The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Apple considering buying Hulu... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6773 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Apple considering buying Hulu... |
Hrm... Not sure how I feel about this.... I have no love for Comcast/News Corp/Disney, but I have less love for Apple :p~~ http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-apple-c ... 33153.html AP via Yahoo News wrote: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Apple Inc. is in talks to potentially bid for video-streaming service Hulu, according to a person close to the situation.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk about the matter. An acquisition of Hulu could bolster Apple's iTunes store, which provides videos users can rent or buy, and help it compete with Netflix Inc. Hulu offers a subscription streaming service. It also brings in revenue from ads that accompany content it streams to users free-of-charge. Hulu, whose owners include The Walt Disney Co., News Corp. and Comcast Corp., started presenting its financial information to interested bidders late last month, after an unsolicited offer prompted its board to look for other offers. Apple's interest in Hulu was reported earlier by Bloomberg News. |
Author: | Lenas [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I can't say I'm against Apple buying Hulu. Just going to mean that there will be be that much more of a push toward digital content and delivery. I hope TV goes the way of the newspaper/magazine. |
Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I don't think you really want that. |
Author: | Lenas [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Hmmm... I don't think you really want that, considering your job, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why I wouldn't. I'm paying like $65 a month for 400 channels and you know how many channels get watched? Four, maybe. Comedy Central and the Science channel 95% of the time. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
TV is what I use as a monitor for my video game systems. |
Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Simply put, because the quality of entertainment you're provided will drop precipitously. Personally (i.e. at my job), we're pretty future-proofed, because of our particular bailiwick. But regular television networks...not good. Not just for them. You won't see another TV series like Lost, or any major network series. You'll have webseries-quality productions and cheap reality shows. Why? Because the reach of television and the double-blind nature of advert purchases are what afford it such luxuries. Episode budgets of major series run over $2 million each. As I've said before, advertisers don't care about programming; for them, it's the sweet candy coating that helps the point of the whole thing, their advertising, be palatable to viewers. As such, they look for the demos that shows shoot for, and apply their advertising to them. So long as you don't run something in the show that would offend that demo, you're good to go. The flip side to that is ratings, those archaic beasts that show how (supposedly) large swaths of the population are watching the show (if at all). Those ratings aren't important to the network; i.e. shows aren't actually canceled simply because those numbers fell. They're canceled because of what those falling numbers mean: namely that there is less of an audience to entice advertisers to buy. It's advertising purchase as a wholesale product. But because of the reach of television, advertisers are willing to pay that for the chance to reach people. Falling ratings, of course, then mean that the wide chunk of demo you're at which you're blasting your advertising shotgun has just gotten much, much smaller, and your chances of hitting something are far slimmer. Less investment for an advertiser means less budget for a TV show. It's rather like that old axiom about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. It's the same for the television industry. Hulu is not profitable enough for that. As alternate means of content delivery (and a source of supplemental income), it's perfect. As a primary delivery system, we're (consumers as well as the TV industry) not ready for that yet. And that's not even touching the sticky wicket of broadband non-ubiquity and ISP data caps... |
Author: | Lenas [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
My main hope is that a higher level of access online will force cable companies to adapt, not die out. I want to be able to customize my channel package. |
Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
That would be great, but at this, the biggest explosion of internet usage, you have ISPs merging with content providers and then offering capped internet. It's stifling and ridiculous. ISPs may be the best possible example of a service that wants you to pay as much as possible while not actually using their service. |
Author: | Lenas [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes, but you also have people like Google testing Gigabit lines, and the OnLive guys claiming to have bested Shannon's Law. There will eventually be a time at which everyone in the country (and hopefully world) has access to low-cost, high-bandwidth connectivity. I'm not wondering whether or not cable companies are going to eventually do what I want. I know it's going to happen, it's just a matter of when. They're fighting an uphill battle right now trying to prove their worth to my generation, and they're going to need to change if they want to stay. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The historical trend has been a clear exponential line of increasing bandwidth. I'm not particularly worried about that. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Channel choice isn't likely to happen, or if it does you'll end up paying pretty darn close to what you do now for those two channels. You certainly won't be paying 1 percent of your bill for 1 percent of the channels. apple buying hulu is probably going to suck. I have the sneaking suspicion that when this happens you won't see Hulu available on Xbox, android or Chrome OS This is apple folks. We can't get real flash on our small devices because they are still holding out that quicktime will win the war. |
Author: | Lenas [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Um, Apple is betting that the internet (see: browser vendors) will win the war, not Quicktime. NO ONE wants flash video on the web except Adobe. |
Author: | FarSky [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Apple considering buying Hulu... |
Lenas wrote: Um, Apple is betting that the internet (see: browser vendors) will win the war, not Quicktime. NO ONE wants flash video on the web except Adobe. Q. F. ****' T. |
Author: | Müs [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: Um, Apple is betting that the internet (see: browser vendors) will win the war, not Quicktime. NO ONE wants flash video on the web except Adobe. What's wrong with flash video? Its sure as **** better than quicktime. |
Author: | Lenas [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Answer this question: Why would you rather use a third party browser plugin (Flash) to show a video, when browsers already have faster and more functional alternative support built in? Yes, even IE9. HTML5 video has nothing to do with Quicktime the player, or .qt formats. HTML5 video gives you the option of Web-M, OGG or MP4. Do people download high resolution video in .flv? No? I wonder why that is. Why should it be any different on the internet? |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Flash is terrible. I'm glad it's not supported on my iPad. It would slow down pages (especially with those shitty Flash ads), and websites that require flash are almost always outdated and not too important. |
Author: | Müs [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: Answer this question: Why would you rather use a third party browser plugin (Flash) to show a video, when browsers already have faster and more functional alternative support built in? Yes, even IE9. Because its not that big a deal? It works fine for me. I wouldn't want a device that isn't backwards compatible with flash. |
Author: | Müs [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Flash is terrible. I'm glad it's not supported on my iPad. It would slow down pages (especially with those shitty Flash ads), and websites that require flash are almost always outdated and not too important. So like half the web? Right. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Flash is terrible. I'm glad it's not supported on my iPad. It would slow down pages (especially with those shitty Flash ads), and websites that require flash are almost always outdated and not too important. So like half the web? Right. Maybe the tail-end half that barely gets traffic. In this day and age all major websites are already on HTML5. Flash is a dying and unnecessary technology. It had its day, but it's time for it to go. |
Author: | Lenas [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:51 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It's obvious that you don't completely understand what Flash is still used for, or where it stands compared to other technologies. There is zero reason for mobile devices to support it. The fact that you happen to visit some websites that require it is not a plus for the platform, it's a con. If your website requires anything other than a browser to function, you're failing. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Apple considering buying Hulu... |
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ From April last year. (HTML5 has made even more great gains since then) Quote: Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.
I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain. First, there’s “Open”. Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system. Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member. Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers. Second, there’s the “full web”. Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video. Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world. Third, there’s reliability, security and performance. Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash. In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform? Fourth, there’s battery life. To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies. Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained. When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Fifth, there’s Touch. Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript? Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. Sixth, the most important reason. Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices. We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms. Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X. Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform. Conclusions. Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short. The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games. New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind. Steve Jobs April, 2010 |
Author: | darksiege [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
the man has some smart people working for him. /nod |
Author: | Midgen [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Adobe quietly concedes Flash.. develops HTML5 based Adobe Edge http://news.yahoo.com/adobe-quietly-sur ... 54944.html Atlantic Wire via Yahoo News wrote: Thanks to a new Flash alternative released Monday, Adobe software will finally be compatible with Apple's mobile devices. Adobe Edge is a new HTML5-powered design tool that the company says will complement its existing suite of web software, including the famously not iPhone-friendly Flash software. In its press release announcing the release, Adobe talks at length about the power of HTML5 and their continued contributions to building products that cater to the new web standard. But except for a tiny mention of compatibility with Apple's mobile operating system, they leave out the fact that they're doing exactly what Steve Jobs told them to do a little over a year ago. More at the link... |
Author: | FarSky [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Bwahahahaha. Die, Flash, die. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Midgen wrote: Adobe quietly concedes Flash.. develops HTML5 based Adobe Edge http://news.yahoo.com/adobe-quietly-sur ... 54944.html Atlantic Wire via Yahoo News wrote: Thanks to a new Flash alternative released Monday, Adobe software will finally be compatible with Apple's mobile devices. Adobe Edge is a new HTML5-powered design tool that the company says will complement its existing suite of web software, including the famously not iPhone-friendly Flash software. In its press release announcing the release, Adobe talks at length about the power of HTML5 and their continued contributions to building products that cater to the new web standard. But except for a tiny mention of compatibility with Apple's mobile operating system, they leave out the fact that they're doing exactly what Steve Jobs told them to do a little over a year ago. More at the link... That's hilarious. Product page is here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/?v=2 |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |