Hulu Sticking With Flash For Now, Says HTML5 Not Ready Yet

[topmounter]

YouTube HTML5 runs better on my Mac than Flash. The 10.1 hardware accelerated beta of Flash runs better than any Flash in recent years though.


Your medieval name is "Hulu the Irrelevant".

 

[UTclassof89]

Wow. To read these posts makes me think I've got the only three computers that run Flash flawlessly (I watch Hulu all the time, and it's never, ever crashed my browser).

In fact, the only time my fans spin excessively is from all the vitriolic hot air here on MR....

 

[kurzz]

Hulu, you're dead to me.




...that is, until you come back with HTML5.

 

[*LTD*]

Guess someone's not playing to win.

 

[Capt T]

Wow. To read these posts makes me think I've got the only three computers that run Flash flawlessly (I watch Hulu all the time, and it's never, ever crashed my browser).

In fact, the only time my fans spin excessively is from all the vitriolic hot air here on MR....

Hulu should be one of the main Flash using sites that the Flash fanboys/girls use as an example. They probably use/program Flash better than most other sites. It isn't flawless but I am not always sure that is a flash issue with their site. It gets a lot of hits. But they handle the traffic well. And Hulu has never been the site that has crashed my browser, which on the laptop is Firefox.

It is usually sites with a bunch of Flash ads on it that crash the browser. Cheap poorly done flash ads at that. Which helps to give Flash, more than anything else with the average user, a bad reputation.

 

[coyote]

HTML5 isn't yet there and ready. But Flash is.

This is absurdly false. I use HTML5 every day. The beauty of HTML5 is that it provides for a graceful degradation of user experience for those on older browsers. Whenever possible, I try to give users the best experience their browser supports.

 

[jorgie]

It is bloated. Same media in flash and h.264 the h.264 will run better on a machine optimized for video playback of all kinds.

I am sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Most of the videos on YouTube and Hulu ARE h.264. Flash on Hulu was used to WRITE THE PLAYER, not encode the video.

You just proved that you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

The reason Flash uses so much CPU on OS X when decoding h.264 video is because the current OS X version is not able to use hardware decoding. The next version will be able to, just like the Windows version does.

 

[Pojo458]

It is bloated. Same media in flash and h.264 the h.264 will run better on a machine optimized for video playback of all kinds.

.......what?

 

[Anuba]

Guess someone's not playing to win.

If there's something the IT bubble of 2000-2001 taught us, it's that those who jump on every opportunity touted as "the future" often end up as the biggest losers of all. Hulu wants to stick with their and true method of content delivery until the alternatives are ready. According to their assessment, HTML5 isn't ready yet. They arrived on this conclusion through research, which is different from a home user joining the YouTube HTML5 beta, toying with it for 5 minutes and going "hey, this kinda works! Let's roll!"

 

[Capt T]

I am sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Most of the videos on YouTube and Hulu ARE h.264. Flash on Hulu was used to WRITE THE PLAYER, not encode the video.

You just proved that you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

The reason Flash uses so much CPU on OS X when decoding h.264 video is because the current OS X version is not able to use hardware decoding. The next version will be able to, just like the Windows version does.

FLash (FLV as well as SWF) is the encoded video that i have been handed and asked to use by clients we convert it so that it is a usable piece of media. I do know exactly what I am talking about in the situation we have to deal with it in.

As I said hardware that is optimized for video playback (ie a media server). I never said it was running OS X did I? It isn't. So your example does not work for this instance. I work with all types of video encodes. I have a bunch of programs both OS X and Windows based to deal with them all. I do know what I am talking about and deal with it on a regular basis.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

hulu = Fail

Let's all blame ANYONE *but* Apple for not supporting existing entrenched formats. The rule of thumb for all fanatical types around here is "Steve knows best!"

 

[MorphingDragon]

Let's all blame ANYONE *but* Apple for not supporting existing entrenched formats. The rule of thumb for all fanatical types around here is "Steve knows best!"

A sweaty pear knows best?

Ill have to use that as a saying.

 

[Beau10]

remember the days when hulu actually had decent content? I jail broke my apple tv because of huly, but haven't used hulu in months. They just aren't getting the programming anymore. They need to worry about becoming irrelevant just as much as flash does.

Comcast recently took a controlling interest in NBC

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/03/comcast-takes-control-of-nbc-promises-not-to-crush-hulu-like-a/

"Comcast COO Steve Burke notes that "NBC has been careful not to put too much cable content on the Internet. We think that's a smart strategy... We think that going forward, you're going to continue to have free broadcast stuff on Hulu, and cable stuff on TV Everywhere." As for rumors of Hulu Premium? "That's certainly not in the cards." "

The cable empire does not want people to drop subs, period. Hulu's rise over the past couple years helped spur many (including myself) to do just that.

 

[andyone]

It doesn't require a plugin. It is an option. Browsers are not required to support every video codec as part of the HTML5 spec. That would be crazy. Safari currently requires a plugin to play ogg. Firefox requires a plugin to play h.264.

I'll say it again. HTML5 does not specify a video codec. So a video codec (including one that supports DRM) cannot defeat the purpose of HTML5.

Requiring a non-standardized video plugin on a website does defeat the purpose of HTML5, which is to reduce dependence on single-vendor software like Quicktime or Flash. Otherwise, what difference remains between HTML4 + Quicktime/Flash and HTML5 + Closed-Source-DRM-Video-Plugin? Neither is more standard than or has any advantage over the other.

 

[diamond.g]

Requiring a non-standardized video plugin on a website does defeat the purpose of HTML5, which is to reduce dependence on single-vendor software like Quicktime or Flash. Otherwise, what difference remains between HTML4 + Quicktime/Flash and HTML5 + Closed-Source-DRM-Video-Plugin? Neither is more standard than or has any advantage over the other.

But HTML5 doesn't require that a standard video codec be used either. Otherwise Firefox would support h.264 .

 

[Capt T]

.......what?

You could take a piece of Media and encode it with say H.264 or MKV, FLV, AVI to name a few. That same piece of media does not always run the same on the web, in Quicktime, or other programs out there as well as different hardware. Also within those encodes there are many options, which also affect how the media runs. Flash when it came out seemed to do the best job for the web and multiple hardware configurations. The same as most browsers need to work with the lowest common denominator.

It is like when you buy a program for the computer you need to see if it is compatible with your hardware. There are many options that a programmer has when writing a program. There are many options when encoding a video

Flash caters to the lowest common denominator of hardware or internet speed ( as that was a big factor at the time). As tech changes and improves (which it has greatly since Flash was introduced both with hardware and internet service) we can move on to bigger and better things. Is HTML5 the end all be all....probably not, but it is the encodes for video that are important here. HTML5 is the web Framework (someone will correct that if framwork isn't the right phrasing). The video encodes and what they offer for the user (ie the site) is what the argument is about.

Is Flash dead? Only if Adobe doesn't do something to bring it into this age of computing. But that doesn't mean it is dead this year or next either. There are quite a few sites out there that use it. Some very well (Hulu, Youtube) others not so much. But that is with everything. Also sites like Hulu need the feedback they are getting from their sites now. That is how they make their money. So whatever the future holds it will need to be able to have those capabilities in order to be adopted by quite a few sites that offer video with ads.

 

[jorgie]

I do know what I am talking about and deal with it on a regular basis.

Then you have not been keeping up. The default codec for videos on YouTube and Hulu is h.264. What you are comparing is the speed of the players, not the codec.

 

[zacman]

Hulu sucks!

HTML5 is so cool on the iPad. Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

 

[Hal Itosis]

With IE not supporting HTML5 and IE having 60% marketshare, it would be crazy for Hulu to stop using Flash.

Did anyone ever suggest that any website should "stop using Flash"? From where exactly did this notion originate? Too bad you didn't quote that person, so i could see which words inspired your post. As we all know, YouTube somehow manages to stream different formats —either by encoding raw video on-the-fly or perhaps storing multiple versions of each file. [send the Strawman back to Oz, Dorothy.]

Not forgetting DRM - which is probably dictated to them by the content providers.

Now you're making sense. Interesting though how the term DRM was not included in Hulu's post (which has been "pulled" according to that businessinsider article).

Anyone saying Hulu isn't important is a blatant Apple shill. Hulu is awesome. Was hoping to get an app for my wife's iPad, but unfortunately now that doesn't appear likely in the near future.

As smarter folks have already said in this thread, Apple should support flash. Especially on the iPad. To not do so continues to show their own idiocy and their disregard for the wants and needs of customers.

agreed and its pretty rediculous that iPhone and (esp.) iPad cant support flash

The "Hulu" article we're discussing links from businessinsider.com in post #1.
Perhaps you folks should peruse other articles at that site. Here are a few...

• What Adobe's Weird Omniture Acquisition Means for Advertising
  
  
• The Real Story Behind Adobe’s Failed Mobile Strategy
  
  
• Everything You Need To Know About HTML5 And Why You Should Care About Its War With Flash
  
  
• Adobe's Response To Steve Jobs Is Empty And Pathetic

I genuinely think that a lot of the Flash moaning on here is FB-me-too-ism.

Absolutely... and especially the Free Software Foundation — they're just a bunch of Apple lovers. Yes indeed.

 

[Erwin-Br]

But HTML5 doesn't require that a standard video codec be used either. Otherwise Firefox would support h.264 .

Exactly. Apple already said they won't support Theora video in Safari, and only support the proprietary h2.64 format. Which is essentially the same situation we're having right now with Flash. Only difference is that Apple owns parts of the h2.64 format. Steve Jobs is pushing out Flash because it's a competitor, not because he believes in an "open" Internet. (Why should he. He LOVES walls around things)

 

[jorgie]

You could take a piece of Media and encode it with say H.264 or MKV, FLV, AVI to name a few.

Wrong.

FLV (as we know it today), MKV & AVI are FILE_FORMATS, they are containers and they can all contain H.264 encoded video.

I repeat, you CANNOT "take a piece of Media and encode it with" MKV or AVI. They are are NOT codecs. Yes, when FLV first appeared on the scene it was a container format that pretty much always contained a simple interleaved video & audio stream. That is not the case today.

Check out these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Interleave

And you will find out that a container is much different than a codec like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264

Again, new videos on YouTube and Hulu are already in the H.264 format. That is why the iPhone can play most YouTube videos though the YouTube app.

 

[emulator]

Guess someone's not playing to win.

Are you talking about apple vs blu-ray?

 

[Capt T]

Then you have not been keeping up. The default codec for videos on YouTube and Hulu is h.264. What you are comparing is the speed of the players, not the codec.

Maybe you should read a few of the other posts I have made as well. I get that they are h.264 media they are using. But in the end Hulu is a flash based site is it not? And I also have stated that Hulu is one of the ones that does a good job with it. Don't get hung up on only the one side of the argument/discussion. You need to see all sides to understand it. Not agree with all sides, just see it. Now explain to me why you think it is better. Since you seem to think I don't have any clue. Or more so what has changed that I am missing here.

By the way I like debating a point with someone that can show me the other side. So show me. but try to explain it in layman terms so as others can join in that are not well versed in all of it. And not wikipedia.

 

[Capt T]

Wong.

FLV (as we know it today), MKV & AVI are FILE_FORMATS, they are containers and they can all contain H.264 encoded video.

I repeat, you CANNOT "take a piece of Media and encode it with" MKV or AVI. They are are NOT codecs. Yes, when FLV first appeared on the scene it was a container format that pretty much always contained a simple interleaved video & audio stream. That is not the case today.

Check out these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Interleave

And you will find out that a container is much different than a codec like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264

Again, new videos on YouTube and Hulu are already in the H.264 format. That is why the iPhone can play most YouTube videos though the YouTube app.

How many people understand all of that? You are right about codec and container being different, and maybe I am trying to be too simplistic here. But I don't want to get bogged down in the far too technical. So again someplace other than wikipedia for your example as I or anyone can change the pages to whatever they want them to say and I would say about 40% of the time the pages are wrong or misleading. Or just speak to it for all I care.

Explain it so everyone can understand better than I am explaining it.

 

[andyone]

Exactly. Apple already said they won't support Theora video in Safari, and only support the proprietary h2.64 format. Which is essentially the same situation we're having right now with Flash. Only difference is that Apple owns parts of the h2.64 format. Steve Jobs is pushing out Flash because it's a competitor, not because he believes in an "open" Internet. (Why should he. He LOVES walls around things)

H.264 is not proprietary, it's an open standard. And Apple owns only a tiny part of the patents, they will have to pay to others.