HTML5, open standards, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½
Recent commentary on this blog has suggested that our use of on ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer and across ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online in general, betrays our commitment to open standards. Is this a reasonable assumption? I do not think so.
Open standards have always been part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s DNA. They are fundamental to driving market innovation and will always be important to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s mission to introduce the benefits of new technology to society. Open standards have the ability to transform our lives for the better.
Our use of Flash is not a case of ´óÏó´«Ã½ favouritism, rather it currently happens to be the most efficient way to deliver a high quality experience to the broadest possible audience. Let's also not forget that we already support a very wide range of other formats and codecs to deliver ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer and other services to variety of devices.
The fact is that there's still a lot of work to be done on before we can integrate it fully into our products. As things stand I have concerns about HTML5's ability to deliver on the vision of a single open browser standard which goes beyond the whole debate around video playback.
Driving open standards is in our DNA
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a long history of working with standards bodies; both contributing to development and adopting the standards across systems that support our work. It is a tradition we continue to be very proud of and is even reflected in the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Charter that charges our R&D department to promote open standards in its work. Most recently we helped to ratify a new standard for digital terrestrial broadcasting across Europe ().
HTML5 can deliver so much more than a new way of delivering video playback in a browser. Its aims are rooted in the philosophies of (the browser as the operating system) and even 's ( concepts) - you take complexity out of the client and deliver it from the cloud. This speaks to a far greater cause than the delivery of video content. The potential democratising power of cloud computing (to make technology and services easily accessible to anyone on the planet) is a noble cause that we support.
For this reason we are committed to the aims of HTML5. In combination with CSS3 and Javascript it promises a step forward for the web. A truly interoperable experience would materially advance the capabilities we can offer to our audiences, by ushering in a new class of rich interactive experiences on the web. The benefits are not one dimensional. As HTML5 promises to allow us to create new online products with the confidence they will work across the web, the savings in our development and operating costs mean we can spend less on reversioning for different browsers and focus on product development. HTML5 can bring the web together in a way that will better allow us to serve our audiences and business partners.
HTML5 is starting to sail off-course
Not too long ago some browser vendors were showcasing proprietary HTML5 implementations; which in my view threaten to undermine the fundamental promise. in the and the apparent split between and suggests HTML5 might not be on the path we expect, or deliver what I believe our industry requires. Despite grand overtures from Microsoft toward HTML5 support, their new browser is yet to ship and so the jury is out. The tension between individual motivation and collective consensus has brought an end to many noble causes in the past, and here, the pace of progress appears to be on bringing HTML5 to a ratified state. History suggests that multiple competing proprietary standards lead to a winner-takes-all scenario, with one proprietary standard at the top of the stack, which is not where most of us want to be...
Let's keep HTML5 on track
So my request to the W3C, HTML5 Working Group, and major browser vendors, is to continue fervently on the path you began. Understand you are representing the future of the web, as well as businesses like ours with your efforts. HTML5 is more important than any one motivation. Speed is of the essence. is of the essence. We are counting on you to bring one HTML5 to the web and the W3C to help make this happen.
Erik Huggers is Director of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Future Media & Technology.
Comment number 1.
At 13th Aug 2010, Chris wrote:The question that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ consistently fails to answer:
If Flash is the application of choice for delivering Iplayer content why make an exception for Apple devices? All the same technical argments remain for Apple devices which mean your approach should be to wait for them to support flash.
If exceptions can be made for Apple why not for other more popular devices? That is the favouritism you need to answer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:"Our use of Flash is not a case of ´óÏó´«Ã½ favouritism, rather it currently happens to be the most efficient way to deliver a high quality experience to the broadest possible audience."
You missed "...while also delivering the appearance of a rudimentary level of content protection which serves to satisfy our licensors.", because if that wasn't a particularly significant factor (even if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seems afraid to talk about it outside of Freedom of Information responses), then there'd be no real issue with the EMP JavaScript substituting in the element where available and serving up H.264 and AAC in MP4 containers to anything capable of playing it, not simply the subset of those user agents shipping with Adobe's implementation of Flash.
Your comments about HTML5 progress slowing are... odd, to say the least. The latest draft was released yesterday, and none of this is preventing browser developers from implementing its features (which they have been), nor from site authors from using them: HTML5 is designed quite deliberately to be both forwards and backwards-compatible, which is a big part of why it took so long to make it to the stage that it's at now. You can use , the HTML5 DOCTYPE, and lots of other things with precisely zero ill effects in older browsers right now thanks to the way that browsers work and the care taken in specifying these things in HTML5. Other things, such as the new types, are designed to be backwards-compatible, and can easily be feature-detected (allowing JavaScript frameworks to emulate them on older browsers). Beyond this, the specification is reaching completeness, and so progress should slow: it's stabilising. The thread linked to on public-html was the very definition of a "storm in a teacup", and there's little evidence of anything but business-as-usual since.
I'm honestly not sure what to make of the statement "Not too long ago some browser vendors were showcasing proprietary HTML5 implementations": do you have an example? Something can't be both proprietary and and implementation of HTML5; that's a tautology.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13th Aug 2010, gavincoop wrote:@Chris probably because iOS has such a dominant market share of users who actually consume video content on their mobile, an exception has to be made.
Bare in mind the iPhone represents a platform, iOS. Take into account iPod Touch and iPad, there are millions of users who all consume video on the web in comparison to any other mobile/device platform.
Flash IS the most efficient way to deliver video (See YouTube post on a desktop browser because all the browsers support flash. Delivery of content to mobile platforms is so fragmented by comparison the only platform that has a wide enough audience to justify an additional delivery mechanism is iOS.
A standard, open, video encoding format for mobile and decent HTML5 implementation is whats needed to solve this. Google are already making waves with WebM but they still need iOS on board to truly make it work for mobile in my opinion.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 13th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:@gavincoop:
It's not quite as cut and dry as that, in either case.
iPlayer streaming to iOS uses HTML5 because a server (via SSL client certificates) can verify that a device is definitely an Apple device, and with non-jailbroken devices, there's no way to do anything with the stream other than watch it. The potential for people to be able to keep copies of fairly low-quality streams (in the face of the widespread availability to largely non-technical users of much higher quality streams) is, apparently, a very real concern. This is why the same mechanism is not used to send MP4-wrapped H.264 and AAC streams to Android devices (see this recent FOI response).
(It's very clear that iOS support is not market-share-driven: the iPad version of iPlayer, which isn't based on the same front end as the iPhone/iPod touch version, was rolled out on the day the iPad launched. While I'm personally grateful for this, as I own an iPad, it remains difficult to justify on the basis of reach alone, as has often been suggested is the criteria for customisations).
And yes, while it is true that if you were to pick a single delivery mechanism, Flash is the most cost-effective means of reaching the broadest range of devices, but we know that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ hasn't picked a single delivery mechanism: streams are available in formats which many HTML5-savvy clients can play, and the scripting required to switch between Flash and has already been implemented. The scripting behind EMP is quite clever, it's not a difficult determination to make in saying that it wouldn't be a significant amount of effort for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to use (and, indeed, ) in those browsers supporting the codecs it already uses. That is, provided that the content protection concerns described above ceased to exist: and that doesn't look to be happening any time soon, as laughable as they might be when put in context.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 13th Aug 2010, gavincoop wrote:@Mo Indeed interesting stuff didn't think of it from a content protection point of view, my post was solely on viewing the content, not protection, although they go hand in hand - I missed that!
The iPad version could have been an easy win though. Seeing as making a few adjustments to an iPhone app that already exists could potentially make it an iPad app, even if the initial market share is low, could be worth the effort. My unfortunate lack of iPad means I don't get to enjoy it though!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 13th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:@gavincoop: you're right in that it could have been an easy win. what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ actually did was modify the "Big Screen" version of iPlayer and used it hand-in-hand with the "HTML5-savvy" EMP JavaScript they already had.
This actually leads to quite a horrible UI -- something designed for use from 10' away doesn't lend itself terribly well to close-quarters touchscreen use, but c'est la vie!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 13th Aug 2010, nametheguilty wrote:"Our use of Flash is not a case of ´óÏó´«Ã½ favouritism, rather it currently happens to be the most efficient way to deliver a high quality experience to the broadest possible audience."
It might be efficient, but it isn't an open standard - it is proprietary to Adobe.
Either you commit to open standards or you don't - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seems to be trying to declare its wholehearted support of open standards whilst not practising what it preaches.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 13th Aug 2010, Lachlan Hunt wrote:How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when in order to support your argument, you link to inflammatory articles by Shelly Powers and Mr Last Week - two well known trolls who do not contribute positively to the HTMLWG in any way whatsoever, and who have no professional integrity as far as I'm concerned. (There's a reason shy Shelly was banned from posting to the HTML mailing list, and why MLW prefers to hide behind anonymity).
With regards to the specific arguments raised, it's important to realise that in most cases where the specs have diverged, it's been a result of the HTMLWG making a decision to diverge from the WHATWG. But it's common to see bogus arguments try to pretend it happened the other way around, which is misleading. For instance, the decision to remove Microdata from the HTMLWG spec was made for ridiculous political reasons, rather than solid technical rationale, and so there was no valid reason for the WHATWG to concede on its inclusion.
But for the most part, aside from minor editorial issues, the HTMLWG spec is a subset of the WHATWG spec, and the split out sections are published separately at the W3C, so the current divergence isn't a show stopper.
For the most part, HTML5 itself is still on track. It's disingenuous to claim that it's starting to sail off-course. The WHATWG is doing its best to stay on course, despite continued attempts from within the HTMLWG to change it for the worse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 13th Aug 2010, Dave wrote:Erik,
I believe you have misunderstood the concept of what an "open" standard is. Flash is certainly not an open standard. It is a freely distributable licensed binary/plugin. An open standard is the source flash is made from as being free and freely licensed for which Adobe Flash is definitely not.
The fact that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ modifies its content to work on the iPhone is clearly not conforming to open standards at all. You have got the argument completely wrong I'm afraid.
A simply way for everyone to test if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is open, is to browse to it through FireFox that is installed on a modern Linux OS (e.g. Fedora 12/13) and if everything works as is without installing plugins etc. The site can be considered open. If not, for which the ´óÏó´«Ã½ fails miserably, it is considered closed.
Instead of using Flash the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be using Vorbis (.ogg) for streaming audio and media content. Only then can you claim the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is moving towards open standards.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 13th Aug 2010, threedaymonk wrote:Oh, come on. ´óÏó´«Ã½ policy is strictly opposed to open platforms for video, and we both know that. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ will only use HTML5 video if it can either (a) be wrapped in DRM somehow, or (b) linked to a locked-down device like one of Apple's (by requiring a vendor-signed TLS certificate, say).
The choice of Flash for video is precisely because it is not open.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 13th Aug 2010, JackDaddy wrote:Even if I agree that Flash is the most popular way to deliver video content it does not explain the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s actions in February this year when it enabled the verification layer within flash, which closed the door on open source implementations for viewing iPlayer.
Far from "deliver a high quality experience to the broadest possible audience." - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ took a policy decision to block access to iPlayer from any non flash based client so narrowing the audience.
As a UK resident license payer, I want the ability to choose how I watch my programming - and you took that choice away by disabling many non-profit convergent technologies such as XBMC (which enabled set top box style access using a PC) - was this a threat to your project Canvas?
Why should it matter how I watch - TV, PC or Linux - the decision is indefensible - I still dont have access from my Nokia X6 - why you may ask - well its not on the "approved" list!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 13th Aug 2010, Richy Freeway wrote:You took away our XBMC iPlayer. Quite possibly THE best delivery platform for iPlayer.
Now rather than obeying all the rules and regulations of iplayer, the plugin has to use unauthorized trickery to get the streams.
Shameful.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 13th Aug 2010, Glugwine wrote:I thought the comments were correct, HTML5 is along way from being ratified and even then Flash will still be used as it will still be the best option for media of many types. As to Flash not being open, it is far more open that Apples total control over its ios. I expect Flash will be around for many years (whether thats right or wrong we could dispute)and with Flash being 'inbuilt' into future browsers (such as Chrome and others) and the massive increase in Android which of course now supports Flash I think it has a long life.
Apple do not support Flash of course and that is perhaps why we have so many 'anti' flash comments here from users who have 'i' products.
Apple may have taken the lead, but sales of Android are growing at a great rate and Apples lead will be overtaken in the next year by the number of Android users who can of course use Flash.
Apples dominance is already waning, and therefore the talk of the end of Flash is perhaps premature....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 13th Aug 2010, gavincoop wrote:@nametheguilty just because you commit to open standard's doesn't mean you should use solely open standards. I would imagine the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s commitment to open standards is the same as any logical large organization. It will analyze and compare all available methods of delivery and where open standards are comparable or just under par it will take the open standard route. However it doesn't mean everything should be built on open standards or it should not be *accessible* - that's the key word here. If your reading this blog you know what open standards are. The majority of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s audience don't and do not care, all the want is the content, they all have flash so it's logical to deliver the content primarily in Flash to ensure the content is *accessible* to the widest audience, without them having to download xyz browser. If you were entirely open standards at the current state of the internet the video content would not be accessible to a majority of their audience, instead of now which it is probably a minority of niche platforms that cannot access the content.
@threedaymonk policy is not opposed to open platforms it's opposed to un-restricted content access that allows you to freely distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the owner of that content. Two very different things. Chances are its the copyright owners that force the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to deliver content with protection against you stealing their work. Doesn't mean you can't use open standards to deliver the content, which is what the discussion is about.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 13th Aug 2010, threedaymonk wrote:gavincoop: Open platforms by their nature allow redistribution. They cease to be open when you place restrictions on them. The motive may be to prevent redistribution (despite the wide availability of unencrypted content on DVB-T) but the result is a de facto ban on open platforms.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 13th Aug 2010, Suiauthon wrote:With all the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s talk of using open standards, why not try using some? Flash is not an open standard, and the few non-adobe flash players that do exist cannot use iPlayer thanks to the verification layer.
Every platform in use today has good, stable media players that support open standards, there is no need for flash to be used in iPlayer. Just give us an open format stream and let the user decide how to view it.
So just how much did Adobe pay the ´óÏó´«Ã½?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 13th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Just to add some context to this discussion (and the point about XMBC made above) see this blog post from March. For an outline of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s approach to piracy see this post from July.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 13th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Erik,
If HTML video is not ready, why is it being used to deliver iPlayer big-screen to certain devices (at least one of which also supports Flash)? Given that the HTML video clearly is considered ready by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for certain devices, why not allow other devices which lack Flash to access this existing interface (e.g. generic web-enabled digital TVs; home-built STBs; etc)? Surely some kind of iPlayer access is better for these devices than none at all?
The arguments from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as to why it can not release a standards-compliant iPlayer for general use have been, to date:
1. Initially: "Ooh, our external content suppliers demand content protection!". When pressed as to what exactly these suppliers require, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ simply refuses to say. When it is pointed out that Flash on general-purpose PCs does *NOT* supply any content protection security; when it is reasonably argued that standard-compliant/open solutions could provide the same security, if not better and with less harmful effects on free market competition, we get new arguments:
2. "Ooh, but we need control for branding and editorial integrity reasons!", see the recent syndication consultation.
3. And now, most recently, this "HTML video is not ready!" hatchet job - which appears to be founded on comments from trolls, and appears contradicted by the ´óÏó´«Ã½s' own actions.
It really is starting to seem that the only conclusion we, outside the ´óÏó´«Ã½, can draw is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ simply wishes to have full control of the platform - and it will use whatever range of excuses to justify this that it can. If this is the case, why not just be forthright and say so "We want full control"? Your syndication consultation submission pretty much says this.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a lot of respect, including from many who have been vocal on iPlayer openness. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ will not lose that respect by being clear and open on this subject - it may though damage that trust if it seems to be evasive and employing distractionary arguments that don't stand up to cursory scrutiny. If you were completely frank, you may find some of us are even sympathetic to your desire for content protection, editorial integrity, branding, etc. and are solely concerned about the underlying technical delivery mechanisms being generally open and implementable.
These goals are not mutually exclusive, despite your fears. The openness/closedness of the software to deliver content and the integrity of the content lie in 2 different dimensions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 13th Aug 2010, threedaymonk wrote:Paul Jakma: I'd add to that: H.264 video over HTTP on the iPhone also fails to supply any content protection security.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 13th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Bah, missing, critical word:
"When it is pointed out that Flash on general-purpose PCs does *NOT* supply any content protection security;
Should say:
When it is pointed out that Flash on general-purpose PCs does *NOT* supply any real content protection security;
For a definition of "real" that's along lines of "great", or perhaps "substantive".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 13th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:threedaymonk: That's a lower res stream though isn't it? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't mind lower-res access in open clients, it seems. E.g. on any half-recent GNOME desktop you've got ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer built-in via Totem (development of which I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ supported to an extent) - but annoyingly low res.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 13th Aug 2010, threedaymonk wrote:Paul Jakma: The ´óÏó´«Ã½ plugin is still there in Gnome, but it doesn't appear to have any video content in it. It's just radio programmes.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 13th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:Just a quick follow-up:
At the end of my first comment, I did indeed mean "oxymoron" rather than "tautology". We regret the error.
In the part where I linked to an FOI response, I've been told that there's a policy of not allowing links to PDF files for some reason. An HTML version of the same document is .
Regarding the "proprietary HTML5 implementations" comment, it's been suggested to me that Erik may have meant Apple's "HTML5 Showcase" which only worked on Safari: this is muddling the issues somewhat, as this is largely just a matter of poor site development practices, rather than anything to do with the HTML5 implementation in Safari itself (not to mention that most of those demos weren't actually of HTML5 in any case).
While it's technically true that HTML5 is a long way from being ratified, this is a testament to the way that the W3C standardisation process works, rather than any practical indicator of usefulness: a W3C standard will only reach Recommendation status when two independent (complete) implementations of it exist, and this is not likely to happen for a while. Indeed, the fact that HTML4 ever reached this status is a hint that sometimes the rules get bent somewhat. So, take this line (and it's one that's oft-repeated elsewhere) with a large pinch of salt.
On the subject of Flash and content protection: it's demonstrably the case that the content protection provided by RTMP with SWF Verification (and, indeed, RTMPE) is of little consequence: it doesn't make it any more difficult for people to get hold of videos than a referrer check on a video loaded via because the people who aren't savvy enough to use tools to fetch the streams directly can just get the content from elsewhere in any case. Most clueful people know this well, and indeed it's been stated in the past that the measures the ´óÏó´«Ã½ puts in place aren't going to do anything practical with the "determined" users -- in other words, it's all about being seen to be doing something, which is enough to satisfy the assorted rightsholders. Unfortunately, the precise terms of the agreements with the third parties are shrouded with commercial confidentiality, so we can never be quite sure what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has agreed to do and not to do (all we do know is that the "general" conditions speak nothing of DRM, and merely of the availability windows which is almost completely orthogonal to this issue).
As Erik has said: open standards are part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s DNA and should remain so. They are an integral part of what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is and does, and while individual consumers don't care about the detail of them, they do care that they can walk into any supermarket or branch of Currys and buy a TV which can be used to view ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes, and increasingly there's a need for that to apply to on-demand viewing too.
At the moment, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has found itself caught in a situation where it can't make use of them in order to satisfy its obligations, and so has to make a 'best effort' in that regard instead. Thus, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ uses open standards where it can, and falls back to widely-supported proprietary technology where it has to, even if this is to its own (and the licence-fee payer's) detriment. Realistically, the only way to bring about change in this regard is by ensuring that there is no room for manoeuvre (by way of the Charter and the regulatory framework imposed by the Trust) when it comes to the negotiations with third parties with respect to how programmes can be distributed. And, of course, in ensuring that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't consider the status quo to be an outcome and -- rather than defaulting to defending the position -- is open and honest about its drawbacks and has a view on the future, where picking and choosing supported platforms ceases to be in anybody's interests.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 13th Aug 2010, JackDaddy wrote:@Nick Reynolds
You are clearly unfamiliar with the XBMC project. It has no links to any methods that would support or encourage piracy. It simply enables the use of a PC and a thin client to bring all your digital media to one place in your living room.
Placing XBMC in the same context as piracy is unhelpful in my opinion. XBMC no more supports piracy than current windows client does.
Casual readers here could be forgiven for getting the impression that just because an alternative operating system is used, such as XBMC, that they are engaging in some dark art or piracy - they are not. Its simply that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ chose to use technology peddled by Adobe to lock clients to players of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s choice.
The only outcome of enabling SWF verification was to choke off law abiding projects and license payers from viewing content on convergent technologies. Those wishing to break the law by copying iPlayer content I believe were completely unaffected by this.
One could argue that the action may have actually turned previous law abiding viewers down those less lawful avenues, rather than reduce piracy, actually increasing it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 13th Aug 2010, td90uk wrote:It is true. HTML5 still has a long way to go before it can be used to its full advantage. It is still far away from being a standardised technology. For example, the codecs for the video element alone is still being argued over, the main contenders being OGG, H264 (a proprietary patent) and WebM. OGG is not a perfect technology and cannot really deliver high quality video without a lot of bandwidth, H264 is a proprietary patent meaning that browsers that incorporate it have to pay a fee to use it, therefore far from an "open standard". OGG is supported in Firefox, Chrome and Opera, H264 is supported in Chrome, Opera and Safari and will be incorporated in the upcoming Internet Explorer 9. The only viable codec is WebM, which is already supported in Opera and Firefox 4 beta and Chrome 6 beta, but will not be supported in Internet Explorer 9. Opera, Firefox and Chrome have pledged to support the WebM codec, but IE9 has not and has opted for the H264 codec instead.
So as we can see, HTML5 video cannot be a viable alternative to Flash until the codec is standardised and all browsers support it and seeing as Internet Explorer 10 is at least 3 years away, all browsers supporting a standardised codec isn't going to happen for a while unless Microsoft make a last minute decision in incorporating the open source, therefore "open standard" and free to use, WebM codec.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 13th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:td90uk, how can Flash be a better alternative to HTML on platforms which don't have Flash and never will have Flash?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 13th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:@td90uk: there's a gulf between using Flash and using only Flash.
In a perfect world, the EMP would use in those browsers which support both it and the codecs the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is using (mostly H.264 and AAC). That covers almost all of the Mac users, many Linux users, and a huge swathe of mobile users (assuming baseline H.264 and low-complexity AAC, in MP4 containers).
For the others - it continues to do what it does now. Or, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ adds another encoding setup for WebM and serves that as an alternative, and only falls back to Flash in those browsers which support neither WebM nor H.264+AAC via the element.
The barrier here is not technical. It never has been. The mechanics of implementing this (even with the extra work of building the WebM encoding chain) aren't particularly taxing, and big chunks of the work have been done already (indeed, as far as I'm aware, those responsible within the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are rightly quite proud of the flexibility the corporation has in this regard!)
The barrier here is purely one of contractual obligations, and so arguing about whether HTML5 is suitable for iPlayer video and or audio or not is worthless: were it not for the contractual issues, it could be rolled out in fairly short order, but those issues are even more difficult to solve (and far more important) than attempting to settle on a single codec (the ´óÏó´«Ã½ uses multiple codecs and containers right now, without any real hassle).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 13th Aug 2010, quixote wrote:The ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not have stupid users. Who, exactly, does Erik Huggers think he's going to fool with this claptrap?
Once upon a time, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ did follow open standards. Then corporate interests overrode the Beeb's mandate. Now you can only watch certain things in specific parts of the world, you can't watch much of anything offline (which is just great on a slow connection, believe me). If there's anything open left on the ´óÏó´«Ã½, it's just as a token.
I'm in the US. Once upon a time, I was so impressed with the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s commitment to its readers, I sent contributions to Bush House. Not anymore.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 13th Aug 2010, hmlco wrote:Apple is implementing portions of the standard, some of them as "webkit" extensions. So is Firefox and so is Google and though little is released, so is Microsoft.
If we waited for the standard to actually be completed and ratified before anyone implemented anything, HTML5 wouldn't be available until five years from now, if that.
Finally, the HTML5 specification is a theoretical set of features. When Apple and others implement them, they and their users will undoubtedly find that some things work best as described, and that other things that seemed to be good ideas might have better solutions.
From my perspective, Apple is only guilty of advancing the time when HTML5 is available to everyone.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 13th Aug 2010, Skeptic wrote:You say -
'to deliver a high quality experience to the broadest possible audience'
Sorry, that is not my experience. More often than not, my browser freezes
when a page has a video content. Sometimes, it is resolved after 2 or 3
minutes waiting, but often not. The experience is such a pain that I try
to avoid such pages. Unfortunately, there is often no warning. It stinks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 14th Aug 2010, HD wrote:If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wants more open standards, why don't they release their programmes on a new, more open player than DVD/Blu-ray? If they can set the standards for DVB-T2 and Freeview HD, why can't they create & specify something better (and much cheaper to release on - ie. lacking the licensing fees etc., and more open) than Blu-ray?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 14th Aug 2010, Jedra wrote:I am a web developer and don't really get this consistant call for Open Standards. Frankly I don't care if code is propietary or not as long as it works and I am happy to licence it if it does. I also write applications (using Flex mainly) and sell them - that's what I do and it's how I earn the money to feed my kids. I earn money out of making software and I fully respect anyone else for doing so also.
My only aim is to develop solutions that work on as many platforms as possible to reach the highest percentage of users. Recently we had to start stating in our terms and conditions that we do not support iPhone or iPad as we use Flash quite a lot - HTML5 is unlikely to allow us to do the same things as we do in Flash (although we will adopt it once it has reached a significant userbase level).
So in conclusion, Flash is here now, Flash works, most people have Flash installed - lets use it. If something better comes along that is widely adopted then things may change.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 14th Aug 2010, Runckle wrote:Flash is dead long live HTML5! In 2 years time If your still using flash you'll have a hard time keeping the pirates out!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 14th Aug 2010, d8xter wrote:#1 Re:Spot on!
And, why is that when a new technology is being tested it is done with the computers of very good configuration instead of most common or mediocre configuration that avg end user uses. This is where flash fails, it uses way more resources compared to other technologies, and that can only be observed often on a nomal config computer. Same is the case with Chrome guys, they test the browser for goddamn xy mbps (where x,y =/= 0) net speed connection not some kbps connection, which is the common case when you take world population into consideration. Same case can be applied to flash technology too imo, effectiveness of flash video streaming very much depends on how speed your network connection is. I'm with Steve Jobs on this. Come on HTML5.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 14th Aug 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:Just to cut out all the techno babble, most people want iPlayer to work on what they have or would like easily identified equipment (phones/OSs/ digi boxes/ consoles, techno stuff etc) that can run it.
They want the capability of utilising iPlayer, easily spotable at time of purchase, not restricted to one manufacturer or OP software giant they find out about later.
I will use my own personal example a windows HTC HD2 smartphone that just manages to play a home wifi connected stream. Yet should eat up iPlayer for breakfast, be it live , sideloaded or on demand.
Anyone would think there's only a certain fruit in the mobile garden. Same for the news, App doesn't = Apple.
Redress the balance of your service please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 15th Aug 2010, r3loaded wrote:I have a question regarding iPlayer's curious handling of Android. Apparently, with Android 2.2, it is possible to browse to the iPlayer website and stream video (but using Flash). However, for iOS, the video is delivered as H.264 + AAC, but wrapped in a QuickTime .MOV container rather than a standard MP4 container.
The question is - why? Why not simply wrap the video in an MP4 container? This way, both iOS and Android can natively play back the stream (Android can't open the QuickTime format), and Flash doesn't figure in the process. Additionally, since Flash isn't a prerequisite, Android 2.1 and below will also be able to play the video.
On top of that, they threatened the developer of the excellent beebPlayer app for some odd reason. If you don't build it, someone else will!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 15th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:@threedaymonk: The totem ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer plugin is still working fine for me in Fedora 13. Really ultra-cruddy 176x96 @ 12fps resolution though - don't know why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ bothered working with Canonical on this, given GNOME is designed for decent resolution display, it's completely useless and never going to displace Bittorrent and/or get_iplayer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 16th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:@r3loaded:
From a :
"We confirm that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not currently provide streams to Android devices as standard MP4 containers by HTTP streams due to content protection considerations. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ hopes to be able to launch an Android application for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer later this year."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 16th Aug 2010, AJS wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 16th Aug 2010, Suresh Kumar wrote:I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is being disingenuous to say that HTML 5 is not ready today.
It is.
Look at the Apple HTML5 reference website:
All modern browsers support HTML 5, like Safari, Chrome and IE9 (soon).
Rather than moving the agenda forward, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would prefer the standoff of the status-quo.
This is a case where ideology is hold the web back for consumers.
Back in the 90's consumers and Enterprises voted with their feet and opted for Windows.
Today consumers have voted for Apple consumer devices.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 16th Aug 2010, Keith wrote:@40: HTML is still in working draft state. An interview with HTML 5 Editor Ian Hickson can be found at which includes a proposed timeline.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 16th Aug 2010, Joenade wrote:Flash is widely used right now so it seems to be the easiest entry point for video content delivery. Furthermore, flash is also supported on a variety of mobile devices so there could be better support for flash than HTML5 video objects (for now atleast).
However, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should definitely be looking into providing content via HTML5 standards where possible, i.e. following the example of Youtube which would display videos without flash when the visiting user was using a HTML5 compatible browser.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 17th Aug 2010, Al Mac wrote:I agree with Dave, if the delivery method is not well-documented, unemcumbered by patents or other legal impediments, then it can be considered "open" in any way.
Ogg is patent-free, but mp3 is not, for example.
If someone can't access the "standard" (without paying for it) and implement a solution that can be distributed to anyone without problem, then it's 'open'. Otherwise, it's not. The distribution side is important, we can't expect everyone to build their own software.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 17th Aug 2010, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:@Joenade
The problem with Flash is that it is massively inefficient with regards to memory footprint and processor loading. This is acceptable on desktop computers, where memory and power are not an issue, but on battery powered devices with limited resources it is really a non starter.
The real problem with Flash, however, is that it is a propitiatory format, owned and controlled by a single company (Adobe). If Adobe do not create an iPlayer compatible Flash client for your device, then there is nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.
If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ stuck to its pledge of using an open standard, any open standard, for content delivery, then it wouldn't matter if there wasn't a particular client for a particular device because it would be straightforward for someone (anyone) to create one.
Of course, we all know the real reason for the use of Flash. DRM. Prevention of Copyright violation. Considering that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has to broadcast everything to air, using unencrypted MPEG2 streams which are easily recorded and transcoded, this is merely attempting the shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
DRM is a failed concept, anyway. It just, plain, doesn't work, and far from preventing "piracy", actively encourages it. If someone cannot obtain the content they want themselves they will often turn to someone else to do it for them. That "someone else" is usually a "professional" pirate or prolific file sharer.
In other words DRM just makes more work for the very people it is designed to stop.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 17th Aug 2010, Tommy wrote:Flash will live long no matter what everyone thinks. It is much more mature platform that html5 and it is usually hated by all those who fear it.
Also because EMP has been out there for a long time you think it is just a video player. There is much more complexity over the hood that you could possibly imagine. HTML5 is nowhere near to handle all those features. Also a lot of effort went into making it such a great experience that redoing it in html5 does make any sense, simply because IE6 is still out there (as well as IE7 and IE8) and html5 wouldn't work anyways!
It's like asking ´óÏó´«Ã½ to build a car using only a hammer and nails, expecting it to be running on uranium and not caring where to get uranium from.
Youtube is experimenting with html5 as well. But if you dig deep enough you are going to find out that is will only use it if the device does not YET support flash. It won't even try loading html5 player if flash is available and will be the mainstream delivery method.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 17th Aug 2010, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:@Tommy
Of course, the flip side of your argument is the sheer overkill of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ requiring users to install a full application runtime environment (Flash 10) merely to watch videos.
Continuing you car analogy, its like the Government demanding that your car has Air Conditioning, cruise control, CD player, sat nav and sunroof before its even allowed on the road.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 17th Aug 2010, Tommy wrote:@Eponymous Cowherd
The flipside of my argument is the fact that Flash Player 10 penetration currently stands at 97.9% in Europe and doesn't go below 96% anywhere in the world. Taking your approach further you might say why does it only work on Windows, MAc and Linux and not on your graphical calculator.
You really misunderstood my car analogy. You have to have a car to drive on roads. That's a fact. But that is not enough, because it needs to be road safe, etc.
If you want to watch iplayer you need Flash, because that's how video is commonly delivered on the web. That is a fact as well.
Hiding the complexity of the player behind user interface doesn't make the whole player to be simple and easily developed. From what I have seen so far is different companies pumping huge amounts of money to show off what you could potentially do in html5 (assuming obviously you download their browser with all their suggested implementation of the standard).
Looking at penetration rate it is more likely someone has Flash instead of "their" browser installed, therefore you loose already.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 17th Aug 2010, Michael wrote:Let's face it, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ decision to rely on Flash is driven by DRM and licenced content. That is why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not using open source codecs and distribution mechanisms. That is why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is locking out homebuilt video players like XMBC. And that is why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is involved in the Project Canvas consortium to make it even harder for UK citizens to watch TV content without paying fees to somebody, whether Sky or BT or some other Project Canvas licensee.
This whole thing is not a technical issue, it is not an issue of providing a high quality experience to the largest possible audience. This is 100% a political issue in which the hidden media players behind the ´óÏó´«Ã½, Sky and other TV companies, are trying to create a CLOSED ecosystem in the UK where revenue will flow from the viewer into the pockets of the hidden media companies.
There is only one way out of this and it is through political action to stop Project Canvas, and to stop the ´óÏó´«Ã½ from televising any DRM licenced content whatsoever. It means that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will likely have to stop showing any American TV content because licencing it restricts it from iPlayer or requires DRM on iPlayer. But this is the route that we have to go down. The licence fee payers deserve to get an open television system in which content is freely available to view through whatever means they choose whether that is XMBC or MythTV or a box from Sky or BT.
Spend less time in the blogosphere and more time on educating MPs and OFCOM about this issue. When the lightbulb finally goes on, Project Canvas will be dead, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s license conditions will be changed. Right now, media interests have effectively taken over the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and OFCOM and are playing a game of brinksmanship in order to steer UK TV into a closed ecosystem.
Meanwhile in other countries, people are free to view their TV how they want. There aren't any quality problems and nobody suggests that it is hard to view Internet TV on a TV set. In fact even in the UK you can go to Maplins and get a nice wireless kit that connects an HDMI PC or laptop to your TV. Put the laptop on a side table beside the couch or armchair, and view your TV freely when you want and how you want.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 18th Aug 2010, seslichat wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 18th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Michael - You are off topic. This post is not about Project Canvas or DRM. It's about HTML5. Stay on topic please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 18th Aug 2010, Tiggs wrote:Actually, Nick, the post was about Open Standards and Michael's comment was about exactly that, why closed standards are harmful, and why (despite what you claim) the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is using anything but open standards.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 18th Aug 2010, cping500 wrote:Whatever the technical arguments it is anti competative to require the user to use a particular mode of receiving content distibutors' output in a qasi monopolitic market. Flash has 90%+ penetration because the user is forced to use it. If they are offered attractive recieving devices which don't use it then the content distributors have to bend. The rest of us just 'flash'.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 18th Aug 2010, LazarusLong wrote:One other point against Flash is its poor record regarding security flaws. These can take ages to fix because it is closed source. It is telling also that a 64-bit version of the flash plugin for Firefox (on Linux at least) is not available: any well-crafted code should compile without issues on either 64-bit or 32-bit systems. If it doesn't, then there is something wrong with the code.
Flash is also remarkably resource-demanding. I get an un-watchable 2 or 3 frames per second when I try to view iPlayer low-res content on my netbook, yet I can view the same resolution non-flash video at a comfortable (but still not ideal) 16 frames per second on the same machine.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:For the benefit of those argue based on market-share, two important points you have overlooked from earlier in the discussion:
1. There are many devices which do not support Flash, and never will.
2. As a consequence of certain devices in class 1, made by vendors the ´óÏó´«Ã½ favours, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ *already* has developed and deployed a HTML solution.
These points together render all arguments based on whether Flash is better/worse than HTML, or market share utterly irrelevant. Some other points worth bearing in mind:
* Despite the HTML technology existing and being available for /some/ devices, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ goes out of its way to try to block access to HTML iPlayer. That is, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is expending not inconsiderable effort to *reduce* the availability of iPlayer - somewhat contrary to a face-value reading of its charter.
* My understanding is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ uses the HTML iPlayer for at least one device which *supports* Flash (Sony PS3), in preference to the Flash version. This undermines all arguments that HTML offers an inferior end-user experience to Flash. Indeed, if this is correct, it re-inforces the argument that Flash has performance problems, as that likely is why the HTML interface is used over the Flash one.
* Regarding favoured vendors, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ repeatedly claims that it bases its decisions on which products to support with the HTML interface on objective things like market-reach. This claim however seems to fly in the face of evidence, given that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had support for iPad *before* it was released, yet could not support the millions of Android phones already out there.
So exactly why does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ choose to spend effort on blocking the HTML interface to devices which could benefit greatly from it? It seems that if we try provide the obvious answer to this that Nick will tell us we're off-topic:
DRM..
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 18th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s approach to DRM is outlined in this blog post. I'd like this thread to stay on the topic of HTML5 and open standards, not drift into general discussions on the pros and cons of DRM or the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s approach to it.
Thanks
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:So we can't here discuss the fact the ´óÏó´«Ã½ dislikes open standard based interfaces, at least for general use, because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ feels it loses control with such interfaces? We can't discuss the fact that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is deluding itself in that regard, as the closed solutions offer no more protection than the open ones?
Note that these questions are about open standards.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 18th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Paul,
The topic of this blog post is HTML5 and open standards. The points you make are general points which have been made before and we still have blog posts open to discuss them. This post is not a general message board/discussion area for DRM or the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s approach to it. Thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Ok..
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has the following concerns (at least) about the general use of the HTML interface:
1. Branding
2. Editorial control
3. Content protection.
So, specifically in the context of HTML iPlayer, to what extent are these issues valid and where there are issues, how can they be addressed? Can we discuss that here?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)
Comment number 59.
At 18th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Paul,
none of these are mentioned in the blog post. Content protection can be discussed here.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 59)
Comment number 60.
At 18th Aug 2010, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:You cannot discuss the relative benefits of Open (HTML5) and Propitiatory (Flash in this context) standards without discussing content protection / DRM. The issue is that content protection systems rely on "security by obscurity" and, hence, are only ever able to be implemented with any degree of effectiveness in fully closed systems.
Saying you can discuss open/closed standards, but must not mention DRM is like starting a discussion on the 1940's, but saying you must not mention the War
(I did once, but I think I got away with it.....)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 60)
Comment number 61.
At 18th Aug 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:Nick -- The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has specifically confirmed that it will not use open standards for the delivery of video content because of content protection concerns. A big part of the perceived benefits to HTML5 is a means to embed video using those open standards, without the aid of third-party plugins.
Comments explaining this (because it inexplicably isn't spelled out in the blog post, again) are quite obviously entirely relevant.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 61)
Comment number 62.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Nick,
Let us remind ourselves of what Erik's post says:
So this blog post explicitly is about the short-comings in HTML video, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ perceives them. Erik doesn't really expand much on the details, other than to point at some blogs complaining about the standardisation process, as an example. However, we know, from a number of discussions and indeed consultation submissions, that the issues on that short-list I gave are also among the ´óÏó´«Ã½s' issues with HTML video for general usage. Presumably the work-to-be-done referred to by Erik includes a desire to address those issues.
Yet we are not to discuss them? ;)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 62)
Comment number 63.
At 18th Aug 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:You'll notice that despite my interventions I haven't actually removed any of your posts yet. I'm trying to set boundaries and keep the discussion on topic so it doean't drift.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 63)
Comment number 64.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:I had noticed. ;) Cheers.
It would I think be interesting to discuss whether it is possible (and if so how) to sufficiently address the ´óÏó´«Ã½s' issues, such as the 3 I gave, within an "open" HTML iPlayer. I have my opinion, just wondering what others think...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 64)
Comment number 65.
At 18th Aug 2010, Paul Jakma wrote:Oh, for "sufficiently address": All the ´óÏó´«Ã½s' existing solutions have big holes. The Flash RTMPE backend interfaces still are accessible to various tools, the SSL-authenticated devices which are allowed access to the HTML interface are often trivially "jailbreakable" allowing the content to be copied and/or the SSL client cert to be extracted.
So, any solutions to the problem of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ perceiving the HTML interface to not give sufficient control similarly should not be required to be completely watertight/infallible. It should be sufficient to just put off most non-technical people. Right?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 65)
Comment number 66.
At 21st Aug 2010, marcoose777 wrote:OS linux fedora 13, browser firefox.
Try to view any content on ´óÏó´«Ã½ iplayer. Prompt = You need to install Flash to play Chuggington: Puffer Pete's Big Show.
Boo Hoo can't watch Chugginton!
Download the Flash player now.
Response Sod off ´óÏó´«Ã½ no way!
Last Word - come on Erik be honest.
Which part of adobe (C) (P) flash player is an open standard? It really is quite simple really (hint none).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 66)
Comment number 67.
At 6th Sep 2010, Social Ambulator wrote:How have 'open standards' always been part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s ethos? Most of last century 'open standards' had no meaning in relation to what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ did. Were there open standards in radios or TVs or what? Nonsense!
Moral: Never trust anyone who talks about a company's DNA.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 67)
Comment number 68.
At 13th Nov 2010, Abdelilah wrote:Flash player represent many security issues, I just don't know why many websites still using it while the HTML 5 is there, I've made a commitment to never install it on my windows 7 machine.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 68)
Comment number 69.
At 29th Nov 2010, haversham wrote:I am using a White MacBook Running OS X 10.6.5 and Flash crashes all the time in Safari Version 5.0.3 (6533.19.4) and Chrome 7.0.517.44.
I have enabled the HTML version of YouTube, as the same thing used to happen frequently, and I get little problems now.
Its as simple as that. HTML for video works fine right now and you should just get on with it. Check out the example here from Apple:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 69)
Comment number 70.
At 12th Dec 2010, haversham wrote:I truly hate the experience I have with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News website concerning video delivery through Flash. Every time I click to play a video it takes about 60 seconds to load the feed, every time! Not only this but when I visit the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website for the first few videos I click they always crash! Always. But I only know this after the 60 second buffer!
Where as the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s iPlayer (which is flash based) loads instantly! Why is that??! Further The Guardian loads instantly and of course YouTube works very well when in HTML5 mode.
I got so fed up with this daily ritual of disappointment that I decided to make a video about it and although I only use Safari, the problems are the same in Chrome and Firefox. I run Snow Leopard (10.6.5) and the latest versions of the browsers I have, still the same problem on each.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 70)
Comment number 71.
At 6th Jan 2011, mleon wrote:Finally! Dont get me wrong I like flash, but not with my macs! I will finally get good video on my iphone from bbc news. Every time I click to play a video it takes about 60 seconds to load the feed, every time! Not only this but when I visit the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website for the first few videos .
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 71)
Comment number 72.
At 16th Jul 2011, John K wrote:Flash will live long no matter what everyone thinks. It is much more mature platform that html5 and it is usually hated by all those who fear it.
Also because EMP has been out there for a long time you think it is just a video player. There is much more complexity over the hood that you could possibly imagine. HTML5 is nowhere near to handle all those features. Also a lot of effort went into making it such a great experience that redoing it in html5 does make any sense, simply because IE6 is still out there (as well as IE7 and IE8) and html5 wouldn't work anyways!
It's like asking ´óÏó´«Ã½ to build a car using only a hammer and nails, expecting it to be running on uranium and not caring where to get uranium from.
Youtube is experimenting with html5 as well. But if you dig deep enough you are going to find out that is will only use it if the device does not YET support flash. It won't even try loading html5 player if flash is available and will be the mainstream delivery method.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 72)