspx
http://ostatic.com/blog/microsoft-brings-silverlight-2-to-linux
I'm surprised that some smart person out there hasn't already hacked something together, maybe even by rooting and reverse-engineering a Roku.
Netflix has a client on Tivo, which is Linux. Netflix on Tivo looks like crap, but it is there.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. What I said that maybe should be illegal is executives of one company also being on the boards of other companies, which could be a conflict of interest or contribute to a monopoly--e.g. Netflix choosing Silverlight over other, existing solutions, cutting off consumers in the process.
I never said anything about jailing anyone. Nor did I mention copying and sharing media.
People like you are "what is wrong" with Slashdot.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"If Netflix loves open source, where's the Linux client? Last week's post from Netflix on its use of open source has gotten a lot of coverage from the tech press. Too bad nobody's called the video giant out on its hypocrisy: They benefit greatly from open source, but really don't care to let their customers do the same."
Why must their 'love' be expressed as a Linux client? Open Source 'hypocrisy' - ya sure you have not checked your own eye for a mote?
What about FreeBSD?
What about ShagOS, huh?
oops! posting to revert accidental "flamebait" moderation
You really shouldn't be proud of yourself for broadcasting your ignorance, and should definitely not be fooled by any mod ups. Perhaps you have heard of Mandriva? Ubuntu? The hundreds of other desktop distributions you can find with distrowatch? Linux is very popular on the desktop in Europe, and gaining popularity here in the US. Wallowing in your ignorance doesn't cure it.
You clueless Linux geek-wannabe. The number of distros have no bearing whatsoever on the linux desktop/server usage ratio. Not. At. All.
It is called logic, and it should be evident to anyone with a modicum of logic and arithmetic skills (which one would think a real geek would have) to see that you cannot deduce an abundance of desktop users over server deployments simply by looking at the number of distros. How stupid to make that type of leap.
I hate to toot my own horn, but Jesus, you are so clueless. I've been using Linux, UNIX, VAX and PICK systems for over 17 years now, in private and public sectors, on the enterprise and on defense. I've been using Linux for real usage since I was downloading the slackware distros through CompuServe on slow-as-molasses dial-up, way back when you had to configure everything by hand on a shell prompt (as opposed to point-n-click on whatever distro-specific GUI tool running on Gnome, KDE or whatever.) I dunno, I'm not a l33t hax0r rock start, but shit, maybe I might know a thing or two about Linux and how it is actually used.
It would be the day that some kookamimee distro fanboy is going to tell me about my ignorance about Linux.
Seriously, if you guys are the future users of real world Linux, we are screwed. The only difference between you people and Windows users is that you actually believe you are technical.
The problem with your scenario and the scenario imagined by so many DRM apologists is that all "Joe Average" needs to do is have at least one geek friend who is capable and suddenly that PITA goes away... ;)
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
For proprietary software, rulings have always come down to what the implementation allows you to do and whether there are substantial non-infringing uses. So software that only lets you view the video stream, and not make copies are considered legal. Software that does allow you to copy video(even if primarily for backup purposes), has been found to be illegal.
Open source software is tricky because the license allows the user to do whatever they want with it. You could modify the software with less than 10 lines of code to allow recording of the stream. You definitely could not implement the DRM as a reusable library, as that would have too many infringing uses. Whether you could get away with a monolithic application is an unresolved question.
Finally, another big issue when it comes to DRM is patents. This is how DRM on mainstream media formats is primarily enforced. The format is patented and they will not license it to anyone who does not implement the DRM as they demand. They sue people who make unlicensed implementations. Furthermore, this licensing is per copy and non-transferable making it untenable for an open source program. I assume Microsoft has also taken out patents on the DRM for Silverlight, and since they have not licensed them to Novel to use in Moonlight I doubt they would license them to any open source implementation.
No need. You are doing a good job of telling the world :-)
And I was a VAX/VMS system manager by the age of 19, over 20 years ago, and have written device drivers for Windows, Linux, numerous other OS's and as well as having designed a small RTOS with a bootloader and the hardware that it runs on, among many other things, so your l33t skillz don't particularly impress me. Your inability to come up with an insult that indicates a modicum of originality impresses me even less.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player.
That's actually it. It isn't some conspiracy, or a secret. I'm a random Ubuntu user, and I looked into the whole netflix thing, and I consider one thread to be definitive [1].
I want to quote the netflix rep posting in the thread as saying that he uses Ubuntu and that netflix would love to have a linux client if they could get the rights to do one. But, cut and paste doesn't work for me on slashdot :(
Anyway, read it for yourself. It is pretty clear that Netflix is on our side.
[1] developer.netflix.com/forum/read/49086
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
Who let Richard Stallman into the conversation? Seriously, the "everyone should just make software purely from the goodness of their hearts" attitude gets really tiring. Also, come on. Are you really suggesting that a company ignore return on investment when making a business plan? Because if you are, you need to go back to basic economics. I'm not advocating an amoral business society, but since no one has made a decent claim for why Netflix has a moral obligation to provide a linux desktop client, if it makes more economic sense for them to do something else instead of building a linux client the that is what they should do. In fact, they have a moral obligation to their stock holders to pursue the course that appears to have the greatest ROI.
Finally, netflix has not come out with a android client yet, specifically because of DRM concerns. Comparing a set top box to a desktop is hardly fair--smartphones make a much better comparison. When (and if) a netflix android client comes out, you will have a case that Netflix could easily support a linux client.
Browser.....WTF ??? So you cant watch with your browser????
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? ... The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that.
Netflix has never used Flash for the Watch Instantly service. The initial player was a native wrapper around Windows Media Player. That player was followed by the Silverlight player in use today.
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
No, the Roku uses a WM-DRM implementation based on the Philips NXP chip. It's not something that can be ported to desktop Linux.
whats the purpose of allowing corporations to use opensource without consequence, if they use it for profit and we cant ...whats the fraking sense of supporting companies that use it....
Is everyone forgetting virtualization and emulation? Wine, Virtualbox, Parallels Desktop. There's three ways right there.
Heck, with that last one you can use the "Parallels Transporter Agent" if you have an existing windows installation and run it in linux. Otherwise you'll just need some sort of valid copy of Windows to use Virtualbox, and with WINE you will be spending a lot more time and probably be a little more frustrated than you are right now.
My point is that as Linux users you should make it work, and also try directly contacting Netflix as individual paying customers to let them know you'd much rather not resort to sandboxing a supported OS inside of your preferred OS (which they don't support) just to be able to use their service.
You might be better off just virtualizing it and calling it a day.
On March 26, 2007, Microsoft announced that Hastings had been elected to their board of directors.
I guess I just don't see the cause for outrage. It's a small market which is exceptionally hard to support due to the degree of fragmentation -- you can't just release a program "for Linux". And source code would create its own issues -- I'd guess a lot of the people who are licensing content to Netflix aren't about to license it for display in an open source player.
In the long run, having them come out and praise open source will probably do a fair bit of good for the cause, but I don't see this as something where "hypocrisy" is at issue. They're not demanding that other people release open source, they're just using open source products for the exact purposes they were released for.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
According to their earnings report from July of this year, Netflix was improved but still earning less than %8. While that's not bad, that's below the earnout for a well-managed stock portfolio. That means investors would still be better suited by taking their money out of Neflix, and putting it elsewhere. And if Neflix can't get their profits up, that is exactly what will happen.
Greedy corporate bastards. Trying to stay in business, rather than developing for a platform that serves less than 1% of their users.
The ______ Agenda
Are Netflix's annoying pop-up ads also open-source?
Table-ized A.I.
You might install the sanctioned PlayOn UPnP Media server to broadcast to your Linux UPnP clients maybe? Heck, if you were technically forced to, Windows networking might be VPNd which allows some degree of port control which is otherwise difficult when using an XBox, PlayStation, Roku, Wii, AppleTV etc. How would you otherwise force an XBox or some such hardware to SSH or VPN using only a router like DD-WRT?
It's called "Stallman Syndrome".
cat
So they are contributing back to foss. Thats great. But the reason not to support linux remains a mystery, although its suspicious that netflix is sitting in microsofts board...
I dont think the fact that linux gives you so much control over the software means netflix would be hackable...i mean, its probably hackable in windows as well. Nobody except maybe stallman is requirimg them to open source the client. Why wont they release a binary? You know, ati and nvidia drivers are aldo binary releases and they manage to support linux users without making the code oss..
I dont think this is a technical problem bit a political one.
Thank you for pointing that out. Someone mod this up.
It's interesting, though, that these content licencors don't object to Hulu working on Linux, assuming there's some overlap between those that license content to Hulu and those that license to Netflix.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"In fact, they have a moral obligation to their stock holders to pursue the course that appears to have the greatest ROI."
I'm so tired of hearing this. People say it all over the place.
Who says what has the "greatest ROI"? Maybe if they supported Linux, they'd get many more new subscribers than they expected. Maybe in the future more people will shift to Linux, increasing ROI even more.
What if, by refusing to support Linux users, they anger them to the point that they drop or never subscribe to Netflix, having a negative effect on ROI?
It's all speculation until it's tried. Basically, doing what's good for their customers is in their shareholders' best interest, because that's what makes the company grow and stabilize. And thumbing their nose (even politely) at customers is not in their shareholders' best interest.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Banks can do it. And they are not protecting rubbish movies, they protecting actual money.
Give a certificate to each user of Netflix, provide all the necessary APIs, any play operation needs to use the user certificates which would need to be authenticated against a Netflix mandated certificate authority.
The movies would be of course encrypted with the private key associated to the user, which remains under Netflix control. You lose your certificate (public key), no worries, Netflix issues a new one.
We are not talking magic people. All this can be done. OpenSSH can be done, go and get the source code. The concepts behind protecting copyright using GPLed software (the only license that ensures software remains available to all) are there, the bad choices of lock in technology (Silverlight) are evident. Now Netflix is betting their business model in whateer MS decides to do with Silverlight.
Dumb, dumb. dumb/
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"No, the Roku uses a WM-DRM implementation based on the Philips NXP chip. It's not something that can be ported to desktop Linux."
I did a bit of Googling about that and didn't find anything definitive either way, only skepticism by others who also couldn't find anything definitive. Do you have a source for that information?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal
It is. It's called a breach of fiduciary responsibility. If you're a shareholder and think they've lost money, you can sue.
Someone could/should make a modified version of VirtualBox or Qemu that does one thing: Boot a given image and dump video data to a file in the host system whenever full-screen video is played. This would probably take some guest-OS-specific hacks, but surely it's doable? Release this as a "video analysis tool", or whatnot. Completely legit. Then someone not caring about being legit could dump a Windows XP image, handily with Silverlight pre-installed and ready for Netflix. Combine items! Now you have a perfectly usable (albeit not great) way to circumvent Netflix DRM. And hey, a lot of us still have an old Windows XP license lying around from ye olden days, so it wouldn't even be illegal for us.
You could probably even automate the entire process, giving some Netflix parameter to the "video analysis tool" and feed the output file directly into Mplayer or VLC. The result: A way to play Netflix on alternative operating systems, and handily ruining their DRM scheme at the same time. I'd look into this if I weren't in a geographic region not served by Netflix.
If it was FOSS, you'd be able to write one for SysV, BSD, etc. Or, if Netflix wants to keep it secret because it's more profitable that way, they will have to pay to develop them.
Too bad it's an AC, but he raises a very valid point.
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I was thinking, since DRM and OSS don't mix, why doesn't Netflix release a dedicated VM/boot CD with a Netflix player in it? Anyone could install VirtualBox/VMWare and run it on Linux, or any OS/hardware they want. Hopefully Netflix can accept the lack of DRM between the VM window/desktop and the monitor - HDCP's already been cracked and bypassed six ways from Sunday anyways.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd rather see the FBI's list of projects they've 'contributed' back to.
Thank you.
Bitchy articles like this are not helping the open source movement one bit.
Wrong. Netflix has no choice in the matter as the hide-bound troglodyte Content Lords insist on inpenetreble, black-boxes (Roku) or an OS built from the ground up on DRM. I suspect perfecting DRM for Moonlight is what has de Icaza giggling and rubbing his hands together like Smeagol (along with irreparably contaminating Gnome).
Silverlight is closed source for the most part. Novell attempted to extend it with Moonlight, however Moonlight is not 100% compatible. Some things just don't work. Microsoft will surely keep Silverlight closed source, so in my opinion it would be wise for Netflix to choose another technology that is truly cross platform. They don't seem to care much, as this has been brought to their attention time after time over the past few years, yet they continue to ignore the fact that they are shutting out customers. The problem is, there is no alternative really to Netflix with streaming for Linux and cross platform.
If all the effort here constructively arguing about Linux, Open Source, etc. was migrated to Netflix's blog, I'm sure they would get the message. I have twice this year wrote pleading for Linux platform support.
What about VDPAU? Seems like something could be done there.
The Wikipedia article about VDPAU states that it's NVIDIA exclusive. Linux PCs using an NVIDIA video card are an even smaller market than Linux PCs. Any extension of Netflix playback to a new platform needs to justify its development and support cost with additional subscribers, and I just don't think they're there for something NVIDIA-specific.
Hello RoKu box and every bluray player with a netflix client in it runs linux.
They already made a linux client. They just have not released an APP for linux desktop users to use.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You have to understand they have no choice. Well ok, they have the choice of not using DRM and just not streaming videos. Remember Netflix doesn't own any of their content. They didn't make it, they don't have the copyright to it. The people who did are the wonderfully paranoid assholes in Hollywood. They demand DRM. If Netflix said "No DRM," they'd say "No contract." Netflix could sit there and "make a stand" or whatever with a completely empty streaming library. That would do nobody any good. So they have to give in and use DRM. Heck it is worse than many people think in that Netflix does some "HD" streaming. Not Blu-ray quality, but better than their normal streams. Not to computers though, their contracts with Hollywood won't allow it. Has to go to more locked down devices like Blu-ray players.
Stupid and counter productive (people aren't going to pirate something they can easily stream at a whim) but that's Hollywood. Netflix plays the game because they want to offer streaming video. They know this is the future of media, even if Hollywood is too retarded to see that. So they do what it takes to be allowed to stream.
Now maybe some day they won't have to. Maybe in 20 years Netflix will be so important to media companies that they can say "You know what? Fuck DRM, it is an additional layer of problems we don't need, we are no-DRM love it or leave it," and Hollywood will have to stay on board because they need Netflix. As it stands if they did it now it would just lead to them having no content to stream and thus a useless service.
Open source is not really the problem, because if I wanted to hijack the media I would just tap if after the player (XBOX, ROKU, etc).
The real issue is that I have a fully capable player ( my Linux computer or laptop) which cannot be used.
I have to go out and buy another product.
In a world where everything does everything, NetFlix is ensuring that the one thing I have that does virtually everything
cannot do this one thing.
That, to put it plainly, sucks.
So it's only illegal if it causes one or more of the companies involved to lose money? Lot of help that is.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Linux on the desktop is an EXTREMELY small market. Linux's big market share is in servers and in embedded devices. That is where it shines, that is where it gets used. On the desktop, there isn't a lot of interest in Linux. So you are already talking about a small market. It is made smaller still because you are really only talking about people who are Linux ONLY on the desktop, the hard core OSS types. While you may discover many geeks that have a Linux desktop for various uses, they may well also have a Windows or OS-X desktop or laptop for other uses. They don't much care about Netflix on the Linux desktop. Likewise people who have consoles that get Netflix, or Blu-ray players, there again even if they use Linux they probably don't really care a lot since their other device gets it to their TV which is what they want.
You you take the small section of a small market, and then it gets smaller: A good bit of the hardcore OSS types are also hard core "Information should be free," types who do not believe in paying for software or media. They think that since information has no marginal cost to reproduce, it shouldn't cost anything. They are thus not good candidates for purchasing Netflix, as they'd be more likely to simply go download the movies instead.
Thus it makes business sense that Netflix doesn't care. Their effort wouldn't be likely to bring in many more subscriptions. That is what it'll always come down to. Supporting something costs $X, and it is likely to bring in $Y. If Y isn't a non-trivial amount more than X it just isn't worth it.
I dont see why someone couldnt just create some type of wrapper, or compile their own firefox to syphon their netflix stream on a windows computer... the data is there, you should be able to tap into it.
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
How can Netflix afford to ignore 1% of the market?!
If we assume each platform developed targeted for the Netflux client takes about the same effort to design, code, test, deploy, support and maintain and that adoption rates are consistent across platforms, then their first unit of work (Windows) gets them 95% of the possible market, their second unit of work opens up the next 4% of the market (Mac) at 24x the per-user cost of the windows platform, and to offer a Linux client and make their product available to 100% of the market, each potential subscriber would cost 95x as much as a Windows user, but only 4x as much per user than a Mac subscriber.
Based on those numbers it is a complete mystery why Netflix doesn't offer a Linux client. Unless you understand the realities of the software market...
Ken
As far as i know they haven't said, "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client."
I think that is what bothers a lot of Linux users, including me. They are not obligated to provide a client, but there is a clear demand for one, even if it is negligible compared to other platforms. It would be really nice of them to address these requests, and explain whether they do not provide a client because they don't have the resources to develop it, or they can't broker the content for such an open platform, or whatever it is. What is their stance? We have no idea.
Netflix should be stopped from using Linux from the kernel to any other project, till they support a Linux client....
I did not say an OPEN SOURCE CLIENT, yes, that would be the PREFERRED CHOICE, but face it its not going to happen.
As previously posted the first thing that will happen is the DRM stripped out, which I have no issue with its removal.
Same thing is going to happen on even a closed source client, it will be hacked to remove the DRM, again I have no issue with its removal.
I won't use netflix regardless of the type of client, IF it includes DRM.
Another area...
If your OPEN SOURCE YOUR LINUX. They go hand in hand... Yeah... trot out a few examples of this or that on windiot, but OPEN SOURCE and LINUX are synonymous. When you hear one term you immediately associate it with the other.
Netflix is just as guilty as tivoturd and Google of using the BENEFITS of Linux and OTHER OPEN SOURCE projects for their PROFITEERING ways. Google does a little better in supporting some what Linux users, but not much, for their products.. but where would Android be with out Linux and OSS? ? ? NON EXISTANT.. Same for google itself.. NO LINUX and NO FREE OS to RUN ALL THOSE SERVERS to INDEX THINGS!
Contributions back to the projects themselves is NOT ENOUGH! You MUST SUPPORT LINUX USERS, PERIOD. Create a streaming client sans the DRM, as its going no where with it... When you try to access DRM'd material Put up a screen "Sorry the content is not available due to DRM. Please contact neofascist corporate conglomerate profit mongering greed whores at....." Then you can solicit DRM free content from providers who don't want it. You can keep track of the analytics to see data to support a DRM free client and content.
This is just an effort to try to squash the demand for a Linux client by going "see look over here... we support these Linux projects...." They are just trying to distract you from the REAL PROBLEM!
netflix is evil, period.
I certainly see hypocrisy in companies using Linux for their servers and talking about how great it is, but then making it impossible for many people to use Linux for their desktops because they refuse to provide Linux client software.
"open source is just a philosophy on how to develop software in a collaborative manner "
No it isn't.
I can open source stuff and be vehemently opposed to working with others!
Well, George Howlett certainly seems to have been able to....
-rozzin.
No source for Slashdot makes it evil.
Hypocrisy is espousing a moral or righteous philosophy that you do not adhere to. Netflix claims they like to use Linux and other open source software. It appears they do like to use it. Is there some Linux Eula I'm not aware of that says you must make software for Linux if you use Linux? I hope not because I have used Linux to make systems with only windows and iPhone clients. I'm sure many of us have been there.
The fact that Netflix makes no Linux client is inconvenient. Another poster pointed out that Netflix used to make a Linux client, then stopped supporting it when they moved to silverlight on the client. I admit, that does sound like a real letdown for Linux users, but I still don't see it as hypocritical.
First off, the way the term hypocrisy is typically defined these days does not limit its application to purely moral issues, rather it simply means espousing beliefs one does not actually hold. Now generally I would consider somebody who claims that, say, open source and Linux is great because it is reliable and saves money (as Netflix does claim), would believe that Linux should be more widely used. This does not appear to be the case with Netflix, though, since not only have they not done anything to support Linux desktop use, they have in fact actively inhibited its use by their failure to provide a Linux client (I say this knowing several people that have specifically avoided using Linux on their machines due to the lack of a Netflix client). So, yes, I guess you are correct that they are not being "hypocritical." Rather, they apparently believe Linux use is great for corporations to have more reliable and cheaper computers, but they do not care at all about helping to extend these benefits for most computer users. Not exactly an untypical corporate position, obviously. Not in any way a noble one either though.
Netflix doesn't have a Linux desktop client for the same reason WoW doesn't. Because it's not worth the trouble. The potential market for such a player is too small, and the Linux market too fragmented, to be worth their time.
I didn't know that support of the Linux desktop for clients was a requirement (or even an obligation) for a company that makes heavy use of Linux on the server-side. I have not the least clue what one has to do with the other...
Quit 'yer whining...
Public Libraries have many of the latest movies you can check out for free.
Sometimes old beats new.
A VM is a lot more overhead than just a binary app, requires a fair bit more coding, and still wouldn't be any more compatible with various architectures etc.
A binary that works on i386/AMD64 compatible machines would work just fine, and they could keep their DRM intact so long as it doesn't fall afoul of any GPL'ed modules they're using.
Linux guys hate DRM with a purple passion
Which Linux guys are those? After more than a decade as a Linux/Unix sysadmin and desktop user, I'd say I'm a "Linux Guy." Many of my friends are the same. We DON'T hate DRM, though we do hate certain types of DRM.
For example, the crap that EA pulls with "authentication servers" etc really annoys a lot of people.
Steam, on the other hand, is very nice. I - and many who are pro-FOSS that I know - love it. Unless it goes down and my games go bye-bye (at this point it's been good enough that most can have faith in it), I see no problem with it. Yes, it's DRM. In a few ways it takes some things away, but it gives a lot back too (never having to hoard jewel-cases with CD keys, for example).
Games may be similarly locked to one's account similar to EA's/Blizzard's DRM, but the number of decent bargains (discount, buy-one-get-one-for-a-friend etc) on Steam makes it a rather lovable platform (and EA still makes me keep those bloody CD-keys).
A lot of us would LOVE for Steam to come to Linux, DRM or no. A lot of us would LOVE for netflix to come to Linux, DRM or no.
DRM that prevents us from hacking our own devices/hardware, or prevents usability, is often a PITA, and gets a bad rep with pro-FOSS people. However, there are plenty of people who are willing to make room for *REASONABLE* uses of DRM, and plenty of "Linux Guys" (heck, how about all the guys here clamoring for Netflix on Linux) that would love it too.
So perhaps there needs to be some way to gauge the support for netflix on Linux? If there are 10,000 people who support it, is that enough potential customers? How about 100,000?
There's a facebook page with about 1600 "likes." Perhaps if enough people who use FB can "like it" they can get 10k or more and garner enough publicity to push for a client?
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Bring-Netflix-To-Linux/
http://www.petitiononline.com/Linflix/ --> If enough people ask nicely, we might see a Linux client.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
What an amazing crock of shit. Conflict of WHAT interest? Yours? Is netflix beholden to you?
What you mean to say is "this service should be provided by the state." Right?
I'm actually hoping for net-neutrality legislation to fail and then soon the MPAA and RIAA will be able to bribe enough politicians to block the major trackers and torrent aggregators. No more leeches. Time to pay for what you consume.
Hmm...I suppose they might have made more money had they gone with a non-Microsoft solution... :)
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Is it possible to run NetFlix in the Android emulator? I know it would probably be kind of slow....
I'm not sure I get this, Netflix are... using open source software, praising and generally being vocal about using open source, contributing back to the community What thanks do they get for being active in their support of open source software ??? If all the companies that use open source software contributed back, the world would be a better place! There are some small sacrifices you make when you use Linux, however imho the benefits of Linux far outweigh not being able to run application X without a VM. Only you can decide how important an issue it is, and make your own educated decision!
There's actually a much simpler and better reason why they went with Silverlight: Flash is shitty at playing video. Put any Flash-based video player up against the Netflix Silverlight player on a slightly slowish PC. There's just no comparison in smoothness and response to the controls. One of the coders even did an extended writeup on the technical reason for the switch.