×

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!

Microsoft Killing Silverlight?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-long-farewell-Auf-wiedersehen-goodbye dept.

Microsoft 324

SharkLaser writes "Silverlight 5 might be last version released by Microsoft. Several industry insiders and partners for the last few weeks have heard from their own Microsoft sources that there won't be new versions released after Silverlight 5. Status on service packs and support for Silverlight is unclear, as Microsoft haven't yet released lifecycle support end date even for the previous Silverlight 4. By their support page they will give full year head-up before ending support. With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising. But will content providers be able to give out their material without DRM and how does HTML5 perform with non-video side of Flash and Silverlight?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

324 comments

And... (5, Insightful)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003838)

...nothing of value were lost.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004236)

HTML5 will get crippled down soon over 'security considerations' just wait a few months... Flash was really a dangerous hybrid that allowed apps on the web, they do not want web apps eating your real paid apps lunch. This strangely binds all, Apple, Microsoft and even Adobe, pawing the way for the appstore only deliveries for software and securing their corporate cut.

Re:And... (2)

MrNthDegree (2429298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004556)

The important parts (,) will remain, as the same codecs would be as vulnerable in WMP as they would be in IE on Windows. On Linux, we wouldn't care anyway as we have SELinux and AppArmor securing Chromium by default and Firefox (mozilla_t) on lockdown too. Mac OS X? Well that has never really been that secure anyway!

WTF... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004554)

is Sliverlight?

Netflix (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003864)

Doesn't Netflix use Silverlight for streaming? Will Netflix move to some other technology?

Re:Netflix (4, Funny)

imamac (1083405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003890)

They do indeed use Silverlight. Obviously they will move to much successful Flash.

Re:Netflix (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004032)

In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004152)

In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

Flash might be more widely available, but the Silverlight performance is clearly better, so it would be a step in the direction of lower video quality and higher processor and memory utilization.

Re:Netflix (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004192)

That might be a step in the wrong direction, as Adobe announced that they're ending development for the mobile versions of Flash today. I wouldn't be surprised if the full version eventually follows. I think it'd be smarter for Netflix to latch onto HTML5.

Re:Netflix (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004456)

Netflix can't do that unless and until there is DRM in HTML5 video. The main reason they stream with Silverlight now is because Silverlight allows encrypted streaming.

Re:Netflix (2)

MrNthDegree (2429298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004578)

There already is, it's called a 3rd-party codec, DRM'ed WMV anyone? ;-)

Re:Netflix (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004696)

So instead of making it obvious that you are running a proprietary plugin, you are just making it a little less blatant.

It's almost as if this is being driven by people that value appearances over practical considerations.

Re:Netflix (3, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004198)

In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

Much as i don't like flash at least flash sites are accessible from Linux. I have been told that a few Silverlight sites work with moonlight but have not found any myself

Re:Netflix (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004342)

Except Adobe is clearly moving towards killing off flash. They've announced the death of mobile flash in favour of HTML5, and it seems likely that desktop flash will eventually follow.

After all, it doesn't really matter to Adobe what runtime is used. They don't make money off people downloading the Flash runtime. They do make money off selling the flash designer software, which costs hundreds of dollars, and the streaming server solutions. What difference does it make if Adobe's software is spitting out stuff that runs in the flash runtime or HTML5?

My concern is that HTML5 is clearly not up to the level where it has feature parity (or stability/consistency) with Flash or Silverlight. For example, HTML5 currently has no agreed upon standard for dynamic audio. Sure, it can play a sound or music file, but if you want to actually generate or process audio, that's impossible. Mozilla and WebKit both have their own proprietary competing APIs to do this, but neither is final yet, and certainly not a standard.

Given a few years, HTML5 will probably be able to replace Flash/Silverlight, but clearly not yet!

Re:Netflix (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003990)

Yup. Would anyone have installed Silverlight if it hadn't been for Netflix?

Re:Netflix (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004048)

Well, Netflix isn't available in my country, but the television stations here use it. So if you want to watch their shows online, you have to install it. It probably comes from the fact it's much harder to download Silverlight streamed videos than Flash ones.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004694)

Xbox Live uses it to manage your player account.

That's the largest gaming base in the world.

Re:Netflix (3, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004752)

Which I have to consider the greatest idiocy ever IMO. Considering you know what is easier to download in the highest possible quality. The darn TV and DVD sources, that are available for download within an hour of the initial airing or DVD release at the latest, a few weeks to a month earlier if there is a leak. I will never understand the compulsion to need DRM and require the release to be weeks after the fact for most services, Why DRM something that already is available unDRMed on every torrent site known to man. Do they still think the main method of piracy is people copying the movies onto floppy-disks and handing them out to friends?

Re:Netflix (2)

ossuary (1532467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004126)

I think you are right. Netflix and the Olympics were the only two reasons that anyone I know ever installed it.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004532)

Yup. Would anyone have installed Silverlight if it hadn't been for Netflix?

no

Re:Netflix (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004546)

Yup. Would anyone have installed Silverlight if it hadn't been for Netflix?

At least Silverlight can be kept current with Windows update.

It drives me insane that a user needs to spend 30 seconds or more, and ONLY after rebooting, to say "Yes, yes, I agree, and I would like to install the flash player update that won't let websites WTFPWN the shit out of my computer. OH you meant 'Download.' Okay, yes, please install. *zip* Yay you're installed, now go away." Whereas it takes less than one second to dismiss the dialog, effectively saying, "Nope, serious security holes are FINE BY ME!"

It's quite possibly the one thing that Google's automation with Chrome updates has done right: If you want vulnerable, out of date software and want to have upgrading it be something you need to go out of your way to do, it should be more difficult to have your system operate that way.

People don't care that their software is out of date until AFTER it bites them in the ass.

Re:Netflix (3, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004068)

They somehow manage to do without it on iOS devices. Perhaps a desktop application is coming for Mac OS/Windows/Linux.

Re:Netflix (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004276)

I think this would be the best option. I use RDIO [rdio.com] , which is kind of like NetFlix for music. You can play music in the browser, but they also have a Native app that runs outside your browser. I think Netflix should do the same. The disadvantage is that you would have to install something on every computer you want to watch movies on. I'm sure people watch stuff at work, or even on a work laptop, but may be unable to install applications. Perhaps they could go the Chrome route and create an application that just installs itself in your local user directory to get around various restrictions for installing stuff. This would probably give the most reliable playback on all platforms.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004210)

They can't just use silverlight - not when they are available on so many platforms that don't support it...

Re:Netflix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004214)

Does this mean that Netflix will finally work on linux?

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004362)

Yes Netflix does use Silverlight. Hopefully moving away from Silverlight will expedite the Linux client I have been patiently waiting for.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004702)

Doesn't Netflix use Silverlight for streaming? Will Netflix move to some other technology?

That is what I'm hoping for!

Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003882)

So where does this leave Netflix, the only company willing to take dirty bribe money to require silverlight for use with their service? Even Hulu doesn't use silverlight.
 
What about the Olympics? They require(d) silverlight to view any footage, live or recorded.

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38003936)

They will move to HTML5

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003956)

Netflix with no DRM support? I'm sure the studios will love the sound of that.

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004090)

In the medium to long term I see no choice. Unless silverlight can support them until a new solution becomes available.

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004000)

I don't think MS is paying any "bribe money" to Netflix. They only chose Silverlight because it supports better DRM methods than Flash, as of course required by content producers.

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004158)

Netflix made the switch from Flash to Silverlight many years. The performance increase was worth it

Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004428)

And silverlight has pretty good bitrate scaling support, I'm not sure if Flash supported that when Netflix was first implementing this stuff.

MLB.com in trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38003898)

This would require major migration for MLB.com which requires silverlight and DRM. Somehow I doubt that they will learn the right lesson though.

Re:MLB.com in trouble? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004246)

Nope, at least not because of Silverlight. MLB was a Silverlight launch partner but they quickly left the platform and moved to Flash.

This is hardly a shock... (4, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003916)

Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.

Can you back up this claim? (5, Informative)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004028)

Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.

Really? Do tell how exactly those Silverlight protections have been circumvented. Unless you are talking about a streaming media recorder which simply records the stream as it plays on your PC, I am not aware of any way to defeat Silverlight DRM. The use of separate protected streams for audio and video is fiendishly clever and I've never heard of a successful way to crack it. A video forum where I regularly participate gets posts all the time asking how to record Netflix streams and nobody has ever suggested anything but a streaming media recorder.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004162)

The streaming recorder works though, doesn't it? It's the "rubber hose" principle applied to Big Media - encrypt it all you want, but if you can see/hear it, you can copy it.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004350)

The problem is that your copy is now somewhere around 1.1 Gbps.
Oh, you're recompressing it? Enjoy the additional quality loss.
Lossless recompression will still result in an unwieldy, gargantuan size.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004714)

>Oh, you're recompressing it? Enjoy the additional quality loss.

Who cares? Honestly, only OCDers care about whether pirated media is 100 percent identical. It only really has to be "good enough" for the vast majority of people. Look at how popular aXXo one-cd movies still are in the trackers.

--
BMO

Re:Can you back up this claim? (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004204)

Yeah, that's exactly my experience about Silverlight DRM too. I looked up about it after wanting to take a few segments of video that was streamed via Silverlight, but it seemed impossible to do.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004450)

I doubt sufficient motivation exists to crack it. You can get higher quality from DVD (or especially Blu-Ray) rips off TPB for anyone so inclined, leaving the only people who want to record Silverlight those people who don't know / don't want to use BitTorrent. Most of those people aren't the sort to know how to crack it. And with only Netflix using it, there really just doesn't seem to be a point.

So maybe no one has circumvented it, but probably just for lack of trying. Witness how fast the much-vaunted PS3 was hacked after removing OtherOS support. And as you say, streaming media recorders always work. DRM simply does not work.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (2)

Alkonaut (604183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004606)

I doubt sufficient motivation exists to crack it. You can get higher quality from DVD (or especially Blu-Ray) rips off TPB for anyone so inclined, leaving the only people who want to record Silverlight those people who don't know / don't want to use BitTorrent. Most of those people aren't the sort to know how to crack it. And with only Netflix using it, there really just doesn't seem to be a point.

So maybe no one has circumvented it, but probably just for lack of trying. Witness how fast the much-vaunted PS3 was hacked after removing OtherOS support. And as you say, streaming media recorders always work. DRM simply does not work.

I watch silverlight drm:ed streams everyday. For live sports. Since it is live, the argument about dvd:s and download of course doesn't work.

Re:Can you back up this claim? (3, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004470)

Just because it hasn't been cracked, it doesn't mean it's not crackable. At some point, the video must be decrypted and displayed to the user. Therefore, 100% bullet proof copy protection is impossible. The only way they can make DRM 100% full proof, is to encrypt it and throw away the key. At which point, you'll be watching random noise and listening to static.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004094)

Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.

*** Wakes up, realizes what reallity is like, and starts to gradually loose the smile he brought back from the rabbit hole

Re:This is hardly a shock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004106)

Your response shows an ignorance of what Silverlight really is. Silverlight does happen to offer streaming video, but there are many other things that you can do with it that are not possible with other technologies (ok, might be possible in Flash, but it would be a pain). If you need an in browser, line of business application, your options are pretty severely limited, and that is where Silverlight shines. I can sit down and have a pretty nice Silverlight app up and running in a matter of hours. Try that with HTML/JavaScript/CSS. Rumors about the death of Silverlight seem to show up every now and then, and they always seem to wind up as FUD.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004462)

Call it FUD or call it what you will, I haven't seen enough acceptance of Silverlight to get me to switch my development in that direction. It's a shame, really, as that would make my job much easier. So, I stick with ASPX pages (in part because the app is already written there) and I'm becomming better acquainted with javascript to handle some of the feature requests my users have. And for the record here, there is no video in my application.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004416)

Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

No. We never needed flash to play internet video. If you link to a video directly, it will play in your system's default video player.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (4, Insightful)

Alkonaut (604183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004498)

Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

No. We never needed flash to play internet video. If you link to a video directly, it will play in your system's default video player.

That's downloading a video file and playing it. That is the same as 1990's video. In 2011 I want to be able to seek in my video file (or watch live streams), I want autmatic adjustment of bitrate depending on my bandwidth, and whoever I'm downloading the video from want's to make sure I pay my subscription to watch this game. There are basically only a few technologies that handle this. And html5 isn't one of them.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004844)

The sorry state of navigation in streaming video is the best argument why to avoid it in general. The "streaming" formats really have no advantage here.

The main problem is making sure that people aren't getting your content for free.

Nothing else about "streaming" is terribly compelling for anyone.

Re:This is hardly a shock... (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004792)

No. We never needed flash to play internet video. If you link to a video directly, it will play in your system's default video player.

This kind of wisdom has sadly gone the way of the dodo. The marketing department convinced everybody we need in-lined videos because that's so much better

Re:This is hardly a shock... (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004742)

There's still a place for third party browser plugins. This is an issue for several large classes of software like point of sale systems which need to manipulate registers or receipt printers over serial/usb, anything requiring reliable printing, video chat, etc.

Good riddance (4, Insightful)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38003952)

The idea that a general-purpose applet platform, with all the attendant security risks, is worth keeping simply to play DRM-encumbered video strikes me as utterly daft. It's like keeping a rabid rottweiler in your kid's playroom so that they'll have something to draw.

Re:Good riddance (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004076)

Except that there are some times when you need the DRM. It's an awfully big risk for the content providers to let a subscription service use a DRM-Free format for rentals. For sales, it's not as big of a deal since there are ways of finding pirates, but for those that just download from a legitimate source and capture it to disk. That's a completely different issue.

Re:Good riddance (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004208)

There are NO times I need DRM. And know what? DRM on VCRs just didn't work; I always copied tapes I rented, as well as Pay Per View.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004234)

Except that there are some times when people who don't know that all DRM doesn't work feel like they still need the DRM

T,FTFY

Re:Good riddance (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004452)

It's an awfully big risk for the content providers to let a subscription service use a DRM-Free format for rentals.

What exactly are they risking? Someone who wants a video for free can get it already. The only thing they risk is making their rental service more attractive.

Re:Good riddance (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004808)

lost or control, real or imagined.
(BTW: Reality = Imagined)

And so DMCA/ACTA to the rescue!

and in 20-30 years PLUG: Personal Listening Unit Grapple
Hint: it goes in your head.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004524)

"Except that there are some times when you need the DRM. It's an awfully big risk for the content providers to let a subscription service use a DRM-Free format for rentals."

Why bother bother plugging one hole in the content damn when they have a large DVD hole spilling the content out for just about anybody who wants to slurp up a copy of it, I wonder.

Re:Good riddance (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004750)

Maybe part of the point is that you shouldn't need a general-purpose applet platform just to create a distribution method for DRMed video? Like maybe you could create a more specialized DRM-video-player plugin that didn't have so many problems and security risks?

Re:Good riddance (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004432)

The idea that a general-purpose applet platform, with all the attendant security risks, is worth keeping simply to play DRM-encumbered video strikes me as utterly daft. It's like keeping a rabid rottweiler in your kid's playroom so that they'll have something to draw.

Silverlight is not just for video. Nether is Flash.
Silverlight's DRM can be harnessed by anyone seeking to make (get this!) secure applications.

When it's something you don't understand, it's an "attendant security risk".
When it's security that prevents you from stealing shit, it's DRM.

Articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38003970)

Where did articles go?

Did anyone else have trouble reading the summary due to the lack of articles such as "the" and "a" and the mixture of tenses?

I know, I know. Don't be a grammar nazi. But isn't language something the editors should clean up before posting?

Re:Articles (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004072)

Maybe we can run away to Grammar Argentina before the Grammar Nuremberg Trials completely wipe away the last vestiges of quality control in the English language.

MS Training Treadmill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38003972)

So glad I'm off it! ... now to go learn HTML + javascript.

Oh, wait! I already did that.

No new versions released after Silverlight 5. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38003994)

Maybe they think it's perfect?

Microsoft's HTML5 Player Framework (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004012)

Coincidentally, Microsoft released the first version of their HTML5 Player Framework today:
http://playerframework.codeplex.com/

What about Video?? (2, Interesting)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004026)

With the decline of these client-side frameworks, where is that going to leave video??

...and don't say "HTML5" - because that doesn't define just about ANYTHING.

First there was Flash video over RTMP, then there was Adobe HTTP Dynamic streaming (HDS). Both of these were ADAPTIVE streaming technologies, and extremely popular an widley used. Moreso RTMP, but HDS is starting to gain adoption.

HTML-5 does not provide any method for any kind of adaptive bitrate, or fragmented video delivery. It is strictly PROGRESSIVE download - i.e. download the whole file, and play it. There are a billion problems with this. No adaptive bitrate (downgrade video quality if you cannot meet the sustained bitrate), and difficulty in caching (caching one giant file very difficult for a reactive, real-time cache, as opposed to caching smalller HDS or HLS "fragments"). The only other really "competitor" would be Apples HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) - which is the standard for iOS devices, and starting to gain adoption on Set-Top Box-devices, but pretty invisible on the desktop space.

So...my question is... "What about video!?"

Re:What about Video?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004272)

So...my question is... "What about video!?"

It's just data; YT and Vimeo both serve over HTTP. If you think there's a problem to be addressed, write an RFC and submit it to the IETF.

Re:What about Video?? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004448)

This is more a problem with lazy encode jobs, than with the presentation software.

Flash video encoding forces the provider to reencode the video in a streamable media format. Prior to this, people were using terrible "live stream" type streaming media servers, like real audio or microsoft media servers.

This is an issue simply because of the following things:

1) at the time those were popular, the major industry push was akin to "live broadcast tv, but on the internet!" Not, "video on demand"

2) memory and processing power were much more limited, limiting how efficiently you could effectively stream a feed.

3) people simply didn't encode to perfectly capable streamable containers. Even old-school MPEG1 has features for streamed playback. The reason was because of shitty bandwidth, (mpeg1 has not so good compression at low bitrates), weak cpu power (just see what an h264 stream does on even a pentium2, let alone what was available in the pre-flash-video days.), and minimal ram, as outlined above. While streaming was "possible", it wasn't practical.

What flash video did, was enable the flash plugin to buffer a canned feed, so that even if your connection sucked balls, it could fill the buffer sufficiently to enable high quality playback while the file was still downloading. In addirion, flash was an ubiquitous format already used to make animations and adverts, and was browser agnostic (browser wars, et al.). This is what made flash video an instant success.

These days, we don't need a plugin to serve as a media cache. A properly implemented html5 video playback system would do this all by itself. The very point of making it part of the w3c standard is to make it browser agnostic, and we have the cpu, memory, and bandwidth capabilities to use more traditionally encoded streamable file types.

There is no real downside to dumping flash video, other than losing the programatic features that flash or silverlight provide. Then again, if you aren't an advertiser or a webgames developer, and just want to deliver video content on demand, this still isn't a problem.

Re:What about Video?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004460)

Actually, technically HTML does allow for streaming, if you do it right.
But it is a case of manual buffering in to an allocation table (array) and essentially playing through that data.

So, split data in to set chunks of data (possibly even with information about varying bitrates or whatever)
XHR first chunk of data
Set parameters based on the header information (length of media, title, etc.)
Setup the timeline, if visible.
Start Loop
Fetch next chunk of data
Add to array and update timeline on load.
Assign array[position] to the source for the video
Continue until the end is reached, or it is terminated.
Optionally check for errors and automatically fix it, unlike the more popular sites who don't give a damn it seems. (seriously, what the hell is with Youtube recently? There has been about 50 errors out the ass with everything ever since that new crappy player was introduced, eternal loading, no loading, errors just at random, it is terrible, embarrassing even.)

That is just a very simple example, too lazy to write the code out, but you get the idea.
An automatic way would be nice, a sort of default, but I'd still never use it.
Manual is best IMO, you can customize it to your exact needs.

Re:What about Video?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004512)

HTML-5 does not provide any method for any kind of adaptive bitrate, or fragmented video delivery.

You're free to implement it yourself using a combination of server-side programming and client-side javascript.

No they possibly cant. (1, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004118)

"... wank wank, yank yank, this that, rant rant, piss piss " -> This is the reaction we get EVERYtime we tell that microsoft will probably kill this or that service/product that they think they are not benefiting from enough. not 4 months ago when it was almost evident that they would drop silverlight, zygotes here were flaming us when we suggested that, citing this or that reason. 'silverlight is used widenly in *insert niche application here*', 'it has a strong community' this that. what happened ?

there has been numerous news regarding how they were wavering about .net, and when those articles appeared here, the same people lambasted anyone suggesting that microsoft may ditch .net people too, even while .net users were in a stampede in their own forums over questions over future of .net.

microsoft is a private company with american corporate morals. they will not hesitate from ditching all of you when they see it fit. 'they' here means whichever product/technology manager at that time is dominating the policy. and it varies.

Wrong question (1)

mangobrain (877223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004130)

Will content providers be able to give out their material without DRM? Yes, in the sense that it's possible. Will they be *willing*? Probably not. Will we see all sorts of harebrained, browser-breaking hacks implemented to try and bring DRM to JavaScript and HTML video? Almost certainly.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004288)

Will they abandon browser based streaming and just start writing closed source apps that gives them a greater degree of control than ever before? Probably.

more promising? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004258)

With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising.

no it doesn't. it looks exactly as promising as it was before. the only difference is that there's now less competition driving innovation in that direction. the death of competition is never a good thing.

That's because... (2)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004266)

From what I understand, Silverlight functionallity is being rolled into WinRT. With Windows 8, WinRT takes care of the exact same things that WPF and Silverlight did and brings to the table the inclusion of HTML5/Javascript.

No functionallity will be lost with this and it's not much of a transition for developers either, as their code is directly portable to WinRT.

Bill

.NET is next. (-1)

Endimiao (471532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004284)

Just wait and see. I'm betting that .NET will be so cumbersome and buggy in regards to integration in Windows 8 that it will be the next one in the chopping block

Re:.NET is next. (2)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004390)

Given the market penetration of .NET as opposed to Silverlight, I think this is utter nonsense. And now that Oracle is screwing the pooch vis-à-vis Java, you can expect more .NET, not less.

Mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004388)

Making the loss of Mono even less significant.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/11/08/215243/banshee-mono-may-be-dropped-from-ubuntu-default

No. Once again, no. (1)

Alkonaut (604183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004396)

This is a misconception from people who believe silverlight is a flash competitor, and a flash competitor only. Silverlight will continue to work as a browser plugin, but its focus will probably shift from "all things RIA" to streaming video. It is already obvious that there is a niche for subscription video (a lot of paid for video content has alread switched from flash/wmp to silverlight). Apart from streaming video, I can't see microsoft putting much weight behind silverlight as the solution for RIA on the web. For that, html5 is much more useful (which Adobe has discovered as well). As for the technology in Silverlight (i.e. .xaml etc.) that has already evolved into the platform for WP7 development, and future windows platforms.

Wait? There is STILL DRM out there? (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004422)

I thought DRM was already a thing of the past. Who is still doing that?

Re:Wait? There is STILL DRM out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004562)

Every major for profit content producer.

Is it Christmas? (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004454)

The death of mobile Flash, and the rumor of the same for Silverlight all in one day? The web is going to be a far better place in the future.

DRM and HTML5 (2)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004484)

This may be a bit off-topic, so I apologize. I know that content publishers nag and nag about losing revenue so they punish the people who actually pay for the privilege.

I wonder how much piracy would happen if publishers just trusted their users and released videos without horrible amounts of DRM. (My biggest pet peeve is not being able to just play a Blu Ray disc but having to sit through at least 15 minutes of ads.)

While I know some bad eggs would copy the file, isn't it being done regardless? So my question is DRM the only thing keeping HTML5 from really taking off?

netflix (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004508)

Last I heard, Netflix streaming uses Silverlight, despite the completely lack (at the time) of support on any platform other than Winders. (Now there's Moonlight, but I suppose that will go away as well.)

So, I'm wondering what Netflix will switch to, and if anyone over there feels the slightest bit of embarrassment.

General Problem with Developing on Microsoft (-1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004574)

The problem with developing on a Microsoft platform is that there's always the danger that they randomly decide to drop the framework/component you're using and you're screwed. The worst part is, since it's closed source, you don't even have the opportunity to fork it and keep improving it. What's worse is, they come out with something new, and it barely works, and sucks compared to the open source project they're trying to imitate. AND they might drop it next year.

From a technology point of view (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004602)

From a technology point of view Silverlight is by far better than anything else that can be used to program the Web. Its lack of Linux and portable support is what made it unsuccessful.

I wish either Microsoft or Adobe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38004764)

would open up the source to their players instead of killing off their products. It's no secret that Flash's performance is better than HTML5's (with the exception of video) and a lot of what Flash does is just being reinvented with HTML5. Why not just open source the player and have the browsers implement "flash engines". OR you could use the technology in the players to improve HTML5 Element/JavaScript performance.

A man can dream eh?

Slashdot.... (1)

icongorilla (2452494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004768)

being the great Open Source News source you are, it would be great if you included some information on how the moonlight team is taking this. Who knows, maybe Netflix will move to moonlight.

Just please kill old IE first (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38004818)

HTML 5 is not going to happen with IE 8 gaining marketshare if anything from corporations who are terrified to update their browsers and 30% of the population who does not know what a browser is who uses what comes on their computer.

If MS is serious about HTML 5 this issue must be addressed as IE 9 is barely making inroads at all and IE 8 is still growing.

With Windows 8 going to flop unless MS does something to save the desktop portion in it, you can bet history will repeat itself in the 2010's being known as the decade of Win7 and IE 8.Very similiar to the 2000s as the decade of XP/IE 6. If MS includes IE 10 by default with win 7 sp 2 OEM or a enterprise edition there is hope we can abandon flash and silverlight and switch to HTML 5.

Until IE 8, 7, 6 get below 10% usage silverlight and flash are here to stay and HTML 5 is out expect for mobile devices for a long long time.

Personally, I think in 5 years I will do web browsing from my phone as it will be much more advanced with 3D, fonts with effects, animations, and video as the desktop web will be years behind unless the situation changes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...