Netflix

[stevech]

We see Netflix clients for Android.
Boxee Make (software, not D-Link's hardware) can do Netflix if Microsoft's SilverLight is installed.
LAN-capable TV and LAN-capable BlueRay players can do Netflix (Linux inside).

So what is the impediment for Sage to do the same for the Sage HD extender? Based on the above, it doesn't seem to be a legal/licensing issue, nor a recurring cost issue.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by stevech

We see Netflix clients for Android.
Boxee Make (software, not D-Link's hardware) can do Netflix if Microsoft's SilverLight is installed.
LAN-capable TV and LAN-capable BlueRay players can do Netflix (Linux inside).

So what is the impediment for Sage to do the same for the Sage HD extender? Based on the above, it doesn't seem to be a legal/licensing issue, nor a recurring cost issue.

This has been discuseed and buried, redug up and buried again x 100

It is a userbase issue best we can tell the Netflix agreement states you must have a certian guaranteed userbase and sagetv doesn't meet that userbase.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

This has been discuseed and buried, redug up and buried again x 100

It is a userbase issue best we can tell the Netflix agreement states you must have a certian guaranteed userbase and sagetv doesn't meet that userbase.

I'm surprised that Boxee Make (software-only) satisfies that userbase size requirement. Perhaps those open source folks are held to a different criteria than a for-profit company (e.g., Sage)?

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by stevech

I'm surprised that Boxee Make (software-only) satisfies that userbase size requirement. Perhaps those open source folks are held to a different criteria than a for-profit company (e.g., Sage)?

You said it yourself they are open source and I am sure they can say their install base is huge as I am sure many people have downloaded and installed their software even if they don't use it or unistalled it. Plus Dlink might have helped that push to. That is the most suprising to me is boxee as well.

[panteragstk]

What is really odd is that boxee has "official" support while xbmc has a plugin similar to the way we used to be able to do it on client pc's. Where sage's problem lies is the extender. That would have to be licensed through netflix and with our small user-base that isn't going to happen unless sage can convince them it is in their best interest. I for one would rather not have an official netflix ui as I think our dev's could make one that would be MUCH better, but official approval would have to come first (for extender use).

[stevech]

Boxee Make and XBMC and so on make one wonder if it is actually true that Netflix has a legally binding requirement that precludes Sage from supporting Netflix. The open source guys probably paid nothing, made no commitments since they have no sales revenue, and got it done, I'll bet, without signing a non-disclosure for an API. A non-disclosure requires an officer's signature else it's non-enforceable - and not viable for open source. So the NDA can't be the reason.

So what's the factual story for Sage, not speculation?

[cncb]

Originally Posted by stevech

So what's the factual story for Sage, not speculation?

We've been wanting this for a long time. I don't think you are going to get it...

[GKusnick]

The factual story is the same as for any new SageTV feature or product. We'll know what their plans are when they have something concrete to announce, and not before.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stevech

Boxee Make and XBMC and so on make one wonder if it is actually true that Netflix has a legally binding requirement that precludes Sage from supporting Netflix. The open source guys probably paid nothing, made no commitments since they have no sales revenue, and got it done, I'll bet, without signing a non-disclosure for an API. A non-disclosure requires an officer's signature else it's non-enforceable - and not viable for open source. So the NDA can't be the reason.

Nothing is stopping Sage from implementing Netflix on a SageTV PC Client using the standard Netflix Silverlight and whatever hacks they want to use to control the non-branded partner Netflix Silverlight player, other than Sage lack of a desire to do so.

Implementing Netflix on an extender, however, requires Netflix to work with Sage in order to make sure their implementation meets the security standards that Netflix's content partners require. For Netflix to work with you on this, you must be able to demonstrate how you will be able to put your product in the hands of 100k users in its first year. (Perhaps there is some way around this, but Netflix was pretty adamant on this when I was researching the possibility)

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stevech

I'm surprised that Boxee Make (software-only) satisfies that userbase size requirement. Perhaps those open source folks are held to a different criteria than a for-profit company (e.g., Sage)?

Boxee Make does not use the "netflix branded partner" player -- it uses the standard player and hacks to control it. WMC does use the branded partner player.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stevech

Boxee Make and XBMC and so on make one wonder if it is actually true that Netflix has a legally binding requirement that precludes Sage from supporting Netflix.

I don't think the problem is really a legal one, but mostly a business one.

In theory, if Sage really wanted, they could probably support Netflix on PCs and Macs by accessing Netflix via their API and automatically launching a browser when a user selects a video. I'm not sure what is done today, but its my understanding that's basically how the Boxee implementation works/worked on PCs and Macs, using a Mozilla-based browser integrated with Boxee. You also need Microsoft Silverlight installed, since that's what handles the video streaming (including playback and DRM). Of course, Silverlight isn't available on Linux, which is why Netflix won't work in Boxee on that platform.

Except, one of the best parts of Sage is the extenders. I'm guessing a majority of the Sage clients out there are extenders, rather than software clients. Sage can't use a browser with a Silverlight plugin to access Netflix on the extenders (at least, not without making them little Windows boxes). So, working with Netflix and gaining access to their SDK is the only way Sage could get Netflix support on the extenders. But, Netflix has very little motivation to play along unless it has a reason to think Sage could bring them a non-trivial number of customers. That's probably unlikely.

[Audacity]

I think that it makes sense for Sage to implement Netflix (and other steaming media services that are willing) into their PC software, even if they cannot offer it on a HD300, if technical limitations are preventing the latter.

I see no reason for Netflix to prevent the implantation of their service on devices with a small user base because the inclusion into more devices can only help them, not hurt them. Their primary revenue stream is from subscribers, not companies like Sony or Samsung that integrate it into their consumer electronic devices. Anything that helps them gain subscribers and become a ubiquitous service they should be in favor of.

I've seen many stories where Hulu blocks companies who want to integrate their service with a consumer electronics device. I've never heard of that being an issue with Netflix.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by Audacity

Anything that helps them gain subscribers and become a ubiquitous service they should be in favor of.

Unfortunately, Netflix is at the mercy of their content partners' wishes. I'm sure they would work with much smaller user bases, if their content partners would allow it.

That said, the standard silverlight player does seem to be a nice loophole on platforms that support it.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Audacity

I see no reason for Netflix to prevent the implantation of their service on devices with a small user base because the inclusion into more devices can only help them, not hurt them. Their primary revenue stream is from subscribers, not companies like Sony or Samsung that integrate it into their consumer electronic devices. Anything that helps them gain subscribers and become a ubiquitous service they should be in favor of.

I don't think Netflix has any motivation to prevent other companies from providing Netflix support. But, Netflix doesn't just turn over an SDK and tell developers to do whatever they want. They need and want to be involved in the process, which takes time and money. I can think of at least two things they're concerned about:

1. Branding- My understanding is taht Netflix wants to control the interface people see in order to protect their brand. They don't want people pushing out awful interfaces, as some people might put the blame on Netflix, rather than the device manufacturer.
2. Copy protection- Netflix needs to take some measures to protect its content from being copied. That might involve hardware support and/or special software on certain platforms. This seems to have been the hold-up on bringing Netflix to Android phones.

It isn't worth it to Netflix to spend its time working on a Netflix implementation for a device if that device won't bring them additional customers.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Unfortunately, Netflix is at the mercy of their content partners' wishes. I'm sure they would work with much smaller user bases, if their content partners would allow it.

I doubt the content partners care who Netflix works with so long as their intellectual property is protected.

And I'm sure Netflix would love to partner with more companies too. But, they only have so many resources, and at a certain point its just not going to be economically viable to spend time trying to get just a handful of new customers. We're just starting to see Netflix on Android phones, so it shouldn't be surprising that there's no Sage support. And I suspect Sage is going to have to get noticeably bigger for Netflix to take notice.

DRM is probably the main problem. The DRM space seems to be too fragmented to really have standard approaches that everyone can just use. PlayReady isn't that widely deployed, and probably isn't enough of a solution by itself.

[PLUCKYHD]

Where do you guys get boxee isn't money?? Last time I checked thier boxee box wasn't free!!

There are limits and like or not sage doesn't have the user base we wish it did. It isn't a Matter of content providers but Netflix writes the plugins and controls the experience. If there isn't a big enough user base it isn't worth their time to develop on a platform. Come on guys this is business 101 blaming sage is pointless.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I doubt the content partners care who Netflix works with so long as their intellectual property is protected.

This could be, but it was used as an excuse by a Netflix rep. when I was trying to figure out if there was any way around the 100k (was 50k when I first talked with them) limit. Netflix also placed blame on its content partners when blogging why Netflix on Android was taking so long. The truth is probably somewhere between.

Originally Posted by reggie14

And I'm sure Netflix would love to partner with more companies too. But, they only have so many resources, and at a certain point its just not going to be economically viable to spend time trying to get just a handful of new customers.

It's my understanding that the vast majority of work is dumped on the branded partner's developers, and Netflix will either reject or accept what has been developed. I suppose it's possible that the review process does take a fair amount of resources (security checks, etc.).

Originally Posted by reggie14

PlayReady isn't that widely deployed, and probably isn't enough of a solution by itself.

For a relatively closed system like the Sage extenders, I don't think there is much of an issue with DRM, or available code. From what I remember, it was the "openness" of Android, and how to secure the stream in such a case, that was the issue. A closed library for specific qualcomm hardware seemed to be the solution. As long as your phone has that hardware, you can get Netflix (though you may need to run an "alternative" Rom).

But either way, yes -- Sage is currently too small to get Netflix's attention, and without Netflix, they'll have trouble getting large enough.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Netflix also placed blame on its content partners when blogging why Netflix on Android was taking so long. The truth is probably somewhere between.

I don't know what customer service reps have been saying, but the message from Netflix developers has been pretty consistent:

Originally Posted by Greg Peters

The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices.

Netflix itself probably isn't that concerned about DRM, but the studios that provide the content certainly care. So, it probably is still accurate to say the content partners are largely to blame, although I don't think they're asking for anything unreasonable.

Originally Posted by brainbone

It's my understanding that the vast majority of work is dumped on the branded partner's developers, and Netflix will either reject or accept what has been developed.

Could be. I'm not sure. I've been going back and forth between Netflix and Samsung for weeks now, since I'm having a problem with the Netflix app on my Samsung player. They both claim the other is responsible for updates. Though, the Netflix folks have admitted they do some of the development. I'm not sure who does what.

Originally Posted by brainbone

For a relatively closed system like the Sage extenders, I don't think there is much of an issue with DRM, or available code. From what I remember, it was the "openness" of Android, and how to secure the stream in such a case, that was the issue. A closed library for specific qualcomm hardware seemed to be the solution.

Having a somewhat closed system only helps when it comes to restricting what you can do with media. It doesn't help with controlling access to media. And really, the fact that Android is open source doesn't matter that much one way or the other, partly because security through obscurity doesn't work well and partly because not all software running on Android is open source.

I don't think the open source nature of Android had much to do to with the wait for Netflix. I think it was basically just the issue I quoted above.

As I think you were saying, I think the big issue is how you get a video stream into an Android phone in a way that can't be spoofed by a device that could record the stream. Encryption protocols like TLS (as typically deployed) aren't enough, because they only authenticate the server, not the client. Authenticating requests with users' Netflix passwords isn't enough, since you could just as easily enter your password on a device spoofing a legitimate Android phone.

Pretty much your only option is to use some sort of cryptographic key on the phone to authenticate to the Netflix servers. And to do that right, it really has to be stored in protected hardware. I have to assume that's part of Qualcomm's SecureMSM DRM system, which seems to be used in the Netflix app. It looks like SecureMSM also has some features for locking down the video stream as its processed on an Android phone, but that's probably a secondary concern.

I'm sure many other phones besides the Qualcomm-based phones support hardware-based DRM. Netflix has already demoed an app on a phone with an OMAP chip. It just looks like Netflix picked Qualcomm-based phones first, maybe because they seem to be more widely used in top-tier Android phones.

Now, its true that content providers accept software-based DRM on personal computers. I suspect that's done for a lot reasons, the main one being necessity. Trusted Platform Modules have never been widely deployed on consumer-class systems, and business-class systems almost never have them on (and there's almost zero software support). New Intel chips have some DRM capabilities built-in (no matter how much they claim otherwise), but obviously you can't limit a product to only folks with a Sandy Bridge CPU. The closed nature of Windows, Media Player, and Adobe Flash probably does mitigate some of the risk of a successful attack on the DRM system.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

Where do you guys get boxee isn't money?? Last time I checked thier boxee box wasn't free!!
.

The conversation here began with Boxee Make (software) rather than Boxee Box (D-Link product).

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't know what customer service reps have been saying, but the message from Netflix developers has been pretty consistent:

And from that url: "Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy."