Netflix in the Streaming Movies Game....

[Ryan1]

Yep, Netfix. Huge customer base, even Walmart couldn't budge them from the No. 1 spot.

I wish Apple had included a tab for them in Front Row, but it's gonna be Vista instead:-(

I bet you, if MS doesn't have a MCE menu plug already, someone will have it done in a month.

Apple should really reach out, and open Front Row to third party developers, if it wants to stay in the HTPC game. A service like Netflix, being unavailable on Mac OS, can sway potential buyers straddling the OS fence, to Vista boxes. Apple TV just became a tougher sale. Just my 2 cents.

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=37220

[Lazlo]

"The feature, which cost Netflix about $40 million to develop, is designed to adjust the picture's resolution based on a user's cable bandwidth so that the movie doesn't freeze during play. "

And will your cable/DSL connection keep up with an 8 Mbps (DVD quality) stream? Not mine. If it will sense that fact and send me a 360x240 movie (instead of 720x480), then I'm better off going through iTunes (apart from the cost of each movie).

But, I do applaud Netflix for working on this.

[Ryan1]

Actually, I can stream the Apple HiDef clips from their site.

You are forgetting the new compression standards. DVDs are encoded in MPEG-2, these Netflix files are almost certainly to be encoded to some type of MPEG-4, which is much more efficient. So, with some caching, streaming at "DVD-quality," or very close to it, is entirely possible.

I pay $20 per month to Netflix, and this service will allow me to keep my 3 movies at home, PLUS 18 hours of streaming content per month. For the SAME fee.

I am really, really surprised, that Jobs didn't see this coming, and accommodate it. Unless Apple TV can match, and top this offer (because there are other providers, like Vongo.com coming on line, all as Vista plug-ins,) Apple TV is dead before it hits the market.

I will repeat: movies are not like songs - they rarely get repeat play (except for 4-year olds watching Disney flicks non-stop, and turning their brains to mush prematurely:-) Streaming rentals, for a flat fee, is where this market is going.

I do think, that, if executed right, this Netflix thing may turn out to be the "killer" application which drives HTPC sales for the masses, or at least for the millions who subscribe to Netflix.

I know some will get upset at my saying this, but I am afraid, Apple is missing the HTPC boat, just like it missed the Gaming boat. I wish we had a good front-end and good video codecs, I wish we had a sleek Apple box with Apple Streaming TV integrated into a beefed up Front Row, I wish we had Apple two-way remotes like the ones shown at CES for Vista.... I wish for all these things, but someone at Apple decided they know different....

My hope is that Leopard will change this, but judging by Apple TV, that hope is fast fading.

[grampie]

I'm not a NetFlix member. I checked the web site and I didn't see any information about their streaming movies feature. Where can I find information about what NetFlix is offering for streaming?

Thanks!

[Ryan1]

Sounds like it will roll out over the next few days.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2007-01-16T163524Z_01_N11457284_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-NETFLIX-DOWNLOAD-DC.XML&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=BizArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Netflix rocks, although I have also been tempted by GreenCine.com, who are more Indie oriented, and have offered DIVX downloads for a while.

Also, check out Vongo.com (which just appeared as a Vista MCE menu plug-in.) Vongo just started offering flat-fee streaming rentals, as well as the streaming of Starz! programming.

If you access Vongo.com with a Mac, they actually show you a statement about how they have designed the service also for the Mac, but Apple is refusing to license Fair Play to them, which prevents them from offering their product on the Mac platform:-(

This market is just exploding, but for OS X, the Apple TV looks like the only game in town, kind of like VLC is on the player end.... Not a happy picture, IMO.

The best thing I can say, is that some of the Apple hardware is perfectly designed for HTPC, and it can run Vista MCE as well as anything, at least until we see what Leopard has to offer.

[BSteely]

I'm not a NetFlix member. I checked the web site and I didn't see any information about their streaming movies feature. Where can I find information about what NetFlix is offering for streaming?

Thanks!

Here is a link to the Netflix press release.

http://www.netflix.com/MediaCenter?id=5384

[Andrew67]

This is all well and good for Netflix customers, but how does it have anything to do with us Mac users? This service is not Mac compatible and doesn't have any Apple or Mac tie-in. Perhaps this thread needs to be moved elsewhere.

[SeattleCubsFans]

I agree, doesn't have anything to do with Mac users. The idea of it being on the AppleTV is a pipe dream. The AppleTV is just a means for Apple to further push the iTunes store and I highly doubt they would open it up to companies like NetFlix. Now the SlingCatcher on the other hand sounds like by default it will have to ability to Sling the movies from the computer to the TV (supposedly will work with any online content...I curious how well the will actually work though?) I think a more likely partnership would be NetFlix and SlingMedia (SlingCatcher press release says: "Additional Applications, Services and Partnerships Forthcoming") with Sling adding direct access to NetFlix streaming movies to its box.

[bommai]

I agree, doesn't have anything to do with Mac users. The idea of it being on the AppleTV is a pipe dream. The AppleTV is just a means for Apple to further push the iTunes store and I highly doubt they would open it up to companies like NetFlix. Now the SlingCatcher on the other hand sounds like by default it will have to ability to Sling the movies from the computer to the TV (supposedly will work with any online content...I curious how well the will actually work though?) I think a more likely partnership would be NetFlix and SlingMedia (SlingCatcher press release says: "Additional Applications, Services and Partnerships Forthcoming") with Sling adding direct access to NetFlix streaming movies to its box.

Wouldn't it be great if they had another announcement in February just before Apple TV ships that included a new version of iTunes that supported video rentals. The Apple TV could be used to browse the Apple Video rental store and then you can just download it into the built-in 40GB HD without going to your computer. Or just do it in the computer. One or the other (just to keep the studios happy). The file will be playable for 48 hours. They can even sell them alacarte for $4 a pop. Or, have a monthly fee of $20 for may be 15 movies or something like that.

This is better than the netflix deal because it is not streamed, it will be used in a living room and it will increase sales of Apple TV.

[rackerby]

This is all well and good for Netflix customers, but how does it have anything to do with us Mac users? This service is not Mac compatible and doesn't have any Apple or Mac tie-in. Perhaps this thread needs to be moved elsewhere.I'm planning on using the Netflix service with IE 6 running in Parallels on a Macbook Pro.
_

[Ryan1]

I would suggest Boot Camp. Parallels is great, but doesn't do well on video, even the new Beta (at least on an Dual 2.0 iMac.)

[Ryan1]

This is all well and good for Netflix customers, but how does it have anything to do with us Mac users? This service is not Mac compatible and doesn't have any Apple or Mac tie-in. Perhaps this thread needs to be moved elsewhere.

Hm, with all the hoopla about Apple TV, aren't you curious about other options being announced, including this one from the largest DVD rental service in the world? See no evil, hear no evil....:-)

I think it is very relevant, particularly since it will likely impact Apple's position in this market, and it will certainly impact many users here: I bet there are more Netflix subscribers here, than in the general population.

Also, if enough consumers kick and scream, Apple sometimes responds, as it did with Boot Camp.

[TimV]

This type of offering is still in it's infancy, if that.

I strongly believe that Apple will be a major player in this market. I'm confident they will release products for online movies that will be as good as the iPod and iTunes are for music.

The Apple TV is just the beginning.

[Andrew67]

Hm, with all the hoopla about Apple TV, aren't you curious about other options being announced, including this one from the largest DVD rental service in the world? See no evil, hear no evil....:-)

Yes and No. Yes if it's a service supported on the Mac, and No if it's a service that's built with Windows technology and is limited to that platform only. In my mind it doesn't matter how this service competes with the Apple TV because it doesn't run on a Mac. And if anyone brings up the point that Windows can run on a Mac... at that point it's no longer a Mac, it's a Windows PC. I'm simply a little tired of reading two weeks of discussion about Apple's product failures and how such and such service is going to kill Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, iTunes, etc.

[rackerby]

I would suggest Boot Camp. Parallels is great, but doesn't do well on video, even the new Beta (at least on an Dual 2.0 iMac.)Right you are. The video was lacking when I tried via Parallels, but it looked quite acceptable when I actually booted into Windows. For those interested, Netflix granted me the "high" video setting based on my 3Mbps DSL connection.

It's not really clear to me how Netflix will make this available for Mac OS X. The latest release of Windows Media DRM technology doesn't work on OS X. The native DRM on OS X is Fairplay, and I don't forsee Apple licensing that to Netflix.
_

[diamondg14]

Resolution? What does high mean? DVD quality better than DVD? Does it support 5.1 dolby digital sound?

[rackerby]

Resolution? What does high mean? DVD quality better than DVD? Does it support 5.1 dolby digital sound?I haven't figured out a way to determine the resolution at this point.

[Ryan1]

The way I read it, it seems like they determine the max resolution based on your connection, then if the speed of the connection drops, they throttle down the size of the incoming stream.

There may be a glimmer of hope for OS X users. This is an unconfirmed report about Apple licensing Fair Play out to Made for iPod licensees, which is certainly a feeble start, but at least it is a start:

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-amps-and-receivers/news/apple-to-open-up-fairplay-drm;jsessionid=D9E83C25DF4C124EF06F8439516E78C2?articleid=39 4429162

As far as not being interested in any products not working with Mac OS, it just smacks of religion a bit. The box and the OS are just the means to an end (in this case, a good HTPC,) not the end. We all like Apple here, because it offers elegance and ease of use. But if Apple doesn't provide the means to achieve a decent HT experience, many of us will look at alternatives. Or at least bitch to Apple, because they do listen from time to time. (I actually think it is good that someone like Vongo.com cares enough about the Apple market, to actually bother to invite us to demand the licensing of Fair Play to them.)

And, face it, Apple is primarily a hardware company: this is where they make their money, and that's why they don't like to license their software. So, I would guess, that Apple would much prefer that consumers purchase Apple hardware and dual-boot, than choose a PC box and be lost forever to the dark side. And I don't know if you are familiar with Netflix at all, but it is likely that its lack of support for OS X would affect the OS purchasing decisions of at least some of its millions of subscribers.

[wildrock]

Interesting thread. Lots of new directions opening up. I wonder what Blockbuster has up its sleeve? :rolleyes:

But really, I think the news of Netflix is a logical outgrowth of their business model. As to tying their service to Microsoft's DRM, it will definitely limit their audience: to Windows PC users (or to whatever players may be licensed to use that DRM on the Mac, which at this point is...??? Zero). Apple's DRM on the other hand is not tethered to an OS, but it is tethered to iTunes. This added flexibility is definitely a plus, as it is platform agnostic. But I read some interesting material at Roughly Drafted (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/BD4CD587-E478-47E2-9E9E-AD0008165BF6.html) about how tethering your DRM to software limits its applicability.

In this case, one of the hugest limitations I found with appleTV (as to Apple or a partner provided content, that is) is that it lacks the ability to directly go out to the iTS and order content, or directly access other content via IPTV, or any other method like P2P. I initially thought that by Apple's showing how you can access movie trailers via the Front Row-like interface, that it would be logical for them to take the next leap and offer one-click downloads from the iTS to your bigscreen via remote at the strato lounger. My thought is that this convenience would drive appleTV sales and content sales phenomenally. As would the addition of a rental and a subscription model. If you have a romantic moment going, whop wants to get up off of the couch, go into the den, login to the computer, get on iTunes, go to the iTunes store, purchase a flick, and start a dowload. Only to go back to the couch to find that the moment has passed... :p because you had to go and play with your computer to do it.

But the problem with Fairplay, is that it needs iTunes to manage it. And how do you get iTunes on the appleTV? Or how do you design another system, or advance Fairplay to work via streaming, or download from the iTS directly to your appleTV? DRM built in to the hardware or whatever software that runs on the appleTV? How do you (or can you) manage purchased, DRM'd content on the computer from the appleTV? This is the huge gap that Apple now needs to cross, and something we know nothing about yet. Apple's last mile. This problem also affects the iPhone. How to purchase from the iTS directly from the iPhone? Port iTunes to OS X running on ARM and build a secure WiFi bridge to AT&T and from AT&T to iTS? It's why Apple has not announced anything about the iPhone having the ability to purchase directly from the iTS. It may be another of SJ's rabbit in the hat tricks yet to play out. Apple needs to advance fairplay and build some flexibility in it that it currently doesn't have (another sticking point with the studios over content licensing?)

So it is good that Netflix is upping the ante here, and forcing Apple to compete against a different model--albeit one that has flaws. I think that Netflix's streaming technology, however, is going to bite them in the rear, as they are already going to throttle lower bandwidth connections, and consumers will suffer sub-par content quality and/or resolution. And will they have the ability to saturate your broadband pipe with an adequate edge distribution network? Or will the cable and dsl providers limit it (net neutrality wars loom large here). Apple has developed a great distribution network through its history with the iTS, swupdate, trailer downloads, and its alliance with Akamai for edge distribution.

I think that the appleTV's supporting 720p is a huge benefit over Netflix's file delivery model. How will Netflix compete in the HD space streaming over an already too narrow network channel? And Netflix will have to rely on Microsoft's DRM, OS, and third party computer manufacturers to develop a system for outright sales, and downloads (as opposed to streams, rentals and subscriptions). This is the huge Apple advantage: an integrated beginning to end solution that is platform agnostic (though linux iTunes would help here).

And for a last bit of speculation about Apple licensing Fairplay, that opens up many different possibilities. Maybe Apple will enter into an agreement with either Blockbuster or Netflix and license Fairplay. The agreement then drives Apple hardware device sales (appleTV and/or content delivery technology and experience) to deliver Fairplay'd content via a rental or subscripton model. This potentially could get around Apple's problems with the studios not wanting to let Apple deliver content via its current model. Or it could just be a leveraging point that Apple could use behind the scenes against the studios. Just pure speculation, and it most likely is way off the mark, but is it coincidence that all of the following stars line up at once: Leopard, appleTV, iPhone, Fairplay rumors, Apple content negotiations, Google buying YouTube (and having a seat on Apple's board), Netflix streaming...???

So the big question, one that makes the appleTV more than a minor niche player, is how does Apple put iTunes, or a compatible web application, on the appleTV (or the iPhone or iPod for that matter), and extend Fairplay off of the computer, allowing lesser devices to purchase and manage the DRM? That is the million (multi billion) dollar question.

So there are still so many angles here as the pieces get put together, and the puzzle becomes a little more clearer, and players show their cards.

[Andrew67]

As far as not being interested in any products not working with Mac OS, it just smacks of religion a bit.

To me it smacks of the point of this forum, and that is one targeted towards Apple and how it relates to AV. There are two other forums to discuss other products and environments. We don't discuss the xbox 360 and PS3 online video stores so why discuss Windows related services?

[BSteely]

To me it smacks of the point of this forum, and that is one targeted towards Apple and how it relates to AV. There are two other forums to discuss other products and environments. We don't discuss the xbox 360 and PS3 online video stores so why discuss Windows related services?

I thought the Netflix announcement left the door open to the future possibility of a Mac client, e.g. "...we'll work to get to every Internet connected screen...". I know a few Mac-heads that work at Netflix. I think our long term prospects are good.

[Andrew67]

I thought the Netflix announcement left the door open to the future possibility of a Mac client, e.g. "...we'll work to get to every Internet connected screen...". I know a few Mac-heads that work at Netflix. I think our long term prospects are good.

Doesn't really matter how many mac heads work at Netflix, the fact remains that the ball is pretty much in Microsofts court and Windows Media DRM.

[Joseph S]

Netflix doesn't have to rely on fairplay or microsoft's DRM (Which is never coming to OS X), they can use their own just as Realplayer does.

[imlucid]

But the problem with Fairplay, is that it needs iTunes to manage it. And how do you get iTunes on the appleTV?

You don't need iTunes on the Apple TV. It plays all DRM'd content you have been authorized for on the iTunes machine without having to authorize the unit. This is true for streaming from other computers running iTunes.

Kevin

[wildrock]

You don't need iTunes on the Apple TV. It plays all DRM'd content you have been authorized for on the iTunes machine without having to authorize the unit. This is true for streaming from other computers running iTunes.

KevinMy point is still valid. You have to manage the DRM with iTunes. In the case of the appleTV, iTunes is on the computer. And this severely limits the appleTV's ability. It is why you cannot use one-click ordering from the appleTV in the living room. You have to go into the den and use the computer. This is why the appleTV is nothing more than a media extender. Which is fine. But if Apple were to put DRM management on the appleTV, it would be open to a whole new level of convenience, including not needing the computer to manage the DRM, or file downloads. It also is another reason to just get a Mini for a HTPC, if only for this convenience.

Forcing people to control their TV content from another room will do little to advance Apple's goals of bringing simplicity to function. In this way it is no better than a Sling box, or other streaming device. Where it excels and is unique is iTunes and the iTS. But to the average home consumer who hasn't used iTunes or the iTS (and they are still in the vast majority), and doesn't care or know about geeky AV trends, appleTV as it stands now isn't compelling enough to drive adoption.

I'm not trying to be negative here. I just think that Apple needs to move a ittle faster here with a more robust product, or risk losing ground to Netflix, xBox, Fios and U-Verse, and all of the rest of the new ideas in the content delivery world.

And my thoughts are currently running towards the idea of iTunes being the killer app for this decade. Embed it in appleTV, and Apple will have hit a home run. Put it on the iPhone, and it will elevate it to another level as a media device.

[imlucid]

Embed it in appleTV, and Apple will have hit a home run.
The main problem with this is that managing data assets with a six button remote is a non-trivial exercise from a UI standpoint.

Having the management of assets in a location where you have access to a 2' interface and keyboard makes for a better user experience.

Now having said that, there certainly are some things that could be done on the device itself that could streamline this (like purchasing content). However, just as the iPod has minimal management (on the go playlists is one), so should the Apple TV.

In my personal situation this works pretty well as I don't mind doing the behind the scenes content manipulation (creating playlists, tagging video, purchasing TV shows and handling podcast subscriptions) on my server in the other room. The Apple TV will just automatically sync the latest stuff and my wife and kids can browse and playback whatever is available. The interface is simple and doesn't get bogged down with too many options.

This is a key feature to the Apple TV. Like you said, its a media extender, similar to the iPod. The computer is the hub of Apple's digital strategy.

[snickersbar]

"Fairplay" LOL OXYMORON

[wildrock]

The main problem with this is that managing data assets with a six button remote is a non-trivial exercise from a UI standpoint.

Having the management of assets in a location where you have access to a 2' interface and keyboard makes for a better user experience.And solving problems like this is exactly what Apple is good at. Think different. Microsoft almost solved this problem with its attempt at WebTV, as pathetic as that was. If Apple were to design the perfect keyboard for the strato lounger, and you could use the 37"+ display as your interface, would not that be optimal? Oh, wait a minute, Apple just patented multi-touch technology, and touch screen keyboard methods. It's called the iPhone. Control the appleTV with the iPhone (or touchscreen remote variant) and display it on the big screen. Problem solved.

But will they do it??? Would we want them to, or is the appleTV good enough as is for enough people to be viable? Looking at it from the geeky AV type's viewpoint, of course we want our computer in the mix. But does the average consumer? Divorce the appleTV from the computer (whatever it takes to do that), and Apple has the market. And give that touchscreen remote universal capabilities like the Harmony. Wait a minute, isn't Apple embroiled in a legal battle with Cisco/Linksys over the iPhone moniker??? The plot thickens...

[imlucid]

If Apple were to design the perfect keyboard for the strato lounger
NOOOOOO

My personal opinion is that keyboards are for computers, remotes are for TVs, the simpler the better.

I've used wireless remotes, laptops as controllers, and pronto's and other mega universal remotes. These are all counter to the Apple philosophy and hence the six button remote.

All the above are exactly what the target Apple TV customer does NOT want. They want simplicity and ease of use. There are already a number of other solutions that do more than Apple TV but none have caught on, why is that? For the same reason that mp3 player's didn't catch on prior to the iPod. Sure they could play more formats and were cheaper but they were not what people wanted.

The Apple TV is following a similar philosophy (sure it doesn't play all the video formats that are out there), but it plays the ones that are the most popular, MPEG-4 ahd H.264. This limitation hasn't stopped people from buying 5G iPods with video, nor will it with Apple TV.

By itself, Apple TV would not be very compelling. But with iTunes and the iTS it has the same three legged solution that the iPod has. Its that environment and seamless inter-working that people really want, not WMA or DIVX file support.

[Ryan1]

O.K., I found a new "Watch Now" tab on my Netflix page last night, so I tried it:-) For those who might be interested, or want to see what the Apple TV competition is doing, here is my take:

Someone else had tried watching 12 Monkeys (see thread in PC forum,) so I figured since I haven't seen it in ages, I'll give it a try too and compare.

My connection runs about 6,000k down, so I got rated at 3 (the highest?) by the Netflix server. Looking at the header, it seems like the stream is capped at just over 3,000k.

The movie started streaming in only a few seconds, and it ran smoothly throughout. It caches ahead, so within about 40 or so minutes, it had cached the whole movie, which allows one to move the slider forward (or backwards) and thus skip forward (or backwards.) It can also be paused.

The picture quality was actually pretty good. Not as sharp as a good DVD, more like a non-remastered 70s-80s material. Definitely better than watching, say CNN from Dish, and perhaps even comparable to some of the older up-converted stuff on some of the Dish HD channels.

Looking closely, there was a slight smearing at times, and a slight "Vaseline lens" effect. I wonder if they actually use Flash, because I've seen this effect on material converted to Flash.

The sound was a very decent stereo.

Nevertheless, it looks very watchable, at least on my old 42"plasma. There may be other issues on larger, less forgiving sets. My Intel Mac Mini Dual 1.66, running Vista, had no problems with it at all (didn't expect any:-)

The main issue for me was that you have to play it in Explorer (it refused to play in Firefox, which is what I use in Windows.) Netflix has a button to expand to full screen, so it is fine when viewing the movie, but all navigation must be done with the mouse, which sucks.

Overall, it is a good option to have, particularly as more titles come on line, and because 18 hours of viewing are included in what I already pay to Netflix. If they can get it out of Explorer and into a front-end plug-in, it would be much better.

I sure hope Apple TV follows something like this model, because IMO (I know I repeat myself here:-) flat fee streaming (or downloads) is where the market is going.

Come to think of it, if a news group like CNN starts streaming to a front-end, I might just cancel my satellite service, since I rarely watch it anymore (I loved Voom's HD channels, but since Dish acquired Voom, it has become a little stagnant (not much new programming, and the new stuff is getting dumbed down.)

Anyway, this year should be the Year of Streaming TV, and I hope it shakes out to be good for us.

P.S. It is good enough, that I would suggest that everyone sends an email to Netflix, as well as to Apple, demanding that the service be made available to Mac users. If enough people do it, something may give....

P.S. You can actually skip to any point of the movie before it has cached the whole thing, but if you try to skip, say to the middle, immediately after the movie has started, it takes about 20-30 seconds for it to download the scene and start playing it.

[redondoman]

NOOOOOO

My personal opinion is that keyboards are for computers, remotes are for TVs, the simpler the better.

I've used wireless remotes, laptops as controllers, and pronto's and other mega universal remotes. These are all counter to the Apple philosophy and hence the six button remote.

All the above are exactly what the target Apple TV customer does NOT want. They want simplicity and ease of use. There are already a number of other solutions that do more than Apple TV but none have caught on, why is that? For the same reason that mp3 player's didn't catch on prior to the iPod. Sure they could play more formats and were cheaper but they were not what people wanted.

The Apple TV is following a similar philosophy (sure it doesn't play all the video formats that are out there), but it plays the ones that are the most popular, MPEG-4 ahd H.264. This limitation hasn't stopped people from buying 5G iPods with video, nor will it with Apple TV.

By itself, Apple TV would not be very compelling. But with iTunes and the iTS it has the same three legged solution that the iPod has. Its that environment and seamless inter-working that people really want, not WMA or DIVX file support.

Very few people are watching video on their Ipods, it is still mainly a music player. The fact of the matter is that there will be a lot of competition in the future and the lack of support for Divx and MPEG2 w/ AC3 could hurt them. I for one am not willing to convert all of my MPEG2 to MPEG4 and will probably not buy Apple TV because of this. I understand they need to satisfy the entertainment industry and have a closed system. Tivo has done a great job of allowing the hacker community to deliver what people really want while telling the media industry what they want to hear. Perhaps that has something to do with why Tivo and Netflix never could work out a partnership. The bottom line is that innovation and new products coming down the line are good. We shall soon see which way things will head.

[Ted Todorov]

I think that in the short term the Netflix service is irrelevant to AppleTV's future (most people buying AppleTV will be Mac heads, Netflix is windows only).

As to Apple competing with Netflix:
1) Apple's top priority is to get all the studios on board -- before they do that they can hardly start playing with different business models. Part of the reason that Apple is having trouble getting studios is that they are terrified of just how successful Apple will be and are trying to give other companies a head start.

2) Netflix can offer "free/cheap" streaming to its customers because probably not a huge percentage are going to use it. If Apple did it, and wanted to maintain their current impeccable level of service, they would have to provide orders of magnitude greater bandwidth than Netflix, and that would cost them a mint.

[wildrock]

I think that in the short term the Netflix service is irrelevant to AppleTV's future (most people buying AppleTV will be Mac heads, Netflix is windows only). It's only irrelevant if it doesn't affect people's decision to buy an appleTV. As it stands now, the two are competing in different ways, and neither is much a threat to the other. But all of that can and will change over time.

As to Apple competing with Netflix:
1) Apple's top priority is to get all the studios on board -- before they do that they can hardly start playing with different business models. Part of the reason that Apple is having trouble getting studios is that they are terrified of just how successful Apple will be and are trying to give other companies a head start.That's only true if the studios like Apple's model. More likely, they are wanting Apple to change its model, in addition to changing pricing structures and possibly DRM (they're still greedy ******** and will take money however they can make it). The result is that all of the smaller players are not necessarily getting a head start, because a head start is only good if you are running in the same race. Apple is trying to write the rules of the race here, as it did with the iPod, before it fires the starting gun. Some of these outfits are running straight towards a cliff.

2) Netflix can offer "free/cheap" streaming to its customers because probably not a huge percentage are going to use it. If Apple did it, and wanted to maintain their current impeccable level of service, they would have to provide orders of magnitude greater bandwidth than Netflix, and that would cost them a mint.There is no doubt that content delivery mechanisms need to be developed further before anyone can succeed in online delivery. And everyone has an angle, from the cablecos, to the satcos, FIOS-ers and Akamai-zers, iTiva'ers, iptv'ers, to gamers and P2P'ers, U-vers-ers, HD-DVD'ers, and the man in the moon (Congress and the FCC). And there is going to be a lot of fallout in this race, but I don't think that ultimately, any of us can predict what will be around 10 years from now. So, if I were Apple, I would design a system that would recognize this, and be able to scale accordingly. As appleTV gets rolled out, this is what we will see: Apple's theory of how it all will shake out, and how it will get to the top and stay there. Doing it is another thing.

[Ted Todorov]

...
So, if I were Apple, I would design a system that would recognize this, and be able to scale accordingly. As appleTV gets rolled out, this is what we will see: Apple's theory of how it all will shake out, and how it will get to the top and stay there. Doing it is another thing.
I am sure they already have -- just as Steve Jobs said that if the subscription model music services ever took off Apple was ready to turn on a dime and compete with them. But of course they never did.

I am sure that the case is the same with video material.

I know that posters are saying that people don't want to watch movies more than once, thus Apple's sales model won't succeed. Maybe. But look at me -- my DVD collection is nearly double the size of my CD collection, even though I have been collecting CDs for 22 years and, and DVDs for only 8.

People like to own things. They like to collect. They want souvenirs of movies they like, and what better souvenir than the film itself. And with iTunes based material, sky (or wallet) is the limit. No "wife anger factor" due to visible piles of DVDs. My money is on Apple finding the best business model long before the competition does.

[gmwedding]

To suggest that Apple is "primarily a hardware company" is to reveal an overly simplistic view of the company that will cause observers to miss the mark on the company's strategic direction.

Apple Inc. is THE new century's consumer electronics company that stands alone at the intersection of hardware, software and the creative arts, or (if you will) modern media (as was Sony in the 1980s). Creative Labs is a hardware company. H-P, Gateway and Dell are hardware companies. For its' part, Microsoft is a successful, first-generation software company that has few successes in multimedia, even as it tries to emulate the transforming Apple operating system at every twist and turn. Since it's very inception, Apple, has always created hardware with multimedia software as a key foundation while Microsoft consistently has tacked on multimedia after the fact.

We really are just beginning to see Apple's initial forays into a new generation of more versatile, computer-based consumer electronics devices for the masses who actually use multimedia in their everyday lives. Unlike Gates, Jobs saw this Computers 2.0 trend coming five years ago, and with it, a new opportunity to win the hearts and minds of a new generation of consumers. Like the picture in a puzzle, Apple's long term consumer electronics strategy only will be revealed incrementally, as these first new CE products are rolled out over the next year or two.

Selling content is essential to this universe. However, content is important to Apple only in that it ensures the usefulness of the tools it sells. If it were more important, Jobs would have sold Pixar to Apple, and used it as a foundation to buy more content companies. However, Steve Jobs also is determined that his company will never be at the mercy of Microsoft to deliver content to his hardware and software.

So, the hardware is nothing without Apple's unique software -- witness the pathetic me-too product called Windows with generic hardware. Hardware driven by great software is what Apple "gets" that all those "hardware companies" vainly try to replicate using generic components and Windows. As a result of Jobs' vision, and the combination of targeted hardware and software engineering, Apple has the vision to create products that are useful tools. That's a vision and skill that other companies lack.

For instance, in spite of Apple's name change, I think the new, full screen iPod and iPhone first and foremost are just tiny, OS X-based computers. Initially, they will be used to transcend the first generation of clickwheel iPods, old-world PDAs and PDA phones (like the original Newton, the Palm Treo, RIM Blackberry and more common cell phones). Like the iPhone itself, I believe these new OS X-based Pod devices will prove to be multi-purpose products, and that we'll see both the iPod and the iPhone be able to be transformed into that modern home theater remote (and any number of other portable computer tools for that matter).

So, consider taking a take a wider, longer view of Apple.

[Jw_Wood]

I want it all...and I want it now

[wildrock]

So, consider taking a take a wider, longer view of Apple.I think that this is the problem that many have when dealing with Apple. A view of Apple, skewed by perceptions from the 90's, will necessarily fall far short of understanding the Apple of today. Apple's problem isn't so much competitive or technological issues with Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter), it's letting the vast majority of people who grew up in the booming computer era of the 90's know that it is not the company that is painted in such tainted colors of the past. Hence the "Hi, I'm a Mac..." ads, iPod as brand enhancement, the "halo" effect, a move to CE products, where the hot thing sells (the "Sony" principle, embedded in the upcoming iPhone and appleTV), celebrity endorsement, and on and on. Apple is as much a cultural phenomenon right now as it is a technological force. And that is what has it's competitors baffled. Other companies can create great products, but they exist in a vacuum. Apple fills the vacuum with user experience, value, and hardware/software integration--something that no other company does, currently.

[chefklc]

Apple fills the vacuum with user experience, value, and hardware/software integration

And, once they provide some video content that's actually watchable on a big screen, we'll be all set! So will Apple. I'm not sure there's much disagreement here about Apple's strategic direction or even some misunderstanding of Apple today. I don't actually think its competitors are baffled in the slightest--what they say publicly, the calculated FUD, the attempts to misdirect--are just that. It's not like they are in a position to do anything about it--to bring all the things you mention, wildrock, to the table. No one else is, not the cable companies or the telcos or MS or any CE manufacturer or even this latest lame Netflix effort to stay relevant. They can strike all the feeble partnerships and alliances and they'll all likely fall short in terms of penetration and meaningfulness in terms of what Apple could ultimately achieve--because at their core they're competitive entities, beholden to different boards of directors and stockholders.

But taking the wider view of Apple on the one hand does little to dissuade our immediate dissatisfaction and temporal concerns on the other--while we fantasize of the the iPod as touchpad HT controller and await 720p content in iTMS many of us are destined to remain out-of-sync with our time: too far advanced to tolerate the first feeble aTV foray in terms of poor video and audio quality, yet very appreciative of the ultimate aim precisely because we've had to jump through so many connective hoops and over so many hurdles to get that quality. The thing is, there's a fine line to walk between waiting for the vision to coalesce, and deluding one's self by re-prioritizing and regressing along the way.

[imlucid]

The thing is, there's a fine line to walk between waiting for the vision to coalesce, and deluding one's self by re-prioritizing and regressing along the way.
I find that the simplifications I'm going through are not regressions in my enjoyment of my HT even though I'm losing picture quality (iTS content vs HD OTA). I think I'm just burnt out on years of building up a complex system and always having to tweek it.

I'm aiming toward an environment where I don't have to give long lectures to guests on how to watch something, nor get phone calls from my wife when out for the evening because she just wants to watch a TV show.

Apple TV and iTS are going to be a big step forward for me, even if that means giving up HD for now. (I know, that is sacrilege to say on AVS!)

:D

[Ryan1]

While I do like Apple and do think it is often on top in terms of industrial design and UI, I also think that I should keep my eyes and years open, and utilize whatever tool I believe best serves my particular purposes.

Just a reminder, Apple is a large public company, not a deity. Their products are tools which we use for a particular purpose, not an altar. When they make a good product, like the iPod, I buy it. I also buy their computers, because they are the best at what I need them for.

But there are areas where Apple has completely missed the boat, like games. Games, and the hardware they run on, are a huge industry, larger by some estimates, than Hollywood. And Apple missed all this, because they simply did not get it, until it was too late.

I personally am not so sure the same isn't happening with HTPC. You all know the OS X limitations: lack of decent video codecs, lack of a decent front-end, even lack of decent remote control abilities (yep, while we are fantasizing about that iPod touch-screen control, the first generation of SideShow remotes for Vista are just coming out - see this, for example: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/ricavisions-sideshow-bob-vista-remote-is-the-best-223753.php) Vista is here, and its front-end is sold with EVERY home-bound Windows computer. And that front-end is better than anything we currently have for OS X (and very simple to use, really.)

But back to Netflix. Netflix IS the 800 lbs. gorilla in the DVD rental business. And they are getting bigger. I have used them since 2000, and virtually everyone I know, rents their DVDs from them. I have played around with their service, and trust me, it is not pathetic. The quality is not bad at all, starting a movie is basically instantaneous, and it is, in practice, free, because it is included in the monthly fee which you have been paying happily until now. Teething problems are there (initial selection of titles and lack of front-end integration,) but I can see using this regularly in the near future (actually, I've already watched several titles:-)

Herein is the danger: if you are an average Joe, who's been getting his Netflix DVDs for a while, you might be intrigued by these new Apple ads and Apple's increased visibility. But when you get that promo from Netflix telling you about their new, free service, they also tell you that if you walk into the store and pickup one of these shiny new Macs you've been seeing, you are NOT going to be able to use the new Netflix freebie. You can see the tab in your browser, you can look at the available titles, but you are locked out of the candy store. Unles you are a true believer, this may give you a big pause, and push you to the PC isle.

But if you want Apple, and watch movies, you are told that you must buy a $300 box, with a small hard drive, then pay at least $10 per title, then wait for an hour or two before you can watch your first movie. Then, if you want to watch another one, you must hand out a minimum of another $10, wait another 2 hours, and so on. Maybe I am myopic, but I just can't see it.

I think competition is good. I wish Apple signed an exclusive with Netflix and allowed it to deliver rentals to AppleTV and iTunes (Apple wants to sell media, apparently, so it wouldn't compete.) It would have been a huge coup for Apple, and it would have sexed up Netflix. But it went to Windows, instead.

I sure hope that Apple pulls a Leopard out of its hat and fixes all of these issues. Until then, I'll keep buying Apple hardware, but if I want a real HT, I'll have to keep running Vista on it. Instead of closing our years and screaming at the truth, we should be kicking and screaming our wishes at Apple, because the deity sometimes responds to our prayers:-)

[Ted Todorov]

Herein is the danger: if you are an average Joe, who's been getting his Netflix DVDs for a while, you might be intrigued by these new Apple ads and Apple's increased visibility. But when you get that promo from Netflix telling you about their new, free service, they also tell you that if you walk into the store and pickup one of these shiny new Macs you've been seeing, you are NOT going to be able to use the new Netflix freebie. You can see the tab in your browser, you can look at the available titles, but you are locked out of the candy store. Unles you are a true believer, this may give you a big pause, and push you to the PC isle.

But if you want Apple, and watch movies, you are told that you must buy a $300 box, with a small hard drive, then pay at least $10 per title, then wait for an hour or two before you can watch your first movie. Then, if you want to watch another one, you must hand out a minimum of another $10, wait another 2 hours, and so on. Maybe I am myopic, but I just can't see it.
You are missing a couple of things: it's not like you are any more capable of watching video from your PC to your HT than you are from your Mac -- you aren't required to get an AppleTV if you have a computer hooked up to your TV -- so the $300 is neither here no there.

Secondly, according to David Pogue Netflix is working on a Mac version of the service.

For my take on the prospects of Apple vs. Netflix -- see my post above. I'll just add that Amazon has just as many customers as Netflix -- why didn't Amazon's Unbox conquer the world?

[Edited to fix typo]

[imlucid]

why didn't Amazon's Unbox conquer the world?
Right, because most of the world doesn't want to watch movies on their computer. I think this is the same reason why NetFlix's service won't do all that much.

I could be wrong (I did dismiss the internet thinking that online services like eWorld and AOL were where it was at and that no one would want to have to deal with HTML for creating pages!) but I don't think so.

Kevin

[Ryan1]

Right, because most of the world doesn't want to watch movies on their computer. I think this is the same reason why NetFlix's service won't do all that much....Kevin

I don't think the world wants to watch movies on their computer, but they hook up their computer to the TV, then use a remote to watch movies. It's called HTPC:-)

My main problem with Netflix is with the fact that I have to drag out the BT mouse in order to navigate (and I really don't like Explorer,) but it seems like a lot of users here, who use VLC, have to use the mouse as well....

There are two huge huge differences between Amazon's UnBox and Netflix: price and convenience. Netflix is simple to use, instantaneous, and effectively free. A winning combination.

UnBox is a pain, and it is expensive. Not a winning combination. See here for more on UnBox: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.html

Ted, where did you see Pogue's comment that Netflix is working on a Mac version? If correct, this is definitely very good news.

[Ted Todorov]

I don't think the world wants to watch movies on their computer, but they hook up their computer to the TV, then use a remote to watch movies. It's called HTPC:-)
...
Ted, where did you see Pogue's comment that Netflix is working on a Mac version? If correct, this is definitely very good news.
It was in Pogue's regular NY Times Thursday column when he reviewed Netflix' new service.

The problem with the HTPC is that it is where MP3 players were before the iPod. We geeks might have had a Diamond Rio or a Nomad, but the masses didn't. We may have HTPCs, but most Netflix customers don't. AppleTV is an attempt to change that. We don't know if it will work, but it won't help Netflix either way.

[imlucid]

When I said computer, I included HTPC's in the mix.

Most users don't want to have to do any of the things you have to do when using a computer (like hook up a keyboard and mouse to install updates, twiddle with settings etc.).

I was just looking at the FAQ for one of the Windows XP Media centers yesterday and it listed the steps for applying an update that was ludicrous for an average user!

TiVo and ReplayTV were heading in the right direction in this regard, it doesn't feel like a computer and everything can be done with a remote.

[Further]

It is interesting how several discussions here on home theater have moved into home entertainment. One of the most interesting is how many people are saying that the distribution of television programs, via iTunes, for example, is much more economical than by cable. Cable is a subscription system that, until now, has been very profitable, but the iTunes business model gives consumers a much better deal since you only have to pay for the programs you want.

Since iTunes was first so successful selling songs rather than albums, the same thing may well work for TV -- buy only the shows or the episodes you want.

Movies are a different story since they don't (usually) come in episodes. Personally, I find that downloading from bt works well here because you can get a sort of "preview" of the film and, if you like it, you can buy the DVD. This is actually a reasonable business model that has been used by some companies -- shareware, for example.

FWIW, the people on bt seem to understand better than the big companies the concept of universal compatibility -- I have never downloaded anything that I could not watch on my Mac. Since some movie studios have already talked about using bt for film distribution, I would much rather be able to download a low-resolution version of a film (right now on bt, these are about 700MB) for free or almost free and then decide, since I cannot watch it in my home theater, whether to buy the DVD or not.

Since Apple clearly wants to sell the small bits as well as the whole thing to any customer who comes along, while Microsoft want to lock movie studios (and anyone else they can convince) in Windows-only formats, I'll either stick with Apple or download from bt. And even if Microsoft wins (which I very much doubt), there will always be the open-standard bt.

[redondoman]

I appreciated Ryan1's article. We must keep an open mind and not think that Apple is guaranteed a slam dunk with AppleTV just like the Ipod and take 85% of the market share. If Tivo or Slingcatcher bring out something that is easy to use and hooks up to Netflix or a similar service it may pose a serious competitive threat to Apple. I just bought my first Itune TV show last night. The final episode of Lost, I hadn't Tivo'd Season two. It was the only place that I could get it quickly and without jerky quality (for some reason abc.com doesn't stream well for me). However, if it were available via my current Netflix service through my Tivo I would have gotten it from there. Let's all remember that competition is good. Personally I don't feel that Apple is trailblazing here. They are bringing out a media extender and putting their marketing machine behind it.

[chefklc]

Home theater IS home entertainment, isn't it?

One of the most interesting is how many people are saying that the distribution of television programs, via iTunes, for example, is much more economical than by cable

I'm not so sure most people are saying that it'll be more economical--at least I hope they aren't--most households watch way more than just a handful of shows--and with a iTunes season price at what, $45 bucks for low res video and audio quality, a couple of shows and a handful movies would easily equal a full year of cable bills (which brings with it QAM HD for those very same shows and much, much more.) A la carte pricing, for the typical viewing household, will be more expensive.

The a la carte iTMS model appeals precisely because it would offer a different option--not a low cost option, just a different option--to cable or satellite, and that doesn't mean it will make sense financially to dump cable or satellite in the near term. It's just there is a lot of hostility built up toward the cable and sat companies, built up over decades of indifference, poor quality and poor customer service. (It's similar to why folks gravitated toward the new Netflix delivery model and left driving to the video rental store and late fees behind.) Where the aTV/iTMS model has more potential appeal--especially in the general population but even amongst the high tech Luddites here--is with this convenience and seamlessness--rather than any cost savings.

and, pardon me for chuckling, but bt "works well" everywhere because it is stealing something for free, that some infinitesimal percentage of that global theft is conveniently excused later after a subsequent legitimate purchase is, well, barely relevant.

Theft is as universally understood as universal compatibility, and not just by the "people on bt." What we're talking about here is the class of homeowner and consumer who'd rather not steal, not make excuses and who'd rather pay for content up front, at least once.

I realize it is a self-defining and self-limiting applicant pool.

Cable is a subscription system that, until now, has been very profitable

Right, monopolies tend to be inordinately profitable--and where most folks live in the US there still aren't competing cable entities. That's the hope, expanded choice, different models of delivery, changed paradigms. As redondoman says, competition is good.

Cost, I think, is less of an issue up front.

[wildrock]

Right, monopolies tend to be inordinately profitable--and where most folks live in the US there still aren't competing cable entities. That's the hope, expanded choice, different models of delivery, changed paradigms. As redondoman says, competition is good.While there may not be competing cable companies, in my community there is a barrage of competition with the satcos teaming up with Qwest and another regional telecom to offer bundled services (phone, TV and internet connection). This trifecta of competition (cable, DirecTV and dishTV) should theoretically drive my cable bill down. But it hasn't, and doesn't promise to. And there isn't another cableco in the wings to drive competition. In fact my cable bill has gone up this year--even though DirecTV opened up a call center in my community that will be the second largest employer around, giving away free service to its employees and their families and converting customers away from cable. Competition will have to expand into some radically different ideas in order to change the ingrained market we have. Hence niche ideas like Netflix and appleTV may eventually bring about some change. But a lot more ideas are needed.

[Further]

and, pardon me for chuckling, but bt "works well" everywhere because it is stealing something for free, that some infinitesimal percentage of that global theft is conveniently excused later after a subsequent legitimate purchase is, well, barely relevant.


I believe there is another group of thieves: the corporations who care more about making money than giving their customers what we've already paid for. What are region codes beside a method of artifically controlled prices? The use of DRM that prevents legitimate owners from making backup copies (or at least is intended to)? Cases like the Sony root-kit and the RIAA attacks on children and grandmothers?

Also, why do Mac users have to pay the same price for DVDs that contain features that only work for Windows users?

In the end, the corporations do it to make more money and the "thieves" do it to share.

There can be two sides even to this issue.

[rackerby]

The picture quality of Netflix's streaming service is fine. The problem with the service is that, at this point, there's nothing there that I want to watch. My wife finds nothing there either. Kids? Not interested. It's like looking through the $1.99-previously-viewed bin at your local video store.
_

[Ryan1]

The picture quality of Netflix's streaming service is fine. The problem with the service is that, at this point, there's nothing there that I want to watch. My wife finds nothing there either. Kids? Not interested. It's like looking through the $1.99-previously-viewed bin at your local video store.
_

I agree, the selection is poor. But keep in mind we are some of the first users, the service is not even available to most of the Netflix subscribers yet, and apparently the selection is to increase exponentially (actually, I just noticed a bunch of new additions, so they seem to be expanding the selection rapidly.) They do have some BBC/Public TV/A&E stuff which might be an option, plus a few classics. Also try The Parallax View, a not-bad conspiracy/political thriller from the '70s starring Warren Beatty, you might enjoy it (watch out for the Man:-)

Also, since Netflix counts time, not movies, you can try a movie, then stop it if you don't like it and move on to another one, without reducing your allotted 18 hours by much:-)

Ted is correct, Pogue did write that Netflix is working on a Mac version, although I am not sure how it would work if Apple doesn't allow them to use Fair Play. Hopefully Pogue is correct.

Here is his article in the NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/technology/25pogue.html?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[rackerby]

Also, since Netflix counts time, not movies, you can try a movie, then stop it if you don't like it and move on to another one, without reducing your allotted 18 hours by muchIn theory, yes, but there are a few bugs with this. I watched about 60 seconds of 12 Monkeys, and was "billed" for the entire duration of the film. Netflix's response was:
I am sorry to hear about your issue with instant viewing. There is an issue that we are working on where, under certain circumstances, movies do not register as stopped. Unfortunately at this time, we do not have any way to credit the time back to your account. We do expect to be able to credit time soon though, so if you end up close to running out of time for the month, please write back.

_

[Ryan1]

Weird, mine seems to be counting correctly. Also, there is a whole bunch of new movies being added, still mostly older stuff, but some of it looks good. I am actually getting more excited about this by the day (because of the apparently fairly speedily expanding collection:-)

[Ryan1]

Even weirder: Netflix now says that I've watched only 2 hours and a little, but I really have seen 4 movies and snippets of other:-) But I still have over 15 hours left, before it resets on the 7th:-)))

BTW, the selection has about doubled since I started browsing. I think I like it. A lot. Fire up the emails to Netflix for Mac support.

[Bob McLaughlin]

Has anyone tried hooking this up to an HTPC system, specifically with a large projected image? Is the image anamorphic? High Def?

[Ryan1]

My impressions are on a 42" plasma. The aspect ratio is the same as on the DVDs. See post #30 of this thread regarding picture quality.

[lrkrupp]

Try using netflix's "watch now" new feature with a macbook by using parallel desktop software for mac and then loading up windows. After opening up windows and using explorer, we went to the netflix site and was able to view a movie onto the mac's monitor. The next step is to get a mini-dvi to video adapter so that the movie will play on the tv.

[chrobins]

I've watched 2 movies on my 106" inch screen. The first was a stand up comic and the quality was horrendous. Netflix apparently detected my internet connection speed as poor. The 2nd was a cartoon that was close to DVD quality. Both were 4x3. My only complaint so far is with the speed detection. I've got a fast cable connection, but Netflix always detects it as poor or good but never great. I've run numerous bandwidth tests and they always exceed the 1.6Mbs that Netflix requires for the best quality.

I think I'm going to love this service. I'm currently on the 4 movie plan (grandfathered in), and I'll be using the streaming service for the kids. The selection is pretty slim at the moment, but I'm sure it will only get better.

[rackerby]

Over at Hacking Netflix (http://www.hackingnetflix.com/ ) there is a story about Netflix using Microsoft's SilverLight technology (http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/ ) to enable instant watching "of great content for all our members, on multiple platforms." Silverlight will support Firefox and Safari. Can we talk about Netflix in this forum now?
_

[Further]

If it's legal and runs on the Mac OS, sure, it's OK to talk.

[wildrock]

Of course, Adobe had to weigh in on Silverlight today. They are accusing Microsoft of baiting the market with promises of cross platform compatability at first, but then use the examples of Windows Media Player and Internet Exporer as products that initially had cross platform compatability, but when they had outlived their usefulness, were cast by the wayside.

<http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/17/silverlight/index.php>

While I'll be willing to give Netflix's use of Silverlight a look on the Mac, I hesitate getting locked into another Microsoft attempt at monopolizing the video streaming market. Silverlight is the newest incarnation of WPF/E.

<http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/16/silverlight/index.php>

[Further]

Let's keep this discussion focussed on questions/issues of interest to Mac OS users. Please do not use this thread for general information which can easily be found elsewhere.

[pkscout]

I tried Silverlight yesterday. It's great except for the fact that it won't show any video (OSX 10.4.9 with Firefox 2.x). So as long as your OK with only audio I guess it's fine. It is a technology preview, so I'll just wait and try again later.

[rackerby]

I tried Silverlight yesterday. It's great except for the fact that it won't show any video (OSX 10.4.9 with Firefox 2.x). So as long as your OK with only audio I guess it's fine. It is a technology preview, so I'll just wait and try again later.Well, it *is* a beta. Presumably Netflix will not be using the beta product.
_