Hulu's video player is rock-solid. If they say HTML5 isn't good enough, I am inclined to take what they say seriously.
The argument essentially boils down to: the studios and the advertisers are their customers: the studios don't like the lack of perceived control over the data stream and the advertisers don't like the loss of finer-grained reporting on data-stream consumption.
I certainly agree the studios' lack of perceived control is likely to be a factor too, but Hulu aren't alone here: HTML5 isn't (yet) good enough for us at Justin.TV either.
However, Apple has a method of doing this with entirely standard HTTP and a few metadata files, as this is how you do adaptive bitrate content on the iphone: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Netw...
The formats and methods Apple provides in the spec for the IPhone can be used for both Live Content and for adaptive bit-rate pre-recorded content.
I hope eventually the iphone http streaming spec or a derivative would get adopted into HTML5 :)
Also it may be better to adopt another streaming protocol for HTML5 because the Apple's protocol is not suitable for low latency streaming.
Well, they don't disclose what the patent is, but bleh, its just stupid to patent crap like that :(
Interesting scheme. I'm wondering if this same idea could be used by a client-side library to enable buffering and dynamic bitrate changes. It could also be used to dynamically insert advertising video content into the stream...
The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet.
I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.
Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know the eyeballs are there.
Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is interested in profits).
These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need.
The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors. But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM, your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by other means, so what's the point?
The story's hook is the rationale, not the conclusion. You miss the point in discussing whether the conclusion is accurate or not.
Hulu could easily implement an HTML5 player if they wanted - their catalog is already in H264. But the experience would suffer, and as such, they're just not doing it instead of jumping on a bandwagon that's poised for a trainwreck.
http://www.longtailvideo.com/support/blog/11887/html5-video-...
If I use the "wrong" DNS servers it claims I'm not from the USA. It's rather low quality/slow on my platform. I don't think the in browser player works at all.