Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Explains Where HTML5 Video Fails
awjr writes "YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 <video> tag has and may never have."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Is the video tag in HTML5 a kludge? Yes. Is it more an ideal than a practical implementation? Sure. Can it compete with a commercial product that has been an accepted part of the web for over 10 years now? Perhaps not. Is it poorly implemented in most modern browsers, with no agreed upon video codec common to any two of them? Yep. Would it be getting any attention at all if Steve Jobs hadn't used it as part of his cheap excuse to block free flash apps from his iControlU line of products? Not likely.
But all that's missing the point. The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior. Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's funny that a lot of these points end with something like "HTML 5 is working on it" or "HTML 5 is just begun" or "Hopefully they all merge to one." And that's the idea of an unfinished specification. With one big exception: DRM (or as the article calls it "Content Protection"). While I don't think it's impossible, I think it's a pretty big effort to produce DRM that content owners (like the MPAA or RIAA) are satisfied with as an open standard. I think they perceive open standards to be inherently insecure (despite several cases of the opposite like OpenSSL).
Right now, YouTube might be forced to stick with Flash in regards to some videos but in the future I think we will see YouTube move as much as it can to HTML 5 and offer Flash as a premium service to content owners who want to deliver their content through Flash's DRM. And I'm fine with that. I don't care that you can redistribute videos of a snapping turtle laying eggs in my parent's garden.
Remember, YouTube is Google and Google has supported HTML 5 at least vocally and with their Chrome browser to the best of their ability.
My work here is dung.
Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.
The "we need DRM, otherwise we can't provide all the content we want to!" argument is horrible, stupid, and insulting.
DRM does not allow businesses to provide content in new markets. DRM allows businesses to provide old markets in places where they make no sense. Every company which complains they can't do X without DRM really means they don't want to do X without magic fairy dust. Meanwhile, everyone and their grandmother is busy providing X without DRM, and the only difference is the companies which want magic fairy dust aren't getting paid.
Monopolies do not exist. People will always acquire the product they want, and if you aren't willing to sell it, all that means is that people will always acquire the product they want without paying you.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
yes. the "choice is easy to make" because *you* arent creating content. only consuming it.
Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.
But that is done entirely server-side and is completely independent of flash vs HTML5 vs animated GIF vs ascii-art. You just make the server look the client IP address up in a location database, and then decide whether to send was was requested or an error message.
"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."
I guess my point is that this sentence is terrible. How did you possibly allow this, /. mod?
The problem is that something that's open might eventually work, whereas something that isn't probably won't unless it's on a blessed platform. Which is the point, if it's a site devoted to Windows or OSX, having content that's not particularly well available beyond those platforms is possibly acceptable. If it's general interest like Youtube is having it be restricted artificially to a couple platforms is clearly not acceptable. Admittedly there's only so much they can do or really should do, but this sort of artificial narrowing of the market is absurd.
At least with VP8 it's available to any platform at present, whether it's been ported is a moot point as the necessary bits to port it are available.
Everyone seems to forget one thing about this blog: it doesn't say that Flash is the holy grail for video streaming and that we should all flock to using Flash and put a ban on the HTML5 codec. No, the author of the blog applauds the efforts being put into HTML5 but warns that the video tag simply isn't finished yet. The moral of the story is that while HTML5's video codec is a great start, it's way too soon to put a ban on Flash because it still offers a lot of functionality that HTML5 does not. There still is valid use for Flash over HTML5.
Youtube says that while Flash may suck, it sucks in a variety of different ways in which HTML5 can't yet suck.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, without DRM, the "This rental is currently unavailable in your country" videos wouldn't be available anywhere. Why don't people understand this? Without protection, content owners will not distribute their content in ways that they think need protection. It's not that hard to understand. They won't say "oh well, we can't do anything to protect our content - lets just upload it all to usenet and go home for the weekend". Your logic is insulting.
It's all down to the decoder. There's a dedicated processor in the iPhone which handles h.264. For the Flash player to be as efficient as any old h.264 you want to play on the iPhone, it would have to use that processor. However Adobe doesn't have the greatest history of using accelerated features (essentially dedicated processors for decoding h.264) of the hardware they target--in fact, they only recently started using accelerated decoding on Windows.
If they don't use the dedicated chip, then they're going to be using the main CPU. It's going to be far less efficient, both in energy usage and in CPU usage. And this applies to all portable devices with acceleration, not just the iPhone. Many laptops have acceleration via the graphics hardware.
Worse, of course, is what happens when you try to move to a platform that Adobe doesn't support? Want to use 64-bit linux? Too bad. Apple wants to change their decoder on the iPhone? They have to convince Adobe to adapt to the new one. That's vendor lock-in, and it's bad for the consumer.