Netflix Touts Open Source, Ignores Linux 481
Julie188 writes "If Netflix loves open source, where's the Linux client? Last week's post from Netflix on its use of open source has gotten a lot of coverage from the tech press. Too bad nobody's called the video giant out on its hypocrisy: They benefit greatly from open source, but really don't care to let their customers do the same."
Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when is Linux a requirement for Open Source?
Re: (Score:3)
Never. Nor is contributing by producing clients for operating systems associated with open source a requirement. Nor anything else other than, you know, complying with the license.
Somebody just wanted to bitch and moan, and Slashdot, having lost any standards years ago, saw the words "open source" and published it. Huzzah.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:4, Insightful)
That wasn't what they said. TFA said: "They benefit greatly from open source, but really don't care to let their customers do the same."
Netflix is essentially saying, "This open source stuff rocks! But we aren't going to allow you to run our product on it."
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix is essentially saying, "This open source stuff rocks! But we aren't going to allow you to run our product on it."
No what they said if you RTFA is that *Sometimes* open source rocks for some things and other times commercial proprietary software rocks and other times home built rocks.
I bet you can use many aspects of the NetflixAPI on linux--just not the video streaming portion.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is Netflix exactly. This is the first I have heard that they support Open Source in a public way at all.
Netflix is powerless to do anything about this really. It's all Microsoft. Netflix chose to use Silverlight as their platform and a Microsoft based DRM platform. Silverlight is ported to Linux, the DRM is not.
So it is not that the Netflix client would not work on Linux... it will and it does. It's just that the client would never be able to display the content since the DRM will never be ported to Linux. Of course you never even get that far because Netflix detects your environment and sends you to a warning page instead.
All Netflix has to do to get a Linux client working is change out their DRM model... which will be shortly after snowballs are found lying around in Hell.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Interesting)
Silverlight is not the main reason for a lack of Linux support on the desktop as netflix works perfectly fine in Linux. As proof look at the thousands of netflix capable players. Bluray players, set top players from western digital, netgear, and others have netflix support and they all run Linux of some form. I have been through the firmware on many of those devices and there isn't a single line of code for silverlight or even microsoft. Instead they rely on the boxes ability to generate a hardware key programmed into the boxes to generate the algorithms that decode content. The same thing could be done with the pc , trusted platform modules have existed for many many years but nobody uses it for fear of big brother tracking them . If you want netflix and probably other DRM content services on linux then you need to come up with a way to lock a specific hardware id to a specific pc that can protect the contents path all the way from the network to the video card that the public is willing to allow. This is not netflix doing. Blame the MPAA that sets a requirement that the content can only be streamed to devices that have a protected media path, currently linux doesn't have that in any form open or closed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:4, Interesting)
Open Source != Linux. This is the kind of associative crap that stops corporate adoption of genuinely usable and useful open source software. There is probably more FOSS on Windows than Linux these days.
Also Netflix is tied into a Microsoft streaming media solution. I do not believe that Microsoft has a Linux solution for that. And the contractually-required layer of DRM is by definition impossible in open-source solutions. These are not the fault of Netflix.
Just because they're not releasing a Linux client doesn't mean they're preventing their customers from using their service on Linux. Netflix will run fine under virtualized XP.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, if they had actually released the source code to their client, someone would have already ported it to Linux (heck, I would do it nobody else stepped up). Netflix uses open source tools in the course of doing business. That is very different than actually releasing their product as open source.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Gates smiles, pumps fists and yells "Hoo yeah! Git some!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I tried it but it just keeps taking me to Steve Ballmer's bio.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight [mono-project.com] https://github.com/mono/moon/tree/moon/moon-2-0 [github.com]
That's all well and good, but Moonlight doesn't support DRM-protected content.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
And additionally, whether you believe it's "right" or not, Netflix can only do what it does because there are copy protection mechanisms in place to ensure respect of the copyrights of the material they are displaying.
There might be a way to create an open source Netflix client that respects copyright, but it would be difficult (technologically, and perhaps legally depending on the license you're using), and it would be a hard sell to the copyright owners.
Plus, I mean, come on - Netflix streaming works on PS3, Xbox, wii, mac, windows, iphone, ipad, a number of set-top TV boxes like the Roku and the WD ones, several TVs with integrated instant watch, and several Blu-Ray players. They're trying to get as many eyes in front of their product as they can. It's not like they're forcing you into a small subset of products.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's no harder then any other platform. Plus Roku is Linux based, so I think the technological means is there.
Not that they should HAVE to develop it. However it would be polite to give back to the community whose work you are building on. There just being rude.
\
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing they are obligated to do is follow the license attached to the code they use. Not doing that is rude and illegal. If the community wanted something back they'd write it into their licenses, but then it wouldn't be free open source. To assume someone owes you because they use something that you were giving out like candy at a parade is rude and a slap to the face of the open source community.
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe the open source community should develop a better DRM system for Netflix to use which satisfies the studios.
I also don't like your implication that because I use Windows I don't give back to the open source community.
I probably put in 10x as many hours of development into free and open tools than your average linux user.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Thanks for contributing; a lot of people don't bother.
2. It is not possible* to provide open-source DRM software that works (from the perspective of content owners). If your users have the source and it is not tied to crypto hardware, then you (the content owner) have no control over your content. If Netflix was to provide a Linux client, they would have to write it as a binary blob (and a bunch of us would complain about that).
*If, however, your users are given something like an RSA dongle (ie. crypto hardware), then an open source DRM solution could be as strong as the crypto hardware. Note that this isn't open source DRM, just an open source interface to a closed device. For a service like Netflix, that solution would make sense and I would certainly pay a (small, one-time) fee for the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu plays much of the same stuff, I can use that on my linux boxes.
Netflix could have done the same.
Oh please, that old canard again. (Score:3)
Banks can do it. And they are not protecting rubbish movies, they protecting actual money.
Give a certificate to each user of Netflix, provide all the necessary APIs, any play operation needs to use the user certificates which would need to be authenticated against a Netflix mandated certificate authority.
The movies would be of course encrypted with the private key associated to the user, which remains under Netflix control. You lose your certificate (public key), no worries, Netflix issues a new one.
We are
Re: (Score:3)
Try a supported platform, you'll have better luck.
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do have is a couple UNIX boxes that are completely capable of fetching data over a network and displaying it on screen. There's absolutely no reason I should have to buy another piece of hardware to do that.
You're right. Install Windows and your hardware should work fine.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Install Windows and your hardware should work fine.
That has DEFINITELY not been my experience of Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
He'd still have to buy Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I do have is a couple UNIX boxes that are completely capable of fetching data over a network and displaying it on screen. There's absolutely no reason I should have to buy another piece of hardware to do that.
And where is the love for us DOS/OLPC/Mailstation owners? They should support streaming to Chumby, QNX, Newton, Haiku, Menuette, and the Fossil Abacus. Those greedy, puppy-hating bastards.
BTW, what kind of UNIX are you running? System V? Linux? BSD? Solaris? Xenix? UnixWare? NeXT? Mach? What ab
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that failure to provide authorized copies that work (and "work" implies "are not DRMed"), is a strong incentive for people to use unauthorized copies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're painting yourself in a corner and then complain you can't reach the door.
No, he's standing in the middle of an open field and complaining that he can't get access to something inside a jail cell unless he allows himself to be locked in. So of course the natural reaction is to say "fuck that, I'll get it another way."
Re: (Score:2)
With Moonlight?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But if their existing client was Open Source, it would be much, much easier for someone else to reimplement it as a Linux client.
And no, they're not required to do that either; hypocrisy isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
You could say the same about music downloads three years ago.
But that wasn't my point. I fully understand why they don't open source it, but it's still hypocritical to say how OSS is better than proprietary when your own software isn't OSS.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
It is against the law. (Score:5, Informative)
The Netflix streams are all have proprietary DRM protection. To write our own client we would have to reverse engineer this proprietary protocol (which is legal, but can be difficult), and then worse, we would have hack the authorized players, and to get the DRM keys out of them. This implementation would constitute a circumvention device, and using or distributing it would be illegal under the DMCA.
Asking open source customers to break the law to use your service isn't exactly friendly to open source.
Re:It is against the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking open source customers to break the law to use your service isn't exactly friendly to open source.
They aren't asking you to use their service. They've decided that for now, writing a custom application targeting your demographic - people who use Linux exclusively - isn't likely to be profitable for them.
There's nothing in the licenses of the open source projects they are involved with (use / contribute to) that makes this a problem.
Seems to me this is a non-issue. You just wish they would support your OS of choice. I do too. But it's not exactly scandalous that they don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not doing something is not the same as preventing it from happening.
But selecting incompatible technologies is something they can control.
We did we turn into such a bunch of corporate apologists?
Netflix uses incompatible technologies? (Score:3)
Yes. And they have selected technologies that make their product compatible with what...perhaps 98% of consumer platforms?
Perhaps _you_ are the one who has selected incompatible technologies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you just said isn't particularly reasonably done.
All client implementations are closed-source binaries without open source requirements. Even on their clients atop linux, their platform is not open nor derived from code requiring it to be open (presumably). Of course, one wonders why not take those various clients and let the community play with it standalone, even if not open source (like huludesktop, for example).
All their open-source stuff is basically in their datacenters. They exploit open-sour
Netflix is not mooching ... (Score:5, Informative)
They are mooching.
They have taken from the commons and aren't giving back.
Wrong. They contribute to the projects they use.
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html [netflix.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you know that Open Source is only for Linux!?
Re:Send the wah-mbulance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, they are giving back tons. Speaking personally, I know for a fact they have contributed to Hadoop. Their blog site claims they've contributed to lots of others.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Netflix does contribute back. Jedidiah is just trolling again.
Re: (Score:3)
If it owns a piece of me you need to invest in a better fund.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that they aren't obligated to give back anything, but since when is that the point of open source?
One could say the same for Google (Score:2)
For example, where is my Linux version of SketchUp?
Re: (Score:2)
Does Sketchup use open source components?
Re:One could say the same for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Google does not treat Linux users as first rate consumers. However, they do at least acknowledge our existence (Google Earth, Picasa (kindof), chrome, Android Dev tools). What NetFlix does is completely ignore us. By some definitions you could even argue that they actively ignore us (Seriously, silverlight? WTF?).
Ignore you? Who the f* are you? Who the lot of you represent? The majority of Linux users are ... *tada* admins running heavy shit on Linux, not desktop users. First and foremost to start with.
Second, what are your contribution to FOSS? Specially compared to NetFlix.
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc." http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html [netflix.com] [netflix.com]
Just because they don't cater to your specific, alternative-desktop-niche needs that doesn't mean they are smooching to open source. What you are presenting here is simply an argument of convenience. No logic whatsoever behind it. Second, they are under NO obligation to actually even acknowledge your existence. Why should they? Since when open source users and contributors have to acknowledge *you*? They are in the business of maximizing delivery of copyrighted media, and maximizing does not mean catering to *everyone* but to the majority of the market segment.
Whether you like it or not, silverlight (a proprietary product that can actually allow you to create open source applications) is an excellent tool for doing just that (since it is integrated and runs on top of the CLR)... and if it runs in silverlight, it might run on Mono's moonlight (not sure on this, though. Go do some volunteer work on it if you feel so strongly about it - instead of expecting Netflix to bend to your capricious bidding.)
There is nothing in that operational scheme of things that is against producing, consuming and contributing back to open source software projects.
That people actually cry momma and question Netflix's contributions to open source because it doesn't produce a client for their private pet desktops (and without offering to volunteer in creating or working with Netflix for creating a Linux client), man, that's the apex of /. stupidity.
Re:One could say the same for Google (Score:4, Insightful)
"The majority of Linux users are ... *tada* admins running heavy shit on Linux, not desktop users. "
[citation needed]
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems [wikipedia.org] Now go beat around the bushes and bemoan that I dared to ZOMG! use wikipedia as a reference.
I doubt there are millions of admins running heavy shit. Linux is used by all accounts by at least 1% of Internet users, that's millions, and no, they are not all admins.
That argument would make sense if there was a one-to-one relation between an admin and a box running linux. Fortunately for the sane minded, it is not. Any minimum exposure to actual development and deployment on companies big and small would show you that the number of Linux non-desktop deployments is much larger than the number of desktop deployments. Plain and simple.
Now, if all you know is internet browsing usage, then I guess I can see why it seems to you that the number of Linux deployments are overwhelmingly of the desktop type. But that's a reflection of your experience, not work reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using a niche OS and not getting support, boo hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they fucking aren't first rate consumers. The desktop Linux community seems to be made up mostly of contrarians and cheapskates that feel they are entitled to everything at zero cost and with zero strings. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I learned how UNIX works with Linux, the skills are invaluable, but for fucks sake, these companies put their resources where the people are, and that isn't on desktop Linux.
Porting is hard. (Score:2)
The providers of films to Netflix demand DRM (Score:2)
Hopefully an HTML5 implementation of Instant Watch is in the works.
How would an HTML5 implementation deter people from keeping a permanent copy of a video and/or distributing copies over the Internet? The available HTML5 viewers don't have a defined digital restrictions management mechanism, and the providers of films to Netflix demand DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
How does SIlverlight deter peopl from keeping a copy? It's trivially easy.
I would say that the people who download movies habitually don't have a netflix account. Cause, why would they need to? also, you can create a none OS application for Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
By being only 720p, you can already get 1080p rips of all these films online.
But is it silverlight? (Score:2)
A lot of posts fixate on the windows client. However, they work on Roku, PS3, Wii, and a number of other platforms that are almost certainly not Silverlight and many of which use Linux under the covers.
Roku is linux (Score:5, Interesting)
My little Roku box that sits next to my TV and plays Netflix is built on Linux apparently. In a developer discussion about why there was no Linux desktop player I got the impression that the sticking point was the ease of siphoning off the video stream in a system where you can compile your own kernel was the real problem.
Re:Roku is linux (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a great point: Linux isn't incompatible with DRM, but open source is. If you gave people a DRM player for which they truly had in-practice software freedom, the first thing they'd do is remove all the DRM.
The post confuses Linux and open source, but Netflix is still fundamentally an anti-software-freedom company because their entire business is built on DRM which will always be incompatible with software freedom.
Actually writing a Linux client has nothing to do with any of this. The streaming part of Netflix's business makes them into subcontractors of the Hollywood studios: they deliver Hollywood content to eyeballs with iron-clad digital restrictions management in exchange for a cut of the fees flowing back to the studios. DRM is their entire business. They will always be primarily harmful to any real movement for software freedom.
Linux actually makes a great DRM platform: TiVo invented a whole term for it, ``tivoization'', where you have all the source code and ability to recompile the kernel, but then you can't run it anywhere because the hardware only runs signed kernels.
Likewise, I think the Android app store is extending this all the way down to the userland, right? where for example Skype will only run on phones with ``untampered'' google-signed kernels and hardware? I might be wrong---hard to keep up.
Anyway, why wasn't the DRM vs. software freedom point in the first post? I thought every Linux user knew this. Do people really think Linux == $0, and that's that?
Re: (Score:3)
DRM is not traditional encryption.
In most cases you use encryption to hide something from someone.
In DRM, you want them to see it, but not copy it. In general, DRM is impossible, you can't let someone have access to something and not have access to it at the same time.
However, most DRM schemes last a while until people can route around it.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, encryption works with an algorithm and a key. If you have both you can decrypt the content, if you only have one you can't. So open source crypto algorithms are fine, provided you keep the key safe. DRM is fundamentally flawed because the player needs to have both to be able to show you the content, and if the key is in your computer you can get it out (eventually).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cheese with that whine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they're letting their customers benefit from Open Source just fine:
> Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc.
That's a lot more than many companies that use Open Source (and have Linux clients or applications) do. Contributing back to the projects benefits everyone - not just users of FOSS desktop systems, but everyone that interacts with a system built on those projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you give me an example of a user base which doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Client vs. Server (Score:4, Insightful)
Netflix make use of open source on the server-side. What on Earth does this have to do with supporting an open source client? They contribute back to the projects they use, which is all anyone can ask for.
It's like saying because you use Linux on your desktop, then you're a bad person for not contributing to Hadoop. Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
They do let you choose your desktop/laptop OS from Mac, Win, or Linux as an employee. Most of their in-house wares are custom built, and their Unix of choice is AIX. They are mostly an IBM shop on the back-end, I can't remember if it was Linux for the front-facing boxen though. I had a technical interview there in late 2009, which is where my info comes from.
Nothing wrong with that... (Score:2)
I agree completely. There's nothing wrong with Netflix running Linux servers while not supporting Linux desktops. For all we know they're not even using X.org or any GUI whatsoever. The list of projects they contribute to does not have any GUI apps in it. (Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase)
netflix linux client status (Score:5, Insightful)
where's the Linux client?
Julie188 hasent started it yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:netflix linux client status (Score:4, Interesting)
When Julie188 gets those specs, he/she/it will put up an awesome SF.net or Berlios or Google Code page with the specs and they'll shit out a 0.11a build that mostly compiles, then it will sit there until the specs rot out of relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
where's the Linux client? Julie188 hasent started it yet.
And he/she/whatever never will. I can f* guarantee it!!!!
everything that is wrong with the linux community (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any hypocrisy in netflix claiming it likes ant, tomcat, etc but not announcing a linux client. As far as i know they haven't said, "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client."
I could be wrong. I maybe missed part of the dialog, but it seems like a saner response to the netflix post would be something more like, "Hey, you guys sound pretty progressive with this whole open source thing. There's millions of us linux users out here who would really love a linux client."
You're exaggerating. Netflix abandoned Linux users (Score:5, Insightful)
You're grossly exaggerating.
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? They just drank the Microsoft juice (and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal).
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. But I think that's a flimsy excuse, perhaps completely invalid. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that. After all, Hulu uses it, and Hulu's a joint effort from the studios.
They need not say "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client." They've done worse than that: they used to support Linux, then they dropped it, leaving users with no alternative except dual-booting Windows, and now they have said that they have no plans to support Linux.
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
!(Netflix abandoned Linux users) (Score:4, Informative)
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player.
That's actually it. It isn't some conspiracy, or a secret. I'm a random Ubuntu user, and I looked into the whole netflix thing, and I consider one thread to be definitive [1].
I want to quote the netflix rep posting in the thread as saying that he uses Ubuntu and that netflix would love to have a linux client if they could get the rights to do one. But, cut and paste doesn't work for me on slashdot :(
Anyway, read it for yourself. It is pretty clear that Netflix is on our side.
[1] developer.netflix.com/forum/read/49086
Netflix gives back to open source ... (Score:5, Informative)
"The great thing about a good open source project that solves a shared challenge is that it develops it's own momentum and it is sustained for a long time by a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement. At Netflix we jumped on for the ride a long time ago and we have benefited enormously from the virtuous cycles of actively evolving open source projects. We benefit from the continuous improvements provided by the community of contributors outside of Netflix. We also benefit by contributing back the changes we make to the projects. By sharing our bug fixes and new features back out into the community, the community then in turn continues to improve upon bug fixes and new features that originated at Netflix and then we complete the cycle by bring those improvements back into Netflix."
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html [netflix.com]
I would assume... (Score:2)
You cannot build a DRM system that is both "OSS" in any useful sense and effective(you can certainly use OSS parts; but ultimately there will have to be a proprietary obfuscated portion or hardware tivoization and/or secrets if the DRM is to be more than a toy, disabled by using the --obey_DRM=no build option). There is simply no compromise to be had here.
No hypocrite (Score:2)
Open source is not free software! (Score:2)
Open source is a way of building software that some folks reckon yields a better quality software product. As a side effect lots of people are tend to benefit from it.
The four basic freedoms espoused by the GNU underpin a Free Software philosphy quite different. It's quite possible to derive benefit from open source and not give a damn about the Free Software movement.
Moreover though, it is not not *not* hypocitical for a company to benefit from open source but refuse to release a Linux client for their pro
Terrible summary! (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix doesn't open source its client. This is not something that they control. They have various deals with various content providers that stipulate that they use DRM in their streaming solution. If they made an open-source client, it would defeat the purpose of the DRM. (Yes, DRM doesn't work and blah blah blah, but this is a business requirement, not a technical requirement. If you want to get mad at them about it, get mad at Hollywood instead.)
AFAIK, Netflix generally doesn't implement its own DRM, but instead uses the DRM from whatever platform they distribute on. The do have a "Linux" version if you count Android, but the company has claimed that they've had difficulty using it due to platform fragmentation and because it doesn't implement all of the features they need to satisfy their studio agreements. They've said they have to develop for one device at a time.
And that's with Android's libraries. So when you're asking for a Linux client for Netflix, you're not just asking for a port of their Windows or Mac clients, you're asking them to spend a lot of extra dollars to develop a closed-source DRM solution for a small market that hates DRM (and closed-sourced, to a lesser extent). Where is the sense in that? If Netflix did make a Linux client, submitters would be crawling on top of each other screaming, "Netflix Trying to Destroy Linux With Evil Client From Hell."
On the other hand, it's nice that they contribute to other projects.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Terrible summary! (Score:5, Interesting)
If [Netflix] made an open-source client, it would defeat the purpose of the DRM. (Yes, DRM doesn't work and blah blah blah, but this is a business requirement, not a technical requirement. If you want to get mad at them about it, get mad at Hollywood instead.)
Well, shoot, that just sucks! I was really looking forward to cracking the DRM in a Netflix Linux client and trans-coding the crappy quality, limited selection, streaming video feed into Theora files...
Oh well, guess I'll just have to keep getting the Netflix DVDs & Blu-ray Disks, breaking the DRM on those, ripping them to my digital library, and returning them before I've had a chance to watch them.
DRM... Pffft, Doesn't Restrict Me!
Ahem... (Score:2)
probably because they estimate that the cost per supported customer would shrink the revenue to 0. *I* would be willing to pay for a linux client and *I* would be willing to pay 50% more for being able to use linux. However taken the reaction which slashdot and parts of the FOSS community have towards things like that i would not want to invest enough in marketing to overcome the negative publicity by sensationalist biased slashdot article. I would rather think that doing something like that (providing a
Re: (Score:2)
probably because they estimate that the cost per supported customer would shrink the revenue to 0.
On what do you base this statement? It makes no sense to me because first of all, linux users are absolutely the least likely of all to require hand holding and technical support.... obtw - the linux client is already done - it's been running on the roku box for years.
Re: (Score:2)
So for sure you can tell me what the difference between the "roku box" and "any arbitrary linux" is? (I give you the small hint that the initial creation of a software by no way is the total cost)
I am pretty sure Netflix looks to Ubuntu to decide when the time is right to put out an Ubuntu client.
Re:Ahem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember when Loki was a poorly run company that ported old out of date games?
Well back to playing those linux Humble bundle games now.
Portable programming (Score:2)
From TFA:
It may not make business sense for Netflix to invest in a player for Linux, given the relatively small audience on the Linux desktop.
But if they were to use standardized program development models in a portable non-proprietary language, they would have minimal difficulty getting a common code base to work on BSD or Linux. Just hire programmers with BSD/Linux development experience and let them work out the remaining differences.
Open source equals Linux? (Score:2)
Linux still isn't a big target market.
The real reason you'll never see Netflix for Linux (Score:3)
Reed Hastings [wikipedia.org], co-founder and CEO of Netflix, sits on the board of directors of Microsoft.
Why do you think they went with Silverlight?
Why do you think the PS3 and Wii required discs to use Netflix for so long?
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. If it had not been for this Netflix would have done what hulu did and used flash like every other streaming site out there.
Dont blame Netflix, blame the studios (Score:2)
Blame the studios for the lack of a Linux client. Their insistance on DRM is why there is no Linux client as it would be very difficult to produce a client for Linux that runs on any setup (including open source graphics drivers, selfbuilt kernel etc) and still protects the content enough to satisfy the studios.
Windows has "protected media path" and other OS level protection and I believe OSX has OS level protection as well (for one thing it refuses to let you debug or trace iTunes IIRC)
Linux has none of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"hardly bring any revenue"
That's just baseless Lemming nonsense.
Re:I didn't know that (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't expect Netflix to do anything for 3% of potential user base.
Netflix has "over 16 million customers." 3% of that is 480,000 people. At $8/month that's $46 Million/Year. Is that not real money anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
So where's their open source client for any other OS?
DRM is doable on Linux and BSD. (Score:2)
The way to do it is to put it all into the video card. The app just specifies the area of the screen to use for this, and shuffles data back and forth between the video card and the source. The video card verifies keys from the source and the HDCP compliant monitor that is connected via DVI or HDMI. If all checks out, the video path to the monitor becomes encrypted per HDCP, and the specified area is replaced with the protected video. This is done after the read-back buffer, so if some program code read
Re: (Score:2)
It probably runs Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of allowing them to use open source is that we want to give stuff away so other people can use it.
And we, too, can use that open source.
If the only way you'll give something away is if people agree that they are actually obligated to give something of equal value back, that's not actually giving something away at all. I don't release stuff as open source because I think it makes people owe me free stuff, I release stuff as open source because I believe it is the way in which I can maximize the