>There are going to be people that blame Netflix for this, but it's really not their fault.

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.

I agree with everything but:

> 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

This - Netflix lobbied for Web DRM, they apply it to their content as well and they even disable downloading for a lot of their shows.

They're behaving EXACTLY like all other DRM obsessed content providers.

Keep defending netflix if you want, they are not innocent victims of content provider threats, they are content providers.

MPAA did not come in strong arm Netflix, Netflix is a willing and eager participant in the development and spread of DRM

There's no need to defend Netflix as they're simply doing what they need to contractually do to stay in business. Did you really think Netflix was going to defy the demands of their content providers? Content is king and if Netflix didn't have it they wouldn't be worth subscribing to.

Again, Netflix is actively pushing DRM on content they themselves produce (no "content provider" pressure there).

> They didn't even care if people used VPN's to access their service.

Netflix employees used to help out users in Australia with VPN issues back before Netflix launched over here. It's all different now.

And unless I see a different selection to everyone else in Australia, the offerings have rapidly gone downhill, C-grade/fire-sale content. Some gems from time to time, but 98% unwatchable rubbish.

Edit: For the price I pay, I don't mind that too much though.

netflix is now pumping out a lot more original content, and a good number of them are complete trash. they still have some of the best shows out there (house of cards, narcos, stranger things, etc), but it feels like they're more interested in quantity, not quality.

OT, but at this phase, they are. They're still producing the same amount of high quality content (probably more and at a faster pace), but with so much new content, there's a SNR issue.

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.

That's great unless you want to watch movies. Their DVD service gave access to a library of thousands of movies from blockbusters to obscure niche films. Their streaming service sucks in comparison.

> Their DVD service gave access to a library of thousands of movies from blockbusters to obscure niche films.

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.

Their DVD service required a minimum of 48 hours forethought before viewing a video. Some people watch whole seasons of shows in that period.

For most, a large enough selection instantly is much better than a full selection w/ a 3 day lead time

I used to agree with this, and the same argument about DRM in general, but Netflix now has a significant body of original content, so I'm less sure about it. In particular, they appear to be blocking the entire app from even downloading (not even running!) on affected devices.

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"?

It's probably a lot easier to have a blanket ban on VPNs and rooted devices than to allow them when you watch X versus when you watch Y.

I am sure it is, I am also sure if netflix has a ethical problem with DRM, and is actually in active opposition to DRM they would put forth the effort to allow their content DRM free, eliminate geo-fences, and allow the app on Rooted devices limited to only Netflix owned content

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

Aren't HTML5 EME plugins sandboxable, though? That is, aren't they definitely not rootkits?

I wasn't saying HTML5 EME supported rootkits. DRM doesn't belong in the web standard, that's a fundamental belief of mine against DRM in general. I'm saying TBL and Netflix are both campaigning for non-rootkit-like DRM, better than the worst DRM, but DRM none the less. Netflix is a company, it's only real concern is making money, regardless what they're owners/employees personally believe, they won't get big budget films without it, so I understand why they're working for "Good" DRM. But no individual should be lobbying for "better" DRM.

I think that describing Google Play Services (or Android? or I'm-not-sure-what) as "a google rootkit" isn't super conducive to a meaningful discussion, even if there's a technical interpretation under which it's true.

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 you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software.

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.

> Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software.

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"?

> 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?

The relevant service provides some information about your device to Google, which makes a decision (I'd assume based on heuristics or ML) about your device's integrity compared to Google's baseline. An app's vendor can choose to condition the Play Store entry on the result of the Google calculation.

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 think you are far too literal, instead of looking at the big picture.

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.

Doing the easy thing isn't (or didn't used to be) Netflix's style, one of the reasons HN has long loved its tech writeups. So the blanket ban is either a reversal of that culture or simply Netflix finding itself with aligned interests with other content producers and acting accordingly.

Maybe one day they'll have a separate price plan and app just for Netflix Original content. I'd switch to that right now if they offered it. Then we'd see which side of the fence they're on.

I'm sure they're under equal pressure to not say as such. It would be nice if they could just flat out state "as part of our contract with X, we must <enter exact clause here>".

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.

They certainly are going above and beyond. It's basically impossible to find a good VPN that works with Netflix, and they also block pretty much every IP range where you can get a VPS. They are just much more effective than any other geoblock I'm aware of.

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.

Above and beyond? This is a simple yet effective countermeasure that the content providers have likely insisted upon.

NordVPN works fine. FWIW.

Just following orders.