Adobe Launches Media Player 1.0 for Mac and PC

[robbyx]

So, from here on out, you want Apple to provide you with ALL of your media needs?

I don't want a "single gatekeeper" for my media needs. I want competition. I want more options. Imagine if you bought all of your TVs from only one store, Best Buy. Sound good to you?

Actually, yes, I'm fine with Apple providing all of my media needs. If M$ or Adobe want to create a closed loop system too, that's fine. The point is, for the user experience to be worth ANYTHING, the system must be closed. That's why we use Macs, isn't it? We appreciate the vertical integration of the product: software and hardware from *one* integrated manufacturer. Everything works.

Competition is over-rated. What has it brought? More expensive cable TV bills. More expensive satellite bills. Increased phone bills. Etc. I'm not seeing the price-lowering effects of competition when it comes to media and internet services, just balkanization and frustrated users.

The media companies need to license their content to everyone. Let M$ sell it to Zune owners. Let Adobe sell it to whoever is going to use this unnecessary new media player. Let Apple sell it to us. Let Apple's DRM protect files for Apple products. Let M$ DRM protect files for M$ products. Etc.

I don't care one lick about interoperability. I'm an Apple customer. There's no product I'd rather buy. What I want is a *seamless* experience. And, if I can't get that, or I'm so confused by which file works on which product, which service supports which platform, etc., I'll just stick with buying CDs and ripping DVDs.

Quite frankly, most of the media being produced today isn't worth all of this frustration. The music industry is churning out one garbage act after another and TV is so painfully bad that I can't believe I spend $70 a month on cable for the sake of two or three decent shows.

Apple's solution is elegant and simple, from the software (iTunes) to the hardware to the flat pricing model. If the media companies want me to buy more of their product, they need to make it available via Apple. If not, I'm not buying. Instead, I'm ripping or filesharing.

 

[slu]

These are all great until you lose your internet connection.

Without that connection Adobe Media Player, Joost, Hulu, Netflix...are all useless.

I want to be able to take my music AND my movies and TV shows with me and be able to watch them where ever, on whatever and when ever I can.

The iPod, iPhone and AppleTV using iTunes allow me to do this.

It appears that the networks are terrified of the internet and of Apple and especially of me and all the rest of us. Why I can go to Hulu and watch a show for free (with commercials) when those same shows (Heroes, Battlestar, etc) were pulled from iTunes and for which I had gladly paid $1.99 without commercials is beyond me. It can not be a monetary decision on the part on NBC. Their decision could only have been out of fear of Apple and control for them.

Two points:

1. 1.99 for a TV show you watch once is a rip off.

2. It is definitely a monetary decision. I am sure more people will watch free ad supported shows, thus they can charge more for ads. Probably to the point that will make more money then by selling the shows themselves.

 

[robbyx]

Your thoughts are silly, there are alot of websites and programming companies which this can help with. and the install the tiny player, it is only a 1.4 mb file! don't know what you are complaining about, it is small like flash and very easy to use.

Thanks for the insult, bud. How about you learn to write well, use proper punctuation, and basically express yourself above a third grade level before responding to my next post?

Thanks.

 

[FaasNat]

Ah yes, but do you own it? Or is it simply streamed? Apple TV is a downloaded episode which you can watch time and time again, yes?

I'm happy with just watching the show once so I can follow the story line. I don't need to own it and watch it over and over.

For the shows that I may enjoy watching again (and again) every so often, I have the option to buy it online or on DVD when it's released.

 

[digitalbiker]

Why is Apple the problem if they refuse to license their work?

These would-be content distributors want to experiment with digital distribution but balk at developing their own tools. Netflix and Universal and others can bitch and moan about Apple not licensing their DRM but here's the deal: they can hire people to develop their own damn DRM if Apple won't license it. There's nothing stopping them. When I hear companies like Netflix complain about that, I wonder why they didn't think about that ahead of time and develop their own cross-platform DRM scheme. Apple did it for their own purposes and there's no foul play when they refuse to license it. It just sounds to me that a lot of companies out there want to play in the new digital media playground but they don't want to pay the entry fee in terms of R&D.

You're missing the point! Apple IS a problem. They are a problem because they have a closed system. They control distribution, software, and hardware in the itunes, AppleTV, ipod, itunes store loop.

Therefore a content provider such as netflix, which has never been in the hardware business, cannot license DRM from Apple so that netflix content can be played on an ipod, a mac, or an AppleTV. Apple provides no support in their hardware for any other DRM.

As a result, the AppleTV or ipod is cut out of the loop and netflix only delivers a solution for windows pc's where DRM can be licensed.

Apple is as greedy as any other mega-corporation and Steve Jobs is as stubborn and pig-headed as any other CEO. Apple's failure to license fairplay, open-up AppleTV, and the ipod is eventually going to give rise to many competing DRM's and the restriction of all content available on itunes.

In reality, the best solution would be the removal of DRM completely. I think the music business is finally starting to realize that to survive they need to remove DRM (as in the Amazon Store & itunes plus). Most people buy their content to support their favorite artists. Large distribution pirates get around DRM anyway so DRM really only affects the paying customer, not the thief.

 

[robbyx]

This sounds like it could eventually lead to a monopoly lawsuit of some kind.

This is good in theory. Though what happens if the consistent user interface is not the one you want (imagine if in OS-land, Windows was the consistent and only user interface).

I'm not sure if I want the media companies controlling the "standard."

Would it be cool with you if the standard format ended up being DRM'ed WMV? What if the media companies controlled the standard (hardware and/or software) chose WMV with DRM as the standard, and was only available on Windows (to ensure consistent user experience -- though it would probably be a case of M$ only providing Windows support for its DRM)?

The point is, let Apple to sell to Apple customers. Let M$ sell to M$ customers. Etc. I buy Apple products because Apple is vertically integrated. I get my computer, my music player, my phone, and my OS from *ONE* company - and that company makes certain that *EVERYTHING* works together. And that's probably why you use Macs, own an iPod, maybe an iPhone, etc. too.

The media companies need to license their content to anyone who wants to sell it and let the consumer decide which system is right for him or her. I prefer Apple's closed loop. Others might prefer M$'s solution. Some might want Adobe. Fine. Good for all of us. Pick your solution and enjoy.

 

[50548]

Someone get this man a medal and a beer.

Hey Adobe, here's an idea: how about fixing your crap software first?

Ditto. Adobe is one of the specialists in craptastic bloatware these days and "bait and bite" offers to hook you up to monopolistic technologies.

And Flash-based media? Don't make me laugh...it's one of the worst things ever to appear in terms of web browsing experience...

Yet I might try it out and see if they at least have The Office available for streaming in Switzerland...

 

[robbyx]

Two points:

1. 1.99 for a TV show you watch once is a rip off.

I disagree. How many TV shows do you watch? Considering that my cable bill is about $70 a month for just the TV portion, that means I'm spending $840 a year on TV. That works out 420 episodes of TV. I'm not a channel surfer. I don't watch TV when I'm bored. I only watch the stuff I want to watch. There's no way I watch that much TV if you consider the average show runs about 20 episodes per season. That's a full season of 21 shows. I maybe watch five shows regularly.

 

[137489]

That's precisely what I want; once place with everything that I need, how I want it.
I want all of my food to come from one shop, all of my media content to come from one store, etc.
It's just easier, and when there's only a single source, things are better organised.

And I hope you are willing to pay and arm and a leg. one source means i can charge a fortune because I am the only one.

 

[FaasNat]

I still think that Digital Rights Management is a horrible idea. It's not like we are all pirates and we are going to exploit Apple poorly.

I think in general, most people are.

I also think that it is totally dumb to have iTunes linked to the iPod alone. It really does not help if you buy another MP3 player, since I know some people, especially a lot of people in Japan, do not prefer the iPod.

I thought iTunes supported other MP3 players. I don't own one so I can't say for sure, but I thought when iTunes was released, a feature was shown where you could attach any MP3 player and it'll show up in iTunes where you could drag and drop the songs you wanted. Has this been taken out?

 

[torero]

How to uninstall?

Where's the uninstaller?? This app gives my poor G4 a flogging.

The uninstaller works - found a couple of folders the uninstaller did not delete.
The player is too CPU intensive (as other posters have indicated, the fans kick in immediately) - hopefully this changes with future versions.
Watched a CSI-NY episode and the quality was OK

I will wait for version 2.0 before I try it again

 

[50548]

Where's the uninstaller?? This app gives my poor G4 a flogging.

Welcome to Adobe world of crappy CPU-intensive apps...roughly 60% of CPU on my G5 as well. I am gonna enjoy a bit of Star Trek and then dump it into the trash...

Sorry, make it 90%...

 

[137489]

Actually, yes, I'm fine with Apple providing all of my media needs. If M$ or Adobe want to create a closed loop system too, that's fine. The point is, for the user experience to be worth ANYTHING, the system must be closed. That's why we use Macs, isn't it? We appreciate the vertical integration of the product: software and hardware from *one* integrated manufacturer. Everything works.

Competition is over-rated. What has it brought? More expensive cable TV bills. More expensive satellite bills. Increased phone bills. Etc. I'm not seeing the price-lowering effects of competition when it comes to media and internet services, just balkanization and frustrated users.

The media companies need to license their content to everyone. Let M$ sell it to Zune owners. Let Adobe sell it to whoever is going to use this unnecessary new media player. Let Apple sell it to us. Let Apple's DRM protect files for Apple products. Let M$ DRM protect files for M$ products. Etc.

I don't care one lick about interoperability. I'm an Apple customer. There's no product I'd rather buy. What I want is a *seamless* experience. And, if I can't get that, or I'm so confused by which file works on which product, which service supports which platform, etc., I'll just stick with buying CDs and ripping DVDs.

Quite frankly, most of the media being produced today isn't worth all of this frustration. The music industry is churning out one garbage act after another and TV is so painfully bad that I can't believe I spend $70 a month on cable for the sake of two or three decent shows.

Apple's solution is elegant and simple, from the software (iTunes) to the hardware to the flat pricing model. If the media companies want me to buy more of their product, they need to make it available via Apple. If not, I'm not buying. Instead, I'm ripping or filesharing.

Of all his rant and raving, there are only a couple of statements I agree with, which I "think" this is the point he is trying to make:


"Apple's solution is elegant and simple"
"What I want is a *seamless* experience"
"We appreciate the vertical integration of the product: software and hardware from *one* integrated manufacturer. Everything works."

Those 3 points are true - If it comes from the same company that made the platform it should work, very rarely do you have issues with MS software running on MS, or Apple on Apple.

I do like that 3rd parties can make software: sometimes theirs is better, sometimes theirs is worse. But I think his frustation here along with many others is some of the "false" sense of advertising that goes on. Ie Media Player should mean just that. VLC did a nice job with being able to play virtually anything, but MS's media player requires you to find video codecs, and does not play every format. If it is only limited to certain files or type - do what other companies did and call it an FLV player as it only plays FLV files. Or atleast warn people hey, you need to download or find plugins for.....

All and All, I think Abode has good products (although I have not used all of them). This is a 1.0 app, so I am sure better is to come. Since when is first releases usually the end-all.

 

[robbyx]

Of all his rant and raving...

You make me sound like a madman... ;-)

All and All, I think Abode has good products (although I have not used all of them). This is a 1.0 app, so I am sure better is to come. Since when is first releases usually the end-all.

I haven't even used the product. It may very well be quite good. However, that's not my point. I don't think we - consumers - need *another* media player. We need the media and tech companies to stop being so political and start cooperating. At the very least, the media companies need to start licensing content to *anyone* who wants to sell it. Then let the market decide which company's solution is truly best.

 

[Prof.]

Just downloaded it,seems to work Ok,crap icon though

It's a big orange box; I don't like it either.

 

[FaasNat]

The point is, let Apple to sell to Apple customers. Let M$ sell to M$ customers. Etc.

Huh? I thought the whole idea was to try to expand your market by selling to new customers as well as your current customers.

I get my computer, my music player, my phone, and my OS from *ONE* company - and that company makes certain that *EVERYTHING* works together. And that's probably why you use Macs, own an iPod, maybe an iPhone, etc. too.

If you want to purchase all of your items from one company, that's your prerogative and that's perfectly fine (that company makes great products after all). For me, I just need a phone that can make and receive calls and all the ones I've purchased so far, do that just fine (don't need it to connect to the computer). As for the media player, yeah, OS X and iTunes works best with the iPod, but from all the Windows iPod users I know, they're quite happy as well. I don't own an iPod or an iPhone, but I do have a Mac so I can run the Mac OS.

The media companies need to license their content to anyone who wants to sell it and let the consumer decide which system is right for him or her. I prefer Apple's closed loop. Others might prefer M$'s solution. Some might want Adobe. Fine. Good for all of us. Pick your solution and enjoy.

I think that's the issue. People are complaining that Netflix, Amazon, etc. are not offering their media on the Mac because they chose a DRM technology that doesn't run on the Mac (well, the companies claim that if Apple licensed their DRM, we Mac users would have access as well).

Some people will blame Apple for not licensing their DRM and others will blame these media companies for choosing the "other guy's" DRM instead of spending resources on developing their own DRM that will work on Windows and Mac (and maybe Linux).

 

[137489]

at least we don't have to hear "ibm compatible"

anyone remember those days?

LOL - yes I am old enough to remember those days. Ah the days when there was only APPLE, IBM, and Commodore and you were stuck with what ever those companies put out. The days of monochrome screens. The says a portable computer was the size of a suitcase (and people moan that the MB and MBP are too heavy - try lugging around a 15-2lb portable that only had a floppy and an internal ram drive. turn it off, and you have to reload your app or data. and you could only run one application at a time.

 

[digitalbiker]

I haven't even used the product. It may very well be quite good. However, that's not my point. I don't think we - consumers - need *another* media player. We need the media and tech companies to stop being so political and start cooperating. At the very least, the media companies need to start licensing content to *anyone* who wants to sell it. Then let the market decide which company's solution is truly best.

Unfortunately this will never happen. It is not about politics, it is about money!

Content providers would sell to anyone if they were willing to give the content providers control over all the pricing, delivery options, etc. with their intent to make the most money.

Apple won't allow this in their closed system, they want to make the most money, so they want to control pricing and delivery options.

Microsoft or whoever, wants to compete against Apple so they want to have exclusive content and they want to control pricing and delivery options.

There is no way all the closed loop systems (like your described utopia) can have access to all of the same content at the same price with the same terms. We do not live in a communist country where everyone works for one company.

 

[FaasNat]

I disagree. How many TV shows do you watch? Considering that my cable bill is about $70 a month for just the TV portion, that means I'm spending $840 a year on TV. That works out 420 episodes of TV. I'm not a channel surfer. I don't watch TV when I'm bored. I only watch the stuff I want to watch. There's no way I watch that much TV if you consider the average show runs about 20 episodes per season. That's a full season of 21 shows. I maybe watch five shows regularly.

Well, I watch the local news in the morning before work and in the evening after work. I don't think news shows are shows I'd be paying for to own and watch over and over.

I also watch Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune with the wife (and sometimes Family Feud -- hey it's fun!) and I don't think games shows are also one to buy and watch repeatedly (though it may be good once and a while to show off mad Jeopardy skillz when your friends come over -- just make sure you memorize the answers/questions first ).

That's already 20+ shows a week. I also occasionally watch the Tonight Show and I remember that being $1.99 only for the opening monologue.

As for primetime shows such as Lost or 24, I'm happy watching these once to follow the story. I won't make a big argument about these since some people may enjoy watching these over and over (same goes for the Simpsons, Family Guy, Venture Bros., and Food Network shows with good recipes).

 

[esXXI]

Welcome to Adobe world of crappy CPU-intensive apps...roughly 60% of CPU on my G5 as well. I am gonna enjoy a bit of Star Trek and then dump it into the trash...

Sorry, make it 90%...

Man! Adobe sure has it in for you, making your 3 year old CPU work hard. In order news, Leopard's media playback is more CPU consuming than Tiger's! Shocking!

Flash has always been CPU intensive on OS X. Blame Macromedia.

 

[50548]

Man! Adobe sure has it in for you, making your 3 year old CPU work hard. In order news, Leopard's media playback is more CPU consuming than Tiger's! Shocking!

Flash has always been CPU intensive on OS X. Blame Macromedia.

Sorry, Adobe bought MM roughly 3 YEARS ago so the transaction is as "old" as my CPU...

Besides, another full-blown media player called iTunes consumes less than 1/3 of the same CPU power...90% of CPU makes sense for intensive encoding apps such as Handbrake, not a media player...I just thought Adobe could do better, that's all...but with Flash this is just impossible.

 

[robbyx]

Huh? I thought the whole idea was to try to expand your market by selling to new customers as well as your current customers.

Definitely. And I'm certainly not arguing against that. I'm just saying that I personally don't care one bit about being compatible with other non-Apple products. I'd prefer no DRM, but that's a pipe dream, so I'd rather just buy everything from one company so that I know it's always going to work. I choose Apple. Others might choose M$ or Adobe or whomever. Being able to buy media files from all these random online stores doesn't interest me. I just want the media companies to license everything to Apple (and M$ and Adobe), let each company apply its DRM, and then let the consumer decide which total experience is best.

I think that's the issue. People are complaining that Netflix, Amazon, etc. are not offering their media on the Mac because they chose a DRM technology that doesn't run on the Mac (well, the companies claim that if Apple licensed their DRM, we Mac users would have access as well).

I don't want to get movies from Netflix or Amazon. I want to get them on my Apple TV. Netflix is never going to win me over as a customer because I can't watch their movies on my Apple TV. Likewise, I'm not going to use Amazon. I have a Tivo and I still don't use Amazon because I prefer the Apple user experience.

It seems like you're arguing for interoperable DRM. I'm not. I don't think that will ever happen. I'm simply arguing for each content provider - Apple, Netflix, Amazon - to get the same catalog and then let the consumer decide which combination of hardware and software best meets his or her needs. By not licensing all media to all companies, the media companies themselves are creating the frustration and, ultimately, the need to rip.

 

[robbyx]

There is no way all the closed loop systems (like your described utopia) can have access to all of the same content at the same price with the same terms. We do not live in a communist country where everyone works for one company.

No, we live in a corporate controlled nightmare...but that's another topic.

I don't care if the pricing is the same. I'm still going to choose Apple because the total experience is better.

 

[iDave]

Someday, everyone will have computer attached to their TV, or more likely, the computer will be built in. At that point services and software like this from Adobe will be ubiquitous. AppleTV and its ilk are just the beginning. I look forward to the day when I can choose from a half dozen different "players" and watch, rent or buy programming based on price and quality. Way to go, Adobe!

Personally, while I like the idea of AppleTV, I skipped it and went with a Mac mini instead. AppleTV is just too limiting and this new software/service from Adobe proves it.

Come onnnnn Netflix! Please license it.

 

[dicklacara]

LOL - yes I am old enough to remember those days. Ah the days when there was only APPLE, IBM, and Commodore and you were stuck with what ever those companies put out. The days of monochrome screens. The says a portable computer was the size of a suitcase (and people moan that the MB and MBP are too heavy - try lugging around a 15-2lb portable that only had a floppy and an internal ram drive. turn it off, and you have to reload your app or data. and you could only run one application at a time.

Actually, you forgot a few:

NorthStar (Kentucky Fried Computer), Ohio Scientific, Smoke Signal Broadcasting, Corvus, Grid, Osborne, Altair, PolyMorphic, Cromemco, Atari, Sinclair, Amiga, Exidy, NEC, Radio Shack TRS (Trash) 80...

...and a whole lot more that I can't remember!