Variety: "Netflix VP of original programming Eric Besner revealed on Friday some of the online rental service's thinking on the movie download biz, saying Netflix is planning to introduce a proprietary set-top box with an Internet connection that can download movies overnight." Besner was also to have said that "...the set-top box is just one of the Internet plans Netflix is working on."
However, a Netflix spokesperson said that Besner "was was quoted out of context."
A set-top box makes a lot of sense since very few people want to watch movies on a computer (a 17" screen can't compare to a 50" HDTV). It'll be interesting to see how Netflix charges for the download service, or if it will be included in the monthly subscription fee. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has said that they will announce plans for the download service by the end of 2006.
We've been waiting a long time since we first got a glimpse of the Netflix Player last July, which appears to be a login screen for a set-top box ("Name your box").

Can it please be a tivo box with a dvd player? I don't know if the mrs will allow another component.
Posted by: noe638 | June 19, 2006 at 09:02 AM
This could be the killer app that takes media to the next evolution. On-Demand PPV stations are starting to do it but the choices are limited to what's popular at the time, it's nothing like it could be having Netflix's entire library ready to watch. DVDs (and all other physical media) will eventually become secondary to digital distribution, just imagine every movie ever made available instantly (well, instantly with respect to bandwidth speeds), from your couch at all times. It will be amazing, possibly even overwhelming.
The thing I wonder about is how they would deal with movies that are typically "Long Wait" movies. Would they let anyone who wanted to see the movie download it or would there be a waiting list just like there is with the DVD system for popular / rare movies?
You'd think that since it's all digital anyone who wanted to see the movie would be able to see it but I wonder if the MPAA would allow that.. they might make Netflix order 15,000 licenses for a movie if 15,000 people wanted to see it at the same time.
Posted by: Lord Jezo | June 19, 2006 at 09:42 AM
I have a hard time, with today's bandwidth constraints, seeing how this On-Demand service could work from Netflix. That is, if they are going over your internet connection. If they could strike up some deal to "piggy back" on the signal of your existing TV carrier, they could offer the PPV where it is truly ,On-Demand.
Posted by: Petri | June 19, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Sounds like it could be similar to MovieBeam (www.moviebeam.com). Interesting idea, but I don't know if I want yet another device in my entertainment center.
Posted by: cmmsml | June 19, 2006 at 02:26 PM
This service (when and if it evers comes to be) is going to be based on an entirely different license mechanims than buying physical DVDs. I would expect that Netflix will pay some fixed amount to the studios for each rental, hence there is no good reason why you should ever have to wait.
As for where the bandwidth will come from, that's really the key question isn't it?
Posted by: Hunter McDaniel | June 19, 2006 at 03:06 PM
with hd and blu ray commming out this would totally be a great alternative to buying both (at like at least $300 a pop) if a netflix player perhaps played those both and allowed you to download the movie (in a days time as per normal movie recieving times)... this would be something to totally stomp on any and all competition
Posted by: xg0killy0urselfx | June 19, 2006 at 03:20 PM
> As for where the bandwidth will come from, that's really the key question isn't it?
It's only one of the key questions, and I would argue a minor one. The other more durable problems are:
1) Why the studios would sell you a rental for 3$ (profit to them), when you'll buy a DVD for 17$ (profit to them) and then only watch it once or twice.
2) Why consumers would pay 5$ for a rental, when they can pay less than 3$ from Netflix.
3) Whose gonna pay for a 100$-300$ box to get downloaded movies to your TV when you can rent movies for under 3$ from Netflix.
Now clearly there are certain customers that these arguments don't apply to, but the mainstream family is not that person.
Posted by: Aron | June 19, 2006 at 05:09 PM
Aron-
Other than kiddie movies, I don't understand why so many people buy DVDs today. If I want to see somthing again I'll just have Netflix send it too me again. I'm paying them to "store" my collection for me.
I also don't understand why people pay $75 a month for cable just to improve their odds of finding something they might want to watch. Netflix gives me a 100% hit rate of stuff I want to watch (or think I do) for $18 a month.
Nonethless, both DVD sales and cable are huge businesses that dwarf Netflix, so clearly they are meeting a demand. I think that's what NF hopes to tap into.
Posted by: Hunter McDaniel | June 19, 2006 at 05:46 PM
seems weird that it downloads movies overnight, I guess it'll take a while with thousands downloading. but if you are going to wait overnight just have them mail it to you.
but I have no interest in downloading movies at all. getting dvds in the mail the next day is quick enough for me. It's not instant but I don't have to think that far ahead
Posted by: Super-Bat-Man | June 19, 2006 at 06:19 PM
I also don't understand why people pay $75 a month for cable just to improve their odds of finding something they might want to watch. Netflix gives me a 100% hit rate of stuff I want to watch (or think I do) for $18 a month.
____________
for those of us who watch sports and news, you can't quite get that on netflix in a timely manner. There are here and now entertainments.
Posted by: corey3rd | June 19, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Everyone to their own tastes, but I find news on TV to be just about useless - very little information content and mostly designed to get me stirred up; I don't need that. I can get more real information from 15 minutes on the Internet than a whole day of watching CNN or FNC. As for Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, Natalee Holloway - I just don't care. If something truly important like 9/11 happens, the networks will cover it.
Sports is another matter, and something that NF can never offer. But for me the added value of ESPN over what I get from the broadcast channels just isn't enough to make the whole cable package worth it.
Posted by: Hunter McDaniel | June 19, 2006 at 07:21 PM
"Other than kiddie movies, I don't understand why so many people buy DVDs today. If I want to see somthing again I'll just have Netflix send it too me again."
Movies have a very bad habit of going out of print just when you want to rent them. Also, Netflix makes no attempt to keep copies once they are out of print. So it's not very wise way to rely on Netflix - a company with *NO* commitment to films once the studios abandon them. Try finding Last Days of Disco, Cook Thief Wife Lover, Thursday, Apartment Zero, etc. Even popular movies like Brazil and the James Bond series go MIA from time to time. That's not a reliable storage medium, IMO.
Posted by: NetflixShill | June 19, 2006 at 09:02 PM
"I also don't understand why people pay $75 a month for cable just to improve their odds of finding something they might want to watch. Netflix gives me a 100% hit rate"
While I agree that cable and satellite are a rip-off, lots of movies on TV aren't on DVD. So you can't say that Netflix has a 100% hit rate, unless your tastes are very limited. I have found dozens of movies Netflix does not have, many of which Blockbuster does. Santa Claus: Movie, 1984, Backdraft, Barfly, Blue Collar, Cleopatra (1963), Conan Barbarian, Cosmos - Carl Sagan, Pal Joey, Emmanuelle, Mummy Returns WS, Notorious: Criterion Col, Stalker by Tarkovsky, etc.
I don't pay for TV, because it's overpriced and most of the content is pan & scan, with annoying station ID logos every 15 minutes, edited from the director's cut and repeated constantly. The movie channels show at most 300 unique titles a month. They're like the radio. They play the hits to death and bury anything that doesn't have a big following.
Posted by: NetflixShill | June 19, 2006 at 09:16 PM
"for those of us who watch sports and news, you can't quite get that on netflix in a timely manner. There are here and now entertainments."
Sports are for the mindless. You can read a newspaper or go online for news and get more in-depth coverage. You can listen to radio. Why pay cable and sat companies 3-6x as much as online services? They're greedy and their services deserve to fail. $3-5 for PPV. LOL!
Posted by: NetflixShill | June 19, 2006 at 09:20 PM
"A set-top box makes a lot of sense since very few people want to watch movies on a computer"
I mostly watch DVDs on computer, because the video and sound is vastly superior to any TV I've tried - and I've tested $1500+ Sony and Samsung TVs. The black levels all suck, when compared to a 19" LCD monitor. My headphones have a frequency response from 5-30kHz. With speakers, you'd be lucky to get 20-20k, with massive distortion at the extremes.
Also, my computer screen doesn't cut off the sides, like TVs do. You don't have to switch the display mode constantly, since computers automatically adjust to 4x3 or 16x9 based on content. I heard that some HDMI and DVI sets are immune to over-scan (cutting the edges), but haven't confirmed it yet. They may also fix the constant hassle changing the display mode to stretch, zoom, full, etc. but I have yet to see a demonstration of this...
Posted by: NetflixShill | June 19, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Sports are for the mindless. You can read a newspaper or go online for news and get more in-depth coverage. You can listen to radio.
_____________________
if you don't like sports, that's all fine and beautiful. But don't act like a moron telling me that watch the Stanley Cup Finals on OLN was not as good as merely listening to the radio. I don't want to be told what's happening. I want to see it.
Movies are a waste of time in that case. Why do you need to watch the whole film when you can read the summary in Maltin and get the whole idea of what you'd waste your time on? Why watch a TV series when you can just read the summaries on tv.com to know every episode? Why go to your sister's wedding when you can just look at a couple snapshots a few years later?
You must be so cool to hang out with. A night of tap water and crackers at TGIFridays!
Posted by: corey3rd | June 20, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Netflix shill:
I'm curious. How may times have you watched "The Last Days of Disco?"
Posted by: wvmcl | June 21, 2006 at 01:58 PM
"I mostly watch DVDs on computer, because the video and sound is vastly superior to any TV I've tried - and I've tested $1500+ Sony and Samsung TVs. The black levels all suck, when compared to a 19" LCD monitor. My headphones have a frequency response from 5-30kHz. With speakers, you'd be lucky to get 20-20k, with massive distortion at the extremes.
Also, my computer screen doesn't cut off the sides, like TVs do. You don't have to switch the display mode constantly, since computers automatically adjust to 4x3 or 16x9 based on content. I heard that some HDMI and DVI sets are immune to over-scan (cutting the edges), but haven't confirmed it yet. They may also fix the constant hassle changing the display mode to stretch, zoom, full, etc. but I have yet to see a demonstration of this..."
Wow, I'd hate to have a movie night at your house.
If black levels are that important to you that you can't find a good LCD TV to match your computer monitor then buy a plasma.
And I'd say that you're in the minority that would rather watch a movie in headphones rather than a good surround sound with a quality subwoofer. Music is one thing, but movies are much more enjoyable on a full system.
You don't have to switch display modes constantly on a TV anymore than you would on a computer. Leave your TV on full and let the source decide how it will handle it. If you're watching a widescreen movie and it will fill it up, if it's a 4:3 TV show DVD then it will have bars on the sides. Just like your special 19" computer monitor.
Posted by: Hoot | February 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Netflix's recent move to provide "unlimited" would have been the coolest thing ever---if it weren't a lie and a rip off.
That's right. After you watch your 17 hours of seamless streaming movies, it starts crashing your browser for you. So some folks are not actually GETTING the unlimited hours. Officially, they're on unlimited, technically however, Netflix prevents it.
This is a classic bait and switch. I have tracked this since the unlimited thing BEGAN.
Consistently, and every month, after 17 hrs of watching seamlessly... it won't allow any more watching and crashes browsers to prevent users from the promised "Unlimited".
People should be outraged. Netflix was fine before this, after this, I can't trust them anymore.
Posted by: Amy | March 19, 2008 at 06:27 PM