Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please stop posting AI-generated comments. Your post history is full of them.
Just a dev who's built the stuff I talk about. Pretty sure you already know that though, buddy.
What?
Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
51–60 of 170 posts
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#52I've never used video.js, and the site/advertising seems to be fairly oriented towards people who have used it or are familiar with it. I had one question I couldn't answer reading the site: what makes this different from the native html video element? AFAICT just the transport controls?
it just doesn’t work in every environment. every browser version has it’s own issues and edge cases. If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it.
P.S i built movie streaming and tv broadcasting player for country of Georgia and supported environments from 2009 LG Smart TVs to modern browsers.
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#53Seeking on the main https://videojs.org/ page doesn't work for me on chromium. Throws Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: AbortSignal.any is not a function on volume-slider-data-attrs.BOpj3NK1.js
Hey there, on the Video.js team. What browser and version did you run into this on?
114, Ungoogled Chromium to be specific. Happy to share more info if you need it
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great! It looks like you have a pretty extensive integration with the prior version of Video.js, so migrating will take some work, but I think worth it when you can make the time. That said, for Beta it works with browser-supported formats and HLS, with support for services like Youtube and Vimeo close behind as we migrate what we haver in the Media Chrome ecosystem[1]. So if that's what you need maybe hold yo…
Thank you for your feedback. Yep I definitely understand that Video.js is just the front end. I want to avoid using Wowza / Red5 and just want to serve chunks of video files, essentially, buffering them and pasting them to the "end of the stream" laying down tracks ahead of the video.js train riding over those tracks. So I'm just wondering whether we can do streaming that way, and video.js can "just work" to play the…
You should check out HLS and DASH. If you're already familiar and you're not using them because they don't meet your requirements, then apologies for the foolish recommendation. If not, this could solve your problem.
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#55I've never used video.js, and the site/advertising seems to be fairly oriented towards people who have used it or are familiar with it. I had one question I couldn't answer reading the site: what makes this different from the native html video element? AFAICT just the transport controls?
it just doesn’t work in every environment. every browser version has it’s own issues and edge cases. If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it. P.S i built movie streaming and tv broadcasting player for country of Georgia and supported environments from 2009 LG Smart TVs to modern browsers.
Okay, what about non-streaming vid? I think the vanilla html5 tag is solid, correct?
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#56I've never used video.js, and the site/advertising seems to be fairly oriented towards people who have used it or are familiar with it. I had one question I couldn't answer reading the site: what makes this different from the native html video element? AFAICT just the transport controls?
Fair point, we could answer that more directly on the site. Besides the comparison were there other things that make it seem oriented to people already familiar with it?
Generally, the video tag is great and has come a very long way from when Video.js was first created. If the way you think about video is basically an image with a play button, then the video tag works well. If at some point you need Video.js, it'll become obvious pretty quick. Notable differences include:
* Consistent, stylable controls across browsers (browsers each change their native controls over time)
* Advanced features like analytics, ABR, ads, DRM, 360 video (not all of those are in the new version yet)
* Configurable features (with browsers UIs you mostly get what you get)
* A common API to many streaming formats (mp4/mp3, HLS, DASH) and services (Youtube, Vimeo, Wistia)
Of course many of those things are doable with the video tag itself, because (aside from the iframe players) video.js uses the video tag under the hood. But to add those features you're going to end up building something like video.js.
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#57In case anyone's wondering, this website's syntax highlighting color scheme is called "gruvbox", which I quite like but took an embarrassingly long time to track down
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
it just doesn’t work in every environment. every browser version has it’s own issues and edge cases. If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it. P.S i built movie streaming and tv broadcasting player for country of Georgia and supported environments from 2009 LG Smart TVs to modern browsers.
Okay, what about non-streaming vid? I think the vanilla html5 tag is solid, correct?
you think it’s solid until you want customization and old browser support. it should work fine if you just want to autoplay a small size mp4 file on mute
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey there, on the Video.js team. What browser and version did you run into this on?
114, Ungoogled Chromium to be specific. Happy to share more info if you need it
I have that ticketed up for you [1], and I'll look into it tomorrow. Thank you!
Re: Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still mandatory for all but the newest iOS devices, which don't support MediaSourceExtensions.
This is true, and the whole iOS/iPadOS/tvOS ecosystem supports HLS natively making it much easier to work with on that platform. In addition, Chrome recently added support for HLS[1] (and not DASH), so the native browser support for HLS is getting pretty wide. HLS also has newer features that address the growing manifest issues you were seeing. [2] All that said, I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable if…
How do you actually use HLS in the form of a native browser feature? Can you just put the m3u8 in the video src?