Netflix's Reed Hastings talks future technologies, streaming
[Image courtesy of Syracuse]
[Image courtesy of Syracuse]
Relevant Posts
- Blockbuster kiosks to offer movies on SD cards, you some candy as you checkout (19 days ago - 27 Comments)
- TDK's heavily stacked 320GB disc shows its nearly-clear face at CEATEC (54 days ago - 4 Comments)
- TDK stacks 10 layers on a single 320GB disc (59 days ago - 9 Comments)
- China Blue HD adding supporters and talking trash to Blu-ray (60 days ago - 5 Comments)
- Netflix coming next month to PlayStation 3 (35 days ago - 49 Comments)
![Syracuse]](http://blog.syracuse.com/storefront/2008/05/large_nettflix.JPG){kind=link}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pip @ Jan 22nd 2009 10:11AM
I resubscribed to Netflix mostly because I have a PS3 now, and a Tivo HD. I basically have the means to rent both Blu-Rays (Until they come down in price to sane DVD prices. Ie. 9.99/movie) and to stream content.
I have to be honest, streaming is pretty awesome. But their selection is so limited, it almost is a waste of money at this point. I was hoping for all the Star Trek series at my finger tips, I wanted to sit down and watch the Sopranos from episode one until the final. Yet, none of it is there! It's like a tech demo at the moment.
They need to get their ENTIRE INVENTORY online for streaming.
As it stands, the only thing keeping me with their service is being able to get Blu-Ray discs, but I'm almost done watching the movies I wanted to really see. Wont be a reason to stay a subscriber much longer at this point.
Their web interface is pretty terrible, too. It's like they saw iTunes, tried to copy it, but failed miserably.
Dave @ Jan 22nd 2009 10:31AM
YES, more new releases please!
Stone @ Jan 22nd 2009 10:46AM
It's not up to Netflix to determine what titles it makes available to stream. It's up to the studios and content providers, who, quite honestly, are scare to abandon physical media because it's too profitable. If Netflix were to stream new releases, it would be the death knell to the sales of physical media AND to brick and mortar places like Blockbuster. I think that the future will shift toward online streaming and force companies to release content, but I'm not seeing it happen for at least another 5 years.
episodev @ Jan 22nd 2009 10:56AM
I only see it hurting sales of physical media to companies like netflix. Because let's be honest, whether they stream the new release or send it to me in the mail, that's not gonna affect whether or not I decide to purchase a movie.
Eddie @ Jan 22nd 2009 10:56AM
I only see it hurting sales of physical media to companies like netflix. Because let's be honest, whether they stream the new release or send it to me in the mail, that's not gonna affect whether or not I decide to purchase a movie.
S4Rs @ Jan 22nd 2009 11:08AM
Nothing about 5.1 sound. It doesn't even take up that much bandwidth. Its not like the 2 channel audio is uncompressed to begin with. I can deal with taking HD audio and compressing it down for streaming so whats the big deal. all HD TV has 5.1 audio. They don't even convert the audio to a friendly 2 channel format like Dolby Pro logic II (which works really well at creating a surround experience).
I would also rather wait 10 minutes to let the movie buffer then let silverlight automatically downgrade my quality if the connection slows down. That, 5.1, and the lack of new releases on the watch instantly, are because the don't want to shell out hard cash up front for the infrastructure needed to handle all of their users. Judging from that conversation too, it doesn't look like they plan on that in the next 2 years either.
TK101 @ Jan 22nd 2009 11:28AM
Amen! I'd pay EXTRA (you hear that Netflix???) to have new releases and a better catalog. I love the experience, but the catalog is weak. I have a Tivo HD and don't want another box on my TV. I want MORE Netflix and I'll happy toss some more money to them for it.
TK
chumley @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:26PM
S4Rs, I think you need to do some reading about how "Dolby Pro Logic II" works. It is a decoding technology, not encoding. It can produce pseudo 5.1 channel surround sound from any 2 channel stereo audio source. This can certainly be applied to the audio from Nextflix.
On the Nextflix side, my understanding is that they apply "Dolby Surround" which can encode 4.0 surround sound into the stereo audio stream. Any "Dolby Pro Logic" receiver will be able to decode that as 4.0, and "Dolby Pro Logic II" will decode it as 5.1.
So the "stereo" audio that they are currently providing is not as bad as it might seem, because if can be decoded to produce surround sound. It's not as good as true 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS, but it's better than nothing and is sufficient for a lot of the older material.
S4Rs @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:58PM
What do you think they do to "apply Dolby Surround"??? they transcode the digital 5.1 movie feed to do it. I decode it on my end. I know Dolby Pro Logic II "can certainly be applied to the audio from Nextflix." I am saying they should do it. Or at least let people chose 2 channel or Dolby Pro logic II. Hell the Wii and Gamecube can do that.
And there is a huge difference between 4.0 and 5.1. Because 4.0 is meant for 4 full sound speakers, while 5.1 introduces a low pass bass channel and a mid range "voice" center channel. this makes "surround effects" better, and music come out much clearer and balanced on the fronts.
4.0 surround. What is this 1996. Have fun listening to your Ace of Base CDs.
chumley @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:54PM
Or course they have to transcode the original multi-channel soundtrack to produce 2 channel, but the use of Dolby Surround during encoding retains some (not all) of the surround information by matrixing it into the 2 channels. In regards to DPL II, when you say "they should do it" you reveal that you don't understand how DPL II works. Go do some reading at the Dolby site. DPL II is strictly a decoding technology, there is no such thing as encoding in DPL II. The source material is encoded using Dolby Surround, the playback device decodes it using DPL II if it is capable. This exactly the same as what you get with the Wii etc. Bottom line is that DPL II is fully compatible with Netflix, there is nothing else they can do on their end to make it better.
Don't lecture me on the differences between 4.0 and 5.1 when you are the one who lacks understanding here. Note that your description of 4.0 is not correct either.
chumley @ Jan 22nd 2009 3:11PM
Ok, time to eat some words. It looks like I was wrong when I said that there is no such thing as encoding in DPL II. It is generally described as a decoding technology, but I just noticed that wikipedia lists a different encoding transform for DPL II than for DPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic). That implies that it IS possible to specifically encode material for DPL II. I'm sorry for the misinformation!
Regarding Netflix, I'll just say that I don't know how they encode their audio. Logically I don't know why they wouldn't encode for DPL II if they could. It would still be encoded into a 2 channel stream, so it wouldn't require any extra bandwidth. But since I've never seen Netflix advertise any kind of surround sound, then the implication may be that they aren't doing any surround encoding. If they aren't, then I will emphatically agree with S4Rs in saying that they should. :)
Gunnar @ Jan 22nd 2009 11:26AM
Why does “Watch Now” have a thousands of movies yet nothing you really want watch? Because unknown documentaries and 20 year old movies most people have forgotten about cost virtually nothing to license. New releases are expensive.
Does anyone thing the studios are just going to give away their hottest properties? If Watch Now ever does give you all-you-can-eat new releases you can be sure it won’t be or 9.95 a month (or 20 bucks a month for that matter).
Doc @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:07PM
You're right, but I wouldn't mind paying a bit more "if" I can get newer movies. Otherwise redbox seems to fill the gap.
$14.99 wouldn't bother me, but over that and I might just redbox more and more.
chumley @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:12PM
These are the facts people. If you want new releases via Watch Instantly, be prepared to pay more or at least to see an end to the "unlimited" access they currently give us. Personally I'm happy with doing what it takes to keep Watch Instantly as it is now - an added bonus at no extra cost. For new releases, I prefer the better quality of physical disks anyway.
S4Rs @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:02PM
if you could watch instantly you would have less incentive to buy the DVD/BD which is where the studios make the most money.
The studios dont want it.
they cant stop blockbuster and netflix from letting you rent the disc, or they would do that too.
minimalist @ Jan 23rd 2009 12:19AM
Idon;t believe studios want to force us to buy. Rentals and sales combined make up 50% of a typical movies profits (25% box office and 25% VOD, premium channels, airlines, etc). Rentals have turned into a very lucrative market that is almost as important as sales. Its not that the studios don't want to rent movies. They are just not going to accept the measly cuts Netflix is likely offering them from 9.99 a month all-you-can-eat plans. They want more and in all honesty I can't blame them.
Netflix is unwise to allow customers to get used to these virtually free streaming value adds because they day will come when they will be forced to increase prices to pay the studios their cut and I predict it won't be pretty. Just look at how much many people bitched about a measly 1 dollar increase for Blu-ray discs?
Doc @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:04PM
3 words... WEEKLY ROLL OUTS
Look I understand that it's in it's infancy(streaming), but at least let us know that my money isn't being wasted, please.
Take a page from rock band and throw out weekly content so I have at least something to browse through. As it stands now 12,000 seems more like 100...:(
I do however enjoy the streaming, just step it up and add some more maybe "newer" films that are actual "A" titles and not just "B-C" titles.
DEEZNUTZ @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:42PM
How is your money being "wasted"? It doesn't cost you anything extra for streaming from their limited library... their model is still disc based, and that you can blame that on the studios, and the pressure they get from retail channels, not Netflix. Netflix can only offer what they are able to get licensed for. If it was up to Netflix, they would gladly go with offering more movies via streams... it saves them tons of money from not having to ship discs to users, and they get to increase their profits.
Studios are cautious though, because disc based media still makes THEM decent profits. And retailers depend a lot on weekly new releases from studios for foot traffic into their stores, while the stores are showcasing their movies right in the front of the store as customers walk in. It's a working relationship that is not so easy to sever.
Doc @ Jan 22nd 2009 7:59PM
Sure it costs me, I pay for netflix, because of the streaming. It's really convenient to just wait 10 sec. and watch. I just feel that they need to add more or my interest will fade very soon that's all.
I wouldn't mind even paying a bit more for unlimited streaming of all content. I bet in reality the cable/satellite companies are getting nervous. Especially if they could pull an all content streaming platform some wouldn't need cable anymore.
PSN: Aggie_CEO @ Jan 22nd 2009 12:10PM
LMAO@ "Netflix &Wifi" on every TV......let ALONE in 2 years.....lol
Sean @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:23PM
I subscribed to Netflix when NXE came out, and really was only interested in watching The Office. I'm picking up DVDs that I've never seen (1 at a time) and have watched a couple of streaming movies, but without some decent HD streaming content, I'll probably cancel in a few weeks/months. I'd gladly pay $25/month for more (specifically streaming) content. 5.1 would be nice too.
ElmanJo @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:19PM
When knocking the Netflix business model, look at the alternatives out there and understand that the content is controlled by the studios.
I switched to Netfilx from Blockbuster online just recently for two reasons. Lower cost for the same number of movies and the extra value provided by the instant queue.
If I wanted to stream or download with any other DL/streaming provider it is a pay per title expense with all of the major players; Apple, Xbox Live and Blockbuster. Typically $3 minimum rental.
Greater selection and better quality will come, but don't ever expect recent releases to be available on a non pay per title expense.
Colin @ Jan 22nd 2009 8:48PM
From the comments here, it's as if people believe that old movies are inferior and crap compared to new ones. There's lots of great content available to stream. The real reason why the newest titles arent available is because the studios will not allow it. It isnt profitable enough for them. Right now, you can stream so called "catalog" titles, and get discs mailed to you of the latest blockbusters, at no additional cost! It would be nice if the option was there to pay more to be able to get the latest releases via streaming...
I do have a few gripes about the experience. I hate not being able to select movies for instant play from the device I am watching them on (in my case, the 360). You ought to be able to browse the watch now library from the box you're watching it on.
Also, it needs far more HD content, and it needs to be easy to see what content is HD and what isn't. With the 360, it's purely accidental if you run into HD content... As far as SD content goes, the quality could be much better. I watched a movie last night (a modern movie) and the picture was watchable, but very soft and dull looking. I have a HDD on my Xbox! Why cant it buffer for a few minutes?! It would make rewinding and fast forwarding much smoother and faster, and the quality could be much better.
I also agree with the sentiment that the movies could benefit from 5.1 sound, but as someone else mentioned, you can always set your receiver or preamp/processor to Pro-Logic and get a pretty decent surround effect. I would actually rather have a higher bit-rate 2-channel and use pro-logic than hearing a overly compressed 5.1 just for the sake of having 5.1. I think the sound would be better, IMHO.
I will likely always purchase the movies on blu-ray I have grown to love to be able to get the best quality and special features, but if netflix is able to iron out some of these annoyances, it would be a real winner for renting (ok, so it already is a real winner, Netflix always has been, but it's just easy to see it could be so much more!).
Gerry @ Jan 23rd 2009 12:53AM
What amazing are the complaints about quality selections in the NetFlix streaming options, yet negligence on the low-cost of the overall selection pool (100,000 selections by-mail, 12,000 via streaming). I was happy to have found comedies like Fawlty Towers, and Red Dwarf available on the streams. Hours and hours of quality entertainment. There's more than enough content on the streams to keep one satisfied if they would bother to selectively choose from the list.
For $10/month I have the 1 DVD-at-a-time plan, plus the streaming as a bonus (I purchased the Roku player on the first day it went on sale... awesome little device). For the new releases one can use their DVD-by-mail option. At this time the streaming service is not meant as a replacement for the DVD-by-mail plan. I see NetFlix as using it to lay the groundwork and infrastructure for the future, while covering both bases. They'll be able to shift their business to the desired model as market demands change. Brilliant. They are a smart company, and as a shareholder, I trust that they know what they're doing in the industry they helped pioneer.
Phoebe @ Jan 26th 2009 7:33AM
This is an interesting observation and aside from the obvious limitations of the catalog size and lack of new releases, maybe better tools to search through the Watch Instantly catalog and find what fits are needed.
Chewie67 @ Jan 24th 2009 11:53PM
Here's another area for Netflix to focus on......PS3.
Yes, it may not be all their issue. Sony has to step up too, but Netflix on PS3 would be a killer combination.
Gerry @ Jan 28th 2009 4:48PM
A short but great interview with the man, Reed Hastings:
How Netflix Got Started
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/newsmakers/hastings_netflix.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote