We have fragmentation everywhere. We have different versions and brands of browsers rendering websites, written in different languages, using different databases. We have people running Windows, Macs and Linux. We have multitude of variations of Linux OS.
Fragmentation is all around. Yet it all works.
Somehow when it comes to Android - it's the "go to response" when something doesn't work. It makes me feel like every article that uses "android fragmentation" isn't very well thought (or maybe was even paid for Android bashing).
IMO NetFlix wrote iPhone version earlier because a year ago it seemed like iPhone is going to be the only platform worth pursuing, not because of "Android fragmentation". They just started iPhone version much earlier.
I don't understand why they need OS support to build DRM into their app. Amazon has a Kindle reader for Android that handles their DRM'd books. Apple sold music on Windows for years with the DRM system built into their app rather than provided by the OS.
Consumers don't care about DRM. Consumers care whether they can enjoy their media anytime, anywhere.
Hollywood cares about DRM for the edge case of people who want to do something with media besides enjoy it anytime anywhere, such as give it away.
DECE and PIFF are approaching an interoperable spec; the AES based methods used by Microsoft and Apple now vary only slightly. When consumers stop noticing DRM preventing them from legitimate use cases, it will be here to stay.
you think consumers won't consider being able to pass on the film/book they just enjoyed (the way they would a physical dvd/book, etc.) a "legitimate use case"?
A well architected DRM could support lending and even support an aftermarket for used "media".
However, it seems more likely Hollywood will eventually decide they're not selling media, but "entertainment experiences", and will try to train consumers to pay for the experience. Hollywood would like that, since one can't conveniently resell a used experience.
Remember that Netflix's CEO, Reed Hastings, is on the board of MSFT. This is the same reason used why Netflix for linux isn't available (it uses Silverlight and the linux version doesn't effectively support DRM). The cynic in me would love to think that this jab at Android isn't just a strategic move to help Windows Phone in it's fragile fledgling state. However, my understanding is that Netflix's hands are tied on the issue of DRM, if they don't support it, the content owners won't let them stream, much like iTunes was for music in the early days.
Netflix on Linux via Mono MoonLight would only be possible if Microsoft were willing to license PlayReady DRM for it. There are over 8500 signatures on a petition to NetFlix to put pressure on Microsoft allow this. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
"Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won’t."
3rd to last sentence of the second paragraph. Even if they didn't use the specific word, it's clear from the issues that they are due to fragmentation.
Not sure what you're talking about, honestly. The comment I was responding to, which is now dead, claimed abruptly that the original blog post never used the word 'fragmentation' and hence the linked to site was sensationalizing the problem.
Did the author or this article even read netflix's statement? There was no "lamentation" of the fragmentation of the Android market. Because Android doesn't enforce a DRM model on every android handset Netflix is going to be working with individual manufacturers to try to bring DRM to as many phones as possible.
When I read "Netflix on Android" it seemed more like an apology to me. Netflix was saying we're sorry that we're going to fragment the market and confuse people, but this is the only way. They mentioned nothing about any fragmentation that already exists.
Off the top of my head, I would say open source and DRM are mutually exclusive. Since a movie has to be decrypted on the client, the key can never be kept secret.
I don't think that's the same problem. In an ssh session, you decrypt the data that is sent to you on your end, so you know the key it has been encrypted with (it is your public key after all).
This article seems off to me. It seems like perhaps the author has reversed the fragmentation issue:
Quote:
"Peters wrote that the fragmentation will also lead to slower rollout across the devices than Netflix would have liked:
“Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won’t.""
Doesn't the above say that lack of generalized DRM (a feature that doesn't exist in Android at all) will lead to fragmentation, not fragmentation will lead to more fragmentation?
I understand that some devices will have netflix and some won't, but isn't this more because Google decided against providing a system for DRM and less about there being different types of devices on the market?
I mean they play on my standalone DVD player, if for some weird reason I wanted to record it, I could record the analog output to my VCR but it's not HD so why bother?
So on Android devices just do 640x480 max and if you want HD, rent the bluray?
Fragmentation is all around. Yet it all works.
Somehow when it comes to Android - it's the "go to response" when something doesn't work. It makes me feel like every article that uses "android fragmentation" isn't very well thought (or maybe was even paid for Android bashing).
IMO NetFlix wrote iPhone version earlier because a year ago it seemed like iPhone is going to be the only platform worth pursuing, not because of "Android fragmentation". They just started iPhone version much earlier.