Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 18:34 UTC
Apple Well, this is interesting. Apple has released iOS 6 beta 4, and it removes one of the staples of iOS, included since its very first release with the first iPhone: beta 4 does not include the YouTube application. YouTube is owned by Google, so that could be an explanation. However, unless Google has its own iOS YouTube application ready, iOS 6 could lead to a lot of unhappy iPhone and iPad users. The large websites with sources inside Apple are probably hard at work trying to find out what's going on here - could just be a bug, or maybe a way to gauge public response by causing news sites and blogs to post about it. Huh. Update: thank god for sites with clout: The Verge confirms that Google is working on a stand-alone iOS YouTube application. Good news for users, since the stock one wasn't particularly good to begin with.
Order by: Score:
YouTube is HTML5
by Macrat on Mon 6th Aug 2012 19:16 UTC
Macrat
Member since:
2006-03-27

An app isn't needed.

YouTube supports HTML5.

http://www.youtube.com/html5

Reply Score: 7

RE: YouTube is HTML5
by FunkyELF on Mon 6th Aug 2012 19:42 UTC in reply to "YouTube is HTML5"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

lol... that's funny.

Reply Score: 6

RE: YouTube is HTML5
by Mellin on Mon 6th Aug 2012 23:18 UTC in reply to "YouTube is HTML5"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

only on videos without ads

"Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)"

Edited 2012-08-06 23:19 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: YouTube is HTML5
by Macrat on Tue 7th Aug 2012 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE: YouTube is HTML5"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

only on videos without ads

"Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)"


Pretty funny statement considering that in other forums, lovers of the app say they use it to avoid the ads that appear in the mobile web site. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: YouTube is HTML5
by henderson101 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 11:42 UTC in reply to "YouTube is HTML5"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

More to the point - didn't Google create the Youtube app, or at least "those who created the YouTube app would now work for Google"? That's how I understood it. The app was created for Apple by YouTube/Google. So, maybe there's no need for concern at this point. On the other hand, having seen the mess that is the iOS Gmail app, let's hope the iOS Google+ team members had more to do with it that the iOS Gmail developers!!

Reply Score: 2

The app is not needed
by fx__ on Mon 6th Aug 2012 20:01 UTC
fx__
Member since:
2006-03-31

I haven't used the Youtube application in ages since the webpage works much better!

Still odd that it's being removed, maybe Apple is working on it's own Video-publishing site? Is it still possible to upload to Youtube directly from the camera-app?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 6th Aug 2012 20:54 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

So can Google remove support for H.264 from Youtube now? iOS was the primary reason for keeping it, it seems.

Google long ago promised to drop H.264 from Chrome. That never happened. Now should be the time. And dropping it from Youtube would be even a bolder move.

Edited 2012-08-06 20:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by d3vi1 on Mon 6th Aug 2012 21:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Without going into the whole H.264 is evil debate, why would they do that?
It's still the best codec out there. It's supported on all devices using hardware acceleration which for mobile devices is the only reasonable way to go.
Furthermore most content is available in H.264. TV is H.264 in HD and in some countries also for SD.
Digital downloads (legal or pirated) are mostly in H.264 (except for a few that use VC1).
Blu-Ray is wither H.264 or VC1. Based on industry trends, instead of dropping H.264 they should also be adding VC1.
WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. Unless you convince the broadcast industry to also switch to it. Even Mozilla came to their senses and decided to add H.264 support in Firefox. Licensing is not an issue anymore as on OS X you've had support for a long time, Windows supports it natively since Vista and for Linux you have codecs from fluendo.
Somehow, I'm pretty sure that the silicon that comes with most computers of the past 5 years already includes a license for H.264, just like most consumer operating systems.
If you are a WebM fan that wants to live H.264 free, it's your choice, but please don't push it on the rest of us. Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there. Yes, for MPEG5, we should ask for an open codec, but the current standard across all industries is MPEG4. And MPEG4 is everywhere. Even my webcam supports hardware encoding of H.264 just like Intel's newest chips.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 6th Aug 2012 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors).

In regards to why Google would need to do the switch. It's needed in order to advance the shift to open codecs. The industry is still dragging in closed codecs era even on the Web. Google is one of the major pushers for shift to open codecs (at least they claimed to be), and they released VP8 as open for that reason. They even promised to drop H.264 from Chrome to advance that cause - but they didn't keep their word so far.

Doing that in Youtube would have a broader impact, and will give a kick to Apple, who is slowing the industry by pushing H.264 on the Web. If Apple is trying to bite Google by limiting access to Youtube on iOS, it's even more appropriate for Google to make a move in the right direction.

Edited 2012-08-06 21:55 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Aug 2012 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors).

Nobody should agree to that but we can't really discuss why without getting into all the comparatives you want to avoid. Which, by the way, is taking a lot of effort for me to resist doing right now.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 7th Aug 2012 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Nobody i.e. those who don't know anything about codecs. Apple obviously know more than "nobody", that's why they and MPEG-LA see VP8 as a threat.

Edited 2012-08-07 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Aug 2012 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The ignorance and irony in that comment is overwhelming... Wow......and not in a good way.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 7th Aug 2012 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

MPEG-LA didn't really hide that they are worried, and OSNews even reported it:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23335/Patent_Troll_Larry_Horn_of_MPEG-L...

MPEG-LA wouldn't make noise, if they had nothing to worry about.

The ignorance really is in insisting the Web should use closed codecs. It means not learning from previous mistakes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Aug 2012 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

MPEG-LA didn't really hide that they are worried, and OSNews even reported it:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23335/Patent_Troll_Larry_Horn_of_MPEG-L...

MPEG-LA wouldn't make noise, if they had nothing to worry about.

You obviously don't understand why MPEG-LA would go after VP8 do you? It has nothing to do with being worried and everything to do with portions of H.264 being blatantly ripped off. Don't assume you know something, especially when you haven't done your homework.

It's absurd how some of you think every time a company starts flexing their patent muscle it's because they're in fear of competition, just "trolling" to be assholes, and never about actually legally protecting their interests. It's very telling, revealing how little you really know on the subject.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by l3v1 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

It's still the best codec out there [...] WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. [...] Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there.


Uhmm, yeah, so it's a standard thus it's the best? Or it's the best so it's a standard? Is webm a "concept"? Choosing webm makes one ignorant? Betteridge would say no to all that, and rightfully so ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by dvhh on Tue 7th Aug 2012 06:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

I second that, plus google could build a webM decoder for iOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by darknexus on Tue 7th Aug 2012 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I second that, plus google could build a webM decoder for iOS.

Sure, if you jailbreak. Otherwise, iOS is so locked down that what Apple says is law. By your logic, Adobe could've built a Flash player for iOS as well (although I'm rather glad that didn't happen). Bottom line: Apple says no WebM, no WebM. Period. Given what an amazing job Apple have done in the past at supporting open codecs, I'd say we could see a WebM player for iOS in, I don't know, a hundred years from now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by MOS6510 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Didn't VLC support all kinds of codes? They were allowed in the app store before getting pulled because of GPL stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by henderson101 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

VLC is still on my iDevices and still supports lots of codecs :-) You just needed to buy it before it was pulled (g)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by MOS6510 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, I have it too although I must admit I never used it.

I have a number of kicked apps, maybe I should start a museum.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by henderson101 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I think I have a MAME emulator too... I usually miss these things due to time differences between here and the West Coast US.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by dvhh on Tue 7th Aug 2012 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

I am pretty sure this is a restriction on interpreted code. As far as I know as long as your code is fully compiled in your application (or given that apple reviewer don't see your interpreter), they are pretty much ok. You can compile Actionscript/Flash code for iOS (I think the restriction on interpreted code ).

Third party codec is authorized (or Skype could not have implemented their VOIP client for example).

Reply Score: 3

There used to be an app for that
by frostbyte on Tue 7th Aug 2012 04:29 UTC
frostbyte
Member since:
2012-02-08

I remember some 3+ years ago with a Nokia N900 in hand I was told left and right the phone/platform sucked because it lacked apps. Most of the time I thought the reason iPhone had the "there's an app for that" was because ultimately its browser sucked and couldn't handle Flash.

Now that iOS has matured, it turns out many/most iOS users are watching YouTube via Safari, since the browser is better at it than the discrete app...

That is all, back to my shack I go.

Edited 2012-08-07 04:30 UTC

Reply Score: 4

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

:) +1 at that. Also, after a while the "there's an app for that"-liners just wake up and realize it's easier to maintain a bookmark list than to have four hundred "apps" installed for every website and service they run into.

Reply Score: 6