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

YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

youtube-eng.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 414 posts

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#231

Post by Buge »

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…

A company could make it necessary to install their DRM to view their videos and bundle Norton with it. This would actually be worse than the current situation because the user would have to install a different DRM thing for each different site.

Although I can see sites being reluctant to do that because it would be inconvenient for the users to have to install something specifically to watch the web videos on that site. One thing I can see happening would be one major DRM software that emerges and all websites that want DRM work together to use that.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#232

Post by Buge »

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.

The problem is most companies wouldn't create modules that are compatible with all operating systems. Open web is supposed to be open, not platform dependent.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#233

Post by derekp7 »

gatehouse wrote: post #214
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days where they talked about making video cameras that would actually stop recording if they were pointed at a piece of media with special markers in it. Nowadays people would use some kind of HDCP-breaking digital capture device, and regulating all video cameras is basically impossible with their ubiquity, but it's crazy to think about video cameras being modified against our will to suit the needs of…

It isn't all that crazy, it has already been done to printers: http://www.pcworld.com/article/229647/counterfeit_money_on_c... https://www.eff.org/issues/printers

And VCRs too. The original Macrovision technique relied on the low tolerance to noise in the old record-mode AGC circuits on first generation VCRs. But when VCRs improved to the point that Macrovision was ineffective, legislation was passed so that VCR manufactures had to include a special circuit to recognize the Macrovision noise bursts, and emulate the old behavior. (Source: my memory of an old article in an electronics magazine, so the above may be somewhat inaccurate -- the article may have been only referring to proposed legislation, or possibly industry self-regulation).

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#234

Post by derekp7 »

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…

Isn't most of the music purchases on Amazon DRM-free? And downloadable in regular MP3's with a standard web browser? It's been a while since the last time I acquired any music.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#235

Post by abdias »

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…

True, it was approved by W3C and Tim Berners-Lee a while back (http://www.infoworld.com/article/2612478/html5/berners-lee-a...), and was criticized - understandably so.

For instance: If someone do research for educational or critical purposes, they have the right to use copyrighted material under "Fair Use" (US, UK and other countries have similar rules).

With DRM this would essentially block this right (if used on the material in question), which of course is not a good thing.

But it's great to see that HTML5 is now the preferred choice on YT.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#236

Post by Buge »

notatoad wrote: post #109
pornel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "HTML5" support requires proprietary binary blob that has no standard API (besides an API to launch it with opaque data from a proprietary server) and is licensed only to selected companies. Basically it's as much HTML5 as was HTML4. It's supported only by DRM vendors: Google (WideVine), Safari (FairPlay) and Microsoft (PlayReady) and doesn't work in open-source browsers (not even in Chromium or custom WebKit bui…

The youtube blog post linked here says they're using EME just the same as netflix is...

Maybe for their paid videos. They can't be using it for regular videos because I have browser extensions that simply download the videos.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#237

Post by lbenes »

derekp7 wrote: post #229
pippy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cas…

> Is the DRM module itself an open specification? Or will it be a separate proprietary program

It's a closed source proprietary blob. You can read about it here.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen...

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#238

Post by AndyKelley »

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…

Have you tried groove basin? It satisfies your requirements except for smart playlists. But that feature is planned :-)

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#239

Post by matt_kantor »

darkmighty wrote: post #223
pornel wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All DRM has [analog holes][1]. Its purpose is [to give content providers control over the features offered by playback software/devices][2].

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

[2]: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#240

Post by waqf »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #172
eliben wrote: post #46

What I especially like about the HTML5 player is the ability to change the playback speed. It is extremely useful for watching lectures & talks.

It is worth pointing out that Chrome and IE are miles ahead of Firefox and Safari at time stretching audio. Firefox and Safari sound like an underwater mess. Chrome and IE use a sophisticated and very nice pitch correction algo (I think it is called WSOLA)

Wow, I had always assumed that the time-stretching was done server-side. I'm such a dinosaur.
Post reply on HN