Netflix Using HTML5 Video For ARM Chromebook 232
sfcrazy writes "Netflix is using HTML5 video streaming instead of using Microsoft's Silverlight on Chromebooks (which now supports DRM for HTML5). Recently Google enabled the much controversial DRM support for HTML5 in Chrome OS to bring services like Netflix to Chromebooks using HTML5."
Still no word on general support for GNU/Linux, but x86 or ARM, what's the difference? (If you're ok with DRM at least.)
if you're ok with DRM (Score:2)
No, im not. But thanks for asking.
and if you're not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:and if you're not (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean? Their products are easily accessible DRM free.
Jeez with the number of times The Pirate Bay and the rest of them get mentioned on Slashdot I'm surprised more people don't know about torrents. :P
Risk of being sued for copyright infringement (Score:2)
Their products are easily accessible DRM free.
Not without running the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. Even in countries where downloading is not prohibited, torrent users upload as they download, or they get very little download speed from public trackers and kicked off private trackers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, they keep driving them, but they wouldn't download a car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sonny Bono (Score:5, Insightful)
You know... delayed gratification
Except the U.S. Congress keeps extending this delay. It's already well over a decade past the human life expectancy.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Lobbying has already started.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/455848/disney_calls_extended_copyright_international_trade_agreement/ [computerworld.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? they ride roughshod over the customers by implementing drm schemes and ever extending copyright terms in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Love and marriage, love and marriage (Score:3)
The movies themselves are fine, it's the DRM i don't like.
Under current law, it's the right of the companies that financed those movies to dictate that you can't have one without the other. So until the law changes, if you support these movies, you support digital restrictions management.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:if you're ok with DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:if you're ok with DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to understand why
It's not their call, it's not their content. They do it because the content owners won't have it any other way.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it all or nothing.
I'm not ok with DRM on products I'm purchasing (I buy a music/movie file from amazon or a dvd from walmart). I am ok with DRM used to protect a service based month to month system like netflix.
I know going in that netflix is about giving me access to view movies/tv only while I continue to pay, and that when I stop I lose access. If I wanted to own a copy of the movie, I wouldn't be using netflix. This is a case where DRM is not harming me and I'm ok with it.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you parse their sentence, what you say can't be correct.
They say "Own it on Blu-Ray". They specifically mention that the thing you own is on a Blu-Ray disk. Unless they have totally warped the English language (and spacetime), the 'it' cannot be the disk, ergo it must be something else. The only thing 'on' the disk (other than the artwork) is the pattern on bits.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a little different in the days of the VCR. You could duplicate content, but there were serious generational losses.
HTML5 with DRM, or Silverlight... (Score:2)
Decisions, decisions...
Not that either are ideal, but considering that Silverlight (or Netflix) can't manage to sync my audio and video on my current netbook, I'd be willing to switch to improve my Netflix stream.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't you just go without? Or is the idea of a protest where you don't still get what you want a little ... uncomfortable for you?
Re:HTML5 with DRM, or Silverlight... (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have the right to break the law because you think they're stupid.
I have the right to break whatever law I damn well please, but I knowingly accept the risk. Let's put this into perspective. Breaking copyright law is not (yet) the same as theft or violent crime. It's more like riding your bike on the sidewalk or installing a purchased copy of Windows on two computers in your house. The media companies certainly have the right to control their content and to sue you for violating their copyrights, but they do not (yet) have the right to charge you with a crime and lock you up in jail for seeding a torrent.
In most places in the world, however, it is a (severe) criminal offense to possess marijuana. But that doesn't stop people from smoking it, thereby demonstrating the futility of the law and the harmlessness of the drug. (Note that the use of other drugs, like crack and meth, have had the opposite effect and elicited stricter penalties and, in some cases, public health programs.) Same goes for DRM; we keep downloading to show media conglomerates what we want content distribution to look like. I know I'm no alone here; I would gladly pay for the level of service that usenet provides, even with all the headache of PAR files and buggy fetchers/parsers. What they offer, however, is a hodgepodge of websites and half-baked software tied to various hardware platforms and myriad "This content is not available in your region" messages.
Give me XBMC with flat-rate and micropayment back ends that don't categorically exclude some studios/networks/distributors and watch me pay for what I currently get for free.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, he only said you don't have the right to do it. He didn't say you shouldn't do it :) (He said if you believed what you said, you *would* stop doing it, but not *should*)
How's it work on Android? (Score:4, Informative)
Eh? Netflix seems to work just fine on my Android tablets, and I'm pretty sure it's not using Silverlight there. Probably doesn't use it on the various Smart TVs and Blu-Ray players that support it, either. Is this just a case of Google deciding to enable something that other people were using already? Or do these other platforms use Moonlight or something?
Re:How's it work on Android? (Score:4, Informative)
Moonlight can't be used for Netflix, which is why Linux users have to resort to crazy hacks like this [omgubuntu.co.uk] to get their Netflix fix.
I'd also point out that the iPad has had an official Netflix app for some time, and I highly doubt that involves running Silverlight either.
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy hacks? Its just firefox and wine. Geez, you add one repo and install a package and it just works 99% of the time.
What more could you want?
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it's nicely packaged and easy to use doesn't mean it's not a crazy hack. I don't mean to knock it by calling it that, on the contrary -- what's more awesome than a crazy hack?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At these prices and levels of effort, why not just get a Chromebook, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
This guy had one answer: "when I travel I take only my Linux laptop [slashdot.org]." If I'm already taking a laptop to do things that a chromebook can't do, why should I have to take a chromebook, as well?
For myself, I've got a Windows partition for things like this. But I can definitely see the chromebook advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a fair amount of skepticism about the Chromebook, but I'm a fan of the old-school "light" and "thin client" platforms which continue to fail in the marketplace. When I recently obtained my Chromebook at a substantially lower price than the totally equivalent Windows laptop, I was convinced it was a great deal for what it's designed for. Of course, to use it, I had to submit to the "Google is everything" idea for those tasks I use the Chromebook for, which, I have to say, (for these tasks only), I am
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy hacks? Its just firefox and wine. Geez, you add one repo and install a package and it just works 99% of the time.
What more could you want?
How about something that works 100% of the time and without having to give an unknown repository the ability to install binaries on my system?
Re: (Score:3)
give an unknown repository the ability to install binaries on my system?
No, you're giving yourself the ability to install binaries from that repository. Big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
On all of those, its by way of a proprietary app that handles the DRM for the streaming video.
Its a case of--as TFA states--Google providing in Chrome a mechanism for supporting DRM along with HTML5 streaming
Re:How's it work on Android? (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. Netflix will run on any Android device running 2.2 and higher, regardless of support on said devices for hardware DRM. They do it in software within the Netflix app.
Re: (Score:2)
That was true when Netflix for Android first came out, but isn't any longer. As dreamchaser said, nowadays it will run on any Android 2.2 or higher device.
Re: (Score:3)
That changed with the 1.4 version of the Netflix client for Android. I think it was 1.4 at least, but as I said it will now run on any Android device running 2.2 or later, regardless of any hardware support. You're quoting a quite outdated blog post.
Re:How's it work on Android? (Score:4, Insightful)
You keep on repeating that but it still doesn't make any more sense no matter how much you repeat it.
Your typical PC or Mac doesn't require such things. Why should an OS running another form factor?
An appliance being a pretty locked down and highly controlled environment actually needs LESS "extra special hardware DRM support" than a PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Your typical PC or Mac doesn't require such things.
Because they implement the DRM in software.
Don't Believe Everything You Hear (Score:3)
it's due to hardware-level support of DRM
No, it's not. Because when the Netflix app was being released to a select group of Android phones and tablets, some minor build.prop hacking of the extracted APK enabled it to play on a whole other bunch of machines. This is still true for some machines where Netflix thinks it won't work... but it does.
Re: (Score:2)
what hardware level support drm?
the drm hardware you refer to doesn't actually exist. it's just an app. like silverlight is. it doesn't have magical hooks that would tell if it's running on a changed os or if it itself is changed.
they just bullshitted you and a whole bunch of other people, probably including a bunch of media execs.
there's just the assumption that the devices they released to were locked down. just that, an assumption, no hw magic pixie dusts.
(house of cards etc exclusives are on torrents -
Don't say "no" ; say "yes, but..." (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm totally ok with DRM, provided that it's very clear how to implement it, and I don't need to sign any contracts or otherwise agree to keep any trade secrets. Just write up the RFC, send it to IETF, and we'll all get to work on our your-DRM-compatible players. Everybody wins.
Re:Don't say "no" ; say "yes, but..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Everybody wins. Except consumers, who can't record it, can't excerpt it for fair use, can't back it up, can't move it to a later media format, and so will lose their investment eventually either because the media is obsolete or because the media the content is provided on has gone bad.
So, yeah, absolutely, everybody wins.
Not.
Re: (Score:2)
Subscription based content access. You are paying for a service.
Re: (Score:2)
What he just stated is the entire moral basis for copyright law.
Copyright law was never supposed to govern end use. That's something some people who were powerful but not very smart made up very recently.
Re:Don't say "no" ; say "yes, but..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I can live with DRM for a rental service. I am more interested in features, performance, and usability. There are other reasons I would complain about Netflix before getting into the DRM.
Purchases on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you get it? You will not "own" anything.
Even if you pay the full price, you still not "own" anything. You will "own" a license that can be terminated for whatever reason and will severe limit your rights. Format shifting? Backup-copy? First-sale rights? It's already not possible.
With a DVD or VHS you had at least your video as long as you can read the media. With the new digital media it will be remote deleted for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can live with DRM for a rental service. I am more interested in features, performance, and usability. There are other reasons I would complain about Netflix before getting into the DRM.
Purchases on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.
But why should you have to? Do you want DRM? Does Netflix? Rights holders strangle competition through exclusive contracts and force distributors like Netflix to waste time and energy on DRM, which at best doesn't immediately negatively impact the user experience and only restricts your choices to popular platforms like Android and iOS (but goes so far as to restrict the type of monitor you view it through). There is no consumer demand, no added value, and no positive contribution to the user experience; it
Re: (Score:2)
The DRM inherently impacts on the features performance and usability...
Features - unable to record and watch later, or transfer to an arbitrary device of your choosing, unable to create edits etc.
Performance - extra overhead of having to decrypt the data etc.
Usability - more to go wrong, harder to create your own frontend or use a third party one.
Re: (Score:2)
My god, it'd kill the industry if people could record things! Just like the VCR did back in the early 80s, like Jack Valenti predicted it would!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so in the phenominally unlikely scenario that everyone starts constantly recording everything an industry might go out of business. Therefore we should accept and appreciate DRM.
DRM (Score:2)
What don't YOU understand about the privilege of copyright being extended for a limited time? What don't YOU understand about the fact that without this...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Re: (Score:2)
So true. If anything copyright terms should have been shorter and shorter because of progress in technology decrease the time to market and decreases the time to realize a profit for the author.
50 years ego you needed a longer copyright term for the author to realize a profit from his or her work, because you didn't had DVDs and the Internet. Today it's all digital and the publishing business have very sophisticated technology to bring the work to the market.
But because of Disney and Hollywood I predict tha
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think companies have the right to have a say of what I do with my hardware at home?
So recording a TV show on VCR was piracy too?
Re: (Score:2)
All new songs or movies suck anyway.
All sweeping generalisations are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Which it won't be, because DRM that is clear about how it is implemented is quickly broken.
You'll not only be required to sign an NDA, but also to license the patents.
If only it were that simple. Then the DRM would be broken outright and we could stop makin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm totally ok with DRM, provided that it's very clear how to implement it, and I don't need to sign any contracts or otherwise agree to keep any trade secrets. Just write up the RFC, send it to IETF, and we'll all get to work on our your-DRM-compatible players. Everybody wins.
I can't tell if you're trolling or serious, but how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
You may argue that DRM doesn't work at all, but the fact that there's no native Netflix player on Linux (yet) seems to indicate otherwise.
Kerckhoffs's principle (Score:2)
how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
Following Kerckhoffs's principle [wikipedia.org], the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
Re: (Score:2)
how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
Following Kerckhoffs's principle [wikipedia.org], the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
How would you do that when the content has to be decrypted on the client, so the client has to have the keys at some point. Even if the content holder encrypted all content with a unique key with each stream, preventing you from replaying the stream on other players, the client has to be able to decrypt it in order to play it. So the client can either save the keys along with the encrypted content, or can decypt the content and save off an unencrypted copy.
Re: (Score:2)
but where does the decryption key live? The play needs to know it to play the file. If you put the key in the hardware, and pass the encrypted stream to the hardware, then you have just moved the DRM to somewhere else. Thats like saying its an open DRM protocol because it works over open TCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Following Kerckhoffs's principle [wikipedia.org], the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
How would doing that prevent the creation of a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream [slashdot.org]?
Key revocation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Distribution of player keys would depend on posting a bond that a developer won't make such a player. Misused keys would be revoked and unable to view streams.
Then you've missed a fundamental element of the discussion thread [slashdot.org]. And in any case how much would this bond be and when would it be returned?
Re: (Score:2)
Require a unique decode key, a session ID, and a valid user identity in their database, with unique on the fly encoding?
Eg, in order to use the service, the device must be provisioned with a unique player key, (either has one already, or one is generated and provided to the player when the netflix app is installed and kept in a local keystore) and is encoded with the "secret" key that is generated for each user identity (subscriber) and is kept in the netflix server farm.
Multiple private keys, multiple publ
Re: (Score:2)
Require a unique decode key, a session ID, and a valid user identity in their database, with unique on the fly encoding?
Eg, in order to use the service, the device must be provisioned with a unique player key, (either has one already, or one is generated and provided to the player when the netflix app is installed and kept in a local keystore) and is encoded with the "secret" key that is generated for each user identity (subscriber) and is kept in the netflix server farm.
Multiple private keys, multiple public keys, but a single standard implementation.
This is the sort of thing TPM modules were intended for, and devices outfitted with one would get a boost to the crypto functions involved.
But that's not what the grandparent poster was asking for - he was asking for fully published and documented DRM. You're talking about moving the DRM into a closed TPM, along with an operating system that's able to securely checksum the binary that's being run and report the checksum back to Netflix. (the binary can't checksum itself or it can lie).
If you throw in some digital watermarking on the video feed data itself that can survive a re-encode run, (perhaps in the audio too?) Then finding a pirate copy of a stream on the internet would directly identify the pirate, (the stream is alread being uniquely cryptographically processed. Poking a few bits in the stream itself prior to crypto is icing on the cake.)
This is easily bypassed by stealing someone elses authentication tokens - why use your own identity when there are plenty of easily penetrated computers out ther
Re: (Score:2)
DRM doesn't work at all, but hackers are also pragmatic...
The content on netflix is usually outdated, most things are released on dvd, bluray or shown on broadcast tv long before they are available on netflix. Why would anyone bother to crack a netflix stream, when they already have an equivalent or better source for the same media?
No thanks (Score:2)
I'd actually love to give Netflix my money, but DRM is a deal breaker. I can get better service with torrents and rss, so I do. I'd pay for that too, if it were licensed. But not a penny for DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is a subscription-based service provider which streams content to you. In this scenario, to what end does DRM inhibit your experience or tread on your right as a consumer? I am legitimately curious, because while I am very anti-DRM in most scenarios, I fail to see the issue with a DRM-lock on content designed and intended to only be streamed.
I can tell you how Netflix's DRM inhibits my experience as a consumer - when I travel I take only my Linux laptop, thus have no way to watch Netflix videos (well, unless I'm willing to use a Wine based hack). It's not a platform limitation since Netflix runs well on Linux based devices.
Though it's not really the DRM that bothers me, I'd be just as happy if they had a Linux player.
Well, there is one other limitation that bothers me as a consumer - it's when Netflix takes down content from their streaming ser
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix is a subscription-based service provider which streams content to you. In this scenario, to what end does DRM inhibit your experience or tread on your right as a consumer? I am legitimately curious, because while I am very anti-DRM in most scenarios, I fail to see the issue with a DRM-lock on content designed and intended to only be streamed.
1) Arbitrary region blocks. I can't use my US-based subscription outside of the USA. That might not be a big deal to you, but it is a deal-breaker for me. If I have residence in the US, an American credit card, a mailing address, a physical house, citizenship, then why the f**** can't I watch movies when I'm abroad? And what alternative do I have if, for example, I live half the year in South America? Dubbed movies over satellite? Spanish language soap operas? Football! Football! Football! Or the Pirate Bay...
2) Distribution agreements. The reason Netflix uses DRM is not because they want it or their customers want it, it is because the rights holders want it. Thus, in order for Netflix to contract with a studio/network/distributor, they must implement DRM and they can only stream content; there is no such thing as "intended to only be streamed." It is an arbitrary constraint demanded by rights holders. That means that an entire studio/network/distributor can also remove all of their content from Netflix because, say, they were acquired by a cable company that wants you to stream their content through some box that their hardware partner wants to sell you. And that brings me to point 3...
3) Fragmentation. Why the f*** can't I watch everything on everything? Hardware limitations? Software limitations? No, DRM. Let's say I download a movie "illegally" and store it on a dirt-cheap RAID array in the closet that is connected to my router. Now I can watch said movie using a cross-platform suite like XBMC on any device in my house and when I stop playing on one, it picks up where I left off on another. I can also use something like Emit to stream that movie to my phone anywhere on Earth. If I am going to be somewhere without Internet, like a 12-hour plane flight, I can cross my fingers and hope that they have a decent selection of movies, or just copy my downloaded movie to my tablet, which brings me to point 4...
4) Gouging. Media companies want me to pay for the right to view their product. And they want me to either pay for each viewing or for each way of viewing separately. They don't care that I watched Spaceballs about a hundred times in the theater, bought Spaceballs the VHS and then Spaceballs the DVD and then (the 25th Anniversary) Spaceballs the Blu-Ray; they want me to pay again to watch it on my i-thing and once more on my Android thing and again on the next device I buy. That is gouging, otherwise known as collusion (because the media companies negotiate price structures and squeeze small competitors through bodies like the MPAA).
5) The never-ending "copyright." It isn't enough to turn a profit on foreign box office sales; they want a 25-year-old movie to continue to generate revenue for them in perpetuity throughout the universe. When it comes time to force my son to watch my favorite movies from the 80's, we wont' have a VHS player, a DVD player, a Blu-ray player, Silverlight will be dead, and whatever gizmos are capable of playing movies will demand that I pay, once again, for something that should have fallen into the public domain. Of course, those gizmos will be perfectly able to play the non-DRM encumbered, x264-standard encoded movie in an open-source MKV container that I downloaded all those years ago. Do you know why "It's a Wonderful Life" continues to pop up on TV so regularly? It's basically because someone forgot to copyright it. What is so different about Spaceballs? And look at the Star Wars franchise, where Lucas managed to hang on to unprecedented control over his creative works (a "mistake" that 20th Century Fox made exactly once.) Robot Chicken can do
Re: (Score:2)
Inability to download and play offline..
Inability to use whatever device *i* choose..
The BBC is a subscription-based service provider which streams content to you. They do so using broadcast television signals complying with the DVB-T and DVB-S standards. The specifications required are openly available to the public, and you are free to use any compatible device to view the stream.
Is this EME or NaCl? (Score:2)
The article ( and Slashdot ) somehow links the Netflix app to Encrypted Media Extensions but I don't see where this is confirmed.
It is also likely that Netflix used Native Client [liliputing.com]. NaCl [wikipedia.org] may also explain why it's only available for certain platforms.
EME (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix did use NaCl on the Intel Chromebooks, but are now using HTML5/EME on the ARM chromebooks. Here is the official Chrome Google+ feed [google.com] announcement.
Chrome sync is dangerous. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yesterday I was showing to my friend and logged into my gmail account in Chrome running in his windows box. Impressed him with my two factor authentication, text message to my phone and all that. But made the mistake of clicking yes to "synch" when prompted by chrome.
It brought all my bookmarks on to his machine!. So I deleted them in his machine, then they were also gone from my account in my Chromebook. Not only that all HIS bookmarks were on my machine. I deleted them. Then I found all my saved web passwords were on his machine! This screw up after bragging about two factor authentication. He uninstalled Chrome and reinstalled to get rid of all remnants of anything. I lost my bookmarks. Apparently this is a common problem with Chrome and google synch and it has been widely reported and complained about. Still the dialog asking for synch did not give any warning that my passwords and bookmarks and auto-completes are being downloaded into a new machine. I am very disappointed by Chrome and google.
Luckily he is a friend, and I never store any serious passwords in my gmail account. So no serious harm done. Now where is that AC who called me a shill?
Re: (Score:2)
Am I incorrect in assuming that the local copy of your synchronized data is encrypted on a Chromebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I really thought the local copy was protected somehow. Perhaps you should talk to the Google developers about this, especially since the Chromebook "guest" login is promoted as a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem not to be talking to each other. This was not at all about data on the Chromebook itself. Only the fact that Google Sync pulled very sensitive data by default.
Re: (Score:3)
I had this problem with iCloud and importing bookmarks from Safari on my Mac to Safari on my iPhone. I tried clearing them off of one, and bam, gone on both, irretrievably so. So annoying. Anyone know what the proper procedure for this is supposed to be? I'm very suspicious of trying to use iCloud now.
Re:Chrome sync is dangerous. (Score:5, Funny)
It brought all my bookmarks on to his machine!. So I deleted them in his machine, then they were also gone from my account in my Chromebook. Not only that all HIS bookmarks were on my machine. I deleted them. Then I found all my saved web passwords were on his machine! This screw up after bragging about two factor authentication.
You didn't disable Sync on his machine before deleting?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think? This whole sorry story is a classic case of EBCAK.
Re:Chrome sync is dangerous. (Score:5, Informative)
PEBKAC. Works as intended. I presume you've been modded up so we can all laugh at you for thinking that this is somehow the fault of Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't be enough. This only stops the sync, leaving the local data intact.
What you want is to delete the Chrome "User", which is there in the non-advanced settings, "Delete this user" button.
Not on the x86 Acer C7 Chromebook (Score:2)
Wow, that is nice. On my x86 Acer C7 Chromebook, which was using Silverlight just last week, is stellar using HTML5. I was wondering why the video looks and "feels" different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did the "right-click" on this x86 Chromebook when it was running a Netflix movie and it did indicate it was using Silverlight. It was using the Pepper plugin API which is specific to the Google Chrome browser and, also, is/was available on the x86 version of the Google Chromebook.
It is absolutely *not* Miguel de Icaza's Moonlight. It is the real Microsoft Silverlight on x86 in Google Chrome. In additionk, it was definitely running on the Google Acer C7 Chromebook until some time late last week.
Sorry to
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Not all DRM is evil. It really depends on who is applying it, when, where, and how. DRM is an ugly name for a set of technologies that have their uses; if I agree to let Netflix stream a movie to me and understand that my computer is going to encrypt and handle it in such a way that I won't be able to save or download the movie, that's OK with me; I'm still the one in control. That doesn't mean proprietary video streaming will always be crammed down my throat.
Using DRM in this way is a great boon for open t
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't help because you're stuck with a binary only DRM module that could be just as much a security risk as flash. Each website could have its own security module, solving precisely no problems while introducing millions more, and they'll be compiled only for Windows, Mac OS X, iOS, and Android. Other platforms will, invariably, need not apply.
DRM is antithetical to open technology. It requires openness be thrown in the dumpster for the sake of enforcing restrictions on others. I suspect that the next
DRM complaints ? (Score:2)
I really dont see the problem with DRM when it comes to Netflix. For £5.00 per month I get a much better selection of Movies and TV shows than I could even consider getting from a satellite / cable subscription costing much more. There are no limits as to how many times i can watch stuff - and while i cant download the shows / movies for keeps I dont need to so long as i have an internet connection. In prinicple I dont agree with DRM - but in the case of Netflix it is well worth the money DRM or No D
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiiiiight. So then why would Microsoft have allowed Netflix on Android and iOS if that were the case? Those two are crushing it in the mobile space. What a dumb conspiracy. The issue is with the DRM, not with some stupid "M$" conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft wasn't in control. They were just leading Netflix down the garden path. That created a legacy support issue for desktops. This never happened with tablets because by that time everyone realized what a dud Silverlight was. Plus, Jobs didn't put up with that sort of thing in his little walled garden.
Apple became successful enough to undermine Microsoft's influence. (Adobe's too)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, Jobs didn't put up with that sort of thing in his little walled garden.
netflix on mac requires silverlight, still.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they can't out vote the rest of the netflix board that don't have windows phones but do have iphones and androids.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't get Silverlight to install on my Mac OSX.
Netflix told me to call Microsoft.
Microsoft was clueless about OSX but still wanted $99 for the service call.
My solution was to cancel Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, can you name one Microsoft executive on the Netflix board? Because I looked at http://ir.netflix.com/management.cfm#3562 [netflix.com] and couldn't find any.
Re:What's Chromebook's user-agent string? (Score:4, Informative)
That won't be enough. You will also need a browser that allows DRM for HTML5 (Chrome 26 beta is the only one so far), and the specific DRM plugin used by Netflix compiled for an x86 system, which hasn't been made available.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's quite simple. The difference is that a Chromebook has hardware support for DRM. Your generic Loonix "boxes" doesn't.
That's moronic. Most of the supported devices on the planet don't have any "special hardware support" and are quite capable of running Linux as well as whatever other operating systems have a supported Netflix client.