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

381–390 of 414 posts

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#381

Post by bzbarsky »

walterbell wrote: post #371
bzbarsky wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could build something like that in Javascript on top of HTML and MSE, probably. The EME (DRM) spec is not really related to this.

Wouldn't the DRM spec have to explicitly permit MSE buffering? If Javascript could buffer the stream and send it to any destination other than a DRM-approved output device, that would defeat the DRM.

The way EME is designed, the browser is responsible for fetching the data from the network and passing it to the DRM module. This is no different with MSE, as far as I can tell; what you buffer up is the encrypted data, then pass it on to the DRM stuff.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#382

Post by mod »

bzbarsky wrote: post #380
mod wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From an end-user perspective, there's a significant difference between "browser that will play the music and the videos and show me the PDFs" and "browser that will not do those things". Chromium, while open source, is really not a viable end-user browser on today's internet. I don't think so, because really it's a difference between "will show the pdf..." and "will launch a program to show the pdf." As a full time…

I've done some user support, and browsers showing PDFs in an external app instead of inline is an extremely common user complaint. Not only that, but PDFs embedded via don't get shown in external apps in any browser. And this does in fact happen. For example, if you want to get your pay stubs or W2s via https://portal.adp.com you end up dealing with just such a setup. I realize anecdotes aren't data, but this also ap…

I have half a dozen devices that play netflix. Wii, chromecast, phone, tablet--and it's really not hard to switch to chrome to watch netflix.

I'll agree I'm not a typical end-user, but I don't remember having to "work hard" to get anything I wanted out of Chromium.

I troubleshoot every little problem for every member of my mostly tech-illiterate family, and I don't remember ever having this problem (like before PDFs would open in browsers, say).

Anyway, just more anecdotes.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#383

Post by shurcooL »

I've disabled Flash since the beginning of this year, an idea inspired by someone else [1]. So far it's been working out great and I was pleasantly surprised I've had very little need to turn it back on.

Some notable issues I've run into:

- play.spotify.com, I used to use the web player on my computer, it requires flash sadly. I've started using their OS X app.

- twitch.tv if I occasionally watch a stream, also needs flash. I tend to turn it on for the duration.

It's pretty great and I'm enjoying better battery life, more efficient use of cpu.

[1] https://twitter.com/shurcool/status/550804694793060354

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#384

Post by deeviant »

ampersandy wrote: post #319
deeviant wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your experience has anything to do with my experience. That fact that on your hardware you felt html 5 video works better has no bearing on whether it work for me, on my hardware. The fact that somebody down-voted me for adding a relevant anecdote, but happens to go against the tide of this threads opinion(ie: FU Flash), it's pretty indicative of the extremely poor voting etiquette around here.

I find it ironic that you are berating JustGotHere for sharing his experiences, but feel that it is inappropriate that you were downvoted for sharing yours. Your anecdote isn't relevant, because I don't know what hardware you run, and it's likely that most other readers aren't using the same hardware. Your time would be better spent filing a bug report.

The thread is full of "flash sucks, good riddance, poor performance, etc", so he was not at all adding anything new to the equation and his response was in direct reply to mine, as if any repose other than one which was in lock-step with the thread's general opinion required instant rebuttal.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#385

Post by JoshTriplett »

yohui wrote: post #250
schoen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that HTML5 is much better than Flash in every way, so in this sense I'd just like to encourage our community to continue applying pressure at all levels and in all channels to ensure that Encrypted Media Extensions doesn't continue to be a part of HTML5 standards, UAs, or websites.

> I'd just like to encourage our community to continue applying pressure at all levels and in all channels to ensure that Encrypted Media Extensions doesn't continue to be a part of HTML5 standards Which just means content owners will continue to use proprietary plugins or push un standardized extensions. Pressure should be applied to the root of the issue (copyright holders' desire for DRM), not the symptom.

> Which just means content owners will continue to use proprietary plugins or push unstandardized extensions.

Which will provide a worse experience, making it easier for competing content owners to provide a better experience.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#386

Post by JoshTriplett »

Karunamon wrote: post #378
roel_v wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, still wrong (not 'arguably wrong', plain factually wrong). That's not how 'fair use' works - it's not because you send a part (what you call a 'clip') of a work, that it becomes fair use all of a sudden.

So legal question, when's the cutoff point? How many packets do you need to get before you've broken the law?

Sadly, the law is not a mechanically applicable algorithm.

The logic here would, in part, be: "we have evidence that you were taking part in distribution of data that violated copyright law; we don't have to download the entire file from you to have sufficient evidence that you would have supplied any arbitrary data on request".

As for any "fair use" claim, one of the specific pillars there is the impact on the commercial value of the work. In that regard, commentary, critique, review, parody, and similar are not the same as wholesale unmodified distribution.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#387

Post by tosseraccount »

whoopdedo wrote: post #180
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's popularity was being first. At a time when most of the internet was accessed with dial-up modems and they offered a high compression media format. What killed them was the iPod. Or rather, computers and bandwidth improved so better quality compression could be used. Then RealPlayer limped along on name recognition alone. Although during the early days of h.264 it was the easiest way to play an MP4 on Win…

Actually, it was Windows Media Player that killed them. Real lost it about 2000, years before the ipod.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#388

Post by hsivonen »

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…

There is no single "the DRM module". Microsoft has its own in IE. Google has its own in Chrome. Apple has its own in Safari. Adobe has its own (that Firefox will be able to use).

None of these have open specs.

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#389

Post by X-Istence »

tosseraccount wrote: post #387
whoopdedo wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RealPlayer's popularity was being first. At a time when most of the internet was accessed with dial-up modems and they offered a high compression media format. What killed them was the iPod. Or rather, computers and bandwidth improved so better quality compression could be used. Then RealPlayer limped along on name recognition alone. Although during the early days of h.264 it was the easiest way to play an MP4 on Win…

Actually, it was Windows Media Player that killed them. Real lost it about 2000, years before the ipod.

"years" is a tad much, considering the iPod was first released in October 2001!

Re: YouTube now defaults to HTML5 video

#390

Post by pornel »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #213
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…

Where do you cut the line? It's a plugin because it uses the plugin api? And were it integrated in the main binary, would you call it a "plugin-less proprietary HTML extension"? I think the main differentiation point is that it's made by the browser authors, shipped with the browser, updated with the browser. That, to me, means that it's not a "plugin", even though it uses the plugin interface; it's an implementation…

"Plug-in" in the web browser context also had a wider meaning of "3rd party proprietary binary blob, that has limited portability, and adds functionality and APIs that are not part of Web standards."

You're right, technically EME's integration and distribution are different, so it's not a plug-in in that sense. However, the other downsides that were associated with plug-ins have remained the same in the built-in ex-plugins.

Browser plug-ins get so much hate not only because they're pain to install/upgrade, but also because they're usually not as open and portable as the rest of the platform.

(a bit meta, but term for this conflation of meanings is disguised query: http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid... )

Post reply on HN