backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 66 comment(s) - last by Talkstr8t.. on Jan 14 at 9:12 PM

Intel's Media Processor CE 3100, expected to appear in Blu-Ray players and other devices next year, will be sporting Adobe Flash, as a means of providing expanded content, and improved media center internet capabilities.  (Source: Intel)
Adobe's Flash may provide next generation of interactive TV content

Adobe and Intel turned heads in the TV and internet industry today when they announced a new partnership to bring Adobe's Flash to TVs using Intel's Media Processor CE 3100, a chip geared for next-generation entertainment centers.  Adobe is looking for new platforms to extend its Flash product already dominant on the internet, and has already been reported to be moving to bring Flash to Blackberries and other smart phones.  And while some companies like Apple insist Flash is insignificant, if it is Adobe certainly hasn't gotten the memo.

It will be looking to put Flash into Intel-based cable set-top boxes, Blu-ray Disc players, digital TVs and retail connected AV devices.  Flash will provide high-definition interactive content which Adobe and Intel hope will become an industry standard and catapult both companies to greater fortune.

Adobe is optimizing both its Adobe Flash and Adobe Flash Lite products for Intel's CE 3100 platform.  Flash Lite, a new leaner build of Flash, is expected to be ready for the platform by mid-2009 at the latest.

William O. Leszinske Jr., general manager of Intel's Digital Home Group helped Intel break the news of the new partnership.  He states, "The Intel® Media Processor CE 3100 is a highly integrated solution that provides a powerful, yet flexible technology foundation that will bring to life the high-definition capabilities of Adobe Flash.  Our effort with Adobe is poised to accelerate a rich, yet relevant Internet experience on the TV that will provide consumers with access to a growing number of Flash based applications that will ultimately be enjoyed across a number of screens seamlessly, from the laptop to a MID and now the TV."

The engine powering the new Flash, the CE 3100, is a member of the System on Chips (SoCs) family.  Announced at the Intel Developer Forum in August, it features a powerful media-geared CPU, graphical processing, dedicated 3D graphics processing, a 3-channel 800 MHz DDR2 controller, multi-channel audio DSPs, and support for the PCI Express and USB 2.0 standards.  It supports MPEG-2, H.264 or VC-1 video encoding, among other standards.  Devices using the SoC are expected to arrive early to mid next year.

Flash's jump from the internet to the TV represents a further step toward unified internet-connected home media centers, which will act as PCs and as TVs.  Such devices, while championed by many in the tech community, still have yet to achieve widespread adoption, with many families have unconnected PCs and TVs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Blu-Ray does it again
By oab on 1/5/2009 12:30:54 PM , Rating: 4
You define a standard, and then can't bloody well leave it alone.

Way to alienate your base who shelled out the dollars for BD 1.0 players, only to see the spec shift to 2.0, and now a new spec with flash.

Sure the movies will still play on all 1.0 players, but the extra-special features, that will only play on new new hardware (unless they can somehow patch it in via. a firmware update).

Consumer electronics like this are supposed to be fixed once delivered. You can add new outputs, upconverting, overscanning, zoom thingies, etc. but the standard itself should not be a moving target. An old player *should* be able to take advantage of all the same features on the disk itself that a new player can. This only causes confusion in the marketplace.




RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 12:33:13 PM , Rating: 3
Should've supported HD-DVD. You know the format that was actually done with its specification. And if they needed to add something, even Gen1 players came with an ethernet port.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Chaser on 1/5/2009 12:59:36 PM , Rating: 1
Now that would be a brilliant choice today. And then you'd have a great over priced DVD player with 15 high def movies to watch?

I personally don't expect new features and new innovation to come to a screeching halt just because someone bought a first gen player. This sorta thing happens with computers, cars, and other consumer items. They grow and improve. Despite that all BD players can um still play their growing library of movies? Assuming that's why he bought a BD player.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 2:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
The point was that if people had picked the just as technologically capable yet functionally complete format, instead of the one blown up by Sony press, then HD-DVD would have won the format war and we'd all be using HD-DVD players.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By theapparition on 1/5/2009 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree, I must make one correction. People had no say whatsoever in the choice. The movie studios made our decisions.

Personally, I don't care anymore since I have 3 BD and 4 HD-DVD players. People forget, the Toshibas are some of the best upconverting models out there. Don't find it money wasted at all.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By tastyratz on 1/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By therealnickdanger on 1/5/2009 4:20:13 PM , Rating: 3
Eh? HD-DVD was never more expensive than Blu-Ray. I aggressively supported HD-DVD early on because it was cheaper and offered quality indistinguishable from BD. I don't regret my decision now since I bought hybrid players, but HD-DVD was the better format IMO. The extra space on the BD makes very little difference in actual use. I will say, however, that I like BD's support of uncompressed audio streams, I wish HD-DVD had done more of that. Both formats have lossless support, but uncompressed seems like the way to go.

All my players are currently Profile 1.1, and I can flash them to 2.0, but unless there's a performance gain, I don't see the point. I don't buy my movies for extras.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By tastyratz on 1/5/2009 4:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should have elaborated.

The players were cheaper, but the movies were not. If there was a difference it was negligible at best (till it was too late and they had their fire sale)

When movies first came out the format was not utilizing all of the space, but after some time to mature there are some movies that come out now packing double layer bluray's. Had the format war been raging still I think the gap would have widened in the disc quality difference. Dark knight alone is 35gb.

as far as lossless goes: It really doesn't matter vs uncompressed. The entire point of lossless sound is to compress in ways that you don't lose a single bit of data. Anyone who thinks they can hear a difference between lossless and pcm is delusional. Lossy yes, but they call it lossLESS for a reason.

The only benefit to pcm might be reduced processing by the player but its hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the massive reduction in size. If anything the disc read speed might be more of a limitation causing the audio to impede on video quality while it fights for bandwidth.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By inighthawki on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/5/2009 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the 3-layer HD-DVDs did not play on the original spec HD-DVD players and in fact no players were ever sold that could play them. Talk about not getting the standard fixed before you released it...


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Alexstarfire on 1/5/2009 10:47:28 PM , Rating: 3
That's not entirely true. It's true, at least I believe, that no players could play the 3 layer disc, but they were supposed to come out with firmware that was going to allow the older players to play these new disc. It wasn't that they were physically capable of playing it, just that the software didn't know how to handle the discs.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/6/2009 12:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
At no point was it confirmed that the 51GB discs would work on launch players:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2007/...

"Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD players with the disc after the standard is approved by the DVD Forum. It is premature to speculate about it now."

This was Toshiba's response to whether or not the current players would be able to play the discs. Don't get confused with the 3 layer hybrid discs, which were 2xHDDVD and 1xDVD (also never confirmed to work with launch hardware, but probably would have worked).

Part of the problem might have been that when they went to 51GB, they also increased the data per layer from 15GB to 17GB. Almost certainly, this was done for show, to beat the 50GB stated size of blu-ray. But it remains to be seen if those players could ever have even read all 17GB of one layer, let alone reading at a 3rd depth.

-Dan


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/6/2009 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
I should add...if Toshiba wasn't willing to confirm it would work, that was probably because they knew it wouldn't, or wasn't likely to.

-Dan


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Alexvrb on 1/5/2009 11:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
How is uncompressed better than lossless?


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By CZroe on 1/7/2009 10:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
It does not require expensive players or receivers with support for lossless audio codec decoding. Duh.

Every HD-DVD player was heavily subsidized and sold at an extreme loss, so you didn't notice that they were paying royalties for the mandatory TrueHD... a real-world cost of the storage limitations.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/7/2009 12:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Less hardware required to decode.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By ats on 1/5/2009 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Except that a lot of movies that came out on BR and on BR/HD-DVD were extremely subpar. It doesn't matter how much space you have if they champion of a given standard is pushing subpar codecs and horrible tool chains.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By CZroe on 1/7/2009 10:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless, the extra storage space would be useful in all other markets unrelated to movies. Software distribution, video recording, server backup, etc would all benefit. Obviously, performance as a next-gen video disc sales format is important and is the driving factor, but it's not the only factor.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By SoylentG on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By 9nails on 1/5/2009 9:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Inflexibility you mean? That's not what they're saying!!! HD-DVD included all the features in Blu-Ray "profile 1.0", "profile 1.1" and "profile 2.0" in it's standard feature set.

So, no need to replace your hardware like Blu-Ray is requiring - you got the full feature sets the first time! Now we're looking at a Blu-Ray "profile 3.0" or maybe even "profile 4.0" products and making all the stand-alone players obsolete as far as features goes.

You missed the part that they were saying with the Ethernet port as a standard item on HD-DVD players! Want new features? Just trigger the flash update from your manufacture and you get new features. Ta da! That's the beauty of a well designed product.

Now, I see that Intel's point is to sell another chip to the Blu-Ray camp and Adobe wants to piggyback that PowerPoint with Flash for functionality. Good luck to them on that - but maybe more features is what Blu-Ray needs to set itself apart from DVD.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By mars777 on 1/6/2009 2:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
obsolete as far as features goes.


Does this mean that they are unable to do what they were supposed to do when they were sold?

No?

Then what the heck?

You wanted flash support in BD version 1.0? Hmm, wishful thinking... to have something inexistent two years ahead of invention...


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Belard on 1/6/2009 7:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
I actually own two DVD-VCR combos (Lots of tapes, and DVD-R discs don't have longivity... Wish they did, like 20~50 years like they WERE supposed to).

They happen to be a SONY and a Toshiba. Both are far better than the DVD & VCRs that they replaced (space saver). But the Toshiba design is dumber, even thou its the newer unit. Both were about $100.

1 - Its showing signs of play-back issues, even thou its used less and is 1 year newer. But it plays DVDR +/- discs.

2 - The stupid thing DOESN'T EVER STOP PLAYING THE DISC. Press stop, go to VCR/Tuner mode (I run cableTV through it) and still hear the disc spinning. So we always have to EJECT the discs to prevent wear on the drive and stop the noise.

3 - I can (and have) watched a DVD, while recording something else. The Toshiba is stupid and thinks it should record off the DVD player.

Toshiba is one of the better companies out there, especially for TVs. They aren't a bad company.

I buy some SONY stuff, because I like them. But there are something I'd not buy from SONY... like computers. ;) But I love thier phones... some of them.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Belard on 1/6/2009 7:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should've supported HD-DVD. You know the format that was actually done with its specification. And if they needed to add something, even Gen1 players came with an ethernet port.


geez can you guys come up with something else besides this stupid line about "specifications". Blue' 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are not revisions. The only difference between 1.1 & 2.0 is the internet connection ability... something *I* don't want.

Specifications are always changing, period. The media type changes over time as well. Want proof?

1 - Audio Cassette : Various dolby versions and recording time... Dolby B,C, NR - etc.

2 - VHS : First there was mono, then Stereo, then Hi-Fi, then 4-head, 5-head and 6head vcrs. (We're back to 4 for the last VCRs). HiFi recorded tapes don't play in HiFi in mono or plain-Stereo VCRs... HiFi quickly became standard.

3 - DVD... has changed countless times. Do you have a 5+ year old player? Burn something onto a disc and play it. Or how about a DIVX movie? Oh yeah, NEW DVD players will read DVDR +/- R/RW discs now as well a DIVX. 5 years ago, maybe it'll play R+ or R- but not both. My first DVD player in 2001 ($285) couldn't play CD-R discs.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By tastyratz on 1/5/2009 12:41:18 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. The bd spec should not be the way it is. Its like draft N wireless which is a joke, it's been "draft" for what feels like 25 years now.

The standard should evolve but through firmware updates and work around existing hardware.
Many people wont know what a bluray player spec xyz will play, they will just know they are mad when they put a disc in that wont function properly.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/5/2009 5:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but all movies play on spec 1.0...right? It's the additional features that don't work, and to this day I haven't seen one person use the extras on a DVD, let alone a blu-ray / HD-DVD.

Most people just want to watch the movie. A few want the extras. And those people might be a little annoyed when they find that future extras will be in flash (which they won't have), even anything flash can do, java can do better... But new features = new hardware requirements, it's just how it is. If there is still a lowest common denominator it forces the movie companies to build to it, so you will always be able to watch the movie.

-Dan


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By foolsgambit11 on 1/5/2009 8:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
New features shouldn't require new hardware for BD players in computers, right? It's just a matter of a lack of processing power and firmware on old Blu-Ray players? I mean, the data on the disc is still stored the same way (mechanically, that is, not format-wise), and is still read with the same laser.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By adiposity on 1/6/2009 12:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, PowerDVD or WinDVD upgrade should be all that is necessary.

-Dan


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By killerroach on 1/5/2009 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 3
However, adopting Flash can still be done within the confines of the BD 2.0 specification, as 2.0 requires players be able to update themselves, as well as have a set amount of local storage available for such updates...

In short, 2.0 is an open-ended specification, one that isn't an "either-or" proposition.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By DragonMaster0 on 1/5/2009 3:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but are the current players able to handle Flash content without struggling. Intel announces a new, more powerful chip to use with it.

Oh, and BD-Live compatible players already have Java on them. Is Flash really needed? Java can do everything Flash does already, and they want to add a new thing current players won't support...


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By killerroach on 1/5/2009 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have two theories on that.

1) The movie studios came to the BDA, saying they don't have many people proficient as Java coders, but have plenty of Flash coders (due to their omnipresent, gaudy promotional websites), and then contacted Adobe as to how to get Flash working alongside BD-ROM content.

2) Adobe, insistent on getting their paws into everything, attempts to drum up support on their own, getting anybody and everybody whom they think might be a useful idiot to their cause to join them as they wreak a blazing path of destruction across the digital landscape.

My guess, naturally, is with 2).


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By oab on 1/5/2009 9:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Or because Sony is involved wanted to sell more players and that by offering a new featureset that is "incompatible" with older players did this deliberately to shift more units instead of using the existing Java runtime (or updating it to a newer version via. a firmware update)


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By BansheeX on 1/6/2009 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, ffs, commit yourself to an insane asylum already. Every time some fearmongering anti-Sony article comes out like this on DT, the nutters come out of the wood work to rationalize it as a cash grab conspiracy. Sony sells every PS3 BELOW COST, and that's it's biggest selling BD device. Some cash grab. Stop flipping out at firmware updates to support new interactive junk. It's A MOVIE, 98% of users don't give a crap whether interactive nonsense included with it works or not. Every BD player from now until the end of time will work with what matters, stop poo pooing.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By RamarC on 1/5/2009 6:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
i recall that flash09.ocx caused nearly all of my ie7 crashes. so pardon me while i gag at the thought of embedding it in my bd/dvd player.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Smilin on 1/5/2009 1:49:52 PM , Rating: 5
1. Blu-ray players are firmware/software upgradeable (I patched mine once already, it's easy)
2. This would be extra-content only as you mentioned.
3. Extra content would still be available via non-flash.
4. Everyone skips the damn extra content anyway.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By oab on 1/5/2009 3:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
But if the extra content is still available via non-flash, then why add flash?


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By semo on 1/5/2009 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 3
to make things slower and force you to upgrade your hardware.

some sites are so damn slow on my pc now because of crap like this.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Smilin on 1/6/2009 3:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Same reasons websites do it with the flash and non-flash version of their pages.

There are already some souped-up content things on blu-ray that you can opt out when the menu is loading. I typically do. Blu-ray is incredibly slow to boot, load-disc, and reach the menu already. Unless you own one you just wouldn't believe how bad it is. I couldn't care less about flash.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By guidoq on 1/5/2009 8:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think the article is saying that Adobe/Intel will be trying to get it into everything. I saw nothing that said the blu-ray spec has been changed or that even any vendor had agreed to use the chip. Many Blu-ray players stream Netflix but it is not part of the Blu-ray spec. Its just something extra the player can do.


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Smilin on 1/6/2009 3:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah adobe has been working with Intel to get better flash support built into mobile processors for cells/pda too.

Frankly I wish we would just move towards silverlight. I'm not sure how MS managed to give it better functionality than flash yet be so very lightweight. I likes it a lot though :)


RE: Blu-Ray does it again
By Dreifort on 1/6/2009 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
won't this be solved by the ridiculed PS3 "update"?

lol...xbox fanboys mock the constant updates, but looks like in the end - PS3 owners will have future-gen games that will still play on PS3 while Xbox owners will have to purchase a new system?

This (BR 2.0) sounds great for PS3 owners.


Can't wait!
By chmilz on 1/5/2009 12:23:16 PM , Rating: 5
TV power-up time: 2 seconds
Forced Adobe splash screen: 5 minutes




RE: Can't wait!
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 12:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Agreed. I don't need Flash on my TV. Does anyone even watch some of the crap on Blu-rays as extras? Or use any of the online features?


RE: Can't wait!
By Gzus666 on 1/5/2009 12:40:15 PM , Rating: 5
I can honestly say I don't. Love the format, could really care less about the live features. About the only time I watch extra stuff is if it is alternate endings or any other interesting little things.


RE: Can't wait!
By AlexWade on 1/5/2009 2:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have to take advantage of the Blu-Ray in-movie features. But I did watch several movies with the HD DVD in-movie features. For the Bourne trilogy, the relevant info pop-up thing was nice.


RE: Can't wait!
By AnnihilatorX on 1/5/2009 12:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen flash having splash screens though.


RE: Can't wait!
By MrPoletski on 1/5/2009 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

when I read the title I thought it meant NAND flash tho hehe.


RE: Can't wait!
By Aquila76 on 1/5/2009 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
We'll just have to wait for an ad/Flash-block extension; er, firmware hack.


It's all so clear now...
By dusteater on 1/5/2009 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 5
So this is why Adobe won't release a Flash player version on 64-bit browsers, they are too busy trying to put Flash in Blu-Ray players. They sure have their priorities straight.




RE: It's all so clear now...
By Smilin on 1/5/2009 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 4
No. Adobe won't put Flash on 64-bit browsers because Adobe sucks. This is unrelated. Don't overanalyze :)


RE: It's all so clear now...
By shadowofthesun on 1/5/2009 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I have 64-bit flash running natively on a 64-bit platform running 64-bit Firefox.

I just happen to be running linux.


RE: It's all so clear now...
By Smilin on 1/6/2009 3:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you could get your oven to run the linux kernel. Then you could bake your own fvcking cookie.


Press releases...
By cochy on 1/5/2009 12:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The Intel® Media Processor CE 3100 is a highly integrated solution that provides a powerful, yet flexible technology foundation that will bring to life the high-definition capabilities of Adobe Flash. Our effort with Adobe is poised to accelerate a rich, yet relevant Internet experience on the TV that will provide consumers with access to a growing number of Flash based applications that will ultimately be enjoyed across a number of screens seamlessly, from the laptop to a MID and now the TV."


Am I the only one who gets a headache when reading these buzz word filled, marketing fluff, meaningless press releases?




RE: Press releases...
By Smilin on 1/5/2009 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yes.

You must learn to skim. This is what I read and I don't get headaches...

quote:
"The Intel **Something something Processor** is a **something something works with** Adobe Flash. Our effort with Adobe **something something sh1t works with TV** that will provide consumers with access to a growing number of Flash based applications that will **something something sh1t works on both PCs and TV**."


RE: Press releases...
By cochy on 1/5/2009 2:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
You must teach me! :P


I boycott flash
By Schugy on 1/5/2009 2:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even use flash bannerad player on my PC. I don't need it on my tv either.




RE: I boycott flash
By icanhascpu on 1/5/2009 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
What did flash ever do to you that adblock cant handle?


RE: I boycott flash
By Flunk on 1/6/2009 1:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
Why install a plugin to just block it again. The sum effect is the same but your solution ads time and wastes processor cycles.

Flash is for pretty animations and if I don't want to see the animations I don't have to. Any site that requires Flash is written by idiots and I have no time for idiots.


By Dribble on 1/5/2009 1:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
No wonder intel like it, everything Adobe produces stalls all but the fastest hardware out there. A major reason I retired my old 2.6 celeron laptop was flash in web pages ground it to a halt.

Acrobat sucks stupid amounts of resources for what amounts to a simple document viewer for most of us (given that foxit can do the same job with about 1/10 of the resources and no annoying background processes).

Another reason to get a PS3 as a blue ray player I suppose, it can probably still manage to do a good job of blue ray decoding while having 3/4's of it's resources chewed up displaying some silly little "flash lite" advertising banner.




True, Flash ?
By greylica on 1/5/2009 4:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
The engine powering the new Flash , the CE 3100, is a member of the System Unresponsible Killed Chips (S**Cs)




By Guttersnipe on 1/5/2009 7:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
sub 200 dollar players mean squat if the films cost 25-30 dollars. i'm sorry, thats just not a price at people will bother adopting the format.




Sorry, but I think...
By Oralen on 1/6/2009 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
This article really doesn't get what the real motive for this chip is.

It has nothing to do about Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is just used as a possible example!

And the big thing is not flash support.

The PS3 can already handle Flash with its integrated browser. Even flash video in full screen on YouTube.

I don't even know if it would really require an update to execute some flash applet just because it would be read on a Blu-Ray disc.

Does anyone know if the 360's browser can read flash? I don't own one.

But.. I would bet it already does.

Here's what's happening.

Both chips, in the 360, and in the PS3, were in part developed by IBM.

Both console plug into a TV, can access the web, and serve as a Media Extender, with DLNA.

Both are NOT Intel.

Intel doesn't like that. Intel wants to be in the living room, also.

There is a lot of money, there, just in front of the couch.

TV, DVD, Set-top-boxes, VCR, Blu-ray, Home-Cinema, Game systems...

A lot of money.

And no clear winner yet. No machine that can do it all in one box, yet.

But Microsoft is trying... And Sony is trying...

And Intel ISN'T in ANY of those pricey boxes...

Hence the new chip.




By Talkstr8t on 1/14/2009 9:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to the first post here, the BDA has nothing to do with Intel and Adobe putting flash into a Blu-ray player, and it will be very, very cumbersome for Blu-ray Disc-based content to in any way access or communicate with the Flash environment. The only flash mentioned in the Blu-ray spec is flash memory, not Adobe Flash.

What was demoed at CES was a bunch of generic widgets (stocks, weather, etc.) which can be pulled up on top of the Blu-ray movie. There was no Blu-ray content in any way interacting with Flash, nor is there likely to be in the future.




What?
By Tritoon on 1/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By rgsaunders on 1/5/2009 8:08:21 PM , Rating: 1
And is that a bad thing?


RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 1/5/2009 10:59:20 PM , Rating: 1
What, no wasting hours watching crap? Damn, how did I live without flash before?


RE: What?
By mindless1 on 1/9/2009 11:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
without flash, if we all just said "no", they'd be offered in a format that didn't require it.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki