backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Odeen.. on Jan 7 at 10:28 PM
Netflix to launch service to compete with new iTunes rental service

Last week, Apple rang in the New Year by announcing a new partnership with Twentieth Century Fox to bring Fox's movie catalog to the library of films it will be offering for its new download rental service.  Apple's new service takes rentals even a step farther into the digital domain over mailer based online movie rental services like the one Netflix primarily relies upon.  Apple is tentatively planning to rent films at $2.99 per movie for a 30-day rental. 

The market is growing but, rather vicious, as is apparent by the recent folding of Wal-Mart’s movie download rental program.

Netflix currently offers functionality similar to Apple's planned service, which allows subscribers to watch movies from a catalog of 6,000 films and TV episodes on their computer – the service is offered free to Netflix subscribers.  However, Netflix is unsatisfied with the limited amount of content and the fact that consumers can't watch the content where they watch most of their movies -- on a TV. 

Netflix currently has 7 million customers, but many still rely on mailers which provide access to a much larger library of 90,000 films.  Netflix subscribers pay between $4.99 and $16.99 a month depending on their plan.

Now Netflix is planning to challenge Apple with a slightly different approach.  Netflix has announced plans to release a new service that will download rentals directly -- not to the user's computer, but to a proprietary hardware set-top box.  The service will be free to all Netflix subscribers.

The hardware box is being created by LG Electronics and will be released during the second half of 2008 and connects directly to home networks.  Pricing has not been announced, but a source at LG revealed that the functionality will be embedded for free into the $799 LG dual-format Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player.

The product is not an entirely new idea.  Apple has the Apple TV, which transmits video from a home computer to the Apple TV set-top box wirelessly.  The device has not been warmly received, so it should be interesting to see whether Apple's woes are due to its own missteps or an unready market.  TiVo and Amazon also partner to offer similar functionality.

While Netflix is not offering up a revolution, it is bringing its power as an industry leader, staking its money and reputation to back a greatly expanded direct download service.  The move shows the giant to be among the firm believers that such services are the wave of the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sounds great
By FITCamaro on 1/4/2008 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 3
Of course its success depends on two things.

1) What will the set top box cost?

2) What will the quality be? It needs to be at least DVD quality video and sound. If its not, it'll fail.




RE: Sounds great
By OrSin on 1/4/2008 10:33:01 AM , Rating: 3
a settop box like this really can be given away for free.
The box will likely cost $50 to make and netflix would make that in jus the money saved in postage in a few months. Also nexflix would lock in a costumer. If someone signs up for a year to get a free box thats a win-win for all.


RE: Sounds great
By FITCamaro on 1/4/2008 10:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
True. I'd sign even a two year contract with their service to get the box for free.

But remember though, this is a supplement to their mail service, not a replacement.


RE: Sounds great
By mrteddyears on 1/4/2008 10:53:54 AM , Rating: 4
For me the real hook is that you will get fantastic costumes for free from the locked in costumer.

At last I will get that ORC outfit I always wanted.


RE: Sounds great
By bighairycamel on 1/4/2008 10:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) What will the quality be? It needs to be at least DVD quality video and sound. If its not, it'll fail.


That'll will all depend on your connection speed. With their curent online offering my 5Mbs connection allows me to watch them on my PC at TV quality, with only about a 15 sec buffer at the start of the movie. So my middle-of-the-road connection speed should suffice.

I know one thing is for sure though, they need to improve their online offerings for me to consider this. I use the online movie service once in awhile and the movie atalog is sucktacular. They have very few current releases. Their TV episode offerings are fairly recent, but the movie selection definitely needs improved.


RE: Sounds great
By TomZ on 1/4/2008 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 3
No, the quality doesn't have to be a function of the connection speed, if the box downloads the movie ahead of time and locally buffers it in the box. In this case, the quality can be whatever, and the download time varies as a function of the connection speed.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Microsoft's service works like this, not a big fan of that. I like to browse the selection and begin playback within a minute.


RE: Sounds great
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 11:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
Don't count on that happening.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
Netflix service does work like this.


RE: Sounds great
By Moishe on 1/4/2008 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
that would be a new function for Netflix if it happened... but I would like that. Right now I have a TWC/RR 1.5 Mb connection and the quality is rather low. It was better when I had a 5Mb connection.

I like the feature and I've used it quite a few times. I like the instant access, but I watch everything on a 110" screen and non-DVD quality looks horrendous.

A HDD and do pre-caching, would solve that pretty well.


RE: Sounds great
By Souka on 1/4/2008 11:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
box would probably have some sort of solid state or mechanical HD within for buffering, but also to pre-deliver movies you've selected to watch.

The ability to pre-load movies on your list, or even movies you might like, would greatly reduce the peak load on the servers that will be pushing the data/movie.

Still... even at "only" DVD quality I don't see how this will really become a strong player... by this time next year blue-ray/HD format might take the lead in sales....2 years buying a DVD player would be like buying a VCR to watch rented movies today...

Who knows... I'm a netflix subscriber (2-yr gift from my Bro.), and a "free" box would be a bonus to me. :)


RE: Sounds great
By mcnabney on 1/4/2008 11:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't see either of the HD media formats, now sitting at less than 1% of the market combined, overtaking DVD in the next year. Maybe in 5.


RE: Sounds great
By FITCamaro on 1/4/2008 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
HD-DVD could be set to overtake DVD late this year if the players drop to a consistent $100 mark for entry level players and the movies fall in line with DVD pricing. I'd have bought an HD-A2 when they were $100 if I'd have had the free cash at the time. I really didn't care that it was 1080i since I have a 720p TV.


RE: Sounds great
By darkpaw on 1/4/2008 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 3
The chances of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray selling even a quarter the number of DVDs this year is absolutely zero, even if the prices do drop.

It took many years for DVD to become a majority over VHS, even with the obvious advantages. Most people that have watched a Blu-Ray movie at my place usually ask "and what exactly is the difference?"

DVD had huge advantages and it took years, there is no chance the HD formats will catch up in another year. I'd be really surprised if both formats combine = 10% by the end of the year.


RE: Sounds great
By bhieb on 1/4/2008 4:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Most people that have watched a Blu-Ray movie at my place usually ask "and what exactly is the difference?"
Ding ding ding ding we have a winner.

Every once and a while I try to post this, but no one ever seems to care. The general public does not give a rats behind about HD. DVD is good enough, and not just for them I find it fine until you get above 60", then HD gains some ground. And the 1080p thing is just insane why even bother 720p and 1080i are the most you need. You CANNOT tell a real difference on a good set, anyone that tells you differently is full of crap. It is all marketing BS that, unfortunately the people in the know who should know better the so-called "Videophiles", have fallen for hook line and sinker. And it has started and unfortunate cat and mouse game that will only hurt the consumer. The MPAA cannot sell you 2 DVD's of the same movie, so they increase the resolution and you re-buy some that you already own. Mark my words in less than 5 years there will be HDDVD 2 or BluRay 3 with 2160p resolution. And the will convince all you morons to buy new TV's and movies all over again.

The move from VHS to DVD made logical sense, there was a noticable difference even my grandma could tell. But the move to HD is just not needed IMHO.

Now HD does have a small place, for example on my 110" HD looks much better, but on my 53" there is very little difference.


RE: Sounds great
By TomZ on 1/4/2008 5:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot one other reason for HD-DVD and BD - the fact that DVD CSS was broken a few years back. That means there is effectively little/no DRM on all the existing DVDs out there.


RE: Sounds great
By darkpaw on 1/4/2008 5:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the media companies don't seem fit to attach a price to HD media that actually makes people want to buy it over DVD.

I've had my PS3 since July and have bought zero movies. I'll happily rent them from Netflix, but I'm not about to dish out $30 (or more) for a single movie.


RE: Sounds great
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 8:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
I've known that for a long time. They try to show it off at Best Buy and Fry's, sometimes at least. There is no difference that I can see. The only reason people got DVD over VHS was because it was digital and a lot more clear. VHS gets obvious signs of degrading over time. DVD doesn't, unless you count skipping and such. DVD either plays the frame right, or not at all.

That's my opinion at least.


RE: Sounds great
By Odeen on 1/6/2008 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
The reason that 1080P output is important is because virtually every HDTV is progressive-scan only. That means the TV has to deinterlace a 1080i input, and most TVs do a terrible job with film-based material.

The reason? TV's run at 60 fields per second. Film is shot at 24 progressive frames per second. In order to fit 24 progressive frames into a 60 interlaced fields (or, 2 frames into 5 fields) each frame is split apart (Frame 1 becomes Field 1A and Field 1B, Frame 2 becomes Field 2A and Field 2B and an EXTRA 2A field is added)

The cheap deinterlacing process results in a 1080P30 (30 frames per second) video stream where vertical resolution is lost and smooth motion appears to "judder" (that is - the motion us uneven, as one film frame appears on the screen for 2/60ths of a second, and the next for 3/60ths (instead of 1/24th per frame)

This is why 120Hz LCD's are so cool. Not because they can "smooth out" motion, but because they can accept a 24FPS signal and display each frame for 5/120ths of a second, instead of the 2/60ths / 3/60ths that 60hz displays do.

You DO NOT have to be a videophile to notice this effect. Just watch for any panning shot and you'll see it.

Also, all prime-time dramas (as well as animation) are shot on 24fps film. Sports and news aren't, (they are shot at 30 or 60fps on video) which is why they look smoother

Now, the reason that 1080P output from an HD-DVD player is important is that the player can output the 1080P24 stream to a compatible TV. Deinterlacing 1080i60 into ORIGINAL 1080P24 once the output has been decimated like that requires a $3000 Anchor Bay DVDO Iscan video processor

The iScan is one of the best accessories you can buy for your 1080P TV, because it will make EVERY SHOW YOU WATCH look better (but especially movies and shows shot on film)

If you can't afford a video processor, then you owe it to yourself to at least get a player that doesn't decimate the output to begin with.


RE: Sounds great
By MattCoz on 1/6/2008 8:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well yeah, if you have a 1080p TV then it's very important. If you have a 720p TV it's not, because you can just set it to output at 720p.


RE: Sounds great
By Odeen on 1/7/2008 10:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a 720P TV, you are at the mercy of the TV's or the player's scaler and deinterlacer.

Worst case scenario, you may end up with upconverted 540P.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the movie catalog is definitely lacking. Great for watching some classics you may have missed, like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (which isn't a bad movie if you haven't seen it), and "The Stuff". It would be nice to get all the DVD movies though through the streaming video service. Any HD-DVD offerings I don't mind waiting to get through the mail.


RE: Sounds great
By retrospooty on 1/4/2008 10:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
to me its all about what movies will be available on the service.

Today, you can get 99+% of any DVD ever made via neflix mailer, but there is almost nothing worth watching on the streaming download. A bunch of "B" flicks, and TV shows, with very few "A" list movies.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
Their current streaming service, if you have enough bandwidth for the High Quality stream (which I do) is a step above DVD quality IMO, looks at least 480P. However, there are noticeable compression artifacts in large gradients.. but this is pretty rare, and mainly noticed in dark shots, although I mainly see this on. I'd say the difference is like using 24bit color on your PC instead of 32 bit, you notice it in the gradients, but other then that it looks good. Although.. now that I think of it, it might only be available in 2 channel audio, which I could see being a problem for some folks.

For me, the movie buffers for less then a minute and looks good on a 56" HD TV. I'd imagine the set-top box would provide a similar level of quality.

For me though, I'm perfectly happy with the current service, I just need more content... a lot more content. It's not a problem for me to connect my Laptop to the VGA connector on my TV, so the set-top box wouldn't interest me. If Netflix would just work with Microsoft (or visa-versa) so you could stream it on an Xbox 360, that'd be a great match. But Microsoft is pushing their own service, which is something I've tried but am definitely not interested in.


RE: Sounds great
By RamarC on 1/4/2008 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
Practically all US release DVDs are 480p. Netflix's streaming service is based on 480p content at best. With Xbox's video service you can choose the rez and true hi-def (720p and up) is available for some content you're willing to pay for it.


RE: Sounds great
By PAPutzback on 1/4/2008 11:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
But you have to wait for it to download don't you.

I'd say that Netflix's quality is DVD for sure. It looks better than the compressed video coming out of the Cable box live or recorded.

It also starts within seconds. Less time than it takes to load a DVD.

I could spend days watching stuff I never saw. I watched Pan's labyrinth and Letters from Iwo Jima this last weekend. And I plan on watching some old TV series that were highly rated that I did not get to see while I was stationed overseas.

Give me a free box or even up my rate a buck or two and I'll still stick with Netflix. It is cheaper and more convenient than Blockbuster by a long shot. Sure some times there is a long wait on a movie. But I have gone into BB and new releases are hard to get there also.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 12:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
DVD'd are 480i.. they are interlaced. Any Progressive output is done by upscaling.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dvd+are+48...

Xbox's service is a pain, you have to download the whole video, you pay nearly $5 per video, especially for the high quality ones.

I prefer Netflix's package better, I get the typical DVD's mailed and a number of monthly hours of streaming video based on the $ amount of my monthly plan. Say I get the $17/month plan, that means I get 17 hours of movie streaming per month. With Netflix movies also start within a few seconds of buffering.

So, in comparison, with Netflix I get up to around 11 movies streaming per month (guesstimating an average of 90 minutes each), plus the number of DVD's I get mailed to me all for $17/month. With Microsofts package I get 3.. maybe 4 movies to rent for the same price.


RE: Sounds great
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 8:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's not completely true you know. Ever watched Anime? It's all 480p on the DVD. That becomes very obvious when you play it on you computer. Most probably are 480i though. It's not that much of a surprise.


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/7/2008 9:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
Correction.. most Standard DVD's are 480i. :)


RE: Sounds great
By Odeen on 1/6/2008 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, 32-bit color is simply 24-bit with "alpha channel" for transparency effects.

For photo-realistic colors you need 8 bits per channel for red, green and blue (or, if you like, brightness, red/green color difference, and blue/yellow color difference)

24-bit is kind of a misnomer - it's actually 8 bits per channel (which is why you can get photo-realistic B&W with 8-bit "color")

32-bit was invented when memory on video cards began to increase. By accessing data in 4-byte chunks, it sped up graphics operations considerably.

If you want to see gradients, turn your color down to "16-bit" (5 bits per channel, with green taking an extra bit).


RE: Sounds great
By Blight AC on 1/7/2008 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hrmm, it seems the Windows Desktop must use more then 8 bits per color when set to a 32-bit color depth (or 24-bit setting isn't using 8-bit's per channel). I can usually tell within a minute when the color depth isn't set to 32-bit. Either way, the color depth on Netflix's streaming movies isn't as rich as a 32 bit desktop image.


RE: Sounds great
By Polynikes on 1/4/2008 12:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think it'll fail because people will have to tell it to start downloading the movie in the morning in order to watch it at night. (Provided it's of decent quality.) People will forget. Bandwidth is very limited for most people, even with cable or DSL. I just don't think we have the bandwidth for something like this to take off. Maybe someday we'll have more ISPs and more competition, so we can get internet service on par with the rest of the world.

</dream>


By Homerboy on 1/4/2008 10:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
Per that article, dumb thing is you still need to order from your computer. You can't order/browse directly from this box.




By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
I fail to see the problem. It's a minor inconvenience at best. I mean, you most likely registered with Netflix online with your computer. You set up your queue with your computer. You do pretty much everything with your computer. Not to mention that you're most likely going to need some type of internet connection for the set-top box anyways. Who has the internet with a computer?


By Homerboy on 1/4/2008 11:18:00 AM , Rating: 4
It still detracts from the experience a ton. Much like movies on demand with my cable provider, I should just be able to plunk down in front my TV and using a remote shuffle through the available titles, click on the one(s) I want and go with it. That's what they are TRYING to deliver and are not delivering with this machine.


By PAPutzback on 1/4/2008 11:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it will work like that one it is up. Both HD players can run Java I think or XML and a standalone should have no problem either.

Too early to be guessing really.


By TomZ on 1/4/2008 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
HD-DVD doesn't run Java, if that's what you meant. Only BD does. Most (all?) implementations of HD-DVD are using .NET instead.


By Homerboy on 1/4/2008 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
And what happens when you have Comcast or similar crappy inet provider that limits your usage. What if I want to watch 20 movies in a month. Will I get a warning letter from my ISP?




By PAPutzback on 1/4/2008 11:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
I have comcast and don't have this problem. I might be in a lucky area though because none of the other subscribers around me notice problems either.


By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
Another Comcast moaner? Jeez. I can't vouch for every area, but I've used over 400GB of bandwidth a month before and never heard a complaint. I also don't have these throttle issues that people are complaining about.

20 movies a month? That's less than 50GB total.


By HDBanger on 1/4/2008 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone who has problems with comcast is now a "moaner"? Sheesh dude, lucky you eh? ALOT of people are complaining about comcasts slow speed and their capping, yes they do slap you on the wrist if you consistantly download 400 gigs a month, try it for 3 months straight, see what you get. As for 20 movies being under 50 gigs a month, how many dvd's do you watch that are under 3 gigs a pop? 4.5 gigs x20=?? alot more than 50 gigs eh. Now try downloading 20 HD movies in a month, and not the compressed to shit xbox 360 movies either, real HD, 25 gigs a movie, GL.


By HackSacken on 1/4/2008 12:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it is my area as well, but Comcast hasn't demonstrated the described above to me. That is aside the subject here though.

Depending on how the details are worked out regarding the set-top box, this is potentially exciting!


By Homerboy on 1/4/2008 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even have Comcast. It was just a damned example. Lighten up. There are MANY people that receive "over usage" emails/letters from their provider, so yes, it could be a potential issue.


Interesting
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
$2.99 to keep a movie for a month is interesting, but nothing more. Not sure about the rest of you people, but I only watch a movie once when I rent it. I even rent it for less than $3.00. Of course, the convenience factor of renting digitally is probably worth $1.00 more. I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how this develops. I'm also curious as to how all of the Netflix subscribers are going to get this "free" set-top box. If anyone can do it, it's Netflix and Apple.




RE: Interesting
By derubermensch1 on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
Scratched HD-DVD's work fine in my Xbox 360 HD-DVD attachment, the 1 or 2 disks I've had trouble with worked fine after a little soap and water. My Xbox 360 is also my primary DVD player too, as I've had little trouble when playing scratched DVD's, whereas my Philips DVD player has trouble with most Netflix DVD's.

Could just come down to the hardware itself.


RE: Interesting
By derubermensch1 on 1/4/2008 11:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
scratched regular dvd's work fine on the hd-dvd player, just not hd-dvd ones unless it is very minor. I'm about even with my hd-dvd/blu-ray experience ratio and of the 15 or so hd-dvds i got from netflix, only 6 of them played through without a hitch. Of the 15 or so blu-ray discs ive played from netflix, all of them worked perfectly : ) It's just a point to consider if someone who is interested in getting a high-def player happens to be reading my post here, lol, since it has been beaten to death at the avsforum : ) A cool thing about the ps3, if someone chooses that for blu-ray, is the rf remote you can get so you can be laying sideways on the couch under blankets and not have to point something line of sight at a player if you want to pause/rewind/restart/etc. I sound like a sony salesman but im really not since i have both formats : )

On topic tho, that LG dual format player with added netflix support sounds sweet...and it would sound sweeter at $499 : ) hehe


RE: Interesting
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 12:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A cool thing about the ps3, if someone chooses that for blu-ray, is the rf remote you can get so you can be laying sideways on the couch under blankets and not have to point something line of sight at a player if you want to pause/rewind/restart/etc.


You know the Porno industry supports HD-DVD... just saying.


RE: Interesting
By dubldwn on 1/4/2008 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe we're veering off topic, but Warner Bros. just announced they will now exclusively support Blu-ray. We'll probably see a story on this shortly...


Well
By HDBanger on 1/4/2008 10:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
I only joined netflix for the HD-DVD's, I refuse to watch regular dvd's when I paid out the nose for a HDTV and sound system etc. This sounds like a good idea, unless your stuck with comcast or some other isp that throttles your bandwidth. Until we get faster net connections here in the states, I'll stick to the mailers.




RE: Well
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 10:51:34 AM , Rating: 1
You're in the few my friend, and you'll be in the few for years to come. You always pay a price when you get stuff before it's mainstream. If you didn't realize that, then that just sucks for you. Shouldn't be too bad since the mailers don't take that long. Unless you're like me and send your movies back the day you get them or the day after. What can I say, I'm a bored college student with lots of time to spare.

I also think that you need to go look at some more information. Comcast only throttles P2P bandwidth, nothing more. Even then, it doesn't affect nearly as many people as you think, with me being one of them. We do need faster connections though, no doubt about that. You're simply not going to get HD quality movies through the net unless you download first then watch. On-the-fly simply wouldn't be an option, way to much bandwidth on both ends. That being said, I doubt you'd be able to watch on-the-fly either. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but unless they can provide enough bandwidth so that the movie doesn't stutter people will just complain. Personally that's not a problem for me. It wouldn't take long to DL it on my connection, provided that they use some type of compression for the movie. An Mpeg 2 movie would take a bit of time since it'd be over 2GB in size, perhaps more depending on the length of the movie.


RE: Well
By HDBanger on 1/4/2008 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt realize what? That HD cost more? Whoever said I didnt? lol, I said, I didnt pay up the nose to watch NON-HD content, I didnt whine or complain or say anything other than that. And your wrong about comcast, I have had them for two years now, and in the last 6 months, EVERYthing gets throttled, dl's from websites, newsleecher, you name it. I have several friends on comcast, and they get the same BS. Bandwidth is being throttled across the board, I have been on the phone several times with comcast, and they cant find any "other" problems.


RE: Well
By PAPutzback on 1/4/2008 11:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you have a lot of people on your sub-net. No one gets the advertised speeds all the time. As more people sign up in your neighborhood you have to expect the speeds to go up and down.

I am with Comcast now and netflix downloads work great. So I know it can pump 4+gig of data over an hour or two pretty quick


RE: Well
By Alexstarfire on 1/4/2008 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean a literal price when I said that, though that usually comes with it as well. I was talking more about content and amount of products. There aren't a lot of HD-DVD movies, in comparison with DVD.

I'm sorry that Comcast sucks for you, but I enjoy my blazing speeds over here in my area. I can even get over 1MB/s on torrents for a couple of minutes, before they level out at 800KB/s. Some of my DL connections on the net are slow, but that's not Comcast, it's the website. It's always from places that get a ton of traffic, like 3DGamers and FilePlanet. Even then, I can usually use FlashGet or something to get that speed back. I'm usually too lazy to bother though.


Game console
By Schadenfroh on 1/4/2008 10:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
I would really like to see NetFlix partner with Microsoft or Sony to get NetFlix Watch Instantly streamed to my PS3 or xbox.




RE: Game console
By Blight AC on 1/4/2008 11:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, that would be the real win.


RE: Game console
By darkpaw on 1/4/2008 1:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
Doubt MS would do it, it would cut into their extremely overpriced media offerings through live.

Sony might, would be interesting to see. I'd be happy if either one did it.


By Domicinator on 1/4/2008 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who already has a laptop and a home wireless network (doesn't everybody these days?) can already do this without having to buy the Netflix box. Example:

Step 1: I have media sharing set up on my home network. All my media is stored on a spare hard drive in my main gaming machine. I share all the media on that drive and access it through the wireless network. I hook my laptop up to my entertainment center (video out to the TV, audio out to the receiver) and voila, I have all my media streaming right to my living room. I use Windows Media Center to do this, and I have a Media Center remote so I don't even have to use the mouse.

Step 2: If you set Windows to duplicate your monitor on the TV screen, you can get on the internet, access your Netflix account, and stream the movies right in over the internet.

It all sounds kind of tech-y, but it's really not. If you can hook a stereo component up to your entertainment center, you can handle hooking up a computer to your entertainment center. And all you need is a laptop capable of wireless access. It doesn't even have to be a fancy laptop.

Because this kind of thing has become easier and much more common in peoples' homes these days, I fail to see why Netflix thinks this service will last very long. Plus, most people who have digital cable now have On Demand. It's not a 6,000 movie library, but it most certainly eliminates the need to go to Blockbuster since new releases are the same price on On Demand and you don't have to go anywhere.

If people would just spend a little time learning how to use all the technology they already have in their homes they would really eliminate the need for a lot of their gadgets. Hell, most new cell phones double as MP3 players and TVs now, and people don't even bother finding out how to use those features.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki