Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Releases Its Own HTML5 Video Player
An anonymous reader writes "Webmonkey has an interesting tidbit about Adobe's release of its own HTML5 video player: 'Adobe has released an embeddable video player that plays HTML5 native video in browsers that support it, and falls back to Flash in browsers that don't. It's cross-browser and cross-platform, so it works on iPhones, iPads and other devices that don't support Flash. Using Adobe's new player, these devices can show videos in web pages without the Flash plug-in.'"
So does anyone have an actual link to an example of the player? That seems like a rather blatant omission from the article.
So where's the link to the source code? I'd like to compile and test this video player.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
A browser plugin designed to play embedded HTML5 video
HTML5 video, whose selling point is to provide video without the need for a browser plugin
I think this just about tops MS and their opaque-binary embedded XML
It will let you view GIFs, JPEGs and PNGs on any page you visit.
I don't understand how this makes tactical sense for Adobe. They've been leaning heavily on their talking points that "80% of online video is in Flash format" and that Apple is depriving their customers by sticking with HTML5 (and not flash). I think there was even a fear that Adobe would jump into the working group and delay HTML5 just to protect Flash. If Adobe is supposedly king of the hill, why would they cede turf by moving towards HTML5? It can't be just to be more buzzword-compliant.
This is good an all, but it doesn't address the biggest issues with Flash:
1) Adobe (and Macromedia before it) give virtually NO control to the end user over how flash objects run. You can't stop them, you can't pause them, you can't unload them, nothing. Technically you can control if they store local shared objects (LSOs) on your machine but the interface for that is terrible. Half the time the pop-up window it prompts with can't even be accessed because of various z-index issues on the page. That is you can't even click the button.
2) It is a CPU hog. Forget the fact that its inherent performance isn't great. The issue is that if you browse the web for any length of time and have multiple tabs open you'll find that your Flash plug-in is taking up all your cpu (or a whole core). Why? because there are all sorts of little flash movies playing in all the pages. Mostly Ads but also paused video players, random web bugs and such. Plus, some of these random are poorly written and have memory leaks. Thus BECAUSE Adobe gives the user no control, you have to just kill the plugin.
Instead of trying to horn in on HTML5 maybe they should fix the fact that Flash is the SPAM of the web. (And yes, Flash itself could be fine... but the business practices they've chose to pursue make it a scourge rather than a blessing).
FlashBlock.. Only play the flash that you want to play. no more cpu hogging!
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Nearly everyone seems to be missing the point to this. It's not something the user installs, it's something that content providers use to provide their video on the server side. This is a GOOD THING - it makes it much easier for websites to transition to HTML5 without alienating users who don't have HTML5-capable browsers.
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
So they shouldn't move towards HTML5? You seem to not like flash and Adobe is giving an option for you to not use flash. Don't even need FlashBlock. Damned if they do damned if they don't....
I think his point is - fix the product you have, rather than create something new.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Flash scales its frame rate to almost nothing when you aren't actually viewing the page that has it.
You're also wrong about its video performance. On some platforms it leads in processor efficiency. It really depends a lot on the platform implementation and the hooks that the platform provides.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I should have known Adobe wasn't really going to embed videos without requiring viewers to install proprietary plugins. After all, people wouldn't have any reason to use Flash anymore if they did.
There are no "z-index" issues, the security dialog box can't be hidden (there was a security issue, but it has been fixed).
Actually, you have to click it more than once to do something, which is weird (and quickly become a pain in the butt when you are working with camera/microphone device within your flash app). It kinda reminds me of the firefox plugin download dialog box (stupid countdown, just let me click install right NOW!), but worse
Get a HTML5 browser and you'll never have to see flash for video again if people use this technique.
Does this mean that the iPhone can play flash videos with this app?
If your browser, or a plugin for it, doesn't support blocking Flash, then you need a new browser.
No.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Its not like Adobe is creating a whole new proprietary flash player or other technology. Its just a video player. They are using (the to be flash replacement) HTML5 as a flash replacement. As the article says, other companies are already doing the same thing with their players. Adobe just made creating the same kind of dual players easier for all.
So does this solve the problems of Flash?
1) Flash is a resource hog.
2) Flash is used mostly for junk - advertising and glitz.
Needs Air installed, and Air makes Flash look beautifully light and svelte. Air slows my machine to a crawl....
It's not exactly difficult to set this sort of thing up yourself - I've certainly done it, and I suspect most of you who're involved in web development have too. All using Adobe's tool will get you is increased vulnerability for your audience to whatever exploits the black hats end up finding in Adobe's "solution".
#DeleteChrome
Wow. If that worked, we'd all be using really spiffy versions of Windows 3.11, on a 3 GHz 386.
Reeses
This is just what we need, Adobe making something that could work well into something that will work slowly. Next thing we know, and html5 will be just as bad as flash and we will all be saying just wait until HTML6, that will solve everything...
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
It's cross-browser and cross-platform, so it works on iPhones, iPads and other devices that don't support Flash.
It would be more accurate to say that iPhones and iPads don't permit Flash. Adobe would be more than happy to support Flash on those platforms -- and probably has code ready to go -- if Apple allowed them to deploy it. The difference is significant and should not be ignored: Flash doesn't work on iDevices because Apple doesn't want it to. It's a repeat of Microsoft's unofficial MSDOS-era policy, "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run," only much, much more brazen.
(Before we resurrect the flamewar about why Apple doesn't allow Flash on its iDevices, allow me to note that I detest Flash and understand Apple's objections, at least the technical ones. I just think that users should be allowed to use whatever software they want on the devices that they've paid for, no matter how much it sucks.)
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The problem with your code is that content of the "embed" element. IE: You actually need to have created some .swf version of the video. It would be nice if you could just specify the video name and the client would either view it directly or - if it is not supported - convert it to flash and view it without you having to create a separate .swf file on the server.
If I understand TFA correctly, that's what this player does. Views the video as it should be done in HTML 5 but if that doesn't work, it is displayed automatically through Flash.
It's like a falcon punch to Android and Blackberry, saying "Looks like iOS is the future".
All the best dreams are unachievable.
A strange plugin. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice page of text?
Disclosure: I teach Flash (among other subjects) for living.
As for the first point... As an end user, I agree that it is annoying. But is it that much different from any other application? You can't do any of those things to a program coded in C++, for example, if the developer hasn't added such features. And adding features such as pausing, is really, really quick and easy in flash. People often don't realize just how much Flash is like other developing enviroments: It is a full scale virtual machine (with garbage collection, etc.) with a full scale object oriented programming language (AS3) attached to it... Developers can use it to create shitty applications that annoy user, or to create nice applications
As for the second... Well, yeah. But that's still not Adobe's fault, in my opinion. They've created a development enviroment and if developers make poor decisions (=adding too many components on each page) that are incompatible with their target audience's browsing habits (=having many tabs open), it's the developers who are to blame.
So, as a software engineer, I can symphatize with their decision: "This is a developing enviroment. Developer has the power. He should have incentitive not to create applications that users want to close immediatelly, anyways.". That said, I do agree that so many Flash applications are so horrible that Adobe should have realized that and created more features to protect the users from the more idiotic developers. Being allowed to pause any flash application, mute the sounds, etc. would be the minium things you should be able to do.
http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody
Isn't that the problem with Windows really? The core is ultimately the same still, right? :)
The biggest problem, I think, is that flash uses ActionScript. Not that the language is bad if you are a good programmer, but it lacks some features like generics. The few guys I know that code actionsript do it badly, a) because the schools in Denmark where you learn those things, do not teach very good programming practices, and b) because ActionScript makes it quite easy to write horrible code. This is not a rant on people who code ActionScript, I am just pointing out that due to the drag-and-drop nature of flash development (ie. the timeline), many inexperienced programmers can make quite cool looking stuff without worrying about the code. Exactly at that point is where the code gets ugly.
'nuff said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0
but how does Adobe 'fix' the problem of site creators putting dozens of flash objects on pages, thus slowing down the page load?
If you put a couple dozen animated GIFS on a page it will kinda slow things down too.
Wow, Adobe has created a wheel once again. And WTF is a widget browser? At first I thought this is what Adobe calls vim, but changed my mind after seeing key phrases: "AIR", "CPU burning", "can't code without IDE".
I think I should mention the Camen Design project as it was first and quite reasonable.
Sports-related spam on slashdot is kinda pointless. I hope you're carring XXXXXX-Large sizes.
The selling point is that you can break away from a proprietary format.
Say I open a WebM video in a browser that doesn't support WebM, such as Safari, IE 8, or IE 9 on a machine whose administrator hasn't yet installed the WebM plug-in. So it falls back to Flash Player, but does Flash Player support WebM now? Or am I trading one non-free format (SWF, which is documented but patented) for another (MPEG-4, which is documented but patented)?
As joost pointed out, it appears to be Adobe's counterpart to video4all, and one who uploads a video has to buy patent licenses for MPEG-4 AVC and AAC.
But you can still accomplish that with HTML5 video as the default, by simply not providing a Theora version.
So are you implying that if I provide a WebM (VP8+Vorbis) version, I should be safe? Or are you talking about patented formats?
Or perhaps the developers live outside of the US
There is still a nexus in the United States if the publisher is in the United States or one viewer is in the United States. Are you prepared to move your business completely out of the United States and then use IPv4 address geolocation to block United States viewers from seeing the H.264 version?
There is prior art for the H.264 codec
I'd like to see a document citing prior art for every claim of every patent in the H.264 pool's patent list.
Thankfully there are high definition video formats that are open and free and players like MPlayer that will play those codecs that already work in every browser + operating system combination.
For both PCs (desktop and laptop) and handhelds (PDAs and smartphones), or just for PCs? Do the browsers on smartphone platforms have a recommended way to call out to some app to play a video? And do the smartphone platforms' gatekeepers authorize such apps?
Well, no more CPU hogging until you unblocked a bunch that are on the same page (like a list of video posts).
I am not devoid of humor.
It sometimes takes forever or it isn't even possible at all in some cases, in which case you'd have to reload the entire page. It's a bug that has been in Flash for too long.
I am not devoid of humor.
I'd like to see a document citing prior art for every claim of every patent in the H.264 pool's patent list [mpegla.com].
The burden of proof is not on me or anyone using open source anything... not on the High Definition Video (and audio) Codec(s) either. Granted High Definition normally is in reference to video not audio. Whether they be just a standard or open source software.
The burden of proof is on the MPEG-LA, of which Microsoft is a member, assuming they think they have a patent or copyright to fight with. As many people have pointed out until its proved in a court of law, its just FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), nothing new there.
They should not be allowed to make vague claims that they have submarine patents. I call BS! If they have a pool of patents as you say, let them stand up in a court of law and prove it.
The depth charges have been launched....boom........splash..... kerboom
The new open media project is called WebM. As expected, the VP8 codec is at the center of WebM. Google acquired the video technology earlier this year, and developers have been itching with anticipation for Google to release VP8 as open source code. Wednesday morning, they got their wish.
Another depth charge is launched....boom........splash..... kerboom
As of June 15, 2010, FFMpeg new release has decoders and encoders for VP8 (via Google's libvpx library)
Another depth charge is launched....boom........splash..... kerboom
x264 is a free software library and application for encoding video streams into the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format, and is is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. The code is written from scratch by Laurent Aimar, Loren Merritt, Eric Petit (OS X), Min Chen (vfw/asm), Justin Clay (vfw), Måns Rullgård, Radek Czyz, Christian Heine (asm), Alex Izvorski, Alex Wright and Jason Garrett-Glaser.
Its way past time for those assumed submarine patents to surface, if they even exist at all. I for one do not believe that they do.
And even if they do have some obscure BS patent they claim is valid, when its not...it DOES NOT MATTER at all....
X.264 was coded/programmed/written from scratch, from the ground up. It is not built on anything related to H.264 whether we believe its open or not.
Game over for the DRM folks with respects to high definition video codecs. And they know it...that is why they only talk and put nothing up. I say put up or shut up! The cowards, they know their house of cards proprietary high definition video codec wise is about to fall. History will show that Mozilla was the smart one here. Smart enough to not pay up to the maximum $5 million license for H.264. They are not stupid...smart like foxes! Apple foolishly is paying royalties....
As to x264:
Performance-wise, x264 can encode 4 or more 1080p streams in realtime on a single consumer-level computer.
x264 forms the core of many web video services, such as Youtube, Facebook, Vimeo, and Hulu. It is also used in television broadcast by companies such as Avail Media.
MPlayer is only one of many players that utilize Theora which utilizes ffmpeg. One of many....
I dare the submarine to rise into a court of law, stand up and be counted. You think they will go up against Google? Yea right.
As for Adobe, why in the heck would you wrap your content in a wrapper when thanks to HTML5 you do not need too! Why depend on anything flash from a company that you know in your heart of hearts will just end up crashing, eating excessive memory and opening up your system to various infec
The burden of proof is on the MPEG-LA
...to show that they apply, that is, that the claims of an MPEG-LA controlled patent read on VP8. But per 35 USC 282, the patents are presumed valid, and the burden of proof that they are invalid is on Google and users of VP8.
until its proved in a court of law, its just FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), nothing new there.
As I understand it, FUD can be rawther effective in getting insurance companies not to underwrite an E&O policy for your business.
They should not be allowed to make vague claims that they have submarine patents.
"Submarine patent" has two meanings. The first, related to a patent application kept alive by repeated amendments, is gone since the US switched from grant+17 to to file+20 in the mid-1990s. The second, meaning merely "a granted patent unknown to potential alleged infringers", is still very much alive. But MPEG-LA doesn't have even those; PDFs on its web site list the patents in each pool.
Its way past time for those assumed submarine patents to surface, if they even exist at all.
In trademark law, you snooze, you lose. A weaker form of this called "laches" is present in patent and copyright case law. A claim of damages for past infringement is estopped if the alleged infringer proves that the patent or copyright owner has delayed filing suit with intent to harm the alleged infringer. But unlike with trademark genericide, this doesn't block the patent or copyright owner from being awarded an injunction and/or damages for infringements after filing suit.
X.264 was coded/programmed/written from scratch, from the ground up. It is not built on anything related to H.264 whether we believe its open or not.
The x264 implementation is based on the H.264 spec. MPEG-LA members claim that their patents are essential to any implementation of a codec that performs the mathematics needed to decode a conforming H.264 stream, whether copied from another implementation or written from scratch.
You think they will go up against Google? Yea right.
The combined market cap of MPEG-LA members exceeds that of Google. So if Oracle (ORCL, $147B MC) can sue Google (GOOG, $196B MC) for some other infringement, surely MPEG-LA members can sue Google for VP8. Or instead, MPEG-LA members could sue major users of VP8, just as certain patent holders are suing makers of phones that run Android OS.
The difference between x.264/VP8/WebM and H.264 is already so slight its laughable.
I am aware that VP8 is comparable to H.264 baseline in quality. But I too will have to wait for the sparks to fly in a court of law.