3 ms·
How does this stack up to http://videojs.com http://videojs.com?
by seiji 14y ago
How does this stack up to http://videojs.com http://videojs.com?
- phase_9 14y agoAnecdotal, I know, but I found VideoJS to be a bit of a mess. From a code point of view, the player instance would not destroy correctly resulting in a memory leak for single-page web apps and IMHO the CSS was a pain to work with.
- johnx123-up 14y agoWhat about http://mediaelementjs.com/ http://mediaelementjs.com/ ?
- sbarre 14y agoOne of the things I love the most about HN is reading the comments on something cool (like Flowplayer) inevitably leads to the discovery of comparable and equally cool things! Thanks for the link!
- tipiirai 14y agoSame as with videojs, you should compare at what Flowplayer can actually do: http://flowplayer.org/demos/ http://flowplayer.org/demos/ . There is a difference.
- ddorian43 14y agoWhat about vast in both html5 and flash?
- tipiirai 14y agoVideoJS has done a pretty good job at promoting HTML5 video and giving a viable alternative for Flash. Flowplayer is not just HTML5 video but common API for video - no matter what the backend is: the VIDEO tag or Flash (for older browsers). This universal API is for both CSS and JavaScript. Same CSS rules or JavaScript methods apply for both backends. Think of implementing plugins or skins that work on all browsers and devices. That's not all. A lot of features that were only there for Flash are now available for HTML5: cuepoints, playlists, random seeking, fullscreen, keyboard shortucts.. to name a few. For a full list of features please have a look at: http://flowplayer.org/why/ http://flowplayer.org/why/ Demos: http://flowplayer.org/demos/ http://flowplayer.org/demos/ Make sure you try with various browsers. Note: iPad support is unbeatable.
- Heff 14y agoActually video.js has had a common API/skin for html5 and flash for a while now.
- mddw 14y agoVideoJs is free (ass free speech), Flowplayer is not : it's a badgeware.