Beta
×

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!

YouTube Explains Where HTML5 Video Fails

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the something-to-think-about dept.

Youtube 426

awjr writes "YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 <video> tag has and may never have."

cancel ×

426 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts" (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743550)

Is the video tag in HTML5 a kludge? Yes. Is it more an ideal than a practical implementation? Sure. Can it compete with a commercial product that has been an accepted part of the web for over 10 years now? Perhaps not. Is it poorly implemented [wikipedia.org] in most modern browsers, with no agreed upon video codec [arstechnica.com] common to any two of them? Yep. Would it be getting any attention at all if Steve Jobs hadn't used it as part of his cheap excuse to block free flash apps from his iControlU line of products? Not likely.

But all that's missing the point. The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior. Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice?

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743604)

But all that's missing the point. The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior. Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice?

That. MP3 became the de facto standard despite the existence of far better quality formats for the exact same reason. We currently have to choose between two kludges, badly implemented possibilities, one of them being open. The choice is easy to make.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (4, Insightful)

waambulance (1766146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743816)

yes. the "choice is easy to make" because *you* arent creating content. only consuming it.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (-1, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744106)

the "choice is easy to make" because *you* arent creating content. only consuming it.

It's next to impossible to create an original work nowadays, as incumbent copyright owners are likely to sue over the slightest accidental sample.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744520)

The above comment comes to you courtesy of the Dead Horse Dept. of the Irrelevancy Institute. (Maybe next time you should just let the adults talk)

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744116)

Specious argument, really.

Content "creation" with Flash is really a poor substitute for the real tools that are completely available on all the mainstream OSes- to the point of some of the better answers being available for free or next to it on all of the aforementioned.

If you're doing "content creation" on something like Haiku, I might understand slightly, but you should already understand that you might be on your own on things like this if you choose to run things like Haiku and other up-and-coming OSes.

"Creating content" is a straw man.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744302)

Er... Are you implying that making a video available through a tag is somehow harder than through a flash app ? Care to elaborate what you mean by that ? Because using html5 with youtube is actually a few clicks operation : http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (5, Informative)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743884)

Not trying to be confrontational but I don't understand your comment and hoped you could explain further.

I took your comment to mean that even though there were better formats available, MP3 became standard because it was open.

My confusion is thus-
1-when MP3 first started being widely used (I started using it extensively in 1997) it was competing with WAV files. There were no better formats.
2- MP3s are only 'open' in the sense that they don't have embedded DRM. It is still a proprietary format with license fees attached.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (0)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744066)

1-when MP3 first started being widely used (I started using it extensively in 1997) it was competing with WAV files. There were no better formats.

You don't remember .aiff? And all those other file formats? Oh, and atrct (or whatever Sony called it)?
It was never wav-vs-mp3.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (4, Informative)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744440)

He's generalizing, but there were no other formats that could do 12:1 compression like MP3 did when it came out. Few people remember that if you wanted to rip a CD it was a 50 megabyte file. I still remember playing back a small little file with a .MP2 extension on a Dell 486 running Windows 3.1 and going WOW - thats amazing! (gives you kind of a timeline on how long ago this really was). It was some tune from Kimagure Orange Road.

ATRAC btw was only used internally at Sony for DAT and Minidisc (and later AT3 cd's) - there was never any way then to make or play back an ATRAC file on a home PC until somewhat recent history (and only then to try to lock people into using ATRAC over MP3).

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (2, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744518)

The Sony format never counts unless they're trying to buy out the market with cash.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744068)

No better formats or no competing formats in 1997? You seem to forget Yamaha's VQF, RealMedia audio, ADPCM, etc.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744150)

Actually I believe there's one more important detail in the MP3 success: CPU usage and bitrate quality

A 486 can play MP3s with reduced quality (not encoded quality, but playback downgrading). Pentium with full quality. Encoding times were far from realtime.

I believe competing formats used too much bitrate for same quality or too much cpu power.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744348)

Yes sorry, saying MP3 was open is a bit far-fetched. However, despite its patent issues, the Fraunhoffer institute did not prosecute anyone (to my knowledge) implementing a free encoder/decoder. It was an unwritten agreement that only commercial implementation would need patent license. And also, compared to many of its competitors (Apple's and Microsoft's formats) it did not have any DRM.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743944)

I think his point was that we have the choice between one open and barely capable kludge and one closed but broadly supported and well understood kludge.

Personally I would rather buy a crutch for my broken leg so it can heal, then have a sprained ankle that I was "free" to walk on day after day until my foot fell off. Oops, sorry, I am taking BadAnalogyGuy's job away from him...

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744246)

That. MP3 became the de facto standard despite the existence of far better quality formats for the exact same reason. We currently have to choose between two kludges, badly implemented possibilities, one of them being open. The choice is easy to make.

None of those competing formats achieved widespread adoption before MP3s rose to prominence, however. MP3s occupied a convergence between portable size and acceptable quality than other formats did not. WAVs were better quality, but huge, and many of the other small formats were small, but awful.

Even MP3s were somewhat corporate -- Fraunhofer owned the code/decode engine and made various patent rumbles for quite awhile.

MP3s are actually a terrible example.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743618)

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

I don't care about things that are "open" but dont work in practice.

Re:Stop raining on anything with your OSS parade (1)

rant64 (1148751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743810)

Agreed. I will take something that works over anything that is open any odd day of the damn week.
(Hey, sorry it's a badly documented enthusiast implementation of what *we* think is interesting, but at least it's *OPEN*!)

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744404)

The problem is that something that's open might eventually work, whereas something that isn't probably won't unless it's on a blessed platform. Which is the point, if it's a site devoted to Windows or OSX, having content that's not particularly well available beyond those platforms is possibly acceptable. If it's general interest like Youtube is having it be restricted artificially to a couple platforms is clearly not acceptable. Admittedly there's only so much they can do or really should do, but this sort of artificial narrowing of the market is absurd.

At least with VP8 it's available to any platform at present, whether it's been ported is a moot point as the necessary bits to port it are available.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743718)

Flash kills battery life and stability. After 10 years, it still doesn't work well on modern computers or mobile devices and is likely to never be a good solution. The video tag is young, not quite there yet, and will probably be a better bet in the long run.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743916)

On my iPod, why does the 'video tag' not get handled inline in Safari? The thing always opens up a full screen Quicktime Player. I suppose that could be termed 'HTML tag enabled.' So could an .au link back in 1993 in the same spirit.

No, the notion that it is HTML5 compliance that was considered important by Apple is laughable. It's the not-Flash that is important to them.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743924)

" After 10 years, it still doesn't work well on modern computers or mobile devices"
[citation needed]

Flash allows proper streamnig, video tag does not. Proper streaming needs a server side solution. If HTML5 isn't going to be ready till 2022 for a browser standard, how long will it take for a server-side standard?

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744304)

Flash only kills battery life because of intense decompression and decoding -> high cpu usage. If flash is just a a container for h.264, and you use h.264 with your video tag, then what's the difference?

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744486)

My laptop fans spin up and cpu usage spikes on any page with the most simple flash sprite animations without any video. They slow down when I close the offending tab.

It suggests that the runtime is broken and does not properly idle, making it unsuitable for battery powered devices. While it's possible that flash could at some point be a low resource consuming UI for the video, that does not seem to be the case. Adobe has had 10 years to fix the issue, so one has to assume that it's either not possible or they are incapable of making the runtime not consume huge amounts of resources for even simple operations.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (2, Funny)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743862)

Can we please have a permanent ban on asking and answering your on questions? I say yes.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (2, Insightful)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743880)

Also worth mentioning, is that Google acquired YouTube in 2006, and Google is a supporter of Open Source [google.com] with an open source operating system [blogspot.com] . If they did look at this from an outside, objective perspective, I trust Google will do anything they can to speed up HTML5 video support.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (2, Insightful)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743888)

" ... Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice? ... "

I do! I like the fact that I can jump to any part of the video and even direct people to that part of the video with a single url. the video tag doesn't really do steaming in that sense.

"The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior"

ORLY? name a major media format that is used widely that IS open format! Your idea that open format is superior is an opinion with very little to back that up.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743964)

name a major media format that is used widely that IS open format

Text, the most widely used and open of all.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

jschen (1249578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744240)

So that's why YouTube tried out the TEXTp format!

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744366)

Only because it's been around long enough to be public domain. ;)

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744052)

*whoosh*...

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744134)

PNG

F. YEAH SEEKING: set currentTime (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744294)

I like the fact that I can jump to any part of the video and even direct people to that part of the video with a single url.

HTML5's <video> element supports JavaScript seeking [whatwg.org] to a new playback position. Your video page can read the fragment identifier from the URI, parse it, and then set the video element's currentTime attribute to make the player seek. The back end uses an HTTP/1.1 range retrieval [w3.org] , the same thing that resumable downloads use.

the video tag doesn't really do steaming in that sense.

Steaming as in a "steaming pile"?

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743966)

I think you miss the point. Flash is a poorly performing closed POS that makes video on the Internet beholden to a single vendor. That is a problem any way you slice it. It's unlikely that adobe will actually fix the situation unless they're absolutely backed into a corner.

Yes, the new unfinished standard doesn't have complete support in browsers yet. Whoop-dee-doo. The "no agreed upon video codec" thing is a bit of red herring. Safari, IE, and Chrome are all supporting H264 already, and unless WebM takes off, H264 is the de facto video codec standard of the decade. Whining about how much you love DivX isn't going to change that. Even Flash is supporting H264 (That's right! If you're arguing in favor of Flash, you're arguing in favor of H264 being the de facto standard). Blaming Apple for this is also silly. They made a choice based on what they believed would provide their customers with the best product. Going by their rate of sales, I don't think their customers disagree with Apple's views all that much.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

u17 (1730558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744208)

Proprietary browsers are all supporting H264 already

There, fixed that for you. Free browsers will never be able to support H264 and this is one half of the problem. The other half is that, for some reason, proprietary browser developers don't want to support open video formats. It's not a red herring, it's a real problem that threatens the principles of openness on which the Web has been built (openness in the "anyone is free to make an implementation" sense).

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744352)

Firefox has - what? - 28% of the overall market, and it doesn't support H264. Hardly 'de facto' when the second most-popular browser doesn't support it, eh?

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (4, Insightful)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744414)

Everyone seems to forget one thing about this blog: it doesn't say that Flash is the holy grail for video streaming and that we should all flock to using Flash and put a ban on the HTML5 codec. No, the author of the blog applauds the efforts being put into HTML5 but warns that the video tag simply isn't finished yet. The moral of the story is that while HTML5's video codec is a great start, it's way too soon to put a ban on Flash because it still offers a lot of functionality that HTML5 does not. There still is valid use for Flash over HTML5.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744478)

Going by their rate of sales, I don't think their customers disagree with Apple's views all that much.

I love my iPad, but on more than a few occasions I've had to put it down and pick up my laptop to view a site or video on the internet. On even more occasions I didn't even have my laptop with me, so I was SOL. This, because Apple decided no flash would provide me with the best experience.

Re:Stop raining on our OSS parade with your "facts (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744140)

"The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior. Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice?"

This is why the Red Sox won't let me walk on and play right field. Free that doesn't work doesn't, well, doesn't work.

I'm waiting for the FOSS community to develop HTML5 addins that will work. Just remember, if such a thing happens, expect outfits like YouTube to capitalize on that and make money off the efforts of the free.

And yes, I would not mind a bit if the Red Sox kept charging wht they do for tickets if they let me play right field for free. No, I would not play for the Yankees. Or the Diamondbacks. Not worth it.

Apple should have open sourced H264 (1)

count_schemula (843019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744430)

Steve Jobs really messed up when he chose to make this fight. He should have also used Apple's massive cash position to purchase H264 or the patents, or whatever it would have taken to solve the H264 issue by making it open source. With that one move it would have removed so much uncertainty and jump started the whole idea by several years. Now we have HTML5, but madness in the codec arena.

Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743568)

It's funny that a lot of these points end with something like "HTML 5 is working on it" or "HTML 5 is just begun" or "Hopefully they all merge to one." And that's the idea of an unfinished specification. With one big exception: DRM (or as the article calls it "Content Protection"). While I don't think it's impossible, I think it's a pretty big effort to produce DRM that content owners (like the MPAA or RIAA) are satisfied with as an open standard. I think they perceive open standards to be inherently insecure (despite several cases of the opposite like OpenSSL).

Right now, YouTube might be forced to stick with Flash in regards to some videos but in the future I think we will see YouTube move as much as it can to HTML 5 and offer Flash as a premium service to content owners who want to deliver their content through Flash's DRM. And I'm fine with that. I don't care that you can redistribute videos of a snapping turtle laying eggs in my parent's garden.

Remember, YouTube is Google and Google has supported HTML 5 at least vocally and with their Chrome browser to the best of their ability.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (2, Insightful)

trickofperspective (180714) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743762)

I agree -- I really look at this message as less a death sentence for HTML5 than an attempt by Youtube (Google) to direct the development of the standard to something more robust.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32743782)

While I don't think it's impossible, I think it's a pretty big effort to produce DRM that content owners (like the MPAA or RIAA) are satisfied with as an open standard.

Frankly, I think it is impossible to deceive them so completely. They know that DRM consists of transmitting both ciphertext and key, and trusting the client not to do anything with them that the transmitter doesn't want.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743786)

I really don't like Flash but this does point out some interesting points.
Also do we want HTML to have all the features of Flash?
Things like camera and microphone control?
Or even the ability to go full screen?
And DRM?
I don't like DRM but I do know that for somethings the choice will be DRM or nothing.
Just a lot of really good points. It also shows how W3C really has blown it. They move to slow with adding features to browsers. I mean really we are just NOW adding video support to HTML? Really?
How long ago did we start streaming video on the Web?

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744330)

Indeed. I found TFA particularly entertaining because it said 'we wouldn't be able to offer things like this' where the word 'this' linked to a page saying 'this is not available in your country'. I'm fairly sure that you don't require Flash in order to be able to not provide a service.

Of all companies, I'd expect Google to know that making bits uncopyable is not possible. Especially amusing since they cite RTMPE as an example of a useful feature, when RTMPE is broken and can easily be ignored by anything other than the official Flash player.

The point about streaming live events is a client issue. The spec allows any URL format, so you can use rtp:// streams, for example. Maybe Chrome needs to support these? Seeking is more important. HTTP lets you seek to a byte range, but how does that map to a location within the file? This could be worked around by putting this data in the header somewhere. Mind you, QuickTime seems to be able to seek within a remote file pretty nicely, so it must be possible...

Things like camera and microphone control?

Personally, I'd rather that my browser didn't have the ability for a malicious site to turn my laptop into a bug, and I suspect most corporate users feel the same way.

Or even the ability to go full screen?

This is actually one thing that I'd rather the browser did. Flash games, for example, would often be better played in full-screen mode, but unless they explicitly implement this support (which most don't), they can't. A standard way of making a div display full screen, with a standard browser UI so that it can't be done unless the user explicitly requests it, would be very nice.

I don't like DRM but I do know that for somethings the choice will be DRM or nothing.

'Nothing' works for me. If companies choose not to compete, that's their loss. The companies that choose to make their products available in a form that's useful can buy up their copyrights in a few years when they've gone bankrupt.

Camera, mic, full screen (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744438)

Also do we want HTML to have all the features of Flash?
Things like camera and microphone control?

Yes. Camera and mic would require a click to activate, just like Flashblock does today.

Or even the ability to go full screen?

Currently, HTML5 user agents support full screen operation: press F11 to activate it in Firefox.

And DRM?

For digital restrictions management, I'd recommend sticking to plug-ins in a PC web browser or custom apps in a mobile setting.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743830)

Yes, they're complaining about an unfinished spec, but that's a completely sensible thing to do. If you don't talk about all the problems with an unfinished spec, then how would you expect the problems to be fixed in the finished spec?

Flash will continue to be an important part of Youtube-- at least until HTML's "video" tag addresses some of these issues. Fair enough.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (4, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743886)

So how long should users wait for HTML5 to gel? The internet moves in its own measure of time, and HTML5 seems to be taking things at a glacial pace... we know all the issues surrounding the delivery of video content... YouTube has been using Flash to do it for 5 years now, and when was the first time you saw the dreaded "buffering" on a RealVideo clip on your Netscape browser?

HTML5 **should** be an established standard by now. Instead, a committee seems to be doing everything in its power to hold it back... what happened to the heady days of the internet when a standard popped onto the scene and quickly matured to give way for the next one? YES - many were not perfect, but that's why standards evolve. Instead, we now seem to be on this endless, "Duke Nukem Forever"-like quest to perfect the thing, even if it takes 10 or more years before it settles out.

What sort of insanity is that??!?

If HTML5 isn't a standard yet, and isn't suitable, then let's get cracking and establish what needs to be done NOW. We live in the Wiki-age... instant updates, instant results, instant gratification. We know what needs to be fixed, yet the response from the HTML5 folks is "it isn't mature yet, give it time!!!" - but if it's so fluid yet, and not "official" yet, why can't we make any changes to it??!??

The whole process is taking too long, and it feels like this "standard" is hardly fluid or forming, yet we are urged to give it time... time for what? Nobody wants to change it! So we wait years for a standard to "mature" even while it cannot, apparently be changed... meanwhile, YouTube and many other people will look forward to HTML6 to fix the mistakes that nobody will fix in HTML5.

The process has become broken. I don't know where the failure is, exactly, but when people complain about incomplete/malformed specs on a standard that WON'T change, but are told to wait for it to finalize, there is something wrong, even forgetting we are still being told HTML5 won't be "finalized" (even if it never actually changes) for YEARS.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744054)

I don't think the reason the RIAA/MPAA dislike/distrust open standards is perceiving them to be insecure. Many fogey old businessmen probably see it that way. But RIAA are opposed to the entire concept of open software. Think about it.

You have a product that you send around to each other freely, no-one gets charged for it, there aren't many horrible legal altercations over it and the word 'steal' can't even be cutely mis-applied to the product. Abhorrent! If music were simply given away in a similar fashion they would be reduced to a 1 story office with 5 guys instead of the miniature empire of leaches they currently control.

Re:Complaining About an Unfinished Spec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744424)

Open Source software and open standards is supposed to be open and transparent to the user.

With DRM, the user needs a key to decrypt data, but the key must be hidden to the user.

They are difficult to combine.

Yeah... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743642)

well, these are the sorts of growing pains that happen with any "new" way of doing something.

I'm in no rush for HTML5 to take over (flash "just works", at least on my systems), but it would be nice to not have Adobe keeping an iron fist on so much of the interactive content out there.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743706)

It might "just work" for you, but for me it is unreasonably slow and doesn't allow custom resizing.

When I use VLC I can re-size the way I want and it uses a fraction of CPU compered to Adobe Flash player.

Re:Yeah... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743994)

You can also "re-size" that video straight to your hard drive and share it with 10,000 of your friends with a few clicks. This is why Flash (or some similar, DRMable software) will always have a need in the video distribution arena. Pirated content may be easy to come by, but content providers sure as hell aren't going to just give it away.

Re:Yeah... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744344)

You can also "re-size" that video straight to your hard drive and share it with 10,000 of your friends with a few clicks

This is true. With Flash I'd need to pass the URL to rtmpdump, which takes a good 20 seconds more effort.

Re:Yeah... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744396)

This is true. With Flash I'd need to pass the URL to rtmpdump, which takes a good 20 seconds more effort.

And that's all they want; to be able to get the charges bumped up from "complicit to copyright infringement" to "willful copyright infringement". The fine is much steeper with the latter, FYI.

Re:Yeah... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744332)

Flash may work for you but for me it is slow, buggy, doesn't support multiple monitors, doesn't support scroll wheels.

I dare you to find a mouse thatdoesnt have some sort of scrolling function. Flash doesn't support it. Even if flash does support it flash developers won't so itmight not exist.

As for multiple monitors I would love full screen video on one display while working on the other. Flash will never support it and topics in adobes forums on it are locked/deleted quickly. Whycant Ickes thevideosin thesize I want?

hmmm (3, Funny)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743648)

A real site knows what the real work there is behind a major feature like video. What a surprise.

Without content protection, we would not ... (5, Informative)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743664)

Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this [youtube.com] .

This rental is currently unavailable in your country.

Surprise, you aren't offering those videos.

Re:Well, it's true (4, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743804)

Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.

The "we need DRM, otherwise we can't provide all the content we want to!" argument is horrible, stupid, and insulting.
DRM does not allow businesses to provide content in new markets. DRM allows businesses to provide old markets in places where they make no sense. Every company which complains they can't do X without DRM really means they don't want to do X without magic fairy dust. Meanwhile, everyone and their grandmother is busy providing X without DRM, and the only difference is the companies which want magic fairy dust aren't getting paid.

Monopolies do not exist. People will always acquire the product they want, and if you aren't willing to sell it, all that means is that people will always acquire the product they want without paying you.

Re:Well, it's true (4, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743858)

Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.

But that is done entirely server-side and is completely independent of flash vs HTML5 vs animated GIF vs ascii-art. You just make the server look the client IP address up in a location database, and then decide whether to send was was requested or an error message.

Re:Well, it's true (3, Informative)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744084)

Monopolies do not exist.

MS, Intel, Apple, and Google would all like you to convince the FTC of that.

Re:Without content protection, we would not ... (2, Interesting)

indrora (1541419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743926)

Eeew.

the worst thing is that I click it and it WITHOUT PERMISSION gets information from my PayPal account. I only use paypal with throaway debit cards, but it should not have that kind of information!

Re:Without content protection, we would not ... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744046)

It didn't do that for me. Check your cookies, turn off form autofill... You've done something wrong there, or you need to sign out of something.

Content Protection / Oh the irony (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32743676)

> Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this [youtube.com] .
I find it quite ironic, that the only thing I see when following the link is:
This video is not available in your country. :-)

Pretty much? (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743780)

Sounds more like they are saying HTML5 needs more work, rather than that they are 'coming down on the side of flash'. Besides I disagree with some of the points:

"video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed."

RTMPE is not secure. AFAIK the spec just says (effectively) "please do not let users save the video".

"While WebKit has recently taken some steps forward on fullscreen support, it's not yet sufficient for video usage (particularly the ability to continue displaying content on top of the video)."

Pah, part of the reason flash is shit for video is because it has to convert it to RGB and then can't use dedicated video scaling hardware. I much prefer the 'direct' fullscreen video approach even if it means we lose subtitles (and ads!). It also means you can always fullscreen a video, even when the controls aren't provided (*cough* youtube).

They've got a point about robust streaming though.

Re:Pretty much? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744298)

i guess the main issue is that is about basically putting a video file into html in the same way as one do a image. What flash do is a good deal more, as it handles all the UI elements and such related to that.

  alone cant compete with flash. instead one have to look at +css+js+svg and then some wrapped into a single "entity" to get flash. But then there are different ways to the same solution. For instance, one reason mkv is popular as a video file container is that it can handle multiple audio and subtitles alongside the video file. So for youtube, adding a subtitle to a webm video would be to add it to the video file before streaming, rather then have the flash ui program read from some text file or whatever they do now. Only thing missing then is some way for the user to pick the wanted subtitle, and that comes down to how the video is handled by the browser. And agreeing on some kind of js api so that it can be changed from inside the youtube page.

all in all, the big change is how to approach things. With flash, the player is independent of the browser and so can be maintained in some level of vacuum. But with html5 one need to be more interactive with the general browser world. And that may be more of a mental problem then a technical problem for all the people used to working inside the vacuum of flash.

And in other news... (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743814)

And in other news, I continue to close YouTube when I go to a video that doesn't have an HTML 5 version.

Re:And in other news... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743980)

What are your options? To stare at a blank screen? How is it 'punishing' YouTube if you refuse to stare at a blank screen?

closed proprietary system is more proprietary! (1)

quibbler (175041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743846)

Big surprise here, if you use a proprietary, closed plugin to deliver video with no regards to performance or user experience, then yes, you'll be able to deliver exactly within the use limits the media creators have demanded.

If YouTube truly thinks this is best long-term for its success, I'm afraid we'll watch a slow death as competitors nibble away market-share, one obscure platform at a time that lacks a flash player but was created to use open standards out of the box.

Re:closed proprietary system is more proprietary! (2, Insightful)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743954)

If YouTube truly thinks this is best long-term for its success, I'm afraid we'll watch a slow death as competitors nibble away market-share, one obscure platform at a time that lacks a flash player but was created to use open standards out of the box.

I don't think they do... Witness the various points in the article (Which I'm sure you read, right?) where they said "And we're helping to fix xyz problem"

But, what they point out is that HTML 5 video is untenable for even their short term success. If they went to purely HTML 5, they would lose market share rapidly to people who weren't pure OSS. What does that say, from a business standpoint?

Re:closed proprietary system is more proprietary! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744048)

So who is this 'competitor' that is nibbling away at YouTube's market share? Name names.

And elaborate more on the 'User Experience' issue- are you talking about closed Apple platforms where access isn't even really blocked because almost all the YouTube content is available in MP4 format? Seems to me, from my direct experience, that more non-YouTube streaming video is unavailable to my iPod than YouTube video. It's almost always a sure-thing with YouTube links, and very iffy otherwise. My observation is that the 'nibbling away' is at non-YouTube video streaming.

But good luck at your 'Obscure Platforms all band together for the win' thing.

A summary? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32743860)

Standard Video Format
We wamt proprietary formats.

Robust video streaming
We want "fine control over buffering and dynamic quality control."

Content Protection
Waah, We want DRM

Encapsulation + Embedding
We don't want XSS but want scripting?

Fullscreen Video

Camera and Microphone access
We want to go beyond the scope of this tag for some other feature we don't currently have which is why it's bad for the features we do have?

Apple, are you listening? (-1, Offtopic)

darjen (879890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743868)

I don't think you can solve this one by "holding it differently".

Worst Sentence EVER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32743910)

"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."

Oh no...can we survive w/o youtube???? (1)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743914)

Oh no...can we survive w/o youtube????

Ads? (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743930)

Oh, you mean like the inability to have pop up ads like you've recently added to a huge portion of your flash videos??? Yeah, thought so.

Translation (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743958)

Translation: "We are at war with Apple and anything they support, we must now oppose. Thus, we are going to throw our support behind an buggy, laggy, piece of crap like Flash just so we can stick it to Apple a bit more in our ongoing effort to knock both them and Microsoft out of the picture. Thanks for your information, we will use it to make money."

Maybe I'm just getting jaded in my old age but I always seem to see nefarious reasons behind "business" decisions of late.

That or I just need my morning coffee now...

Re:Translation (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744196)

> Translation: "We are at war with Apple... ...the cry of the mindless blithering mindless fanboy.

YouTube is not just some consumer shill posting from his basement. They're running
a real video website and have real requirements. These requirements exist quite
independent of your need to shill for your brand.

The very thing that allows Adobe to sandbag with features that have been supported
on Linux and Windows for years and on Apple for only a month also allows them to
"secure" the content and make content creators comfortable.

A lot of people want to impose that sort of control freakery on their video. That
is a big part of why Flash is even in the position it's in. If you try to ignore
that, you aren't being terribly realistic.

HTML5 is the perfect red herring for Steve Jobs.

Translation of translation (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744356)

"They don't like the thing that I like, and while they provide all kinds of solid technical reasons why the thing I like isn't good enough, I'm going to completely ignore them and assume they're just 'nefarious'".

I mean, who really wants to argue based on, like, logic and reason and junk? It's so much easier to simply attack the messenger, plug your ears, and yell LA LA LA as loud as you can...

Grammar Goliath ONLINE (5, Insightful)

dhermann (648219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32743974)

"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."

  1. "have": YouTube is an single corporate entity and not plural
  2. "having major issues": dangling modifier, does YouTube or Flash have the issues?
  3. "pretty much": use this phrase if you're a 13-year-old girl texting, not when talking about the news
  4. "has and may never have": contradictory, how can the tag have something now but may never have the same something later?
  5. "tag has": has what? The major issues, the lack of features, or the major issues with the lack of features?
  6. "Come down on the side of Flash": misleading wording, it sounds like YouTube has actually decided against Flash?

I guess my point is that this sentence is terrible. How did you possibly allow this, /. mod?

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744086)

Likely because they didn't read anything but the title.

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744092)

How did you possibly allow this, /. mod?

CmdrTaco was much too busy coming up with a suitable clever "from the X dept." to be concerned with mere spelling and grammar.

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (3, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744110)

YouTube is an single corporate entity and not plural

Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org]

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744402)

I agree on most points, but "have" can be considered correct. Companies are referred to as plural in British English.

In the US: "YouTube is..."; in the UK: "YouTube are.."

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (2, Informative)

trashbird1240 (1149197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744418)

"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."

  1. "have": YouTube is an single corporate entity and not plural
  2. "having major issues": dangling modifier, does YouTube or Flash have the issues?

Perhaps the author isn't American; did you think of that?

Re:Grammar Goliath ONLINE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744502)

But yet surely you can parse awkwardly constructed grammar well enough to see that "HTML5 tag has" "lack of features".
br

"lack of features HTML5 has" is exactly like "serious attitude you have". Grammatically speaking.

DRM (2)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744008)

Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.

"This rental is currently unavailable in your country. "

I miss the WORLD-wide web :(

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744042)

"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."

That is a horrible sentence.

NaCl Flash HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744078)

In the end NaCl (Native Client) will be the chosen over flash for this and other problems as it offers the benefits of native OS applications with the same distribution model that the web has enjoyed (including architecture portability with PNaCl); something flash attempts to do with the huge drawbacks of being closed, insecure, slow, limited in capability.

In addition, it's likely to be far more robust than flash, an open solution, far better performing, and able to access the GPU and other hardware. It's thus possible for youtube to directly implant an advanced video player (eg. VLC or something lighter) into its pages or anything that provides the advanced functionality needed, and have these run as efficiently as desktop apps across mutliple OSs. It doesn't get much better than that.

Learn more:
http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/

Flash is about to die but not at the hands of HTML5. Long live NaCl.

Re:NaCl Flash HTML5 (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744434)

Mod parent up!

The end of this standards misery is closer than most might think.
However, NaCl must still provide an API for playing video of course.

Without content protection (3, Funny)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744104)

Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this. [youtube.com]

*click*

This video is currently unavailable for rent in your country.

Yes, I see how with content protection you are not able to offer me videos like this.

Content Protection is about control (1)

count_schemula (843019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744460)

It's not like HTML5 solved countries having borders.

Slam Dunk! (1)

count_schemula (843019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744186)

Steve Jobs and the CIA told us this was going to be a slam dunk! What happened?

Flash, Google, VP8 & the future of internet vi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32744188)

A x264 developer [multimedia.cx] blogged about problems with both HTML5 and Flash video some months ago.

Don't forget the mobile angle (1)

Powerdog (106510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744210)

Google has a reason to keep Flash around: Android.

Selling Flash as part of a "premium" experience is not entirely unexpected given that Google and Apple are locked in battle over the mobile device market. Google has a client that supports it and a huge web property that makes use of it.

In a parallel universe, Windows Phone 7 is rapidly growing market share and Microsoft is blogging about how Silverlight is the premium experience, but nobody is surprised by the motives.

Providing a good experience = $$ (1)

trashbird1240 (1149197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744306)

I get really irritated when I hear people making these concessions in the name of "providing a good experience." What they're talking about is staying competitive so that they can keep making money. There's nothing wrong with that, morally, ethically or otherwise. So why can't they just say it? Record companies are the same way: they always do this silly stuff in the name of people enjoying the content. For once I would like to hear some corporation just say "We'd like to support X, but for now we think the better way for us to make money is to support Y."

Rebuttals. (1)

yacwroy (1558349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744370)

1) Standard Video Format: A fully open Firefox cannot offer Flash. 2) Robust video streaming: Final spec will probably have this, as it is sorely needed. 3) Content Protection: "Content Protection" cannot offer Content Protection either. 4) Encapsulation + Embedding: Frames? Oh, I forgot, you want to be able to make my browser do things that I, the one running the browser, don't want it too. 5) Fullscreen Video: If the browser doesn't implement this, a plugin could. 6) Camera and Microphone access: "Every day, thousands of users record videos directly to YouTube from within their browser using webcams, which would not be possible without Flash technology." What makes recording from streaming webcams impossible without Flash? Also, how is this relevant to a discussion on browser video display? And I'll add a list of things that flash can't do that HTML5 video (+ plugins if necessary) should be able to (unless the spec authors suck): - Arbitrary video codecs. - Arbitrary resizing in browsers. - Arbitrary speed control. - Arbitrary video filters.

CircleTimesSquare Explains Where Summary Fails (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744456)

I have pretty much come down on the side of the summary having major issues with the lack of grammar that a good summary has and may never have.

How about "it doesn't f****** work" (1)

MoNsTeR (4403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744474)

Just sign up for the HTML5 beta on YouTube and give it a try. It doesn't fucking work! Videos stutter, the audio gets replaced by static, some videos don't play at all. And this is in Chrome! I'm all for doing away with Flash but right now the video tag is just not a viable alternative.

Some of these points are same error (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#32744506)

Simply pointing the browser at a URL is not good enough, as that doesn't allow users to easily get to the part of the video they want. As we’ve been expanding into serving full-length movies and live events, it also becomes important to have fine control over buffering and dynamic quality control. Flash Player addresses these needs by letting applications manage the downloading and playback of video via Actionscript..

Flash Player's ability to combine application code and resources into a secure, efficient package has been instrumental in allowing YouTube videos to be embedded in other web sites. Web site owners need to ensure that embedded content is not able to access private user information on the containing page..

HD video begs to be watched in full screen, but that has not historically been possible with pure HTML. While most browsers have a fullscreen mode, they do not allow javascript to initiate it, nor do they allow a small part of the page (such as a video player) to fill the screen.

All of these boil down to Youtube simply not liking how the browser they downloaded today, happens to play video. The thing is, nothing about today's implementation are damning of HTML5; they're just damning of today's implementations of it. A user-initiated request to the browser or player is what should initiate full-screen video (or any other "zooming" of content), not javascript. A user-initiated request to the browser or player is what should handle seeking. The browser or its lower-level networking library should be doing the buffering. And so on.

They are really praising HTML5's strengths here. Website creators shouldn't be burdened with micromanaging how the details of how a video plays, just like they don't worry about how to incrementally display an image, how to view an image full screen, or how to implement selecting and copying text. And yet, these guys are arguing that for video, they want their javascript programmers to have to work on that shit. The sane thing to do is to push it onto the browser guys (who can then push it onto the player guys, who may end up pushing some things onto the OS guys, whatever).

I won't even touch the DRM point, because I'm not in the DRM market so I can't imagine what kinds of DRM viewers are asking for.

The only points they have which has any real legitimacy, are the camera/microphone one and concerns about serving live content, rather that content sitting in some finished and indexed file. Yes, HTML5 video isn't really intended for that, so if youtube want to deal in those areas, they've got a point that using mere web tech isn't going to do they job; they need users to download applications (i.e. Flash code) instead. Fair enough; Youtube wants to get into new markets where they'll make some money. But for most of their video and pretty much everything Youtube is known for, HTML5 is the right answer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?