YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#221

Post by girvo » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #201

schoen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately (though it's considerably more compartmentalized and constrained than prior iterations), Google is trying to replace Flash with a DRM mechanism that also requires proprietary software. So while you might think that the advent of HTML5 video means you no longer need proprietary software to interoperate with the services that use it, Google and its partners are working to ensure that that's not true.

I don't care about DRM as long as it's lightweight and seamless. Streaming is one use case where its use is entirely justifiable if it operates transparently.

As long as streaming is available on all the devices I wish to use it on (that used to include Linux, but nowadays it's not my "daily driver"), then I'm okay with transparent DRM for streaming or rentals, too.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#222

Post by robotresearcher » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:23 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #218

vertex-four wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I want to watch Netflix or whatever else requires it, and that's a value calculation I've made?

Still seems like a false dichotomy to me. Subscribe to Netflix and pirate your content if you have a firm believe in being DRM free while rewarding the creators of content you consume.

Paying for a DRM-encumbered service is not really consistent with a "firm belief in being DRM free".

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#223

Post by darkmighty » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:25 AM UTC

pornel wrote: post #191

chambo622 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix works fine in Chrome on Linux. What do you mean by "licensed only to selected companies?"

Works, because Google is a DRM vendor (WideVine). You can't make a web browser that plays Netflix without signing contract with one of the DRM vendors that Netflix supports, or rolling your own DRM and convincing Netflix (and distributors that pull their strings) to adopt it. For example if you compile Chromium from source it won't work (at best Netflix will send you encrypted blobs that you won't know how to decrypt…

What's the point of this DRM? It's not like you can't decode and record.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#224

Post by jfb » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:25 AM UTC

jfb wrote: post #45

emehrkay wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought as well, but aren't there older youtube videos that haven't been converted to html5-friendly formats?

Probably. But I'll live without full unfettered access to Youtube's back catalog, which access I don't pay a dime for.

To say nothing of youtube-dl.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#225

Post by TylerE » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:29 AM UTC

shutupalready wrote: post #65

What joy it is to finally uninstall Flash. The last time I was this happy to uninstall crappy software was when I realized that I no longer needed RealPlayer. For those that don't know it, RealPlayer was a very popular proprietary media player (with its own proprietary formats) circa 2000. The company's stock was worth $380 a share in 2000; it's now worth $6. The only explanation for RealPlayer's popularity was its D…

RealPlayer was capable - just barely - of streaming sort-of watchable video over 56k. That really was revolutionary at the time.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#226

Post by tschuy » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:39 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #219

munificent wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube, Spotify, Google Play Music, SoundCloud, Pandora, et. al.

Those just aren't sufficient IMO. I like being able to listen to music when I have no internet connection. I like being able to listen to something when the original was taken down. I like being able to listen to something that the vendor no longer offers. I like having smart playlists in my library and on my devices that automatically update themselves based on meta data such as what I've played recently. Unfortunat…

Spotify premium, uploading anything they don't have, and using Offline Mode?

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#227

Post by mholt » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:43 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #201

schoen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately (though it's considerably more compartmentalized and constrained than prior iterations), Google is trying to replace Flash with a DRM mechanism that also requires proprietary software. So while you might think that the advent of HTML5 video means you no longer need proprietary software to interoperate with the services that use it, Google and its partners are working to ensure that that's not true.

I don't care about DRM as long as it's lightweight and seamless. Streaming is one use case where its use is entirely justifiable if it operates transparently.

This all assumes you have a solid Internet connection. Some of us have to watch movies offline most of the time.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#228

Post by zevyoura » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:43 AM UTC

digikata wrote: post #177

NeutronBoy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube and Twitch are the only reasons I keep Chrome around - I much rather supporting the work that Mozilla are doing with Firefox (ie a proper open source browser) than Chrome.

I'm finding that Chrome hit sort of a decline from a personal peak in that current versions seem to be pigs on resource constrained systems, and has started to move backwards in terms of UI friendlyness (e.g. frequent requests for login to google accounts, rollout of more difficult user profile switching). IIRC the integrated flash plugin in Chrome is proprietary and at times it seems to be at the root of hanging pro…

To improve the new user profile switching, try enabling this flag: chrome://flags/#enable-fast-user-switching

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#229

Post by derekp7 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

pippy wrote: post #216

schoen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately (though it's considerably more compartmentalized and constrained than prior iterations), Google is trying to replace Flash with a DRM mechanism that also requires proprietary software. So while you might think that the advent of HTML5 video means you no longer need proprietary software to interoperate with the services that use it, Google and its partners are working to ensure that that's not true.

If you're referring to Encrypted Media Extensions it's not a DRM mechanism that requires proprietary software. It's a specification for a communication channel between a browser and Digital Rights Management agent software on the local machine. While it's not ideal, it's just some javascript functions that interact with the DRM on the computer. The DRM software itself is completely optional. It's much better than hav…

Is the DRM module itself an open specification? Or will it be a separate proprietary program that content sites will still require you to install? I can see for example Real or Flash making such modules, and still bundling with random tool bars and popups.

Or will it most likely be a specification that allows multiple (but NDA'd) implementations, such as the DRM component of dvd and bluray players? If that is the case, then it is still better than what we had before, as multiple vendors will need to compete (increasing the likelihood of a non-crappy implementation).

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#230

Post by derekp7 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 3:01 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #218

vertex-four wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I want to watch Netflix or whatever else requires it, and that's a value calculation I've made?

Still seems like a false dichotomy to me. Subscribe to Netflix and pirate your content if you have a firm believe in being DRM free while rewarding the creators of content you consume.

Last I checked, the most effective way to pirate content is via a protocol such as Bit Torrent which requires you to also distribute pirated content. And that has legal ramifications, which then requires non-trivial methods to obscure your activities (paid proxy servers, etc). Most of us use Netflix not for ideological reasons, but for the pure convenience of it. Compared to Bit-Torrent,with Netflix you can easily browse titles, watch a bit, switch to another one, or watch whole seasons without waiting for multi-hour or multi-day downloads.