If they dumped the ads, I would be interested.
I can already do streaming of old shows with Netflix. However, Hulu is more Linux friendly despite all of their nonsense trying to supress Boxee and whatnot.
Nobody is denying that during the 1990s Bill Gates and Microsoft were seen as evil monopolists. The point was this wasn't the case in the early 1980s. Microsoft was a successful company, but not a very large or high profile one -- Gates was just another successful tech guy like Jobs and Wozniak -- probably less famous, actually, as Gates was known as just the guy who wrote BASIC interpreters, rather than the more sexy design of computer systems. Again, read the book -- it gives a good feeling for the time.
Just because some cancellations were due to Fox's incompetence doesn't mean all of them are.
Fox did enough wrong with Firefly to obscure the real problems with the show, which was that it was a space-opera-cum-western with pro-Confederacy overtones with little appeal outside of a small cadre of "science fiction nerds who like that kind of thing."
Fox didn't commission Firefly because they were enthusiastic about the concept, but because they needed to kill the absurdly expensive and rapidly tanking Dark Angel, but do so without angering James Cameron. Commissioning a replacement science fiction show from a rising star (as Whedon was at the time) was a move that would look good enough on paper that it wouldn't appear to be a slap in the face to Cameron.
Firefly was commissioned for all the wrong reasons, it was a flop, subsequent events, such as the disastrous box office figures for Serenity (a low to medium budget film whose box office receipts - half of which are kept by the cinemas - was lower than its budget), show that the concept had virtually no appeal, and it's really only a combination of Fox's screwing with the schedule - understandable given they realized early on they had a lemon on their hands - and decent DVD sales - that's created the myth it was somehow a superb, popular, series that would have been as popular as Buffy had it just had the same level of support.
Fox also put pressure on Whedon to do things to early episodes of Dollhouse that also caused a run of barely watchable episodes until Episode 6. However, the show getting back on track, losing the abysmal Terminator ball and chain, and being nurtured by Fox did nothing to improve ratings, despite switching from barely watchable to arguably the smartest show on television. Sometimes concepts just don't work. Had Dollhouse been canceled by, say, episode 11, there'd have been enough people who had become fans of the concept for it to develop a similar cult following, who'd have likewise assumed that the problem was with Fox rather than the show itself.
But we know that isn't the case. Despite becoming good, the ratings continued to drop. Sometimes shows just don't have appeal. Sometimes the concept just isn't strong enough to attract viewers. Dollhouse was a great show that fits that description. And, alas, Firefly was a somewhat poorer show (not a bad show, don't get me wrong, but I've never understood the obsession with it as "the greatest science fiction show ever!" It's not even science fiction, it's a space opera damn it!) that also fits the description.
People have the cause and effect backward. Firefly didn't fail because Fox messed around with it. Fox messed around with it, and in the end stopped caring about it, because it was a failure.
That makes no sense because they are pushing HTML5 which allows the same thing
I still don't think their hatred of Flash is about protecting their revenue stream (which shows why they allow NetFlix streaming). They sell songs on iTunes, but Pandora hasn't hurt that, so I don't think they see NetFlix as a threat either. They probably look at the trade off that having NetFlix would sell more iPads to people who might then buy more stuff from iTunes (music, apps, or videos).
I think their hatred of Flash is really a hatred of... Flash. I don't work at Apple, but I can just about guarantee you they've ported some version of Flash player over to an iPhone in-house and it probably sucks. The same probably applies to the Java Virtual Machine as well. When you have such a crappy intermediary on a phone where user experience is king, Apple doesn't want any part of it.
If you look at some of the other intermediaries that are out there, primarily Unity3D, Apple happily lets them in because they don't affect performance. Yes, you can build crappy apps in Xcode and Unity, but it's also just as easy to write good apps. I imagine in Flash and Java, it's probably hard to write apps that do anything useful, but still live up to Apple's expectations for providing a slick user experience.
Adobe is whining about CS5 apps being blocked, but my prediction is that a CS5 app is going to be sluggish, particularly the touch interface, compared to an Xcode or Unity app. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.
Worth pointing out that HTML5 isn't a standard yet. It's still in draft for the next couple years.
Canvas is at last call at the WHATWG. Look at the little tags at the side: "Last call for comments". This means that the WHATWG (a standards organization) believes that part of the spec is stable and is asking for implementations.
Canvas is also a de facto standard. Gecko, WebKit, and Presto have all implemented it more or less interoperably for an awful long time now: Firefox since 2005, for instance.
You are correct to say that HTML5 is not yet a W3C standard, unless you call Working Drafts "standards". But the W3C is not the only standards body out there.
You don't text much, do you? I texted with T9 and it was alright - now that I have an iPhone i can text pretty fast, but it gets tedious if you tried to write something long (such as taking notes in a business or classroom setting). That keyboard, while it's much bigger than the iPhone (obviously) is still not going to be as nice for taking notes as handwriting recognition would be.
With the average h264 video being in the 1.5 GB - 2 GB range, that means that once you install apps, download your email, copy over pictures and music, you might be lucky to get 4 movies on a 16 GB iPad. The whole point of the iPad is that it's easily portable - for situations like traveling. However, if you have to lug a laptop with you in order to sync over new movies, you might as well just watch the movies, use programs, and listen to music on the laptop. It's a great idea, it's just that the iPad is only about 85% done. Like I said, maybe by the second or third generation of the device I'll buy one. I honestly see most sales of this being to the Apple fanboy / "gotta have the new thing" crowd who will quickly go ".....I can do that on my iPhone / iPod Touch" and most either toss it in the closet to collect dust or sell it on ebay.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.