5 ms·

Four years after YouTube started "experimenting" with HTML5, it still uses Flash by default to show me videos on the latest versions of Firefox and IE. If Flash

by kijin 13y ago

Four years after YouTube started "experimenting" with HTML5, it still uses Flash by default to show me videos on the latest versions of Firefox and IE. If Flash is not installed, YouTube resorts to HTML5 <video>, which seems to play just fine, but still displays a big red warning about the missing Flash. Why can't they use HTML5 by default and resort to Flash if and only if the browser doesn't support HTML5? Why do they have to keep doing it the other way around? This is the kind of shit that keeps Flash alive. On a slightly different note, I really wish "DRM on HTML5" fails and DRM users continue to be forced to rely on plugins like Flash. Not only do DRM users deserve the inferior experience, but also, if we really want to keep open standards open, there's got to be some fenced-off area where proprietary kids can play by themselves and the rest of us can ignore them. If there's one reason I want Flash to stay alive, that's it. Better Flash than some other bespoke ActiveX control like the Koreans use :(

igravious 13y ago
Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? Granted, it does allow for lock-in, but it depends on who's doing the lock-in. I don't think the case has been sufficiently made that DRM is bad in and of itself. I am all in favour of open standards, no vendor lock in, I'm in favour of open source and free software. Let me reiterate just so there's no confusion, I use Ubuntu on the desktop, I use Gentoo on the server, I have an Nexus phone and tablet. However, I fail to see how DRM is bad in and of itself. I would prefer if all software was done in the open but I don't think proprietary software is evil or morally bad. I think it increases the likelihood of harm to the user somewhere down the line but I don't think the harm is inevitable. In the case of DRM I think the harm is even more remote, what do you think? Side note: what irks me is multiple formats ... Say I'm, an old timer, I've bought an album on vinyl, I figure that should give me some deduction when CD comes out or digital only or DVD-audio or whatever, I think making people purchase the same content on different formats over and over again at full price with no discount and not taking into account that you've purchased that album before is unfair!
- okasaki 13y ago
  Harm doesn't have to be inevitable for something to be morally bad. E.g. drunk driving, unprotected sex, and so on.
  - hdctambien 13y ago
    Unprotected sex is morally bad?
    - kijin 13y ago
      If you know that there is a risk of harm -- STD or an unwanted pregnancy -- and fail to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk, I suppose that counts as "bad". Example of unprotected sex that is probably OK: (both partners are STD-free) && (they are using a different method of birth control || they actually want a baby || it is impossible for a pregnancy to occur because they're same-sex or one of them is sterile)
- nwh 13y ago
  > Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? DRM must be proprietary. The whole point of DRM is that only the authorized devices get the "special source". DRM is closed source, obfuscated binaries, tricks and traps to drop people reverse engineering them. If it was open source then the functionality could be duplicated or the special sauce modified for any use. There's no other conceivable way DRM can function.
  - m_mueller 13y ago
    I think it depends on what you define as DRM. If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. If however the provider doesn't accept the fact that the permission to read is equal to the permission to copy something, then you're in trouble. The formula could be so simple - distribute your content on high bandwidth, highly available networks, give access on a per-device or per-account basis (and charge money for that access), thus enable people to watch anything they want instantly and safely, and you gain back pretty much all of the customers you've lost to piracy, that would have bought your physical media before. Restricting copies is mostly useless since there are copies floating around of anything anyways. There's always been means to get content illegally, it's just now that the illegal way has become easier to use, or more importantly, the only way to get the content in a reasonable timeframe in the first place. Letting most of the world wait years between release in the US and the availability to stream and then wondering why they dare to download it anyways, is just not a sane way to go about and it has nothing to do with using DRM or not.
gbl08ma 13y ago
HTML5 YouTube plays just fine on my newish (2 years old) laptop, which has a discreet Nvidia GPU, with Chrome (no matter if I'm on Windows or Linux). However, the temperature of the GPU increases noticeably while watching videos (i.e. it is doing more work) and the speed of the fan increases, too. It's like this with every <video> element I put to play. With Flash, any increase in resource consumption is unnoticeable. Some days ago I booted my old (5-6 years old) desktop, which only has Intel integrated graphics, with Chrome. In HTML5 YouTube, playback skipped a lot of video frames, and often sound would have interruptions too (especially if I switched tabs or windows and went to do something else). The CPU became much busier. This would happen on both Windows and Linux. With Flash, videos play just fine, and the CPU definitely doesn't get as busy. The version of Chrome is the same on all four OS installs. Conclusion: while I like HTML5 video much more than Flash video (if not for anything else, because I don't need plugins, even if they are bundled with the browser), it still has a long way to go, as currently it uses much more resources than Flash to achieve the same goal. I believe this is the main reason why YouTube still makes Flash the default: if they made HTML5 video the default, it would play poorly for a lot of people, and make their computers super slow.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tomelders 13y ago
I've noticed that videos with ads don't load in the html5 player.
agumonkey 13y ago
Funny I forgot about html5. I tried some nojs + proxy plugin that would replace flash with it, the benefits were two folds : - lower cpu usage - better network buffering; their latest flash player heuristics don't go along with my ISP bandwidth ~limitations. ps: I can also try to forward the stream to vlc or mplayer/mpv in the hope it would use even less cpu.
- girvo 13y ago
  I love that I can send it via AirPlay to my Apple TV. Lets see Flash do that!
nness 13y ago
Maybe because HTML5 video still has fractured codec support, which means every video, in every resolution they provide, needs to be encoded in at least WebM and MP4 using H.264 (which is a licensing drama in itself) -- including video ads. Could practically double their storage requirements.

by kijin 13y ago

igravious 13y ago

Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? Granted, it does allow for lock-in, but it depends on who's doing the lock-in. I don't think the case has been sufficiently made that DRM is bad in and of itself. I am all in favour of open standards, no vendor lock in, I'm in favour of open source and free software. Let me reiterate just so there's no confusion, I use Ubuntu on the desktop, I use Gentoo on the server, I have an Nexus phone and tablet. However, I fail to see how DRM is bad in and of itself. I would prefer if all software was done in the open but I don't think proprietary software is evil or morally bad. I think it increases the likelihood of harm to the user somewhere down the line but I don't think the harm is inevitable. In the case of DRM I think the harm is even more remote, what do you think? Side note: what irks me is multiple formats ... Say I'm, an old timer, I've bought an album on vinyl, I figure that should give me some deduction when CD comes out or digital only or DVD-audio or whatever, I think making people purchase the same content on different formats over and over again at full price with no discount and not taking into account that you've purchased that album before is unfair!

okasaki 13y ago
Harm doesn't have to be inevitable for something to be morally bad. E.g. drunk driving, unprotected sex, and so on.
- hdctambien 13y ago
  Unprotected sex is morally bad?
  - kijin 13y ago
    If you know that there is a risk of harm -- STD or an unwanted pregnancy -- and fail to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk, I suppose that counts as "bad". Example of unprotected sex that is probably OK: (both partners are STD-free) && (they are using a different method of birth control || they actually want a baby || it is impossible for a pregnancy to occur because they're same-sex or one of them is sterile)
nwh 13y ago
> Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? DRM must be proprietary. The whole point of DRM is that only the authorized devices get the "special source". DRM is closed source, obfuscated binaries, tricks and traps to drop people reverse engineering them. If it was open source then the functionality could be duplicated or the special sauce modified for any use. There's no other conceivable way DRM can function.
- m_mueller 13y ago
  I think it depends on what you define as DRM. If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. If however the provider doesn't accept the fact that the permission to read is equal to the permission to copy something, then you're in trouble. The formula could be so simple - distribute your content on high bandwidth, highly available networks, give access on a per-device or per-account basis (and charge money for that access), thus enable people to watch anything they want instantly and safely, and you gain back pretty much all of the customers you've lost to piracy, that would have bought your physical media before. Restricting copies is mostly useless since there are copies floating around of anything anyways. There's always been means to get content illegally, it's just now that the illegal way has become easier to use, or more importantly, the only way to get the content in a reasonable timeframe in the first place. Letting most of the world wait years between release in the US and the availability to stream and then wondering why they dare to download it anyways, is just not a sane way to go about and it has nothing to do with using DRM or not.

gbl08ma 13y ago

HTML5 YouTube plays just fine on my newish (2 years old) laptop, which has a discreet Nvidia GPU, with Chrome (no matter if I'm on Windows or Linux). However, the temperature of the GPU increases noticeably while watching videos (i.e. it is doing more work) and the speed of the fan increases, too. It's like this with every <video> element I put to play. With Flash, any increase in resource consumption is unnoticeable. Some days ago I booted my old (5-6 years old) desktop, which only has Intel integrated graphics, with Chrome. In HTML5 YouTube, playback skipped a lot of video frames, and often sound would have interruptions too (especially if I switched tabs or windows and went to do something else). The CPU became much busier. This would happen on both Windows and Linux. With Flash, videos play just fine, and the CPU definitely doesn't get as busy. The version of Chrome is the same on all four OS installs. Conclusion: while I like HTML5 video much more than Flash video (if not for anything else, because I don't need plugins, even if they are bundled with the browser), it still has a long way to go, as currently it uses much more resources than Flash to achieve the same goal. I believe this is the main reason why YouTube still makes Flash the default: if they made HTML5 video the default, it would play poorly for a lot of people, and make their computers super slow.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

tomelders 13y ago

I've noticed that videos with ads don't load in the html5 player.

agumonkey 13y ago

Funny I forgot about html5. I tried some nojs + proxy plugin that would replace flash with it, the benefits were two folds : - lower cpu usage - better network buffering; their latest flash player heuristics don't go along with my ISP bandwidth ~limitations. ps: I can also try to forward the stream to vlc or mplayer/mpv in the hope it would use even less cpu.

girvo 13y ago
I love that I can send it via AirPlay to my Apple TV. Lets see Flash do that!

nness 13y ago

Maybe because HTML5 video still has fractured codec support, which means every video, in every resolution they provide, needs to be encoded in at least WebM and MP4 using H.264 (which is a licensing drama in itself) -- including video ads. Could practically double their storage requirements.