Adobe Pushing For Flash TVs

Drivintin writes "In a move that should make cable companies nervous, Adobe announces they are going to push a Flash that runs directly on TVs. 'Adobe Systems, which owns the technology and sells the tools to create and distribute it, wants to extend Flash's reach even further. On Monday, Adobe's chief executive, Shantanu Narayen, will announce at the annual National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas that Adobe is extending Flash to the television screen. He expects TVs and set-top boxes that support the Flash format to start selling later this year.' With the ability to run Hulu, YouTube and others, the question of dropping your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable."

Comments

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

We need Free and Open Media Standards.

Re:NO

[nicolas.kassis]

Flash is moving to be a little more open. Heck, you can currently use an opensource streaming server (red5) and opensource flash clients/players

Re:NO

[its_schwim]

"A little more open" doesn't cut it, in my humble opinion. Open is open. Offering certain aspects up for grabs is called marketing, not open. The day I buy a television with flash capability is the day I record the event on my Betamax.

Re:NO

[oldspewey]

How open is your current cable feed?

Re:NO

[eiMichael]

Get cracking on that standard, then convince the television makers it's better than going with flash.

To remove flash you really need to offer something better. I think the Microsoft model could work well. Start adding "non-standard" features to the flash players, and convince a bunch of people to use these features. Then when they can't play your stuff, link to the download of the new and improved open flash player.

Re:NO

[Anonymous Coward]

The specs are open (without restrictions), the VM is even open source. I don't know how much more open they could be other than open-sourcing the renderer part of their player (which they can't do due to third-party licenses) or submitting it to a standards body.

Re:NO

[its_schwim]

Yours would be a viable argument if you were suggesting that people would get rid of cable to only use flash. However, since we're stacking one proprietary technology onto another, you're asking "What's the big deal, you've already got one closed source. What will it hurt to add another?"

Current feeds will be going nowhere. Adobe is just throwing their hat into the ring.

Re:NO

[datapharmer]

Digital cable is actually is pretty open... most cable boxes are MPEG-2 based just like DVD. That is also the preferred format of the government for digital archiving. http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/video_preferences.shtml That said the companies do all sorts of funky stuff to mess with the MPEG-2 standard, but that is the cable company's fault. My problem with flash isn't it being more open (though that would be nice), it is that if I have anything flash open on my computer it eats up memory and runs the heat through the roof. I don't know what is messed up in their code, but it can be sitting idle int he background and it will eventually bring my computer to a crawl. I've tried on dell desktop, acer laptops - one xp one vista, and on both a powerbook and a macbook and the results are the same: open a flash movie, animation, etc. minimize it, forget about it. realize that computer starts to get REALLY slow after a few hours and the fan runs full blast. Close flash, fan stops, computer returns to normal operation.

Re:NO

[mhall119]

OCAP already exists.

Re:NO

[lordtoran]

You don't have to wait for a few hours. Just play a flash game that displays a lot of sprites. At some amount of onscreen content, all of a sudden the framerate collapses to near-zero and the symptoms you mentioned occur.

Re:NO

[relguj9]

It's not the flash standard that's leaking, it's the player buddy (or possibly also the media itself).

Wording your case more appropriately, the flash codec that you are running through your particular browser has a memory leak issue when playing a lot of flash media. Have you tried multiple stand alone players? Plugins for WMP maybe? Multiple browsers? Different flash media?

That's like saying, I opened up an MPEG-2 in WMP the other day and my computer slowed to a crawl after a few hours (which I've seen on particular versions of WMP) and saying, "OMG MPEG-2 is leaking memory, this standard sucks!" Or (in the case of the media being poorly coded) like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language itself instead of on the application.

Re:NO

[relguj9]

Again, this seems like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language rather than on the failure to cleanup objects or do garbage collection.

Re:NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... why don't you reinstall the plugin?

I've heard it said that you can make a product idiot-proof but you can't make it fool-proof ;)

Re:NO

[relguj9]

Or possibly blaming Crysis locking your computer up on the game rather than on your Voodoo 2 video card.

Re:NO

[Touvan]

But Flash can pump massive amounts of data to a bitmap surface!

http://blog.joa-ebert.com/2009/04/03/massive-amounts-of-3d-particles-without-alchemy-and-pixelbender/

http://unitzeroone.com/labs/alchemyLookupTable/

If only the default authoring tools where more efficient..

Re:NO

[SanityInAnarchy]

The problem is, there currently is no good Flash implementation.

A standard is good, but a good implementation would prove the point.

And frankly, I really don't want my video player to be programmable to the point where it can leak that much memory.

Re:NO

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's actually a pretty apt analogy. Crysis does not need to use nearly the resources it does.

Doom 3 can run on a voodoo2, for that matter, though it takes a bit of tweaking.

And while it may be the fault of the content author, I've never seen a Flash movie use less than about 30% CPU, even on the shittiest-quality Youtube video. Extract the same video (in flv form) and play it in any other player -- mplayer, vlc, anything -- and CPU usage drops to more like 0.3%, maybe 1% fullscreen.

Re:NO

[V!NCENT]

Here you have it in PDF, the full video specs, straifght from www.adobe.com; http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/pdf/video_file_format_spec_v9.pdf

Now that we got the obvious out of the way... GIVE MEH MAH EVOLVED TELEVIZIONS NOW! MOAR!!111

Re:NO

[V!NCENT]

I run Gnash on Ubuntu 9.04... on my EeePC... 900... in Firefox... watching YouTube videos... just fine... and it suffers from not having support for realtime audio in the Linux kernel.

Or they could, like Adobe (I-D-I-O-T-S-!), let it consume 100% CPU...

Re:NO

[genner]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

We need Free and Open Media Standards.

Like Silverlight.
/ducks

Re:NO

[CSMatt]

The day I can plug in a tuner card or TV set or anything else directly into the digital cable feed and have the thing work without CableCARD or other such nonsense is the day that digital cable becomes "open."

Re:NO

[relguj9]

Erm.. you're talking about the difference between just rendering a local video and streaming a video through a player developed in flash, huge huge difference.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/plaid

I have almost no CPU usage for any .swf movies I play off of this site.

Re:NO

[CSMatt]

So why don't they submit it to a standards body? They did it with PDF.

Re:NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Dropping the restrictive licensing.

Re:NO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely that the developers who made that Flash content are the culprits, rather than the Flash Player developers at Adobe. Quite a lot of designers and non-traditional coders aren't that good at even the simple memory management of a garbage collected language like ActionScript.

Re:NO

[Phoghat]

When I was just a baby, my momma told me: "Son, always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns". But, I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Now I'm here in Folsom Prison, and hang my head and cry". J. Cash

Re:NO

[Elbowgeek]

Can someone please explain to me what's with this obsession with "open" this and that? They make a product which facilitates the next great advancement in the television viewing paradigm. So what's wrong with rewarding them for that?

Please stop clinging to the auld, prehistoric internet ideal that everything on the net should be free. It's no longer a Utopian geek commune it was before the Great Unwashed were unleashed on the former ideal communist state that the internet used to be.

Y'all are free to come up with a competitive content-delivery mechanism - and charge people money for it! It only becomes a concern when industries conspire to exclude fair competition, which so far hasn't occurred.

So get off this "free everything" high horse for doG's sake.

Sheesh!

Re:NO

[SanityInAnarchy]

Erm.. you're talking about the difference between just rendering a local video and streaming a video through a player developed in flash, huge huge difference.

Are you honestly saying that the codec itself is running inside the flash VM?

Or could it be that Flash just sucks for video playback?

And no, from an end-user perspective, there's really no difference. YouTube would work just as well with a video tag, or even an old-school object tag, as it does with Flash -- better, because then I could use a local player, rather than the Flash player.

So, if there's some added functionality to putting it in Flash, I'm willing to bet that one or both of these is true:

  - End-users don't care about that functionality
  - It still didn't have to be that fucking slow.

I have almost no CPU usage for any .swf movies I play off of this site.

If by "almost none" you mean "still 20%", sure. And that's in a tiny little window smaller than my hand. Contrast to fullscreen local video at less than 1%.

For those videos, it's fine, and there's even a good reason -- the one you linked to is actually vector, which means less bandwidth, and if they were smart, the ability to zoom it.

However, it's still very wasteful. Flash only got hardware accelerated lately, and there's still a lot it can't do. Years ago, I did a comparison -- a little 2D vector animation, run fullscreen, at 1600x1200, lagged horribly -- two frames per second, sometimes less than one. Unreal Tournament 2003, a massively more complex animation, played at a smooth 60 or more.

Re:NO

[relguj9]

lol, that video hovered around 5% or less for the duration, not sure what kind of processor you're using. Youtube goes up to 20% at full screen, 10% or less in windowed. That's really not bad at all for full screen video rendering buddy (plus any additional processing that's being done for streaming content).

Try running any format of HD video locally and see how much CPU time it takes. It'll max out most processors (unless you have some rendering software that offputs to your graphics card and it's a good graphics card, xbmc just added this for their linux release actually). Running a game is entirely different than running a video, since a game is optimized for use on a graphics card.

I'm sure Adobe can improve on the way their video rendering, but this has nothing to do with the FILE STANDARD, which is what we're talking about here. I'd assume an optimized hardware implementation of flash rendering would be used for these TV's, or at least a CPU more than capable of displaying HD content streamed over a good flash player.

Re:NO

[SanityInAnarchy]

lol, that video hovered around 5% or less for the duration, not sure what kind of processor you're using.

2.5 ghz Core2 Duo.

Guessing you're on Windows -- it would measure 5% there. Here, I'm looking at percentage of a core.

Youtube goes up to 20% at full screen, 10% or less in windowed.

It was certainly more than this for me when I last bothered to measure. And that's Youtube -- it gets a lot worse than that for others.

That's really not bad at all for full screen video rendering buddy (plus any additional processing that's being done for streaming content).

Streaming content -- I don't know that I've seen wget ever go above 1%. "Not bad" -- unless you bother to compare it to others, which tend to use many times less power.

Try running any format of HD video locally and see how much CPU time it takes. It'll max out most processors

Try comparing apples to apples. Playing an HD video locally takes a lot of CPU, and playing an HD video in Flash takes even more. Playing a crappy little Youtube-sized video locally -- for that matter the exact same FLV from Youtube -- ends up being something like fifty to a hundred times faster.

Running a game is entirely different than running a video, since a game is optimized for use on a graphics card.

In other words, Flash isn't optimized?

More relevantly, you're talking about that albinoblacksheep "video", which is not of the lossily-compressed format we use for raster video -- it's a vectorized video.

Guess what else is vector graphics? That's right, modern video games.

There's no reason Adobe couldn't have optimized this from the beginning to be hardware accelerated. Instead, we're talking about a 2D vector animation of really crappy quality being slower than a 3D vector animation of amazing quality.

I'm sure Adobe can improve on the way their video rendering, but this has nothing to do with the FILE STANDARD, which is what we're talking about here.

The license they've released those "standards" on is absurdly restrictive. And frankly, your assertion that it's a "standard" is questionable when there's exactly one viable implementation -- Silverlight is closer to being a standard, in any meaningful sense of the word beyond "defacto".

Re:NO

[relguj9]

OK, at this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing lol. Maybe arguing for the sake of argument? My original argument is that saying that Adobe sucks for the purposes of this article's described product because it has a memory leak in a one off instance doesn't hold up. And I still stand to that.

You seem to have done a test several years ago (which makes it obsolete, but anyways) in which you compared CPU usage of viewing a streaming youtube video to viewing an .flv file locally. This is, indeed, comparing apples to oranges. The likely difference is in both streaming processing + player optimization. In fact, I'm fairly confident that is the case. Whether that's good or bad is up to someone else to decide, I'm sure the in browser player could be optimized more.

My statement about HD video (when used in context) is actually explaining that your statement about how video games run in comparison to how a video runs is comparing apples to oranges. Which it is, video players don't (or didn't, some do now) take advantage of graphics cards by default (because they didn't need to) whereas 3d video games do (because they have to). Render that 2d vector animation using a graphics card and see how well it runs (see how it takes 0 CPU, cuz it's on the GPU lawl, and how it runs even faster on the GPU since it's optimized for graphics).

Anyhow... most good streaming content is done through Adobe Flash right now (youtube, hulu, pandora, etc.). The only other real competition is Silverlight, and their only foothold in the streaming player market is in Netflix, and that's only because they have a contract with microsoft to use netflix on the 360, otherwise I'm sure they'd be using flash as well.

I'm sure that flash players can be optimized and improved and some versions are buggy, just like I'm sure a lot of flash programs themselves are buggy. The "adobe flash" thing overall is pretty powerful, has a massive market share and has an army of developers with experience already built up in it. I'm sure that all of these things make it a natural choice for manufacturers looking to provide built in streaming content functionality.

A lot of the arguments people have regarding implementation, such as memory leaks and high CPU usage, will be a non-issue for what this article is talking about. It'll be an optimized implementation, it's a closed box, it's a piece of hardware that uses flash probably to provide out of the box support for streaming internet content.

Kinda rambling here, not sure what this argument, if there was an argument, is even about other than for the sake of arguing hah.

Re:NO

[SanityInAnarchy]

in which you compared CPU usage of viewing a streaming youtube video to viewing an .flv file locally. This is, indeed, comparing apples to oranges. The likely difference is in both streaming processing + player optimization.

It is comparing apples to apples, in terms of functionality, unless your assumption is that streaming a video should increase the CPU usage by two orders of magnitude. And this test, I have done fairly recently.

The test that I did several years ago was comparing a vector video (not an FLV) to a game.

My statement about HD video (when used in context) is actually explaining that your statement about how video games run in comparison to how a video runs is comparing apples to oranges.

Again: One test was comparing a vector video to a game. The other was comparing an actual video to the same video in a different player.

Render that 2d vector animation using a graphics card and see how well it runs (see how it takes 0 CPU, cuz it's on the GPU lawl,

Well, and how it runs faster, yes.

What's your point? Mine is that the fact that Flash can't offload a simple vector animation to the video card -- or at least, couldn't when I did that -- is an incredibly stupid decision on the part of flash. Even now, it's fairly limited how much it can do.

A lot of the arguments people have regarding implementation, such as memory leaks and high CPU usage, will be a non-issue for what this article is talking about. It'll be an optimized implementation, it's a closed box, it's a piece of hardware that uses flash probably to provide out of the box support for streaming internet content.

I suppose, if the fact that it's a closed box (and proprietary) is a "non-issue". I see no good reason why they couldn't use open technologies for this product.

However: If it's truly such an optimized implementation, yet still compatible with existing Flash, why does the desktop player still suck so much? If it's an optimized implementation that is not backwards-compatible, what's the advantage of using Flash again? If it's just throwing hardware at the problem, that seems like a waste.

*sigh*

[tygerstripes]

Adobe's press release here, BBC's article here

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I canceled my cable and made cancelmycable.com

No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

Flash sucks bad enough on actual computers. I really can't see what it offers that a powerful computer hooked up to your TV can't. I'd also rather not spend a good chunk of change on the processing power necessary to display Flash. It already brings my Pentium 4 to its knees.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash sucks bad enough on actual computers. I really can't see what it offers that a powerful computer hooked up to your TV can't. I'd also rather not spend a good chunk of change on the processing power necessary to display Flash. It already brings my Pentium 4 to its knees.

Never underestimate the creativity of the content industry to increase the suckage of their products.
Didn't you ever want adverts which are more annoying than the current ones ?

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think ive ever watched a flash video more than 5 minutes without it freezing up necessitating a reload of the page.

It really is the new realvideo, except it doesnt tell you its buffering, it just stops cold.

Re:No thank you

[slyrat]

Flash sucks bad enough on actual computers. I really can't see what it offers that a powerful computer hooked up to your TV can't.

This may seem reasonable, but then you talk to most people and hooking a computer to a tv is some mystical act. People just don't treat the tv as a display device in most cases. This is why consoles still do so well. Once there are enough homes with tvs that can get direct links to pcs this may change, but that won't be for a couple of years at least.

Re:No thank you

[STEVEOO6]

"I really can't see what it offers that a powerful computer hooked up to your TV can't"

That's just the point. I do not want to have to connect my TV to my computer. I want to plug my television in, i want to sit on my couch, and i only want to have to think about what buttons to press on my remote. It's called simplicity.

"It Just Works..."
- An extremely powerful and often overlooked notion

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

It may not change very quickly right now due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure most new TVs have PC-In and more PCs are coming with HDMI. All you need is a VGA or HDMI cable and an audio cable. It is amazing how many cool things there are to do that most people don't know about that only require one or two cables and equipment they already have. My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver. It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop and we didn't even have to buy anything extra.

Re:No thank you

[JasterBobaMereel]

Flash - Why?

Video - TV does this very well already ?!
Animation - See above
Interactivity - Why use flash?

There are much much simpler lighter solutions than flash .... it is used on PC's now mostly for Video simply as container/player not for it's advanced interactive features ....

Re:No thank you

[smooth wombat]

My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver.

Oh, is that all? I can watch a live event with just a tv and cable plugged into its back.

But I'm sure for the average person, configuring a wireless router so it recognizes their own network, which they also set up, dragging out a laptop, hooking it to their tv with the right cable and running it through a receiver is much more convenient.

It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop and we didn't even have to buy anything extra.

So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?

Re:No thank you

[EvilToiletPaper]

I agree, I would rather see them invest money in better GPU based frame rendering. I can fry an egg on my laptop after watching a 30 min high definition episode on my powerbook, not to mention the stutters, freezes, skips and out of sync audio.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Video - TV does this very well already ?!

I think this is a good point. However, this whole debate is fueled by the fact (IMHO) that cable companies want hordes of ca$h for their on-demand services thru a DVR.

If cable companies would start charging more reasonable prices for their on-demand content, (like$0.99 cents/movie, or even $1.99, instead of four bucks a pop) this debate would probably go away and flash would play nice on the computer.

If cable companies could think straight, they could bury companies like Netflix, etc. But because of their lack of understanding of reasonable pricing and of what the consumer wants, alternatives will flourish.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

That probably means one of a few things:

1. Your computer sucks rocks.
2. Your internet connection sucks rocks.
3. Your computer is infected with malware, which slows it down and makes it suck rocks.
4. You're using Norton, Trend, McAfee, or something which equally sucks rocks.
5. You have an old/insecure/unsupported/third-party flash player, which is currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks.

I've heard people complain about this before, and I've never seen it happen on my own computer, or on any other machine that's properly maintained, and doesn't have 99% of it's memory taken up by Internet Security Suites from you-know-who.

Actually, I lie. I've seen it happen once on my computer. Once.
It was a Youtube video, which was buffering, playing fine, and stopped loading about 2/3 of the way through. And you can tell that it's buffering or not, unless the player sucks. That's what the red line behind the play bar is on Youtube. It shows how much of the video is buffered. I haven't seen a player that doesn't have this feature.

The one time it stopped playing on mine, it stopped just at the end of said red line.
My guess is "Connection reset by peer" errors result in something like this happening.

Re:No thank you

[Swizec]

Wireless router - comes with every ISP package these days
Cables - most people get a bunch with any graphics card
TV - most people already have one collecting dust in the living room
Laptop - most people already have at least one in the house

They didn't have to buy anything _extra_. Just use the stuff already lying around the house and some free time.

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

I can watch a live event with just a tv and cable plugged into its back.

Not this one. This one wasn't on TV.

But I'm sure for the average person, configuring a wireless router so it recognizes their own network, which they also set up, dragging out a laptop, hooking it to their tv with the right cable and running it through a receiver is much more convenient.

Average people either pay to have their router set up or borrow the naighbor's internet. I had the cables already plugged in to the TV and receiver. It was just a matter of setting the laptop next to them and plugging in cables to the only holes that would fit. It was really easy, most people just don't know that.

So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?

Yes. The router was a neighbor's, the cables came with stuff we bought, and the receiver was a birthday present. That isn't what I said, though. My point is that we already had everything we needed beforehand. It was just a simple matter of plugging in two cables.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could do the exact same thing without the router and laptop (By essentially having them integrated into the TV) that would make more sense than trying to jury-rig the current setup...

Re:No thank you

[SydShamino]

Oh, is that all? I can watch a live event with just a tv and cable plugged into its back.

And how do you do that when the live event isn't being carried on that cable, because you don't pay for service or your provider simply doesn't carry the feed?

So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?

For someone who already has a computer, a home wireless network, and a big modern television, but who wants to watch streaming video on a bigger screen, yes. Things I already own, when used in a new application, are free for that new application. I bought and paid for the items for a different application, and "got my money's worth" for that other purpose, so anything extra is, well, a free extra.

Re:No thank you

[Opportunist]

You're probably not the target audience.

The target audience is Joe Shmoe who knows just enough about his computer to not shove the USB stick into the floppy drive. If that.

Joe doesn't want to figure out a way how to plug his computer, which is somewhere in his "home office" (aka lumber-room), into the flatscreen he has in the living room that's halfway across his home. He wants a cheap box that he hooks up to the spare internet jack that the friendly guy from his internet provider tacked to his living room wall for the handful of greens he slipped into his pocket, and that puts "the internet" on his TV.

Whether that's Flash or Shlaf, Joe doesn't care. He wants it to work without tinkering with it.

I know it's hard to understand, and I barely can myself, but there's a lot of people who don't want to know how their tech toys work, they just want them to be simple and working. They also don't disassemble their TV set-top boxes when they break down to see what's insides. Hard to grasp that idea, I know. But they really are a huge market.

Re:No thank you

[mopower70]

My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver. It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop ...

My wife and I watched a live event with nothing more than our eyeballs and a pair of tickets. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure it beat the hell out of watching it on just a laptop.

Re:No thank you

[xaxa]

"I really can't see what it offers that a powerful computer hooked up to your TV can't"

That's just the point. I do not want to have to connect my TV to my computer. I want to plug my television in, i want to sit on my couch, and i only want to have to think about what buttons to press on my remote. It's called simplicity.

I worked for a large electronics company on an IPTV system a couple of years ago. Everything came from the internet -- the schedule, the video streams, extra information about programmes.
At no point could you tell it was running Java on a tiny embedded Linux box with some fancy video & audio decoding chips.

Everything was easily navigated using the four coloured buttons on the remote, plus the arrow keys. It was as simple as normal digital television, although with more information available. (It was also built with completely open standards, except for all the electronics companies patenting everything they could think of, and then getting pissed off with the patent troll companies trying to mess up the standards to get "their" ideas in.)

I expect Flash would be similar. Back when I was working for the company (2007) there were discussions about having a TV that ran Javascript, with the electronic programme guides in HTML and SVG.

Re:No thank you

[Gizzmonic]

Sucks rocks? What kind of weird fetish is that?

Re:No thank you

[ColdWetDog]

It was just a matter of setting the laptop next to them and plugging in cables to the only holes that would fit. It was really easy, most people just don't know that.

This is definitely NOT good advice for most people.

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

It only makes sense until you want to upgrade something. By having everything separate, I can upgrade any component without affecting the others.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

6. You use any operating system other than Windows.

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

That's great when the event is in the same city as you but not so great when it is hundreds of miles away, spans two days, and you only want to see certain parts.

Re:No thank you

[relguj9]

It may not change very quickly right now due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure most new TVs have PC-In and more PCs are coming with HDMI. All you need is a VGA or HDMI cable and an audio cable. It is amazing how many cool things there are to do that most people don't know about that only require one or two cables and equipment they already have. My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver. It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop and we didn't even have to buy anything extra.

Also, DVI == HDMI.

http://www.amazon.com/DVI-HDMI-Cable-6ft-Male-Male/dp/B0002CZHN6

So really, just about every PC capable of rendering high quality video can be connected to a TV with HDMI. Not to mention a lot of HDTV's have a VGA connection. I mean really, HDTV's make the PC->TV connection trivial. As you said, they're just big monitors. Get a sound card with optical out and you're rocking.

Re:No thank you

[IceFox]

Not to mention the new laws that are being proposed about using less power in TV's. When I turned off flash I doubled the battery life of my macbook. Using ads in ads is widespread enough that it it seems to be always running using up a good chunk of cpu.

Re:No thank you

[dswensen]

Ah yes, the inviolate "it works for ME!" argument.

Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock!

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

Or a non-IE browser on Windows, with 20 or more Youtube windows open. But then it just gets a little choppy, due to the CPU usage. I've never had it crap out completely, even then.

Other than the once I've already mentioned, but that was just a couple of windows open.

Re:No thank you

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm guessing you're a Windows user. Flash Player for OS X or Linux tends to be much slower. I can be running on modern processors with plenty of memory, and while it doesn't usually stutter or skip (which is usually attributable to bad internet), it does use a lot of processor, heating the machine incredibly.

Of course, if you're designing a machine specifically to run flash, I'm guessing you can optimize it for Flash and not have the same issues.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

There's something for everyone on the Internet... :)

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying one of a few things...

1. My one-year-old iMac sucks rocks.
2. My Internet connection sucks rocks (but somehow it still loads a two-minute Youtube video in 10 seconds and never drops network connections). Odd.
3. My iMac is infected with malware.
4. I'm using Norton on Mac OS X.
5. I'm using the latest version of Adobe Flash available, which is "old/insecure/unsupported/third-party" and "currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks."

Interesting. I had no idea.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

No, this is the inviolate "It works for me, all my clients, and all my customers, which numbers in the high hundreds, possibly thousands of machines, but they're all properly maintained by myself, so your mileage may vary" argument.

Re:No thank you

[tygerstripes]

Rule 34. Forget it at your peril.

Re:No thank you

[tygerstripes]

Really big scissors?

Re:No thank you

[garcia]

And how do you do that when the live event isn't being carried on that cable, because you don't pay for service or your provider simply doesn't carry the feed?

Or because the network isn't permitted to carry the feed because not enough tickets were sold for the event? There is nothing like alienating your fans by banning them from watching a game they cannot possibly afford to attend due to high ticket/parking fees and a poor economy.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

1. My one-year-old iMac sucks rocks.

Probably not.

2. My Internet connection sucks rocks (but somehow it still loads a two-minute Youtube video in 10 seconds and never drops network connections). Odd.

Then how, exactly does it freeze up watching flash videos? It either buffers, or it doesn't. You claimed earlier that it was buffering, but not saying it, but now you claim it loads completely in 10 seconds. Which is it?

Besides, you could still be getting connection resets or dropped packets that don't affect normal error-correcting TCP connections, but could screw up a finicky flash player.

3. My iMac is infected with malware.

You say that like it's an impossibility. Don't rule it out. Likely? Not really. Possible? Certainly.

4. I'm using Norton on Mac OS X.

Why is that so impossible to believe?

5. I'm using the latest version of Adobe Flash available, which is "old/insecure/unsupported/third-party" and "currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks."

When the next version of flash player comes out, because a security hole will be found in the current one, then it the current one will be considered insecure. But it's the exact same code that people are currently using, and is considered secure. That means it's also insecure now, just not too many people realize it.

Re:No thank you

[JCSoRocks]

Steam shovel beats everything!

Re:No thank you

[joesucks]

That probably means one of a few things:

1. Your computer sucks rocks. 2. Your internet connection sucks rocks. 3. Your computer is infected with malware, which slows it down and makes it suck rocks. 4. You're using Norton, Trend, McAfee, or something which equally sucks rocks. 5. You have an old/insecure/unsupported/third-party flash player, which is currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks.

I've heard people complain about this before, and I've never seen it happen on my own computer, or on any other machine that's properly maintained, and doesn't have 99% of it's memory taken up by Internet Security Suites from you-know-who.

Actually, I lie. I've seen it happen once on my computer. Once. It was a Youtube video, which was buffering, playing fine, and stopped loading about 2/3 of the way through. And you can tell that it's buffering or not, unless the player sucks. That's what the red line behind the play bar is on Youtube. It shows how much of the video is buffered. I haven't seen a player that doesn't have this feature.

The one time it stopped playing on mine, it stopped just at the end of said red line. My guess is "Connection reset by peer" errors result in something like this happening.

OK try this when you get a chance, go get yourself an X64 based Vista computer (2.5GHZ dual core, 4 GB of RAM, state of the art) install Flash_sux on it and go try playing anything on it.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

Weird. I've got a Linux machine that's a PIII-800, with 256MB RAM, running the latest Debian.

Runs Youtube just fine. Takes a couple of seconds to get the vid loaded and intialized, but once it's playing it's fine.

You're right, though, the non-IE versions of Flash take a crapload of processor time.

Re:No thank you

[lordtoran]

Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock!

Except of Metal.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

"And you can tell that it's buffering or not, unless the player sucks. That's what the red line behind the play bar is on Youtube. It shows how much of the video is buffered. I haven't seen a player that doesn't have this feature."

Yea and that thing lies all the time. I've let it run long enough to buffer the entire vid (or at least say that it has) & the video still starts and stops. And when you move the slider forward.. all the sudden it starts loading stuff again, but wait, i thought it was already cached!?!

Re:No thank you

[ciderVisor]

Nothing beats rock !

'L' beats everything. (rolleyes)

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

4. I'm using Norton on Mac OS X.

Why is that so impossible to believe?

Probably because, like me, he knows hundreds of Mac OS X users, none of whom use Norton.

Norton has a long history of causing problems, including system instability and even data loss, so every Mac support person that I know, and a know a fair number because I am one, tells users not to use Norton.

There are no viruses (yet) for Mac OS X. There were a couple of proof-of-concept worms to exploit vulnerabilities which were patched months before the proof-of-concept. There are now a number of trojans for Mac OS X in the wild. But given that Norton is notoriously bad at detecting trojans, what is the point of using it?

Re:No thank you

[nine-times]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but is that even particularly unusual? I thought all digital TV networks (cable, FiOS, whatever) hooked into what are essentially small computers running Java on Linux (or something similar) with fancy audio and video decoding chips. That's what cable boxes are now, right? They just aren't necessarily using TCP/IP to deliver the data, but otherwise it's the same thing.

I think the three questions are:

• How fully-featured do you want the computer to be?
• What kind of interface do you want?
• Do you want it built into the TV, or in a separate box?

Re:No thank you

[gbjbaanb]

Of course, this means that Adobe will get rather better at Flash on Linux.. unless they fancy paying Microsoft for copies of Windows CE!

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

look, if you want to animate, edit, create graphics and develop complex apps or games in ONE APP than Flash is the only viable option. If you aren't a person that uses all these skills then I guess Flash is not for you. Flash enables creative freedom that is unparalleled. It's great for the artist developer, and it works for the user. I've been working with Flash for 11 years, sometimes a .swf will gobble up processor power and sometimes it wont, it depends on the code. I leave my flash projects open for a while to optimize its performance, if I see memory leakage I take a look at the code and do my best to fix it. But I have occasional memory leak issues for almost every app, Flash is no different. The reason Flash is so widely used and popular has nothing to do with Adobe (Adobe bought it) and everything to do with how great it is, how easy it is to use and how it works on so many different PC configurations, it saves soooooooooo much time and money. When I work in web development I have to create 3 or 4 versions of the site to get it to work the way clients want, I mean I don't think Flash should be used all the time, or not even most of the time, but if you want to create a game, or something with lots of media and effects, you'd be a fool not to use Flash. Stop hating and create a real alternative to Flash, or let it go.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bother with the core 2 duo, it brings my computer to a crawl on some sites (hulu) if anything, get the core i7 to experience the true experience of flash.

Re:No thank you

[PitaBred]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

I believe that a large portion of the population is at the stage where electronics and computers are "magic", even if they don't call it that.

Re:No thank you

[chammy]

No kidding. The PS3 port (PowerPC) of flash is terrible. I'm guessing they just straight up ported it with no regard for efficiency or stability. The piece of crap locks up the entire PS3 half the time (which is partially the fault of the web browser, it's based on mozilla afterall).

Makes me wonder how Adobe is going to get this running on some other arches like ARM or w/e they use in TVs.

Re:No thank you

[relguj9]

Don't you mean "Joe the Plumber" ?

Re:No thank you

[moosesocks]

IMO, the Mac flash client (particularly on PPC machines) is much worse than the Linux one, to the degree of being unusable on some sites.

Re:No thank you

[mcrbids]

So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?

Often the wireless router + Internet are provided for free by the largest nationwide Wireless ISP: Linksys!

Re:No thank you

[xaxa]

Just for context: I did this work in 2007, in the UK. This was before the BBC had iPlayer, and just before any major UK ISPs started offering proper video on demand.
There were a few services, but they were small, and not really known about by the general public.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but is that even particularly unusual? I thought all digital TV networks (cable, FiOS, whatever) hooked into what are essentially small computers running Java on Linux (or something similar) with fancy audio and video decoding chips.

(This was only my placement before my final year at university, I'm no expert)
From what I was told in 2007, the Linux+Java combination was unusual -- the equipment was expensive, and that software needed more power than a $1 (or whatever) chip that'd end up in a £30 box could provide.
This is probably no longer the case, I bought a cheap digital box for an old TV for £15 from Asda (Walmart), and it's way better than the one my parents paid £90 for 10 years ago.

Also, the big electronics companies aren't cutting edge for this kind of thing -- the little companies making cool stuff are the ones with most of the ideas.

That's what cable boxes are now, right? They just aren't necessarily using TCP/IP to deliver the data, but otherwise it's the same thing.

Yes. In fact, I had a normal Linux PC with a digital TV capture card, and it was simple to capture from radio-wave-broadcast TV and push the data to the set-top box over the network. (Though, this missed out the extra metadata stuff, since that isn't broadcast yet)

I think the three questions are:

• How fully-featured do you want the computer to be?
• What kind of interface do you want?
• Do you want it built into the TV, or in a separate box?

I'd like it all to be in one device, and all to just work -- no configuration or whatever.

I'd like the interface to be navigated by thought, but I'll settle for tracking eye movements. Or pointing. In the mean time, I'll make do with a few buttons on a single remote.

I don't want any extra boxes, except perhaps a games console. Everything else should be done by the TV:
1) watching live TV (whether over the internet or radio),
2) timeslipping TV (so we might need a hard drive, or maybe the TV company will have everything on demand for free),
3) watching a film/old TV (when it can be streamed, how long will buying a disc last?),
4) automatically suggesting what to watch (and recording it when it's broadcast, if that saves me money)
The box I was working on did 1, 3 and 4 (but didn't have a hard drive); a competitor's box did 1, 2 and 3 (but the company I worked for had the patent on 4).

I'm not claiming this is especially new -- the basic implementation of what I worked on is at least three years old, and the work on standards etc much older than that.

I'm going home now...

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

Ok, I'll have to take your word on that, as I don't own a Mac.

I know it's not their fault, but so much for "Just works".

Re:No thank you

[PitaBred]

Linux was actually the first OS to get a 64bit Flash player. And it's been working great for me (tm) since December or whenever it was released.

Re:No thank you

[PitaBred]

If you have a 64bit version of Linux, get the new Flash 10 beta from labs.adobe.com It's much better, uses less CPU and has much fewer bugs than Flash 9.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

And I completely agree with you, that Norton is crap.

But his comment made it seem like it was impossible.
It's definitely possible....just not a good idea.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

Can't say that I've ever seen that.

Again, this is on potentially hundreds of machines, so it's hardly anecdotal.

Re:No thank you

[Opportunist]

Any technology is indistinguishable from magic from those not sufficiently advanced.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the GP was *also* making a blanket claim based on a personal anecdote.

And unless they are still browsing with a setup from the early 90s, there aren't any hard constraints that would cause that kind of stuttering or hangs. Sounds like the parent's conclusions were pretty reasonable to me.

Re:No thank you

[aftk2]

Unless it was Blazers vs. Rockets last Saturday. bleh.

Re:No thank you

[thirdender]

Actually, he's probably just running Firefox. I've noticed some weird delays when Flash video is downloading in Firefox. My current running theory is that it's the delay as Firefox caches the data to hard drive. The delay isn't there in Chrome... the video loads and plays smoothly.

Re:No thank you

[nschubach]

Ah yes, the inviolate "it works for ME!" argument.

That argument works both ways. In this case, there is a person complaining about it crashing while hundreds, thousands, or millions of others have no issue.

Re:No thank you

[nschubach]

Sure it is. Just make sure you tell them to insert their credit cards into the slots in the back of the TV to pay for it as well.

Re:No thank you

[nschubach]

This is Joe's third cousin twice removed.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, that's Rule 36: if it exists, it's someone's fetish.

Rule 34 is about the existence of porn on every category.

Re:No thank you

[dgatwood]

The latest crop of flash ads fairly consistently hang both Safari and FireFox on my (Intel) Mac laptop, too. It has gotten so bad that I've resorted to the clicktoflash WebKit plug-in. And flash is the #1 most common cause of browser crashes for me, too. Nearly every crash I've ever seen in Safari contains Flash plug-in symbols in the backtrace. I have seen two or three non-Flash Safari crashes in all the years I've used Safari, versus about two or three crashes per week that are directly attributable to Flash, so at least anecdotally, it seems to be at least two orders of magnitude more common than all the other Safari crasher bugs put together.

The day Flash appears in a TV I buy is the day I stop watching TV. Period. I'd rather stab myself repeatedly with an icepick than buy a TV set infested with that miserable crapware. I'd rather shove toothpicks under my fingernails and go swimming in a pool filled with lemon juice than buy a TV set with that lousy software. I'd rather send death threats to the President than run Flash on my TV. I would rather go the rest of my life with only a Discover card in my wallet than let that fetid piece of pestilence anywhere near my TV set. I think that about sums it up.

I'd like to believe that TV set manufacturers couldn't possibly be stupid enough to fall for this. I certainly hope so, anyway. The absolute last thing the world needs is broader Flash adoption. Heck, I'd even take Java over Flash, and that's saying something....

Re:No thank you

[dgatwood]

I've seen that behavior several times with the Flash video player on several different Macs (never tried Windows, but I'd expect the same behavior). If you haven't seen it, odds are you aren't watching enough videos or aren't watching the right videos (or, one might reasonably argue, you are watching precisely the right number/right videos...).

The flash videos I particularly love are the ones where the video lags a half second behind the audio. What an unholy mess.

Re:No thank you

[V!NCENT]

Use Gnash? it doesn't brin my celeron 900mHz EeePC to it's knees witrh Firefox on, in Gnome with Compiz, watching YouTube... Oh wait you'r using Windows... You must be new here :')

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

Actually, I deleted my Ubuntu partition to make more room for my Windows 7 Beta partition. Am I still new?

Re:No thank you

[V!NCENT]

Yes... you update to newer versions of Windows like people do with cars*... That makes you even newer here. Stick with that which just works, like Windows XP SP2/3 or Linux.

Or in case you were dumo enough to buy a mac; install Windows XP SP2/3 or Linux.

*Remember that UserFriendly.org commic about 'upgrading' to Vista that I can't find? :P

Re:No thank you

[Toonol]

I think your complaints are rooted in three years ago. Flash is far better behaved now... and I have to say, the backend scripting language (Actionscript 3) is really nice.

Now, flash developers may not be any better, and so you see flash being abused on websites as much as ever (cursors, menus, etc.), but that's a different issue. If you are locking up on streaming videos, you've probably just got old versions of something installed somewhere.

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

YOU must be new here. It is well-known that Windows 7 Beta is better than XP. If Ubuntu worked well, I would have kept it.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

DVI != HDMI.

DVI + HDCP == HDMI, ignoring mechanical details.

The purpose of this line is to get past the filter that doesn't understand that sometimes caps are a necessary evil.

Re:No thank you

[cbiltcliffe]

The flash videos I particularly love are the ones where the video lags a half second behind the audio. What an unholy mess.

That's not limited to flash, by any means.

I've seen that behaviour on mpeg, avi, wmv, mp4, and just about anything else.

Re:No thank you

[dgatwood]

This is what happens when sloppy programmers fail to do sanity checks on sample rates and frame counts before playing clips. You'd think codec writers would have learned their lesson after the Canon XL1 fiasco, but apparently some people never learn. Fixing these problems is relatively simple math (multiplication and division), and it is appalling that we're still seeing such sync problems almost a decade later....

Re:No thank you

[earlymon]

Wrong.

electrically, dvi+separate_audio == hdmi

High Def Content Protection (hdcp) is a content protocol (read: software). I convert hdmi and dvi to each other in four different places in the house - they all work fine. If a dvi source (computer) doesn't conform to hdcp, the hdmi input tv doesn't care and it works. If an hdmi box with hdcp outputs to a tv with a dvi input conforming with hdcp, the box does care and it works.

If a box outputs requiring hdcp, using anything, and a dvi-only monitor with no hdcp support is the target, it will not work.

Re:No thank you

[hurfy]

True, The USB cable WILL go into the ethernet port if you try....

lol, don't ask about hooking up the cables without looking this weekend :)

Re:No thank you

[relguj9]

Actually yes, DVI == HDMI (video component). The only difference is that HDMI transmits the audio component as well.

Non-HDCP projectors (or TV's) cannot play HDCP signals. However, HDCP projectors (or TV's, which is basically all modern HDTV's) can display non HDCP encrypted signals.

Basically, your only problem arises if you have an old HDTV that doesn't support HDCP and you only have an HDCP encrypted signal output.

ANYWAYS... the moral of the story is that yes... DVI == HDMI (minus the audio).

Re:No thank you

[V!NCENT]

Yes it's better than xp because you need to upgrade your pc to let it run Windows 7 so you have all the awesome features running that makes your new Win7 rig run slower than your old XP rig...

Why upgrading again? Oh I know, security... UAC that is now dumbed down as defaults (to which devs write apps) so people can get insane root exploits, by design (you know... it's a feature and I am not kidding but I guess you don't follow /. well enough to read the security risks, which makes you even MORE newer here), that are wasn't there with the horror called Vista, to which Win7 should is supposed to be a service pack...

Not to mention that all large bugs are fixed now in XP so it's more secure for people who know how to deal with security than it is to use a beta version of Windows

You're pretty much approaching the level of Digg.com right now...

Re:No thank you

[LordVader717]

Just out of interest, but what year is your powerbook? I've often been underwhelmed by the capabilities of HD "capable" hardware.

Re:No thank you

[relguj9]

Well said.. viewing on the wrong level looks like we're arguing though lol. Quotefail.

Re:No thank you

[Soubrause]

So we'll have to wait for the commercials to end before we can shut off our TV or change the channel? When adobe puts a 'Stop' control into flash I might consider allowing it to invade another device.

Re:No thank you

[danomac]

It was just a matter of setting the laptop next to them and plugging in cables to the only holes that would fit. It was really easy, most people just don't know that.

This is definitely NOT good advice for most people.

No kidding. I got a phone call from my friend's dad's cell one day, saying that all of the phones in his house went dead. He just got himself a new computer, and following the directions, plugged in to what he thought was the internet.

It turns out the RJ45 connector didn't fit in his phone jack, so he trimmed it down with his knife and jammed it in. Presumably the voltage caused the telephone center to null his line, killing all of his phones. :)

Re:No thank you

[westlake]

Get a sound card with optical out and you're rocking.

You don't need the sound card with optical out. You only need a video card that supports audio over HDMI.

Re:No thank you

[earlymon]

Concur!

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Flash is a pile of bloody rubbish. Firefox often maxes out one of my dual cores on my E6700 for no reason - other than bloody FLASH running (poorly) on some bloody crap website.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash Player for OS X or Linux tends to be much slower.

Um... That's not true at all. Adobe makes their whole CS4 Suite for OS X. The entire suite, including outputted Flash, runs just fine.

Please stop using 10 year old arguments, jeez.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but overscan is a bitch. And good luck with getting the pixel ratio to match

Re:No thank you

[T-Bone-T]

Look, if you are going to bring facts to an argument, you should get them right. The last time I upgraded my laptop was 4 years ago and it runs 7 just as fast or faster than XP, the OS it originally came with. But what do I know?

Besides, my UID comes before yours. You are, in fact, new here. So STFU, N00B, and go back to digg. You are already at their level.

Re:No thank you

[EvilToiletPaper]

It's a 2005 Powerbook G4.

Re:No thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

You and Nyeerrmm are both right. Flash seems to spend quite a bit of the time when it's not actually decoding video busy looping. So, running on a 2ghz chip, flash runs it hard, you'd think you'd need a 1.8 or something just to keep up. But then you run it on a P3 and it's fine -- I think the minimum's around a P3-600.

Silverlight

[Rik Sweeney]

Looks like that's another nail in Silverlight's coffin.

Re:Silverlight

[poetmatt]

in the form of screwing over the entire planet with a physical lock in for another proprietary piece of crap?

no thanks.

I'd like options other than flash on my monitors, as opposed to a tv that will not function as a monitor because "flash is good enough".

Re:Silverlight

[Dotren]

Remember kids: Only Microsoft monopolies are bad monopolies!

/sarcasm

Re:Silverlight

[hedwards]

I think that would be unfortunate. Even at this early stage Moonlight works better than Flash on my computer. Probably because Adobe doesn't feel like providing any support for FreeBSD. At least with Mono and Moonlight I get something.

Then again, Flash just sucks, yes, long and hard, and I doubt anything can be done to make it less sucktastic.

Re:Silverlight

[rumith]

another proprietary piece of crap

Wake up, it's 2009 already. Adobe has published the SWF specification (version 10, no less) almost a year ago.

Re:Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

"another proprietary"
Actually the Flash file format spec. is open, otherwise, good troll.

Re:Silverlight

[poetmatt]

eh, I guess I never realized that they actually opened it up, I just remember years of trouble and stupid drama crap as well. /good to know, thanks

Re:Silverlight

[Bazer]

I think Rob Savoye of Gnash, the GPL Flash project would beg to differ on it's relevance. I recommend viewing the whole interview as he touches on the subject of legal traps in Adobe's agreements which you need to sign if you want to get the specification.

Re:Silverlight

[relguj9]

Open, standardized specs are what makes DVD's, CD's, Television, etc.. possible.

To someone who knows how to use computers, setting up a PC to watch videos on a TV is trivial. For everyone else, making products that make watching streaming content from the internet on a TV easy will need a standard.

Adobe just works. I'd at least prefer that over Silverlight. I think there's a lot of negative stigma left over from when Flash bogged down web sites and made annoying ads in the age of dial-up.

Re:Silverlight

[relguj9]

I actually envision a TV with an ethernet port and an option (selectable from a standard remote) to switch to a screen that allows you to select Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc.

Super easy and using flash as the standard will make things compatible across the board.

Re:Silverlight

[jomiolto]

From that video: "If you've ever installed the Flash Plugin, you can't work on Gnash."

Seriously, WTF? That can't be true, can it? If you've installed Adobe Flash even once, you can never work on Gnash again? (or other Flash projects, I guess).

Sheesh, talk about restrictive licensing...

Re:Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

What agreement? The link in the posting above goes to a page with a link to a PDF file "SWF File Format Specification Version 10". It didn't make me agree to anything.

Re:Silverlight

[SScorpio]

I'm not sure how complete they will make it, but Vizio annouced Netflix playback on their new LCDs at CES this year.

Re:Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what agreement? There's no agreement listed on the link, and when I open the PDF there's no kind of agreement in there either. I think any kind of traps or agreements that gnash authors whine about are long gone by now. Flash has been slowly getting more & more open.

Re:Silverlight

[nick1000]

The agreement being talked about used to exist some years back. Now it does not. The Flash 10 specification is completely open and you are free to create your own versions of Flash Player compatible software.

Re:Silverlight

[Bazer]

You could be right. I just read about the Open Screen project on Wikipedia. However, the article also mentions the lack of features required for video distribution:

The specification remains incomplete, however, as it does not include any details regarding RTMP or Sorenson Spark,[26] both of which are widely used to distribute video through Flash.

Um no...

[Lumpy]

Watching the Low quality youtube on my 42" is a painful experience. I deleted my XBMC plugin that does youtube because of that.

Why not simply make the freaking interface in the TV 100% open and let people do what they want? Or better yet, leave the TV to be a dumb monitor and use an external box? OMG is it so bad to have a 8"X8"X2" box hidden behind it?

The only thing I need in the TV is an rs232 interface with discreet on,off, all settings and feedback. (Yes my panasonic has this and I use it)

What is it with the fetish to put everything inside the TV? My old RCA Scenium had the built in WEB system and that never worked right.

Re:Um no...

[tepples]

Why not simply make the freaking interface in the TV 100% open and let people do what they want? Or better yet, leave the TV to be a dumb monitor and use an external box?

For one thing, people already have too many external boxes plugged into the TV, to the point where they need more external boxes to switch among several inputs. Some people chose the PlayStation 2 over the GameCube and the PLAYSTATION 3 over the Wii because owners of Nintendo consoles would "need another box" to play movie discs.

Re:Um no...

[Anonymous Coward]

uh.. fine, but this doesn't take into account the fact that YouTube is continuously adding better resolution options, they already offer around minimal high def and fairly soon they will probably even offer up to 1080.

You're making the same mistake as they did in the late 1990s when critics complained about the "postage stamp size" video. Of course the tech is going to get better as time goes on.

 

Re:Um no...

[Gulthek]

Integrated into the TV means that it would be potentially (if they do it right) easy to control. Think frontrow but for hulu.

Re:Um no...

[silver007]

An animated gif can reach near-hi-def quality if enough resources are allocated to its 'improvement'. That doesn't make it feasible. We have these cool things called video formats that I prefer my, um, video to be in.

Re:Um no...

[thedonger]

For one thing, people already have too many external boxes plugged into the TV...

The answer isn't to add more things to the TV. The answer is to consolidate the boxes outside the TV.

Historically, bundling peripherals into the TV rarely captures more than a niche market. And whatever they put in there will need to be firmware or software update-capable, lest your TV outlive your Flash capabilities.

Re:Um no...

[denis-The-menace]

[quote]What is it with the fetish to put everything inside the TV? [/quote]

-For the consumer: The illusion that it will be easy to use for technophobes (50+).
-For the corps: The illusion that people will tolerate commercials on it like a TV.

Re:Um no...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with the fetish to put everything inside the TV?
Blame the Mac.

Re:Um no...

[camperdave]

That's because most people do not have the right external box for their TV. Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers. That's what people need in a proper video setup; a box that allows them to select which video feed gets sent to the monitor. Ideally, this should be the same box that selects which audio feed goes to the speakers as well.

Re:Um no...

[TooMuchToDo]

My Samsung A650 52" LCD has a network jack, and can do firmware upgrades. Samsung is building the ability to watch Netflix Watch It Now *directly into their new LCD TVs*.

Re:Um no...

[master811]

Not everything in flash is low/poor quality. Just because YouTube's quality is crap, doesn't mean it has to be.

The high quality version of iPlayer looks surprisingly good on my 42".

Re:Um no...

[stewbacca]

Of course the tech is going to get better as time goes on.

The tech is already here, but YouTube chooses not to use it. Why should I expect that to change? It's not like YouTube is so cutting edge, ahead-of-the-times, their resolution options are restricted by technology (because it isn't).

Re:Um no...

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube DOES use it. They offer definition that is better than SDTV (although it is admittedly not even quite 720p - more like 586p) to any video that would benefit from such quality. An example. Now tell me that isn't acceptable quality for most uses.

The simple fact is that YouTube's bandwidth use is already ridiculously high as it is. As bandwidth continues to become cheaper even higher definition content will be possible.

Re:Um no...

[EvilToiletPaper]

To view higher quality/High def flash, you need to get a really powerful processor. I can view high def. flash from Hulu, Veoh etc. on my MythTV box hooked to my TV but my 2 year old powerbook just cannot handle the processor requirements.

On a side note, It seems to handle much much higher definition DivX perfectly.

Re:Um no...

[gaspyy]

Watching the Low quality youtube on my 42" is a painful experience

Blame Youtube for overcompressing.
Because of Youtube, many think 'flash video = crappy quality', but Flash does support HD video with H.264 and even the codec in Flash7 was licensed from Sorenson; the same codec was being used in those nice Quicktime movie trailers.

Re:Um no...

[cbiltcliffe]

That's because most people do not have the right external box for their TV. Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.

No. Most people go spend $99 on a cheap-ass all in one POS from WalMart, and then go do the same again when one of the following happens:

1. Their 90-day warranty unit fries itself in 120 days.
2. They decide they need a new capability (CD/DVD/BlueRay/MP3/whatever) and they find their cheap POS doesn't have a jack on the back for extra inputs, because that would have cost an extra 18 cents to manufacture.

Re:Um no...

[SydShamino]

Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.

No offense, but the "standard stereo unit" is about 3 inches long, two inches wide, a quarter inch thick, and boots with a fruit-shaped logo on the screen. Many, many people, myself included, find a "home electronics system" as you describe to be very much a product of the 1990s - and very much out of date.

I'm much happier to have as few boxes as possible, and just plug them directly into the TV.

Re:Um no...

[Duradin]

Another benefit of keeping all the bells and whistles in an external box is that you don't have to get a virus scanner for your tv to keep the tv itself from being rooted by some flash vulnerability.

It'd be nice to still have some devices left that you don't have to reboot or reinstall daily or weekly.

Re:Um no...

[xaxa]

Most TVs I've seen do this.

They have three (usually more) audio+video inputs, of various kinds. There's one audio output, which goes to an external amplifier if you want, probably to the "TV" input.

Changing the video source using the remote changes which audio source is piped to the TV's output. The selector on the external audio amplifier only needs adjusting if you have a CD player (etc) connected.

Re:Um no...

[xaxa]

And whatever they put in there will need to be firmware or software update-capable, lest your TV outlive your Flash capabilities.

The digital TV standard used in most of the world can already do this, and I think the American one can too.

Re:Um no...

[Dachannien]

What is it with the fetish to put everything inside the TV?

DRM.

Re:Um no...

[Anonymous Coward]

A good point, and me without mod points today.

Re:Um no...

[PenguSven]

Have you bought a fucking tv lately? The UI always looks like it was designed by a fucking dog with glasses and intended to be used on a 10" screen. Yeah, that's what's going to work. A TV company trying to make a usable GUI for something other than "change input" or "adjust volume". The success of things like the iPhone and iPod, and to a lesser extent, the popularity of the AppleTV (and even things like Windows Media Centre or whatever its called) come down to ease of use. And how do you use something? By interacting with it. Traditional consumer electronics companies have never been able to make a GOOD UI. They can't even make the things they specialise in (the actual hardware/electronics) easy to use. WHO THE FUCK ships an LCD tv with a remote that has prominent buttons for features not in that TV? As for the specifics of Flash on a TV: In the words of Lewis Black, KISS MY DICK. Flash is, and has been for a long time, an over-hyped, over-used, unnecessary POS. There used to be a joke, that if you had a problem developing something, XML would fix it, and if that didn't work, you aren't using enough XML. The problem is, people seem to treat that joke as some kind of mantra, substituting XML for Flash.

Re:Um no...

[sgt scrub]

So what is REALLY needed is a way to connect lots of boxes together or consolidate all of the boxes so you only need to connect one. Perhaps an audio/video switch of some sort will do.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=video+switching&btnG=Google+Search&aq=3&oq=video+switch

Re:Um no...

[rrossman2]

or you get a real setup, run everything via the receiver so the audio/video sync stays correct, and use the receiver for up-conversion (if you're not using an expensive high end DVD player, the up-conversion in it sucks). Then you just change the input on the AV Receiver and everything is good to go

Re:Um no...

[maxume]

It is pretty likely that the flash implementation will use the same video decoder as the rest of the TV (probably a hardware chip; won't work for every flash video on the internet, but it will likely work for the highest resolution videos).

I suppose they could botch it and not do this, but I doubt it.

Re:Um no...

[NineNine]

No offense, but the "standard stereo unit" is about 3 inches long, two inches wide, a quarter inch thick, and boots with a fruit-shaped logo on the screen. Many, many people, myself included, find a "home electronics system" as you describe to be very much a product of the 1990s - and very much out of date.

I certainly don't. Listening to music coming straight out of a computer with no real amp is like listening to AM radio a la 1920. It's generally total crap, even if you have a decent sound card. My computer runs all of my music at home, but it goes through an Indigo sound card, into a 400 watt Yamaha receiver into a pair of 5' JVC speakers. Huge difference. I can rattle the house if I want, and it still sounds great. Try doing that with a computer and some dinky speakers!

Re:Um no...

[relguj9]

Netflix streaming on my 52" LCD TV through my Xbox360 looks great, and I imagine it uses Silverlight.

I also have a 26" LCD computer monitor and streaming Hulu (flash) also looks damn good on full screen, as long as the connection is good (ie. my roommate isn't seeding porn).

Youtube intentionally runs everything on low resolution. It looks like shit in a 100x100 window, let along full screen. But most of the time, I'm not watching a youtube video for the quality (and I think there is a high quality section you can use?).

Re:Um no...

[TheQuantumShift]

I recently bought a new ps2 almost solely to play dvd's (and to avoid starting my FFXII game over). Sure my ps3 is backwards compatible and does play dvd's, but even with upscaling and all that turned off, I get to listen to wwhhhiiiiirrRRRRRR!!!! during 480p playback. And the ps2 works with my universal remote. It's going to be interesting when the ps3 dies, not too sure I'll be replacing it unless there's a redesign that cools effectively and doesn't require me to "pair" a bluetooth device using a usb cable.

Re:Um no...

[TubeSteak]

Why not simply make the freaking interface in the TV 100% open and let people do what they want? Or better yet, leave the TV to be a dumb monitor and use an external box? OMG is it so bad to have a 8"X8"X2" box hidden behind it?

I think this is a brilliant idea, but it might require too much standardization to ever become reality.

The trick isn't to have a box on the end of a cable plugged into your TV. The way to do it is by making the addittions modular with standardized attachment and connection interfaces. The only people who wouldn't be able to join in the fun are those who hang their TVs on the wall like a picture frame. Some alternative can undoubtedly be created for them... probably a box on the end of a cable.

Big box TVs and computer functionality are eventually going to converge, we can only hope the standards will be open and patent-lite.

Re:Um no...

[gbjbaanb]

not just that, but Samsung has also got Yahoo widgets and internet-access capabilities built into its new range of TVs. I leave it to the reader to dsecide if that's a good thing or not, but its a start.

Re:Um no...

[Tejin]

Mmmmmm, botnet made of TVs....

Re:Um no...

[Fading Captain]

The answer isn't to add more things to the TV. The answer is to consolidate the boxes outside the TV.

Indeed. My 52" LCD is used only as a dumb monitor to display streams from my Xbox 360, PS3, NMT/Popcorn Hour, Roku/Netflix box, and PC. Problem is, this is an awful lot of computing power devoted to watching movies and TV shows.

In terms of consolidation, the Popcorn Hour shows a lot of promise as a small form factor, low cost network-to-dumb-monitor gateway, but at present it's a little too nerd-oriented to be generally usable by anyone not willing to tinker with it. Yes, it runs Linux.

Re:Um no...

[camperdave]

That's the problem. It's a backwards setup. Cable in, PVR in, PVR out, VCR video In, VCR video out, VCR audio in, VCR audio out, DVD video in, DVD audio in, game console in, Audio out. If you hang a modern flat panel television on the wall, you have to run a bundle of cables as thick as your arm to accomodate all of the feeds. All of that stuff should be in the stylish cabinet where the DVD, VCR, game, PVR and other boxes are. There should be one video feed to the monitor. Period.

Re:Um no...

[kent_eh]

What is it with the fetish to put everything inside the TV?

*DUH*
'cause if one of those parts fails, you have to buy a whole new TV.

Think of the profits that would be lost if people could replace only the part that is broken. Won't someone think of the corporate bottom line?

Re:Um no...

[xaxa]

I'm used to the European SCART connector, which combines audio/video input/output into one cable, but the point stands. (I'd have cable in, PVR in/out, DVD in, console in, audio out).

I was considering the TV as the consolidator (like the amplifier in a hi-fi system).

It won't be relevant for much longer anyway -- the TV will just stream everything from somewhere.

Re:Um no...

[orudge]

Not only that, but the BBC have today launched an HD version of the iPlayer. While the quality is obviously not quite up to Blu-Ray standards, it'll still look a whole lot better than the existing version of the iPlayer on a large TV.

Re:Um no...

[Eil]

I don't understand why people want/need Flash for video anyway. Streaming video works perfectly fine without the needless overhead of Flash. Video was added to Flash pretty much as an afterthought but now it's really the only reason that people use Flash at all. Only problem is that Flash carries a lot of overhead because it wasn't specifically designed to stream audio and video in the first place.

An example: My aging computers can play full-screen HD videos over the local network with no problem at all. But a standard-definition video streamed over the web in a little window is completely unwatchable because my CPU is pegged at 100% the entire time.

It's like using a 90MB Java app to play an MP3. Just doesn't make sense. I'm hoping the HTML 5 <video> and <audio> tags help rectify this, but something tells me very little will come of that.

Re:Um no...

[pasha2891]

Doesn't youtube have HD 720p videos up now? I now it's not common but still.

Re:Um no...

[CSMatt]

Thanks to cable and satellite companies encrypting everything, most TVs today are dumb monitors. The TV companies probably would not even bother putting tuners in the sets if the FCC didn't mandate it.

Re:Um no...

[earlymon]

Watching the Low quality youtube on my 42" is a painful experience.

I hear you - but...

I watch music videos that way. FWIW, the Clash' Rockin' The Casbah does have a high-def version on youtube - and isn't painful. Moby's Porcelain looks fantastic in full-screen mode - and I can't say if that one is a std or high-def youtube feed.

Dr. Crow's Medicine Show Wagon Wheel has a boatload of ugly artifacts. But I enjoy it anyway - once upon a time, I survived even vinyl for my music.

Always look on the bright side of life...

[inject_hotmail.com]

Not good, but could be worse. It could have been Microsoft with this big idea.

Imagine having SilverLight on every TV?

Re:Always look on the bright side of life...

[ByOhTek]

Given my experiences with Flash.

I think I'd prefer it.

Re:Always look on the bright side of life...

[Anonymous Coward]

Silverlight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flash

Sorry, but Flash is pretty much the worst thing imaginable. When even Microsoft can offer a better product, you know it's bad.

Re:Always look on the bright side of life...

[nschubach]

Except I still can't get Silverlight to work properly on my Debian Box, so Microsoft hasn't done shit to make a better product. Some guy named Miguel has been trying to make a clone, but he clearly doesn't have the access nor resources to properly implement it.

On the other hand, Adobe has already set me up with a 99.9999% compatible cross platform version of their player.

Interesting

[zoomshorts]

Will it be truely scalable?

*Argh!*

[transami]

We need open media standards! I wish flash would just die. I'm a web designer and when asked to produce flash content, I say "N O". And explain to my client why.

Just imagine how the Internet would be if Adobe controlled your image file format too.

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

can you also explain to me why? I think you say "N O" because you are just unable to develop quality flash content.

Re:*Argh!*

[ByOhTek]

Not hard. It'd be PDF.

I pretty much avoid the Adobe stuff for a reason. Bloated crapware that has more bugs and less compatibility than most of it's competitors, but has a few user-abusing features that the marketeers love, and so it gets promoted.

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

He said he was a web designer, not a Flash designer.

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and I wonder if that's the explanation he gives to his customers. If some people don't know how to make good (use of) flash it doesn't mean that flash should be banned from the internet.

Re:*Argh!*

[rumith]

Let me guess, you have never used a PDF viewer aside from Adobe Reader? This mistake has been made time and time again: what sucks is the particular implementation, not the file format! Try Foxit if you're a Windows guy, Okular or KPDF if you use KDE, or something else shiny if you're a Mac. You'll see the difference, I promise :-)

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

Good use of Flash on a webpage usually means it's optional.

Re:*Argh!*

[raisin]

Just imagine how the Internet would be if Adobe controlled your image file format too.

You mean like PDF? And TIFF?

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Cat Schwartz - after she let Adobe look after her image file format. http://www.cybersaps.org/2003/07/Photoshop-lets-it-all-hang-out.html

Re:*Argh!*

[ByOhTek]

XPDF, KPDF and Foxit.

Re:*Argh!*

[bucktug]

So if a client has money and wants to pay you money to produce a flash application, you say "N O"?

So your client wants the following:
Cross platform
Pixel precise design
Media assets (video/sound)
Custom media controls
Robust charting (Flex Charting).
Give you money to do it.
Accessibility for blind users.

What do you use?

My main reason for use Flash/Flex is that the runtime is consistent across platforms and I don't have to take the time to rebuild portions of my application for IE anomalies. I take the time to make my controls accessible for blind users. In my videos I even embed a Closed Caption player. I can lazy load my data when it is needed on the screen. And I can cache my RSL's to make my content smaller the next time you come back.

Until something better comes along. Long live Flash/Flex.

Re:*Argh!*

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a web designer and when asked to produce flash content, I say "N O". And explain to my client why."
Does that include, "because I don't know how to use flash and have never written a lick of actionscript code"?

Linux?

[cashman73]

This isn't really that big of a deal. Wake me when there's a TV coming out that runs Linux! Even better if it were a Beowulf cluster of TVs! Imagine what that could do!!!! =)

Re:Linux?

[Darkstepper]

Done and done: http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/Download/category5.html#1

Re:Linux?

[nschubach]

My new Sharp LCD has a *nix kernel:
http://mktg.sharpusa.com/newsletters/files/gpl.htm

Only 1 problem with that

[Fortunato_NC]

Content providers don't want Hulu on your TV. The Boxee debacle proves that. Right now, they can't monetize the eyeballs delivered via Hulu as well as they can as the ones delivered via broadcast and cable. Until they figure out a way to do that, they're going to make it as painful as they can for you to get "TV" over the Internet. Look at how the amount of content on Hulu has actually shrunk lately (fewer full runs or full seasons of shows available, more "preview" and last three broadcast episodes shows).

Re:Only 1 problem with that

[AbRASiON]

As somone who doesn't live in the states, I can tell you now, we don't want goddamn Hulu either.
I wish there was a greasemonkey script to completely and utterly remove the word from the internet for me, it completely goes against the principles of the internet as far as I'm concerned

IP region locking is a deplorable act, please don't mention Hulu again. - seriously, let them die.

Re:Only 1 problem with that

[Rude Turnip]

Hulu works just fine on my TV through the PlayOn dlna server ($40 paid app). I still can't get a straight answer on what Boxee did to piss off Hulu. If anything, you'd think the PlayOn guys would be in deep shit since they're selling software that lets you stream Hulu to your TV.

Re:Only 1 problem with that

[maxume]

Hulu had my baby.

Oh, good

[Oxy the moron]

Now I can be Rickrolled via my TV for the whole family to enjoy!

Re:Oh, good

[CFBMoo1]

The ability to Rick Roll your own family would be a feature. Especially if your kids friends are being too loud watching the TV with your child and suddenly you Rick Roll the whole group to hint at the idea that they should turn it down if they want to keep watching.

Re:Oh, good

[RemoWilliams84]

Or you could just be continuously Rick Rolled in picture in picture.

I would find it soothing to be watching the game, seeing my team choke, but still have rick's face in the corner of my screen.

Re:Oh, good

[Richy_T]

Now, that might be something they could sell at Spencers: A little box with 10 seconds of video to put inline and annoy your friends.

Different revenue

[Whatanut]

This doesn't really make getting rid of cable an option for many people. It might open up some options. But for many, the best option for a decent internet connection is still the cable provider. This won't get rid of them. It may change the revenue stream a bit, though. Raise your hand if you think they won't whine and complain about any and all changes to a business model.

Re:Different revenue

[svendsen]

I think they were referring to the TV part of your cable service not the internet part. I pay $40 a month just to have 70 standard channels with no cable box.

I watch 5 channels of those 70. A la cart please?

Re:Different revenue

[internerdj]

While I wouldn't mind getting rid of the cost of the middleman, I do wonder how much savings I would get if I directly got my media from the providers. There have been plenty of high profile cases of the media companies trying to push iTunes or Walmart to increase prices and them simply saying the customer won't pay that. If I skip the cable company (who has to compete) in favor of the media cartel (that doesn't really), then there is no one with the collective capital and organization to push back against the cartels when they say give me more (or they do stupid stuff to lock their media).

Re:Different revenue

[tepples]

I think they were referring to the TV part of your cable service not the internet part. I pay $40 a month just to have 70 standard channels with no cable box.

And I think grandparent was referring to some local cable companies' practice of including basic TV service at next to no additional charge so that high-speed Internet customers are less likely to switch to DirecTV.

Re:Different revenue

[Voyager529]

...they'd make it $10/channel.

Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[Dystopian Rebel]

I think that Flash [buffering...]

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[AndrewNeo]

No, no, you're thinking of RealPl[buffering...]

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[viralburn]

No, no, you're thinking of www.xvideo.c[buffering...]

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[Bieeanda]

I'd post a link to that old photo of a note that reads 'BUFFERING' over Real's delivery sign, but the image is still loading.

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[cbiltcliffe]

Everybody's got this horrible opinion of Realplayer and the whole "buffering" thing, but I wonder how many have tried it recently.

Most of the people who complain about this refer back to something like version 8, and how much it sucked.

Version 8 came out somewhere around 1998, I think. How many people had a decent broadband internet connection in 1998? Of course it's going to buffer.

There's at least a possibility that it was just ahead of its time. The internet infrastructure couldn't handle the bandwidth that Realplayer needed, so it sucked.

I haven't actually researched this, but it's just a thought.

Now, we have software that actually sucks, and it gets compared to Realplayer.

Maybe we should be comparing Vista to Windows 3.1. I do believe Windows 3.1 was faster, in it's day....

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[AlterRNow]

Yo dawg, I heard you like buffering so I put a buffer in your buffer so you can buffer while you buffering!

Damn, now the word 'buffer' looks weird.

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[cbiltcliffe]

I know that was a joke. (At least, I hope it was a joke)

But responses like that are what's wrong with people in the world today. (Mostly because the person giving them is serious, rather than being a smartass...)

You put forth a well reasoned argument, that's at least plausible, and somebody goes off on a completely different tangent, missing the point completely, and assuming that you like bacon bits and garlic in your strawberry ice cream.....

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[AlterRNow]

bacon bits and garlic in your strawberry ice cream

You don't? :) And yes, I was only joking.

I did have the "Realplayer" experience and I think you are actually quite on the mark in regards to available bandwidth vs. required bandwidth. I think people jab at it because it was marketed as "the next generation" system for everyone but fell flat on its face due to the realities of the infrastructure it was used on ( i.e. not ready ).

And that isn't the only thing wrong with most people in the world today..

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[curtix7]

No, you'r[buffering...]

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Real knows how to buffer properly. I've seen way too many WMP steams that go into buffering mode, then stop buffering and just play the audio for a few seconds, then buffer again...

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion!

[IntlHarvester]

Everybody's got this horrible opinion of Realplayer and the whole "buffering" thing, but I wonder how many have tried it recently.

Almost nobody, because there's hardly any Realmedia content left on the internet. (At least I haven't found a reason to install Realplayer in many years.)

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great - as if the quality of flash video wasn't bad enough on my 15" monitor - I want to blow it up on my widescreen. Yeah, then I can claim all the actors are "reptilians" with their pixelated skin and shapeshifting, etc.

Re:Awesome

[PunditGuy]

In those heady days when MythVodka was working with minimal jiggering, the quality of the Hulu streams wouldn't make you forget OTA -- but it was more than sufficient for me to finish out the season of Burn Notice after I canceled TV service from Comcast. No reptilians. Some pixelation in fast-moving scenes, but the quality was better than you'd think.

Best of all, I save $70 a month and got to watch stuff quickly, conveniently, and legally. There's no way Comcast was going to put up with that for long...

Re:Awesome

[cbiltcliffe]

as if the quality of flash video wasn't bad enough on my 15" monitor -

That's not the capabilities of Flash. That's the capabilities of n00bs trying to record cheesy overdubbed music videos on a 320x240 webcam.

ultimately its

[nimbius]

peanuts and circuses. both are directed in a very metered and concerted manner, so if flash benefits all parties in the P&C industry it will become standard...

this gives also adobe content managers a medium by which their flash cannot be blocked. Flash means rendering and encoding the fast motion graphics the human eye pays the most attention to is now offloaded to the consumer instead of a rendering division at the television station. expect it to pop up during the superbowl and offer pizzas, cars, music and other items you'd enjoy at the circus.. it serves to enhance the circus, not supplant and overtake it.

Awesome!

[fluffernutter]

Now I get to watch amateur Sarah Palin impersonations and five minute clips of Flinstones episodes on my big screen TV? I can't wait!!

Re:Awesome!

[Opportunist]

I was about to say the same, just with cats peeing in toilets.

Re:Awesome!

[maxume]

2 cats 1 toilet?

MHP

[bickerdyke]

Another proposal:

Base it on Java instead, call it MHP and let it painfully die..... again.

OTOH, the time may be right for a standard for "interactive" TV

Re:MHP

[cbiltcliffe]

Base it on Java instead, call it MHP and let it painfully die..... again.

The Montana Highway Patrol is dead?
Now I know where I need to go with my GTO.....

Re:MHP

[bickerdyke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Home_Platform

More info here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Home_Platform

ok.. according to Wikipedia, it still seems to be alive in Italy and South Korea.

Re:MHP

[cbiltcliffe]

Thank you.

Thank you so much for informing me that the depths of my sarcasm are completely misunderstood by /.

Sar-chasm: n. The gulf between the speaker of a sarcastic comment, and the person who completely misunderstands it.

Re:MHP

[bickerdyke]

sorry but I uusally dont expect some dead-in-europe and alive.only-in-south-korea standard to be known here on ./ :-)

Re:MHP

[cbiltcliffe]

Well, I'll be honest...I looked it up on acronymfinder.com.

But I usually do that with acronyms, even when I know what they mean in context, so I can find the most bizarre, twisted meaning of the sentence, and see if it's worth a "+1 Funny".....

subject

[Anonymous Coward]

"Adobe plans to waste money on clearly fruitless and stupid effort for something I am not even involved with anymore"

GO FOR IT, ADOBE!!

Competition = Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that makes the cable companies nervous can only be good.

Because we are aliens

[davidwr]

And we like it that way.

Blame the summary

[tygerstripes]

Most of the companies to sign up to the Flash platform are, as far as I can tell, chip-fabs and set-top manufacturers, NOT TV-makers. Sony and Samsung, for example, have not signed up.

The fact that the summary and the linked article don't make this clear is very annoying. We're seeing a steady shift in /. articles away from facts and direct-source links (hence my FP), and towards rhetoric and spin. I'd harp on about how much this pisses me off and skews the whole discussion, but I've already strayed off-topic.

I agree with your position, but it's basically moot. This will primarily emerge in set-top boxes - at least until it's had chance to become mainstream.

Re:Blame the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

A key question totally glossed over in Adobe's press release spin is exactly what version of Flash this is. I wonder if its Flash 10/OSP or Flash 8/FlashLite which is all Adobe is putting on devices now. If its FlashLite it will really suck to browse the web since it doesn't have ActionScript 3 support, is years out of date, fails on any site using real Flash 9 or 10 content and there are major sites that do.

All the testimonials rave about their participation in OSP but Adobe doesn't say what actual version of Flash it is in their press release and I doubt it will be Flash 10/OSP at least for the foreseeable future. Adobe announced OSP a year ago and its still not on any device I know of, its been pure vaporware.

JAVA

[ionix5891]

seems to me that Flash is becoming everything Java wanted to be back in the 90s

Re:JAVA

[jimshatt]

If they would build a flash runtime in java suitable for Blu-Ray players, they would be done. Well, except for the internet connectivity required of course..

This will probably get heavily flamed...

[hbean]

...but this is why were seeing TimeWarner lead the charge towards total GB/month bandwidth limits. Between Netflix, XBox Live movie downloads, iTunes, Hulu, etc etc, they're seeing their business model being slowly put to the wayside for more and more content delivered over the internet.

Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, it's great. It's long past time for the government sanctioned monopolies that are your local cable company to come to an end, but they're certainly not going to go w/out a fight. Hard download caps are the first volley in a war that's probably going to get rather unpleasant before its over.

Re:This will probably get heavily flamed...

[stewbacca]

Time Warner dropped the GB/month bandwidth metering.

Re:This will probably get heavily flamed...

[hbean]

Can you provide a link for some sort of documentation? Last I heard (as in, last week) they were adding it to a few new markets including Rochester, NY, which is nearby, which drew the attention of our state's Senators.

Re:This will probably get heavily flamed...

[stewbacca]

I heard it on the radio, but here's a site that confirms the story: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42055/103/

Re:This will probably get heavily flamed...

[stewbacca]

Time Warner is halting their tiered pricing in Rochester as well: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090416/BUSINESS/90416024/1001

Open standards

[Anonymous Coward]

What Adobe is of course neglecting to say is that they do this solely to get their feet in the TV-market early-on, before open standards like CE-HTML that strive to accomplish similar things get a strong foothold.
Some companies such as Philips are using that alternative language in its latest sets. Others, like Samsung, are using proprietary standards.

I know where my preference lies...

Just what I always wanted..

[British]

..a tv with a glaring large "Press ESC to exit full screen mode". Okay, I'm willing to swing this if we make a promise to use less flash content on the web.

Re:Just what I always wanted..

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash is all about the content creator. You don't get to decide if it's fullscreen - unless the creator lets you. You don't get to listen to it in anything other than full volume - unless the creator lets you. The only reason they added the escape for full screen, was because Flash allowed fullscreen content without a way of getting back to normal. The content creator was given exclusive control over your entire screen. Flash still doesn't offer a fullscreen option by default, or even a volume control by default.

Re:Just what I always wanted..

[whiledo]

..a tv with a glaring large "Press ESC to exit full screen mode". Okay, I'm willing to swing this if we make a promise to use less flash content on the web.

Apparently, you'd prefer that flash apps running in your browser be able to fully impersonate your browser/operating system? That's what the whole "Press ESC..." thing is for, to warn you because of the security implications. It's amazing the lengths to which flash haters will go to justify their bias.

YouTube uses video formats

[tepples]

We have these cool things called video formats that I prefer my, um, video to be in.

YouTube uses video formats: FLV by Sorenson for viewers on Flash 7 set-top boxes, and H.264 for viewers on PCs and phones that can do H.264. But video formats like H.264 aren't optimal for cel or sprite animations like those seen on Newgrounds; a vector animation format like SWF can handle those more efficiently.

Standard...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you want a standard for interactive TV, CE-HTML is a much more likely candidate: open, based on existing open internet standards (thus easy for everyone to implement), and going main-stream in TV's this year...

Re:Standard...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that no-one, not even the browser writers, think CE-HTML is something that can actually be implemented. It's a paper standard that may not be implementable even in theory due to the world+dog professional standardizer mentality that created it.

Unless of course....

[HeavyDevelopment]

you get your internet from the cable company. Then you are at least stuck with them partially. Which is my current problem in that I get my TV from space--AKA satellite/ErecTV. I would ditch Time Warner in a heartbeat only if my only other broadband choice wasn't ATT. Talk about frying pan and into the fire. Actually, more like frying pan straight into the depths of hell.

Tv from Idiocracy?

[TinBromide]

Did anybody else get a mental of the TV from Idocracy where there's 8 flashing banner type adds taking up 8/9ths of the tv's viewable area and a little picture in the middle?

Re:Tv from Idiocracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://shalottianshards.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/idiocracymedia.jpg

I can see it now....

[unitron]

After a year or so, they'll "upgrade" whatever version of Flash is used and expect you to go out and buy yet another new television.

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

/facepalm

The up side

[Chrisq]

With the ability to run Hulu, YouTube and others, the question of dropping your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable

. Also with access to all those porn sites, the question of pulling your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable

This is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

[AbRASiON]

This is worse than the plague or sudden infant death.

Who are adobe kidding? Seriously, I just heard one of my co-workers shoot himself when I sent him the link here.
I DETEST flash video, the vast, vast majority of sites get it 'wrong' few of them work well, the buffering system is horrible and it's an added expense to my television to boot.

The quality sucks, I hate having to start a movie, then hit pause to get it to stream some ahead.
Bandwidth just isn't there for this, sure it works sometimes but I would never consider paying for flash video.

Adobe might be well regarded by mac users but I for one loathe most of their products, look at foxit reader - it actually makes PDF usable.

To exaggerate the point, most of adobes software is like digital aids and I would like to register my strong 'no' vote right here please.

Linux on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of HDTVs run Linux now a days. I bet you that this will extend the current OS in the TV to take advantage of Flash. Now the real question is are we finally going to get a Linux Flash version that doesn't suck? :-P

Flash is evil...

[smooth wombat]

and must die

Why would I want to permanently embed an insecure product in my tv?

Enough Horrible Content Already

[stewbacca]

There's enough horrible content on TV as it is. I don't need heavily pixelated, monaural YouTube and Hulu videos looking extra bad on my 50" 1080 HD tv.

Flash Player != Flash flv format

[jd142]

Flash can play multiple formats, so just because you don't like flv doesn't mean you can't use something else, like h264.

Re:Flash Player != Flash flv format

[Bazer]

Maybe I'm nitpicking but you're comparing a container and a video codec. A more appropriate comparison would be between flv and mp3 or between Sorenson h.263(or VP6) and h.264. I wouldn't call these 3 codecs "multiple choices".

Re:Flash Player != Flash flv format

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know FLV is only the container. FLV can have H264 video inside.

Embedded Flash

[RawJoe]

Does this mean that a new version of Flash will be coming out to work on other embedded devices, aside from set-top boxes? Will my iPhone or Wii now be able to work with the latest Flash out there?

So in essence ...

[TheABomb]

... this will allow me to watch cartoons on my TV?

Hooray! we're finally up to the 1950s technologically!

It should make TV owners nervous, too

[knorthern knight]

> In a move that should make cable companies nervous, Adobe announces
> they are going to push a Flash that runs directly on TVs.

Considering the security patches Adobe has had to release for Flash, as a TV owner, I too would be nervous about Flash on TV. So instead of paying a cableco umpteen dollars for programs, I'd have to pay Norton or Macafee umpteen dollars for a continuously-updated anti-virus to protect my TV against the Russian Business Network. No, thank you. If I can find a Flash video worth playing on my 50" TV, I'll damn well hook op my PC to the TV.

Re:It should make TV owners nervous, too

[Skuld-Chan]

Do you really honestly think an embedded version of flash would actually require the same features that make the desktop version insecure?

Answer - no of course not.

Can't Wait

[residieu]

If I get to use the larger TV screen, I bet next time I can punch the monkey for sure!

Re:Can't Wait

[mdielmann]

If I get to use the larger TV screen, I bet next time I can punch the monkey for sure!

Yes, screen size certainly does help when it's time to punch the monkey.

Great idea

[sarabob]

Seriously, this sounds like Good News for the industry. An API for set top boxes that is more open than OpenTV, and has a sensible desktop client which can preview what it will look like on deployed machines?

Flash can scale for 4:3 and 16:9 machines instead of having a single bitmap font (cf: opentv, mheg, liberate). It antialiases fonts properly (cf: liberate, or 'at all' wrt opentv/mheg). It renders predictably (cf: ce-html). It allows you to use your own display fonts (cf: liberate, mheg), and predict how much content will display per page programatically (scrolling bad, paging good).

It allows for compression of content using zlib, for vector, resolution-independent graphics (smaller than the equivalent, SD-res jpeg).

I'm just hoping it gets deployed widely and that they find a sensible way to have a hardware player.

dropping your cable

[damn_registrars]

As from the summary:

the question of dropping your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable

I find this rather unlikely. For one, cable companies are now amongst the largest ISPs in the country - for some people they are the only reasonable option for high-speed access. Couple that to the "bundling" pricing that the cable companies do for internet access and I don't see it very likely that people will drop their cable TV service for this (and don't forget the cable companies threatening to charge by GB for access).

jeez everybody relax

[circletimessquare]

this is just an opening salvo

the comments here act as if this is the last television upgrade ever

give it time people, calm the fuck down. everyone understands your complaints before you even speak them as your complaints really aren't that insightful but rather obvious

technology evolves, so wait and see and chill out

Just use MPEG4 / H264

[Midnight Thunder]

Why even bother with the Adobe "Tax", when you can just use MPEG4 with H264. Surely that's all Flash does anyhow? The only third-party software that I would look forward to on my set top box is VLC.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[nschubach]

Because MPEG4 and H264 encoded files can easily be copied and replayed. The broadcaster loses control over when and how much it's played. With Flash, they can at least obfuscate he downloaded file from the user so it's not easily replicated.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[SanityInAnarchy]

When a trivial Firefox addon can download the flv, and a one-click application can re-encapsulate it as an avi or an mp4 (since flvs can carry h264), that argument starts to look really stupid.

DRM never works, but this is DRM that, again, is defeated by a Firefox extension. Also by a proxy, for that matter, or any number of other ways.

Broadcasters shouldn't care, anyway. They don't outlaw VCRs or DVRs, why would this bother them? VHS didn't stop people from buying cable -- if anything, it added to the value of the cable and prompted them to buy more.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[metalcoat]

I remember reading my Pioneer Kudos Manual with it listing several open source libraries to read movies and pictures. It even had the GPL within it.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[nschubach]

That's not how they see it though...

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[V!NCENT]

Because of the scripting and stuff? How the hell would you plan on navigating otherwise?

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[IntlHarvester]

> Why even bother with the Adobe "Tax"

I suspect the motivation is to allow reuse of advertising assets without having to recode them for every custom cable menuing system.

> Surely that's all Flash does anyhow?

Surely you aren't so ignorant to understand that Flash does more than just play video? Maybe turn off your blocker for a bit and experience the wonderful world of annoying interactive ads.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[LordVader717]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all videoa content I've come across has been either FLV or H264 video embedded in a flash file. It hasn't implemented agressive DRM, so you can still download the videos directly.
Is there any method of encryption for flash video? If not, this seems to me a waste of time when the media companies should be heavily investing in providing a universal Video-on-demand service.

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[wakingrufus]

you dont even need a firefox addon a lot of times. go to youtube, load up a video, and then take a look in your /tmp folder (sort by date)

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[Mex]

Is H.264 royalty-free?

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[Hurricane78]

FLV is a media container format that can (and usually does) contain video streams, that are encoded in H.264. Just sayin... (*hint* false dichotomy *hint* :)

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[Hurricane78]

Nice. Pioneer always rocked. But this sounds like my next electronics device should preferably be a Pioneer one. If only they had some kind of video turntable. Maybe a hack of their variant of FinalScratch...

Re:Just use MPEG4 / H264

[Hurricane78]

Nah. Just go to Kongregate. Some games there are more fun than full-scale games that you buy for $50.

Wii

[Space]

I would be happy if the opera browser on my Wii would support a modern version of Flash. It is currently stuck at some ancient version with does not support hulu and scifi rewind.

Adobe and HD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Major League Baseball is using Adobe Flash this year with a NexDef plugin. While it is buggy out of the gate, when it works it looks very good, perhaps 720p good. But the pipe required is perhaps 3Mbps. I can only imagine the image will get better, but the bandwidth could be an issue.

For cable, I am currently used to 2 HD signals coming over the coax and being decoded by the Motorola box.

How about flash on my G1?

[rickb928]

Oh wait, there's no money in that... And you wonder why I say

Drop cable is preferctly reasonable

[danking]

the question of dropping your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable

It has been reasonable for a long time. It is called over the air broadcasting!

Re:Drop cable is preferctly reasonable

[residieu]

That's not a real option for everyone. Even in the NYC metro area, I can only get a two or three channels over the air and those just barely. Going without TV entirely is an option, though.

the calbe companies have only themselves to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

.. By crowding more channels into less bandwidth, with degraded video quality, they have conditioned their customers to accept lower quality in exchange for more quanitity. This follows the same business model they have pursued the last 15 years.

If cable companies would deliver unadulterated HD content to TV sets, consumers wouldn't stand for the low quality flash content.

Not the only problem - Flash's per-f-orm-an-ce i-s

[Anonymous Coward]

The other problem with Flash is it's horrible performance. I've seen Flash video's bring high-end machines to a jerky jittery halt, especially in fullscreen mode. This may partly be caused by the crappy codec that everyone uses, but I didn't see the issues when we for a laugh grabbed the .flv file and (after considerable time spent downloading and setting up) played that in Windows Media Player using a free tool. In the meantime, my own very old and disintegrating machine can play much better looking content without a hitch. It's nine years old. And of course there is the usability aspect of Flash. Why would anyone want their viewers to watch videos in a little applet with small dysfunctional, and above all different, controls than whatever media player it is they're using to play other video? Sadism?

xbox360

[mzs]

I was very surprised at how easy it was and how well this worked, but over the weekend I finally paired-up my xbox360 and vista 64-bit with tv pack 2008 media center. Then I fired-up the media center on the xbox 360 and it was virtually indistinguishable from running media center from the computer on the TV. My son was able to play RCT3 on the computer while my wife watched recorded TV on the computer from the xbox 360, all using a remote control that looks like a TV/DVD combo remote. It was better than AppleTV, I was surprised that I had not heard more about just how good this combo of vista + media center + xbox360 is.

The xbox360 also lets me watch streamed NetFlix movies. My Samsung TV also allows me to get lots of content over the internet. I see Philips TVs that do similar things. I think Adobe sees this and is afraid that in the future they will be less relevant as people spend their idle time on the couch once more.

Roku Player

[MrMunkey]

I'd love it if the Roku player would support Hulu and Youtube videos. Netflix and Amazon Video on Demand are a good start, but having more recent content would be a plus.

Hulu?

[icannotthinkofaname]

With the ability to run Hulu, YouTube and others, the question of dropping your cable becomes a little bit more reasonable."

Really? Hulu? Are you serious?

You mean I can watch Knight Rider...WHENEVER I WANT???

Awesome! I'm sold on this now!

No thank you-Tab A:Slot B.

[Ostracus]

It was just a matter of setting the laptop next to them and plugging in cables to the only holes that would fit. It was really easy, most people just don't know that.

This is definitely NOT good advice for most people.

It works for the propagation of the species.

Re:No thank you-Tab A:Slot B.

[ColdWetDog]

It works for the propagation of the species.

I'm still not changing my recommendation. NOT good advice. Look where the propagation thing has got us.

American Idol.

Silverlight-Consoles.

[Ostracus]

I actually envision a TV with an ethernet port and an option (selectable from a standard remote) to switch to a screen that allows you to select Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc.

Super easy and using flash as the standard will make things compatible across the board.

Media extenders like the Xbox360.

People still have Cable/Satellite?

[greymond]

Ever since EZTV started having HD versions of shows I haven't used anything other than my computer -> media center -> plasma...

Um no...UI Experts.

[Ostracus]

"Why not simply make the freaking interface in the TV 100% open and let people do what they want? "

Open Standards == Good Interface. Closed Standards ==! Bad Interface.

Nope don't see any problems with that logic.

So much misinformation, so little time.

[whiledo]

First, Adobe didn't add the ability for Flash in a browser to go fullscreen until version 9.0.28 of the player, which as released in Oct 2007 IIRC. And it had a number of restrictions due to security:

• To enable full-screen mode, developers must add a new and tag parameter, allowFullScreen, to their HTML. This parameter defaults to false, or not allowing full screen. To allow full-screen, developers must set allowFullScreen to true in their / tags.
• An overlay dialog box will appear when the movie enters full-screen mode, instructing the user how to exit and return to normal mode. The dialog box appears for a few seconds and then fades out.
• The ActionScript that initiates full-screen mode can be called only in response to a mouse click or keypress. If it is called in other situations, it will be ignored (in ActionScript 2.0) or throw an exception (in ActionScript 3.0).
• Users cannot enter text in text input fields while in full-screen mode. All keyboard input and key-related ActionScript is disabled while in full-screen mode, with the exception of the keyboard shortcuts that take the viewer out of full-screen mode.
• The user can disable full-screen mode for all Flash movies by adding a setting to the Flash Player configuration file mms.cfg. The file is described in the TechNote, IT Administration: Configuring Flash Player Auto-Update Notification. Add the line: FullScreenDisable=1 to the mms.cfg file to disable full-screen mode.

The only reason they added the escape for full screen, was because Flash allowed fullscreen content without a way of getting back to normal.

According to the above, I don't really believe this. Unless you're talking about the standalone player, in which I still don't believe it because I'm pretty sure alt-tab, etc. would still work.

All of these things were done to prevent flash apps in a browser from impersonating your operating system. I don't see what you would have had them done otherwise. And yes, the content has to have a button or key for going fullscreen. However, you can usually pretty easily avoid that by greasemonkeying it. I run lots of flash apps fullscreen that don't actually have a button for it in the flash app.

It's also not up to the flash app, but up to the containing HTML app and the flash configuration file. Both of these are a good thing if you were concerned about untrusted flash code doing naughty things.

As far as the volume control, I don't really see where the problem is. I personally hate every app having their own volume controls, with the addition of another volume knob on the speaker. Just too many sliders where some can be cranked up to max while others are very low, thus distorting everything. So inside your flash app, you might have separate volumes for sound effects, music and voice. Now you want ANOTHER volume knob added by flash so that you have to figure out which volume knob is turned all the way down, the app's voice knob, the flash master volume knob, the windows Wave volume knob, the Windows Master volume knob, or your speaker's physical volume knob. Too many knobs for me.

Oh great....

[MasseKid]

Oh great, now I'll have to worry about my TV getting a virus through flash as well.

Uh.....no.

[Xzisted]

Adobe can spend the time to put Flash on TV's right after they spend the time to accelerate its playback on GPU's via CUDA or some other interface language. I'd really like to be able to play back Hulu, YouTube, etc... on an Ion powered Atom media center box. That would be far more useful than having it on a television where 90% of customers would never use it. 100% of those people who design and build their own HTPC's would use it and get something out of it once it has GPU accelerated playback.

I predict that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

* We will have annoying flash pop-up commercials during a TV show, that you unfortunately not click away.
* Hacking around those commercials would be a DMCA violation, with a minimum 20 year jailtime for that kind of offense.
* That RMS won't be buying such a TV set.
* That there will be an OpenTV project, which although getting a lot of attention here, will ultimately die a slow dead.

Is the stereo dead?

[Jay L]

Listening to music coming straight out of a computer with no real amp is like listening to AM radio a la 1920.

Yes, if the radio could play any song you wanted it to at any moment.

Come visit Berklee School of Music some time, and hang around the recording studios. 500 top-performing students in a highly-competitive music production program, at a school that's generated a hell of a lot of the music you probably listen to. Eight full-size recording studios, plus countless smaller synth labs.

Your Indigo sound card is... cute. We've got a few SSLs, a jillion Pro Tools HD3 Accel rigs, dozens of vintage outboard pieces, studio monitors the size of your bicycle, etc. And any second-semester production student could explain the Nyquist theorem, quantization error, jitter, etc., and do bit-rate calculations in their heads. One two-semester class is nothing but listening to white noise and writing down which single band on the graphic equalizer is up or down 3dB. If there's ever been a building full of people who know why the iPod is not good music, this is that building.

You know what the most popular addition to the studios has been? A few years ago, they made up some 1/8"-to-TT cables for the SSL patch bays. Now, we can plug our iPods into the SSL.

Yeah, I think the stereo's dead.

Hotel video systems use Flash

[flyingfsck]

Many hotel video on demand systems have been using Flash for years already.

Money...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Put their money where their mouth is?

And yes, they can. Sun open sourced Java, and had a few libraries which had to be rewritten, as third parties owned the code -- that ended up being nowhere near all of the standard libraries. Are you really saying third parties own all of the renderer?

Even Microsoft pays a few people to work on Moonlight, because they want to have a competing, open player. And ATI and nVidia seem to ultimately want to completely replace their proprietary Linux drivers with open ones, though it's not a priority now.

Never mind that the proprietary player sucks balls, and has for over a decade. It even sucks at vector graphics, relative to some of the other options. And it is absolutely the worst video player I have ever seen, in terms of video quality, CPU usage (two orders of magnitude higher than its nearest competition), and reliability (locking up my browser for a few seconds while loading a flash ad is not acceptable).

You hit the nail on the head here...

[SuperCharlie]

I am one of those wierdos who have cut our cable tv umbilical cord and watch everything via pc/tv hookup. It took me a while to figure out why there are only 5 trailing episodes of most shows on Hulu or elsewhere. Its the content providers holding on for dear life to the old-time business model that has made them so much money in the past. They are probably being force-fed a line of crap from the cable and satellite people saying if they let their content loose on the web it will destroy their content profits.

I have noticed however that more mainstream ads are starting to show up on all the online tv sites, with much more frequency than even a couple months ago, which says to me maybe the tide is turning.

Gnash

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe, support it and your precious flash will run even on toasters.

koozedine

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a marketing scam:
Flash video has too low quality and hardware optimization to compete with regular HDTV framework like MPEG2 or even DivX,
the only reason why people use it on youtube its because one does not need to download additionnal software in order to watch youtube.

Will this happen

[clovis]

before or after Adobe produces a 64-bit flash version?

Re:Will this happen

[kimvette]

64-bit flash already exists, and has been around for a while.

Re:Will this happen

[clovis]

Hey thanks for reminding me. It looks updated since I installed the prerelease for Linux some months ago when it came out. It's still a pre-release, and some of us have jobs maintaining corporate environments. We want a released version.

Or. . .

[JSBiff]

Yeah, way to go - pick the crappiest franchise on there and act like that's the sum total of what Hulu is.

How about Heroes, Chuck, Dollhouse, Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, Naruto Shippuden, The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Babylon 5, The Highlander, SNL clips, Family Guy, the Simpsons, dozens of other shows, plus a few movies every month.

Re:Or. . .

[icannotthinkofaname]

Yeah, way to go - pick the crappiest franchise on there and act like that's the sum total of what Hulu is.

Or, you could try just laughing at my post like you were supposed to. And maybe consider that I actually like the 2008 Knight Rider, though I do very much want to see the 1980s version.

I was hoping it was rather obvious from my post that I was being extremely facetious. What would you suggest I do in the future to make such things as facetiousness more obvious?

Re:Or. . .

[JSBiff]

Well. . . the "Are you serious?" is what threw me. Honestly, without that, I would have taken it as just funny, but the "Are you serious?" makes it seem like a jab. But, whatever. I thought you might be facetious, but I replied anyhow because I decided that other people might not realize you were being facetious (since I wasn't positive), so that they would see there was other stuff on there, stuff they might like more than KR.

Re:Or. . .

[icannotthinkofaname]

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. :)

Note to self: If it isn't serious, don't question the seriousness of either side.

Desktop version doesn't require all the features

[knorthern knight]

> Do you really honestly think an embedded version of flash would actually
> require the same features that make the desktop version insecure?

Errr, uhhhm, there is a significant difference between what features are required in any commercial software, and what it ends up with. Does PDF (also by Adobe) *REALLY* need javascript to display pages of data??? Does it really need a gazillion plugins that take forever to load, whereas Foxit and Xpdf load instantly??? Does Flash *REALLY* need the ability to view through your PC USB camera, and listen through your PC microphone, and put stuff into your your clipboard ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10021715-83.html )???

To quote a very wise person... "Answer - no of course not". ***BUT THAT GARBAGE STILL GETS PUT IN, JUST THE SAME***. What makes you think that Flash-for-TV will break the pattern, and not have a whole bunch of extraneous garbage/bloat/features?

Bandwidth caps

[kimvette]

Expect bandwidth caps to creep down and become strictly enforced as Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, et. al gasp their dying breaths as Cable TV providers rather than embracing their new positions as internet providers.

Upgrading?

[zmollusc]

I hope flash on my tv is more upgradable than flash on my mobile phone, which seems perpetually one update behind whatever flash is being used on weebl and bob (my benchmark for flash things).

Re:Desktop version doesn't require all the feature

[Skuld-Chan]

Woosh I guess. I doubt embedded versions of Flash have support for cameras, microphones etc. You're talking about a version of flash that has all the extra stuff removed so it will run on an embedded device.

But yeah Acrobat/Reader have a ton of user requirements (most of which XPDF and Foxit don't even support). Javascript isn't really needed for anything except intelligent forms which a lot of people use.

I wonder if Blizzard is looking into this?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Blizzard uses a bit of flash I hear. Imagine the potential for extending their reach even further.

Tuesday night viewing would be a bitch though.

False

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a computer with the same specs and Xubuntu and Flash runs horribly. Youtube skips enough frames that it is unwatchable.

Re:False

[cbiltcliffe]

Then Xubuntu is much more resource intensive than Debian.

And considering I've got a Debian fileserver running on a 200MHz Pentium Pro, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Opensource drivers, Flash obnoxiousness

[DrYak]

And ATI and nVidia seem to ultimately want to completely replace their proprietary Linux drivers with open ones, though it's not a priority now.

It's ATI and VIA (who are releasing specs and pieces of source code to the open source community - although VIA had a lots of delay between their promises and the actual delivery).

And Intel (opensource since a long time through their collaboration with Thungsten Graphics - with the exception of a couple of chips which are actually PowerVR tech inside).

Nvidia still hasn't collaborated with the Nouveau project. On the other hand, they haven't sent Cease & Desist letters either, showing that at least they don't mind them continuing either.

locking up my browser for a few seconds while loading a flash ad is not acceptable

Adblock (and eventually NoScript and/or FlashBlock for more extreme Flash suppression) are your friends.

Why won't you Die!! Why??????

[ezilagel]

I was really hoping flash video would be dead by now. I must acknowledge that over the past 3 years the technology has improved, but I can't help but think of all the better ways to stream video. It was absolutely disgusting to watch youtube videos vs quicktime streams on my Apple media center. I understand flash is everywhere, but just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. Although I realize that higher quality video is being used now, nothing beats the beautiful Quicktime instant-on scrubbing. After installing Silver-Light (For Apple) the other day for netflix, I wanted to scream watching the semi choppy video being displayed through my browser.

Updates

[KneelBeforeZod]

It'd be nice to see this idea explored a little. But I WON'T buy a television that requests update after update after update. Televisions are appreciated because they are simplistic (unless you have a home entertainment system with a jungle of cables/wires in the back)

Adobe needs help and this is not it...

[TheNetAvenger]

Problem #1
The average Joe already has this...
It is called either the PS3 or XBox 360...

More features, more choices, can game too, and better video quality when using HD standard VC1 codecs inherently supported things like Silverlight content.

Problem #2
Adobe has a long road right now, in adding HD to their Flash player they have virtually destoryed it. It doesn't play nice when multi-threading on multi-core or H/T CPUs, has horrible CPU utilization even for crap ads, let alone video that jerks even on mid range computers.

Just an example, open a Page with a HD Silverlight Video, let it play and then open a page with a tiny Flash Ad.

The tiny Flash Ad with 'no video' will eat 10-20x the CPU of the freaking Silverlight player that is decoding HD Video.

Right now the Flash Player is a mess, and even SD video via Flash will tank CPU utilization to alarming rates, especially when you are just wanting to watch a freaking video on Hulu and your CPU usage is higher than a HD movie even without GPU acceleration.

This is a major problem and scary that Flash performs so horribly, and has even affected their basic player for Ad and other non-video content.

Want to test your overclocked new i7? Open a few Browser pages with Flash running, it will pop it faster than a hard core burn in test.

Version 8

[johnny cashed]

Version 8
If it took them past version 8 to get the buffering thing "fixed" then they need to reevaluate their numbering and release schedule.

Ugh...

[genw3st]

... I dread the day when, after the implementation of Adobe Flash, TV will also be bombarded with content similar to that on sites like YouTube. It'll be the end of TV as we know it!
 
  Wait a second...

TV != 64bit

[mizzouxc]

Just make sure your TV isn't 64 bit!

Great...

[koro666]

Now I just can't wait for my TV to be owned by Flash exploits.

Well ok, but it's only that...

[Hurricane78]

...nobody over here has, or has the need for a TV anymore anyway.

What do you need it for?
News? -> Websites!
Movies? -> Torrent + Beamer.
TV series? -> Ditto.
Sports? -> Live stream + Beamer. (Preferably with friends and/or even in the stadium.)
Stupid boring crap shows? -> You're still watching them? For real? Better go get a game, before I kick your butt to the 21st century! ^^

Why, for the love of God, why Flash?

[bemymonkey]

As I type this, I've got a movie running in the top right corner of my screen. It's a 720p h.264 encoded MKV, ripped straight off a blu-ray, and it runs fine here on my EeePC 1000H. I have no problems typing this at the same time while continuing to watch my movie.

Now, if I fire up Youtube and open one of the new H264 encoded videos, everything slows to a crawl - I get a slideshow instead of video, and the OS grinds to a complete halt. This is with a video that's approx. 800px across with the HD button pressed in the Youtube player.

Now why would you want your TV to lock up and slow down every time you try to stream something (which turns out to be a slideshow anyway)?