YouTube Offers Experimental Opt-In HTML5 Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Offers Experimental Opt-In HTML5 Video

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:40AM from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.

bonch writes "YouTube is now offering the experimental option to view all YouTube videos using HTML5 in H.264 format. Supported browsers are Chrome, Safari, and the ChromeFrame plug-in for Internet Explorer. Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon."

20 of 265 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Should be a selling feature... by Orne · 2010-01-21 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon.
The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?
1. Re:Should be a selling feature... by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-21 03:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, you could sign into an account on YouTube and turn them off.
2. Re:Should be a selling feature... by rumith · 2010-01-21 03:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here
3. Re:Should be a selling feature... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-21 03:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?
  Captions? They are opt-in, and they can be very useful for hard of hearing people (if the video creators do add them, that is...)
  Agreed on the others, though.
4. Re:Should be a selling feature... by jollyreaper · 2010-01-21 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, you could sign into an account on YouTube and turn them off.
  And let them track how many cute, fluffy kitten videos I watch? Er, I mean how many boob videos I watch? And car crashes. And explosions! People falling off skateboards. Grr, manly videos! That's right. Anyway, I think not.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
5. Re:Should be a selling feature... by slim · 2010-01-21 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Good to see Firefox not opting into a system that pushes us towards a non-free de-facto standard.
  We don't want to sleep walk into a situation where anyone who wants to encode video that they expect to be widely usable, must pay for a non-free license.
  True, Firefox walks a fine line, because it could lose market share, in which case it will all be in vain. We need ubiquitous, cheap chipsets that support Theora - or something else free. That won't happen if everyone just rolls over and pays for H.264.
6. Re:Should be a selling feature... by Yvan256 · 2010-01-21 04:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it. Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.
  If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.
7. Re:Should be a selling feature... by nine-times · 2010-01-21 05:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Part of the problem is that h264 licensing fees are generally hidden. You don't pay for a license, your hardware/software vendor does. Apple and Microsoft and Google all buy the licenses for you and include them in their products. It's hard to convey the importance of the licenses for non-free codecs if they seem to be free.
8. Re:Should be a selling feature... by mblase · 2010-01-21 05:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos. You don't HAVE to watch it. That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING. Don't like it? TURN IT OFF.
  Just because you're hard-of-hearing doesn't mean you have to shout all the time.
9. Re:Should be a selling feature... by tepples · 2010-01-21 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Boobies on YouTube. Unlikely to get flagged.
10. Re:Should be a selling feature... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-21 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Apple and Microsoft and Google all buy the licenses for you"
  Apple doesn't. Apple is one of the patent holders in the H.264 pool. As a result, they can instead cross-license with all the other pool members outside of the pool. This is why you don't see them listed as a licensee (google and msft are fully paid up).
  In Google's case they are already so far beyond the annual organizational maximum that H.264 is fairly cheap for them, and they can't reduce their costs by using something else. But the costs are quite oppressive to start-ups and new players and makes great ammo against open source solutions.
11. Re:Should be a selling feature... by BZ · 2010-01-21 06:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's been seriously considered. The reason it's not being done (yet?) is described at http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html
Re:Hmm by BhaKi · 2010-01-21 03:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-21 04:21 · Score: 5, Informative

No. Firefox video tag is free formats only. Tools like mplayer are a cesspool of security holes— they aren't designed to be exposed to hostile content. The video tag requires pretty deep browser integration, ... only apple supports using the native infrastructure and even they disable 99% of their features for security reasons (e.g. try a mov with hyperlinks in it).
Mozilla is committed to an open web, and you can't get their with a wink and a nod and asking users to install codec software which is illegal everywhere in the developed world. (Including europe. I'm so tired of seeing people characterized codec licensing as a US thing— there are more European patents on codecs than US patents)
Works great in my side by side comparison by jschen · 2010-01-21 04:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Using Safari/OSX (latest version of each) on a first generation Core2 Duo laptop (2.33 GHz), I tried watching the same video (containing no ads, annotations, etc) at the same size using both the default Flash option and the beta HTML5 option. CPU use was a steady 33-34% during playback in Flash. A steady 12-13% in HTML5. Seems like a winner to me.
Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now by Mr.+DOS · 2010-01-21 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.
Yeah I tried that. I had to move back down to 10.0 because while the performance was better, videos looked like crap because hey, guess what, 10.1 doesn't have nice-looking video scaling! I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Flash eat my CPU alive than feel like gouging my eyes out due to uneven pixelation.
--- Mr. DOS
Re:Plugin/Add-on? by Ken_g6 · 2010-01-21 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? by GreatBunzinni · 2010-01-21 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? by Yvan256 · 2010-01-21 05:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I didn't say that Theora needs triple storage capacity. I said that Google would need to triple their storage capacity, the first 100% being taken by H.264 files (obviously).
As for that page you linked to, look at the screenshots. There's nothing subjective about them, H.264 is the clear winner. If you can't see that then you need to calibrate your monitor. Same bandwidth = lower quality results using Theora.
Re:What about firefox (ogg video)? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-21 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Being a codec snob is trendy.
The reality of it is much less exciting.
Youtube already supports several versions of the files, they could probably drop the flash 7 compatibility in exchange for Theora. In terms of numbers of client Ogg/Theora for firefox is probably a better deal than flash 7. Adding one more to a half dozen isn't a tripling.