backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by adiposity.. on Jan 24 at 2:01 PM

Player only supports a few browsers now, Firefox not included

The top video destination online is YouTube by a large margin – other video watching sites like Hulu are much further behind YouTube in the number of users. YouTube is constantly working to improve its service to keep its edge and help bring in more advertisers.

YouTube already showcased HTML5-based video player demo, but the video site reports that users have been asking it to do more with HTML5. To give the viewers what they want, YouTube has announced a new experimental HTML5 supported video player.

YouTube engineers wrote on the official YouTube blog, "HTML5 is a new web standard that is gaining popularity rapidly and adds many new features to your web experience. Most notably for YouTube users, HTML5 includes support for video and audio playback. This means that users with an HTML5 compatible browser, and support for the proper audio and video codecs can watch a video without needing to download a browser plugin."

There are a few caveats to the experimental player right now. The biggest is that there are a relative few browsers that support HTML5 at this time. YouTube lists Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer running ChromeFrame as being compatible. The capabilities will be expanded later to include new capabilities. The new video player can be used by visiting TestTube if your browser is compatible. Other issues include the lack of support for videos with ads, captions, or annotations.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Death to flash!
By Acanthus on 1/21/2010 11:05:28 AM , Rating: 4
At least we will have an alternative to flash players now. I get tired of some of the quirks... like displaying that loading ring the ENTIRE TIME you are viewing a video, or the insane CPU usage for HD.




RE: Death to flash!
By omnicronx on 1/21/2010 11:53:29 AM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately, HTML5 will never replace flash.. From the inability to choose a codec standard to its lacking animation and interactive capabilities, HTML5 will most likely replace certain elements of Flash in which they were only being used because it was the only option, but replace Flash completely? I think not..

Personally I think HTML5 will benefit big business like Google more than the consumer, as it really opens the doors to all kinds of new advertisement methods. Google has a reason for pouring millions of dollars into HTML5, and its certainly not to make the world a better place..


RE: Death to flash!
By Sunday Ironfoot on 1/21/2010 1:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From the inability to choose a codec standard...


I've never understood why that's a problem, at least from a user point of view. HTML5 already supports OGG and H.245 does it not? What's wrong with them?


RE: Death to flash!
By omnicronx on 1/21/2010 3:16:45 PM , Rating: 4
Because its basically left up to the user to make sure said codec is installed/updated. All flash supported codecs are self contained, if you have flash, you can play the video without having to worry. The most you would have to do is update to the latest version of flash, which pretty much any user can do.(and it usually prompts when you are out of date)

Basically the HTML 5 working group could not decide on making either OGG or h264 the standard, and it seems no compromise could be made. So they basically gave up on trying to define codec specifics within the standard itself.

Essentially, without a uniform codec, content creators will not be able to make videos in a single format with assurance that it will work across all browsers. This is what flash gave us, and this one of the BIG reasons why it gained popularity in the first place.

I'm not an adobe fan by any means, but the HTML 5 working group royally screwed up here.. I guess sometimes closed source does have its advantages.


RE: Death to flash!
By heffeque on 1/21/2010 4:51:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wow... so many people that haven't a clue.

After reading quite a few posts I can clearly state that none of them know why Firefox or Chromium aren't included in the supported list.

Here's the reason: YouTube uses h.264 which is better than Theora (ogg) but requires licensing fees which Mozilla and Chromium don't pay.
Chrome and Safari do pay the royalties so they can embed h.264 capabilities into the browser.

So there you got it.

If you're really interested on knowing more details, I suggest you all google "html5 video controversy".


RE: Death to flash!
By omnicronx on 1/21/2010 5:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
To be clear Google pays the licensing fees for Chrome, but not for Chromium ;)..

Bang on though, kind of goes against the methodology of an open source browser if they have to pay licensing fees to distribute it;)


RE: Death to flash!
By Alexvrb on 1/21/2010 9:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Don't the licensing fees apply to web sites that are providing the H.264 streams? In other words, the licensing is for the content providers like Youtube and Hulu, and not for playback software and codecs (such as Divx 7, Flash, etc)? So really... there shouldn't be such a restriction on HTML5 standardizing on H.264, and any browser should be able to add support any time they want.

Omnicronx's explanation makes more sense. Unless what you actually mean to say is that they didn't want to standardize on H.264 because it would place a financial burden on anyone who wanted to put up H.264 streams.

But that would still be silly. Because if that was the case they could have simply standardized on BOTH - meaning supporting H.264 and Theora, and nothing else. That way any HTML5 videos would work out of the box, but content providers would have the choice. That would have been a better solution than the one they chose, which is "Good luck nubs have fun lawl".


RE: Death to flash!
By heffeque on 1/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Death to flash!
By Alexvrb on 1/22/2010 9:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
Why can't they just package a free H.264 decoder with the browser installation? End users could opt out and use their own if they want. Heck Win7 can decode H.264 out of the box. I read through a bunch of MPEG LA licensing info, and I didn't see anything about fees on the playback side. But whatever, I guess you're right and they're all too worried about getting dragged into court. My bad.

This is how open standards crumble, and why things like Flash become ubiquitous. OpenGL fell behind, and HTML5's video support was pissed on by Google, since they own Youtube and want to save every ounce of bandwidth they can.


RE: Death to flash!
By f7 on 1/21/2010 3:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
True. But it will plant a foundation that would suggest with a proper implementation video in the browser (HTML that is) would work.


RE: Death to flash!
By LCS2009 on 1/22/2010 3:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe with silverlight


RE: Death to flash!
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2010 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's because flash wasn't originally written to use the video card for post processing. "HD" didn't exist when Flash was written.

Fear not, a new version will come out very soon that will no longer load down our CPU's and will finally let our uber video cards do the lions share of the work. They are working on it as we speak.


RE: Death to flash!
By Yawgm0th on 1/21/2010 12:57:19 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe Adobe should work on its many products ridiculous overhead, bugs, and security flaws.

I'd rather be able to view PDFs in my browser without feeling like I'm on 28k dial-up with a 486 than watch HD flash video.

I welcome with open arms any replacements to any of Adobe's products, especially Flash.


RE: Death to flash!
By finalfan on 1/21/2010 1:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Try this youtube video, it's an old one without ads so it can be viewed in Chrome using html5.Don't be afraid to try even you are in office, it's a video about Windows 98.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUAGzhwjB-M

What I want to say here is, the html5 viewer actually uses more CPU power than the flash version on my machine.

Myth sometimes is created by unnecessary blind hatred.


RE: Death to flash!
By Sunday Ironfoot on 1/21/2010 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I want to say here is, the html5 viewer actually uses more CPU power than the flash version on my machine.


It's an early implementation of HTML5, so probably isn't perfect just yet. I'd imagine it will improve (ie. get faster) once the browser vendors put some serious resources behind it, like they did with JavaScript which got a hell of a lot faster.


RE: Death to flash!
By Fox5 on 1/21/2010 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Works way better for me than flash does, and I can smoothly jump around to different parts of the video.

But I'm on Linux, running chromium.


RE: Death to flash!
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2010 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe Adobe should work on its many products ridiculous overhead, bugs, and security flaws.


Right. Good idea, I'm sure now that you said that they'll get right now it...


RE: Death to flash!
By OKMIJN4455 on 1/24/10, Rating: -1
Firefox
By ZachDontScare on 1/21/2010 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
So basically, it doesnt support the one browser that best supports HTML 5 video - Firefox.




RE: Firefox
By MrFord on 1/21/2010 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well apparently it does with 3.6, I just tried one, works flawlessly.


RE: Firefox
By MrFord on 1/21/2010 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
My bad, I was mistaken, still no support for FF


RE: Firefox
By tomorrow on 1/21/2010 5:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah.Im really dissapointed by this.Seems Google is being anti-mozilla because Chrome is listed as supported.


RE: Firefox
By adiposity on 1/24/2010 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im really dissapointed by this.Seems Google is being anti-mozilla because Chrome is listed as supported.


Bit of a stretch. Google had their own ideas about which codecs HTML5 video should support, and designed their browser accordingly. Is it a big surprise that, when they decided to do a beta test of HTML5 video, they went with the codec they chose to support originally?

The Mozilla makers had their own choice to make, and you could expect them to do the same if they had a video sharing site.

Personally, I like Mozilla's decision better for licensing sake, but Google's better for quality's sake. Ideally, in the future, sites will support both codecs, so if you have a licensed codec you can get the best quality, and if you don't, you can get 90% of that quality. Also, here's hoping Theora improves.

-Dan


Hard to find
By GreenEnvt on 1/21/2010 11:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
In a quick search at least, 7 of the 8 videos I clicked on had ads in them so they went to Flash.
Finally I picked a video over 2 years old, which didn't have ads, and it played in html5.

Glad to see one of Flash's strongholds changing.




RE: Hard to find
By lebe0024 on 1/21/2010 1:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Using chrome I opted in and I had a VERY hard time finding any videos that played in html5. I only found one out of the thirty or so that I checked. Wonderful. I like how in the official announcement it says "most" videos will be available in html5. Uh, no.


RE: Hard to find
By kaoken on 1/22/2010 3:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Great, just when Flash 10.1 is starting to improve performance.


Hmmm
By bug77 on 1/21/2010 11:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
So, basically, it only supports webkit. Sort of. Cause I know the lack of full-screen has been a complaint from the users for a long time.




RE: Hmmm
By Mr Alpha on 1/21/2010 12:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Firefox 3.6 added fullscreen support to HTML 5 video.


omgwow
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/22/2010 8:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
That video player is horrible. The buffering is all wrong. Instead of stopping to buffer every 10 or 15 seconds, it stops constantly. It's horrible. It's a stutterfest.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki