Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Ditches Silverlight For HTML5 On Macs

Posted by Unknown on from the giving-up-freedom-for-tv dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Netflix yesterday furthered its plans to ditch Silverlight for HTML5 on Macs, having already done so last year in IE11 on Windows 8.1. HTML5 video is now supported by Netflix in Safari on OS X Yosemite, meaning you can stream your favorite movies and TV shows without having to install any plugins." Courtesy of encrypted media extensions.

33 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Linux soon? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So presumably, Firefox will bring Netflix to Linux as well. While I can't say I'm happy to see DRM, I'm happier to be able to play the content than not be able to, and I don't think not including support for broadly-used technologies is going to win any wars.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Linux soon? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can't you just get a browser-id-changing-plugin and tell it you're using mac? I didn't RTFA and don't know what it does under the hood but if its just a "turn it on for this OS" and no other special installable bit, it should work?

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:Linux soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As you can see from TFS without reading TFA, it relies on the encrypted media extensions. The odds are long on Linux support coming as everyone seems to conclude that it is too easy for Linux folks to grab video streams and record them.

    3. Re:Linux soon? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The odds are long on Linux support coming as everyone seems to conclude that it is too easy for Linux folks to grab video streams and record them.

      I don't think so. I think both nVidia and AMD will be happy to cooperate with bringing every bit of that functionality to Linux. It's plausible, since they have closed-source drivers. Of course, it won't be in the OSS drivers, but the people who run those won't want that functionality on their system anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Linux soon? by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario. Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos. They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to view videos on Mac, Windows 7, or Linux. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Linux soon? by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Also, valve is gonna want this for Steam OS.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Linux soon? by CheshireDragon · · Score: 2

      Why the hell would anyone want to copy a stream from them anyway? Even on HD it still looks DVD quality at best. IF I am going to copy or download a movie I am going for highest quality possible.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    7. Re:Linux soon? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Enjoy your 50GB Blu-Ray rips. I hope your ISP doesn't have a transit limit and accompanied overage fees.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Linux soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It doesn't. Thanks for your support :)

    9. Re:Linux soon? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can someone explain this? Netflix runs on Linux under Wine, so why the need for hardware/driver support?

      IME it runs poorly under Wine. I have had good results with an XP Pro x32 VM running under Linux x64, though. Not even too much added overhead, it seems. However, XP Pro x32 under XP Pro x32 seems to fail due to DRM. Hooray Linux!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Linux soon? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      Can someone explain this? Netflix runs on Linux under Wine, so why the need for hardware/driver support?

      IME it runs poorly under Wine. I have had good results with an XP Pro x32 VM running under Linux x64, though. Not even too much added overhead, it seems. However, XP Pro x32 under XP Pro x32 seems to fail due to DRM. Hooray Linux!

      As does pretty much everything under wine. Wine is great for a stopgap, that's about it.

    11. Re:Linux soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Dude, chill. At first, I thought you had a super amazing computer. 16 cores, 48GB RAM, and 10-laserbeam BlueRay drive.

      Now I see you're just a dick that spends a lot of money on toys.

    12. Re:Linux soon? by DrXym · · Score: 2
      No because even if you pretend to be a Mac, your browser would fall on its ass as soon as the HTML video object encountered encrypted content and had no idea what to do with it. Your browser would have to have a video tag which could handle encrypted content and call out to the JS to supply it with a decryption key in order to play it.

      That presumably means Firefox or Chrome on Linux would have to ship as a binary blob containing code from one or more DRM vendors that the was linked into the multimedia framework (including whatever provider Netflix uses) so it could do the decryption. I could see that getting pretty hairy from a requirements / sign off perspective if the content / DRM vendors insist that everything from the browser to the display must be locked down to prevent screen / audio captures of the content as it goes through.

    13. Re:Linux soon? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      but surely there's a good reason to support it on Linux - all those TVs and set top boxes that are running Linux would love to have Netflix support (or rather, Netflix would love those to support them)

    14. Re:Linux soon? by Old97 · · Score: 2

      I don't know if its Netflix demanding the DRM or the content providers. iTunes DRM was not Apple's desire. It was mandated by the music publishers. Eventually they relented in exchange for a higher price. Now that Netflix is also producing content they might also want the DRM. Anyone know?

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    15. Re:Linux soon? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole "watch video in your web browser" scenario. Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos. They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to view videos on Mac, Windows 7, or Linux. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway.

      Well, the thinking goes, there'll be an App For That(tm).

      As in, web pages will become a thing of the past. First it's Netflix/Vudu/Flixster/etc. Next will be the YouTube, Vimeo, Twitch and other sites will have their own apps to watch the videos in.

      Then you go to Google and it'll ask you to install their app to search the web and eventually, it'll be like it is on mobile where you're constantly asked to install the app to get more from the site.

      See Steam. See iTunes. See the web as an app-distribution mechanism instead of a content distribution mechanism.

    16. Re:Linux soon? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      They also have an app for Windows 8, albeit it's a metro app

      Yup. That's what I use for Netflix. The fact that its a metro app is not a bad thing either. Full screen with no borders, title bars, by default. Good 10-foot user interface. That's what I want on a TV.

      Its one of the few metro apps I use, but its one of the few scenarios where a metro app actually makes sense.

    17. Re:Linux soon? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      All those TVs and set top boxes are running Linux under Android, and Netflix is already supported on Android.

      "Most" run that way, but not all. For example, Seagate FreeAgent Theater (and Theater+) both run linux, no andriod, and support netflix and hulu plus. The playstation also supports netflix and does not run windows, mac, nor andriod.

      My only point is that netflix has supported playback on niche platforms for a long long time without silverlight, html5, or encrypted media extensions. Any lack of support on any platform is completely by choice. Whatever... there's lots of other options these days, both from the client side and service side.

  2. They've been doing this for a year by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They've been doing this for a year on Chrome OS

    1. Re: They've been doing this for a year by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People willingly use $200 computers that only browse the Internet when all they want from a computer is to browse the internet.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re: They've been doing this for a year by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but it literally takes like 20-30 minutes total + crouton and you can have a full OS running alongside ChromeOS. You can then switch between the two OS's with a really simple key combo.

      I'm on a HP Chromebook right now, I spend most of the time in ChromeOS unless I need a dedicated IRC client or Zotero for a reference manager when I don't have WIFI ( otherwise I use Chrome Remote Desktop to my much higher horsepower Lenovo laptop with Word ETC), or playing the odd foreign film with subtitles in MPlayer. Google Docs ( offline even ) are good enough if you just have to bang out a short paper with only a few references or .doc/x correspondence to someone... you don't need a full huge office suite for these things, and if you DO need the full suite it is only a key combo away.

      Why do I use a Chromebook? 1: it's a dual core x86_64 machine( meaning enough oomph to get at least some moderate to heavy work done) with easily 9+ hour battery life with WIFI on. 2: it weighs less than my higher powered laptop AND is thinner, both making it easier to carry around. 3: the keyboard and trackpad are 10x better than on my Lenovo ( even though the numpad is missing on the Chromebook ). 4: it's cheap enough that I don't care so much if it gets dirty / scratched / looks like ass after it has been out in the field for a while ( it cost 1/3 the base price of the Lenovo, 1/4 after the upgrades to the Lenovo, price not even comparable to a Mac laptop).

      If I need real raw power I grab either my desktop or the Lenovo, but probably at least 90% of the work I do the Chromebook can handle easily. Documents are no problem, compiles have OK times, it can decode and playback 1080P H.264 full speed ( and output to HDMI), plays Netflix in downtimes ( in ChromeOS ), and does everything but play games ( and probably WINE / steam4Linux would actually work, I just don't use them ). The only real limitation is the not easily up-gradable 2Gb RAM means you have to be at least semi diligent in not leaving 600 tabs open and other stuff running when not needed.

      Did I mention the keyboard ( other than the F1-12 keys being not labeled as such ) is awesome? Other than no backlighted keys the keyboard is as good as Macbook pro's I've typed on, and the trackpad is large and quite responsive... even with gestures.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
  3. Re:no plugins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They mean extensions to the standard, not the browser.

  4. Re:no plugins? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's still a binary blob that has to do some function that is not covered by any standard. Calling it by a different name or pretending that such plugins are part of the official standard doesn't really change anything.

    You still need a platform specific binary blob.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. saves battery by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

    also, it saves a bunch of battery to run it in html5 than in the silverlight. for a macbook air you can get an extra 2 hours watching netflix in html5 instead of silverlight! that's huge!

  6. "HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. by Manuka · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the looks of this, the technical version of what this means is that Netflix has been working closely with Apple to bring MPEG-DASH Media Stream Extensions to Safari (they're already present in Chrome and IE11), and that MSE will be in the Yosemite release of Safari. This is good news for MPEG-DASH adoption. Hopefully we'll also start seeing hardware H.265/HEVC support in new silicon soon which will really open up the door for 4K (and significantly reducing current bandwidth usage for 2K/HD)

    Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as "HTML5 Video". There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they "support HTML5 streaming", they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist. There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming). Silverlight is HTTP-based, but not supported directly in the browser (Microsoft missed a golden opportunity with IE10+ to do that), and Adobe also has an HTTP transport called HDS, but it's not useful outside of Flash.

    Once you've figured that much out, then you have to figure out what codecs your browser supports. If you're trying to stream live to Firefox, your options are pretty much Flash or nothing, since it supports neither HLS, DASH, or H.264, although MSE is being developed into the Firefox code, it's not ready yet - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/MediaSourceExtensions

    And if you're running Android, all bets are off depending on Google's whims for that particular version's stock browser. When Android 4.1 came out they took HLS support OUT of the Android browser and at the same time got rid of Flash support, which means that in-browser streaming on Android became limited to the ancient RTSP protocol (HLS is still supported in the OS media player, and can also be accessed via API). Chrome for Android sort of supports MSE for DASH, but not yet. Google isn't part of DASH-IF, so they're not exactly anxious to support it on Android.

    1. Re:"HTML5 video" doesn't actually exist. by Manuka · · Score: 2

      (and yes, I do own one of these shirts: http://shirt.woot.com/offers/online-debate-team)

  7. FUnny by geekoid · · Score: 2

    "... only browse the Internet ..."

    It just occurred to me that 'only browse the internet' is archaic.
    Because you can do anything on the internet, so 'only' doesn't apply.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Re:Silver lining? by Ark42 · · Score: 2

    It looks to me like the EME would basically be a DLL on Windows, and I don't see why you can't rename the DLL to something else, and drop in a shim DLL that Firefox loads. The shim DLL then loads the real EME DLL, and just proxies all the API calls back and forth. Encrypted data goes into the shim, to the EME, decrypted video comes back. The shim would then be free to copy and redirect the decrypted video elsewhere. I doubt Firefox or the real EME would even know that it was happening.
    If the EME is rendering the video itself, Firefox still has to pass it information about what surface to render to, and the shim DLL can just as easily fake that rendering surface and "render" to a file or something.
    And it's not like Firefox can be forced to only load a certain signed EME DLL - you'd just recompile your own Firefox with a new key pair to loan your own signed shim.

    --
    Morphing Software
  9. Re:So basically this is the beginning of the end by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Informative

    Silverlight has been dead for a long time. Microsoft officially ended all future development of Silverlight in March of 2013. This is just the natural progression of its funeral.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
  10. Re:So basically this is the beginning of the end by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hopefully, nothing will keep people interested in developing for Silverlight, given that Silverlight is dead. This isn't the beginning of the end -- the beginning of the end was when Microsoft announced that Silverlight 5, released three years ago, was going to be the last version of Silverlight released. I'm not saying "Silverlight is dead" as hyperbole -- it's officially a discontinued product.

    References:

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.c...

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.c...

    It will continue to be supported by Microsoft until 2021, but nothing new's happening with it.

  11. Block Netflix itself by tepples · · Score: 2

    A properly locked down system would not include Netflix in the list of hosts to which a machine can connect. For a separate machine in the break room with no access to the company intranet, a sane IT department would be more willing to install the Netflix app.

  12. No thanks by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    also, it saves a bunch of battery to run it in html5 than in the silverlight. for a macbook air you can get an extra 2 hours watching netflix in html5 instead of silverlight! that's huge!

    And how are we to get corn to pop just using HTML5? Run Flash in the background?

  13. Re:silverlight bad, HTML5 good by Manuka · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft is a charter member of the DASH industry Forum (along with Adobe and Netflix and a few others) and is really pushing DASH (if the hype is to be believed, it's the Second Coming). That said, it has a lot of very useful technical benefits over silverlight or HLS.

    http://dashif.org/members/