Lets study the “Thoughts about Flash”

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are
only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole
authority as to their future enhancement, pricing,
etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely
available, this does not mean they are open, since
they are controlled entirely by Adobe and
available only from Adobe. By almost any definition,
Flash is a closed system.

Let’s get this straight.  Neither Apple iTechnology or Adobe Flash are OPEN.  They both use open and freely available standards. They both use proprietary standards such as H.264.  Steve Jobs claiming that Apple iTechnology is Open is a subjective point.  But let’s look it from another angle.

Free is usually associated with Open.  To use any of Apple’s iTechnology you have to purchase their hardware and be a registered($) developer to run software on them.  For Flash, you can use any computer using any operating system, obtain the Flash player for free, then download the open source compiler.  This is all free and Open, however the Player is closed source. (Or you could use the open source Flash Player called Ganash).

So comparing both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple.  So who is more open again?

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though
the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad
is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards
pertaining to the web should be open. Rather
than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and
JavaScript – all open standards.

The issue here is not the openness of the web, but
the tools and costs to get you to this open web.  For
Apple you have to purchase expensive iTenchnology.
For Adobe, you get a free Flash Player.

Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power
implementations of these open standards. HTML5,
the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple,
Google and many others, lets web developers
create advanced graphics, typography, animations and
transitions without relying on third party
browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely
open and controlled by a standards committee,
of which Apple is a member.

Has anyone bothered to tell Steve that HTML5 is a “developing standard” and is not slated to be completely ratified until 2012?   HTML5 is by no means a technology we should be putting out there on a large scale yet as the standard is likely to change.   Every time it does, every website using the current Draft and prototype example implementation will have to change their code to suit.  Any web developer pushing hard into this now is being foolish at best. Potential Darwin awards member of the web community at worst.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

The full web, to me, would mean the most common technologies, Open or otherwise. But let’s keep reading..

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile
devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of
video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is
that almost all this video is also available in a more
modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones,
iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of
the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all
Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps
the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience
ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook,
ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time,
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports
Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many,
many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t
missing much video.

Ok, let’s be specific here.  Flash, way back since Flash Player 9 Update 3, released on December 3, 2007, Flash has been able to play back any standards based MP4 container with H.264 and AAC video, all the way up to HD 1080.  (HD performance subject to Hardware acceleration, ie not on Mac).  Since then, any Video website would have likely switched over to H.264 media files. (Better utilisation of bandwidth  $$$)  Meaning EVERY website would be using them now.  Moving a Flash based Video site to the <video> tag would only take days of development. (No transcoding needed)

Flash has never claimed to be a video container.  It is what has made flash so popular, but that is not its core purpose.  So, cool, Adobe was actually not that bothered, IMHO, about this.   The <Video> tag has its purposes.  But then again Video in flash also has its purposes too.  Both will do some video interfaces better then the other. It depends on the application.  The <video> tag will in general do for 95% of what the web needs.  Adobe has never disputed that.  They have only tried to make it more innovative to keep it as relevant as possible.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices
cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately,
there are over 50,000 games and entertainment
titles on the App Store, and many of them are free.
There are more games and entertainment titles
available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any
other platform in the world.

This is obviously a comparison between thousands of free flash games and thousands of $ games on the iTechnology platform.  It is a blatant admission by Steve Jobs that Apple would rather you pay for Games from the store and they get 30%.  And really, why the hell not.  Apple made these wonderful iTechnology products.

Steve, please come clean and do not make up false accusations and mislead consumers.  That’s bad form.  This is the core of why this fight is so high profile IMHO.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

This is where it gets good. Steve has a point here, but chooses to leave out a lot of detail.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having
one of the worst security records in 2009.
We also know first hand that Flash is the
number one reason Macs crash. We have
been working with Adobe to fix these problems,
but they have persisted for several years now.
We don’t want to reduce the reliability and
security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by
adding Flash.

Here Apple starts pointing the finger. Yes Adobe has security flaws. But so does your OSX and iTechnologes.  If Apple was so perfect, why can’t they stop the jail breakers?  How come they send out security patches on a regular basis?  Apple is also known for being one of the slackest when it comes to security fixes.

Yes, Flash has had some security issues, but like all complex tools, no more than its fair share.  Apple, you are just as guilty.  Again bad form Steve.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on
mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to
show us Flash performing well on a mobile device,
any mobile device, for a few years now. We have
never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would
ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the
second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010,
and now they say the second half of 2010. We
think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we
didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will
perform?

Lets look at the facts.  There are over 200 apps on the AppStore known to be made from the FlashCS5 tool set. (Probably more but developers are not willing to say.. for good reason as Steve will probably kick them off)  These Apps passed the TEST to go onto the Apps store.  One would expect the test involves looking at performance issues.  One would expect Steve has likely looked at these apps as there are Blogs and articles all over the Web about them.  So are we supposed to believe that Steve has simply not bothered to have a look at them?  The statement above is obviously misleading.

Fourth, there’s battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing
video, mobile devices must decode the video
in hardware; decoding it in software uses too
much power. Many of the chips used in modern
mobile devices contain a decoder called
H.264 – an industry standard that is used in
every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted
by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and
many other companies.

I recommend you have a look at “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanationComparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) in which Flash is 200-500% more efficient then HTML5 running on webkit on an android phone.  Meaning it would use less power then HTML5.  Ie, Steve Jobs’ suggestion that HTML5 has better performance is misleading and obviously not true.

Although Flash has recently added support for
H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites
currently requires an older generation decoder
that is not implemented in mobile chips and
must be run in software. The difference is
striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264
videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos
decoded in software play for less than 5 hours
before the battery is fully drained.

This is really good spin. Steve is right in that the very OLD version of flash before 2007 (3 years in internet time is a VERY LONG TIME), version 9, did use a CPU based codec.  But as stated above, H.264 is now the standard and all sites using flash are now using the same H.264 files in flash as is compatible with the Hardware accelerated decoders.  As such, Flash 10.1 is as efficient as it can possibly be on these mobile devices.  Steve implies Flash cannot do H.264 Hardware acceleration, which is again deceptive and untrue.

But lets get into the OSX story here.  Apple like to blame Adobe for the poor video performance on OSX.  Unfortunately, again, Steve has failed to supply the full story.  The reason Flash on OSX is so slow and buggy is as follows.

1. Video: Apple has refused to, until recently, supply the API required to implement it.  Flash 10.1 for OSX will have Hardware acceleration as, the API has only just been made available.  Steve conveniently failed to mention this. (See Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API)

2. General flash animation performance: Again, this is because those APIs available for rendering animated content on a web browser are old and not suitable.  Adobe has been waiting for better and supported APIs to become available.  Again, only recently because of the advent of HTML5 in the browser has Adobe now been able to implement Core Animation for use in Flash Player 10.1  The FlashPlayer development team say OSX flash player is likely to be even more efficient then the Windows version.

Looking at the facts, we can see it is Apple and not Adobe that is responsible for a lot the the problems Steve likes to blame Adobe for.  This, however, does not really make up for the stated CRASH level of Flash on OSX.  I personally have not had a lot of problems.  And this crash issue is likely more to do with authoring issues than the player itself.  Still, it’s an easy mark, and why has Adobe let it become such an issue?  I would say, simply because Apple has shown little interest in helping Adobe make a reliable and efficient Flash Player and as such, Adobe has shown little interest in fixing these issues.  A tool like Flash Player is only as strong as the foundations they sit on.  FlashPlayer OSX sits on the OSX API’s and as such, Apple, by definition and by action is partly responsible.

When websites re-encode their videos using
H.264, they can offer them without using
Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers
like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome
without any plugins whatsoever, and look
great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

This sentence is obviously misleading as it’s a non-issue. As mentioned above, Flash Video migrated to H.264 over 3 years ago.

Fifth, there’s Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not
for touch screens using fingers. For example,
many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”,
which pop up menus or other elements when
the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.
Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface
doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept
of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to
be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
If developers need to rewrite their Flash
websites, why not use modern technologies
like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it
would not solve the problem that most Flash
websites need to be rewritten to support
touch-based devices.

This is a very good example of misdirection.  HTML/CSS sites are just as likely to use roll overs as Flash is.  And like HTML and the use of it in the Javascript apps for the iPhone, flash is just as usable in an interface designed in flash.  Flash 10.1 also support multi touch and pinch.

Sixth, the most important reason.
Besides the fact that Flash is closed and
proprietary, has major technical drawbacks,
and doesn’t support touch based devices,
there is an even more important reason we
do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and
iPads. We have discussed the downsides of
using Flash to play video and interactive
content from websites, but Adobe also
wants developers to adopt Flash to create
apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting
a third party layer of software come between
the platform and the developer ultimately
results in sub-standard apps and hinders the
enhancement and progress of the platform. If
developers grow dependent on third party
development libraries and tools, they can only
take advantage of platform enhancements if
and when the third party chooses to adopt the
new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a
third party deciding if and when they will make
our enhancements available to our developers.

There is some truth to this but, like all tools, you use the right tool for the right job.  If I am writing a Game, best to use the most low level code using the highest possible performance API’s available.  But if writing a simply end user App in that people read, input and view data.  This is completely WRONG.

The performance hit of cross platform tools that build tools for input and viewing of data (Anything but games mostly)  have little performance differences.  They save the developer massive amounts of money.  This is why cross development tools are so popular and expensive.  They are very important development tools that can make the difference between a tool being worth while doing or not.

This is a obvious attempt to lock in the developers and to get them to invest money into the closed Apple platforms.  As the more Apple can get them invested, the more power Apple can bring over them.

As a developer, Steve, you turn my stomach.  But at the same time, if that is where the money is, that is where the developer will go, even if he is selling his soul to make his living.

This becomes even worse if the third party is
supplying a cross platform development tool.
The third party may not adopt enhancements
from one platform unless they are available on
all of their supported platforms. Hence
developers only have access to the lowest
common denominator set of features. Again,
we cannot accept an outcome where developers
are blocked from using our innovations and
enhancements because they are not available on
our competitor’s platforms.

This goes both ways Steve.  But obviously in your mind, Apple is the only company that can “Inovate”.  My stomach turns over again.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is
not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the
best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal
to help developers write cross platform apps.
And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt
enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For
example, although Mac OS X has been shipping
for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it
fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped
CS5. Adobe was the last major third party
developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

“It is their(Adobe)  goal to help developers write cross platform” Yes exactly. As a developer, that is exactly what I want.  HTML5/ Object C, they are all just more languages.  We have so many languages because like having a tools box full of many different tools, Hammer, screw driver, spanner, we use the right tool for the Job.  Imagine a tool box with only a Hammer in it.  That is what Steve is trying to justify here.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide
the most advanced and innovative platform to
our developers, and we want them to stand
directly on the shoulders of this platform and
create the best apps the world has ever seen.
We want to continually enhance the platform so
developers can create even more amazing,
powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone
wins – we sell more devices because we have
the best apps, developers reach a wider and
wider audience and customer base, and users
are continually delighted by the best and broadest
selection of apps on any platform.

What a great company statement.  The only problem is that, there is no reason why Flash Player could not be part of that statement apart from the deceptions mentioned above and the business model that places Adobe as a threat.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice.

The C programming language is one of the earliest languages created. Even today it is one of the most common languages in use.  Just because it is old does not make it out dated.  This statement is obviously bate for the general user, not developer type, to relate to.  Like how your older cars are not as good as new ones.  That does not hold water in this case and neither does Steve’s letter.

Flash is a successful business for Adobe,
and we can understand why they want to push it
beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low
power devices, touch interfaces and open web
standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

That is your opinion Steve. Unfortunately facts appear to indicate Flash will be a very usefull cross platform technology applicable for mobile to browser.

The avalanche of media outlets offering
their content for Apple’s mobile devices
demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary
to watch video or consume any kind of web
content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App
Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens
of thousands of developers to create graphically
rich applications, including games.

As long as everyone uses the web as Steve has dictated. Yes. Selling Apps in which Apple gets 30% or everything, yes.

Sorry but this is absurd.  The web is about using whatever works for you.  Be it open or closed.

Flash has a right to exist just as Apple has a right to sell locked down iTechnology.  However, Steve does not have the right to deceive and slander another company.  This is where Apple stepped over the line.  Adobe, on the other hand, has tried to follow Steve’s unrealistic laws and write the FlashCS5 Cross compiler. This has been slapped down with anti-competitive practices of changing the ULA for reasons that do not hold water.  This has never been about what Steve says.  Its about business models.  The CEO of Adobe is very right in saying that this is a smoke screen and this letter is nothing but FUD to try and justify anti-competitive behaviour.

New open standards created in the mobile era,
such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and
PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on
creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and
less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Again, deception.  Adobe have not criticised Apple.  Adobe employees and specifically Flash evangelists who are most likely working on the Flash to iPhone tools did.  Can you blame them?  They put long hard work into following Steve’s ULA.  Implementing a method of making Flash Technology on the iTechnology platform while keeping to the conditions in the ULA, only for Steve to change the wording just before launch.

HTML5 is only a small part of this.  Steve knowns this but is using it as a magical platform, that for all intensive purposes in not real yet as the standard and implementation are only still in early implementation and subject to change.  Because of this unknown potentaial of HTML5, it is the “Fix All pill” we hope will come along and fix those issues we all dislike about the Web.  The truth is, its not going to be anything like that..  Exactly the opposite in reality.

Why Do We Hate Flash

Flash is the Advertisers big stick they hit us with to make us take notice.  Like everyone, we hate being hit by this big stick.  What we have here is similar to the slogan “Guns don;t kill people, people kill people.” which equates to “Flash does not annoy the web surfer, the advertisers making the Flash content annoy the flash user.”

The issue here is that the Web Surfer cannot see past the ad, so they focus on Flash.

The performance issue is a group effort.  FlashCS4 does not lend itself to optimised programming but for real programmers its not difficult at all.  The Advertisers using flash want active and very eye catching ads jumping around attracting your eye.  This of course kills your battery and annoys the user.  Flash can be programmed to archive better then javascript and HTML5 type performance.  The biggest problem here is that it is not generally commercial for web developers to do this.  And this will be true for HTML5 as well.

Every programming language can be programmer poorly.  Even ObjectiveC, C or C++.  Adobe is guilty for letting this get out of hand.  Actionscript3 has brought this back in line a lot as it is far more programmer centric.  You need to understand the code much more.  You cannot simply cut and past into the time line in AS2.  However, at the same time, this has reduced the number of flash programmers as many AS2 users say it is too hard to use now.  Its a double edged sword.

Performance on OSX does SUCK.  Its Crap.  But as mentioned above, Apple is just as responsible if not more then Adobe.

HTML5 is not what we hope it to be

One of the biggest misconceptions of many Flash haters is that HTML5 will save their battery and stop the crashes.

Unfortunately this is WRONG.  The big issue here is that once HTML5 replaces flash, and as a flash developer, I would expect it to. Those who enjoy the ad free internet by using an Ad Blocker or Flash Blocker..  That will be impossible once HTML5 is adopted.  The browser will not be able to tell the difference between an ad and the website.  Ads will be proxied directly into the application, as if they are part of the website.  The ad-blockers will simply not be able to tell the difference.  This is why Google and now Microsoft (with its announcement to drop flash from IE9) are so into HTML5.  No more blocking the premium animated and most profitable ads.  Its obvious any company who makes money from online ads will want flash to disappear from online ads ASAP.

As the “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanation Comparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) indicate, those ads you will no longer be able to block will be running all over your open web pages eating up more battery then Flash 10.1 would.

The HTML5 future everyone is hoping for is exactly the opposite of what it will deliver.

Here comes the DOJ

Considering the level of deception and properganda Apple is generating, the DOJ would have to get involved at some stage.  Apple is being anti-competative while also producing large amount of misleading and false information to the general end users.  This is of course hurting Adobe.  In Australia, if Apple was located here, would be in very deep trouble.  Anti-competative behaviour is illigal no mater if you are a monopoly or not.  In the US, these DOJ investigation, altho on the surface, has no real merrit in US law, the DOJ will be compalled to do some type of investigation.

Apple is being anti-competative.  If this behaviour is seen to effect any area Apple is deemed to monopolise, Apple is likely in trouble.  This being such a complex area with so many subjective views, this is unlikely to go any where.  However, the bigger issue here is   “Steve has been seen deceiving end users.”  Ie lying for his own gain.

This establishes that Steve is deceptive.  Where does this stop.  The end user?  The investor? The government?

The DOJ is compelled to have a closer look now.

Why does Apple want to displace Flash?

Finally we need to look at why Steve is pushing this issue so hard.  They want to displace flash as a dominant platform on the web.  I have seen a number of interesting post looking at very holistic reasons. This one is especially interesting but essentially wrong. “A good problem to have“.

Apple/Steve is very smart.  The one market he has not been able to dominate to the degree you would expect is ONLINE VIDEO. The online video owners, unlike the music industry, are a bit more aware of what Apple is trying to archive.  As a result, they have fragmented the industry as much as possible to ensure no indeviduel company can gain enough control as to start dictating to them the conditions.

Steve is trying to manuvor the online video industry into a position in which they have no option but to sell their soul to Apple.  To do this they have looked at the future trends of video. Producer to consumer.

Producer to consumer with subscription or paid to view will be the future.  However, this future will need a transaction system and a video distribution system.  Currently we have two options.  Apple and Adobe.

Its quite simple. Take out Adobe before its Flash platform really starts to shine in this area.  With hardware playback, better then javascript/HTML5 performance, the best authoring tools on the net, cross platform agnostic (Run on anything from a mobile phone, computer, TV) DRM, for those who want it (And all big content owners WILL) AND.. built in TORRENT technology.

Once Flash materialises this technology coming in 10.1 towards the use of video distribution on the net.  Apple will not be able to catch up..  Its all out WAR now.  Crack and kill the egg before it hatches.

I am very much behind Adobe/Flash on this mainly because Adobe is a tools company.  I will be able to purchase the tools to distribute to my consumers directly. I will control my future.  I will not have to ask Apple/Steve permission to distribute my content through his gateway and toll booth, the iTunes store.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as a developer who likes Flash, to tell the truth, I can respect the business decision by Steve to not allow Flash on their iTechnology platforms for good old competitive reasons.  What is wrong here is that Apple is on a campaign of deception.  They are not happy to not use flash, but are also producing FUD to displace Flash as a relevant web technology.

As a Apple user who may be reading this blog entry (And congratulations if you got this far), consider your relationship with your Apple products.  You have just been told your friend is deceptive and will lie to you to get what he wants from you.  How would this go down if this was your partner or best friend?

Let me finish with a video of Adobe’s CTO Kevin Lynch.  Here is a simple and honest view of where flash fits.  I could not agree more with what Kevin says.

So what is going on.  Development tools are expensive to develop. Why are they been given away now?

As the use of computers, PDA’s, Mobile phones has increased, the more important factor for these products has not been selling the tools or programs used on them but to simply own a decent portion of the market by having the applications available to them.

The more Applications available for your product the better.  Especially if the tools are NOT-cross platform and lock the end user into the product as an investment.  Ie like not being able to move your (mobile) phone number to any other telco.  Your locked in and the telco can take advantage of this.

Lets have a brief look at the four main players. Microsoft, Apple,  Google and Adobe.

Apple and the iPhone has changed the landscape of development.  Initially some of the development tools for Apple did come with a small cost.  These days they are free for anyone who cares to download them.  Especially iPhone development tools.  Initially a cost was involved to become an iPhone developer.  This is no longer apparent and iPhone development has been pushed onto any developer to pass the Apple developer site.

Apple has identified that it is the plethra of Apps on the App-Store that is locking user into the platform. This reminds me of the early days of the Computer and a factor Microsoft used effectively on its road to dominance.

Google, a leader in Open-Source development tools, is putting an extrordinary amount of investment in giving free tools and development platforms away.  These tools encourage the use of the Internet as a platform.  And as we all know, Google makes more and more money, the more we use the Internet to search or surf.  It is within their interest to get everyone using the internet as much as possible.  Open-source tools that direct users away from walled garden tools are where Google is encouraging us to go.

Microsoft, in which Steve Palmer is famous for shouting “Developers Developers, DEVELOPERS”, is now in a difficult position.  It has a very mature development tool set which once cost a decent amount to obtain.  All the tools are not available for free under limited conditions, or can be obtained for long evaluation periods.  Still, they tend to be the most expensive.  And really, it is probably hard for them to reduce costs or make them free.  Especially when there is a huge business community that are happy to pay for tools and support to go with them.

Microsoft know that developers drive the success of selling infrastructure.  For example, if all the business tools are based on Microsoft development tools. Large organisations are likely to purchase Microsoft server and other expensive business software tools to run them on. The free or near free nature of the tools coming out of Apple, Google and Adobe are definatly making it hard for Microsoft.

Adobe is new to this area with the newly dubbed ”Flash Platform” including Flex, Flash Professional and many other new tools. Adobe is trying to leverage the success of Flash as a Web technology.  These tools are easy to get and very inexpensive.  Adobe hopes that back-end infrastructure technology will drive the profits.  For example video streaming and DRM server purchased at very high prices by the incumbent media gatway companies. However, I am doubt this will work for them.

Adobe Flash technology does have (performance) issues.  The idea behind what Flash has evolved into is, from a developer perspective, very good.  Microsoft has identified that and given birth the Silverlight.  Possibly one of the most impressive developments from the Microsoft Development DEV team ever.  However, those who would likely use these tools, the general web developer, tend to be anti Microsoft.  Silverlight has less traction/takeup then anyone expected. In the business community it is probably very different, however as a general web surfer you will not see evidence of this.

As a developer, it has never been a better time.  The tools are fantastic and next to nothing to get.  I feel like a kid in a candy store..  And the candy is all FREE.

(Background on thread.  Debate on if digital can archive the quality of film, especially at low light..  The performance of the new Canon 5DmkII was mentioned)

—–

To ad to Julio’s points.

The camera he is talking about is the Canon 5DmkII.

Currently this camera is making a mess of the digital film camera industry. I know Sony, JVC etc are all running scared.
They are literately selling 5x what they expected on this product. It’s success has changed the industry completely.
This camera makes all there 50-100K kit all seem obsolete. Tho , there is more to a camera then a sensor. (But strangely many people cannot see past that. Ie form factor, the package etc.)

Now, Nikon will likely bring out a competitor at the November show for Pro still cameras. And.. the Nikon has even BETTER low light performance then the canon.

In the Stills world, Film is totally been abandoned apart for the niche areas where some aspects of film still produce desired results that digital cannot. However, this is not common, and a very expensive way forward.

This will of course happen in the motion film area too. I am a little surprised it has taken longer then it has, however, as I have said, there is more to taking a shot then the camera, its the camera man too. This is a generation thing more then anything else.

I have noticed that film-tech seems to be an ivory tower with man holding onto the romance of film. Personally I don;t care. I am a computer tech that has drifted into the doing digital side of exhibition. I just observe and based on what I see, make conclusions.

Film is simply out of date.
I like to compare it to DJing (For which I did for 10 years when I was a younger lad) evolved from vinyl records to CD’s or other forms of digital playback..

At the end of the day, the punters on the dance floor didn’t really care if it was vinyl or CD, the story that was the track was shared and they enjoyed it.

Tho the debate between DJ’s was heated and went on for years. Today, the top DJ’s basically never use vinyl any more.
WHY, well as I like to point out, what sounds better is not really the issue here. The main reason they don;t use vinyl is because vinyl has limitations. While digital has Blue sky. The DJ’s, though the use of digital, have created new playing styles and performance possibilities. Impossible with vinyl.

This holds true for Film as well. Film is dead to me as.. it simply cannot evolve anymore. But once we are digital, the sky is the limit. Night shots that are impossible using film. etc.

One of my favorite would be a new standard of 60fps for cinema. Can be easily converted down to any common distribution format in use today, and would make a film screen, using clean digital images, look like a window into the world that the film creates. Something film grain, scratches and gate movement can never do.. (60fps for film is possible, but like 70mm unrealistic anymore. too $$$$$$$)

So, to me. Film, please leave the building, its time to ignite the booster and leave orbit, and you don;t have a ticket.)

To finish of, I would like to also visit the definition of what make one better then the other.
If we want to talk about which can be better.
Many of you say, film looks better…. if your looking at an answer print compared to 2k. But then again, apple with apples, there are 8k digital systems out there. That would even arguably compare with 70mm.
If we talk about the typical image a widely distributed film presents on screen compared to 2K.
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.

So which is better. What is possible or what is typical??
Please take this into consideration.

James

To help explain my point of view, lets look at some trends we have direct experience with.

Google Apps; this is hurting Microsoft more then they are willing to admit.  My company, and many I know, have stopped using their Exchange servers, and opened up a free Google Apps account.  They couldn’t be more happy.  They may be loosing some functionality, but in real terms those features are not in common use, and other free online services exist to fill in some of the gaps.  Google Apps also needs far less CPU power (less $$) and is inherently mobile as it works on any web terminal.  The need for a Windows PC to run Outlook is removed. Users are free to use the operating system of choice, be it XP, Vista, MacOSX or linux.

Google appears to have the future vision of online services in good focus.  Chrome Browser is Google’s attempt to speed up the “Browser as an OS” future.  Chrome was a direct shot over Microsoft bow. Azure, is Microsoft’s volley, and it is not a warning shot like Chrome was.

Microsoft realises that dominance of the OS market is going to be a short term future.  End users have realised that they do not need to purchase the bigger and faster system every few years.  Computers are fast enough to do what they need, and have been for years now.  The push of more complex operating systems and eye catching graphics does little for productivity.  Linux is really starting to  evolve into a reasonable desktop OS, while XP is all users really need. OSX is showing its superiority as sale indicate.  XP is being sold for  a fraction of its original price just to complete on the netbook PC market and the growing Linux base.  Microsoft needs to keep this base small, otherwise it will reach critical mass, and hard ware makers will see a reason to spend some money developing it to XP feature set.  Then its all over for XP/Microsoft in many ways.

The open source movement just keeps moving on slowly, as such, it will eventually break Microsoft and other commercial Operating systems as the dominant OS for general use (Web, Email, IM).  It is simply inevitable.  As such, Microsoft needs to start positioning itself now for that future.

And what is that future?

Online services.  Look out if you are a small data centre. Microsoft is heading into your business space.  Data centres are big users of Microsoft product and the yearly maintenance, Microsoft needs to build in value and take over this market to replace that which is going away.

This is an important time as Linux has been kicking huge goals in the Application server market.  Google is completely based on it.  So is Yahoo.  If IT services is one of the last profitable areas, then Microsoft will want to own it. They really need to establish a fantastic developer platform and cloud computing service. If anyone can, Microsoft can.

This new platform means developers will be developing software to run on cloud computing systems. Defiantly the future.  Microsoft wants developers to make these tools as so they run on their cloud technology, and as such, keep Microsoft receiving yearly fees from every business.

It comes down to.. If you cannot make money on the sale of the development tools and the software, make the money on something they have to pay for, even if they are using free/open source software.  The cloud infrastructure it will live on.  Services are immune to free software and development tools.

Finally, lets look at the offering.  The killer app here from Microsoft is going to be Silverlight. Google, Yahoo are pushing javascript based interface engines, however, neither of them have a platform that is as advanced and capable as Silverlight.  Adobe Flex/Flash is out there, but does not appear to have traction with the big players as a future Cloud development platform.

Lets get this straight.  Javascript based internet applications are NEVER going to be as capable as, for example, Native Microsoft Word.  However, Silverlight will get it much closer then any other technology available now or on the road maps of other technologies. Flex/Flash a close second.  Javascript/AJAX frame works will probably archive very functional applications, but the polish and user interface speed will never match.

Many developers I know seem to downplay these issues.  I see this as short sightedness as natural evolution dictates end user will gravitate toards what is fast, nicer to look at when availble under the same conditions.

UPDATE: Last night Microsoft announced Silverlight based version of its Office suite including Outlook.  Major signs of the roadmap as descripbed above. Google watch out..  However, early reports are that the web version of Office apps will not be free, and you will need to have purchased the future Office release for access to online versions.  Obviously these apps will also become free as in google apps, but with limited features.  Google’s vision of online apps is simply to get control of the eyeballs and in general, the ads which they see.  This is why Yahoo was such an important purchase for Microsoft.  You need a effective way to monetise these eyeballs.  The purchase is probably still very much on the cards if we do not see Microsoft building that infrastructure themselves.  They will eventually purchase it. And yahoo is still the best option and now a very good buy at $12 down from the high $27 offer.

This post is prodominatly about my frustration with the blogosphere in that much has been written about how open-web technologies and Javascript frame works will be the future of Web Applications.

This is flat out incorrect.  Tho I would admit it will be a substantial part of out near future.  Still, lets get real.

This morning as I was walking to the pool for a swim, an Idea in which I had a chance to over come the Mac Fanboy one eyed opinion came to me.

(Note before I continue, lets have a quick description of a Web Application.  A Web application, as seen on the Demo sites of Sproutecore and Cappuccino as real applications. They cannot be read by Search engines, similarly to other non-javascript RIA implementations (Silverlight, Flex))

Why Javascript is not the second coming as it was touched by god (Steve jobs).

As a Mac Fanboy, you must understand that before the OSX days, OS9 and all the preceding versions, however nice to use, was probably one of the worst operating systems, in terms if underlying foundations, that you had to pay money to get.  The older Mac OS was hammered into submission to get many of the highly respected applications to behave well.  However, OS9 was not a contender to move forward with where operating system where going.  Steve Jobs, with NextStep OS came to save the day.

Now, as a developer and a observer of the industry over many years.  IMHO, Open-web with Javascript frame works is the OS9 or the Web.  Yes it will take us a long way and give us amazing apps.  But the implementation simply does not carry to the future of what the Web will become.  Maybe I am jumping the gun a little.  Still, talk to any open-source developer and he will speak with pain at how slow the open-web is at evolving.

A more realistic implementation of where web applications are going is, unfortunately, Microsoft Silverlight.  Like usual, Microsoft is late to the game but they have the advantage of foresight and current trends to help them evolve Silverlight as the most refined technology available for what most see at the future or Internet Applications. (Don’t forget, Silverlight is Microsoft’s key to offering WORD and the Office suite on the web).  Adobe Flex and its RIA implementation for the flash player is also very close, and it does have a big advantage in that most of its technology is now open source. (Yes some key aspects are kept by Adobe, but realistically, they are being very generous.)

I am not saying, “Don’t use JavaScript Frameworks”.  They are likely to be a big part of the future and a common gateway to bridge between other RIA technologies, Ie Flex, Silverlight.  However, please take a step back and take a realistic over view of where each technology is best suited and what  their limitations are.

Microsoft, in recent times, has been making a big song and dance about developers. (The Steve Palmer “developers, developers, developers” dance for example)  Microsoft does have one thing right, developers are what makes platforms thrive.  They know this and have, over the years, done a very good job at giving the developers what they want, for example, the best IDE (Integrated developer environment) in the world.

Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough.  Microsoft tools have, in general, been very Microsoft centric. (They generally push you towards using (Paying) for a lot of Microsoft tools and end user licenses.) DOT.NET is also been quite a disaster in many ways with Microsoft themselves been unable to give a well defined description, and those you do use it, find it very buggy and monolithic.

While this has been happening, open source technologies have been thriving. Javascript frame works, Ruby and Rails, php, mysql, java going open source, the list goes on and on.  These technologies, most anyway, tend to be easy to learn and resonably lean.  For more applicable to the new generation of Rich Internet application (RIA) development.

It is important to point out here that all of the companies Microsoft sees as a threat are all based on such technologies.  Google, Yahoo for example.  In general, however, name any Web2.0 company and they are not using any Microsoft tools.  Its all open source and Mac driving towards there own proprietory software and patents.

Lets not forget Adobe/flash here.  Alltho the open source tools are quite capable, a tool set that is capable of making RIA (Rich Internet applications) such as Photoshop express or a Word replacement (buzzword) that is nearly as capable as Word is not possible, and is unlikely to be possible based on the committee based development and speed of open technologies.  This is quite a contentious issue especially as Apple has rejected Flash.  I would contend that this has more to do with who’s Video playing technology is dominant on the Web.  Adobe Flash is at the moment, but Apple with Quicktime X plans to change that. (Its all about video platforms not capabilities. (And the DRM capabilities there-in Philip) but thats another blog post.

As Adobe identified this trend and purchased Macromedia/Flash, Microsoft has now also identified this.  As tools like Word and Excel are to go to RIA (Rich Internet Application) type implementations, technologies like Flash are best suited.  (Small Note, Flash SWF files as in that created via the Animation tools in CS3 are not the issue here.  CS3 has a time line animation background and can tend to be CPU intensive as the programmers are generally not a real programmers as apposed to designers doing some programming)  It is flash created via the Adobe Flex FREE SDK that is where RIA on Flash lives.  Flash has grown into a RIA tool set as Macromedia/Adobe noticed end users using it in that way.  It is only recently that they have started optimizing it for this.

Microsoft is late to the game, as usual, and identifying this trend, has rushed out Silverlight.  Silverlight is very much based on the directions of Flash and its Flex development tools, with a Microsoft twist.

Finally, lets not forget, there will always be the need for fully client side tools.  Tools that cannot and never will be network based.  Example of these are all the Adobe CS3 tool set in which you are manipulating very large files and elegant and complex user interfaces. In general however, any tools that needs a lot of I/O (reading a lot of data) are not suitable (But not out of the question.)

Microsoft Office tools, however, are very suitable.  It is not unreasonable to reach a very equivalent RIA implementation.  And in general, a version that is well within the requirements of the growing Internet user.

With all that is happening “Where to now developer”.

Well, if your following the Web2.0 dream, its not Microsoft.  Its open ource based technologies with a touch of Flash (Youtube and any video sites…  Rockyou and other interactive tools.)

If your aiming at business, Microsoft is still hard to pass over.  SMS (Small business server) has made huge inroads into small business over the years, and most if not all larger companies very much rely on Microsoft.  Tho, Open source technologies are making decent inroads here as well.

Java, now part of open source, has become the black sheep of development in many ways.  It was once painted as the future of RIA, but has completely failed in this area and is barely if ever seen these days in a web browser.  However, as a enterprise back end technology it is doing very well.  It is also having some strength in desktop cross platform apps like Open-Office.

Finally lets not forget embedded devices.  An area in which Linux rules. (Ie your ADSL router.  ATM machines,  Petrol pumps.)  A very large industry very much over looked.  Embedded systems have tended towards open tools as there is usually a lot of low level development needed, so using an OS you have complete control of and has no licensing costs has tended to dominate.

Finally, the new kids of the block.  The Web site developer. Skilled in HTML, Javascript and other web techno loges, these developers are now being told they have the tools to make applications.  Javascript frames works have come a long way, and what was once a well made FROM, in some cases is now considered an RIA.  This is an area where the definition of what an RIA is a bit grey.  But we definitely have a lot of telent growing from this field.  And they all love and insist on standards based, if not open source, tools witch they know and love.

One trend is very evident.  Open source development is seen as the area where the larger opportunities exist. Good old Microsoft tools are a well payed IT lifestyle but not seen as the future.  Microsoft Mesh is their response, and we are yet to see how this will pan out.  Microsoft has also made some major inroads to accepting Open ssource as a part of the industry and choosing to live with it instead of fighting it. Has Microsoft has changed it spots, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  As an older blogger who has seen Microsoft at the peek of its evil empire, I will need a lot of convincing before I give them a chance. It takes a lot of star troopers to make an evil empire culture. Like any cancer, its very difficult to overcome.

I have been doing some reading and listening to a few different people’s spin on Microsoft Mesh.  Let me now explain what I understand Microsoft Mesh is and in a way the general (tech) reader is likely to understand.

Let me first start with its main description. “Cloud Computing”.  Looking at the evolution of this, other similar platforms you are most likely to know about are.

1. Amazon S3: This is a typical service (At a good price) in that Amazon offer servers and storage.  To use these services you need to develop the software on whatever platform you choose, however, you need to develop the scalability into the application yourself.  Ie,  clustering and redundancy.
2. Google App Engine: This is a complete new spin on supplying servers and storage.  In this case, you are required to write your Internet application on a supported language. At this stage Python but more will follow (php etc).  However, the scalability and fault tolerance is built into the platform.  You do not have to worry about it.  This is quite amazing but does lock you into google.
3. Microsoft Mesh: Microsoft Mesh is very similar to Google App Engine.  However, Mesh will offer much more then just a service to run your Internet application on.  And this is primarily the difference.  I can only speculate the API’s for mesh.  For example DOT.NET languages etc.

What makes Microsoft Mesh impressive is not that it will be offering a Google App Engine type service, but that it will also be offering a thin client implementation of this service.  For example, you will not simply be on any computer connecting to an Internet application running on Mesh. (What is offered by Google App Engine) but you will be going to this Mesh Application via a kind of virtual computer.

For example, if using the Mesh Application and you make files and documents, have your “My Documents” folder..  Any Mesh Application you use from any computer will have this virtual desktop.

This means you can be at any computer and feel right at home.  To me this feels like the histroy repeating itself.  First we had the X-Terminal, then it was called the thin-client.  These technologies never did work for the typical end user, but now with the internet getting faster and internet applications becoming the norm, it is starting to make sense.

Considering all the above, Mesh does not sound like anthing special, however, the magic behind Mesh, and a major reason it is called Mesh is because if installed on a machine, it will allow all connected devices to interact with the Mesh applications.  For example.  Your USB-thumb drive plugs directly into your Mesh.  Your Ipod plugs directly into your Mesh.  “Everything is connected” is the Microsoft sogan and what they are aiming for.  This is truly an innovation coming out of Microsoft, (A rare moment), and deserves some respect and attention.

Considering the above, it is ideal for the future development of Office as an Internet Application.  Office as a service. “SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE”.

Yes this is the WHY.

Watching Microsoft over the years, I feel they have learnt a lot from “GAMING”.  One of the most profitable businesses basd on the internet today is online gaming.  Millions of end users paying $30 per month to get access to multi player gaming servers. Microsoft has its own Xbox-Live, “World of Warcraft” being  another high profile one.  The major advantage seen for this industry is that, “You cannot use PIRATE software as a service”.  For example, you log into Xbox live with a Hacked Xbox, and it will lock you out or even brick your Xbox.

This leads me into the Yahoo deal.   Office as a service is likely to be free with advertising or paid for without advertising and extra enterprise features.  The purchase of Yahoo is to purchase the advertising platform and relationships to fuel this.

Mesh will also be a great way to offer a large online application with reduced back end running costs. Ie, the marketing model/advantage behind Google Apps. Off loading much of it to Microsoft Mesh.

Finally, this also explains why Microsoft as gone all Open of late.  Literally giving Linux a big bear Hug.  The Mesh platform will run on PC, Mac and Linux.  Microsoft will no longer care about the operating system (And Piracy), they will still have access to the consumer no mater what they are using.  So, don;t fight it, embrace it.

This is the future for Miscoroft and Mesh is the road to get there.

Is Windows Getting Morbidly Obese?

Gartner Says Vista Will Collapse. And That’s Why The Yahoo Deal Must Happen

Apple’s OS Edge Is a Threat to Microsoft

Gartner Warns Of Windows Collapse, Says Change Needed

The Hype about Psystar Open Computer.

Silverlight Vs Flash

Is the asus eepc a good laptop to buy?

The Linux Desktop Myth

What all this comes down to is that the PC is becoming consumer electronics device. This is a huge pivotal point for the world. There will be a shift of power in some of the biggest companies in the world.

To date I have not seen any real articles that cover this issue. So here I go. I’ll try to make it short and to the point.

Lets start with Gartners warning for Microsoft. Quite a few years ago I beleived that Linux would eventually topple Miscoroft. Over the years I have learn that it takes more then better software to make a difference in the world. Support, governance and deals done over an expensive dinner are more likely to shape our world. Controlling our devices and by that, us the consumers, is seen as the globalisation stategy of choice. However, something has gone wrong.

The massive power of these behemoth companies has started to develop cracks. Smaller electronic consumer makers are realising they can make computer products that answer all the needs of a typical end user without the need for an expensive operating system (Windows) which needs the latest and most expensive CPU,s.

Linux as a Desktop OS that can grow as the internet develops may have failed, but as an embeded OS setup to surf the web, read email, facebook, VoIP etc. It is perfectly suited.

A typical consumer electronics device does not have an upgradable OS. It is a black box that does what it does in the way it was designed. Once the cevilised world realises it does not need the Microsoft’s, Apple etc of this world. Its going to be a different place. The growth in internet use will explode, but the growth in windows use will flatten or slightly decline. Will it be on a phone, will it be on an ulta portable laptop.. The point here is its not Microsoft, and it most likly free embeded OS like a derivative of linux for the ultra portable, or Google Android for the mobile. This, is some eyes, is a desaster for Microsoft.

But really, its not. It’s not going to stop Microsoft making billions. It will stop them making Billions of Billions What IS going to worry Microsoft is technologies like Flex/Flash. The underlying strength of Microsoft in business, where the major portion of there profit lies, is not that they make operating systems for companies, but that they USE TO MAKE the best development platform for those companies to build their back end business transaction systems on. “USE TO MAKE”.

Silverlight has been developed by Microfot faster then any technology I have seen come out of Microsoft. This is because they are loosing developers in large numbers to competing development systems that are based on open source technologies. This is where the comment “Open Source is like a cancer” that Bill Gates mentioned a few years ago.

The reason for this is that these new development tools which in many ways are as good if not better then Microsoft when it comes to making web applications, the future of IT in businesses, is that, once a platform is built on an open technology, it is very easy to plug it into other open technologies but not Microsoft’s closed technologies.

The fact that Microsoft has developed Silverlight this fast and also made available documented API’s to, what was once considered the crown jewels of Microsoft, its internal IP and internal protocols, show how bad it is getting. The only reason Microsoft would do a complete about face on this is because they are loosing so many clients to open source. And once open source becomes a powerful force in a company, Microsoft’s dominant position to keep it all proprietary, and as such, lock up the customer, in effect is now forcing the customer to move completely away from Microsoft as they cannot easily plug these newly developed systems into Microsoft technologies. The shoe is on the other foot….

Now considering we are moving to a completely new way of doing business on our computers, the legacy requirements which are probably the biggest reason Vista is such a poor operating system, make Vista a dionsour in terms of the requirements for the future of computers in business. In my opinion, this is why Gartner has given Microsoft such a poor score card, and why Windows 7 is being rushed out the door at only 2 years away. Microsoft is waking up, but is to too late.

Microsoft may be a different company now and not the manopolistic, “Screw the consumer” type company as documented in all the Anti trust cases of past. This Ghost still haunts it, and the media like to point them out all the time. Microsoft is trying hard to look like a good guy. Unfortuanly I still see glimpses of Darth Vadors helmet in the windows of Redmond if I look hard enough..

Microsoft may be an unknown company to the young generation but this negative sentiment is, in my opinion, to strong and why Microsoft has done so poorly online. And, even if they take over Yahoo, this sentiment will spread and simply kill it too.

This leads me to Apple. A company that can do no wrong. A company that is for the people…

To be honest, I see large kinks in Apple too, but perception is real, and Apple is the master of Marketing and has done great things for the consumer.

If I was a major shareholder in Apple, I would be battleing big time to make OS-X cross platform. It is the newest major operating system in the world (It does have a few legacy issues but.). And its designed to run on Intel CPU’s. In real terms, OSX is simply NextSTEP, an old operating system Steve was behind, but died due to its $2000 price tag.) Of cource it was bastardised to make it the next release OS for OS9. NEXTStep was designed to run on ANY PC. As OSX could easily do. (And does like Linux does.)

If OSX was available on cheap white box computers, it would take 70% of the market over night. How could that possible be a bad thing for Apple? Apple hardware is great hardware, but if it is as good as it is, it could compete with everyone. The most profitable market in the world is selling BITS. Ie. Selling Software. It is basically free to duplicate and you have an ongoing relationship in which to can charge again and again. (Why do you thing Bill Gates was the richest man in the world for so long)

This is why the OpenComputer is such a BIG TOPIC on the blogisphere. It’s what everyone wants.

To bring OSX back into the topic of PCs as consumer electronics, the Apple OS, out of all proprietory OS’s is the BEST os to go embeded for consumer electronic devices. The Iphone is an example of this. And its a PHONE!!!! Not a inexpensive but for more powerful PC like a Asus EEPC.

To be honest, Apple are on top of these issues as the design of the MacBook AIR is very much designed along the lines of a consumer electronics PC, its just 5x to expensive. But its a sign that Apple know where the market is heading.

This is where Linux now has a real opportunity to become a real OS used by billons of people surfing the web. In real terms, embeded linux is the world leader. You don’t hear much about WindowsCE any more. Everyone is using Linux. It is far supiriour in every respect to WindowsCE, and WindowsEmbeded.

If the world does realise it only needs consumer electronic devices which can surf the web, facebook, email etc. Why spend all this extra money for an OS from Microsoft. Still, Microsoft have relaised this and Windows XP has been turned into the cheap alternative to Linux. Microsoft are probably selling it for next to nothing, but it keeps the end users using Microsoft products like Office. And keeps them using IE, which points the user as Microsoft web pages. This is the next big battle ground.

It is highly possible Windows XP may be a “free” operating system in the next few years.

To finish up, I simply want to say that the demise of Microsoft is greatly exagerated, however, the loss of industry dominance is not. I for one am glad to see this happening..

Google, however, is another matter…. A history of their actions will tell us where it’s heart lies, and if the usual nature of “Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.” Maybe they can buck the trend.

A number of years ago, back when the HDCAM deck was released, I was lucky enough to go to NAB.  During this time, I was in the market for a Telecine, of which the Cinealta was my favourite.  During this time, I was introduced to the head tech developers for the VTR division. Specifically the HDCAM guys who were there to show of the new VTR.

Being a pretentious tech, I ripped the device apart explaining to them why it is completely the wrong direction to go.  In the end, they asked me to dinner that night to continue the discussion. Apart from being a Post Production Tech, I had been trained in Computer science, and Robotics and Digital Technology while at University.  Ie, I could explain it to them on a level they could better understand then the typical Post Production tech.  In the end they are computer techs more than Post production techs.  They just build what they are told to build.

I approached the idea from the stand point of being a Post Production tech, then using my IT training to actually get to the crux of what would best suit the Post Production environment.

Following is a brief example of what I tried to teach them.

Digital = Data.  A digital betacam and beyond may be all digital based video devices, but they are all restricted/bound by non upgradable codecs and interfaces. Ie proprietary DigiBeta codec or HDCAM codec, or industry standard SDI/HDSDI and YUV interfaces.

To look at the issue more holistically I told them they needed to split the VTR up into 3 subsystems.

1.       The Data Transport.  Ie store BITS (on tape) as fast and reliably as possible.  Ie a tape data backup device.

2.       The Codec transport.  Ie where you can drop in any form of compression you like, utilising newer and better ones as they are developed.  This also makes the device very future proof.  Very important when they cost $160,000.00 AUD (Similar in US dollars) per unit. This would also allow faster than real time transfers (Well as fast as the Data Transport can go) or slower then real-time transfers but STILL SPOOLABLE of uncompressed or non-standard codecs.  At the time Cineon and DPX was what I pointed at.

3.       Independent Interfaces. YUV, SDI, HDSDI where standard industry interfaces.  But what about HDMI, DVI, Ethernet, SATA, fiber-channel, and other hi-speed data transport interfaces.

Finally I told them they needed to build a subsystem around all this with quite a bit of memory to cache a lot of the data so they can effectively use the tape mechanism.  (Tapes hate writing small amounts of data at a time.)  This also lets them build the Codec transports that can spool and view data files.  For example, imagine a stream of DPX files going to tape and the HD monitor playing/spooling  them back as it does it.

At the end of the day, I was trying to convince them that the most important issue here was DATA.  How we get it, how we use it should not be dictated by the archival medium we use.

I also tried to open there eyes to the fact that MPEG2, other forms of data in conjunction with tapeless workflow or distribution technologies would reduce the need for the VTR as it was known back then. (Well I didn’t mention this too much.  Didn’t want to scare them

The conversation went on all night.  There was a reasonable language barrier, so I was hoping describing it over and over with different scenarios would help them understand the concept.

I got a lot of “Ar-so” and other “Light going on above head” type reactions.

Amazingly enough the new SRW-5800 HDCAM SR Deck appears to be very close to what I described, with a few more modem tweaks based on current technologies.

If so, I must applaud the Sony VTR development team.  This could be one of the best products to come out of Sony in a long time.

Pity I cannot afford one.

The documents being released where, until recently, treated like the crown jewels of the Microsoft kingdom. This is a dramatic turn around. As such, this does indicate there has been a huge shift in Internet and IT culture.

After considering this for the last few days, l me give my opinion of what is happening here.

It is all about the developer community.

The developer community is the foundation of Microsoft’s dominance on the corporate market. Corporations purchase windows-servers and business solutions as the developers build their tools on them. As such, Microsoft has to keep the developers VERY happy, as if they move onto open source tools, which they are doing in droves, the unfriendly to open source software that Microsoft makes, will lock them out of new businesses. Corporations will be inclined to go completely open source. And once they do that. Microsoft is not likely to ever get back in the server room.

This is also evident as Microsoft has also made all there tools FREE for educational use.

I am extremely pleased about this as its great news for everyone. It shows that the open source tools are refined and comparable to commercial development tools. (Eclipse is fantastic). Linux and other application server technologies have just as much respect as Microsoft. And now, we can use these tools and soon be able to integrate into legacy and future Microsoft technologies.

Microsoft does not OWN the playground any more. If they want equal time on the playground, they are going to have to share.