Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

HTML5 Adoption for Web Video Continues to Grow

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,622
39,497



094409-html5_share_feb_2011.jpg


Last October, we cited data from media search site MeFeedia showing that 54% of H.264-encoded video from its large stable of partners was available in HTML5 format, demonstrating rapid adoption of the standard. MeFeedia today provides an update showing that that number is now up to 63%.
- Over the last 12 months we have seen a rise from 10% to 63% of web videos becoming HTML5 compatible.
- H.264 is still the most common format, as it is compatible for playback in Flash as well as the browser natively.
- The overall amount of video available for playback in HTML5 is growing rapidly, but growth rate as a % is slowing (to be expected).
Click to expand...
MeFeedia notes that growing adoption of the Google-backed WebM format is fracturing the video landscape, with the obvious potential for an even more significant shift should Google deploy broader WebM support on YouTube.

Article Link: HTML5 Adoption for Web Video Continues to Grow
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/01/html5-adoption-for-web-video-continues-to-grow/
Thank God! My sites are included in this percentage; it just makes sense to use it!
 
I wish H264 was widespread. I did a test run with video on my company's site with mp4/H264. No one on Windows machines I asked to test it could view the video. Failed in IE, Firefox, and Chrome. At least not without installing a QT plugin, which many aren't willing to do.
 
Dimwhit said:
No one on Windows machines I asked to test it could view the video. Failed in IE, Firefox, and Chrome. At least not without installing a QT plugin, which many aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest fear about HTML-5. If seen as an "Apple thing" then there will be resistance from the Windows (and now Google) communities to adopt it, no matter how good it is.

What I find so frustrating is that so few companies care about the end user experience. They only care about market share. Fragmentation may be good for them but it sucks for us.
 
so 10% at the announcement of the iPad... here we are ONE year later already up more than 50%.

How much do you think this is in thanks to Apple?

Two scenarios-
A) The Apple iPad was never released... Therefore the followers aren't pushing out tablets of their own (at least yet). Where do you think it would be? maybe 20%?

B) The Apple iPad was released like it actually did. But Apple 180'd it's stance on flash. "Yes we acknowledge that in order to get the full web experience at the current point in time flash is necessary. HTML5 is the standard of the future, but until we get there we will continue to work side-by-side with Adobe to unveil the perfect flash experience on the best tablet in the world!" this is exactly what a lot of people wanted Apple to do. Now here we are a year later. STILL no flash on tablets (Xoom included) and we would probably only be at like 25% HTML5 adoption...

Apple has such a heavy influence on things
 
I support HTML5 playback via H.264, with Flash fallback. But in general, HTML5 video is so fragmented that it's a joke at this point. 3 formats for 3 browsers, plus Flash fallback is just out of control, and H.264 only with Flash fallback is not supportive enough for desktop use. I'm using HTML5 H.264 solely for mobile device support, and I could care less about supporting all the various formats on the desktop at this point.
 
Fuchal said:
I support HTML5 playback via H.264, with Flash fallback. But in general, HTML5 video is so fragmented that it's a joke at this point. 3 formats for 3 browsers, plus Flash fallback is just out of control, and H.264 only with Flash fallback is not supportive enough for desktop use. I'm using HTML5 H.264 solely for mobile device support, and I could care less about supporting all the various formats on the desktop at this point.
Click to expand...

Realistically it's only two formats. Theora just doesn't really count.

The fight between h.264 and webM is very unfortunate, I agree.
 
Dimwhit said:
I wish H264 was widespread. I did a test run with video on my company's site with mp4/H264. No one on Windows machines I asked to test it could view the video. Failed in IE, Firefox, and Chrome. At least not without installing a QT plugin, which many aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...

You can thank Apple's patent policy for that. I've always thought that patents were intended to encourage innovation rather than stifle it, but Apple has other ideas.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

The talk of HTML5 is irrelevant. Until the browser makers settle on a codec, it's useless. Flash, with a fallback to natively embedded H.264, is the only way to present a consistent experience to most users without having to provide multiple file types. And it doesn't look like it's going to get better any time soon.
 
Dimwhit said:
I wish H264 was widespread... [snip ] at least not without installing a QT plugin, which many aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...
Microsoft also released a plug-in for Windows 7 users that also enables h.264 in Chrome and Firefox if you don't want to install QuickTime. But that still doesn't address the millions of Vista and XP machines still out there that it doesn't support.

The ugly truth is, unless you're primarily an Apple/Mac-centric website, you're mostly catering to users on Windows, with most of them on IE. The easiest solution is QuickTime or Flash and the latter solution is already installed on most machines so it's not hard to see what developers choose for web video.

What would seal the deal is for the MPEG-LA to officially change the license terms to also allow implementors who don't charge for their product a free pass. The difference right now is Adobe (Flash) and Apple (QuickTime) pay the license fee so users don't have to.
 
SpinThis! said:
Microsoft also released a plug-in for Windows 7 users if you don't want to install QuickTime. But that still doesn't address the millions of Vista and XP machines still out there that it doesn't support.

The ugly truth is, unless you're primarily an Apple/Mac-centric website, you're mostly catering to users on Windows, with most of them on IE. The easiest solution is QuickTime or Flash and the latter solution is already installed on most machines so it's not hard to see what developers choose for web video.

What would seal the deal is for the MPEG-LA to officially change the license terms to also allow implementors who don't charge for their product a free pass. The difference right now is Adobe (Flash) and Apple (QuickTime) pay the license fee so users don't have to.
Click to expand...

For my video stuff I use slideshowpro which plays in flash first, with a fallback to html5. Best of both worlds.
 
I wish the BBC would adopt H.264 video playback via HTML5 instead of Flash.
Good to see that HTML5 video is increasing as I'm not a fan of having to use a plugin to play a simple video file (Silverlight & flash).
 
Dimwhit said:
I wish H264 was widespread. I did a test run with video on my company's site with mp4/H264. No one on Windows machines I asked to test it could view the video. Failed in IE, Firefox, and Chrome. At least not without installing a QT plugin, which many aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...

Use a free, open source HTML5 video player such as VideoJS:
http://videojs.com/

VideoJS automatically falls back to Flash, so if you just use an H264 video with VideoJS you'll cover almost everybody.
 
kanaka said:
Use a free, open source HTML5 video player such as VideoJS:
http://videojs.com/

VideoJS automatically falls back to Flash, so if you just use an H264 video with VideoJS you'll cover almost everybody.
Click to expand...

Nice! I'll have to look at that. Still the issue of people not having H264 compatibility, but at some point, I may just make them deal with installing a plugin.
 
bootsified said:
The talk of HTML5 is irrelevant. Until the browser makers settle on a codec, it's useless. Flash, with a fallback to natively embedded H.264, is the only way to present a consistent experience to most users without having to provide multiple file types. And it doesn't look like it's going to get better any time soon.
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop reading "HTML 5" as merely a replacement for Flash video players. What you are referring to is the <video> tag which is a small part of HTML version 5. The lack of a video codec standard at this point has very little to do with the present and future "usefulness" of this new spec.

The HTML version 5 spec paired with CSS3 and javascript is changing the way the web works at an alarming rate. Supporting these new specs has become the battle-ground for the current browser wars. The browser that supports the standards the best and fastest wins.

The talk of HTML5 is fundamentally and critically relevant to web development today. Any web developer who isn't talking about it and already learning it, and using what is available, will be left behind.

It's truly an exciting time to be developing for the web!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back