×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

265 comments

Exterminate all Mudslums (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846504)

Just exterminate all the Mudslums from the world. Kinda hard to force your woman to wear a burka that covers everything but her eyes if your in a 20 foot deep crater.

Women in Saudia Arabia aren't allowed to drive. Is it really such a stretch to say that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to exist?

Let's be real here. The only reason we put up with Muslims' bullshit is that they happen to be sitting on a bunch of oil. What you may not realize is that we can wipe out the Muslims and still take their oil. We're about 25% finished doing this in Iraq.

Seriously, if a religion is so nuts that they can't handle their profit being pictured wearing a suicide bomb, but are more than happy to slap a suicide bomb on to a fellow Muslim and march him in to a cafe full of civilians, it doesn't deserve to exist.

Re:Exterminate all Mudslums (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846540)

Jesus was a bastard. True story.

Re:Exterminate all Mudslums (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847020)

All religions are nuts.

Re:Exterminate all Mudslums (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847358)

My religion isn't nuts. For a limited time only I'm offering the introductory course for a mere $99.

Should be a selling feature... (5, Insightful)

Orne (144925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846516)

Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon.

The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?

Re:Should be a selling feature... (5, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846610)

Well, you could sign into an account on YouTube and turn them off.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (4, Informative)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846908)

Well, you could sign into an account on YouTube and turn them off.

And let them track how many cute, fluffy kitten videos I watch? Er, I mean how many boob videos I watch? And car crashes. And explosions! People falling off skateboards. Grr, manly videos! That's right. Anyway, I think not.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847014)

Er, I mean how many boob videos I watch?

Youtube has boob videos?
Any time I follow a link that claims to be a boob video (purely for research purposes, of course), it has been pulled for TOS violation.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847108)

"Gratuitous" boob videos are pulled, but there are some with a high enough educational value that they stay, for instance that show how to do breast exams. (Also available are pelvic exam and, for the ladies (and gay guys), prostate exam videos.)

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847192)

Youtube has boob videos?

Hint for (new) competitors: support these videos and you'll quickly grow bigger than youtube!

Re:Should be a selling feature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847196)

Er, I mean how many boob videos I watch?

Youtube has boob videos?

Any time I follow a link that claims to be a boob video (purely for research purposes, of course), it has been pulled for TOS violation.

Meet Shay Laren:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyadBDomkyg

Re:Should be a selling feature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847490)

Not this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Re:Should be a selling feature... (3, Insightful)

mcspoo (933106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846618)

Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos. You don't HAVE to watch it. That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING. Don't like it? TURN IT OFF.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847078)

I though the OP was referring to the crappy popup that video publishers can pepper YouTube videos with "LOLOLOLOLOLOL TEH NXT BIT IZ TEH PHAT!!!!!"

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847304)

deafies aren't the only ones who want captioning, but I do support it. There are lots of times where I'd like youtube muted and/or if they had captions in another language it would ease translation, and also enable youtube to be a useful teaching tool for other languages. Meanwhile I'd rather see ogg as an option over H264. H264 is an improvement over flash, but that issue will rage on for a while. [arstechnica.com]

Re:Should be a selling feature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846644)

I find adverts the most annoying "feature", and it's not just because they are adverts.

If you're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube, the advert flashes up. Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls, but the audio carries on playing. Eventually after a good 10 to 15 seconds the video starts playing again in time with the audio. This irritating "feature" is on my Linux (official 64bit Flash) AND Windows (official 32it Flash) setup. Adobe haven't written decent code in years (I say that as a user of other Adobe stuff).

Re:Should be a selling feature... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846652)

The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?

Captions? They are opt-in, and they can be very useful for hard of hearing people (if the video creators do add them, that is...)

Agreed on the others, though.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

Qwerpafw (315600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846700)

To clarify, from the site

Additional Restrictions (we are working on these!)

*Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)

Ads will still play, and will in fact inflict flash on you. There's really no good way right now to force people to watch advertisements if the whole video is H.264 (since you could just scrub past the ads), so I can understand this, even if I don't like it.

What they'll probably eventually do is break the video up into a bunch of shorter videos, with ads in between. Then they can load each part in sequence, and enforce a timer on the ad portion so even if you scrub through the ad you still have to wait for the timer.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

Nick Novitski (1637177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846754)

If only. That sentence means that any videos with ads will display with the usual flash player, even if you opt in to the beta.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846778)

Good to see Firefox unsupported. Maybe that will show Mozilla that they really should buy a license for the best of the most superior codecs currently known -- H.264.

If a patent license is required, hell, by all means buy it and stop talking crap about Free codecs (as in Speech)! That's also why Google pays the Mozilla Corporation hundreds of millions of USD.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847068)

Good to see Firefox not opting into a system that pushes us towards a non-free de-facto standard.

We don't want to sleep walk into a situation where anyone who wants to encode video that they expect to be widely usable, must pay for a non-free license.

True, Firefox walks a fine line, because it could lose market share, in which case it will all be in vain. We need ubiquitous, cheap chipsets that support Theora - or something else free. That won't happen if everyone just rolls over and pays for H.264.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847090)

And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it. Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.

If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847294)

No. It's Google supporting a licensed codecs instead of an open one which is "helping flash survive".
Heck, it means if you dont have millions you cannot buy an h264 license thus cannot play HTML5 videos. If you think a bit more broadly, about all the custom HTML clients, you might realize that h264 is an horrible choice for ones who aren't working in a big company (or a company at all)

Re:Should be a selling feature... (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847548)

It's not just a matter of money. It's a matter of Firefox not being able to be redistributed by downstream distributors unless they _also_ buy the license. As in, it would effectively stop being free software in the "can modify and redistribute" sense.

Re:Should be a selling feature... (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847106)

>The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?

Im sure the HTML video tag will be wrapped within a flash box to produce ads and stupid annotations.

What about firefox (ogg video)? (1)

Skatox (1109939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846520)

I would like to see videos on a open format and with firefox

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846606)

I'm sure FF support is coming one way or the other.

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (2, Interesting)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846960)

I doubt YouTube is going to go ahead and reencode everything to Theora. Firefox needs to get its act together and at least take advantage of OS-supplied h.264 when it's available. Everyone likes to whine about patents for h.264, but there are free/oss decoders available and the best h.264 encoder is probably the open source x264. Considering that Theora isn't guaranteed not to contain patented technology anyway (it's just not known to), I'd say h.264 is a pretty good option with better support.

Consider that Vorbis never really broke into the mainstream, and it's actually superior to MP3. Theora doesn't really stand a chance as it is, and I have my doubts that it'll ever get to h.264's performance.

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (1, Troll)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847134)

Is anyone seriously thinking that Google will triple* its storage capacity just to have a Theora version for Firefox users and then waste twice* as much bandwidth for those same Firefox users?

* every time I hear about Theora people say it needs twice the bandwidth to achieve the same video quality as H.264

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (4, Informative)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847422)

Why throw around bullshit claims based on nothing more than your vague and absurd assertion that "every time you hear..."? You can easily search for that info yourself, which would take less time than it took to post to slashdot. For example, you have this purely subjective analysis [osnews.com] which was done by encoding Theora and h.264 files with equivalent size and then having a dude claim what image he preferred. Although he claimed that h.264 was better according to his own personal tastes, you can easily see for yourself that, when comparing Theora and h.264, you get pratically the same quality with the same file size. It's the same bandwidth, same size, practically (and in some cases) indistinguishable quality and although Theora's developers had to intentionally avoid more efficient algorithms due to patents.

So who exactly is spewing those bullshit, FUD claims of "Theora needs triple storage capacity and wastes twice as much bandwidth"?

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847484)

1 - you say "triple" then you say its in fact only double
2 - you justify your source as "i heard so" which discard the source altogether

but wait theres more
"Another licensing issue that is often overlooked is the ambiguity of MPEG LA's future patent royalty collection plans. MPEG LA has established broadcast fees that licensees will be required to pay for distributing free (or ad-supported) streaming video content on the Internet. These fees will not be instated until the end of 2010, when the second H.264 licensing period goes into effect. The language used in the current license treats Internet streaming just like over-the-air television, implying that the licensees will have to pay broadcast fees per-region. That could prove to be extremely costly for Internet video providers who make their content available around the world." *

and:
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html [xiph.org]

what can yo usee on the above link? theora has same if not greater quality as youtube has with h264 and h263 (theora is much better than h263 low bandwidth, and similar to h264 in high bandwidth)

*http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars (look, real source link)

thanks for the FUD, tho.

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847516)

They seem to disagree since Theora 1.1 is out: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847524)

Twice is an exaggeration. It's a significant change, but not twice.

And storage is cheap, so that's not really the issue here. You only need to back up the masters, so it's really only like 1.5 times the storage, assuming they do very basic backups of the videos on YouTube.

Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847572)

Theora has better quality than H.263. Which is used as an option in Youtube.

No one is asking Yotuube to remove support for H.264. Just to add suport for Theora, even if it is at H.263 quality and bitrate levels.

What a shame (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846532)

It's a shame that I won't be shown wonderful ads in the bottom of the video or be able to view fantastic poorly worded Post-It notes plastered throughout the frames. They should reconsider doing this until these issues fundamental to my enjoyment are resolved.

Re:What a shame (1)

Bluebottel (979854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846748)

Notations can be turned off, theres a button in the player itself. The ads are still annoying and im not aware of any way to get rid of them.

Well, that kind of sucks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846534)

Where are the open codecs that everyone was begging for?

Re:Well, that kind of sucks (2, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847000)

Like Theora? The problem with that codec is that its based on pretty old technology. Google probably isnt interested in paying a bandwidth premium. It looks like this move is Google telling the rest of the industry to standardize on H.264 via licensing deals.

Not a bandwidth issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847562)

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

Youtube's H264 is far from what a good H264 encoder can do, and youtube already offers at least one alternative which is clearly inferior to Theora.

It's not like anyone is demanding that google ditch h264. They already offer 8 or 9 copies of every video, people are just asking them to support one or two more.

Re:Well, that kind of sucks (3, Informative)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847030)

H.264 is the codec used in youtube when you play videos with the flash player. This HTML5 video viewer just reuses theses videos, only the html client code changes. Using other codec means reencoding all their videos in a different video format, which must not be easy. Specially when the alternatives are worse (theora) or not ready (dirac).

Re:Well, that kind of sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847066)

they suck ass so they weren't used.

Hmm (1)

Uranium-238 (1586465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846536)

This could be good. If only you could use it in Firefox, maybe it's time to try out Chrome.

Re:Hmm (1, Insightful)

Qwerpafw (315600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846642)

You can't use it in firefox because mozilla refuses to support H.264

Wake up, nobody uses ogg theora. Sorry guys, patent/royalty-free is great, but in this case it's just not happening.

H.264 is hardware accelerated on just about every mobile device. Ogg Theora won't even play on them.

Re:Hmm (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846698)

Define mobile device. I've never had an issue with OGG on my laptops (going back to the Pentium II era). My phone and PDA do not support either format.

Re:Hmm (1)

Qwerpafw (315600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846760)

ogg is not hardware accelerated on your laptop, and if you're still using a PDA then you're a couple generations back anyways.

All modern smartphones (anything that runs android, pre, iPhone, even most of RIM's stuff) play H.264 and have hardware acceleration for it, many "dumbphones" even play H.264.

Netbooks all have H.264 hardware acceleration...

sorry that your decade old 3Com Palm Pilot doesn't play HD video, don't blame google for that one.

What do they call PDAs nowadays? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846796)

if you're still using a PDA then you're a couple generations back anyways.

Not everyone needs a cellular radio and a 2-year contract. What is the latest popular term for a smartphone that can make calls only over Wi-Fi? A "smartpod touch"?

Netbooks all have H.264 hardware acceleration

I'd like to know where you got this information.

Re:What do they call PDAs nowadays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846884)

|What is the latest popular term for a smartphone that can make calls only over Wi-Fi? A "smartpod touch"?

An anachronism? :-)

Re:What do they call PDAs nowadays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846918)

Not everyone needs a cellular radio and a 2-year contract.

True, true, but the GP specifically bemoaned BOTH "my phone and PDA", so he/she DOES have a cellular radio (not sure about the contract), making at least one of the devices superfluous in today's world, so the point still stands.

Re:What do they call PDAs nowadays? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847512)

True, true, but the GP specifically bemoaned BOTH "my phone and PDA", so he/she DOES have a cellular radio (not sure about the contract)

I make so few calls that my Virgin Mobile USA bill runs me $5.35 a month. I don't think any smartphone's plan comes anywhere close to that price, and I don't need to be online away from places where I can already get Wi-Fi. So a smartphone isn't for me.

Re:Hmm (2, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846858)

Most video chipsets these days are including hardware support for H264 decoding. This includes the chipsets in devices like mobile phones, MP3 (portable media) players, and set-top boxes.

Mod parent troll (2, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846934)

Mozilla cannot legally support H264 without releasing a closed-source version of Firefox.

Plugin/Add-on? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846986)

So, why not a closed-source plugin? Why would they need to close the entire browser source code just to support a video codec which should be able to be punted into a loadable library?

Re:Plugin/Add-on? (4, Insightful)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847408)

Adobe already released a closed-source plugin to play H.264. It's called Flash Player.

Re:Plugin/Add-on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847486)

A plugin wouldn't even have to be closed source as long as they can find someone to shell out the licensing fees.

Re:Mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847022)

Wrong, they can include closed source components without compromising their browser's source code. How do you think the NVIDIA driver under Linux works?

Re:Mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847450)

Mozilla cannot legally support H264 (in the us) without releasing a closed-source version of Firefox. Maybe it's time for a EuroFox "fork"

Re:Mod parent troll (2, Informative)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847576)

Yes they can! All the have to do is wrap the platform native playback capabilities (or one of them on Linux). Every major platform has a media framework that can be made to support h.264.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847008)

You can't use it in firefox because mozilla refuses to support H.264

You can't use it in firefox because nobody is allowed to support H.264 without first getting permission. Permission to use H.264 is only available through licensing.

Think about what a massive fuckup that was. Until now, the web was something that anybody could implement freely.

Fud fud fud fud (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847114)

Theorarm [wss.co.uk] decodes Theora full screen video at about 110 FPS on my jailbroken iphone. The hardware support thing for h264 is mostly an issue because of h264's utterly obscene cpu consumption, Theora is much more thrifty. The "doesn't work" thing is entirely manufactured by the device makers (e.g. Apple) having a direct monetary interest on a format that they get royalties for being adopted.

Mozilla doesn't just refuse. Legal licensing of the codec would be 10% of their annual budget. Do you really want 10% of Mozilla's budget to just be flushed on a single media codec? (and then more needed for AAC.). For that kind of money Mozilla could employ an entire codec development team.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846684)

Firefox supports the video tag. The h.264 support can be added by installing mplayer browser plugin or xine browser plugin.

Re:Hmm (1)

daveb1 (1678608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846710)

Good. However, if you just so happen to be on windows(im not), how would that work ? (vlc?.....)....

Re:Hmm (3, Informative)

Mornedhel (961946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846786)

Even with h264 support (through gecko-mediaplayer), Youtube tells me "Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.".

No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846990)

No. Firefox video tag is free formats only. Tools like mplayer are a cesspool of security holes— they aren't designed to be exposed to hostile content. The video tag requires pretty deep browser integration, ... only apple supports using the native infrastructure and even they disable 99% of their features for security reasons (e.g. try a mov with hyperlinks in it).

Mozilla is committed to an open web, and you can't get their with a wink and a nod and asking users to install codec software which is illegal everywhere in the developed world. (Including europe. I'm so tired of seeing people characterized codec licensing as a US thing— there are more European patents on codecs than US patents)

Re:Hmm (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847268)

Works fine in the Opera 10.5 pre-release, the latest Safari, and of course the latest Chrome by definition.

Mozilla is in the same boat as Internet Explorer and I for one predict that FireFox development is going to get slower and slower and slower.. still not sure that they will do a full rewrite like last time.. thats still up in the air.

Re:Hmm (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847396)

Really? I got a message saying my browser couldn't display any of the video types in the new Opera

It's about time. (2, Interesting)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846546)

Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer. If you aren't [un-]lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video, which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads. HTML5 has its problems, but it's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.

Re:It's about time. (2, Interesting)

bradbury (33372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846792)

Agreed. I've got NoScript running in most of my Firefox sessions so don't run into Flash problems that often (as Javascript is often used to start Flash) but in working a little with chrome and the FlashBlock extension that seems to be an even better approach.

Now the question will be whether there will be a way to disable the nasty HTML5 video options when advertisers start to abuse those as well. Video should always be "at the user's discretion", precisely because there are probably hundreds of millions of PC's scattered around the world which simply don't have the hardware to be able to show video without it "killing the system" (even running a Pentium IV, I have problems with video on any VT / hardware combination that didn't happen to get the Xorg -> Kernel DRI interface (and that is only one of my VTs)).

I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846838)

Flash is already on my Symbian phone and various other platforms. Will HTML5 advocates spare time to non cool (!) platforms to code a codec/driver along with testing thousands of different setups to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264?

Google, a multi billion giant can roll out a good "quicktime interface" for youtube, can even add extra features to it but it doesn't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash.

BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.

I keep testing Theora and sorry to say, I don't think it will take off unless Google does some amazing thing and make the VP7+ codecs open, free as in freedom. Now that would really change entire media universe. Hopefully they purchased that codec company for that reason.

Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now (1, Interesting)

mamer-retrogamer (556651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847056)

BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.

Great, so if I want decent performance out of one of the most popular internet video services, I am tied to Windows. Yuck.

I think even Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall for Flash. However, if you no longer need Flash to view videos on the web that's just one more reason why you don't need Windows. Luckily for us, Microsoft wants all of us to replace the horrible Flash with the new and improved Microsoft Silverlight. :p

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm one of the ones hoping for HTML5 video to take off.

Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847130)

HTML5 != Theora. HTML5 is simply (will not that simple!) the mechanism or conduit if you like to the codec. That's why lots of the discussion above is about lack of Firefox support as there is no out of the box support for H.264 in Firefox. I take your point but you have defeated it yourself by comparing theora to H.264.

Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now (4, Informative)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847328)

BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.

Yeah I tried that. I had to move back down to 10.0 because while the performance was better, videos looked like crap because hey, guess what, 10.1 doesn't have nice-looking video scaling! I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Flash eat my CPU alive than feel like gouging my eyes out due to uneven pixelation.

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847338)

BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.

That doesn't help me on my home OS X machine or my Linux workstation at work.

Also, will Flash exploits also be GPU accelerated?

This is fantastic news (1)

Qwerpafw (315600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846604)

I've been using ClickToFlash with safari for a long time now, which suppresses the flash in youtube videos and plays them in H.264 (when possible) directly. This is a tremendous CPU boon on a netbook - I can't play flash, HD or otherwise, fullscreen, but quicktime plays H.264 just fine. Flash is a horrible monster, and with all the vulnerabilities and instability that it brings along with it, the faster youtube moves away from it, the better.

Native Safari playback on iPhone/iTouch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30846704)

So, does this mean we'd be able to ditch Apple's (cached) YouTube app & surf/watch YouTube directly in Safari on the iPhone/iTouch?
Does Safari for iPhoneOS 3.0 support HTML5?

Re:Native Safari playback on iPhone/iTouch? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847006)

Yes it does, but google serves up a special version that puts you into the youtube app anyway, it's easier to use anyway.

Re:Native Safari playback on iPhone/iTouch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847442)

Yes it does, but google serves up a special version that puts you into the youtube app anyway, it's easier to use anyway.

Easier to use, maybe... but it serves content cached on Apple's servers, which seem to frequently time out or have other load issues.

Still no good (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846876)

When I go on digg.com/videos and see a Top 10 XYZ videos of 2009, there will still be 10 embedded flash players on that page and will bring my system to its knees. This is only good for viewing youtube.com and not for people who embed stuff.

Re:Still no good (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847174)

On the Mac/Safari I use ClickToFlash, which turns off auto-run on all Flash content and lets you click specific flash panels if you want to run them. (It also adds a menu selection to let you turn on all Flash for a given page or override the settings for a given site.) Further, it can recognize YouTube URLs and redirect you from the Flash to the h.264 if available. That single feature is worth more than any speed increase in any other browser... hopefully it spreads.

I disapprove of ad-blocking software since I believe there's an implied contract between web page consumers and the funding models of the providers, but I don't have a problem with blocking particular proprietary content delivery mechanisms.

Re:Still no good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30847470)

Well aren't you detective obvious.

Chrome and Safari? (1)

NotPeteMcCabe (833508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30846880)

This has to be the first truly-large-scale website that came out with a new feature for Chrome and Safari first. I guess the new "Apple vs. Google for control of the world" thing hasn't kicked in yet.

Works great in my side by side comparison (5, Informative)

jschen (1249578) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847054)

Using Safari/OSX (latest version of each) on a first generation Core2 Duo laptop (2.33 GHz), I tried watching the same video (containing no ads, annotations, etc) at the same size using both the default Flash option and the beta HTML5 option. CPU use was a steady 33-34% during playback in Flash. A steady 12-13% in HTML5. Seems like a winner to me.

Now all we need... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847072)

...is the Firefox team to get over themselves, and integrate ffmpeg, for instant support of every format out there!

But I bet they will bitch and scream again, mentioning some “non-freeness” of H.264, despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything, and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.

I hope Google tells them: Either you support it, or the money deal ends right now.

Re:Now all we need... (3, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847184)

> and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support

Free in what sense? You can use their code in your code. Your code would then not be able to be distributed to users unless you pay the relevant patent licensing fees. The Mozilla Corporation could do that, but then any other Firefox distributors (e.g. Linux distributions) would not be able to distribute Firefox without either removing this functionality or paying the relevant patent licensing fees. Anyone doing a custom build of Firefox and distributing it could be sued by MPEG-LA to recover the money due them.

Effectively, Firefox stops being "free" for practical intents and purposes. It's still "open source", but the only thing you can really do is contribute patches back to the main repository, unless you pay up the patent fees.

That's not exactly a desirable situation. We might end up there, but as a first cut trying to avoid it is a good thing.

WHy? (1)

Tibia1 (1615959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847166)

I don't know anything about html5 and whether it will be good or not, but why is it that all the videos I watch in "high quality" still look like shit. Is there an option I forgot to check?

Sure makes downloading easy... (1)

joetomato (1073508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847260)

I know there are programs / firefox extensions to download + convert videos off youtube, but this just makes it too damn easy. Especially since you're already using Chrome - right click on the video, choose Inspect Element. It opens the page source, and finds the URL of the video for you. Copy to clipboard, paste to address bar, and it downloads a suprisingly high quality .mp4 - no conversion or crappy flash video players neccesary. Keep up the good work YouTube.

Re:Sure makes downloading easy... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847458)

I know there are programs / firefox extensions to download + convert videos off youtube, but this just makes it too damn easy. Especially since you're already using Chrome - right click on the video, choose Inspect Element. It opens the page source, and finds the URL of the video for you. Copy to clipboard, paste to address bar, and it downloads a suprisingly high quality .mp4 - no conversion or crappy flash video players neccesary. Keep up the good work YouTube.

All the much better I say. Especially since the h.264 videos off Youtube are the high-quality high-def ones.

Not that downloading videos was especially hard - using Live HTTP Headers you can easily see the URLs of the videos. Interesting thing is that the FLV low quality versions are trivially downloaded (just wget the flv URL - the one with video/x-flv as MIME type), but the high-quality (video/mp4) ones require a referer header.

crashes chrome on linux HARD... (1)

deander2 (26173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847412)

crashes chrome on linux HARD...

Re:crashes chrome on linux HARD... (1, Interesting)

m0i (192134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30847504)

crashes chrome on linux HARD...

Which is it? chrome only (so it is not HARD) or the whole system (meaning it could well be X/the display driver that bring the system down).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...