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?
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.
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.
"and you could always write a better one."
Please show me a link to an RTMPE specification.
Reverse engineered ones are not allowed.
"Adobe's player is not great, but it works"
Depends on how you define "working". I define "working" as "can play H.264 video with at most a 50% CPU resource penalty compared to other implementations".
By this definition, it isn't working - a 1.6 GHz Intel Atom has no problem playing Hulu-resolution H.264 video smoothly. (Actually, thanks to rtmpdump, I have tested actual Hulu content), while a 2 GHz Athlon XP slideshows, and an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 + Nvidia 8800GT still has visible framerate stuttering on a regular basis.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
HTML5 advocates should really give an option for content security aka DRM, that is how real World works for now...
Even if they wanted to, how would you propose that they do that? It would be trivial enough to add a "donotallowworthlesspirateusertocopyonpainofdeath" option to the video tag; but that would only be as useful as the various browser's enforcement of it. You might get some vendors on board(though that would hardly be a given. The FOSS guys hate DRM on principle, and the corporates already have their own DRM systems, and it isn't clear that they want the competition); but you would have absolutely no way to go after the ones that refused, or the fly-by-night redistribution of copies of firefox compiled with the -ignore_DRM_flags option set.
If you observe real world DRM systems, they are all either single-party(WMDRM, Fairplay, etc.) or multi-vendor standards controlled by IP cartels bristling with patents that you must license in order to implement whatever the attached spec is(CSS, HDCP, AACS). HTML5 is in neither position. There would be absolutely no way to stop the proliferation of implementations compliant enough to receive the video; but noncompliant with respect to denying it to the user(good luck, for instance, having your site distinguish between a good-faith/best-effort DRM implementing webkit build, and a slightly tweaked build that reports exactly the same ID strings but "accidentally" lets the precious premium content sit in a snoopable memory location...
On closed platforms, where undesired binaries can simply be excluded, it'd be trivial enough; but there would be Just No Way on PCs generally.
Wow. Talk about over-complicating things.
It's quite simple. Customers are the ones who pay. If you're not paying anything, you're not a customer.
I agree. That's exactly why I dispute the use of "consumer" to describe paying customers as though the terms were interchangable. This discussion where the distinction between customer and consumer is relevant is what brought up this subject.
This is overly complex for whom? You and your ability to handle a small amount of complexity? You and your unwillingness to see that these developments are not random but are in fact carefully engineered and deployed? Your inability to find the slightest fascination in this because you long ago gave up your natural curiosity and desire to understand the world around you? Your need to berate me because you would have given this a more superficial treatment? I take it I am supposed to believe that you have found a flaw with me rather than showing me a flaw in you.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein