I think this is their way to let S. Jobs know that he still isn't powerful enough that he can dictate the internet standards, which is actually a healthy thing. Apple gambled that they can persuade companies to endorse HTML5 but on the other side, iPad/iPhone is still quite a minor part of total internet browsing. If more companies refuse to recode content Steve might get in quite some trouble. Let alone if Google gets really angry and stop supporting iPhone/iPad YouTube. Don't see that happening anytime soon but it's interesting that Apple put itself in a very vulnerable position being dependent on how others provide their content. If Adobe gets flash to do a good job on other mobile phones/tablets it will even become less attractive for companies to redo all their web efforts. It will become interesting to see if Apple has taken the right gamble.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NBC and Time Warner Continue to Back Flash Over HTML5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw
How many millions of iPads have to be sold and out in the publics hands for consumption, before websites like NBC and TimeWarner change their stance?...
One (million)? Nope.
Two (million)? Dunno.
Three (million)? Dunno.
CRUNCH, er CAVE (as in NBC and TimeWarner announce iPad apps or HTML5 websites....
Heck with that, Flash has sucked for far too long. It's worth some short term pain to kill it off.
I have to comment on this...
The problem isn't some vague 'HTML5' support -- the issue is video codec support. Chrome (closed-source version only) and Safari support H.264. IE9 will support H.264 (good luck getting most IE users to upgrade, mind you). Firefox, Opera, and Chrome/Chromium support Theora. Firefox, Opera, Chrome/Chromium, and IE9 will support VP8 (WebM). The push to get H.264 'standardised' has been badly botched due to the greedy licensing fees required (as well as some other idiotic moves like the licence clauses in 'pro' cameras and software, including Final Cut Pro, that states they're only for personal, non-commercial use). It is the superior codec (though VP8 is close behind, it seems), but it also is trying to hold an iron-fisted grip on who can (professionally, in particular) produce content and who can play back that content -- which is very, very bad for everyone except the MPEG-LA members.
Steve Jobs, for all of Steve Jobs' posing about how the web should be open ("waaaah, Adobe"), has also stated that he and others involved in H.264 are going to 'go after' Theora with patents (mob-style protection racket, anyone?). MPEG-LA (the H.264 licensing people) have also made barely-veiled threats of the same for WebM/VP8. This is not the behaviour of someone who actually believes in an 'open web' -- this is the behaviour of an egomaniacal narcissist who says or does whatever is needed to get his way.
I can understand NutJobs's miserable moves as he wants to protect his app store against millions of already published free Flash games. But NutJobs has to understand that if he acts like the entire universe evolves around him, he'll get plenty if kicks in the teeth.
It may take time to transition but if Apple were to allow Flash on the iPod/iPhone then nobody will move to HTML5. And the user experience would suffer greatly. Instead of looking at it as a roadblock you should be looking at it as an opportunity. Wouldn't you like to reach the millions of iPod touch/iPhone users?? The glass should be half full for you. It is an untapped market.
Thank you for mirroring my sentiments. I see a lot of posts in this thread where people are posting and it is clear that they do not understand the technology well enough. It's all Apple is good and great, and anything counter to their agenda is bad.
HTML is NOT a standard, the spec is still in draft form and will not be finalized for a couple of years. Implementations of the spec will occur earlier than the final release, but the features will be fragmented across the browsers (they will all support different subsets) and the portion of HTML 5 that is relevant to this discussion, the canvas element, is currently inferior to flash when it comes to rendering (http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/)
I think most people will agree that HTML 5 is the way to go down the road, but Apple's insistence that nothing be developed in flash is the cause of all of the woes. Instead of Apple adopting an industry standard (~90% market penetration) that a large development community already knows how to use, they opted to go with an untried, largely experimental and non final technology at the expense of their users. Yes, at the expense of us.
Everyone in this thread is blaming these 2 media companies for not spending money to support some political land grab by apple, but why would they invest a large amount of money in supporting a technology that only handles a portion of what flash offers, and that is supported in very few browsers vs. flash which is supported everywhere. It's a losing proposition for them until the HTML 5 spec is final (or near final).
I really hate to side with media companies like these, but they made the right decision as far as I am concerned.
Not to mention that Microsoft is also a supporter of HTML 5 - IE 9 will be fully complaint to HTML 5. Anybody suggesting Microsoft is behind this is just missing some basic facts. Not to mention they are in support of H.264 as well. They could care less about this decision though - they had no input.
When you design something as revolutionary as the iPhone you can let every piece of **** code onto it. You are designing something great, right? No.
last year 298 million PCs were sold - they all run Flash. Total world web trafic from mobiles is 1.98%
They serving the bigger market, that simple.
That logic is idiotic. We're going to deny you what you want until you do what we want. Hey let's just ban the sale of gas until every agrees to buy an electric car too.
Company I work for is a company like NBC and we face the same issues. 10's of millions of dollars in investments and contracts of servers, software, and SLA's. Just because Apple's iPad is out doesn't mean that its necessary for us to invest 50-100 million dollars in changing our digital deployment scheme. HTML5 is not standard yet and in fact the iPad is still in its infancy. Maybe later on the change will happen but right now, why? Just because Apple said so? No Flash is the standard and until that changes it makes no sense for large companies with large investments to just follow.
NBC and TW know that the iPad is a toy and nobody will buy it. No sense spending to change for a device that won't make it.
Or
They are short sighted idiots.
#1, definitely. I mean they're only producing 2.5 million units a month now. Really, who uses the iPad anyway. What a flash in the pan.
Dinosaurs is the correct definition for these folks. The old days of people sitting around the boob tube at 8pm is gone and it's mostly their fault for pelting us with garbage for so many years. They will either need to find a way to make money in the on-demand television world or they will be gone.
Uhh, you want to re-phrase that a teeny bit? All the current implementations of HTML are indeed a standard under the ISO. HTML 5 is a standard as well (not yet ISO, but it is under the WC3 - a standardizing body - as a draft) and is not fully complete, but formal standardization doesn't prohibit implementation. Wireless N devices were being sold long before the standard was finalized.
I think the decision is purely based on serving ads and protecting content. NBC/TW already have tons of ad supply in flash format. Adding HTML 5.0 would also require recoding ads too, and require two versions for both formats. What happens if viewership increases on non-flash content but non-flash ad supply decreases (relative to flash content)? Non-flash content would be cannibalizing or pulling views from flash which would lower revenue, given that non-flash ads would carry a lower CPM with fewer advertisers supporting non-flash. Thus, it wouldn't be offset.
However, without a flash alternative, they are losing out on viewership altogether. I think this will change once they are confident that ads can be served and tracked, as well as confident that content is secure from pirates.
However, without a flash alternative, they are losing out on viewership altogether. I think this will change once they are confident that ads can be served and tracked, as well as confident that content is secure from pirates.
Anyone notice the MSNBC video player works on iPad (accessed via msnbc.com). What's the delivery system for that? Certainly not flash!
I find that intriguing considering this announcement.
Velo
I find that intriguing considering this announcement.
Velo