Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Pushing For Flash TVs

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the won't-that-be-crash-crash-crash dept.

Television 345

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."

cancel ×

345 comments

4:20 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644705)

I'm getting stoned before I go in to work today.

Just kidding. I get stoned before I go in to work every day.

Happy 4:20

NO (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644721)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

We need Free and Open Media Standards.

Re:NO (2, Informative)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644969)

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 (5, Insightful)

its_schwim (1247278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645197)

"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 (4, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645339)

How open is your current cable feed?

Re:NO (1)

eiMichael (1526385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645581)

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.

*sigh* (5, Informative)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644729)

Adobe's press release here [adobe.com] , BBC's article here [bbc.co.uk]

No thank you (4, Insightful)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644735)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644823)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645015)

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 (0, Flamebait)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645445)

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 (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645057)

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 (3, Interesting)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645223)

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 (2, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645357)

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 (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645475)

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 (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645485)

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 (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645553)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645497)

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 (1)

mopower70 (250015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645593)

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 (5, Insightful)

STEVEOO6 (1284996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645159)

"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 (4, Interesting)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645603)

"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 (1, Interesting)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645247)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645421)

>>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 (1)

EvilToiletPaper (1226390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645399)

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 (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645569)

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.

Silverlight (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644739)

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

Re:Silverlight (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644863)

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 (5, Informative)

rumith (983060) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645567)

another proprietary piece of crap

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

Re:Silverlight (2, Funny)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645487)

Remember kids: Only Microsoft monopolies are bad monopolies!

/sarcasm

Re:Silverlight (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645549)

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.

Um no... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644759)

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... (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644867)

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... (3, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645029)

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... (4, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645179)

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... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645125)

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... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645551)

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... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644905)

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... (3, Insightful)

silver007 (1479955) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644995)

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.

YouTube uses video formats (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645099)

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.

Re:Um no... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645253)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645367)

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 [youtube.com] . 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... (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644959)

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

Blame the summary (5, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644975)

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:Um no... (3, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645041)

[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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645045)

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

Re:Um no... (4, Insightful)

master811 (874700) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645205)

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... (1)

EvilToiletPaper (1226390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645447)

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... (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645459)

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.

Always look on the bright side of life... (1)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644775)

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... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645119)

Given my experiences with Flash.

I think I'd prefer it.

Interesting (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644777)

Will it be truely scalable?

*Argh!* (2, Interesting)

transami (202700) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644787)

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!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645085)

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!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645391)

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

Re:*Argh!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645501)

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!* (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645147)

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.

Linux? (1, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644789)

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!!!! =)

Only 1 problem with that (5, Insightful)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644799)

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 (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645387)

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.

Oh, good (4, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644801)

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

Re:Oh, good (2, Funny)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644923)

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 (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645529)

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.

Different revenue (2, Insightful)

Whatanut (203397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644813)

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 (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644927)

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 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645169)

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 (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645067)

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).

Hear's my strongly worded opinion! (4, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644841)

I think that Flash [buffering...]

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion! (4, Insightful)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644879)

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

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion! (1)

viralburn (606633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645257)

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

Re:Hear's my strongly worded opinion! (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645287)

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.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644843)

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.

ultimately its (4, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644869)

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! (2, Insightful)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644883)

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!!

Oh man! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644933)

Oracle buys Sun, nuclear power plant in China, Flash on TV, Indian spy satellite launches ...

I can't take this shit anymore!

Is it a coincidence that all this is happenning on 4/20?

Pass on please ... puff puff!

MHP (3, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644939)

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

Standard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645151)

...if you want a standard for interactive TV, CE-HTML [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] ...

subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644941)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27644951)

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

Because we are aliens (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27644955)

And we like it that way.

JAVA (5, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645013)

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

Re:JAVA (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645275)

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... (3, Insightful)

hbean (144582) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645035)

...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.

Open standards (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645047)

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 [wikipedia.org] that strive to accomplish similar things get a strong foothold.
Some companies such as Philips [engadget.com] are using that alternative language in its latest sets. Others, [yahoo.com] like Samsung, are using proprietary standards.

I know where my preference lies...

Just what I always wanted.. (3, Funny)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645091)

..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.

Unless of course.... (2, Insightful)

HeavyDevelopment (1117531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645195)

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? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645207)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645411)

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

I can see it now.... (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645235)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645271)

/facepalm

The up side (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645295)

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. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645333)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27645407)

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... (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645417)

and must die [slashdot.org]

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

Enough Horrible Content Already (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645437)

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 (2, Interesting)

jd142 (129673) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645453)

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

Embedded Flash (1)

RawJoe (712281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645467)

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 ... (1)

TheABomb (180342) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645479)

... 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 (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645483)

> 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.

Can't Wait (3, Funny)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#27645489)

If I get to use the larger TV screen, I bet next time I can punch the monkey for sure!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...