Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Businesses

Netflix To Lift Streaming Limits 249

Posted by kdawson from the oh-my-groaning-pipes dept.
The AP has a story on Netflix's move to head off expected competition from Apple: the company will lift limits on streaming its movies for most subscribers. The story reports on rumors of an Apple movie-download service that may be announced by Steve Jobs on Tuesday. In the past Netflix has imposed limits on how long its subscribers could watch streamed movies; for example, those who paid $16.99/mo. could stream up to 17 hours per month. The limits will end on Monday for most subscribers (except for those paying $4.99 for two DVD rentals a month, said to be a small minority). The company has 6,000 movies available for streaming, compared to 90,000 that you can get delivered in the mail.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix To Lift Streaming Limits More

Netflix To Lift Streaming Limits

Comments Filter:

  • Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @07:53PM (#22029354) Homepage
    I'll indulge as soon as they buy me a windows machine with IE and tasty WMP DRM etc.

    • Won't work on macs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 )
      Netflix streaming won't work on macs (or linux). It also requires you to watch from a computer. Most cheap PC computers--that is to say most computers--are not fit company for the living room. The idea of the media PC has always made me laugh. Too noisey. (in contrast all but the powermacs which sound like windtunnels, are very quiet and welcome in the living room). SO it's ironic that the computers that netflix is suited for are the ones it does not support.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        it's more ironic that LG is making a set top box to stream from Netflix for this very reason.....

        And that you didn't read far enough to even see this in the story.....

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by MistrBlank ( 1183469 )
          I wouldn't worry too much, your parent poster was too ignorant to realize there is a whole market for fanless systems as HTPCs.

      • Re:Won't work on macs (Score:4, Informative)

        by gabebillings ( 1001269 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @09:02PM (#22029916)
        My media PC is in a nice case that even the wife approves of, and is cooled by one nearly silent 120mm fan. Being able to stream movies directly onto my 52" LCD is very nice.
      • My mce pc is pretty quiet... however, I replaced the cpu fan with a quiet cooler master fan, reversed the flow, and fasioned a cowl to direct the air from the cpu out of the case.. also removed the two 60mm fans on the back.. I have one 80mm fan for intake, and the psu has a relatively quiet 14cm fan...

        Now, the default design of the case etc was noisier.. but it isn't too hard to do.. One thing that kind of upsets me is that all the cpu fan designs blow towards the cpu, instead of up and away from.. yeah

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by mortonda ( 5175 )

          One thing that kind of upsets me is that all the cpu fan designs blow towards the cpu, instead of up and away from..
          For lack of better terminology, I thought fans work better at creating higher pressure than at creating a vacuum.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Fratz ( 630746 )
        Media-capable PCs are only noisy if you build them as if they're servers. There are plenty of quiet parts: drives, fans, heatsinks, etc.
      • be very interesting when http://slingmedia.com/go/slingcatcher [slingmedia.com] is released.
        If it truly works as advertised then only quality, and the need to leave the PC always on remain.
        Although all other Sling products claim Vista compatibilty, I doubt this one can deliver Vista and "can project anything that's playing on your computer screen"
        Vista is not a issue I will personally worry about in the next couple years.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NSIM ( 953498 )
        Hmm, I bought a pretty cheap dual-core Intel system with 2GB of memory a decent ATI graphics card, 300GB drive, and DVD write for about $600 and have it hooked up to my living room system. I cannot hear it even when the room is quiet (i.e. not playing or listening to anything), so I don't buy the "too noisy" argument. he things that hold me back on Netflix video on demand is the lack of integration with MediaCenter in Vista and relatively low quality, if they fixed those issues, I'd start downloading. Meanw
      • Hmm,I stream netflix regularly through my old Dell Dimension 8400 (purchased as a refurb >4 years ago) with it's original ATI 9800 and XP. Going through s-video. The only thing I did was bump up to 3 Megs of ram and add a 5.1 M-Audio card for co-ax sound ($30 after rebate). The computer makes no noise that I or the wife can hear and it sits right by the couch, with the cables fed to my old 42" LRP Mitsu TV. So I given that I'm using what would now be a cheap PC (you can buy the PC for $311) I think that
      • There was a port of their player to osx a while back which was demoed at shows a few times. Not sure what ever became of it, but they should be able to get it to that platform pretty easily if they ever feel like it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geniusj ( 140174 )
        Dell XPS 410 (gaming) is eerily silent. I didn't expect it, it was quite a shock. It uses a BTX motherboard and large fans, which are probably the reasons for it, but it is quieter than my PowerMac G4, my new iMac and my macbook pro. Pretty crazy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aka-ed ( 459608 )
        "It also requires you to watch from a computer." Do they still make video cards that won't clone to S-VHS out? I watch netflix on my 52' Mitsubishi. Can't touch hi def, but comparable to analog broadcast. The selection is a little thin but interesting. Lots of Herzog, early Sam Fuller, some Hitchcock...Netflix's film production division, Red Envelope Entertainment, produces some decent documentaries and indies that go directly to the 'instant' library.
    • I'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rudolf ( 43885 )
        i'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail.

        Don't know about other services, but with Netflix, if you don't want them to mail any DVDs, just don't add any to your queue.

      • I'll sign up as soon as I can forgo the DVD delivery option. I used to use Zip.Ca (Basically netflix for Canada), but cancelled after too many movies got lost in the mail.
        Why don't you ask your neighbor if they want some mail DVDs and then split the cost with them?
  • I've seen some typos in story bodies recently, but not in a story title... who is Netfilx? Are they the new, hot, up-and-coming competitor to Netflix [netflix.com]?

  • Compete with Apple? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Laguerre ( 1198383 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @07:55PM (#22029366)
    Of course, you can't watch streaming movies on Netflix with a Mac...

    • Re:Compete with Apple? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @07:59PM (#22029410) Homepage
      That's because only Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium's Digital Rights Management Trustation Computing can secure Intellectual Property for your Enterprise etc.

      • Re:Compete with Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:12PM (#22029524)
        I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.

        It makes 0 sense to pay for a second DRM codec for a user base which is only 7% or so of the total. I don't like it either, but they can't just hand out free copies of every movie no strings attached, people who want that can already go with torrents.

        Apple has chosen not to license any of the DRM types available to the rest of the mainstream computing world, it's unfortunate that the Mac users are ultimately the ones that lose out. 7% isn't really a that much leverage, especially since the majority of the account holders don't use the download service at all.
        • Apple cares a lot more about the iTunes revenue than the computer hardware revenue. For it to be worth their while to sell a WM codec with DRM support, they would probably have to charge more than they currently do for QuickTime Pro ($30). I really don't see how that could work out for Apple customers.
          • Apple cares a lot more about the iTunes revenue than the computer hardware revenue.

            iTunes isn't that profitable. Apple makes much better money on the hardware, in margins and revenue. To make a comparison, the gross income from iTunes works out to something like $10 (or so) per iPod sold.
        • What makes you think that Apple is completely at fault here? You're going on assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

          A Telestream rep said that Microsoft will not license WM DRM to be operable on any non-Microsoft platform. That's all there is to it. Whether Apple would license it if they had the opportunity, I don't know. But there are two sides to this situation.

        • It makes 0 sense to pay for a second DRM codec for a user base which is only 7% or so of the total.

          That's interesting, because when I mentioned that I'd love to have instant viewing supported by Macs, the customer rep says that it's the feature most requested by their userbase. (Note: the rep said they were looking into it).

        • I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.

          Apple would do that if they cared for WHO? Given the ultra-low adoption of paid Windows-DRM media, the only people Apple would be helping out in that regard is Microsoft! Not sure if you've seen the NPD numbers, but the leader in DRM laden video sales is actually Apple, by a wide margin. Why should they adopt some podunk DRM system consumers don't use nor want and doesn't

        • I realize you're kidding, but if Apple cared about its customers they would just license the WM DRM codecs and allow access on Macs.


          You're absolutely right. Apple should start giving tons of money to its biggest competitor to license an inferior technology.

          WTF are you smoking, mate?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Basehart ( 633304 )
      On Tuesday at at the Macworld keynote you'll see why Mac users won't give a rats ass about watching Netflix movies, hence the timing of the Netflix announcement. As usual, too little too late.

      FWIW Mac users still can't buy music from Napster, or any of the so-called "Plays Fer Sure" online outlets, and play it on an iPod.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      That is what I would say, but I would go one step further. The point that most analysts and pundit miss is that, like the Windows desktop monopoly, users want thing to be cheap and easy. They have a MS Windows machine at home because that is what they learned in school and hove at work, and they get most software for free.

      In the same way, most people have an iPod, most people have iTunes, and anything else is going to require extra effort, especially for those users that have Macs. I know the reply to

      • To be fair, I would be willing to be that the average paid-for song is played many more times far more than the average paid-for movie, so one hour of music might represent more actual play-time than 90 minutes of movie.

  • God those summaries are entertaining (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:00PM (#22029426)

    In the past Netflix has imposed limits on how long its subscribers could watch streamed movies; for example, those who paid $16.99/mo. could stream up to 17 hours per month.
    That's an example of how *much* movie-time you can stream, not how *long* you have to watch it.

  • But is it still IE and Windows only? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:01PM (#22029434)

    System Requirements:

    • Computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
    • Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
    • Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later

    Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV. No thanks. I told them a year ago that if they didn't come up with viable solution Blockbuster or Apple would and that would probably be enough to make me switch. They replied back with a comment that it was impossible but that as soon as MS's silverlight technology was good enough they'd use that. Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sancho ( 17056 )
      Since Netflix streaming is only a value-add, I don't think it's a big deal. Their core business is DVDs through the mail. Hell, their streaming selection is piss-poor, anyway.
      • For movies, yeah, the selection isn't that great. But as far as classic TV shows go, they have tons and tons of stuff to dig through. All the old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Lots of stuff from the BBC, including what looks to be nearly every episode of Dr Who. And they seem to have a deal with NBC/Universal, whereby they were posting episodes of Heroes up a few days after they aired. Not to mention, as someone else already did, this service is the 'value added' upgrade to the primary service that you went to
    • If that is actually a reasonably accurate description -- that it's "impossible" -- well, there's Flash, which sucks, but works for YouTube, and there's a good ol' <embed> tag, with some actual mpeg streaming. I bet most machines would do well if you stuck a .mp4 file in there.

      And before people start bitching about having to install a player... They're forcing what for many people is an OS upgrade (or wholesale switch), browser upgrade, and/or Windows Media Player upgrade (or fresh install). If they're

    • Re:But is it still IE and Windows only? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yold ( 473518 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @09:10PM (#22029982)
      Umm... buy an s-video cable and a mini-jack to rca converter, grand total $15. Watch it on a television. And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway.

      Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users. They don't have the luxury Apple does, that is to say controlling the source of a widely popular media player. And software development, especially a cross-platform DRM system, isn't cheap or easy. Can you suggest any viable alternatives to Microsoft DRM?

      Netflix has a great business model, returning movies in 3-days is a pain in the ass. The on-demand is just a nicity that a minority of customers use.

      • Umm... buy an s-video cable and a mini-jack to rca converter, grand total $15. Watch it on a television. And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway.

        I already have a dedicated media server machine hooked up to my TV for movies, streaming, music, etc. It is a Mac. I'm not going to go to the effort of hooking up a second machine solely for the purpose of watching the occasional video that requires Windows. Rather, I'll do just as I do now and ignore that aspect of NetFlix... until someone else comes along and makes it convenient. It looks like Apple might be about to do that, which might lead to my NetFlix subscription being cancelled.

        Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users.

        I'm sure they d

    • unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV

      Netflix streaming + spare laptop + video out + (gov surplus)projector + wall = 100" movies. Sorry if this doesn't work for you. All these parts are easy and cheap to come by.
      Yes, it is a bit esoteric for Joe SixPack, but not that bad.

    • System Requirements:

      * Computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
      * Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
      * Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later

      Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV.

      You need XP, but if you're willing to do just a small bit of work, you can use with Media Player

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by instarx ( 615765 )

      Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix.

      Good grief! No one is betting the future of their company on that. These Netflix streaming movies are FREE! In fact, their strategy for moving into streaming seems pretty smart to me - go slow, don't try to be all things to all people right from the start, gauge demand, don't risk a major newsworthy failure (like Wal Mart), etc.

  • None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix. None of the television shows, either. Sure, I'm only one person out of, oh, seven billion or so on the planet, but it would seem to indicate that Netflix have scope for improving their range. Given the power of data mining techniques and the ability for an Internet-based system to get direct feedback, one would have thought that they would have ways and means of predicting what would be good to add to their service, but given that my interests
    • None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix.

      Really? Nothing? Seeing as they do have a pretty wide selection, that's interesting.
      What do you like, specifically?
      • Indeed. If nothing else, they have The Office (both versions) available for streaming.

        My only complaint about the streaming service, being an Anime guy, is the inability to pick which language I get to listen to. In general the streaming is great, if low quality, and "free". It's the reason I finally killed my excellent but uncompetitive Greencine subscription.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by yabos ( 719499 )
        I guess they don't have hentai pr0n

    • Re:I'd be interested, but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by SageMusings ( 463344 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:29PM (#22029668) Journal
      None of the movies I'd be interested in are provided by Netflix

      Yes, their snuff film collection is rather weak at the moment but I understand the studios in East Los Angeles are picking up the pace.

  • Great! Now how about better OS support? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by proxima ( 165692 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:07PM (#22029484)
    It's a shame that Netflix only supports Windows XP/Vista for streaming. I'd love to have a Mac OS X or Linux client.

    Of course, I consider the mailed DVDs worth the subscription price, so Netflix doesn't have much incentive to make clients for people like me. I wonder if they would get many more subscribers if they offered a Mac client.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by NothingMore ( 943591 )
      Id love to see a Linux client for this service. Especially if it could be built into a MythTV box (and there selection was a bit better). It would be awesome to have a large selection of movies that i could watch without even putting down the remote.

  • I am Netflix's complete lack of selection. (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigtangringo ( 800328 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:17PM (#22029566) Homepage
    Seriously, the "Watch Instantly" selection sucks. I have 24hr/mo and I think I've used maybe 24 hours since I signed up for the service 6 months ago.

    On an unrelated grammatical note, should that be Netflix' or Netflix's?

    On yet another unrelated note: I wish people would stop editorializing in tags. I'm looking at you Mr. "!netfilx"

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by X0563511 ( 793323 )
      Too bad [slashdot.org].

      Several quotes:

      We don't know exactly how this will all work, and a lot of it really depends on you.

      We're excited about this, and see huge potential for this system. From user feedback on articles, to comment moderation, the system is really limited only by your participation, and our database hardware!

      Other tagging systems let users make up any tags they want, and punt on the issue of objective meaning. So the tag "foo" means for each user whatever they want it to mean, and to the system it means


    • We (my coworker and I) used to watch streaming netflix at lunch at work. We stopped going out to eat because the cost of a decent lunch has basically tripled in the past 5 years, both of us started bringing lunch, and then we realized we could just watch TV or movies at lunchtime. It was pretty cool, actually.

      ~WX
    • Oh, and now I need Windows Media Player 11, which I can't install because I refuse to install WGA.

      Broken by design.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aka-ed ( 459608 )
      "If you don't like Sam Fuller, you don't like movies." -- Martin Scorsese

      Aside from Fuller, search Hitchcock, Herzog, david lean, billy wilder, tsui hark. You can sort all available movis by "star rating" -- If you think all the 4-star and 5-star movies are crap, you'll just have to wait for a niche service, like Emusic is for people who hate pop.

  • While netflix does currently offers such gems as 'Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter' and 'The Glamorous Life of Sachiko Hanai', a quick look at the top-50 for streaming shows just how hard it would have been to even use up 17 hours with their selection of movies. It'd also be nice if there were more options for playback, instead of just windows+ie, but I already have a laptop running windows hooked up to my display full-time anyway, so it's not a big deal to me.

    Still, can't complain too much about it, as it's
  • Sadly their streaming movies are crappy quality I've read, put up some HD movies, 720p even, and I'll gladly pay $20/month. http://www.vudu.com/ [vudu.com] seems to be the only doing this, and its expensive as hell, then there is the 360 downloads, but their selection is crap and its still quite expensive at 3-4 bucks per movie.
    • Apart with the obvious bandwidth issues with streaming HD video, why would you really need HD video. Most of the stuff you're getting from Netflix in the mail is only 480p (DVD). Why are you complaining that the streaming content isn't HD, when most of their in-the-mail selection isn't HD either.
  • I already subscribe to Netflix, but will probably still use whatever Apple service comes along over this one. Mostly because it wouldn't work on my media center Mac or PS3...

  • Let's Check (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday January 13, 2008 @08:32PM (#22029698)
    DRM: Check
    Low-def only: Check
    Low bitrate: Check
    Watch only on computer: Check
    Poor selection: Check
    No non-streaming option: Check
    No Linux support: Check
    No MacOS support: Check

    I am ***so*** excited about the limits being lifted on my Netflix account!! Guess I will continue to use their old-fashioned DVD's. I *do* like Netflix, have used them for years, but this whole "Watch It Now" thing is about as interesting to me as watching grass grow.

    • DRM: Check
      Low-def only: Check
      Low bitrate: Check
      Watch only on computer: Check
      No non-streaming option: Check
      No awareness of what 'on-line rental' means: Priceless.

    • Just a reality check, but would you be happy with HD 1080p movies at 500kbps?? I thought not. Low resolution is there because of low bitrate. High resolution low bitrate is same shit.

      But yes, "Watch It Now" sucks. Easier for find some interesting crap on youtube or somewhere.
      • >Just a reality check, but would you be happy with HD 1080p movies at 500kbps??

        No. But there are other models for on-line service that don't require streaming. Downloading, for example. Of course, that does kinda defeat the whole watch-it-NOW concept.

        With x264, DVD res+ac3 has a reasonable bitrate at about 1Mb/s. But even with x264, reasonable 1080i/p+ac3 bitrates have to be, what, 5Mb/s or something? That is the absolute max of my cable modem service! I don't think Cox would be very happy :)
    • Don;t forget: I can watch a movie when I've got nothing else to do: Check

      Look, obsess all you want about
      DRM (why, did you pay for the movies and want to make copies?),
      low-def (TV resolution... maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but as much as I love watching movies in high-def, moderate resolutions - esp if I'm watching on a 15-17" monitor or laptop - are perfectly fine)
      Watch only on computer (simply wrong - dude, buy decent video card and a cable?)
      Limited Selection: true
      No non-streaming option: well, no, it's a 'str
  • I hate DVDs. I actually looked at Netflix, but the streaming limits turned me off. I watch all my movies on a laptop, anyway, so that's not an issue for me.

    The Windows only aspect *may* become an issue for me at some point, assuming I ever get the wireless working under Linux .I'm not spending a lot of time on it, though. Pretty much just trying each version of Ubuntu as it's released.

  • I've been watching MI-5 [wikipedia.org] using Netflix streaming. It's a great show and I love that I can get my fix instantly! Both seasons 1 and 2 are available to watch online. I'm on the $10/month plan so I'm very happy to see the limit eliminated.
  • They need to make more films available using streaming. Most if not all of the 6000 movies available are really old or the least popular.
    Also they REALLY need to get away from IE-only technology.
  • Yes, it's very limited (OS/Browser/Media Player) but remember, this is NOT a standalone service. People do not subscribe to Netflix to "watch streaming movies". No. The only purpose of streaming at this time is to provide a bonus extra feature. For those cases where you sit at the computer and want to run some movie in a background.
    For those who really really want to watch it on TV there'll be a set-top box.
    For everyone else, Netflix will remain a DVD rental service.

    P.s. do they already make an iTunes for L
  • I'd rather they just brought back the "Releasing This Week" page instead of that Fisher Price Activity Box style of New Releases (which has releases a year old) page with its "gee whiz" effects that makes web designers orgasm and gives web users headaches.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close