Is it possible to watch Netflix "watch instantly" under XP's Firefox under Wine?

[doublemeat]

Google wants Netflix to work into their ChromeOS. That basically will mean some sort of HTML5 plug-in for the browser. And that would bring it to Linux.

Maybe not as fast as we all want, but I think it will happen. Read this article.

Regards.

Good news, and a good point. Also, I just remembered (and don't seem to recall this fact being pointed out on this thread yet), that Netflix works on PS3...without Silverlight. Apparently they have hacked the Webkit engine to run on PS3 just for their app (which is a web app that looks like a native app).

It also works on iPhone, and some Android models (again...sans Silverlight).

So there's apparently no technical reason Netflix can't run on Linux...maybe the size of the additional market for them still just isn't worth the effort. (And/or maybe those other platforms are considered less threatening as far as DRM hacking / piracy goes...)

[Swashbunglar]

It also works on iPhone, and some Android models (again...sans Silverlight).

Ready for the real kicker... Android IS linux.... WTF neflix!
So saying it "can't" work on linux is BS.

[forrestcupp]

Ready for the real kicker... Android IS linux.... WTF neflix!
So saying it "can't" work on linux is BS.

Android uses the Linux kernel at the lowest level, but beyond that, it is absolutely nothing like the GNU/Linux based operating systems we use. Saying that Linux OSs should run Netflix because Android does is like saying that FreeBSD should be able to run all MacOS X software.

[doublemeat]

Ready for the real kicker... Android IS linux.... WTF neflix!
So saying it "can't" work on linux is BS.

Yeah not really so much. The tiniest (and customized) part of the Linux kernel, and that's it. It isn't even POSIX-compliant, doesn't have the userland tools, and the GUI and it's API has no resemblance to X-Windows (much less gnome or KDE) and is more tightly integrated into the kernel.

An analogy would be like saying the iPhone is Mac OS X. (Though maybe that is even less accessible of a concept to Linux users as just refuting the "Android=Linux" meme.)

Android is also usually locked from the factory so users can't gain root access. (I know many people unlock them - myself included - but it's a minority of users.) I'm sure a device that is much more locked down than a PC is a big part of studios "allowing" Netflix to have an Android app.

But really it's the the Linux market share issue, just no way around that.

Countless experts have argued that Linux' market share is greatly hampered by fragmentation. (Not to mention that one is pretty lucky to install any distro on a machine without significant fiddling.) But...those are two different and well-flogged topics than the Netflix issue!

I love threads like this that live a long time. I can't even remember why I first contributed to it, I'll have to go back and look. But for me, I've given up on the idea of Linux as an entertainment device. I don't watch TV, and any media I do consume is either through the PS3, or Netflix on Android or iPhone. (Yeah I carry both. What a dork.)

[doublemeat]

Android uses the Linux kernel at the lowest level, but beyond that, it is absolutely nothing like the GNU/Linux based operating systems we use. Saying that Linux OSs should run Netflix because Android does is like saying that FreeBSD should be able to run all MacOS X software.

Well that was a more succinct and earlier version of my argument...

[doublemeat]

I've given up on the idea of Linux as an entertainment device.

I should point out though, that when hardware and virtualization software gets to the point where I can run media software i.e. Netflix, full-screen and tear/stutter free, then I'll probably use Linux as the base and Windows as the media portal. (Though Netflix in particular has tearing and terrible de-telecine-ing issues even natively.)

That point should be very soon. Gradually improving and expanding IOMMU/VT-d support will eventually render the race for improving virtualized acceleration graphics a moot point. (Kind of frustrating that the hardware support for it has been around since antiquity, relatively speaking, and getting it to work in virtualization software is either really expensive, or prohibitively fiddly for even typical advanced users.)

[forrestcupp]

(Kind of frustrating that the hardware support for it has been around since antiquity, relatively speaking, and getting it to work in virtualization software is either really expensive, or prohibitively fiddly for even typical advanced users.)

That's why it's best to just watch Netflix through a supported TV attached device, like it was designed for. Since I started watching Netflix in its intended way and using consoles for gaming, I've had a lot less headaches with Linux.

[doublemeat]

That's why it's best to just watch Netflix through a supported TV attached device, like it was designed for. Since I started watching Netflix in its intended way and using consoles for gaming, I've had a lot less headaches with Linux.

That is not true. Netflix - specifically, the on-demand streaming service we are discussing, "was designed for" the Mac/PC web browser. That is all that was supported for years. In fact, it started out as Flash playback, then Silverlight came later. It has been "Computer-only" longer than it has been supported on other devices.

I regularly use Netflix on PC, iPhone, Android, and PS3. I'm not crazy about how they are all radically different UXes (with Android and iOS at least being similar), but at least there's one advantage to that - they do seem to better take advantage of platform strengths and native conventions.

The PC/browser interface is objectively the most feature-complete version. It is the baseline against which the others are evaluated. (Whether or not it is a "better" experience than the others is a subjective issue.) Most new features start in the browser version. It also has the fewest playback issues (not surprisingly as it has a years head-start development-wise).

I'm going to refrain from lecturing about getting facts straight, gloating, etc. (Mainly because I'm not, say, 16 yo.)

But hey, if you prefer Netflix on devices, that's all good. I too use it more on PS3 and iPhone, than PC.

[forrestcupp]

Well, we could both lecture and debate about what Netflix streaming was "designed for". Unless you happen to work for Netflix, I doubt if either of us truly know. But one thing I do know is just because something is launched a certain way doesn't mean that is what it was designed for.

I tend to think that it was designed to be watched on TVs through devices, but it was necessary for them to go ahead and launch on PCs to build up their library and user base while the devices were being prepared and created. Did you notice how quickly they worked to roll out Netflix on game consoles? That's because it's a lot quicker to create software for devices that would support it, and it takes a little longer to get it into embedded stuff.

I can almost guarantee that Netflix streaming was designed to be watched on TVs through TV attached devices, and smart TVs, themselves.

I will say that it also comes in handy on my Android tablet while I'm walking on the treadmill.

[doublemeat]

Not to attack you personally (you seem like a wonderful person), but your argument is so full of uninformed misinformation and supposition-based assertions, that I think it would be instructive (in more general terms than just this debate) to break it down:

Well, we could both lecture and debate about what Netflix streaming was "designed for"

Actually we really don't have to do that. There is an objective truth, from Netflix.

Unless you happen to work for Netflix, I doubt if either of us truly know.

I'm glad you said "doubt", because as it turns out, this is incorrect. (As you might have guessed!):

1. I used to work for a Netflix competitor and helped sell it to a (then) major competitor of Netflix. (Both startup and suitor shall remain nameless - otherwise you could discover my true identity [and then physical address etc.] with just a few clicks...this way it would take more determination.) I then followed and still do follow Netflix pretty closely, and have been a member for close to a decade. I've used their streaming service since it arrived four years ago. Although I don't have insider information on Netflix, we don't need any. The relevant information to debunk this is public. So, you don't have to take my industry-informed word for it...
2. You can read Netlfix' quarterly earnings reports, including future strategic plans for streaming, going back ten years since their IPO.
3. Netflix publishes several blogs - most interestingly, a general blog and a technical blog. Both include really great insights. In both blogs (not just the technical one), they regularly discuss technical innovations that almost always debut in the Silverlight client first. Perusing this blog should settle this non-debate in your own heart and mind, without taking my word for it.
4. One reason (of several) that the browser version is the main development focus and testbed, is because: A) It is much easier to code for, and B) It is much much easier to deliver updates for. There is no "update" mechanism required, as there is no installed client application (cached yes installed no). With the browser version, you automatically get whatever version is the latest (or at least whatever flight-testing group you arbitrarily [or not] fall into). The PS3 version, for example, includes a complete (ported and modified) Webkit application (just for Netflix). It must be manually updated. (Or quasi-manual depending on how you look at it.)
5. And here is the clincher: More people use the browser version for streaming, than almost all other couple-dozen versions combined. Kind of makes sense to make that your focus. Any more questions?

It might be worthwhile to re-read points 4 and especially 5.

...just because something is launched a certain way doesn't mean that is what it was designed for.

See #s 4 and 5 above.

This isn't much of a debatable point though, at least semantically. There are a couple dozen devices Netflix runs on. (Even Google Chrome OS.) This assertion boils down to self-evidence: For each platform/device Netflix runs on, of course: "it was designed for" it.

The point remains however, that Mac/PC browser+Silverlight version is the first and primary development target, and is the most common target for new features first.

Assuming Netflix is around for the long-haul, that fact may cease to be true eventually. (I'm sure they foresee the inevitable irrelevancy of the mainstream desktop OS just as well as anyone.) But it doesn't help us to debate "might bes" in this context, in a void of objective fact.

I tend to think that it was designed to be watched on TVs through devices

Again, we don't have to guess or "tend to think". The PC browser was the first and primary target, and remains so; that isn't my opinion. (See second section.)

But sure, we can project arbitrarily into the future. In the future, I'm sure Netflix would love to be part of your neural computing implant, streaming any show or movie on-demand, direct to your optic nerve or visual processing center (or maybe more conveniently - just drop it instantly into your short-term memory). Or closer to present-day, I'm sure they'd love to come standard on the firmware of all new TVs.

In either case, that doesn't mean that was what it was "designed for" (to use your terminology) at first, or now, or next week, or next year.

Did you notice how quickly they worked to roll out Netflix on game consoles?

It's no coincidence that Windows is the primary desktop target, and the XBox was the first gaming console.

But, game consoles were not the first targets. While this statement isn't a falsifiable assertion, what it *seems* to suggest is at worst false, or at best not necessarily true. (That consoles were first - and/or, are somehow easier ["quickly"].)

That's because it's a lot quicker to create software for devices that would support it, and it takes a little longer to get it into embedded stuff.

These so-[you]-called "embedded stuff" were the first non-PC/browser clients, not gaming consoles. There were two or three of them first out of the gate before the XBox 360.

1. "Embedded stuff", by number of devices, handily outnumber gaming console clients (which might be kind of obvious with a couple dozen clients as there are only so many game consoles).
2. Linux-like OSes are the most common underlying platform for non-game console devices. One (like me) could argue that Linux-ish devices are easier to develop for than the three highly specific and unique gaming consoles, as there would be a some chunk of code in common among the various Linux devices.

Had you been more specific in what you meant by "embedded stuff" (e.g. ruling out entertainment devices built on small-form general-purpose computing hardware and running tweaked Linux kernels), I might be inclined to agree with this assertion in principle. However, the state of the actual world (e.g. point #1) would still challenge that notion.

I can almost guarantee that Netflix streaming was designed to be watched on TVs through TV attached devices, and smart TVs, themselves.

I believe we've established that your "almost guarantee", plus 50 cents, will buy a pack of gum. (I don't find any perverse glee in that, BTW.)

I will say that it also comes in handy on my Android tablet while I'm walking on the treadmill.

On this subjective assertion, we agree! (Even though I don't have an Android tablet nor use a treadmill - though I have no objection to either.)


Peace.