A big part of why marketplaces like Netflix and Steam got so popular is because they provided a low-friction way to consume that was even easier than piracy. It seems like the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction now- it's often easier to copyright infringe than to watch something the legit way, even if you pay for a subscription that grants you access. Great example of something that's illegal but not morally wrong :)
I wish there was a service like steam for videos: not subscription but high confidence purchase of video content available "forever" (even if they remove it from the purchasing options, license would remain).
Personally I watch so little tv/movies that any subscription was always overpaying. I still did it for a while, because the price wasn't high enough to push me to seek out other options.
I'm no longer subbing and moved on, but the right holders are seriously detached from reality if they think this is a sane business strategy
> I wish there was a service like steam for videos: not subscription but high confidence purchase of video content available "forever" (even if they remove it from the purchasing options, license would remain).
In general, iTunes content purchaselicenses are owned in perpetuity.
You do need to download the bits and have the files on hand, as (a) Apple may lose the right to re-deliver the bits to you, or (b) you may change regions (e.g., move from Australia to Canada) and find the re-download isn't available in the new region.
A good deal of stories were published in 2018 about Apple revoking or removing content, but when threads are pulled, the examples generally fell into these two camps. If you had kept the content yourself, you got to keep enjoying it.
> Personally I watch so little tv/movies that any subscription was always overpaying
Agree there's a good chance many households could purchase their preferred shows for less than the "watch throwaway stuff" subscriptions -- and then own them. This suggests a more ideal pairing is purchasing, plus something like Pluto.
Not to mention everyone and their moms building own streaming service only to lose money, cut down the catalogue, increase prices and find that is still not enough. So now add ads in some paid tiers. With everyone needing that ad revenue and profiling data to "personalize experience" I think it is cleaner to just sail the high seas.
Sometimes streaming services try to "optimize my viewing experience" for several minutes. Or it doesn't like my monitor or cable setup or browser and refuses to play anything in HD. I won't try to fix this, this is not my problem. I have exactly zero moral quarrels to then just look for alternative sources and yes, some are quite easily accessible without any friction.
the difference of course being that valve /has/ to keep their customers happy because their average user is savvy at least with browsing the internet, the same can't be said of streaming consumers, many whom I know are emigres from the now-decaying cable infrastructure. Netflix knows this and squeezes their customer base, and while I would like to assume the altruism of Steam, whether by their own design or the will of the public, a solution with friction that low is all that works with that target market.
This is no joke. I tried watching the latest episode of Plur1bus on Apple TV+ on my laptop and here's the steps I went through:
1. Start chrome, navigate to tv.apple.com, click on the #1 show of the day (no problem)
2. The site tells me I can sign up for the TV service that I already have instead of offering a play button.
3. I click on the "sign up" which pauses for 10 seconds then tells me I'm already subscribed why did I hit the button you idiot.
4. I back arrow to the original page, it still asks me to sign up, hit F5 a couple of times to no effect.
5. Reload tv.apple.com from the start and navigate to the page, now it finally shows a play button.
6. Hit the play button but it gives me a popup saying that I need to verify the three digits off of the back of my credit card. I enter the digits and click the next button, but nothing happens.
7. Off to Google where I learn that if that happens you can log into accounts.apple.com first to avoid it.
8. I go through the login process on apple's site, which involves pulling out my phone to scan a QR code.
9. On the Apple site I try to go to the AppleTV+ options, which requires a second QR scan on my phone because it's apparently a different account.
10. On the site I verify that it shows the ATV+ subscription is active.
11. Return to tv.apple.com and click on the show to see that it again says I need to sign up to the service.
12. Click on the sign up button again to be told that I'm already subscribed.
13. Go back and reload the page entirely again so the play button reappears.
14. Click on the play button and get asked for the three digits again. Groan.
15. This time the next button actually works (miracle!) and it loads a second page talking about parental controls with another non-working button on the bottom.
16. I close the window and click on my profile in the upper right, verify that the parental controls are off.
17. Attempt to watch again, but again get stuck doing the 3 digit verify and get stuck on the parental controls window.
18. Go back to the settings and try turning on parental controls, which requires setting a PIN and doing another account verification, but leaving them on the most permissive settings.
19. Return to the site, to discover that it asks for the 3 digits yet again and then send me to that parental controls screen again.
20. Go back to settings and turn off parental controls because that didn't help.
21. Hit up Google again and find a person who suggests that switching browsers might help. I'm running the most common browser with no extensions that I use for these streaming sites because they can be such a pain in the ass, but sure.
22. Fire up Firefox with uMatrix and Adblock+ and have to do the login stuff yet again, but this time the show actually plays.
So to watch an hour of TV I had to spend over 30 minutes faffing about with the stupid website. It made me pine for the days of piracy when this was all so easy. I also downplayed how many times I had to do the reload dance to even get the play button to appear, going back to the start only worked about 1 time out of 3.
This isn't the only time I've struggled with streaming sites. Acorn for example simply refused to stream to my home. My wife is really into British mystery series and was pretty excited about it, but we had to drop it because their website simply refused to deliver the video and their tech support was completely unhelpful.
Did you know that if you have any Apple hardware, like anything at all with a screen, this is a 0-step process? You’re already signed into the device, and the AppleTV.app is pre-installed. It’s one tap.
I have sympathy for you, that sounds hellish. But. You are aware that Apple has never been in the web content business, right? And I’ve never heard of anyone watching Apple TV from a browser. I didn’t even know that was possible. I thought the channel existed as a means to sell Apple hardware, because it does work beautifully on their devices
I have an iPhone, but I don't want to watch a TV show on a phone screen. AppleTV content usually doesn't work over AirPlay. You just get a black screen.
There’s something wrong with your TV. You must have some kind of third party air play video device? AirPlay from the TV.app works fine. Just tried it, phone to TV and phone to laptop. You can either stream directly from the app or use screen mirroring. Both work.
I don't understand Netflix's decision, but I'm long past caring about things like this. I've had PCs hooked up to all of my televisions for the past 15+ years because of how limiting and frustrating using any other device to play media from can be.
Same - I've been using an Intel NUC with Windows 10 for many years. It does everything I want:
- Netflix
- Youtube without ads via Firefox+uBlock Origin
- Ripping DVDs and converting to .mp4
Those Small Form Factor PCs have only gotten cheaper over time - the most powerful PC I've ever owned in 30+ years is a $300 Minisforum (16 Cores, 16GB RAM) that's doing similar duty in the garage.
Even if we pay $100 dollars every month to streaming services they will never not be too dumb to know how to make a convenient player that isn't hostile to its users.
While traveling I was so pissed with the Apple TV player's performance on less-than-lightspeed internet connections, I ragecancelled my subscription and just yo ho ho'ed the last couple episodes of Severance
I have a server that runs a bunch of containers (bittorrent client on a VPN, Home Assistant, etc.) and hosts SMB shares. I acquire content that goes on the shares which then get consumed by various devices.
- Kodi on a TV that has been stripped of as much of Google as I could find, streams from the shares
- VLC on my PC, streams from the shares
- VLC on my phone which is always VPN'd to my local network and streams from the shares
- VLC on iPads on which I usually drag and drop some shows/movies ahead of time so I am not wifi-dependent
They aren't dumb. They've realized that a large section of people will not bother, and aren't capable of sailing the high seas. Hostile behaviors won't change until it hits their bottom line, and because they are an extremely profitable company, it won't happen for a very long time.
I’ve run homebrew DVRs since the MythTV/Hauppauge era and it’s true
My family won’t adapt to anything in the living room with a keyboard and mouse, and getting a reliable remote on any PC based solution is often problematic.
The hands-down best DVR experience I had was a TiVo Slide remote (the top slid back to reveal a small but fully functional keyboard) paired to a PC running Windows 7 Media Center with a four-tuner InfiniTV Cablecard adapter. Obviously it's been a few years, but that was just smooth all around once I got it set up. Very high WAF.
But Windows 7 is gone, and so is the TiVo Slide remote.
Maybe they're not handing them out any more, but I've still got one and it still works in the TiVo (Edge?) that I have. It replaced that WMC DVR because WAF. Her genuine preference was for our old ReplayTV and its interface, but they didn't live long enough to make HD DVR's.
Turned out after I had already bought all that stuff due to flakiness that it was just some bad RAM that, really, was overkill - I could have just taken out the bad sticks and kept on rocking, in which case it probably would still be our DVR.
Not even those dirt cheap bluetooth devices with a trackpad and mini keyboard? Those are great and it just works.
Or what about the Steam Controller? It's UX is similar to some nicer smart TV interfaces.
The real solution is you build an app that is nice for your family to use and just tells the boxes what to play. Sure hope your family doesn't use iPhones!
Always assuming every single thing can be improved - and expecting huge corporate entities to do it - seems like a recipe for failed expectations.
Cable TV wasn't perfect, of course, but it was pretty damn good, especially in allowing everybody to have access to just about every show that was produced.
That the "replacement" model is disappointing and a worse experience, really shouldn't come as a surprise.
It's interesting to hear your perspective, but I totally disagree about Cable TV. It's the worst paid service I've ever seen. 100+ channels of almost pure garbage that insults my intelligence at every turn. 1/3 of the time was ads, and of the remaining 2/3, much was taken up by "when we return..." and "before the break...". Plus most of the content was targeted towards morons.
These days, you'd have to pay me $20+ per hour to watch cable TV.
I did have basic cable for a few years in the early 2000s, and I did enjoy watching Star Trek TNG reruns. Because there wasn't any good alternative back then in the dark ages.
Many of the most popular streaming shows were originally aired on broadcast TV (which most people watched via cable) - The Office, Friends, West Wing, Big Bang Theory, etc. Or originally for cable channels - Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Suits, etc.
Netflix has produced a few decent shows but most of its stuff is "targeted towards morons" or "pure garbage that insults my intelligence" - Love is Blind, Is it Cake.
Commercials arent great but they are passive - easy to ignore. Much rather have a 3-minute commercials break where I can go to the bathroom or check my phone than having to actively scroll for 90 seconds switching from app to app and navigating their awful interfaces to get back to the show I was watching the other day.
But that's just me - glad you like our new television overlords, they certainly love anyone bashing cable tv!
That doesn't seem like an apples-to-apples comparison. There is a lot of junk on the broadcast and cable channels as well.
I expect there to be more aggregate junk on Netflix just because there is no floor: networks have only 168 hours a week to fill, while Netflix can throw anything at all on the pile.
But it doesn't matter, since unlike the networks, they're all available at once. If something insults your intelligence, you don't watch it.
His primary dislike for cable television was the amount of "garbage" it offered, while seemingly ignoring that Netflix also has plenty, if not more.
> But it doesn't matter... they're all available at once
I'm sorry but streaming everything is not a panacea. The spigot of worthwhile content is not endless. Ok great you binge-watched the entire season of Stranger Things over two nights. What will you watch tomorrow? And the day after? How much of the show do you actually remember? You lose out on the fun of discussing each individual episode with like-minded people, the wondering about how the next episode will resolve the last episodes drama, maybe watching an episode a second time and catching some additional detail.
I can assure you that watching great television - Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Larry Sanders Show, Homicide: Life on the Street - one episode per week is vastly superior to binge-watching it, even if it feels inconvenient in the moment. (Of course this is with the convenience of DVR so you can time-shift occasionally)
Wait, hold on, are you telling me that the Pirate Bay only existed on the American Internet back then, too? Man, I'm so glad we're not in those times anymore.
If it's going to be primarily a gaming device then that makes sense, but if not, what do you gain from SteamOS? And why do you want Steam to start on boot?
I use Fedora for this purpose, used to use Debian. You really just need a system with a web browser, file browser, media player and torrent client, and some way to remote control the computer from the couch (ideally from a phone).
Sadly, I don't know of any nice off the shelf solution for that last part. KDE Connect is an option but it kinda sucks. I've always had my own Remote Desktop web interface service type thing running on the machine (though Wayland has kinda thrown a wrench into that for now...)
> some way to remote control the computer from the couch (ideally from a phone)
If you use Kodi then you could try Kore (their remote app). I tried it once a long time ago and it was alright, but it's hard to beat a keyboard. I think similar apps exist for VLC and other media players, but I haven't looked into a solution that allows controlling the entire computer via a phone.
The huge problem with Kodi is that it requires playing media from within Kodi. The advantage of using a PC for this is that it works with anything you can play from a PC, regardless of whether someone has made an app for it for Apple TV or Samsung's smart TV stuff or Kodi.
You need to be able to provide keyboard and mouse input from a phone. Not just control Kodi or VLC.
You can add any applications to Steam's Big Picture mode and the UI is relatively couch friendly. Yes, you could install Steam on any distro and do this but SteamOS is pretty nice out of the box if you want a TV friendly solution.
Steam Big Picture is very couch friendly, if you're using a game pad and what you're launching supports a game pad. That's why it works for a couch gaming PC. Firefox has pretty bad gamepad support last I checked.
It's been a while since I've had to customize it much but I believe the Steam overlay allows you to map controller inputs to anything, uniquely for every given app you run through it.
That said, at some point I think yes, you just get a bluetooth mouse/keyboard to go with it.
I use a Logitech K400 BT keyboard+touchpad for remote control of a PC I have connected to my TV. But, it's not used as a streaming device - it's a file share + home automation hub, so the keyboard makes sense.
I used to use arch linux, but I've been using windows in recent times for simplicity and usability by non-technical people. Windows is starting to piss me off though, so I might move back to some linux distro in the near future.
I don't do any live TV / DVR stuff. Most of the time I just use the browser or VLC.
This is my sole reason for sticking with smart TVs or a streaming device. How is anyone getting proper 1080p+ streams from Netflix using a Linux device? 4K is not necessary, but 1080p at least it's what I need. Not even considering proper HDR support
> The change was first spotted by users on Reddit and confirmed in an updated Netflix support page (via Android Authority), which now states that the streaming service no longer supports casting from mobile devices to most TVs and TV-streaming devices. Users are instead directed to use the remote that came with their TV hardware and use its native Netflix app.
My guess is that adblock became too easy on smartphones, so by forcing people use the app on the TV it makes harder for people to bypass the ads.
That's pure speculation, as I don't have any subscription from netflix. But I've used this method with the HBO app and it works 90% of the time, so I'm assuming netflix has the same issue.
> My guess is that adblock became too easy on smartphones
Not within native apps. Your only option is essentially dns/hosts based on both platforms however this can also be done on the router. On Android there is ReVanced I guess. But these are almost as technical as a pihole. What is the percent of people who know of DNS based adblock but not pihole?
Edit: And DNS adblocking can be done on android tv.
Sure, but I've never had a 'standard router' with support dns blocking. I know you can do this with something like pfsense, but that's not that common.
You also have the option to put a piehole in your network. It is pretty easy if you have some technical knowledge but I would say that it is generally out of reach for the general population(non-tech folks).
But on android you just open the settings, search for 'private vpn' and paste an url. This is way easier to do for someone with no technical background. Even chatgpt should be able to correctly guide you through these steps.
Sounds probable to me... This is a great example of why I am by default anti-app unless there's a demonstrable benefit to the user (e.g. Offline mode or something). If the web version of Netflix goes away then I will never access it again. I will also never buy a "smart" TV. I leave the ball in Netflix's court.
After the better part of a decade spent with chromecast and legal streaming, I have been forced back to the high seas as of late. I can't reliably get programs without onerous subscriptions, each for one or two shows I actually care about.
I remember the time when smart homes used to feature in sci-fi literature and concept videos. Being able to walk around your house while having everything seamlessly synced and tailored to your preferences was clearly the future. TV, movies and music automatically playing in whatever room your enter. Files and all other data seamlessly synced between all your devices. Not having to think about how to make the tech work, because it all just works.
The frustrating thing is that we've had all the tech to make this possible for at least 10-20 years now. Yet "smart" homes are getting worse with every passing year. Why? Because consumer technology is monopolized by a handful of large corporations whose goal isn't to make people's lives easier but build walled gardens and restrictions to best extract every last cent.
It's notable that often we have protocols to tie things together. UPnP/DLNA/Miracast have existed for a long time now & have included standards for media playing, light control, others. And many TV's have even implemented!!
I feel like what has always been trickier is control and coordination. There haven't been many people to step up and own the higher level, the thing that coordinates devices.
It's notable to me that recent successful cast protocols (like Netflix+YouTube's original DIAL, Chromecast) have really simplified. Are bottom up flows. They have allowed the phone (second screen) apps to have a direct way to cast, inside the app. To one other screen, to such an extent that multi-room audio works by first making a group that then presents in the app as one device. (Sonos' proprietary casting is the notable exception.) Where-as historically casting was possible but often used dedicated apps, a UPnP Control Point, that talked to a different UPnP Media Renderer to point it at various UPnP Media Servers. A tri-part system, with control as the third point.
Netflix hypothetically could have used the UPnP to do casting. Phone acts as a Media Server (but serves up one-time-use URLs on the net for actual media) to the movie on question. Then act as a UPnP control point to control media playback. But they made DIAL, which reduced it to a two system network. And to have more resident native apps running (with rest channels open between the devices).
It's interesting seeing what folks do with Google Home and Home Assistant. Orchestrating routines and triggers and what not is kind of neat, in some ways wildly hard to imagine from "back then", but also feels so short in other ways. Is such a primitive level of control. It feels like the task of making actual systems coordinateable and orchestrateable, the real dream of ubicomp, is indeed quite far away, unowned, even though in many cases we have advanced computer protocols afforded to us.
As with so much technology, the technology exists in part to provide a service to the customer, but more and more it exists to direct the customer into the behaviors desired by the technology owner and its advertising partners. This isn't always so evil or insidious, but the point stands that Netflix (or almost any modern service) doesn't want you to do what _you_ want with your devices. It wants to direct you towards whatever is most beneficial to Netflix. These companies don't really serve their customers, except confusingly, customers keep paying for these services.
That's only a problem if you ever expect the market to serve your needs. I'm not _very_ old (early 40s) but it's starting to dawn on me that this will never happen in a major way, and I think the only path forward is to abstain.
there was an ad, or a presentation in a conference keynote, from when microsoft built phones, showing a user leaving the house and continuing what was he doing in the car in a very futuristic way. I can't find it now, but was something crazy by then, the continuum idea was also a good one, but here we are, walled gardens and nothing smart about them.
Look up the AT&T "You Will" advertising campaign sometime. This ran beginning in 1993, and I remember seeing at least a few of the spots at the time.
What these ads (and much speculative fiction, say, Arthur C. Clark particularly the "newspads" (tablet computers) in 2001 and "minisecs" (smartphones) in Imperial Earth) portrayed was capabilities without consideration of commercial and market imperatives. Capabilities promised empowerment and enablement. Markets delivered enshitiffication and enclosures of commons.
And as Timothy B. Lee noted, "the ads were mostly wrong about one thing: the company that brought these technologies to the world was not AT&T". AT&T's networks deliver much of the content and messaging which was portrayed, but the services themselves are not rooted in AT&T, either the original firm or its remonopolised successor organisation.
Microsoft's vision was portrayed as well in the Bill Gates book The Road Ahead, published about the same time (1995). Again, it envisioned much, but little of that vision was delivered directly by Microsoft (though much of it was in fact experienced on computers running Microsoft's operating system, at least until the smartphone revolution supplanted it).
It's interesting to look back at the times when these concepts and sci-fi lit were written.
A lot of it was in the postwar period. You had a booming population that offered the opportunity for easy corporate revenue growth. If you wanted to make more money, you just sold your good or service to a person who didn't have it yet. That was simple enough because there were people - a lot of them - aging into your market. Let's say that the microwave was the smart home appliance of the late 60s/early 70s. You want to sell them. Well, that's easy, because there are a bunch of people building first homes who want to update their kitchens. Make the case that your microwave belongs in it due to the convenience it brings.
You're a futurist. What would that microwave look like in the future? Well, surely it would just be purchased, you'd put it in your home, and it'd have all sorts of features to make your life even more convenient.
These stories were written with the assumption that, at least in the West, that would continue forever. The Baby Boomers would have enough kids to justify the same sort of marketing strategy. And then those kids would have enough kids. And so on and so forth.
That didn't happen. The birthrate began to plummet in the 1970s and hasn't increased meaningfully since. There are fewer people naturally aging into your market, to say nothing of resources becoming more scarce as time goes on.
So what do you do if you are charged with providing shareholders ever-increasing returns on their investments by selling goods and services? Well, you try to extract more sales - or value - out of a smaller number of people. You don't just sell a smart home device; you require it to be tied to a subscription that must be paid monthly, and make the person using it buy a new one every so often to keep the revenue coming in. You could also collect the data on how they use the device and sell that to people looking to influence the purchase of further goods and services.
The microwave is now a "smart" device that will do all sorts of things... but you'll need to keep paying for it, over and over.
Same with music players, lighting fixtures, televisions, laundry machines, and everything else we've seen get the "smart home" treatment.
Growth must be maintained. Value must be created. The futurist never took into account that part. It was about the consumer, not the supplier, but the consumer can only be made to consume so much based on organic growth.
> So what do you do if you are charged with providing shareholders ever-increasing returns on their investments by selling goods and services?
> Growth must be maintained. Value must be created. The futurist never took into account that part.
The futurists did take this into account, they just weren't writing utopian fiction. Weyland Yutani, Tyrell Corp, and other Megacorps were the futurists warning us what could happen if we let profit and sharedholder value becomes the most important thing in society.
Any vision of the future that doesn’t include realistic incentives of human beings won’t happen.
Offering such a flexible smart home requires a huge amount of coordination work, customer support, and just taking the blame sometimes for the inevitable bugs.
Yeah competent companies are willing to take on all that, if you pay them a lot, which is why high end smart homes are flourishing.
He asked for more concrete examples because the professional companies are behind the consumer level products. Home Assistant is one of the biggest projects on GitHub for a reason. It's still stuck in the hobby space but everything they are doing lately is to push it past Apple Home for the regular user.
What high end smart homes are actually smart in the way paxys described? I would say this market more than just not flourishing, actually doesn’t exist. There’s no company that sells this because it would require a whole bunch of other companies get on board to make it real.
Imagine you go to get your car's tires replaced but can only buy BMW brand (because that's what your car will support) and they cost 3x the price of the generic ones.
Imagine you want to do some home renovations but the builder of your house has installed a kill switch that will detonate the entire thing to the ground should you try to move even one brick without using their preferred contractor.
Imagine the manufacturer of your couch shows up to your doorstep 2 years after you bought it and says they need it back. But you paid full price for it? Nope, you actually bought a license, and the license has now expired. So will you get a refund? Lol, nope.
All of this would be laughable in the real world, yet when it comes to tech we look at the same practices and go "of course, all this makes sense".
So no, this isn't really about the "huge amount of work" it would entail. Companies are perfectly capable of doing this work, and happily do so as long as it benefits them. The problem is that there is no regulation in the space and customers have been trained to accept these practices as a way of life.
Kind of wild that Netflix is (or believes) it is so far ahead of all the other streaming services that they're nickel-and-diming their customers for every little feature.
Other services were aggressively throwing Black Friday sales in order to boost their subscriber counts. I picked up HBO for 70% off, and there were also Hulu and Apple TV discounts. And I didn't need any of them because there's plenty of ad-supported content on YouTube, Tubi, and other services.
I never watch Netflix but I kept their highest tier account to share with my family (not in same household). They really started nickle-and-diming this quarter and I cancelled. I know I could add another user for additional charge but it motivated me to cancel.
If you think they nickel and dime customers, you should see what they do to TV and streaming device makers. They can make basically any demand they want because you can't ship with Netflix.
Not sure the full motivation behind this but this is very annoying for a parent with kids. Especially if you've lost your remote, or want to quickly find something and cast it to your Chromecast/Apple TV.
I'd prefer video streaming apps be required to support Casting/AirPlay.
I’ve helped several elderly neighbors get setup with casting to their TVs as well. Just a debacle that’s going to frustrate a bunch of people for no good reason. Really wish the teams that implement ‘features’ like this were forced to deal with the consequences. At least in the olden days, they’d get feedback in the form of calls and complaints to their help line but now it’s just “Too bad, app changed, deal with it.”
I consider it a device perk. I bought the iPhone and Apple TV largely because of airplay so if they remove that functionality it will move me to use other streaming services that support it or I’ll just buy movies again and stop paying streaming altogether.
All this app stuff is so annoying. I reverted back a while ago. Now when i want the radio on i just switch it on. With an actual switch. Same with my lights— an actual real switch! Theres no benefit to chaining all your behind someapp the needs updated installed, logged in passwords, managed, ooo you haven’t logged in for 90 days lets send you an email to update your password- bro i just want to increase my heating. Its all nonsense. Sooner people realise the better.
Nobody on HN wants to hear this, but REG-U-LA-TION. The glorious free market is consistently failing to solve the growing problem of cloud-tethered and app-tethered products being nerfed by their manufacturers after the point of sale.
But that's why the EU is so "behind" on cultivating parasitic FAANG-style tech megacorps! If they'd just do away with regulations, the EU could have some of their own, such joy!
I think those who believe regulation is universally the devil forget the era where products were received DOA and customers had no recourse while companies simply called it profit.
The Radithor reference is of course quite apropos, and I'm a fan of effective and principled regulation to avoid that and numerous other market failures.
Sorry, but it's CUS-TO-MERS. They buy stuff that can only be controlled via an app talking to the cloud. They buy stuff that cannot be repaired. They buy stuff that openly lies about its specs, for an "unbelievably good price". The customers go for the cheapest, all else be damned.
Education in general, and about critical thinking in particular, could help.
* "There's a sucker born every minute" and
* "caveat emptor" and
* "If I can trick you into giving me your money, that's your fault"
With a sufficiently large pool of people, scammers live and thrive on busy people.
Regulation helps discourage that.
In this case, "REG-U-LATION" actually "caused" the issue. Up-to-date LIDAR of every home in America was deemed to be invasive breach of privacy so was regulated out. This product didn't successfully account for future non-technical issues.
I "foolishly" tried to reward a previously known-good vendor by buying a product from the company that had sold me a vacuum that worked for ten years... which brings up the next truism:
* "Past performance is not an indicator of future success"
Customers would buy contaminated food if it was cheaper, too. There's value in having a floor on quality and design for products to avoid races to the bottom?
The entire snake oil industry was thriving and customers loved buying stuff that did nothing at all.
It took a hundred people, including young children, dying in sheer agony from a 100% preventable poisoning by a "medicine company" who's business was essentially dissolving off the shelf medicine powders in liquid and selling the result to really regulate chemicals meant for human ingestion. It took a president with a sympathetic ear and immense popular support for government in general to be a force for reigning in powerful corporations.
That company not only did not test that concoction on any living thing before bottling it up and selling to thousands of unwitting people, but the chemist in charge didn't even check the literature to see that the diethylene glycol he used was already thought to be lethal and had known kidney toxicity.
The company DID test its flavor and color and fragrance.
Why would they test anything else before selling it? You could be a hugely profitable company selling products that did nothing to the people who took it. Testing your products was a waste of effort and would not get you more business!
Your average consumer CANNOT judge accurately whether a medicine works. Your average doctor fails at the task, which is why we have to do blind studies in the first place.
What was true of consumers in the early 1900s is just as true today, and applies to all sorts of things that aren't medicine. Consumers will never be experts. Consumers will never be as equipped to evaluate something as the capital rich industry that produces it. There are inherent information asymmetries that make even idealized market theory fail.
Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup is another example. It was made around the mid 1800's and killed thousands of children. I'm sure there were others. This one just stands out.
That one is very specifically failure or regulators and absolutely should subject to regulation. We can bicker about whether repairability should be regulated ... but false claims by the manufacturers absolutely should.
Sorry, it's not. Latest example, Canon's phone app for its cameras, for GPS tagging, remote shutter, transfer to phone, didn't require any Internet access, but now they changed it to require an online login for no reason. Oh and that login only works with chrome installed.
So miss me with this caveat emptor libertarian fantasy land ("openly lies about its specs" is the buyer's fault?!)
Reading through that site, it seems like instead of locking yourself into a corporations app, you're locking it into his instead. He doesn't seem to want to run an open source community, he's building an app for himself and publishing it for people who have exactly the same use case as him.
True, but you don't need to install updates once you have the software installed, and it's probably better not to. The software on the robot doesn't need the app to control, either - it exposes an API that either the app or custom software can talk to, sans cloud servers.
This feature was one of the main reasons how Netflix movies/shows could be captured/uploaded to piracy sites in full quality as soon as they were released. People recorded the video output and uploaded them. This is to remove that path. Kinda obvious if you ask.
This is untrue. This method wouldn't get you the highres content, that's limited to higher widevine tiers. Pirates use other bypass methods and this will zero impact.
This is going to be painful for people in a way which I haven’t seen discussed here yet.
A year ago I went on vacation with my family, and the kids wanted to watch Netflix on VRBO‘s TV and so I logged in to my account on the tv. And of course I forgot to log it out when I left - so, predictably, the next people decided they hated my taste and went through and deleted all my likes and dislikes, and rated I swear 100 teen romances. I somehow got my account logged out of that TV, but the account was trashed and unrepairable so I lost about a decades worth of history and started a new one.
Afterwards, I thought I should’ve just cast from the kids iPad. And now that won’t be possible.
"One Reddit user said customer service explained that devices with remotes can no longer cast, claiming the decision was made to improve the customer experience."
Statements like those are meant for you to just bounce off of them and fuck off. They don't care about the truth and they know you don't care enough to do anything about their lying. It's an entire business model.
I've worked in streaming. If you see a feature pulled, or announced and delayed, or announced and never shipped, 99.99999% of the time it's due to licensing. Every single permutation of any action that a user may find beneficial is covered by a different license with a different cost.
Oh. And ads. There's another can of worms if you need to serve ads.
In this case it could be that Netflix is an asshole. Or could be that they really could not figure out proper device attribution and ad reporting to the leeches that are the content owners and ad networks.
I’m really leaning towards them being an asshole in this specific case.
Chromecast works in my EV for every other streaming app, so the licensing seems to be a solved problem for them. Netflix, however, never worked and my EV manufacturer had to release a support page specifically for Netflix not working.
I suspect this is just more account security. I remember paying $20/mo for a premium plan with a set number of screens on the contract…but one day their side changed and those screens had to be on my WiFi. I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change.
I cancelled Netflix after 15 years (DVD era) and have never looked back. Just hostile decision after hostile decision.
Does it maybe come down to changing licenses, as in a license expires and another is negotiated with different terms (to charge per household instead in the example above)?
Same. First, I kept my idle account for the recommendations. Then, I kept my idle account because my family used it (why Netflix ENCOURAGED when they added profiles).
Then, some new, money-grubbing PM rolled in and decided to lock my parents out of my account. Okay, byebye Netflix! You jacked the price too high anyway.
I suspect this too; between licensing and ads I bet there's a "screen type" (mobile vs. fixed/TV) that needs to be "correct" for some contract reason, and casting is skewing their numbers enough that someone called them on it.
Thank you. The idea that this is due to ads makes complete sense, as there's a lot of indication that Netflix charges more for ads showing on a TV (more people likely to view) than on a mobile device (usually only one person).
The fact that casting is still supported for older Chromecasts only on ad-free plans makes this the likeliest explanation to me. Netflix doesn't want to be paid lower rates on ads that are actually getting shown on the TV.
Don't build the Torment Netflix? These fundamentally anti-consumer moves are why it's called the Internet of sh**y things.
I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. But to be fair, all the streaming services are chasing the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. I canceled Netflix a while back. And I only watch prime video through an ad blocker on my PC now. Clearly I must hate freedom.
> I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer.
That's the thing though. Streaming services have very little say in how the content is licensed.
> the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy.
Those restrictions you're talking about? They literally come from licensing terms that rights owners impose.
(Most) streaming platforms would gladly not spend a lot of time figuring the devices, what they are playing etc.
My post obviously struck a nerve, but I would rather pay a higher subscription fee than experience a crappy customer experience. Ads are an exception here, if I'm paying, no ads, and also why I cancelled my NYT subscription long ago.
However, that is not the storyline services like Disney and Netflix have been telling. They have gassed on and on about stopping piracy. 2 screens isn't piracy, it's any family with someone who travels or is away at college.
The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. That would require spine so not expecting it, sigh. But they're sure happy to pick on sideloaders.
> The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders.
How would you lock out rights holders who hold the rights to content to create such an official streaming API? Such an official API would have to abide by all the licensing rules rights holders impose.
That's a question for lawyers to resolve. IANAL but I have great faith in their ability to impose arbitrary roadblocks to anything as needed. And even if ultimately overturned, just making the bottom line more affordable allowing casting would seem to be the "shareholder value" friendly message. Further, there was already precedent for such behavior on Netflix with some content being downloadable for later viewing and some not.
I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here when pretty much every foundation model effort has stolen tremendous amounts of IP to build their AI models without consequence.
> I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here
They own about 0 rights to the content they stream.
Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series. Also that's why you can watch the content they have rights to in every country, download it etc.
That's the same reason why AppleTV is busy creating their own content etc.
If streaming platforms dare to go against rights holders, the lawsuits will hurt even Google.
As for AI: it doesn't hurt the rights holders yet. The moment it does, you'll see lawsuits.
I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix. At some point, the free market works this out, but I'm guessing people can stay irrational about things like this longer than they ought to.
Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore. I truly do not miss it.
What I do miss these days is all of the wonderful summaries and presentations about AI and other research papers on YouTube that are now dominated by horrific notebookLM AI slop podcasts.
> I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix.
I will probably never stop being astounded by people who read simple unambiguous texts and then go on having arguments with voices in their heads.
> at some point, the free market works this out
Oh, it has. You're looking at what the free market has worked out.
> Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore.
Indeed. And literally told you why. Let me quote myself:
--- start quote ---
Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series.
--- end quote ---
Look at how a powerful non-helpless streaming service (in your head) could do nothing against rights holders imposing their will on it (in the real world).
Yes, might as well bend over here it comes again. Because if you try anything different, you are simply doomed to fail. Just ask total losers like Jeff Bezos or Jensen Huang about that. Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now we need to disrupt Netflix. That's how progress works. Annoyed by the present yet optimistic for the future. And nothing warms the cockles of my hearts like watching the naysayers like you get proven wrong yet again.
> Because if you try anything different, you are simply doomed to fail. Just ask total losers like Jeff Bezos or Jensen Huang about that.
I'll give you one guess on how Amazon Prime operates, and whether or not it applies the same rules license/rights holders impose.
> Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now we need to disrupt Netflix.
So it started with bold claims about "all we need is an official API for streaming to lock out license holders" and about something about "free market and disruption of Netflix".
> And nothing warms the cockles of my hearts like watching the naysayers like you get proven wrong yet again.
I dealt with people like you my entire career. You were never right in the long run, but your sorts were the masters of kiss up and kick down so somehow despite never seeing the locomotives coming down the tunnels, you survived.
But I got rich (oh who am I kidding? Really rich) investing against your viewpoints the whole way. And for that I say thank you for being the way you are. May you enable a whole new generation of multi-millionaires with your negativity.
Toodles! And by all means don't respond and reinforce my opinion of you even more.
I guessed this was coming after you couldn't cast to a device that was logged into a different account. Would be a nice experience to be able to cast Paw patrol from one of the kids accounts instead of cluttering the in-laws view history with kids shows.
The original post is talking about a feature removal that's happening to everybody, even the premium peers. That's what's I'm referring to as not understandable.
The extra irony here is that Netflix kind of lead the charge in this domain, worked with YouTube to build the DIAL protocol (Discovery and Launch, 2010). Which strongly resembles what emerged latter, Chromecast. From the DIAL protocol:
> For consumers, DIAL removes the pain of having to launch the required app on the first-screen [eg: tv] before interacting with it from their second-screen [eg: phone].
Growing up in the 90's, I was obsessed with ubiquitous computing, with an idea that there would be computers everywhere & we were going to need "the network is the computer" type thinking to let us make use of ambient screens, speakers, cameras, lights, etc. with Casting being ascendant and ragingly excellent, and Matter finally bringing some reason to IoT (but computer to computer notably weak) it's amazing to see some of that world.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why Netflix would be trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle now. We're ina user I would be pissed. I almost never touch my TV remote, and turning back the
I also want to mention that there is an open standard at the w3c, Open Screen Protocol, that's built by the Second Screen Working Group, to handle these flows in an open specified way. Matter has a Cast spec as well, but seems to only work with native apps that are already installed on devices, where-as DIAL (in many cases), Chromecast, and Open Screen Protocol all have modes where the target TV or speaker or whatnot open a given URL, so they can work with any* app without the 1st screen/tv needing explicit support. https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol
Netflix seems to basically do everything in their power to own the experience of using Netflix as much as possible, short of making a device and OS themselves.
This and refusing to work with the Apple TV app are the 2 big examples that come to mind but there are likely others.
I am not really sure what this solves though since you would still be using their app.
Them refusing to work with the Apple TV app was one of my biggest reasons for canceling. They really need to get knocked down a few pegs.
(Admittedly this is where Apple's naming on the Apple TV has been really bad).
In this particular situation I am referring to the Apple TV App not the OS or Hardware. The ability to find shows and movies to watch across all (except netflix) of your streaming services.
According to the article they dropped support for Airplay a while ago.
Why would the Apple TV app play other streaming services? I know the Amazon Prime app supports some partner streaming services, but I don’t know of any other streamer that plays its competitors videos in their app? Every service requires using their app and only plays its own videos in that app.
To add some additional context to the other comment, the Apple TV App launched before the Apple TV+ streaming service. About 3 years before.
The point of the app was to consolidate all of your watching across various services to a single source. It could work with third party apps and can sign up for various streaming services from within the app. This is a major way it differentiates from the Amazon Prime app that you can still use the third party apps.
So it playing third party content was always the point of the app, Apple TV+ just fit nicely within that app. Less them being competitors and more just why it exists in the first place.
Netflix to my knowledge is the only one that is resistant to using this service, I have not seen any other not work with it. The app is very convenient for keeping up with what I watch across services.
The Apple TV (the device) has a “stuff this user watches” app (called Apple TV) which has a tiny subset of its features dedicated to AppleTV+ (the service).
Netflix refuses to participate in “stuff this user watches”, it would be trivial to do, but Neflix jealously guards its viewership numbers and I expect this is the main reason they don’t do it. That and… they’d rather you just browse Netflix and not watch other services.
The “stuff this user watches” app is very useful! I like it a lot, when I’m not watching Netflix stuff! It works with every service except Netflix!
But the moment the family shifts over to watching some Netflix show, it forces us out of the habit of using the TV app, and then we go back to the annoying “spend 90 seconds trying to find what we were watching on Hulu” experience, which is worse in every way.
> Netflix seems to basically do everything in their power to own the experience of using Netflix as much as possible, short of making a device and OS themselves.
I'm suddenly feeling that the next step for Netflix is making a dedicated streaming hardware device solely for Netflix. Subsidized by ads of course. Like the reverse of Roku.
Chromecast is a dead product. Google killed it, but I think in this case it was when they lost a patent case in good ole Texas. I have several chromecast devices and have no interest in the replacement, google tv streamer.
"... the decision was made to improve the customer experience." Of course that's a lie, but it is ironic, as the reason why chromecast was initially conceived was that TV UX is horrible.
Out of all the dead Google products so far, I'm probably going to mourn for it the most once the existing ones are basically unusable, which I know is coming someday. I've always loathed the idea of giving TVs themselves internet for various reasons. The various boxes are marginally better, but the Chromecast felt revolutionary to me when it launched, because the TV didn't need to be complicated by UI or a remote with a million buttons, it was all in the phone. Also to me personally this user hostile act feels like a betrayal because in the early days of Chromecast Netflix's app seems to have the least number of issues with Chromecast. Even if that was just my subjective experience, it was still the app I used most with Chromecast when I got my first one because Netflix was a different beast then.
I still have my dead 1st gen and I look at it with fondness. I'm not surprised the mega corporations don't have the same feeling, but it still feels bad when they want to take away something they made that I actually liked.
Had to look it up (the texas comment is just a jab at texas being an amenable place to file IP infringement cases which is something i remember back then reading):
I signed up again for netflix while I was back in the states. when I arived in colombia, netflix gave me an error so I contact customer support. Apparently accounts are now region locked. I would have to cancel my account and then sign up again here (which I can't because they require a new number)
I loved the service but now its literaly unusable for me. whoever came up with these new policies should be "voluntarily" relocated to gaza.
I've resorted to piracy now. Its hard to imagine a company going through so much effort to not take my money.
Jellyfin is great for this if you don't want to put the computer right next to the TV. Set up your torrent program to download to a particular directory and set up Jellyfin to watch it. The most seamless experience to watch anything.
The only downside compared to Netflix is you need to wait 10-15 minutes to let the torrent finish. Also sometimes you have to hunt for the subtitles if you want them.
Currently it is impossible to use Netflix on screens connected via DisplayLink. Which is the only way to connect 2 monitors in older M processor MacBooks.
By “directs to remote” does it mean the TV remote? I feel like I’m missing something here, it’s just saying “use the smart tv’s built in app”? Directing someone to the remote seems like an overcomplicated way of indicating this?
I’m so glad we use plex, have thought of making the jump to jellyfin though. I tried to use my MacBook Air to watch their excellent Michelin Stars show, but couldn’t watch it on 2/3 of my monitors because they don’t have HDCP built in. Modern disk drives are so cheap you can just download everything in 4K HDR, paired with an OLED display it’s absolutely breathtaking how good modern media can look.
So anyway, with the Michelin show I just downloaded it off a torrent site instead, which is a hilariously easier user experience and it’s caused by the very HDCP that is supposed to prevent piracy.
>By “directs to remote” does it mean the TV remote? I feel like I’m missing something here, it’s just saying “use the smart tv’s built in app”? Directing someone to the remote seems like an overcomplicated way of indicating this?
Yes, that's what it means.
Some other streaming apps encourage using their mobile app as a remote, so I would imagine they are making it clear that the app should not be used at all here.
I suspect they killed it a bit earlier but in different regions and only now it arrived to the US; I went to Croatia in September and couldn't get Netflix to stream from any of my devices onto the hotel room's TV and had to instead link my account to the TV's Netflix app.
> However, even on these legacy devices, casting only remains for those on costlier ad-free plans, but it is unavailable for subscribers on Netflix's ad-supported plan.
If I were a subscriber this move wouldn't make me switch to a costlier plan, I'd rather unsubscribe entirely
Netflix’s seemingly baffling decisions all make sense when you realize one thing:
Netflix sees no more technological future or market opportunity for themselves that will increase profits, so reduction of features and up charging are the only strategies.
It’s a testiment to the blindness and stupidity of their workers and leadership that in the era of the most cutting edge breakthroughs in video, Netflix believes the future is in removing functionality.
shit like this is why I've recently totally given up on everything except Bandcamp and torrents, I really wish I could just pay for the 50gb mkvs with the 10bit color, atmos and film grain like I can for flacs
but good damn is life nice when you just have files, a network and zero drm and limitations
Given that they block login sharing, I think it's most likely the following scenario:
Friend with a Netflix account comes to your house, casts Netflix to your TV. No need for you to have a Netflix account in that case. Whereas, they want to force you to also have a Netflix account to watch on your TV.
Some Blu-Rays have major spoilers in their menu animations, and some have unskippable ads, some of which may contain major spoilers. [0] It's also a criminal offence to create a backup, thanks to the DMCA.
On the plus side, all UHD Blu-Rays are free of region-locking.
just one more cycle of bottom line chasing at the expense of user satisfaction, I promise you guys just one more price rise, just one fewer device allowed it's okay though we have stranger things! You guys love that right?
So Cable TV died decades ago when they first put ads onto the service that was sold on not having any ads, right?
Enshittification is done because it is so reliable. Customers just keep buying, doesn't really seem to matter how poorly you treat them.
Shrinkflation has gone on for decades and there's nothing stopping it from continuing because what are you going to do, not buy 90% of products in the grocery store? Good luck.
The problem is that businesses reach a sort of escape velocity where you can abuse your customer and they either do not react to it or have no other choice. The entire economy has worked to ensure that every consumer experiences trained helplessness when it comes to consuming, because that's more profitable.
Netflix is fucking its business up by trying to be a studio IMO. The service was perfect when they were a streaming platform. The studio arm's script selection and production quality makes me want to gauge my eyes out.
When you pay an arm and a leg every month for Netflix, you're funding a studio that pumps out the equivalent of screeching goblin sounds. Makes no sense.
I don't know that Netflix had much of an option. Once the studios and networks realized how much money they were leaving on the table by not running their own exclusive streaming services, the licensing costs to Netflix blew up or simply became entirely unavailable.
Netflix running their own studio was a reasonable attempt at regaining some exclusivity, even if it's been executed poorly in many cases.
I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep my subscription as we've hardly used it in months at this point, but I also don't have any other subscriptions any more either, so I'm not exactly a great bellwether.
A big part of why marketplaces like Netflix and Steam got so popular is because they provided a low-friction way to consume that was even easier than piracy. It seems like the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction now- it's often easier to copyright infringe than to watch something the legit way, even if you pay for a subscription that grants you access. Great example of something that's illegal but not morally wrong :)
I wish there was a service like steam for videos: not subscription but high confidence purchase of video content available "forever" (even if they remove it from the purchasing options, license would remain).
Personally I watch so little tv/movies that any subscription was always overpaying. I still did it for a while, because the price wasn't high enough to push me to seek out other options.
I'm no longer subbing and moved on, but the right holders are seriously detached from reality if they think this is a sane business strategy
> I wish there was a service like steam for videos: not subscription but high confidence purchase of video content available "forever" (even if they remove it from the purchasing options, license would remain).
In general, iTunes content purchase licenses are owned in perpetuity.
You do need to download the bits and have the files on hand, as (a) Apple may lose the right to re-deliver the bits to you, or (b) you may change regions (e.g., move from Australia to Canada) and find the re-download isn't available in the new region.
A good deal of stories were published in 2018 about Apple revoking or removing content, but when threads are pulled, the examples generally fell into these two camps. If you had kept the content yourself, you got to keep enjoying it.
> Personally I watch so little tv/movies that any subscription was always overpaying
Agree there's a good chance many households could purchase their preferred shows for less than the "watch throwaway stuff" subscriptions -- and then own them. This suggests a more ideal pairing is purchasing, plus something like Pluto.
>In general, iTunes content purchase licenses are owned in perpetuity.
All my purchased music on iTunes disappeared. Luckily I had kept copies of the files.
Or, just buy it on any platform and then feel less bad about pirating it anyway.
$30 for a season pass from iTunes seemed like a ridiculous price until you do the math and realize that it really isn't.
Between this, the ads on paid plans, and the fragmentation of catalogues, we've come full circle.
Not to mention everyone and their moms building own streaming service only to lose money, cut down the catalogue, increase prices and find that is still not enough. So now add ads in some paid tiers. With everyone needing that ad revenue and profiling data to "personalize experience" I think it is cleaner to just sail the high seas.
Sometimes streaming services try to "optimize my viewing experience" for several minutes. Or it doesn't like my monitor or cable setup or browser and refuses to play anything in HD. I won't try to fix this, this is not my problem. I have exactly zero moral quarrels to then just look for alternative sources and yes, some are quite easily accessible without any friction.
What makes sense in growth-mode and profit-mode are not the same
We are seeing FAANG-era companies switch from one to the other increasingly aggressively in the post ZERP era.
the difference of course being that valve /has/ to keep their customers happy because their average user is savvy at least with browsing the internet, the same can't be said of streaming consumers, many whom I know are emigres from the now-decaying cable infrastructure. Netflix knows this and squeezes their customer base, and while I would like to assume the altruism of Steam, whether by their own design or the will of the public, a solution with friction that low is all that works with that target market.
I am sure Netflix has the numbers. Most people watch through the app that is pre installed on the TV. There's even an icon on your remote.
How much easier do you want it to be?
Easy enough to cast from my phone when I'm not in front of my own TV; e.g. at an airbnb.
This is no joke. I tried watching the latest episode of Plur1bus on Apple TV+ on my laptop and here's the steps I went through:
1. Start chrome, navigate to tv.apple.com, click on the #1 show of the day (no problem)
2. The site tells me I can sign up for the TV service that I already have instead of offering a play button.
3. I click on the "sign up" which pauses for 10 seconds then tells me I'm already subscribed why did I hit the button you idiot.
4. I back arrow to the original page, it still asks me to sign up, hit F5 a couple of times to no effect.
5. Reload tv.apple.com from the start and navigate to the page, now it finally shows a play button.
6. Hit the play button but it gives me a popup saying that I need to verify the three digits off of the back of my credit card. I enter the digits and click the next button, but nothing happens.
7. Off to Google where I learn that if that happens you can log into accounts.apple.com first to avoid it.
8. I go through the login process on apple's site, which involves pulling out my phone to scan a QR code.
9. On the Apple site I try to go to the AppleTV+ options, which requires a second QR scan on my phone because it's apparently a different account.
10. On the site I verify that it shows the ATV+ subscription is active.
11. Return to tv.apple.com and click on the show to see that it again says I need to sign up to the service.
12. Click on the sign up button again to be told that I'm already subscribed.
13. Go back and reload the page entirely again so the play button reappears.
14. Click on the play button and get asked for the three digits again. Groan.
15. This time the next button actually works (miracle!) and it loads a second page talking about parental controls with another non-working button on the bottom.
16. I close the window and click on my profile in the upper right, verify that the parental controls are off.
17. Attempt to watch again, but again get stuck doing the 3 digit verify and get stuck on the parental controls window.
18. Go back to the settings and try turning on parental controls, which requires setting a PIN and doing another account verification, but leaving them on the most permissive settings.
19. Return to the site, to discover that it asks for the 3 digits yet again and then send me to that parental controls screen again.
20. Go back to settings and turn off parental controls because that didn't help.
21. Hit up Google again and find a person who suggests that switching browsers might help. I'm running the most common browser with no extensions that I use for these streaming sites because they can be such a pain in the ass, but sure.
22. Fire up Firefox with uMatrix and Adblock+ and have to do the login stuff yet again, but this time the show actually plays.
So to watch an hour of TV I had to spend over 30 minutes faffing about with the stupid website. It made me pine for the days of piracy when this was all so easy. I also downplayed how many times I had to do the reload dance to even get the play button to appear, going back to the start only worked about 1 time out of 3.
This isn't the only time I've struggled with streaming sites. Acorn for example simply refused to stream to my home. My wife is really into British mystery series and was pretty excited about it, but we had to drop it because their website simply refused to deliver the video and their tech support was completely unhelpful.
Did you know that if you have any Apple hardware, like anything at all with a screen, this is a 0-step process? You’re already signed into the device, and the AppleTV.app is pre-installed. It’s one tap.
I have sympathy for you, that sounds hellish. But. You are aware that Apple has never been in the web content business, right? And I’ve never heard of anyone watching Apple TV from a browser. I didn’t even know that was possible. I thought the channel existed as a means to sell Apple hardware, because it does work beautifully on their devices
I have an iPhone, but I don't want to watch a TV show on a phone screen. AppleTV content usually doesn't work over AirPlay. You just get a black screen.
There’s something wrong with your TV. You must have some kind of third party air play video device? AirPlay from the TV.app works fine. Just tried it, phone to TV and phone to laptop. You can either stream directly from the app or use screen mirroring. Both work.
Jellyseer , request. Popped up, didn't even know when it was airing
I don't understand Netflix's decision, but I'm long past caring about things like this. I've had PCs hooked up to all of my televisions for the past 15+ years because of how limiting and frustrating using any other device to play media from can be.
Same - I've been using an Intel NUC with Windows 10 for many years. It does everything I want:
- Netflix
- Youtube without ads via Firefox+uBlock Origin
- Ripping DVDs and converting to .mp4
Those Small Form Factor PCs have only gotten cheaper over time - the most powerful PC I've ever owned in 30+ years is a $300 Minisforum (16 Cores, 16GB RAM) that's doing similar duty in the garage.
problem is Netflix deprecated perfect UWP app and made it bloody PWA.
BitTorrent → Local Media Player App
Still the best way to watch movies and shows.
Even if we pay $100 dollars every month to streaming services they will never not be too dumb to know how to make a convenient player that isn't hostile to its users.
What is your local app of choice? Do you sync between devices?
IINA on Mac, free & open source, has been perfect for everything for years:
https://github.com/iina/iina
While traveling I was so pissed with the Apple TV player's performance on less-than-lightspeed internet connections, I ragecancelled my subscription and just yo ho ho'ed the last couple episodes of Severance
I have a server that runs a bunch of containers (bittorrent client on a VPN, Home Assistant, etc.) and hosts SMB shares. I acquire content that goes on the shares which then get consumed by various devices.
- Kodi on a TV that has been stripped of as much of Google as I could find, streams from the shares
- VLC on my PC, streams from the shares
- VLC on my phone which is always VPN'd to my local network and streams from the shares
- VLC on iPads on which I usually drag and drop some shows/movies ahead of time so I am not wifi-dependent
omg - just use ultra.cc + kodi with https connection on a fire stick - so simple
It's not about paying them $100.
They aren't dumb. They've realized that a large section of people will not bother, and aren't capable of sailing the high seas. Hostile behaviors won't change until it hits their bottom line, and because they are an extremely profitable company, it won't happen for a very long time.
Maybe the buccaneers need to up their marketing.
Whatever happened to the media players that had built-in torrent searching and streaming?
There is nothing at all to be gained by advertising piracy, especially to the streaming companies.
Let them enshittify their apps and just tell your friends and family offline how to have a sane video viewing experience.
You mean like PopcornTime? I think it's still around in various capacities and different forks
> I don't understand Netflix's decision
seems pretty obvious to me:
netflix wants to charge separately for mobile device vs television.
if you "cast" you don't need two subscriptions/account options.
college students sign into their friend's phone, then their friends can cast on the TV. this is about stopping sharing of accounts
That's also rather shit, unless you're using a prescribed browser and operating system.
We've rebuilt cable boxes, but somehow they're even shittier than before.
I’ve run homebrew DVRs since the MythTV/Hauppauge era and it’s true
My family won’t adapt to anything in the living room with a keyboard and mouse, and getting a reliable remote on any PC based solution is often problematic.
The hands-down best DVR experience I had was a TiVo Slide remote (the top slid back to reveal a small but fully functional keyboard) paired to a PC running Windows 7 Media Center with a four-tuner InfiniTV Cablecard adapter. Obviously it's been a few years, but that was just smooth all around once I got it set up. Very high WAF.
But Windows 7 is gone, and so is the TiVo Slide remote.
And so is CableCARD, for that matter.
Maybe they're not handing them out any more, but I've still got one and it still works in the TiVo (Edge?) that I have. It replaced that WMC DVR because WAF. Her genuine preference was for our old ReplayTV and its interface, but they didn't live long enough to make HD DVR's.
Turned out after I had already bought all that stuff due to flakiness that it was just some bad RAM that, really, was overkill - I could have just taken out the bad sticks and kept on rocking, in which case it probably would still be our DVR.
I just have a remote control an esp8266 and it posts to the PC's webserver.
A bit convoluted I guess but it's still under 1k loc so w/e.
Not even those dirt cheap bluetooth devices with a trackpad and mini keyboard? Those are great and it just works.
Or what about the Steam Controller? It's UX is similar to some nicer smart TV interfaces.
The real solution is you build an app that is nice for your family to use and just tells the boxes what to play. Sure hope your family doesn't use iPhones!
If you're using Firefox or run Linux, you won't be getting the stream quality you have paid for.
Always assuming every single thing can be improved - and expecting huge corporate entities to do it - seems like a recipe for failed expectations.
Cable TV wasn't perfect, of course, but it was pretty damn good, especially in allowing everybody to have access to just about every show that was produced.
That the "replacement" model is disappointing and a worse experience, really shouldn't come as a surprise.
It's interesting to hear your perspective, but I totally disagree about Cable TV. It's the worst paid service I've ever seen. 100+ channels of almost pure garbage that insults my intelligence at every turn. 1/3 of the time was ads, and of the remaining 2/3, much was taken up by "when we return..." and "before the break...". Plus most of the content was targeted towards morons.
These days, you'd have to pay me $20+ per hour to watch cable TV.
I did have basic cable for a few years in the early 2000s, and I did enjoy watching Star Trek TNG reruns. Because there wasn't any good alternative back then in the dark ages.
Modern streaming is the same thing, except it's hidden under the illusion of choice.
Many of the most popular streaming shows were originally aired on broadcast TV (which most people watched via cable) - The Office, Friends, West Wing, Big Bang Theory, etc. Or originally for cable channels - Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Suits, etc.
Netflix has produced a few decent shows but most of its stuff is "targeted towards morons" or "pure garbage that insults my intelligence" - Love is Blind, Is it Cake.
Commercials arent great but they are passive - easy to ignore. Much rather have a 3-minute commercials break where I can go to the bathroom or check my phone than having to actively scroll for 90 seconds switching from app to app and navigating their awful interfaces to get back to the show I was watching the other day.
But that's just me - glad you like our new television overlords, they certainly love anyone bashing cable tv!
That doesn't seem like an apples-to-apples comparison. There is a lot of junk on the broadcast and cable channels as well.
I expect there to be more aggregate junk on Netflix just because there is no floor: networks have only 168 hours a week to fill, while Netflix can throw anything at all on the pile.
But it doesn't matter, since unlike the networks, they're all available at once. If something insults your intelligence, you don't watch it.
His primary dislike for cable television was the amount of "garbage" it offered, while seemingly ignoring that Netflix also has plenty, if not more.
> But it doesn't matter... they're all available at once
I'm sorry but streaming everything is not a panacea. The spigot of worthwhile content is not endless. Ok great you binge-watched the entire season of Stranger Things over two nights. What will you watch tomorrow? And the day after? How much of the show do you actually remember? You lose out on the fun of discussing each individual episode with like-minded people, the wondering about how the next episode will resolve the last episodes drama, maybe watching an episode a second time and catching some additional detail.
I can assure you that watching great television - Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Larry Sanders Show, Homicide: Life on the Street - one episode per week is vastly superior to binge-watching it, even if it feels inconvenient in the moment. (Of course this is with the convenience of DVR so you can time-shift occasionally)
You do know that people outside America had to buy very expensive DVD box sets to watch those shows?
Wait, hold on, are you telling me that the Pirate Bay only existed on the American Internet back then, too? Man, I'm so glad we're not in those times anymore.
That’s gotta be just as painful to use from a sofa.
What OS do you run? I was thinking of doing this with SteamOS.
If it's going to be primarily a gaming device then that makes sense, but if not, what do you gain from SteamOS? And why do you want Steam to start on boot?
I use Fedora for this purpose, used to use Debian. You really just need a system with a web browser, file browser, media player and torrent client, and some way to remote control the computer from the couch (ideally from a phone).
Sadly, I don't know of any nice off the shelf solution for that last part. KDE Connect is an option but it kinda sucks. I've always had my own Remote Desktop web interface service type thing running on the machine (though Wayland has kinda thrown a wrench into that for now...)
> some way to remote control the computer from the couch (ideally from a phone)
If you use Kodi then you could try Kore (their remote app). I tried it once a long time ago and it was alright, but it's hard to beat a keyboard. I think similar apps exist for VLC and other media players, but I haven't looked into a solution that allows controlling the entire computer via a phone.
The huge problem with Kodi is that it requires playing media from within Kodi. The advantage of using a PC for this is that it works with anything you can play from a PC, regardless of whether someone has made an app for it for Apple TV or Samsung's smart TV stuff or Kodi.
You need to be able to provide keyboard and mouse input from a phone. Not just control Kodi or VLC.
You can add any applications to Steam's Big Picture mode and the UI is relatively couch friendly. Yes, you could install Steam on any distro and do this but SteamOS is pretty nice out of the box if you want a TV friendly solution.
Steam Big Picture is very couch friendly, if you're using a game pad and what you're launching supports a game pad. That's why it works for a couch gaming PC. Firefox has pretty bad gamepad support last I checked.
It's been a while since I've had to customize it much but I believe the Steam overlay allows you to map controller inputs to anything, uniquely for every given app you run through it.
That said, at some point I think yes, you just get a bluetooth mouse/keyboard to go with it.
And how well have you been able to get this to work with Firefox?
I use a Logitech K400 BT keyboard+touchpad for remote control of a PC I have connected to my TV. But, it's not used as a streaming device - it's a file share + home automation hub, so the keyboard makes sense.
I used to use arch linux, but I've been using windows in recent times for simplicity and usability by non-technical people. Windows is starting to piss me off though, so I might move back to some linux distro in the near future.
I don't do any live TV / DVR stuff. Most of the time I just use the browser or VLC.
Only Windows app and Mac give more than 720-1080p on Netflix
This is my sole reason for sticking with smart TVs or a streaming device. How is anyone getting proper 1080p+ streams from Netflix using a Linux device? 4K is not necessary, but 1080p at least it's what I need. Not even considering proper HDR support
> How is anyone getting proper 1080p+ streams from Netflix using a Linux device?
Piracy
> The change was first spotted by users on Reddit and confirmed in an updated Netflix support page (via Android Authority), which now states that the streaming service no longer supports casting from mobile devices to most TVs and TV-streaming devices. Users are instead directed to use the remote that came with their TV hardware and use its native Netflix app.
My guess is that adblock became too easy on smartphones, so by forcing people use the app on the TV it makes harder for people to bypass the ads.
That's pure speculation, as I don't have any subscription from netflix. But I've used this method with the HBO app and it works 90% of the time, so I'm assuming netflix has the same issue.
> My guess is that adblock became too easy on smartphones
Not within native apps. Your only option is essentially dns/hosts based on both platforms however this can also be done on the router. On Android there is ReVanced I guess. But these are almost as technical as a pihole. What is the percent of people who know of DNS based adblock but not pihole?
Edit: And DNS adblocking can be done on android tv.
Sure, but I've never had a 'standard router' with support dns blocking. I know you can do this with something like pfsense, but that's not that common.
You also have the option to put a piehole in your network. It is pretty easy if you have some technical knowledge but I would say that it is generally out of reach for the general population(non-tech folks).
But on android you just open the settings, search for 'private vpn' and paste an url. This is way easier to do for someone with no technical background. Even chatgpt should be able to correctly guide you through these steps.
Sounds probable to me... This is a great example of why I am by default anti-app unless there's a demonstrable benefit to the user (e.g. Offline mode or something). If the web version of Netflix goes away then I will never access it again. I will also never buy a "smart" TV. I leave the ball in Netflix's court.
After the better part of a decade spent with chromecast and legal streaming, I have been forced back to the high seas as of late. I can't reliably get programs without onerous subscriptions, each for one or two shows I actually care about.
aye matey
I remember the time when smart homes used to feature in sci-fi literature and concept videos. Being able to walk around your house while having everything seamlessly synced and tailored to your preferences was clearly the future. TV, movies and music automatically playing in whatever room your enter. Files and all other data seamlessly synced between all your devices. Not having to think about how to make the tech work, because it all just works.
The frustrating thing is that we've had all the tech to make this possible for at least 10-20 years now. Yet "smart" homes are getting worse with every passing year. Why? Because consumer technology is monopolized by a handful of large corporations whose goal isn't to make people's lives easier but build walled gardens and restrictions to best extract every last cent.
It's notable that often we have protocols to tie things together. UPnP/DLNA/Miracast have existed for a long time now & have included standards for media playing, light control, others. And many TV's have even implemented!!
I feel like what has always been trickier is control and coordination. There haven't been many people to step up and own the higher level, the thing that coordinates devices.
It's notable to me that recent successful cast protocols (like Netflix+YouTube's original DIAL, Chromecast) have really simplified. Are bottom up flows. They have allowed the phone (second screen) apps to have a direct way to cast, inside the app. To one other screen, to such an extent that multi-room audio works by first making a group that then presents in the app as one device. (Sonos' proprietary casting is the notable exception.) Where-as historically casting was possible but often used dedicated apps, a UPnP Control Point, that talked to a different UPnP Media Renderer to point it at various UPnP Media Servers. A tri-part system, with control as the third point.
Netflix hypothetically could have used the UPnP to do casting. Phone acts as a Media Server (but serves up one-time-use URLs on the net for actual media) to the movie on question. Then act as a UPnP control point to control media playback. But they made DIAL, which reduced it to a two system network. And to have more resident native apps running (with rest channels open between the devices).
It's interesting seeing what folks do with Google Home and Home Assistant. Orchestrating routines and triggers and what not is kind of neat, in some ways wildly hard to imagine from "back then", but also feels so short in other ways. Is such a primitive level of control. It feels like the task of making actual systems coordinateable and orchestrateable, the real dream of ubicomp, is indeed quite far away, unowned, even though in many cases we have advanced computer protocols afforded to us.
As with so much technology, the technology exists in part to provide a service to the customer, but more and more it exists to direct the customer into the behaviors desired by the technology owner and its advertising partners. This isn't always so evil or insidious, but the point stands that Netflix (or almost any modern service) doesn't want you to do what _you_ want with your devices. It wants to direct you towards whatever is most beneficial to Netflix. These companies don't really serve their customers, except confusingly, customers keep paying for these services.
The problem is, opting out doesn’t provide signal by reallocating market share. It just shrinks the market.
That's only a problem if you ever expect the market to serve your needs. I'm not _very_ old (early 40s) but it's starting to dawn on me that this will never happen in a major way, and I think the only path forward is to abstain.
there was an ad, or a presentation in a conference keynote, from when microsoft built phones, showing a user leaving the house and continuing what was he doing in the car in a very futuristic way. I can't find it now, but was something crazy by then, the continuum idea was also a good one, but here we are, walled gardens and nothing smart about them.
I know exactly which one you're referring to!
(it's a woman, presumably just arrived on a flight, catching a taxi to her hotel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FpO-G5die4
Look up the AT&T "You Will" advertising campaign sometime. This ran beginning in 1993, and I remember seeing at least a few of the spots at the time.
What these ads (and much speculative fiction, say, Arthur C. Clark particularly the "newspads" (tablet computers) in 2001 and "minisecs" (smartphones) in Imperial Earth) portrayed was capabilities without consideration of commercial and market imperatives. Capabilities promised empowerment and enablement. Markets delivered enshitiffication and enclosures of commons.
And as Timothy B. Lee noted, "the ads were mostly wrong about one thing: the company that brought these technologies to the world was not AT&T". AT&T's networks deliver much of the content and messaging which was portrayed, but the services themselves are not rooted in AT&T, either the original firm or its remonopolised successor organisation.
<https://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6113853/we-live-in-the-future-a...>
Microsoft's vision was portrayed as well in the Bill Gates book The Road Ahead, published about the same time (1995). Again, it envisioned much, but little of that vision was delivered directly by Microsoft (though much of it was in fact experienced on computers running Microsoft's operating system, at least until the smartphone revolution supplanted it).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Gates_book)>
Abolishing copyright and patent law would pretty much solve this.
It's interesting to look back at the times when these concepts and sci-fi lit were written.
A lot of it was in the postwar period. You had a booming population that offered the opportunity for easy corporate revenue growth. If you wanted to make more money, you just sold your good or service to a person who didn't have it yet. That was simple enough because there were people - a lot of them - aging into your market. Let's say that the microwave was the smart home appliance of the late 60s/early 70s. You want to sell them. Well, that's easy, because there are a bunch of people building first homes who want to update their kitchens. Make the case that your microwave belongs in it due to the convenience it brings.
You're a futurist. What would that microwave look like in the future? Well, surely it would just be purchased, you'd put it in your home, and it'd have all sorts of features to make your life even more convenient.
These stories were written with the assumption that, at least in the West, that would continue forever. The Baby Boomers would have enough kids to justify the same sort of marketing strategy. And then those kids would have enough kids. And so on and so forth.
That didn't happen. The birthrate began to plummet in the 1970s and hasn't increased meaningfully since. There are fewer people naturally aging into your market, to say nothing of resources becoming more scarce as time goes on.
So what do you do if you are charged with providing shareholders ever-increasing returns on their investments by selling goods and services? Well, you try to extract more sales - or value - out of a smaller number of people. You don't just sell a smart home device; you require it to be tied to a subscription that must be paid monthly, and make the person using it buy a new one every so often to keep the revenue coming in. You could also collect the data on how they use the device and sell that to people looking to influence the purchase of further goods and services.
The microwave is now a "smart" device that will do all sorts of things... but you'll need to keep paying for it, over and over.
Same with music players, lighting fixtures, televisions, laundry machines, and everything else we've seen get the "smart home" treatment.
Growth must be maintained. Value must be created. The futurist never took into account that part. It was about the consumer, not the supplier, but the consumer can only be made to consume so much based on organic growth.
> So what do you do if you are charged with providing shareholders ever-increasing returns on their investments by selling goods and services?
> Growth must be maintained. Value must be created. The futurist never took into account that part.
The futurists did take this into account, they just weren't writing utopian fiction. Weyland Yutani, Tyrell Corp, and other Megacorps were the futurists warning us what could happen if we let profit and sharedholder value becomes the most important thing in society.
I guess the difference is that they weren't attempting to communicate both possibilities in the same example of what the future would be.
Any vision of the future that doesn’t include realistic incentives of human beings won’t happen.
Offering such a flexible smart home requires a huge amount of coordination work, customer support, and just taking the blame sometimes for the inevitable bugs.
Yeah competent companies are willing to take on all that, if you pay them a lot, which is why high end smart homes are flourishing.
> competent companies are willing to take on all that, if you pay them a lot, which is why high end smart homes are flourishing.
Citations needed, I can provide a lot of examples of high end equipment providing a worse experience.
Famously Bill Gates had a practically fully envisioned smart home by the early 2000s. With pretty much every wizmo and integration.
Even superyachts nowadays are starting to see that from what I’ve heard.
He asked for more concrete examples because the professional companies are behind the consumer level products. Home Assistant is one of the biggest projects on GitHub for a reason. It's still stuck in the hobby space but everything they are doing lately is to push it past Apple Home for the regular user.
Are you confused about what early 2000s means?
The ideal integrated smart home was already achieved before smartphones existed.
Recent advancements have mostly been about pushing the original 100 million+ usd cost lower.
What high end smart homes are actually smart in the way paxys described? I would say this market more than just not flourishing, actually doesn’t exist. There’s no company that sells this because it would require a whole bunch of other companies get on board to make it real.
Imagine you go to get your car's tires replaced but can only buy BMW brand (because that's what your car will support) and they cost 3x the price of the generic ones.
Imagine you want to do some home renovations but the builder of your house has installed a kill switch that will detonate the entire thing to the ground should you try to move even one brick without using their preferred contractor.
Imagine the manufacturer of your couch shows up to your doorstep 2 years after you bought it and says they need it back. But you paid full price for it? Nope, you actually bought a license, and the license has now expired. So will you get a refund? Lol, nope.
All of this would be laughable in the real world, yet when it comes to tech we look at the same practices and go "of course, all this makes sense".
So no, this isn't really about the "huge amount of work" it would entail. Companies are perfectly capable of doing this work, and happily do so as long as it benefits them. The problem is that there is no regulation in the space and customers have been trained to accept these practices as a way of life.
Kind of wild that Netflix is (or believes) it is so far ahead of all the other streaming services that they're nickel-and-diming their customers for every little feature.
Other services were aggressively throwing Black Friday sales in order to boost their subscriber counts. I picked up HBO for 70% off, and there were also Hulu and Apple TV discounts. And I didn't need any of them because there's plenty of ad-supported content on YouTube, Tubi, and other services.
I never watch Netflix but I kept their highest tier account to share with my family (not in same household). They really started nickle-and-diming this quarter and I cancelled. I know I could add another user for additional charge but it motivated me to cancel.
If you think they nickel and dime customers, you should see what they do to TV and streaming device makers. They can make basically any demand they want because you can't ship with Netflix.
Not sure the full motivation behind this but this is very annoying for a parent with kids. Especially if you've lost your remote, or want to quickly find something and cast it to your Chromecast/Apple TV.
I'd prefer video streaming apps be required to support Casting/AirPlay.
I’ve helped several elderly neighbors get setup with casting to their TVs as well. Just a debacle that’s going to frustrate a bunch of people for no good reason. Really wish the teams that implement ‘features’ like this were forced to deal with the consequences. At least in the olden days, they’d get feedback in the form of calls and complaints to their help line but now it’s just “Too bad, app changed, deal with it.”
Well, the consequence would be to cancel the subscription now?
>I'd prefer video streaming apps be required to support Casting/AirPlay.
Do you mean required by law?
No, I’d say the App Store,
I consider it a device perk. I bought the iPhone and Apple TV largely because of airplay so if they remove that functionality it will move me to use other streaming services that support it or I’ll just buy movies again and stop paying streaming altogether.
Required by store?
This is such a good answer, it puts the entire situation into perspective. About who wants to (and theoretically should) act in favor of consumers.
Its a selling point for Apple and Google devices.
Buy into their ecosystem and things "just work". Except when they don't.
Its a cross cutting requirement that adds value for the platform.
Apple TV has a Netflix app already. Plus you can use your iPhone as a remote.
All this app stuff is so annoying. I reverted back a while ago. Now when i want the radio on i just switch it on. With an actual switch. Same with my lights— an actual real switch! Theres no benefit to chaining all your behind someapp the needs updated installed, logged in passwords, managed, ooo you haven’t logged in for 90 days lets send you an email to update your password- bro i just want to increase my heating. Its all nonsense. Sooner people realise the better.
TODAY I got an email saying my $600 robot vacuum cleaner -- which only works via an app -- would no longer work with said app.
It has no physical buttons to manage schedules, just a "spot clean now" button.
I hand-wrung when I bought it -- knowing it was a risk requiring I trust them -- aand I was bitten.
Awesome.
Welcome to the future.
Nobody on HN wants to hear this, but REG-U-LA-TION. The glorious free market is consistently failing to solve the growing problem of cloud-tethered and app-tethered products being nerfed by their manufacturers after the point of sale.
But that's why the EU is so "behind" on cultivating parasitic FAANG-style tech megacorps! If they'd just do away with regulations, the EU could have some of their own, such joy!
Move fast and screw society for tasty RSUs!
I think those who believe regulation is universally the devil forget the era where products were received DOA and customers had no recourse while companies simply called it profit.
I can't take anyone that views regulation as universally evil seriously when history is full of stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor
Evidently HN doesn't like this particular history...
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9176267>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44508062>
The Radithor reference is of course quite apropos, and I'm a fan of effective and principled regulation to avoid that and numerous other market failures.
Sorry, but it's CUS-TO-MERS. They buy stuff that can only be controlled via an app talking to the cloud. They buy stuff that cannot be repaired. They buy stuff that openly lies about its specs, for an "unbelievably good price". The customers go for the cheapest, all else be damned.
Education in general, and about critical thinking in particular, could help.
Your argument is in alignment with
With a sufficiently large pool of people, scammers live and thrive on busy people.Regulation helps discourage that.
In this case, "REG-U-LATION" actually "caused" the issue. Up-to-date LIDAR of every home in America was deemed to be invasive breach of privacy so was regulated out. This product didn't successfully account for future non-technical issues.
I "foolishly" tried to reward a previously known-good vendor by buying a product from the company that had sold me a vacuum that worked for ten years... which brings up the next truism:
Cue the tiny violin.Customers would buy contaminated food if it was cheaper, too. There's value in having a floor on quality and design for products to avoid races to the bottom?
Not just would, DID!
And they got so fed up with eating food that make them sick that we passed the Food and Drug Act!
You can vote with both your wallet and _you actual vote_.
The entire snake oil industry was thriving and customers loved buying stuff that did nothing at all.
It took a hundred people, including young children, dying in sheer agony from a 100% preventable poisoning by a "medicine company" who's business was essentially dissolving off the shelf medicine powders in liquid and selling the result to really regulate chemicals meant for human ingestion. It took a president with a sympathetic ear and immense popular support for government in general to be a force for reigning in powerful corporations.
That company not only did not test that concoction on any living thing before bottling it up and selling to thousands of unwitting people, but the chemist in charge didn't even check the literature to see that the diethylene glycol he used was already thought to be lethal and had known kidney toxicity.
The company DID test its flavor and color and fragrance.
Why would they test anything else before selling it? You could be a hugely profitable company selling products that did nothing to the people who took it. Testing your products was a waste of effort and would not get you more business!
Your average consumer CANNOT judge accurately whether a medicine works. Your average doctor fails at the task, which is why we have to do blind studies in the first place.
What was true of consumers in the early 1900s is just as true today, and applies to all sorts of things that aren't medicine. Consumers will never be experts. Consumers will never be as equipped to evaluate something as the capital rich industry that produces it. There are inherent information asymmetries that make even idealized market theory fail.
Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup is another example. It was made around the mid 1800's and killed thousands of children. I'm sure there were others. This one just stands out.
How's changing the behavior of every person on Earth to create the market pressures you wanna see working out for you?
Over here in the EEA, governments using regulations to create the market pressures I want to see has a fair amount of success, FWIW
> They buy stuff that openly lies about its specs
That one is very specifically failure or regulators and absolutely should subject to regulation. We can bicker about whether repairability should be regulated ... but false claims by the manufacturers absolutely should.
It is absurd to blame the user for this one.
Sorry, it's not. Latest example, Canon's phone app for its cameras, for GPS tagging, remote shutter, transfer to phone, didn't require any Internet access, but now they changed it to require an online login for no reason. Oh and that login only works with chrome installed.
So miss me with this caveat emptor libertarian fantasy land ("openly lies about its specs" is the buyer's fault?!)
You'll know not to buy anything from Canon next time, right?
Will that keep me from getting bait-and-switched again?
You may want to check if your robot is supported by Valetudo: https://valetudo.cloud/
Reading through that site, it seems like instead of locking yourself into a corporations app, you're locking it into his instead. He doesn't seem to want to run an open source community, he's building an app for himself and publishing it for people who have exactly the same use case as him.
True, but you don't need to install updates once you have the software installed, and it's probably better not to. The software on the robot doesn't need the app to control, either - it exposes an API that either the app or custom software can talk to, sans cloud servers.
ooo thanks for the link, buuut it appears NEATO Robotics vacuums aren't supported ... yet.
I had hoped Home Assistant might be able to handle it but it appears their integration just sends the data to NEATO, which no no longer works.
https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/neato/
Blarg.
[dead]
Probably to drive people to piracy
> this is very annoying for a parent with kids
But the parents without kids, will they at least continue to be leafs? (Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry...)
[flagged]
> Not sure the full motivation behind this
This feature was one of the main reasons how Netflix movies/shows could be captured/uploaded to piracy sites in full quality as soon as they were released. People recorded the video output and uploaded them. This is to remove that path. Kinda obvious if you ask.
This is untrue. This method wouldn't get you the highres content, that's limited to higher widevine tiers. Pirates use other bypass methods and this will zero impact.
That's not how casting works. It's actually super locked down: the TV loads a netflix website and you can't create your own Chromecast receivers.
How does VLC do it then?
How is this different from recording video output from a not-casted stream?
It isn't, some people just like to post completely made up nonsense on topics they don't understand.
Edit: GP's username should have been a hint...
This is going to be painful for people in a way which I haven’t seen discussed here yet.
A year ago I went on vacation with my family, and the kids wanted to watch Netflix on VRBO‘s TV and so I logged in to my account on the tv. And of course I forgot to log it out when I left - so, predictably, the next people decided they hated my taste and went through and deleted all my likes and dislikes, and rated I swear 100 teen romances. I somehow got my account logged out of that TV, but the account was trashed and unrepairable so I lost about a decades worth of history and started a new one.
Afterwards, I thought I should’ve just cast from the kids iPad. And now that won’t be possible.
This is why I take a Chromecast with me on vacation. Put in the WiFi password and job done. Works better and faster than most smart TVs.
I always bring a USB drive. All TVs play from USB.
Sometimes when I cast from apps to a TV it logs me into the TV. incredibly annoying.
"One Reddit user said customer service explained that devices with remotes can no longer cast, claiming the decision was made to improve the customer experience."
How can this improve the customer experience?
Corporate garbagespeak, has no relation to reality whatsoever.
The reason isn't meant to be true/correct/verifiable. It's meant to be a positive sounding soundbite.
Statements like those are meant for you to just bounce off of them and fuck off. They don't care about the truth and they know you don't care enough to do anything about their lying. It's an entire business model.
It doesn't. They're just lying.
I've worked in streaming. If you see a feature pulled, or announced and delayed, or announced and never shipped, 99.99999% of the time it's due to licensing. Every single permutation of any action that a user may find beneficial is covered by a different license with a different cost.
Oh. And ads. There's another can of worms if you need to serve ads.
In this case it could be that Netflix is an asshole. Or could be that they really could not figure out proper device attribution and ad reporting to the leeches that are the content owners and ad networks.
I’m really leaning towards them being an asshole in this specific case.
Chromecast works in my EV for every other streaming app, so the licensing seems to be a solved problem for them. Netflix, however, never worked and my EV manufacturer had to release a support page specifically for Netflix not working.
I suspect this is just more account security. I remember paying $20/mo for a premium plan with a set number of screens on the contract…but one day their side changed and those screens had to be on my WiFi. I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change.
I cancelled Netflix after 15 years (DVD era) and have never looked back. Just hostile decision after hostile decision.
> I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change.
Even that often comes down to licensing. And it's as stupid as you describe it.
Does it maybe come down to changing licenses, as in a license expires and another is negotiated with different terms (to charge per household instead in the example above)?
Oh, that too :)
Same. First, I kept my idle account for the recommendations. Then, I kept my idle account because my family used it (why Netflix ENCOURAGED when they added profiles).
Then, some new, money-grubbing PM rolled in and decided to lock my parents out of my account. Okay, byebye Netflix! You jacked the price too high anyway.
I suspect this too; between licensing and ads I bet there's a "screen type" (mobile vs. fixed/TV) that needs to be "correct" for some contract reason, and casting is skewing their numbers enough that someone called them on it.
Thank you. The idea that this is due to ads makes complete sense, as there's a lot of indication that Netflix charges more for ads showing on a TV (more people likely to view) than on a mobile device (usually only one person).
The fact that casting is still supported for older Chromecasts only on ad-free plans makes this the likeliest explanation to me. Netflix doesn't want to be paid lower rates on ads that are actually getting shown on the TV.
Advertising is a virus that invades and destroys every ecosystem it can.
Don't build the Torment Netflix? These fundamentally anti-consumer moves are why it's called the Internet of sh**y things.
I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. But to be fair, all the streaming services are chasing the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. I canceled Netflix a while back. And I only watch prime video through an ad blocker on my PC now. Clearly I must hate freedom.
> I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer.
That's the thing though. Streaming services have very little say in how the content is licensed.
> the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy.
Those restrictions you're talking about? They literally come from licensing terms that rights owners impose.
(Most) streaming platforms would gladly not spend a lot of time figuring the devices, what they are playing etc.
My post obviously struck a nerve, but I would rather pay a higher subscription fee than experience a crappy customer experience. Ads are an exception here, if I'm paying, no ads, and also why I cancelled my NYT subscription long ago.
However, that is not the storyline services like Disney and Netflix have been telling. They have gassed on and on about stopping piracy. 2 screens isn't piracy, it's any family with someone who travels or is away at college.
The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. That would require spine so not expecting it, sigh. But they're sure happy to pick on sideloaders.
> The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders.
How would you lock out rights holders who hold the rights to content to create such an official streaming API? Such an official API would have to abide by all the licensing rules rights holders impose.
That's a question for lawyers to resolve. IANAL but I have great faith in their ability to impose arbitrary roadblocks to anything as needed. And even if ultimately overturned, just making the bottom line more affordable allowing casting would seem to be the "shareholder value" friendly message. Further, there was already precedent for such behavior on Netflix with some content being downloadable for later viewing and some not.
I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here when pretty much every foundation model effort has stolen tremendous amounts of IP to build their AI models without consequence.
Otherwise, frog.pot.boiled, no?
> I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here
They own about 0 rights to the content they stream.
Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series. Also that's why you can watch the content they have rights to in every country, download it etc.
That's the same reason why AppleTV is busy creating their own content etc.
If streaming platforms dare to go against rights holders, the lawsuits will hurt even Google.
As for AI: it doesn't hurt the rights holders yet. The moment it does, you'll see lawsuits.
I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix. At some point, the free market works this out, but I'm guessing people can stay irrational about things like this longer than they ought to.
Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore. I truly do not miss it.
What I do miss these days is all of the wonderful summaries and presentations about AI and other research papers on YouTube that are now dominated by horrific notebookLM AI slop podcasts.
> I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix.
I will probably never stop being astounded by people who read simple unambiguous texts and then go on having arguments with voices in their heads.
> at some point, the free market works this out
Oh, it has. You're looking at what the free market has worked out.
> Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore.
Indeed. And literally told you why. Let me quote myself:
--- start quote ---
Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series.
--- end quote ---
Look at how a powerful non-helpless streaming service (in your head) could do nothing against rights holders imposing their will on it (in the real world).
Yes, might as well bend over here it comes again. Because if you try anything different, you are simply doomed to fail. Just ask total losers like Jeff Bezos or Jensen Huang about that. Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now we need to disrupt Netflix. That's how progress works. Annoyed by the present yet optimistic for the future. And nothing warms the cockles of my hearts like watching the naysayers like you get proven wrong yet again.
> Because if you try anything different, you are simply doomed to fail. Just ask total losers like Jeff Bezos or Jensen Huang about that.
I'll give you one guess on how Amazon Prime operates, and whether or not it applies the same rules license/rights holders impose.
> Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now we need to disrupt Netflix.
So it started with bold claims about "all we need is an official API for streaming to lock out license holders" and about something about "free market and disruption of Netflix".
> And nothing warms the cockles of my hearts like watching the naysayers like you get proven wrong yet again.
Again, you're arguing with voices in your head.
Adieu.
I dealt with people like you my entire career. You were never right in the long run, but your sorts were the masters of kiss up and kick down so somehow despite never seeing the locomotives coming down the tunnels, you survived.
But I got rich (oh who am I kidding? Really rich) investing against your viewpoints the whole way. And for that I say thank you for being the way you are. May you enable a whole new generation of multi-millionaires with your negativity.
Toodles! And by all means don't respond and reinforce my opinion of you even more.
I guessed this was coming after you couldn't cast to a device that was logged into a different account. Would be a nice experience to be able to cast Paw patrol from one of the kids accounts instead of cluttering the in-laws view history with kids shows.
Just setup different profiles on the in-laws tv? A kids profile and problem solved!
But then how would they charge you extra for being at a second location?
As of Nov 10, Netflix removed the ability to cast at all for anybody on the ad-supported tier.
A hostile move, but understandable money grubbing.
This is less understandable.
It's very understandable. they want to upsell their existing customer base.
like you said, money grubbing. they need to grow this quarter, remember?
The original post is talking about a feature removal that's happening to everybody, even the premium peers. That's what's I'm referring to as not understandable.
The extra irony here is that Netflix kind of lead the charge in this domain, worked with YouTube to build the DIAL protocol (Discovery and Launch, 2010). Which strongly resembles what emerged latter, Chromecast. From the DIAL protocol:
> For consumers, DIAL removes the pain of having to launch the required app on the first-screen [eg: tv] before interacting with it from their second-screen [eg: phone].
https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
Growing up in the 90's, I was obsessed with ubiquitous computing, with an idea that there would be computers everywhere & we were going to need "the network is the computer" type thinking to let us make use of ambient screens, speakers, cameras, lights, etc. with Casting being ascendant and ragingly excellent, and Matter finally bringing some reason to IoT (but computer to computer notably weak) it's amazing to see some of that world.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why Netflix would be trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle now. We're ina user I would be pissed. I almost never touch my TV remote, and turning back the
I also want to mention that there is an open standard at the w3c, Open Screen Protocol, that's built by the Second Screen Working Group, to handle these flows in an open specified way. Matter has a Cast spec as well, but seems to only work with native apps that are already installed on devices, where-as DIAL (in many cases), Chromecast, and Open Screen Protocol all have modes where the target TV or speaker or whatnot open a given URL, so they can work with any* app without the 1st screen/tv needing explicit support. https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol
Netflix seems to basically do everything in their power to own the experience of using Netflix as much as possible, short of making a device and OS themselves.
This and refusing to work with the Apple TV app are the 2 big examples that come to mind but there are likely others.
I am not really sure what this solves though since you would still be using their app.
Them refusing to work with the Apple TV app was one of my biggest reasons for canceling. They really need to get knocked down a few pegs.
> Them refusing to work with the Apple TV app
Not that I think Netflix is being anything other than shitty here. But Apple TV is equally egregious in not supporting Chromecast.
(Admittedly this is where Apple's naming on the Apple TV has been really bad).
In this particular situation I am referring to the Apple TV App not the OS or Hardware. The ability to find shows and movies to watch across all (except netflix) of your streaming services.
According to the article they dropped support for Airplay a while ago.
Why would the Apple TV app play other streaming services? I know the Amazon Prime app supports some partner streaming services, but I don’t know of any other streamer that plays its competitors videos in their app? Every service requires using their app and only plays its own videos in that app.
To add some additional context to the other comment, the Apple TV App launched before the Apple TV+ streaming service. About 3 years before.
The point of the app was to consolidate all of your watching across various services to a single source. It could work with third party apps and can sign up for various streaming services from within the app. This is a major way it differentiates from the Amazon Prime app that you can still use the third party apps.
So it playing third party content was always the point of the app, Apple TV+ just fit nicely within that app. Less them being competitors and more just why it exists in the first place.
Netflix to my knowledge is the only one that is resistant to using this service, I have not seen any other not work with it. The app is very convenient for keeping up with what I watch across services.
The Apple TV (the device) has a “stuff this user watches” app (called Apple TV) which has a tiny subset of its features dedicated to AppleTV+ (the service).
Netflix refuses to participate in “stuff this user watches”, it would be trivial to do, but Neflix jealously guards its viewership numbers and I expect this is the main reason they don’t do it. That and… they’d rather you just browse Netflix and not watch other services.
The “stuff this user watches” app is very useful! I like it a lot, when I’m not watching Netflix stuff! It works with every service except Netflix!
But the moment the family shifts over to watching some Netflix show, it forces us out of the habit of using the TV app, and then we go back to the annoying “spend 90 seconds trying to find what we were watching on Hulu” experience, which is worse in every way.
> Netflix seems to basically do everything in their power to own the experience of using Netflix as much as possible, short of making a device and OS themselves.
I'm suddenly feeling that the next step for Netflix is making a dedicated streaming hardware device solely for Netflix. Subsidized by ads of course. Like the reverse of Roku.
Chromecast is a dead product. Google killed it, but I think in this case it was when they lost a patent case in good ole Texas. I have several chromecast devices and have no interest in the replacement, google tv streamer.
"... the decision was made to improve the customer experience." Of course that's a lie, but it is ironic, as the reason why chromecast was initially conceived was that TV UX is horrible.
Out of all the dead Google products so far, I'm probably going to mourn for it the most once the existing ones are basically unusable, which I know is coming someday. I've always loathed the idea of giving TVs themselves internet for various reasons. The various boxes are marginally better, but the Chromecast felt revolutionary to me when it launched, because the TV didn't need to be complicated by UI or a remote with a million buttons, it was all in the phone. Also to me personally this user hostile act feels like a betrayal because in the early days of Chromecast Netflix's app seems to have the least number of issues with Chromecast. Even if that was just my subjective experience, it was still the app I used most with Chromecast when I got my first one because Netflix was a different beast then.
I still have my dead 1st gen and I look at it with fondness. I'm not surprised the mega corporations don't have the same feeling, but it still feels bad when they want to take away something they made that I actually liked.
What was the Texas patent case?
Had to look it up (the texas comment is just a jab at texas being an amenable place to file IP infringement cases which is something i remember back then reading):
https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-owes-3387-mln-chromecas...
I signed up again for netflix while I was back in the states. when I arived in colombia, netflix gave me an error so I contact customer support. Apparently accounts are now region locked. I would have to cancel my account and then sign up again here (which I can't because they require a new number)
I loved the service but now its literaly unusable for me. whoever came up with these new policies should be "voluntarily" relocated to gaza.
I've resorted to piracy now. Its hard to imagine a company going through so much effort to not take my money.
more rent-seeking from a pantheon member of rent-seekers.
1. Download file of content you wish to consume (this usually, but not always, involves piracy).
2. Put file onto computer. Maybe the computer you already downloaded it onto.
3. Plug computer into TV or monitor.
4. Open file to consume content.
One of these days I'll get around to setting up something like this for my dad:
- laptop sits under the TV (maybe asleep), occasionally checking for commands
- dad sends command from his computer "I want to torrent"
- laptop sitting under the TV hosts remote web interface for qbittorrent or similar
- dad sends command from his phone "I want to watch movie now"
- movie starts playing on TV from laptop, and dad can control it with his phone
Jellyfin is great for this if you don't want to put the computer right next to the TV. Set up your torrent program to download to a particular directory and set up Jellyfin to watch it. The most seamless experience to watch anything. The only downside compared to Netflix is you need to wait 10-15 minutes to let the torrent finish. Also sometimes you have to hunt for the subtitles if you want them.
Currently it is impossible to use Netflix on screens connected via DisplayLink. Which is the only way to connect 2 monitors in older M processor MacBooks.
By “directs to remote” does it mean the TV remote? I feel like I’m missing something here, it’s just saying “use the smart tv’s built in app”? Directing someone to the remote seems like an overcomplicated way of indicating this?
I’m so glad we use plex, have thought of making the jump to jellyfin though. I tried to use my MacBook Air to watch their excellent Michelin Stars show, but couldn’t watch it on 2/3 of my monitors because they don’t have HDCP built in. Modern disk drives are so cheap you can just download everything in 4K HDR, paired with an OLED display it’s absolutely breathtaking how good modern media can look.
So anyway, with the Michelin show I just downloaded it off a torrent site instead, which is a hilariously easier user experience and it’s caused by the very HDCP that is supposed to prevent piracy.
>By “directs to remote” does it mean the TV remote? I feel like I’m missing something here, it’s just saying “use the smart tv’s built in app”? Directing someone to the remote seems like an overcomplicated way of indicating this?
Yes, that's what it means.
Some other streaming apps encourage using their mobile app as a remote, so I would imagine they are making it clear that the app should not be used at all here.
I suspect they killed it a bit earlier but in different regions and only now it arrived to the US; I went to Croatia in September and couldn't get Netflix to stream from any of my devices onto the hotel room's TV and had to instead link my account to the TV's Netflix app.
> However, even on these legacy devices, casting only remains for those on costlier ad-free plans, but it is unavailable for subscribers on Netflix's ad-supported plan.
If I were a subscriber this move wouldn't make me switch to a costlier plan, I'd rather unsubscribe entirely
This makes it less convenient to use in hotels where you will now need to login - IF their TV has netflix, it's a bit of a gamble what TV you'll get.
So this mens Netflix have finally become better at collecting personal data with the help of TVs than with smart phones. I see.
Netflix’s seemingly baffling decisions all make sense when you realize one thing:
Netflix sees no more technological future or market opportunity for themselves that will increase profits, so reduction of features and up charging are the only strategies.
It’s a testiment to the blindness and stupidity of their workers and leadership that in the era of the most cutting edge breakthroughs in video, Netflix believes the future is in removing functionality.
> in the era of the most cutting edge breakthroughs in video
... and what are those?
Are you living under a rock?
You can do multi scene coherent video generation with off the shelf mobile apps right now.
We are living in an era where extending nostalgic IP is just a few steps away. It may take time but it will start with cartoons and go from there.
Piracy is the only most seamless and non-proprietary solution
shit like this is why I've recently totally given up on everything except Bandcamp and torrents, I really wish I could just pay for the 50gb mkvs with the 10bit color, atmos and film grain like I can for flacs
but good damn is life nice when you just have files, a network and zero drm and limitations
Same, now and then some indie films release on sites like Vimeo where you can buy a DRM-free download, but it's very rare unfortunately.
Is this, in part, an anti-copying measure?
Given that they block login sharing, I think it's most likely the following scenario:
Friend with a Netflix account comes to your house, casts Netflix to your TV. No need for you to have a Netflix account in that case. Whereas, they want to force you to also have a Netflix account to watch on your TV.
This sucks for hotel dwellers.
We hook a laptop to our TV. This approach has never once disappointed us. No one has (or really can) come and sweep the rug out from under our feet.
This only strengthens my decision to invest in 4K Blu-ray. We're fully in the enshittification stage of streaming TV.
Some Blu-Rays have major spoilers in their menu animations, and some have unskippable ads, some of which may contain major spoilers. [0] It's also a criminal offence to create a backup, thanks to the DMCA.
On the plus side, all UHD Blu-Rays are free of region-locking.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26211740
Nothing is perfect—it's all about what's workable for you. I'm still doing both, but I'm convinced that streaming is deteriorating.
We never, ever, ever connect our TVs to the Internet. So uh...bye Netflix.
just one more cycle of bottom line chasing at the expense of user satisfaction, I promise you guys just one more price rise, just one fewer device allowed it's okay though we have stranger things! You guys love that right?
excerpt 33 of why those platforms will end up dying, and everyone will go back to the old ways. Greed is such a powerful enshittification factor
So Cable TV died decades ago when they first put ads onto the service that was sold on not having any ads, right?
Enshittification is done because it is so reliable. Customers just keep buying, doesn't really seem to matter how poorly you treat them.
Shrinkflation has gone on for decades and there's nothing stopping it from continuing because what are you going to do, not buy 90% of products in the grocery store? Good luck.
The problem is that businesses reach a sort of escape velocity where you can abuse your customer and they either do not react to it or have no other choice. The entire economy has worked to ensure that every consumer experiences trained helplessness when it comes to consuming, because that's more profitable.
Just give it time
[dead]
[dead]
Netflix is fucking its business up by trying to be a studio IMO. The service was perfect when they were a streaming platform. The studio arm's script selection and production quality makes me want to gauge my eyes out.
When you pay an arm and a leg every month for Netflix, you're funding a studio that pumps out the equivalent of screeching goblin sounds. Makes no sense.
I don't know that Netflix had much of an option. Once the studios and networks realized how much money they were leaving on the table by not running their own exclusive streaming services, the licensing costs to Netflix blew up or simply became entirely unavailable.
Netflix running their own studio was a reasonable attempt at regaining some exclusivity, even if it's been executed poorly in many cases.
I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep my subscription as we've hardly used it in months at this point, but I also don't have any other subscriptions any more either, so I'm not exactly a great bellwether.
Did they have a choice? In the beginning the studios gave them access to their catalog for cheap. The studios understandably stopped doing that.
This is a good point, I hadn't considered that.