Is YouTube Launching a Netflix Competitor?

RedEaredSlider writes "YouTube could become the latest to offer a movie rental service, challenging streaming sites such as Netflix. Google is lining up deals with major Hollywood studios in order to launch the service. An anonymous executive at a studio that has signed on said Sony Pictures Entertainment, Warner Brothers, Lionsgate and Universal have all licensed their movies to the service. Not everyone is on board — Paramount, Fox and Disney declined to join."

Good luck with that

[elrous0]

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Warner Brothers, Lionsgate and Universal have all licensed their movies to the service.

How many movies? In what release window? will they be in HD? Will my xbox/PS3/blu-ray player support their streaming? Will they mail physical copies of movies that aren't available for streaming to my mailbox within 24-hours? What's the monthly fee?

Until these and many more questions are answered, I wouldn't call them a Netflix competitor at all. Netflix has established themselves as the guys to beat. And even if you can match their streaming service, you're damn sure going to have a tough time beating their mail service. And their mail service is still where I get most of my movies from them (since streaming is still only available for a fraction of their library). The fact that they're still missing three major studios doesn't give me much confidence that they're going to represent any real threat to Netflix. Blockbuster, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, and Hulu have all tried (often with half-assed efforts) to beat Netflix before. So you had better bring your A-game if you hope to do any better than they did.

Of course, they will decidely have an upper hand over Netflix in offering short videos of guys getting kicked in the groin and whiney teenagers crying about their tough suburban lives on webcams. I'll leave if for others to judge if that's an advantage or disadvantage.

Re:

[oakgrove]

How many movies? In what release window? will they be in HD? Will my xbox/PS3/blu-ray player support their streaming? Will they mail physical copies of movies that aren't available for streaming to my mailbox within 24-hours? What's the monthly fee?

Until these and many more questions are answered, I wouldn't call them a Netflix competitor at all.

So, you think that in order for someone to compete, they must clone the incumbent? I'll bet Blockbuster, Tower Records, Hollywood Video, et al wished that were true.

Re:

[elrous0]

Since that's who the article indicated they were intended to compete with, then that's who they must be compared to, of course.

Re:

[oakgrove]

You weren't just doing a simple comparison. You were implying that if this Youtube thing doesn't have $NETFLIX_FEATURE_1, $NETFLIX_FEATURE_2, and $NETFLIX_FEATURE_3, then Google is not competing with Netflix. That's just laughable.

Re:

[elrous0]

If you were going to compete with someone, would you just ignore all their best features?

Re:

[oakgrove]

That's not what you said. There is a difference between being aware of competitive realities and slavishly aping somebody else's product whilst maybe adding +1 to the end of each checkbox. You implied that if Google doesn't do the latter, they are not "competing".

Re:

[oakgrove]

I think that any service/good that competes with anything else brings its own mix of features and limitations that may or may not map 1:1 with what is already available. Netflix did not do what Blockbuster did. We saw the result. This will probably be different from what Netflix does. Competition is good.

Re:

[rtb61]

Competition is exactly what the publishing houses do not want. The more content that is available the cheaper it becomes. There is already more out than anyone can watch, so it all start competing for access to the consumers limited amount of time.

Re:

[oakgrove]

And it will fail since what Netflix offers clearly seems to be what customers want since they also have more customers than even a larger cable company.

That's nonsense. I don't doubt that Netflix is a compelling service, however, it is not the be all end all of movie and television delivery. You are saying that because Netflix is popular that it will always be so. Uh, hello? IBM, DEC, Sun, Chrysler, and thousands to millions of others.

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

I won't use the term "too big to fail", but Netflix does have more customers than Comcast does. Anybody else getting into the game now would need to build an equal customer base to effectively compete. And I really don't see anyone doing that this late in the game...

Re:

[oakgrove]

This late in what game? The streaming video game? Ahem, Youtube. And furthermore, as has been shown many many times, predicting the outcome of business competition based on when the particular participants chose to get in is completely futile. Apple was late to the smartphone game. Microsoft was late to the GUI game. Facebook was late to the social networking game. None of that mattered. They came in with compelling services/products and spanked the competition. Your contention that Google is "too

Re:

[AvitarX]

What if it's free?

Google is really good at advertising, and using data to make ads pay more.

It is quite likely that Google can use this to their advantage and be closer to a Hulu competitor, but one that pays the content producers more.

Re:

[elrous0]

Hulu already does free streaming, and they're not any real competitor with Netflix (not even in the streaming market, much less the overall rental market).

Re:

[oakgrove]

Hulu has crap content compared to Netflix. I'm sure Google realizes this and will hopefully address it with their offering.

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This will probably be different from what Netflix does.

And it will fail since what Netflix offers clearly seems to be what customers want since they also have more customers than even a larger cable company.

Customers don't want only one thing, last I checked. The majority of households are not Netflix customers. I'd even suspect that the majority of computer-using households are not NF customers. There's plenty of room in the market for Google to offer either a different service that meets the needs of other customers; a complementary service; or even to try a directly competing service.

Re:

[hedwards]

And how many of the remaining households have a connection that's fast enough to stream movies? I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I don't think it's particularly fair to include households with a connection insufficient to stream in that calculation, otherwise Netflix would likely be doing a lot better in that respect.

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

Netflix has more customers than Comcast does. So I would guess out of the homes that do streaming movies currently, Netflix is the most likely leading company. Google isn't going to be able to get a customer base that large that fast. Also, is has been estimated that Netflix accounts for up to 20% of peak internet traffic - which is about twice what YouTube does. I am not saying impossible, but any competing streaming service has an uphill struggle.

Re:

[Runaway1956]

You know that people can stream from their Linux boxes, don't you? I presume there is Windows and Mac software available that will do the same. Maybe I shouldn't mention that VLC will stream to a file. People might misuse that information . . .

stuck in the 90s

[poptones]

I don't own any of those game systems, so this "people" really don't want that. I have a PC, and I have a monitor, and that's how I "watch TV." My monitor is a 42" Panasonic Viera. I don't have cable cuz I am too cheap to pay for it. And I'm damn sure not going to pay per view for every movie and tv show.

I may not be a "typical user" but you're clueless if you think I'm one of a rare few geeks out there who have figured out how to connect an HDMI cable from my pc to my shiny new "digital TV."

Re:

[IICV]

Will they mail physical copies of movies that aren't available for streaming to my mailbox within 24-hours?

We have a Netflix subscription, the cheapest one, and we've just kept the most recent disk without returning it for a couple of months - there's nothing in our subscription queue that's worth the trip to the mailbox.

However, we watch things on Netflix Instant all the time; it's much more convenient than having to deal with physical disks (which occasionally just don't work in my wife's MacBook or the M

Re:

[h4rr4r]

How can the DVDs not work on Myth?
I have never seen one fail in my linux boxes, my home is linux and solaris only.

Re:

[IICV]

I have no idea. It might be that the DVD drives are failing - my wife got a penny in the DVD drive on her MacBook, and the MythTV box is using one that's been recycled through several other computers.

Re:

[b0bby]

How can the DVDs not work on Myth?
I have never seen one fail in my linux boxes, my home is linux and solaris only.

Crappy DVD drive. I have one that I'm too lazy to replace, since I only use that machine once a month or so to watch movies from disc, and some of them do work...

Re:

[elrous0]

I do the same. But there are a LOT of movies I want to see that just aren't available for streaming (or only available for certain time periods). I like that Netflix allows me to see everything in some form, even if it's not available for streaming.

Re:

[Kamiza Ikioi]

How many prime time shows? Will they be have current seasons of all major studios? Will they play through my cable box? Will they support TV Guide listings?

Until these and many other questions are answered, I wouldn't call Netflix a competitor to cable companies at all...

(/sarcasm)

Seriously, you listed Blockbuster? Did you write that comment 3 years ago or travel through a time warp? A back alley Betamax rental booth is a real threat to Blockbuster. And Walmart, Apple, and Amazon? WTF, man? These aren't ev

Re:

[elrous0]

The article indicated that this was intended as a competitor with Netflix, and so that's what I compared it to. And yes, those other services aren't in the same league as Netflix. They're just examples of other services that have attempted at some point to compete with Netflix and failed.

Netflix is massively overvalued IMO

[llZENll]

I have Netflix, love it, but it is massively overvalued IMO. Its like a dotcom with hardly any capitol. Google, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, or any of the big players could render Netflix worthless overnight if they were able to agree to deals with any of the major studios for streaming newly released movies. Netflix streaming is awesome and I love it, but to be honest the selection is pathetic, there is hardly anything on there that is new, and nothing on there is a blockbuster title and new. The day the stud

Nothing of Value?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> ->Paramount, Fox and Disney declined to join

> And nothing of value was lost.

Star Trek?

Classic Disney Movies? Animated Robin Hood? Treasure Island? 20,000 leagues under the Sea? Marvel Entertainment?

Emily Deschanel?

Re:

[Anthony Mouse]

1) It was a joke.

2) How much of that stuff was made in the last, I don't know, 15 years?

3) How much of that stuff would actually end up on a streaming service, instead of in the "Disney Vault" while the streaming service gets The Pacifier, Air Bud and reruns of Hannah Montana?

Re:

[Jason Earl]

I personally am a huge Pixar fan, and I tend to purchase DVDs of most Disney animated films (Ratatouille being the major modern exception). Surprisingly enough, when I turned off cable (for Netflix) recently the one thing that my family really missed was the Disney Channel. I thought I would miss Discovery and the History Channel, but there are quite a few interesting documentaries that I can stream.

Luckily Netflix has old episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Now if only they had Linux support.

Re:

[zach_the_lizard]

Yeah, no one wants to see such rinky dink films such as Star Wars, no one watched Family Guy (and similar), The Simpsons was cancelled midway through a season, Futurama only released a pilot episode, etc. etc. It's not like we're crying for the return of Firefly either. That's just Fox. Disney and Paramount have some big names too, like Star Trek for instance. Both have a pretty large collection of classic movies. A lot of their newer crap (all of these studios) sucks (e.g. Family Guy; I hate that shit), bu

Re:Good luck with that

[iluvcapra]

Paramount:

• Complete Paramount and Desilu film and television library, including all Star Trek syndicated TV and feature films.
• Complete CBS and Viacom television library, Aaron Spelling's library, MTV, Showtime, TNT, SpikeTV...
• Carolco catalogue: Total Recall, Terminator 2, LA Story, Oliver Stone's Stone's The Doors
• Most of the Cannon Films library, which is sortof a laugh but has a ton of genre scifi films from the 80s that we love: Invasion, USA, Runaway Train, Cyborg etc.
• The CW (heh!)
• Basically anything with a Paramount logo on it after 1970. Depressingly, Paramount sold most of its back catalogue off in the 50s. It never held indefesible rights to the Alfred Hitchcock films it produced, those reverted to his estate (thank god).

Fox:

• Any Alien film
• Any Star Wars film (a mixed bag to be sure)
• Any Predator film, any Die Hard film
• 20th TV, so Fringe, Firefly, 24, Family Guy, American Dad , Simpsons, etc.
  

Fox is huge hunk chunk of the contemporary adult library and makes a ton of good new content. Disney:

• Any Pixar film
• Basically any film made in the last 30 years you can take a 10 year old to see without worrying about what's in it
• Bascially any film made previous to the last 30 years that a 10 year old would WANT to see
• Touchstone: Dead Poets Society, almost anything Ron Howard made in the 80s, Wes Anderson's films, Who Framed Roger Rabbit
• Much Jerry Bruckheimer, through Touchstone of Hollywood Pictures: The Rock, Pirates of the Carribean, but older films like Con Air and The Ref to name only a few.
• ABC Studios: Lost, Scrubbs, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy
• Hollywood Pictures, genre films of the 90s: Arachnophobia, etc.

These three studios control maybe half the modern library real estate. Warner Bros, controls basically the entire classic film library, Sony much of the remaining TV and both control most of the remaining franchises.

Re:

[iluvcapra]

Actually TNT is Warner Bros., sorry!

Re:

[elrous0]

Considering that the studios' weird morass of international video distribution agreements has most frequently been cited as the sticking point with international streaming, this seems very unlikely.

Re:

[Yvan256]

Blockbuster? The company that filed for bankruptcy [www.cbc.ca] and that's also having a hard time in Canada (too expensive compared to competitors)?

Blockbuster isn't competition at all, except maybe if you're still thinking in terms of VHS tapes.

Re:

[Yvan256]

However, unless someone comes out with a better deal than an 8$-per-month-stream-all-you-want buffet and/or offering the service in more than two countries (especially countries where there's no ridiculously low download monthly caps like the USA and Canada), I don't see it happening any time soon.

Not really competing with Netflix

[Sonny Yatsen]

Is Youtube's business model really competing with Netflix? The 24-hour $2.99 rentals look and feel a lot more like Amazon's video rental service (excluding Prime) than it does Netflix's all-you-can-eat model. Frankly, I think this model is kind of doomed from the get-go. Amazon and Apple have tried this kind of video rental service, and while I'm sure it's somewhat of a success, it has done absolutely nothing to stop Netflix from gaining market share and subscribers. Even Amazon realizes that the future of video services lie in all-you-can-eat services like Netflix rather than per-title rentals. And, frankly, I think that's what most consumers nowadays want anyway. Unless Youtube is going to actually go toward a more Netflix-like model, or find a model that's even more appealing to consumers, I can't see it as being terribly successful.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Is Youtube's business model really competing with Netflix? The 24-hour $2.99 rentals look and feel a lot more like Amazon's video rental service (excluding Prime) than it does Netflix's all-you-can-eat model.

They can switch up any time, provided they have agreements in place with the copyright holders. Until they have a sizable catalog an à la carte approach is more appealing to me. There are probably numerous ways a new service could distinguish itself. For example, if I could preload the entire movie in 1080p and I could seek fore and aft then I would be pretty interested in a 72-hour rental that I could download overnight. The long period is to permit me to not watch it on the night I thought I was goin

Re:

[Desler]

Until they have a sizable catalog an à la carte approach is more appealing to me.

So you can spend more for less?

Re:

[bennomatic]

Or less for less. If I can get a movie for less cost than it would be on, say, iTunes, but with a longer rental period (have a toddler, so it often takes me three evenings to finish watching a movie), and faster than Netflix (maybe it's only available on DVD so I'd have to wait for it) or Blockbuster (have to run out, again a hassle with the toddler), then it might be worthwhile.

Of course, balance that against the hassle of having to think about all the variables and it might not work out. What would b

Re:

[Your.Master]

I rent fewer than 2 movies per month. I doubt it's even one per month, but I don't keep that close track.

Re:

[goombah99]

saving a few dollars by eating day old bread or brown bananas is not a savings. paying $7 more to get new movies is not a lot to pay. And for those months when you don't watch many cause you are busy or there's nothing but crap, you get back some compared to the monthly drain.

That's the magic of $2.99. If we were talking $6.99 a movie then for me it would start to matter. but at $2.99 the amount extra I might save over netflix is not worth what I lose.

Re:

[bennomatic]

It depends on your priorities. If there are plenty of movies available that you're interested in at a lower rate, there's no reason to pay for something that just came out which eventually will become cheaper, unless you absolutely must have it now.

Remember, $2.99 isn't just $2.99. If you watch three movies a week, that starts to stack up.

And to your bread analogy, we buy a new loaf of bread twice a week in my house. My wife *must* have the fresh bread and will always start working on the new one.

Re:

[goombah99]

I have some day old sushi I'd like to sell you.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I personally was thinking more like once a month or less I might rent a $2.99 movie if I could keep it for three days, like old school video rental often works/worked. And if Youtube's service turned out to be superior to Netflix — and why not, when it would very likely not be built on SIlverlight — then I might well switch to Youtube later. Actually, I'm starting to have problems finding things I want to watch on Netflix (yes, I am a picky bastard) so if their catalog were substantial

Re:

[Creepy]

I would agree - Netflix's closest competitor is Comcast, which also has the pay-as-you-go model. Netflix owns 61% of the market, Comcast 8% (and Comcast is second!). OTOH, YouTube is a close second to Netflix for volume of US internet traffic (20% to 19% to Facebook's 17% - not that Facebook is also trying to get into the market), so the infrastructure is there.

OTOH, it depends on the movies - Netflix only streams a limited catalog, and while that is plenty to keep my nieces and nephews busy when they visit

Re:

[Creepy]

oops - typo - "not that facebook" should be 'note that facebook"

the magic of 2.99

[goombah99]

$2.99 can compete against netflix in two ways. First netflix does not get streaming disks as early. At best they get physical disks at the same time. if you calculate how may physical disks you can run through in a month, then this is perhaps about 2 a week or less for mere mortals. Sure you can possibly get more if you are reasonably diligent about watching and returning them quickly. But most people don't watch that many or return them that quickly. so $2.99 is a fine deal to get what you want.
the

Re:

[migla]

>Sure you can possibly get more if you are reasonably diligent about watching and returning them quickly.

Rip or burn isos to hdd and watch the movies when you have time. Timeshifting is legal, isn't it? ;)

Re:

[timeOday]

Even Amazon realizes that the future of video services lie in all-you-can-eat services like Netflix rather than per-title rentals.

No way, not for recent movie releases.

Re:

[tompaulco]

The 24-hour $2.99 rentals look and feel a lot more like Amazon's video rental service (excluding Prime) than it does Netflix's all-you-can-eat model.

Consumer of video services: "Pay as you go video is a dead service model. We demand all-you-can-eat pricing."

Consumer of cable TV: "Broadcast pricing is a dead service model. We demand a-la-carte pricing."


Service providers: "???"

Is it going to work on TV?

[alen]

if not then major FAIL. Netflix streams HD to real TV's that real people watch. Youtube seems to be aimed at people watching short videos while they are bored. some of the TV implementations are OK like on LG TV's. the Playstation version of youtube is crap

Re:

[bhagwad]

You realize it's dirt easy to just connect your laptop to your TV with just one cable?

The majority of the public does not realize

[tepples]

You realize it's dirt easy to just connect your laptop to your TV with just one cable?

Three problems:

1. Only if it's a laptop, not a desktop PC. A lot of people don't have the PC close enough to a TV, nor are they willing to buy a PC just for the TV cabinet.
2. Not if it's an SDTV. Most PCs don't come with S-Video or composite outputs. There was a time when most laptops had S-Video, but most people I met didn't realize one could turn S-Video into composite with an appropriate cable, and besides, laptops have started to omit S-Video in favor of HDMI.
3. I realize this, but I'm in no way a representati

Re:

[h4rr4r]

HDMI can go hundreds of feet, so desktop is fine.

SDTVs are on the way out, you can't even buy them anymore.

The general public are morons and will buy a google TV or another set top box for this.

The sports fan living inside will be glad to hear about OTA TV, bars and that he could go to live sporting events with the money he is saving.

Pulling cable through the wall; Sal Army SDTVs

[tepples]

HDMI can go hundreds of feet, so desktop is fine.

Unless your landlord doesn't want you pulling HDMI cable through the wall from the PC room to the TV room. Input (such as changing channels) becomes a problem too at that point.

SDTVs are on the way out, you can't even buy them anymore.

Cheapskates like some members of my family are more likely to use an SDTV until it breaks and then replace it with an SDTV from a pawn shop or charity shop than to buy a new HDTV. "You don't need the sharper picture, Matthew; you can see your game just fine on the tube TV."

The general public are morons and will buy a google TV or another set top box for this.

More likely they'll just stick with Netflix, which their exis

Re:

[h4rr4r]

Unless your landlord doesn't want you pulling HDMI cable through the wall from the PC room to the TV room.

In any sane state he can't do a damn thing about it. So long as you fix the holes when you leave. Input is done via wireless, bluetooth works over these distances.

Cheapskates like some members of my family are more likely to use an SDTV until it breaks and then replace it with an SDTV from a pawn shop or charity shop than to buy a new HDTV. "You don't need the sharper picture, Matthew; you can see your

Re:

[h4rr4r]

Actually you put HDMI over two CAT5e Cables using booster/converters and you can indeed go 100s of feet.

Re:

[ThatMegathronDude]

HDMI carries sound and many graphics chips have drivers that implement a virtual sound card that sends sound out through HDMI.

Re:

[JonySuede]

sound->HDMI
if you are ignorant about a subject please post your post as a question !

VGA+audio cable

[tepples]

tepples wrote:

a VGA+audio or HDMI cable

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Don't forget sound, that's another issue, find a earphone jack cable to convert the sound into RCA patch cable. etc.

Others have pointed out that HDMI carries audio. But in case your PC has only VGA or DVI output, a few TVs such as my Vizio have a separate audio input next to both the VGA input and one of the HDMI inputs, the latter designed for use with a DVI-D to HDMI cable. I've been in Walmart and seen a Belkin "laptop to TV cable" that bundles VGA and audio; that's what I meant by "a VGA+audio ... cable". So connecting audio and video from a PC to a TV isn't the problem as much as

Re:

[hawguy]

You realize it's dirt easy to just connect your laptop to your TV with just one cable?

You're overestimating the technical knowledge of at least 80% of consumers -- I'd never be able to talk Dad through hooking up a VGA cable between his TV and laptop and then get him to use the computer to watch video. And of course, a single cable only gets him video since his laptop doesn't support HDMI out, he'll have to find a 3.5mm to RCA cable to get audio. And he'll want a remote control, so that's one more item he has to buy and set up.

I sent him a Roku and he was up and running in an hour.

Youtube w

Re:

[alen]

yes i have HDMI on my laptop but i'm not going to take my laptop to my TV just to rent a movie. it means i can't use my laptop in the meantime. what if my kid wants to watch something and i have to VPN into work?

my X-box and PS3 stream netflix. apple TV does the same as well as have a rental service built in. PS3 has Vudu built in to rent. x-box has zune. Internet enabled TV's have Vudu and cinemanow and amazon. internet enabled blu ray players as well. and my cable box has a limited selection of rentals

unl

Then hook up your kid's homework laptop

[tepples]

it means i can't use my laptop in the meantime. what if my kid wants to watch something and i have to VPN into work?

Then hook up your kid's homework laptop.

my X-box and PS3 stream netflix.

Do you just happily skip over any film that others have recommended to you that is available somewhere else but not on Netflix?

wait for the domain time out because i'm home

This is not typical. Most home laptops aren't on an Active Directory domain; instead, they're joined to a workgroup because Windows Home Premium doesn't support joining an Active Directory domain.

these days a laptop is only good for holding some media, playing some games if you need to and work. 95% of the time it's off at home

Most of the time, my laptop is on sleep, not off.

wait for start up apps to load, it's almost 10 minutes

This startup time is also not typical even for Windows, as I understand it. What sort of application

Re:

[hawguy]

Do you just happily skip over any film that others have recommended to you that is available somewhere else but not on Netflix?

I know I do -- I have 100 movies in my disk rental queue and 50 in my instant watch queue (which I use much more often, maybe a 5:1 or 10:1 ratio of instant views to disk). If a particular movie is not available on Netflix, I have plenty of others to watch.

If someone recommends a new release, I just add it to my queue and eventually it will become available. There are a few obscure movies that people have recommended that were in the Netflix database but not currently available for rental - I've just kept t

Re:

[b0bby]

It's enough of a pain in the ass that I ended up buying an Atom-based nettop machine to leave permanently attached, with a remote. Most people aren't going to do that. Plus, the firmware based netflix clients are very smooth and nice to use in my experience. I use the one in my blu-ray player all the time. It's just easier than the pc thing, and I like my pc thing.

YouTube XL

[tepples]

HDTVs have HDMI and VGA inputs, and PCs have VGA and lately HDMI outputs. Therefore, anything that works on a PC works on an HDTV. The rest is just a matter of making sure the UI has a 10-foot mode, which isn't that different from mobile UI. See YouTube XL.

Netflix streams HD to real TV's that real people watch.

It appears you're referring to the claim that most PC owners haven't bothered to run an HDMI cable between the PC and the TV. Even in that case, don't Apple TV and Google TV get YouTube?

the Playstation version of youtube is crap

Did you expect more from Sony?

Re:

[zach_the_lizard]

I don't expect the stereotypical Grandma to plug her PC into the TV. There are even people my age (21) and younger who can't be bothered to hook up a DVD player to a TV. Yes, it's dead simple, but tell them that. To them it's recalibrating the field matrix converter to correct for quantum leptonium fields to enable maximum warp drive efficiency.

Re:

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> Netflix streams HD to real TV's that real people watch.

Of course. Clearly, Google/Youtube will have to rely on fake TV's (sic) and fake people.

Re:

[orgelspieler]

I already watch YouTube on my Internet-connected Samsung HDTV. Several blu-ray players have this option, too. So your concern over a major FAIL is unfounded. It's not the easiest user interface, but it does the job. When my 4 year old asks me how forklifts are made, it's nice to be able to press a few buttons and have a video ready to go. I could pull out the laptop and do the same thing, I guess, but sometimes TV just seems like preferred screen. Especially since he is likely to be playing elsewhere in the

Re:

[MBGMorden]

Netflix does that with agreements that it has reached with various set-top box providers. I'm sure that Google could negotiate similar deals.

Alternatively, they do kinda sorta have a set-top box offering that I'm sure would support this:

http://www.google.com/tv/ [google.com]

Re:

[alen]

ahh yes, the $300 box with the vanishing features. cool idea to stream TV until the networks blocked it after seeing google news in action

Great, Market Fragmentation

[EmagGeek]

I can see it now.

Netflix will have an exclusive agreement with one group of studios.

Google will have an exclusive agreement with another group of studios.

Amazon will have an exclusive agreement with yet another group.

The result will be that you'll have to buy all three services to see all the movies you want... I can't wait.

Re:

[spikenerd]

Exactly. Until now, Google was one of the few companies that had not climbed into bed with media. Look what that did to Sony. First it will be, "Subscribe now for premium quality search results!". Next, we'll get, "We work hard to protect you from unsafe unfiltered search results!" Pretty soon it will be, "We need a tax on the Internet and several unfair laws to subsidize our dying business model. The Internet is just too important to fail!"

Re:

[xMrFishx]

...and it still won't exist in Europe.

If that form of media appeared over here, it would be interesting to see if it would hold up to anti-competitive scrutiny. I'm already quite convinced the movie companies operate as a cartel if you look close enough at their consumer pricing, yet no one has picked them up for it (I don't think).

Re:

[dwandy]

...and PirateBay will still have an agreement with none of them, yet somehow will be the best option for getting content. huh.

Re:

[MBGMorden]

Apples to Oranges comparison. None of the online services come close to the quality of a Bluray Disc.

No, they don't. HOWEVER, all of them have a quality that is basically as good as I'd ever care to watch. They all have decent 720p available at a minimum, and truthfully I have no issue with 720p. As a matter of fact, Aside from a side by side comparison (and even then I'd have to look closely), I can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Disney is not a joiner

[argStyopa]

Disney not joining is meaningless and unsurprising.
Disney is nearly Luddite when it comes to distribution technologies - they refuse EVERYTHING at first, and are only dragged in later when the cash pile becomes too big to ignore.

DIVX (the original crappy planned-expiring rental disc technology, not the codec)
Didn't they even refuse to put their films on DVD at first, out of piracy fears?

Re:

[nedlohs]

Didn't they even refuse to put their films on DVD at first, out of piracy fears?

No.

Re:

[way2trivial]

Um... some disney titles were released in divx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX#List_of_films_available_on_DIVX [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Kjella]

Dunno, but at least one thing Disney was infamous for was playing with availability - they know that your kids are only in the right age for their movies for a short time so they'd choke and pump supply, instead of going into the bargain bin they'd disappear - and they wouldn't be back until your kid is a little too old. Pretty nice trick to stress out parents into buying and to pay full price. I think with piracy going up that's more or less died out though, if it's not in the store it's always on TPB...

Re:

[Yvan256]

Yeah, kids love The Peanut Butter!

Didn't think I'd champion Silverlight...

[HerculesMO]

But YouTube's "buffering" and Flash problems are worse for me than Netflix has *ever* been in streaming content. I can watch a movie in HD and if my connection starts to suck, the movie starts streaming at a lower quality in order to keep playing. Flash can't do that, and YouTube can't do that.

So no, I think that until we are all on HTML5 (no time soon) or until Google decides to use Silverlight to do the streaming, Netflix has no competition in this space.

Re:

[CyDharttha]

Hulu's service detects bandwidth and will auto-adjust the video quality while a video is playing. I've seen it go from 720p to 288p, then to 480p, as the poor connection I was on fluctuated. It was a seamless experience. The absence of Silverlight is the exact reason I opened this story. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to use Silverlight on my devices. I'd be a Netflix subscriber if I could. I've seen plenty of comments above (especially the per movie rental cost) that are good reasons to not sign u

Re:

[Yvan256]

You only need Silverlight on Windows and Mac. Otherwise, the Netflix client is either built-in or downloadable as a separate application (iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, PS3 and Wii come to mind). At this point I wouldn't even surprise me to learn that a Netflix client is available for the Nintendo 3DS.

Re:

[Stratoukos]

Southparkstudios.com has been auto-adjusting video quality with flash for quite some time now.

Re:

[CSMatt]

But YouTube's "buffering" and Flash problems are worse for me than Netflix has *ever* been in streaming content. I can watch a movie in HD and if my connection starts to suck, the movie starts streaming at a lower quality in order to keep playing. Flash can't do that, and YouTube can't do that.

Comedy Central's player does this, and it's in Flash.

Maybe a Netflix Motivator (if not competitor).

[bareman]

I'd gladly pay someone to stream the titles that Netflix still has on disc only. It's 2011 and when I decide I want to watch something I should be able to watch it NOW. When Netflix offered a lower rate to go streaming only I dumped the disc faster than you can say "Why would anyone wait for the postal service?".

I hope that this lights a fire under Netflix's collective butts to get more of their library available for streaming.

And until it does, I'd be glad to send money to someone that will stream these

Sorry, not buying more hardware

[yodleboy]

After investing plenty of money in blu-ray players that stream netflix, a PS3 that can stream netflix and a couple of roku boxes that can stream netflix, I'm not about to spend more. Netflix's big coup, I think,is that they very quickly got it on a ton of gadgets that connect directly to your TV. It's going to be hard to compete if you have a dedicated device because the difference in content just isn't compelling enough for a lot of people to switch AND buy more gadgets.

Now you might see a channel on RO

Re:

[city]

On most netflix blu-ray players there is already a youtube app. I never use it, but i know its on my LG blu-ray player.

Re:

[yodleboy]

yeah no LG here, I have a samsung w/ netflix and blockbuster and some other brand with netflix and vudu, whatever that is.

Re:

[Yvan256]

Not only that, but they were able to have Netflix on the new Apple TV, which makes direct competition to the iTunes Store on Apple's own device. They were also able to push it on the Xbox360 which competes with the Zune store (or whatever they call it).

Buffering

[josteos]

Youtube can't handle streaming shitty homemade movies without ...buffering.... and ..buffering.. and ..buffering..

I can't wait to see how they handle feature-length films where quality matters.

Re:

[FatAlb3rt]

When you start paying them, do you think they'll let it continue to be a problem?

As a linux user

[assertation]

I can't watch streaming movies from Netflix.

I have watched movies from hulu.com and youtube.com. If they can get a similar selection of movies to netflix, as nice a site and if they can do it at roughly the same price I would quit netflix.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[blair1q]

That only happened because until they did it was running neck-and-neck, with several major studios working both sides of the street, and there were only a few of the bigs left to decide. Whichever one of them had chosen, the others would have followed.

As for Netflix, its selection is vastly overrated. They do have Star Trek on disc and instant. But they've probably got 5% penetration to the universe of movies, and 20-30% in terms of recent titles.

Which means they have lots of growing room, but also lots

Re:

[ThatMegathronDude]

I think you forgot the PS3 install base...

Re:

[MBGMorden]

Which isn't proof of much. I could pick any other distributor that went with Blu-Ray too as an example. Doesn't mean that they were the cause of why one standard succeeded and the other failed. My personal theory is just that Blu-Ray sounds cooler and more futuristic.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Dont forget about Pixar.