Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

bitmovin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 242 posts

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#201

Post by serge2k »

bduerst wrote: post #106
izacus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability. EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.

Bad actors exist, hence the technology does something useful. Piracy [probably] isn't a problem for you, but if you think it isn't a problem at all, then you should read this: http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...

DRM does nothing to stop piracy.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#202

Post by [deleted] »

franciscop wrote: post #17

> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

[deleted]

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#203

Post by duaneb »

mikk14 wrote: post #146
Spivak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it hasn't. It's just been a demand from media execs that distribution networks are forced to implement. Netflix is competing with free and winning -- they've created something that's actually more convenient than piracy. I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site, but I don't because the eight bucks a month is worth less than the time I would waste pirating it. Hell, Netflix co…

Meh. Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small. Netflix is good if you're an American and not very into movies. As soon as you are looking for something outside the "very mainstream" you're out of luck. Your "I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site" works, but the other way around doesn't. I've been a Netflix user for years, but I'm on the verge of unsub…

They offer more than any comparable service.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#204

Post by duaneb »

supergreg wrote: post #158
macspoofing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>DRM has never been important for online video workflow Yes it has. Always.

Would there be more piracy of online video had no DRM? It only takes one person to try hard enough to rip a video and put it on a torrent. Conversely, I don't think removing DRM would increase viewers (not that many would not watch a movie they want to see due to their thoughts about DRM), but at least the providers could save a bit of money without it.

I do think removing DRM would increase viewers in the long term: the data has always been the valuable part, and opening it allows innovation in interface, suggestions, and integrations.

Unfortunately, it seems like netflix's desire to open their catalogue at all decreases year after year. Their competitors are even worse in this respect.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#205

Post by shmerl »

Veratyr wrote: post #180
shmerl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understood, CDN is needed to lift the heavy load from the source servers. Without them you'd be hammered by heavy traffic, and not only that, the route to the end user will be most likely longer. DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from the client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure (including codecs and etc.). I don't know the details exactly, but it's far fr…

> CDN should support that in their infrastructure (including codecs and etc.) This makes sense if the CDN is transcoding the video for you but if you do that yourself I don't think a special CDN is necessary. From Mozilla [0]: > DASH works via HTTP, so as long as your HTTP server supports byte range requests, and it's set up to serve .mpd files with mimetype="application/dash+xml", then you're all set. And from encod…

I see. If that's so trivial however, then why such services like Twitch and others have so many problems switching to HTML5?

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#206

Post by PretzelFisch »

azakai wrote: post #186
Tloewald wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to critique that sentence, you're going about it the wrong way. The whole reason for Flash's tenacity in the video market was its thorough support for DRM. This is decidedly _not_ an advantage of HTML5.

Flash had video long before HTML5 did, and HTML5 video support has only very recently been consistent (e.g., the codec wars). Those made Flash a better option for a long time, regardless of DRM, and might also be reasons why Flash has stuck around in this space. DRM is not the whole story.

In addition HTML5 video playback controls/features have been almost missing compared to the richness offered in flash.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#207

Post by PretzelFisch »

dcgudeman wrote: post #143
spriggan3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix can make its own app, outside the web.

One of the most attractive features of netflix is the ability stream movies on the browser. Why would we want to move that to a separate app?

The most attractive feature of netflix is that it is everywhere and most people would not have a problem installing a dedicated app, just look and android and ios.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#208

Post by samsonradu »

samsonradu wrote: post #183

I hate it when I see people talking about Flash as if it's the Web's cancer. Remember Flash pushed the web heavily forward back when we had to install all sorts of desktop applications and codecs just to watch a video or play a simple game. It is an optional plugin that you can always disable. Not having it at all would lead to a poorer UX in my opinion. Can't Chrome just have a toggle Flash on/off in the toolbar and…

Hell I could rant about this for long. And some people who say Flash is insecure (it probably is) are also the ones who install ad-blockers, antiviruses and all sorts of creepy browser extensions. Well that s not safe either, but Steve Jobs said Flash is bad so it must be. However Steve Jobs knew he cannot monetize the web as well as the AppStore so the "open" web was pulled backwards.

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#209

Post by sosborn »

exodust wrote: post #179
dcgudeman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most attractive features of netflix is the ability stream movies on the browser. Why would we want to move that to a separate app?

I wouldn't call limiting resolution to 720p in the browser "attractive". Are you aware of this limit? In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p. It's why I must use IE with Silverlight to watch Netflix at full HD on Windows 7.

> In Chrome and Firefox, you can't watch Netflix above 720p.

Oh my god, the horror!

Re: Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5

#210

Post by AnthonyMouse »

geofft wrote: post #102
franciscop wrote: post #17

> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

There's a difference between "In a perfect world, DRM is necessary" and "In the world we live in, DRM is useful". To make a possibly-emotionally-charged analogy, it's like patent licenses for free software. In a perfect world, software patents wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in now, you cannot build practical systems without acknowledging that they do exist and they need to be dealt with, and that you need t…

> But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today.

It's useful in the sense that snake oil is useful after somebody signs a contract to use snake oil. That doesn't mean it's actually useful, it means somebody signed a dumb contract.

When that happens you can go out and take bids from snake oil suppliers and rub snake oil on your skin every day that does nothing but cost money and make you smell bad, or you can fix the contract.

Post reply on HN