Netflix has elaborated on the "technical reasons" why it has disabled AirPlay, and claims that since it can't tell what device the stream is being sent to because of changes in the protocol, it won't allow the feature.
Netflix debuted AirPlay support in 2013.
In a statement to AppleInsider and other venues, Netflix is blaming the removal of the feature on Apple, and it allowing AirPlay on third-party televisions.
We want to make sure our members have a great Netflix experience on any device they use. With AirPlay support rolling out to third-party devices, there isn't a way for us to distinguish between devices —what is an Apple TV versus what isn't —or certify these experiences.
Therefore, we have decided to discontinue Netflix AirPlay support to ensure our standard of quality for viewing is being met. Members can continue to access Netflix on the built-in app across Apple TV and other devices.
At present, it isn't clear what Netflix gains by knowing what television is being used, other than data harvesting. It also isn't clear what the company being unable to "certify these experiences" means, from a technical standpoint.
Netflix has made it clear that apps on iOS and Apple TV are unaffected for native playback on the device that they are installed on. However, going forward, users won't be able to use AirPlay to stream the content to another device.
The change in app policy was spotted on Friday in an update to the official Netflix Help Center webpage, which now instructs iOS device users to connect to a TV using Chromecast functionality in the television, Netflix 2nd Screen, or a physical cable. Customers attempting to stream video content to an Apple TV or AirPlay-compatible device are now met with an error message.
At CES 2019, Samsung, Sony and Vizio each revealed upcoming TV hardware support for Apple's streaming protocol in separate announcements. Korean tech giant LG followed suit in March.
Motorola can boast about making the first commercial phone running on a live 5G network, but I'd bet money that the pride stops there. The Moto Z3 with its 5G Moto Mod may be a real phone you can buy for a real 5G network, but its cumbersome magnetic attachment for a midprice phone isn't the way you want to use 5G.
I would know because the Moto Z3, 5G Mod and I were inseparable for six hours this week as I tested Verizon's newborn 5G network in downtown Chicago. Throughout the day, the Moto Z3 and Mod hitched a ride in my purse, or protruded from my coat pocket, its thick "fin" a beacon drawing down 5G signal from above.
"We've seen reports with some really good speeds and certainly we've seen good speeds in our user trials as well," said Doug Michau, Motorola's head of product operations for North America when we spoke over the phone.
Now playing:Watch this:
We tested Verizon's new 5G network
8:24
This Moto Z3 was able to pull down speeds upward of 600Mbps, and although the getup works, it's kludgy at best. The 5G Moto Mod is thick and heavy. You attach it magnetically and pins shuffle information and the data connection from the Mod, which has a Snapdragon 855 processor, and the X50 modem that makes 5G possible, to the phone.
The Moto Z3's 5G Mod is unnecessary. 5G modems that connect to the network can already go into phones, in a much more seamless way that doesn't create ridiculous bulk. Take, for example, the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G and a host of other 5G phones. Not a single Mod in sight.
That's not how Moto sees it. For the phone-maker, the 5G Moto Mod was a smart opportunity to partner once again with Verizon, the largest US carrier. Because what good is a new 5G network if there's no phone to use it?
See how the "fin" pops up over the phone edge? Not very svelte.
Jessica Dolcourt/CNET
The 5G Moto Mod's fatal flaw: Its battery
As bulky as the Moto Mod is, it did feel securely attached to the Moto Z3, which is in its own right a perfectly serviceable midrange handset.
The Achilles' heel I accidentally and unwittingly discovered came at the end of a long day of testing. I had just arrived at a 5G node blocks away from the historic Chicago Theater, but whatever I tried, I couldn't get any signal: cycling airplane mode multiple times, reattaching the Mod, even rebooting the phone.
It wasn't until I got back to my hotel that I realized the Moto Mod was out of juice. Michau confirmed that the 5G Mod, which comes with its own 2,000mAh battery, won't charge your phone or accept charge from it. It has its own USB-C charging port, and, apart from sharing signal, operates independently from the Moto Z3.
You can see the oblong infrared sensor just to the right of the camera array.
Derek Poore/CNET
If your Moto Mod battery dies before your Moto Z3, you can still use the phone on 4G, but then you're carting around some hefty dead weight. Michau says the intent is for the Mod's battery to last all day, though streaming over 5G all day will take a battery toll.
That wouldn't be so bad if there had been a better way to clearly see the Moto Mod's battery meter right on the phone screen. The notification you get in your notification stream can easily get lost.
I will give Motorola kudos for a clever design element that places four infrared sensors near four antennas. If your finger covers one, a different antenna will pick up the signal.
Saving grace: Affordable 5G today
If the Z3 and Moto Mod have one redeeming quality, it's the price. "We still believe that the Mod is the best platform, Michau said.
That's because, although you're buying two devices instead of one, the total overall cost of ownership will come in at lower than a flagship phone, like the Galaxy S10 5G. Although Samsung hasn't announced pricing for its 5G model, it's more advanced than the S10 Plus, which costs $1,000 and uses 4G.
With its own battery source, the Moto Mod is quite the hefty attachment.
Derek Poore/CNET
Meanwhile, the Moto Z3 is on sale for $240 (down from $480), while the 5G Moto Mod is discounted at $200 (usually $350). So, not counting the $10 monthly surplus for Verizon's 5G network, the total "phone" cost is $440.
Even the full retail cost, $830, is likely to come in at least $300 under the premium Galaxy S10 5G. However, I have a feeling the Moto Z3's prices will remain lower rather than higher.
Motorola's next slam dunk is literally around the bend
For Motorola, the final clincher is that the Moto Z3 is a phone you can buy and use on Verizon's 5G network the moment it's available. But buying a 5G phone now isn't very practical.
Network roll-out will take time and only work in select neighborhoods for now. The Qualcomm chip is already outdated. Last month, Qualcomm announced a slimmer chip that will make phones slimmer as well. It's unlikely the Mod will make the cut.
Now playing:Watch this:
Can Motorola's Razr top Galaxy Fold by going smaller?
2:13
For me, the Moto Z3 with 5G Moto Mod is an empty "win" that will quickly become overshadowed by other 5G phones that enter the market, even more affordable ones.
Motorola's real win is yet to come, when the brand is expected to launch its comeback Motorola Razr as a foldable phone to take on the premium Galaxy Fold and Huawei Mate X. Assuming the rumors are true, that's Motorola's best real opportunity to make a name for itself -- at any speed.
At some point, we all decided that smartphones cost $1,000 or more. But they don't have to. WSJ's David Pierce surveys the cheap-phone landscape, and finds a few surprisingly great devices at surprisingly low prices. Photo/Video: Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
It’s become an unwritten but unbreakable rule: Great phones cost $1,000. A few years ago, when we were paying $200 with a two-year contract, that seemed preposterous. Now you’re either renting an iPhone XS for $42 a month or dropping 10 Benjamins on Day One.
I’ve long recommended that people buy the most expensive phone they can afford. Your phone is likely your most important device, and it’s worth investing in. Recently, though, a generation of far cheaper phones hit the market offering a shockingly similar experience. These devices cost $350 or less, some as little as $150. They offer great performance, good battery life, attractive design and even some unique features of their own.
There are plenty of good phones for under $350; our three favorites are, from left, the Nokia 7.1 from HMD Global, Xiaomi’s Pocophone F1 and the Motorola Moto G7 from Lenovo.
Photo:
Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
Buying a phone this cheap used to be like buying your clothes at a thrift store; anything that sort of fit and didn’t have noticeable holes or stink was a minor miracle. Now it’s like buying last year’s fashions—not the sharpest out there, but darn close. I bet you won’t notice the difference. Except for the extra weight of all the money still in your pocket.
Getting What You Pay for
All phones have most things in common, from the processor to the memory to the tiny screws that connect them all. Yet the cost to make a phone can vary widely. The Xiaomi Pocophone F1, one of the phones I tested, costs $216.70 for all the parts and labor, according to analysis firm
IHS Markit.
The iPhone XS Max costs $388.37. But you can buy the F1 for $300. Apple sells its largest model for almost three times what it costs to make.
When you buy a Galaxy or an iPhone or a Pixel, you are paying for not only the very best screens and cameras, but also expensive ad campaigns, huge corporate headquarters and expansive retail stores.
The Moto G7 is the latest in a long line of good inexpensive smartphones; Motorola is one of the few hardware companies that actually make Android better.
Photo:
Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
I discussed this with Sammy Ohev-Zion, chief executive of Blu Electronics, maker of a passably decent $150 smartphone. How much would he charge for a phone with the best components he could get his hands on—the best LCD screen, the best camera, the best fingerprint reader? He said $400. In fact, he plans to launch such a phone later this year.
At the same time, even with no expense spared, Blu couldn’t make a phone as good as the Galaxy S10 or iPhone XS, Mr. Ohev-Zion cautioned. “The trade-off, of course, is that we don’t have the engineering capabilities of a Samsung or an Apple, and we never will.” Samsung’s famous OLED displays are reserved for Samsung—and Apple. Meanwhile, Apple has a lock on chips, facial-recognition systems and other tech it isn’t about to share with competitors.
Even more important, expensive phones help fund large software teams, which can build features like voice assistants and pro-grade camera tools. These phones also typically get software updates much more quickly and tend to receive updates for more years. “We’re able to get the same camera, the same hardware components,” Mr. Ohev-Zion said. “But fine-tuning it… costs you tremendous amounts of money.”
Want a phone that looks like the iPhone for a third of the price? That would be the $350 Nokia 7.1, with its elegant metal body and gold accents.
Photo:
Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
So, yes, you do still get what you pay for. There is no $300 phone that equals a device three times its price. But for years, cheap phones were bad phones. Now, the best ones come with only minor trade-offs: A few of the models I tested used older MicroUSB chargers instead of the future-looking USB-C, for instance, and none was waterproof.
For the basics—phone calls, texting, Spotify streaming, web browsing, maybe a little Candy Crush—the best cheap phones do just fine. They have multiple cameras for all your photo needs, and plenty of power and storage to keep things humming. Besides, there’s a bonus: Every cheap phone I tested has a headphone jack. Your $1,000 can’t buy that anymore.
A Steal at Any Price
I tested eight cheap phones, ranging from the $150 Blu Vivo XL4 to the $350 Nokia 7.1. All eight scored as totally usable phones, and I found three I’d recommend to almost anyone.
Few $300 phones have cameras that can stand up to more expensive devices; Xiaomi’s Pocophone F1 takes photos and videos on par with almost any phone at any price.
Photo:
Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
Overall, my favorite cheap phone is the Nokia 7.1, from HMD Global. The metal-and-glass device looks far better than you’d expect for the price, with clean lines and gold accents. Its camera captures good pictures and video, the 5.8-inch screen looks sharp and accurate, and the battery lasts all day without issue.
Best of all, the 7.1 runs Android One, a specific branch of the Android operating system that’s perfect for this kind of phone. It’s effectively stock Android, unmarred by the manufacturer, and comes with the promise of at least two years of updates. As a result, the 7.1 has no ugly bloatware or weird interface ideas. It just runs Android, and does it well.
Newsletter Sign-up
Lenovo-owned Motorola is one of the few cheap-phone makers to actually improve on the Android experience. The Moto G7 is the company’s latest inexpensive device, and at $300 it’s another solid overall smartphone. Its built-in Moto Actions app offers a number of nifty innovations, like a way to quickly access the camera by twisting your phone in your hand twice. You can answer calls just by picking up your phone, or shut the phone up just by flipping it over.
Though cameras on most cheap phones can’t keep up with the ones in the Galaxy or iPhone lineups, one exception stood out: Xiaomi’s $300 Pocophone F1. Its camera captures soft-background portrait shots, fires off HDR shots with ease, and even offers granular control over every aspect of the shot. It falls behind the best smartphone cameras in low lighting, but I trusted it completely in almost any other situation.
Can you spot the difference between the $1,000 phone and the $350 phone? Hint: The cheaper one still has a headphone jack.
Photo:
Emily Prapuolenis/The Wall Street Journal
After testing these smartphones, I’ve come to see the smartphone industry as divided in two. There are the Casual Phones, which trade a fraction of a phone’s power for a large fraction of its cost. And there are the Luxury Phones, $1,000-and-up devices with all the latest tech for those on the cutting edge. (Oh, and get ready for a third: the Couture Phones, foldable models priced at $2,000 or more.)
For most users, casual phones are a really good deal. If you’re worried about keeping up appearances, take all that money you saved and buy a cool handbag or some sweet new shoes. Now that’s fancy.
I have been tech-obsessed from the time my father introduced me to my first computer, an Apple ][. Since then, I have been particularly interested in all things Apple, but also enjoy exploring and experimenting with any computing platform that I can get my hands on – I am the definitive early adopter! I have always been interested in how we can use technology to shape and improve our lives, most recently using it to record, mix and master my debut record, Acuity – Nature | Nurture.
His artwork, which is driven by a desire to clean up Lagos, is gaining popularity in Nigeria.
This video has been optimised for mobile viewing on the BBC News app. The BBC News app is available from the Apple App Store for iPhone and Google Play Store for Android.
When Microsoft employees balked at the company's $479 million HoloLens contract with the US Army, it raised a question: just what would this system look like? You now have a better idea. The Army has givenCNBC an early demo of its Integrated Visual Augmentation System, which uses a modified HoloLens 2 to provide both combat assistance and training. It reportedly feels like a "real-life game of Call of Duty" -- you can see your squad's positions on a map, a compass, and even your weapon's reticle. Thermal imaging would help you see in the dark without as much of a telltale glow as existing night vision headsets.
In training, IVAS can also provide data to improve performance, such as a wearer's gaze and heart rate. Instructors could coach soldiers on their aim or room-clearing techniques, for instance.
The existing HoloLens 2 is currently too big to work with existing helmets. However, one Army leader expected a sunglasses-sized unit inside of six months. We wouldn't count on that (it'd likely involve moving many components to outside the helmet or the soldier's body), but development on IVAS has only been going on for a few months. "Thousands and thousands" of soldiers could be using IVAS by 2022 and 2023, Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy said, with a wider deployment by 2028.
The demo was clearly meant to sell people on the concept and allay the concerns of those who see this as twisting peaceful technology into a destructive tool. Unsurprisingly, McCarthy doesn't perceive it that way -- he argued to CNBC that the improved battlefield awareness could minimize civilian casualties. One of the soldiers involved in the test also said this really amounted to consolidating "multiple systems" that can only handle some of what IVAS does. Microsoft isn't likely to shy away from defending the contract, then.
However, this doesn't really change some of the core objections from Microsoft's staff and other critics. Part of their issue is simply that Microsoft committed to a military project without any input. The showcase may take some of the sinister edge off the technology, but it's not going to give workers a say.
When Microsoft employees balked at the company's $479 million HoloLens contract with the US Army, it raised a question: just what would this system look like? You now have a better idea. The Army has givenCNBC an early demo of its Integrated Visual Augmentation System, which uses a modified HoloLens 2 to provide both combat assistance and training. It reportedly feels like a "real-life game of Call of Duty" -- you can see your squad's positions on a map, a compass, and even your weapon's reticle. Thermal imaging would help you see in the dark without as much of a telltale glow as existing night vision headsets.
In training, IVAS can also provide data to improve performance, such as a wearer's gaze and heart rate. Instructors could coach soldiers on their aim or room-clearing techniques, for instance.
The existing HoloLens 2 is currently too big to work with existing helmets. However, one Army leader expected a sunglasses-sized unit inside of six months. We wouldn't count on that (it'd likely involve moving many components to outside the helmet or the soldier's body), but development on IVAS has only been going on for a few months. "Thousands and thousands" of soldiers could be using IVAS by 2022 and 2023, Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy said, with a wider deployment by 2028.
The demo was clearly meant to sell people on the concept and allay the concerns of those who see this as twisting peaceful technology into a destructive tool. Unsurprisingly, McCarthy doesn't perceive it that way -- he argued to CNBC that the improved battlefield awareness could minimize civilian casualties. One of the soldiers involved in the test also said this really amounted to consolidating "multiple systems" that can only handle some of what IVAS does. Microsoft isn't likely to shy away from defending the contract, then.
However, this doesn't really change some of the core objections from Microsoft's staff and other critics. Part of their issue is simply that Microsoft committed to a military project without any input. The showcase may take some of the sinister edge off the technology, but it's not going to give workers a say.
