4 ms·

Interesting that the people whose business model actually rely on video distribution (Hulu, YouTube) have opinions that are the opposite of the common user cons

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).

megaman821 16y ago
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.
- TotlolRon 16y ago
  for people who just want to post a video of their cat on their blog The simplest way is via a YouTube embed. So if it isn't ready for YouTube, it isn't ready for the web.
  - danudey 16y ago
    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.
    - asmosoinio 16y ago
      Are you saying all the points in the article, besides the DRM one, were untrue?
- not_an_alien 16y ago
  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.
- yesimahuman 16y ago
  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.
Shorel 16y ago
I think that the consensus seems to be: 'Web video requires Flash' has to die. Of course, it needs to be alive in order to its death being a necessity. I don't know any single opinion stating that HTML5 is ready.

megaman821 16y ago

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.

TotlolRon 16y ago
for people who just want to post a video of their cat on their blog The simplest way is via a YouTube embed. So if it isn't ready for YouTube, it isn't ready for the web.
- danudey 16y ago
  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.
  - asmosoinio 16y ago
    Are you saying all the points in the article, besides the DRM one, were untrue?
not_an_alien 16y ago
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.
yesimahuman 16y ago
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.

Shorel 16y ago

I think that the consensus seems to be: 'Web video requires Flash' has to die. Of course, it needs to be alive in order to its death being a necessity. I don't know any single opinion stating that HTML5 is ready.