Thanks for the link, this is what I was referring to, It only offers offline playing on their proprietary Android or iOS apps, There is no way to keep the movie on a computer.
I agree with you, and forgive me if can be a little stubborn some time. From a developer stand point, I see how it make plenty of sense to choose the fastest route to get the jobs done. I'm not a professional programmer, I've done plenty of things in basic, logo, Pascal and C, and I do acknowledge own painful it is to maintain code of big software like Photoshop on multiple platform. But from the users side, they will be better serve by a native apps carefully crafted and designed for the platform it target than having a one app served all approach.
FWIW: I have no reason to store a movie on my computer. Granted, I can't archive a library on a mobile device, but for true offline viewing, I could download at home, and the kids can watch on one of their ipods or an ipad on a car trip, and I can cast it to my Chromecast at home. Your point is valid if you prefer to retain all of your media on personal storage of some sort. I'm moving away from that type of media consumption though, and finding fewer movies I'd like to watch again that I wouldn't pay $4 to do so.
Your point is valid if you prefer to retain all of your media on personal storage of some sort. I'm moving away from that type of media consumption though, and finding fewer movies I'd like to watch again that I wouldn't pay $4 to do so.
Actually, I bail for a neat like software called Air Video HD, with that I put all my rips and download on a little server I can access from anywhere (inside and outside home) on all my devices and thru my Apple TV. It even has ability to download content on a devices for offline viewing.
I do share the same feelings of yours about newer movies….
Actually, I bail for a neat like software called Air Video HD, with that I put all my rips and download on a little server I can access from anywhere (inside and outside home) on all my devices and thru my Apple TV. It even has ability to download content on a devices for offline viewing.
I do share the same feelings of yours about newer movies….
On a somewhat related note there's a story out today that Google is introducing VP9 next week, offering better 4K streaming for apps like YouTube. Unlike their VP8, this time they're coming in with support from partners like Sony, Broadcom, Intel, ARM, Panasonic, Sharp and other big players.
On a somewhat related note there's a story out today that Google is introducing VP9 next week, offering better 4K streaming for apps like YouTube. Unlike their VP8, this time they're coming in with support from partners like Sony, Broadcom, Intel, ARM, Panasonic, Sharp and other big players.
I don't know what Google is trying todo here, the intellectual property of VP8 has been a fiasco and prove inferior to the h.264 consortium. I much prefer having a standardized codec under control of a consortium assuring the interoperability between devices than using a third party format under control of one entity.
I don't know what Google is trying todo here, the intellectual property of VP8 has been a fiasco and prove inferior to the h.264 consortium. I much prefer having a standardized codec under control of a consortium assuring the interoperability between devices than using a third party format under control of one entity.
In reality there's no "h.264 consortium" making unified decisions. If there were then Nokia couldn't be going "lone wolf" and refusing to license Google their pertinent patents essential to the standard while the others came to a licensing arrangement with them. Then again there were some antitrust pressures at the time according to reports. http://redmondmag.com/articles/2011/03/08/patent-group-underantitrust-scrutiny.aspx
Thinking about it Nokia's bit of trickery might be the reason Google appears to see quite a bit of success signing up hardware partners for VP9.
Comments
Thanks for the link, this is what I was referring to, It only offers offline playing on their proprietary Android or iOS apps, There is no way to keep the movie on a computer.
I agree with you, and forgive me if can be a little stubborn some time. From a developer stand point, I see how it make plenty of sense to choose the fastest route to get the jobs done. I'm not a professional programmer, I've done plenty of things in basic, logo, Pascal and C, and I do acknowledge own painful it is to maintain code of big software like Photoshop on multiple platform. But from the users side, they will be better serve by a native apps carefully crafted and designed for the platform it target than having a one app served all approach.
FWIW: I have no reason to store a movie on my computer. Granted, I can't archive a library on a mobile device, but for true offline viewing, I could download at home, and the kids can watch on one of their ipods or an ipad on a car trip, and I can cast it to my Chromecast at home. Your point is valid if you prefer to retain all of your media on personal storage of some sort. I'm moving away from that type of media consumption though, and finding fewer movies I'd like to watch again that I wouldn't pay $4 to do so.
Your point is valid if you prefer to retain all of your media on personal storage of some sort. I'm moving away from that type of media consumption though, and finding fewer movies I'd like to watch again that I wouldn't pay $4 to do so.
Actually, I bail for a neat like software called Air Video HD, with that I put all my rips and download on a little server I can access from anywhere (inside and outside home) on all my devices and thru my Apple TV. It even has ability to download content on a devices for offline viewing.
I do share the same feelings of yours about newer movies….
marubeni quoted you in a post in NPD: Chromebook sales outperform MacBooks in commercial sector as iPad loses ground.
In other news, toilet paper outsold engineering text books by 100 to 1
Most people find TP far more useful.
I'm sure you typed your reply on a toilet paper and not a engineered computing product. (TP also needs to be engineered btw). :-)
On a somewhat related note there's a story out today that Google is introducing VP9 next week, offering better 4K streaming for apps like YouTube. Unlike their VP8, this time they're coming in with support from partners like Sony, Broadcom, Intel, ARM, Panasonic, Sharp and other big players.
On a somewhat related note there's a story out today that Google is introducing VP9 next week, offering better 4K streaming for apps like YouTube. Unlike their VP8, this time they're coming in with support from partners like Sony, Broadcom, Intel, ARM, Panasonic, Sharp and other big players.
I don't know what Google is trying todo here, the intellectual property of VP8 has been a fiasco and prove inferior to the h.264 consortium. I much prefer having a standardized codec under control of a consortium assuring the interoperability between devices than using a third party format under control of one entity.
In reality there's no "h.264 consortium" making unified decisions. If there were then Nokia couldn't be going "lone wolf" and refusing to license Google their pertinent patents essential to the standard while the others came to a licensing arrangement with them. Then again there were some antitrust pressures at the time according to reports.
http://redmondmag.com/articles/2011/03/08/patent-group-underantitrust-scrutiny.aspx
Thinking about it Nokia's bit of trickery might be the reason Google appears to see quite a bit of success signing up hardware partners for VP9.
But somehow, if they aren't meant to impress idiots at Starbucks, then they must not exist!