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

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 159
    champchamp Posts: 39member
    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.\
  • Reply 102 of 159
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    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.
  • Reply 103 of 159
    hezekiahbhezekiahb Posts: 448member
    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.
  • Reply 104 of 159
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    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.
  • Reply 105 of 159
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.
  • Reply 106 of 159
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Story is baloney.
  • Reply 107 of 159
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    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.
  • Reply 108 of 159
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.
  • Reply 109 of 159
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,698member
    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.
  • Reply 110 of 159
    muncywebmuncyweb Posts: 157member
    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).
  • Reply 111 of 159
    muncywebmuncyweb Posts: 157member
    I must say, I LOVE following the flash debate. I'm on the edge of my seat!
  • Reply 112 of 159
    groovetubegroovetube Posts: 557member
    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.
  • Reply 113 of 159
    groovetubegroovetube Posts: 557member
    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.
  • Reply 114 of 159
    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.
  • Reply 115 of 159
    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.
  • Reply 116 of 159
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,698member
    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.
  • Reply 117 of 159
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    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.
  • Reply 118 of 159
    groovetubegroovetube Posts: 557member
    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.
  • Reply 119 of 159
    I for one welcome our HTML5 overlords.
  • Reply 120 of 159
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,698member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Owen Meaney View Post


    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.



    You don't have to develop for iPhone, but, if you do, and you use Apple's tools or HTML5, vs. Flash, you are in control of your destiny because there is nothing between you and exploiting all of the features of the platform. With Flash, you have what Adobe gives you access to, and no more. Now, in which case are you more in control of your own destiny?



    And no one is forcing you to use iAd. It's an option on iPhone OS, but there are other options. So, this part of your critique is just simply N/A.



    And, let's face it, developers who target multiple platforms by using cross platform tools, at most produce one good implementation, if that. If you actually care about your software, and your destiny, you develop natively for each platform. Lazy software development is bad software development, and you can't get around the fact that the biggest part of the problem is that cross platform tools control what you can do in a way that using native tools would not.
Sign In or Register to comment.