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!

Adobe Releases Its Own HTML5 Video Player

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the our-very-own-kitchen-sink dept.

Graphics 139

An anonymous reader writes "Webmonkey has an interesting tidbit about Adobe's release of its own HTML5 video player: 'Adobe has released an embeddable video player that plays HTML5 native video in browsers that support it, and falls back to Flash in browsers that don't. It's cross-browser and cross-platform, so it works on iPhones, iPads and other devices that don't support Flash. Using Adobe's new player, these devices can show videos in web pages without the Flash plug-in.'"

cancel ×

139 comments

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

Where is it? (5, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000446)

So does anyone have an actual link to an example of the player? That seems like a rather blatant omission from the article.

Re:Where is it? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000468)

Apparently, according to the article you have to use the Adobe Widget Browser: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/widgetbrowser.html

Re:Where is it? (5, Informative)

sgtstein (1219216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000476)

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/widgetbrowser/ [adobe.com] Second link I saw when I scanned the page. Looks like you need to use their "Widget browser" to be able to download and use it.

Re:Where is it? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000860)

Translation: this is mainly something for paid DreamWeaver users. For all the other web devs, it's basically an ad for dreamweaver.

Lesson learned (2, Insightful)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001014)

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I should have known Adobe wasn't really going to embed videos without requiring viewers to install proprietary plugins. After all, people wouldn't have any reason to use Flash anymore if they did.

Re:Where is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000480)

Second link tells you how to get it, looks like Adobe wants you to go through their Widget Browser.

Adobe code "app" store?!

Re:Where is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000968)

Well kinda
You run the browser, selects a widget, the browser then downloads a "preview".
Still, one needs an adobeID to actually SEE the demos and code, which is lame...

btw the code actually looks like

(open html tag)
(open head tag)
include kaltura js libs
include player stylesheet
(close head tag)
(open html tag)

video tag with a still image, and three source properties ( .webm , .m4v and .ogv )

(close html tag)

Not really interesting....

Re:Where is it? (2, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000510)

Seems to be
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/widgetbrowser/ [adobe.com]
Note to install "If you don't have Adobe AIR installed, you’ll need to download and install Adobe AIR."
Then on to ?

Re:Where is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000584)

adoibe widget browser not working on my system. installed it to test, and it won't launch. lame.

Re:Where is it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001160)

This is a very good software. Later will replace the current all video formats.
cabal alz [buyalz.net]
buy cabal alz [buyalz.net]

So... (5, Funny)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000492)

So where's the link to the source code? I'd like to compile and test this video player.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000554)

I don't think they're gonna let you compile it yourself...

Re:So... (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002282)

Only on slashdot would there be someone that wants to replace flash with something they can compile themselves... I'm glad Mozilla, Google et al are going the way without any configuration: HTML5.

Superb !! (3, Insightful)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000506)

A browser plugin designed to play embedded HTML5 video
HTML5 video, whose selling point is to provide video without the need for a browser plugin

I think this just about tops MS and their opaque-binary embedded XML

Re:Superb !! (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000548)

Huh? The selling point is that you can break away from a proprietary format. HTML5 is about openness, not freedom from plugins.

Re:Superb !! (3, Informative)

joost (87285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002928)

It is just that. It's basically an HTML generator that generates HTML5 for you. I just tried it, the code is clean, it created valid HTML, basically it is very awesome. It has graceful degradation in place to insert the flashplayer. The HTML5 video is browser native, the Flash player is open source. Really, don't take my word for it but try it yourself. It's a pretty goddamn great solution from Adobe. Kudos to them.

Re:Superb !! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000574)

All in the branding, like selling you bottled tap water as an expensive lifestyle choice no "spring" needed.

Re:Superb !! (3, Funny)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000592)

Maybe future versions of the plug-in will use Flash to show HTML5 content. That could really be something!

Re:Superb !! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001070)

erm, it already does if native video support isn't there.

Re:Superb !! (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001706)

woosh

Re:Superb !! (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002390)

You meant: Whoosh [citation needed].

Re:Superb !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002222)

Isn't that what ChromeFrame already does? :P

Re:Superb !! (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000606)

I don't think it's a browser plugin, at least not if the point is to make something that "works on iPhones, iPads and other devices that don't support Flash"

Re:Superb !! (2, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000636)

It seems more like the system is designed to default to HTML5, but if the client can't view it, it will fall back to Flash. Granted, I'd rather the site/browser detect that for me.

Re:Superb !! (1)

calzones (890942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000696)

Where can I get the opposite?

If the user doesn't have Flash, it translate the content and plays HTML 5 content.

Seems to me THAT'S what would actually bring value to the consumer.

Re:Superb !! (5, Insightful)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000898)

You can do both without any library. The markup for HTML5 video with Flash as a fallback is, basically, a video tag wrapping source and object tags, and the object tag wrapping an embed tag. The markup for Flash with HTML5 video as a fallback is to simply move the object tag to the top of the hierarchy and the video tag within it. The relevant part of the HTML5 spec was designed *specifically* to make this possible, and it has been possible ever since the first browser with video-tag capability was released. No Adobe library (borrowed though it is) is necessary to achieve this.

With all of that said, I can't imagine why you'd want to use Flash at the top of the hierarchy unless you're a sadist. Flash has more wrong with it than the fact that it's not open and requires a plugin.

Re:Superb !! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001072)

With all of that said, I can't imagine why you'd want to use Flash at the top of the hierarchy unless you're a sadist.

How does fallback for video element work if the element itself is supported, but the codec specified is not. Will it fall back to the object/embed inside it, or will it just fail to play?

If the latter, and given that Firefox will only play Theora today (and is otherwise the most popular HTML5-video-enabled browser), it would make more sense to default to Flash if available so that you can provide the higher-quality H.264 stream if possible.

Re:Superb !! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001116)

It does fall back to the object/embed inside.

Regarding quality, the vast majority of web video is not served at a high enough quality that the codec matters that much. But you can still accomplish that with HTML5 video as the default, by simply not providing a Theora version.

Re:Superb !! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002022)

If the latter, and given that Firefox will only play Theora today...

It supports WebM too. At least it does in the Betas and Minefield; I haven't used the "stable" release in quite some time so I'm not sure what's there.

Re:Superb !! (1)

calzones (890942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001644)

No, I wanted a converter, as a user. So that I don't need to have flash installed.

As a developer, I don't give a crap. I don't bother with Flash period.

It's all moot anyway because it was more of a joke than a serious question. Of course Adobe won't release a Flash2HTML5 converter.

Re:Superb !! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001842)

Ah, I get you. Well, some of the more competent Flash blockers will display H.264 content in an HTML5 video container from known players (ClickToFlash does this for YouTube for instance).

Re:Superb !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002764)

actually, Adobe won't, but some ad delivery company did:
http://smokescreen.us/

Re:Superb !! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000918)

It essentially *does* let the browser determine that for you, but with a bunch of unnecessary JavaScript in the middle for no apparent reason. A better design is already possible, with video at the top of the hierarchy, and the flash object/embed tags as child elements. The only conceivable "benefit" of using JavaScript to do the detection is to enforce branding in the player UI by having Flash be the default if JavaScript is disabled. But looking at the source code of the library, they didn't even make *that* design decision, so it's essentially useless.

Re:Superb !! (4, Informative)

stoanhart (876182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000780)

It's not a browser plug-in. It's HTML/Javascript code that you place in your page where you want the video to appear. It will try to use HTML5 first, and then use Flash if it fails.

Re:Superb !! (4, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001066)

Isn't that called... HTML5? Such as

<video>
        <source src="file.mp4" type="video/mp4"/>
        <source src="file.ogv" type="video/ogg"/>
        <embed>fallback flash player</embed>
</video>

Your code is missing the critical part (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002360)

The problem with your code is that content of the "embed" element. IE: You actually need to have created some .swf version of the video. It would be nice if you could just specify the video name and the client would either view it directly or - if it is not supported - convert it to flash and view it without you having to create a separate .swf file on the server.

If I understand TFA correctly, that's what this player does. Views the video as it should be done in HTML 5 but if that doesn't work, it is displayed automatically through Flash.

Re:Your code is missing the critical part (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34003002)

You can use a generic flash video player and feed it the same H264 video you asked HTML5 to play. If you want it to work in older flash versions that only support .flv video then you will need another encode.

Re:Superb !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000882)

I think it's more about failing gracefully more easily. HTML 5 for browsers that support it HTML 5 video, Flash for those that don't.

Re:Superb !! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001022)

seems more like a back end than front end technology. Embed this bit of code in dreamweaver and it will take care of deciding the end user can support html 5 or not. I'm guessing this is adobe slowly creeping away from flash, and acknowledging that their tools need to support HTML 5.0, while at the same time providing their customers with a. shall we politely call flash.. a depreciated option.

Re:Superb !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001570)

Ahduhbee

Re:Superb !! (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001834)

A browser plugin designed to play embedded HTML5 video
HTML5 video, whose selling point is to provide video without the need for a browser plugin

I think this just about tops MS and their opaque-binary embedded XML

I think as of yet, there's no video format that works on every browser natively. So plugins are needed. Might as well go for a universal plugin. I'm sure a cross-platform plugin would rule that kind of a niche, even if it sucked in oh so many ways. I wonder why such a thing doesn't already exist... oh wait.

Re:Superb !! (1)

cboslin (1532787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002378)

I think as of yet, there's no video format that works on every browser natively. So plugins are needed. Might as well go for a universal plugin. I'm sure a cross-platform plugin would rule that kind of a niche, even if it sucked in oh so many ways. I wonder why such a thing doesn't already exist... oh wait.

A good point. I guess MPlayer is still a plug in. At least a plug-in is better then a toolbar or widget that does other things that violate a user's privacy.

Thankfully there are high definition video formats that are open and free and players like MPlayer that will play those codecs that already work in every browser + operating system combination. But you do need that plugin don't you.

Sadly we are not always offered a choice, even when the open data format is far superior to the proprietary codec. And never underestimate the DRM forces that want to control everything, if given a choice (they are and have for years already) they will always choose the proprietary format they mistakenly believe they can control and force on customers.

You have to choose not to play. Thankfully today, there is almost always multiple news sources that offer the same content in an open data format. As you learn which sources do this, simply use them instead of the others. It really is that simple.

I have never agreed with the people that attempted to argue, in my mind unsuccessfully, that the H.264 standard was not open source. I believe H.264 is open source and admit that a few companies have proprietary H.264 codecs. And of course there is always X.264, which even the proprietary tools can not take away and call close source.

Re:Superb !! (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002724)

I have never agreed with the people that attempted to argue, in my mind unsuccessfully, that the H.264 standard was not open source. I believe H.264 is open source and admit that a few companies have proprietary H.264 codecs. And of course there is always X.264, which even the proprietary tools can not take away and call close source.

H.264 is a standard, not software, so it doesn't have any source. And it isn't open because the specification has over-bearing license restrictions with legally dubious claims and demand high fees. That makes x.264 (in it's current form and distribution method) illegal, and the MPEGLA could shut it down whenever they like. As it happens to be on of few decent encoders out there they seem to be tolerating the project, and only targeting people with business interests.

Re:Superb !! (1)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002830)

That makes x.264 (in it's current form and distribution method) illegal, and the MPEGLA could shut it down whenever they like. As it happens to be on of few decent encoders out there they seem to be tolerating the project, and only targeting people with business interests.

Or perhaps the developers live outside of the US, and thus are not subject to your retarded patent laws.

Re:Superb !! (1)

cboslin (1532787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002876)

H.264 is a standard, not software, so it doesn't have any source. And it isn't open because the specification has over-bearing license restrictions with legally dubious claims and demand high fees. That makes x.264 (in it's current form and distribution method) illegal, and the MPEGLA could shut it down whenever they like....

Your opinion and one I (and many others) do not share. There is prior art for the H.264 codec, It is open source. Thus x.264 is open as well.

Yes the MPEGLA will bully anyone they believe will NOT fight back. They understand that if one person with deep enough pockets fight backs and wins, its game over for their extortion based on fake patent/copyrights.

I can only hope they will sue the wrong people and lose the ability to bully anyone else.

Of course they will pick and chose their battles wisely to avoid a losing scenario.

I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (4, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000550)

It will let you view GIFs, JPEGs and PNGs on any page you visit.

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (5, Funny)

AndreR (814444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000624)

And it'll fall back to Flash if your browser doesn't support those.

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000684)

It will let you view GIFs, JPEGs and PNGs on any page you visit.

Wha ... ??? I prefer TIFF's, you insensitive clod!

BTW, how did the parent get modded as 'Informative' when it's clearly 'Funny'?

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000906)

Bah, TIFFs are not worth any more than those others. They're just JPEGs with a lot of extra ones and zeros.

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001084)

JPEG doesn't support alpha transparency or lossless compression.

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001710)

That's news to me; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (3, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001786)

When the GP said JPEG, he meant the one the people actually use.

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002080)

It will let you view GIFs, JPEGs and PNGs on any page you visit.

Yeah, but how about text?

Re:I'm working on a new Firefox / Safari plugin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002184)

Something like libpr0n then?

Can yours show porn?

But why? (3, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000626)

I don't understand how this makes tactical sense for Adobe. They've been leaning heavily on their talking points that "80% of online video is in Flash format" and that Apple is depriving their customers by sticking with HTML5 (and not flash). I think there was even a fear that Adobe would jump into the working group and delay HTML5 just to protect Flash. If Adobe is supposedly king of the hill, why would they cede turf by moving towards HTML5? It can't be just to be more buzzword-compliant.

Re:But why? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000686)

I don't know... but perhaps for similar reasons that big oil companies are investing so much money into the 'green' alternative fuel space.

Re:But why? (2, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000904)

I don't know... but perhaps for similar reasons that big oil companies are investing so much money into the 'green' alternative fuel space.

You mean that Western governments are going to give massive subsidies to Adobe for putting an HTML5 interface on top of Flash?

Re:But why? (5, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000776)

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Adobe is not in the business of selling Flash Plugins, they are in the business of selling Flash Authoring Tools and Server Side technology. iTechnology has been selling like crazy, and hate as you may, it has started to result in pages that are designed to run in iDevices.

With all these pages now out there, Flash suddenly becomes optional, it will not take long before Flash's buggy security issues make many to opt out of using Flash and just fall back on the HTML5 pages that were designed for the iDevices. It is wise of them to try to stop the flocking early, avoid people from developing their own home grown HTML5 Plug N Play migration tools, and offer them first.

Once the big players opt to go Adobe's route, they may secure their web authoring dominance in a Flash Free World Wide Web.

Re:But why? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001090)

Actually, the iDevices kinda forced the market to adopt open standards and lo-and-behold everybody profits from having an open (or at least a non-single-vendor) standard. If Steve had allowed Flash on the iDevices, we would've never seen HTML5 being adopted like this by the big players.

Heck, even obscure porn sites are beginning to offer HTML5 video options besides Flash, the only ones not doing it are the TV networks full episode players.

I'm definitely seeing the result on my Nokia N800 and older Pentium 3/4 and PowerPC machines. Flash usually brought those machines to their knees, now I'm enjoying 480p or even 720p where available with acceptable CPU usage.

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001264)

Don't take me wrong, I am a proud owner of an iPhone 3G, an iPad WiFi, an iPod Touch 4G, a Mac Mini, and just got from Best Buy from buying a Powerbook for my wife (her choice, not mine, I insisted she could handle with my current laptop.) This is on top of my Windows Desktop (main system,) Windows Netbook (very effecctive paperweight) and $500 Compaq Laptop (I get what I pay for, it just developed battery incontinence... it poops the battery out every 5 minutes.)

My point? I'm not a mac guy, but at the same time I obviously love my iStuff. I am extremely happy Apple embraced open standards and stood firm against force feed a slow/buggy Flash into their devices.

Re:But why? (3, Informative)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000940)

Adobe gave up on Flash having a monopoly on Internet video when they agreed to put WebM into Flash. They have completely shifted gears in their web strategy by promoting their software as tools to generate HTML5/etc-buzzword output. More and more, Flash will be driven even more in the two opposite directions it's been going for a couple years now: as an animation tool, eventually preferentially targeting SVG/canvas output; and as an application development tool, eventually preferentially targeting quasi-native environments like AIR.

Re:But why? (3, Interesting)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001176)

Because Adobe realizes no matter what they do, HTML5 is the next big "thing". They can either jump on board and try and be at the forefront of it all, making great tools and plug ins, or they can dig themselves in and try to hold back the avalache armed with a shovel. Typically companies that try the dig in approach fail and fail miserably.

Re:But why? (1)

falser (11170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34003850)

In the finance world it's called hedging your bets. You want to dip your toes in both ends of the pool, just in case.

Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (4, Insightful)

rta (559125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000632)

This is good an all, but it doesn't address the biggest issues with Flash:

1) Adobe (and Macromedia before it) give virtually NO control to the end user over how flash objects run. You can't stop them, you can't pause them, you can't unload them, nothing. Technically you can control if they store local shared objects (LSOs) on your machine but the interface for that is terrible. Half the time the pop-up window it prompts with can't even be accessed because of various z-index issues on the page. That is you can't even click the button.

2) It is a CPU hog. Forget the fact that its inherent performance isn't great. The issue is that if you browse the web for any length of time and have multiple tabs open you'll find that your Flash plug-in is taking up all your cpu (or a whole core). Why? because there are all sorts of little flash movies playing in all the pages. Mostly Ads but also paused video players, random web bugs and such. Plus, some of these random are poorly written and have memory leaks. Thus BECAUSE Adobe gives the user no control, you have to just kill the plugin.

Instead of trying to horn in on HTML5 maybe they should fix the fact that Flash is the SPAM of the web. (And yes, Flash itself could be fine... but the business practices they've chose to pursue make it a scourge rather than a blessing).

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (4, Informative)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000706)

FlashBlock.. Only play the flash that you want to play. no more cpu hogging!

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

goingToSay (1192935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000884)

So they shouldn't move towards HTML5? You seem to not like flash and Adobe is giving an option for you to not use flash. Don't even need FlashBlock. Damned if they do damned if they don't....

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000912)

I think his point is - fix the product you have, rather than create something new.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

goingToSay (1192935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001180)

Its not like Adobe is creating a whole new proprietary flash player or other technology. Its just a video player. They are using (the to be flash replacement) HTML5 as a flash replacement. As the article says, other companies are already doing the same thing with their players. Adobe just made creating the same kind of dual players easier for all.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

Reeses (5069) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001758)

Wow. If that worked, we'd all be using really spiffy versions of Windows 3.11, on a 3 GHz 386.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002798)

Isn't that the problem with Windows really? The core is ultimately the same still, right? :)

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34003864)

but how does Adobe 'fix' the problem of site creators putting dozens of flash objects on pages, thus slowing down the page load?

If you put a couple dozen animated GIFS on a page it will kinda slow things down too.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000922)

Flash scales its frame rate to almost nothing when you aren't actually viewing the page that has it.

You're also wrong about its video performance. On some platforms it leads in processor efficiency. It really depends a lot on the platform implementation and the hooks that the platform provides.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001016)

There are no "z-index" issues, the security dialog box can't be hidden (there was a security issue, but it has been fixed).
Actually, you have to click it more than once to do something, which is weird (and quickly become a pain in the butt when you are working with camera/microphone device within your flash app). It kinda reminds me of the firefox plugin download dialog box (stupid countdown, just let me click install right NOW!), but worse

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001054)

Get a HTML5 browser and you'll never have to see flash for video again if people use this technique.

AdBlock Plus or something similar (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001092)

If your browser, or a plugin [noscript.net] for it, doesn't support blocking Flash, then you need a new browser.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002468)

A strange plugin. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice page of text?

The control is given to developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34002534)

Disclosure: I teach Flash (among other subjects) for living.

As for the first point... As an end user, I agree that it is annoying. But is it that much different from any other application? You can't do any of those things to a program coded in C++, for example, if the developer hasn't added such features. And adding features such as pausing, is really, really quick and easy in flash. People often don't realize just how much Flash is like other developing enviroments: It is a full scale virtual machine (with garbage collection, etc.) with a full scale object oriented programming language (AS3) attached to it... Developers can use it to create shitty applications that annoy user, or to create nice applications

As for the second... Well, yeah. But that's still not Adobe's fault, in my opinion. They've created a development enviroment and if developers make poor decisions (=adding too many components on each page) that are incompatible with their target audience's browsing habits (=having many tabs open), it's the developers who are to blame.

So, as a software engineer, I can symphatize with their decision: "This is a developing enviroment. Developer has the power. He should have incentitive not to create applications that users want to close immediatelly, anyways.". That said, I do agree that so many Flash applications are so horrible that Adobe should have realized that and created more features to protect the users from the more idiotic developers. Being allowed to pause any flash application, mute the sounds, etc. would be the minium things you should be able to do.

Re:Great. And Flash continues to be a plague (1)

ripdajacker (1167101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002910)

The biggest problem, I think, is that flash uses ActionScript. Not that the language is bad if you are a good programmer, but it lacks some features like generics. The few guys I know that code actionsript do it badly, a) because the schools in Denmark where you learn those things, do not teach very good programming practices, and b) because ActionScript makes it quite easy to write horrible code. This is not a rant on people who code ActionScript, I am just pointing out that due to the drag-and-drop nature of flash development (ie. the timeline), many inexperienced programmers can make quite cool looking stuff without worrying about the code. Exactly at that point is where the code gets ugly.

Slashdot: so dense it causes singularities (5, Insightful)

notsoclever (748131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000726)

Nearly everyone seems to be missing the point to this. It's not something the user installs, it's something that content providers use to provide their video on the server side. This is a GOOD THING - it makes it much easier for websites to transition to HTML5 without alienating users who don't have HTML5-capable browsers.

Re:Slashdot: so dense it causes singularities (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000972)

It would be a good thing, if it weren't a particularly bad implementation. The solution's design ignores properties inherent to HTML5 (and implemented correctly in all browsers with HTML5 video support, and designed specifically to be backwards compatible on browsers without) that make the solution itself unnecessary. A much nicer solution would have looked basically like this:

A video tag, containing WebM, H.264 and Theora source tags, an object and embed tag with the same WebM and H.264 sources as arguments, JavaScript to add developer-styled controls if JavaScript is enabled, and a Flash shim that mimics the styles of those controls. Everything would work, even without JavaScript enabled, unless the end-user is on a browser from 1996.

Re:Slashdot: so dense it causes singularities (1)

notsoclever (748131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001700)

I see it as being beneficial mostly to the vast majority of web designers who don't actually know HTML and just export stuff directly from DreamWeaver or whatever. Also, I haven't looked at this particular player, but I would hope it has a nicer set of controls than the default HTML5 video container's controls.

Re:Slashdot: so dense it causes singularities (2, Informative)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001836)

I see it as being beneficial mostly to the vast majority of web designers who don't actually know HTML and just export stuff directly from DreamWeaver or whatever.

I made that point in another comment. But I added: on second thought, maybe I don't want to see their videos.

But seriously, yeah. Adobe doesn't have a history of giving people good off the shelf web tools. To some extent, this is an improvement on that reputation. Just... not good enough.

Also, I haven't looked at this particular player, but I would hope it has a nicer set of controls than the default HTML5 video container's controls.

Default HTML5 controls are implementation-specific. The controls in what Adobe's pushing are lacking compared to, for instance, Safari's implementation. Adobe's offering has a "full screen" button which, in HTML5 mode, fills the browser window; Safari's default controls include a real full screen button. I imagine the Flash fallback has proper full screen as well. Adobe's offering is an old and broken solution that puts unnecessary JavaScript behind the selection of HTML5, has no fallback without JavaScript, and does a poor job at feature detection.

Re:Slashdot: so dense it causes singularities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001452)

Nearly everyone seems to be missing the point to this. It's not something the user installs, it's something that content providers use to provide their video on the server side. This is a GOOD THING - it makes it much easier for websites to transition to HTML5 without alienating users who don't have HTML5-capable browsers.

Spoil sport. People that read the articles and understand them make me sick. You're ruining a lot of perfectly good troll comments about Flash. Next thing you'll be saying Apple products being stable is a good thing. You might as well say clubbing baby seals is good for the environment. Please review your Slashdot bi-laws and stop confusing posters with facts.

cheap jerseys (-1, Offtopic)

nfl jersey online (1901968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000966)

Many football fans want to wear a jersey of their favorite team or player, but it can be difficult to shop for right size one. Typically, our ootball jerseys [nfljersey-online.com] fits different than a normal website, so your regular shirt size might not necessarily be the same size as an NFL jersey [nfljersey-online.com] . Using a measuring tape, it is easy to figure out what size red wings jerseys [nfljersey-online.com] [nfljersey-online.com] will fit you best. http://www.nfljersey-online.com [nfljersey-online.com]

Question ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001062)

Does this mean that the iPhone can play flash videos with this app?

Answer !!! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001124)

No.

Re:Answer !!! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001168)

But it does mean that "web designers" who just export from Adobe products are more likely to put videos on the web that can be viewed on a much wider array of platforms and configurations. On second thought... I'm not sure I want to see their videos.

Re:Answer !!! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001838)

It helps with the Adobe work flow so the end product can be seen on your iPhone ect. No need to look for other tools.

Re:Answer !!! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001854)

I... just said that.

Resource Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001216)

So does this solve the problems of Flash?
1) Flash is a resource hog.
2) Flash is used mostly for junk - advertising and glitz.

Bah, it needs Adobe Air! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001384)

Needs Air installed, and Air makes Flash look beautifully light and svelte. Air slows my machine to a crawl....

Why do you need an Adobe tool for this? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001444)

It's not exactly difficult to set this sort of thing up yourself - I've certainly done it, and I suspect most of you who're involved in web development have too. All using Adobe's tool will get you is increased vulnerability for your audience to whatever exploits the black hats end up finding in Adobe's "solution".

Just what we need... (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001784)

This is just what we need, Adobe making something that could work well into something that will work slowly. Next thing we know, and html5 will be just as bad as flash and we will all be saying just wait until HTML6, that will solve everything...

Not a support issue (4, Interesting)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001830)

It's cross-browser and cross-platform, so it works on iPhones, iPads and other devices that don't support Flash.

It would be more accurate to say that iPhones and iPads don't permit Flash. Adobe would be more than happy to support Flash on those platforms -- and probably has code ready to go -- if Apple allowed them to deploy it. The difference is significant and should not be ignored: Flash doesn't work on iDevices because Apple doesn't want it to. It's a repeat of Microsoft's unofficial MSDOS-era policy, "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run," only much, much more brazen.

(Before we resurrect the flamewar about why Apple doesn't allow Flash on its iDevices, allow me to note that I detest Flash and understand Apple's objections, at least the technical ones. I just think that users should be allowed to use whatever software they want on the devices that they've paid for, no matter how much it sucks.)

Falcon Punch (1)

theleica (1700898) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002410)

It's like a falcon punch to Android and Blackberry, saying "Looks like iOS is the future".

you mean kinda like this? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002584)

Video for Everybody is simply a chunk of HTML code that embeds a video into a website using the HTML5 <video> element, falling back to Flash automatically, without the use of JavaScript or browser-sniffing. It therefore works in RSS readers (no JavaScript), on the iPhone / iPad (don’t support Flash) and on many, many browsers and platforms.

http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody [camendesign.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?