The saga of bringing SlingPlayer to the iPhone has been a real soap opera, but the release of the application even though crippled by the lack of 3G functionality is still a milestone. Sling Media confirmed it was building a SlingPlayer for the iPhone last March, a year later they submitted the application to Apple. Since then it seems that AT&T, Apple and Sling Media have been in a tussle over whether to allow the Sling Player to stream over the 3G network. AT&T even modified its Terms of Service to block Sling Player type applications to use its network, and then rescinded the change. Last week they reinstated the ban on with this language: "Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service". They equate the iPhone to a personal computer.
With the release of SlingPlayer, according to engadget, last night AT&T felt compelled to issue a statement on the subject (I could not find the official statement), but engadget published this:
"Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs.
That said, we don't restrict users from going to a Web site that lets them view videos. But what our terms and conditions prohibit is the transferring, or slinging, of a TV signal to their personal computer or smartphone.
The Slingbox application for the iPhone runs on WiFi. That's good news for AT&T's iPhone 3G customers, who get free WiFi access at our 20,000 owned and operated hot spots in the U.S., including Starbucks, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, hotels, and airports. AT&T is the industry leader in WiFi."
It almost sounds like AT&T is apologizing for the inability of its network to handle the potential load. You could view this as a brave move on their part, essentially admitting to capacity weaknesses in their network and it the end saving them from more network performance issues which have plagued them since the release of the iPhone. Maybe Verizon should promote the fact that their Terms of Service does not block this functionality; under their Permitted Uses section they state that "(iv) uploading, downloading and streaming of audio, video and games;" is permitted.
As everyone in the blogosphere is pointing it out, there is no mention that the 3G functionality is available on the version of SlingPlayer for Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices, although I think the Terms of Service also covers those devices, so I guess I can longer use my Windows Mobile SlingPlayer on their 3G network.
Although the SlingPlayer for iPhone lack 3G connectivity, it is priced at $29.99 in the App Store the same price as for other mobile platform with 3G support. I went ahead and purchased it and I have to say that the user interface is pretty cool. Hopefully with their planned network upgrades, AT&T will allow 3G functionally sometime in the near future.
Watching the Today Show on my Directv DVR.
Will the iPad survive Without Flash?
The answer is more than likely yes, but what I find interesting is that Steve Jobs has been unusually vocal for such a secretive person. It seems that critics are pushing his buttons. Although his responses have been well thought through from the Apple corporate perspective, I think it just gives more ammunition to the critics to answer them. CNN's Money web site had an interesting piece today "What's the bug up Apple's @$$" which describes Apple's behavior towards critics. This fits right into the published email thread between Steve Jobs and Gawker writer Ryan Tate. Are we heading into a soap opera...
During the iPhone's ascendency, Apple's response to critics was very tame and yes Steve Jobs was sick for a big part of that time, however over the last three years I have been impressed how Apple has added key features in the iPhone OS demanded by critics and users. These include Apps, cut and paste, turn by turn GPS, voice control, Bluetooth A2DP stereo streaming (although no AVRCP remote control), MS Exchange ActiveSync, and probably some others that I am forgetting. The Apps and the cut and paste were biggies. I remember Apple's saying Apps were not necessary, since they provided such a rich web browser environment. Apple came to their senses and provided a good development platform, although at the time no multitasking; now we are on the cusp of having that feature implemented. We went through the same pattern with Cut and Paste, first it was we did not need it with the new touch paradigm, then that morphed into we need our time to design correctly (they did).
My hope and point is that the same will be true for Flash. I agree that HTML 5 and H.264 are probably the future. However for a device like the iPad which is supposed to be about consuming content and Steve Jobs touting it as an all-encompassing browsing device, how can you ignore a major part of the web? On the iPhone not having flash can be irritating, but since it is not my primary browsing device I can live without it. If I were to buy an iPad I would want to use as a primary browser and not having Flash is a show stopper. This does not make sense to me, and I think Steve Jobs ego is getting in the way. I am hoping that Apple will go through its no no phase, then will accede to users demands, and go through a thoughtful design and implementation (provide Adobe with the APIs they need to be efficient) as it did with Apps, cut and paste, and multitasking.
If you want to make your voice sort of heard, you can sign a petition at Flash4iPad.com. I say sort of, but the more users and potential customers complain it will start to weigh on Apple's future plans. 500 iPad users were asked by Laura DiDio, principal analyst at ITIC about Flash. According to the CNN article I mentioned previously, "she found that customers are clamoring for Flash support, but said they would continue to buy Apple products even without it". It is a mixed message but we are talking about the initial customer pool and not the average customer who is now buying the iPhone.
Until then my common sense is telling not to purchase an iPad, even though my techy side really wants one. I feel resigned to wait until next March to see what happens with iPad 2.0.
Posted by sskarlatos on May 17, 2010 at 09:40 AM in App Store, Apple, Commentary, Gadget, iPad, iPhone | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)