Database Users

coreplayer mobile - buy it, its fantastic!

..................

They did the same thing with coreavc, all sorts of things promised yonks again and never delivered.

Thanks for your post, though personally I've not rencoded anything for Coreplayer, everything plays fine.

O and O said:
Thanks for your post, though personally I've not rencoded anything for Coreplayer, everything plays fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try playing some 800*480, the processor isn't capable of it alone. Album and WMP can use acceleration on mp4/h264, so are capable of running higher res/bitrate files.

DVD rips play way better on Coreplayer. And most people just can't be arsed to encode a file for an hour while they can just play it instantly and fluidly with coreplayer.

dvd rip
yawn...........

I found coreplayer to juddery for full resolution movies. I find myself re-encoding most stuff anyway since there is no AC3 support and then i play them through windows media player. Works fine for me then.

As an interim measure they could just have implemented DirectShow support.
PocketPlayer has it and consequently it has hardware acceleration.
It may not allow CorePlayer to give us support for additional codecs but at least people wouldn't get mad because they've spent good money on a program that runs far slower than the free one that came with the phone.
I'm disappointed that almost 5 months since I bought CorePlayer it's still sitting there unused. For me it's been a waste of money, and I heard that they're expecting us to pay to upgrade to version 2.

Core player 1.3
I've used CP1.3 and it playes Rips without a problem (axxo, fxg, you name it) no conversion needed. 700mb straight on SD. Word of advice from the wise Don't buy, first you try.

They don't have a trial version available... but they claim on the forum that they do offer a refund if you buy it and aren't happy.

arghness said:
They don't have a trial version available... but they claim on the forum that they do offer a refund if you buy it and aren't happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be creative...

I have to say i to have run out of patience with Coreplayer. None of the core products seem to do anything to be honest. I tried Corecodec on my netbook, but it didn't improve performance over ffdshow at all, if anything it just made the output look worse.
For the HD i just use MP4forHD, conversion takes but moments on my quad core anyway.

Bugblatter said:
As an interim measure they could just have implemented DirectShow support.
PocketPlayer has it and consequently it has hardware acceleration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pocket player is very slow when playing a .mp4 vide on my HD.
But WMP can play it fine. So either pocket player don't use the hardware acceleration or there is a settgin somewhere to enable it (so if you know about it please..pleas...).
I'm looking ofr a software that can remember where I am in a video (coreplayer can do it, I think pocket player can also do it). And that can use the hardware acceleration like in WMP.
Is there a plugin for WMP that could help me ?

Dogtag said:
Be creative...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MOD EDIT
coreplayer is not freeware......please don't promote warez here.
thank you

Wow... nice flame, how about inviting me?
As far as stoolzo he was warned and then banned for not following the forum rules, no diff then he would here if he posted here out of line.
As far as the other posts/flames...
arfster... pls be specific to CoreAVC.... we have delivered everything we stated for 1.x including NVIDIA CUDA support. What we you looking for, higher res video not created for mobile devices? Come on.
arghness... correct we have no trial but we also have a no questions asked refund policy for CorePlayer. If it does not work for you, then you deserve your money back, simple.
Bugblatter... directshow is coming and as of now I am unaware of any other media player that supports as many hardware GPU schemes that CorePlayer does; Xscale, QtV (overlay), RMI, PS2, ATI Imageon and Coming later this year is both CUDA and OpenCL.
Bugblatter... also please tell me when PP added hardware accelleration support. For what GPU's?

beta_boy said:
Coming later this year is both CUDA and OpenCL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will the Blackstone make use of this? The QTv support isn't useful at all, at least it doesn't improve the playback .
You have announced (here) that you plan to support QTv, how is it going on this matter?

stoolzo said:
After reading various reviews and the bumpf on their website about qtv and codec support i decided to purchase copeplayer for my touch hd. I soon found that where it was definately better than tcmp it wasnt £20 better. The main reason for the purchase though was the promise to have full QTV support which was promised by one of the developers "betaBoy" in various forumn threads. When it because clear that these promises where becoming empty I created a few threads to discuss this and question where the delays wre coming from. For this had all my threads deleted and after question "betaboy" through the private message forum I was banned for suggesting that it would be better to rencode existing media and use the HTC album player as it had full acceleration. Coreplayer are clearly hiding the fact that coreplayr will never have full support for the TOuch HD chipset and DO NOT PURCHASE THIS..!!!. Re-encoding is a pain but the results are nothing less than miraculous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the useful news. But does TCPMP really work on Touch HD ? When I tried it I got an error and a log file to submit to developers... but it seems the project was discontinued. Maybe do exist more versions ? Some advice, please

forum ban
yawn............

its amazing what you can find on google
yawn..................

I've said this before and I will say it again in case you may have missed it.
We are ALL limited for supporting Qtv and by 'WE' I mean _ANY_ developer. Qualcomm has never released an SDK with any details of Snapdragon/Qtv's API's and what we have done in CorePlayer is reverse engineer what we could to support 'overlay only'. No other media player has attempted to do this and we did this are the specific request of our Community, including here at XDA.
Now as far as fully supporting Qtv/Snapdragon... we are working on directshow support atm for Windows and Windows CE/Mobile and it looks on the surface that we 'may' be able to full support the embedded CE/WM directshow filters that are on the supported devices.
The question is if we will need to finish the CE/WM port of the Haali Media Splitter. We are still a few weeks away before we get to the point but I'll fill everyone in as we continue to work on it.

Adobe Flash 10.1 beta signup

Adobe Flash Player 10.1 Beta for Android Notification
You just need to sign up and when the beta is released we should be notified.
Click here to sign up!

signed up for the beta hope that our androids have full flash support next

This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!

lbcoder said:
This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that is pretty much along the same thing that Steve Jobs said about not implementing Flash to iPhone/iPad/iTouch devices. Although I agree with it but like you said yourself there are so many websites that won't ditch it. When something better comes around (not saying that there isn't already) then I'm sure that they will look forward to that as well. Until then... I want HULU!
Plus, I know that Netflix is wanting to implement their movie streaming services to Android sometime soon too! Can't wait!

I will be notified when its up

lbcoder said:
This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL. Calm down. I do agree with you that flash slows down web browsing with ads but that is why I downloaded AdFree from the market. HTML-5 is slowing taking over and Android 2.0+ is compatible with that already (or just need a simple plug-in). Anyway, we can use our phones to enjoy the FULL internet experience.

Signed up and ready!
And flash can die when I can have the ENTIRE web experience given to me by something else.
Until then, LONG LIVE FLASH!!!

This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally, someone in the android community that understands this. Flash is not only guilty of the above, it also murders puppies.

lbcoder said:
This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Flash isn't gonna die any time soon.
It's like mp3. It's an awful lossy format that sounds terrible, yet, because it's so small everyone uses it, despite the fact formats such as OGGVORBIS give much better sound quality in a smaller file. Also, it's completely open source, which is always nice

Meltus said:
Flash isn't gonna die any time soon.
It's like mp3. It's an awful lossy format that sounds terrible, yet, because it's so small everyone uses it, despite the fact formats such as OGGVORBIS give much better sound quality in a smaller file. Also, it's completely open source, which is always nice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mp3 is open source.
flash, though the specifications are free, is NOT OPEN.
It is closed -- only decodable by a piece of proprietary garbage.
mp3 does NOT have this problem.

Meltus said:
Flash isn't gonna die any time soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... not if complete **IDIOTS** keep using it!!!

lbcoder said:
... not if complete **IDIOTS** keep using it!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a anti-flash movement or something? geez leave it alone.. one guy on a XDA forum will not make a piece of software die so stop crying.
Too many people use it so instead of being close minded and say it's terrible blah blah open your mind and think, why not have flash AND others like plugins so everyone can enjoy or chose to use what they want. It's called best of both worlds.

lbcoder said:
mp3 is open source.
flash, though the specifications are free, is NOT OPEN.
It is closed -- only decodable by a piece of proprietary garbage.
mp3 does NOT have this problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"If you decide to sell your music in MP3 format, you are responsible for paying Fraunhofer a percentage of each sale because you are using their patents."
OggVorbis is completely free, which is what i was trying to explain
lbcoder said:
... not if complete **IDIOTS** keep using it!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, but if so, well done for completely missing the point of my post...

lbcoder said:
This is a TERRIBLE thing.
Flash should be boycotted.
Its only effect is to hinder the advancement of open web standards and keep us locked in 90's type content.
Flash appeared in 1996 to take advantage of missing web functionality and provide more interactivity (not to play videos). Nowadays, it doesn't actually provide anything useful -- videos can be played by MEDIA plugins and don't need to be flash-packaged. Interactivity can be provided by TONS of different mechanisms. There is NO USE for flash.
The only reason why ANYONE still uses it is because certain websites are TOO STUPID to ditch it! I.e., they got used to using it when it *was* useful, and never bothered to learn the RIGHT WAY to do things when it became possible to ditch it!
I VERY VERY STRONGLY suggest that you do NOT use flash plugins. LET FLASH DIE!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Translation:
" Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. :'( "
A few people on a forum not downloading flash for Android will change absolutely nothing.
We are accessing the content, not publishing it........

Meltus said:
"If you decide to sell your music in MP3 format, you are responsible for paying Fraunhofer a percentage of each sale because you are using their patents."
OggVorbis is completely free, which is what i was trying to explain
I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, but if so, well done for completely missing the point of my post...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YOU are missing the point. This ISNT ABOUT distributing. This is about USING. MP3 encoders and decoders are available, FOR FREE. *ANYONE* can use it. Distributing commercial content in that format is subject to licensing fees. So what?
The point is that ADOBE is TERRIBLE at supporting their product -- flash. They took the better part of a DECADE TO SUPPORT AMD64, and that is only on linux.
Their software is terrible and buggy.
Only a MINORITY of web users are *ABLE* to use flash content (whether due to use of a platform adobe doesn't support, or due to DEFECTS in flash plugin).
It is also a HORRIBLE resource hog!
And to top it all off, there is NO REASON to use it! Everything it does can be done BETTER with things that are STANDARD. And FYI: These standard things actually WORK and use VERY LITTLE RESOURCES.
So please explain HOW it is to anyone's benefit to keep using this CRAP!
To kill it requires that EVERYBODY DOES NOT USE IT. Already right now MOST PEOPLE do NOT USE IT.
The more people do NOT use flash, the more web developers will realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot by using it!
If developers use the SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES, then those sites will work for EVERYBODY, and flash will finally die.
Which means that people won't need to wait for adobe to support new platforms (without exception, this takes YEARS), or fix bugs (again, typically takes YEARS).
Also realize this: flash sites ***ARE VANISHING***. I can't think of ONE SINGLE SITE that still requires flash, except for youtube -- and it is going to vanish from there very soon... as soon as they decide on the appropriate video format (going to be ON8, theora, or h264).

Flash runs amazingly for me, until something better can do everything it does and better, Ill keep using it.
End of story.

lbcoder said:
Also realize this: flash sites ***ARE VANISHING***. I can't think of ONE SINGLE SITE that still requires flash, except for youtube -- and it is going to vanish from there very soon... as soon as they decide on the appropriate video format (going to be ON8, theora, or h264).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying that only YouTube uses Flash? Are you on crack?
One word... PORN. There are millions of sites out there that uses Flash based content too.
Then there are other sites such as Hulu. Huge site that is generating revenue off of their adds and soon as a paid membership service.
There are streaming sites like local news stations that deliver real time content to your hands.
Then there are Flash games as well.
Many cell phones are beginning to support Flash content because it is so common on websites. The more people that stare at their cell phones the more hooked they are on the service that their cellular company provides. Which mean more customers, more money, more profit. Notice that many of the phones these days are getting thinner but the screens are getting wider? Do you think it's because people just want to have a nice bright 4" screen on their hip or in their pocket? People use these new devices for multimedia and web browsing and not just for texting and making phone calls. Web browsing isn't complete if you can only browse wap and mobile friendly web pages. Flash is also a smaller file that is easy to stream... which is cheaper for cellular providers. Sure they may have to upgrade their network for the 34,000,000 subscribers that are watching last nights episode of Lost on their phones (hypothetical)... but they are investing in all of that anyway. Why do you suppose that is? For situations such as this. Should Flash disappear it would be an awful waste of research, development, sales and technology. Yes, there are alternatives... but are they more convenient than what we already have in place that works? If it's not broke, don't fix it. If Flash was going to become obsolete it'll more than likely be replaced by mp4. I can see your point of view but I can see how this multimedia evolution is progressing.
text> html colors > jpeg > gif > flash > mp4? > 3Dmp4 > Virtual Reality > Brain Implants

lbcoder said:
YOU are missing the point. This ISNT ABOUT distributing. This is about USING. MP3 encoders and decoders are available, FOR FREE. *ANYONE* can use it. Distributing commercial content in that format is subject to licensing fees. So what?
The point is that ADOBE is TERRIBLE at supporting their product -- flash. They took the better part of a DECADE TO SUPPORT AMD64, and that is only on linux.
Their software is terrible and buggy.
Only a MINORITY of web users are *ABLE* to use flash content (whether due to use of a platform adobe doesn't support, or due to DEFECTS in flash plugin).
It is also a HORRIBLE resource hog!
And to top it all off, there is NO REASON to use it! Everything it does can be done BETTER with things that are STANDARD. And FYI: These standard things actually WORK and use VERY LITTLE RESOURCES.
So please explain HOW it is to anyone's benefit to keep using this CRAP!
To kill it requires that EVERYBODY DOES NOT USE IT. Already right now MOST PEOPLE do NOT USE IT.
The more people do NOT use flash, the more web developers will realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot by using it!
If developers use the SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES, then those sites will work for EVERYBODY, and flash will finally die.
Which means that people won't need to wait for adobe to support new platforms (without exception, this takes YEARS), or fix bugs (again, typically takes YEARS).
Also realize this: flash sites ***ARE VANISHING***. I can't think of ONE SINGLE SITE that still requires flash, except for youtube -- and it is going to vanish from there very soon... as soon as they decide on the appropriate video format (going to be ON8, theora, or h264).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wtf are you having a go at me for? i agree with you.
My point was, that like flash, there are better audio formats available that can do the job much better than mp3s, but because the majority of people don't really care and are not very knowledgeable on the subject, they see no reason to change. It's the same with flash. They don't know that there are any alternatives and, so they see no point in using anything different.
For developers, flash may not be the best thing to use, but EVERYONE has heard of it. From a marketing point of view, it's best to use a brand that you have heard of than one you haven't.
Why are you actually getting so worked up about this? You seem to be the ONLY person who actually cares, and next time, please actually READ my posts before you have a massive rant at me when i actually ****ing agree with you.
Also, only a minority of web users can use Flash? wtf? I'd quite confidently say the majority of web users are either on Windows or on a Mac. Both of which have fantastic flash support.

Flash won't be replaced till there is something to replace it with. Please don't say HTML 5 cause thats a complete joke. As hulu just said in a press release. HTML is nice and cool but for our statistics and our video quality HTML 5 is many years behind flash. Just take a look at youtube and thier HTML5 experment. With the power and money of google behind them their HTML5 site looks like crap compared to their flash site.
Also HTML 5 severly lacks in vector graphics which was the main selling point about flash for years. Then take into account cross platform bugs and development and HTML 5 is just gonna be a flashy form of HTML 4. Flash is so powerfull it will always have a home. Hell now you can make iphone and ipad apps with it, even after Stevo gave the no no.

maxpower097 said:
Flash won't be replaced till there is something to replace it with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is just the point... there is NO NEED to replace it. It doesn't do ANYTHING USEFUL!
Please don't say HTML 5 cause thats a complete joke. As hulu just said in a press release. HTML is nice and cool but for our statistics and our video quality HTML 5 is many years behind flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you trying to say that VP6 is better than h264 and VP8? Because that just makes you look like a flashtard.
Just take a look at youtube and thier HTML5 experment. With the power and money of google behind them their HTML5 site looks like crap compared to their flash site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on your statement here, I just took a look, and you know what? It is EXACTLY THE SAME. The ONLY difference is that when you come across a webm/VP8 or h264 transcoded video, they don't need to load that flash bloat garbage.
Also HTML 5 severly lacks in vector graphics
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does this apply to html5 at all? If the image is a vector graphic, it is up to the browser to handle it. If YOUR browser doesn't handle vector graphics properly, don't whine about html5, whine about your browser, or better yet, CONTRIBUTE to it.
which was the main selling point about flash for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which remains unnecessary. Vector graphics are cool and all, but hardly worth subjecting yourself to the intense BLOAT.
Then take into account cross platform bugs and development and HTML 5 is just gonna be a flashy form of HTML 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? You seem to be SERIOUSLY CONFUSED.
Multi-platform support has ALWAYS been one of the MANY MANY SERIOUS weaknesses of flash. They take YEARS TOO LONG to support new platforms -- if EVER (see apple). Their new platform support is always buggy and slow. The multi-platform nature of HTML5 is its STRENGTH and will ENSURE that it is selected more consistently than that terrible flash thing.
Flash is so powerfull it will always have a home.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now you're REALLY dreaming.
Flash is NOT powerful. It is WEAK. It is SLOW. It is UGLY. It brings about INCOMPATIBILITY. It never did ANYTHING useful for ANYBODY. The ONLY reason why anyone uses it now (or has EVER used it) is because they don't/didn't know any better.

These are the reasons why sony ericsson d'nt upgrade to Android 2.1

Android 2.1 vs. Sony Ericsson Android 1.6
When the X10 is released, it will be released with Android 1.6. We will take advantage of the additional
possibilities of Android 2.1 during the life of X10 via upgrades.
One objection you are going to encounter when presenting the X10 is: „Why does your X10 only have
Android 1.6 installed on it? The latest version is 2.1! It looks outdated!”
We all need to be prepared and knowledgeable about the differences in order to deal with the dealer's
concerns and provide them with understandable answers for their customers.
In order to do this, we first need to understand the differences between standard Android 1.6 and Android
2.1. They are:
• Integration of digital Zoom and support for LED Flash
• Support for Microsoft Exchange Active Sync (Contacts and e-mail)
• Bluetooth 2.1 support for OPP (Object Push) and PBAP (Used to transfer contact
information to a hands free)
• Live Wallpapers (Animated HTML based wallpapers)
• Multi touch support
• HTML 5 support
• Richer contact information and possibilities to integrate social network data.
However, the version of Android 1.6 installed on the Sony Ericsson X10 is not a standard. Sony Ericsson
has developed and enhanced it in many areas. So let’s have a look at the real difference
X10 1.6 Specs:
1.Cyber Shot camera with digital zoom and flash, face and smile detection easy to use cyber shot interface
2.Moxier client pre-installed
3.OPP is integrated into x10 out of the box and PBAP will be part of update
4.Live wallpapers will be part of an update
5.HTML 5 will be part of update, currently no consumer relevant website is using HTML 5
6.Sony Ericsson TIMESCAPE
I got this data I liked to share with all of u we X10 users are some how equal to Android 2.1 we should demand for 2.2 Update not for 2.1....

Now you're talking. I have been campaigning from the beginning to get people to ask for the 2.2 and not the 2.1. Ever since that petition was being passed about. Everyone thought I was crazy to push for it. I gave up trying.
However, I would say that the 1.6 will look outdated because the 2.2 is out and not the 2.1!
Also, the Timescape has it's issues. To the point that I have it removed from home screen and do not use it. And, there has been plenty of mention in regards to Timescape being related to the battery issue.
And, where is the flash for the camera? I have a light that I can manually turn on and off, but no flash. I am pretty sure this is coming with the 2.1
And, where did you hear there are no consumer relevant websites run HTML5?
I also thought there was a WIFI enhancement on the 2.1
The only problem now is that we have beat SE over the head for the 2.1. So I don't know what are chances of getting the 2.2 on this device, but I do not think they are good.

well like se added 2.1 features to 1.6,
lets expect that they add 2.2 features like flash into android 2.1....
will be a better option..

Here is a quote about the first web site I checked, Daily Motion.
"Another video titan that is fighting back against plugin prisons is DailyMotion. The popular streaming video website has launched an open video pilot program, providing a new beta version of its site that uses the HTML 5 video element to play content. As part of the pilot program, DailyMotion reencoded 300,000 videos with the open source Ogg Theora codec. Unlike many common video formats, Ogg Theora is not encumbered by known patents. It can be used and reimplemented freely without having to pay licensing costs."
The full artical can be found here. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/google-dailymotion-endorse-html-5-and-standards-based-video.ars

fm1776 said:
Here is a quote about the first web site I checked, Daily Motion.
"Another video titan that is fighting back against plugin prisons is DailyMotion. The popular streaming video website has launched an open video pilot program, providing a new beta version of its site that uses the HTML 5 video element to play content. As part of the pilot program, DailyMotion reencoded 300,000 videos with the open source Ogg Theora codec. Unlike many common video formats, Ogg Theora is not encumbered by known patents. It can be used and reimplemented freely without having to pay licensing costs."
The full artical can be found here. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/google-dailymotion-endorse-html-5-and-standards-based-video.ars
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm all for open source, and would love if every site with flash content changed it to HTML5, but Ogg Theora is no better than Flash...It's unreliable and uses a significant amount of resources.

fm1776 said:
Here is a quote about the first web site I checked, Daily Motion.
"Another video titan that is fighting back against plugin prisons is DailyMotion. The popular streaming video website has launched an open video pilot program, providing a new beta version of its site that uses the HTML 5 video element to play content. As part of the pilot program, DailyMotion reencoded 300,000 videos with the open source Ogg Theora codec. Unlike many common video formats, Ogg Theora is not encumbered by known patents. It can be used and reimplemented freely without having to pay licensing costs."
The full artical can be found here. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/google-dailymotion-endorse-html-5-and-standards-based-video.ars
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are few things worth remembering:
1. No consumer has launched any HTML5 versions as anything other than betas or previews.
2. HTML5 is not a ratified standard, it's a draft. Which leads me on to the next point.
3. The video tag is just that, a tag. It doesn't dictate which codec or container you should use. Currently there are 2 1/2 players: h.264, webm and ogg/vorbis.
H264 is backed up by Apple, so I expect it to have atleast some traction. WebM is backed by Google, meaning YouTube supports it. I'm not familiar with any big names backing OGG but I'm sure there are others beside FSF.
H264 is a great format but sadly it's encumbered by patents as well as a royalty fee which might pose a problem in the future whereas WebM is a royalty-free project. So personally I'm leaning towards WebM coming out as the big "winner" in this battle.
Ranting aside, putting all ones hope into HTML5 as it stands right now is a little risky as it's subject to change and hasn't been locked down yet. Every major player in the web browser business supports the tag currently, including Android as of version 2.0 or 2.1 (can't be bothered to wikipedia it). So the support for it is universal and once a standard has been ratified we can expect it to be adopted by all major video sites. Until then flash is king and luckily the biggest video-site, YouTube, has both iOS and Android apps for it so we can atleast watch LOLcats and FailBlog.

chris_knows said:
I'm all for open source, and would love if every site with flash content changed it to HTML5, but Ogg Theora is no better than Flash...It's unreliable and uses a significant amount of resources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ABC and CBS have both confirmed that they will be dumping Adobe and going with HTML 5. Only bad news might be that they might charge like itunes to view content.
The door is starting to swing wide open.

Not only will X10 get the 2.1 upgrade, it will also get the 2.2 Upgrade. I have a close friend who works at SE (Senior Figure) and that information is supplied by him. No dates are forthcoming at the moment. So please don't bombard this Post asking for dates.
Found some information to confirm this posted back in Mar 10:
http://phandroid.com/2010/03/10/xperia-x10-to-get-android-2-1-then-2-2/
Hope this helps you all..

well all get android 2.2 when the great devs give us custom roms, which will be long before se get it to us!
Sent from my X10i using XDA App

Cn my x10 teleport me or remote conntrol my car with se2.2 note the keyboard still suck after update
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App

fm1776 said:
ABC and CBS have both confirmed that they will be dumping Adobe and going with HTML 5. Only bad news might be that they might charge like itunes to view content.
The door is starting to swing wide open.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You misunderstood me; HTML5 = Good, Ogg = Bad. Check out this link as to why Flash is not going away for at least another few years...
gizmodo.com/5461711/giz-explains-why-html5-isnt-going-to-save-the-internet

Flash 10.1 will NOT work on Galaxy 3

Hello everyone. First off, be clear of one thing: FLASH will not work on our phones even when Froyo is out. Flash was an improvement in Froyo, but it is not going to be in all phones just because they have Froyo..
I see a lot of people complaining that the Froyo releases of the Galaxy 3 do not have Flash 10.1. I opened this topic to inform everyone who doesn't know that Flash is currently only supported on ARMv7 processors, namely the ARM Cortex A8 processors.
The Galaxy 3 has an ARMv6 processor, which is not currently supported by Flash. Adobe has mentioned that Flash might be supported on lower end processors in the near future, but right now it can only run on phones having an ARM Cortex A8 processor.
So right now, Flash is a no-go on our phone, even when the final Froyo update is released.
You can check the requirements for Flash on the following link:
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/#mobile
Also, check out this link which mentions that ARM might be supported on ARM11 (ARMv6) devices in the future:
http://androidandme.com/2010/08/news/flash-player-10-1-could-appear-on-some-arm11-devices/
For those who wonder why the HTC phones have Flash, just found out that the Flash Player on HTC has been developed by HTC themselves. It is not the actual Adobe Flash Player 10.1..

So we can only hope that until final FROYO relese Adobe will mode Flash to work on our hardware

aantdesign said:
So we can only hope that until final FROYO relese Adobe will mode Flash to work on our hardware
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not likely. Adobe has said they might make it work on these processors, but it surely isn't at the top of their agenda right now.

But on the other side, if We ask at loud and if we do it in weaves, they will change their mind and support our hardware

addicted2088 said:
Not likely. Adobe has said they might make it work on these processors, but it surely isn't at the top of their agenda right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you get this information from?
This is crucial, especially to the people in countries, where this phone has been released for sale recently, such as India. The biggest selling point of this phone, has been the technical ability to upgrade from Eclair to Froyo, as such, the importance of Flash cannot be underestimated. Whilst there are many owners who are not too bothered about this, the vast majority have assumed that purchase of the Apollo, would mean, for their internet phone usage, a very much improved experience, mirroring , albeit on a small scale, a view familiar to the desktop computer.
I hope you may be wrong. Samsung should clarify this, before many others spend too much money.

workaround
Where do you want to use flash ?
a) WEB:
Because you can use SKYFIRE which converts at their servers flash to html5 and you can watch converted flash video at your mobile
b) SD card applications:
I had on my XPERIA X1 (which has slower CPU) flash player and many many flash games. It was working without any lags.
c) what if you install flash player 10 like 3th party application ?
d) do you want to launch complicated Flash www pages at your mobile ? With this stupid resolution ? I think that:
- it has no sense (I hate to read anythink on this display)
- sooner or later the pages will be converted to html5 and we will be able to have them.
So please for what reason do you need flash ?

nastyba said:
Where do you want to use flash ?
a) WEB:
Because you can use SKYFIRE which converts at their servers flash to html5 and you can watch converted flash video at your mobile
b) SD card applications:
I had on my XPERIA X1 (which has slower CPU) flash player and many many flash games. It was working without any lags.
c) what if you install flash player 10 like 3th party application ?
d) do you want to launch complicated Flash www pages at your mobile ? With this stupid resolution ? I think that:
- it has no sense (I hate to read anythink on this display)
- sooner or later the pages will be converted to html5 and we will be able to have them.
So please for what reason do you need flash ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Live score updates would be one feature I use on a regular basis. Many sites require Flash to be viewed properly, and Skyfire is somewhat limited in being able to do so.
The resolution of the phone is a factor, but with many video presentations and live transmissions in the 320/240 mode, the Apollo is more than capable of being able to used for displaying web video. LaolaTV, TVU networks, and Justin TV are examples of this.
An otherwise very capable phone, I would just like to squeeze a bit more of it's potential.

The main requirement of flash is a VFPU(vector floating point unit).it is a physical device that should be present in the chip for flash to work.the older arm processors(arm1136) does not support it(thats why adobe said they wont support older processors). Our processor(arm1176) supports it but it is optional.so it all depends on whether samsung implemnted vfpu in this chip. Considering what they did with 3d graphics my hopes are pretty low.
Flash isnt essential but it would have been nice to have it.i didnt know about these things before i bought the phone.but considering the fact that no device. Anywhere near this price range supports it,i am happy with the phone.
Sent from my GT-I5801 using XDA App

ROLY5573 said:
Where did you get this information from?
This is crucial, especially to the people in countries, where this phone has been released for sale recently, such as India. The biggest selling point of this phone, has been the technical ability to upgrade from Eclair to Froyo, as such, the importance of Flash cannot be underestimated. Whilst there are many owners who are not too bothered about this, the vast majority have assumed that purchase of the Apollo, would mean, for their internet phone usage, a very much improved experience, mirroring , albeit on a small scale, a view familiar to the desktop computer.
I hope you may be wrong. Samsung should clarify this, before many others spend too much money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check out this site:
"androidandme.com/2010/08/news/flash-player-10-1-could-appear-on-some-arm11-devices/"
ARM11 is ARMv6, which is there in our phones. So right now it's not gonna work in our phones.
Also check out these mobile system requirements mentioned on Adobe's site:
"adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/#mobile"

ROLY5573 said:
Live score updates would be one feature I use on a regular basis. Many sites require Flash to be viewed properly, and Skyfire is somewhat limited in being able to do so.
The resolution of the phone is a factor, but with many video presentations and live transmissions in the 320/240 mode, the Apollo is more than capable of being able to used for displaying web video. LaolaTV, TVU networks, and Justin TV are examples of this.
An otherwise very capable phone, I would just like to squeeze a bit more of it's potential.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, also SPB TV works or Orange streaming TV (for orange customers), without any problem. I think that it's pricing policy - producers don't want to squeeze the maximum from the cheap phones.

nastyba said:
I agree, also SPB TV works or Orange streaming TV (for orange customers), without any problem. I think that it's pricing policy - producers don't want to squeeze the maximum from the cheap phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As Adobe releases Flash for free, it doesn't really matter to them if it's used in cheap or costly phones. The ARMv6 processor is not necessarily used only in cheap phones. Rendering Flash content is a processor intensive job, so it is not an easy job to port it to lower end processors.

addicted2088 said:
As Adobe releases Flash for free, it doesn't really matter to them if it's used in cheap or costly phones. The ARMv6 processor is not necessarily used only in cheap phones. Rendering Flash content is a processor intensive job, so it is not an easy job to port it to lower end processors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and HTC wildfire ? I din't mean this no motivation for Adobe but for Samsung to support the cheaper phone. They just implement some widgets, youtube as a start, but later they do not care about old models.

nastyba said:
and HTC wildfire ? I din't mean this no motivation for Adobe but for Samsung to support the cheaper phone. They just implement some widgets, youtube as a start, but later they do not care about old models.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC has been giving Flash support for their Eclair phones, but it doesn't work that great. If you check the Wildfire review on GSMArena, Flash has trouble playing videos on all sites, and only simple games run nicely.
Flash can run on ARMv6 processors, but it hasn't been developed properly for it yet. And no one except HTC gives support for Flash in their Eclair running phones, so it's not only Samsung's fault. Plus, even Samsung gave Flash on the high-end Galaxy S AFTER it was upgraded to Froyo.
Let's see, it's bound to come out for ARMv6 processors sometime, as budget Android phones are only gonna increase in popularity.

U are right
ROLY5573 said:
Where did you get this information from?
This is crucial, especially to the people in countries, where this phone has been released for sale recently, such as India. The biggest selling point of this phone, has been the technical ability to upgrade from Eclair to Froyo, as such, the importance of Flash cannot be underestimated. Whilst there are many owners who are not too bothered about this, the vast majority have assumed that purchase of the Apollo, would mean, for their internet phone usage, a very much improved experience, mirroring , albeit on a small scale, a view familiar to the desktop computer.
I hope you may be wrong. Samsung should clarify this, before many others spend too much money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my GT-I5500L using XDA App

ROLY5573 said:
Live score updates would be one feature I use on a regular basis. Many sites require Flash to be viewed properly, and Skyfire is somewhat limited in being able to do so.
The resolution of the phone is a factor, but with many video presentations and live transmissions in the 320/240 mode, the Apollo is more than capable of being able to used for displaying web video. LaolaTV, TVU networks, and Justin TV are examples of this.
An otherwise very capable phone, I would just like to squeeze a bit more of it's potential.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really hope you know that HTML5 isn't finnished yet, and will take more 2 years to be finnished. Till there, yes we need flash...

addicted2088 said:
HTC has been giving Flash support for their Eclair phones, but it doesn't work that great. If you check the Wildfire review on GSMArena, Flash has trouble playing videos on all sites, and only simple games run nicely.
Flash can run on ARMv6 processors, but it hasn't been developed properly for it yet. And no one except HTC gives support for Flash in their Eclair running phones, so it's not only Samsung's fault. Plus, even Samsung gave Flash on the high-end Galaxy S AFTER it was upgraded to Froyo.
Let's see, it's bound to come out for ARMv6 processors sometime, as budget Android phones are only gonna increase in popularity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
now it's clear

welty said:
I really hope you know that HTML5 isn't finnished yet, and will take more 2 years to be finnished. Till there, yes we need flash...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what about LG OO or other 200€ devices ?

Is there any other app that makes flash possible on our phones?

skyfire
flash doesnt work on p500 either....

Hey
It is possible, to install a Flash Lite on 2.2? Because we don't have any flash, and can't watch videos through skyfire. But no - I won't come back to 2.1

CoreAVC for Android

FYI for those looking to get MKV support & accelerated H264 playback on the Xoom, may want to petition Moto and ask them to license CoreAVC for Android,
http://twitter.com/CoreCodec/status/42963261569777664
Hopefully, CorePlayer to come soon.

e.mote said:
FYI for those looking to get MKV support & accelerated H264 playback on the Xoom, may want to petition Moto and ask them to license CoreAVC for Android,
http://twitter.com/CoreCodec/status/42963261569777664
Hopefully, CorePlayer to come soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used that years ago on an older Windows desktop that would not play any MKV reliably and it worked great.

posted it on their forum:
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/46992

onicrom said:
posted it on their forum:
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/46992
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks... added my two pennies.

http://twitter.com/corecodec
GunmanTheH:
@CoreCodec Hope retail will come soon
CoreCodec:
@GunmanTheH the plan is to get it out asap, preferably by mid-month to retail.

Excellent. CorePlayer was my go to player on Windows Mobile. Hopefully this'll be available when I get my Xoom next month.

I dunno if moto would even be able to include this in the zoom, because it's a Google experience device. I will post on their forums tho along with you all.

Maybe Google needs to be made aware of this.
It would be awesome for MKV vids, but will it help out with other formats, as well?

I think getting the retail version will be the faster and more expedient route for most, as waiting for the firmware route, even if Moto is responsive, will take weeks or months.
However, it's important to let Moto know that you, as their customers, consider this feature as important and want it incorporated into the firmware. This allows derivative custom ROMs to also include the software on a quasi-legal basis, as the OEM license could be argued as being applicable for the device regardless of the firmware used.
@arrtoodeetoo
Supported formats in the link below are for CorePlayer,
http://corecodec.com/products/coreplayer
Note that the two popular audio codecs used mostly in "downloadable" HD videos (DTS and AC3) are not among the list. Betaboy (CC dev) has explicitly confirmed that AC3 won't be supported.
That means that those who have said videos will need to convert their audio tracks. This is fairly simple and fast (and can be batch processed), taking only minutes per full-length video.

Looking forward to this going live and hearing how it plays out.

Here are the platform-specific errata notes for CorePlayer.
http://forums.corecodec.com/threads/402-**-CorePlayer-Platform-Specific-Limitations-and-Notes
Ignore the list (it's 4 years old). The thing to note is the CC dev's remark below:
"Limitations are gonna be hard to pinpoint atm as there really is none other then bluetooth limitations. Codecs will become less of an issue as we will have in app purchasing for additional codecs."

Damn... I haven't used Core since my last winmo phone... I hope they don't charge to much for codecs. 1 or 2 bucks a pop each.

Wow I still have my COreplayer install file from my 5 year old phone! I would Love to see this on Honeycomb
PLz Moto Make it so!

I just posted on the thread at the Motorola Owner's forum. I am not holding out a tremendous amount of hope for OEM licensing, but CorePlayer should do the trick.

Regardless of whether Moto will or won't license Core, they need to know that the Xoom's multimedia support is awful. They won't know unless we tell them. From the Moto admin's responses, they're clueless.
http://twitter.com/corecodec
Re: Core - To clarify, the retail version mentioned as being released soonish is likely the CorePlayer 2.0 for Android & iOS. CoreAVC 2.5 is available to devs & OEMs, and will be available to Win/Lin/Mac (not Droid/iOS) end-users later.
CorePlayer notwithstanding, I still can't imagine that Nvidia would be content with having the entire wave of Tegra2 tabs being stuck with no accelerated multimedia support.
You can voice your queries about the Tegra2 multimedia support here,
http://tegradeveloper.nvidia.com/tegra/forums/tegra-forums/android-development