Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Brightcove (and therefore The New York Times and Time, Inc) Announces Support for HTML5 Video
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obfuscation is the current method via Flash. Just how much "easier/harder" is it under HTML5?
we use YouTube which supports HTML5 and has a dedicated app. But if the video is not ours to encode, we use the parent format.
arn
Huzzah! Myself, along with many others were right about flash! Time to DIE, you outdated system-hogging piece of crap. I'll be glad to be rid of it, but realistically it won't be completely gone for some time to come. HTML 5 is a bit too bleeding edge for all the people still running IE6, lol. Not to mention 7 or 8. Honestly they still drive the market, but lowest common denominator will win out. If every computer can play standard HTML 5 in five to ten years, but not every computer can play flash efficiently, then HTML 5 will win out. Honestly it will be easier that way. Now if Microsoft could only get IE standardized so I don't have to make essentially one web site for Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome and another website for EACH flavor of Internet Explorer. One website that works on every browser would be ideal, and save me tons of time at work. Time that I could spend on more creative marketing strategies and extra website polish.
But what about the flash ads? I guess I could just click-to-flash them, but then you'd be getting no revenue. Seems like a good idea to work out a new system. I also get unresponsive scripts from time to time that hang the browser that I believe are flash-derived but I've never cared enough to investigate it fully.
Just to elaborate a little more... With the VIDEO TAG as part of the DOM, theoretically, this means that the main source video does not need to be readily visible in the HTML code (for providers who wish more sophisticated implementations). The path information can be encrypted and communicated directly to the DOM object via Ajax. At the end of the day, people using Safari will likely have just as simple a time extracting video content as they do with Flash today (by simply looking at their download activity). --Unlike Silverlight, for instance which includes content encryption as part of its delivery system. Flash generally rides commando, which aside from Safari's uncomfortably sober ability to inspect downloads) explains the proliferation of Flash video "extraction" tools anyone can use. I mean, they've been implemented in every OS, as browser extensions, web services, etc. It's crazy for anyone to think Flash does little more than provide fake content security for interested downloaders that don't know how to use Google.
~ CB
Flash for video is probably out the door. Flash in general will stick around for quite some time.
Let's not be naive here. There are simply some things that HTML and Javascript will never be able to do. But the simple things like video should never have needed an outside plugin in the first place.
Let's not be naive here. There are simply some things that HTML and Javascript will never be able to do. But the simple things like video should never have needed an outside plugin in the first place.
Adobe is still in this...
The reason Flash is so prominent on the internet is because anybody that knows how to turn on a computer can figure out how to make an interactive flash element.
If Adobe does this right, they will just add an "export as html5" option and run as they always do.
The reason Flash is so prominent on the internet is because anybody that knows how to turn on a computer can figure out how to make an interactive flash element.
If Adobe does this right, they will just add an "export as html5" option and run as they always do.
no additional cost?!
Wow, brilliant wording! Similar to saying "I'll send you a PDF, and at no additional cost! a text file."
Thanks.
Wow, brilliant wording! Similar to saying "I'll send you a PDF, and at no additional cost! a text file."
Thanks.
See my last post. The next time you think Flash is "obfuscating" video content, ask yourself why there are so many requests for FLV player options out there. Is FLV some awesome codec sweeping the nation, or is it simply the format many sites choose to upload Flash video content in?
But, if you want a real eye opener, just do this:
1. Open Safari
2. Go to Windows > Activity
3. Browse to a Flash video
4. Look at the activity for that page
5. See anything large downloading?
6. Double-click on it.
For instance, here's a direct link to an MP4 file streaming throgh Flash on FoxNews (they don't use FLV apparently). It's pretty much like reading HTML source. It's like baby food simple.
http://media2.foxnews.com/032810/032810_weather_flash_FNC_032810_09-09_FNC_MED.mp4
So. It will basically be the same with HTML5. The only difference will be that playlists will be handled through javascript and Ajax calls with varying degrees of obfuscation... unless developers simply don't care about obfuscation, at which point they can use an implementation that is pretty human readable but convenient to update and maintain.
~ CB
I never replied to you again until now. You answered my questions when you double quoted a post the last time.
Wow!!
Now that is some lobbying by Steve and his team. Well, we must admit it was more than Apple working on this. I imagine this must actually speak well of html5's video capabilities. Of course, that's not saying much considering the current near singular choice.
Now that is some lobbying by Steve and his team. Well, we must admit it was more than Apple working on this. I imagine this must actually speak well of html5's video capabilities. Of course, that's not saying much considering the current near singular choice.
Whew, Apple scared me for a minute there, they've got serious clout on the web enough to get many sites to use/switch to HTML5 before the iPad's release date. Now I can easily see why Job's didn't give a rats behind that Flash didn't run on the iPad during the keynote. Apple knows what they are doing. 
Doesn't work on iPlayer. Safari's Activity tab shows nothing out of the ordinary at all.
Bloody Good Show
/British Accent
---
I hope Adobe goes back to their core services, and charges less for them. Photoshop was relatively good until they bought Macromedia. I can live without Dreamweaver.
/British Accent
---
I hope Adobe goes back to their core services, and charges less for them. Photoshop was relatively good until they bought Macromedia. I can live without Dreamweaver.
I fail to see your point. Do you mean that HTML5 video is a "plain text" variety of online video distribution?
FYI - The "no additional cost" refers to their customers (advertisers) being able to distribute their ads to a relatively new and huge market (iPads, iPhones, iPod touches) using a new format (HTML5) that cost money to put into place. Many companies would charge extra for this "added value" service.