Slashdot Mirror


ABC Launches Full Episode Streaming

Cjattwood writes "ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ads and commercials. It works pretty well so far, although no Linux support yet as it requires Flash 8." The first episode of Lost on there is a clip show. You can skip around to a segment of the show, but are forced through a commercial before you play. The quality is approximately what you would expect from flash video.

261 comments

  1. Flash 8 by zentagonist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... When IS linux going to get Flash 8 anyway? Lack of it has been limiting my web-browsing ability for a little while now. Just curious. I saw this earlier today and really wanted to try it out. :-/

    1. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only Flash8, but a 64bit version of ANY flash

      ...c'mon macromedia -- get with it!

      -sean

    2. Re:Flash 8 by assassinator42 · · Score: 2

      Probably before Linux gets shockwave. Which looks like it's never. :(

    3. Re:Flash 8 by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      a) Macromedia is no more. Flash is an Adobe product.
      b) 64 computing is pretty useless for Flash.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    4. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not going to be Flash 8 for linux, nor flash player 8.5 - since the latter's been renamed to Flash Player 9, and hopefully will bring a lot of new features. As Adobe states - it's going to be available to Linux ASAP.

      As per lack of Flash Player 8 availability on Linux - Macromedia had problems hiring good Linux developers, since google hired all of them ;)

    5. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I don't even plan on installing flash. Screw this. If they want to limit their service to some proprietary plugin, well, then I might as well not use their service (and not see their ads).

    6. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) 64 computing is pretty useless for Flash.

      That's not the point. In x86-64 systems, a 64bit application can not load 32bit libraries. Browser plugins are libraries. If you run a 64bit executable version of your browser, you can't use Flash.

    7. Re:Flash 8 by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't be surprised to see a Linux player with the next release of Flash. Adobe releases linux / unix versions of Acrobat reader, they might do something similar for Flash player.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    8. Re:Flash 8 by numbsafari · · Score: 1

      So... why not have your 64-bit application launch a separate 32-bit process and then communicate via some kind of IPC (socket, pipe, whatever)... I mean... COM did this with 32 and 16-bit libraries back in the day. Sure, it's damned slow, but that's what backward compatability is all about.

    9. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run XP, thank you very much. Poor, poor you.

    10. Re:Flash 8 by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1
      Lack of it has been limiting my web-browsing ability for a little while now

      Interesting! Lack of it has increased by web-browsing ability! Not to mention saving my eyesight!

    11. Re:Flash 8 by Praedon · · Score: 1

      I just sat down and watched every streaming video they have right now. Though, in the beginning, it got really choppy with the connection, but I think it was because everyone else from slashdot were checking it out : ) On the good side, it got better, and with the 30 second ads they have, its easy to either watch em, or skip em after 30 seconds. It averages between 1 specific company, or 3 different companies, advertising. Though I must admit, the randomness of the ads were kind of bad, with it being either Cars (The movie), Apocolypto, and Pirates of the Carribean, or it ended up being a Toyota or a Cingular ad.

      I will say this, that the quality, for me anyways was really decent for it being a flash player, and I was pretty happy with the results of what ABC Is doing. They did a great job at preparing this, and I look forward to watching the shows at my leisure now on the internet, instead of on tv.

      --
      Just me
    12. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Flash videos and Linux, how the hell can i get the audio and video to play in sync?

    13. Re:Flash 8 by Quash · · Score: 1

      Install Wine, Install Win32 Firefox, install Win32 Flash 8 and Java plugins. Enjoy!

    14. Re:Flash 8 by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      "Linux" still doesn't have a working Flash at all, actually. "Linux/x86" does, but that's only a (dwindling) subset of the wider Linux platform, which includes Linux/PowerPC, Linux/AMD-64, etc.

    15. Re:Flash 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't see why you need Flash 8, or flash at all. Just find the link to the .flv file and watch it in MPlayer.

      Is there something I'm missing here?

    16. Re:Flash 8 by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      Eh? There's already a Flash player for linux, it's just that it's stuck at version 7 at the moment..

    17. Re:Flash 8 by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I can't say I've seen many sites requiring either the latest flash plugin or the shockwave thing (not even too sure what that is). As it is I don't think I'm missing too much by browsing sites on Linux.

      I suppose I'm not looking at the right (lack of) content.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    18. Re:Flash 8 by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      The normal solution is to run a 32 bit version of the browser like everybody does. It's not like it makes any difference anyway.

      I've been doing it for years and apart from all the girls in the pubs shunning me ("it's the guy that runs a 32 bit browser on his 64 bit machine") there have been no ill effects.

      *snort*

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    19. Re:Flash 8 by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      No, dammit, NO!

      If my browser can't access more than 4GB, then why is life worth living?

  2. US only by Mishotaki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    damned... only viewers from the United States can watch those episodes :(

    1. Re:US only by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      No problem, torrents are higher quality anyways, and dont have those brain dead commercials...

    2. Re:US only by temojen · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sure you can find a torrent link to get them in HD without the commercials.

    3. Re:US only by salpe · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can use a United States proxy from http://www.proxy4free.com/page1.html. (Example Firefox: Tools -> Options -> Conection Settings-> Manual Proxy Config. -> HTTP: 216.12.200.106 Port: 3128) I'm from Spain and I had tested with Lost (just episode 220 available) and Alias (Episodes 501-512) with no problems

    4. Re:US only by JedaFlain · · Score: 1

      Can I sue?

      You must be an American living abroad.

    5. Re:US only by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      if your doing something illegal anyways, might as well get the torrent without the commercials and in HD.

    6. Re:US only by qyiet · · Score: 1

      I'm being discriminated against, just because I'm in a different country! That's geographicist, that is! Can I sue?

      Only if you live in the US.

      -Qyiet

    7. Re:US only by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doesn't this fall under unauthorised access of a computer system? Personally I'd prefer "pirate" than "hacker" whenever possible.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watch out for teh 1337 pr0xy haXX0rz

    9. Re:US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How stupid.

      AUSTRALIA is the #1 downloader of US TV!!! Not USA...

      Plus you can't exactly watch this on your TV as you can with torrents, well you can, but it hardly compares (would you rather be looking at a browser window, or a proper video file? (F11 aside, you still dont get the full screen experience))...

      Give me a proper alternative to torrents (free) and i'll use it, not some stupid hack crap....

      Try AGAIN.

      (i have my own VPS in the US, so the border thing is negated anyways)

    10. Re:US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not missing anything good, I can assure you.

    11. Re:US only by x2A · · Score: 1

      Oh you know they'd do ANYTHING for the chance to whip out their lawyers, and link hackers and pirates in the public's heads.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    12. Re:US only by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. I don't think it's actually illegal for me (as a Canadian) to view their online content... Its just something they want to avoid, because paying for bandwidth to show people meaningless commercials from another country isn't in their best financial interests.

      I could be wrong, of course. And they could be discriminating against non-US citizens too. But I don't think either is likely.

    13. Re:US only by salpe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about it but the list is a "free proxy list" (and anonymous)

    14. Re:US only by x2A · · Score: 1

      Downloading the movies p2p is about as free and can be at least as anonymous (bet can proxy server host can have logfiles subpoenaed). Problem is you don't 'own permission' to have these copies. Downloading the shows through proxy still means you don't have the permission (if you did, you wouldn't need an proxy, esp an anonymous one), and on top of that, that you don't have permission to be accessing the file on the server you're ultimately pulling it from. These could legally be two seperate offenses.

      So just go for the option that's only the one!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    15. Re:US only by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      if your doing something illegal anyways

      How is using a proxy illegal?

    16. Re:US only by cute-boy · · Score: 1

      Maybe run a proxy server that required authentication in a data centre in the USA on a cheap [virtual] box?

      RG

    17. Re:US only by ExKoopaTroopa · · Score: 1

      I think the point, as europeans we don't want to be forced to break the law to access content (I need my lost fix man !!)

      --
      Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
    18. Re:US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not using the proxy, it's watching the content that's supposed to only be watched by US residents.

      tmegapscm

    19. Re:US only by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      It's not using the proxy, it's watching the content that's supposed to only be watched by US residents.

      Just because a company doesn't want you to do something doesn't make it illegal. What LAW is being broken?

  3. Only visitors in the US by Pausanias · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only US viewers are allowed to watch... tsk tsk tsk.

    1. Re:Only visitors in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, quiet down. You know it'll hit the p2p and Bittorrent networks in a few hours, minus commercials.

    2. Re:Only visitors in the US by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but BBC in the UK does the same thing to us in the U.S. Oh well :(

    3. Re:Only visitors in the US by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Well, all the Internet is supposed to belong to the US, so theoretically...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  4. Only available in the US by grub · · Score: 1, Redundant

    From the site:
    Only viewers within the United States can
    watch these full-length episodes.
    Back to the high-def rips, sans commercials, of the shows for those who follow them...
    --
    Trolling is a art,
  5. Actually pretty smart.. by Donniedarkness · · Score: 0

    This is actually pretty smart of them. I can't think of how else they'd force us to watch commercials.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    1. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay for MythTV! I can watch it when I want AND I don't have to put up with commercials.

    2. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by temojen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Put up a torrent of the shows in HD, and I'd wager most people wouldn't bother cutting out the commercials.

    3. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Hm? Maybe your monitor has a chip in it that forces you to watch it while commercials are playing, but the rest of us use that time to make a sandwich or take a dump like when we're watching on the ol' tube.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fast forward. Thanks for playing.

    5. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by kninja · · Score: 1

      It just takes one anal retentive person to rip the commercials and then make it available for download. The fear of DIGITALLY PERFECT HD copies will keep it limited to a crappy flash version until they can protect against that.

    6. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by grimJester · · Score: 1

      They don't need to force anyone to watch commercials. They could release un-DRM'ed hi-res torrents and just like with TV, most viewers would simply watch the whole thing, including commercials. Several release groups would strip the commercials within hours, but why take the risk of downloading a sloppily edited version when you can get the official one?

    7. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by x2A · · Score: 1

      The rips I find on p2p's seem to be edited pretty well actually :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Dot+Solipsism · · Score: 1

      Smart, yes,; but way too late. TV station could have been generating finds from advertising dollars for years now by allowing streaming. The future of TV is streaming television. It's too bad that marketing execs think they can strong arm their customers while new technologies out wit them at every turn. When will they learn?

    9. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Put up a torrent of the shows in HD, and I'd wager most people wouldn't bother buying the DVD. TV/movie producers are way too used to getting money once from the networks/cinemas, twice from the consumers for a permanent copy. They've still hoping to cripple Sony vs Betamax by legislating DRM and using that, protected by the DMCA, to limit home video libraries to a minimum.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by fred911 · · Score: 1

      The people I know that down load current TV torrents tell me there's NEVER commercials. Take a look sometime, I bet you won't find one.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until we don't have data caps, streaming is sooo not the solution!

      I want to be able to watch it when i want, multiple times if i want.
      I watch it on monday, someone else watches it on tuesday, cept I only use 350mb of bandwidth, instead of 700meg, with the top plan i can afford being 40gig on peak & 40gig off peak (ADSL2+ iiNet, next plans up the price jumps and the quota doesn't rise nearly as much), I can't afford to download the same show multiple times a month.
      Not to mention I might be watching it late at night and i fall asleep, i'm going to miss some of it and have to download it again as well.

      Streaming only SUCKS!
      I'll take DRM'd over streaming. I just need to be able to play it (whenever) at full screen on my 32" LCD tv, with sound being pumped through my Onkyo amp!

    12. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by babbling · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "fear of"? You make it sound as though people can't already obtain perfect (to the human eye) copies of TV shows immediately after they've aired.

      The thing is that even if someone did rip out the commercials, most people would still get the TV station's version of it because it is probably going to be out sooner, be a faster download (assuming the TV station sets up some fast seeding servers), and be the "best known" place to get the shows from.

      Additionally, show producers should be charging companies heaps of money to have their products included in the shows.

      People act as though TV downloading is going to be so different from broadcasting, but it's not. Anyone can "save" (record) a broadcast and then "cut out the ads"... and currently they do this and put it on the internet. The only reason they cut out the ads is because they had to convert the show anyway, so it's something they "might as well do, while they're at it". I'll bet that if the shows were just being offered in a convenient manner, and in a non-DRM, high quality format, no one would bother re-distributing them anymore.

    13. Re:Actually pretty smart.. by babbling · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's never commercials, but only because cutting out the commercials is trivial when they are already having to record and encode the show. If the official way of getting the show was faster (good servers) and easier (no wait, convenient non-DRM format), then no one would bother cutting out the commercials and re-releasing it.

  6. Damn by Tx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Only viewers within the United States can watch these full length episodes."

    Or anyone with a list of US-based proxies, heh.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
    1. Re:Damn by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Only viewers within the United States can watch these full length episodes."

      Or anyone with a list of US-based proxies, heh.

      Yeah - if you don't mind the higher latency (double the hops), waste of bandwidth, and setup hassle. lawl. I can see you've never tried streaming through some random non-logging proxy, or through Tor. Sure you can use it to streamrip a copy, but why bother at that point? Just torrent it.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  7. The bad news is..it's still network programming by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Troll

    Put me down as "not interested"

    1. Re:The bad news is..it's still network programming by RLiegh · · Score: 1, Redundant

      :( Jeez louise; that'll teach me to go against the Torrent Plz crowd.

  8. With ad's? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With ad is? Or did the submitter mean "ads", as in more than one ad? We live in a world where text is becoming more and more ubiquitous... why are people so lazy about it?

    1. Re:With ad's? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Actually, it means we all belong to the ad. All hail the ad.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:With ad's? by timster · · Score: 1

      That explains a lot.

      See, I've always assumed that the universe is a gigantic (by our standards) computer simulation running on a machine in some much larger universe. The same sort of principle applies when you run something like Conway's Life.

      What I couldn't figure out is what use such a simulation would be, but now I have it -- it's a big ad for the computer that's simulating us. As we speak, there's somebody in a computer store in the REAL universe thinking something like, "well, those are interesting patterns, I guess, but it's pretty expensive..."

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    3. Re:With ad's? by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that ads' ? damn rules.. sheesh.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    4. Re:With ad's? by Rydia · · Score: 1

      You sound like you need you some Star Ocean.

    5. Re:With ad's? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      No. There is only one ad. We belong to it. Damn polytheists.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  9. Any predictions... by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As to when someone will whip out an app to record these streams (perhaps even under Linux)?

    Shame they are so low res though... no doubt many will continue to use illicit means to see the shows in a much higher res.

    1. Re:Any predictions... by Tx · · Score: 1

      Just capture the raw stream, there's a directshow filter around to play back FLV streams with a regular media player in Windows. Linux I couldn't speak for.

      Or quick googling says there's software out there that can record Flash streams already.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Any predictions... by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      The CVS-version of MPlayer can play .flv files.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  10. United States Only by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only IPs from the United States can watch these movies. I actually pay for ABC on my TV, and I can't watch these. Doesn't anyone think of the canucks???? :P

    --
    You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    1. Re:United States Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't anyone think of the canucks?

      Had the Canucks made the playoffs, I'm sure someone would have thought about them, even outside of Vancouver.

    2. Re:United States Only by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      > Doesn't anyone think of the canucks????
      Who? Sorry, not ringing a bell.

  11. Of course only inside US by tod_miller · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Luckily I have a us proxy - so I can see. I must say, I am hoping for this, I would love to see tv networks open up, but until the advertising model also opens up, and this is in the best interest to all networks... then we will see ip filters like this.

    If channels can truly go global, we can all share same programming, and only taste and language will segment the audience, and thus, the budget.

    Networks will realise this soon, and some body will work to give more free access to channels, probably large international brands opening it up - we need to work out different laws and timezones also - the 9pm watershed (UK unofficial parental guideline) means very little if you are on the east coast. Or in Portugal.

    But, you US guys, wait 'til you see Dutch TV. zomg!

    lol @ fp guy.

    please type the word in this image: repast
    verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  12. Quality by sehryan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The quality is approximately what you would expect from flash video."

    I am assuming this is a putdown on Flash video, being Slashdot and all. The ABC site is dragging ass, so I can't actually see the quality for myself. That being said...

    Flash video can encode as high a quality as any other encoder. Some of the stuff I have seen looks better than other encoders, and always results in amazingly small file size. Just this morning, I saw a 4 minute, 720x480 AVI go from 890MB to 15MB with virtually no loss in quality.

    If the quality is poor, blame the developer, not the tool.

    --
    The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    1. Re:Quality by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get a full-length movie at DVD resolution on a single CD using DivX5 with very ilttle loss of quality as compared to a DVD. If you had four minutes at that res taking up more than a CD's worth, it was probably compressed with HuffYUV at best, and may have been full-frame uncompressed video.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Quality by iamdrscience · · Score: 1
      I saw a 4 minute, 720x480 AVI go from 890MB to 15MB with virtually no loss in quality.
      You're absolutely right that the codec FLVs use is very capable, but this comparison is meaningless. Are you saying you made an FLV of an uncompressed AVI or one compressed with Divx? How much is "virtually no loss in quality"? In my experience I've found FLV to be pretty comparable to Divx or any of the other current high-compression video codecs.
    3. Re:Quality by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    4. Re:Quality by bit01 · · Score: 1

      If the quality is poor, blame the developer, not the tool.

      The format is probably from a single supplier, undocumented, with a closed license and patent and DRM encumbered.

      Any one of those would make it of poor quality as a video standard.

      It's not just the technical details that matter. It's the entire featureset, though vendor marketing 'droids try to pretend otherwise.

      Blame the tool, not the developer.

      ---

      DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

    5. Re:Quality by assassinator42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it's probably in comparison to other flash video sites. Well, it would be, except this is better. When trying to switch to their "full screen" version, it warns me that I don't have an 850 kbps connection. (I was using download gandwidth elsewhere.) By the way, the "fullscreen" option just makes the video a bit bigger, and presumably higher quality. This isn't even like Google Video's "fullscreen" option, which stretches to window size. The size is fixed either way. That's the thing I hate about flash videos, when they're embedded in a browser at least: the inability to truely make the video fullscreen. I have the same complaint about Quicktime.

    6. Re:Quality by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll grant, my computer is three years old so it's not state-of-the-art, but it's certainly not ancient, and it was a pretty decent machine when I got it. Flash video sucks something fierce on it. I honestly don't care too much about the picture quality. What gets me is that for whatever reason the player is so inefficient that I can't keep the audio even remotely synced up. After playing something for about 30 seconds the video will trail the audio a good three or four seconds. Maybe when the player starts dropping frames to keep up I'll be interested in anything that uses Flash Video, but not before.

    7. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The format is probably from a single supplier, undocumented, with a closed license and patent and DRM encumbered.

      Any one of those would make it of poor quality as a video standard.


      Ah the straw man. Confusing the issue is usually the Media's domain isn't it? The issue at hand is video quality, and just because someone at ABC screwed the data rate down to something that doesn't appeal to some doesn't mean that the format is flawed.

      Flash video is a hugely popular format for delivering video on the Web. A great tool that delivers video just as the provider desires to viewers with little fuss.

      Blame the tool, not the developer.

      Some developers are tools.

    8. Re:Quality by flooey · · Score: 1

      You can get a full-length movie at DVD resolution on a single CD using DivX5 with very ilttle loss of quality as compared to a DVD. If you had four minutes at that res taking up more than a CD's worth, it was probably compressed with HuffYUV at best, and may have been full-frame uncompressed video.

      I think more important was the 15 MB for 4 minutes of video at near-DVD quality. At that rate, you could fit about 3 hours of video on a CD, which is comparable to other leading compression schemes.

    9. Re:Quality by SnotBob · · Score: 1

      "If the quality is poor, blame the developer, not the tool" Well, you can hardly blame his boss.

    10. Re:Quality by azav · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flash uses a version of the On vp2 codec to the best of my knowledge.

      Other codecs can produce better if not as good quality at the same file sizes.
      Sorenson, (I'm not kidding)
      3ivx for creating platform independent MP4
      Apple's H.264
      And MPEG1 - for the size that the Flash movies were encoded

      Some of the above codecs are also VBR where you set your desired quality level and each frame is only as big as it needs to be. But alas, Flash is on most browsers. What I haven't seen are DVD sized flash videos or any of larger dimensons.

      FYI, I'm on a Quad mac and the video immediately starts chugging when the browser window is in the background. I'd rather look at a streaming Quicktime like the one here:

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/ a/2006/04/30/MNGJGII7BB1.DTL&o=0

      The quality is better, and it even streams fine on my upgraded dual g4 cube.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    11. Re:Quality by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Flash 8 video is in fact a modified version of On2 technology's VP6 encoder. You may know about On2 because their previous-generation VP3 encoder was "donated" to the open-source community and became what we now know as Ogg Theora.

      VP6 is roghly on par with Windows Media 9, H.264, or XVID - definitely a step above MPEG2 or other older codecs.

    12. Re:Quality by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Did you try increasing the size? There are two video modes, small and large. Large looked fairly decent (when I tested it a couple of min ago). MUCH better than 320x240 quicktime off of itunes (but then again you can't take it with you)

    13. Re:Quality by nutsy · · Score: 1

      Flash itself is bog-slow, indeed. However, if you can rip out the audio/video stream from a Flash video, you can play it with MPlayer. Read the instructions carefully, though! You'll need a CVS snapshot of MPlayer, and also libavcodec, libavformat and libavutil from FFmpeg. Yes it's a lot of work, but well worth the effort, I dare say.

    14. Re:Quality by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Except on Linux systems, the audio gets out of sync, and Flash 8 is not supported, which more and more sites seem to use these days.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    15. Re:Quality by dthree · · Score: 1

      Flash always drops frames when in a mac browser window without focus. I've seen it enough times to think that its by design. Play the same file in the standalone player and it will play normally in the background.

      --
      "I forgot my mantra."
    16. Re:Quality by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, de-synchronization occurs only if the video file is embedded in the flash (swf) file, it's a known issue. If the video is separate, in its own FLV file, everything should run smoothly.

      I've worked with flash video and I can say with authority that the new On2 VP6 codec kicks Sorenson's ass; this means that you can get better quality at ower file size in flash than in Quicktime with Sorenson 3 Pro codec (most stuff published for QT)

    17. Re:Quality by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      Sorenson 3 was state of the art in Quicktime 3. Most new Quicktime stuff uses H.264. Sorenson lingered around for too long though, because Apple's MPEG4 encoder was so crappy.

      --
      Donate free food here
    18. Re:Quality by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 1

      Well said! I'm currently encoding stuff for digital cinema in Flash video, and it looks great on the big screen, with zero picture quality loss from QT. However, lipsync is an issue, and you need a pretty high powered machine to keep it playing well. Also, the great plus of Flash video is that it allows interactivity, so for drearily linear TV pieces like the series ABC are putting up, I'm slightly surprised they chose Flash rather than drearily linear formats like QT or WMV...

    19. Re:Quality by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      Or if you're on Windows, import the FLV to the stage in Flash, then export a movie in whichever codecs you have on your system (i.e. Xvid, x264).

    20. Re:Quality by Bastian · · Score: 1

      Can you give an example of Flash Video where the video is in its on FLV file?

      The only places where I have extensive experience with Flash video are YouTube and Google. That's where I have problems with the video getting out of sync. I've even noticed it happen with the odd YouTube video in the 2Ghz iMac G5 I use at work.

  13. Unrated Editions? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure many of you have noticed that movies now get edited down to PG-13 ratings for theatres and then get bumped back to R levels on the unrated DVD releases. I wonder how long it will be before a network (Fox?) does the same thing. See our shows free on TV, or pay a little for the streaming unrated version of American Dad. Or, better yet, Trippin' the Rift.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Unrated Editions? by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Or, better yet, Trippin' the Rift."

      I see I'm not the only one who wants some hot neked triple-boobed T'nuk action!

    2. Re:Unrated Editions? by Cylix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, yes you are.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Unrated Editions? by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      I see I'm not the only one who wants some hot neked triple-boobed T'nuk action!

      Amazing how much clearer the meaning behind her name is when you see it typed out...

  14. "The quality is approximately..." by Premo_Maggot · · Score: 0

    "...what you would expect from flash video." Stick men?

    --
    Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
    Move along, citizen.
    1. Re:"The quality is approximately..." by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      supervillians called Steve?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  15. Re:omg fp by PeteyG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    yes plz

    --
    no thanks
  16. Re:omg fp by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yessir, that's a mighty Fine Pony!

  17. Only for U.S. and notes... by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... you can get around that with proxies according to Digg (also here). This project is only up for at least a two-month trial period. Full screen is not possible, but there are two different sizes and the quality is excellent (not HDTV quality) on a fast Internet connection at my workplace.

    Don't forget to leave feedbacks for ABC on this project! Let them know what you think of it! It is also missing two of my other TV shows (Invasion and Grey's Anatomy). So, I left a request and a positive comment for ABC via its feedback.

    I wonder if there is a way to set the Flash video to fullscreen onto my TV as a video overlay? I do this with Windows' Media Players, VideoLAN Client Media Player, DVD players, etc. I don't have to set the players to fullscreen, just the video out.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Only for U.S. and notes... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should be able to play Flash Video files fullscreen in Media Player Classic with ffdshow.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Only for U.S. and notes... by antdude · · Score: 1

      I don't use MPC to play Flash because I can't block ads and stuff. I couldn't find the URLs to put in MPC.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  18. Cool. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    One thing I would use this for is fishing through a series. There are always episodes worth watching over and over again. Before this the only ways to find them was to luck out on reruns, hope someone could nail it down with hints on a messageboard/usenet, or bittorrent/emule in hopes of finding it.

    Now I can download them for free which eliminates much of the issues. It benefits the studios as they will probably release the series and shows on DVD in the future and should I want a high quality "legal" version I will know which set to buy.

    As for the ads, good compromise.

    Now just bring back old series that are no longer aired and only in syndication so I can hunt and peck through those.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Cool. by Skim123 · · Score: 1
      One thing I would use this for is fishing through a series. There are always episodes worth watching over and over again. Before this the only ways to find them was to luck out on reruns, hope someone could nail it down with hints on a messageboard/usenet, or bittorrent/emule in hopes of finding it.

      Let's hope. I wouldn't be surprised if they only kept up like the last six episodes, meaning if you wanted to watch previous seasons' content you'd have to buy the season series DVDs.

      What's odd is that some shows, like Alias, have multiple episodes, whereas others, like Lost, have just the last one. Hopefully they'll add past Lost episodes and keep the ones from henceforth online and available.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    2. Re:Cool. by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Now I can download them for free which eliminates much of the issues.

      Except that instead of simply offering episode downloads, ABC (or someone on their behalf) spent heavily on a framework making sure you could "watch" over the internet but not "store" what you see. (Okay, the framework isn't perfect, but little in this life is when you get right down to it...)

      In other words, you still only get to watch the episodes they want you to watch at any given time, and you can't go back and watch something later after they've pulled it. Not to mention you can't full-screen it, run it in your own application viewer or store it off to a small device for later offline viewing.

      Watching a few commercials for free content seems like a fair trade. Not being able to actually *use* the content makes things really really rediculously crippled. I'm not sure I've seen such a gigantic gold-plated turd before...

  19. Now all they need... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now, all they need is something good to watch.

  20. Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by Se7enLC · · Score: 3, Funny


    Didn't Apple make a big deal about offering episodes of Lost on their iTunes Video/Music store?

    I can't imagine they will be very happy with ABC direct-releasing similarly-poor-quality videos for free. I smell another frivolous lawsuit...

    1. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by saddino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is likely aware of it, and probably not concerned a whit:

      The versions on iTMS are pay once, own forever (not streaming).
      The versions on iTMS are ad free.

      For $1.99, I'd rather get Lost on iTMS and pipe it to my TV from my iPod.

    2. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by Se7enLC · · Score: 1

      For $1.99 x Large Number of Episodes, wouldn't you rather buy the DVD?

      I'm imagining that the people who want to pay money for tiny-resolution video are doing it because they either lack the technology to just record it themselves (since ABC is free over-the-air and available on US cable/satellite) or missed an episode accidentally. Why pay $1.99 for a poor-quality video when you can pay $Free? I find it hard to believe that there are very many people who use iTMS exclusively instead of their television or cable.

      Plus, who doesn't have a laptop or desktop with TV-Out? I'm sure more people can come up with that than can come up with a video ipod, and playing a flash video on the TV shouldn't be all that difficult.

      Now if iTMS were selling full-resolution recordings that you could burn to DVD, that would be a different story. They aren't, though. They are selling teeny-tiny poor-quality videos for a price comparable to that of the DVD season. It doesn't take much to undercut that.

    3. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by TobyRush · · Score: 2, Informative
      Didn't Apple make a big deal about offering episodes of Lost on their iTunes Video/Music store?
      I can't imagine they will be very happy with ABC direct-releasing similarly-poor-quality videos for free. I smell another frivolous lawsuit...

      Well, that'd be an interesting lawsuit, since Apple's CEO is on the board of ABC's parent company now.

      --
      Sam! If you will let me be,
      I will try them.
      You will see.
    4. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by barawn · · Score: 1

      For $1.99, I'd rather get Lost on iTMS and pipe it to my TV from my iPod.

      I think you can still do that.

      You can download a copy of it to your computer. It's quibbling on their part to say you can't transfer it elsewhere (so long as it stays for your personal, noncommercial use, and you only have one copy, I think you're fine).

      Their Terms of Use is surprisingly liberal.

    5. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The versions on iTMS are pay once, own forever (not streaming).

      Under normal circumstances there is nothing to prevent you from downloading flash videos and saving them. eg http://keepvid.com/

      or you can just make a copy our of your browser cache.

    6. Re:Apple iTunes store lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs owns the biggest single chunk of Disney stock, since the Pixar buyout, and ABC is a subsidiary of Disney. I'm sure Apple is OK with it.

  21. Catch the monkey win an iPod! by jrmiller84 · · Score: 1

    Lacking Flash 8 can't be that big of a deal, at least you don't have to deal with those "Shoot the duck!" ads... oh how tempting they can be....

    --
    I will forever be a student.
    1. Re:Catch the monkey win an iPod! by zentagonist · · Score: 1

      ... only thing is ... those type of ads don't typically use Flash 8 (at least not yet) ... besides, the Flashblock extension in Firefox will hide all flash for me unless I actually WANT to see the flash content. Either way, I still can't watch the episodes on linux without resorting to IE+Flash8/Wine, or qemu, or something like that.

    2. Re:Catch the monkey win an iPod! by Tigwyk · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the "Shoot the Flash Ad and we'll bankrupt another company that makes these annoying flash ads." to show up on websites. I know I'd put one on my site.

      --
      "Pi is exactly 3!" *gasp*
    3. Re:Catch the monkey win an iPod! by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Thats why you use flashblock (an extension for firefox). Usually flash ads are placed so obviously that you can tell they are ads just by their position on the page.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  22. Re:omg fp by zentagonist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... your pony died because it wasn't pretty enough.
    http://deadpony.ytmnd.com/

  23. Not v8.0, v8.5... by antdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    See this Macromedia forum post from Digg story. Unfortunately, it is after Windows and Mac OS X releases. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Not v8.0, v8.5... by zentagonist · · Score: 1

      thanks ... though it doesn't give a time frame, at least now I know that it's actually coming at all. While I don't use a 64-bit processor, it is kind of upsetting to see that they aren't planning on releasing any native x86_64 player for linux.

  24. Full screen? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

    Is there something I'm missing or is there no full screen for these shows? There's a higher resolution image option but it doesn't go very full at all. I'm really trying to be good and not download the "other" versions of these shows but if I can't even watch the show at a decent size on my TV, these streams are near useless to me. I guess I'll just stick to my Head of the Class reruns on IN2TV. At least their full screen is bareable.

    1. Re:Full screen? by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always use Opera and Zoom. ;) But that seems to be too resource intensive for me.

  25. Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ad's and commercials.

    I've always wondered about sites like this, or YouTube, or Google Video, or any of the other seriously massive media streaming sites.

    How the hell do they do it?

    Seems to me like you'd have to have Bandwidth Of The Gods(tm) in order to pull it off. Multicast isn't really working on the internet proper. So how the hell does a site like this manage it? If you have thousands upon thousands of people hooking up...a lot of them at cablemodem speeds, how does the pipe deliver?

    I know that these sites do, in fact have massive bandwidth. But it just seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people wanting hours of video thorough mutliple unicast would be enough to choke pretty much anything that's not on Internet2.

    How the hell do they manage it? Is there some sort of Voodoo that I'm missing?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by iammaxus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The answer is probably that it just isn't as it seems. Even using some big numbers and assumptions, its not as bad as it seems. If the site sends 10 million users 50 MB of data each and spreads it out over a whole day, it comes to about 5.5 GBps continuously. Taking a look at this map, there are plenty of cities that offer that kind of bandwidth, and this is only one network (admittedly, the largest), and of course, the servers could (and almost certainly are) spread out over several locations. Further, the number of servers required is not great considering it is not unreasonable for a high end server to achieve 100's of MBps when serving static data like this. Of course, all these numbers are probably pretty far off (in reality, I'm sure the number of servers required scales terribly as you start to spend a lot of resources on load balancing and the fact that some sites serve huge libraries of content), but my point is that it is certainly reasonable.

      That said, you do still bring up an interesting issue: even though these sites are certainly technically feasible, they are certainly extremely expensive (Go ask Worldcom how much they'd like to buy all of there connections to Los Angeles...). Unless we are reentering dot com days, Google, YouTube and there ilk must be expecting to make some serious ROI soon.

    2. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by ameoba · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They probably use something like Akamai's network of distributed content servers. I'm fuzzy on the exact details but they basically set up caches/mirrors at 'edge' points of the network and use DNS voodoo to make sure you connect to the 'closest' server, transparent to the end user.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    3. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I understand (inside source), Limelight Networks (www.llnw.net) is carrying this. When starting a stream, one or more connections were created to IP's on their network. It seems they're in the CDN (content delivery network) business.

    4. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > How the hell do they manage it?

      http://www.limelightnetworks.com/

    5. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Akamai (or something simular).

      Basically, the content is distributed across MANY servers and the content is accessed by DNS to reference the server "pool".

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    6. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by x2A · · Score: 1

      hmm load balancing at this level (ie, static content) isn't actually too tricky. Simplest is doing it using standard DNS rotation, although you get no "from server nearest you" bias when having a server picked for you. Next up is a DNS server which keeps track of bandwidth used by each of the servers, uses this along with knowledge of which is closest to you, to decide which one to send you to. Even without DNS this can be done using subdomains, where, for example, the file which points to the video is created dynamically to point to the server that's closest/under least load.

      Or maybe some sort of ping from the flash player itself to each of the servers - letting the player decide?

      And when streaming with HTTP, there's ISP level proxies (transparent in many cases) to take the edge off (unless cookies are used, which is probably in this case).

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    7. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by autocracy · · Score: 1

      It's actually BGP trickery... they use the same IP block in many different physical locations. It looks like the host is multihomed, but it's many hosts really spread everywhere and using the same IP. From that point, they just keep the same goodies on each server in their network.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    8. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by dumky · · Score: 1

      What's the cost per user for distributing one episode thru a CDN like this?

    9. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by bizard · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually, that is just a good example of people being very sloppy with their notation. You are correct in your calculations, but hide the units in GBps...GigaBYTES per second. Multiplying your number by 8 results in 48Gbps...GigaBits, which is far beyond even the fattest pipe between NY and Chicago on that map (at 10Gbps).

      Additionally, you are assuming that people would all watch at discreet intervals without overlapping too much and that nobody else would be using the Internet for any other purpose. In reality, there will already be a high traffic load and people will want the video in clumps. It is why people like Apple are offering downloadable video and not streaming. That way if it takes 2 hours to download a 1 hour show, at least you didn't have to sit through all of the pauses

      Finally, a 45 minute show off of iTunes currently runs about 200MB at about 670Kbps. That 10Gb pipe would max out at far fewer than 20,000 streams.

    10. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by iammaxus · · Score: 1
      Actually, that is just a good example of people being very sloppy with their notation. You are correct in your calculations, but hide the units in GBps...GigaBYTES per second. Multiplying your number by 8 results in 48Gbps...GigaBits, which is far beyond even the fattest pipe between NY and Chicago on that map (at 10Gbps).

      Good catch, but I wouldnt be surprised if my estimate was off by even more than 8 times. I just wanted to show that it was approximately possible. Additionally, I talked about buying all the pipes from one city. It wouldn't make much sense to discuss just buying one pipe from one city to another. I was just trying to show that that kind of bandwidth certainly exists.

      Additionally, you are assuming that people would all watch at discreet intervals without overlapping too much and that nobody else would be using the Internet for any other purpose. In reality, there will already be a high traffic load and people will want the video in clumps. It is why people like Apple are offering downloadable video and not streaming. That way if it takes 2 hours to download a 1 hour show, at least you didn't have to sit through all of the pauses

      Again, I mentioned that this is just one of the privately owned networks that makes up the internet (in this case Worldcom's) and I imagine its not very new as I'm pretty sure Worldcom is operating greater than 10Gbps links, so this would by no means saturate the internet. As for not evenly distributed traffic patterns, sure, but again, I'm just trying to gauge the scale.

    11. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      That bandwidth is pretty fat to get. Not even OC-48 (common in large/regional ISPs) comes close to 48 Gbps. 10 Gigabit ethernet is a relatively new technology as well. Anything with more bandwidth is generally only used in experimental research (e.g Internet2). I guess you'd have to just have a lot of OC-12 lines (e.g. Comcast) with minimal overselling (e.g 16:1 max, or not Comcast).

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    12. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Fryboy · · Score: 1

      Just for info, the YouTube blog (http://youtube.com/blog) from January 9th states they're serving 45 TBps a day.

    13. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by Isao · · Score: 2, Funny
      How the hell do they do it?

      Sharks. With Lasers.

    14. Re:Monster bandwidth or network voodoo? by greenrd · · Score: 1
      What the fuck is a "Terabyte per second per day"? Per second per day? Uh, what?

  26. Back Episodes? by djSpinMonkey · · Score: 1

    Currently, it looks like you can only see the last couple episodes to have aired. While I can understand where there might be technical reasons not to put the full up immediately (bandwidth being the most obvious one - I'd hate to be the network admin dealing with hundreds of geeks downloading all 220 episodes back to back), it seems like this would only be useful for people who are already following the show. It might be nice for current viewers who missed an episode to be able to go back and download it, but for a show like, eg, Lost, where the ongoing plot and sequence of episodes are very important, it's not a good way to attract new viewers. I realize that it's nominally better than the online solution they've already got (ie, nothing), but I don't think they're going to see much increase in viewership until they release more of the back library of episodes. The technical issues are (obviously) not insurmountable - if legions of anime-watchers can make high-quality fansubs widely available, then an organization with the deep pockets of a national TV network should be able to develop a workable file swarming application (ie, BitTorrent-esque) that still allows them to insert current commercials in to the downloads (swarm the episode content, direct download the commercials, and re-assemble on the other end, maybe?).

    1. Re:Back Episodes? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as long as this is still as profitable as it is, you'll never see your backlog of Lost episodes online in any legal (US) and free format.

    2. Re:Back Episodes? by Nephroth · · Score: 1

      Episode 220: Season 2, Episode 20.

      --
      Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  27. US only by Mike+Peel · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Only viewers within the United States can watch these full-length episodes"

    I'm being discriminated against, just because I'm in a different country! That's geographicist, that is! Can I sue?

  28. Flash the new video standard by iammaxus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone else surprised at how Flash has become the new standard for video distribution? Google Video, YouTube, etc all use Flash for displaying video, mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population. I wonder if Macromedia itself ever predicted that Flash's wide availability would become its selling point for streaming video. I think this is a bad trend because it is hiding more and more of the content from the browser. I would have liked to see W3C specify some formats and controls for video that browsers should support. Instead, multimedia on the web is taking browsers towards just being an extra frame around a Flash frame. W3C: We all like focus on the semantic web stuff, but you gotta get with times and get multimedia standardized too. SVG is just a small step in that direction.

    1. Re:Flash the new video standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's awful. And no one is ignoring them to try and kill the format. So much stuff is pushed through flash that you can no longer save locally. Shame shame shame.

    2. Re:Flash the new video standard by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you look around, there's quite a few sites that allow you to save videos from YouTube etc.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:Flash the new video standard by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population.

      I disagree.

      The priorities are:
      #1: Control use of content.
      #2: Reach the widest possible audience given #1.

      There are already plenty of available formats and players both free (common) and DRM (controlled). Having a client that is both common *and* controlled (at least to the degree of not allowing local storage) is new. Other formats (like Real) have failed more because they've completely ignored all customer concerns (by becoming adware/spyware) than because customers are unwilling to use DRM software.

    4. Re:Flash the new video standard by badasscat · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else surprised at how Flash has become the new standard for video distribution?

      No, because it does everything the content providers want and it is as cross-platform as it currently gets. It is not perfect (nothing is) but it is as close to it as it gets right now for both providers and viewers.

      I wonder if Macromedia itself ever predicted that Flash's wide availability would become its selling point for streaming video.

      Well, why the heck do you think Flash video even exists? Flash video wasn't created until I think Flash 6. By then Flash already had around a 90% penetration, lots of people were trying to do video over the interweb without much success, and Macromedia had the bright idea that their platform was a better solution.

      I think this is a bad trend because it is hiding more and more of the content from the browser. I would have liked to see W3C specify some formats and controls for video that browsers should support.

      And the content providers would have ignored these formats.

      I mean the bottom line is like it or not, ABC owns Lost. They're not obligated to put it out on formats that they don't want to. Oh, I agree completely that *you* should be able to put it on whatever format you want for *your* own consumption, but *they* don't have to make it available in any format they don't want to and they're perfectly within their rights to sue anybody who is actually distributing it without their permission.

      So if you want an official, legally sanctioned web "broadcast" of Lost on the net, you're going to have to make some compromises with the owner of the show. And honestly, the way they're doing it on the net is not really much different - and is in some ways better - than the way they're doing it over the air.

      So now you have three choices. You can watch (or record) these shows when they're broadcast on cable or OTA, you can download them from iTunes commercial-free for $1.99 and keep them for as long as you want, or you can stream them for free on ABC's web site but with commercials.

      It seems to me that there is very little to complain about here. If you ask me, this is good behavior on the part of the content industry. And I am not one to compliment the content industry very often.

    5. Re:Flash the new video standard by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      You're trolling, sorry. It may not be intentional, but you'reletting your hatred cloud your judgement.

      How exactly do you propose to display video in a web browser?
      use Quicktime? WMP? real? They're plugins too.

    6. Re:Flash the new video standard by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      I blame MS for the recent adoption of FLV on the web. H.264 is a great format for high-quality, low-quality, and streaming. Also many webhosts offer Darwin Streaming Server, which is free.

      It's built-in to Quicktime, but it's *not* built-in to WMP. WMP users have to install ffdshow to watch H.264 video. If MS would just include it in WMP (for free), we'd have a perfect codec for the web.

  29. No fullscreen. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Digg users and I didn't see an option. I would like a way to put this fullscreen on my TV as a video overlay, but Flash doesn't allow that. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:No fullscreen. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I Dunno what you mean about video overlay, you mean the hardware video overlay? But you can bring up your web browser in fullscreen mode displaying a SWF, which will (in the absence of controls to prevent it) automatically resize itself to fill your browser window. If that fills the screen, then bingo! You've got fullscreen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:No fullscreen. by antdude · · Score: 1

      I wasn't able to find the SWF URL. Did you?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:No fullscreen. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't looked, for two reasons.

      First, I only have broadband at work, so I can't watch this stuff there anyway. (The only broadband I might be able to get where I live is Satellite.)

      Second, if I had broadband at home, I'd just bittorrent this stuff anyway. At least, anything I wanted to watch. About the only things on American television today that I'm even interested in watching are the world rally championship, the JGTC, the FIA GT, 24, and Lost. All of those are torrentable.

      Everything else I watch (just about) is a fansubbed anime that can't even be gotten any other way than internet download. Some shows never make it here, and some never make it in a palatable form. For example, apparently Naruto finally got licensed, and they're releasing it only in an English-dubbed version with the worst dubbing since Ranma 1/2. Frankly though the quality doesn't matter as I absolutely refuse to purchase any foreign film that cannot be watched in the original language, regardless of genre. Some people just don't want money, I guess.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:No fullscreen. by x2A · · Score: 1

      What graphics card do you have? I know with nvidia card+recent drivers, the ability to send overlay to second monitor/tv fullscreen can be set in it's own control panel to apply automatically, whether the player has options for it or not (as long as the player outputs to an overlay - I don't know if this is the case for Flash).

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:No fullscreen. by antdude · · Score: 1

      I have a 6800 card. The option is only for video players. Flash is not really considered video. I wished it was for the videos in Flash.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:No fullscreen. by x2A · · Score: 1

      Just looked at flash, and no doesn't appear to use overlay. The only reason I can think for this is that maybe outputting to an overlay would make it easier to re-capture the video, handily sidestepping any DRM etc in place.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  30. Moving the web to the mainstream by isaacklinger · · Score: 0

    This is great. Advertisers pay for ads, I get to watch the show. Same model we've used all these years in television. This would be help make broadband look good for the telecoms, and gets the web to a place it could really replace television broadcasting. And if the interface would be as easy to use as a television, there would be no barriers for widespread use.

    Could be the end of "there's nothing good on TV".

  31. CmdrTaco Or Captain Obvious? by ObligatoryUserName · · Score: 4, Informative

    The submitted text:
    "it requires Flash 8"

    Cmdr Taco's value-add comment:
    "The quality is approximately what you would expect from flash video."

    It's actually exactly what you'd expect from Flash video, because it is Flash video. That being said, what quality would you expect? I bet it differs quite a bit based on the datarate you encode it at... Perhaps he's saying it's similar in quality to YouTube or Google Video? (We only give you a hard time because we imagine that you have one of the best jobs in the world, so don't take it personally, Taco.)

    For people asking about Linux versions of Flash 8 - they've had a separate team working on Flash 9 for quite a while and it's set to be released later this year (it includes significant changes for performance improvement, was in development to some extent in parallel with Flash 8) - and from what I understand as a casual obsverver they're going to release a Flash 9 player for Linux and just skip 8 entirely. This is in part because it's only relativly recently that they've added dedicated Linux staff, and in part beacuse this is the fastest switch between versions (8 to 9) that I can recall, anyway.

      The hope is that Linux release will be simultaneous with the Mac/Windows launch, but I don't know if anyone's commited to that yet - or if it's just idle hope.

  32. Ehh....not too bad.. by daivzhavue · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sure its Windows only. Sure its US only. But it works for the target population.

    --
    "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
    1. Re:Ehh....not too bad.. by Snick^ · · Score: 1

      flash is cross platform.....

    2. Re:Ehh....not too bad.. by rickgassko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it works like a dream on the Mac. That's what makes this thing better than most of the other video players -- no reliance on Windows media

  33. Bandwidth below 500kbps? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

    When I try to stream, I get a message that I may have problems because my bandwidth appears to be below 500kbps.

    That's news to me, and would probably be news to Comcast. And considering the last torrent I downloaded (last night) came in at closer to 500KBps(4000kbps), I'd be willing to make a bet whose bandwidth is less than 500kbps.

  34. If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... then watch Alias. Marshall rocks as a computer/technical geek and is funny. :) He even uses Linux, KDE, XMMS, and xmame in the show as shown here and here (screen captures!). ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:If you're a geek... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "Marshall rocks as a computer/technical geek and is funny."

      Jack Bauer used his PDA to set off a suicide bomber's jacket bomb. It doesn't get more awesome than that. And Jack Bauer doesn't need the crutch of humor to hide his ineptitude. While this Marshall guy is customizing the side margin in his xterm, Jack Buer is kicking in terrorist skull. Need I say more?

    2. Re:If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah, Jack Bauer has the geeks at CTU like Chloe and Edgar (well used to). :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:If you're a geek... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Jack Bauer is sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants.

      My friend Mark said that he saw Jack Bauer totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

      And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4. Re:If you're a geek... by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Marshall rocks as a computer/technical geek and is funny. :) He even uses Linux, KDE, XMMS, and xmame. . .

      Call me back when we get a bash script and cdplay. Until then he's just poser.

      KFG

    5. Re:If you're a geek... by x2A · · Score: 1

      yeah but jack also thinks 276 is a valid number in an IP address, pah! :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    6. Re:If you're a geek... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "yeah but jack also thinks 276 is a valid number in an IP address, pah! :-p"

      haha I noticed that too... what losers we are :)

    7. Re:If you're a geek... by x2A · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping that the number wasn't /actually/ 276, if I recalled it correctly, that would be so much worse!

      I better quickly take some drugs to balance the issue...

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:If you're a geek... by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Well, that could be like how people in movies and tv seem to think 555 is a valid start of a phone number.

      On the other hand, it could just be a dumb mistake. I preferred the one where Wayne Palmer says something to the effect of "we traced the account address to your IP".

    9. Re:If you're a geek... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      He used KDE because that was on the computer he was forced to work on by the K Directorate. See? They're EVIL! :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    10. Re:If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean the Chinese guy? Uh huh. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    11. Re:If you're a geek... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Hu are you talking about?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    12. Re:If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember the chinese guy who kidnapped Marshall in that episode?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    13. Re:If you're a geek... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have a photographic memory, so I can't remember every detail. But I do remember that he had to work on a computer which ran KDE, and he was captured by the K-Directorate, which I found kind of funny, so I remembered it. I don't recall exactly who was in it, there are so many characters and plots, it's hard to remember all the details.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    14. Re:If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Also, it was when Marshall got a kiss by Sydney on the lips when they both escaped with ONLY one parachute (a prototype I think) from the building.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    15. Re:If you're a geek... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      So that's the part that made the impression on you, eh? ;-)

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    16. Re:If you're a geek... by antdude · · Score: 1

      LOL! Yeah, I said "lucky!!" Well, he is luckier with Carrie. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  35. interactive ads by athena_wiles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hm. Nobody's mentioned this yet, but the flash format enables them to put interactive ads into the episodes. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm much more likely to respond to an ad if I can click on things & choose what extra information I want instead of having an ad lecture at me... When things are interactive I find I invariably spend more time playing with them, too :-)

    Think this could make a difference in the overall effectiveness of their ads? Just curious...

  36. Flash v8.5 & after Windows and Mac OS X releas by antdude · · Score: 0, Redundant

    See this Macromedia forum post from this Digg story. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  37. Re:Access from outside US, Digg and Slashdot, boom by thefirelane · · Score: 1
    Slashdot will fall to the story voting model, oh, and it will be so funny when it does.

    You know, I used to think the exact same thing. Then I started going to digg frequently. My opinion changed after seeing how many factually false or misleading articles get voted up. This is also combined with rather childish typos. I'm not saying the editors are much better... but it does pay to have someone sitting there to take a step back and judge the quality of the submission.

    Then again, I run my own digg clone link-aggregator... so I obviously believe in the model

  38. Re:Access from outside US, Digg and Slashdot, boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh boy, groupthink, and not just for comments anymore!

    Pleasing but inaccurate stories, here we come! It's like Fox News for Nerds!

  39. repetitive bullshit advertising by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 4, Funny

    People wouldn't be so adverse to the commercials if they weren't so god damn annoying.. and depressing, and all of those commercials that try to make the viewer feel guilty about something ie. Losing your hair you sad old man? too much fat around your waist fatso?? can't get your penis standing tall??? all the anti-smoking ads showing old and dying people talking like robots, drunk driving ads to make you feel ashamed about havin a little fun, anti-drug ads to make parents feel guilty about their teenage sons smoking some pot (you're an irresponsible parent! gimme a break eh)...

    then all those god damn pharma-ads with warnings about the side-effects that cause erectile dysfunction/bladder control issues/possibility of stroke and heart attack.. nursing mothers shouldn't inhale this stuff/etc etc ..

    TV is a fucking mess lol.

    Try this for a commercial you network bitches, I might even watch it.

    "Hi, I'm Jake and I'd like you to try our new shampoo. it works well and controls dandruff" -> camera closeup on shampoo bottle.

    End of commercial. thank you very fucking much.

    1. Re:repetitive bullshit advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could take a cue from your username as well...

      "Hi, I'm Jake and I'd like you to try our new shampoo. it works well and controls dandruff" -> camera closeup on shampoo bottle, BUT not before slowly panning across his pants!

    2. Re:repetitive bullshit advertising by Nephroth · · Score: 1
      Erm, technically speaking the smoking, drinking, drunk driving and anti drug "ads" aren't ads. They are public service announcements. They aren't meant to sell any products.

      Furthermore, you seem only to address a very narrow portion of advertising, many other commercials are made to be funny, and sometimes are.

      I'm not saying that I don't hate commercials, I'm just saying that you're being pretty narrow.

      --
      Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  40. Re:Access from outside US, Digg and Slashdot, boom by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1
    This was on Digg. Looks like the smart crowd digg these days, not using quaint totalitarian dictatorship to see what stories get in. Slashdot will fall to the story voting model, oh, and it will be so funny when it does.


    Yep, story voting killed slashdot. Rusty must be proud with Kuro5hin reigning king. Wait, no.. Didn't quiet happen that way, and digg is no different.

    You know what else was on digg? A bunch of really badly written unimportant crap people rush to post so they can become popular. Slashdot fails similarly, but that doesn't excuse digg.

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  41. May 1st to June 30? by j2crux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this a trial period? Or did I miss the disclaimer?

    --
    j^2
    1. Re:May 1st to June 30? by DK_LA · · Score: 1

      I didn't notice it the first time either, but there it is right at the top of the screen -- "May 1st to June 30th". This will most-likely become a pay-per-view service afterwards (competing with iTunes?) but by that time it will be nothing but summer reruns anyway... :)

      Does anybody know what their Fall Season plans are?

    2. Re:May 1st to June 30? by Duk · · Score: 1
      Well, according to the FAQ:
      How long will this be available?
      The full-length episodes will be available during the months of May and June. They will not be available again until the Fall Season.

      I guess they don't want to eat into the revenue for re-runs during the break.

      --
      -Hey! Whatcha lookin' at fool? -The Duk
  42. web 2.0 is hopefully gonna be by i8puppies · · Score: 0

    the death of tv.

    1. Re:web 2.0 is hopefully gonna be by cheese-cube · · Score: 0

      Internet killed the TV star?

  43. no, no we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't anyone think of the canucks????
    No. No one thinks of Canada, positively or negatively. And, I suspect that is what pisses you off and gives you that inferiority complex.

    That said, I really miss Hockey Night in Canada & Don Cherry and a dollar buys a lot of entertainment in a Canadian strip bars.

  44. Damn ABC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won't let Canadians view their full-lenght streams. Anyone wants to run an open proxy so I can see my
    fav. episode of Alias? :D

    Erik

  45. But the Ad rate is $0.25 per hour per viewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did some research a while back and as far as I could tell the ad rate was $0.25 per hour per viewer (maybe per half-hour, but it doesn't really change the point).

    So, the ABC break even point for 1 hour of Lost is $0.25. iTunes/ABC sells it for $2. Even giving iTunes $0.25 to run the store, that is still a 4x increase in price. I know it would make your RIAA-imposed $1 per song seem silly if you charged $0.50 per hour of TV, but come on. DVD sets are usually cheaper (or at least the same) and I get more (commentary, disc, no-DRM) with the DVD.

    1. Re:But the Ad rate is $0.25 per hour per viewer by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      ...no-DRM with the DVD.

      You're kidding, right? DVD was the first widely used format with built-in DRM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#Restrictions Weak DRM, perhaps, but it's there.

    2. Re:But the Ad rate is $0.25 per hour per viewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted. I thought of that as soon as I hit Submit.
      But, the fact is that it has been so compromised to the point of me not thinking about it. Breaking the DRM is just how I copy the DVD to my HD for playing on the HTPC. I don't think of it as breaking the DRM, it is just how I do something else (something I should have every right to do).

      For the record I don't think of Rot13 as encryption either. Once somehting becomes sufficently trivial to overcome it loses its special status.

  46. Doh! by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So when is Fox going to get with it? There seems to be a hill or something between me and the local Fox station, and I'm not going to get cable just to watch the Simpsons.

  47. Flash Media Server & Akamai by panaceaa · · Score: 1

    There are two major components that make ABC's video offering possible:

    1) Adobe Flash Media Server, aka FMS. Streams Flash movies over HTTP, but does so in a "smart" manner so that video degrades based on the performance of the client and of the pipe.

    2) Akamai, which hosts thousands of geographically dispersed servers across the world. Akamai licenses Flash Media Server and hosts it on thousands of "edge" servers, which basically cache the most popular videos and stream them out from the most efficient location.

    However, Google Video and YouTube do not use FMS. Since it's not their content, they don't care about its reliability quite so much. They simply package up a video inside a Flash file and serve it directly to users. If the user doesn't have the bandwidth, the video hangs or other bad things happen. I am pretty sure Google Video and YouTube also do geographic clustering (co-location) in order to reduce lag abd bandwidth costs, but I'm not sure on the details of that.

    Getting back to ABC, there are two differences between their business and Google's: 1) ABC takes the user experience much more seriously (since it's their content), and 2) ABC isn't a technology company. Therefore they'll pay a little extra for the reliability and quality of FMS, and they sign up for Akamai's services because they don't have their own server farms.

  48. Quality by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The quality is approximately what you would expect from flash video."

    That's actually very misleading. Flash 8 includes a new codec which is considered among the best for online video streaming (and video in general): On2's VP6. It's a fully featured decoder also with deringing, deblocking and so on filters that enhance the quality of the decoded image.

    If the quality is crappy it was a deliberate choice of ABC to keep the bitrate low for whatever reasons, or using bad encoders (which I doubt, but how can I know).

    If there's one thing, Flash doesn't have a native full screen mode, which for a streaming TV show is kinda a bummer...

  49. Re:omg fp by Dahan · · Score: 0
    yes plz
    --
    no thanks

    I'm confused :(

  50. Commercials Suck by JerLasVegas · · Score: 0, Redundant

    People are still going to record it on TV and make them into MPEGs. Flash sucks too lol!

  51. linux support by theantix · · Score: 1

    It works on linux just fine, I just watched a bit of this week's episode of Alias. Install wine, install the windows version firefox under wine, and then install the flash 8.5 beta also under wine. It runs perfectly after that.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
  52. Impressive. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Wow. Smooth, fast, works on OSX, little to complain about.
    Beats Google video by a mile. Well done.
    This is hands down the best no-direct-cost online video experience to date.
    Maybe now I can comprehend Lost, which I didn't find out about until it was too late to backfill.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  53. Is it just me, or is this next to worthless? by Shihar · · Score: 1

    I was excited when I first heard about this. I have heard great things about Lost and have wanted to start watching. Of course, being a netflix subscribe I completely reject the idea of starting a TV show in the middle. I was hoping that this would mean that I could watch Lost from episode 1 onwards. I don't mind sitting through commercials, I just want to see the story in order. Perhaps I am simply missing the right button, but as far as I can tell I can only watch last weeks episode.

    WTF is wrong with these networking people? I WANT to watch their shows complete with commercials. The only demand I make is that I watch the show in order when I want to watch it. I don't have any intention of starting a story half way through, nor do I want to plan my life around the schedule of the TV.

    The capacity to do this already exists. If I wanted to I could go to the pirate's bay right now and find exactly what I want and then some. I simply fail to see what is gained by making piracy the only way to watch a TV show on your own schedule. If they simply let people watch their damn TV shows, complete with ads, I imagine the number of people watching would skyrocket as people like me who otherwise would not be bothered to live by a TVs schedule start watching.

    What sort of bone headed idiocy is preventing this from happening? Is it really fear of piracy? Do they fail to see that the piracy already exists and that failing to offer their own commercial filled version is NOT going to make the piracy go away?

    I swear it almost seems like they want for controls sake, not because of any rational reason behind withholding making their content available.

    1. Re:Is it just me, or is this next to worthless? by mbius · · Score: 1

      I swear it almost seems like they want for controls sake, not because of any rational reason behind withholding making their content available.

      How about nonexistence of a payment model? I don't know if Jack Bauer gets a dime from every ITMS download, but I doubt the sponsors are willing to jump in head-first to subsidize every actor's contract re-negotiation. There's no case study proving Joe Sixpack will watch TV online, or how much ad revenue he generates. Meanwhile, everybody involved with the show wants his cut of that question mark.

      It's a fishing expedition. We're the fish. If you want fatter worms, act interested.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    2. Re:Is it just me, or is this next to worthless? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      There are three possibilities:

      1) Online shows results in more people watching the show online at the expense of the network broadcast because people would rather watch it on demand then at a set time.
      2) Online shows have no effect on the amount of people watching the broadcast
      3) Online shows increase the viewership of the broadcast show because people are able to keep up to the story and jump in half way.

      All three of those possibilities are good things. Even scenario 1 isn't a bad thing as if people are viewing it online instead of during a broadcast they are still viewing it. If the commercials are built in you still are receiving ad revenue.

      If anything, online showings should be MORE popular. Other then through surveys, there is no way to tell who is watching what at any given time. For advertisers network commercials are a complete crapshoot. They can only guess at who watched their commercials and if there was any response to the commercials. Now consider the possibilities for online advertising during a show.

      If you air the show online, you can make people sign in. This means that you can track individual viewers viewing habits. Hell, make them take a small survey and give advertisers a wealth of information. Instead of guessing how many people watched a show, you can KNOW how many people watched the show. Further, you can judge responses to commercials. If during a commercial you can click on the commercial to learn more, you can track if people have any sort of response to the commercials they are viewing. Interactive, traceable, online advertising linked to demographic data is an advertisers wet dream.

      Is there some small element of risk involved? Sure. Perhaps this pussyfooted first step is the networks way of testing the waters. Personally though, I think it is a grievous mistake to enter the waters so timidly. I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that on demand is absolutely here to stay. Refusing to jump in and get wet is just giving someone else the chance to cash in before you do.

    3. Re:Is it just me, or is this next to worthless? by mbius · · Score: 1

      If you air the show online, you can make people sign in. This means that you can track individual viewers viewing habits. Hell, make them take a small survey

      Eventually, but that's not a good way to coax people off co-ax. Anything less than marked advantage over POTV puts perceived disadvantages ("is it using up my megabytes?") in harsh relief. Worst case, they kill the goose before it's laid the golden eggs.

      My gut says they're waiting on the Vista rollout to dive in. They don't lose anything by waiting since they own all the copyrights.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    4. Re:Is it just me, or is this next to worthless? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I simply fail to see what is gained by making piracy the only way to watch a TV show on your own schedule.

      Um, did you just say you're a netflix subscriber? Add the first season of Lost to your queue.. sheesh.

  54. Re:omg fp by revlayle · · Score: 1

    PONIES!!!!!111one

  55. Flash Video Quality by Nazmun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the hell is that supposed to mean? The summary could have at least mentioned the codec used or the bit rate.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
    1. Re:Flash Video Quality by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The quality is actually much better the I expected.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    2. Re:Flash Video Quality by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      No clue, but my experiences are:

      Flash videos are usually pretty bad quality.

      Anything meant to stream in realtime over normal last-mile connections will be crap quality.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Flash Video Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No clue, but my experiences are:
      Flash videos are usually pretty bad quality.


      There's a rule every person working with photography believes in - Shit In = Shit Out (AKA SISO rule).

      That said - compare yourself - http://www.flashcomguru.com/index.cfm/2005/8/8/vp6

    4. Re:Flash Video Quality by badasscat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The summary could have at least mentioned the codec used or the bit rate.

      The codec is Flash video. It's Macromedia's/Adobe's own codec.

      The bit rate is unknowable unless ABC says what it is in a press release or elsewhere on the site. Maybe you could figure out a way to save one of these flv files and open it in a standalone player that'd tell you the bit rate. My guess is ABC is smart enough to have locked out that ability, though.

      "Flash Video Quality" is still basically meaningless, because Flash video can have whatever quality you give it. You can encode Flash video in HD if you want to; it'd be pretty pointless to do so because the whole point of Flash video is to stream, but you could do it if you wanted to.

      But omitting the codec or bit rate from the summary aren't really oversights - the codec is a given, the bit rate is just unknown.

    5. Re:Flash Video Quality by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Torrents are just as good and are FULL SCREEN capable...

      I played around with this site, I can zoom it but cant make it full screen. What are they thinking...

      --
      Bottles.
    6. Re:Flash Video Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can't you estimate the bit rate by keeping track of how much is transferred to your computer over a known period of time playing the stream (and not use your network for anything else during that time)?

    7. Re:Flash Video Quality by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Deploying with Flash probably gives them the freedom to change the codec, copy protection, and/or bitrate whenever they want without the user noticing. (If they're really high-tech they could vary the bitrate according to the fullness of the receiving buffer, but now I'm asking too much).

      Anyways, this constant juggling of video codecs highly annoys me. Why can't players (including hardware players) simply come with some kind of codec virtual machine, and embed the codec itself in the video header? Or at least have it implemented in some platform-independent way that can be transparently downloaded when necessary.

    8. Re:Flash Video Quality by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      It's Macromedia's/Adobe's own codec.

      Not exactly. Flash 7 (and below) video used Sorenson's Spark codec, while Flash 8 supports a new codec dervied from On2's VP6 codec. Spark was a steaming pile of garbage, but VP6 is a modern codec that matches VC-1/WMV or XVID in efficency.

    9. Re:Flash Video Quality by prockcore · · Score: 2, Informative


      The codec is Flash video. It's Macromedia's/Adobe's own codec.


      No.. the codec used in FLV is one of two types:

      If it's flash6, it's H.263
      If it's flash8, it's On2's VP6.

      FLV is just a wrapper.. like Quicktime.

    10. Re:Flash Video Quality by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      It had better be, it eats up so much bandwidth that half of the characters you typed never made it to /.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    11. Re:Flash Video Quality by pojo · · Score: 1
      The bit rate is unknowable unless ABC says what it is in a press release or elsewhere on the site.

      Actually they do say; it's in the "you don't have enough bandwidth" error messages. The small window is 500Kbps, the large window is 850Kbps.

      I think when Taco said it's what you'd expect from Flash video, he meant it's similar to Google Video / YouTube quality. I'd agree with that for the 500Kbps stream, but I think the 850Kbps stream is much better.

  56. Ads *and* commercials? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aw, count me out then - I can handle one or the other, but not both!

  57. here's how they handle the ads by mbius · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I fired up LOST just to see how they'd handle the advertising...first 30-second Tylenol plug is 9 minutes in. Then you click to keep watching.

    The blue stripes on the progress bar tell you where the commercials are. The others are at 15:25, 24:15 (in a 43 minute program, and you aren't goosed with another one at the end!). You can seek anywhere that's been "unlocked."

    Having to click "resume show" after every commercial is a feature I'd like to see "LOST." By clicking in unlocked sections, you can watch all 3 commercials in succession , then have an uninterrupted show.

    You aren't forced to sit through more than 30 seconds of an ad if it runs over.
    Compared to the 7-min-on, 3-off network standard, it's kind of pleasant. And seeking *works*, seamlessly, in contrast to what I've come to expect with flash video.

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
    1. Re:here's how they handle the ads by mythosaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've got 17-18 minutes of commercials to fill up in an hour of television.

      For hour long network shows, the commercial segments are 3:30 on the quarter hours and 4:30 on the half hour nowadays. You also get a 3:30 after the bumper. Pad all of those with 5-seconds of "Stay tuned for news at 9!" The remaining ~3:00 minutes gets you previews, network notifications (Stay tuned for a new Episode of FOOBAR!) and between-show commercials.

      A few shows have some liberties with this. The Sheild, which in first run, has only :30 after the bumper. Programs like American Idol can have 20+ minutes of commercials.

  58. OR by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Forget the DRM, do ratio enforcement where you pay, say, 50 cents for every 350M. (i.e. 50 cents per ep). There are plenty of solutions nowadays for setting up a tracker that restricts a person's access if they leech too much, simply add the ability to buy bandwidth and you have a commercial solution that has all of the advantages of BT but lets you make a profit.

    Give people credit for uploading, essentially paying others for hosting your content by giving them credit towards further downloads. Maybe 50 cents per 350M down and 10 cents per 350M up.

    Yes, people can in theory still copy and pirate the video, but if it's reasonably priced, easy to get, and CONSISTENT (so that someone can, for example, set up automatic downloading of new episodes) and people will pay for it.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  59. And request donations. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Funny how the RIAA goes out to prosecute people, but they aren't up on telling people how to donate to their favorite bands or telling bands how to do donation campaigns. Talk about racketeering.

  60. It's not that, really... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    It's just that you made a flippant comment. It would have been the same if you had said "Me Too!" like some...

  61. Already been done... by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The device/application(s) is (are) called:

    BetaMAX
    VCR
    TiVO
    DVR
    MythTV
    BeyondTV
    ...
    GBPVR

    These are free shows that are broadcast throughout the world unencrypted, why would you want to record the Flash version? This is getting ridiculous. Only on slashdot do you read about people who steal free shit.

    1. Re:Already been done... by barawn · · Score: 1

      why would you want to record the Flash version?

      Eh. Their silly player doesn't allow a full-screen version (just a 'kinda-full screen'). If I'm going to watch TV, I'd prefer it to be full-screen. This would allow me to do it.

      Besides, it's not stealing: read the website's terms of use.

      See? Right there. We can download one copy for personal, noncommercial home use only. Granted, by the letter of the law you can't copy it to like, an iPod, or something, but I doubt a judge would quibble all that much if someone did that.

      How nice of them to let us do that - I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned it.

      (Now, they might not *intend* for you to be able to rip the Flash stream, but hey, I'm just reading their own Terms of Use.)

    2. Re:Already been done... by es330td · · Score: 1

      "Only on slashdot do you read about people who steal free shit." It isn't free. The viewer enters an unwritten agreement that the content they wish to view is given them in trade for their time spent watching advertisements. This is why I purchased Lost Season 2 through iTunes. I want the makers to get some compensation as these shows would not be produced for free but don't want to watch commercials. If you were to download a recording of a broadcast program with the commercials intact that would be a free product; downloading the show with the commercials stripped out is not.

  62. Re:Access from outside US, Digg and Slashdot, boom by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

    Digg's fine for getting news, but the quality of comments does not rise much above stupid 14 year old.

    --
    If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
  63. Poor resolution helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell do they manage it? Is there some sort of Voodoo that I'm missing?

    Well for one thing the resolution is pretty poor, that certainly helps. I think if they tried this with full res, or even HD, the streaming would be get a lot more expensive.

  64. Get BitTorrent, install it and grab shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for free without commercials, big time quality over Flash streaming and no hassles. Its that simple from what I have read about, and hope most here are smart enough to do for themselves.

  65. Implications? by Illbay · · Score: 1
    Does this mean "the beginning of the end" for local affiliate TV stations?

    The decentralization of media continues. I guess Kruschev was right (but he was about fifty years too early).

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  66. Isn't that right..? by grahamsz · · Score: 1
    It'd be incorrect to say "advertisement's", but "ad's" should be ok since it's a contraction.

    A contraction is a word (or set of numbers) in which one or more letters (or numbers) have been omitted. The apostrophe shows this omission.

    1. Re:Isn't that right..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're one of those clever smart's. It would be incorrect to say smartass's, but smart's is okay since it is a contraction.

  67. Re:Sure you can sue ... by FuzzyFromOz · · Score: 1

    so long as you mention the words "RIM" and "Blackberry" somewhere in your complaint :-)

  68. I'm not surpised at all by calstraycat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone else surprised at how Flash has become the new standard for video distribution?

    For ten years MS, Apple and Real have been fighting to make their proprietary streaming solutions the default for the internet. They have failed and I'm glad.

    I'm no fan of Flash, but I'm sick to death of having to have all three of these media players installed. I'm sick of having to update them all time. I'm sick of browser plugins that don't work. I'm sick of content that will only work with WMP on Windows. I'm sick of having to "choose a player" when I visit a site, asking my connection speed, asking me to register for premium content and on and on.

    And I'm not alone. You're average user doesn't want to and often doesn't know how to download, update and install this stuff. They don't know what number to type when it asks them about connection speed. Content providers are sick of it, too. They are inundated with constant complaints and support emails from people who can't see the video. So, the said "screw you Apple, screw you MS, screw you Real, were gonna use Flash".

    And the kids love it. They type "YouTube" into Yahoo search and click the Play button on their favorite video. No fuss. No muss. Nothing to download. Instant gratification. The kids don't give two shits about the quality. It's simple and it works.

    That's why Flash is the new standard in video streaming.

    1. Re:I'm not surpised at all by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Amen to that, mod up. I also have far too much software installed for streaming video. I am a Mac user, and until Microsoft licensed Flip4Mac WMV and distributed it for free, I was expected to pay in order to view Windows Media. Microsoft has a port of its Media Player, but it's a generation (or more) behind. I like QuickTime MOV for high quality archival video, but most of the stuff out there really doesn't need to be that format. I'd like to standardize on DivX or 3ivx, but that's not been possible. By doing it all in Flash, I only need to ensure that I have the latest Flash player and nothing more.

  69. Watch ABC Stream on Linux *and* outside U.S. by Quash · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's easy. 1) install Wine 2) install Windows 32 Firefox via Wine 3) install Flash 8 and Java plugins via Win32 Firefox. Hell, install Shockwave while you're at it, too. Watch the ABC Stream. If you're outside the U.S., simply go through a U.S. Proxy (see other posts on this thread or do a quick Google search). So, Linux users outside the U.S., like me, can access these streams. Enjoy! Quash

  70. if abc can make money.. they will go on.. by indian_devil · · Score: 1

    the bottom line for any kind of internet content is MONEY>> advertising has to get in.. I hope they do.. we can watch the episodes whenever we want.. nothing is free.. assumed free till someone gets caught/fined/f****d for life

  71. this is better by indian_devil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    than the rabbit ears on sunday night in New Haven, CT seriously.. i dont want cable ( i live rarely at my place ) and only free channels over air s**k like crazy... this is much better I hope sponsors keep paying ;-)

  72. actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you should probably say smartass'

  73. only in the US... by euroBob · · Score: 1

    The episodes are only availeable for US isp's.

    Will still go to p-bay for free no commercial versions...

    --
    try { println( SigString ); } catch( Exception e ) { println( 'Who cares?' ); }
  74. 24 uses KDE as well in some shots by insomaniac · · Score: 1

    I noticed that in the 24 season with the bioweapon when Jack and Chase went to see the guy in Jail the scanner was running KDE as well.

    Anyone have a screen capture?

    --
    The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
    1. Re:24 uses KDE as well in some shots by antdude · · Score: 1

      No, but I got Pine and others screen shots. You can see here.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:24 uses KDE as well in some shots by makomk · · Score: 1

      Interesting - it looks like some sort of FSView-like program is running in the background. I wonder what...

  75. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nail meet Hammer; location: head.

  76. Shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You made a stupid point and got slapped down.

    Stay slapped down instead of making more stupid points.

  77. Oh, no. Not more crap flooding the wires. by grampy · · Score: 1

    OK. I don't even watch these shows. Maybe they're OK. But, now the Today Show, with the execrable Katie Curric is streaming to the web. I could be wrong, but won't large numbers of stream customers degrade quality for the rest of us who just want to use the web to, say, read the NYT or some interesting BLOG? I'm very sensitive to the effect my web use has on others who RF-share my T1 line. If someone on this T1 starts watching commercial TV on it, quality goes to hell. Maybe there really IS a reason to start charging for use of the web.

  78. FINALLY! by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    I have been asking this for years, ever since they nerfved icravetv.com (which was great to watch Star Trek, while IMing people, and doing homework. Now I can justify connecting my computer to my TV!

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.