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

[gigi1701]

as we speak

As I was reading this thread I was watch Hulu. I do watch it as my main video site. Yes, my fans on my MBP got loud. And there is a new glich, when I made the video full screen, the message on how to quit full screen would not go away so I had to then have the video pop out and stretch it to almost full screen.

I think that most video sources will stick with Flash for now, I switched to html5 on Youtube and it does have issues. Not in the smoothness of the video but how it is displayed.

Now on my iPod touch YouTube (html5 video) looks great and works great. So it will be that web designers like myself will continue to use browser detection for different browser formats. I have to admit, I was lazy about that the last few years, but the mobile market is growing so I need to have that dialed in. I recently took almost all Flash content off my websites, not been a problem really.

When I get my iPad (not IF, WHEN, waiting for the rush to die down) I will for sure use the Netflix app, I have an account and that is worth paying for since I can get everything, streaming and DVDs. I wouldn't pay for Hulu, I mostly watch ABC shows (my satellite network can't get a local ABC channel so I would have to pay a lot, as in not worth it, to get it) but good news, ABC has an app for that.

It will all work out, personally, I don't miss Flash on my sites. I have to watch Flash on the sites I go to, but that is what it is.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

We don't really care about HTML5 when it comes to Hulu - we want H.264 and a dedicated app although if they don't get on it the content providers are going to realize that when it comes to the iPad (and hopefully iPhone soon) they can make more by just doing it themselves instead of going through Hulu...

You don't know why you demand the things you do, you just demand them. You dance to music you cannot hear, unaware of why you are moving, why you are compelled to speak and move in such a manner. Perhaps if you look up, you will see who is masterfully pulling your strings. He shows you how to move, then when the time is right, he will cut your strings, and you will continue to dance as you have been taught.

This man pulling your strings, he is the puppet master. He is Steve Jobs. Only after his plans have come to full fruition will you realize what you have done, that your demands fit his goals, his view of the world as he wants it to be.

Then it will be too late. You will have helped him build his walled garden, brick by brick. And you demand bricks to build your own prison!

(please take with a grain of salt, let's laugh a little, at least!)

 

[MorphingDragon]

Snip

Somehow I don't think SJ is ripped.

You missed a couple of things in the picture. Like, the trees, grass, gardens, fluffy baby animals, unicorns and the COOKIES!!!

 

[AidenShaw]

(please take with a grain of salt, let's laugh a little, at least!)

Your comments are too scary to laugh at - especially your last paragraph:

Then it will be too late. You will have helped him build his walled garden, brick by brick. And you demand bricks to build your own prison!
​

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

What is a non-standardized video plugin? No standard for video is specified as part of HTML5. A browser can support any video codecs it would like, including video codecs with DRM. The difference between HTML4 v HTML5 video support is that a plugin is no longer required.

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)

Apple is not pushing out Flash because it's a competitor to H.264. Video delivered through Flash is usually encoded in H.264. They are trying to push out Flash video because they believe that they can deliver the video more efficiently to a mobile device than Adobe can using Flash.

what a terrific article! i particularly enjoyed the part where they refused to acknowledge that Flash Player / Flex is an open source, published specification, which allowed the author to regurgitate the same old "Flash is closed and proprietary" argument of steve jobs.

Flash Player is not open source. It is completely closed and proprietary.

However, most of the Flash format is published as an open spec.

 

[dudemac]

Just another way of saying that they can spy on you enough with the current version of HTML.

Hulu has some cool commercials. But I have not even checked it for content.

 

[ataboc]

aren't they supposed to be charging for their service soon?

 

[Westside guy]

HTML5 video is ready - it's the browser support that's lagging. But the real bugaboo as far as Hulu is concerned is there's (currently) no way to implement unskippable commercials, which they can do with Flash. The quality arguments are bogus.

There are two main problems with HTML5 video right now, though. The biggest one, of course, is IE's lack of support - but Microsoft's already said that will end with IE 9. The other problem is Firefox's lack of support for h.264 video. All of the other significant players are settling on h.264, which Firefox doesn't want to support because of licensing concerns. But with IE, Apple, and Chrome all supporting h.264, one way or the other Firefox is going to have to find a solution (Theora isn't it).

Coding HTML5 video with Flash fall-back is next to trivial (although I'll admit handling Firefox takes a bit more thought). Plus people tend to forget that Flash Player 9 and 10 both support h.264 in an mp4 wrapper - it doesn't have to be a "Flash" file per se, meaning you only need the single h.264/mp4 encode, not that plus a Flash encode. The only odd thing is you have to tack an ".flv" extension onto it for Flash's sake (but still pass the correct mime type, video/mp4). I need to do a little more testing, but this is probably what we're going to move to at work with the next academic year for our videos. The browser's HTML5 video players actually work quite well, and don't seem to require nearly as much CPU as (even hardware-accelerated) Flash Player does.

 

[Piti81]

Flash is only working non mobile devices. It sucked on my net book.

Adobe, Google, Nokia, RIM. All have lots of money... How about they make mobile flash 3G device... That works..

Do you really know, what are you taking about?
Better see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k

So.. to summarize... Flash is a great tool to create rich Internet application. I'm a programmer and from time to time for my clients I do some Flex stuff.

HTML5 will be a good progress in the evolution of HTML but... it's still better HTML! Even if it will support video or have "local database" (according to Google source) to holds temporary data. Even with all of those super features.. You WILL NOT be able to create rich web apps, with custom menus, eye-catchy pop-ups, games and so on.... So, people from Apple... are you so blind to see it? There is NO real alternative for vector graphics, there is only Silverlight from M$

How would you create let's say a rich car configurator with 3D models like this http://www.citroen.pl/home/#/home/ (Please select the model from the top) Just telll me how to do such kind of website without Flash/Flex...
And do you really think, that Citroen will resign from this cool configurator just because Apple wants the world without Flash/Flex ? NO.

80% of you is yelling about video, video, video... please trust me... using flesh for video covers maybe 1% of it's capabilities. I'm using Flash to gather the data from databases, SAP Systems and create a eye-catchy apps with it, because customers WANT IT. So abandoning Flash because HTML5 have a video tag is a big, BIG misunderstanding...

And at the end.. I simply DO NOT believe that Flash is laggy, running slow and so on, on Apple computers. NOT on my iMac i7 and on my HTC Diamond with WinMo 6.5 as well. Ok it's a little laggy on the Diamond (528Mhz processor only) And NOT on Android.. as you can see from the youtube movie I paste. I rather think Apple do some special tricks or not holds the standards in order to slow down the Flash in their products Why... ? Because you would play Flash games o the web, you would listen Flash radio (like Pandora or GrooveShark) instead of BUYing games and music in the AppStore. Money rulezz the world, that's the true! I think the iPhone would run Flash flawlessly... especially the new one with A4 processor But.. Steve have an economic problem with it

Cheers.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Yeah, Steve knows his methods of controlling the masses... rally everyone and rile them up by targeting a common enemy. It worked for Stalin and Hitler. It worked for Big Brother in 1984. Just pick an enemy (Eurasia, Eastasia, Oceania, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, whatever), rile up the crowd in preparation for the Two Minute Hate, and watch the little pawns shake their fists and chant "ADOBE IS DEAD. MICROSOFT IS DEAD. GOOGLE IS DEAD."

So easy, so sad.

Uh huh, groovy man. That was some valuable info. [tack som fan.]

Hmm, looks like Glenn Beck isn't the only character to have that particular special form of Tourette's identified by Louis Black the other night.

what a terrific article! i particularly enjoyed the part where they refused to acknowledge that Flash Player / Flex is an open source, published specification, which allowed the author to regurgitate the same old "Flash is closed and proprietary" argument of steve jobs.

Did you say "open source"? See that folks? He just said "open source". Sneaking in a different phrase to fool everyone. Excellent. But i believe the term being used was standard... not source. Are you under the impression that open standard and open source are equivalent terms? Does even Adobe maintain that? Where? For example, "Adobe and industry standards" mentions PDF and a few other things... but not Flash.

Show me the Adobe.com web page where they state that Flash is an "open standard".
Else, just admit that Flash is both a closed standard and a proprietary standard. Okay?


Now... here's something old (2002) and something new:

• SWF Is Not Flash (and Other Vectored Thoughts)
  
  
• Adobe and Apple: Please Spare Us the Platitudes About ‘Open’

 

[JackAxe]

Did you say "open source"?

Adobe Open Source.

 

[The Phazer]

What is a non-standardized video plugin? No standard for video is specified as part of HTML5. A browser can support any video codecs it would like, including video codecs with DRM. The difference between HTML4 v HTML5 video support is that a plugin is no longer required.

But again, the only two realistic options for that DRM (given Apple doesn't licence Fairplay to third parties and all the other main systems require specific hardware support or are platform specific and require spending lots of cash) are Flash and Silverlight.

And if you're using Flash or Silverlight anyway to deliver the DRM, why bother with the HTML5 video tag? You gain no benefit from it whatsoever, and have to code a seperate version of the site for most browsers anyway.

And IE6 still has significant market share now - non HTML5 compatible browsers will still have bigger marketshare than all Apple products put together for at least another decade. IE9's release doesn't change that.

Phazer

 

[BaldiMac]

But again, the only two realistic options for that DRM (given Apple doesn't licence Fairplay to third parties and all the other main systems require specific hardware support or are platform specific and require spending lots of cash) are Flash and Silverlight.

And if you're using Flash or Silverlight anyway to deliver the DRM, why bother with the HTML5 video tag? You gain no benefit from it whatsoever, and have to code a seperate version of the site for most browsers anyway.

And IE6 still has significant market share now - non HTML5 compatible browsers will still have bigger marketshare than all Apple products put together for at least another decade. IE9's release doesn't change that.

Phazer

I agree with everything you said here. Not sure why you said it twice! DRM'd content currently has to be delivered through plugins even with browsers that support HTML5. Same as every other codec other than H.264 and Ogg Theora in the respective browsers.

 

[Jamik]

And IE6 still has significant market share now - non HTML5 compatible browsers will still have bigger marketshare than all Apple products put together for at least another decade. IE9's release doesn't change that.

Phazer

IE6 market share is less thank 18% now and still dropping. Microsoft's browsers are under 60% market share now and again still dropping each quarter. I would suspect if IE9 doesn't come out soon and is head over heels better than FF/Safari/Chrome we'll see Microsoft's market share drop below 50% or lower by the time HTML5 reaches Candidate Recommendation stage in 2012. While you're point still stands that people will still have to code to support non html5 browsers, it's not really that hard to do and sites have already been doing that.

 

[Max(IT)]

So that's just a really long way of saying "we can't lock everything down with DRM as easily," right?

I know they said that, but it's cute how they try to pretend it's not the main reason.

Hardly unexpected
hulu don't want an open platform for their contents

 

[Hal Itosis]

Did you say "open source"?

Adobe Open Source.

Thanks Jack, but... do you realize what that proves?
It proves (at least one of) the following:

• you misread my post.
• the flashy special-effects, smoke & mirrors maneuver (word substitution) done by Darkroom was successful.

[hint: the phrase "open standard" does not appear on that page you linked to.]

Pay attention people.

 

[appleseed76]

note:

this just means it won't be in-browser.

It doesn't preclude a Hulu App. Which I think is what everyone was expecting anyway.

arn

Ah, I see. So there's still hope for a Hulu App. I would actually pay for something like that (free player + $10 monthly fee?), but by the time they develop it and get it out to the masses, Apple may have its own streaming video app.

Someone just needs to make an app like Pandora for mobile devices, but for TV and movie content. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Then if you wanted to download a particular movie or TV show you would be redirected to the iTunes Store. Simple. The only thing holding it up is the jockeying going on to determine who will control the content distribution and sales.

The networks essentially want to be in control of their own content. That's why they teamed up to create Hulu in the first place, to cut out middle men, like Comcast. They want distributors to pay more and more for their content, which isn't going over very well, so they've gone out on their own. Now they distribute their own content through a joint venture and collect more advertising dollars as well.

 

[appleseed76]

Hardly unexpected
hulu doesn't want an open platform for their content

True, but they also don't want people to steal their content either. Have we all turned a blind eye to P2P networks and the billions of dollars they cost the movie and TV industries every year?

Hulu needs to get with the program, or continue to lose money. The Hulu website is a step in the right direction, but it must be adapted for mobile use, which is the fastest growing sector in computing.

 

[MyBrainIsSpeakn]

Some of you calling Hulu a fail.. oh is that why you run to it to watch your favorite episodes?

Apple is the fail... they went with change in a wrong way... when you change... you shouldn't just cut things off... you gradually change it... Hulu isn't dumb... Apple's decision to make people choose is... oh I'm sorry... I mean Apple's decision to force spoon feed is. Yall like being force spoon fed?

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple is the fail... they went with change in a wrong way... when you change... you shouldn't just cut things off... you gradually change it...

That's only if you want to change things slowly. Not to mention that Apple is changing things gradually. They haven't removed Flash from a single product line that it was previously available on.

Hulu isn't dumb... Apple's decision to make people choose is... oh I'm sorry... I mean Apple's decision to force spoon feed is. Yall like being force spoon fed?

Wait. Apple force fed an iPhone OS device to you? Or did they trick you by removing a promised feature?

Or did they just decide to not include a feature that won't even be available for several months after noticing that the lack of that feature didn't affect sales to Apple's concern over the last three years?

Hulu's decision makes perfect sense considering that Flash is the best way to deliver DRM'd content to a browser.

 

[andyone]

What is a non-standardized video plugin?

A video plugin that implements something that has not been published as a standard and can therefore not be re-implemented by other vendors.

No standard for video is specified as part of HTML5. A browser can support any video codecs it would like, including video codecs with DRM.

Yes it can. But it doesn't make any sense to use it with a non-standardized video plugin (I don't use the word CODEC, because DRM is not part of a CODEC and can not be implemented in the same way). Because there would be absolutely no difference to the status quo. All that changes is the tag name from <embed> to <video>.

The difference between HTML4 v HTML5 video support is that a plugin is no longer required.

If you implement HTML5 video with DRM, a plugin for this DRM system is required. The advantage of HTML5 is gone. Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Anuba]

Apple is the fail... they went with change in a wrong way... when you change... you shouldn't just cut things off... you gradually change it...

Exactly. They're jumping off the boat long before it's reached the shore. Moving away from Flash might be a good long-term goal, but HTML5 isn't ready yet. Heck, they're still bickering over which video codec(s) to support – Ogg Theora, H.264, both, or neither. Just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

IE: Ogg - No. H.264 - yes (in IE 9.0).
Firefox: Ogg - yes (in 3.5). H.264 - no.
Chrome: Ogg - yes. H.264 - yes.
Safari: Ogg - no. H.264 - yes.
Opera: Ogg - yes (in 10.5). H.264 - "depends"(?)

And they still want to make the jump today, from a de-facto standard that reaches 98% of all users, to a standard they haven't agreed on yet?

 

[Hal Itosis]

Exactly. They're jumping off the boat long before it's reached the shore. Moving away from Flash might be a good long-term goal, but HTML5 isn't ready yet. Heck, they're still bickering over which video codec(s) to support – Ogg Theora, H.264, both, or neither. Just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

IE: Ogg - No. H.264 - yes (in IE 9.0).
Firefox: Ogg - yes (in 3.5). H.264 - no.
Chrome: Ogg - yes. H.264 - yes.
Safari: Ogg - no. H.264 - yes.
Opera: Ogg - yes (in 10.5). H.264 - "depends"(?)

And they still want to make the jump today, from a de-facto standard that reaches 98% of all users, to a standard they haven't agreed on yet?

Today? Check your calendar... the iPhone and iPod touch dropped Flash back in 2007. The iPad recently joined in April, and sold almost a million units in four weeks... with WiFi-only... in USA only. Of the over 80 million owners of these various iDevices, i wonder how many have complained? 10,000? ... 42? I don't think the exact answer matters... most folks are happy with their "choice".

Nice of you to include Opera and Mozilla in that list... as some readers here seem to [wrongly] imagine that SJ is the *only* anti-Flash advocate in the universe. Sometimes achieving a goal (open web standards) does require a push. And that boat will take a lot longer to reach shore, while the anchor (Adobe) is dragging along.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Exactly. They're jumping off the boat long before it's reached the shore. Moving away from Flash might be a good long-term goal, but HTML5 isn't ready yet. Heck, they're still bickering over which video codec(s) to support – Ogg Theora, H.264, both, or neither. Just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

IE: Ogg - No. H.264 - yes (in IE 9.0).
Firefox: Ogg - yes (in 3.5). H.264 - no.
Chrome: Ogg - yes. H.264 - yes.
Safari: Ogg - no. H.264 - yes.
Opera: Ogg - yes (in 10.5). H.264 - "depends"(?)

And they still want to make the jump today, from a de-facto standard that reaches 98% of all users, to a standard they haven't agreed on yet?

I find it funny. Of that list the 2 companies who have part of the patents on H.264 are the ones who will not support Ogg. To me that should make us all worry that their will come licensing fees in 2016. I have little faith that they will not start requiring people to pay fees to use those patents that year after they got everyone locked in.

 

[Anuba]

Today? Check your calendar... the iPhone and iPod touch dropped Flash back in 2007.

Meh. At that time, both Apple and Adobe stated that they were working on a solution together, nothing was "dropped", there simply wasn't anything to pick up. When the iPhone arrived it was considered somewhat of a marvel to be able to browse on a cellphone at all, since it had never taken off due to miserable implementation. We were all a bit too busy to worry about Flash at the time. I didn't mind Flash missing on the iPhone and I still don't. But the iPad is a different story since it's a full sized, in-your-face browsing platform where those blue lego pieces are 16 times bigger.

The iPad recently joined in April, and sold almost a million units in four weeks... with WiFi-only... in USA only. Of the over 80 million owners of these various iDevices, i wonder how many have complained? 10,000? ... 42? I don't think the exact answer matters... most folks are happy with their "choice"9

Right, nobody cared. That's why the absence of Flash on iPad made headline news everywhere in the tech universe. It spread like wildfire from the second that the live updates from the Keynote gasped over the fact that Steve lingered on a missing Flash ad on nytimes.com. There's been an ongoing debate ever since, and it started ages before Adobe weighed in on the matter. If Flash was so irrelevant and obsolete that nobody cared, why the reaction, and why are we still discussing it now? Shouldn't there just have been a collective shrug?

As for these "80 million owners"... nearly all of them are iPhone/iPod Touch users and Flash or no Flash on those devices is not a big issue. And the last time I checked global web stats, iPhone OS accounted for 0.8% of all web traffic. The remaining 99.2% aren't part of this silly sandbox fight so why would those users have an opinion about it?

Nice of you to include Opera and Mozilla in that list... as some readers here seem to [wrongly] imagine that SJ is the *only* anti-Flash advocate in the universe. Sometimes achieving a goal (open web standards) does require a push. And that boat will take a lot longer to reach shore, while the anchor (Adobe) is dragging along.

The CTO of Opera invented Cascading Style Sheets and is one of the main guys behind the HTML5 initiative. Of course he's anti-Flash, he has a stake in HTML5 like few others do. Opera is anti-choice when it suits them and rabidly pro-choice when it suits them, like when they whined and moaned until the EU caved in and forced Microsoft to include a browser ballot screen in Win7 (funny thing to do for a company from Norway, proud non-members of the EU).