Slashdot Mirror
No HTML5 Hulu Anytime Soon
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "The Hulu website briefly commented the other day about why they would not be implementing HTML5 video for their service: 'We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs. Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user.' They plan to release a dedicated application for the iPad and iPhone instead, likely a paid subscription service. Perhaps this is a good sign for Web-based television, as it will move more users away from the single, locked down channel from the networks and to more diverse options less interested in extracting subscription fees (like YouTube)."
... so Flash isn't completely dead for video on the web. I wonder if Hulu and Adobe are in cahoots?
that flash sucks and HTML5 is bestest way to stream video
Of all of the streaming services I use, they are by far the worst. Full screen mode makes their content skip frames consistently.
It always seems like the websites that insist on all these extras suck compared to the smooth easy playback of sites like You tube. Some sites are just unwatchable (Frequent "Video Buffering", stream drops bypassing 5-10 mins going to the next commercial break), whereas I never have trouble with You tube.
And we're not on any rinky-dink connection either, We have business class internet service through Covad for our webservers.
Honesty in this case - admitting that "our customers" (plus their needs) and their users aren't the same thing...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Perhaps this is a good sign for Web-based television, as it will move more users away from the single, locked down channel from the networks and to more diverse options less interested in extracting subscription fees (like YouTube).
Say what now?
What 'single locked down channel' are we discussing here? There is presently more than Hulu alive on the web now, is there not? Please do clarify, dear submitter.
it must also secure the content
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason it won't happen. HTML5 is just too open for them. With Flash there are still various tricks to secure the stream (I believe the BBC iPlayer used to XOR it or something like that...)
"It's a lot of work, and we don't want to do it unless we have to." would have been more honest.
> Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content
in other words: "oh noes, people will notice that it's actually quite easy to download the files that they should only stream and we don't want them to realize that there is nothing we can do about this".
... handle reporting for our advertisers, ...
There's the real issue.
But what, pray tell, are the advertisers looking for? And what is it that HTML5 can't do that Flash can?
I mean, they interrupt the show with the ads so it's not like you can get around it easily, so what's the big deal?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
"Sorry, we are unable to stream this video. Please check your Internet connection and try again."
Funny....I can immediately fire up a WinXP VM client on the same Linux host, and Hulu plays fine.
Good thing there are other streaming sites and, uh, methods, that work.
Speaking of content security and HTML5 doesn't have it _yet_, as an extension... Options are:
1) Real Networks architecture
2) Quicktime DRM (yes, it exists, media keys)
3) WMedia DRM
4) Silverlight DRM
They got options and yet, I don't think they are less hated or feasible (Real Networks bad image, quicktime being gigantic windows app) than Adobe Flash.
IMHO they will even code an Adobe Air dedicated application in the future, Air already got actual direct TCP/UDP connection capability in V2+. HTML5 advocates should really give an option for content security aka DRM, that is how real World works for now... Unfortunately that is.
Adobe Flash is an open, fully implemented cross-platform and fairly simple de facto standard. Adobe's player is not great, but it works, and you could always write a better one.
The canvas element is a nowhere-fully-implemented convoluted mess on top of the mess that is HTML 5, ostensibly an "open standard" but really nothing more than Apple's troll into the increasingly corporation-dominated W3C to squeeze Flash out so anything worth using on their new legion of devices will have to be written using yet more proprietary Cocoa.
Neither Flash nor canvas are in the spirit of HTML, in that they basically provide a blank sheet outside the DOM. If you believe that modular plug-ins fit for purpose are good, Flash is a reasonable approach; if you believe that a heavy monolithic design is appropriate what with the superpower of modern CPUs, HTML5 with canvas is cool. If you actually like HTML, use SVG and build on that standard.
As Apple is in perfect shape now, I would be questioning "Why on earth our own Quicktime, even with DRM since V5 not even considered as an option?"
Someone should really start asking these questions now, that great framework is really being wasted. They didn't even bother to ship Quicktime X for Windows. Before attacking other companies frameworks/players/plugins, he should check the shape and missed opportunities of Quicktime department in Apple.
I was having this conversation just yesterday. ABC was able to release a IPad app that played the same video they have on Hulu.. the Advertising looks the same.. it looks like they just made hulu play a different format for the IPad. This also brings up a point, why has Adobe not made a player for flash like Apple did with YouTube? it may launch the video in its own player. This would not help for Flash games or it may work the same.. I don't know I do know that Adobe would get more support from me if they created a real app and was denied than just crying about how Apple did not let them. and for Hulu, they have proven to me that they are not really interested in going outside of what they already offer, so its no real surprise that they have not made an app or worked on making the site more compatible with other devices. for me it matters little as Comcast is either filtering and giving less bandwidth to Hulu to make everything I watch pause 3 or 4 times during a show, and Verizon DSL.. Forget it .. not worth the bother
if its not the internet than I would go with Hulu can not keep up with streaming video.. but people on FIOS do not have the same issues. so I am sticking with its the fault of the internet provider.
I am of the opinion, That content providers talk about streaming media, but still do not see the market.
This proves once again that when the customers are advertisers the best solution is Flash. It will be some time before another technology becomes this ad friendly. As the article notes, HTML is great at delivering content, but not DRM or advertising.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Lets say HTML5 becomes the perfect tool to a point that even Adobe starts to depreciate their own stuff for it... What will be done about the needs of professional content creators? DRM? Anti-rip? Today's media logic says "There has to be some sort of inconvenience and responsibility creating thing in a media framework". For example, everyone knows DVD CSS is dead,easily cracked but it is still implemented on movies especially to create a situation that user has to run "illegal software" to rip the commercial DVD.
How do you implement DRM "openly"? Remember Real Networks CEO suggested Linux/BSD guys should really think about a DRM standard and everyone (rightfully) laughed at him? HTML5 now has the same issue, globally.
The proxies don't always work..
Can't we put them out of business? Or at least reduce their clout?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs."
In case you EVER wondered, unless you are an advertiser or owner of content, you are not the customer for Hulu.
The HTML5 spec authors would do well to read that hulu blog. If they really want HTML5 to win, they need to provide the support necessary so sites like hulu can do what they want to do.
Really hulu has made it very easy for them, giving them an explicit goal to shoot for.
While people love to hate on Flash, it actually performs quite will for video on most systems. It can chat with the video card and use it to accelerate decoding. This is important for HD content because you start to discover that HD can hit even a modern dual core hard if there's no acceleration. Well Flash accelerates nicely on Windows, and is supposed to be getting the ability to do so on the Mac (not sure on the status, I don't have a Mac).
Now I'm sure HTML5 can have this done, but it has to be done in the browsers people use before it would be a real contender. Saying "Well it could in theory accelerate video," does you fuck-all good if the web browsers out there don't do it. The net effect would be people would find HTML5 video choppy and it would bog their system down whereas Flash wouldn't. They wouldn't care about the reasons, they'd just say "This sucks."
For that matter, all the dynamic HTML5 type stuff itself may need new browser architectures. An interesting test to look at it Microsoft's IE9 platform preview (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/). They've got a whole bunch of different demos of various types. Now the interesting thing is to look at them in Firefox, and in the IE9 preview. IE9 kills it speed wise, and function wise. Most things run twice as fast or more, and things like text scaling is smooth and fluid as you'd see in Flash, not jumpy.
So to truly have a good HTML5 experience, we may need a new generation of browser that makes good use of the video card to accelerate everything. As far as I know, there's nothing that does that right now, since IE9 is just a preview (and not really usable as a general web browser) and none of the rest are doing it. We may have to wait awhile before browsers can perform up to the level people would want with HTML5.
This way everyone wins. Hulu doesn't have to redesign their whole site, and iUsers access the site via an app instead of a website so Steve Jobs gets to maintain his control over his platform. One potential problem would arise if any Hulu content said anything bad about Apple. Remember that apps have been kicked off for mentioning competitors, so surely content that criticized Apple would result in an app getting rejected?
While we're on the subject of locked down channels and Hulu, one thing they could certainly get away with charging a subscription for is a mobile version of Hulu. I'm hardly ever willing to pay a subscription fee for anything, but I would gladly pay it to watch Hulu on my phone. (I can already do this with YouTube for free but there's nothing I really want to watch on there)
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Would someone like to disabuse them of the belief that you can hand locked content and content keys to the consumers without giving them the unlocked content? (My reverse engineering of flash apps just isn't up to snuff). Then there would only be legitimate technical considerations like injecting advertising streams and site controlled caching before moving away from flash.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
Perhaps this is a good sign for Web-based television, as it will move more users away from the single, locked down channel from the networks and to more diverse options less interested in extracting subscription fees (like YouTube)."
You misspelled "torrents"
The rest of us will wonder what took you so long
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
How about the iPhone uses Sliverlight!!
Wait.. something there seems off a bit.
We were able to see right through it, sure, but from TFS:
Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user.
Unless that's a particularly bad quote, they're actually lying about HTML5, or at least about continuing to monitor it. An HTML5-based player can indeed handle reporting for your advertisers and use a high-performance codec (or really, whatever codec you want). Communicating back to the server is certainly possible. The only thing that's not reasonable is switching bitrates on-the-fly and implementing any sort of DRM.
Switching bitrates may be a legitimate concern. DRM is legitimate insofar as it's not up to Hulu -- they have to implement DRM because it's what their "customers" want. Everything else is pure unadulterated FUD, so no, Hulu gets no credit for it -- they were trying to give the impression that HTML5 is missing tons of stuff they need (including DRM), when really, all that's missing is DRM and switching bitrates mid-stream.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
AFAIK, Hulu has never ever promised anyone anywhere an app of any kind. There have been rumors that an app is in the works, and is "just a few months away," but these speculative reports (released every few months) are the only thing I've seen. So, if by "hulu app for iPhone and iPad" they mean "rumors of a hulu app for iPhone and iPad," then they're totally successful...
I didn't realize Noam Chomsky was a slashdotter!
Well, what happens when you tell your customers not to bother? In my experience, unless you deal with self producing artist or a really modern producer who really knows about current trends, they said "they better struggle so we can keep the real pros responsible".
These guys are very powerful in video World and basically, whatever they don't want doesn't take off. If they see HTML5 as something they can't easily advertise on or protect (!), it doesn't take off. You know the lame things Apple does at their Quicktime Trailers page. That is the company who will truly support HTML5, down to their mighty popular trailers page right?
Quicktime does have DRM, it is just Apple, knowing the human nature, named it differently. It is "Media Keys". It exists but of course, I didn't have a mad idea like using Quicktime DRM solution in production environment. iTunes DRM is actually built on it, not sure if it is something like "V2.0" or pure implementation.
Unlike Apple, GPU access (to the point of video decoding) is something existing since Windows XP on Microsoftland, they could use the time frame to ship a GPU decoder enabled Quicktime X for Windows, to shut up all "Quicktime for Windows is bad" trolls once and forever.
Even Adobe managed to code a GPU accelerated Flash plugin :) Imagine...
The reason I am mad to Quicktime department at Apple is: I know what kind of a powerful platform it is, it is wasted, plain and simple.
Hulu certainly does not represent the viewers interests or the internet's interest. If Hulu says they represent their "customers' needs", well, their definition of customer is certainly not the viewer.
Securing content slows down the internet because it takes up more bandwidth to happen. Where's the net-neutrality friendly approach here?
Handling reporting to the advertisers is certainly something viewers don't care about. Can't they just use their web/media server logs and submit the data without creating direct connections from the viewers' web browser? I find all this advertiser functionality just excuses for prying on viewer privacy. Again it takes up needless bandwidth. Where's the net-neutrality friendly approach here?
Rendering video with a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality is absurd because it implies the viewer having premium quality hardware which is exclusively expensive. I'm sure many people are perfectly content with normal NTSC resolution and quality. Rendering should be more in line with the lowest common denominator in order to catch the widest possible viewer audience on the widest possible number of devices.
HULU also discriminates against viewers not residing in the U.S.A. What's the point of having an internet if you are not going to extend your audience to the entire internet's reach? HULU are a bunch of idiots and don't have a clue as to what viewer audience they are losing.
I won't be using HULU until they get their act together and acknowledge viewers that 1)use Linux 2)use non-FLASH html5 alternatives and 3)are located in elsewhere on the internet, NOT IN THE U.S.A..
It sounds like Hulu intends to screw iPad and iPhone/iPod users by making them pay through the nose for some sort of subscription service while those whose devices support Flash get it for free? Everyone ought to boycott Hulu.
As far as I know, the object in HTML5 does not allow swapping out the referenced video while it's playing with another one encoded at a different bitrate. Silverlight does this for you with its streaming engine, with Flash it's at least possible to synchronize all the components, but it's rarely done. (You need to synchronize audio and video to a high degree of precision to avoid the user noticing.)
Uh, that's great about Silverlight and all, but doesn't Hulu use Flash?
You're almost the definition of a fanboi:
Good Ideas: Apple invented them and they're only suing because everybody steals from them
Bad Ideas: Apple didn't want to do it, but the RIAA made them do it (never mind that the songs aren't even copy protected at this point...)
Just stop. Apple sucks lately. Doesn't matter how many new/shiny toys they make, they suck lately.
Not "unsolved". "Unsolvable". The whole thought process behind DRM is that the customer is your adversary. At that point you're already fucked.
HAND.