or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Time Warner, NBC Universal delay iPad support in preference to Flash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time Warner, NBC Universal delay iPad support in preference to Flash - Page 3

post #81 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

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.

From what I've read, the VP8 codec has many of the same patent encumbrances as h.264. So it may not end up being royalty free.
post #82 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
http://www.vedetta.com/whatwg-drops-...-specification
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."

Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.

According to this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
To use H.264, it cost $5million a year.

WHATWG Doesn't want to pick only one codec. They just want one to be support on all browsers, but browsers are free to support anything else. And its more of a recommendation than something they plan to enforce.
post #83 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
http://www.vedetta.com/whatwg-drops-...-specification
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."

From your very link:
Ian Hickson mentions that for video codecs to be included as requirement in HTML5 specification, the following needs to happen:
— Ogg Theora improves the quality-per-bit and video quality for HD, vendors will make Ogg Theora decoder chips available to the public, and major browsers will include Ogg Theora without getting sued.
— H.264 patents expire, which will no longer require license fees for H.264 support.
I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.

Quote:
Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.

That has not been your point. if that was your point you would have mentioned that Google bought VP8 as an eventual contender to H.264 so that it would have a fallback option in a few years or MPEG-LA would be forced to make H.264 free for all browsers.

Quote:
According to this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
H.264 cost $5million a year.

How about a viable link next time:

http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20L...n-10-02-02.pdf As we have been stating ad nauseum VP8 and Theora are no where close to being ready for the majority of the web. They have zero HW acceleration which is needed for mobile systems for playing video without stuttering and for saving battery life. They are not good quality compared to H.264 and they are not well designed at the moment. Does VP8 have potential in Google's pocket? Of course, that's why they bought it, but it's far from replacing H.264, if that is even possible. There are even issues with Theora and VP8 actually being "free". Saying it's free and actually being free are very different things and even if Google says it will cover all legal expenditures that doesn't mean that Opera and Mozilla will not be affected.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #84 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

If I'm not mistaken, HTML5 doesn't support DRM which is why the CBS and ABC TV show "wrappers" for the iPad are an App and not an actual webpage you can go to.

Or maybe I'm wrong here?

You are right. They would need to write an app to do DRM. Technically that is all Flash is though. A wrapper over H.264 video to do DRM. In this case they would need an Objective-C wrapper for the H.264 video instead.
post #85 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.

Thats not wait I'm saying, Apple and Microsoft are pushing H.264 by not supporting OGG or VP8, in addition to their H.264. (Both Apple and Microsoft are part of MPEG-LA which owns H.264 patents).

Motzilla cannot support H.264 because of licensing issues, Opera cannot support H.264 because they can't afford it.

Quote:
Ian Hickson mentions that for video codecs to be included as requirement in HTML5 specification, the following needs to happen:
— Ogg Theora improves the quality-per-bit and video quality for HD, vendors will make Ogg Theora decoder chips available to the public, and major browsers will include Ogg Theora without getting sued.
— H.264 patents expire, which will no longer require license fees for H.264 support.

This was before VP8 was released as open source. VP8 is very close to H.264 in quality, and Intel is currently working on getting hardware acceleration support for it. H.264 has already been dominate for years so it does have a head start.

At the end of the day HTML 5 is supposed to be and open standard. The whole point of the video tag is to get video content out of an external flash player, and make it available to any browser to use. H.264 defeats this purpose as small developers simply cannot afford to support it. And by not supporting H.264 your browser is locked out of all HTML 5 H.264 video.

At this point only Safari, Chrome, and soon Microsoft have the money/ability to support H.264. Chrome however supports OGG and soon VP8. Safari and I.E. will only support H.264. That means if a video uses an OGG or VP8 codec, it can't be viewed on I.E. or Safari, a huge portion of the market. Apple and Microsoft are already starting to monopolize HTML 5 video. And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues. If Apple wants to encourage HTML 5 adoption, they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. Microsoft too, although I doubt they care. It seems they both are committed to continue to collect royalties off H.264 video.
post #86 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues.

This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #87 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

**Scratches head**

Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:

http://www.absolutelyandroid.com/gui...oid-2-2-froyo/

Be honest with yourself, demos have already shown that flash mobile commands your hardware resources quickly while sucking up battery. For android or iPhone if it used flash, neither owner would find these problems acceptable for daily usage.
post #88 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!

Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....

Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.
post #89 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

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.

Strawman. Apple has said no such thing, and they even said that they pay way more to the MPEG LA for royalties than they get back for their patents. There are literally hundreds of companies behind the tech behind H.264, so clearly while ideally there would be an efficient codec for video that is also hardware accelerated and not subject to patent trolls and is royalty free, there isn't. There's a reason why H.264 is used so widely... it's the best codec for the job. VP8 is very likely to get some patent suits against it, so even Google isn't supporting it like you said. They just simply published the spec in hopes of someone else taking the time to improve it. Anyway, VP8 is not a contender in the codec battles... it's likely that the codec quality is actually quite bad compared to H.264, since On2 is notorious for preaching how great its codecs are when in reality they aren't that good. After that, the patent trolls will come after people, because VP8 simply copies H.264 in many parts. And then, after that, you still have to have manufacturers produce hardware decoders for hardware acceleration. So, really there isn't a viable alternative now to H.264 as you would like to suggest. And Apple is doing what everyone else is doing, supporting H.264 because its the best option available. If WebM proved to have hardware support, have a reasonable defense against patent trolls, and is comparable in quality or better than H.264, it would be a no-brainer for Apple to include it on their products. As it is now, though, H.264 is the only option.
post #90 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....

Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.

:SIGH: it's so annoying when someone responds without actually reading your post.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #91 of 160
Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it. OGG THeora was built to fail as they had to use less efficient algorithms to maneuver around patents. VP8 may not be as good as a codec as H.264 but can be improved. Intel is also developing hardware acceleration for WebM, at least for TVs.

Currently I.E. does not support any HTML 5 video, which is probably why these media companies have not embraced HTML 5. Their content is already in H.264, but in flash, however if Apple and Microsoft supported VP8, they'd at least have an option to make their content available on all browsers by using VP8, not just the big three.

But since Apple and Microsoft do not support VP8, and since smaller companies cannot afford H.264 licensing, companies would have to release media on both H.264 and VP8 to make it available to everyone. What will happen is these companies will not deem it worth it to support VP8, and small browser developers are locked out of content. Then both Safari, I.E., and Chrome enjoy a monopoly as H.264 is not available to other browsers (Flash currently prevents this). At least chrome will support all three codecs.
post #92 of 160
Apple has 1 patent with the MPEG-LA. And Apple does pay royalties to use H.264 like every other licensee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

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.
post #93 of 160
My point is there is no technical reason why they cannot provide H.264 content without Flash. Their willingness to do so is a different matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

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.
post #94 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by satcomer View Post

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.

Maybe they can't commit due to the ongoing sale to "Kabletown" (Comcast).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #95 of 160
The browser doesn't have to support H.264. The browser can pass it along to the media framework in the OS which can play H.264

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it.

The largest video distributors on the web have embraced H.264. These media companies have not embraced it because they want to snub Apple.

Quote:
Currently I.E. does not support any HTML 5 video, which is probably why these media companies have not embraced HTML 5.
post #96 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple has 1 patent with the MPEG-LA. And Apple does pay royalties to use H.264 like every other licensee.

Apple does, so does anyone who uses H.264. A lot of people use it. Apple does make money of the industry wide use of H.264.

Quote:
The largest video distributors on the web have embraced H.264. These media companies have not embraced it because they want to snub Apple.

Probably has more to do with I.E. not yet supporting any HTML 5 video.
post #97 of 160
Once again American corporate media giants learn nothing from the past. They are betting that visionaries like Dell, etc., will bail them out by creating iPad killers using cheap or free knock off OS'es. They still haven't gotten it have they. The Windows business model dies hard.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #98 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it. OGG THeora was built to fail as they had to use less efficient algorithms to maneuver around patents. VP8 may not be as good as a codec as H.264 but can be improved. Intel is also developing hardware acceleration for WebM, at least for TVs. ...

The browser wars are over, and there are 4 browsers that matter, Chrome, Firefox, IE and Safari. Opera is irrelevant. All of the 4 significant browser vendors can afford H.264 licensing. All of the mobile device manufacturers can afford it. Ogg and VP8 are technically inferior, lack hardware acceleration, and will be found to be patent encumbered, and won't turn out to be viable options. (The only reason Google bought and are promoting VP8 is to create confusion and disruption, a state they see as beneficial to them.) H.264 is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable alternative.

Would I prefer a completely patent free, open source video codec? Yes, I would, but it's not happening anytime soon, and maybe never will, given the state of patents in this field. If Mozilla doesn't face up to reality soon, they will find that they got played big time by Google, and they will become irrelevant, with Chrome inheriting their market share.

You can rant and rave about, "It must be free!" but you are tilting at windmills, the state of video is what it is and wishes aren't going to make it otherwise.

EDIT: Does anyone really take it as truth that VP8 is not patent encumbered because Google said it isn't? This is a company with so little concept of the idea that intellectual property can belong to anyone but them, that you could almost say they have corporate borderline personality disorder. Google's claims about VP8 being free of patent liability have about as much credibility as their Claims that their Books program didn't violate copyright law.
post #99 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

Hulu prevents all mobile phones from accessing it. It's not that the phones can't run hulu site, it's just that hulu is blocking it.

But just a quick search, and you can find a workaround for that too.

Sounds like a great user experience
post #100 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).

It has been mentioned before, Flash 9.4 does run on the Nokia N900
post #101 of 160
I know I shouldn't feed the troll. But these are important points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Apple does, so does anyone who uses H.264. A lot of people use it. Apple does make money of the industry wide use of H.264.

Microsoft has nearly 40 patents in the MPEG-LA, and here is what they say about revenue.

Hachamovitch was quick to defuse allegations that Microsoft as a member of the MPEG-LA H.264 group was profiting from steering users to the video format. The company receives "less than half" the money in royalties than it puts in to get the rights for device users", he said.

Microsoft: H.264 in HTML5 about support, not cash

Quote:
Probably has more to do with I.E. not yet supporting any HTML 5 video.

Support for the iPad has nothing to do with I.E.
post #102 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Remarks like this have to make one laugh. I really don't know where these people get their ideas from.

The truth is that Apple wants to be able to control its own destiny. Anyone with any intelligence ought to want to control their own destiny. The basic problem with Flash, the real problem, besides the fact that it sucks, is that if you use Flash, as a platform vendor, developer, or content provider, Adobe controls your destiny, not you.

+1 So true.\
post #103 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

**Scratches head**

Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:

http://www.absolutelyandroid.com/gui...oid-2-2-froyo/

Keep scratching. Mobile Flash 10.1 is beta not a released product and also won't run on most older versions of smartphones whether they are iPhone OS based, Android based or whoever.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #104 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars View Post

How painful could it be to convert videos to HTML5?

It's not like it takes thousands of people adjusting every frame. It's a process that can be automated and left to run over the weekend basically.

Sure, I get that it's not the same as me converting a few songs from mp3 to AAC, but really?

They can convert the important new stuff first and do the older titles slowly. Like the iTunes store did.

Seems like such a poor business decision not to get your media in as many players as possible, even if there are technical obstacles.

For them it's also an assumption that Flash will be around forever. They wait till their hand is forced & then we hear the horror stories of what it cost them to rush out a solution. Fools, never put your eggs in one basket.
post #105 of 160
Quote:
reformatting would be expensive and not worth it because Flash dominates the Web.

Now I can tell you these words were originated from someone who needed job security.
post #106 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Now I can tell you these words were originated from someone who needed job security.

Quote:
reformatting would be expensive and not worth it because [IE] dominates the Web.

Quote:
[USB] would be expensive and not worth it because [serial and parallel] dominates [PCs].

Anytime I see someone claim "this is the way we do it, this is the way we've always done it and this is way we'll continue to do it" I can't help but put my money on the other guy who is adapting with changing technologies, not remaining static.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #107 of 160
Story is baloney.
post #108 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I can understand that. The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).

That's what these "Apple is blocking Flash' people keep missing. THERE IS NO VERSION OF FLASH that would run on an iPhone - no matter what Apple does. Witness the fact that there's no Flash on jailbroken phones or on any other mobile device.

Idiots.

Android 2.2 (or whatever is the name for Froyo) does have Flash 10 running and much as I have seen, it is running fine. I'm not sure how many old Android phones will be able to upgrade, but Nexus One will, so I'm guessing other relatively new phones will also (at least from Motorola Droid and on).

WebOS 1.4 was demoed with running Flash, not perfectly smooth in video but potential is there. Stronger hardware HP will (again, presumingly) be putting in their WebOS devices will help.

I don't know about BBs, W7... but I'd expect them to follow the trend. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this year iPhone is the only major player without Flash support.

We know there is no working version of Flash for iPhone, but it is not like Apple is encouraging Adobe to create one, now. Saying you will not let Flash on your platform usually tends to discourage people from spending time and money creating one.
post #109 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Android 2.2 (or whatever is the name for Froyo) does have Flash 10 running and much as I have seen, it is running fine. I'm not sure how many old Android phones will be able to upgrade, but Nexus One will, so I'm guessing other relatively new phones will also (at least from Motorola Droid and on).

WebOS 1.4 was demoed with running Flash, not perfectly smooth in video but potential is there. Stronger hardware HP will (again, presumingly) be putting in their WebOS devices will help.

I don't know about BBs, W7... but I'd expect them to follow the trend. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this year iPhone is the only major player without Flash support.

We know there is no working version of Flash for iPhone, but it is not like Apple is encouraging Adobe to create one, now. Saying you will not let Flash on your platform usually tends to discourage people from spending time and money creating one.

EVEN IF Adobe meets their projections and EVEN IF 10.1 turns out to be any good, it requires an 800 MHz processor - so it would be incapable of running on the iPhone even if Apple were begging for it.

Look at how many phones in the market today have > 800 MHz processors. The percentage is tiny. Now, look at how many of those run Android 2.2 or have upgrades available for Android 2.2. The tiny percentage shrinks even further.

Yes, the 10.1 version for Android may actually get released sometime this year. And maybe they'll even release a WebOS version some time this year for systems over 800 MHz. That's still only an insignificant portion of the market. So, today, the percentage that can run it is zero. The percentage that MIGHT BE ABLE to run it by year end is probably single digits. The people who made the decision to use Flash for their mobile delivery are idiots.

And all of that even assumes that Flash 10.1 works. Every public demo so far has crashed and battery life is terrible, so even that assumption is questionable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #110 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Android 2.2 (or whatever is the name for Froyo) does have Flash 10 running and much as I have seen, it is running fine.

As others have pointed out, "running fine," is more than a bit of an exaggeration.

Also, as has been pointed out, Adobe hasn't shown that it can develop software, any software, that works well for more than one platform at a time, so, even if it were to (and it hasn't yet) develop a mobile version of Flash that runs well on one mobile platform, all indications are that this would be taxing the limits of their capabilities.
post #111 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

They have every right to stick to their guns. If Apple wants to push forward with HTML5, that's their choice as well.

To be honest, I'd rather have the choice on my device of which platform I wanted to use instead of someone forcing me one way or the other. HTML5 isn't ready to take over 98% (or whatever number Adobe is throwing around these days), so until that does happen, I'll have to side with the NBC/Time Warner guys.

Besides, how long would it take to retool a site like Hulu anyway? That can't be a simple task.

THANK YOU! I've said it before and I'll say it again LET THE USERS CHOOSE! I too am with the diabolical TV networks on this one (though my family disconnected our TV "programming" a good while back).
Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
post #112 of 160
I must say, I LOVE following the flash debate. I'm on the edge of my seat!
Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
post #113 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

It has been mentioned before, Flash 9.4 does run on the Nokia N900

not to mention 10.1 has now gone public beta.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #114 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

As others have pointed out, "running fine," is more than a bit of an exaggeration.

Also, as has been pointed out, Adobe hasn't shown that it can develop software, any software, that works well for more than one platform at a time, so, even if it were to (and it hasn't yet) develop a mobile version of Flash that runs well on one mobile platform, all indications are that this would be taxing the limits of their capabilities.

speaking of exaggeration...

Depends what your bias is. All most people have are the sites looking for clicks on sensationalism. Until people personally verify stuff, in one ear and out the other. Sorry.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #115 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Remarks like this have to make one laugh. I really don't know where these people get their ideas from.

The truth is that Apple wants to be able to control its own destiny. Anyone with any intelligence ought to want to control their own destiny. The basic problem with Flash, the real problem, besides the fact that it sucks, is that if you use Flash, as a platform vendor, developer, or content provider, Adobe controls your destiny, not you.

Your comment doesn't even make sense... So if using Flash is equal to handing your destiny to Adobe... what does using Apple's development environment, Apple's analytics, Apple's ad platform filtered through Apple's 'approved content' moderators equate to? I think it means handing your destiny over to Apple as well. The only difference is that there is only one platform worth supporting in Apple's view of the world. For a software developer or publisher who needs to target multiple platforms to reach the broadest set of customers, Apple controlling your destiny is a hell of a lot scarier than Adobe controlling it.
post #116 of 160
NBC Universal, I think I know where their thoughts are coming from. NBCU is so mismanaged that one of my friends quit his job at a big market NBC O&O TV station because he thought Jeff Zucker (NBCU CEO) was screwing things up. And shortly before he left, NBC outsourced promos at all their O&Os (NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, Dallas, San Diego, Miami, DC, Hartford) to Gari Media Group, an Atlanta-based company. He thought that how would someone in Atlanta know, say, Chicago, better than someone in Chicago proper? And NBC doesn't even have an O&O in Atlanta, just an affiliate.

But I call BS on the Time Warner part. Didn't they say somewhere that they wanted all their services iPad ready in one form or another by the end of the year? Still, Time Warner is a heavy Flash user. Heck, TBS and TNT just transitioned to Flash a few weeks ago from the streaming WMV-DRM that they had been using for years. TBS, TNT, and other Time Warner networks probably use H.264 in a Flash container, and if it is, a TBS or TNT iPad app is not only easy to do, but (probably) right around the corner.
post #117 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

speaking of exaggeration...

Depends what your bias is. All most people have are the sites looking for clicks on sensationalism. Until people personally verify stuff, in one ear and out the other. Sorry.

Please identify where exactly you think I have exaggerated and how.
post #118 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

Once again, Soli being the only one that knows what they're talking about here at AI!

Jeez people: do a little reading before spouting off about things you don't have the slightest idea about.

From This AI Post
The problem is that video experts such as Garrett-Glaser are reporting that VP8 is not only unfinished and incomplete, but will also run afoul of the broad range of patents covering the latest video compression and decoding technologies. Those patents are held by a wide consortium of vendors who have pooled their technology together under the direction of the ISO's Motion Picture Experts Group.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #119 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Please identify where exactly you think I have exaggerated and how.

did I say -you- exaggerated?

easy on the red bulls and learn to read.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #120 of 160
I for one welcome our HTML5 overlords.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Time Warner, NBC Universal delay iPad support in preference to Flash
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Time Warner, NBC Universal delay iPad support in preference to Flash