What exactly do you think is "incorrect"? Because I never claimed that video streaming wasn't possible over a modem connection. On the contrary, I'd already specifically mentioned Real by name in my original comment!

My *actual* reply to the comment in context was:-

In other words, I know Real was around, and no-one in their right mind would want to watch clips of that quality for an extended period.

I know that- and they weren't "streaming" because while Joe Average was on dial-up, streaming wasn't possible at a quality most people would tolerate for anything longer than brief clips. And that was my whole point about the switch to broadband.

To be fair, that wasn't *my* claim. Strictly speaking you're correct and the summary is a bit misleading (and may be more so to someone who wasn't around back then).

And yes, I myself downloaded videos before YouTube came along, so I know that this is the case.

But it is fair to say that video on the Internet before YouTube was probably an order or two of magnitude less common than it is today- both in terms of what's out there and how much we view. And the qualitative change- i.e. *how* we view and respond to it- in terms of real-time streaming and responding viat comments and *what* we view (i.e. much more user-generated content) is quite different to downloading a film or TV programme over P2P or whatever.

Yes, there was *some* non-Big-Media-produced content before YouTube (mainly from mid-sized websites) and a small amount of end-user produced content... but this (and particularly the latter) exploded when YouTube came along.

Yeah, I remember occasionally watching very (*very*) low resolution Real Video and similar clips over a dial-up connection circa the late 90s. But not very often, because...

Indeed.

From what I remember, even the early 240p YouTube clips (which gave rise to the site's now-fading association with low-quality video) were still better than anything that could be viewed in anything like real time streaming over dial-up.

YouTube came along at almost exactly the same point (circa the mid-2000s) that broadband started seriously taking over from dial-up as the main method of Internet access for your average, mass-market user. And while broadband connections of the time might be slow- and the early YouTube videos low resolution- by modern standards, this was still a massive improvement upon what had gone before.

Yeah, I'm sure many people were sharing movie and video files before that- some, no doubt, over university-owned broadband connections et al- but YouTube was far more usable and less disparate than finding those clips, and came along at a time when the technology let a rapidly-increasing number of people take advantage of it.

Pfft... it's not particularly brave when you're fighting against a bunch of guys who couldn't even put Humpty together again (and so stupid that they even thought roping in the kings horses would somehow help in that endeavour, for whatever reason).

Yeah. I've been enjoying Flashblock for so long that it's quite an (unpleasant) surprise to have HTML5 videos able to start themselves like that. Or rather, try to start themselves, since it's not working on my Firefox installation anyway for some reason (*)... but that's beside the point.

Probably would have at least given it a chance otherwise, but do I have any inclination to watch it now? No.

(*) Comes out blank. Think it's a more general problem I'll look into when I can be arsed, but not for the sake of watching this.

Sorry to break this to you, and I've said it before, but too many people on Slashdot frequently make one (or both) of two mistakes; either:-
- Assuming that because a view is common- and oft-repeated- here (e.g. dislike of the Sony rootkit malware) that it's more representative of public opinion in general than it actually is, or
- Assuming that the Slashdot/geek-type demographic that holds those views holds more weight and is much larger than it is in reality.

Like it or not, I suspect that the vast majority of people don't care (and have never cared) about the Sony rootkit fiasco. They bloody ought to have, but I don't see any sign that this is the case.

This is why, for every geek that says (e.g.) "I'd buy a PSP (or whatever) if it wasn't locked down" is missing the point. It's not a niche product for nerds, and it never was. Locking it down lets Sony sell more overpriced content to vastly more people than any extra hardware sales to a small number of geeks would.

Plus, the fact that half those "principled" geeks complain on Slashdot, but when push comes to shove hand over their money anyway (rather than forego the latest shiny tech or game) makes their views even less significant- Sony doesn't care as long as it's got your money.

Jaws was never your scene, and you don't like Star Wars then?

You're evidently not *that* familiar with the BBC Micro then. It may have been a great computer in many respects (particularly the Model B), but it was never, *ever* "cheap". Quite the opposite, it always had a reputation as an expensive machine that was mainly owned by schools and kids with well-off Mummies and Daddies.

The ZX81 cost £70 (or £50 in kit form) when launched in 1981. Multiply that by around 3.5 times for today's prices.

The cheaper Model A cost £235 when it came out a few months later, but went up almost immediately to £299. And that still only had 16K- not enough to even use the more demanding graphics modes- and lacked a lot of the Model B's ports. The 32K Model B (which far outsold the Model A and is the one everyone remembers) jumped from £335 to £399, and that was its regular price for most of its life. And remember that *didn't* include the disk drives and nice RGB monitor that every school seemed to have. (Even at a conservative guess I'd assume those came close to doubling the price, if not completely rushing past it (no, monitors and disk drives were *not* cheap). Even £650 at today's prices is over £2000!

So, no. The Raspberry Pi may have the educational aims of the BBC, but the "hackability" and cheapness is more akin to the Sinclair machines (ZX80, ZX81, ZX Spectrum) that most people could afford for all their limitations. And even *those* are expensive if you compare their price in real terms to what you can get a Raspberry Pi for these days!

That's something I personally loathe; towels that are "lovely" and soft, but don't actually f****** get you dry!!. Thing is, it doesn't seem to be solely down to fabric softener (though that *is* a factor). A lot of new towels seem to be like that as well, softener-washed or not. Is it a coating, or is it what they're made of?

This is why I prefer cheaper and/or older towels- they do a good job of drying me when I come out of the shower. Sure, they feel a bit rougher, but I don't mind that. I'm not a masochist, but I've come to associate the "luxury" feel with towels that annoy me because they don't do what they're supposed to.

I wasn't suggesting that Adobe made big money off Player, but what you're saying misses the point. It's free because that way more- *far* more- end users will have it installed, meaning content creators are in turn far more likely to buy the paid apps to create Flash-based content than they would be otherwise.

In short, Player being free is a necessary (or at least incredibly beneficial) aspect of selling CC et al, and should be factored in as part of CC's development cost, not treated as something that has to "pay its own way".

The fact that they made money anyway by weaselling McAfee installs alongside it is beside the point.

Did you mean Java or JavaScript (*)? JavaScript of the time (late 90s) was too simplistic to be usable for serious client-side apps on its own, but I don't think it was especially slow. It was Java that was just too heavyweight for PCs of the time to handle; (**) and I think that explains *why* Flash succeeded.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- Flash basically snuck in via the back door to (eventually) end up filling almost the exact same role that Java Applets were supposed to meet (i.e. embedded rich software content running on the client PC via a web page) but never did.

Since- as you say- it started out as little more than a lightweight animation tool, it was probably closer to what PCs at the time could handle, and added capabilities (and "bloat") more closely aligned with PCs' increasing power. I don't believe it was ever originally intended to take on Java Applets, but inevitably moved into that role because of a void left by Java's failure to meet the hype.

(*) Two totally different languages and technologies intentionally confused by use of similar names
(**) A reply to my original comment also pointed out that MS tried- and possibly did- kill off client-side Java through intentional cultivation of incompatibility in their own version. In case we'd forgotten how evil they were, given the opportunity.

Mainly correct, and worth pointing out. That said, I'm sure they made quite a few quid through their tie-up with McAfee, weaselling their trial crapware onto people's systems with that oh-so-generous prechecked "yes" box on the Flash Player installer.

Like a lot of New Yorkers, she's all mouth now it's turned out to be quite non-threatening, but she'd have panicked if it turned out to be the expected 24 to 36 inches. ;-O

Unlike Polaroid, Kodak is still (the original) Kodak. They might be relying more and more on whoring their name out, but it's still the same company, and they're still (e.g.) making film et al. I already posted a more detailed response on this subject to someone who said almost exactly the same thing.