54% of Web Video is now available in HTML5
blog.mefeedia.com
blog.mefeedia.com
I just googled 'html5 porn' and there was something about YouPorn switching to HTML5, but then I went and checked, no HTML5. In fact, not only was the video flash, but there were 3 flash-based ads on the page as well. Good way to eat processor and kill batteries.
I suspect MeFeedia doesn't index porn sites, but I went ahead and asked in the comments.
Here's an idea: PornForGeeks. HTML5 valid, HTML5 <video>, strong use of semantic tagging, 'smarter' ads, strong query engine, etc
I'm guessing until HTML5 with <video> support is more mainstream, sites that stream/host videos will target devices rather than browsers.
I'm guessing it's a lot of work (or resources) to re-encode your old videos (assuming they've got a copy somewhere), and not all companies are fortunate enough to be YouTube.
Of course this isn't free, but I remember reading something about NYT converting 100 years of archives to PDFs for a rather trivial amount of money (and time) by doing it this way.
The second (mobile.mofosex.com) is all the way back on HTML 4.01 Transitional. It too doesn't use the <video> tag, and is just pushing m4v files.
The third, (XHTML 1.0 Transitional) is about the same.
In fact it took until the 7th result to get an HTML5 page (mobile.bangyoulater.com). Of course, it doesn't validate. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://mobile.bangyoulater... Really sloppy coding imho. It doesn't use the video tag however.
In fact, I wasn't able to find a single thing on the first page of Google that was:
1) HTML5 2) Used HTML5 for its video
with a special bonus star for one that validated. Not a single one.
EDIT: YouPorn, PornHub, Tube8, KeezMovies, ExtremeTube, Brazzers Mobile, all play videos fine on iPad, and that was just with 5 min of Googling. There appears to not be any shortage of mobile porn.
All in all it is just really sad that the major companies weren't able to agree on one common video format for html5 (thanks, Microsoft and Apple!).
What's the future now? Flash for Windows Phone, html5/h264 for iPhone, html5/webm for chrome and android, html5/ogg for firefox and i think opera should just go for html5/avi+intel indeo, maybe nokia could do html5/animated gif. (the sarcasm ends here, btw.)
My point is that thanks to Microsoft and Apple (who are both getting money from licensing H.264) we have no consistent video format and we will never have. MS and Apple will never support ogg or webm and Firefox will never support H.264 (which is the only decision they could have made from their point of view).
The dream of one consistent standard for the web that was HTML5 has been destroyed by some greedy corporations once again.
My hope is that WebM takes off and becomes really popular. Then they would be fools to not support it.
They get license fees for H.264. That's all management will need to know. They will tell us how there is no hardware acceleration and how H.264 has superior quality, when in reality they only want the money. The goal is that the defacto standard for web video becomes H.264. Imagine the income: When H.264 replaces all flash videos, they can leech money out of every device that plays those and everyone that makes those. That's PCs, tablets, phones, TVs and much more which equals a large amount of money.
That's why i said, it's a shame that there was no decision for one video codec in HTML5. They (the w3c/whatwg) should've went with "screw you all, the video codec is ogg(or webm). If your browsers don't support it they are not HTML5 compliant." Instead they went with "ok, fine. Everyone can do whatever he wants", willingly accepting that the bigger companies will go for the money decision and lock-out of competition. IE is still big enough to make the situation really bad. MS will go the way of supporting other codecs through the windows API. But those codecs need to be installed, degrading them to 2nd class citizens and big video publishers will have to go the route of H.264 to not scare customers away with installing some non-default codec.
The irony: In the end, the better choice will be to atleast support flash videos, because flash is available almost everywhere, whereas the alternative is a much more fragmented HTML5 standard. In the end, this decision may have disrupted the goal to replace flash video with HTML5.
Most people who use Firefox are doing so on a laptop/desktop with the Flash plug-in installed - in that case, video sites just use Flash.
HTML5 video does not support any sort of RTMP streaming. This is an undeniably important feature. Having to wait until a video loads before you can seek to a specific point is woefully disappointing for the end-user.
Not having a reliable base of encoding across all platforms is a real kick in the teeth as well.
Also, since HTTP 1.1 we have byte ranges, so in combination of above point, you can freely seek with HTTP-streamed videos.
In theory RTSP should be fairly easy for chromium, since it uses ffmpeg under the hood, which comes with a RTSP stack...
There is also http pseudostreaming, but that has its own set of problems too.
That isn't true.
For Desktop/Laptop browsing, most sites still playback the Flash version. The capability to dynamically detect device and serve as HTML5 or Flash is the most significant change in the video space, with mobile playback via HTML5 being the market driver.
Edit: oh, I think I misread. They're counting individual videos, not sites. So while Youtube has HTML5 available to everyone not all videos support it. My mistake, disregard.
http://imgur.com/xrdlF.png (To watch this video, you need Flash 10. You have an old version of Flash. Click here to download the latest version.)
and there's no trace of <video> element in the source.
They only use HTML5 as a workaround for browsers with "iP" in User-Agent string.
This is misleading because many providers use H.264 but don't have solutions for HTML5 video. Hulu for example uses a H.264 but uses a streaming server with drm protection on the stream that can only be played within the Flash player.