Interesting that the people whose business model actually rely on video distribution (Hulu, YouTube) have opinions that are the opposite of the common user consensus in Redddit or Hacker News ("Flash is dying", "HTML5 is ready", etc).
Maybe HTML 5 isn't ready for YouTube or Hulu, but for people who just want to post a video of their cat on their blog, it is a lot simpler to use the video tag than a Flash solution.
So if people want to post a video of their cat in their blog, they must encode it in 2-3 different formats, and use an HTML5 video player with a fallback to a Flash video player ... as opposed to a single video file and a single Flash player.
Unless those people who own cats are all Richard Stallman impersonators, I don't see how that makes any logical sense.
I don't know about everyone here, but I have nothing but trouble with HTML 5 video (on chrome or firefox). Either it won't play (codec issues I assume), or I can't seek while I watch. I hope it improves.
There's a distinction to be made here though. The reason it's not ready for YouTube is because HTML5 doesn't support things like content controls (e.g. DRM). Most of the videos on YouTube don't have that.
It's disingenuous to say that HTML5 isn't ready for YouTube; it's far more accurate to say that HTML5 isn't ready for content providers. I mean, I can't blame them. HTML5 video in its current state would turn YouTube Rentals into a free movie download service within minutes. Still, the core of what's being uploaded to YouTube is perfectly satisfied by HTML5's current offerings.
Perhaps what would be needed in that case is some kind of encumbered meta-format, one for which codecs could be installed on the local system that would provide the 'content protection' that copyright holders want so badly, without needing Flash as a bloated overlay. It wouldn't be much better than Flash, but it would be a start.
>For YouTube Rentals, video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed. Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.
[clicks link]
>This rental is currently unavailable in your country.
Geographically segregated, non-redistributable content: just what the web needs!
> Google, Mozilla, and Opera have all committed to support WebM, and we have already started making YouTube videos available in the WebM format. Adobe has also committed to support VP8, the video codec for WebM, in an upcoming Flash Player release.
If Apple isn't going to support it for iPhone and iPad, and you seek a common video encoding, you might as well say straight out that it isn't viable.
The cover-all solution for video is exactly what YouTube uses right now - Flash and H.264. There is absolutely no chance in the foreseeable future of eliminating the H.264 piece, because of Apple. There is some chance of eliminating the Flash piece, depending on IE9 becoming widespread and Firefox either relaxing their stance on H.264 or becoming irrelevant some day.
These facts make people upset, but they are facts.
If Youtube uses native webm, with flash fallback for browsers that do not support webm and native application with low-resolution for iPhone (i.e. status quo on iOS), where do you see the problem?
Apple will have to provide a very good reason why they are sole platform vendor refusing to support webm in any way.
1. iOS isn't just iPhone, but includes one of the fastest selling devices in tech history.
2. low-res for the iPhone isn't going to cut it either anymore.
3. Apple's customers are precisely the people who are most willing to pay for products. Treating them as second class web citizens is the worst business decision possible.
Apple's has a minority share of the mobile device market. You are drastically overestimating the importance of a vocal minority. iOS already doesn't support Flash; won't support Flash; can't support Flash because that would threaten the closed App Store. And the rest of the world has gotten along just fine. Indeed, the only people Apple's refusal to support Flash hurts, are Apple users.
"While WebKit has recently taken some steps forward on fullscreen support, it's not yet sufficient for video usage (particularly the ability to continue displaying content on top of the video)."
One of the things I'm surprised by on my iPad is videos on the web that won't play. By that I don't mean that most videos won't work because the iPad doesn't have flash - quite the opposite. I'm surprised when a video won't play because it so rarely happens.
Maybe I just browse all the wrong sites, but 90% of the video I come across on the iPad works just fine without jumping through hoops. Some of that is because YouTube videos are ubiquitous, but even going to a site like Penny Arcade for the first time on my iPad got me video that worked well and looked good.
HTML5 may not be ready for YouTube, but for sites that don't need (often-draconian) content controls, HTML5 is here already.
It's not surprising that someone on HackerNews won't be affected by the lack of video options - this simply isn't a creative arts forum.
But for creatives like myself, Apple's restrictions are difficult to bear. My own blog, vj.tv is difficult to view on my iDevices because half of the embedded videos are unplayable (vimeo only offers HTML5 playback directly from their site).
It's painful to have a hardware/OS/music company dictate the terms of how we can access our stuff when clearly the "standard" is lacking. I and others appreciate someone from YouTube coming forward and supporting our views and needs.
Edit: Wow, I hadn't realized how bad it was. YouTube is also blocking all the fan-made videos from the iPad. For instance, this one is a Lady Gaga song with lyrics overlaid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAoi_-_EVio
Following the link in the Content Protection section:
"This video is not available in your country." (I am in Russia) Feels like discrimination.
Also if the video is streamed to my computer, which I have full control of, there is always a way to capture and redistribute it. That "content protection" is cheating both publishers and viewers.
Copyright agreements explicitly created the right to discriminate based on locale, so that copyright holders can set prices for individual countries based on local willingness and ability to pay to ensure maximum revenue at the expense of consumer rights and product value.
>Concerns about patents and licensing have prevented some browsers from supporting H.264; this in turn has prevented the HTML5 spec from requiring support for a standard format.
I thought this was an odd statement since the original "standard format" was not H.264 but Theora. It seems you could equally rephrase that as "Concerns about profits and licensing have prevented some browsers from supporting Theora".
He is more the Engineering Manager for APIs, Mobile, and other aspects of Syndication at YouTube.
What's wrong with Google/Youtube using wrong titles in blog posts ?
Do they tried to make us believe that even the low software engineer in the chain can publish under the Company's name ?
Lame.
Not sure why it matters so much to you, but for the record, most managers in google are also software engineers. John's earned that title, let him use it.
While I'm excited about HTML5 coming sooner rather than later this article has set me back in confidence about how soon that might be. Maybe I was optimistic but it sounds like there's a lot to be done before YouTube would set about making a full switch to those that support <video>.
