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 Pursues Cable-TV Deals

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the on-demand dept.

Businesses 93

An anonymous reader writes "Netflix is making a push to make its online video service available as an app on set-top boxes. 'A deal would mark the online video service's first such tie-up with a U.S. cable provider and would come after a similar agreement it recently announced with U.K. cable operator Virgin Media Inc. The talks are in early stages and no deal is imminent, the people cautioned. Netflix and U.S. pay-TV companies are rivals in some key respects. Netflix's subscription video offering is an attractive alternative for some consumers who are frustrated with costly cable bills. And both sides want to be the go-to destination for consumers to find on-demand TV programming.'"

cancel ×

93 comments

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

Um... (4, Insightful)

zippo01 (688802) | about a year ago | (#45118849)

Most people get cable TV from their internet provider (comcast, centrylink, FIOS, etc). If the the provider starts to loose money on the TV end they will just raise the price for internet.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119409)

Yeah, they COULD do that but then cellular companies will kick in, and so will weather balloon wifi and so on... Capitalism works great when there's competition. Raise the price of cable internet? That's fine, there are alternatives.

Re:Um... (2)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about a year ago | (#45119515)

Provided other firms are even allowed to enter the market. One major characteristic of the way the cable and DSL-based internet was that only one or two entrants were even allowed to obtain a business license and the necessary building/installation permits. The politicians got to pocket, both individually and the local government entities, several tons of money. They still are contributing, via your cable/telephone bill. Just those little charges tacked on the end that go to special interests. You really don't need to read the bill that far, just pay it. /sarcasm. No other entrants (competitors), the situation will not behave properly as we all will see when this plays out.

Re:Um... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#45121807)

Exactly. I live in the metro area of a major US city, and my only choices for home internet are ComCast and AT&T, and AT&T only became an option this past year.

Re:Um... (1)

Tanaka (37812) | about a year ago | (#45120251)

Unfortunately, this doesn't always work. Building the infrastructure costs money. Even if you could cover the cost of setting up a rival service with reduced profit margins, you run the risk of the rival service undercutting you. Of course, Google have shown it can be done, but they have a lot of cash to burn.

Re:Um... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45120381)

A single fiber optic can carry more data than all the wifi in a city, and that's not including every strand of fiber that goes to each house. How can wifi compete?

Everyone streaming Netflix will overwhelm any current or currently planned wifi tech for the next decade.

Re:Um... (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45120405)

That's fine, there are alternatives.

In most of the U.S., no there aren't. Most of us have one Cable and one DSL option at the most, and the DSL usually sucks.

Re:Um... (1)

TheQuantumShift (175338) | about a year ago | (#45122267)

I think they'd rather people get Netflix through their box than say a Roku or even the TV itself. At least then they still get their subs.

Turn off cookies. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45118875)

Turn off the TV.
You big fat tubs of lard.

Re:Turn off cookies. (2)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#45119531)

People are mobile now, walking around, getting more exercise. yet still having weight issues, even more than before. I think it's time to drop the old way of thinking, the senseless ideas of sitting on the Couch or Desktop Computer makes you overweight. It's clearly wrong.

Re:Turn off cookies. (2)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#45120205)

You mean to tell me that I can't just pick up the solution to my problems by doing whatever the super hot model on TV tells me? My problems might be unique to me and require my own, tailored solution?

How dare you contradict the super hot model! She told me that for 5 easy payments of $9.99, I could look just like her and if it fails then it obviously isn't that her solution isn't right but that I am doing it wrong and must be lazy...

Re:Turn off cookies. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45121799)

> People are mobile now, walking around,

No, not really.

"Mobile" in this instance means little more than sitting some place besides the living room in front of the living room TV.

It might not even mean that.

Re:Turn off cookies. (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#45122293)

It's more an issue of perspective than anything. It doesn't "make" you overweight, what you eat makes you overweight. You are simply not doing yourself any favors if you chose to sit on your larded butt all day. Your body requires exercise to function properly. Part of which includes promoting a satisfactory metabolic rate. If your ass sitting is fostering a low metabolic rate, then the food you eat--which people tend to do more of when they ass sit by the way--is going to inflate said ass even faster than it would otherwise. In other words, when viewed from afar there isn't much point in the distinction. Whether it's making you fat or making it easier to be fat, there isn't much difference.

Netflix wants to DRM the web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45118893)

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/netflix [defectivebydesign.org]

Fuck that.

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#45118927)

Exactly. Besides, their move to cable misses the point of why people were cutting cable for Netflix in the first place.

(Cutting both, of course, would be better.)

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119249)

I will happily trade the open web for access to television shows, movies and cheeseburgers.

- An American Patriot

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (3, Insightful)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year ago | (#45119395)

The same way DRM destroyed the open computer? I dunno about you but I can still do whatever the hell I want on my computer, and can circumvent DRM if needed.

I'm no fan of DRM, but it's a compromise I'd be willing to make to bring the movie and tv studios inline with the music industry, and if history is any guide, after a few years the tv and movie people will agree to drm-free releases as did the music industry. Play the long game, not the reactionary steadfast to ideology game.

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119427)

but it's a compromise I'd be willing to make

Then you've missed the point of freedom. You should not compromise on digital restrictions management.

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45127237)

Then you've missed the point of freedom. You should not compromise on digital restrictions management.

There are three types of freedom:

Free as in beer.
Free as in speech.
Free as in the mooncup. [thepolivkafamily.com]

Most of you boys probably only care about the first two. Either way, drm only minimally impacts most of them.

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45122555)

Since it sounds like you've been living in a cave for the last decade, let me introduce you to smartphones and tablets. And yeah, those things are computers, chock full of DRM. "walled gardens", like the crap store. And jailbreaking declared illegal and whatnot...

Have you maybe heard of the "secure boot" initiative by Micro$oft? Sure, for now the rules say you must be allowed to disable it... on x86.

If you choose to ignore threats like these you're soon out of the game...

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45125983)

Really, I unlocked the bootloader and ran cyanogenmod on my HTC phone. Netflix worked. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119909)

s/An American Patriot/Basically Everyone

Re:Netflix wants to DRM the web (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#45120049)

Netflix wants to DRM the web

You misspelt 'MPAA and RIAA'.

Netflix is starting to worry me (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45120455)

I'm more concerned about the fact that their content of late seems to be shrinking. I've noticed that a lot of TV series that I had in my queue, that had every season available, are suddenly being cut back to 1 or 2 seasons or just a fraction of the episodes being available. And a lot of movies have been disappearing too.

Looks like their push towards exclusive series and big headlines is starting to take a toll on their mainstay broad content. If they're not careful, they're going to hype their way right out of their traditional core audience. I don't pay $8 a month just for their latest Emmy-nominated series of the moment. And I don't expect to see my queue shrink every day just so they can budget more for Kevin Spacey's hookers and coke fund.

Re:Netflix is starting to worry me (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#45122055)

They've gotten better in some areas, and worse in some areas... but I think they are also feeling the pinch of the content owners jacking up the licensing feeds dramatically upon renewal and things like Comcast pressing them to pay them for the bandwidth use of its customers that use Netflix.

It'll never work. (3, Funny)

FSWKU (551325) | about a year ago | (#45118901)

At least not on Comcast. The crappy Motorola boxes they use are barely capable of running the 1980's style GUI they have now. Adding in anything more complex than a calculator (and I'm not so sure about that) will cause the damn things to fry themselves. How they manage to decode HD streams has to be some form of witchcraft, because splurging on good MPEG decoders would mean eating into the corporate yacht funds.

Re:It'll never work. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119353)

The bits are run through a block of wax infused with raven's blood, which accelerates their speed through the Dark Heart processor.

Re:It'll never work. (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45119921)

No kidding. The boxes Time Warner gives its customers are the purest grade of crap. They can barely handle their own OSD without the damn things overheating and lagging to hell.

Re:It'll never work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120075)

It's actually a funny common property of many video decoder chips (mpeg2/4,h264,whatever): They have super-fast integrated circuitry to demux, decode and scale video (and audio of course), but little to no capability for displaying bitmap data such as OSDs. It's not that they're slow per se, it's just that the mfg. puts very little effort and very few transistors into fast display of overlayed pictures and animations.. ;-)

netflix in a cable box (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45118917)

conflicts with the distribution rights agreements that netflix has for ___ONLINE___ distribution and spits in the face of networks and studios who negotiate separate online / cable distribution deals.

Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site:ch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45118921)

I'm amazed at how much work people go through to get content. It's so much easier to just install firebug and search Google for streaming content. There is more outside of Netflix/cable pay TV than there is inside and you don't have to deal with digital restriction management crap and other spyware.

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45119945)

Streams found through Google are rarely worth the trouble of watching. Most don't even have the decency to be any higher than 360p. It's gross.

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45121015)

Just how young are you?

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45121175)

27? What part of my comment got your panties in a twist, there?

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (3, Informative)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#45120073)

I'm amazed at how much work people go through to get content.

If spending two minutes setting up an automatically recurring payment is too much work, then installing Firebug and searching for streams will feel like 24-hour slavery.

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#45120683)

Who in the hell needs another recurring payment in their lives? Because you have something I might want to watch now you expect me to pay you next month, the month after, and the month after that!? Geez, and here you talk are bringing up slavery.

Re:Or just use Google: show/movie site:eu OR site: (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#45121457)

If you only want to watch one thing, why are you looking at Netflix?

who cares? (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year ago | (#45118933)

All this means is if I already have cable I can watch Netflix on my TV without having to own a computer, Apple TV, Roku, TiVo, Smart TV, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, or Android device.

If I already have cable, I can pick up an Apple TV for about one month's cable bill.

So who cares?

Re:who cares? (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#45119267)

Don't forget regular stand-alone blu-ray players, too.
I'd say the vast majority of people interested in using Netflix already own one of these devices and don't need to have it added to their cable box.

Maybe that's Netflix's whole game. They're reaching a market saturation and need to find a way to continue that "neverending growth" bullshit Wall Street expects now.

Spend the Money on more Original Series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119139)

If Netflix produced one or two more series/seasons of orignal TV a year, I would drop cable without argument. House of Cards, Orange is the New Black and Arrested Development are great. Keep it coming, and keep adding to the instant collection and I would be happy to pay two or three times as much as I am for that subscription.

Re:Spend the Money on more Original Series (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about a year ago | (#45124151)

That's already happening.

In the last year, we've had House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Lillyhammer, and Hemlock Grove (for pure original episodic content you can't get anywhere else in the world and which isn't a sequel). There's also Arrested Development (semi-original, given the history of AD, of course), and Derek. There are other things coming down the pipeline this year. So ... yeah, more than two series/seasons of TV a year.

people still have cable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119201)

Really? I haven't had cable for years...and can't say I've missed it (or the $70 bill).

Re:people still have cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120893)

I usually think of the Flintstones and cable in the same era. People still use cable? Cut the expensive cable cord about 20 years ago, put up a dish for a few years then dumped that money hog too.

People Still Use Cable? (3, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#45119261)

Don't care about sports. Don't care about seeing "this week's" new episode of some series. Get news off of the 'net.

At that point cable very quickly becomes pointless. Netflix delivers more than enough great content to fill our idle hours, and costs us roughly $75 a month less. I can't count how many TV series we've plowed through (Currently working on Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and how we don't care if they were originally broadcast a few years ago.

In all seriousness, the business model for cable is looking more and more like the business model for the music industry.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (4, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45120037)

So you ask a really dumb question in the subject and then you preface the message by listing basically all the things that people traditionally use the service for as something you don't care about.

Why do people do that? It's great you have no use for the service but your needs are not the needs of everyone.

People still use barbers? Don't care about fancy shampoos and conditioners. Don't care about different hairstyles. Cut my own hair in front of the mirror. At that point, barbers very quickly become pointless... etc.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45123629)

I'm sure cable providers are all putting up on their internet support webpages on how to get Netflix to work. Having worked in a call centre for a major cable TV provider, I can assure you that *IF* customers had the information/choice provided to then, I'm sure just about every single person I ever spoke to would jump in with both feet - it just that people are way too comfortable and used to watching TV a certain way, and don't want to change - but they ALL want their monthly bill reduced.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about a year ago | (#45123729)

If barbers charged comparable amounts of money as a cable tv service, then you'd see a lot of people quite going to barbers. I like the idea of watching sports and news from my own couch, but it's just not worth $60/month to me. Obviously some people do think it's worth it, which is why the cable companies are still alive, but that situation is rapidly changing.

What people care about (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year ago | (#45133399)

Actually, a lot of people I know DON'T care about those things, they've just settled into a pattern where paying for monthly cable/satellite is routine. If anything, most I know keep cable (or at least the extended package) around to have cartoons that keep the kids occupied. Netflix has lots of those, and no commercials to brainwash kids into buying the latest useless thingamajig.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45121007)

People still use cable because they never got rid of it. It's like how people had land lines long after they stopped giving out their landline number, and an ever-increasing number of people have abandoned them. At this point, I think people don't understand they have alternatives, even for keeping up on those four shows a week that they can't miss. The only thing I can't find on Google Play (as an example) that my inlaws (who have cable) "can't miss" other than sports is Mad Men, which they usually just watch when it reaches Netflix anyway. The rest of their shows put together come out to barely $200 if bought as season passes, compared to the same amount for just a little more than two months of DirecTV after all fees and such are paid. If the demand providers can figure out a way to bring the sports packages like NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, and whatever the NFL one is called, Cable will die if people simply take the time to do a little math. And on top of it, you ditch the commercials and everything stops being tied to your cable box.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45121197)

I often joke that my kids are the "On Demand" generation. They watch shows via Netflix or, if from cable, our DVR. They get the shows they want to watch WHEN they want to watch them. Tuning into a channel just to see what that channel has in store for them is a rarity. It's to the point that, if they are watching a show live and a commercial comes on for an upcoming special they want to watch, my 6 year old has a hard time understanding that Daddy can't load it on Netflix or the DVR *right now.* If my kids grow up along the path they are currently on, I really don't see them paying for cable TV.

In fact, in our household, cable is hanging on by its fingertips - and only that much because they gave us a great deal. It would cost us more to buy the limited shows we watch but can't get from Netflix from Amazon VOD than it would cost to keep cable. Apparently Time Warner Cable isn't making those deals anymore, though, so once the deal goes and TWC demands $150 a month or some ridiculous figure, we'll be saying bye-bye to cable.

Re:People Still Use Cable? (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year ago | (#45129603)

But some of us want the latest seasons and episodes, and live sports! Also, I am waiting for Netflix to have a downloadable copies (bandwidth and stability sucks for streaming for me) and non-subscription payments like Amazon, iTunes, etc.

Piracy is still the best option (3, Insightful)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year ago | (#45119303)

Piracy is still the best, or in some cases the only option until companies wake up.

Lets see

  - If I want a particular show, not the entire channel or package that requires that channel
  - If I don't want to wait months (or years if in a different country) after it has aired to watch it
  - If I want to have it in a standard format that doesn't require proprietary crap (e.g. mkv, avi, mp4)
  - If I want to watch it ad free
  - If I want to watch something that isn't otherwise released to Netflix or whatever...

Oh, and for the anti-piracy whingers:

- It's not stealing, it's copying. You may think the activity morally wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing
- Every download is not a lost sale. A bunch of stuff I wouldn't pay for in the first place.
- It has nothing to do with entitlement. It's about opportunity and choice.

I would Gladly pay $5/episode for something like Breaking Bad, a show I enjoyed greatly.

I had to download it, as I'm not going to pay for an entire package of channels just to watch one show, and there is no way to watch it the night it airs in a way I can play on mplayer with Linux or stream to my TV using DLNA.

Your loss media companies....

Re: Piracy is still the best option (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119405)

Breaking Bad was able to be purchased through iTunes by the episode or as a season.
So, horseshit you would have paid for it. You are just trying to justify your piracy when it is not justifiable.

Re: Piracy is still the best option (1)

AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) | about a year ago | (#45119431)

Whether it is or is not justifiable is 100% subjective; same with morality in general.

Re: Piracy is still the best option (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45121837)

What you say is only true for a ONE SHOW and perhaps true for ONLY ONE COUNTRY.

That leaves everything else and the rest of the planet.

Re: Piracy is still the best option (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year ago | (#45123443)

Did you miss the part about wanting to watch it on Linux or through DLNA?

iTunes is a massive fail, and I don't believe it was on iTunes the night it aired.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119445)

"I would Gladly pay $5/episode for something like Breaking Bad, a show I enjoyed greatly."

You mean, like $2.99/episode on iTunes or Amazon offered ~1day after broadcast of not just Breaking Bad but the majority of all broadcast and basic cable shows (with a few dumbass holdouts)?

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120153)

So they're DRM free and play on Linux? Oh, wait, no, they're not.

Next time get your shit together, Anonymous!

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45121913)

> So they're DRM free and play on Linux? Oh, wait, no, they're not.

PPV streaming video does play on Linux actually.

PC decoders are crap and don't reliably take advantage of fancy GPU hardware on ANY platform, but that content is available to be played on Linux.

I just wouldn't use an HTPC for it (regardless of OS).

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45126015)

Keep moving those goalposts.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (2, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45120071)

Your bullshit is readily apparent here. Breaking Bad was sold per episode and season online almost instantly after initial broadcast. You probably didn't even look before you whipped out your favorite torrent site. Not surprising at all, really.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120161)

Breaking Bad is an exception - your bullshit is in implying that this one case makes everything metrix007 said false. I was holding off downloading the latest Breaking Bad season for over christmas, but now that I know they are playing nice with consumers, I think I'll reward them with my cash. Pirates can (and sometimes want to) be converted but don't pretend that reasonable release dates and prices are the norm.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#45120949)

I made no such implication. I merely called him out very specifically on an untruthful argument he made. Even if you want to make the argument that he has been conditioned not to even try checking in the first place, that really is just a cop out. It's not as though AMC actually released them all under cloak and dagger. Their online availability had been alluded to a number of times during the shows progression.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#45120487)

Breaking Bad was sold per episode and season online almost instantly after initial broadcast.

It was licensed, not sold. Show me the DRM-free download.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120823)

oh god

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year ago | (#45123463)

I knew BB was available, it still wasn't available without DRM.

Sorry, but I'm not installing iTunes, which doesn't let me play it through DLNA anyway.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45125845)

> in a way I can play on mplayer with Linux or stream to my TV using DLNA.
He has an extra requirement.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120309)

- Every download is not a lost sale. A bunch of stuff I wouldn't pay for in the first place.

In your case with Breaking Bad, it IS a lost sale because you said you would gladly pay $5 for an episode. In fact, you can purchase episodes for $2.99 on Amazon on Demand and they will work with Linux (AOD can use Flash too). And they are HD. What is your next excuse? That they don't come with Swahili subtitles?

You can tell yourself that it's not worth paying for to justify your stealing, but no one believes you. At this point, there's tons of good options for purchasing TV episodes: iTunes, Amazon, DVD, cable TV with DVR, on Demand on cable TV (free, usually). Anyone who doesn't use one of those and goes straight for torrents is self-serving and selfish. Or just stupid and lazy. But in your case, I doubt it's the second one, so that just makes you a selfish child who can't be bothered to wait 24 hours and to spend $3 on something you'd "gladly pay $5 for." Guess you're not so glad to pay it, are you?

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year ago | (#45123477)

1) It's not stealing, stop repeating that ignorant nonsense

2) You seemed to miss the DRM free part of my post. That isn't due to an ideological stance, but a practical need.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

hodet (620484) | about a year ago | (#45120355)

I just subscribed to Netflix explicitly for Breaking Bad. Say what you want about Netflix and DRM but I have never seen anything as easy as this. Not bad for 8 bucks a month and will pay that any day of the week.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45121017)

Ditto. My wife and I love Netflix. $8 and we can watch and rewatch stuff however we want. Yea yea DRM, streaming, etc. We can watch it on practically any device in the house. Slashdot loves to fluff steam but hate Netflix. To me Netflix is even less DRM. You *know* you're streaming, you're not paying to buy stuff. It's like a cheap cable subscription and you only watch what you want...

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#45121535)

I too happily use Netflix.

I think the price is fair, and thought the DRM can be annoying (fast forward and rewind are awkward), the fact that it doesn't purport to be be selling me anything makes it not too bitter of a pill.

$8/month gives me access while I pay, and there are dozens of devices to play it on.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

norite (552330) | about a year ago | (#45123811)

And not a single ad in sight, anywhere. Best $8 a month we ever spent. Add another $5 for a proxy to get regional NF content, why on earth would we ever want ad infested cable?

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

guruevi (827432) | about a year ago | (#45121553)

The DRM gets stored in an obscure file somewhere in the Silverlight plugin. Once every so often, the Microsoft-specific database file that keeps your keys around will corrupt itself for no good reason (probably because it's attempting to update the DRM keys) and you'll have to go uninstall Silverlight, manually delete that file (because uninstalling does NOT remove EVERYTHING), then reinstall Silverlight just to get it back to work.

When you have ANY other media player open that has audio/video capture (VLC, XBMC), Silverlight will refuse to output either video or audio or both when running Netflix. It will come up with an obtuse error message that it couldn't initialize something in the bowels of Silverlight.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120489)

Copying something that is explicitly prohibited by or without specific consent of the copyright holder is called stealing.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45121923)

> Copying something that is explicitly prohibited by or without specific consent of the copyright holder is called stealing.

Only by shameless liars with no sense of morality.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45121213)

How about $1.99 per episode? ($1.89 if you subscribed to the whole season.) Amazon VOD had that price. I didn't check, but I'm sure iTunes was similar in cost. Add a Roku box or AppleTV (depending on where you get your shows) and you could get the shows legally for much less than your stated price of $5 per episode.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year ago | (#45123521)

That's not the point though.

I don't want to have to install a shitty roku box just to play certain premium content, when I invested in a SmartTV and should be able to play it through DLNA.

What's that? My SmartTV has an App for Amazon VOD? That's great, except for when I am traveling for work and want to watch it on my Linux Laptop....

It's not just about making content available, it's about making it available in a standard format.

At the moment piracy offers a better product for free than the paid product.

I'm pretty sure the pirated copy is available in higher quality also.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a year ago | (#45121445)

I have a full cable package because Comcast decided the bundle was cheaper than just internet. I have a cable card network tuner, tried out windows media center (the only software cable cards will work with do to required bribe and DRM). At the end of the day automated usenet/torrent down loaders like sickbeard were far easier. MCE's UI is atrocious, slow, and clunky the inability to format shift was the kicker though. XBMC does nearly everything I want, pause a show int he living room, resume in my bedroom. Profiles let other people in my home have there own preferences and viewing history. Hell the TV's, amps, lighting, etc etc etc all are controlled though xbmc so the TV and receiver in my bedroom all power down once the show/movie I fell asleep to is over. Quality is even better compared to Comcast we compress the hell out of everything HD.

Find me a place where I can own media like that in perpetuity without DRM at the cost of cable without any ad's and I would be happy to buy it. Mind you my current cost of cable is -6 bucks a month.

Re:Piracy is still the best option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45122729)

Um...Breaking Bad can be streamed through Amazon for 2.99 per episode. It also works with Linux (Flash is required though) or streamed with a media server such as Playon (if you prefer DLNA). You can even get a "season pass" which discounts each episode. Unless we support the companies trying to provide content for cheap on the internet...the cable companies win (by crying about piracy to Congress).

NetFlix App...but no bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119587)

Geez...NetFlix wants to add an app to my cable box! No thanks.

They try to get their f-in app into everything that has any type of video capability. Doesn't that make them as bad as drug dealers?

On the other hand...what if this NetFlix app thingie actually is successful? Can you imagine the uproar from the cable providers that NetFlix usage is saturating their already overloaded links to Tier 1 Internet backbone providers? Where have we seen that before? Verizon & Cogent over peering bandwidth, and the implication was/is NetFlix traffic is to blame. There are a number of articles about this on gigaom.com

Great idea for cable companies but... (1)

randomErr (172078) | about a year ago | (#45119755)

Right now cable companies have to maintain a server system for providing and tracking payout of Movie and Pay on Demand services. In essence Netflix becomes a cloud service which removes a ton of their headaches. The cable company only has to provide current tv show episodes and special events on demands like sports (Olympics, WWE.)

The downside is that a Hulu could come in replace their TV Shows and Demand. Again sounds good but that means they slowing become just an internet provider and are loosing their unique brand an identity. What if Hulu, Netflix, and Yahoo/Google TV comes in takes the special event on demand? In the next decade their nothing more then a network connection to the world.

Enqueue the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45119961)

...ADS

But can they agree? (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45120067)

Any deal to put NF on cable boxes will come with some type of agreement that keeps NF from streaming live content, which is something that scares the cable guy big time. Other agreements that keep NF infringing on their territory might be included as well. This is why NF on cable boxes might not happen any time soon.

Re:But can they agree? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#45122489)

Maybe, maybe not. Netflix is already on a wide variety of app-enabled TV's and Blu-Ray players, on TIVO, on Roku, etc... etc... Among the various boxes that make up my home entertainment system the only ones that Netflix isn't available on are my ancient steam powered VCR/DVD player and the sound system.

The cable companies could very well decide to get themselves a piece of that action.

Re:But can they agree? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45123583)

Well, unlike those others, the devices and manufacturers of those devices are not direct competitors with NF as cable companies are. But financially, there is little or no "action" to get a piece of beyond customer attraction/retention.

But yes, there is some incentive to include NF from a competitive, customer retention & attraction standpoint. There is also incentive to get as many cable boxes into homes as possible and collect the rent. I don't see Time Warner making that move any time soon.....we'll see.

first posT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45120253)

to placE a 4aper networking test.

Just wondering... (2)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about a year ago | (#45120637)

Will they be giving all their employees shirts with nipple flaps, then?

What Is This Article Talking About? (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | about a year ago | (#45121039)

> And both sides want to be the go-to destination for consumers to find on-demand TV programming.' Cable providers don't want anything to do with being an on-demand provider for customers. In fact they want the exact opposite. If they had any interest in allowing people to pay for only the content that they wanted then they would have done it years ago and you or I would have never heard of Netflix. What cable companies want is to package 50 garbage channels in with 5 that people actually want into every tier so that they can force consumers to buy more expensive packages. "Oh you want that in HD? You'll need to upgrade to our premium package which comes with 200 channels!" Never mind that 40 of those channels are the Home Shopping Network or that the channel you want in HD comes in for free like that over the air. Cable companies across the US slit their own wrist years ago and now are just starting to regret it.

Netflix, I am your father (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45121811)

Netflix, join the dark side, we have snookies.

Re:Netflix, I am your father (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45121955)

> Netflix, join the dark side, we have snookies.

I dunno. Lack of snookies might be the reason to join the dark side here.

Take over a broadcast channel while you're... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45122173)

slumming the wrong direction in time.

If they're bright, they'll negotiate a deal for a prominent position in the onscreen overlay, including a prized position near channel 200, or wherever the HD default portal entry is. Perhaps also a Netflix orange button on the remote even.

Otherwise they'll turn into just another channel, on demand maybe, but their favored economic ground other channels are trying to overtake with their own custom series will begin to evaporate.

I have a better suggestion (1)

asm2750 (1124425) | about a year ago | (#45124705)

How about have a la carte channels on netflix so I only have to pay cable companies for internet access?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?