Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Handhelds Media Movies

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why There's Still No Netflix App For Android

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:02PM (#34225562)
    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...
    • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:13PM (#34225652)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

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

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

        I'm not trying to say that what Apple did wasn't good. Just saying that adding "...with a

        • Um, Apple's library of music was far, FAR bigger than that of LegalSounds. There's a huge difference between some cherry-picked tracks and a vast music library.
      • All I want to do is DreeeaaAaeeem. Dream Dream Dreeeam DreeeaaAaeeem. Dream Dream Dreeeam DreeeaaAaeeem.
      • 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

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

        CSS is cracked, AACS is cracked, BD-J is more or less cracked (it's sloppy though, a
    • 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)

    • 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)

        by Tharsman ( 1364603 )

        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)

    by redemtionboy ( 890616 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:04PM (#34225576)
    Seems like there could be some solution...staring me right in the face...I dunno....maybe no DRM....but nahhh. That's just crazy...
    • Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoonBuggy ( 611105 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:16PM (#34225664) Journal

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

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

      • Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:21PM (#34225712)

        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.

        • 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.

      • by tsj5j ( 1159013 )

        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)

        by wrook ( 134116 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:09PM (#34226516) Homepage

        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.

      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:15PM (#34226538)

        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.

        • 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.

        • by dhavleak ( 912889 ) on Monday November 15, 2010 @05:25AM (#34228968)

          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

      • by jonwil ( 467024 )

        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)

        • I did think that initially, but according to TFA it's a streaming service, not a download with an expiry date. Sure, someone could put together a stream ripper much more easily if there were no DRM, but if they're going to pirate anyway, why would they bother doing so by saving reduced quality streams onto their phone from their paid Netflix subscription (presumably so they can watch them after the subscription lapses) rather than just torrenting a DVD rip?

    • Yeah, because no one will create a stream ripper for non-DRM Netflix movies. That's just crazy...
    • 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

      • We already know Netflix doesn't have that clout, or we wouldn't be seeing month-long delays between when a disc is at retail and available for rent via Netflix.
        • 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

    • by bonch ( 38532 )

      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.

      • Give me one good reason to believe that:
        (a) there would be any more copyright infringement due to Netflix stream rips than there already is from DVD and TV rips of the same content.
        (b) the DRM will remain unbroken, in contrast to almost every other widespread DRM scheme ever implemented.

        If you think DRM would actually have any impact in this particular case I'd be genuinely interested to hear why.

      • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )

        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

    • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      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

      • Ah, but how hard would it be to make Netflix think your desktop browser is an Android phone?
        • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

          Ah, but how hard would it be to make Netflix think your desktop browser is an Android phone?

          And then all you have to do is fool your phone into thinking that it has a port of Silverlight installed.....

    • by jo_ham ( 604554 )

      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. ;)

    • For actual purchases, totally cool. For rentals, like Netflix is doing, DRM-less will never fly.

  • PlayReady DRM (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mulder3 ( 867389 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:10PM (#34225620)
    Netflix uses MS PlayReady DRM... Microsoft provides an implementation of a PlayReady client in ANSI C... Android has a NDK to write native apps.... So, what's the problem here?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )

      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

    • by xigxag ( 167441 )

      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.

      • But Netflix is a mostly US only company and the carriers can barely handle the traffic they're presently providing. I'm not sure that they could handle the extra traffic for Netflix. Or at least not in a way which is satisfactory. I know that just going over WiFi my connection often times can't handle it.
        • by gmhowell ( 26755 )

          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.

      • by jonwil ( 467024 )

        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)

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

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

      it seems netflix are not willing to release an "android app" until EVERY "android" phone can use the app. having to explain to users that they don't have the "right" android would make both netflix and the android alliance look bad. to me, forcing

      • So you're telling me that Microsoft PlayReady DRM has access to hardware security features on the iPhone and iPad? That sounds a little far fetched.
    • by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

      MS will not do that, they must protect the WP7. Just like no netflix on linux.

    • 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)

    by linuxwonder ( 1681928 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:13PM (#34225650)
    Forget Android...what about Ubuntu? Just once I would like to access my Netflix accnt. without having to start my VM for XP!
    • A HD roku box with n wireless is $99 which is about the same as the cost of a Windows 7 OEM dvd.

    • 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 [] for its 99 cents and no need to subscribe.

  • by mlts ( 1038732 ) * on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:16PM (#34225662)

    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.

    • by Fuzzums ( 250400 )

      I personally take it one step further. Even to a whole new platform.
      I use DRM for birth control.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      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.

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      This is same question I have about Flash on the iPhone. Do we really want a hack solution on an otherwise well devised. The reason to allow such a resource hog is so we can get access to content. The downside is that if Flash is allowed them developers will have incentive to write cappy Apps.

      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

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      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.

      • 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.

  • 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

    • It's really tough to get content providers online if you're not using DRM. Just look at how much work has gone to in order to procure games. And those are games that are years to decades old and are easily available in pirated form already.

      Movies are almost certainly worse considering how much more cartel controlled they are than games.
    • 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.

  • by Libertarian001 ( 453712 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:28PM (#34225768)

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

    • 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)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:46PM (#34225914) Homepage Journal

    I just want a decent selection from Netflix Canada.

    • 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.

  • by happymellon ( 927696 ) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:54PM (#34225986)
    Netflix runs on the Google TV... []
    Google TV runs on Android... []
    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)

      by happymellon ( 927696 )
      Ok, I hadn't really looked in to this before. It seems like the Netflix app is an x86 compiled apk so it will not run on ARM. But if they ever get that compatibility layer for Ubuntu running, it would give you Netflix on Linux ;)

      XDA already ripped the app from the Google TV. []
    • 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.


      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

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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

    • 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

  • than can they offer streaming netflix to the rest of the Linux users?

  • Dear Netflix.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday November 15, 2010 @08:44AM (#34229656) Homepage

    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.

APL hackers do it in the quad.