NBC and Time Warner Continue to Back Flash Over HTML5

[dashiel]

And off those people ALL of them has a computer that supports flash.
Now lets break it down some more. iPad (non 3g) and iPod are going to have to be in range of wifi to be used for viewing on the web which means most people are going to be at home were there computers and TV are. Both of which have better screens and sounds for watching TV.
iPhone and iPad 3G is hurt a little because they might be at an airport or someplace killing time which then it can come in handy but even then it is a limited lost because of time.

Going HTML5 now and going with h.264 blocks 30% of your viewers who like firefox which does not support h.264.

They could easily be waiting for it to pan out between WebM and h.264 before they spend the millions they would have to do it to re encode everything for HTML5 site.

this isn't and never will be a case of either/or; html5 video will be a minimum two encode solution for at least half a decade (h.264 for flash, mobile devices, chrome, ie9, safari) vp8/theora (firefox, opera, chrome). the codec war isn't about the desktop, nobody cares about that, if it were then this wouldn't even be a discussion flash would be the de-facto standard. the codec war is all about mobile and with more than 100 million devices out there supporting h.264 today it's going to take years for webm to reach even 50% market share* of the mobile device segment. keep in mind mobile browser viewership is expected to eclipse desktop browsing in the next 3-5 years. any content provider unwilling to offer their content to 100% of mobile audiences today and a best case scenario of 50% in two years is going to find themselves desperately behind their competitors.

* 50% mobile market share for webm in two years assumes a great deal of good fortune for webm as well

• webm hardware accelerated devices start appearing in large quantities this year - which they won't, and as each day passes h.264 extends its lead in the marketplace.
• future devices will ship with webm to the exclusion of h.264 - which is highly unlikely for a multitude of reason. which means each vp8 accelerated device will also support h.264 making it a zero sum game for webm.
• webm hardware accelerated chipsets can scale quickly to reach the high-volume/low-cost benefits of h.264 - fiscally impossible. manufacturers or consumers will have to eat the cost of the higher priced vp8 acceleration
• webm hardware acceleration has no learning curve that for device manufacturers or content creation tools -
• webm isn't the target of a patent lawsuit that either delays or completely derails the effort
• webm has available plugins/software suites for content creators to create and encode in vp8, this goes for everything from flip mini cameras to imovie like consumer software packages to professional software used to encode media currently - very few of these exist today outside of former on2 offerings.
• mpeg-la doesn't just decide to exercise its nuclear option and release h.264 free & clear. it's a lot easier for them to do that than webm to do all of the above. today it's proprietary, tomorrow it's free, no software updates, no hardware ramp up, just a legal change in status.

the more likely scenario is webm won't ever reach 50% share of the mobile space. it'll be a great solution for providing video to firefox and opera and not having to rely on the clunky theora codec, but that's all webm represents a decent codec for open source adherents.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What I still don't get it is the complaints about choice. So Apple doesn't provide it. Jailbreak and get it or buy another device (I've jailbroke my 3g and may stay with it for a while though I'm eligible for an upgrade on 6/7/10, unless the new iPhone really impresses or the N8 gets an American carrier, not sold on Android). All this moaning and complaining won't change anything.

For this particular issue, there is no choice. That's the whine. Apple forbidding Flash on iDevices demotivates Adobe from trying to create a free Flash player for iDevices. Why bother? Much like various developers have abandoned iDevices because of arbitrary rejections of their apps by Apple. If you can't be confident your app will be deployed, why bother coding it?

On the flipside this one feature isn't so important that the lack of it drives the choice to buy some other device (not Apple), and thus trade off many of the other benefits of owning an iDevice. So the "whine" is also a desire to have all of the other benefits of an iDevice as well as this software extension, much like wanting to own an iDevice and have a particular bit of software ported to it. For those that want or need Flash, they would get even more out of their iDevice experience if it had that as an OPTION for them. Those that don't want it could do what they do when they don't want any other app on their iDevice- ignore that option. Win:win.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Look at the trouble companies are going through to try to get this weakness covered on iDevices: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20006163-233.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

 

[Hal Itosis]

Apps developed in the future don't exist in the present. Thus, today you have the singular choice of- say- a game for sale in the App store but not that same game (or similar clones) available in Flash. Sure, the coders might decide to learn to re-code their Flash apps, e-learning, interactive video, etc native for the iDevice SDK, but many won't. If we had the option for Flash on our iDevices, we could enjoy that content in addition to all iTunes Store content (and even the future content created in HTML5 + H.264 + javascript). Instead we must do without today. Or, as you suggest, wait until something similar is created in the future using HTML5 + h.264 + javascript. However, that's still doing without until someone actually gets around to coding or re-coding that way.

There are well over a decade of accumulated Flash apps, e-learning, interactive video, etc existing TODAY that could run in an iDevice with the user OPTION for Flash. Sure, a great deal of it is junk... but so are fart apps in the iTunes store. Some of it is very popular and some of it is even needed (such as a great deal of e-learning), but iDevice owners can't access that stuff until the creators of that content comply with Apple's stance.

If it's not driven by business reasoning, why should Apple block that content? We have Flash on Macs. We have it on portable (battery-backed) Macs too. It runs in OS X which is heavily underpinning OS X Touch. Last December, there were 8 Million requests for Flash playback on iDevices (for just December alone), which to me looks like a pretty big number of Apple iDevice users wanting to access Flash. Why completely block those users? Isn't Apple all about delighting us users?

If Apple allows Flash, then existing ad models based in Flash work with iDevices. Thus, Apple's own foray into mobile advertising is pressured- especially given Apple's demands on advertisers.

If Apple allows Flash, a great deal of content that is sold in the iTunes store is free (ad supported) on Flash-driven sites- including the very sites referenced in this thread. Apple hasn't shown much interest in an ad-based, free content model via iTunes (not much money in free content) or the companies that own the content don't want their video assets to get underneath Apple's thumb like their buddies in the music business.

Very simply: there are lots of business reasons that Apple would want to forbid Flash for all users, even those willing to burn their batteries faster, crash their Safari "10 times a day", and so on. Hiding behind these "user experience" reasons is a big brother-ish stance that gives one fear should Apple ever grow to heavily dominate any of the industries in which they play.

Flash is a big, well-established chunk of the Internet that Apple has arbitrarily decided to block from all iDevice owners. Why? For Apple's gain of course, as it sure doesn't seem a "win" for users who want or need access to that content to find out their shiny new iDevice can't serve it. Should Apple gain even more dominance on the industry (think Microsoft dominance), I wonder what else Apple would decide to decide for users that seems to be for Apple's benefit over their own users.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big Apple fan and own lots of Apple stuff myself. It's just lately they seem to be turning more and more into Microsoft 2 with all this kind of maneuvering. As Apple gains more power, will this kind of stuff get better or worse for users?

What a prolific waste of electrons.
Read my lips: Never going to happen.

 

[iggibiggi]

As Microsoft is a co-owner of NBC, I'm not surprised by their position on the use of Flash. Time-Warner's reaction is a little puzzling. One would think that going forward they may change their tune. Especially if they want to enter into the subscription market.

This makes NO sense considering Microsoft themselves said that they back HTML5!!!

 

[tann]

This is turning into a sort of HD DVD vs Blu Ray type of thing

 

[The Mad Hatter]

You FAIL. Android outsold iphone OS in the first quarter this year. They are selling over 100,000 android devices a day, and its increasing every day.

A co-worker has an N1 and I used it to play some flash web games and it worked quite well for a first release. It did get the battery a little warm and it did put a decent dent in the battery meter, but I was playing for over 45mins straight, no crashes, no force closes or anything. Remember that Flash 10.1 release is just a beta the final version wont be released until about october (at least thats according to adobe).

But this is the WHO point behind Apple's move against using Flash. Everything depends on Adobe getting Flash to work on mobile devices. Yeah, they're working hard now (probably because Jobs gave them a wakeup call, and they are trying desperately to prove him wrong), but how long is it going to take? What happens when Android gets even more fragmented, will Adobe keep up this level of commitment towards them in the future? I don't think so. So instead of Apple letting Adobe drag the mobile market down this road, they choose to make a stand against it. So those of you who STILL want Flash, Google (and the MANY knock-off HW cos. it is on) are waiting for you with open arms. So you can buy one off those, and when it OS can't be upgraded, buy another, and so on.... and so on...

Enjoy

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Very disappointed in this (especially since Time Warner is the parent company of the place I work at). Just seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot by not embracing the future of web technology.

I think you have that backwards. Apple continues to shoot themselves in the foot and screw their customer base over royally by not offering something that would be DEAD SIMPLE to add to the iPad. The iPad is not so CPU underpowered that it cannot handle flash video. It is purely Steve's maniacal ego that keeps Apple customers from being able to watch the videos they want to watch and NOTHING else. The fact that the rabid fan-boys on here say screw watching TV is predictable, but ultimately meaningless.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Actually, the comparison is not all that silly, though I agree with how you've differentiated the companies. Google are positioning Android in the same way Microsoft positioned Windows. We all know where that led to in the "Microsoft vs Apple" wars of the early nineties. Maybe if Apple started distributing the OS to other hardware manufacturers they could prevent a repeat. Or maybe they're happy with a 5-10-15% market penetration. They are after all still a hardware company and have very healthy margins. It's just the fanboys who complain that they're not dominant. The shareholders couldn't care less .

Apple is a hardware company, they bundle an OS on the hardware so it will run and be useful, otherwise the device would just sit there in your hand like a wet noodle. Comparing it to Windows is silly. Comparing Android to the iPhone is silly. Without hardware, Android is *nothing*. And there is no handset running Android of which I am aware that has sold as many as the iPhone.

I think comparing {iPhone OS4 vs Android} and (OSX vs Windows} is very pertinent here. Google are obviously following the Microsoft model of getting their OS on any device that wants it. This could be very troubling for Apple.

 

[435713]

Look at the trouble companies are going through to try to get this weakness covered on iDevices: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20006163-233.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Interesting. I see in the comments a poster pointed out an engagnet (sp) article that was interesting as well. I checked out some more demos, and honestly sometimes it doesn't work that bad (flash). Some areas are quite sh***y still.

Is there anyone at Apple, maybe the board that can strong arm Jobs if per say Adobe does get flash running really well on mobiles? I really think he should NOT be the end all be all over there. Little ridiculous. I have to wonder if him getting sick has anything to do with his recent behavior being so strange? I am not trying to be an arse, but seriously people that get sick like he did and then recover can have some odd actions.

Maybe Stone Cold Steve Austin can give Jobs a stunner!

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Flash also plays MP4-encapsulated h264/aac, as demonstrated on all HD-videos on Youtube.

But if such streams are playing via Flash plugin then it's a big nada for any Apple iDevice. That's a shame isn't it?

 

[WilliamLondon]

I think you have that backwards. Apple continues to shoot themselves in the foot and screw their customer base over royally by not offering something that would be DEAD SIMPLE to add to the iPad. The iPad is not so CPU underpowered that it cannot handle flash video. It is purely Steve's maniacal ego that keeps Apple customers from being able to watch the videos they want to watch and NOTHING else. The fact that the rabid fan-boys on here say screw watching TV is predictable, but ultimately meaningless.

You've got to be kidding! Apple's customer base knows this and, here's the interesting bit, they don't care. If they did, do you really think that Apple would be the number 2 market cap company? It's even entirely possible they will make number 1, and that just proves Flash isn't so important, especially when you consider that sites are moving away from Flash to support these non-Flash viewing devices.

Flash does have its place: in the past.

I don't for a moment think that anyone can just walk away from that, but I do believe *the consumer* (above any other argument about Apple vs. Adobe vs. Google vs. whoever you are brainwashed to be arguing for) is the one who wins when proprietary standards are eliminated from the web.

A transition plan is what's needed, and Apple forced it. It's started, it's happening, and the consumer wins. Yay!

 

[435713]

It is purely Steve's maniacal ego that keeps Apple customers from being able to watch the videos they want to watch and NOTHING else.

I think he maybe lost his mind as I pointed out in my previous post. I like how they KNOW they could sell a sh** load more Ipads if it had a few more features. Top notch CEO right there.

My Macbook was dangerously close to not being purchased for lack of ports, whole form over function BS. A better CEO could double or triple the amount Apple makes currently.

 

[Toe]

Contact information

So has anyone come up with good, directed contact info for responsible parties at NBC & TW?

I would like to share with them my preference for iPhone OS devices over any particular media library.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

You've got to be kidding! Apple's customer base knows this and, here's the interesting bit, they don't care. If they did, do you really think that Apple would be the number 2 market cap company? It's even entirely possible they will make number 1, and that just proves Flash isn't so important, especially when you consider that sites are moving away from Flash to support these non-Flash viewing devices.

Flash does have its place: in the past.

I don't for a moment think that anyone can just walk away from that, but I do believe *the consumer* (above any other argument about Apple vs. Adobe vs. Google vs. whoever you are brainwashed to be arguing for) is the one who wins when proprietary standards are eliminated from the web.

A transition plan is what's needed, and Apple forced it. It's started, it's happening, and the consumer wins. Yay!

I'm not so sure. Apple are always good at generating excitement. I love the company in many ways, though dislike how they're locking down the iDevices and how they're focussing less on the core OSX. Personally I wouldn't equate current market stock value with future penetration. This amazing market is still in a state of flux. It could still go either way. I just hope that Jobs hasn't bet the farm on the demise of Flash. That may come back round and bite him.

 

[WilliamLondon]

I think he maybe lost his mind as I pointed out in my previous post. I like how they KNOW they could sell a sh** load more Ipads if it had a few more features. Top notch CEO right there.

My Macbook was dangerously close to not being purchased for lack of ports, whole form over function BS. A better CEO could double or triple the amount Apple makes currently.

Well, given you know so much, apply for Steve's job. I'm sure they're looking for someone better to take them to what only would be 1 position higher than they are now. This week they achieved number 2 in market cap in the US. I'm sure you at their helm would have done better, yes, I'm sure of that. Go now, I'm sure the shareholders would support you in ousting this man that helped them achieve a 10 fold return on their investment in that past 10 years.

A better CEO? According to Harvard Business Review (hint: Harvard, best biz school) has declared him top CEO. And you know better?

Before you take the helm, could you let me know so I can sell all my stock in Apple?

 

[zweigand]

So has anyone come up with good, directed contact info for responsible parties at NBC & TW?

I would like to share with them my preference for iPhone OS devices over any particular media library.

Not moving away from flash on the website doesn't mean the content won't make it on the iPad ...as I said above, they are probably just looking to get revenue from a hulu subscription via native iPad app. Leaving the website in flash only leaves one avenue for millions of customers.

Go to abc.com and try and watch a show on their website...

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Well, given you know so much, apply for Steve's job. I'm sure they're looking for someone better to take them to what only would be 1 position higher than they are now. This week they achieved number 2 in market cap in the US. I'm sure you at their helm would have done better, yes, I'm sure of that. Go now, I'm sure the shareholders would support you in ousting this man that helped them achieve a 10 fold return on their investment in that past 10 years.

A better CEO? According to Harvard Business Review (hint: Harvard, best biz school) has declared him top CEO. And you know better?

Before you take the helm, could you let me know so I can sell all my stock in Apple?

Stock market valuation is not the end result.


January-March:

Microsoft: net profit of $4.01 billion on revenue of $14.50 billion.

Apple: net profit of $3.07 billion on revenue of $13.50 billion.


Based on that you should be heavily investing in Microsoft. Somehow I feel that's not going to happen though on this forum . In comparison, Google made a quarterly profit of a mere $1.6 Billion. Their growth rate is phenomenal though!

Apple are doing really well it seems based on recent performance, though they're still not making real inroads into the entrenched dominant OS. The company is certainly pushing MS hard, though I'd keep an eye on Google with Android. That's all good for consumers (but not fanboys). It may even be good for investors, but it's highly volatile at the moment, and looks set to stay that way.

 

[carmenodie]

They'll come a around, like a like of you have sighted, once all that GRAVY comes into the pockets of their competitors.
Meh!
Lazy a** fools.

 

[Mike Reed]

Fellow apple fanboys we should all get together and boycott these networks!

How dare they not drink the apple koolaid?! Do they not know that our messiah Steve Jobs has already foreseen the future?!

[bows down to the steve jobs poster on the wall]

steve jobs was smart enough to know there only can be one resource hog and that's iTunes. (zing!)

I actually had an employee at a mac store tell me there was nothing wrong with iTunes for Windows, my machine must just be filled with malware. I'm not sure what signal I might have given her that I was not very tech savvy, but apparently it was a pretty strong one for her to try that one on me.

If I were stronger willed, I would have left sans-MacBook Pro after being fed such ridiculousness. If only.

Koolaid indeed.

 

[zeromeus]

Did YOU think before you type??? I thought not!

To start off:

Companies being bullied around:

1. Amazon
2. Adobe
3. All the companies that Apple infringed upon either through patents or trademarks (iAds comes to mind)

Oh! Thinking that because I type quickly and in a hurry and my keyboard failed to pick up ONE letter is bad grammar? You need to go back to your teacher and asked him/her why logic wasn't taught. Maybe it was and you never picked it up?

Now shut your trap and go back to school kid!

I find your rant super amusing since:

1) you didn't, and probably can't, list to me "other standards that work better." Let's keep in mind we're talking about mobile devices here. Hint: real flash for ANY mobile device never existed before a few weeks ago, and reports of that are even coming back sub-par.

2) What company is Apple trying to bully, and bully them to do what? I'm curious. Explain.

3) "the[y] should stay with their own whatever crap they decide to go with and leave other people alone." Ok aside from the fact this sentence is horrible grammar wise, what exactly have Apple been doing to "other people" that should warrant them leaving said party alone. And who is this "other people?"

4) How exactly did Apple screw up again? oh yeah, by becoming the second largest US company by market cap? oh, no....hmm, well it must be by having a hotter-than-fire selling product that tons of people seem to want. Hmm, crap, no not that either. Maybe its because they keep reporting record breaking profits each quarter. Yeah yeah thats it... thats how they "screwed up" (insert dead-pan look emoticon)

Geez.. did you even think before you started typing? at all?

 

[macrumors12345]

NBC Programming

I might care more if I watched any NBC shows at all besides The Office.

 

[johnhope]

Just...

just for you to know: nbc is owned by microsoft...

 

[435713]

Well, given you know so much, apply for Steve's job. I'm sure they're looking for someone better to take them to what only would be 1 position higher than they are now. This week they achieved number 2 in market cap in the US. I'm sure you at their helm would have done better, yes, I'm sure of that. Go now, I'm sure the shareholders would support you in ousting this man that helped them achieve a 10 fold return on their investment in that past 10 years.

A better CEO? According to Harvard Business Review (hint: Harvard, best biz school) has declared him top CEO. And you know better?

Before you take the helm, could you let me know so I can sell all my stock in Apple?

Ouch I am so hurt LOL. Mention them shareholders since we all know they come before the customers nowadays. Give it a few years and you'll see where Steve takes Apple at this rate then get back to me. You'll see. Educate yourself as well, I didn't say I was going to take his job or anything near that but you throw out all that BS. He lost BADLY in the 90's and he will lose BADLY this time around if he doesn't open his playbook up.

Awesome visionary. CEO not so much, CEO's should not be answering emails and acting in childish ways. Speaking of childish though let me call you... bit**.

 

[pharmx]

I agree. Having to code twice is a nightmare. (I'd rather describe it as inefficient and costly, but okay...)

Now tell me, how do you feel about Apple forcing developers to use their native Xcode tools, instead of allowing 3rd party tools (like Adobe's CS5) to easily reuse code and deploy apps on multiple platforms?

Apple is doing exactly the thing you hate: Having to code twice.

Yes, but Apple is doing this for Apple devices ONLY. This doesn't affect how you code for Windows devices, Android devices, or anything in between. The difference is not as subtle as people make it out to be. If Mac OS X/iPhone OS was cross platform so that it ran on non-Apple hardware, and this restriction was still in place...I would 100% agree with you....but it's not. You have a choice whether or not you want to buy an Apple product or not, and if you decide to go with Apple you know ahead of time that there will be restrictions and limitations.

The "restrictions" that accompany Apple products are the reason for the "positive" aspects of the Mac experiences. People want this positive experience without the negative restrictions, and that simply is not possible in a way that will make everyone happy while continuing to be a profitable business.

Comparing what Apple does with their own products and services with what Microsoft or Adobe does is silly. Instead, it would be more analogous to what Sony does with all the crapware they install on their Vaios...it only affects people using Sony laptops. The simple fact that people are making such broad assumptions with Apple goes to show how successful they have become as a company, and their ever increasing mindshare.