Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Netflix for iOS Updated with Movie Recommendations and Auto-Play for TV Shows
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am one of those people, this year ive been recording Game of Thrones, Person of interest, Elementary etc, etc and when i get the full season ill sit and watch them over a weekend whilst doing other things.
This weekend, i intend to sit down and watch American Horror stories second series, maybe, right after i finish watching arrested development (which i missed 1st time around).
To me this is the perfect way to watch a TV show, i recently finished encoding my Fraiser box set, and was watching it as i went over the period of a few weeks, it was the only TV i consumed over that period.
I wouldn't call it "binge" viewing, but it is "concentrated" viewing, no need to keep multiple shows/plots in your head at the same time.
----------
um, i don't think you understand DRM at all.
Is the auto play really enabled all the time with no way to turn it off? That's really annoying and enough to not update the iOS app (at least until they break support for the previous version). Seems to be getting a pretty negative response, hopefully they listen to user reviews and make it a preference.
And what happened to the multiple user queues the announced a while back? Those should be great, when is that going to arrive?
Hard to tell if this post is serious or satire. Eight bucks a month is "overpriced" for unlimited streaming on demand? So what alternative (legal) service offers as much for that price?
And it's a streaming service, DRM doesn't really enter into the equation since files aren't copying over. Or are you whining because you can't record streamed content to a DVR or something? If you prefer discs, that's fine, but you're going to end up paying a lot more or doing a lot less watching.
We just did exactly that. Except that since Frasier is all on NF, we just streamed it all instead of having to buy and rip all the discs.
And what happened to the multiple user queues the announced a while back? Those should be great, when is that going to arrive?
Hard to tell if this post is serious or satire. Eight bucks a month is "overpriced" for unlimited streaming on demand? So what alternative (legal) service offers as much for that price?
And it's a streaming service, DRM doesn't really enter into the equation since files aren't copying over. Or are you whining because you can't record streamed content to a DVR or something? If you prefer discs, that's fine, but you're going to end up paying a lot more or doing a lot less watching.
We just did exactly that. Except that since Frasier is all on NF, we just streamed it all instead of having to buy and rip all the discs.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I'm pretty sure it used to have this feature ... but I think it might have disappeared in one of the redesign updates.
... but maybe we're both losing our minds. lol.
Im serious believe me, if I'm paying for something I want a physical copy, a copy I can play on anything, and without any DRM BS and not forced to do things their way. I don't support streaming because of their enforced control features - Im effectively subsidising the company which I will not do, and will not support any draconian control measures under the guise of "convenience". The same reasons I don't support of use ****ify, Pandora etc.
Yeah! I hate it when the money I pay to a company helps them to provide a service that's if value to me!
Gah! What *******s!
Im willing to pay for a service, on the condition I use what I pay for any way I wish without any DRM or draconian measures to restrict the purchaser of the items as a method of control, and something tangible. Hence, I will always work to bypass any methods in place.
You go dude. Fight the power. Anarchy for life.
Now, without resorting to vague generalizations, would you explain exactly what your complaint about Netflix is about? You pay a monthly fee and in return you have unlimited access to viewing their content. So what's the issue?
So I guess you never would rent a car since you're paying but they don't let you keep the car? And "play on anything" - what device would you want to play Netflix streaming from that you can't currently? It's hard to imagine a service that's as universally supported as Netflix.
Basically you're asking for unlimited content at Netflix's "rental" pricing, and for them to let you have a copy of the content and just trust you to delete it after you're done watching it instead of keeping it forever.
Not that there would be any point in them trying to please a customer like that anyway since with that point of view you're probably not paying anything and pirating most of your content anyway.
You go dude. Fight the power. Anarchy for life.
Now, without resorting to vague generalizations, would you explain exactly what your complaint about Netflix is about? You pay a monthly fee and in return you have unlimited access to viewing their content. So what's the issue?
The issue is if Im paying for movies / music I want physical copies without DRM / draconian restrictions where I can play for what I pay anywhere I wish on any device. I don't agree with streaming because Im effectively paying for access via my download quote to access their service which I am charged. I only pay for something where I get a tangible copy in return.
I am only referring to Movies / Music services. I don't want DRM / special player software (DRM laced), and will only only tangible copies of movies / music (either digital non DRM or DVD disc or BD disc), not only streamed. I am not going to subsidise the "industry" on top of what I pay for to pay for a streaming service on top of my internet quota - no thanks. If I want rentals I go to my local video store and hire BD movies - again physical copies - no restrictions.
Use the correct term "copy" not "pirate". If someone copies something the original copy still exists, you are not taking it away from circulation - might pay for you to read the true origins of copyright to learn the industry lies that most people believe - http://questioncopyright.org/promise
Excerpt "They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."
Excerpt 2 "None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help."
Excerpt 3 "To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful."
Excerpt 4 "Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model mass pressings with centralized distribution to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors."
Now stop believing the "industry" lies and repeating their corrupt info to line their own pockets via other peoples creations.
Blame your ISP for the download quota. If you had no quota, would that change your view? And since you'd rather pay to own, can I suppose you buy video and music on iTunes then? If not, the discussion is not about owning vs. renting but rather digital vs. physical which is a whole different issue.
There are a lot of things we pay for which we don't own. Electricity, phone service, internet. Unless you plan on buying a web server with a direct connection to the internet backbone, build a powerplant in your backyard (although solar panels ain't a bad idea if you own a home
), and start your own cellular network, it's inevitable that we pay for certain things we don't get to own.That's the nature of service-based industries. And economies are leaning more and more in that direction as traditional sources of revenue (sales to own) dry up. I don't necessarily agree with this trend in all circumstances, but in Netflix's case... You pay the price of 1 DVD to have unlimited access to all their content. I call that a bargain.
Blame the backwards ISPs for their artificially-set download quotas though. Don't forget that those same ISPs are part of media conglomerates that compete with Netflix and don't want it to succeed to begin with, hence in part why they impose quotas to begin with. The last thing they want you to do is disconnect your cable TV or stop buying movies.
Rentals are exactly what Netflix does, so if you're not interested in rentals, you're not interested in Netflix, period. All the rest about DRM, "overpriced", "quotas", whatever is just you blathering because you like to hear yourself blather.
Netflix is a great service for a great price, if it doesn't interest you that's your business but frankly nobody cares about your rants that have nothing to do with it.
While I'm a big fan of their streaming, and they do have lots of good content, there's still a ton of stuff they're missing compared to their discs by mail service. With the discs you can request virtually anything that exists on dvd or bluray. Streaming has a lot of stuff but it's nowhere close to that selection.
The revenue from that copy doesn't and THAT is what you're stealing. Unless you don't believe people should earn compensation for their work, in which case you should call your employer and ask that you work for free from now on.
If I had not quota, I would not change my view because I refuse to support ANY DRM measures or methods trying to control what I do with moves / music I purchase, no matter the method. I would only change my view with no quota if all draconian DRM measures were removed completely. I don't believe in paying for something where I don't get something tangible in return.
Well you can't expect to own the entire library of hundreds of movies and tv shows offered on netflix for only 8.99, right? Perhaps if you contact them, suggest that you pay them a one-time fee of a few tens of thousands of dollars, maybe they'll be nice and let you download their content.
----------
I'm gonna ignore that link because I believe one should be compensated for one's work and anything that contradicts that principle goes against my own principles. While I'm sure there may be corruption in some cases, what you're suggesting is that copying and theft are never synonymous and that is incorrect. And with your line of thinking, you're justifying it in ALL cases regardless of whether it's corrupt or not and that I cannot agree with.
Adnbeck said:
Proof you follow the industry lies, because your belief is based on the brainwashing of the industry which is trying to retain a state of mind, despite going against the original design of copyright - over 300 years ago. If you have a CD and copy a CD you have to copies, the original is not lost. Ignorance means you fail to understand the truth, and your principles are based on the B.S. of the big music / movie companies - talk about a slanted and biased view. Well if you wish to follow the sheep, you will go to slaughter eventually. I refuse to follow the industry.
Read "To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them.
And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful. They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" — as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living — that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."
Netflix isn't selling you anything. They are renting out the media to their customers. Just like if you were to rent a movie at a Blockbuster. And their "draconian" (an annoyingly inaccurate adjective, IMO) methods of control are for their own good. Netflix pays for content for the purpose of streaming to the end user, not providing the user with the media. Allowing you to keep what you've rented from them would be breaking their contracts with providers.
Besides, if they are so angering to you, then fine. Don't pay. That'll show 'em. but you don't need to come here and argue about something that has almost no relevance to them providing new features.
Besides, if they are so angering to you, then fine. Don't pay. That'll show 'em. but you don't need to come here and argue about something that has almost no relevance to them providing new features.
Brainwashing huh? I love how pirates always justify their thievery with the whole "copying doesn't take away the original" argument. So besides music and videos, I suppose you also steal apps, even those NOT produced by major developing studios.
Taking away revenue from the content creator =/ stealing. Got it.
link
I thought you didn't mind paying for content if you can own it and if it's DRM-free, yet you admit stealing music instead of buying it on iTunes. Basically, you complain about Netflix's "rental" model simply as an excuse. When given the choice of a DRM-free, purchase-to-own model like you had been asking for instead, you still refuse to pay.
You sir have lost all credibility and respect in my view.