Adobe Flash platform for HDTVs & connected devices on display at NAB

The plan is to get Flash from every computer to every television screen, and Adobe's ready to take the next step this week at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas. Broadcom, Comcast, STMicroelectronics, NXP Semiconductors, and Sigma Designs join Intel as set-top box makers with chipsets ready to stream widgets and HD video to connected televisions, while content is on the way from Netflix, New York Times, Disney and Atlantic Records. Of course, Yahoo's widgets and Microsoft Silverlight aim to turn up the interactivity and streaming video to TVs and handhelds as well, though Adobe seems content to share with Yahoo! if need be -- Vizio's Connected HDTV demo and Intel's CE 3100 support both -- expect the blades to come out when Flash enabled hardware comes to market in the second half of this year.

[Via Venture Beat]

[munchies Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:08AM]

Just what my TV needs.... something from Adobe.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 3:16PM]

Hulu's not going to like this!

[Information Central Posted Apr 21st 2009 1:00AM]

UGH, LET IT DIE.

The last thing we need is a bunch of half-assed presentation hackery on TELEVISIONS.

News flash: TVs already have a UI. Media players already have UIs. Game systems have UIs. WTF do we want with yet another hokey layer of crap in the middle of all this?

Unbelievable.

[xirsteon Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:14AM]

I seem to prefer Silverlight 3 tho with the new features. Flash is great but Silverlight 3 seem to be on right path and much more better for streaming....

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 12:00PM]

I agree, I just wish SilverLight was simple to create some animation for intro's (what I always used Flash for). Once SilverLight 3 is out, I will have to start learning it...

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 10:06AM]

@ Wonderkid

Is CSS on top of Android even possible?

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 21st 2009 6:39PM]

Silverlight? BAH! Just another lame attempt from Microsoft to glom onto something made successful by someone else. I won't use it just for the sheer principal. I was working at Microsoft, doing Flash apps and prototypes when they announced "Sparkle" internally... they called it their "Flash Killer" Now I hear Flash is banned at MS and you have to learn Silverlight (the new name, which is still too close to "flash" if you ask me) if you want to work there, doing any kind of web stuff or anything that used Flash before. I am really sick of Microsoft's slimy approach at trying to take over other people's success. They are like parasitic leaches that way. Personally, I won't even install the silverlight plug-in, again, on principal... and the fact that MS software usually fucks up my computer.

[Oflife Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:21AM]

While Flash can be used to produce some exceptionally compelling content, it is NOT an operating system, so once again, we'll have devices that require plugins and/or different Flash builds, meaning content will not be portable across devices. If Adobe would have the confidence to turn Flash into an actual OS (with full multi-touch capability and more), then it would offer a viable alternative to:

a) Android
b) Windows CE (or what's left of it)
c) Windows 7 etc
d) OS X
e) iPhone OS X
f) Linux

Again, the industry needs a robust all in one solution, not an OS with a semi-nonstandardised scripting & authoring system tacked on top. Those days must come to an end.

For now, if I was a hardware developer (actually, I am), it would be pure advanced CSS & JS ontop of Android. Has anyone seen what Google have done as part of their Chrome demos? That's all standards based stuff, and that's important.

So flame me, I'm rare. ;)

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:39AM]

Well... yes, flash is not an OS and yes there would need to be some kind of standardized platform for adobe to make a flash
"plugin" for (flash on j2me? haha). But everything else you said I have to disagree with. SWFs are portable, by nature they are machine independent like java is. Also why would a TV need multitouch?

[htd Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:25AM]

I want ion hookup on the back of my tv but I want a cheap one

[boutch55555 Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:29AM]

Hope it allows updates

I can see it now...
dude 1 : Someone hacked my tv using it's flash controller
dude 2 : What did he do ?
dude 1 : Now I can only watch the porn channel
dude 2 : That's all you were watching anyway...
dude 1 : Yeah, but he disabled the recording function
dude 2 : Man, THAT sucks

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:30AM]

Ew.

Adobe Flash is an insecure, resource-unfriendly, crash-prone piece of crap. I don't want it near my TV.

[Ordeith Posted Apr 21st 2009 4:18PM]

Agree

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:41AM]

Now TVs will have a good reason to lag and stutter.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:51AM]

There's a good reason to lag and stutter?

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 9:59AM]

..because we all want flash ads on our tv's.

[salimt Posted Apr 20th 2009 1:56PM]

Because TV is an such ad-free paradise now...?

[holycow Posted Apr 20th 2009 10:04AM]

Flash's VP also said that he hopes to see Flash on Xbox360 and "We continue to work with Apple to bring Flash to the iPhone"

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8008070.stm

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 10:13AM]

And they still can't be arsed to make a 64-bit Flash player... at least not for a system that is used...

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 20th 2009 12:09PM]

Grampa, it must have been strange in your day - I mean, you just take the TV out of the box and hook up "rabbit ears" and get channels? And then, when you finally got around to buying that huge plasma screen, you just used it to watch TV and play games. So, when a commercial or TV show told you what web site to visit for more information, you actually had to leave the set to get to your computer so you could visit the site? Man, that's almost sneakernet!

[Fanfoot Posted Apr 21st 2009 1:52AM]

If it's a standard feature that comes for next to nothing, supports easy updating, and works with the usual bevy of internet video sites like Hulu, TV.com, ABC.com, ComedyCentral, etc, then great. I'm not holding my breath though. I certainly wouldn't pay more for a TV with this built in, and would even *rather* it be in an external box, given the likelihood that it'll be replaced by something else within the lifetime of the TV.