5 ms·

At least Google uses web standards for their video

millstone 9y ago
I wasn't aware of that, what format does Google use for its live streams? I know that YouTube on Chrome uses VP9, which is not a web standard - or at least not more of a web standard than HTTP Live Streaming (which is what Apple uses for its keynote).
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  You're confusing video encoding with streaming protocol. There are no web standard video encodings.
  - millstone 9y ago
    You're right, I am legitimately confused. If there are no web standard video encodings, is it therefore wrong to say that "Google uses web standards for their video?" What exactly is Google doing better?
    - PetahNZ 9y ago
      Not forcing us to use Safari
      - millstone 9y ago
        I get that you don't want to use Safari, but actually "forcing us to use Safari" is exactly what Google did. Google chose not to implement HTTP Live Streaming, and therefore it's not available in Chrome. Microsoft made the other choice, which is why it works in Edge. The double standard here is really quite breathtaking. Apple doesn't implement a feature: Apple's fault. Google doesn't implement a feature: Apple's fault too.
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        HLS requires the MPEG2-TS container format, which is not royalty free and therefore has no chance of becoming a web standard or of being implemented by Mozilla on free platforms. I don't see the double standard. All but one browser on GP's platform support the royalty free option. Only Safari on his platform supports the encumbered option, and he doesn't want to be forced to use it. On my own preferred platform, no browsers support HLS. Since the votes on this thread won't let me reply: @pjmlp: I choose to use a platform where developer experience is the primary goal because developing software is both my vocation and avocation and why I am reading "Hacker News." If I wanted a walled garden media consumption toy, I would get a LeapPad. Look, we can snark all day, but that doesn't change the conclusion that tommoor was right about web standards. @millstone: There are no royalty-required formats that are web standards for a reason: to make the web free and open to all. That is why it is not a red herring. Bringing Google into it, on the other hand, is — whether Google pays the fees has no bearing on whether the format should be a web standard. Apple chose not to implement hardware decoding for the unencumbered format. All other major consumer hardware manufacturers have.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        > On my own preferred platform, no browsers support HLS. Then chose platforms where the overall desktop experience is a primary goal of developers.
        millstone 9y ago
        "Royalty free" seems like a red herring. I'm not familiar with MPEG2-TS in particular, but Chrome already happily plays H.264 on macOS, plus there is an explicit exception in H.264 license for non-paid (including ad-supported) content. I don't see how implementing HLS would increase Google's licensing cost in any way. I appreciate the free software position. It seems MPEG-DASH is indeed better suited for it, though maybe only slightly [1]. (Regardless, turns out Apple did not release anything as copyleft this year, so maybe it's better that free software purists could not have watched the video?) The case for "encumbered" options is simple: it's what's decoded in hardware, for users who prefer their device to last the entire video. [1] http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-News/MPEG-LA-Announces-MPEG-DASH-Patent-Portfolio-License-114873.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New...
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      YouTube uses MPEG-DASH as its adaptive streaming protocol, which works over standard web protocols with royalty free codecs and containers, unlike HLS. As for why there isn't a web standard video encoding and container, all the major browser vendors except one have announced support for VP9 and its successor and Webm.
pjmlp 9y ago
It is a Apple developer conference for software developers that care about making beautiful applications that take full advantage of native experiences on Apple platforms. Any developer on this community can watch the video.
- lvillani 9y ago
  I can still be an outsider and be genuinely interested in what their platform has to offer and, maybe, later decide that I want to invest in their platform. I become a better developer, Apple gains a new developer, everyone wins. Forcing people to use macOS to view recorded sessions or events goes against that.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    It's forcing people to use browsers that support HTTP Live Streaming which is Safari (on any platform) and Microsoft Edge. You can also use VLC to watch it.
    - lvillani 9y ago
      I know. However, the default experience is a little box that says "Streaming is available in Safari and the WWDC app". Now I have to go out of my way to learn that they stream via HLS, obtain the stream's URL and feed it to VLC. † Compare this with Microsoft's and Google's videos (available through Channel9 and YouTube, respectively) that are accessible "virtually" from every operating system and device. If your goal is to attract new developers to the platform, maybe adopting a more widespread industry standard (such as DASH, which all other browsers implement) is probably the way to go, IMO. -- † By the way, the box also breaks the "Copy Video Location" menu item, so I have to open the inspector or install an extension to find out what the real URL is.
- lultimouomo 9y ago
  It does seem like a lost opportunity to do some outreach though. It's not hard to provide streams both in HLS and DASH, and streaming the developer conference to everyone could surely attract new developers to their platform (and not only developers, the same thing applies to presentations of new devices and consumer software). To me it really looks like a statement against people without macs; Apple doesn't care about them, not even in its own interest of making money. They won't speak to you as long as you don't have an iDevice, full stop.

I wasn't aware of that, what format does Google use for its live streams? I know that YouTube on Chrome uses VP9, which is not a web standard - or at least not more of a web standard than HTTP Live Streaming (which is what Apple uses for its keynote).

lern_too_spel 9y ago
You're confusing video encoding with streaming protocol. There are no web standard video encodings.
- millstone 9y ago
  You're right, I am legitimately confused. If there are no web standard video encodings, is it therefore wrong to say that "Google uses web standards for their video?" What exactly is Google doing better?
  - PetahNZ 9y ago
    Not forcing us to use Safari
    - millstone 9y ago
      I get that you don't want to use Safari, but actually "forcing us to use Safari" is exactly what Google did. Google chose not to implement HTTP Live Streaming, and therefore it's not available in Chrome. Microsoft made the other choice, which is why it works in Edge. The double standard here is really quite breathtaking. Apple doesn't implement a feature: Apple's fault. Google doesn't implement a feature: Apple's fault too.
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        HLS requires the MPEG2-TS container format, which is not royalty free and therefore has no chance of becoming a web standard or of being implemented by Mozilla on free platforms. I don't see the double standard. All but one browser on GP's platform support the royalty free option. Only Safari on his platform supports the encumbered option, and he doesn't want to be forced to use it. On my own preferred platform, no browsers support HLS. Since the votes on this thread won't let me reply: @pjmlp: I choose to use a platform where developer experience is the primary goal because developing software is both my vocation and avocation and why I am reading "Hacker News." If I wanted a walled garden media consumption toy, I would get a LeapPad. Look, we can snark all day, but that doesn't change the conclusion that tommoor was right about web standards. @millstone: There are no royalty-required formats that are web standards for a reason: to make the web free and open to all. That is why it is not a red herring. Bringing Google into it, on the other hand, is — whether Google pays the fees has no bearing on whether the format should be a web standard. Apple chose not to implement hardware decoding for the unencumbered format. All other major consumer hardware manufacturers have.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        > On my own preferred platform, no browsers support HLS. Then chose platforms where the overall desktop experience is a primary goal of developers.
        millstone 9y ago
        "Royalty free" seems like a red herring. I'm not familiar with MPEG2-TS in particular, but Chrome already happily plays H.264 on macOS, plus there is an explicit exception in H.264 license for non-paid (including ad-supported) content. I don't see how implementing HLS would increase Google's licensing cost in any way. I appreciate the free software position. It seems MPEG-DASH is indeed better suited for it, though maybe only slightly [1]. (Regardless, turns out Apple did not release anything as copyleft this year, so maybe it's better that free software purists could not have watched the video?) The case for "encumbered" options is simple: it's what's decoded in hardware, for users who prefer their device to last the entire video. [1] http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-News/MPEG-LA-Announces-MPEG-DASH-Patent-Portfolio-License-114873.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New...
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    YouTube uses MPEG-DASH as its adaptive streaming protocol, which works over standard web protocols with royalty free codecs and containers, unlike HLS. As for why there isn't a web standard video encoding and container, all the major browser vendors except one have announced support for VP9 and its successor and Webm.

pjmlp 9y ago

It is a Apple developer conference for software developers that care about making beautiful applications that take full advantage of native experiences on Apple platforms. Any developer on this community can watch the video.

lvillani 9y ago
I can still be an outsider and be genuinely interested in what their platform has to offer and, maybe, later decide that I want to invest in their platform. I become a better developer, Apple gains a new developer, everyone wins. Forcing people to use macOS to view recorded sessions or events goes against that.
- threeseed 9y ago
  It's forcing people to use browsers that support HTTP Live Streaming which is Safari (on any platform) and Microsoft Edge. You can also use VLC to watch it.
  - lvillani 9y ago
    I know. However, the default experience is a little box that says "Streaming is available in Safari and the WWDC app". Now I have to go out of my way to learn that they stream via HLS, obtain the stream's URL and feed it to VLC. † Compare this with Microsoft's and Google's videos (available through Channel9 and YouTube, respectively) that are accessible "virtually" from every operating system and device. If your goal is to attract new developers to the platform, maybe adopting a more widespread industry standard (such as DASH, which all other browsers implement) is probably the way to go, IMO. -- † By the way, the box also breaks the "Copy Video Location" menu item, so I have to open the inspector or install an extension to find out what the real URL is.
lultimouomo 9y ago
It does seem like a lost opportunity to do some outreach though. It's not hard to provide streams both in HLS and DASH, and streaming the developer conference to everyone could surely attract new developers to their platform (and not only developers, the same thing applies to presentations of new devices and consumer software). To me it really looks like a statement against people without macs; Apple doesn't care about them, not even in its own interest of making money. They won't speak to you as long as you don't have an iDevice, full stop.