Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Sep 2010 21:49 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Graphics, User Interfaces "Adobe Flash Player 'Square' is a preview release that enables native 64-bit support on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows operating systems, as well as enhanced support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 beta. We have made this preview available so that users can test existing content and new platforms for compatibility and stability."
Order by: Score:
64bit linux flashplayer and chrome?
by project_2501 on Wed 15th Sep 2010 22:15 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

Does Chrome for Linux 64 use its own internal flash plugin or does it use the one at the default /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ location?

Reply Score: 2

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

*After a quick 'yaourt -S chromium'* Looks like it uses the standard mozilla plugin directory.

By the way, it looks like this is version 10.2d161

Shockwave Flash
Shockwave Flash 10.2 d161
Name: Shockwave Flash
Description: Shockwave Flash 10.2 d161
Version:
Priority: 0
Location: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
Disable
MIME types:
MIME type Description File extensions
application/x-shockwave-flash Shockwave Flash
.swf
application/futuresplash FutureSplash Player
.spl

Edited 2010-09-15 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

*After a quick 'yaourt -S chromium'* Looks like it uses the standard mozilla plugin directory.
l


While chromium might use the mozilla plugin directory, I think Chrome put it in /opt/google/chrome/libflashplayer (at least that is what is appears to be using on my machine), so either they change the plugin from chromium to chrome (very possible since their distribution agreement with Adobe might not cover chromium) or whoever packaged that chromium for Arch might have changed it.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

While chromium might use the mozilla plugin directory, I think Chrome put it in /opt/google/chrome/libflashplayer (at least that is what is appears to be using on my machine), so either they change the plugin from chromium to chrome (very possible since their distribution agreement with Adobe might not cover chromium) or whoever packaged that chromium for Arch might have changed it

libflashplayer lists the default Flash plugin as a dependancy. So I very much doubt it's Googles own Flash plugin.

At most, it would be a wrapper for Adobe's plugin.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Google Chrome and Chromium are using the ordinary plugin. The "plugin" at /opt/google/chrome/libflashplayer is merely a symlink to the actual plugin.

Reply Score: 2

Support for....
by leech on Wed 15th Sep 2010 22:16 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Now if only we can get generic libflashplayer.so support for my ARM based N900. ;)

Not sure why they went from "We're doing simultaneous releases of the different versions" to "Death to 64-bit!" to "Here's a 'square' preview" WTF is 'square'?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Support for....
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Sep 2010 22:22 UTC in reply to "Support for...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

WTF is 'square'?


A codename.

Reply Score: 3

v Adobe == A.D.D.
by kallisti5 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 01:21 UTC
RE: Adobe == A.D.D.
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Sep 2010 01:26 UTC in reply to "Adobe == A.D.D."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought Adobe was all anti-64bit?

Sigh.. Can't wait until HTML5 video becomes more mainstream...


They were never anti-64bit, they claimed that right at the moment it wasn't needed but I'm sure with some encouragement by Apple, Microsoft and others they have decided to create a 64bit version. They never said they wouldn't, the only thing they have said was right now it wasn't justified but in the future it will appear - low and behold we are in the future and now Adobe see's it as a 'good thing' to provide.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Adobe == A.D.D.
by OSNevvs on Thu 16th Sep 2010 09:37 UTC in reply to "Adobe == A.D.D."
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

That's right.

Adobe == Attention Deficit Disorder

Reply Score: 0

APSA10-03
by ephemient on Thu 16th Sep 2010 03:29 UTC
ephemient
Member since:
2009-03-11

My big question is: does this fix http://www.adobe.com/support/security/advisories/apsa10-03.html ?

Since there's no mention in the release notes, for now I'll assume not, and thus I will continue to recommend all of my acquaintances to desist from using Flash until the end of this month. The alternative (trivial remote code execution on nearly all platforms) is pretty horrendous.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 16th Sep 2010 04:21 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

So far good, I can actually watch hulu on my 64bit Ubuntu 10.10 beta install w/o having to use the hulu application.

Reply Score: 2

So now flash can use >4GB
by joshv on Thu 16th Sep 2010 04:34 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

I read all the FAQs, and the chief benefit seems to be the ability for flash to use more than 4GB. Huh. Some benefit.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So now flash can use >4GB
by sj87 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 04:44 UTC in reply to "So now flash can use >4GB"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

I read all the FAQs, and the chief benefit seems to be the ability for flash to use more than 4GB. Huh. Some benefit.

NO! The main benefit is we can use Flash on our 64-bit systems! The 32-bit version requires a 32-bit version of the browser aswell.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: So now flash can use >4GB
by joshv on Thu 16th Sep 2010 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: So now flash can use >4GB"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Windows 7 64-bit - been running flash since the day I got it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: So now flash can use >4GB
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So now flash can use >4GB"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Windows 7 64-bit - been running flash since the day I got it.


So has my Kubuntu 10.04 installation. I kept my copy of the file:
libflashplayer-10.0.45.2.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz
... even after Adobe "officially" withdrew this version.

Now that I have downloaded a copy of the file:
flashplayer_square_p1_64bit_linux_091510.tar.gz
... I have replaced the previous file.

Each of these archives contains a single file, called libflashplayer.so

If you create a new variable in Firefox's about:config page called plugin.expose_full_path, and set its value to true, then Mozilla's about:plugins page shows the full path to the plugin executable.

On my Kubuntu 10.04 installation, this says:
File: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so

So that is the file I replaced with the new version.

After I replaced it, the about:plugins page says this:
File: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
Version: Shockwave Flash 10.2 d161

This is the new 'square' version.

Hence my Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit - been running flash since the day I got it.

PS: It is only because Adobe's flash plugin is a closed binary that one has to jump through hoops like this. For everything else on the system, Kubuntu just updates automatically through the package manager. This is a good reason in general to avoid closed binaries wherever possible.

Edited 2010-09-16 14:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: So now flash can use >4GB
by Brunis on Mon 20th Sep 2010 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So now flash can use >4GB"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Windows 7 64-bit - been running flash since the day I got it.


That's because you use 32bit browser software!

Reply Score: 1

RE: So now flash can use >4GB
by Hypnos on Thu 16th Sep 2010 04:48 UTC in reply to "So now flash can use >4GB"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

32-bit Flash causes stability problems on my 64-bit Linux system because the 32-bit compatibility libraries don't work as well as the native libraries for things like sound and video acceleration. A 64-bit plugin would be useful to me.

A more appropriate questions is, does anyone need 64-bit for anything? Yes, if you do computationally intensive tasks like video editing or scientific simulations. I prototype code for my calculation server on my laptop, where I run Flash.

32-bit Skype is also a thorn, though it only needs the sound system.

I also hope that HTML5/SVG and SIP/SILC/etc. become more popular.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: So now flash can use >4GB
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE: So now flash can use >4GB"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A more appropriate questions is, does anyone need 64-bit for anything?


Many people have a 64-bit machine. The extra registers available in 64-bit machines, and the additional multimedia instructions, means that method JIT compilers can be made to perfom better.

If javascript can be made to perform better, then open video player plugins become quite feasible:
http://www.templates.com/blog/10-html5-video-players/

If you can run such an open video player as a plugin, then you can enjoy open video (HTML5/WebM/Theora) over the web, even if your OS vendor (***cough iPad cough***) does not want you to be able to.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: So now flash can use >4GB
by Shannara on Thu 16th Sep 2010 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: So now flash can use >4GB"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't forget that 32bit programs/drivers, etc makes a 64bit OS run SLOWER. So your best bet is to get as many things on 64bit as possible.

Reply Score: 0

Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

What makes you think so?

Drivers of course must match the OS but 32-bit applications run perfectly on 64-bit Windows 7.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: So now flash can use >4GB
by redshift on Sun 19th Sep 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: So now flash can use >4GB"
redshift Member since:
2006-05-06

What makes you think so?

Drivers of course must match the OS but 32-bit applications run perfectly on 64-bit Windows 7.


On a modern multicore computer I suspect that many things have enough excess computing power that some tasks wont feel any different. But as mentioned in this thread, there are architectural reasons with registers and instruction set extensions that can give a 20% boost to x86-64 over 32-bit on some tasks. These enhancements actually gives a boost that more than makes up for the extra overhead of the larger 64-bit pointers. Switching modes between 32 and 64 bit on the processor also has a cost... but perhaps multiple cores would hide that more if it is handled with some intelligence. You also get added security with the separation of registers and the NX-bit when running x86-64

On PowerPC the change was not as dramatic since the architecture already had lots of registers and many of the SIMD extensions that were added to x86-64 were already found on PowerPC. I would expect ARM to be in a similar boat as PowerPC.

Reply Score: 1

One million WebM videos milestone
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 05:26 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/08/easy-tricks-for-finding-webm-vi...

On the WebM project blog, a recent post shows "Easy Tricks for Finding WebM Videos in YouTube".

The same post states that "today, the one million most popular videos of any size on YouTube are also available in the WebM format".

This milestone of one million of the most popular Youtube videos available today in WebM format, together with the tips for making a browser search tool for them in some browsers, means that browser such as Firefox and Opera which render WebM with HTML5 but not H.264 are becoming increasingly viable.

The blog post also indicates how to change a YouTube link to fetch the WebM version of the video:

Directly Accessing WebM Videos by URL

To find out if any YouTube video is available in WebM, simply add &html5=True (make sure True is capitalized) to the end of the video URL. If there is a WebM version of the video, it will open instead of the Flash version. For example:

Flash version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz6gFokvOr0
WebM version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz6gFokvOr0&html5=True


Developments such as these in conjunction with the arrival soon of IE9, Firefox 4 et al may mean that Flash might possibly become no longer needed by many people. Given that Flash doesn't work on the iPad, then HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG and ECMAscript might well soon be in a position to become the default "rich web content" platform.

HTML5/WebM will be supported on Firefox, Chrome, Opera and also on IE9 (if the user installs a suitable WebM codec, which would doubtless be made available by Google). Being the most widely supported, this could therefore become the default for delivery of video over the web.

Reply Score: 2

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

if only flash was only for reading video

Reply Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

if only flash was only for reading video


In the same way that HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG and ECMAscript are not only for reading video, do you mean?

Given the soon-to-be-realised presence and performance of HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG, Canvas and ECMAscript, the poor performance of Flash, and the absence of Flash on some platforms such as iPad and some phones, it could easily become the case that rich web content moves quite rapidly away from Flash to a new standards platform comprising: HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG, Canvas, fast ECMAscript and other emerging technologies like Open Video, audio, WebGL, touch events, device orientation and geo location.

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/08/introducing-the-new-mdn-website/

https://mozillalabs.com/gaming/2010/09/07/welcome-to-mozilla-labs-ga...
Modern Open Web technologies introduced a complete stack of technologies such as Open Video, audio, WebGL, touch events, device orientation, geo location, and fast JavaScript engines which make it possible to build complex (and not so complex) games on the Web. With these technologies being delivered through modern browsers today, the time is ripe for pushing the platform.


Even IE9 will support much of this:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23811/Internet_Explorer_9_Beta_Released

... without requiring a plugin.

Edited 2010-09-16 06:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Inacurate, flash is still relevant for features that html5 won't provide.
The fact that flash is not available on some platform where html5 is, is more a vendor/implementor choice (I have been living with a non html5 cell phone, that have flash).
I'm not in favor of putting flash everywhere, but people should not view html5 as the messiah that could save the web (it's way too late for that and it wasn't about flash ).
html5 is in my point of view a trojan horse for pushing more mpeg4 video ( remember that licence are free as long as you don't earn money from your video), and the alternative to mpeg4 video are not available on the apple platforms .

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Inacurate, flash is still relevant for features that html5 won't provide. The fact that flash is not available on some platform where html5 is, is more a vendor/implementor choice (I have been living with a non html5 cell phone, that have flash). I'm not in favor of putting flash everywhere, but people should not view html5 as the messiah that could save the web (it's way too late for that and it wasn't about flash ). html5 is in my point of view a trojan horse for pushing more mpeg4 video ( remember that licence are free as long as you don't earn money from your video), and the alternative to mpeg4 video are not available on the apple platforms .


Your opinion on what HTML5 is or is not for will have absolutely nothing to do with its adoption.

This isn't just about HTML5, there are a whole raft of standards technologies that work together to create a platform that is far more powerful, and (which will be) ubiquitous, than the one-lump-plugin solutions such as Flash and Silverlight.

There are indeed a few things that are not available in HTML5, but happily they are addressed in HTML5/CSS3/DOM/Canvas/SVG/fast ECMAscript et al.

There will be no shortage of tools to write for the HTML5/CSS3/DOM/Canvas/SVG/fast ECMAscript platform either:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/adobe-html5/
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/05/adobe-adds-html5-creation-tools-to...
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=11369

Enjoy.

PS: MP4 video support won't be ubiquitous. Platform-wise, WebM video will be supported far more widely than MP4.

So far, only Safari won't support WebM, while Opera and Firefox won't support MP4.

Opera + Firefox >> Safari.

Edited 2010-09-16 06:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think it is too early to say that. I have yet to see a javascript game that has the quality and fun level of the best ArmorGames and Kongregate games around. And the reason is obvious : non-Flash technologies are for geeks.

If there was an IDE as good as Flash for standard web technologies, maybe the level would improve. But it is not the case. And even technology-speaking, HTML5 implementations are far from reaching the already poor performance of Flash, which has the obvious advantage of years of experience with slow computers (though only those running windows).

Maybe Native Client will do the trick, by getting rid of interpreted code altogether. But then I fear that the result will suffer Java-like insanely slow startup performance, while the program's code is being translated to native insert_your_platform_here code.

In short, there is still a lot to do before web standards are a serious competitor to Flash. And that's fine, too, as long as somebody else gets Adobe's ass kicked so that they continue to work on making Flash less of a nightmare like they did with 10.1...

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think it is too early to say that. I have yet to see a javascript game that has the quality and fun level of the best ArmorGames and Kongregate games around. And the reason is obvious : non-Flash technologies are for geeks. If there was an IDE as good as Flash for standard web technologies, maybe the level would improve. But it is not the case.


Are you sure about that?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/html5-pack-illustrator-cs5...
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-content/adobe-lends-weight-to-html-5...
http://www.slashgear.com/adobe-html5-pack-for-dreamweaver-cs5-relea...

And even technology-speaking, HTML5 implementations are far from reaching the already poor performance of Flash, which has the obvious advantage of years of experience with slow computers (though only those running windows).


Where did you get this from?

Maybe Native Client will do the trick, by getting rid of interpreted code altogether. But then I fear that the result will suffer Java-like insanely slow startup performance, while the program's code is being translated to native insert_your_platform_here code. In short, there is still a lot to do before web standards are a serious competitor to Flash. And that's fine, too, as long as somebody else gets Adobe's ass kicked so that they continue to work on making Flash less of a nightmare like they did with 10.1...


Did you realise that most modern javascript engines in browser are actually compilers? I have been told that the jargon for this is "method JIT".

Examples are Google's V8, Apple's nitro, the new Jaegermonkey engine in Firefox, and even the new engine in the IE9 beta, which AFAIK is called Chakra.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx#_ECMAScript5
Introducing “Chakra”, the new JavaScript engine
Script engine performance is just one part of the overall browser performance picture. Script performance in Internet Explorer 8 improved exponentially over that of Internet Explorer 7, and “Chakra”, the new JavaScript engine in Internet Explorer 9 Beta, does it again. The Chakra engine interprets, compiles, and executes code in parallel and takes advantage of multiple CPU cores, when available. For more details, see the IE Team Blog.


As for the "start-up penalty" ... perhaps you haven't considered the implications of provisions such as Firefox's new "App Tabs" feature:

http://blog.mozilla.com/about_mozilla/2010/08/03/firefox-4-app-tabs...
There’s a new feature coming to Firefox 4 that creates a new kind of browser tab known as an “App Tab”. The idea behind App Tabs is that some web sites are more like applications than web pages, such as Google Docs, webmail, Twitter, and web-based feed readers. These are sites that people often keep open all the time, and App Tabs makes that easier and more efficient to do.


For these "App Tabs", the underlying code will only ever have to be downloaded and re-compiled when it changes.

Edited 2010-09-16 23:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08


Well, if I understand well, this is about SVG handling in Illustrator and HTML5+CSS3 in Dreamweaver. It's indeed some sign of interest towards those technologies on Adobe's side (thought it was planned for CS6), but if I'm not misunderstood this is not nearly close to a powerful and easy-to-use, Flash-like, IDE for those new standard web technologies.

Where did you get this from?

Don't remember, but DuckDuck quickly gave me some links...
http://blog.coursevector.com/flash-canvas-comparison
http://themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/

Some Adobe guys (could an independent tester check these results please ?) ran the latter test on a Froyo/Nexus1 combination, and it looks like the difference in performance is quite noticeable.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/flash_now_importable_to_hmtl_c...

Did you realise that most modern javascript engines in browser are actually compilers? I have been told that the jargon for this is "method JIT".

Examples are Google's V8, Apple's nitro, the new Jaegermonkey engine in Firefox, and even the new engine in the IE9 beta, which AFAIK is called Chakra.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx#_ECMAScript5
"Introducing “Chakra”, the new JavaScript engine
Script engine performance is just one part of the overall browser performance picture. Script performance in Internet Explorer 8 improved exponentially over that of Internet Explorer 7, and “Chakra”, the new JavaScript engine in Internet Explorer 9 Beta, does it again. The Chakra engine interprets, compiles, and executes code in parallel and takes advantage of multiple CPU cores, when available. For more details, see the IE Team Blog."

As for the "start-up penalty" ... perhaps you haven't considered the implications of provisions such as Firefox's new "App Tabs" feature:

http://blog.mozilla.com/about_mozilla/2010/08/03/firefox-4-app-tabs...
"There’s a new feature coming to Firefox 4 that creates a new kind of browser tab known as an “App Tab”. The idea behind App Tabs is that some web sites are more like applications than web pages, such as Google Docs, webmail, Twitter, and web-based feed readers. These are sites that people often keep open all the time, and App Tabs makes that easier and more efficient to do."

For these "App Tabs", the underlying code will only ever have to be downloaded and re-compiled when it changes.

Indeed, forgot that browsers discovered the existence of JIT some months ago, thanks for pointing this out.

Edited 2010-09-17 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

redshift Member since:
2006-05-06

Given the soon-to-be-realised presence and performance of HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG, Canvas and ECMAscript, the poor performance of Flash, and the absence of Flash on some platforms such as iPad and some phones, it could easily become the case that rich web content moves quite rapidly away from Flash to a new standards platform comprising: HTML5, CSS3, SVG, animated SVG, Canvas, fast ECMAscript and other emerging technologies like Open Video, audio, WebGL, touch events, device orientation and geo location.


A great deal of the "poor" perforce in flash is from flash designers who either half ass code our don't understand how to code properly and efficiently. People will still be able to write bloated crap in any technology.

ActionScript in flash is just a dialect of ecmascript. ActionScript 3.0 has grown into to a very nice language. I have already seen some frameworks that started out in flash like caurina ported to JavaScript and .Net. Useful tools are useful tools and many of these technologies and high level languages are not radically different from each other.

I am happy to see flash get some competition. Adobe will either make Flash a better product or it will shift the Flash IDE into being a tool to develop for this new suite of media technologies. Open alternatives to flash are a good thing, but Flash itself is not a bad thing... It is just a tool.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I am happy to see flash get some competition. Adobe will either make Flash a better product or it will shift the Flash IDE into being a tool to develop for this new suite of media technologies.


The Flash IDE has already been adapted by Adobe into being a tool to develop for this new suite of media technologies. Perhaps Adobe has seen the writing on the wall.

Open alternatives to flash are a good thing, but Flash itself is not a bad thing... It is just a tool.


No, Flash is a bad thing. It comes from a sole-source supplier, and it is delivered in binary form only. That puts the sole-source supplier in a position to determine which platforms do get support, and which do not. If Flash were the only option, that would put Adobe into the position that they could decide, for example, if ARM platforms could have a Flash binary available, or if Adobe wanted to provide only binaries for Atom and other Intel CPUs, but not AMD and ARM for example.

If a new player, such as ARM, wanted to enter a market that involved displaying rich content delivered via the Internet, Adobe could say yay or nay. That lets Adobe put their own price on the provision of Flash for ARM devices.

I mean, imagine if Apple decide to put a new ARM-based chip of their own design into the iPad and that Apple sought Flash support for it? I could see where Adobe might want to charge Apple a fortune, and I could see that Apple might not be too happy with being held to ransom by Adobe ...

Oh, wait.

That whole situation is a very bad thing. Sole-source suppliers for any piece of critical technology is a very, very bad thing.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


HTML5/WebM will be supported on Firefox, Chrome, Opera and also on IE9 (if the user installs a suitable WebM codec, which would doubtless be made available by Google). Being the most widely supported, this could therefore become the default for delivery of video over the web.


I'm all for HTML5 websites since they will encourage a movement away from older browsers and Flash ads but video delivery is still a problem because of DRM.

Dealing with Flash brings to mind the expression very slowly catchy monkey. You'd have to get the install base of HTML5 comparable to Flash before even proposing it as an alternative to content producers like Hulu. When it comes to video there aren't enough advantages to make up for the low install base.

However HTML5 has a significant advantage over Flash when it comes to website interfaces. Not only does HTML5 work on mobiles but the early interactive demos of HTML5 feel damn smooth in comparison to Flash. Exclusive content is what will push HTML5 adoption.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" HTML5/WebM will be supported on Firefox, Chrome, Opera and also on IE9 (if the user installs a suitable WebM codec, which would doubtless be made available by Google). Being the most widely supported, this could therefore become the default for delivery of video over the web.
I'm all for HTML5 websites since they will encourage a movement away from older browsers and Flash ads but video delivery is still a problem because of DRM. Dealing with Flash brings to mind the expression very slowly catchy monkey. You'd have to get the install base of HTML5 comparable to Flash before even proposing it as an alternative to content producers like Hulu. When it comes to video there aren't enough advantages to make up for the low install base. However HTML5 has a significant advantage over Flash when it comes to website interfaces. Not only does HTML5 work on mobiles but the early interactive demos of HTML5 feel damn smooth in comparison to Flash. Exclusive content is what will push HTML5 adoption. "

The vast majority of video on the web is not DRM protected ... it comes largely from sources such as people's own video cameras and phones.

In any event, commercial interests (i.e. videos for rent) such as Hulu represent only a tiny portion of the "video over the web" market. Such interests do not set the agenda. If Hulu want to deliver video for rent via DRM, they can simply provide their own separate client player software for the purpose.

"Exclusive content" is a niche market that won't IMO have much influence at all in HTML5 adoption. DRM is a horribly borked concept anyway. BTW, apparently the master HDCP key may have been revealed recently, were you aware?.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23806/HDCP_Master_Key_May_Have_Leaked

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?441318
It's time the content industry starts looking at optimum curves for their pricing.


Now there is a thought. If video disks and downloads were say a quarter or less of their current price and had no DRM, and downloads could be delivered to and played on any device the users wanted, then digital videos would probably sell like hotcakes and no-one would bother with piracy.

Edited 2010-09-16 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The vast majority of video on the web is not DRM protected ... it comes largely from sources such as people's own video cameras and phones.

So what? Just because there are 10 million movies of guys getting kicked in the nuts does not change the fact that people will keep installing Flash to watch their favorite shows.


If Hulu want to deliver video for rent via DRM, they can simply provide their own separate client player software for the purpose.

They'll just keep using Flash which keeps the install base going which in turn makes it more attractive for other uses.


"Exclusive content" is a niche market that won't IMO have much influence at all in HTML5 adoption. DRM is a horribly borked concept anyway. BTW, apparently the master HDCP key may have been revealed recently, were you aware?.


I don't think you understand what I meant. HTML5 will get adopted by exclusive content as in websites and games that require HTML5. Saying "DRM Sucks" isn't an argument against the use of Flash. Flash has the higher install base and videos can't be saved with a right click.


If video disks and downloads were say a quarter or less of their current price and had no DRM, and downloads could be delivered to and played on any device the users wanted, then digital videos would probably sell like hotcakes and no-one would bother with piracy.

We can talk all day about the economics of video production but Hulu and other media companies will keep using Flash because it has the higher install base and offers DRM. You're pissing in the wind here.

If you are serious about HTML5 adoption then you should start working on some demos or templates. There isn't currently a strong incentive for media companies to adopt HTML5 and you can't change that.

Look I hate Flash too but I also know that companies find it useful and most people don't mind installing it. Work on the install base first. Create some demos or templates, show web designers what it is capable of.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There isn't currently a strong incentive for media companies to adopt HTML5 and you can't change that.


Absence of royalties is a strong incentive for hardware/software companies to adopt WebM/HTML5. Coming shortly, the majority of new releases of web browsers will support it. Once these products hit the market in the near future, near-universal support plus no royalties to pay will bring support from other parties soon enough.

Look I hate Flash too but I also know that companies find it useful and most people don't mind installing it.


Granted. Flash will be around for some time yet (and indeed I have begrudingly installed it myself), but it is proprietary, available in full only from a sole source supplier (major weakness there), and difficult to accomodate on low power devices. When the HTML5/WebM/CSS/SVG/Canvas/ECMAscript vs Flash battle starts in earnest, Flash will begin to wane soon enough.

Work on the install base first. Create some demos or templates, show web designers what it is capable of.


This will come soon enough. There will be a rash of sites pop up as soon as the upcoming round of new releases of major browsers is out. They will all support the new tech (Safari being the only holdout, and even then only the WebM codec will be missing. At first, Safari will only support HTML5/H264/CSS/SVG/Canvas/ECMAscript).

Adobe have promised support for the webM codec in Flash also.
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/05/adobe_support_for_vp8....

So even sites using Flash won't be an impediment to WebM. Safari won't be able to hold out for long in not offering WebM, IMO.

BTW ... I can make it so that I can click on a Flash video and save it to disk. It is also possible to suppress the ability to right-click on a HTML5/WebM video and save it to disk.

Reply Score: 2

Finally
by Brunis on Thu 16th Sep 2010 07:37 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

I can switch to 64bit Firefox!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Finally
by chmeee on Thu 16th Sep 2010 16:50 UTC in reply to "Finally"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

So now instead of only using up half your RAM, it can finally fill it all up!

Reply Score: 2

WebM and Flash.
by westlake on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:38 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

Two observations.

"Machinarium" is a Flash game - and it has a lot to tell you about the maturity of the development tools for Flash.

There is no such thing as a WebM camera. No such thing as professional production in WebM.

Google Shopping returns 40,000 hits for "H.264."

Home video. Mobile devices. The prosumer camcorder. In-store security and so on.

That is not going to change anytime soon.

YouTube simply transcodes H.264 and other sources.

Reply Score: 2

RE: WebM and Flash.
by lemur2 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 03:26 UTC in reply to "WebM and Flash. "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Two observations. "Machinarium" is a Flash game - and it has a lot to tell you about the maturity of the development tools for Flash.


As Adobe have already shown, it is relatively easy to make a plugin so that any tool which can write to (develop for) for Flash can also write to (develop for) HTML5/CSS3/SVG/Canvas/ECMAscript.

There is no such thing as a WebM camera. No such thing as professional production in WebM. Google Shopping returns 40,000 hits for "H.264." Home video. Mobile devices. The prosumer camcorder. In-store security and so on. That is not going to change anytime soon.


Are you sure?
http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
Companies who have to pay royalties now for H.264 won't have to pay them for WebM.

These hardware companies in particular ... won't have to pay royalties on the WebM chips they produce
http://www.videantis.de/
http://www.viewcast.com/
http://www.verisilicon.com/en/
http://www.ti.com/
http://www.logitech.com/
http://www.freescale.com/
http://www.marvell.com/
http://www.mips.com/
http://c2micro.com/
http://www.arm.com/
http://www.broadcom.com/
http://www.amd.com/
http://www.imgtec.com/
http://www.qualcomm.com/

nor will the camcorder/security camera/home video/mobile devices/whatever production companies have to pay, either.

This is precisely why so many companies have jumped on to the WebM bandwagon.

Enjoy.

YouTube simply transcodes H.264 and other sources.


So? Transcoding is the first source of video data for any codec at all (even H.264 when it first came out). Why should WebM be any different? (Apart of course from WebM being free of royalties for all concerned once you have your video in that format).

Reply Score: 3

H.264 royalties
by westlake on Fri 17th Sep 2010 05:50 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

The enterprise cap on H.264 is $5 million a year.

The H.264 licensors include Cisco, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Hitachi, JVC, Mitshubishi, NTT, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba.

There are 837 H.264 licensees.

H.264 is a broadcast standard. It is a cable, broadcast and satellite distribution standard. An industrial video standard. It is a home video standard. [Blu-Ray, HDTV] A theatrical production standard.

If you are producing hardware or software or content for any of these markets, you will be licensing H.264 and WebM is a wash.

Reply Score: 1

RE: H.264 royalties
by lemur2 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 06:10 UTC in reply to "H.264 royalties"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you are producing hardware or software or content for any of these markets, you will be licensing H.264 and WebM is a wash.


The fact that H.264 is used as a standard in various commercial markets does not mean that it must be used as video for the web.

WebM can hardly be a wash if there are already in existence over a million WebM-encoded video files (of the most popular YouTube clips, each one at multiple resolutions), and that the codec to play said clips already has been included in, or will shortly be supported by: Opera, Firefox, Chrome, IE, Android and Adobe's Flash player.

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/05/20/android-gingerbread-build-due-...

This will be the widest support of any web video format, AFAIK.

For the larger part of this year every video clip that has been posted to YouTube with 720p or higher resolution has been converted to and saved in WebM format at multiple resolutions. Before long, only old, tiny and/or unpopular/obscure YouTube clips will be unavailable in WebM format.

Apart from copyright issues, it will otherwise be perfectly legal for anyone to use clips encoded in this format for any purpose (even for commercial purposes) without incurring any royalties.

How is that a wash, exactly?

Edited 2010-09-17 06:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2