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!

Netflix Ditches Silverlight For HTML5 On Macs

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the giving-up-freedom-for-tv dept.

DRM 202

An anonymous reader writes "Netflix yesterday furthered its plans to ditch Silverlight for HTML5 on Macs, having already done so last year in IE11 on Windows 8.1. HTML5 video is now supported by Netflix in Safari on OS X Yosemite, meaning you can stream your favorite movies and TV shows without having to install any plugins." Courtesy of encrypted media extensions.

cancel ×

202 comments

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

Linux soon? (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47163999)

So presumably, Firefox will bring Netflix to Linux as well [mozilla.org] . While I can't say I'm happy to see DRM, I'm happier to be able to play the content than not be able to, and I don't think not including support for broadly-used technologies is going to win any wars.

Re:Linux soon? (3, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 3 months ago | (#47164071)

Can't you just get a browser-id-changing-plugin and tell it you're using mac? I didn't RTFA and don't know what it does under the hood but if its just a "turn it on for this OS" and no other special installable bit, it should work?

Re:Linux soon? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164087)

As you can see from TFS without reading TFA, it relies on the encrypted media extensions. The odds are long on Linux support coming as everyone seems to conclude that it is too easy for Linux folks to grab video streams and record them.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47164157)

The odds are long on Linux support coming as everyone seems to conclude that it is too easy for Linux folks to grab video streams and record them.

I don't think so. I think both nVidia and AMD will be happy to cooperate with bringing every bit of that functionality to Linux. It's plausible, since they have closed-source drivers. Of course, it won't be in the OSS drivers, but the people who run those won't want that functionality on their system anyway.

Re:Linux soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164199)

Bah, I would .. I use open source nvidia drivers as too many times I've had to go through the hell of getting closed source nvidia working from the terminal after a kernel upgrade kills it.

Re:Linux soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164225)

Can someone explain this? Netflix runs on Linux under Wine, so why the need for hardware/driver support?

Re:Linux soon? (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47164525)

Can someone explain this? Netflix runs on Linux under Wine, so why the need for hardware/driver support?

IME it runs poorly under Wine. I have had good results with an XP Pro x32 VM running under Linux x64, though. Not even too much added overhead, it seems. However, XP Pro x32 under XP Pro x32 seems to fail due to DRM. Hooray Linux!

Re:Linux soon? (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 3 months ago | (#47164571)

Can someone explain this? Netflix runs on Linux under Wine, so why the need for hardware/driver support?

IME it runs poorly under Wine. I have had good results with an XP Pro x32 VM running under Linux x64, though. Not even too much added overhead, it seems. However, XP Pro x32 under XP Pro x32 seems to fail due to DRM. Hooray Linux!

As does pretty much everything under wine. Wine is great for a stopgap, that's about it.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 months ago | (#47164691)

It's horrid to install. These days you have to use a custom compiled version from wine with pipelight. Enable 32bit support. Install agent-changer for your browser because netflix will refuse to play when seeing you're on linux. It's idiotic. I've already paid for netflix I'm not the guy who is going to rip the streams. I would have used the pirate bay for that and just get the avi or iso. All in all the install works fine, did it yesterday again on arch, but so many steps and the end result is netflix easily consuming a complete core. Not much of a problem on a desktop, but on my laptop I don't like heat building up.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47164879)

My Ubuntu install was easy peasy and it performs about how you would expect any of these things to perform regardless of platform.

The fact that the Arch install is more "interesting" is just a matter of self-flagellation.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 months ago | (#47165193)

The install isn't that interesting, it's what it does that is interesting and that part will not that differ on ubuntu. Wether you apt-get on debian based systems or use pacman or yaourt on arch based systems. It's the fact that I am technical able to simply watch netflix in html5, but they won't let us. So now we need multilib support for netflix. I agree, it works, but it still is a hack and a pretty dirty one. (no offence to the coders of pipelight btw, they did an excellent job nonetheless.)

Re:Linux soon? (2)

Old97 (1341297) | about 3 months ago | (#47165099)

I don't know if its Netflix demanding the DRM or the content providers. iTunes DRM was not Apple's desire. It was mandated by the music publishers. Eventually they relented in exchange for a higher price. Now that Netflix is also producing content they might also want the DRM. Anyone know?

Re:Linux soon? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 months ago | (#47165165)

You actually have a good point there. I forgot all about netflix own productions. Some of which are hot and good. I can imagine they want netflix to be the only way to get to those series.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#47164263)

Also, valve is gonna want this for Steam OS.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 3 months ago | (#47164663)

Here's to hoping that it gets implemented in a vanilla-GNU/Linux-compatible fashion! (As opposed to the existing Android or Chrome OS implementations which, AFAIK, are incompatible with vanilla GNU/Linux.)

Re:Linux soon? (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 3 months ago | (#47164335)

Why the hell would anyone want to copy a stream from them anyway? Even on HD it still looks DVD quality at best. IF I am going to copy or download a movie I am going for highest quality possible.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 months ago | (#47164401)

Enjoy your 50GB Blu-Ray rips. I hope your ISP doesn't have a transit limit and accompanied overage fees.

Re:Linux soon? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164493)

It doesn't. Thanks for your support :)

Re:Linux soon? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164523)

I enjoy mine, but I rip them myself from Blurays I buy so I have a backup and the rip is far higher quality than the crap out there.
And by doing it that way, I use ZERO bandwidth and it takes only 5 minutes of my time to do it.

Note to the morons that think people sit at the computer and watch it run, you dont count the 2 hours the computer is doing something while you are off diving the great barrier reef or racing motorcycles... Normal people have the ability to walk away and let a machine do its job unsupervised.

So you dip shits that reply with "you cant rip a Bluray in 5 minutes" can go stuff your low IQ head in a bucket.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164811)

Dude, chill. At first, I thought you had a super amazing computer. 16 cores, 48GB RAM, and 10-laserbeam BlueRay drive.

Now I see you're just a dick that spends a lot of money on toys.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47164927)

While my $300 Zotac ION nettop was still alive,that is what I used for my BD rips. It really does not take much machine to read something off of an optical disk.

This is especially true when the whole point of the media in question is that it's the highest quality option available (no transcoding).

Although even that can run as a batch job and take as long as it needs to take while you're off scuba diving or racing motorcycles.

Re:Linux soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164839)

Enjoy your 50GB Blu-Ray rips

Almost all BluRays can be compressed to 5~15GB with zero loss of visual or audio quality. Using handbrake (open source tool) on a fast corei7 it takes anywhere from 2 to 10 hours to process a movie. But since we're talking about downloading, there are "professionals" out there who do it all very efficiently and for free.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 3 months ago | (#47164921)

No cap at all. You're aware that you can compress them down to less than 5GB without losing much quality? If not, I see large pointless purchasing of 4TB HDDs in your future.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

santax (1541065) | about 3 months ago | (#47164707)

Yeah its idiotic, but probably a demand from the contentprovidors. But indeed... I am a paying member of netflix... If I would have wanted to rip your stuf, I would have gone straight to the pirate bay or usenet or whatever is the fastest source of new material at the moment.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 3 months ago | (#47165001)

but surely there's a good reason to support it on Linux - all those TVs and set top boxes that are running Linux would love to have Netflix support (or rather, Netflix would love those to support them)

Yeah, on tivoized Linux (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47165219)

all those TVs and set top boxes that are running Linux would love to have Netflix support (or rather, Netflix would love those to support them)

I thought Netflix would love to support only that can support the robustness [wikipedia.org] that the studios demand. This often involves a locked bootloader, which when used with devices that run Linux is called tivoization [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Linux soon? (1)

jtmach (958490) | about 3 months ago | (#47165251)

All those TVs and set top boxes are running Linux under Android, and Netflix is already supported on Android.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164257)

You don't have to "install any plugins" because Mac OS X Safari already includes the support for the proprietary Netflix decryption blob. No, it will not work in other browsers.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 3 months ago | (#47164979)

No because even if you pretend to be a Mac, your browser would fall on its ass as soon as the HTML video object encountered encrypted content and had no idea what to do with it. Your browser would have to have a video tag which could handle encrypted content and call out to the JS to supply it with a decryption key in order to play it.

That presumably means Firefox or Chrome on Linux would have to ship as a binary blob containing code from one or more DRM vendors that the was linked into the multimedia framework (including whatever provider Netflix uses) so it could do the decryption. I could see that getting pretty hairy from a requirements / sign off perspective if the content / DRM vendors insist that everything from the browser to the display must be locked down to prevent screen / audio captures of the content as it goes through.

Re:Linux soon? (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 months ago | (#47164253)

I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario. Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos. They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to view videos on Mac, Windows 7, or Linux. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

ubergeek2009 (1475007) | about 3 months ago | (#47164929)

They also have an app for Windows 8, albeit it's a metro app.

Re:Linux soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164961)

But how would we watch Netflix at work if we had to install an app? No, seriously, these systems are locked down, browsers are our only hope.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 3 months ago | (#47165013)

I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario

Because apps made for the browser are multi-platform. duh.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 months ago | (#47165207)

Except in the case of Netflix, they really aren't multi-platform. You have to install plugins such as Silverlight anyway, so why not just skip Silverlight and install the Netflix client? If it was truly a multi-platform solution that worked on any standards compliant browser, I would give them a little leeway. If it just ran under Flash, I could understand, as just about everybody already has that installed, and it works on most major platforms. But I've known very few people who had Silverlight installed for any purpose other than watching Netflix. The browser version only works on Windows and Mac. So it really isn't multi-platform at all.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 3 months ago | (#47165259)

I think your sarcasm detector needs adjustment.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 months ago | (#47165141)

I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario.

It's all about locked-down company computers, kiosks, borrowed laptops, etc., where people can't install software. It's crazy as hell, but it has been a driving force in getting crazy crap rebuilt to run inside a web browser, no matter how HORRENDOUS the experience.

In fact HuluDesktop is GREAT for media PCs operated by remote control, while navigating their website via remote would be a tedious nightmare. Hulu wants you to buy a device, instead, where they require you to pay for HuluPlus.

Re:Linux soon? (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 months ago | (#47165173)

I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario. Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos. They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to view videos on Mac, Windows 7, or Linux. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway.

Well, the thinking goes, there'll be an App For That(tm).

As in, web pages will become a thing of the past. First it's Netflix/Vudu/Flixster/etc. Next will be the YouTube, Vimeo, Twitch and other sites will have their own apps to watch the videos in.

Then you go to Google and it'll ask you to install their app to search the web and eventually, it'll be like it is on mobile where you're constantly asked to install the app to get more from the site.

See Steam. See iTunes. See the web as an app-distribution mechanism instead of a content distribution mechanism.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about 3 months ago | (#47164307)

Yeah, to voluntarily compromise on another freedom so people from the following areas can watch Netflix online: United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Nordic countries.

Because without it nobody would ever put videos online.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47164503)

Yeah, to voluntarily compromise on another freedom so people from the following areas can watch Netflix online:

Nothing will be compromised, because the distributions for people who care about FreedomLibre(tm) or whatever we're calling it this week will offer builds without the feature, perhaps exclusively.

Because without it nobody would ever put videos online.

Because its existence threatens your non-DRM'ed media how?

Re:Linux soon? (1)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about 3 months ago | (#47165167)

Nothing will be compromised, because the distributions for people who care about FreedomLibre(tm) or whatever we're calling it this week will offer builds without the feature, perhaps exclusively.

True, but that is not the point being presented there. The concern is if it is appropriate for an organization whose primary goal [w3.org] is to make the benefits of the social value of the Web "available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability" go out of its way to enable an application that is inherently contradictory to that goal?

Because its existence threatens your non-DRM'ed media how?

Not at all. But on the other hand, if it doesn't advance the very reason for the group to exist, what is the motivation to include it in the standard at all? It is not only up to the developers, the stated purpose of the group is to advance a Web that is "FreedomLibre(tm) or whatever we're calling it this week".

Platforms that mandate DRM (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47165271)

Because its existence threatens your non-DRM'ed media how?

The existence of digital restrictions management encourages the design of distribution platforms that forbid publishers from making a DRM-free release even if they want to. This has already happened with Blu-ray Disc, which requires all discs with menus to carry DRM (BDMV requires the payment of AACS royalties and BDAV appears to disallow rich menus), and with video game consoles.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164489)

The problem is: DRM is legally unresearchable. From a security standpoint, putting DRM in a security critical system is a good way to get hacked.

Firefox is at least trying to sandbox the shit out of the DRM, but IMHO that's a losing battle as the requirements placed upon them interfere with the design of a good sandbox.

Re:Linux soon? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 months ago | (#47164955)

Firefox may bring the EME interface to Linux, but it's up to Adobe to make the CDM work on Linux. I suspect they won't be allowed to due to the lack of platform level DRM.

They've been doing this for a year (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#47164011)

They've been doing this for a year on Chrome OS [netflix.com]

Re:They've been doing this for a year (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164057)

lol people willingly use ChromeOS?

Re: They've been doing this for a year (4, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#47164077)

People willingly use $200 computers that only browse the Internet when all they want from a computer is to browse the internet.

FUnny (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47164187)

"... only browse the Internet ..."

It just occurred to me that 'only browse the internet' is archaic.
Because you can do anything on the internet, so 'only' doesn't apply.

Re:FUnny (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 months ago | (#47165101)

It just occurred to me that 'only browse the internet' is archaic. Because you can do anything on the internet, so 'only' doesn't apply.

I'm having a hard time ripping, editing, and re-encoding my Blu-ray discs, via the internet. Perhaps you could help?

Is there an HTML5 version of Blender for 3D modeling, on the internet somewhere? How about online GIMP for full-fledged image editing?

And "SSH" "on the internet" doesn't work well at all.

Re: They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164249)

and let all their data live in an ad networks cloud. what a deal!

Re: They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164689)

Remeber though -- if you pay an apparently low (or even zero) price for something like this, you are probably selling part of yourself off in the deal.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164109)

Not necessarily willingly, but they use it.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164181)

Its called post-purchase rationalization.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164119)

It's on the wife's chrome book and I don't have to do any support on it. It's the best OS I've every had the fortune not use at all.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#47165123)

lol people willingly use ChromeOS?

I have a chromebook that I use for checking email, slashdot, etc. if I'm travelling light.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (1)

Manuka (4415) | about 3 months ago | (#47164191)

That's because ChromeOS has supported MSE for MPEG-DASH for about a year now. At this point, Netflix is in the driver's seat for pushing DASH adoption. They'll be early to the game on H.265 as well.

Re:They've been doing this for a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164381)

Implementing a transport protocol is the easy part though. Whose DRM module is Netflix going to use, Apple's, or did they have Apple implement Netflix'. And what DRM module is Netflix using on ChromeOS.

no plugins? (0)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 3 months ago | (#47164085)

An "extension" doesn't count as a "plugin"?

Re:no plugins? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164125)

if I plug it in to my iphone (taken over by sensor-integrated PrimeSense), or I use CNTV PLAYER (Chinese State media streaming courtesy of Israeli-intelligence-operation AKAMAI) will it display the FaceBooger feed correctly??

Re:no plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164217)

"AKAMAI" and "PrimeSense" equals "existential threat" to internet freedom (not to mention privacy and national security{unless none of your friends use fb OR an iphone})

Signed, Perversely Invaded

Re:no plugins? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164135)

They mean extensions to the standard, not the browser.

Re:no plugins? (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47164149)

It's still a binary blob that has to do some function that is not covered by any standard. Calling it by a different name or pretending that such plugins are part of the official standard doesn't really change anything.

You still need a platform specific binary blob.

Re:no plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164183)

No, an extension of standards implemented in the browser itself does not count as a plugin. Because it's not an add-on. The media streaming standard has been extended, not the browser.

Re:no plugins? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47164221)

Nope.

Plugins live outside the browser processor space.

Of course the industry often doesn't use the terms correctly, so the definitions might be moot.

Re:no plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164323)

Nice techno-babble, I hope you don't believe you're actually correct.

Re:no plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164647)

What exactly is a "processor space"? Why not just say that plugins run as separate processes from the browser?

One more step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164113)

Ditch Microsoft altogether and you'll be done.

About friggin time. (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 months ago | (#47164121)

Because Silverlight *NEVER* worked on the Mac under Chrome. Video would stutter, the audio wouldn't play, it was a useless mess that reminded you that the internet is a minefield of incompatible "standards" and brought me back to the old days of "it must be cool if it crashed my browser"!

Re:About friggin time. (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 3 months ago | (#47164421)

Then you have a shitty computer, slow connection or user error. I've been using it on 10.6 for over 2 yrs on my MBP. I usually watch a movie before bed while in bed, so maybe a good 2-3 movies a week on it and I've never experienced what you speak of.

saves battery (5, Insightful)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 3 months ago | (#47164165)

also, it saves a bunch of battery to run it in html5 than in the silverlight. for a macbook air you can get an extra 2 hours watching netflix in html5 instead of silverlight! that's huge!

"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (5, Informative)

Manuka (4415) | about 3 months ago | (#47164185)

From the looks of this, the technical version of what this means is that Netflix has been working closely with Apple to bring MPEG-DASH Media Stream Extensions to Safari (they're already present in Chrome and IE11), and that MSE will be in the Yosemite release of Safari. This is good news for MPEG-DASH adoption. Hopefully we'll also start seeing hardware H.265/HEVC support in new silicon soon which will really open up the door for 4K (and significantly reducing current bandwidth usage for 2K/HD)

Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as "HTML5 Video". There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they "support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming). Silverlight is HTTP-based, but not supported directly in the browser (Microsoft missed a golden opportunity with IE10+ to do that), and Adobe also has an HTTP transport called HDS, but it's not useful outside of Flash.

Once you've figured that much out, then you have to figure out what codecs your browser supports. If you're trying to stream live to Firefox, your options are pretty much Flash or nothing, since it supports neither HLS, DASH, or H.264, although MSE is being developed into the Firefox code, it's not ready yet - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/MediaSourceExtensions

And if you're running Android, all bets are off depending on Google's whims for that particular version's stock browser. When Android 4.1 came out they took HLS support OUT of the Android browser and at the same time got rid of Flash support, which means that in-browser streaming on Android became limited to the ancient RTSP protocol (HLS is still supported in the OS media player, and can also be accessed via API). Chrome for Android sort of supports MSE for DASH, but not yet. Google isn't part of DASH-IF, so they're not exactly anxious to support it on Android.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

simonbp (412489) | about 3 months ago | (#47164255)

"very recent versions of Chrome"

It's been supported for around a year now on the ARM chromebooks. Which, combined with their HDMI output, makes them great Netflix boxes for on the road.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

Manuka (4415) | about 3 months ago | (#47164375)

Chromecast also supports DASH.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 months ago | (#47164711)

Depends on what you consider "recent". Chrome was first released in 2008 so it is nearly 6 years old.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164283)

i bet you're an absolute blast at parties.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164315)

His/her post was informative. Information is why I come here.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

Manuka (4415) | about 3 months ago | (#47164349)

Streaming is what I do for a living. On a daily basis I encounter a lot of misinformation perpetrated by marketing schmucks.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (2)

Manuka (4415) | about 3 months ago | (#47164361)

(and yes, I do own one of these shirts: http://shirt.woot.com/offers/online-debate-team)

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164473)

i bet you're an absolute blast at parties.

The parent was being extremely informative, and strongly on-topic for a site theoretically aimed at techies.

Your response in contrast was a complete waste of space. Beats me what you're doing here at all.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164627)

Firefox has supported both the basic HTML video tag and H264 (where available) for quite a while now, and even has rudimentary DASH support in pre-release versions. In fact, YouTube already works with Firefox and "HTML5 video" to a degree. So it's just the advanced EME/DASH features that Firefox isn't working with yet, and that's hardly a problem for most people - just big companies who "need" the advanced features.

Just because NetFlix wanted to help Google, Microsoft and Apple out first doesn't mean Firefox isn't working hard to figure out these ever-shifting sands on their own. It's the DRM component that they were struggling with the most, and presumably will continue to struggle with given how little NetFlix gives a crap about the (relatively) little guy.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 months ago | (#47164761)

Just because NetFlix wanted to help Google, Microsoft and Apple out first doesn't mean Firefox isn't working hard to figure out these ever-shifting sands on their own.

Or maybe Netflix as a company wants to do whatever is necessary to ensure more consumers use their services. If that means working with others to ensure that people don't need a plugin to see their videos that's what they are going to do. It's not so much about helping others as helping themselves.

It's the DRM component that they were struggling with the most, and presumably will continue to struggle with given how little NetFlix gives a crap about the (relatively) little guy.

You are aware that Netflix generally does not hold any copyrights on the content they distribute and that the copyright holders can (and do) insist on DRM? You seem to think that it is Netflix who is alone in DRM. I think if it was to Netflix, they wouldn't give a damn. It costs them more money to implement DRM and systems.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

Creepy (93888) | about 3 months ago | (#47165147)

Yep, and Netflix has even said that the reason the DRM is there is because the studios require it. Even when Netflix told them some of it is easy to work around (like region requirements), they still required it, and thus we get plugins like mediahint.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47164831)

Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as "HTML5 Video". There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they "support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming).

RTMP is flash only [stackoverflow.com] . There is no native browser support for RTMP.

The IETF has recognized this codec and even protocol mess, and they try to make a mandatory to implement codec for WebRTC. However, they are not very [webrtchacks.com] successful.

WebRTC can be added to your list instead. It also allows unidirectional video, but is not scalable [stackoverflow.com] (yet).

you're smart but wrong (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 3 months ago | (#47164851)

you have an amazing grasp of this topic...

but you're arguing rhetoric and being pedantic...here's how:

"support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser:

you say "it doesn't exist"...

then say there are "5...ways to send video" via HTML5

the problem is YOU...you don't understand that Netflix was foolish to use Silverlight, and only did it b/c they had to make Netflix work with anything...M$ forced Netflix to use Silverlight

you know exactly what TFA is talking about...as you plainly demonstrate, and further, you demonstrate how, technically, this is a big improvement to use HTML5

Silverlight is another example of M$ creep...getting rid of M$ creep sometimes involved **institutional change** b/c of how entrenched M$'s products have become

it's like removing a brain tumor

Re: you're smart but wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47165075)

You just made a lot of no sense whatsoever.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 3 months ago | (#47164873)

you can always do DASH in Flash like Youtube :)
or raw mpeg streaming in javascript if you are crazy enough
https://github.com/phoboslab/j... [github.com]
http://phoboslab.org/log/2013/... [phoboslab.org]
http://phoboslab.org/log/2013/... [phoboslab.org]

and look, iOS streaming app using this code: http://instant-webcam.com/ [instant-webcam.com]

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164981)

If you're trying to stream live to Firefox, your options are pretty much Flash or nothing, since it supports neither HLS, DASH, or H.264, although MSE is being developed into the Firefox code, it's not ready yet - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/MediaSourceExtensions

Firefox does support H.264; I use ffmpeg to convert my home videos to H.264 for my vanity site, and they work great as HTML5 videos on iOS, Android, Firefox, and IE which covers all the use cases in my family that I'm aware of.

Not sure if there's some extra consideration for "streaming live" that I'm not aware of.

Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 months ago | (#47165059)

in-browser streaming on Android became limited to the ancient RTSP protocol

Meanwhile, it runs on the even older TCP/IP protocols!!! What's the name for something a DECADE older than "ancient"?

Silver lining? (1)

joelholdsworth (1095165) | about 3 months ago | (#47164233)

It seems to me that an EME module would be much easier to crack than a full browser plugin. In which case I predict that the secret keys will be disclosed rather soon.

Re:Silver lining? (2)

Ark42 (522144) | about 3 months ago | (#47164389)

It looks to me like the EME would basically be a DLL on Windows, and I don't see why you can't rename the DLL to something else, and drop in a shim DLL that Firefox loads. The shim DLL then loads the real EME DLL, and just proxies all the API calls back and forth. Encrypted data goes into the shim, to the EME, decrypted video comes back. The shim would then be free to copy and redirect the decrypted video elsewhere. I doubt Firefox or the real EME would even know that it was happening.
If the EME is rendering the video itself, Firefox still has to pass it information about what surface to render to, and the shim DLL can just as easily fake that rendering surface and "render" to a file or something.
And it's not like Firefox can be forced to only load a certain signed EME DLL - you'd just recompile your own Firefox with a new key pair to loan your own signed shim.

Re:Silver lining? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 months ago | (#47164771)

The module will undoubtedly enforce the use of Microsoft's Protected Media Path [wikipedia.org] to try and protect the buffer. At least on Windows.

And ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164245)

And nothing of value was lost.

Silverlight was a crap platform from the beginning. Like so many things Microsoft invents, it was garbage from the get go.

So basically this is the beginning of the end (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164259)

for silverlight? With 70% market penetration, a lot of which is probably netflix subscribers, what will keep people interested in developing for/using silverlight given that there are more utilized and better alternatives?

Re:So basically this is the beginning of the end (3, Informative)

MikeDataLink (536925) | about 3 months ago | (#47164799)

Silverlight has been dead for a long time. Microsoft officially ended all future development of Silverlight in March of 2013. This is just the natural progression of its funeral.

Re:So basically this is the beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164847)

Silverlight was stillborn.

Re:So basically this is the beginning of the end (4, Informative)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 3 months ago | (#47164841)

Hopefully, nothing will keep people interested in developing for Silverlight, given that Silverlight is dead. This isn't the beginning of the end -- the beginning of the end was when Microsoft announced that Silverlight 5, released three years ago, was going to be the last version of Silverlight released. I'm not saying "Silverlight is dead" as hyperbole -- it's officially a discontinued product.

References:

http://social.msdn.microsoft.c... [microsoft.com]

http://social.msdn.microsoft.c... [microsoft.com]

It will continue to be supported by Microsoft until 2021, but nothing new's happening with it.

It also means.... (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#47164467)

a very reliable XBMC Netflix plugin for linux is around the corner... faking a Mac running Safari will be easy so we can get netflix goodness in the best Media center you can have.

Re:It also means.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164881)

No. It's not a matter of masquerading the browser id; it's "plugin-free" because Mac OS X Safari will come bundled with support for the proprietary decryption blob (like Chromebooks and IE11). XBMC will not have that. Maybe the closed-source, proprietary Adobe blob that Firefox will start bundling will enable Netflix support.

MSFT is afraid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47164477)

A coworker called Netflix because she could not get videos to run in her browser any longer. They transferred her to MSFT support, who proceeded to give her about 4 hours of phone support, and when that did not work, overnighted two Windows 7 install disks to her (both 32bit & 64bit) because she could not find her OEM (HP) recovery disks. Then about 5 more hours of support and a reinstall of Windows 7 later, they had IE working with Netflix again - total bill: $0.00.

When else have you heard of support like that from Microsoft?

Re:MSFT is afraid (1)

ChrisSlicks (2727947) | about 3 months ago | (#47164823)

It should never be that painful. What kind of crap DRM is so tightly interwoven into the OS that it requires a complete reinstall to fix it? I can't play Netflix on this PC either due to Silverlight DRM being hosed. I'm not going to spend countless hours trying to fix it either, I'll just wait for HTML5 support and use a different PC in the meantime.

Re:MSFT is afraid (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47164987)

All of this is just reason to avoid this nonsense on PCs entirely and just use a dedicated video streamer or some combination of tablet+streamer.

Even on Windows, these plugins are inefficient and fail to take advantage of the hardware acceleration available to "hobbyware".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>