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!

Redbox Set To Compete With Netflix On Video Streaming

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-cross-the-streams dept.

Media 119

First time accepted submitter roc97007 writes "Looks like Netflix may be getting some much needed competition in the video streaming market. From the article: 'Later this month, Redbox will offer an unlimited streaming-video plan that includes movies from Warner Bros. and pay TV channel Epix, along with four nights of physical DVD rentals, for $8 a month, or $9 a month if customers want Blu-ray discs. The offering is a direct attack on Netflix Inc. and is priced even lower than the $10-a-month DVD and streaming plan that Netflix abandoned a year ago. The lowest price plan from Netflix that combines DVDs-by-mail and streaming is now $16 a month.'"

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

frosty piss to compete with your mouth (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267157)

frosty piss wins!

Linux? (5, Insightful)

Dizzer (251533) | about 2 years ago | (#42267183)

But will it run on Linux?

Re:Linux? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267237)

And now that Netflix under Wine works [compholio.com] , we might have two options!

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42273317)

Netflix under wine is a kludge and fragile. Its hardly worth any excitement. Beyond that, if they are purposely creating a solution which is openly hostile to Linux, fuck'm. They don't need my business.

Re:Linux? (2)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 2 years ago | (#42268231)

After looking through their Job Listings [ultipro.com] , I didn't see a single engineer/developer job that mentioned a preference for a *nix background -- while my eyes did gaze upon words relating to that Micro$oft $cum -- our mortal enemies. Based on this, I think we are at a lost my comrade.

However, there is still hope! A new hope? From this huffingtonpost article [huffingtonpost.com] : "Epix CEO Mark Greenberg said the expansion onto Redbox will help grow its customer base since Redbox's customers tend to be younger than its current subscribers." Let's just hope the younger crowd yearns for Linux.

Based on this cnn article [cnn.com] , this is what will be supported in the beginning: "At launch, Redbox Instant will be available through traditional web browsers, tablets and phones that run on Apple's iOS or Google's Android, as well as a few Blu-ray players and smart TVs." So it will be available on Linux (ARM), just not desktop Linux -- the one we love. I imagine this will be like Hulu. Hopefully, they use HTML 5 and not Flash.

I'm tempted to email Redbox directly...

Re:Linux? (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 2 years ago | (#42269205)

> "At launch, Redbox Instant will be available through traditional web browsers"

What could be more "traditional" than a web browser running on Linux? Linux/Unix has been "browsing" the web for as long as there have been web browsers. And most of the "web" is powered by Linux.

Really, Flash might be a PITA, but if they do go that route for "traditional" web browsers, it could mean instant access on Linux. I like Netflix, but I like discs too, and when they split the two plans apart, DOUBLING the total price from what it was a year prior, I dropped streaming.

Some additional competition in this space would be great (let's not forget Amazon Prime video...)

Only mainstream blockbusters? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#42267279)

While the price and features of the Redbox service are similar to what's offered by Netflix, its library is smaller and focused mainly on the most popular Hollywood fare, which Strickland says are the movies that "really matter in the marketplace."

Well, that pretty much rules out my tastes, then. No thanks.

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (5, Interesting)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#42267347)

While the price and features of the Redbox service are similar to what's offered by Netflix, its library is smaller and focused mainly on the most popular Hollywood fare, which Strickland says are the movies that "really matter in the marketplace."

Well, that pretty much rules out my tastes, then. No thanks.

Agreed. I joined Netflix several years ago because of all of the things they rented that I couldn't get at the local rental places.

Agreed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267649)

Once Amazon streaming gets its prices down to a reasonable buck-a-stream, I will probably use that exclusively.

Until then, I basically don't stream. I'm not interested in watching often enough to justify eight bucks a month, even for a complete library. And four bucks per stream is just stupid.

Re:Agreed. (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#42268071)

What do you mean? I got streaming on Amazon for a $20 Amazon Prime student account (after a free year). And if you pay the $79 for Amazon Prime you get free streaming and free 2 day shipping for a year. That's less than $8 a month.

Re:Agreed. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269359)

Have you tried to use this feature? Only a very tiny fraction of Amazon's videos are eligible for free streaming under the Amazon Prime plan. Most of them make you pay extra, the same price as everyone else. Only very old stuff is maybe free.

Re:Agreed. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#42269563)

That and you can't limit your searches to free items. You either have to browse the entire free library, or do a search and filter through all of the pay per play videos to find out if anything is free.

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42267917)

Can we get a -1 hipster mod?

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268605)

I love how easy Redbox is, but I rarely use it.

I'm probably as bugged by people who are "too cool" for something as you are, but I regularly can't find any movie I want to see with Redbox, because they only carry lame blockbuster movies. All the science fiction is really just alien horror or shoot 'em ups. Then there's some chick flicks and a bunch of teenage fart joke movies. Nothing I want to see. It's not that I'm a hipster. I'm just not the mainstream moron who buys lottery tickets and watches reality TV.

Every time I find a movie I want to see, it's too popular for Netflix streaming and too unpopular for Redbox. Best I can tell, I'd have to buy them from Amazon to get them legally.

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42268119)

Well, that pretty much rules out my tastes, then. No thanks.

Indeed.

Even with Netflix, as far as streaming over the Intertubes, you're pretty much stuck with mainstream stuff. If you want any of the niche stuff, you're still stuck with ordering the DVD...

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268333)

How about the games? Redbox has those too.

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about 2 years ago | (#42269231)

Same here, I'll pay more than ten bucks a month here in America for Dr. Who, Top Gear, Ground Force, and all the old American TV series shows, but I wouldn't want to crap on a plate and give it to Redbox unless they gave me money to watch the current hollywood movies.

This isn't competition, it's another "OMG PIRATES" feint for when this business venture hits the atmosphere and turns into a flaming ball of idiocy.

Re:Only mainstream blockbusters? (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | about 2 years ago | (#42271695)

I like Netflix for all the series they have. I mean a pack of Macgyver or A-team DVDs with set you back 15 dollars or more new for one season. With Netflix you get all seasons for 8 dollars a month.

Hardly competition at least for now (4, Informative)

mcl630 (1839996) | about 2 years ago | (#42267331)

Netflix streaming: 60,000 titles (movies and tv shows); lots of Blu-ray players, TVs, and all the major game consoles have Netflix apps
Redbox streaming: 5500 titles (movies only); a few Blu-ray players and TVs will have support, no game consoles for the time being

Redbox DVD/Blu-ray: 4 nights per month
Netflix DVD/Blu-ray: Unlimited

I'm sure Redbox's library and device support will expand over time, but they have a long way to go to be a real competitor to Netflix. They don't help themselves by excluding TV shows and starting out being invitation only.

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (2)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 2 years ago | (#42267445)

Meh. Unlimited DVDs from Netflix always averaged about 4 a month for me anyways.

I canceled Netflix (only streaming plan) at the end of the summer after having it for years. It felt like I'd gone through all the 5 and 4 star movies I wanted to see. And Netflix didn't appear to be getting much new streaming content I cared about. And the 3 star movies that made up my queue felt more like a chore to go through than entertainment. I've never tried Redbox but have seen the boxes at many convenient locations. I'll probably give this a try and catch up on recent movies I've missed.

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (1)

Adriax (746043) | about 2 years ago | (#42267963)

As I read it, it's 4 nights a month not 4 movies for as long as you want a month.

Many Locations but fewer options (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42268591)

I've never tried Redbox but have seen the boxes at many convenient locations.

And when you exhaust the six movies the RedBox unit has that you want to see?

Also enjoy the return of the thrill from video store days when the physical location you find a RedBox at is out of all the five/four star movies, and has only the three star movies in stock...

I'm going to subscribe just for the access to streaming newer movies, but I have little reason to think the physical units will be of any use to me more than a few times a year.

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (3, Insightful)

thereitis (2355426) | about 2 years ago | (#42270771)

For me, the biggest problem with Netflix is their search/filtering. I want to be able to say:
  • I never want to see this movie again in the catalog
  • I don't want to see movies I've already watched in the catalog
  • I never want to see this genre in the catalog
  • I only want to see movies with 3 or more stars in the catalog

Gmail and Facebook were invitation only (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42267497)

Redbox streaming: [...] no game consoles for the time being

Only because you aren't willing to consider a small-form-factor, low-noise PC as the fourth console.

They don't help themselves by excluding TV shows

Did Netflix launch with TV shows? Perhaps the copyright owners in TV shows will become more willing to license them to Redbox once Redbox gains more experience.

and starting out being invitation only.

Gmail and Pinterest started out invitation only while they scaled up. Facebook started out invitation only, where all college students were invited, but anyone who graduated in or before about 2004 was out of luck. Advogato is still invitation only; as far as I can tell, you need commit privileges on a high-profile free software project to get certified.

Yes, Netflix launched with TV shows (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42268649)

Did Netflix launch with TV shows?

Yes. Both when it was disc only, and also when streaming started. In fact there were a lot more TV shows than movies (and there still are).

The depth of the TV selection is why I would never drop Netflix.

Re:Gmail and Facebook were invitation only (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | about 2 years ago | (#42269261)

Redbox streaming: [...] no game consoles for the time being

Only because you aren't willing to consider a small-form-factor, low-noise PC as the fourth console.

Actually, I do have an HTPC. Most people do not, and aren't going to get one just for Redbox streaming.

Re:Gmail and Facebook were invitation only (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42271885)

What combination of killer apps would make an HTPC more palatable to the public?

Re:Gmail and Facebook were invitation only (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42269317)

Only because you aren't willing to consider a small-form-factor, low-noise PC as the fourth console.

Why build that thing when I got all of these ready made devices that do Netflix?

Meh.. that's not a serious option.

Re:Gmail and Facebook were invitation only (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | about 2 years ago | (#42269355)

They don't help themselves by excluding TV shows

Did Netflix launch with TV shows? Perhaps the copyright owners in TV shows will become more willing to license them to Redbox once Redbox gains more experience.

and starting out being invitation only.

Gmail and Pinterest started out invitation only while they scaled up. Facebook started out invitation only, where all college students were invited, but anyone who graduated in or before about 2004 was out of luck. Advogato is still invitation only; as far as I can tell, you need commit privileges on a high-profile free software project to get certified.

Oops, I meant to respond to these also.

TFA makes it sound like Redbox was unwilling to license TV shows from the content owners, not the other way around.

As for Gmail and Facebook, that's irrelevent. They were not paid services trying to take customers from an established paid service. They could take as long as they wanted to to scale up. Redbox needs to move quicker than that, or they'll be written off in a hurry, and never get the additional content deals and subscriber base to truly compete with Netflix (or Amazon for that matter).

The summary (but not so much the TFA) implies that Redbox is going be an instant threat to Netflix simply due to its lower price. The point of my original post is that they've got a lot of work to do to truly compete with Netflix, and being invite-only for now further weakens the threat.

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (1)

idontusenumbers (1367883) | about 2 years ago | (#42267623)

Redbox is including the 4 nights (of DVD, no mention of Blu-ray) with the subscription fee, where Netflix charges another $7.99 (DVD) or $9.99 (Blu-ray).

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (1)

glassware (195317) | about 2 years ago | (#42267859)

Netflix streaming: 60,000 titles

54,328 of which are knock-off movies with titles and cover images suspiciously close to those of Pixar and Dreamworks theatrical releases.

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42268795)

...what?

Hardly competition at all! (2, Interesting)

wwalker (159341) | about 2 years ago | (#42268075)

Wake me up when they start getting anywhere near 1% of the stuff available as torrents...

Re:Hardly competition at least for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268867)

I'll take quality over quantity. I'd be ok with 200 streaming movies if they were movies I want to watch. I know everyone's taste varies but I struggle to find 1 or 2 things a month to watch on Netflix. My recommended list is loaded with mockbusters which lowers my respect for Netflix for even carrying that crap.

Also hopefully redbox has a better UI. Here's to hoping though.

To get the real RedBox DVD experience (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42269287)

all streaming online videos will be "scratched" and won't play more than three-quarters of the movie. All "scratches" will be strategically placed near the most intense parts of the movie.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267355)

How is this any competition for Netflix? Redbox will have less than 10% of the content Netflix has and you only save 1 dollar? Their service should be priced more like $2 a month considering the dearth of content.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267769)

8-16 = more than A FUCKING DOLLAR, idiot

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267987)

actually, 8-16 is negative 8, which is LESS than 1, idiot.

Re:Huh? (1)

Adriax (746043) | about 2 years ago | (#42268041)

Streaming plus 4 nights of rentals. Wonder how much you'd end up paying to keep your physical dvd for 2 weeks+ like you can with netflix?

Easy to beat Netflix... (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42267361)

It would be easy to beat Netflix, just offer nearly everything possible to be available for online streaming. And don't just have one season of a show, have all of them. And carry even the most obscure shows and movies.

It would be awesome if Netflix was an online library of movies and TV shows, nearly everything produced in the past 100 years. Unfortunately it seems it is quite far from that goal and Redbox doesn't seem to be much of a competitor at this point.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42267411)

I am reasonably sure Netflix would do exactly this - if the studios would let them.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#42267515)

I am sure the studios would let them, if netflix payed them enough.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42267571)

The problem with the studios is that, frequently, their version of "enough" is "Tip consumer upside down and shake vigorously."

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268409)

It's sad the studios don't realize they face a Hobson's choice. Your shit is going online and that's the way it is.

Now, what they can control is if they choose to be paid for it. The price, however, isn't particularly negotiable. It's either cheaper than the pain of pirating, or it isn't. Netflix happens to have a sweet pricing point where I'd rather pay for it than put in the time and effort. Good on them for realizing this.

As it stands, studios have chosen door 3 which is to sell plastic to the dozen slashdotters that still think piracy is theft and sue every billionth person they find pirating. Oh well, they'll be out of business soon enough, and as I said, their shit is going online and I'll be enjoying it paid or unpaid.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#42272517)

At least there are some who decide to sell plastic. There are other studios who don't sell DVDs of their shows and don't offer them on Netflix (or any other streaming service). In this case, selling streaming rights to Netflix is found money. The content isn't earning money in anything other way (and may be available online via pirates anyway) so why not let Netflix stream it legally and generate some revenue (even if it isn't much)?

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269371)

The studies demand way too much money. Subscription fees would go up to $100/mo, not $8/mo.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42270175)

The studies demand way too much money. Subscription fees would go up to $100/mo, not $8/mo.

I dont know if $100/mo is accurate, but I do know that if Netflix offered "nearly every movie ever made" for 24/7 on-demand streaming, that I would probably give them $100/mo for the service.

Obviously there will be some content that they just wouldn't be able to get at any price, but there are times when I am looking for a specific movie, and currently by me estimation Netflix streaming has fewer than 33% of the movies that I type into their search box.

In a recent slashdot story I showed that of the earliest 20 entries on wikipedia's list of dystopian movies, thats Netflix only offered 4 of them (a dismal 20%.) If they turned the experience around on its head, if 80% of the time when I search for a specific movie that its ultimately available immediately for streaming, then that $100 starts looking quite attractive.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (3, Insightful)

TigerPlish (174064) | about 2 years ago | (#42267825)

It would be awesome if Netflix was an online library of movies and TV shows, nearly everything produced in the past 100 years.

I have a feeling the "content owners" would never consent to this. They may put it on some kind of physical media that may or may not last 2 or 3 decades or more, but I have this gut feeling that they'll never put their stuff up for streaming "forever."

I am extremely distrustful of streaming. I don't believe for a second that a movie I like, and I mean really like will be available to stream 10, 20, 30 years after initial release. There's no permanence to streaming.

For that reason I prefer physical. I have many other reasons, but this one's probably the biggest one, right behind picture and sound quality.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42267973)

so the fact that more and more movies and TV shows are available online isn't taken into account for your doom and gloom scenario?

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (2)

TigerPlish (174064) | about 2 years ago | (#42268161)

so the fact that more and more movies and TV shows are available online isn't taken into account for your doom and gloom scenario?

It's not the amount that's available (or not available) that I have misgivings about -- it's how long will it be available for.

Can you really look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that you belive that something in streaming today will be available for streaming 20 years from now? Do you trust the content owners that much? I don't.

Here's another reason to love physical: Pay once, watch many. Subscription models aren't unreasonable, pay a blanket fee, watch what you want. That said, I bet what the studios wish they could get away with is a pay-per-view model, just like real cinemas. That's just my conjecture, mind you -- but that conjecture is based on what they know and love (butts in seats, one ticket one viewing).

The answer is yes (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42268635)

Can you really look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that you belive that something in streaming today will be available for streaming 20 years from now?

Absolutely.

Do you trust the content owners that much?

Don't trust them at all. I do trust they enjoy recurring revenue from the content they already have streaming right now, and can't see them giving that up.

The real trick is to get someone to START streaming. But once they have done so, it's going to be streaming somewhere forever...

Re:The answer is yes (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42269043)

Can you really look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that you belive that something in streaming today will be available for streaming 20 years from now?

Absolutely.

Do you trust the content owners that much?

Don't trust them at all. I do trust they enjoy recurring revenue from the content they already have streaming right now, and can't see them giving that up.

The real trick is to get someone to START streaming. But once they have done so, it's going to be streaming somewhere forever...

really? might want to ask stars about that they pulled their streaming content from netflix. Although it may not be streaming forever, but it will be on the web forever be it torrents usenet ftp, linking sites, or darknet, or shared friend 2 friend

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42268077)

If you there is a movie/TV show that is a must-have, buy it. If you go physical, don't forget to buy an extra player for storage since eventually it will be hard to find one to play those disks. Hopefully the video ports don't change too many times to where you will need a bunch of adapters. With physical or digital, if you want the best, be prepared to keep on having to "upgrade" to higher quality versions at full retail price. While streaming is not going to offer the best picture of the time, I would assume that services will upgrade the base video quality of their collection over time.

Most movies/TV shows are not must-haves that you are going to watch again, and again, and again.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42269097)

No just go with netflix redbox and library dvds/blurays and rip them to you harddrive in as high a quality a file as you can(you can always make the video smaller for portable devices later after all). format may change but you can format shift it now. connectors won't mater any more either as you can just copy it from one drive to another. Optical disks are great but is nothing compared to external hard drives. DRM skeams will come and go but my copy of handbrake vlc and libdvdcss are forever. (best of all open source so if i change processor families/OS later on i can recompile)

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42269919)

We are talking legal ways to obtain content for viewing. Ripping Netflix, Redbox, and libary DVDs/Bluerays is an illegal means to obtain the content.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42268201)

But having streaming options available now of everything simply makes sense. There are a lot of films that I've never watched, I've got no doubt there are some absolutely wonderful TV shows and movies that I've never watched before. However, I'm not going to spend $15 on a DVD of a movie that I hadn't heard of before I walked into the store. I'm certainly not going to pay $45 for that same DVD because it happens to be a movie that is very hard to get a copy of. A combination of having a huge streaming selection and a good prediction algorithm (think Pandora for movies) would be simply revolutionary. Even if the service is discontinued in 15 years, I'd certainly subscribe to it and drop Netflix even if it was a bit more a month.

At the moment Netflix has an expanding but still pathetic library of things available for streaming, and their prediction algorithms, while they aren't terrible, they aren't Pandora for movies.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#42272587)

To be fair: Can you be sure that the DVD or Blu-Ray that you buy today will still work in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Given that DVDs are only 16 years old, we don't really know how they'll hold up in 30 years' time.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42268019)

It would be awesome. And a money maker. Have commercials, pay for a no commercial showing, or have a subscription for all content commercial free.

The media companies could make a fortune. This is a case where over long copyright is biting them in the ass.

Oh, and it would be the studios direct to consumer, not through a 3rd party. AND it would mead direct to consumer without dealing with broadcast issues and cable companies.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268421)

You're clueless if you think it's Netflix that's stopping this from happening.
Nothing, absolutely nothing is stopping Netflix from hosting every show ever recorded other than copyright. Most content owners aren't interested in changing their buisness models so their shows aren't available to Netflix on any terms at any price.

Well, that's not completely fair. Infrastructure has something to do with it too. If netflix were to suddenly have all TV shows available it would be so popular the internet would come to a grinding halt.

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269167)

> It would be awesome if Netflix was an online library of movies and TV shows, nearly everything produced in the past 100 years. Unfortunately it seems it is quite far from that goal...

I agree. I do find it a bit odd that Netflix doesn't have the many movies that have since passed into the public domain. There are some rather important movies that are hard to find (excepting rips of over-compressed DVDs on Youtube) and some that are just silly fun (e.g., the burly, shirtless man trying to sell the idea of being bitten by a giant spider by wrestling with a stuffed animal, using the subtlety of a 6-tear old playing Power Ranger and the emotiveness of sandstone).

Re:Easy to beat Netflix... (1)

spitzig (73300) | about 2 years ago | (#42269653)

How do you define "easy"? "Offer nearly everything" seems like a pretty big requirement to me.

Much needed competition? (4, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 2 years ago | (#42267401)

Are Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime Video suddenly non-existent?

Re:Much needed competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267439)

Yes.

Re:Much needed competition? (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#42267559)

Last I checked, they do not offer disk for rent.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

Ectospheno (724239) | about 2 years ago | (#42269263)

I stopped purchasing or renting disc based media. Buying a digital copy from Amazon or Google is easier. Watching it on any device I own is also easier. Physical media is just annoying. And no, I'm not worried about Amazon or Google disappearing any time soon. Certainly not before bluerays are obsolete and everyone is buying their collection over again anyway.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267739)

Hulu plus is a laugh! Who wants to pay for shows with ads. That's why i pay for the service. This is why i don't have cable. Other then the new shows the selection is the same as amazon prime or netflix. As for amazon prime it selection is not half bad the fact it comes with free shipping on items it makes it completely worthwhile.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 2 years ago | (#42267883)

Hulu Plus has commercials, so it is not competition (IMHO).

I am a Netflix DVD only customer, but signed up for Amazon Prime when I got a deal for $20 off the regular Prime rate.. Largely to use the streaming (but I haven't used it yet, will likely use it over my extra long Xmas vacation).

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#42268279)

Are Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime Video suddenly non-existent?

Hulu Plus likes to double-dip. They make you pay a subscription and at the same time they keep on increasing their number of commercials slowly but surely (which you must watch even if you're a paid subscriber). Soon, they'll have more commercials than the TV networks themselves.

Amazon Prime, I do not like their video selection. May be, I'd like them more if I had young kids, but right now I don't.

This isn't to say that I'm excited about RedBox entering this market. RedBox (their non-streaming service at least) seems to only have bargain-priced movies, the ones that most of us have already seen, or that were not that good to begin with. So I doubt that their streaming service will be an upgrade.

Right now, I'm so fed up with Hollywood, I'm mostly watching Korean Dramas on Viki.com [viki.com] . Occasionally, I go back to Netflix and Hulu for some shows, but I'm much less dependent on them. I suspect that once Viki becomes over-commercialized, like Hulu is right now, I'll probably leave them as well and look for a new source of streaming movies.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42268865)

Hulu Plus is a joke, and Amazon Prime doesn't have a terribly good selection.

Not sure how much better RedBox is going to be but I sincerely hope someone can give Netflix a run for their money.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

daemonenwind (178848) | about 2 years ago | (#42269447)

Hulu plus is good for being a replacement DVR for network TV. Plus reruns. That's about it.

Amazon Prime, though, is your key to cutting the cable. You see, most of what's on any channel is crap. But if there's one or two shows keeping you on cable (such as Mad Men), then you can buy the current season on Amazon and get the stream the day after it airs for the first time on AMC. This lets you be current on those one or two shows keeping you on the cable. Plus, actually streaming recent stuff.

Re:Much needed competition? (2)

markdavis (642305) | about 2 years ago | (#42269285)

Hulu Plus doesn't count as competition, in my book, at all. PAYING for a streaming service to have programs interrupted by unskippable advertising is just plain crazy. It is bad enough with Cable TV, but at least my TiVo gives me full control.

They could not PAY me to force me to watch stuff I don't want to watch. It is about as hostile of a model I can think of at the moment.

Re:Much needed competition? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#42270917)

Hi America,

What's Hulu?

Regards
Rest of World

Redbox started at -1 for me. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 2 years ago | (#42267481)

When I first saw a Redbox kiosk, my thought was that by going with bright red they were trying to emulate Netflix's red envelopes.

I loathe cheap knock offs, and I'm surprised they weren't sued over 'trade dress' by Netflix.

Re:Redbox started at -1 for me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267807)

There is a vast gulf between "same dominant color" and "cheap knock off". Redbox has a very different distribution method than Netflix. Your reasoning is superficial.

Re:Redbox started at -1 for me. (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42267809)

yes, cause no one else in the history of the world has used red product containers

besides, I have never personally seen a redbox envelope in my entire life, by your logic Netflix should be sued by Civic Video

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Video [wikipedia.org]

God I hate cheap ripoffs, fuck netflix

Re:Redbox started at -1 for me. (2)

hack slash (1064002) | about 2 years ago | (#42268007)

Somebody's going to have to invent some new colours soon before all the major corporations own the current ones...

Re:Redbox started at -1 for me. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42269171)

new colors? If you count each rgb hex code as a unique colors and each competitor get a single corporate color then there would have to be 16,777,216 competitors before you need more. But i have met people that thought that netflix owned redbox simply because of the colors were the same.

Re:Redbox started at -1 for me. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#42269583)

Brick red is a very common color.

Way more of a complement than competition (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42267779)

I'll subscribe to both. That way I get new movie streaming from RedBox, older content and some TV from Netflix, and discs from both (Netflix I think has a wider range of discs that will not be streamed).

Don't forget that Disney will only stream from Netflix starting in 2014 I believe... that is quite a draw no matter what. Disney was a major factor in the success of BluRay over HD-DVD also.

I Will Try It (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42267899)

I already have a Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Amazon Prime subscription but I will try this when I get a chance. Personally, I wish I could just subscribe to one service but no one seems to be willing to offer everything in one place. If I could get unlimited play, no commercials, at least two simultaneous plays, virtually any movie/TV show, new releases/episodes being added within 6 months of release, at least Netflix/Hulu quality streams, a good rating/suggestion system, and usability on a wide range of devices/OSes. I would gladly pay $30 - $50 a month. I would like an offline mode too but that would just be a nice extra. I am curious. What would everyone else here be willing to pay for those features.

Re:I Will Try It (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#42268259)

I'd be willing to pay about the same, if they offered new TV shows as they came out. Even if the TV shows still had commercials for the first 6 months after release, I'd still put up with it, because the only other legal option is cable, and they have commercials anyway.

We got them beat in Canada (4, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#42267901)

we just walk 10 km in the snow to the DVD store.

Re:We got them beat in Canada (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42268105)

Uphill both ways? Or are you going to add that when telling your future grandkids?

Re:We got them beat in Canada (2)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#42268267)

Actually I'll tell you a true story. In the late 80's when I lived in the interior of BC (Kamloops) me and my buddy use to walk probably close to 5 km each way down and up hill from Aberdeen area to Overwaitea which is a large grocery store chain to rent Sega Genesis games on his moms account.

This was when they were just finishing the Coquihalla HWY so we walked on the unpaved way. Kamloops use to get some nasty winters and there was lots of snow threading and frozen feet as we though we were cool walking in running shoes.

Whats sad that 24 year later getting your entertainment is not much different here as the online streaming services are almost non existent.

Here's our route :P

http://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=Hugh+Allan+Dr&daddr=50.6511139,-120.3686384+to:Columbia+St+W&hl=en&ll=50.65931,-120.360117&spn=0.01986,0.055747&sll=50.659337,-120.360074&sspn=0.01986,0.055747&geocode=FYjWBAMdml3T-A%3BFenfBAMdAlLT-CkLrr04cix-UzGusDWyI0KqgQ%3BFZ4UBQMdyIvT-A&t=h&gl=ca&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=15&via=1&z=15 [google.ca]

Re:We got them beat in Canada (1)

Binestar (28861) | about 2 years ago | (#42272095)

Sadly, I know someone who *DID* walk uphill to and from school. Split custody with parents. His mother lived downhill from the school, his father uphill. In the morning, he would walk from his mother's house to the school, uphill. In the afternoon his mother worked, so he would walk home to his father's house, uphill from school. His mother would pick him up at his father's house and bring him home at night. He always had shoes though =)

Not to be confused with Redtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42267975)

*sheepish grin*

Still streaming (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#42268085)

I won't use a service of this type until they offers a true non-compressed 1080p download like torrents does. I don't mind paying, but for a lesser quality? Forget it.

Re:Still streaming (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42268903)

So if they don't stream you something in unreasonable quality (seriously doubt it'll even be possible to stream full 1080p uncompressed video for a long time to come), you'll just take it for free?

Don't fool yourself; you're not even on their radar for target audience.

Re:Still streaming (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42268945)

You think that torrent isnt compressed?

You do realize that an uncompressed 1920x1080x32bppx30fps video is about 1.8 terabytes, right?

Re:Still streaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269411)

Lossless compression FTW.

Who will win? (1)

R4wBon3 (952203) | about 2 years ago | (#42268187)

Netflix = Blockbuster, Redbox = Hollywood Video (and/or regional competition to Blockbuster) Who will win? Content. Comcast + NBC + Yahoo + ESPN... Violate the first rule of Usenet before its too late to get your regurgitated 'high definition' content of movies and series concepts already produced. Just Sayin'...

Re:Who will win? (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 years ago | (#42269115)

Violate the first rule of Usenet before its too late to get your regurgitated 'high definition' content of movies and series concepts already produced.

With nzbmatrix [sickbeard.com] and several other nzb indexes being taken down lately, it looks like the various *AAs are taking an active interest in usenet as well. I look for a lot more of these to go private.

Get rid of the monthly charge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42268993)

Let me stream the movie for the cost of the kiosk rental. No way I go through 8 movies a month. 1 a week at most. I would do it if I could stream it for a buck.

Im just sticking with netflix. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269169)

I mean sure amazon, redbox and all of these choices are nice and all but I just want to stay with netflix.

I dont like so many streaming services because with so many choices the contract deals get spread out and next thing you know I have to subscribe to multiple streaming services in order to have a wide variety. Id rather just stick with one and support it so it gets the most customers and thereby getting the biggest numbers that attract the most exclusive deals so I can pay for one service and have everything I want on it.

It is inevitable, but I don't like it. (1)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | about 2 years ago | (#42269399)

"Looks like Netflix may be getting some much needed competition in the video streaming market. . ."

No.

Sorry, let me explain - in this case competition is not a good thing. I am fairly certain both services will want exclusivity of distribution (at least for a certain time frame), much in the same way premium pay cable channels want exclusivity. This is not a good thing - it will lead to a dozen different services. It is not just the need to pay $10-$20 a month to different services, it is having to maintain the billings to all those services and secure logins.

Streaming internet video is one of the few places I think a proliferation of businesses would be harmful. I may be wrong, and this may be a better solution - but I only see a more costly and more complex system for the consumer.

Re:It is inevitable, but I don't like it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42270195)

I'm not sure I agree, but the real solution is to let anybody stream their physical copies. 1 copy=1 stream. That way you could get even the obscure stuff that never made it to DVD. Netflix would probably still have lower prices, but anybody could open up a streaming service. The studios might clamp down on the supply of physical media, but they'd have to increase cost and lower revenue to do so.

But then there is thing called the DMCA...

red tube dot com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42269845)

thats redtube dot com everyone. type it into your browser for a free trial month!

The Android/Xbox app I am waiting for... (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | about 2 years ago | (#42272433)

I would love to have an app on my phone and my xbox for Archive.org. I love watching some of the old movies there, as well as a lot of the cheesy old "coronet" films (the 40's and 50's videos like Lunchroom Manners [archive.org] ). They're unbelievably entertaining for me, I don't know why.

"much needed" competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42272901)

Thanks, Fox News.

need more coffee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42273045)

I first read the headline as: Robot Sex to Compete with Netflix on video streaming.

Then I thought are people really gonna watch robots have sex?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?