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

Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

techblog.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 524 posts

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#451

Post by rbutcher »

braveo wrote: post #438
azernik wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recompression matters because most video compression is lossy . Every compress/decompress cycle introduces noise and artifacts.

right, which means by definition any compression is going to lose quality, even if done directly off the original, lossless versions. that's the point, it's the quality of the input that matters, not the fact that it's been compressed previously.

Netflix sends you a video that has been lossy compressed once. If you lossy compress that lossy compressed video, then you will have a video of worse quality than the video that was only lossy compressed once.

Original source video > Netflix video stream (1 level of lossy encoding) > Recompressed video stream (2 levels of lossy encoding)

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#452

Post by cletus »

derekp7 wrote: post #336
amelius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been recording the things they watch since the invention of the VCR. DRM will not have any impact on that. Someone will come along, and make a video-grabbing utility that bypasses the DRM. Also, many of the content is already available via bittorrent. DRM is pointless. But perhaps you are right about "browser vendors refusing to cooperate" not being the best possible approach. However, do you know what is…

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

You can thank Steve Jobs for that.

When digital music downloads started record companies demanded DRM. They agreed to a model with iTunes of $0.99 per song. They chafed against this model and wanted pricing tiers. Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free.

Jobs could get away with this for two reasons. First, he was Steve Jobs. Second, the record industry had unwittingly created a virtual music download monopoly in iTunes.

I personally use Spotify because streaming is incredibly convenient and there isn't much you can buy but can't stream. I use Netflix and Ahbo Now for the same reason.

I'd never "buy" DRMed content so music would be fine. Video not so much. I personally don't have as much of an issue with DRM on streaming content.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#453

Post by sneak »

josteink wrote: post #432
drdrey wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But music you buy on iTunes is DRM-free. That's a significant step away from DRM.

> But music you buy on iTunes is DRM-free. That's a significant step away from DRM. And Amazon. And Google Play music. And band-camp. Etc etc. In fact, I don't know a single place on the entire internet which still sells DRMed music. Such a thing simply ceased to exist. Imagine if we could make the same happen for video. That would be real nice.

Nobody normal buys music and shuffles files around anymore.

They all just switched to DRMed streaming services.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#455

Post by Arnt »

jMyles wrote: post #396
derekp7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

> For video, people don't download it and take it with them (typically) ...which is crazy, especially for HD video. Why use the bandwidth every time you want to watch something when storage is so much cheaper?

Some people want to download, they're a smallish minority. You can think about some reasons if you want, but but do the reasons really matter?

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#456

Post by pferde »

unicornporn wrote: post #449
recursive wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. For instance, I didn't have access to netflix content, and then I signed up for a netflix account and paid them money, and now I do have access.

> Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. So you're saying people could move to another jurisdiction to be able to watch their favorite show on Netflix? Yeah, that truly sounds like freedom to me. Or am I misinterpretating you?

Yes, you are misrepresentating(sic!) him. The "move between groups 1 and 2" was meant as decision to start paying for a service, or to stop paying for a service, not a physical move. In other words, voting with your wallet.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#457

Post by dchest »

cletus wrote: post #452
derekp7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

You can thank Steve Jobs for that. When digital music downloads started record companies demanded DRM. They agreed to a model with iTunes of $0.99 per song. They chafed against this model and wanted pricing tiers. Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free. Jobs could get away with this for two reasons. First, he was Steve Jobs. Second, the record industry had unwittingly created a virtual mu…

Contrary opinion from a former Apple employee:

"The music industry didn't go DRM free because they hated DRM; they went DRM free because they were fearful of the leverage Apple was gaining with their iTunes + FairPlay + iPod combination. Apple’s DRM created this lock, and it became so successful that the music industry went with the lesser of two evils (songs locked to Apple’s iPod monopoly vs. the distribution of DRM-free music) and chose to distribute DRM-free music...

http://fortune.com/2014/12/14/re-thinking-steve-jobs-thought...

You say "Jobs was willing to give them this but the price was to go DRM free", but why would he do that if DRM was good for Apple, it's what locked this market to iPods? Doesn't make sense to me. The music industry had to go DRM free (with Amazon, for example) because that was the only alternative way to sell music that would play on iPods.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#458

Post by jon-wood »

jMyles wrote: post #396
derekp7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We somehow got away from DRM on audio. I was wondering how to do this for video too. What worked for audio, was that you had one vendor (Apple) that had a large enough market share. In order to sell DRMd media that worked on Ipods, the media companies had to sell through Apple. Or they could sell non-DRMd files that would still work on Ipods. They did the calculation, and figured they would make more money going non-…

> For video, people don't download it and take it with them (typically) ...which is crazy, especially for HD video. Why use the bandwidth every time you want to watch something when storage is so much cheaper?

I think this could be rephrased as people don't consciously download things to keep forever. Whatever device you're watching on will cache anything you've viewed for a while so it doesn't need downloading again, and I at least make quite heavy use of the ability to save things for offline viewing on train journeys.

What I don't do anymore is to download video or music and then just keep it around on a hard disk just in case I want to watch it again. At least in my case storage is actually far more expensive than bandwidth, both in monetary value and time spent maintaining things.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#459

Post by braveo »

rbutcher wrote: post #451
braveo wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, which means by definition any compression is going to lose quality, even if done directly off the original, lossless versions. that's the point, it's the quality of the input that matters, not the fact that it's been compressed previously.

Netflix sends you a video that has been lossy compressed once. If you lossy compress that lossy compressed video, then you will have a video of worse quality than the video that was only lossy compressed once. Original source video > Netflix video stream (1 level of lossy encoding) > Recompressed video stream (2 levels of lossy encoding)

I think you'll find if you record and compress a netflix 4k video, the resulting quality will be just fine, especially if you're recording it and compressing it later (rather than doing it realtime).

That's because, while it may have been compressed going over the wire, it's 4k and the quality is pretty stinkin' good.

what you don't do is try to simply recompress the signal that netflix is sending you, you uncompress and then compress.

At which point you're not "recompressing", what you're doing is compressing a stream that may not be as high quality as the original, uncompressed form, but it's a truckload better than sneaking into the theater and recording that way.

Re: Update on HTML5 Video for Netflix

#460

Post by vntok »

chii wrote: post #434
tbirrell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.

they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it. open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.

> that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it

This is not entirely true though: a US-bought DVD player won't accept to play DVDs bought in China, Europe, Australia, etc.

Post reply on HN