Slashdot Mirror

I've been using Flash on my Nexus One for a couple of months now, and I find it pretty useful and flash video perfectly watchable for the most part. I also follow the tech/mobile press pretty closely and I'm not sure what the "most reports" you're referring to are - my impression is that the response in the press has been broadly in agreement with my experience.

Here's an interesting followup to the article:

http://newteevee.com/2010/09/02/is-flash-on-android-shockingly-bad-or-shockingly-great/?utm_source=newteevee&utm_medium=recent-posts

A couple of reviews of Flash running on Android 2.2 have come out. I submitted this story awhile ago to the editors but for some reason (anti-Apple bias?) they chose not to run it.

"shockingly bad" http://newteevee.com/2010/08/31/video-flash-on-android-is-startlingly-bad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+OmMalik+(GigaOM)

"Weak Android player proves Steve Jobs right": http://blog.laptopmag.com/mobile-flash-fail-weak-android-player-proves-jobs-right

From the reviews:

"Adobe needs to have a better answer to whether or not Flash is still relevant in a world where other technologies have rapidly started displacing it. Based on my early experience with Flash Player 10.1 for mobile, it could soon join the floppy drive in the tech graveyard, something else Steve Jobs helped kill."

and

"While in theory Flash video might be a competitive advantage for Android users, in practice it’s difficult to imagine anyone actually trying to watch non-optimized web video on an Android handset, all of which makes one believe that maybe Steve Jobs was right to eschew Flash in lieu of HTML5 on the iPhone and iPad."

So is it better to have a sucky experience or none at all?

It would be great if the schools responded by setting up a massive file sharing system loaded with public domain, Creative Commons, GPL, and other legal content. There could easily fill it with hundreds of gigs of free legal music. I think pushing free legal non-RIAA music would be an AWESOME way to comply with RIAA demands to combat downloads of their stuff.

Just a few links to get them started:
http://www.dance-industries.com/
http://ccmixter.org/view/media/remix
http://phlow-magazine.com/free-mp3-music-download
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents
http://www.jamendo.com/en/
http://www.archive.org/details/audio
http://newteevee.com/2007/03/03/ten-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/
http://newteevee.com/2010/02/05/ten-more-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/

and another four or five hundred links:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories

-

It would be great if the schools responded by setting up a massive file sharing system loaded with public domain, Creative Commons, GPL, and other legal content. There could easily fill it with hundreds of gigs of free legal music. I think pushing free legal non-RIAA music would be an AWESOME way to comply with RIAA demands to combat downloads of their stuff.

Just a few links to get them started:
http://www.dance-industries.com/
http://ccmixter.org/view/media/remix
http://phlow-magazine.com/free-mp3-music-download
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents
http://www.jamendo.com/en/
http://www.archive.org/details/audio
http://newteevee.com/2007/03/03/ten-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/
http://newteevee.com/2010/02/05/ten-more-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/

and another four or five hundred links:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories

-

http://newteevee.com/2010/01/06/netflix-swaps-longer-dvd-window-for-more-streaming-titles-from-warner-bros/

Under the deal, Warner Bros. will continue to make discs available directly to Netflix, reducing the cost of procuring its content,

If The Simpsons on Hulu can be more profitable than on network TV, why would you think South Park wouldn't be able to pull better ad revenues online than on cable?

I doubt it would be profitable because South Park's audience is only made of two groups: children and mouth-breathers.

Neither are known for being very computer-savvy.

If The Simpsons on Hulu can be more profitable than on network TV, why would you think South Park wouldn't be able to pull better ad revenues online than on cable?

I'm glad somebody said this. Usenet may be long past its heyday (at least as a source of information; it still has more nefarious uses) but at its height it was both a valuable resource and an entertaining community.

Google shouldn't have a monopoly on this information; if the LoC considers tweets worth saving, then (non-binary) Usenet should definitely be included in their archives.

2007: Youtube accounts for 10% of all traffic
2008: Youtube accounts for 35% of all streaming video; Streaming media accounts for 50% of all internet traffic. Doing the math, that puts Youtube around 12-15% of *all* traffic.

There's no good alternative because there's no good alternative.

Did any of you click through to the original article being quoted?
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366272-CTAM_Summit_2009_Comcast_s_Burke_Tells_TV_Biz_To_Help_Stop_Cord_Cutting.php

The context of his comments is online video.
Comcast is worried that people will ditch cable for streaming tv/video.
What he really wants is Comcast Cable on the web.
Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs (and ad dollars) to the web.

They call it "TV Everywhere" and there was apparently a press conference about it in June:
The top google result: http://newteevee.com/2009/06/23/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-everywhere/

You want free videos:

http://www.tioti.com/
http://quicksilverscreen.com/
http://www.veoh.com/
http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.alluc.org/
http://www.sidereel.com/_home
http://alloftv.net/
http://www.4kidstv.com/

I haven't checked them all but most of them I checked were legal, and Quicksilverscreen and TIOTI are people that share their videos via the web site that may be grayware and not 100% legal but it is like them taping a VHS tape and sharing it with you.

here is a link to tens of thousands of free music links mostly by third party artists who don't have a distributor and share their music via the Internet.

If you are going to use BitTorrent why not find free and legal torrents to use with it and avoid the piracy.

Grrr.

I read it in my local paper about five months ago that CC, TW, and Cox are losing subscribers, because customers are watching shows online for free instead of paying. Therefore they want to lock-up their cable programming (USA, TNT, SyFy, et cetera) behind a wall that only subscribers can bypass. Perhaps if you read YOUR local paper once-in-a-while (or tried google) then you'd already know about it instead of accusing me of making-up lies.

Anyway here's the best article I could find: http://newteevee.com/2009/07/14/first-broadcaster-to-join-comcasts-ondemand-online-cbs/ And another: http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-companies-ganging-up-on-hulu-2009-2

So say goodbye to being able to watch Monk or Kyle XY or Eureka or Closer or Deadliest Catches online. Only subscribers will have access to these cable shows.

This here presents the story a little differently: http://newteevee.com/2008/02/02/who-is-the-fourth-man-in-the-pirate-bay-case/ I don't know which version is correct, though.

Here's an example of a net program: The Remnants

Interesting article, I recommend reading it.

The show is done ULTRA-cheaply - $25k for 10 episodes, using no-name actors, and everyone making a few tiny dollars.

Are you going to get really good convincing acting? No. Are you going to get first rate camerawork? No. Mixing? No. Audio. Nuh-uh. You're going to get something that looks better than what some bloke staring into a webcam gives you, but equally far from a professional job with pro actors and crew and post.

IS that what you want to watch?

So, let's pretend that on-camera talent is half the cost, so we'l pay them scale, and so we're down to 1.5 million. You now have cameras that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The actors aren't making much, but they're willing to go for this experiment. You still have 150 people involved, and they all need to get paid. So, if they all make some craptastic wage (say $30k) for ten episodes, then we're talking 150 x 30k / 10, you're still talking $450k PER EPISODE, or $4.5 million for the series, and this is with people making significant sacrifices, because you do the series, and WHERE are you going to get your next job? And When? That's why the wages are higher in creative industries, and the stress level is astronomical.

So, let's say we give them all $50k for ten episode season. Then it's $7.5 million for the season or $750k per episode. And we haven't even touched promotional costs...

And this is no exaggeration: film and TV are the most expensive and complex works of art people have ever developed. It is expensive and time consuming and difficult. It is fun and exciting when you're doing it, but it is a tough and cutthroat business.

"You can see all the stars
as you walk along Hollywood Boulevard.
Some that you recognise
Some that you've hardly even heard of.
People who worked and suffered
and struggled for fame.
Some who succeded
and some who suffered in vain."

That's a fact. Unfortunately, it is fed by the audience who thinks:

"I wish my life was a non-stop
Hollywood Movie show
A fantasy world of celluloid villains
And heroes.
Because Celluloid heroes
never feel any pain
And Celluloid heroes
never really die."

Profit is made from scarcity. If you want something to exist, it has to be profitable (not wildly - just make your damn money) and if the business model fails, then that work disappears.

RS

Look at McCain: he violated multiple copyrights with his ads, claimed that there should be a special exemption to the DMCA laws he voted for just for politicians, and once the campaign was over, everyone completely forgot about it except Jackson Browne, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against McCain, although it's generally considered wildly unlikely that'll go to trial (or that McCain will be fined $3000 for every case of infringement.)

There's another list available here:
http://newteevee.com/2009/01/14/where-to-watch-obamas-inauguration-online/

What happened to that plan to encrypt the entire internet? We need it ASAP! I think TPB came up with that: The Pirate Bay Wants to Encrypt the Entire Internet ... but the project seems to by dying out:-(

Not everybody is calling it "decent streaming video".

Be careful what you ask for.

http://newteevee.com/2008/03/18/comcast-cameras-to-start-watching-you/

Actually, even companies like Verizon are looking into this. I think it's an exciting time.

And while we are clarifying...
One of the statements attributed to OU reads
Students who do want to use P2P for legal purposes have to call their IT department and "provide detailed information about the software you wish to use and your purposes for using it."
IANAL, but I have had occasion to research the subject for my role as Tech Support for an ISP, and
Nolo is of the opinion that
(page 2)
Under the DMCA, to avoid liability the ISP must:

* not obtain financial benefit from the infringement
* not have actual knowledge or awareness of facts indicating infringing transmissions
* upon learning of an infringing transmission, act quickly to remove or disable access to the
infringing transmission, and
* implement a policy of terminating the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers

If the above is true, OU seem to be running the risk of leaving themselves liable.

I would agree as well - the only noticeable problem I've had that could be DRM-related is that I can no longer watch 24 online due to incompatibilities with Fox's Video on Demand software. Anyone have any guesses as to what the problem is?

Video DRM has been my main complaint with Vista as well. For example, I can no longer watch 24 online due to incompatibilities with Fox's Video on Demand software.
I've actually found Vista to be quite stable (zero crashes or BSODs since installation about a month ago) and I haven't run into other major compatibility problems, but this specific case is worrying to me - what kind of DRM system is Vista using that would lock out streaming video that is allowed to run on XP?

Joost, formerly known as The Venice Project, gets most of its "cool factor" in the geek circles from being built over the Mozilla XUL Runner. In other words, its client is based on XUL, SVG, JavaScript and XPCOM, just like Firefox, as outlined in this article.