YouTube's thoughts on Flash and the video tag
apiblog.youtube.com
apiblog.youtube.com
The simplest way is via a YouTube embed. So if it isn't ready for YouTube, it isn't ready for the web.
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.
Unless those people who own cats are all Richard Stallman impersonators, I don't see how that makes any logical sense.
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.
[clicks link]
>This rental is currently unavailable in your country.
Geographically segregated, non-redistributable content: just what the web needs!
The original reasoning was, that without RTMPE they would be unable to provide such content.
Well, at least for me, they are still unable provide such content, so from my POV this argument could be removed from debate and nothing would change.
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.
Qualcomm, AMD, TI and NVidia are also on list of supporters: http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
Apple may be able to get hardware decoder for WebM bundled in the same package as H.264 codec.
It's likely that WebM will be widely supported and technically good enough for Apple, so Apple would have to have a good reason to "veto" it.
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.
Also, is it so difficult to not use PR-speak in a blog?
"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)."
I.e., we need to put ads over the videos.
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.
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.
For instance, this seems like a normal YouTube link, except it doesn't work on the iPad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ95z6ywcBY
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
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.
It should, because that's exactly what it is.
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.
Vote with your currency of choice.
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.
This was a load and clear signal that Youtube knows full well that the time of HTML5 is coming soon.