Why There's Still No Netflix App For Android 291
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."
I Can Dream, Can't I? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Can Dream, Can't I? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well... kinda... (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took apple's $1 song to make it easier to pay than pirate music. Everyone won.
Except for people who want high-quality digital copies at a reasonable price.
It's now becoming very hard to get CD-quality audio without paying a significant premium. There are plenty of lossless codecs out there, but no vendor has stepped up and offered individual tracks in high quality. It's not like it takes any significant time to download, either...6–20 seconds for a 320kbps MP3 or 20–90 seconds for a 900kbps (or so) lossless file
Re: (Score:2)
256kbps AAC isn't good enough for you?
Good point, modern DRM is symbolic (Score:3, Interesting)
CSS is cracked, AACS is cracked, BD-J is more or less cracked (it's sloppy though, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 oppor
Re: (Score:2)
The only way that Netflix streaming came to the Mac was for them to resort to Microsoft technology for DRM purposes. So Netflix will come to Android as soon as Microsoft ports Silverlight – and its DRM system (so don't start talking about Moonlight) – to Google's OS. (cue laughter)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM = Digital Restrictions Management.
No rights given to the customer that they didn't already have (that's why sellers prefer to call their customers "consumers" instead), only restrictions on what they can do with it. Only restrictions to the seller as they can only sell to people that have also bought in to their specific scheme.
It puts restrictions on all sides: before I have already argued why it's self-defeating due to these restrictions companies put themselves in (in case of music it gave Apple al
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I have seen quite some low-res versions of stuff on the torrent sites.
It makes sense, for the simple reason that most phones can not handle a 1080p stream. They just don't have the horsepower for it. Let alone a screen big enough to need such a size. Indeed if I were to download video for my phone, I'd be looking for something that's more fitting to it's 320x240 screen resolution, and the 2 GB memory card.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think MPAA even understands technology or the internet, or you won't see them suing individual filesharers (way to boost your karma!) and trying to take down stuff like Limewire (by the time you're done, 10 alternatives appear!).
They are genuinely worried about their business model; and for good reason - those execs are used to millions of dollars per year salaries and generally don't want to lose those salaries.
Right now, they're just resisting any form of non-DRM technology for the simple reason t
Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I think it really is self delusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
I wouldn't be surprised as all that DRM actually would cost sales due to people not being able to try out the game (though they could give away a trial with just one level or so instead, still not as good as a friend saying "hey try this out!"), and the likely bad press they get from the moments the DRM fails and blocks legitimate buyers. The stronger the DRM protections the more likely this is.
Re:I think it really is self delusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 unt
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Netflix specifically, its a rental and not a purchase. So if there was no DRM, it would be almost impossible to stop someone renting the content and then saving a permanent copy (all without ever indicating to the outside world that such a thing had been done)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because DRMed streams are never ripped [zdnet.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that isn't netflix's call. The movie studios are the ones to blame, and I'm pretty sure they don't give a rusty rats ass if you can watch any movie on any media besides BluRay.
Though I have to wonder if Netflix has the political clout to tell the movie studios to piss off. I doubt it, they are completely dependent on said studios and making a hardline stance like "fuck you, we womt do business unless you remove the DRM" would be an easy to spot bluff. The movie studios have nothing to lose (in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but to a certain point. First, I just joined Netflix a month ago, and out of seven movies I've looked up since then (I only look when I know I've got the time to watch it), only one of them has been available for live streaming. They've had the rest, but DVD shipment only. Presumably if they had the required clout to tell the MPAA where to shove their DRM, they'd have significantly more titles available for streaming.
By contrast, I remember reading an article saying that Netflix eclipsed bittorrent
Re: (Score:2)
Which would lead to piracy, which would lead to severely reduced profits, which would lead to no incentive to put movies on Netflix in the first place. But hey, at least it fit the moral code of anti-DRM advocates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
which would lead to severely reduced profits
What profits would you be referring to? You do realize that, according to the movie studios, the overwhelming majority of movies lose money, and have lost money consistently for the past few decades, right?
Honestly, if downloading were killing movie studios, we would have stopped having new movies years ago. The studios are not hurting, they are just greedy and demand more money than they made previously, using downloading as an excuse for squeezing more money out of consumers.
Re:Too Easy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 leg
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding - particularly as it pertains to mobile handsets.
Mobiles have a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and processing power available to them, compared to available storage.
A streamed movie weighs in at around 500Mb-2Gb of space, depending on the bitrate sampled. Are you really going to spend the money on extra storage just to store these movies to SD cards when and watching them again is trivial via Netflix, and almost everyone has access to such things? The only outside reason you might want to h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then all you have to do is fool your phone into thinking that it has a port of Silverlight installed.....
Re: (Score:2)
Now replace "how about no DRM on movies" with "Universal Healthcare, as used in all other developed nations" when talking about sane solutions for an indication of how an entrenched mindset, and strong corporate interests with disinformation campaigns and deep pockets can make the obvious choice seem like the wrong thing to do. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
For actual purchases, totally cool. For rentals, like Netflix is doing, DRM-less will never fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell us more about this? What library, what app, what service? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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/ [www.elib.se]
Our: http://www.elib.se/library/default.asp?lib=105 [www.elib.se]
Readers: http://www.elib.se/library/get_install.asp?lib=105 [www.elib.se]
Questions: http://www.elib.se/library/faq.asp?lib=105 [www.elib.se]
Formats: Adobe encrypted EPUB and PFD or Mobipocket.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chicago Public Library provides audio books in various formats, including MP3 and WMA. They've also got a proprietary app for downloading and listening to them, including burning them to an audio CD. If there's any DRM, it's so trivial I haven't noticed.
And back to the topic at hand, why do you need a Netflix app when you've got a web browser. I remember that you couldn't play Netflix movies on the G4 or G5 Macs, but since they've had Intel processors, they play Netflix movies through the browser jus
PlayReady DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 conside
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know anything about Android but PlayReady is software. The DRM that the studios want extends to hardware, e.g. ports not visible to app unless they say so, per title limitations on what sorts of information gets passed through usb, devices designed in such a way as to prevent titles from being saved to SD card, etc. Can't do that unless the hardware is consistent across devices or each device has its own version of the Netflix app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the studios be concerned with the problems of either Netflix or the phone carriers? As a matter of fact, if the viewing experience is negative, all the better for them. It pushes more views on cable, theatres, DVD rentals, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
There are any number of DRM solutions already being used for MPAA films (iTunes on Windows XP for one AFAIK) that dont have this kind of hardware-enforced restrictions and will play content (certainly content at the resolutions that make sense for a phone) over any output and dont use any special API calls to do it and will store downloaded content on any disk (with the software enforcing any "no installing on removable disk" restrictions).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MS will not do that, they must protect the WP7. Just like no netflix on linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Other posters indicate that MS's DRM requires certain hardware. That's a problem.
Even if no such hardware was required: how about key distribution? This is the hard part, keeping them secret. Closed source is a requirement for that - in open source there is no secret. And actually keeping the keys secret and well hidden in the final compiled binary, that's what went wrong with the DVD and resulted in DeCSS.
DRM and open source just don't go together.
Ubuntu instead! (Score:4, Interesting)
Get a roku box (Score:2)
A HD roku box with n wireless is $99 which is about the same as the cost of a Windows 7 OEM dvd.
On demand payments? (Score:2)
Forget Android... what about on demand payments instead of subscriptions? I don't watch many movies and TV shows on discs and streaming. I love Redbox [redbox.com] for its 99 cents and no need to subscribe.
Re:Ubuntu instead! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sorry, we couldn't hear you all the way over here in grown up world.
What an extraordinary childish statement, betraying your clear bias against people who play games for entertainment (or, shock horror, use their games consoles to access services like Netflix) or choose to use computer and peripherals/devices from a particular hardware vendor.
Anyone who uses Cisco hardware has silly hair! Nah nah!
Re: (Score:2)
oh snap
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ubuntu instead! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
My real question is: why does he have a Netflix account in the first place? He knew the supported platforms but now he's complaining that his own work-around is annoying?
Re:Ubuntu instead! (Score:5, Funny)
I heard they mail you DVDs if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually. It is easier to just upgrade ubuntu to windows 7. Sync works great then and you can even play games again.
Do we want DRM on the platform? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally take it one step further. Even to a whole new platform.
I use DRM for birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your choice. And there's already DRM on Android phones, according to the article, just no universal standard. So you're too late.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that Flash was touted on Android because it would solve problems like this. The remakable thing is, apparently, flash does not solve problems. Even on the PC, netflix uses Silverlight.
So the an
Re: (Score:2)
Show me an GSM/UMTS android handset with full support for custom ROMs, a physical QWERTY keyboard and the latest software and I will buy Android.
Since no such Android phone exists, my next phone will be a Nokia N900.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no pressing need to get a new phone in the next couple of months it might pay off to keep a closer eye on Meego-related changes, since the N900 represents over a year old hardware.
Same tale, over and over again. (Score:2)
Since when does DRM work to prevent piracy? The phones will get rooted/jailbroken/hacked anyways.
Maybe they just want that to cover their asses when someone actually starts ripping netflix movies, so they can't be pointed at because they used DRM?
Or maybe they just want to look secure to their partners because they "use DRM"?
Who knows, but fact is that is just a smokescreen and the bubble will pop sooner or later, and they are making a lot of noise about nothing. They look like idiots in our eyes, but they
Re: (Score:2)
Movies are almost certainly worse considering how much more cartel controlled they are than games.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does DRM work to prevent piracy?
It doesn't, but it does make them comfortable offering a rental service. Since DRM's biggest problem is that it makes content only useful for a limited amount of time, and Netflix is only about rentals, I don't think we should be waving our pitchforks about it.
and why do we need drm? (Score:5, Insightful)
All is hear is the studios screaming at me that they don't want my money every time I open my wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be an argument when it comes to purchases. If I buy something, it's mine and the existence of a DRM is questionable (although we know it's there to avoid re-distribution.)
When it comes to renting the content, though, things are very different. Digital media must be protected to prevent trivial things like browser add-ons from just downloading a stream you paid for directly, via monthly fee, or by agreeing to endure ads.
I see no reason to complain about a streaming service relying on DRM to kee
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
I just want a decent selection from Netflix Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you in principle, greater selection is often a good thing, the selection available now is actually quite decent for the 7.99 per month price point.
I've been enjoying re-watching older films that I would never consider buying on DVD, but are still good enough to watch every once in a while. Been catching up on the old Doctor Who's I haven't seen since I was a kid, Tom Baker is still the man, and watching old episodes of Red Dwarf, there were a bunch of episodes I'd missed over the years.
Netflix does run on *some* Android devices (Score:5, Interesting)
Google TV runs on Android... http://code.google.com/tv/web/faq.html [google.com]
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: (Score:3, Informative)
XDA already ripped the app from the Google TV. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=812601&page=6 [xda-developers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Having been involved in developing one of the early GoogleTV apps, I can say that Netflix does indeed work. So it is possible and it's possible with DRM.
However...
For higher end 720p-1080p content, ok....sure, I get it. Make it marginally harder to steal while your "new release" DVDs and BluRay content is in stores for whatever makes sense as a honeymoon period. But for your typical mobile content which is normally at much lower audio/video resolution, spare me.
Be happy that you got your micropayment fro
Keyword (Score:2)
From the article:
Although we don’t have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, we are able to work with individual handset manufacturers to add content protection to their devices. Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won’t.
Let the Android Fragmentation wars resume! I do ponder, though, if Netflix approached Google on this topic before feeling "forced" to deal with individual handset manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
OK we're nerds. But for the general public, who's not so deep into computers/software/etc: do they buy an "iOS device" or an "iPhone"? Do they buy an "Android phone" or a "SonyEricsson X6 phone"? Do they buy a "Symbian phone" or a "Nokia N-something"?
Or in other words: does an average consumer buy a phone because of its OS, or because of its model?
And if they were to buy say an iPhone and an iPad, would they realise that the underlying OS is basically the same?
Something I'm actually quite curious about.
Netflix DRM isn't all that bad (Score:2, Troll)
This is a DRM article, so of course there's the usual slew of posturing and moral outrage. I don't care for most of the more draconian forms of DRM myself. But there's really nothing particularly horrible about Netflix's usage of DRM, other than that it excludes Linux desktop distros and makes problems for Android. It's very clear that when you pay for Netflix, you're not "buying" any movies, you're licensing the rights to stream them from their servers. It's not a big hassle. Nothing particularly wrong wit
Ya but that's the problem (Score:2)
The DRM is stopping it from doing something that Netflix wants to do and consumers want to pay for. That is where so many anti-DRM arguments come from. I mean I'll grant you, if you have a supported media device the DRM doesn't really seem to matter. On my Blu-ray player I just watch whatever and it works great. However as soon as you head out of that, the problems begin. On computers, you cannot watch HD content because of DRM/licensing issues. The media industry worries that it is easier to rip on a compu
If they do this, (Score:2)
than can they offer streaming netflix to the rest of the Linux users?
Dear Netflix.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that will sure put a dent in piracy. Gee, those hackers will have to resort to just downloading the DVD rip off of a torrent site and then downrezzing it for android. Actually, for some of the newer handsets they might not even have to do that, as I bet a lot of those are about the right resolution/performance to just play native DVD.
I could see the argument when they were talking about protecting HD, and back when HD was still at a premium and wasn't all over the internet yet. Now that you can har
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free Software, Pirated content.
That sounds illogical. If you don't mind pirating content, why not do the same with software? And if you would rather support free software by boycotting proprietary, then you should also support free content in the same way. Make up your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
If Netflix choose Flash to deliver their streaming video they would have had a solution for just about every platform and special solutions for a very few (IOS, consoles etc)... Oh well, guess is sucks to pick the wrong solution.
I take it you're choosing to ignore the uneven and generally crappy reviews that have been given to the portable implementation of Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes before I go to sleep I fire up a TV show on Netflix and watch it before drifting off. Sometimes it's more comfortable that way. Everybody has different preferences, it doesn't automatically mean that people want a constant barrage of stuff 24-7.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't HDMI already been cracked, so the content can already be extracted from DRMed players?
It isn't about making it un-capturable, it's about it being a rental model and making the studios/networks providing the content happy about supporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is Blockbuster doing to appease the studio execs?
It was noted in the article that Blockbuster went through similar issues, and that it was only available in the Droid X at first. They did not noted who else can run Blockbuster's app, though.