Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media

Adobe Pushing For Flash TVs 345

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the won't-that-be-crash-crash-crash dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Pushing For Flash TVs

Comments Filter:
  • NO (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

    We need Free and Open Media Standards.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by its_schwim (1247278) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:06AM (#27645197) Homepage
        "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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by oldspewey (1303305) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:14AM (#27645339)
          How open is your current cable feed?
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by its_schwim (1247278)
            Yours would be a viable argument if you were suggesting that people would get rid of cable to only use flash. However, since we're stacking one proprietary technology onto another, you're asking "What's the big deal, you've already got one closed source. What will it hurt to add another?"

            Current feeds will be going nowhere. Adobe is just throwing their hat into the ring.
          • Re:NO (Score:5, Informative)

            by datapharmer (1099455) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:34AM (#27645679) Homepage
            Digital cable is actually is pretty open... most cable boxes are MPEG-2 based just like DVD. That is also the preferred format of the government for digital archiving. http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/video_preferences.shtml [digitalpreservation.gov] That said the companies do all sorts of funky stuff to mess with the MPEG-2 standard, but that is the cable company's fault. My problem with flash isn't it being more open (though that would be nice), it is that if I have anything flash open on my computer it eats up memory and runs the heat through the roof. I don't know what is messed up in their code, but it can be sitting idle int he background and it will eventually bring my computer to a crawl. I've tried on dell desktop, acer laptops - one xp one vista, and on both a powerbook and a macbook and the results are the same: open a flash movie, animation, etc. minimize it, forget about it. realize that computer starts to get REALLY slow after a few hours and the fan runs full blast. Close flash, fan stops, computer returns to normal operation.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lordtoran (1063300)

              You don't have to wait for a few hours. Just play a flash game that displays a lot of sprites. At some amount of onscreen content, all of a sudden the framerate collapses to near-zero and the symptoms you mentioned occur.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by relguj9 (1313593)
                Again, this seems like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language rather than on the failure to cleanup objects or do garbage collection.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by CSMatt (1175471)

              The day I can plug in a tuner card or TV set or anything else directly into the digital cable feed and have the thing work without CableCARD or other such nonsense is the day that digital cable becomes "open."

      • Re:NO (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:31AM (#27645625)
        The specs are open (without restrictions), the VM is even open source. I don't know how much more open they could be other than open-sourcing the renderer part of their player (which they can't do due to third-party licenses) or submitting it to a standards body.
        • Money... (Score:3, Insightful)

          Put their money where their mouth is?

          And yes, they can. Sun open sourced Java, and had a few libraries which had to be rewritten, as third parties owned the code -- that ended up being nowhere near all of the standard libraries. Are you really saying third parties own all of the renderer?

          Even Microsoft pays a few people to work on Moonlight, because they want to have a competing, open player. And ATI and nVidia seem to ultimately want to completely replace their proprietary Linux drivers with open ones, tho

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by V!NCENT (1105021)

      Here you have it in PDF, the full video specs, straifght from www.adobe.com; http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/pdf/video_file_format_spec_v9.pdf [adobe.com]

      Now that we got the obvious out of the way... GIVE MEH MAH EVOLVED TELEVIZIONS NOW! MOAR!!111

  • *sigh* (Score:5, Informative)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:35AM (#27644729)
    Adobe's press release here [adobe.com], BBC's article here [bbc.co.uk]
    • Why even bother with the Adobe "Tax", when you can just use MPEG4 with H264. Surely that's all Flash does anyhow? The only third-party software that I would look forward to on my set top box is VLC.

  • No thank you (Score:5, Insightful)

    by T-Bone-T (1048702) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:35AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by STEVEOO6 (1284996) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:04AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by xaxa (988988) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:30AM (#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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        >>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 co

    • Re:No thank you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:29AM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PitaBred (632671)
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
        - Arthur C. Clarke

        I believe that a large portion of the population is at the stage where electronics and computers are "magic", even if they don't call it that.
  • Silverlight (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:35AM (#27644739) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by poetmatt (793785)

      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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Dotren (1449427)

      Remember kids: Only Microsoft monopolies are bad monopolies!

      /sarcasm

    • by hedwards (940851)

      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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:36AM (#27644759) Homepage

    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:42AM (#27644867) Homepage Journal

      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... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thedonger (1317951) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:55AM (#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... (Score:5, Informative)

          by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:05AM (#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*.
        • by Duradin (1261418)

          Another benefit of keeping all the bells and whistles in an external box is that you don't have to get a virus scanner for your tv to keep the tv itself from being rooted by some flash vulnerability.

          It'd be nice to still have some devices left that you don't have to reboot or reinstall daily or weekly.

      • 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
        • 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... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by SydShamino (547793) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:32AM (#27645631)

          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 offense, but the "standard stereo unit" is about 3 inches long, two inches wide, a quarter inch thick, and boots with a fruit-shaped logo on the screen. Many, many people, myself included, find a "home electronics system" as you describe to be very much a product of the 1990s - and very much out of date.

          I'm much happier to have as few boxes as possible, and just plug them directly into the TV.

        • by xaxa (988988)

          Most TVs I've seen do this.

          They have three (usually more) audio+video inputs, of various kinds. There's one audio output, which goes to an external amplifier if you want, probably to the "TV" input.

          Changing the video source using the remote changes which audio source is piped to the TV's output. The selector on the external audio amplifier only needs adjusting if you have a CD player (etc) connected.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I recently bought a new ps2 almost solely to play dvd's (and to avoid starting my FFXII game over). Sure my ps3 is backwards compatible and does play dvd's, but even with upscaling and all that turned off, I get to listen to wwhhhiiiiirrRRRRRR!!!! during 480p playback. And the ps2 works with my universal remote. It's going to be interesting when the ps3 dies, not too sure I'll be replacing it unless there's a redesign that cools effectively and doesn't require me to "pair" a bluetooth device using a usb cab
    • by Gulthek (12570)

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tygerstripes (832644) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:50AM (#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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by denis-The-menace (471988) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:55AM (#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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by master811 (874700) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:06AM (#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".

    • by gaspyy (514539)

      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.

  • *Argh!* (Score:3, Interesting)

    by transami (202700) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:37AM (#27644787) Homepage

    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.

    • by ByOhTek (1181381)

      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.

      • by rumith (983060)
        Let me guess, you have never used a PDF viewer aside from Adobe Reader? This mistake has been made time and time again: what sucks is the particular implementation, not the file format! Try Foxit if you're a Windows guy, Okular or KPDF if you use KDE, or something else shiny if you're a Mac. You'll see the difference, I promise :-)
  • Linux? (Score:2, Funny)

    by cashman73 (855518)
    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!!!! =)
  • by Fortunato_NC (736786) <.moc.nsm. .ta. .57hnilrev.> on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:38AM (#27644799) Homepage Journal

    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).

    • by AbRASiON (589899) *

      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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Oxy the moron (770724) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:38AM (#27644801)
    Now I can be Rickrolled via my TV for the whole family to enjoy!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by CFBMoo1 (157453)

      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.

  • Different revenue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Whatanut (203397) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:39AM (#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.

    • by svendsen (1029716)
      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?
      • by tepples (727027)

        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.

    • 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 agains
  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:40AM (#27644841) Journal

    I think that Flash [buffering...]

  • ultimately its (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nimbius (983462) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:42AM (#27644869) Homepage
    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! (Score:2, Insightful)

    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!!
  • MHP (Score:4, Funny)

    by bickerdyke (670000) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:47AM (#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

  • JAVA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:53AM (#27645013)

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

  • by hbean (144582) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:55AM (#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.

  • by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:59AM (#27645091) Homepage Journal

    ..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.

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.

  • 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 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

  • Linux on TV (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • and must die [slashdot.org]

    Why would I want to permanently embed an insecure product in my tv?
  • 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.
  • by jd142 (129673) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:21AM (#27645453) Homepage

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

  • > 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 wo

    • Do you really honestly think an embedded version of flash would actually require the same features that make the desktop version insecure?

      Answer - no of course not.

  • Can't Wait (Score:4, Funny)

    by residieu (577863) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:25AM (#27645489)
    If I get to use the larger TV screen, I bet next time I can punch the monkey for sure!
  • Great idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sarabob (544622) on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:35AM (#27645697)

    Seriously, this sounds like Good News for the industry. An API for set top boxes that is more open than OpenTV, and has a sensible desktop client which can preview what it will look like on deployed machines?

    Flash can scale for 4:3 and 16:9 machines instead of having a single bitmap font (cf: opentv, mheg, liberate). It antialiases fonts properly (cf: liberate, or 'at all' wrt opentv/mheg). It renders predictably (cf: ce-html). It allows you to use your own display fonts (cf: liberate, mheg), and predict how much content will display per page programatically (scrolling bad, paging good).

    It allows for compression of content using zlib, for vector, resolution-independent graphics (smaller than the equivalent, SD-res jpeg).

    I'm just hoping it gets deployed widely and that they find a sensible way to have a hardware player.

  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Monday April 20, 2009 @10:47AM (#27645873) Homepage Journal

    this is just an opening salvo

    the comments here act as if this is the last television upgrade ever

    give it time people, calm the fuck down. everyone understands your complaints before you even speak them as your complaints really aren't that insightful but rather obvious

    technology evolves, so wait and see and chill out

  • xbox360 (Score:3, Informative)

    by mzs (595629) on Monday April 20, 2009 @11:35AM (#27646695)

    I was very surprised at how easy it was and how well this worked, but over the weekend I finally paired-up my xbox360 and vista 64-bit with tv pack 2008 media center. Then I fired-up the media center on the xbox 360 and it was virtually indistinguishable from running media center from the computer on the TV. My son was able to play RCT3 on the computer while my wife watched recorded TV on the computer from the xbox 360, all using a remote control that looks like a TV/DVD combo remote. It was better than AppleTV, I was surprised that I had not heard more about just how good this combo of vista + media center + xbox360 is.

    The xbox360 also lets me watch streamed NetFlix movies. My Samsung TV also allows me to get lots of content over the internet. I see Philips TVs that do similar things. I think Adobe sees this and is afraid that in the future they will be less relevant as people spend their idle time on the couch once more.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...