3 ms·
YouTube's HTML5 Player
- Groxx 17y agoI very much like this :) Lower CPU, doesn't slow down the page, and the UI responds much faster. Downsides: no fullscreen (yet), and doesn't skip-to-and-buffer from the middle (loads a frame, and waits until load-from-beginning catches up). As I typically watch all of a video if it's on Youtube, though, that's easily acceptable.
- tolmasky 17y agoThere seem to be plenty of little UI glitches to: like not being able to click to position the audio level (have to drag the knob instead). Obviously these should be easily fixable, but I'd like them to fix them.
- heresy 17y agoIs it just me or does HTML 5 video support seem like a Google plan to leverage their video dominance into browser market share at the expense of Microsoft? Not that I'm complaining, the sooner Trident goes down in flames, the better.
- netcan 17y agoThe danger is, I suppose, if they where leveraging any of their content dominance to promote integration between browser and content and therefore lock-in.
- olsonjeffery 17y agoFirefox 3.6 includes "HTML 5" in the list of features, supposedly. Does this include video support? I don't know. I wonder if youtube is restricting browser versions. The idea of vendor lock-in for an open standard (HTML 5) is stupid, though. The reason more browsers aren't on the list, I gather, is that they don't have [adequate] support.
- oomkiller 17y agoAMAZING, uses 1/3 of the cpu the flash version does! Not perfect yet, but much better!