A factor that adds to the impact of the streaming services is their use being more concentrated around the already high traffic peak viewing periods.
It is more than a little absurd that ISPs complain about users actually using what they're paying for. The days of people paying for broadband and using little more than email, chat, and simple web pages are over. And many of those that have consumed video online for some time are now understandably needing more bandwidth for higher quality now.
The situation with mobile is where many will be getting upset. Networks are being billed as fast and offering all sorts of video, but many consumers face plans limiting them to no more data in a month than most could get with low-end home broadband plans in a day. Of course there are good reasons why massive numbers of people can't be heavily consuming video at once on mobile networks, but the providers are not very up front about it.
Perhaps they could offer a small separate sort of "Flash Guard" utility for the blocking function. We consider the possibility of rogue Flash code opening the camera and/or microphone to be a security vulnerability.
Being able to block those globally is a "feature" some need.
Of control of hardware access should be by user choice only, not a side effect of an app. Counting on stored Flash settings isn't an option since many use Better Privacy (Firefox extension) or other utilities to delete Flash storage, including the settings, due to the stalking features.
Yesterday they had a brief mention claiming that there was information posted to Wikileaks showing that the U.S. was behind the protesters, but none of their earlier reporting had made any suggestion of a connection. Most reporting is solid. Once in a while they'll say something that's a bit out there, and some might have issue with their use of "reconstruction" (shown in tiny font on screen) for video simulating the negotiations. There were cases were actors spoke dialog, yet the reporter later said the actual text of that particular conversation wasn't known.
Their release of information from the Palestine Papers initially was accurate but unbalanced by omission. They showed concessions without showing what the Palestinians would get.
They later had an interview with Martin Indyk, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, who protested that they didn't show the information in perspective by failing to mention that Palestine was to get the sought after separate state status, along with some territory from the Israel side to compensate for loss of some developed areas. When added to access corridor area, the amount gained equaled what was lost. It was pretty clear they'd had him on just to validate the papers, and hurried / talked over him some when he raised these issues, but they deserve credit for still airing it. They do a lot of good reporting, but as always it's wise to compare reports from a number of sources. I'm curious how that interview came across when translated for their Arab-language coverage or if it was included.
In addition to Aljazeera English, MHz Worldview carries broadcasts from Japan, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Taiwan and some others. The Russian one comes across as the most propaganda oriented with them going out of their way to emphasize things, often misleadingly, that cast the U.S. in a negative light. They say things like NBC won't report stories because G.E. is a defense contractor and G.E. leaked massive amounts of PCBs into the Hudson river (Which they did, but in 1977 and earlier, long before they bought RCA/NBC) They find plenty of quotes from people that give the wrong impression (They used one of John McCain in 2008 to make it look like the U.S. supported those that make have attacked their airport. That tone was gone later, but they quick to throw out negative comments)
The combination of most of the international sources on MHz WorldView, the BBC, and PBS Newshour seems to cover most things pretty well. The two that seem to work to twist things fairly often are Fox and RT (the Russian service), with the remainder of the U.S. networks just not giving much time/depth to a great many issues that matter.
If one gets past the negative tone, the Russian service does point out things other media skips, like the lock down due to the missing nerve agent at the Dugway miltary testing grounds in Utah a few days ago. (the place that released an airborne toxin years ago killing thousands of animals 30 miles away) They also immediately covered the release of the U.S. Financial Crisis Investigative Report a few days ago. They make quite a fuss over U.S. human rights issues, pointing out the the U.S. and Sudan are the only U.N. members failing to sign on with never giving children life sentences or execution for serious crimes. The eerie part is that facts generally check out. It's too bad they make so many poorly founded negative conclusions and report few positive developments.
Not being for-profit doesn't mean there's a lack of budget concerns. BBC World Service will be cutting around 650 people over the next few years. Let's hope they can still provide high quality service.
PBS stations have been having a tougher time than in the past. Costs are rising, they've lost some of their audience to the greater variety of things people view on cable and the net, and many viewers are being tighter with their money.
Even when all sources are truthful, perspectives and emphasis differ. It's good to have a variety of sources available.
A number of international news networks including Aljazeera English are carried on MHz WorldView. It's seen on some cable systems, carried by some public tv stations over the air (often as an added digital sub-channel that many not be on their cable line up) and on direct tv. They can also be seen streamed on demand to those with ROKU.
iPads certainly perform well. With hardware acceleration for h.264, the ARM chip may not be seeing the toughest loads it would otherwise. I believe there's an ARM build of VLC.
I've been meaning to check it out to see how video playback is with other codecs. (It's easy to use a USB tuner to record HDTV on a laptop or desktop, but the MPEG2 used in the U.S. is a bit of a chore to transcode to 720P h.264 which is the Apple default for iPad/iPhone/iPod-touch/ and the current Apple-TV (all on ARM now).
I'm not sure how far towards the high end ARM will go, but it sure makes sense to have things like Apple TV on ARM.
It uses less than 6 watts.
A few things to remember for those with uncertain wireless support
1) Don't forget you can easily try Ubuntu and wireless devices on most x86 laptops in the Live CD mode before you install. If driving somewhere to buy a USB device, bring the laptop along. You might also be able to run a Live CD and try a USB wireless device on another machine in the store (ask for permission first!)
2) If there's a Mac laptop handy, OS X doesn't need any extra software installed to share the laptops wireless access out the ethernet port, allowing simple DHCP connections. Just go to the Sharing prefs panel.
(add a hub or switch to share with several machines)
3) Instead of using a Mac, some routers with free open-source DD-WRT firmware installed can also act as WiFi clients giving access to machines plugged into the ethernet port(s). Older WRT-54Gs often turn up cheap at thrift stores etc. and are ideal. (some versions have more RAM than others, check the DD-WRT site www.dd-wrt.com/ for more info) It's a good way to add wireless to desktops.
4) ... and of course Ubuntu runs well in a Virtual Box virtual machine, an easy way to use it under OS X or Windows hosts with whatever net access those already have.
virtualbox.org It's a particularly simple/clean free solution for Mac users, not disturbing OS X at all.
'I almost did run down to Walgreens to buy one when I heard about it. I thought, "Android is open source, it should be fun to hack right? How bad can it be?" It seems the answer is really really bad.'
If Android using the Apache license means that vendors only have to provide the (Google) source they started from and not for the final result, you basically can't hack what you got, but have to deal with code that was never customized for the device you've got. In effect the source was open for the vendor, but it isn't for you. So much for fixing bugs in what you get...
USPS has been fast and cheap. The only real complaint I've had is that they leave pickup tags for some of the heaviest packages, packages that other carriers would have delivered. But it's understandable... I feel sorry for what some of the mailmen have to lift. Most are far less muscular than the UPS guys. My area has had problems with mail theft... I think some meth use among employees, but tracked items show up. It's not safe to get mail with handwritten addresses, things like birthday cards with a little cash in the middle always vanish. And the DMV license plate tags vanish in the mail too... California no doubt has a black market for those with so many illegals from Mexico around.
Their flat rate boxes are extremely competitive for shipping, especially heavier items and/or to distant zones. Mail service has been reliable since one local thief was caught. Many good people don't deserve a bad rap for the actions of a small number.
UPS gives generally great service, but they throw the packages around. Some electronic gear with glass meters on the side arrived with the glass broken. Taking the unit apart revealed it was more than just a bump to the side of the thick box. The power transformer had the brackets stretched up and it was leaning a great deal. For that to happen the package wasn't just bumped or even dropped. It was clearly thrown horizontally and down with considerable force and crash landed... like onto a dock or truck.
UPS seems to have become much more costly than in years past.
Fedex is much more gentle with packages, but it's alarming how many from neighbors blocks away show up. They're not very careful reading addresses, or smart enough interpolating from neighbors addresses when they don't see one.
Yes... apps are just a subset of software. Apple has used the term Applications since the early days of the Mac. The OS X dictionary defines them this way:
"a program or piece of software designed and written to fulfill a particular purpose of the user"
There was a time when desktop applications were small too. The first version of Photoshop I ever saw, when compressed, fit on an 800K floppy. Apple released the source to MacPaint 1.3, an early Mac application. It's only 67.8K
iOS apps may have simple interfaces, but the hardware is powerful enough to do many things with. I think VLC is a good example of a non-trivial app. It's much bigger than MacPaint!
It seems you've forgotten Visual Voicemail. Prior to the iPhone, every phone I ever saw required playing through messages sequentially instead of jumping to what I wanted to hear. That's a huge improvement in usability.
I guess entering a new market with a higher priced product and many established competitors doesn't count as risky if the product is really good? That's hardly a failing.
I guess when man first used fire to cook, you might argue that eating something warm wasn't a new concept. After all, some animals had eaten fresh kill or each others droppings before they cooled off.
The idea of Apple having retail stores wasn't a new concept.
Risk there?
Add visual voicemail to the mix -- another solved problem. The point is, Apple didn't develop a completely new device that nobody had ever seen before. It's all incremental improvements.
Apple was very careful entering the new phone market -- they heavily leveraged their existing iPod market and technology.
However, if you go back far enough Apple was one of the pioneers of touch screen portable computers with the Newton. Apple invented the term PDA. In terms of invention, that was something very different. They got a long of things wrong with that device that was corrected by competitors doing it much simpler.
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't take risks -- your other post was filled with good examples. It's just that their most successful products tend to be low-risk slow-burn affairs.
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/15151-netflix-popularity-excee...
A factor that adds to the impact of the streaming services is their use being more concentrated around the already high traffic peak viewing periods.
It is more than a little absurd that ISPs complain about users actually using what they're paying for. The days of people paying for broadband and using little more than email, chat, and simple web pages are over. And many of those that have consumed video online for some time are now understandably needing more bandwidth for higher quality now.
The situation with mobile is where many will be getting upset. Networks are being billed as fast and offering all sorts of video, but many consumers face plans limiting them to no more data in a month than most could get with low-end home broadband plans in a day. Of course there are good reasons why massive numbers of people can't be heavily consuming video at once on mobile networks, but the providers are not very up front about it.