Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix Coming To Sony PS3

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the inclusively-exclusive dept.

Movies 145

itwbennett writes "'Microsoft has always seemed rather enthusiastic when it comes to throwing around the word 'exclusive,' and here is another case in point,' says blogger Peter Smith. Netflix and Sony have announced that Netflix streaming is coming to the Sony PlayStation 3 as early as next month. Back in August, when Microsoft was rolling out its new dashboard update, one of the features it was talking up was Netflix streaming, says Smith, and it said, 'This exclusive partnership offers you the ability to instantly stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix to the television via Xbox 360. Xbox 360 will be the only game console to offer this movie-watching experience...' Apparently, in Microsoft parlance, 'exclusive partnership' means 'we launched it first' and not 'we inked a deal with Netflix preventing this feature from appearing on the competition's hardware.' All this is good news for PS3 owners who can now sign up to be notified of Netflix availability for their system."

cancel ×

145 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

exclusive partnership (5, Funny)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878927)

They did have an exclusive partnership for about 3 months.

Re:exclusive partnership (2, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878963)

Until it became popular and Netflix wanted more cash.

Re:exclusive partnership (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878979)

try about a year.

Re:exclusive partnership (2, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879139)

Methinks you don't understand what "exclusive" means.

It doesn't mean "nobody else is doing it".

It means "nobody else is is *allowed* to do it" (examine the root "exclude [wiktionary.org] ")

Re:exclusive partnership (3, Insightful)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879689)

You also might want to note we live in a world that has time and exclusivity doesn't necessarily include all times past and present. Microsoft may have been told that for X period of time the service would not appear on any other consoles thus their statement, at that point, was true.

I think it is fairly standard human behavior to judge statements based on when they occurred and not the present situation. That is why newton is considered 'genius' despite getting lots of physics wrong.

Re:exclusive partnership (-1, Troll)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879875)

Wow, you MS apologists just don't quit, do you?

Here's the thing: If it was exclusive then what caused the exclusivity to change?

If it was just "oh, now someone else wants to do it", which is the case here then it wasn't exclusive.

The key question is: was Sony excluded before now?

No, they weren't. Which means it wasn't exclusive

Re:exclusive partnership (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879925)

Perhaps Sony excluded themselves, until right now.

Re:exclusive partnership (2, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880011)

I think you're getting a bit worked up because some marketing guy spun this in a way favorable to Microsoft.

Bizdev guy: "Hey, we just signed a deal to get Netflix streaming on the XBox 360!"
Marketing guy: "Do any other consoles have this functionality?"
Bizdev guy: "Nope, just the XBox."

[Two hours later]

Press release: "This exclusive partnership offers you the ability to instantly stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix to the television via Xbox 360. Xbox 360 will be the only game console to offer this movie-watching experience..."

Next thing you know, someone will try and claim IBM is going exclusively Linux...

Re:exclusive partnership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880539)

I have MS, but I'm no apologist.

I really wish Microsoft had used different letters, it makes googling for support much harder.

Re:exclusive partnership (1)

tji (74570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880825)

> Wow, you MS apologists just don't quit, do you?
>
>Here's the thing: If it was exclusive then what caused the exclusivity to change?

It's typically specified in the contract. MS probably demanded a period of exclusivity in exchange for the development/integration/distribution of making Netflix streaming available to their huge installed base of users. Netflix wanted to retain the flexibility to partner with anyone they wanted. So, they negotiated a mutually agreeable term of exclusivity.

This is very common in the software industry.

Re:exclusive partnership (3, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881205)

It's not being an MS apologist, you paranoid git. It's being cognizant of the meaning of words. Limited exclusitivity is common, particularly in the gaming field, and typically referred to as, yes, "exclusive". If you had asked MS if "They could guarantee that NetFlix could never, ever, offer a movie on any other console ever", of course they would say there was no such agreement. Fallout 3 was touted as an MS exclusive; it's now made its way onto the PS3. There's been similar Sony exclusives that are now on the 360. They were exclusives, now they're not.

I don't own a 360; but I don't twist words to try to find excuses to hate. The summary is guilty of that. Geez. Unreasonable hate directed at MS just makes the REASONABLE hate directed at MS seem less valid. I'd tone it down.

Re:exclusive partnership (3, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880065)

I thought Slashdotters hated marketer-speak. Why is everybody debating this? Who cares?

Re:exclusive partnership (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879707)

Methinks the term exclusive can have more than one meaning. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive [merriam-webster.com]
b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group

or from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive [reference.com]
single or sole

So the netflix was limited to one console (XBOX 360) whether by contract or just first entry.

More (2, Interesting)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878939)

Power to the people! Is it an international feature at least ? I Have yet to see a video streaming service that works for non-US folk.

Re:More (0)

Disgruntled Goats (1635745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879225)

Doubtful that Netflix has the rights to distribute things internationally.

Re:More (Not in Canada) (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879409)

Not coming to Canada... unfortunately. *sigh* Linky [eontarionow.com] .

I don't understand the statement "The service will not be available in Canada due to licensing agreements and other legal issues."
We can buy/rent most (all?) of the media coming out of the states off the shelves, no questions asked.

Perhaps someone like Walmart will have to come out with a streaming service, and bring it to Canada to open the floodgates. As much as I'm not fond of the huge Megacorps they tend to lead the way in for things such as this.

Re:More (Not in Canada) (1)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879745)

Duh! I can't imagine why it takes the act of those controlling the rights of the movies to get anything done! Sure, Wal-Mart doesn't control the rights, but they have the power to make arrangements with those that do. It seems like the media companies fail miserably at extracting money from people by selling their products and instead chose to wait until some big name comes along and promises them lots of cash if they just listen.

The only slightly strange thing is that I thought Netflix was in with the rights owners, which makes me very confused as to why they can't make a deal to distribute internationally. Regardless, it seems like a no-brainier business decision to distribute IP internationally if there is demand. It doesn't take Wal-Marts CEO to realize that and want to act on it.

Re:More (Not in Canada) (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880501)

Unfortunately, the right to distribute via the internet is not the same as the right to distribute physical copies. It is a much larger legal hurdle than physical one.

Re:More (Not in Canada) (1)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880525)

Sadly, it's worthless to the majority of the world. What a non-story.

Re:More (Not in Canada) (1)

bmatt17 (1494941) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880769)

I wonder if this is one way the RIAA/MPAA are trying to force their copyright laws onto Canada? Not allowing online streaming services like this until they adopt the US DMCA type law.
Isn't Canada on the US list of countries that doesn't have good enough copyright laws? It works both ways though. Defying Gravity is not airing in the US but is in Canada. I can't access any of the Canadian sites that are streaming the remaining episodes from the US.

Re:More (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882073)

If you're in the UK, LoveFilm has a similar service. They currently only have about 1,700 things available for streaming, but it's included for free with their DVD rental service (a few things are stupidly overpriced pay per view). I've been using it to watch old science fiction shows and a few films. From what I can tell, their service is more or less equivalent to Netflix. Oh, and they use Flash for streaming and works nicely on non-Windows systems.

Handy for some, less so for others (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878971)

I'm a fan of Netflix streaming (to my Tivo HD), warts and all. But if you're not a fan of old movies and TV shows, it's probably of very little interest to you. Not all that much new stuff is available for streaming, and what is there seems to get cycled randomly in and out at the whim of the content owners.

The shortcomings aren't Netflix's fault, I don't believe - it's squarely due to the MPAA dinosaurs that continue to insist that the genii will fit back in that darn bottle if they just push harder...

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (3, Informative)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879067)

There are new movies on it, have you looked? Walle, for instance in on Netflix instant view. That qualifies as a new movie in my book.

Better than that though, they often have TV shows from Europe or the UK, like the IT Crowd on Instant View.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879151)

There are new movies on it, have you looked? Walle, for instance in on Netflix instant view. That qualifies as a new movie in my book.

Yeah, Wall-E is in my queue actually - but my experience has been you're much more likely to find that any particular old movie has the streaming option than, say, any particular movie from the past 1-2 decades.

Your point about the Europe/UK television shows is well taken.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (2, Informative)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879491)

10% new movies
30% classic movies
20% New and Old TV shows
20% Indie Movies
20% Foreign Movies

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881701)

I suppose it depends how you define new, Wall-E is almost 18 months old for example so personally I wouldn't call it a new film, even stuff from the beginning of 2009 would be a push. I'd call things like District 9 new films - I guess it depends if you want the latest films or if you're content with the stuff people were watching over a year ago in the cinema and on DVD.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

WeirdingWay (1555849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882561)

The stuff they show that's massively old can usually be found in YouTube movies or Hulu. Digital distribution on a subscription service is taking far too long. Why can I do it with a DVD but not with a download?

oh god, not OLD movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879125)

Old like Bladerunner and Alien ONE and Taxi Driver?

Those movies sucked!

Re:oh god, not OLD movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880131)

I would assume anyone browsing slashdot already owns these movies on dvd or blu-ray.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1, Interesting)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879341)

insist that the genii will fit back in that darn bottle

There's a special circle of hell for people who talk at the movies and those who do what you just did.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879609)

Says the demon.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880667)

Seems to appear in the canonical text [gutenberg.org] ...

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880987)

There's a special circle of hell for people who talk at the movies and those who do what you just did.

You might try actually looking it up [merriam-webster.com] before you hypercorrect [wikipedia.org] someone...

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882143)

Sure, it's technically correct, but do you want language to degenerate into this [typepad.com] ? God help us all.
PS: If I corrected you, what would that make you?

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879447)

On the other hand, mass adoption of Netflix streaming is absolutely key to getting more titles available through it. So this announcement is good news even for those of us who don't own a gaming console.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879589)

Old movies and TV shows are the most suitable material for the relatively poor quality of streamed video - unless of course you are watching it on a small screen (or a big one from far away) or pulling it in through a very big pipe.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880705)

Relatively poor quality compared to what? They allow higher quality streaming on netflix ready devices than they do computers. A lot of the newer stuff streams in HD and looks pretty good on my modest 37" lcd. Most things tend to look better than TWC's HD cable service, contain fewer artificats if any, and have much better sound quality.

As far as pipes go, I have the second cheapest tier of roadrunner and it still manages HD streams on my xbox while my roommate is watching another stream on his laptop.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879961)

But if you're not a fan of old movies and TV shows, it's probably of very little interest to you.

I, as most Netflix subcribers are a fan of entertainment. When a movie was created does not dictate weather the movie is entertaining or not. Take Citizen Kane [afi.com] that was shot in 1941 and is still hailed as the greatest movie ever by the American Film Institute [afi.com] , and probably by most people who have watched it. Netflix does making finding new releases hard to find by not posting them on the main page, but at the age of 26 I don't think of them as "old movies," but simply great movies I missed. Let's not forget the lack of commercials, that really helps make up for many of the 3 star movies/shows that are streaming.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880441)

Enjoy it while you can, as Netflix's streaming service appears to be based on a partnership with Starz that in turn depends on a loophole in Starz's contract with the film studios. That loophole is likely to be closed when Starz's contract is renewed/renegotiated, and Netflix will then need to convince the studios to allow the all-you-can-eat stream to continue.

Re:Handy for some, less so for others (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881237)

Old, obscure, and foreign movies are the only reasons I would subscribe to Netflix. None of my local rental stores have "The Thin Man." Can you believe that? They have all the SAW movies...

It was (5, Insightful)

Luthair (847766) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878993)

This is a non-story, it was exclusive to the X360 at the time. There is no difference than the umpteen movies (some of which Sony is undoubtedly behind) which exclaim 'only in theatres!' in their trailers.

You're a fucking moron (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879213)

Look, if you don't know what a word means, then don't use it, because you just end up looking like a fucking moron.

"Exclusive" means "prevent from entering", "shut out"

It does *not* mean "we're the only one's doing this"

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define%3Aexclude [google.com]

Re:You're a fucking moron (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879461)

> "Exclusive" means "prevent from entering", "shut out"

Yes, that means an exclusive interview means that the interviewee never speaks to anyone else for the rest of their life.

You slashdot people are funny. You do know everyone else points at you and laughs, right?

Re:You're a fucking moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879517)

Wow, are you really that stupid as to not understand English?

Do yourself a favour - just admit you were wrong and STFU.

Re:You're a fucking moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879741)

>

Do yourself a favour - just admit you were wrong and STFU.

Right back at you.

Re:You're a fucking moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879713)

Look, if you don't know what a word means, then don't use it, because you just end up looking like a fucking moron.

"Exclusive" means "prevent from entering", "shut out"

It does *not* mean "we're the only one's doing this"

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define%3Aexclude [google.com]

You probably should follow your own advise and STFU. Exclusive has multiple slightly differing meanings in the english language that quite easily allow short term specific rights.

Re:You're a fucking moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880149)

You lying scum. The word "exclude" is _not_ the word "exclusive" so why did you link to the wrong word, asshole?

Re:You're a fucking moron (1)

bmatt17 (1494941) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880799)

There's also such a thing as a Timed Exclusive. Microsoft seems to like those this generation. Things like bioshock, Ninja Gaiden

Re:You're a fucking moron (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882545)

Bioshock was never exclusive. It was out on the PC at the same time as the 360.

Inclusive (4, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879033)

Apparently, in Microsoft parlance, 'exclusive partnership' means 'we launched it first' and not 'we inked a deal with Netflix preventing this feature from appearing on the competition's hardware.

Isn't that what exclusive usually means? It makes a statement about the present, not the future. Exclusive interviews, for example, are seldom exclusive for very long. iPhones are exclusive to AT&T (in the US, for now). Some vehicle has exclusive feature X, until next year when they all do. Etc., etc...

Re:Inclusive (3, Insightful)

registrar (1220876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879255)

Isn't that what exclusive usually means?

No. Exclusive has some sense of "to the exclusion of others" even though that exclusion might not exist forever. In the case of interviews, "exclusive" means that the interview was carried out with only our interviewer---as opposed to a press conference or similar, where the competition is not excluded. "Exclusive" hotels and cars purport to cater only to the good and great, excluding others. Exclusive features in cars or phones? rot---unless they are, by contract, not provided to competitors.

In the case of partnerships, if it doesn't mean "to the exclusion of others" then the word is being used deceptively. Put it this way: I have an exclusive partnership with my wife, and will be sorely disappointed if it means anything other than "to the exclusion of others."

Re:Inclusive (0, Offtopic)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879339)

bah, my mod points expired about an hour ago. +insightful

Re:Inclusive (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880183)

Based on the number of these types of comments, I'm beginning to suspect the original post was basically a troll. Give it a rest. It's a couple of marketing announcements.

Re:Inclusive (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881633)

You're wrong, to provide some examples you often get TV stations claiming exclusive interviews on certain subjects, or radio stations getting exclusive access to play new songs. This does not mean exclusivity is maintained indefinitely.

To use your analogy, yes, you might have an exclusive relationship with your wife right now (at least you assume so), but you can't guarantee that under any circumstance she wont ever have an affair with someone else, because you simply cannot predict the future.

Re:Inclusive (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879263)

An 'exclusive partnership' normally indicates a contract done between two parties where the one party is guaranteed the only access to something. See AT&T and the iPhone in the U.S., for example, or the NFL's deal with DirectTV.

It's quite a different animal from a newspaper 'exclusive' or an 'exclusive interview', where a contract is not involved.

Now, it could be that they did have a one-year deal that is about to or has expired, in which case you would be entirely correct. However, such contracts are usually longer term, and if Microsoft is throwing around the term 'exclusive partnership' without having a contract, then they're giving a heck of a lot of people the idea that they will be the only ones that will have that capability for a long, long time when that is not actually the case.

Re:Inclusive (1)

Dogbertius (1333565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879495)

Hmmm, to my knowledge this is available strictly in the US of A. International customers should care because............. Include some means of using a proxy without modding the damned console and we're talking.

Re:Inclusive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29881007)

Hmmm, to my knowledge this is available strictly in the US of A.

in otherwords, it is...errr...exclusive...to one country.

Re:Inclusive (2, Informative)

nilbog (732352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880179)

TFA says "Xbox 360 will be the only game console to offer this movie-watching experience..."

Seems to me that they are defining the time period as any point in the future and making that statement that Xbox will continue to be the only game console to offer netflix. Key words "will be the only."

Re:Inclusive (0)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881671)

Yes, it seems that to you indeed. It seems to me they were just stating that it will be the only console to offer netflix, which was very true at the time.

They didn't say it will be true indefinitely, nor did they state it will be exclusive only for a limited time, the fact is there is no quantifier regarding period of exclusivity in that statement so you cannot possibly infer from that statement what period of time exclusivity will remain for or whether it's idefinite. Effectively it comes down to personal assumption and what your personal assumption is, if you cut away all the crap, basically boils down to whether you hate Microsoft and want to troll them, or like them and want to support them. There is a third camp of course- those who realise the summary is just a case of the former category, and the fact is this is a non-story because Microsoft haven't said anything wrong unless you make assumptions. The real story here is that the PS3 is getting netflix, not what Microsoft said and people did or didn't assume from those statements. Unfortunately, the third camp requires people capable of objective thought, which has become an ever more rare trait on Slashdot.

Re:Inclusive (0, Flamebait)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881649)

"Isn't that what exclusive usually means?"

In the normal world yes, but the mistake you've made is that we're talking Slashdot parlance here where anything pre-fixed or post-fixed with "Microsoft" must automatically have a negative connotation to it. For example:

"Microsoft employee is first to crash scene and helps save small child"

On Slashdot this means:

"Microsoft rapes small children"

Long term accepted real world definition and understanding of words goes out the window if it contradicts the negative Microsoft rule on Slashdot.

I signed up! (0, Troll)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879127)

This will be more convenient than hooking up my laptop every time I wanna watch a Netflix movie. My delightful fat PS3 is always connected to the TV, just like Sony is always connected to the pulse of the American consumer! I want to go bobbing for Apples with Sony, and now I can, with a BD-Live implementation of Netflix screaming!

Timed Exclusive (2)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879159)

The concept of Timed Exclusives is clearly lost on the article writer.

BD Live? (1)

Nunavut (1662173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879177)

I wonder if the "PS3" blu-ray disc which is connects to streaming movies via BD-Live would work on regular Blu-ray players?

Using BD-Live is the real story (5, Interesting)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879243)

The report on this this that I saw at ars technica [arstechnica.com] said this is implemented using BD-Live. If that's right, then it means that any fully featured BluRay player could do it.

So Netflix will have effectively co-opted the next generation physical media installed base for their online distribution system. I think that's a pretty big deal compared semi-supporting one more console, don't you?

Re:Using BD-Live is the real story (3, Informative)

moniker (9961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879853)

That's why I don't think this is the case. Netflix has said [joystiq.com] that they had help from Sony, so I think it is more likely a PS3 application and not a BD-Live Java application.

According to this article [betanews.com] , it was an analyst who believed that the implementation was BD-Live, rather than citing some inside source. I'm still hoping for some more interesting BD-Live Java homebrew.... [engadget.com]

Re:Using BD-Live is the real story (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880195)

I do. And I find your comment so much more interesting than the flamebait and trolls preceding you arguing about what "exclusive" means. Thanks for posting something meaningful.

In Canada, Movies come in Bags (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29879299)

Or at the very least NOT on consoles. It's a safe bet that Canadian PS3 / XBOX owners will not have streaming movies before 2011.

What about the UK (1)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879321)

This is only news to me if Netflix can and will start working in the UK and beyond. If the service can make a profit in the USA why not the rest of the world?

Re:What about the UK (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879593)

Oh, you're right, there is Canada as well!

Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (5, Informative)

moniker (9961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879501)

from http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/26/netflix-ps3-disc-must-remain-in-system-until-2010-update/ [joystiq.com]

Joystiq: Was the PS3 application developed internally by Netflix?

Netflix: Yes, with the help of the Sony team.

Can the Netflix application be installed to the PS3 hard dive from the disc? Or must the disc be inserted every time a user wants to access Netflix?

Yes, the Netflix disc has to be inserted every time to access the Netflix service.

Why not distribute the application via PSN download or firmware update, and then embed it into the XMB?

Again, the instant streaming disc represented the fastest and easiest way to let PS3 enthusiasts get Netflix on the PS3. Late next year we expect to have an embedded solution available for PS3s via a system software update slated for release through the PlayStation Network.

Re:Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879949)

Why not distribute the application via PSN download or firmware update, and then embed it into the XMB?

Again, the instant streaming disc represented the fastest and easiest way to let PS3 enthusiasts get Netflix on the PS3. Late next year we expect to have an embedded solution available for PS3s via a system software update slated for release through the PlayStation Network.

We need to somehow convince shareholders that the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is still relevant!

Re:Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (1)

Dreadrik (1651967) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881647)

We need to somehow convince shareholders that the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is still relevant!

Or, it might be a way to work around the "exclusive" deal with microsoft.

Re:Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (0)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880191)

Huh, that's odd. I have a theory...

The PS3 is locked down so tight, it can't even play 1080p without a blueray disk?

Re:Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (2, Informative)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880597)

My PS3 handles 1080p non-BD video just fine, and will handle a 1080p mp4 file on a USB drive- though there is a limitation in the movie file size due to FAT32. Also, you can rent and buy HD movies on the PSN store and download/stream them.

I believe the Netflix BD is required for the interim because Sony isn't planning on updating the firmware for a while.

Re:Joystiq has a Q&A with Netflix (1)

tiks (791388) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880309)

Sony has a competing video rental service with Play-station network. I'd bet Sony has been fighting this tooth and nail till netflix decided to give em the finger and do it the BD-Live route.

But you see in the end nflx will come out as winner as with this solution they have covered much larger (future) install base than just the ps3s.

ok, so I'll get one then. (0)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879541)

A few weeks ago I decided I was going to get a ps3 - this settles it then. Now, if only I wasn't one of the countless senior level people cut during downsizing, and actually had a job!

In all seriousness, I haven't had a "console" since my old Atari that I had in the early 80s or whenever that was. I don't know who won in all this - I know I like the wii on some levels, the games seem more social and less serious pro-gamer (which suits me). However, I also know that no matter what I get, the console will generally sit unused.

I don't have a blueray player yet. I know, what year is it? And my good old, reliable dvd player, though it was (is?) quite a nice component-level appliance with all the happiness stuff, but it skips a lot now, and there was always that place where it paused between layers, about an hour in to a movie. I've had 2 dvds that won't work on it at all - and not for regional reasons, but instead - from what I've been told - for reasons having to do with the dual-layer format changing somewhat. Bryan Wilson's "The Rocker" is an example of such a dvd - won't play at all. Works fine on my computer. And yes, it's a legit dvd.

So who wins? After all this time, still the ps3 - because it's still the only one with blue-ray. Though, by the time I actually go buy one...maybe blueray will have been replaced?

Re:ok, so I'll get one then. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879903)

Tivos can also do the netflix streaming..

Re:ok, so I'll get one then. (2, Informative)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879975)

....but they can't play dvds or bluerays. nor are they available for that occasional use as a game console. And I also don't subscribe to cable, so...

Re:ok, so I'll get one then. (1)

crasher35 (787091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880427)

...and there was always that place where it paused between layers, about an hour in to a movie.
I have yet to see a DVD player that doesn't pause when going between layers. Just a fault in the technology itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 still did this with the dual layer DVDs that you own.

"I don't have a blueray player yet. I know, what year is it?"
Well, it's 2009 and nobody I know has a Blu-ray player. It's just not getting adopted at a fast rate, so don't feel bad.

Re:ok, so I'll get one then. (1)

Burpmaster (598437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880897)

I have yet to see a DVD player that doesn't pause when going between layers. Just a fault in the technology itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 still did this with the dual layer DVDs that you own.

You've had some bad luck, then. Only the earliest DVD players have that problem. Anything newer changes layers fast enough and buffers far enough ahead to avoid having to pause. Personally, I've never seen a DVD player that does have the pausing issue. I've only heard about it.

Re:ok, so I'll get one then. (1)

P. Legba (172072) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880741)

I hear ya. I'm a 40-year-old married man, and I just picked up a PS3 on eBay for less than 200 bucks (with a 10% off coupon I had sitting around in my e-mail).

I play one game: the latest NCAA football from EA with my redneck buddies. My wife is happy now, because I don't have to always go sit with them across town to play them now.

But hey, it can stream all the stuff on my Mac from the other room, and now it can stream Netflix, too.

It's more than a game console, and always has been...it's about providing a mass interface to the cloud or whatever.

Disk required to use (1)

onnel (518399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879735)

You'll have to have a special "netflix" blueray in for it to work, this is how they're getting around the 360-exclusive. apparently a WII solution is coming next year and etflix will also be coming to the PS3 desktop at that point (I assume that is because the 360 exclusive will be ending at that time).

Re:Disk required to use (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881317)

Is this a problem? I don't mind inserting a disc to watch a movie, even if that movie is streamed, so long as a better solution is in the works.

According to the Joystiq interview, it was much faster to develop an application on a blueray disc and use that for the streaming application than to develop an embedded application for the PS3. The people at Netflix are implying that there was never an exclusive deal with the 360; the marketing people at Microsoft took the liberty of using "exclusive" despite the lack of any exclusivity agreement. Can't really fault them for that

Goodbye cursed Silverlight (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879899)

I installed Silverlight on my media PC (a Mac mini) only because of Netflix streaming, and that with great reluctance. I'll be more than happy to ditch it and just use the PS3 for streaming.

Re:Goodbye cursed Silverlight (1)

crasher35 (787091) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880439)

What's wrong with Silverlight?

Re:Goodbye cursed Silverlight (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29881025)

> What's wrong with Silverlight?

It crashes Safari, for one thing, and looks crappy to boot.

Well, duh! (0, Redundant)

slapout (93640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880261)

The PS3's not a game system. It's a Blu-ray player.

Roku (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880319)

Or spend $99 and watch Netflix streams from a Roku box. Or, just watch it off your laptop.

Surprised... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880415)

No one's bothered to ponder if this means MS will finally stop requiring a Live! subscription in order to use this feature in the future. I bought my 360 when I heard this was coming (and to use as an extender) I'm not a hardcore console gamer (I'm a pc gamer) and have NO need for live. I felt ripped off to find out they wanted to charge me 50$ a year for the software update that as I understand it doesn't use the MS network for anything other than to validate that my account is linked to this xbox. I always swore I'd never buy a PS3 but if this is true and at no additional cost, then I may buy one instead of another xbox.

Been doing this for months... (1)

cmeans (81143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880531)

using a product called PlayOn from http://www.themediamall.com./ [www.themediamall.com] Yes, PlayOn does cost money, one time fee of $20-$30, but then I can also stream Hulu, CBS, CNN, etc. to my PS3, Wii or my DirecTV DVR or a bunch of other things as well. There is a trial version available. The only downside, it's a Windows app.

Re:Been doing this for months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29880637)

On top of that is not HD. Also there are no subtitles. Also you can not fast-forward properly ( aka crashes). The only way i found to be able to fast forward is to start the netflix web browser player-> goto desired time and close the browser. Now if you will start streaming same show it will start were you left off in the browser.

Re:Been doing this for months... (1)

cmeans (81143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29880763)

Not HD, but does fill the screen nicely for me, on an HD TV. FF works well enough for my needs, better for Netflix streams than for Hulu though.

Re:Been doing this for months... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882239)

Don't worry, the average /.'er is a closet Windows user. I'm a huge fan of PlayOn and actually bought two licenses for my house and the GF's house (streaming to a 360 in both cases). There's a site called PlayOnPlugins that gives you even more content for PlayOn, including Adult Swim and PBS. PlayOn is simply a DLNA server, so you can serve up content to any DLNA client, including the 360, PS3, Popcorn Hour, XBMC, Boxee et al.

but no sign for Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29881207)

It might be coming to the PS3, but there's a absolutely no sign of a Linux version.

Aren't we in 2009, almost 2010? And by now people should be writing cross platform portable softwares?

This was always Microsoft's shtick (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881305)

Countless "exclusive" 360 games are released on the PC a few months later. It's a marketing gimmick to get consumers to believe that their system is the only one to offer service X or game Y when those same products will be available shortly on another system.

Europe availability? (1)

DrKnark (1536431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881393)

Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but is there a chance this will be available in Europe? I understand the regular netflix service of mailing DVDs to you is only available in the US, but are there any obstacles to making the streaming service available elsewhere?

Re:Europe availability? (1)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881689)

I live in Europe right now too. I used to do Netflix when I lived in the States, and I liked it. I suspect that they will block European IPs due to the demands of the content owners. I plan to split this with a friend in the States - they can have all the mail DVDs, and I'll get a fast US proxy to use the streaming. We'll see if it works out.

Re:Europe availability? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29881711)

Yes, media companies refusing to license the movies to places like Netflix for use outside the US, companies like Universal, Sony, Warner etc. are the problem with that.

I think it generally comes down to the issue that movie companies want to charge more in Europe as most companies do for most other things, but that would make the service prohibitively high for for the consumer such that companies like Netflix would get zero profits from it as they'd have to pay it all to the media companies, or the cost would have to be so high the consumer simply wouldn't pay for it and it'd flop. Historically these companies have also released films later in places like Europe than the US, sometimes films come out as much as 6 to 12 months in Europe after they do in the US and companies like Netflix generally wont want to deal with this either, particularly when there's no logical reason for it in this day and age.

Stream Netflix through PS3 Right NOW! (1)

Dhalmo (1423035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29882381)

This is not a new capability. I've been able to get Netflix streaming to my PS3 using a upnp server (MeidaMall PlayOn) running on my PC. Not only does it stream Netflix, it streams Adultswim, Cartoon Network, YouTube, HGTV, NBA, NFL, Hulu, Spike and many internationl channels. It even streams Pron sites like YouPron and RedTube. This has been out for two years so this is not a new capability. Additionally, I've been able to run all of these web streamers through the Ubuntu install on my OtherOS boot on PS3, including Divx. No big deal and I won't be using a disc just to watch a low quality stream.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>