"RokuPatrick" wrote:
That's what I want to understand. We've got some level of FLV support in there, but not documented or officially supported, but for those that are asking for FLV, why and for what content?
Patrick
Patrick,
There's *alot* of video out there in legacy flash format. I think most of the guys here are interested in using other peoples content that's in flash, more like what boxee is allowing. Don't want to get into boxee's business model too deep, but I think they are going to have some issues when the content owners find out that people are building "channels" without permission that bypass their advertising revenue stream or put content on a TV.
<rant>Here's something to think about...you already know this Patrick, but for the benefit of the forum....most movie and television rights owners are not very interested in moving to the internet, just to have someone move them over the internet back to the TV. They are *already* on the TV, and they make money off of cable and their affiliates. The loudest uninformed proponents of over-the-top seem to think that somehow the content needs to be free. It's not and web advertising isn't going to pay for it. Sorry to say, the broadcasters have a 70 year old giant network that's working just fine for them right now. This is *exactly* why there is no Hulu on set-top boxes.</rant>
EVTV deals with a lot of content that isn't ours per se as we gateway other peoples video, but we've never run into anyone that only had flash video. Some weird wvm or h.264 encode, but not flash. But if we did, they would have to re-encode, and that's not something that is feasible most of the time.
It's my opinion that putting a lot of effort into legacy flash support would be a waste of time.
