• long running

Free 30 Day Trial @ Stan.com.au - Save $10

2710
Free 30 Day Trial @ Stan.com.au - Save $10
Go to Deal
jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 10:24 stan.com.au (15117 clicks)
Last edited 25/01/2015 - 22:28 by 2 other users

25/1: Stan has officially launched. Start your 30 day free trial today (please be aware a credit/debit card is required upon trial sign up). You will need to cancel your trial before the 30 days expires if you don't wish to continue the service for the $10 a month price, otherwise your card will be automatically debited

So it looks like we might finally be getting something similar to Netflix based in Aus. The site claims they will have fully functional Android and iPhone apps, allowing streaming to TV via Chromecast or Airplay.

Looks like they'll have a decent range of TV shows, movies and kids shows available for $10/month, with no ads and no lock-in contracts and currently a free 30 day trial if you pre-register your interest.

This could be a decent alternative to Getflix if they have enough relevant content. Will be interesting to see how it progresses if nothing else. Maybe just an attempt to compete prior to Netflix's arrival?

Gizmodo overview

Great article following a hands-on with the Beta platform (thanks to flaminglemon)

From an email following sign-up:

Get ready to watch thousands of hours of TV and Movies on Stan with unlimited access for only $10/month. Stan will be the home of Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad and all of the other amazing content already announced. Stan will also have the complete collection of Bond films at your fingertips including Skyfall, the highest-grossing and most critically acclaimed Bond film ever. The legacy of Bond spans five decades and has delivered us 6 charismatic men - Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, George Lazenby and Sean Connery. Just like the spice girls, there is a Bond for every taste.

Huff Post has named Golden Globe nominated Transparent as “The Best Show of 2014”. See this and other highly anticipated shows like Better Call Saul and Mozart in the Jungle first on Stan.

Stan will be bringing you award winning TV like Ray Donovan, Nurse Jackie, The Good Wife and Fargo. Settle in on the couch with new and classic blockbusters like The Hobbit, Channing Tatum in 21 Jump St, The Rocky Franchise with Sly Stallone and Robocop.

And let’s not forget the kids. Stan has the kids covered with Dora The Explorer, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Octonauts and iCarly. The dedicated kids zone means you can set up individual profiles to make sure the little ones aren’t watching Basic Instinct!

Entertainment Stan Video on Demand

Related Stores

Stan
Stan

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2015 - 10:28
    +24

    Name: STAN ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD
    ACN: 168 856 924
    Former name(s): STREAMCO MEDIA PTY LIMITED

    StreamCo will be owned 50:50 by Nine and Fairfax and the joint venture board will include each company’s respective CEO, David Gyngell and Greg Hywood. Nine and Fairfax have agreed to commit up to $50 million each to the venture over a multi-year period, which includes expenditure on marketing and advertising. The StreamCo business will source the bulk of its marketing and advertising requirements from its two shareholders on a commercial basis.

  • Izzyhop on 06/01/2015 - 10:33

    Looks decent and with Netflix trying to shutdown the DNS/ VPN workaround, will give it a trial.
    Do we know if there will be adverts during the shows like Hulu?

    • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 10:35
      +6

      Website claims the content will be ad-free and contract-free. Fingers crossed.

      This is from their Privacy Policy.

      Direct marketing materials
      We may send you direct marketing communications and information about products and services that we consider may be of interest to you. These communications may be sent in various forms, including mail, SMS or email, in accordance with applicable marketing laws, such as the Spam Act 2004 (Cth). If you indicate a preference for a method of communication, we will endeavour to use that method whenever practical to do so.
      In addition, at any time, you may opt-out of receiving marketing communications from us by contacting us (details below) or by using the opt-out facilities provided (e.g. an unsubscribe link). We will then ensure that your name is removed from our mailing list. We do not provide your personal information to other organisations for the purposes of direct marketing unless expressly authorised by you.

    • stockastics on 06/01/2015 - 12:06
      +1

      why would netflix shut the dns workaround?

      • Roary on 06/01/2015 - 12:14
        +9

        A couple of reasons

        1. They are starting here so they want a demand for their services
        2. Movie/TV studios are asking/demanding for it

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/177763

        • freefall101 on 06/01/2015 - 18:23
          +2

          1. How would shutting down DNS workarounds decrease demand? It gives you access to so much more if you want it and they get paid either way. I'm sure Netflix doesn't care at all, thus why they do nothing about it. They've also done no such blocking in any other country, when Netflix launched in Canada (I lived there at the time and signed up), it made it a piece of cake to get an account and then a VPN allowed me access to the content, it was win-win for both of us.

          2. I demanded Movie/TV studios offer me decent access to their stuff, they didn't listen.

          Netflix is pretty much free cash for them, you can read through the leaked Sony emails - Sony knows what is going on and are annoyed but Netflix keeps buying up all their content so they'll live with it until there is an alternative. And there isn't one. Netflix paid Sony $41m for Breaking Bad and Sony were desperate for that money, so they're not going to shoot the golden goose.

        • Roary on 06/01/2015 - 18:48
          +1

          @freefall101:

          1. If you cant get netflix overseas then some users might buy the Australian service when it starts here. I didn't say it will decrease demand, it will INCREASE demand for the Australian market.
            They dont seem to care until they wish to open a new market. American market is flooded with similar companies like HBO etc. They probably can make more money per user from Australian customers.

          2. If you offer these Movie/TV studios 10's of millions of dollars I am sure they will listen

        • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2015 - 19:00
          +5

          Which proves once again the morons they are. People lose access, get fed up screaming at them, "Hey stupid, I'm trying to give you my money…", so they search online for free ways to get what they watch - and find them. Then they simply do that instead and won't pay ANYONE.

        • deal seeking missile on 06/01/2015 - 20:17
          +2

          @freefall101: it has something to do with copy right laws, production companies usually sell the rights to distribute a particular movie or show within a certain region. so the distributors can only sell/show the content in these particular areas. I'm guessing nine and fairfax paid for the rights to distribute within australia and don't want to lose business to netflix. I'm guessing (and it's only a guess) that this new push to block vpn's is coming from distributors in other countries requesting that netfix only serve American customers like its supposed to.

        • Phreaker on 07/01/2015 - 07:43

          After the Sony leaks, it appears the MPAA is actually very "grey" if not warm towards geoblocking bypassing.
          In their eyes, just like ours at least these users are paying something for this content most people are simply stealing.

          The meeting notes seem to indicate while they don't condone it they simply have no intent in the near / long term future to stop it.

          What they are ramping up this year according to the leaked meeting notes is taking families to court and suing their asses off…

          apparently if we read between the lines in their notes they now make more money from suing pirates than from movie sales…

          Also there are direct quotes from the CEO from netflix pretty much saying [Meh, there isn't much we can do to stop it and why would we want to] "paraphrased to the extreme"

      • zuccs on 06/01/2015 - 12:56
        +10

        Because they can't charge more in other countries if everyone is using a US VPN.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2015 - 14:12
        +1

        well I'll believe it when I see it…and I reckon if it does happen it'll just be temporary, they make too much money (it's not just Oz which subscribes, so they're not going to shut down all that revenue…it'll just be a pollie "You used us to do something, so we're doing something…oh you wanted it to be effective? oh dear, we're doing something")

        • stockastics on 06/01/2015 - 14:26
          +1

          agreed..i dont know how any of the Aus players will compete against the US version of Netflix

        • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2015 - 19:04
          +1

          People said that about satellite TV. And if people were dumb enough to pay for Foxtel when it started - when the majority of what was available was either Bewitched, I Love Lucy, or Green Acres re-runs (that everyone groaned about for 30 years they were sick of on FTA!?) - then people are silly enough to pay for anything.

        • Mobe1969 on 06/01/2015 - 22:02
          +1

          @realfamilyman: I can't believe in this day and age anyone still uses foxtel, other than hardcore sports fans. And even then I can't believe there are no alternatives. Like that Optus unlimited deal with fetchtv plus the fox entertainment pack - the fetch was worth nothing to me. I am on a 70 plan limited and an extra 20 for unlimited was a hard sell. If it was $10 more without fetch I'd grab it.

      • dryandra on 06/01/2015 - 14:37
        +5

        They are not,its just people believe everything they read.

    • pifts on 06/01/2015 - 15:03
      +11

      http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/03/netflix-clamps-down-on-vp…

      Netflix confirmed: they are NOT cracking down on VPN etc.

      • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:04
        -5

        OK. And yet here we are with them making more money in other countries if they do, avoiding licensing issues with their content providers if they do and multiple reports of DNS and VPNs being blocked for a week

        Makes sense.

      • Roary on 06/01/2015 - 18:58
        +1

        Netflix confirmed: they are NOT cracking down on VPN etc.

        Its not confirmed, its denied..
        So whats shutting down the VPN then?

        Thats kinda asking Dodo if they throttle torrent traffic

        • samfisher5986 on 06/01/2015 - 19:34
          +3

          Is your VPN having problems?

          Because everyone else is using Netflix with their VPN without issues.

          Maybe check your sources first.

        • Roary on 06/01/2015 - 20:53

          @samfisher5986:

          No I got no problems.. i am referring to the many posts of other people having issues.

          Maybe you should those sources first

        • samfisher5986 on 06/01/2015 - 21:20
          +1

          @Cardz:

          The only sources is some lesser known VPN's just having general issues, and other people saying X VPN is having issues while other people on the same VPN have no issues.

          If there was a block, it would be obvious.

    • samfisher5986 on 06/01/2015 - 15:08
      +3

      Netflix isn't trying to shutdown DNS/VPN workaround. Its just TorGuard trying to make publicity for themselves.

    • b00r0wa on 07/01/2015 - 08:20
      +3

      Netflix have come out and said that they are not shutting down access via DNS/VPN services.
      I think this came from some media sources who had problems with their own VPN/DNS tunnels and jumped to conclusions

    • R00D on 07/01/2015 - 21:49
      +2

      Don't think so. Netflix doesnt care - read the quotes from one of their top employees here - http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/cage…

      It's just media driven drivel generated by those who have the most to lose. Netflix couldn't care less.

    • ESEMCE on 25/01/2015 - 20:10
      +2

      Netflix have publicly and repeatedly said that they are NOT shutting down VPN/DNS workarounds. They have repeated it again with the most recent rumours that were (in my opinion) probably started by StreamCo/Foxtel.

  • SteveBuscemi on 06/01/2015 - 10:35
    +2

    Optimistic about this one.

    Their content catalog looks pretty good and unlike other laughable Australian providers like Presto and Quickflix, they do proper HD streaming.

    Won't be giving up Netflix US though :)

    • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 10:39
      +11

      Like I always say, if it's good enough for Steve Buscemi…

      • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 11:09
        +41

        1080p quite literally means Full HD.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2015 - 11:14
          +9

          Probably talking about the low bitrate

        • muncan on 06/01/2015 - 19:22
          +4

          1080p @ a dialup-friendly 32kbit/s is still Full HD
          (though it would be like watching Minecraft)

      • dmac80 on 06/01/2015 - 11:13
        +2

        Netflix has very little current season content for roughly the same price and is fantastic. I'm willing to give this a go the catalog looks pretty good.

      • Dlite on 06/01/2015 - 11:47
        -4

        I guess I meant High quality/bitrate but why so many negs. Not even sure why this is not in the forums no special deal here.

        Netflix BEST video quality if a bitrate of about 3.5 Mbps quality. Bluray about 30mbps and DVD is even about 6.5mbps(tho not directly comparable). 4k bitrate is close to 4gbps.

        • virtualds on 06/01/2015 - 12:34
          +2

          you are mixing pixels with bandwidth.

        • barghunt1 on 06/01/2015 - 12:34
          +5

          I'm finding this deal very strange today as any kind of negative comments or criticisms of the service seem to be getting majorly negged today.

        • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 12:49
          +5

          How is a free month not a deal?

        • SteveBuscemi on 06/01/2015 - 12:53
          +35

          You got downvoted for being factually wrong on pretty much everything and doing stupid things like calling low bitrate "not HD", and comparing max bitrates across codecs (and even an (incorrect) uncompressed figure for 4K.)

          a) You can argue about the streaming bitrates not being high enough, to, say, preserve grain stucture or prevent blocking and banding, but it's still "HD", no ifs or buts. Yes web downloads and streaming services can suffer in comparison to a Blu-Ray (and yes, iTunes 1080s can often be lower quality than their 720s) but it's still HD. It's also highly dependant on the source material and, yes, Netflix do filter out grain to try and increase compressibility.

          b) Netflix's highest bitrate for 1080 is actually 5.8Mbps H.264 (+384kbps for audio), not 3.5Mbps. (There's also a 4.3Mbps rate). That's before you look at 3D and especially 4K (which is 25Mbps H.265). From all accounts Stan is similar quality wise and has similar bandwidth requirements.

          For reference, many Foxtel HD channels are also <= 5.8Mbps H.264 — including Fox8, Nat Geo, and Showcase — and they are encoded in realtime, which does not look as good as on-demand stuff which can go through a 2-pass process.

          c) Consumer delivery of 4K video content is nowhere closer to 400Gbps — even uncompressed at 4:4:4 colour space (BD is 4:2:0), at 60p, you're talking about way less than 10% of that. And looking at uncompressed rates is ridiculous — by that same logic DVD is 124Mbps and Blu-Ray 1.5Gbps.

          Again, for reference, Panasonic's just-announced 4K Blu-Ray spec peaks at 100Mbps, and that includes goodies like 10-bit HDR colour.

          d) Most importantly, the video quality of Netflix and Stan far surpass many other services offered to Australians, including our laughable SD (at best) streaming services like Presto, Quickflix, iView, etc. not to mention the sorry state of FTA TV, and even illegal downloads (You think most people are grabbing 40GB 1080 remuxes?)

          And since you mentioned the sorry state of iTunes, I note that Netflix SuperHD does often surpass iTunes 1080p encodes. Check out these two screenshots and tell me the NTB release (capped and then even recompressed from a Netflix SuperHD stream on PS3) is not "HD".
          http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/64574/picture:1

          And now look at the absolute GARBAGE we get on, say, Foxtel Play…
          http://i.imgur.com/1xOBMsn.jpg
          http://i.imgur.com/twZAd1H.jpg

        • John Dough on 06/01/2015 - 12:59
          -3

          I know what you meant, and I agree 100% a video file 2 hours long at 1-2gb is not a 'true' HD file in my book, even though it meets the resolution requirements to claim to be 1080p.

        • QuiOui on 06/01/2015 - 13:23

          As far as I know, 4k is ~4 times the resolution of FHD. Where do you get 4gbps from?! i.e. > 100 times the bit rate.

        • Dlite on 06/01/2015 - 13:45
          -2

          …

        • sourdawg on 06/01/2015 - 14:17
          -2

          @SteveBuscemi: tldr, Dlite got owned

        • Dlite on 06/01/2015 - 14:28
          +2

          @SteveBuscemi:
          Thanks Steve.. but as in my second post I really meant HQ (high quality) not HD (1080p) my mistake. All I am saying is the marketing spin on a lot of these services lead people to believe they are much higher image/audio quality than they actually are. Even Netflix call there higher bit rate service "SuperHD". Whilst Stan has said they will be 1080p they still have not mentioned bitrate etc…

          Reportly "You’ll only need a 2Mbps stream to get access to SD content on Stan, and 4Mbps and above for HD content," so probably 1500kbps max SD and 3500kbps max HD on STAN.

          NTB at BTN do good work. But try and at least use the same frame doing a screenshot comparison. Agree it looks heaps better than itunes, but the sharpening has added some artifacts too altho mainly background stuff. But the NTB release has a bitrate of 6144 Kbps which is approaching double!! the bitrate of STAN. Even the bitrate in the itunes Web-DL is higher at 4807Kbps than the best STAN has to offer, so thanks for helping make my point that STAN is more likely to look like the itunes release than the NTB one. Bitrate definitely isnt everything but it goes a long way to making a good looking image. The bluray bitrate is 24.8mbps.

          The bigger the TV and the better it displays the image the worse these low bitrate files will look. Sure it is better than the crap we have now but it is really just a better class of crap. crap with sprinkles on top and a cherry.

          But with the current govt many ppl can not do any better than STAN speeds anyway. Go team Australia.

        • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:10

          4k bitrate is close to 4gbps.

          LMAO. Sure kid.

        • Dlite on 06/01/2015 - 19:20
          -1

          @Diji1:3.82Gbps is the uncompressed bitrate for Digital Cinema 4K. FACT.

        • muncan on 06/01/2015 - 19:33
          +1

          @Dlite: assuming we're watching the random multicolour snowstorm channel…

        • PVA on 06/01/2015 - 21:39

          @jason07:
          He probably means because the 30 day trial is always going to be free, it is a trial after all.

      • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:06

        You seem very confused about basic terms and definitions LEL.

        • Dlite on 06/01/2015 - 19:37

          Well Diji1 more than happy to concede that my first post was confusing…mistakenly used HD (high Definition) instead of HQ (High quality). Which seems to have brought a heap of sledging my way but water off a ducks back. Everyone can look at the world through their rose tinted glasses.

          If your so smart try and convince me that movies from STAN's 3500kbps video bitrate is high quality with there about 4.5gb files for there premium HD content. Considering our bench mark should be Bluray HD quality.

        • deal seeking missile on 06/01/2015 - 20:37
          +1

          @Dlite: Yes it will be compressed a bit but so what? If you want the highest quality you have to get the blue-ray or download something massive in size, if you want convenience just put up with the slightly lower bit rate. At 1080p it'll be hard to tell the difference unless you compare them side by side.
          just do what everyone else does, watch it online and then buy the blue-ray if you like it a lot.

  • bxpressiv on 06/01/2015 - 10:47
    +1

    Signed up with a junk email alias. The premise is pretty simple, content people want at a price they will pay. Lets see if they can deliver on that promise.

  • 2be8 on 06/01/2015 - 10:50
    +18

    Not to dis the deal, but their Privacy Policy is something you may want to look at before giving them your details. Particularly the Why do we collect, hold, use and disclose personal information and How do we disclose your personal information sections.
    It seems to give them an unusually large amount of leeway to do almost anything with your personal details, watching habits, and so on.

    • Dionysus on 06/01/2015 - 11:45
      +3

      I don't think you should be down voted for providing information on a privacy policy and making consumers aware.

      • 2be8 on 06/01/2015 - 11:49
        +6

        Cheers. I was actually about to extend the info to save people a trip to the privacy policy page, but I'll add that anyway.
        (I should point out that I couldn't say for sure that this privacy policy is worse than others for the equivalent services)

        Well, they may use your personal information…
        for displaying content and advertising that are customised to your interests, preferences and experiences;
        That's no big deal, I guess, so long as you don't mind advertising. (Mind you, jason07 has pointed out that they say they will not have advertising, or perhaps they are just being overcautious about 'you might also like xyz' being construed as advertising.

        They can also use your personal information:
        to provide information (including personal information) to our shareholders (ninemsn Pty Ltd and Fairfax Entertainment Pty Ltd) and their related bodies corporate for the purpose of, for example, providing data matching and targeted advertising services;
        But surely those other companies are bound by the privacy policy? No? Well, it doesn't say they are, so they are not.

        Who else do they share your data with?
        our employees, related bodies corporate, contractors or external service providers for the operation of our websites or our business, fulfilling requests by you, and otherwise in connection with providing our products and services to you, including without limitation, web hosting providers, IT systems administrators, mailing houses, couriers, payment and other transaction processors, photographic analysers, promotions agencies, customer support providers, statistical analysis providers, data entry service providers, electronic network administrators, debt collectors, and professional advisers such as accountants, solicitors, business advisors and consultants;
        What? Promotions agencies? Photographic analysers (wha?). Most of these make complete sense, but how about…

        our sponsors, or promoters of any competition that we conduct or promote via our services;
        Oh, right. Personal details will be given to sponsors or promoters. Presumably only when authorised? It doesn't say that. Presumably those parties are bound by the privacy agreements? Doesn't say that. To take the most cynical view of that line: "We can give or sell your personal data to our sponsors or promoters of any competition we promote via our services, or provide it as part of a promotions-plus deal"

        Not that any of this matters because it isn't like they have to notify you when the privacy policy changes, but that goes for virtually all online services.

        • Knightelf on 06/01/2015 - 12:39
          +7

          Most of that stuff sounds stock standard to me. Companies have been doing all of the above for years, the only reason it is now included in the privacy policy is because they require them to after the NPPs were replaced by the APPs.

        • Kasterix on 21/02/2015 - 21:47

          Something I actually registered here to add to this… They appear to hold onto your bankcard details even AFTER you deactivate your account.

          I cancelled the trial because they had nothing I wanted to watch, not even old content that interested me… And let's face it, it's nearly all old content on there anyway.

          So I logged back in to see if I could clear my card details, only to be greeted with a "Reactivate subscription with card on file… Or enter new card." message, the only other option was a logout button.

          And thus far I've been unable to find a way to clear the card details because you can't even view your account information without being subscribed, which is a little more than questionable in my mind.

  • PurchaseAnxiety on 06/01/2015 - 10:57
    +10

    We've been arguing that we wanted a fair option, and honestly, this looks pretty fair at this point. Will be interesting to see how it actually turns out.

    • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 10:59
      +3

      Yeah my thoughts exactly, and with the free trial and a secondary email it seems there's no real risk.

  • doperst on 06/01/2015 - 11:17

    Do you need fast internet connection for this? Will it work on adsl (~8 Mbit)?

    • custom on 06/01/2015 - 11:19
      +5

      Hard to say at this stage, but given I can get netflix 1080 on 5.5Mb you should be fine.

    • PurchaseAnxiety on 06/01/2015 - 11:42
      +1

      I got Netflix @ 1080p on a 3-4mbps connection, so you should be fine.

    • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 13:26
      +1

      From this article: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/stan-streaming-service-aus…

      You’ll only need a 2Mbps stream to get access to SD content on Stan, and 4Mbps and above for HD content, we’re told.

      Compare that to Netflix which recommends you have at least a 3Mbps connection for standard definition content, and a connection of 5Mbps for HD. 4K quality bumps you up to a recommended 25Mbps, but very few titles have that extreme definition right now, and even fewer connected devices can play it.

      • samfisher5986 on 06/01/2015 - 15:24
        +1

        A comparison is quite silly unless Stan is using a significantly superior codec to Netflix.

        Netflix adjusts the video to your connection, Stan can't do much better then this without showing you higher resolution content at a lower bitrate which results in poor quality anyway.

  • nkbswe5 on 06/01/2015 - 11:19

    "Better Call Saul" Coming Soon To Stan

    Well, my Netflix DNS was blocked so I'm pretty happy with this, even if it isn't as good at least it's something at a reasonable price!

    • TheOneWhoKnocks on 06/01/2015 - 11:22

      Can't wait.

      • elektron on 06/01/2015 - 16:28
        +1

        @TheOneWhoKnocks

        With a name like that, I bet you can't

    • Grandpipe on 06/01/2015 - 11:43
      +1

      can you not just null route google dns to unblock your netflix?

      • syousef on 06/01/2015 - 12:03
        +3

        Why go to all that trouble, give them money, and still be listed as a pirate on their books?

        • Infinite Monkee on 06/01/2015 - 12:22

          exactly, bugger them.

        • dazweeja on 06/01/2015 - 12:50
          +3

          Circumventing geoblocking does not equate to piracy and is not illegal under the Copyright Act. As for Netflix, I doubt they'd be keeping a list of people who are circumventing geoblocking considering they are actually paying customers first and foremost. This group of people are probably the ones most likely to use the Australian service when it starts.

        • syousef on 06/01/2015 - 14:11
          -1

          @dazweeja:

          Sorry if it sounds rude but your comment is ignorant wishful thinking.

          Even Choice tells you it's a grey area.
          http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/computers-and-onl…

          They aren't the only ones:
          http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/22/specia…

          Big surprise: Our government is all for making it illegal as part of "free trade" agreements:
          http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/the-australian-government-s…

          The content providers aren't at all shy about calling customers who do this pirates.

        • Mobe1969 on 06/01/2015 - 14:17

          @syousef:
          Irrespective of the title they give you, or greyness, I do believe that using the VPN trick for US netflix is in violation of the terms and conditions of the service. Not that anyone ever reads TaCs, nor companies who have them generally try to strictly enforce them…

          I can't see how anyone can term it pirating though. That makes little sense.

        • dazweeja on 06/01/2015 - 14:35
          +3

          @syousef:

          Ignorant wishful thinking? Well, I guess I'm as ignorant as the current Federal Minister for Communications but you'd know better than him about the government's position of course:

          "Q: Many Australians use a VPN to access Netflix in the US. Is it illegal for me to use a VPN to access Netflix?

          The Copyright Act does not make it illegal to use a VPN to access overseas content.
          While content providers often have in place international commercial arrangements to protect copyright in different countries or regions, which can result in ‘geoblocking’, circumventing this is not illegal under the Copyright Act."

          Source: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/issues/new-measures-to-tac…

        • syousef on 06/01/2015 - 14:55

          @Mobe1969:

          Copyright in it's current form makes little sense. Anything you do to circumvent copyright controls can be deemed piracy. Look at the US DMCA.

        • syousef on 06/01/2015 - 15:02

          @dazweeja:

          This government says one thing and does another. Still keep that statement handy. As unlikely as it is should the content providers ever dig up records and pursue you, it would make the start of a good defense.

          Here's the counter point:
          http://o.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/netflix-might-b…

          It's a fine line between violating terms of use and misuse of a computer network. What happens to people that misuse computer networks?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

          You can also argue that it violates the US DMCA to circumvent copy protection.

          Any time their business model is threatened these people fight dirty. I certainly don't agree with the methods these people use and if it were up to me geoblocking wouldn't be legal anywhere in the world.

        • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:16

          @syousef: Except it's not "anything". It's specific things. Not something arbitary like anything.

        • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:19
          -3

          @syousef: Really, can we please stop crying about Aaron Swartz?

          He wasn't heroic.

        • syousef on 06/01/2015 - 19:41
          +1

          @Diji1:

          He doesn't have to be heroic to have been persecuted.

        • abducta on 06/01/2015 - 21:08
          +2

          @Diji1: So dedicating your life to battling for the freedoms and liberties of the common person against hugely biased and well funded multinational corporations and influenced governments doesn't count as heroic. I pretty sure that is exactly what heroic means.

    • DrMon on 06/01/2015 - 12:46

      Which DNS were you using, if you don't mind saying?

      • nkbswe5 on 06/01/2015 - 14:02
        +1

        UnoTelly, the free trial worked amazing so I stuck with it even though it wasn't the cheapest (not a real OzBargainer clearly).

        • binary01 on 06/01/2015 - 14:26
          +4

          Off topic, but Unotelly still working fine for me with Netflix.
          I am looking forward to having a good Australian service though, so fingers crossed for Stan.

        • nkbswe5 on 06/01/2015 - 14:44

          Boo! Maybe I just need to reset everything again, I've seen a few people say that. Or send them an e-mail. But good to hear it's not totally dead!

        • stockastics on 06/01/2015 - 16:07

          Getflix

        • SteveBuscemi on 06/01/2015 - 20:31

          @binary01: Unotelly works fine for me too, but then again I've been blocking GoogleDNS for what, a year now?

    • samfisher5986 on 06/01/2015 - 15:25
      +3

      Just to make it clear, Netflix is not blocking any DNS services. It was a publicity stunt by TorGuard.

    • jason07 on 06/01/2015 - 11:29
      +1

      Pretty sure Netflix didn't have a WP app when they launched. There's also the option to use a PC (which can have chromecast support) or any Android/Apple/Windows tablet.

    • devs on 06/01/2015 - 11:30
      +3

      Jesus. Netflix was founded in 1997. It is more well-established than established can be. Netflix released its Windows app in 2012. Stan is just starting out, obviously they are catering to the two biggest OS'es initially. I'm sure a Windows Phone app would be something they consider down the line. Give them the benefit of the doubt though.

      • Diji1 on 06/01/2015 - 18:25

        Maybe but maybe not - if you think about the already low user numbers then those that might use the service, might be a risky move.

        Hell larger companies avoid iOS and Android versions sometimes for whatever reasons.

    • britta on 06/01/2015 - 11:30

      Does Windows phone even have a streaming protocol? (Chromecast/Airplay)

      This might explain why they havent dropped a windows app.

      That and the very small consumer base for windows phones.

      I have had all 3 (Win,iPhone and currently android). There are a few cool things Windows did with the OS but overall its pretty meh. IMO

      • DrMon on 06/01/2015 - 12:16
        +1

        The Chromecast uses DIAL (DIscovery And Launch) to play stuff. It's pretty much platform agnostic - you just make a couple of HTTP requests to it and tell it where to get the media and it does it's own thing. Would be no need for Windows Phones to have their own protocol.

        • britta on 06/01/2015 - 12:23

          Cool. Are there any WP apps that use it?

        • DrMon on 06/01/2015 - 12:27
          +3

          @britta:
          Don't have a WP myself, but a quick google brought this up:
          http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/tubecast/bee1728…

          Should be more than that, it's a pretty simple protocol. Spent a few hours yesterday reading it trying to get my chromecast to work with netflix and my dns/vps.

        • britta on 06/01/2015 - 20:20

          @DrMon:

          Well I stand corrected.

          I love my chromecast!

    • tophorus on 06/01/2015 - 11:31
      +5

      To be fair Windows Phone in Australia has a bit over 5% market share. For a new company starting out with no customers and limited resources, expecting them to invest in every platform is a bit unrealistic. Android gives them about 65%, Apple gives them another 25-30%… Say it costs $100 per platform to build: If they can reach 90-95% of the market spending $200, it would be diminishing returns to spend another $100 to target another 5%.

      When they get a large enough customers and 5% of that customer base covers the costs of maintaining another app for a different platform, I'm sure they'll support it. Netflix has a bit of a headstart, don't forget.

      • unkown on 26/01/2015 - 11:54

        $100 is not much though…

        :P

    • barghunt1 on 06/01/2015 - 11:46
      +2

      I don't understand why I'm being negged for some very valid comments.

      I am a happy windows phone user and a major consideration for me when I outlay money is whether there is an app available for the service I am using on my phone. If the app is not available on my phone then its a waste of money for me to take on the service.

      Sure anyone can give an opinion to wait,their isn't enough market share, they are a new company or anything along those lines but this doesn't change the fact that I'm not going to spend money on a streaming service that doesn't provide an app for the platform that I use.

      • dazweeja on 06/01/2015 - 12:55
        +8

        You probably wouldn't have been negged for a simple "No Windows Phone app so I'll pass" comment but your long-winded comment just to say that you weren't interested in this service reeked of self-entitlement to me at least. I'm not sure what else you were trying to achieve there.

        • barghunt1 on 06/01/2015 - 14:37
          +2

          I think ur being harsh there and I meant no such thing. I was just trying to convey the importance of app availability is to use a streaming service and my focus is on services that provide this. That's the thing with posting online tone can be misunderstood.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join