Comment MCQX Re: Good to see coverage, but nothing really new


Netflix claims you don’t really want offline video support


Good to see coverage, but nothing really new (Score: 2, Informative)

by on 2015-09-13 15:57 (#MAKN)

I like that this issue is getting some attention, but there's nothing particularly new here: Netflix have, for some time, given bullshit answers to this question.

And we can be pretty certain that people do want offline playback. Wuaki managed it, and it's now a selling-point for them.

The strangest thing about all this is the way it's happening now. As our Internet connections get faster and faster, and data-caps go up, the question of offline playback is of ever-decreasing importance. This would've meant a lot more to me five years ago than now.

Re: Good to see coverage, but nothing really new (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-14 10:06 (#MCK1)

It's a way to differentiate

I rarely listen to music at home, just radio stations (which play music)

However on the move I often listen. On today's train the signal is poor and intermittent. Tonight's boat will have wifi apparently, not convinced it will be much good off shore. Tomorrow I'll be data roaming in the Netherlands in the morning before a flight to Denmark in the evening which will have wifi albeit with in air caveats. Tuesday night I'm on a flight to Doha and then onto Singapore, which sometimes has phone signal but nothing stream able.

Through this it means a lot of playing from my own local music library and a couple of downloaded films. We do have Netflix - was watching it last night at home, but being able to watch a film on a plane is an important feature.

Re: Good to see coverage, but nothing really new (Score: 1)

by on 2015-09-14 11:11 (#MCQX)

Sure. I'm not sure if you're supporting my points or disagreeing, but yes, you've given some good examples of when offline playback is (and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to be) the only real option.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk