6 ms·
HTML5 Video in Safari on OS X Yosemite
- Zikes 12y agoStill no options for Linux?
- higherpurpose 12y agoCan GNU/Linux use blackbox DRM?
- sounds 12y ago"Can"? Sure, there is no technical reason it can't be deployed. "Should" or "would"? Not likely, because it will be easily circumvented. There are also more fundamental reasons why linux and DRM are at odds: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mozilla-and-adobe-to-support-digital-restrictions-management https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mo...
- jkrems 12y agoWhy not? You any install closed-source software on Linux. Firefox will solve this by downloading the binary component for DRM on startup IIRC.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- NickM 12y agoIt's been done before with e.g. Steam or Spotify. I would assume some company or organization would need to release a pre-compiled binary implementation, which could then be handled in much the same way that Flash is currently handled on Linux.
- nuclear_eclipse 12y agoFirefox will soon support EME, and, if I'm not mistaken, Chrome already does. Someone just needs to implement the CDM modules (DRM blobs) that support the types of encryption/decryption required by Netflix, and then it should "just work" in any browser that supports EME.
- mrb 12y ago(All?) recent Chromebook devices can stream Netflix videos. It has been possible for the last year or so: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h... Before someone says "Chrome OS is not Linux": well it is Linux-based, it runs the Linux kernel, and the Linux version of Chrome. I am not aware of any of our (Google's) internal plans, but I presume the intent is to eventually make all the HTML5 Premium Video Extensions functional on plain Chrome with no dependencies on bits of software currently in Chrome OS. This would make streaming possible on all Linux platforms, providing Netflix doesn't artificially restricts playback to only Chrome OS. (I am also not aware of any of Netflix's future plans).
- wjoe 12y agoRight now the best option for Netflix on Linux is Pipelight - http://fds-team.de/cms/pipelight-installation.html http://fds-team.de/cms/pipelight-installation.html It runs Silverlight through Wine as a plugin in Firefox/Chrome on Linux. Works flawlessly for me even with HD video. As for the future, I believe Chrome already supports the underlying technology, and Firefox confirmed they will be adding it in the future, so they will probably support Netflix's HTML5 DRM at some point. Although I'm not sure that it's any more of promising for Linux compatibility than existing propritary software - it will still need to be compiled specifically for each platform, and may even have some OS level requirements too (not sure on that, but the fact this is only working with Windows 8.1 and OS X 10.10 makes me think so). So Linux may still be left out and not be able to run certain DRM extensions.
- hackerguy0217 12y agoHopefully this takes us one step closer to Netflix on Linux
- valarauca1 12y agopipelight gets us there. We'll never a libre solution for netflix video on linux, because now its in the W3C standard.
- Touche 12y agoOne would assume they'll stop supporting the Silverlight version once all the major browser vendors support the DRM.
- valarauca1 12y agoEh they'll likely have to keep silverlight as a fallback for at-least half a decade.
- Touche 12y agoA fallback for what, exactly? Once IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari support it, that's all they care about. I think they're more likely to drop old-IE than the typical webapp.
- valarauca1 12y ago>A fallback for what, exactly? IE, Chrome, and Firefox users who haven't updated their browser.
- wjoe 12y agoIE11 only works on Windows 7/8, and OS X 10.10 is only supported by Macs up to about 5 years old. Even then, a lot of people don't actually keep their OS/browsers up to date. I expect Netflix's demographics are quite broad, and probably still quite a lot of people on XP and 5+ year old computers. There's not really any reason for them to drop support for Silverlight, they'll probably just keep new features for the HTML5 player.
- mccr8 12y agoFor those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.
- smackfu 12y agoApple is the master of branding. (For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)
- epistasis 12y agoPerhaps, but this language comes from Netflix, not Apple: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...
- atonse 12y agoYea but honestly, this doesn't bother me. I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer: - I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy. - I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this. - Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side. Cons: - I don't get to rip the video anymore. - I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback) - I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it. Rentals? Don't care.
- brador 12y agoWell, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder. But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- pmx 12y agoI love how they spin DRM into the fancy sounding "Premium Video".
- vitd 12y agoKeep in mind that the choice you have with Netflix is not "DRM" or "No DRM". It's "Microsoft's old unsupported (or soon-to-be unsupported?) Silverlight" or "Something new that will be maintained going forward and doesn't rely on Microsoft to keep it alive." Also, this is for rentals, not stuff you own, so for me, at least, it's not a big deal if there's DRM on it.
- JonoW 12y agoDoes anyone know what DRM/CDM it uses? I assume FairPlay, but cant find any info about it at all
- lylebarrere 12y agoIs this the same DRM over HTML5 that was discussed a few months ago or is this another fragmented DRM?
- morganw 12y agoThe "same DRM" is inherently fragmented because of CDM plugins. But, yes, this is the W3C's EME.
- Tiktaalik 12y agoNow that Apple has implemented MSE does this mean that I'll have a significantly higher chance of HTML5 Youtube videos actually playing on Safari? At the moment I get the "install flash" message on Youtube videos a disappointingly often amount of the time. Weirdly I've had the experience where embedded HTML5 Youtube videos will play, but they won't when I click through to watch the full-size video on Youtube.
- stevoyoung 12y agoI use the "click to flash" plugin on Safari to block flash. On YouTube, the html 5 video version loads 100% of the time for me. I also have no problem with playing them full screen. Am I missing something or do I just not watch enough YouTube to come across the problem you are describing?
- maxmcd 12y agoThis has nothing to do with browser technology though correct? This is just individual sites not being more proactive about providing desktop fallbacks. If you want a short term solution, I usually just swap to an iPad user agent string if I want to force html5 video.
- rsynnott 12y agoCurrently, Google just doesn't provide a HTML5 option for a lot of their video. They may be more willing to do so with MSE available, of course.
- ashearer 12y agoYouTube appears to require Flash when playing a video with ads from the YouTube site. Embeds of the same video show the HTML5 version ad-free. Here's a tip I've found useful: if you run into the "Install Flash" message, you can usually edit the URL to play in HTML5 instead. Change "watch?v=" to "embed/" (and if there are other querystring arguments starting with an ampersand, just strip them off). There are a few YouTube gateway sites that do something similar, but I remember the 'embed' trick better.
- leorocky 12y ago> "which provides the content protection needed for premium video services like Netflix" I don't think the qualifier "premium" and DRM are so tightly coupled as Netflix suggests. I could imagine a universe in which premium, that is high quality content, could exist without DRM. So it's not "needed" as such. Those are weasel words.
- oddevan 12y agoI can imagine it too, and I'm sure Netflix can as well. But nearly everyone making high quality/premium video TODAY requires DRM. Edit: To clarify, if someone wants to make a service like Netflix and have it actually ship today (or any time in the near future), then yes, DRM is "needed."
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- higherpurpose 12y agoSo this is how freedom dies: with applause for +2h of battery life watching videos.
- mikeryan 12y agoI know that EME is a sticky wicket for a lot of folks, but what freedom have you lost here? Netflix was already encumbered with DRM requirements from their license terms. They just chose to go with a more standards based and performant solution.
- jfb 12y agoI think you can see the argument that putting this into the standards is a different order of lossage than simply having various implementations.
- morganw 12y agoAgreed. Also, EME isn't limited only to traditional Movie & TV uses of video. It could be used for web-like content (rendered and encoded at the server) with un-blockable ads.
- esrauch 12y agoNot all internet users are Netflix subscribers. Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.
- mikeryan 12y agoInstalling Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. Nonsense. Folks have installed Flash forever in order to watch cat videos. Youtube was Flash based and Flash has even been bundled with Chrome. If folks have wanted to DRM their cat videos they've had the ability and its not happened. Its not client side compatibility thats prevented this its that the DRM encoding and streaming costs and complexity that make this a poor choice for content providers.
- chaz72 12y agoAs far as I can tell, as long as the DRM is in Flash or Silverlight then some people still hope that "getting rid of DRM" is a winnable fight. I doubt that's true, myself. It'd be nice, but I don't see it happening. My online video watching is primarily Netflix with a healthy dose of Hulu Plus, iTunes, and Youtube. Not much of it is available without DRM. That is not a technical choice. That is a commercial choice being made by the people who own the content. Since I'm not going to steal it from them, their choice matters more than mine. So DRM stays. Might as well have it built-in, more efficient and more secure.
- thrillgore 12y agoI can CHOOSE to not use Silverlight or Flash. I know it seems like an RMS way of thinking, but with plugins I can choose not to use them. Now, I have no choice. And the EME spec branches out beyond HTML5 Video. If additional working groups dictate it, soon you won't even be able to view page source or take content.
- jbigelow76 12y ago>Now, I have no choice. If you choose not to watch Netflix, with or without a plugin, isn't that making a choice as to whether to tolerate DRM'd content?
- chaz72 12y agoYou are presumably already choosing not to use Netflix now. I'm not. I'm choosing to use Netflix now, and I want the more secure, more efficient built-in method. That said, I would like a more secure, more efficient built-in method for any non-DRM video source that chooses to be distributed openly too!
- timonovici 12y agoHow on earth having an unknown, unsecure, unreviewed binary blob running on your computer be "the more secure method"? Compared to what? But having a blob in the browser running in a sea of proprietary code (MacOS), I don't think it makes such a big difference. "a more secure ... non-DRM video source" - more secure compared to what? What does security means to you? If you are going to watch non-DRMed video, it's already as secure as it can get, all you need for the efficiency part is better codecs, think of VP9, or Daala.