Netflix touts open source, ignores Linux(networkworld.com)
networkworld.com
Netflix touts open source, ignores Linux
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69722
11 comments
Netflix is a business. Regardless of their stance on open source software, they allocate resources to meet the demands of the market. The market for Netflix on Linux is vanishingly small. I use Linux, but if I were Netflix I'd ignore me, too.
The issue isn't the market, it's DRM.
I'm only aware of one unbroken DRM scheme on Linux, and that's Hulu's proprietary Flash plugin usage. Binary-only Flash is a performance nightmare on Linux, regardless.
Netflix will support Linux the day that their content providers allow them to use a DRM-free solution.
I'm only aware of one unbroken DRM scheme on Linux, and that's Hulu's proprietary Flash plugin usage. Binary-only Flash is a performance nightmare on Linux, regardless.
Netflix will support Linux the day that their content providers allow them to use a DRM-free solution.
Are you talking about RTMPE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Streaming
Because that's been busted for some time. A lack of easy point-and-click GUI RTMPE dumpers does not mean the encryption scheme is unbroken.
Because that's been busted for some time. A lack of easy point-and-click GUI RTMPE dumpers does not mean the encryption scheme is unbroken.
Tools which have a copy of the well-known constants
extracted from the Adobe Flash player are able to
capture RTMPE streams, a form of the trusted client
problem. Adobe issued DMCA takedowns on RTMPE recording
tools including rtmpdump to try to limit their
distribution. However in the case of rtmpdump, this
led to a Streisand effect.Relevant comment from the original Netflix blog post:
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribut...
> If you guys reread this blog post a little slower, you might realize Netflix seeks employees here, not customers.
> Netflix is a DRM company: they deliver Hollywood content to eyeballs securely locked inside DRM wrappers in exchange for a cut of the fees flowing back to Hollywood. It's difficult to do this job well enough to satisfy the studios that the studios' Claw can reach into livingrooms and control what people do with their movies. This difficulty is the barrier-to-entry that makes Netflix's growth possible, and makes the cut they can demand of the studios large enough to be worth their while.
> Make no mistake, if you work for Netflix, you will be primarily collaborating in this project. Nothing else is bottom-line.
> That's what makes all these comments seem so silly to me. While a prospective customer might be using Linux because it's $0, or because he likes to rice out his peecee and tinker, or because he has some Media Box that works well in the living room and requires Linux, none of these are the reasons a desireable geek would give for using Linux.
> The smartest geeks---the ones you want as employees---use Linux because they want software freedom. That's why I use it. This freedom has been critical to my professional development, as well as my sense of individual empowerment in the world. And it's largely a desire for this empowerment that drove me into this field to begin with.
> A Linux Netflix client is certainly very possible, but software freedom will never be compatible with DRM, because if you really had software freedom, the first thing a rational person would do with it would be to remove all the DRM! Yes, a Linux client may some day exist, but a client with software freedom---the only kind of client that's interesting to the smart geeks Netflix should want to hire---can never exist. It's fundamentally impossible.
> It's my sincere hope that this impossibile gap between the true ideals of software freedom and Netflix's core business will limit their applicant pool to dizzy-headed second-rate developers. It's really shocking to me to see Netflix trolling for hires by dangling a penguin cape when their entire business is fundamentally about red-cape Digital Restrictions Management unfreedom.
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribut...
> If you guys reread this blog post a little slower, you might realize Netflix seeks employees here, not customers.
> Netflix is a DRM company: they deliver Hollywood content to eyeballs securely locked inside DRM wrappers in exchange for a cut of the fees flowing back to Hollywood. It's difficult to do this job well enough to satisfy the studios that the studios' Claw can reach into livingrooms and control what people do with their movies. This difficulty is the barrier-to-entry that makes Netflix's growth possible, and makes the cut they can demand of the studios large enough to be worth their while.
> Make no mistake, if you work for Netflix, you will be primarily collaborating in this project. Nothing else is bottom-line.
> That's what makes all these comments seem so silly to me. While a prospective customer might be using Linux because it's $0, or because he likes to rice out his peecee and tinker, or because he has some Media Box that works well in the living room and requires Linux, none of these are the reasons a desireable geek would give for using Linux.
> The smartest geeks---the ones you want as employees---use Linux because they want software freedom. That's why I use it. This freedom has been critical to my professional development, as well as my sense of individual empowerment in the world. And it's largely a desire for this empowerment that drove me into this field to begin with.
> A Linux Netflix client is certainly very possible, but software freedom will never be compatible with DRM, because if you really had software freedom, the first thing a rational person would do with it would be to remove all the DRM! Yes, a Linux client may some day exist, but a client with software freedom---the only kind of client that's interesting to the smart geeks Netflix should want to hire---can never exist. It's fundamentally impossible.
> It's my sincere hope that this impossibile gap between the true ideals of software freedom and Netflix's core business will limit their applicant pool to dizzy-headed second-rate developers. It's really shocking to me to see Netflix trolling for hires by dangling a penguin cape when their entire business is fundamentally about red-cape Digital Restrictions Management unfreedom.
It is very simple why netflix does not offer a linux solution:
The most important thing to remember is: Offering a desktop linux client will gain them a miniscule number of customers.
Now remembering the overriding point above, consider the following and decide if it's worth it.
* They can't just offer a linux client. They can offer an ubuntu client, or a fedora client, etc.
* Linux video is a mess. I still don't have an adequate vsync aware solution for playing videos on all my graphics cards. Fortunately they would probably bundle their own decoder, so they wouldn't have to pick the poison of xine or gstreamer (which are both much improved in the past couple years, but still have their problems)
* A subpar linux offering would be harmful to their brand image (far more than a nonexistent one) and expensive in terms of customer support. Remember, a large fraction of Netflix's customers are early adopters, so are likely to have a linux box. (They have a ps3 or a wii or a mac or a windows box, which is how they stream right now)
* A proposed benefit of supporting linux would be that OSS proponents wouldn't bitch and moan. Adding a DRMed video streaming program to linux isn't likely to change that.
The most important thing to remember is: Offering a desktop linux client will gain them a miniscule number of customers.
Now remembering the overriding point above, consider the following and decide if it's worth it.
* They can't just offer a linux client. They can offer an ubuntu client, or a fedora client, etc.
* Linux video is a mess. I still don't have an adequate vsync aware solution for playing videos on all my graphics cards. Fortunately they would probably bundle their own decoder, so they wouldn't have to pick the poison of xine or gstreamer (which are both much improved in the past couple years, but still have their problems)
* A subpar linux offering would be harmful to their brand image (far more than a nonexistent one) and expensive in terms of customer support. Remember, a large fraction of Netflix's customers are early adopters, so are likely to have a linux box. (They have a ps3 or a wii or a mac or a windows box, which is how they stream right now)
* A proposed benefit of supporting linux would be that OSS proponents wouldn't bitch and moan. Adding a DRMed video streaming program to linux isn't likely to change that.
Netflix is already streamed to several Linux devices, so the technical issues of a Linux implementation have been figured out. TiVO runs Linux, so does Boxee, and they support Netflix streaming. I expect there are several other embedded devices in the same boat.
The real reason that Netflix doesn't offer desktop Linux support is, as far as I've heard from articles I'm too lazy to look back up to cite, Microsoft refuses to grant Netflix a license to the DRM for a Linux desktop client because Microsoft is concerned that a Linux desktop client would make it too easy to reverse-engineer the DRM scheme that Netflix is using (Microsoft PlayReady).
The real reason that Netflix doesn't offer desktop Linux support is, as far as I've heard from articles I'm too lazy to look back up to cite, Microsoft refuses to grant Netflix a license to the DRM for a Linux desktop client because Microsoft is concerned that a Linux desktop client would make it too easy to reverse-engineer the DRM scheme that Netflix is using (Microsoft PlayReady).
There's no good reason for Netflix to risk its business model by ruining its relationship with their nervous and twitchy content providers over fears of ZOMG NO DRM! for the sake of Watch Instantly on Linux desktops. I wish this weren't the case because that's main hole in my Linux/Boxee HTPC.
But surely Netflix knows it has to address Android (and maybe even Chrome OS) eventually. How/if they pull that off will be interesting to say the least.
But surely Netflix knows it has to address Android (and maybe even Chrome OS) eventually. How/if they pull that off will be interesting to say the least.
They would have to do hardware-based restriction of some kind. Otherwise, someone would just run Netflix on the Android emulator on their desktop.
The netflix PS3 player until recently was a java (BD-J) application shipped on a non-encrypted blu-ray disc. Can't somebody extract the jars from that?
There's also a netflix app for the Boxee Box, an Intel 32-bit Linux device. The box ships locked down but has already been rooted/jailbroken. Couldn't one extract the app from that too?
There's also a netflix app for the Boxee Box, an Intel 32-bit Linux device. The box ships locked down but has already been rooted/jailbroken. Couldn't one extract the app from that too?
HTML5 will bridge the gap. Here's a Netflix job posting: http://jobs.netflix.com/DetailFlix.asp?jobid=flix4467
It will at least when there's support for DRMd video in HTML5.
Netflix also bought into Microsoft's Silverlight sales pitch. Microsoft originally pitched Silverlight as a platform with robust 3rd party implementation. Microsoft even funded work at Novell so that Moonlight could be used with the 2008 Olympics sight. As Microsoft has pivoted to HTML5, Microsoft became less interested in providing a DRM layer to Moonlight. Linux users will be well served when the DRM components to HTML5 video become available and widely implemented.
I think the main reason they don't have a Linux player is that their current offering is based on Silverlight.
Well, I assume though that there other platforms (like Wii) aren't running silverlight. This could be an incorrect assumption, but it at least seems that they have the player available in other code bases.
Yup. Silverlight has some DRM required by the content producers, and Moonlight refuses to implement this.
The DRM is actually implemented for Moonlight already, it's just distributed under a closed and exclusive license. Microsoft disseminates these relatively freely to embedded devices, but refuses to authorize the use of that component on desktop Linux because they are concerned that doing so would increase the likelihood of a crack for their DRM.
I guess their thinking is that the technically inclined use Linux, and if a Linux desktop client exists, someone will get bored one day and reverse-engineer the DRM. As it stands, you have to have significantly more determination than that to crack the DRM from Boxee, and it appears that nobody in the community has that determination since we have not seen a crack or reverse implementation.
I guess their thinking is that the technically inclined use Linux, and if a Linux desktop client exists, someone will get bored one day and reverse-engineer the DRM. As it stands, you have to have significantly more determination than that to crack the DRM from Boxee, and it appears that nobody in the community has that determination since we have not seen a crack or reverse implementation.
A netflix linux client does exist-- the roku box. But that's more of an embedded system.
I know its a small market but it would be nice to watch Netflix on the cr48.
Netflix is a business with finicky business partners (content owners), and their embrace of FOSS doesn't mean they're required or even allowed to offer an open video streaming solution.
I think the fact that they're contributing to the projects they use is far more important. This article reads like sour grapes.