Hulu Coming to iPhone

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Wuuhuuuuuuu!



http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-...eadlinesArea.0



Looking forward to this... Can't catch up on all of my missed shows otherwise.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Huh. I thought Hulu was Flash based.
  • Reply 2 of 26
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,840member
    Hulu.com is Flash based... they'll adjust for the iPhone app.
  • Reply 3 of 26
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Hulu.com is Flash based... they'll adjust for the iPhone app.



    Like, re-encode all their stuff as H.264? That would be awesome, and not just for the iPhone.
  • Reply 4 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Flash supports H.264, so all of their content could already be in the codec. It's simple enough to stream content without the Flash wrapper.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Like, re-encode all their stuff as H.264? That would be awesome, and not just for the iPhone.



  • Reply 5 of 26
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    All the iPhone needs is a link to a H.264 file, none of that Adobe proprietry rubbish, which Adobe seems intent on getting onto every web browsing device on earth.



    I wonder why no-one calls for antitrust action on that?



    Must be because it's not Apple I suppose!
  • Reply 6 of 26
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Flash supports H.264, so all of their content could already be in the codec. It's simple enough to stream content without the Flash wrapper.



    I find it strange that you can realize flash is a wrapper and the little apps that folk write for the iPhone that point at the H.264 content are somehow NOT wrappers.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    No they are not media wrappers like flash, they are front end user interfaces.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I find it strange that you can realize flash is a wrapper and the little apps that folk write for the iPhone that point at the H.264 content are somehow NOT wrappers.



  • Reply 8 of 26
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Sounds like a semantics debate.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Media wrappers are required to play their proprietary media files. QuickTime and Windows Media Player are media wrappers. H.264 doesn't require a media wrapper at all. HTML 5 will allowing the playing of open source media right in the browser window, without an third party player.



    Twitter, or Wikipedia, or the New York Times on the iPhone are not wrappers, they organize and present information from a database.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Sounds like a semantics debate.



  • Reply 10 of 26
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    H.264 doesn't require a media wrapper at all. HTML 5 will allowing the playing of open source media right in the browser window, without an third party player.



    HTML 5 will still require a container. For which wrapper is obviously just another word. Whether it's .mov, .mp4 (which is a derivative of .mov), .wmv, .avi, .mkv, .ogm or something else ? you still need to wrap the raw video data into a container format, particularly if you want audio (which isn't that unlikely, is it now?).



    What HTML 5 removes the need for is absurd amounts of somewhat vendor-specific markup that really just says "here's a video, play it". It still requires a player, and that player will still require something wrapped around the H.264 video stream.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Alright my understanding was that the container and wrapper were different, but it is true they are often used interchangebly. But my over all point is that media streamed to the iPhone does not have to be in a proprietary wrapper such as flash, and proprietary wrappers will not be required for HTML 5.



    As far as the player from my understanding the player is built into the browser. That is required for a browser to support HTML media.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    HTML 5 will still require a container. For which wrapper is obviously just another word. Whether it's .mov, .mp4 (which is a derivative of .mov), .wmv, .avi, .mkv, .ogm or something else — you still need to wrap the raw video data into a container format, particularly if you want audio (which isn't that unlikely, is it now?).



    What HTML 5 removes the need for is absurd amounts of somewhat vendor-specific markup that really just says "here's a video, play it". It still requires a player, and that player will still require something wrapped around the H.264 video stream.



  • Reply 12 of 26
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    But my over all point is that media streamed to the iPhone does not have to be in a proprietary wrapper such as flash, and proprietary wrappers will not be required for HTML 5.



    Indeed.



    Quote:

    As far as the player from my understanding the player is built into the browser. That is required for a browser to support HTML media.



    Well, HTML 5 doesn't really require to be built-in; it can come in form of a plug-in just as it does now.



    I'm afraid it won't do much to reduce the Flash-based players in the short run.
  • Reply 13 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Well, HTML 5 doesn't really require to be built-in; it can come in form of a plug-in just as it does now.



    At least from the hype the point of HTML 5 media is to play media in the browser without need for a third party player.



    Quote:

    I'm afraid it won't do much to reduce the Flash-based players in the short run.



    No, no one expects it to. But Adobe is clearly concerened about the long run. As it's clear Palm, Apple, and Google and prepared to take full advantage of these features.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    At least from the hype the point of HTML 5 media is to play media in the browser without need for a third party player.



    I suppose it depends on how you define "built-in". In Safari, QuickTime will handle the HTML 5 video and audio tags. It wouldn't make sense for Safari to have its own multimedia framework when the OS already ships with a robust and extensible one. Likewise, you'd expect a browser on GNOME to use GStreamer, and a browser in Windows to use Windows Media.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Ok I see what you are saying. For all intents and purposes I would call that built in. In the sense that the browser is using API's to access the system's built in media framework and not an added on third party media framework.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    I suppose it depends on how you define "built-in". In Safari, QuickTime will handle the HTML 5 video and audio tags. It wouldn't make sense for Safari to have its own multimedia framework when the OS already ships with a robust and extensible one. Likewise, you'd expect a browser on GNOME to use GStreamer, and a browser in Windows to use Windows Media.



  • Reply 16 of 26
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    if google wants to go up against hulu then it has to rework the iphone youtube app and its website

    its owned by the king of search but to search for anything on youtube you get all the trash

    if i search for history channel content i get everything with "history" tagged to some stupid junk

    like how i prep for my history test, the vast majority of stuff on youtube is junk. well i look forward to hulu, google needs to rework the UI and provide more relevant searching or have channels for this content

    then when i find a video i want to see, finding the other 6 parts of the video is very difficult



    google needs better organization better UI and better searches stop making youtube a sideline

    hulu is easier



    unless i'm using it wrong and you have suggestions for ways to view programming on youtube iphone app let me know but till them

    google loses
  • Reply 17 of 26
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post


    if google wants to go up against hulu then it has to rework the iphone youtube app and its website

    its owned by the king of search but to search for anything on youtube you get all the trash

    if i search for history channel content i get everything with "history" tagged to some stupid junk

    like how i prep for my history test, the vast majority of stuff on youtube is junk. well i look forward to hulu, google needs to rework the UI and provide more relevant searching or have channels for this content

    then when i find a video i want to see, finding the other 6 parts of the video is very difficult



    google needs better organization better UI and better searches stop making youtube a sideline

    hulu is easier



    unless i'm using it wrong and you have suggestions for ways to view programming on youtube iphone app let me know but till them

    google loses



    YouTube still has the advantage of content. Vastly more content than Hulu. OTOH, if you are looking for full episodes of shows, Hulu will win in the short term. Incidentally, the NBC app is pretty badly done and it is a real pain trying to watch a long-form program (22 minutes and above vs. 3 to 5 minute clips) because the content is split into multiple files. It's just not well designed. With any luck, the Hulu app will be nothing like the NBC app.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    YouTube still has the advantage of content. Vastly more content than Hulu. OTOH, if you are looking for full episodes of shows, Hulu will win in the short term. Incidentally, the NBC app is pretty badly done and it is a real pain trying to watch a long-form program (22 minutes and above vs. 3 to 5 minute clips) because the content is split into multiple files. It's just not well designed. With any luck, the Hulu app will be nothing like the NBC app.



    "Content" is only an advantage when it's the sort of thing you want. Half a million funny dog videos are just in the way when you're looking for TV shows and movies, or anything in particular, really.



    The signal to noise problem can be surmounted with excellent search algorithms and good basic organization, of which You Tube has neither-- ironic, as has been pointed out, in a Google operation.
  • Reply 19 of 26
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    "Content" is only an advantage when it's the sort of thing you want. Half a million funny dog videos are just in the way when you're looking for TV shows and movies, or anything in particular, really.



    The signal to noise problem can be surmounted with excellent search algorithms and good basic organization, of which You Tube has neither-- ironic, as has been pointed out, in a Google operation.



    I agree. It's a horse race between quantity and quality.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I agree. It's a horse race between quantity and quality.



    Pretty much the same issue Apple is facing with the App Store.



    Hell, it's pretty much the same issue that everyone faces in the digital era: how to filter the tsunami of information in ways that allow to find what you need, without drastically limiting your choices, making you spend a lot of time figuring out appropriate boolean operators, or making you the target of an unseen or unacknowledged agenda.
Sign In or Register to comment.