Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

macworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#61

Post by nharada »

logicallee wrote: post #48

A commenter, richcon, on the linked story makes a good point: " The open source HEVC software decoder requires a four-core Intel Core i7 running at 2.3 Ghz to play 30p 4k video, and I'd guess it'd be running so hot you could fry an egg on it. The Retina iMac only has an i7 chip in the maxed-out upgrade configuration. So maybe it is about the hardware performance. If Amazon paid for it they could license a commercial…

Yeah, reading this article my first thought was that it probably wasn't entirely malevolence. Not that I agree with the way video content providers run their businesses, but I suspect that running 4K video in the browser would chug the average user's machine. My 3 year old laptop works pretty hard just to display HD.

If I was Netflix I wouldn't want to release 4K if it meant only a small segment of customers would get a good experience. Releasing a disclaimer that the user requires adequate hardware won't satisfy the majority of computer users who don't know or care about the specs required. Most people just want it to work.

I also take issue with the line, "Anyone who knows technology knows the computational and image-processing capabilities of even an average PC or Mac far outstrip those of a streaming box." Dedicated hardware can outperform a general computer while requiring less "processing power" (measured in FLOPS or GHz or whatever). The Chromecast has a dual-core CPU and 512 MB of RAM and it runs HD video perfectly.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#62

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

joshstrange wrote: post #16
scott_s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people flock to torrents? No one I know does. They all watch content on their tv, obtained through a legit streaming service or a cable subscription. Personally, I don't feel right grabbing torrents, but I also don't want the hassle. I think that legit digital delivery for music and video has, for the most part, crossed the threshold where it's just easier than the alternatives.

> Do people flock to torrents? No one I know does. I know quite a few people who use torrents (or usenet) as their primary source of TV. Combining Plex + Sabnzbd + Sickbeard you get a internet DVR with little to no maintenance once setup (other than adding more capacity as/if needed). They all have a hulu-like (next day) experience, they get it in HD, and there are no ads. Legit delivery for music has crossed the thr…

> I know quite a few people who use torrents

Selection bias.

You and the people you know still represent a vanishingly small fragment of the population.

"People" don't flock to torrents, only tech savvy pirates do.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#63

Post by MacsHeadroom »

balls187 wrote: post #45
redblacktree wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but this is the edge case. I applaud GP for doing the right thing in the 95% case.

It's not really an edge case, is it? Does a netflix subscription give you rights to torrent movies that exist on Netflix? If so, what happens when they no longer exist. Does the parent commenter check Netflix first before downloading a torrent? I'm not passing judgement, but merely pointing out that a netflix subscription doesn't grant you the license to download and store content, in fact, it's likely expressly forb…

>Does a netflix subscription give you rights to torrent movies that exist on Netflix?

When did anything remove my right to copy data freely anyway? Copyright is an illegitimate joke.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#64

Post by TodPunk »

I worked for a company that had a media encoding lab approved by 5 of the major Hollywood studios, and I can assure you, this is purely studios not approving PCs and not allowing Amazon or Netflix to talk about it. Good lord do studios hate technology if they don't feel they control it completely. I invented two studio approved DRM schemes for embedded devices and you can be quite a bit simpler with DRM if you control the whole thing. If you want to cover PCs, you have to use more extensive DRM, usually 'off-the-shelf' as we call it, and you don't get more attractive content for that market. For instance, in airlines, you can get pre-DVD release movies for approved systems, but you can't for personal devices (even mobile devices).

To the people talking about torrenting it instead, that's again the entire point. It limits access to those able to torrent, but still enables studios to control a significant part of the market that can't or won't torrent. It really is all a control game.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#65

Post by Raphael »

logicallee wrote: post #48

A commenter, richcon, on the linked story makes a good point: " The open source HEVC software decoder requires a four-core Intel Core i7 running at 2.3 Ghz to play 30p 4k video, and I'd guess it'd be running so hot you could fry an egg on it. The Retina iMac only has an i7 chip in the maxed-out upgrade configuration. So maybe it is about the hardware performance. If Amazon paid for it they could license a commercial…

Perhaps GPUs would fare better.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#66

Post by [deleted] »

scott_s wrote: post #12
themartorana wrote: post #5

But if I grab a torrent to the 4K version of the movie, I can play it on my computer. Do people still legitimately wonder why so many people flock to torrents? Hollywood (and by extension, other large content producers) have the most sincere form of Ostrich Syndrome[0] that I know of. [0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Ostrich...

Do people flock to torrents? No one I know does. They all watch content on their tv, obtained through a legit streaming service or a cable subscription. Personally, I don't feel right grabbing torrents, but I also don't want the hassle. I think that legit digital delivery for music and video has, for the most part, crossed the threshold where it's just easier than the alternatives.

[deleted]

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#67

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

tl;dr In order to get the content in the first place, we had to sign contract that said we wouldn't distribute it to a PC, and that we wouldn't tell anyone the real reason.

Why Netflix or Amazon would tolerate that is another question. I'm not convinced they need to.

But, I'm not the right one to ask anyway because I can't get that kind of internet access from my cable company, and therefore not going to watch any 4k anything for a few years, I'd bet.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#68

Post by toomuchtodo »

nemothekid wrote: post #41
joshstrange wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember before Netflix and Amazon when it was: DVD or Torrent and this image came out: http://craphound.com/images/ifurapirate.jpeg That was about stuffing promo's and ads in before the movie but this feels very similar. You can get a better experience by getting a torrent over streaming legally. I pay for Amazon and Netflix but I will still download content from time to time that I can get on them (for no additio…

>I would be all over Hulu expect I refuse to pay for a service AND see ads. I would rather pay $20/mo and not see ads then pay the $10/mo and see them. Almost as bad as having to see ads in the first place the ads on Hulu are painfully repetitive at times. You are going to have to make a better offer to the studios that are currently charging customers $80/mo AND forcing them to see ads. Hollywood would have to slim…

> Hollywood would have to slim down significantly if it was going to go Netflix-model primary on all its content.

Similar to the contraction the music industry is going through because music isn't as valuable when there is so much more of it to listen to (ie Taylor Swift vs Spotify)?

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#69

Post by yuriks »

driverdan wrote: post #36
scott_s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people flock to torrents? No one I know does. They all watch content on their tv, obtained through a legit streaming service or a cable subscription. Personally, I don't feel right grabbing torrents, but I also don't want the hassle. I think that legit digital delivery for music and video has, for the most part, crossed the threshold where it's just easier than the alternatives.

> Do people flock to torrents? No one I know does. Who do you know? I estimate 80-90% of the people I know who are technical download "pirated" movies via torrents or usenet. Most also use paid services like Netflix and Amazon Prime but the content on those networks sucks.

My mother gets all her TV from TPB and she's really not technically skilled at all. When it went down this week she asked me for an alternate place to download from.

Re: Why you can't get 4K Netflix and Amazon

#70

Post by meesterdude »

nemothekid wrote: post #41
joshstrange wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember before Netflix and Amazon when it was: DVD or Torrent and this image came out: http://craphound.com/images/ifurapirate.jpeg That was about stuffing promo's and ads in before the movie but this feels very similar. You can get a better experience by getting a torrent over streaming legally. I pay for Amazon and Netflix but I will still download content from time to time that I can get on them (for no additio…

>I would be all over Hulu expect I refuse to pay for a service AND see ads. I would rather pay $20/mo and not see ads then pay the $10/mo and see them. Almost as bad as having to see ads in the first place the ads on Hulu are painfully repetitive at times. You are going to have to make a better offer to the studios that are currently charging customers $80/mo AND forcing them to see ads. Hollywood would have to slim…

I'd argue "hollywood" and media companies are significantly bloated as is, and slimming down would only be in consumers best interests. They have so much money they don't know what to do with it all.

They charge $80/mo (sometimes much more) and show ads because they can get away with it And we let them. There are also other old economics (like paying for channels you'll never watch) at play that are no longer applicable with the internet.

The netflix model is tricky. On the one hand, it's a constant stream of income. On the other, there is ever increasing licensing fees and questionable return on investment when they produce a new show. I don't know that it's an ideal model, in those regards.

I think (or hope) that what will win out is the ability to vote with your wallet. I watch some shows, and I want the shows I watch to do well and stay on the air. Equally, i don't give a crap about the shows I don't watch. But I think a barrier to that will be the price tag they attach, which will likely not be anything reasonable.

And this circles back to the topic of hollywood: a few companies in control of the majority of the market, inflating prices to line their pockets. But the internet levels some of the playing field, so an independent could come along with little more than a youtube channel and compelling content and bypass all their nonsense. And I think that will be the best thing: competition.

Post reply on HN