There are going to be people that blame Netflix for this, but it's really not their fault. They didn't even care if people used VPN's to access their service. Pressure from the content providers forced them to do this.
There are going to be people that continue to excuse netflix and believe it is all pressure from content providers.
News Flash for people that believe that, Netflix is a content provider now. They fully support DRM for their content, they are not being "pressured" by content providers to do this. They support anti-consumer policies like DRM, and are just like the MPAA in this regards
Stop allowing Netflix to hide behind their PR machine and blame 3rd parties for polices they fully support and endorse
No I do not believe for 1 second Neflix is being pressured by anyone to enact these draconian drm polices nor where they forced to support EME in HTML5.
Netflix is just another anti-consumer, anti-freedom corporation.
MPAA did not come in strong arm Netflix, Netflix is a willing and eager participant in the development and spread of DRM
> They are not being pressured
I'm sure they are; but they are becoming aggressive and they are no longer a cool upstart company battling against a big media monopoly that everyone hated. They are that monopoly now
They're behaving EXACTLY like all other DRM obsessed content providers.
Netflix employees used to help out users in Australia with VPN issues back before Netflix launched over here. It's all different now.
Edit: For the price I pay, I don't mind that too much though.
You write this in the past tense, but the DVD service is alive and (mostly) well. ("Mostly" because they are not replacing rarer DVDs as they go missing from their inventory.)
I presently subscribe to both services because I love older films.
For most, a large enough selection instantly is much better than a full selection w/ a 3 day lead time
Think of it like Netflix successfully became HBO faster than HBO could become them, so now they're expanding content to fit the new and old general demographics- the cable and youtube viewerships.
They're also big on data, so if they're making it, it's not because they think no one wants it. We share an account with my SO's sisters, and despite all watching about the same amount, it's amazing just how different (and accurate) the recommendations are for each of us.
Do their contracts with the content providers say "All your content, even content that doesn't come from us, must be provided with this much DRM"?
They however are not opposed to DRM like many people believe, they are Huge supporters and developers of DRM technology.
If you oppose DRM, Netflix is just as much an enemy as the MPAA is
But you have read the headline, haven't you? They only work with a google rootkit installed, now.
In particular, most users of Netflix on Android have a threat model that involves Google legitimately having the ability to push software updates to the phone that run as root. So "rootkit" is not a very useful term, any more than describing any Debian package maintainer script as a "random volunteer's rootkit" would be.
Suppose further that someone put forward the argument that it's not so bad, as at least there is no rootkit involved.
Then, yes, it would obviously be perfectly sensible to in that context call that Debian package a "random volunteer's rootkit".
Whether most users would like to have some other functionality provided by that same package is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, as is whether most users would install the package.
This happens to lots of people under the name of systemd. I think any definition of "rootkit" that includes involuntary installations of systemd is so broad that we cannot conclude anything from the term. (There are legitimate criticism of Debian requiring systemd, but they're basically entirely orthogonal from the criticisms of, say, the Sony BMG rootkit.)
So, let me ask - what in particular are you seeing as the "google rootkit," and how would you describe its negative behavior in words other than "it's a rootkit"?
Well, I am not all that well-versed in Android/Google components/APIs/whatever, so I can't really tell you what specific component that would be, but as I understand it, there is some mechanism provided by the platform that allows an app to check whether the owner is locked out from controlling their own device, right?
So, it's some component with high privileges that gives the power to control how you use your device to a party that's not you ... now, "rootkit" isn't really all that clearly defined, but I would say that that's clearly the core of what makes a rootkit a rootkit, don't you think?
A rootkit, traditionally, hides its existence from you and provides root access (i.e., code execution as root) for some outside attacker. Oxford defines it as "a set of software tools that enable an unauthorized user to gain control of a computer system without being detected;" Veracode defines it as "a clandestine computer program designed to provide continued privileged access to a computer while actively hiding its presence;" Wikipedia, citing McAfee, says that a it's "designed to enable access to a computer or areas of its software that would not otherwise be allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) and often masks its existence or the existence of other software." I think these two properties are the core of what makes a rootkit a rootkit (and also the core of what makes it bad).
This Google service neither attempts to hide its existence nor does it provide remote access / code execution to anyone.
The closest term I can think of for something that provides information to others is "spyware", but even that's a serious stretch. This utility is most similar to the function called by desktop software installers that check to see if you have enough disk space, so the installer can choose to abort based on the result. And I'd definitely not call that a "rootkit" or "spyware".
I mean, Windows doesn't even have a default privileged user named "root", does that mean that the Sony BMG rootkit was not a rootkit, because, traditionally, that's the name applied to stuff that gave access to the root account on a unixoid system? If all you cared about was etymological purity, you certainly could make that argument.
Now, what does "access to a computer" mean? What does "otherwise not allowed" mean? What does "remote access" mean? What does "code execution" mean? What does "hiding" mean?
Does the average user actually know that there is a component on their phone that reports to google whether they have tinkered with it? Is it advertised to them that that is the case? What would it take in your mind to qualify as "hiding"? And mind you, traditional, unixy, rootkits aren't necessarily undetectable either, not even on the running system.
Suppose there were some mandatory software installed on your phone that allowed some other party to control which telephone numbers you are allowed to call. Is that "remote access"? I mean, it's obviously giving someone remote control over what your phone will do, or refuse to do. What would it take in your mind to qualify as "remote access"? Would that necessarily require code execution? And if so, what does "code execution" actually mean? Is a javascript interpreter you can load code into (aka a web browser) "code execution"? Or is it not because it's in a sandbox? But then, what if the phone has a hypervisor, and the "rootkit" only gives you root access to the linux kernel running on top of that hypervisor ... that's also kindof a sandbox, so that doesn't qualify as a rootkit either? Or does it?
Suppose you were to ask people "do you want to have software installed on your phone that reports to third parties whether you have tinkered with your phone?" ... how many people do you think would say "yes"? If it's installed on the phones of people who would answer "no" to this question, wouldn't that qualify as "access [...] that would not otherwise be allowed"? How would you justify that as authorized use of the phone? Or would you?
What distinguishes spyware from rootkits is exactly that spyware just exfiltrates data, whily rootkits allow some sort of control of the system (but also, the distinction isn't always all that clear-cut).
Now, you might argue that google's component is just spyware (and you kindof did) ... but that's again missing the big picture, because the whole point of this spyware obviously is to control what the user can do with their device, even if part of that mechanism then is technically implemented by a third party and/or on a remote server.
> This utility is most similar to the function called by desktop software installers that check to see if you have enough disk space, so the installer can choose to abort based on the result.
That shows that you are completely missing the point: This is about power structures, not about technical implementation details. You might as well be arguing that a gun is most similar to a computer case, because they are both made from metal, in a discussion about whether someone holding a gun to your head is comparable to someone threatening to hit you with a baseball bat.
Edit: I just realized that cable companies sometimes have hostile notices about their dealings with certain stations. I'm guessing Netflix isn't quite in the same position of power though.
I think in this case they have worse odds though, Freedom or Lucky Patcher or some Xposed module will be up to the task if there is enough interest.