3 ms·

I've worked in streaming. If you see a feature pulled, or announced and delayed, or announced and never shipped, 99.99999% of the time it's due to licensing. Ev

by troupo 11mo ago

I've worked in streaming. If you see a feature pulled, or announced and delayed, or announced and never shipped, 99.99999% of the time it's due to licensing. Every single permutation of any action that a user may find beneficial is covered by a different license with a different cost. Oh. And ads. There's another can of worms if you need to serve ads. In this case it could be that Netflix is an asshole. Or could be that they really could not figure out proper device attribution and ad reporting to the leeches that are the content owners and ad networks.

LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
Don't build the Torment Netflix? These fundamentally anti-consumer moves are why it's called the Internet of sh**y things. I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. But to be fair, all the streaming services are chasing the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. I canceled Netflix a while back. And I only watch prime video through an ad blocker on my PC now. Clearly I must hate freedom.
- troupo 11mo ago
  > I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. That's the thing though. Streaming services have very little say in how the content is licensed. > the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. Those restrictions you're talking about? They literally come from licensing terms that rights owners impose. (Most) streaming platforms would gladly not spend a lot of time figuring the devices, what they are playing etc.
  - LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
    My post obviously struck a nerve, but I would rather pay a higher subscription fee than experience a crappy customer experience. Ads are an exception here, if I'm paying, no ads, and also why I cancelled my NYT subscription long ago. However, that is not the storyline services like Disney and Netflix have been telling. They have gassed on and on about stopping piracy. 2 screens isn't piracy, it's any family with someone who travels or is away at college. The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. That would require spine so not expecting it, sigh. But they're sure happy to pick on sideloaders.
    - troupo 11mo ago
      > The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. How would you lock out rights holders who hold the rights to content to create such an official streaming API? Such an official API would have to abide by all the licensing rules rights holders impose.
      - LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
        That's a question for lawyers to resolve. IANAL but I have great faith in their ability to impose arbitrary roadblocks to anything as needed. And even if ultimately overturned, just making the bottom line more affordable allowing casting would seem to be the "shareholder value" friendly message. Further, there was already precedent for such behavior on Netflix with some content being downloadable for later viewing and some not. I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here when pretty much every foundation model effort has stolen tremendous amounts of IP to build their AI models without consequence. Otherwise, frog.pot.boiled, no?
        troupo 11mo ago
        > I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here They own about 0 rights to the content they stream. Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series. Also that's why you can watch the content they have rights to in every country, download it etc. That's the same reason why AppleTV is busy creating their own content etc. If streaming platforms dare to go against rights holders, the lawsuits will hurt even Google. As for AI: it doesn't hurt the rights holders yet. The moment it does, you'll see lawsuits.
        LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
        I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix. At some point, the free market works this out, but I'm guessing people can stay irrational about things like this longer than they ought to. Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore. I truly do not miss it. What I do miss these days is all of the wonderful summaries and presentations about AI and other research papers on YouTube that are now dominated by horrific notebookLM AI slop podcasts.
buellerbueller 11mo ago
Advertising is a virus that invades and destroys every ecosystem it can.
mingus88 11mo ago
I’m really leaning towards them being an asshole in this specific case. Chromecast works in my EV for every other streaming app, so the licensing seems to be a solved problem for them. Netflix, however, never worked and my EV manufacturer had to release a support page specifically for Netflix not working. I suspect this is just more account security. I remember paying $20/mo for a premium plan with a set number of screens on the contract…but one day their side changed and those screens had to be on my WiFi. I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change. I cancelled Netflix after 15 years (DVD era) and have never looked back. Just hostile decision after hostile decision.
- bsimpson 11mo ago
  Same. First, I kept my idle account for the recommendations. Then, I kept my idle account because my family used it (why Netflix ENCOURAGED when they added profiles). Then, some new, money-grubbing PM rolled in and decided to lock my parents out of my account. Okay, byebye Netflix! You jacked the price too high anyway.
- troupo 11mo ago
  > I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change. Even that often comes down to licensing. And it's as stupid as you describe it.
  - ByThyGrace 11mo ago
    Does it maybe come down to changing licenses, as in a license expires and another is negotiated with different terms (to charge per household instead in the example above)?
    - troupo 11mo ago
      Oh, that too :)
bri3d 11mo ago
I suspect this too; between licensing and ads I bet there's a "screen type" (mobile vs. fixed/TV) that needs to be "correct" for some contract reason, and casting is skewing their numbers enough that someone called them on it.
crazygringo 11mo ago
Thank you. The idea that this is due to ads makes complete sense, as there's a lot of indication that Netflix charges more for ads showing on a TV (more people likely to view) than on a mobile device (usually only one person). The fact that casting is still supported for older Chromecasts only on ad-free plans makes this the likeliest explanation to me. Netflix doesn't want to be paid lower rates on ads that are actually getting shown on the TV.

by troupo 11mo ago

LogicFailsMe 11mo ago

Don't build the Torment Netflix? These fundamentally anti-consumer moves are why it's called the Internet of sh**y things. I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. But to be fair, all the streaming services are chasing the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. I canceled Netflix a while back. And I only watch prime video through an ad blocker on my PC now. Clearly I must hate freedom.

troupo 11mo ago
> I have no concern whatsoever whether this is about licensing or just money grubbing. You're making things suck for the paying customer. That's the thing though. Streaming services have very little say in how the content is licensed. > the last few drops of blood from the stone trying to stop people from actually watching from two screens they paid for in two different locations and other idiocy. Those restrictions you're talking about? They literally come from licensing terms that rights owners impose. (Most) streaming platforms would gladly not spend a lot of time figuring the devices, what they are playing etc.
- LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
  My post obviously struck a nerve, but I would rather pay a higher subscription fee than experience a crappy customer experience. Ads are an exception here, if I'm paying, no ads, and also why I cancelled my NYT subscription long ago. However, that is not the storyline services like Disney and Netflix have been telling. They have gassed on and on about stopping piracy. 2 screens isn't piracy, it's any family with someone who travels or is away at college. The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. That would require spine so not expecting it, sigh. But they're sure happy to pick on sideloaders.
  - troupo 11mo ago
    > The solution would appear to be an official android API for streaming content from mobile devices that has resolved these issues or locked out the rights holders. How would you lock out rights holders who hold the rights to content to create such an official streaming API? Such an official API would have to abide by all the licensing rules rights holders impose.
    - LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
      That's a question for lawyers to resolve. IANAL but I have great faith in their ability to impose arbitrary roadblocks to anything as needed. And even if ultimately overturned, just making the bottom line more affordable allowing casting would seem to be the "shareholder value" friendly message. Further, there was already precedent for such behavior on Netflix with some content being downloadable for later viewing and some not. I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here when pretty much every foundation model effort has stolen tremendous amounts of IP to build their AI models without consequence. Otherwise, frog.pot.boiled, no?
      - troupo 11mo ago
        > I'm a bit surprised that you think Google and the streaming services are helpless here They own about 0 rights to the content they stream. Netflix almost collapsed when major studios pulled their content to create competing platforms. That's why they spent to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year to produce their own content and flooded the service with mediocre movies and a bunch of Korean movies and series. Also that's why you can watch the content they have rights to in every country, download it etc. That's the same reason why AppleTV is busy creating their own content etc. If streaming platforms dare to go against rights holders, the lawsuits will hurt even Google. As for AI: it doesn't hurt the rights holders yet. The moment it does, you'll see lawsuits.
        LogicFailsMe 11mo ago
        I will probably never stop being astounded by people who embrace enahittification rather than losing a silly thing like Netflix. At some point, the free market works this out, but I'm guessing people can stay irrational about things like this longer than they ought to. Other than Wednesday, at this point there's nothing I want to watch on that service anymore. I truly do not miss it. What I do miss these days is all of the wonderful summaries and presentations about AI and other research papers on YouTube that are now dominated by horrific notebookLM AI slop podcasts.

buellerbueller 11mo ago

Advertising is a virus that invades and destroys every ecosystem it can.

mingus88 11mo ago

I’m really leaning towards them being an asshole in this specific case. Chromecast works in my EV for every other streaming app, so the licensing seems to be a solved problem for them. Netflix, however, never worked and my EV manufacturer had to release a support page specifically for Netflix not working. I suspect this is just more account security. I remember paying $20/mo for a premium plan with a set number of screens on the contract…but one day their side changed and those screens had to be on my WiFi. I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change. I cancelled Netflix after 15 years (DVD era) and have never looked back. Just hostile decision after hostile decision.

bsimpson 11mo ago
Same. First, I kept my idle account for the recommendations. Then, I kept my idle account because my family used it (why Netflix ENCOURAGED when they added profiles). Then, some new, money-grubbing PM rolled in and decided to lock my parents out of my account. Okay, byebye Netflix! You jacked the price too high anyway.
troupo 11mo ago
> I was no longer paying per screen. I was now paying per-household, but I never agreed to that change. Even that often comes down to licensing. And it's as stupid as you describe it.
- ByThyGrace 11mo ago
  Does it maybe come down to changing licenses, as in a license expires and another is negotiated with different terms (to charge per household instead in the example above)?
  - troupo 11mo ago
    Oh, that too :)

bri3d 11mo ago

I suspect this too; between licensing and ads I bet there's a "screen type" (mobile vs. fixed/TV) that needs to be "correct" for some contract reason, and casting is skewing their numbers enough that someone called them on it.

crazygringo 11mo ago

Thank you. The idea that this is due to ads makes complete sense, as there's a lot of indication that Netflix charges more for ads showing on a TV (more people likely to view) than on a mobile device (usually only one person). The fact that casting is still supported for older Chromecasts only on ad-free plans makes this the likeliest explanation to me. Netflix doesn't want to be paid lower rates on ads that are actually getting shown on the TV.