ITV Player now uses Flash instead of Silverlight

[tghe-retford]

Excellent news tonight when I went to enter the competition for Dickinsons Real Deal and suddenly discovered that the ITV Player suddenly started to come to life, ITV have ditched Silverlight for Flash. \\:D/ \\:D/ \\:D/

Yippee. :D But before you consider everything is all rosy, they have been having technical problems - when I went on just now, ITV2 will stream fine but ITV1 will not.

[madjr]

yay

i hate silverlight

and moonlight has never worked so sucks even more when u at a sl site

[wipeout140]

Thanks for the heads up

[speedwell68]

Awesome, finally. It did work with Moonlight, but not very well.

[Retrograde77]

well ill be damned :)
Good news indeed.

[gnomeuser]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

[aikiwolfie]

Excellent news tonight when I went to enter the competition for Dickinsons Real Deal and suddenly discovered that the ITV Player suddenly started to come to life, ITV have ditched Silverlight for Flash. \\:D/ \\:D/ \\:D/

Yippee. :D But before you consider everything is all rosy, they have been having technical problems - when I went on just now, ITV2 will stream fine but ITV1 will not.

Everybody told Microsoft it was too late in the game to introduce a new browser plug-in for multimedia stuff. They didn't listen.

Microsofts arrogance is such that they thought they could unseat a technology that has spent the better part of the last 15 to 20 years becoming the defacto standard for rich media.

Add to that Microsofts timing couldn't have been worse if they tried. Flash is seriously embeded in the web. So much so people are now looking for easier ways to do things. Like the new video tag for HTML 5 and Apples HTML 5 tags for bringing Compiz like effects to web pages.

Just as Microsoft were late to the web, they're late to the plug-in party. So late they missed it completely!

[hanzomon4]

a sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on arm (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

+1

[aikiwolfie]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

People are cheering because Silverlight comes from Microsoft and nobody likes Microsoft. It doesn't matter at this point if Microsoft become the nicest company on Earth. They've used all their lives and burnt all good will bridges.

And now that their two flagship products, namely Windows and Office are on the ropes, Microsoft want to be buddies with the open source crowed while simultaneously attacking it?

If Microsoft wanted to be nice and promote interoperability they'd open source FAT and NTFS. They wouldn't have sued TomTom. But they did.

[ScrewdriverClock]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

Like it's been said here, it's mostly from people showing a blind hatred to anything Microsoft. Silverlight is way better at streaming HD video than Flash, and it's got a lot more promise in my opinion.

[tghe-retford]

In reply to those who think that this is just another bullet to shoot at Microsoft, I post on a major UK media and entertainment forum and in the threads about ITV Player I have seen there, those who have Windows have also had problems with Silverlight implementation on the ITV Player - no end of complaints. Admittedly it would have been nice to see if Moonlight could have developed further to work fully with ITV Player, looked more promising when I tried the latest beta.

For many people, the change to Flash on Linux as well as Windows and Mac is an improvement and it works - and anyway, it's a decision made by ITV management, so there is nothing we can do.

[solitaire]

I found the ITV site VERY buggy when it was using Silverlight! (It kept asking me to install silverlight every time i tried to view a Program!) even though I had the latest Moonlight installed the ITV site failed to see it on my install!!

Flash might be a bit more resource hungry but at least it works!

[aikiwolfie]

For some reason BBC iPlayer Desktop has started playing up on my Linux laptop. Don't know why exactly. Some programs will play. Most don't. It used to work flawlessly until the recent round of updates.

Nobody can fix it except Adobe. It hasn't been fixed yet.

What we need is a truely open source alternative that everybody can implement. Everybody can see the code and submit fixes to problems. Linux has progressed at breakneck speed with that development model. So could video on demand technologies.

[gnomeuser]

People are cheering because Silverlight comes from Microsoft and nobody likes Microsoft. It doesn't matter at this point if Microsoft become the nicest company on Earth. They've used all their lives and burnt all good will bridges.


i think people like yourself are forgetting all the research Microsoft has historically put out there. We owe a great deal of technnologys current state to them using their revenue to do basic research. Additionally you are totally ignoring or ascribing to malice the current trend within Microsoft to work with Open Source, release code under OSI approved licenses. Just yesterday they donated a million dollars to the newly founded Codeplex Foundation which is aimed at doing and furthering Open Source especially in business.

They have released tons of their specifications with a full promise to never sue implementers, they have started developing new formats in the open via ECMA.

They realize that the game has changed and they are adapting. Yes in the past they were dicks nobody is saying otherwise but the last few years we have seen the emergence of a new Microsoft. It's not going to be an overnight epiphany for them to become Open Source friendly but they have taken massive steps.. and yet at each one people like yourself are apt to ascribe their moves to villainy without proof.



And now that their two flagship products, namely Windows and Office are on the ropes, Microsoft want to be buddies with the open source crowed while simultaneously attacking it?


I hate to break it to you but Microsofts flagship products are not in any way on the ropes, they remain strong in the market. They continue to develop them to be good offering. They sit on what 95% of the market for office use? (number taken out of my behind but it's high we can agree). It hasn't seen significant decline ever.

We continue to offer what we feel is a superior product and people are using that as well. The entire market is growing. But in no way does a few million Linux users or the existence of Open Office indicate that Microsofts revenue is in danger.



If Microsoft wanted to be nice and promote interoperability they'd open source FAT and NTFS. They wouldn't have sued TomTom. But they did.

The Codeplex Foundation, the Community Promise, the Open Specification Promise, their contributions to existing Open Source projects and releasing of their own code under OSI approved licenses.. Microsoft does actually care about interoperability and they do actually do work on the issues. Yet you entirely and fully ignore that massive effort, along with the effort they spend working with companies like Novell.

Yes they sued TomTom, it doesn't mean that there is some big evil plan. It means that all of Microsoft being a big company still isn't on track with Open Source but they are getting there. They have taken MASSIVE steps and granted access to huge numbers of specifications with a clear promise to not sue.

[Exodist]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

Yea I agree.

[aikiwolfie]

i think people like yourself are forgetting all the research Microsoft has historically put out there. ...

Actually I'm not ignoring any of that. I'm well aware Microsoft has funded all kinds of research. But the simple fact is Microsoft didn't offer any of that funding out of pure generosity. Microsoft benefits as much as anybody and if not more so from the research they have funded.

The strategy Microsoft uses to attract researchers and academics to their R&D facilities is a necessity. Without giving those researchers the freedom to work on their own projects and publish their findings they would be less likely to go and work for Microsoft. Other businesses do all the same research Microsoft does. Other businesses contribute to charities and foundations. And they manage to do it without behaving even half as badly as Microsoft does. Samsung, IBM, HP, Dell, AMD and Motorola to name but a few.

All of these technology companies invest massive amounts of money in research. Some of it benefits them directly. Some indirectly. They are all successful companies. None of them have the negative reputation Microsoft has created for it's self. And yet none of those companies are angels. They've all done bad things.

Codeplex is a Microsoft invention. It's exists purely to encourage developers to use closed source Microsoft development tools, to create open source applications that are tied to Microsofts Windows platform.

Which basically defeats the point of open source. Only part of the software can be published. Any and all Microsoft dependencies remain closed source. If there is a bug in one of those dependencies there's a good chance the application can't be fixed or will have to be fudged to work around that bug.

Microsoft donated code to the Linux kernel for the very same reason. If companies are going to use virtual machines to run Linux on a Microsoft platform or Windows on a Linux platform, Microsoft needs to be able to say their system works best. They can't afford to have Windows crashing because it's being virtuallised or hosting demanding virtual machines.

A few million Linux users don't threaten Microsofts revenue. Companies like Google pushing out Linux powered "cloud" based solutions however do threaten Microsofts revenue. All of the major Linux distributors are pushing cloud solutions. Even CISCO Systems has found away to use Linux to turn it's routers into Linux powered application servers.

Think about that for a moment. The "cloud" is fast becoming the popular trend. It's basically the old client/server model reborn on a massive scale. All of Microsofts competitors are pushing products that are at least file compatible with each other thanks to projects like ODF and to some extent file compatible with Microsofts products.

Now if your Microsoft would you feel your core businesses were being threatened? Your office productivity applications are under attack. Your customers are demanding interoperability and to make things worse, the leading server OS (Linux) has found a back door to the desktop via hosting cloud based services.

If I were Microsoft I'd be very concerned by these developments. Suddenly your entire core business looks like it could implode.

The antics of Microsoft recently would seem to suggest somebody at a high level in Microsoft feels Linux is gaining too much ground. Why else would Microsoft publish FUD as training materials? Why would they list Canonical as a threat to their client software business (Windows) in their 10-K report?

It's like I said before. Microsoft could become the nicest company on Earth. Unfortunately they have used up all of their lives and burnt all goodwill bridges. Microsoft has proven it's self time and again to be a company that will stab it's partners and customers in the back given the chance.

The TomTom case really is just the tip of the iceberg. If you're a company that really genuinely has an interest in fostering open source collaborative development, you don't turn around and accuse those open source developers of infringing on your patents.

Microsoft has no interest in open source. Market trends towards open source technologies are forcing Microsoft to adjust their business model. Which Microsoft is having a hard time doing because it's purely a profits driven company. Making a profit from open source takes time and effort. It does not turn a quick buck like Microsofts traditional business model does.

[aikiwolfie]

I hate to break it to you but Microsofts flagship products are not in any way on the ropes, they remain strong in the market. They continue to develop them to be good offering. They sit on what 95% of the market for office use? (number taken out of my behind but it's high we can agree). It hasn't seen significant decline ever.

If i4i have their way Office will be off the shelves. Assuming Microsoft are being truthful and it really will take months to remove Custom XML from Word. From what I can gather Microsoft only just managed to get a stay of execution for Word because Dell and HP waded in to protect their own PC sales.

Aside from the legal problems alternatives to Microsoft Office are making in roads. OpenOffice alone now holds 13% of the market share for office productivity software. Which I know doesn't sound like much. But considering the head of steam Microsoft has with Office and it's poor cousin twice removed Works. OpenOffice is storming up the charts.

Vista was a flop. Nobody bought other than home users. Home users only bought it because it came pre-installed on the PC. That's not a good sign. Especially when powerful companies like Google and IBM are pushing Linux powered cloud services that render the OS on the desktop mute.

[SunnyRabbiera]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

Well thats the pot calling the kettle black, last time I checked Moonlight was still a version behind silverlight with no help from Microsoft...
Moonlight was supposed to be a collaborative effort between Microsoft and Novell, but Moonlight is still at VERSION 1 while Silverlight is at Version 2.
While Microsoft drug its feet Novell was left with the tab.
Novell is on its own on it, serves them right for trusting the viper that is Microsoft.

[zekopeko]

Well thats the pot calling the kettle black, last time I checked Moonlight was still a version behind silverlight with no help from Microsoft...
Moonlight was supposed to be a collaborative effort between Microsoft and Novell, but Moonlight is still at VERSION 1 while Silverlight is at Version 2.
While Microsoft drug its feet Novell was left with the tab.
Novell is on its own on it, serves them right for trusting the viper that is Microsoft.

FUDing much are we?
Everything you said is a big lie or at least shows a level of ignorance that is perplexing.

[solitaire]

Just wondering about the "Cost" difference between Flash based DRM (like the BBC iPlayer) and Silverlight based players?

And Personally i think the only reason Microsoft "opened" the Silverlight to create the Moonlight open source version is so they they can charge more users for the DRM licenses. Since that's where the money is, not the players themselves!

But I'm just paranoid like that! ^_^

[ade234uk]

From a users point of view, this means I can now watch ITV at last. Seems these websites are losing revenue and are getting lots of complaints from Mac and Linux users due to it not being compatible.

I personally don't give a stuff how good silverlight is, I want to be able to watch programmes like Windows users have enjoyed for months, flash works for everyone and thats they way it should be.

For a new user of Ubuntu, this could be one of the reasons why they wont switch, simply because a site won't stream movies. Bloody Microsoft held me back for months, because the football site I used had a stupid license thing that only worked on WMP. This means I could not use Ubuntu full time on my home machine. Guess what they changed the site and made it compatable with Mac and Linux users. I can now listen to matches live. The site works a 1,000,000 times better now and they are getting less complaints and probably making getting back the customers they have lost due to their ignorance.

This is good news for all concerned, I would personally email ITV and let them know they now have new viewers.

[zekopeko]

Just wondering about the "Cost" difference between Flash based DRM (like the BBC iPlayer) and Silverlight based players?

And Personally i think the only reason Microsoft "opened" the Silverlight to create the Moonlight open source version is so they they can charge more users for the DRM licenses. Since that's where the money is, not the players themselves!

But I'm just paranoid like that! ^_^

Why yes you are paranoid.
Moonlight doesn't have the DRM stack and AFAIK MS doesn't charge for Silverlight or this cryptic "DRM licenses", what ever they are.

[SunnyRabbiera]

FUDing much are we?
Everything you said is a big lie or at least shows a level of ignorance that is perplexing.

Oh really, then tell my why Moonlight is so far behind Silverlight if Silverlight is so "open"
If this was a true collaboration we would not have a gap like this, if Microsoft was so intent on "opening" silverlight then why does it seems Novell and the Mono team seem to be doing this alone?
Silverlight and Moonlight were supposed to be a part of the Microsoft/Novell deal but as Moonlight seemed to finally catch up with Silverlight BAM! There goes Silverlight version 2.
Then when Moonlight goes version 2 Silverlight will probably be at version 3 starting the catch up game all over again.
This is where the Microsoft/Novell deal shows what a farce it is, Novell should have known better.
Now I am not on the Boycottnovell party, but this issue with Moonlight/Silverlight gives a great deal to think about.

[gnomeuser]

Oh really, then tell my why Moonlight is so far behind Silverlight if Silverlight is so "open"


Late start, additionally the jump from Silverlight 1 to 2 is wellknown to be a massively different piece of technology. It's bigger and covers more use cases. In other words since SL1 really wasn't that interesting when it was announced nobody had an interest in implementing it. When SL2 was announced suddenly the full potential of the technology was glimpsed.

We also aren't far behind, additionally near all of the SL content out there now is based on SL2 rather than the just released SL3. The current beta releases of Moonlight are fully compliant (though is likely to be slower in certain cases but compliance should be up to par since it is tested against Microsofts own suite).

Additionally the step from SL2 to SL3 support is much smaller and should be a quicker development. In fact the current Moonlight already includes certain bits of SL3 and those were available before the official release of Microsoft's implementation.

SL4 was just announced, along with the open sourcing of at least one vital piece of code namely the adaptive streaming implementation.



If this was a true collaboration we would not have a gap like this, if Microsoft was so intent on "opening" silverlight then why does it seems Novell and the Mono team seem to be doing this alone?


They have opened code and in fact some code used by Moonlight is directly from Microsoft released under the MS-PL license. Additionally they put the XAML dictionary under their Open Specification Promise which means a full patent grant and a covenant not to sue implementers (and since the core of SL is "speaking" XAML that is judged to be a full grant to implement Silverlight - even according to Debians strict guidelines).

They also share the compliance test suite with the Moonlight community via Novell thanks to their cooperation agreement. This is vital in ensuring that Moonlight is 100% in line with the other implementation.

Furthermore for users who for legal reasons cannot use the ffmpeg libraries to decode media, they pay the bill for us to get fully licensed and legal codec support. The code is vetted and ported by Novell under the agreement. No code can be shared here for legal reasons not involving Microsoft (blame the MPEG-LA for this specific horror).

Microsoft are sharing code, specifications and ensuring that we have the equal experience to other platforms. I think that is going above and beyond from their 1990's stance on Open Source. I mean sure it would be nice if they actually opened all the code but surely nobody demands miracles when an evolution from what Microsoft was to a more open variant. While they are not yet entirely where they embrace openness as the true path they are certainly growing closer each year and in a pace that is suitable both for their business and their culture.



Silverlight and Moonlight were supposed to be a part of the Microsoft/Novell deal but as Moonlight seemed to finally catch up with Silverlight BAM! There goes Silverlight version 2.
Then when Moonlight goes version 2 Silverlight will probably be at version 3 starting the catch up game all over again.
This is where the Microsoft/Novell deal shows what a farce it is, Novell should have known better.


See above why this is an uninformed argument. Evidence clearly shows that Moonlight is catching up from a late start at an incredible speed even releasing SL3 features before Microsoft.

I am currently unaware of the extend of additional work the newly announced SL4 will be but listening to what it brings along over SL3 it doesn't sound like a big step. By far the biggest amount of work so far is the SL1 to SL2 revolution as has been stated above, once that is fully embraced and implemented I suspect that future SL iterations will be much easier to keep up with.

Luckily we are nearly there today, you should be able to get a Moonlight beta release today with very near 100% compliance for SL2.



Now I am not on the Boycottnovell party, but this issue with Moonlight/Silverlight gives a great deal to think about.

What issue I ask again? From a late start on SL1/2, Moonlight is nearly there with SL2 support today. SL3 is a significantly, by orders of magnitude, smaller step and should be a much quicker development iteration. There really is no issue, development is strong and the pace is excellent. Delivery of future SL support should be much more in line with the Microsoft implementation timewise.

I fail to see the evidence to back up your conclusion.

[ukblacknight]

A sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on ARM (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

Except moonlight doesn't seem to work. Whenever I've encountered a site that uses it, moonlight fails.

I tried the ITV Player two weeks ago before this - it asked me to install Silverlight (in which MS kindly points me to moonlight), installed moonlight... and nothing. It didn't work.

I'm cheering it, because I can now watch ITV programs online. It's not like the moonlight version was more buggy than Flash, it just did not work. I've nothing against Microsoft at all, I think Windows 7 is fantastic and it's nice to see that they released a competitor to flash.

There is no way this is a step backward.

[directhex]

Except moonlight doesn't seem to work. Whenever I've encountered a site that uses it, moonlight fails.

I tried the ITV Player two weeks ago before this - it asked me to install Silverlight (in which MS kindly points me to moonlight), installed moonlight... and nothing. It didn't work.

I'm cheering it, because I can now watch ITV programs online. It's not like the moonlight version was more buggy than Flash, it just did not work. I've nothing against Microsoft at all, I think Windows 7 is fantastic and it's nice to see that they released a competitor to flash.

There is no way this is a step backward.

Sorry, but wrong.

ITV Player has been functional since Moonlight 2.0 beta 1.1, which was released on August 19th.

[directhex]

Oh god it's true

Goodbye smooth fullscreen, hello nspluginwrapper, grey boxes, unresponsive browser, and proprietary plugin

[juancarlospaco]

They should use OGG Theora Video instead of Flash now...

[ukblacknight]

Sorry, but wrong.

ITV Player has been functional since Moonlight 2.0 beta 1.1, which was released on August 19th.

Maybe so, but the redirect didn't point me to the beta. We just ended up watching it on my girlfriends laptop in Windows :(

I could be wrong, but it seems Silverlight's success could depend on the progress of Moonlight. Maybe Moonlight is good, but it always seems to be a version behind Silverlight, which just makes it redundant (as probably seen in this ITV Player case). So to make lives easier for them and their customers, ITV decided (maybe with a push from advertisers) to switch to Flash, and so Microsoft lost a rather large client.

Ideally, it would benefit everyone if Microsoft and Novell collaborated more closely on Moonlight, to ensure that the same versions are released at the same time, preventing these problems. Actually, thinking about it, it would be even better if they could use the swanky video features of HTML5 :).

(Apologies if I appear cranky, quite tired and been trying to compile MonoDevelop 2.2 Beta for a while, as MD 2.0 seems to enjoy crashing rather frequently.)

[zekopeko]

They should use OGG Theora Video instead of Flash now...

Silverlight (3 I think) should be able to load any codec that is written in a managed language that .NET/Mono support.
From what I understand that means that you don't have to have the codec installed at all. Silverlight simply takes it from the site you are using and runs it in a sandbox mode playing video.

[directhex]

Silverlight (3 I think) should be able to load any codec that is written in a managed language that .NET/Mono support.
From what I understand that means that you don't have to have the codec installed at all. Silverlight simply takes it from the site you are using and runs it in a sandbox mode playing video.

Yup, your understanding is correct

http://veritas-vos-liberabit.com/tmp/2009/MoonVorbisTest/Bin/Debug/ is a very very simple example of this (requires Moon 2 beta or SL3) - feed it a 44.1khz Vorbis file, and it'll play it using a C# Vorbis implementation, on any system with no Vorbis support

[hobo14]

a sad day. We went from a tool we have a 100% compliant fully open source implementation of to something that is known buggy, doesn't run on arm (yet) and is entirely proprietary.

I don't see why people are cheering, it's a step backwards.

+1

[zekopeko]

Yup, your understanding is correct

http://veritas-vos-liberabit.com/tmp/2009/MoonVorbisTest/Bin/Debug/ is a very very simple example of this (requires Moon 2 beta or SL3) - feed it a 44.1khz Vorbis file, and it'll play it using a C# Vorbis implementation, on any system with no Vorbis support

Man I'm GOOD! :D

[directhex]

Blogged.

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/199/