Don't try and play your dumb ass games with me and change the meaning of my posting.
You or infamous for it and it's really pathetic.
I said that by the end of 2011 a mobile platform that doesn't support Flash will be dead.
That doesn't mean they will not continue to sell. Market share will be dwindled down to 4th or 5th place if you read any reliable source. BlackBerries are going to support Flash as well as Android, WinMo, Nokia.
You fail to admit that you belittle anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Wasn't it Apple that said if the iPhone didn't upgrade it's OS for X years the competitors would finally achieve what Apple has. Apple missed that date.
Tell Apple to worry about fixing it's current problems with latest Greatest Steve Jobs best Phone in the world and then worry about 1st changing the name of the iPad then working on a feature set that matches a NetBook because it currently can't handle anything not sold through iTunes.
You are a weak minded person that 99% of your postings can either be shown false by a simple Google search or incoherant due to some mind altering situation. Either case is disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Gotta save this post. You're claiming that all iPhones, iPads, and, at the very least, Blackberries, will not be on the market, hence dead, in5 under 11 months.
Despite repeating all the facts for you again you've also failed to read my comments about ONLY Flash video will wane in favour of HTML5 streaming video on mobiles in 2010, not that HTML5 will replace all Flash everywhere which it clearly can't do. You've also failed to make notice of the very real and well documented issue with Flash on mobiles from ARM to Atom, or explained why it's Apple's fault no mobile OS can stream video from Flash in 2010.
i'm out of the office now so you have fun in your myopic little bubble.
Just because Flash runs bad on the iPhone doesn't make it an Adobe problem. I think it makes it an Apple Problem on what chipset they support. But for the record ARM does support Flash and given that Apple's Advertisings and current base of users is for people with disposable income (or their kids that still have Daddy's card in their wallet).
A yearly update puts Apple at a disadvantage with the ever evolving mobile chip sets (reason why Android will surpass Apple in 2 years).
Um, as for the original iPhone supporting YouTube, all content had to be converted to a format that iPhone could play. In the beginning it tooks weeks for posted content to be available for the iPhone.
2nd and for me the most important. YouTube is for young users to post their latest party content. Hulu is a media that I watch (Television & Movies).
As for Apple driving up the EBook rates. If I have to pay more for an EBook than I do for a paperback book then it's not worth the price.
For me a good book is to shared after I read it. I can't do that under Apple's Umbrella and I'm certainly not paying more money to have the privelage of putting it on 2 devices (iPhone, iPad).
Apple screwed the end user trying to kill the Kindle. I think no publishers were interested in the iPad until Apple said we can all make more money. Amazon caved because they had to.
Do you make this stuff up or what. I currently stream my Comcast cable via my EyE TV to my Iphone WIFI and 3G. I can watch a ton of content via video Apps but none are called Hulu. Flash is not on the Iphone but if you actually wanted to, you can watch about anything worth watching on the Iphone/Ipad. If you want to share I'm sure someone will write a program to remove the DRM. Not like it doesn't exist for every other format Music, Video ect. Of course you can share all your Kindle content but you will have to loan your friend your KIndle because they also use DRM. Guess what the folks who write for a living would like to get paid so Apple is trying to determine a fair price for content. If you are too cheap to pay you can always steal it. I would suggest you save your money and spend it on an education. It will come in handy when you actually want to pay for content.
From what I could tell, Apple's iTunes only sells current TV eps. or movies. I really don'y think they care what Hulu does on their iPad as long as people buy their iPad and view Hulu on it and not on some lame NetBook.
Do you make this stuff up or what. I currently stream my Comcast cable via my EyE TV to my Iphone WIFI and 3G. I can watch a ton of content via video Apps but none are called Hulu. Flash is not on the Iphone but if you actually wanted to, you can watch about anything worth watching on the Iphone/Ipad. If you want to share I'm sure someone will write a program to remove the DRM. Not like it doesn't exist for every other format Music, Video ect. Of course you can share all your Kindle content but you will have to loan your friend your KIndle because they also use DRM. Guess what the folks who write for a living would like to get paid so Apple is trying to determine a fair price for content. If you are too cheap to pay you can always steal it. I would suggest you save your money and spend it on an education. It will come in handy when you actually want to pay for content.
Don't lecture me about what I can afford. I am very comfortable with the gadgets I purchase to amuse me. My education is first not relevant but a post grad in computer science with a math minor gets me by.
You obviously don't go to CNN, ESPN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX etc on anything but an iPhone App because you won't get their video. They are all in Flash.
I read more than I listen to music. I watch the News and Sports more than I do the Disney Channel (currently in Flash).
Get out of your box and realize Steve Jobs is not the second coming of Christ and the iPhone is becoming the next RAZR and Apple is already considering lowering their prices before the iPad has made it to market.
By the way, I'm watching last nights episode of Lost on Hulu with my Windows 7 notebook hooked up to my HD TV because I deleted it off my PVR by mistake. It's Free, does that lower my intelect or my education level because I'm smart enough to take advantage of current technology?
Edit: My notebook has HDMI no reason for an adapter that I have to pay for.
From what I could tell, Apple's iTunes only sells current TV eps. or movies. I really don'y think they care what Hulu does on their iPad as long as people buy their iPad and view Hulu on it and not on some lame NetBook.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
Any device that doesn't support Flash will be dead by 2011. HTML5 is not mature enough to replace it on the web and there is too much content currently in Flash that is on the web that will not make the conversion for many reasons I can post when you are coherant [sic].
Hey! We haven't talked yet... Hopefully you'll give me a chance to understand... Can you explain to me your quote here?
Quote:
Apple will never support Free Streaming, for that reason my next phone will not be an iPhone.
I was just curious because this seems 100%, completely blatantly and utterly false, and I noticed that you were ignoring everyone that was asking about it. I'm just curious if you could clarify .
--
A disclaimer: I'm a developer and I was at WWDC when the HTTP Live Streaming protocol was introduced by Apple last June. It's currently in the first stages of becoming an internet standard. Its draft proposal is here. Some background information that's not readily available from the Wikipedia article... Basically this works on Mac OS X and via APIs you can hook into it in native iPhone applications. In order to encode videos that work through this standard, you can either use any number of industry standard encoding pipelines or use a draft implementation of a splitter and encoder that they've provided. This is how application's like MLB's At Bat provide "Free Streaming."
Why did they decide to create a new standard instead of using an existing one? Accessibility. By piggy backing on HTTP and serving videos in chunks, they're able to go through particularly restrictive routers or firewalls.
And content in Mobile Safari? They've supported H.264 video (albeit with some restrictions on data rate ? simply because of limitations in the processor) from day one. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that if Hulu were to repackage their video files for HTML 5 video (remember .flv files, just like .mov are just container formats and have nothing to do with the encoding used; any Hulu video ? all episodes and movies, I believe ? which has a high quality version is already encoded in H264) that Apple would physically block the site from loading or working in Mobile Safari? Or are you arguing that the costs of repackaging their videos would outweight the revenue they would gain from creating an iPad-compatible video site?
I'm not trying to be (too) facetious when I say that I honestly do not understand your point.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
get off AppleInsider if you are against Apple. The iPad's purchase is enough for Apple. Just like the MacBook Purchase is enough. I don't see Apple controlling Hulu on their laptops or desktops. You paint apple as this monster that is only out for money and if that was the case then the iPad would not be so low in cost. It is the hook for iTunes, iBook, and the App Store sure, but people who will buy the iPad will want to use their stores, if they did not then they would not buy the iPad.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
And iPlayer plays most of the BBC's output HOURS after it airs. Presumably that also doesn't fit Apple's business strategy, however it's been happening for two years and Apple hasn't done a thing to stop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung
It's Free, does that lower my intelect or my education level because I'm smart enough to take advantage of current technology?
You are lowering your own intellect... by ramping up all the unrelated points in your posts... by ignoring some simple facts regarding video on the web... by posting in an increasingly belligerent manner... and by accusing forum members of being intoxicated simply because you fail to understand them.
Correction! Someone with the above attributes probably had a rather poor intellect to begin with.
You are quoting statements from last June. It's February 2010 and Apple didn't even mention HTML5 in their iPad presentation.
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
There is no difference with .flv or .mov files other than the fact that the web uses flash in .flv or .swf files players for 80% of the web. Unlike .mov files.
Trust me you don't have to try and sound facetious. You are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synotic
Hey! We haven't talked yet... Hopefully you'll give me a chance to understand... Can you explain to me your quote here?
I was just curious because this seems 100%, completely blatantly and utterly false, and I noticed that you were ignoring everyone that was asking about it. I'm just curious if you could clarify .
--
A disclaimer: I'm a developer and I was at WWDC when the HTTP Live Streaming protocol was introduced by Apple last June. It's currently in the first stages of becoming an internet standard. Its draft proposal is here. Some background information that's not readily available from the Wikipedia article... Basically this works on Mac OS X and via APIs you can hook into it in native iPhone applications. In order to encode videos that work through this standard, you can either use any number of industry standard encoding pipelines or use a draft implementation of a splitter and encoder that they've provided. This is how application's like MLB's At Bat provide "Free Streaming."
Why did they decide to create a new standard instead of using an existing one? Accessibility. By piggy backing on HTTP and serving videos in chunks, they're able to go through particularly restrictive routers or firewalls.
And content in Mobile Safari? They've supported H.264 video (albeit with some restrictions on data rate ? simply because of limitations in the processor) from day one. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that if Hulu were to repackage their video files for HTML 5 video (remember .flv files, just like .mov are just container formats and have nothing to do with the encoding used; any Hulu video ? all episodes and movies, I believe ? which has a high quality version is already encoded in H264) that Apple would physically block the site from loading or working in Mobile Safari? Or are you arguing that the costs of repackaging their videos would outweight the revenue they would gain from creating an iPad-compatible video site?
I'm not trying to be (too) facetious when I say that I honestly do not understand your point.
Free? It is not Free. You pay for your bandwidth, you sit through the advertising, and you're delivered pure sh*t, a.k.a. network television.
You call that "free" and it's hilarious to me.
Maybe, but not to me. For a Hulu hour video I watch or get up and do something constructive. For DirecTV I pay $109 + per month. I'm done with my 2 year contract and Football season is finished (big fan of NFL package in HD).
I will keep an eye on free streaming quality and consider my choices when the time is right. If DirecTV didn't have the NFL package they would already be gone. That alone was $499 for HD.
TV will be free with advertising again, the consumers today are smarter and the technology is better now that TV is all digital.
I understand many people don't like flash. I don't have a particular feeling one way or the other.
As a video editor I use flash pretty exclusively for publishing video on the web. It's easy to make flash files, they generally look pretty great especially at such small file sizes, and are harder for people to copy. I've been in video for quite a while and nearly everyone I know posts video to the web using flash. Maybe adobe will get their act together with Flash 10, but overall I think flash looks pretty good online...
You are wrong about flash being hard to copy--there are many ways to do it. It just happens that some methods are harder than others.
Some browsers allow you to identity and therefore save flash files and there are plug ins for those that don't.
Then there are the players that allow you download the video formats they can play...including flash.
This all not counting the insane number of utilities and web sites designed specifically to download flash files.
I said that by the end of 2011 a mobile platform that doesn't support Flash will be dead. That doesn't mean they will not continue to sell. Market share will be dwindled down to 4th or 5th place if you read any reliable source. BlackBerries are going to support Flash as well as Android, WinMo, Nokia.
While you are in 2011 can you let me know who wins the World Series?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
What does the business environment have to do with whats going on with the web? Business needs have little effect on the direction of technology. Many business still use software that was designed for Windows 95. Business is the primary reason why IE6 is still so widely used.
H.264 has a free license for distributing free video.
As far as testing processor usage and battery life. That's easy. You play the same video in Vimeo and watch the Flash video use 48% of your CPU while HTML5 video uses 12%.
While you are in 2011 can you let me know who wins the World Series?
What does the business environment have to do with whats going on with the web? Most business don't allow their machines on to the open web.
H.264 has a free license for distributing free video.
As far as testing processor usage and battery life. That's easy. You play the same video in Vimeo and watch the Flash video use 48% of your CPU while HTML5 video uses 12%.
You'll have to wait until 2011 on the MLB call.
As far as what does business have to do with the web...
All major networks, news and entertainment are on the web. They are businesses and they drive what will be the standards.
You're processor testing is flawed. Run the same test on a PC and you'll get different results. The same applies for what browser you run it in.
You have to log into Vimeo, I can do the same thing with much more relevant content on Hulu or a major network running flash without a log in.
The iPad was of interest to me until Apple worked with the publishers and allowed them to Jack up the prices of their eBook content. I travel a lot and I read (fiction and nonfiction) on every trip.
E-Books are required to have DRM like any proprietary media. All of the iPhone e-book stores will also work on the iPad, so you will not be limited to Apple's store.
Quote:
Apple will never support Free Streaming, for that reason my next phone will not be an iPhone.
This is totally absurd.
Apple is actively developing/promoting three technologies that enable media content streaming, HTML5, HTTP Live Streaming, H.264. These three technologies allow any one to stream media to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.
Trust me you don't have to try and sound facetious. You are.
Thanks .
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung
Happy to chat with you.
You are quoting statements from last June. It's February 2010 and Apple didn't even mention HTML5 in their iPad presentation.
Just to clarify, my comments from last June were referring to HTTP live streaming which is a protocol that uses HTTP (i.e. GET, POST, PUT, etc...) to stream video. HTML5 is a markup language definition. I did mention HTML5 later on in this post, but in this case, the two are entirely different. The technology isn't forthcoming — It already exists. It's in use in applications that are available right now. My only point was that not only is Apple not against free streaming, they're actively creating technologies to support it. I'm not sure if you were conflating the two or just referring to my later comments, but I just wanted to be clear.
Quote:
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
There is no difference with .flv or .mov files other than the fact that the web uses flash in .flv or .swf files players for 80% of the web. Unlike .mov files.
I don't disagree with you (this time I'm being serious). Flash is prevalent. The iPhone OS ecosystem doesn't support Flash. In terms of the video experience this is a negative. My problem with your argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you're conflating not supporting Flash with "Apple will never support Free Streaming," or more generally that Apple is against forms of media consumption that are available through means other than the iTunes store. I believe that the creation of HTTP live streaming and HTML 5 video point to the fact that Apple is open to other services providing content.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I while I agree that Apple is against Flash, I don't agree that Apple is against content. I just don't think that not wanting to support Flash is the same as not wanting to support good content. Whether its content is worthwhile or not is debatable (I like it for watching independent musicians and footage of live concerts), but YouTube is an example of free content that Apple doesn't profit from directly, but which benefits them by adding value to their product. I'm just not convinced that there's a fundamental difference with Hulu, but I'd love to hear your opinion.
Comments
You or infamous for it and it's really pathetic.
I said that by the end of 2011 a mobile platform that doesn't support Flash will be dead.
That doesn't mean they will not continue to sell. Market share will be dwindled down to 4th or 5th place if you read any reliable source. BlackBerries are going to support Flash as well as Android, WinMo, Nokia.
You fail to admit that you belittle anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Wasn't it Apple that said if the iPhone didn't upgrade it's OS for X years the competitors would finally achieve what Apple has. Apple missed that date.
Tell Apple to worry about fixing it's current problems with latest Greatest Steve Jobs best Phone in the world and then worry about 1st changing the name of the iPad then working on a feature set that matches a NetBook because it currently can't handle anything not sold through iTunes.
You are a weak minded person that 99% of your postings can either be shown false by a simple Google search or incoherant due to some mind altering situation. Either case is disturbing.
Gotta save this post. You're claiming that all iPhones, iPads, and, at the very least, Blackberries, will not be on the market, hence dead, in5 under 11 months.
Despite repeating all the facts for you again you've also failed to read my comments about ONLY Flash video will wane in favour of HTML5 streaming video on mobiles in 2010, not that HTML5 will replace all Flash everywhere which it clearly can't do. You've also failed to make notice of the very real and well documented issue with Flash on mobiles from ARM to Atom, or explained why it's Apple's fault no mobile OS can stream video from Flash in 2010.
i'm out of the office now so you have fun in your myopic little bubble.
Just because Flash runs bad on the iPhone doesn't make it an Adobe problem. I think it makes it an Apple Problem on what chipset they support. But for the record ARM does support Flash and given that Apple's Advertisings and current base of users is for people with disposable income (or their kids that still have Daddy's card in their wallet).
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9823242,00.htm
A yearly update puts Apple at a disadvantage with the ever evolving mobile chip sets (reason why Android will surpass Apple in 2 years).
Um, as for the original iPhone supporting YouTube, all content had to be converted to a format that iPhone could play. In the beginning it tooks weeks for posted content to be available for the iPhone.
2nd and for me the most important. YouTube is for young users to post their latest party content. Hulu is a media that I watch (Television & Movies).
As for Apple driving up the EBook rates. If I have to pay more for an EBook than I do for a paperback book then it's not worth the price.
For me a good book is to shared after I read it. I can't do that under Apple's Umbrella and I'm certainly not paying more money to have the privelage of putting it on 2 devices (iPhone, iPad).
Apple screwed the end user trying to kill the Kindle. I think no publishers were interested in the iPad until Apple said we can all make more money. Amazon caved because they had to.
Do you make this stuff up or what. I currently stream my Comcast cable via my EyE TV to my Iphone WIFI and 3G. I can watch a ton of content via video Apps but none are called Hulu. Flash is not on the Iphone but if you actually wanted to, you can watch about anything worth watching on the Iphone/Ipad. If you want to share I'm sure someone will write a program to remove the DRM. Not like it doesn't exist for every other format Music, Video ect. Of course you can share all your Kindle content but you will have to loan your friend your KIndle because they also use DRM. Guess what the folks who write for a living would like to get paid so Apple is trying to determine a fair price for content. If you are too cheap to pay you can always steal it. I would suggest you save your money and spend it on an education. It will come in handy when you actually want to pay for content.
Doesn't Hulu only play old TV shows?
From what I could tell, Apple's iTunes only sells current TV eps. or movies. I really don'y think they care what Hulu does on their iPad as long as people buy their iPad and view Hulu on it and not on some lame NetBook.
Or you could switch to a platform that doesn't have any problems with Flash.
They are called Windows PC's. I love Hulu and every other network that gives me free flash streaming video without any problems on my PC.
And your next phone will not be an iPhone. What the fuck are you wasting your time here for?
Do you make this stuff up or what. I currently stream my Comcast cable via my EyE TV to my Iphone WIFI and 3G. I can watch a ton of content via video Apps but none are called Hulu. Flash is not on the Iphone but if you actually wanted to, you can watch about anything worth watching on the Iphone/Ipad. If you want to share I'm sure someone will write a program to remove the DRM. Not like it doesn't exist for every other format Music, Video ect. Of course you can share all your Kindle content but you will have to loan your friend your KIndle because they also use DRM. Guess what the folks who write for a living would like to get paid so Apple is trying to determine a fair price for content. If you are too cheap to pay you can always steal it. I would suggest you save your money and spend it on an education. It will come in handy when you actually want to pay for content.
Don't lecture me about what I can afford. I am very comfortable with the gadgets I purchase to amuse me. My education is first not relevant but a post grad in computer science with a math minor gets me by.
You obviously don't go to CNN, ESPN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX etc on anything but an iPhone App because you won't get their video. They are all in Flash.
I read more than I listen to music. I watch the News and Sports more than I do the Disney Channel (currently in Flash).
Get out of your box and realize Steve Jobs is not the second coming of Christ and the iPhone is becoming the next RAZR and Apple is already considering lowering their prices before the iPad has made it to market.
By the way, I'm watching last nights episode of Lost on Hulu with my Windows 7 notebook hooked up to my HD TV because I deleted it off my PVR by mistake. It's Free, does that lower my intelect or my education level because I'm smart enough to take advantage of current technology?
Edit: My notebook has HDMI no reason for an adapter that I have to pay for.
And your next phone will not be an iPhone. What the fuck are you wasting your time here for?
Because my current Phone is and watch the language, it does nothing more than degrade the level of your posting and your intellect.
Hulu is what now?
Doesn't Hulu only play old TV shows?
From what I could tell, Apple's iTunes only sells current TV eps. or movies. I really don'y think they care what Hulu does on their iPad as long as people buy their iPad and view Hulu on it and not on some lame NetBook.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
You are so full of it that replying to you is a waste of time...
I just wasted my time.
Any device that doesn't support Flash will be dead by 2011. HTML5 is not mature enough to replace it on the web and there is too much content currently in Flash that is on the web that will not make the conversion for many reasons I can post when you are coherant [sic].
Hey! We haven't talked yet... Hopefully you'll give me a chance to understand... Can you explain to me your quote here?
Apple will never support Free Streaming, for that reason my next phone will not be an iPhone.
I was just curious because this seems 100%, completely blatantly and utterly false, and I noticed that you were ignoring everyone that was asking about it. I'm just curious if you could clarify
--
A disclaimer: I'm a developer and I was at WWDC when the HTTP Live Streaming protocol was introduced by Apple last June. It's currently in the first stages of becoming an internet standard. Its draft proposal is here. Some background information that's not readily available from the Wikipedia article... Basically this works on Mac OS X and via APIs you can hook into it in native iPhone applications. In order to encode videos that work through this standard, you can either use any number of industry standard encoding pipelines or use a draft implementation of a splitter and encoder that they've provided. This is how application's like MLB's At Bat provide "Free Streaming."
Why did they decide to create a new standard instead of using an existing one? Accessibility. By piggy backing on HTTP and serving videos in chunks, they're able to go through particularly restrictive routers or firewalls.
And content in Mobile Safari? They've supported H.264 video (albeit with some restrictions on data rate ? simply because of limitations in the processor) from day one. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that if Hulu were to repackage their video files for HTML 5 video (remember .flv files, just like .mov are just container formats and have nothing to do with the encoding used; any Hulu video ? all episodes and movies, I believe ? which has a high quality version is already encoded in H264) that Apple would physically block the site from loading or working in Mobile Safari? Or are you arguing that the costs of repackaging their videos would outweight the revenue they would gain from creating an iPad-compatible video site?
I'm not trying to be (too) facetious when I say that I honestly do not understand your point.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
get off AppleInsider if you are against Apple. The iPad's purchase is enough for Apple. Just like the MacBook Purchase is enough. I don't see Apple controlling Hulu on their laptops or desktops. You paint apple as this monster that is only out for money and if that was the case then the iPad would not be so low in cost. It is the hook for iTunes, iBook, and the App Store sure, but people who will buy the iPad will want to use their stores, if they did not then they would not buy the iPad.
Maybe your MAc is simply not powerful enough to handle it. What else are you running at the same time- Final Cut, Photoshop and Aperture?
Are you serious or is more of what you call "baiting"?
Or is this all you do?
Am I feeding the problem here? (yes I am)
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
And iPlayer plays most of the BBC's output HOURS after it airs. Presumably that also doesn't fit Apple's business strategy, however it's been happening for two years and Apple hasn't done a thing to stop it.
It's Free, does that lower my intelect or my education level because I'm smart enough to take advantage of current technology?
You are lowering your own intellect... by ramping up all the unrelated points in your posts... by ignoring some simple facts regarding video on the web... by posting in an increasingly belligerent manner... and by accusing forum members of being intoxicated simply because you fail to understand them.
Correction! Someone with the above attributes probably had a rather poor intellect to begin with.
Hulu plays most Network TV the day after it airs for free. A business strategy that doesn't fit Apple.
Free? It is not Free. You pay for your bandwidth, you sit through the advertising, and you're delivered pure sh*t, a.k.a. network television.
You are quoting statements from last June. It's February 2010 and Apple didn't even mention HTML5 in their iPad presentation.
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
There is no difference with .flv or .mov files other than the fact that the web uses flash in .flv or .swf files players for 80% of the web. Unlike .mov files.
Trust me you don't have to try and sound facetious. You are.
Hey! We haven't talked yet... Hopefully you'll give me a chance to understand... Can you explain to me your quote here?
I was just curious because this seems 100%, completely blatantly and utterly false, and I noticed that you were ignoring everyone that was asking about it. I'm just curious if you could clarify
--
A disclaimer: I'm a developer and I was at WWDC when the HTTP Live Streaming protocol was introduced by Apple last June. It's currently in the first stages of becoming an internet standard. Its draft proposal is here. Some background information that's not readily available from the Wikipedia article... Basically this works on Mac OS X and via APIs you can hook into it in native iPhone applications. In order to encode videos that work through this standard, you can either use any number of industry standard encoding pipelines or use a draft implementation of a splitter and encoder that they've provided. This is how application's like MLB's At Bat provide "Free Streaming."
Why did they decide to create a new standard instead of using an existing one? Accessibility. By piggy backing on HTTP and serving videos in chunks, they're able to go through particularly restrictive routers or firewalls.
And content in Mobile Safari? They've supported H.264 video (albeit with some restrictions on data rate ? simply because of limitations in the processor) from day one. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that if Hulu were to repackage their video files for HTML 5 video (remember .flv files, just like .mov are just container formats and have nothing to do with the encoding used; any Hulu video ? all episodes and movies, I believe ? which has a high quality version is already encoded in H264) that Apple would physically block the site from loading or working in Mobile Safari? Or are you arguing that the costs of repackaging their videos would outweight the revenue they would gain from creating an iPad-compatible video site?
I'm not trying to be (too) facetious when I say that I honestly do not understand your point.
Free? It is not Free. You pay for your bandwidth, you sit through the advertising, and you're delivered pure sh*t, a.k.a. network television.
Maybe, but not to me. For a Hulu hour video I watch or get up and do something constructive. For DirecTV I pay $109 + per month. I'm done with my 2 year contract and Football season is finished (big fan of NFL package in HD).
I will keep an eye on free streaming quality and consider my choices when the time is right. If DirecTV didn't have the NFL package they would already be gone. That alone was $499 for HD.
TV will be free with advertising again, the consumers today are smarter and the technology is better now that TV is all digital.
I understand many people don't like flash. I don't have a particular feeling one way or the other.
As a video editor I use flash pretty exclusively for publishing video on the web. It's easy to make flash files, they generally look pretty great especially at such small file sizes, and are harder for people to copy. I've been in video for quite a while and nearly everyone I know posts video to the web using flash. Maybe adobe will get their act together with Flash 10, but overall I think flash looks pretty good online...
You are wrong about flash being hard to copy--there are many ways to do it. It just happens that some methods are harder than others.
Some browsers allow you to identity and therefore save flash files and there are plug ins for those that don't.
Then there are the players that allow you download the video formats they can play...including flash.
This all not counting the insane number of utilities and web sites designed specifically to download flash files.
I said that by the end of 2011 a mobile platform that doesn't support Flash will be dead. That doesn't mean they will not continue to sell. Market share will be dwindled down to 4th or 5th place if you read any reliable source. BlackBerries are going to support Flash as well as Android, WinMo, Nokia.
While you are in 2011 can you let me know who wins the World Series?
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
What does the business environment have to do with whats going on with the web? Business needs have little effect on the direction of technology. Many business still use software that was designed for Windows 95. Business is the primary reason why IE6 is still so widely used.
H.264 has a free license for distributing free video.
As far as testing processor usage and battery life. That's easy. You play the same video in Vimeo and watch the Flash video use 48% of your CPU while HTML5 video uses 12%.
While you are in 2011 can you let me know who wins the World Series?
What does the business environment have to do with whats going on with the web? Most business don't allow their machines on to the open web.
H.264 has a free license for distributing free video.
As far as testing processor usage and battery life. That's easy. You play the same video in Vimeo and watch the Flash video use 48% of your CPU while HTML5 video uses 12%.
You'll have to wait until 2011 on the MLB call.
As far as what does business have to do with the web...
All major networks, news and entertainment are on the web. They are businesses and they drive what will be the standards.
You're processor testing is flawed. Run the same test on a PC and you'll get different results. The same applies for what browser you run it in.
You have to log into Vimeo, I can do the same thing with much more relevant content on Hulu or a major network running flash without a log in.
The iPad was of interest to me until Apple worked with the publishers and allowed them to Jack up the prices of their eBook content. I travel a lot and I read (fiction and nonfiction) on every trip.
E-Books are required to have DRM like any proprietary media. All of the iPhone e-book stores will also work on the iPad, so you will not be limited to Apple's store.
Apple will never support Free Streaming, for that reason my next phone will not be an iPhone.
This is totally absurd.
Apple is actively developing/promoting three technologies that enable media content streaming, HTML5, HTTP Live Streaming, H.264. These three technologies allow any one to stream media to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.
Apple is actively promoting this functionality.
Trust me you don't have to try and sound facetious. You are.
Thanks
Happy to chat with you.
You are quoting statements from last June. It's February 2010 and Apple didn't even mention HTML5 in their iPad presentation.
Just to clarify, my comments from last June were referring to HTTP live streaming which is a protocol that uses HTTP (i.e. GET, POST, PUT, etc...) to stream video. HTML5 is a markup language definition. I did mention HTML5 later on in this post, but in this case, the two are entirely different. The technology isn't forthcoming — It already exists. It's in use in applications that are available right now. My only point was that not only is Apple not against free streaming, they're actively creating technologies to support it. I'm not sure if you were conflating the two or just referring to my later comments, but I just wanted to be clear.
HTML5 is in its infancy, it will need to be supported by all browsers in a consistent manner for it to be considered to being used in a business environment. H264 still needs to be licensed. YouTube is just starting to test it. It hasn't proven to be any better on the mac platform on a consistent level to save battery life or processor usage.
There is no difference with .flv or .mov files other than the fact that the web uses flash in .flv or .swf files players for 80% of the web. Unlike .mov files.
I don't disagree with you (this time I'm being serious). Flash is prevalent. The iPhone OS ecosystem doesn't support Flash. In terms of the video experience this is a negative. My problem with your argument, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you're conflating not supporting Flash with "Apple will never support Free Streaming," or more generally that Apple is against forms of media consumption that are available through means other than the iTunes store. I believe that the creation of HTTP live streaming and HTML 5 video point to the fact that Apple is open to other services providing content.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I while I agree that Apple is against Flash, I don't agree that Apple is against content. I just don't think that not wanting to support Flash is the same as not wanting to support good content. Whether its content is worthwhile or not is debatable (I like it for watching independent musicians and footage of live concerts), but YouTube is an example of free content that Apple doesn't profit from directly, but which benefits them by adding value to their product. I'm just not convinced that there's a fundamental difference with Hulu, but I'd love to hear your opinion.