Most active commenters
  • TuringNYC(7)
  • deelowe(4)
  • Suppafly(3)
  • jampekka(3)
  • hedora(3)

←back to thread

641 points shortformblog | 59 comments | | HN request time: 0.048s | source | bottom
Show context
lxgr ◴[] No.42950057[source]
Old movies have been available on various "free ad-supported streaming television" for a while now, so I'm actually more surprised it took copyright holders that long to realize that Youtube also shows ads and doesn't require people to install some wonky app that might or might not be available for their platform.

Of course, region-specific copyright deals are incredibly complex etc. etc., so I could imagine it was just a matter of waiting out until the last person putting up a veto retired or moved on to other things.

replies(12): >>42950694 #>>42950872 #>>42950880 #>>42951141 #>>42951145 #>>42951447 #>>42951871 #>>42952649 #>>42956486 #>>42956621 #>>42960083 #>>42962040 #
SteveNuts ◴[] No.42950694[source]
I assume that bandwidth is by far the biggest cost for running your own streaming service, so letting Google take that hit makes a lot of sense.
replies(12): >>42950809 #>>42950826 #>>42950879 #>>42951020 #>>42951166 #>>42952128 #>>42953063 #>>42953304 #>>42954303 #>>42957205 #>>42964930 #>>42965743 #
TuringNYC ◴[] No.42953063[source]
>> I assume that bandwidth is by far the biggest cost for running your own streaming service, so letting Google take that hit makes a lot of sense.

Judging from the clunky, buggy, nonsensical experiences on 2nd tier streaming services (i.e., everything except Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Disney+, Max), I'd say the biggest cost is probably hiring a decent Engineering+Product+Test team. There are complexities here, like making these things work on different TV brands, versions, older models, etc.

Pushing all the complexity to YT seems like a total no-brainer.

replies(9): >>42953291 #>>42953557 #>>42958927 #>>42959986 #>>42961969 #>>42965417 #>>42965563 #>>42965935 #>>42970104 #
1. jmholla ◴[] No.42953291[source]
> Judging from the clunky, buggy, nonsensical experiences on 2nd tier streaming services (i.e., everything except Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Disney+, Max)

With the exception of Netflix, these other companies' apps are similarly buggy and painful to use. I run into an at least issue daily (usually multiple times a day) in every streaming app I use except Netflix.

replies(9): >>42953384 #>>42953820 #>>42954635 #>>42955062 #>>42955100 #>>42957232 #>>42960229 #>>42960682 #>>42961988 #
2. Suppafly ◴[] No.42953384[source]
>With the exception of Netflix, these other companies' apps are similarly buggy and painful to use.

Yeah it's really annoying that they all recreated the wheel instead of just playing ball with netflix or paying netflix to license their technology. The only feature I miss from another service is that x-ray view stuff that Amazon has to let you know who is in a scene.

replies(1): >>42954592 #
3. deelowe ◴[] No.42953820[source]
I LOATHE peacock. I don't know what checks they do at the start of the stream, but they always peg me at 720p or lower resolution despite having over 300mb. Its not an issue on any other streaming app and they give you no option to set it manually. Streams look like a dog's breakfast on my 4k TVs.
replies(7): >>42954023 #>>42954447 #>>42954508 #>>42955207 #>>42957187 #>>42958394 #>>42967189 #
4. palmotea ◴[] No.42954023[source]
I wonder if that's more an issue with them than you. I subscribed to peacock for one month during the Olympics, and it was terrible. Streams frequently were stuck at something super-low 320p, or just halted to that stupid sad cat error page.

Cutesy error pages are cute exactly once, then they're even worse than a minimally viable error page.

5. znpy ◴[] No.42954447[source]
Maybe the issue is on their side. Their best outcome is you paying for 4k hdr and streaming 720p. Bandwidth is expensive and slow to provision.
replies(2): >>42955122 #>>42955947 #
6. bb88 ◴[] No.42954508[source]
Are you behind a CG-NAT? Not all companies have caught up to the fact that one IP is used by multiple customers now.

Things like throttling by IP Address which used to be a viable option is not effective anymore.

replies(1): >>42957899 #
7. sfilmeyer ◴[] No.42954592[source]
>or paying netflix to license their technology

Does Netflix license their technology to anyone? I know of examples like BAMTech, although I don't even know if they still take on outside clients or just do Disney now. I get that their might be good options to license and that fewer companies should build crappy in-house products, but is Netflix one of them?

From Netflix's perspective, it's not clear to me that the payment for licensing technology to e.g. NBC is worth it, versus hoping that they end up with an inferior product, especially when they're competing with each other for customers and licensed content.

replies(3): >>42955025 #>>42955089 #>>42956194 #
8. jampekka ◴[] No.42954635[source]
Gotta love how streaming torrents through shady debrid and indexing services with Stremio is a smoother experience than what these megacorporations with massive budgets manage to scrape together.
replies(1): >>42962205 #
9. Yizahi ◴[] No.42955025{3}[source]
I don't know about Netflix specifically, but some companies do sell all-in-one package solution to create your own kinda Neflix on prem. Don't know how great these solutions are, but I imagine with sufficient budget they should work ok.
10. cs-78 ◴[] No.42955062[source]
YouTube painful to use compared to Netflix ? Last week I noticed my video froze on netflix while audio moved ahead.
11. Suppafly ◴[] No.42955089{3}[source]
I don't know if they license it specifically, or if anyone has even approached them about it. I do think it's ridiculous that all of these companies are making their own solutions that are all terrible.

What they really should do is license their content to netflix for a fair price and just let netflix be the service people use.

replies(1): >>42955606 #
12. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42955100[source]
>> With the exception of Netflix, these other companies' apps are similarly buggy and painful to use.

I agree -- if I could separate these out into 3 categories rather than 2, Netflix/YT would be in a class of their own, way ahead of the pack.

I am constantly surprised how Apple TV offers such a poor experience despite their excellence in Product Management in other product areas. I was watching Apple TV last night and my wife and I slogged thru the recap and intro because we were so afraid of the app chocking on the "Skip" button.

Aside from Apple, which seems to be a Product Management issue, I find other platforms to bucket into two areas:

1. Poor performance, probably due to bad threading and poor cacheing

2. Incompatibility with older TVs. TVs last 8-10yrs easily these days, and features have topped off so people do not upgrade. This means you have a LOT of target builds and compatibility to check and I dont think they test all the possible builds.

replies(1): >>42957466 #
13. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42955122{3}[source]
> Bandwidth is expensive and slow to provision.

Not enough to hurt a paid service. Let's say 6Mbps for pretty solid 1080p. And at peak maybe we have .5 streams per account going simultaneously (I bet the real number is significantly lower). So we need 3Mbps per account. How much does a Mbps cost? "Across key cities in the U.S. and Europe, 400 GigE prices range from $0.07 to $0.08 per Mbps."

Peacock doesn't even offer 4K most of the time or on the olympics, but for services that do a $1 upcharge should be more than enough to cover the bandwidth difference.

replies(2): >>42957892 #>>42958189 #
14. recursive ◴[] No.42955207[source]
Could be a DRM thing. You might not have a trusted display/decoding device, so it gives you the low res.
replies(2): >>42957225 #>>42957883 #
15. Mindwipe ◴[] No.42955606{4}[source]
Why do you think Netflix wants to buy it?

There is no point buying everything as a streaming provider. It doesn't get you more customers and it costs money.

Heck, Apple will not even let you put up anything on the iTunes store to purchase - they have to be very confident it will recoup their costs for encoding, ingest time etc etc.

replies(2): >>42956805 #>>42966919 #
16. lostlogin ◴[] No.42955947{3}[source]
I laughed.

Netflix 4K is some bs in my experience. A 4K file of the same show, pirated, is vastly better quality. Whatever they do to it is just vandalism.

replies(2): >>42957206 #>>42957744 #
17. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42956194{3}[source]
>> From Netflix's perspective, it's not clear to me that the payment for licensing technology to e.g. NBC is worth it, versus hoping that they end up with an inferior product, especially when they're competing with each other for customers and licensed content.

Apple and Amazon Prime and Youtube seem to enable other services via their platforms, presumably for a cut. If the cut is large enough, seems like a good business move for Netflix also -- let the content owners focus on their business rather than some random broadcasting company trying to hire AWS infrastructure engineers and 3rd party platform testing experts.

18. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42956805{5}[source]
>> There is no point buying everything as a streaming provider. It doesn't get you more customers and it costs money.

The way Amazon prime does it is much like a traditional cable provider -- you can opt into channels (e.g., Hallmark channel) for additional fees per month. Everything purchased appears on Amazon as a universal bucket of content, same UI same everything. Amazon appears to handle the tech and billing. As a consumer, it is beautiful -- you can subscribe and unsubscribe from services monthly, rather than waiting for some once-every-3-yrs renewal contract. You can do everything online rather than waiting an hour for customer service. And thank heavens you dont need to install some random half-baked streaming "App" via the Samsung TV App store.

I'm assuming Amazon takes a cut of the monthly fee. If the MRR of the monthly cut Amazon gets is higher than the cost to deliver, it is a first order win. I assume the marginal engineering work is trivial. I also assume the only marginal costs are the extra metered cost of bandwidth, storage, etc.

I do think there is an issue though -- if the cost of the bundler (Amazon in this case) gets too high, I can see consumers scared off by this ever-increasing bill (Imagine you had a $50/mo netflix bill for example.) Of course, for Amazon this isnt a problem since practically every human I know has a load of random Amazon Marketplace charges on their credit card already they cannot reconcile anyway.

19. boopdewoop ◴[] No.42957187[source]
Its just them being cheap. They probably set every one to a max of 720p, hope most people do not realise (cutting down bandwidth costs) and let them set max quality themselves.
replies(2): >>42957218 #>>42965987 #
20. throwaway287391 ◴[] No.42957206{4}[source]
IME Netflix is a close 2nd best after Apple, which I don't think I can distinguish from a 4K BluRay. I've found that the quality depends on the platform a little -- for Netflix the native LG app seems to look best on my LG TV, while Apple looks best on the Apple TV app (perhaps unsurprisingly).

Amazon Prime 4K HDR on the other hand looks like garbage on every platform I've used -- the compression is unbearable in any dark scene.

replies(1): >>42965449 #
21. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42957218{3}[source]
They just need to look at their stock price vs NFLX to realize that people do indeed realize the difference across the stack.
replies(1): >>42964566 #
22. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42957225{3}[source]
>Could be a DRM thing. You might not have a trusted display/decoding device, so it gives you the low res.

True, but that is why this is a hard engineering challenge -- there are a lot of variations on client-side devices which need to be supported well. Upgrade cycles for TVs is 3x that of phones, is my guess.

replies(2): >>42960640 #>>42962653 #
23. eru ◴[] No.42957232[source]
I have about the same number of issues with Netflix as with Youtube (with Youtube being perhaps slightly better).

I agree that eg Disney+ is a bit rougher around the edges.

24. KerrAvon ◴[] No.42957466[source]
What device are you using? I use Apple TVs, and Apple TV+ is consistently extremely high quality streaming for me. YouTube is incredibly painful to use because their tvOS UI is garbage. Quality's OK, though.
replies(1): >>42958070 #
25. lfam ◴[] No.42957744{4}[source]
4K doesn't really say anything about image quality, just the resolution of the picture, which tells you the theoretical maximum level of visual detail.

Focusing on resolution is like asking "how strong is one meter of rope" without talking about the composition of the rope.

With streaming video, image quality ultimately comes down to the codec and the bitrate. They probably use a relatively low bitrate regardless of codec.

replies(1): >>42963328 #
26. deelowe ◴[] No.42957883{3}[source]
Its not that. I'm on a lg c2 with a modern Chromecast (or whatever name Google is calling it now) plugged in. Its all new stuff.
27. deelowe ◴[] No.42957892{4}[source]
I'd be happy with 1080p.
28. deelowe ◴[] No.42957899{3}[source]
Don't think so. Does cgnat use private IP space? I'm not familiar with how it works.
replies(1): >>42958244 #
29. TuringNYC ◴[] No.42958070{3}[source]
I'm using an Apple TV (device) to stream Apple TV (the streaming service.) Streaming quality is great, so agree on that. It is the bugginess of the app.

For example, with the Apple TV native remote, the silly touchpad is super clunky, painfully lacking the exponential fast forwarding i'm so used to with better services. The experience with the Samsung remote is very buggy. For example, when the "Dismiss" or "Skip" button shows up, the focus isnt the button, so you press it and the show stops and goes back to the main screen.

The buttons dont properly highlight when scrolling, the difference is so subtle it is hard to know what you are selecting (or not)

With the remote, it is easy to over or underscroll because of the sensitivity of the touchpad.

replies(3): >>42958293 #>>42965961 #>>42966592 #
30. dylan604 ◴[] No.42958189{4}[source]
Who does 6Mbps for 1080p? I thought HD topped out at 3Mbps, and 4K was around the 6+Mbps
replies(1): >>42958337 #
31. bb88 ◴[] No.42958244{4}[source]
Sorta. It's like NAT except it's at your carrier. Multiple customers share the same IP.

If an attack or abuse comes from a CG-NAT address they have to throttle the IP and all the customers behind it.

replies(1): >>42964104 #
32. thawkth ◴[] No.42958293{4}[source]
Honestly I turned the touchpad off within a few minutes of getting my Apple TV

When I got my second I decided to try again and that lasted all of five minutes.

I love my Apple TV otherwise (well after that and making the home button a home button instead of an Apple TV+ button!)

replies(2): >>42965459 #>>42968835 #
33. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42958337{5}[source]
Twitch is typically 6Mbps+ and 1080p, though with more time to encode you can get the same quality out of fewer bits. Netflix can go up to about 20Mbps for 4K if my searches can be believed, but I didn't test it myself. When I've grabbed videos off Nebula they're a lot bigger than youtube; one here that doesn't even have much motion is 4Mbps at 1080p. And crunchyroll has a lot of 8Mbps at 1080p.

But acceptable quality can definitely go smaller. Especially if "acceptable" is judged by the significant compression artifacts I see on actual cable TV all the time.

34. njovin ◴[] No.42958394[source]
Their 'seek' behavior is also horrendous. IIRC they don't support the standard "click to skip forward 10 seconds" behavior and instead it's either in fast-forward mode or it's not, and in that mode it's impossible to seek to an accuracy of ~1 minute.

Video player controls have been a solved problem for something like several decades. It's actually impressive that they managed to screw it up so badly.

35. prmoustache ◴[] No.42960229[source]
> With the exception of Netflix,

Not sure where this come from, I have been unsubscribed for a few months so my experience is not current but back in mid 2024 I got video not showing up with some obscure error codes once in a while.

replies(1): >>42964063 #
36. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.42960640{4}[source]
'That' being DRM?
37. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.42960682[source]
The UK Channel4 app can't even get the ratio right for whole series of some programs. (Programs that were 4:3 but they warp it the wrong way, and still have big black bars at the margins {I think it's called overscan?})
38. DonHopkins ◴[] No.42961988[source]
And incredibly badly designed. Like not supporting type-ahead, so after you hit -> to skip ahead, you have to wait until it streams the next 10 seconds of video to skip over, before hitting -> to skip ahead the next 10 seconds. Forces people to pirate content just so they can view it in vlc.
39. flkenosad ◴[] No.42962205[source]
Shout out to all the devs who never sold their souls.
replies(1): >>42962440 #
40. 1oooqooq ◴[] No.42962440{3}[source]
except all those "consumer friedly" torrent things are the definition of selling one's soul.
replies(1): >>42962565 #
41. jampekka ◴[] No.42962565{4}[source]
In what sense? Leeching?
replies(1): >>42963528 #
42. londons_explore ◴[] No.42962653{4}[source]
Except there are only 3 DRM providers, and as a streaming service provider you just wrap the 3 providers libraries and write a few config files.
43. iinnPP ◴[] No.42963328{5}[source]
Bitrate can be massive with a low quality video so that also doesn't tell you much.
replies(1): >>42966620 #
44. 1oooqooq ◴[] No.42963528{5}[source]
most of the clients are ripped off open source and sold for profit/subscription. and filled to the brim with trojans and adware.
replies(2): >>42963995 #>>42966736 #
45. hedora ◴[] No.42963995{6}[source]
Isn’t that the same as 99% of commercial phone apps?

(Not defending it; I’m just saying it compares favorably with whatever crap is in most non-pirate apps.)

46. hedora ◴[] No.42964063[source]
Yeah; of those, Netflix has been the second least reliable for me.

It is a bit better now.

I think part of the problem is their dumb microservices architecture. They operate something like 10,000 microservices and different devices talk to different subsets of those.

On our old, cheap roku stick, they regularly would produce “could not stream” errors or fallback to screenshots instead of trailers (which was actually better!) more often than not. The website would be fine, and no one else I know noticed the outages.

The worst thing is that I’ve worked at places that have moron middle managers that actually decided to emulate this and moved to microservices. It wasted years of my life at work.

47. hedora ◴[] No.42964104{5}[source]
If it’s not a cgnat, your ISP could be throttling everyone that isn’t using a whitelisted site. Try using speedtest.net or fast.com just before streaming, and see if it fixes peacock.
48. hirako2000 ◴[] No.42964566{4}[source]
Netflix has been most popular for a bunch of other rather obvious reasons.
49. mulderc ◴[] No.42965449{5}[source]
I would put Disney+ after apple. Both AppleTV+ and Disney+ consistently looks great to me. Netflix is strange as it generally looks good but whatever compression they use does something funny to the picture which makes it look fuzzy and sharp at the same time to me.
replies(1): >>42966875 #
50. mulderc ◴[] No.42965459{5}[source]
I don't get this, I love the touchpad on the Apple TV, makes using it so much nicer than anything else I have tried.
51. Melatonic ◴[] No.42965961{4}[source]
Apple TV+ is great on Roku (have an older 4K box that still has Toslink output). Also liked the experience on a newer Apple TV box that now has buttons for scrolling (only other Apple TV box I've used is the first generation which is touchpad only and I'm not a fan of)
52. Melatonic ◴[] No.42965987{3}[source]
On Roku (actual box not integrated) Peacock has been good quality. Definitely hits 1080P with a decent bitrate. I suspect the software teams only have the bandwidth to focus on a few of the more popular devices (so probably Roku and Apple TV boxes) and others suffer
53. xp84 ◴[] No.42966592{4}[source]
I'm not defending the stupid touchpad because it is indeed awful, but I worry you're not taking advantage of literally its only feature, because you say "lacking the exponential fast forwarding". The only reason I keep that annoying thing enabled at all, or that I don't just have it learn a random "real" remote and use that, is how good the Apple remote is with FF/Rewind. Assuming your streaming app is using the correct "native" video player, you're meant to hit (Center button) to pause/bring up the scrubber, then swipe quickly horizontally across the touchpad to move the playhead in large chunks. It's very accelerated, and if you need to say, rewind a movie from the credits to the beginning, it's about 3 swipes if you're swiping fast and vigorously. If you swipe slowly, on the other hand, you can go a couple minutes at a time.

Finally, if you want to jump a few seconds instantly, like if you just missed a few lines of dialogue, the thing to do is to physically press down the left or right directional pad (the edges of the circle) while praying to the touchpad gods that you don't accidentally quiver by 0.2mm and be detected as a swipe which will do the wrong thing.

Of course, it's proof of Apple's poor usability that literally anyone reading this who owns the device doesn't already know how to do all three of those functions. But we're still at the peak of the fad of 'minimalism' instead of putting dedicated buttons for each of these in an ergonomic arrangement and printing labels on them.

54. xp84 ◴[] No.42966620{6}[source]
Bitrate, resolution, and codec are all of course critical, and not knowing all three makes it impossible to judge how good or bad it will look. Sadly the resolution is the only one of the three that's easy to describe to consumers, so here we are.
55. jampekka ◴[] No.42966736{6}[source]
Stremio is (mostly) open source and doesn't cost a penny and AFAIK has no malware. It does sometimes have some ads, about which they are very open about.

Debrid and torrent indexing services are simple websites/APIs with some mostly proprietary hacked together backends. Some of them have subscriptions, but you know what you buy if you subscribe, and many don't even have recurring payments. Someone probably makes some profit out of those, but I'd guess the margins are quite slim, and there's a lot of competition.

There are surely a lot of scams out there too, but I'm quite well aware what my $3 per month buys and I know better what I'm installing or downloading than with any commercial services.

Majority of what's happening underneath is done by the saints of the scene, taking huge risks for zero pay.

56. martinald ◴[] No.42966875{6}[source]
Netflix is actually the lowest bitrate offering.

Netflix: 15-18 Mbps Disney+: 25-30 Mbps Amazon Prime Video: 15-18 Mbps Apple TV+: 25-40 Mbps HBO Max: 15-20 Mbps

This is from an LLM but it tallies with what I remember reading. Apple TV is by far the best, followed by Disney+.

Netflix unfortunately seem to use any improvement in compression encoding efficiency to reduce bitrates, rather than improve PQ at the same bitrate. It's definitely got worse over time. I also remember reading that for content they deem more compressible they use a lower bitrate.

I can sort of get that on the lower plans, but its frustrating they won't improve PQ (or at least keep it the same) for the (expensive) 4K plan.

57. Suppafly ◴[] No.42966919{5}[source]
>Why do you think Netflix wants to buy it?

Because they previous had a lot of that content before those providers pulled it and created competing systems.

58. mindcrime ◴[] No.42967189[source]
Peacock is terrible. They are, as far as I can tell, the only mainstream service of this sort that actively block Linux users. I can use Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Disney+, Max, Prime Video, etc. from Linux with zero issues. But Peacock? Nope. Doesn't work, and given that it had worked in the past, it seems like they have taken active measures to block Linux and to close any workarounds that let you use their service from a Linux box. So fuck Peacock. They have some content I would watch, and that I'd be happy to pay for. But they actively reject my business, so fuck 'em.
59. fingerlocks ◴[] No.42968835{5}[source]
Weird, I also can’t relate to this at all.

Do you have the old black remote that looks like a small elongated trackpad? The newer gray remote with the 4k Apple TV is excellent.