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 Expanding Streaming Service to The UK and Ireland

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the turns-out-the-uk-has-its-own-internet dept.

The Internet 78

bdking writes "Netflix says it will begin offering streaming video services to customers in the United Kingdom and Ireland early next year. (No DVDs by mail, though. That's so 'Oughts.') The company launched services last month in 43 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean."

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

Huh? (1)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828384)

They want to expand into bankrupt Ireland but still don't have any plans to open up in Australia? FFS.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828402)

I suspect available bandwidth to homes and the licensing of content are probably greater barriers than the credit worthiness of the government. Any problems with the former?

Re:Huh? (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828482)

Doesn't Australia have bandwidth caps worthy of a fascist state?

Re:Huh? (1)

bigg_nate (769185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828544)

It's only one data point, but my bandwidth cap for DSL in Sydney was 250 GB/month, vs 150 in the States.

Yuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828560)

What company stuck you with a 150GB/mo cap? Comcast allots 250GB, I think.

Re:Yuck (1)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828590)

I have enough trouble finding legit content (and spare time) to use up 150GB, much less 250GB. You Americans are spoilt. :)

Video games in the tens of gigabytes (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829690)

I have enough trouble finding legit content (and spare time) to use up 150GB

That depends on how many video games you plan to buy on the next generation console that is rumored not to support optical discs. Xbox 360 games are already up to 20 GB across three discs, and PS3 games have hit 50 GB.

Re:Yuck (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830630)

I have enough trouble finding legit content (and spare time) to use up 150GB, much less 250GB. You Americans are spoilt. :)

A man can never have too many Linux ISOs, as I keep telling the wife.

Re:Yuck (1)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838416)

Yes well, assuming you're not using "Linux ISOs" as a metaphor for something else, my ISP hosts them locally anyway (official mirror), which makes it extremely fast to obtain them and also means they're not counted towards the quota.

Re:Yuck (1)

bigg_nate (769185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830282)

AT&T DSL [arstechnica.com]

Re:Huh? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830708)

I'm not aware of any ISPs in the US that have a cap of only 150GB/month. And the ISP I have has no cap at all at present.

Re:Huh? (1)

bigg_nate (769185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830760)

RTFThread :) I already named the ISP (AT&T DSL), and provided a link.

Re:Huh? (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829034)

Only for international traffic, IIRC (I'm not Australian). Australia's choke point is its fibre links to the rest of the world. If you host within Australia (by arrangement with the ISPs I believe), then you can get round the caps.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828694)

Its licensing GB and Ireland are likely to be dealt with as the same region.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828768)

well, they are. Ire and Eng are synonyms.

Re:Huh? (2)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830646)

well, they are. Ire and Eng are synonyms.

I have been to several places in London (never mind Ireland) whee saying that would get you a good kicking.

Re:Huh? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37835418)

Indeed. I am not violent man but I want to kick that ignorant AC!

Re:Huh? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828980)

I suspect that the latter issue (licensing) is going to be a problem for anyone who wants to move in because of the 800lb gorilla in the form of Telstra and specifically BigPond Movies.
They have big deals with content producers (some of which may be exclusive deals) plus you can watch the content on your TV if you have a Telstra set-top-box (T-Box) or a compatible TV (some LG and Samsung models from the look of it). Plus if you are with BigPond for internet you get the movies quota free.

The biggest problem for netflix would be getting content deals without bumping into exclusivity deals that content producers have done with BigPond and other streaming services, with Foxtel/Austar (Pay TV) or with the free-to-air networks.

Re:Huh? (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830432)

They don't seem to try too hard to license "new" content anyway. Here's what Netflix for Argentina looks like: http://i.imgur.com/Sxx2B.jpg [imgur.com]

The hunt for red october? REALLY?

No wonder no one I know is subscribing. I told many of my friends about that but when netflix finally got here, it was a disappointment. I have some friends in Chile who had the same feeling.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828650)

Ireland has two consecutive quarters of solid growth. In fact, while I can't be bothered to look it up, I think they were the EU nation whose economy grew the most in the last two quarters.

Re:Huh? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828908)

They want to expand into Britain. You get Ireland more or less for free. A country with the same standards, the same language (at least as far as Movies are concerned - no films are dubbed or subbed into Irish), and has a small population so a lot of companies lump the two countries together for convenience of licensing purposes

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37835356)

Do you want them to bankrupt Australia too?

It is effing Internet streaming thingy, why can't some Australian startup do it instead of waiting for a US company to come in?

I use worldwide roaming (1)

khoonirobo (1316521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828392)

http://unblock-us.com/ [unblock-us.com]

I understand that there are copyright laws involved which make distribution country specific. But seriously, this is the 21st century, get your laws in order. Something designed to work in the 19th century just no longer cuts it.

Re:I use worldwide roaming (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828744)

Screw paying to get around geographic IP blockades.
It's torrents for breakfast, lunch and dinner, until everyone gets with the program. If they never get with the program, then it's torrents forever.

Re:I use worldwide roaming (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828964)

Screw paying to get around geographic IP blockades.
It's torrents for breakfast, lunch and dinner, until everyone gets with the program. If they never get with the program, then it's torrents forever.

Amen brother.
Instead of progressing forward and using "the digital" to its full extent we're going backwards.
Take for instance books : physical books I can buy anywhere and have them shipped to my country. Try making the same thing with e-books. On amazon.uk some e-books are available only to uk customers. Really ? Who the fuck comes up with this shit ?
Torrents forever, not only for video but for books and anything else thats ip locked.

Re:I use worldwide roaming (3, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829186)

Couldn't agree more!

I live in Denmark and I don't mind paying for music, tv-series and movies. My 6.000+ CDs and 3.000+ DVDs and blu-rays should testify to that. But I absolutely refuse to wait for someone to 'buy rights' or whatever here in my country before I can watch new stuff. If I can't get it legally, I'll have to get it illegally. I have the money in my hand. I want to pay for it. But I can't. Get with the program! - Put your stuff up for sale before someone steals it and gives it away for free!

There's countless of VPN services that basically live on two stupidities:

- Geo-discrimination. If you live the wrong place, there's something you'll have to wait for (maybe forever), that others have already got.
- Suing your customers. The copyright owners spend a lot of effort tracking down 'violators' of their rights and sue them.

VPN allows you to both hide and pretend you're somewhere that you're not.

Re:I use worldwide roaming (0)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830738)

If I can't get it legally, I'll have to get it illegally

I'd have a lot more sympathy with statements like this if you were talking about gaining access to medical textbooks rather than Transformers 5.

Re:I use worldwide roaming (2)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829384)

"Who the fuck comes up with this shit ?"

Copyright fees collection agencies. Here, I just said it.

In short, they want huge amount of money from these services. If Netflix can't get a profit in mentioned country/region due of these fees, they won't go there.

In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828396)

Netflix lost 800,000 subscribers.

Re:In other news (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828464)

Netflix lost 800,000 subscribers.

Were they profitable subscribers? Or subscribers who were "overusing" the system from the perspective of Netflix's expected usage patterns? I'm not suggesting these customers did anything wrong, Netflix may very well have had naive models and expectations.

I've had friends with various small businesses and they all learned rather quickly to tell some potential customers: I am sorry but I don't think we will be able to help you. You can make a profit, or you can meet everyone's needs, but you probably can't do both.

Re:In other news (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828558)

Netflix lost 800,000 subscribers.

Were they profitable subscribers? Or subscribers who were "overusing" the system from the perspective of Netflix's expected usage patterns? I'm not suggesting these customers did anything wrong, Netflix may very well have had naive models and expectations.

I've had friends with various small businesses and they all learned rather quickly to tell some potential customers: I am sorry but I don't think we will be able to help you. You can make a profit, or you can meet everyone's needs, but you probably can't do both.

They lost me, and I was seriously under utilizing their system. I had maybe 1 dvd out every 4 months. I streamed about 4-5 30 minutes episodes of tv a week.

Re:In other news (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828974)

Is that 1 DVD every 4 months really worth $2 a month to you?

But regardless, you could easily be an anomoly. For every customer like you they lost, maybe they lost 10 customers who wee a net cost. Maybe they also gained a few customers who felt the lower price justified joining.

Re:In other news (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37831690)

that one dvd a month ended up costing me an extra $7 a month on top of the price i already paid. I primarily used the download service, and the mail service was just for those few things that were not available to stream. When they split their plans and almost doubled my price torrents because the more attractive alternative.

Re:In other news (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37833548)

So roughly how much was that DVD every 4 months worth to you? Presumably DVD + streaming was worth $9.99. Streaming on its own isn't worth $7.99. So presumably, that DVD rental service was worth more than $2 per month to you.

In other words, sacrificing that DVD rental saves you $2 per month. That was the option that you rejected. How much would you pay for just the DVD rental?

Re:In other news (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37835054)

You make a good point. But I think my main issue is that Netflix was worth more to me when I first subscribed. As I depleted their content it slowly became worth less to me without me actively realizing it. The price change was enough of a shock to the system to make me reevaluate the worth of the entire system. Without the price change they probably could have kept me skating along paying a monthly fee for quite some time, since the price was low enough that I didn't really notice it until it was brought to my attention.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37835084)

He said he was underutilized. Maybe one DVD every for months for $2 per month was probably not worth it to him, but he kept it anyway, because the cost of changing his behavior didn't make switching to something like RedBox worth the savings. I've kept services that were no longer price optimal, because I didn't feel like switching to save a few buck. Then, they increase my price and I drop them as soon as possible. You're oversimplifying.

Re:In other news (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37835352)

But... but... They raised their prices! I.... uh.... DOUBLE!.... uh... I would much rather pay netflix $2 a month for one DVD every few months than drive down the street and pay $1 per movie.

Honestly, this uproar over netflix kind of lets the cat out of the bag about how people view copyright and their entitlement to it all. We've been told all along people torrent because the legal options are too much of a burden. Here, Netflix has done something that actually makes sense. Mailing DVDs around? That is expensive. A lot of people use the streaming only. Rather than raise the price of streaming media to cover the DVD sales, they separated them and allow you to pay for cheaper streaming or cheaper DVDs but both together are more expensive because DVDs are more expensive. But now that they've raised their prices for both DVD and streaming together, that's a good excuse to go back to pirating, instead of supporting Netflix outlaying more cash for better streaming selection everybody wants.

Honestly, grow a damned backbone. If you find the legal way too much of a burden that doesn't mean you have the right to torrent everything, and it is an ineffective way to get what you supposedly want: legal means of accessing content. All you're showing people is there is demand, they just need to try to lock down the piracy. If you had some balls and any kind of will, or weren't just a self-entitled jackwad trying to justify his piracy, you would just not view the content.

The fact is, people can pirate, so they will. They get what they want in the short term. When the companies they are pirating from try to prevent piracy it will backfire, sure, but people will complain louder as this brinksmanship of destroying digital rights and copyrights escalates. The piraters are making their own bed, making the problems they're supposedly righteously fighting. It wouldn't be so bad if people would just say "I wasn't going to buy this anyway, so I torrented it." Instead we get this "Oh, they didn't do what I wanted so I pirated it to teach them a lesson!" No you didn't, you pirated it because you wanted to watch it.

Re:In other news (0)

teaserX (252970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830126)

Netflix lost 800,000 subscribers.

..and their revenues were up 65% for the quarter.
There was no need to raise their prices the way they did.
I got plenty of other options. Fuck em.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37831726)

Their revenues were up, how about their profits? Who cares if you increase revenues by 65% if you increase your costs by the same amount or more?

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37833866)

Revenue is up, but so are costs. Revenue =/= Profit.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840400)

Go check out their stock price or the SEC filings, or th CEO's statements of mea culpa. Your suggestion that Netflix did this on purpose disregards Hanlon's Razor.

Re:In other news (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828682)

Have they checked under the sofa cushions?

Re:In other news (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828952)

And kept 25 million, some of whom are paying more, others are costing the company less.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37830054)

Can't you read? They lost more than 800k in customers in one month, they also dramatically lost revenue well beyond that from pissed of ex-customers. From being cash rich, they're now projected 2 quarters of running at loses, and that's before more customers quit after this month's bill shock, and large investors selling stock to get out of the business, and before the next round of lost content from their rather limited streaming library, and no doubt the next round if increased costs for what they are keeping.

Netflix needs a trump card very soon, because right now, it's a sinking rudderless ship. Quite an achievement considering how woeful their direct competition is.

Re:In other news (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830418)

I can read. I never disagreed with what you said.

They managed to keep most of their customers. Their lower price should allow them to expand their customer base a lot more quickly. The 20% reduction in per customer revenue will have had a much bigger impact. This is somewhat mitigated by the customers who actually do pay the extra, and the reduced cost from only having to provide one service to the rest.

Re:In other news (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830794)

That's not accurate, their most recent subscriber numbers were down to 23.8m subscribers. They also lost nearly a million dollars a month worth of revenue, if not more from it. $12m might not be a lot in the grand scheme of things, but right now the competition is heating up and if they're wanting to expand to other countries, they're going to need it, not to mention licensing new content.

You also have to keep in mind that Blockbuster offers the same DVD service that Netflix does, but with the added bonus of games. And if you happen to live near a Blockbuster location you can do in store exchanges as well as by mail.

As far as the streaming business goes, it sucks. Charging $2 for it would probably be fair because the content is just that bad. They have a huge catalog of DVDs, only a fraction of which are available for streaming at any particular time and if you're in to TV shows you'll often times have to get some of the shows via DVD even if the rest are available for streaming.

Re:In other news (1)

TastyCakes (917232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838302)

I think the problem NetFlix is facing isn't obvious to everyone. With the expiry of their Starz license and the general consensus that the licensing deal they gave NetFlix was ridiculously cheap ($25 million a year for access to Sony and Disney movies) and will never happen again, with Starz or any other company.

This article [cnn.com] claims that Netflix's (sic?) licensing fees are going to go from $180 million in 2010 to $2 billion in 2012. It was in the face of this impending tidal-wave that Netflix hiked its prices. Customers may have been shocked, but in hindsight it seems inevitable: this famous article [nytimes.com] from December of last year cites Time Warner's CEO saying exactly the same thing - that NetFlix was only competitive because of its unbelievable deal with Starz and once that deal expired NetFlix was screwed. And he said them becoming a major player in broadcasting was the equivalent of the Albanian army taking over the world - a quote that people immediately jumped on like it was the equivalent of Michael Dell saying Apple should be broken up in 1997. Except that right now it would seem the guy was onto something.

I think NetFlix are/were an innovative and exciting company and I wish them all the best. But I don't know if they're going to be around in 5 or 10 years, for the simple fact that the competition has caught up and can throw much more weight around when it comes to licensing content. At the end of the day, it might turn out that licensing made NetFlix, and will ultimately break it. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe they will be able to continue to out-innovate the competition, or sign some sweet-heart content deal that saves them. But I don't think I'll be investing in NetFlix at the moment.

Thats nice for them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828432)

Don't think I'll be taking them up though.

faggot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828506)

Hey man you got a spare fag?

Fix the existing problems first (0)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828576)

They really need to fix their service first... Anyone know how to (actually) remove a watched movie from your instant queue on firefox 7? Seems even in safe mode, once a movie is added it can't be removed (even by clicking 'Remove')... 90 movies in queue and growing! (40+ watched.. Getting harder to find movies since you can't number rank instant watch anymore)

Re:Fix the existing problems first (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829462)

Works fine on FF7 here. Seems like the problem is you.

Re:Fix the existing problems first (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37831902)

Heck, they broke AV sync recently. Some software upgrade boned things on Android (I managed to find an old package uploaded to a forum thread on this issue). FFS, I saw it on Roku last night.

Really, how does this escape testing?

Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

boethius78 (1002975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828582)

Bandwidth, at least where I live (near Oxford), isn't fast enough to stream video - the last time I tried to watch streaming video, I got two seconds of video, five seconds buffering, two seconds video, rinse, repeat. LoveFilm have been advertising quite heavily recently - they've been stressing the fact that you can either download or get DVDs in the post. Seems like a no-brainer to me...

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828624)

"Bandwidth.... isn't fast enough"

OK you win the prize for most garbled jargon...

Bandwidth is the frequency window in which your choice of last-mile delivery technology works.

Data rate is the signalling "speed" auch as modem sync.

Throughput is the real-world "speed" after overheads.

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37830206)

go suck a dick, aspie

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828634)

I'm with LoveFilm at the moment. It's a pretty good service. I usually get a new BlueRay around 3 days after mailing the previous one back. The trouble with LoveFilm is their streaming content is rubbish. There are no decent films or series on there. Well OK, there are but they're all ancient. I was hoping that NetFlix would arrive so I could check out their streaming service. Hopefully BT Infinity will arrive in my area at around the same time (no cable here unfortunately).

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828772)

LoveFilm streaming is limited to older / unpopular content though (and their library search is truly awful). Netflix can whup them on that, and it's about time there was some competition.

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

boethius78 (1002975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829762)

Fair enough. Currently, neither of them can deliver content faster than me going out to buy/rent a handful of DVDs...

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828858)

It's not so much of an issue in areas with fibre optic cable service, which inevitably happen to be very heavily populated. If you've got ADSL, you're stuffed, but I think there are enough customers in cabled areas just now for them to launch. (Lovefilm has a very popular streaming service of its own already.)

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37828904)

It's not so much of an issue in areas with fibre optic cable service, which inevitably happen to be very heavily populated. If you've got ADSL, you're stuffed, but I think there are enough customers in cabled areas just now for them to launch. (Lovefilm has a very popular streaming service of its own already.)

FWIW LoveFilm is fine on a reasonably good ADSL connection.

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37832022)

Define 'popular'. 18 out of the last 20 DVDs that I rented from Lovefilm were not available for streaming.

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Chocky2 (99588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828926)

It'll depend on your exchange - if they've got fibre you should be fine, but several exchanges near Oxford have only been upgraded fairly recently, so if you're in the wrong area (particularly one of the more rural areas) then you may be stuck.

The Cowley, Whitney, and Wallingford exchanges should be upgraded in the next couple of months, Thame and Carteton should be done early next year, and Kiddlington's probably more than six months off.

Summertown, Headington, Abingdon, Oxford and Didcot have all already been upgraded. If you're on one of those exchanges then talk to your provider (or switch to Virgin if they cover your area).

Re:Not enough bandwidth for this to work (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37832002)

Change ISPs.

Its probably worse than that.. (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828614)

I have an account I just disabled before the price doubling.. they dont bill you and stop all services. I dont blame them, I blame the copyright holders..but its irrelevant, its more than I want to pay and I will probably eventually kill it.

Re:Its probably worse than that.. (1)

Xeranar (2029624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37832296)

The cost of a full price DVD hovers around $20-22 while nexflix is about $15 for both services. It would take 3 DVDs purchased to equal 4 months of service. Cable is hovering between $60-120 a month. The equivalent costs are so much higher on netflix with the margins lower. So if you are acknowledging the issue is copyright holders why would you still attack your one friend in the fight?

Amazon is only interested in getting customers then driving the price up as netflix was forced to do. The rest of the streamers are pathetic or run in such a way as to be piece meal. Netflix was the best chance for legal streaming to work.

Netcraft confirm Netflix is dead. (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37828944)

No idea what that means really.

DVDs by mail in the UK (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829290)

(No DVDs by mail, though. That's so 'Oughts.')

Yes, and there's well-entrenched incumbents in that market too. Why go into a bruising fight with a company that is already dominating a market when you don't have to? Going streaming-only lets you (try to) end-run around them instead.

Netflix uses DRM (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829304)

So they can feck off :P

Re:Netflix uses DRM (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829436)

Netflix has a streaming-only model, so it's not like you're giving up any capabilities other than using it on a Linux desktop.

With that said, if you refuse to consume any media you can't consume with a Linux desktop, I totally understand. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Enjoy your three movies.

Re:Netflix uses DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37829790)

Thank you for telling me this, I was considering subscribing but I think I'll keep using torrents.

Re:Netflix uses DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37829816)

I use a Linux desktop and I solved this issue with Roku. Streaming to your TV makes for much more comfortable viewing conditions.

Re:Netflix uses DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37830024)

I have just set up a VM running XP to watch streaming netflix.

Re:Netflix uses DRM (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830674)

I have just set up a VM running XP to watch streaming netflix.

I've done this before too. If you use vmware player the performance is fine. It's a bit of a drag to have to load Windows just to play Netflix, though.

Now we just use a Wii. The resolution is crap but my connection peaks out at 1.5Mbps right now so who cares.

Don't get your hopes up... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#37829424)

... they'll probably change their mind next week.

Netflix expands its service countries... (1)

plsenjy (2104800) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830330)

... now if only they could expand their library. :(

'00 (1)

MagicM (85041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37830548)

That's so 'Oughts.'

The term is "the noughties" [wikipedia.org] .

Name The Decade (1)

shambalagoon (714768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37831624)

That's so 'Oughts.'

I prefer the term "Naughties", which I heard from Adam Savage on Mythbusters.

Re:Name The Decade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37831990)

I love that we're now in the "Onesies" too
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?