Time Warner, NBC Universal delay iPad support in preference to Flash - Page 2

lets not be too harsh. the NYP isn't actually known for being an authorative source. they are only about a half step above a tabloid in many eyes.

AND the article addresses the web, it doesn't actually say hell would freeze over before they made an app

I noticed your post stating, "If Apple wants to [...] that's their choice as well", so I know you understand that the company also has a choice. My comments are focused on Flash still being a larger issue than Adobe and its fans wish to acknowledge. If you look at the OS requirement, the HW requirements, the demos not rendering correctly, the current lack of HW acceleration, and the lack of a public Beta despite Flash 10.1 has been a public Beta for any months now, despite having years to get Flash on mobiles it all points to a house of cards that is not inline with the UX Apple focuses on.

okay lets clarify. there is not a well functioning full version of Flash for mobile devices.

cause I've seen Flash on a Nexus One and it stutters, freezes, sucks battery and all the stuff that the naysayers were worried about. It is not yet ready for prime time.


Yep. it's not so much HTML5 has to support DRM, but the video format does. And a lot of the stuff on Hulu is in flash so they would have to redo everything from scratch to a new video format that also has DRM. Plus would allow for the ads etc. It's just super expensive. So it makes sense on that issue that they are waiting.

I think the issue is deeper and more convoluted than that. Hulu could offer security video the stream and through a dedicated app, like ABC, CBS, Netflix, et. al.

Their reluctance may have something to do with them disallowing any Android phones from playing Hulu video when it's just more eyeballs and page hits for them. I have to think that they unfortunately don't have contracts in place with some of their content vendors for mobile devices and any viewership from these devices may be a violation of terms and/or cost Hulu money not gain them ad revenue. So, not making an HTML5 version or dedicated app for mobiles is currently the cheapest option until such time as deals can be altered, which I have to assume they are working on.

One must not recommend something simply because one read it be so. I also read a report where the Flash evangelist tried a demo in a conference. It did not work. He asked the audience for another site, and he said.
"That will not work."

My own experience with Adobe as a company is that they are not reliable in providing updates. And the updates are not just $10-20, if they even decide to do it. The OS version of my old iMac, they decided it was not worth making an upgrade, for one of their products that I bought. But, they do not even have the latest version for the Mac that I could buy. If there was one, it would have cost about $299, if memort serves me. The Windows version was $100 cheaper. To use their Windows product, I had to buy a new PC (since I did not have one), or buy the Mac and install a Windows software.

Then, the issue were just two OS, the Apple OS and the Windows.

In the mobile computing world, there will be more OS and variations of these OS, if some phone manufacturers decide to fork open source versions, like the Android.

Right now, many of these OS get major upgrades every year, plus minor upgrades in between.

If Adobe, considering mobile devices, specifically smartphones, have been around for more than three years now, and Adobe has promised to come up with one that was supposed to be a mobile Flash version since early 2009 has yet to delay that version, possibly later part of the year -- and that is just for Android -- what is the assurance that Adobe will ever keep up, not only for Android, but the iPhone OS, and other OS?


Would they treat all OS or their iterations equally? Or, would they preferentially favor one OS over another, in terms of features and frequency of updates, as they favored Windows OS over the Mac OS, in the PC market?

Those are the long term issues that Steve Jobs/Apple and many Apple products have to deal with, for decades.

Would you really they would trust Adobe, this time around?

CGC

Actually, that doesn't help. You STILL won't have Flash on a mobile device. MAYBE you'll have a very limited buggy version later this year if you choose one of a very limited number of phones, but for 99% of the market, THERE IS NO FLASH on mobile devices, NOR WILL THERE BE.


First, 10.1 BETA is out. Not a release version.

Second, it works very poorly - as shown by the link YOU cited.

Finally, even if Adobe fixes the problems and actually gets around to releasing it, it only covers a tiny percentage of smart phones.

TODAY, there are no mobile devices with a full version of Flash. Even by the end of the year, and even assuming Adobe's most optimistic projections, the vast majority of smart phones will still not have Flash.

Oh, and Hulu has announced that they will be releasing an iPad app, so by the time Flash is out of beta, it will likely be possible to run Hulu on the iPad, so that's a lousy example.

Do they say how much you can watch on a charge? That's a pretty important detail too. Proving that it can play smoothly is only half the battle. If it turns out that it flattens the battery in an hour, then that still limits its usefulness. Given that Hulu is actively trying to stop phone users, I would expect that the workaround would need to change every month or so (see also the Boxee situation), which is too bad.

It seems to me that organizations such as TW and NBC should be able to automatically handle multiple formats without huge expense. Heck, Flash supports h.264 now, and that's the currently favored video format for just about anything and h.264 can be decoded in hardware very efficiently. If their current streaming assets are on VP6 or older, then they really should be replacing them.

Retards! I assume their app would be subscription based...no? So why would they throw out the potential market base of the MILLIONS of iPad users? Douche bags!

Disney's CBS? That's news.

Let them find contentment in their choice. Only then will they find contentment, if they chose correctly. If they did, all is well. If not, let them feel the consequences.

As we experience those of our own choices.

Only then will we all learn, and perhaps exercise more prudence before we cast judgement on people's choices

CGC

Didn't google just demo it running nicely on android?

I'm not against the other formats but for sure you tube on iPhone is awful quality compared to a pc

Whatever media dudes... I will still get your content on my iPad, you just won't get any money or ad views from it.

It's been demo'd, but t's still not even a public Beta. It still doesn't work smoothly in the browser, it is still unstable, it still doesn't have HW acceleration and it's still not a PUBLIC beta or an official release in mid-2010. On top of that, it still can't play video well in the browser, it still will only be for Android phones with a 600MHz+ Cortex-A8 and Android v2.2+ which limits it to very few handsets even within the Android community, and it's still a huge battery suck and reduces the UX tremendously.

Wait...

Let me see if I can make some sense of this...

These studios have decided to continue to support FLASH and REFUSE to provide content to devices that can not or will not render FLASH containers.

One of the reasons....

Google TV

Wait, the same Google TV that will CONNECT TO THE TV* search for video content on YOUTUBE as well as the studio web sites AND hulu and let the viewer play that video back ON THE BIG TV for free (if google could find it that is).

Where do I begin...

Okay lets start with this..

HULU & ABC (other too I think) have stated numerous times that it's content is NOT intended to be seen on 'THE BIG TV' and they fear that if it WAS allowed their CABLE TV REVENUE would be very much in jeopardy. To support that notion, the ABC iPad APP was specifically designed to NOT output shows to the TV if the Apple video cable was attached. In other words... the programs were only displayed on iPad or iPhone screens and short of jail-breaking your device and finding software to 'work around' this issue that was how things would remain.

Now all of a sudden it's GREAT to show their shows ON THE BIG SCREEN and at NO COST to the users and the CABLE TV INDUSTRY can just like or or lump it?

Something's not right here.

Next these same studios who have all but pulled their content from iTunes due to that fact that they want HIGHER PRICES and were simply unwilling entertain the idea of 'subscription pricing' are NOW gonna get behind GOOGLE TV that will allow its owners to snatch EVERYTHING FOR FREE from the studio web sites OR youtube OR perhaps even TORRENT DOWNLOADS ... after all its an OPEN SYSTEM and EVERYTHING can be written for it.

Is it me or are the studios just hell bent on NOT working with APPLE at all at any price?

Which is fine and they can do whatever they want but lets just come out and say it then... The Google community can WATCH HD PROGRAMMING FOR FREE on any TV they want with the blessings of the studios while the Apple community is forced to pay $2.99 per episode unless they find the need to charge us even more (unless they rig something on their own or buy a Google TV)!

Maybe these news reporters are using Google TV as a reason for the studios behavior when it CLEARLY isn't the reason for their change of heart. (sounds more likely but who knows)

This is exactly what it comes down to... when no options are made available .... options usually turn up in places you'd likely never visit.

I think this has more to do with the fact that HTML 5 has yet to come up with even a recommended list of video codecs for Browsers to support. I.E., the biggest browser doesn't support any HTML 5 video yet. And Firefox, the second largest, only supports Ogg Theora as HTML 5 video. Google chrome supports both OGG Theora and H.264, Safari only supports H.264.

The truth is, theres no point to make content available as H.264 encoded video in HTML 5, as only people running Chrome or Safari, and the minute amount of iPad users, could view it. Plus both Chrome and Firefox are pushing the new VP8 codec, which is a much better choice than H.264 for HTML 5.

If Apple is truthful when they say they are pushing HTML content because they support open standards, I don't know why they don't support open source codecs like VP8 or OGG Theora. Apple keeps pushing H.264 as the standard for an "open" standard, HTML 5, even though H.264 subject to licensing fees and royalties to MPEG LA. MPEG LA is a group of patent holding companies including Microsoft, Apple, Dolby, and Sony.

Apple needs to support VP8 on the iPad and in Safari, so does I.E. VP8 is open source, and has performance similar to H.264, while OGG Theora isn't as efficient. VP8 is a much more future proof as H.264 has been very inconsistent in charging royalty fees. Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have all committed to supporting VP8 in their next browser versions.

Before the fast growing mobile market is big enough to make a huge difference to these companies, so that they target mobile devices big-time, Flash 10.1 will be entrenched.

It is a cost-benefit analysis. They conclude that the non-flash market will be too small to justify the cost.

Time will tell.

This is why I don't watch NBC anymore! This just enforces my conviction that that company is a dinosaur and will die slowly on the vine.

And why hasn't Steve and company, or anyone else for that matter, mad an application, were someone drops a file on an icon, in the background, it up-dates or converts a Flash file to a HTML5 file you know, something like an APPLESCRIPT!

Ok, so Steve is a big boy, and he is going to stick to his guns on this flash war. Will Apple once he's gone?

Is this an Apple thing, or a Steve j. thing?

Are they both so pig headed that they can't work out they're differences?

If you don't want to pay adobe the big bucks l buy them and pay yourself, and others will be paying you as well.

I'm reasonably sure this won't eat up to much of the BILLIONS that they are sitting on! My guess is, that Steve wants to flat out win this war, then he'll buy Adobe

Skip

You are wrong on every count. HTML5 isn't going to support a particular video codec. How or why you got this idea that it should or would is beyond me.

Safari, Chrome, the iPhone, iPad, Android all support H.264 video along with others. ARM, Intel, AMD, ATI and Nvidia are all supporting H.264 in HW. MS, Apple and Google are all supporting H.264 in their browsers and OSes. Firefox and Opera with their browsers can't stand up to that.

H.264 is HW accelerated, unlike VP8 and Theora. It's the best option for high quality with a low cost to local resources.

If you think not being free means it's not open then you need to look up these definitions.

Google may be able to push VP8 as an H.264 competitor, but it years away from being a true contender.

Man... but no Battlestar/Caprica? No Stargate?
:-/

Read the article. Duh.

I bit. It's not very clear is it.

Obviously he's written an article on how to get to Hulu content. Then updated the title to say it doesn't work anymore, with a couple of sentences apologising but then leaving the rest of the article intact. It kind of reads like it's possible.

The comments below tell a bit more - basically Hulu keeps blocking the site, and users keep successfully circumventing it until it's blocked again.

Hope that's clear

I guess I'll start buying from the marvelous Marvel Comics iPad app.

Nope. This modern day rewrite of old media is sicking! Can't these media writers come up with original ideas?

WHATWG wants to insure that there is at least one video codec that will be supported by all browsers. The three desirable quality of this codec is that is should be efficient, support hardware acceleration like you said, but most importantly be royalty free. This simply isn't possible for H.264. HTML 5 is an open standard and should not be restricted by licensing. This is what WHATWG has said they want to avoid.

Intel has also said it is working on hardware acceleration for VP8. VP8 can allow for hardware acceleration later. H.264 will always be restricted by licensing. Like I said if Apple was really serious about supporting open standards they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. As it stands right now, it looks like they have no interest in open standards, but want to preserve H.264's dominance.

For HTML 5 video to become popular, it needs a format that all browsers support. Right now it seems like its Microsoft and Apple are supporting H.264, and Google, Mozilla, and Opera supporting VP8 in future releases. Mozilla Firefox seems committed to not support H.264.

They don't actually have to use HTML5, for the iPad they only have to use an H.264 video without a Flash wrapper. Which most video streaming uses anyway

H.264 in a Quicktime wrapper.


The cost is negligible for Time Warner and NBC/Universal

They don't have to use DRM to stream to the iPad. There is no way to save with video stream on the iPad.

You can see NBC content on the iPhone from NBC's website. They are perfectly capable of delivering H.264 without Flash.

Steve Jobs doesn't control HTML5 or H.264 either. But that is what he prefers web developers to use.

This is true, no one would accuse Time Warner Cable of having their finger of the pulse of cutting edge technology.

Apple is part of a group called MPEG-LA, which charges royalties for use of the H.264 video codec. They profit from the use of H.264, along with other companies like Microsoft.

1) Google is supporting H.264 heavily as well as all the other big players you fail to mention from HW to OS to browsers.

2) HTML5 is already widely popular and growing.

3) HTML5 is open and free and can will be supported by all browsers. It's codec independent so your assertion that HTML5 needs to tell the world that it should only support specific codecs is absurd.

Big mistake. Flash is still a CPU hog, even with hardware acceleration (am running flash 10.1 geforce 8400GS and still get like 70% processor load). h.264 without flash wrapper uses only 37%.

HTML 5 is the future, and if these companies don't invest now, they will pay a lot more in the future.

HTML 5 wants to specify a codec that all browsers will support. The codec confusion right now is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. H.264 cannot be this codec as its not royalty free. That doesn't mean browsers can't use H.264 and other codecs too. But right now Mozilla refuses to support H.264 out of principle you can read about it here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php

My point is that the only reason companies aren't pushing HTML 5 content is because half the browsers support one codec, while half the internet supports another. Having once codec supported by all browsers will increase HTML 5's adobtion. An open source codec like VP8 or OGG makes sense for an open standard.

See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. Google is also shifting from supporting H.264 to VP8.

That's the point I was making. They don't need to use DRM because there's no way to save the video content on the iPad when using a "wrapper" -- in this case, a specific ABC or CBS app. If they made it an HTML5 webpage, it would be accessible not only on the iPad, but also on desktops/notebooks where the original video content could be easily ripped.


You can only watch extremely low resolution clips of shows -- stuff they don't give a crap about with regards to DRM -- you don't have access to high def full episodes or movies for that matter.

Of course .... dinosaurs hate to change.

1) Give us a link stating MPEG-LA stating that they want to specify what codecs are allowed and which ones aren't. Just a single link.

2) Companies are using HTML5 and they are using H.264. Even Adobe supports H.264 in Flash.

3) Your comment about "HTML5 content" makes no sense. HTML5 is not the content. No, having all browsers support a codec will not increase HTML5 support. These are separate issues.

4) VP8 and Theora have nothing on H.264 in terms of quality and adoption.

5) Apple never dropped Flash, it's shipped with every Mac and the iPhone OS never came with Flash because Adobe has never had a mobile version of Flash to ship.

6) H.264 is NOT the video codec for HTML5. It's the best video codec for the web, right now and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future as Theora is shit and VP8 is years from even being a viable option.

7) You have the biggest companies in the world supporting H.264, including Google and Adobe, yet you think that Mozilla and Opera will keep H.264 from being adopted? Good luck with that theory.

8) You think Apple is the sole user and proprietor of H.264 and HTML5 yet it's part been apart of every modern smartphone, is part of every modern web browser and is growing very day. You can keep ignoring the facts. I hope you learn one day but you keep referring to a container as a codec so I don't think that is likely.