now player

[kevinlangley]

when will NOW TV / Now Player work on Chromebooks?

[redchiz1]

Never, I fear, as Chromebooks are web based and there is no way to use NOW on a browser. 

[RoyB]

---

@kevinlangley wrote:

when will NOW TV / Now Player work on Chromebooks?

---

@redchiz1 wrote:

Never, I fear, as Chromebooks are web based and there is no way to use NOW on a browser. 

I don’t know where the ‘never’ comes from, though I do agree it’s unlikely, with ChromeOS being a Linux offshoot, and Now not supporting Linux.

But you can load apps onto Chromebooks, and I can’t see why the (admittedly clunky) PC/Mac model of browser-based content selection and app-based presentation couldn’t apply here?

Though maybe it’s a processing power thing, or perhaps you know some other gotcha that would prevent that model being used?

[redchiz1]

@RoyB 

I did qualify my comment which does mark it out as opinion, no more, or less valuable than your own.  😉

[RoyB]

@redchiz1 

Yes, I got the ‘Never, I fear’; it was the ‘no way to use’ I took issue with, as this seemed to me to be stated as fact, not opinion, and therefore entirely subject to confirmation or refutation.

But I will now take it as having an implied ‘I think’. OK?

[redchiz1]

@RoyB 

You took issue with "there is no way to use NOW on a browser?"  Do explain otherwise, I would be glad to learn.

[RoyB]

@redchiz1 

OK, here’s my thinking.

Start Now on your Mac. It’s a browser-fronted app; start the actual Now app, and it will direct you to the browser; start in the browser, and it will use the actual Now app to play your choice of programming.

So I figure you would already be ‘using NOW on a browser’ here. And if that makes you want to say ‘yes, but it’s not playing in the browser, it needs the NOW player as a helper app’ (which is fair enough) you need to explain to me the technical reasons why NOW couldn't put such a helper app on a Chromebook. As I don’t know of any.

So - even assuming there couldn’t be an integrated Now app just like there’s Office 365, or that Now anyway chose to approach Now on Chromebook on the PC/Mac basis for simplicity of porting - what stops Now porting the PC/Mac approach to an actual player into a player app?

As far as I know, nothing. But full disclosure; my exposure to Chromebooks is purely watching the grandkids doing their homework on theirs - I haven’t even had any hands-on with one.

So maybe there is some fundamental reason why you can’t have NOW on a Chromebook.

But if Amazon, Disney, Hulu and Netflix can manage it:-

https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/1056325?hl=en-GB

then it beats me why Now couldn’t manage an integrated app, let alone one on the PC/Mac model.

It doesn’t, of course, beat me why Now haven’t yet done it, and possibly won’t in the future either. But my stance is that this isn’t for technical reasons connected to how Chromebooks operate,

[redchiz1]

@RoyB 

Well, you aren't really using NOW on a browser with the Mac and PC players are you? And would you wish those on anyone else?

Amazon, Disney, Netflix etc. have their streaming built right in to desktop browsers, presumably using HTML5. No players in sight.  🙂

[RoyB]

---

@redchiz1 wrote:

@RoyB 

Well, you aren't really using NOW on a browser with the Mac and PC players are you?

I believe I anticipated that objection, and already covered it in my reply.

And would you wish those on anyone else?

For the record, I don’t even wish them on PC and Mac users. But this is not germane to the discussion, except insofar as you could ask Chromebook users if they would like even such a clunky Now in preference to nothing.

Amazon, Disney, Netflix etc. have their streaming built right in to desktop browsers, presumably using HTML5. No players in sight.  🙂

I’m aware of that. But as you are too, why did you claim that NOW could not do something these other streaming services are already doing?

[redchiz1]

Probably because the NOW model is based on the same technology as their parent Sky. Which never provided browser based services either, did you ever experience the horrible Microsoft Silverlight, which made even Flash look good? All due to paranoia over security and access I guess, which possibly made sense back in the olden days. And ultimately I think the answer is: why would they bother? And which "claim" are you finding particularly objectionable?