5 ms·

Rather, Hulu isn't ready for HTML5.

by jcapote 16y ago

Qz 16y ago
Hulu is an established platform, HTML5 is an upcoming spec that doesn't do what Hulu would need it to do. As cute as your post sounds (and we all love a pithy inversion), it's just wrong.
- pquerna 16y ago
  HTML5 video will never be acceptable by people who believe that DRM in Video is a requirement. Fortunately, those people have over the last few years been proven more and more to be ignorant of what the wider market wants -- and the video-industry overall isn't being as stupid as the music industry, but fundamentally, they will try to hold on to DRM'ed video content for as long as possible, which is something that HTML5 streaming of video content will never allow. Speaking as an ex-jooster, there are lots of things you can do to create white picket fences when streaming over HTTP, like one time tickets, dynamic rate limiting to prevent mass ripping[1], etc. At best these limit people 'stealing' content to doing it in real time, and makes it hard to 'rip' an entire site. Today that is the situation even Flash is in -- there are lots of tools out there to steal content from Hulu in 1:1 time, and they could do it over HTTP for effectively the same protections, but the content owners still believe in the illusion that they have more viable white picket fences, which Adobe is happy to sell to customers in FMS: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protecting_video_fms.pdf http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protec... [1] - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=721965 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=7219...
  - roc 16y ago
    The worst part of the DRM illusion, is that HULU is entirely second-run TV. It is, by definition, video that has already be recorded, digitized and stored by any number of DVRs. "Locking down" HULU won't stop the serious, won't stop the casual and won't have any effect on video availability past original broadcast. The networks have long since lost the ability to control rebroadcast availability and they remain in deep denial -- almost surely, because lucrative contracts for re-runs require them to maintain this fiction.
abstractbill 16y ago
Hulu's video player is rock-solid. If they say HTML5 isn't good enough, I am inclined to take what they say seriously.
- roc 16y ago
  The thing to note is why they say it isn't good enough. The argument essentially boils down to: the studios and the advertisers are their customers: the studios don't like the lack of perceived control over the data stream and the advertisers don't like the loss of finer-grained reporting on data-stream consumption.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    And those are important why's. The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet. I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.
    - roc 16y ago
      I never said they were unimportant reasons. I just pointed out that no-one's actually arguing that HTML5 is ready to drop into HULU's business and replace their Flash client today. The story's hook is the rationale, not the conclusion. You miss the point in discussing whether the conclusion is accurate or not.
    - KirinDave 16y ago
      The reporting complaints stuff seems like a non-sequitur. They could trivially be implemented and integrated with existing systems.
    - weixiyen 16y ago
      I personally disagree. None of those why's are all that important except for the buffering because the end user is in fact the only term in the equation that matters. Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know the eyeballs are there. Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is interested in profits). These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need. The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors. But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM, your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by other means, so what's the point?

Rather, Hulu isn't ready for HTML5.

by jcapote 16y ago

Rather, Hulu isn't ready for HTML5.

Qz 16y ago

Hulu is an established platform, HTML5 is an upcoming spec that doesn't do what Hulu would need it to do. As cute as your post sounds (and we all love a pithy inversion), it's just wrong.

pquerna 16y ago
HTML5 video will never be acceptable by people who believe that DRM in Video is a requirement. Fortunately, those people have over the last few years been proven more and more to be ignorant of what the wider market wants -- and the video-industry overall isn't being as stupid as the music industry, but fundamentally, they will try to hold on to DRM'ed video content for as long as possible, which is something that HTML5 streaming of video content will never allow. Speaking as an ex-jooster, there are lots of things you can do to create white picket fences when streaming over HTTP, like one time tickets, dynamic rate limiting to prevent mass ripping[1], etc. At best these limit people 'stealing' content to doing it in real time, and makes it hard to 'rip' an entire site. Today that is the situation even Flash is in -- there are lots of tools out there to steal content from Hulu in 1:1 time, and they could do it over HTTP for effectively the same protections, but the content owners still believe in the illusion that they have more viable white picket fences, which Adobe is happy to sell to customers in FMS: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protecting_video_fms.pdf http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/protec... [1] - http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=721965 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=7219...
- roc 16y ago
  The worst part of the DRM illusion, is that HULU is entirely second-run TV. It is, by definition, video that has already be recorded, digitized and stored by any number of DVRs. "Locking down" HULU won't stop the serious, won't stop the casual and won't have any effect on video availability past original broadcast. The networks have long since lost the ability to control rebroadcast availability and they remain in deep denial -- almost surely, because lucrative contracts for re-runs require them to maintain this fiction.

abstractbill 16y ago

Hulu's video player is rock-solid. If they say HTML5 isn't good enough, I am inclined to take what they say seriously.

roc 16y ago
The thing to note is why they say it isn't good enough. The argument essentially boils down to: the studios and the advertisers are their customers: the studios don't like the lack of perceived control over the data stream and the advertisers don't like the loss of finer-grained reporting on data-stream consumption.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  And those are important why's. The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet. I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.
  - roc 16y ago
    I never said they were unimportant reasons. I just pointed out that no-one's actually arguing that HTML5 is ready to drop into HULU's business and replace their Flash client today. The story's hook is the rationale, not the conclusion. You miss the point in discussing whether the conclusion is accurate or not.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    The reporting complaints stuff seems like a non-sequitur. They could trivially be implemented and integrated with existing systems.
  - weixiyen 16y ago
    I personally disagree. None of those why's are all that important except for the buffering because the end user is in fact the only term in the equation that matters. Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know the eyeballs are there. Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is interested in profits). These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need. The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors. But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM, your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by other means, so what's the point?