Congress looking out for people rather than companies???
Fetch the smelling sauce!
Most of the companies doing this were small companies, so they amounted to little in the way of campaign donations.
Instead of adding a single extra second to the end of the day, we'll run the clocks 0.0014% slower across the ten hours before and ten hours after the leap second, and "smear" the extra second across these twenty hours.
I wonder why they're "smearing" the time over 20 hours rather than 24, which would seem the more obvious solution.
It's not even an issue of cost. A lot of content owners don't want Netflix to have a complete catalog. NBC/Universal/Comcast, for example, controls a lot of content and *also* services for distributing content. If you can get all of the Comcast content without paying for Comcast services, then Comcast loses a bunch of money. Comcast will, therefore, go out of its way to hobble Netflix and prevent it from having access to all of it's content.
This is true too. Just look at DirecTV Now that launched today. Has some locals (owned and operated only) but NBC, where available, is only available to stream live on mobile devices, not on TVs. Ridiculous restriction, and probably only exists because they are now owned by Comcast. Hell it's insane that DirecTV, which already has contracts with all these different content providers, has to renegotiate for rights to send the same content over the internet instead of satellite.
Why not? Look how well Google Books worked out.
Because those are totally the same. Want something more relevant, look what happened to Aereo.
The point on a mobile device is pretty dubious, actually. Who in the world would like to watch a move on the tiny little screen? I know that people these days think that's the way to watch, but really: it isn't.
I always bring my laptop on travel, so I'd watch movies on that, if they were available. But often the wifi you get at a hotel is pretty ratty.
People under 30. It's they way they want to watch stuff. I don't get it myself but I'm not going to tell someone they are watching TV wrong.
Also, what crappy hotels do you stay at that don't have TV in the rooms? Every hotel I've been in for the past few years has had a TV with HDMI in. I just either hook up my laptop or if it's a long trip I'll bring a Shield TV or Roku stick (both can navigate hotel WiFi logins). Laptop screens are too damn small.
Netflix still has to get permissions to distribute those discs.
No, actually they do not. Not in the US at least. Discs being physical items they can rent them as they see fit, as long as they are original media. Streaming, on the other hand, does require it. I mean, do you honestly think they have a bunch of DVDs setting around they also have the rights to stream without paying more and they just went "Nope!".
Ok, cool - you got any names for decent fibre suppliers in Togo ?
Increase the streaming catalog to include everything they have in their mailing only DVD catalog.
And you will be OK with paying $100 per month for the subscription then, right? It's not like that content is free. They can't just rip the DVDs they have and put it online for you to watch.
If it only lets you download in a format that only plays on their proprietary player, then it's not an improvement at all. Give users the ability to download actual video.
How is it not an improvement? You already have to use their player. There isn't a chance in hell of any studio (including the ones that actually make the "Netflix Originals") allowing unencrypted downloads that play outside the player so that will never happen. At least this way you can take the content offline, which you could not before. That is, by definition, an improvement.
Did Amazon just invent a tablet?
Sounds more like the tablet equivalent of an old fashioned console TV.
Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy