ashrafpasha
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 18,560
- Status
michaelahess
Distinguished
- Jan 30, 2006
- 286
- 0
- 18,930
YES!!!!!!!! Finally!!!!!!
Hope everything flash goes to this, I HATE flash with a passion, obviously.
Hope everything flash goes to this, I HATE flash with a passion, obviously.
rockstone1
Distinguished
- Oct 28, 2007
- 39
- 0
- 18,580
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So the new standard only works with Google Chrome, Apple's Safari Internet browser.Confirmed it doesn't work with Firefox and Opera.What about the other 7 browsers now force-fed in to Windows 7 by the EU?Maybe users would like to be informed if YouTube is no longer going to work if they pick one of them?[/citation]
A) The HTML-5 version of Youtube is still an experiment and you have to go to a special URL to use it. Nobody is being kicked out just because their browser doesn't support HTML-5's video element yet.
B) The STANDARD will work in any browser that supports HTML-5 (btw, it's not officially standardized yet). The specific implementation for each browser can be different. Firefox and Opera don't offer native support for H.264 video decoding, Chrome and Safari do. Safari doesn't support Ogg Theora natively, Chrome, FF, and Opera do. IE 8 doesn't support the video element, so you're going to be stuck with Flash.
So with all these different browsers supporting different video codecs, it's up to web developers to choose which ones they want to serve (nothing stopping them from offering several at once and letting the browser decide, except that requires more storage on their servers). If I had to guess, I'd say Youtube picked H.264 instead of Ogg because it's a more mature format with better performance and, critically, hardware acceleration in some chips (like most modern desktop and mobile graphics chips). I don't buy into this idea that the threat of hidden patents are scaring them off.
C) This has jack shit to do with the EU, the HTML-5 specs aren't even fully ratified by the W3C group yet, all of this is still experimental for everybody, and being stuck with IE 8, MICROSOFT'S OWN BROWSER, would not let you use this feature because it doesn't support any of the HTML-5 stuff yet anyway, and Youtube will still work with any browser that has a Flash plugin. In fact, a user choosing the right browser as their default instead of IE8 would actually get to play with these goodies. So please, just kwitcherbitchin about the EU and MS because this has nothing to do with either of them or the browser ballot. Gawd.
[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]doesn't make sense. I thought youtube had a stated goal of becoming profitable. how do you do that by driving away mass parts of your viewing audience. beats me.[/citation]
Youtube will still serve up Flash videos by default, at least while the codec mess sorts itself out. No need to panic, you'll still be able to watch cats do zany things even if you're stuck in IE 7.
A) The HTML-5 version of Youtube is still an experiment and you have to go to a special URL to use it. Nobody is being kicked out just because their browser doesn't support HTML-5's video element yet.
B) The STANDARD will work in any browser that supports HTML-5 (btw, it's not officially standardized yet). The specific implementation for each browser can be different. Firefox and Opera don't offer native support for H.264 video decoding, Chrome and Safari do. Safari doesn't support Ogg Theora natively, Chrome, FF, and Opera do. IE 8 doesn't support the video element, so you're going to be stuck with Flash.
So with all these different browsers supporting different video codecs, it's up to web developers to choose which ones they want to serve (nothing stopping them from offering several at once and letting the browser decide, except that requires more storage on their servers). If I had to guess, I'd say Youtube picked H.264 instead of Ogg because it's a more mature format with better performance and, critically, hardware acceleration in some chips (like most modern desktop and mobile graphics chips). I don't buy into this idea that the threat of hidden patents are scaring them off.
C) This has jack shit to do with the EU, the HTML-5 specs aren't even fully ratified by the W3C group yet, all of this is still experimental for everybody, and being stuck with IE 8, MICROSOFT'S OWN BROWSER, would not let you use this feature because it doesn't support any of the HTML-5 stuff yet anyway, and Youtube will still work with any browser that has a Flash plugin. In fact, a user choosing the right browser as their default instead of IE8 would actually get to play with these goodies. So please, just kwitcherbitchin about the EU and MS because this has nothing to do with either of them or the browser ballot. Gawd.
[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]doesn't make sense. I thought youtube had a stated goal of becoming profitable. how do you do that by driving away mass parts of your viewing audience. beats me.[/citation]
Youtube will still serve up Flash videos by default, at least while the codec mess sorts itself out. No need to panic, you'll still be able to watch cats do zany things even if you're stuck in IE 7.
The mozilla site states this in the new features of the 3.6
Support for new DOM and HTML5 specifications including the Drag & Drop API and the File API, which allow for more interactive web pages.
But the YouTube site will not let you vire any of the content. Is it the YouTube site that is behind the times, by several hours at least
Support for new DOM and HTML5 specifications including the Drag & Drop API and the File API, which allow for more interactive web pages.
But the YouTube site will not let you vire any of the content. Is it the YouTube site that is behind the times, by several hours at least
if you have firefox 3.6 you can test html5 with this link
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/video/wikipedia/macaw.html
the parrot movie plays fine with firefox 3.6, but not a flash equipped internet explorer (no chrome)
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/video/wikipedia/macaw.html
the parrot movie plays fine with firefox 3.6, but not a flash equipped internet explorer (no chrome)
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Did you actually read my post or are you just arguing for the purpose of being a retard? I asked a perfectly valid question.1) The EU has forced the ballot screen2) A user randomly picks one of the 7 browsers not mentioned above3) Does it work?[/citation]
A) Actually the ballot screen was a compromise offered by Microsoft.
B) If MS hadn't gone the ballot route, and stuck with IE8 as the default, you definitely would not get the HTML-5 sites to work. At least this way you have a chance of your default browser working with the experimental standards.
C) For the time being it's unimportant because the spec isn't finalized anyway and both sites still use Flash video by default. All browsers need a plugin for Flash, so no matter which one you picked at install time you still wouldn't be able to play with normal Youtube/Vimeo out of the box (unless you were automatically redirected to the HTML-5 version of the site, which would be nice!). So basically there is no downside to the ballot decision as far as online video is concerned, in fact now you have a chance you didn't have before of making the new stuff work without effort.
There is zero point in bitching about the EU decision here, you are accomplishing nothing except making yourself look ridiculous.
-If you picked IE as your default browser, you still have to install a Flash plugin just like Firefox 3.5 and Opera or any other browser to view the normal, default Youtube/Vimeo videos. Absolutely no consequence of choosing a different browser. This is perfectly normal and in no way a detrimental effect of the EU decision.
-If you lucked out and picked a browser with support for the experimental HTML-5 and H.264 like Chrome or Safari, you have the bonus option of watching videos from those sites without having to install Flash. That's a good thing, rather than a bad thing.
A) Actually the ballot screen was a compromise offered by Microsoft.
B) If MS hadn't gone the ballot route, and stuck with IE8 as the default, you definitely would not get the HTML-5 sites to work. At least this way you have a chance of your default browser working with the experimental standards.
C) For the time being it's unimportant because the spec isn't finalized anyway and both sites still use Flash video by default. All browsers need a plugin for Flash, so no matter which one you picked at install time you still wouldn't be able to play with normal Youtube/Vimeo out of the box (unless you were automatically redirected to the HTML-5 version of the site, which would be nice!). So basically there is no downside to the ballot decision as far as online video is concerned, in fact now you have a chance you didn't have before of making the new stuff work without effort.
There is zero point in bitching about the EU decision here, you are accomplishing nothing except making yourself look ridiculous.
That's been covered in the comments several times, but let me break it down for you even further:
-If you picked IE as your default browser, you still have to install a Flash plugin just like Firefox 3.5 and Opera or any other browser to view the normal, default Youtube/Vimeo videos. Absolutely no consequence of choosing a different browser. This is perfectly normal and in no way a detrimental effect of the EU decision.
-If you lucked out and picked a browser with support for the experimental HTML-5 and H.264 like Chrome or Safari, you have the bonus option of watching videos from those sites without having to install Flash. That's a good thing, rather than a bad thing.
In my long comment above about H.264 and "Vorbis" support for HTML5, I really meant to call it "Theora". Vorbis is the audio codec, and still has to be supported when Theora is used. H.264+AAC, or Theora+Vorbis. Technically you can mix the two audio/video codecs, but that would be silly.
This lack of support, even if it's only at the beginning, its a BAD idea. Yes, the original flash-based content will still work on sites like youtube, but think about this, if flash is being replaced bcuz of security issues, does it really make sense to still use it? And wouldn't it be expected that flash will be phased out??
To not support IE8 and FF3.6 out of the box is like releasing a new computer game that does not work with an Nvidia or a AMD graphics processor, only onboard intel.
See how much sense that makes? Ecconimcally... none.
Lets hope that this is rectified soon.
Dont allieniate ppl
To not support IE8 and FF3.6 out of the box is like releasing a new computer game that does not work with an Nvidia or a AMD graphics processor, only onboard intel.
See how much sense that makes? Ecconimcally... none.
Lets hope that this is rectified soon.
Dont allieniate ppl
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]To not support IE8 and FF3.6 out of the box is like releasing a new computer game that does not work with an Nvidia or a AMD graphics processor, only onboard intel.[/citation]
Youtube and Vimeo NEVER worked with IE or FF "out of the box" anyway, you always had to install Flash.
Youtube and Vimeo NEVER worked with IE or FF "out of the box" anyway, you always had to install Flash.
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Youtube and Vimeo NEVER worked with IE or FF "out of the box" anyway, you always had to install Flash.[/citation]
Omg you knew what i meant...
I said, "support" as in there is flash support for IE and always has been while youtube has had videos.
However, there is not html5 support for viewing youtube videos for IE and FF as of now.
Man, how did u not understand what I meant??
Omg you knew what i meant...
I said, "support" as in there is flash support for IE and always has been while youtube has had videos.
However, there is not html5 support for viewing youtube videos for IE and FF as of now.
Man, how did u not understand what I meant??
Two very important things about the html5 site: 1. No full screen and 2. no video ads. The fact that this language isn't ratified by the W3C, eliminates a pretty well loved feature on windows boxes and would cut into people's profits tells me that this site is very experimental and not a conspiracy to force users into a new browser or the down fall of youtube.
The good people at youtube are tired of Adobe Flash Player and are working on new technology before it's standardized to have new site ready to go with minimal necessary upgrades when the time comes. When the W3C ratifies the new html version Firefox and MS will release new browsers that will accommodate which ever codec the W3C chooses and the panicked masses will be able to view videos in a much happier adobe free world on the browser of their choice.
In the mean time download chrome give the html5 site a try. Personally videos seem to start faster but my playback was about the same as before i'm guessing due to ISP (local Co-Op) quality.
The good people at youtube are tired of Adobe Flash Player and are working on new technology before it's standardized to have new site ready to go with minimal necessary upgrades when the time comes. When the W3C ratifies the new html version Firefox and MS will release new browsers that will accommodate which ever codec the W3C chooses and the panicked masses will be able to view videos in a much happier adobe free world on the browser of their choice.
In the mean time download chrome give the html5 site a try. Personally videos seem to start faster but my playback was about the same as before i'm guessing due to ISP (local Co-Op) quality.
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]Omg you knew what i meant... I said, "support" as in there is flash support for IE and always has been while youtube has had videos.However, there is not html5 support for viewing youtube videos for IE and FF as of now.Man, how did u not understand what I meant??[/citation]
I know what you meant, I'm saying it's a non-issue. Unless you specifically go out looking for it, you won't get HTML-5 versions of Youtube or Vimeo anyway, regardless of the browser you're using. Regardless of which alternate video format they chose other than Flash, they would have left some top-5 browser out because, as you may have noticed, the browsers themselves are going for different implementations. But for the time being they're still Flash-based anyway and HTML-5 isn't spec yet so it's just not a big deal from a user experience point of view. Youtube still serves to IE and FF, so they're not "losing" them or their viewers.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Well, that still didn't answer the question.I didn't ask if the other browsers were OK to still run Flash.I asked if they were able to run HTML5.[/citation]
Why should they be? HTML isn't even official yet, and no browser completely implements it, none of them. The browsers that choose to implement features from it early are doing so experimentally. By the time it's ready for an official rollout you'll be able to download the latest version of whichever ballot-screen browser you want when installing Windows 7, perhaps by then MS will have caught up with the standards that already exist and start supporting HTML-5 specs a bit in IE so hopefully it will be no problem with the specification is final. Right now it's not final and why do you even care whether any browser can run HTML-5 video "out of the box"? No browser can even run Flash out of the box, and IE 8 can't do HTML video at all, so the ballot is only an improvement over the "business as usual" alternative. Where is the drawback?
I know what you meant, I'm saying it's a non-issue. Unless you specifically go out looking for it, you won't get HTML-5 versions of Youtube or Vimeo anyway, regardless of the browser you're using. Regardless of which alternate video format they chose other than Flash, they would have left some top-5 browser out because, as you may have noticed, the browsers themselves are going for different implementations. But for the time being they're still Flash-based anyway and HTML-5 isn't spec yet so it's just not a big deal from a user experience point of view. Youtube still serves to IE and FF, so they're not "losing" them or their viewers.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Well, that still didn't answer the question.I didn't ask if the other browsers were OK to still run Flash.I asked if they were able to run HTML5.[/citation]
Why should they be? HTML isn't even official yet, and no browser completely implements it, none of them. The browsers that choose to implement features from it early are doing so experimentally. By the time it's ready for an official rollout you'll be able to download the latest version of whichever ballot-screen browser you want when installing Windows 7, perhaps by then MS will have caught up with the standards that already exist and start supporting HTML-5 specs a bit in IE so hopefully it will be no problem with the specification is final. Right now it's not final and why do you even care whether any browser can run HTML-5 video "out of the box"? No browser can even run Flash out of the box, and IE 8 can't do HTML video at all, so the ballot is only an improvement over the "business as usual" alternative. Where is the drawback?
killerclick
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2010
- 459
- 0
- 18,930
Wow! So many people hate Flash. I am a web developer and my clients (if given a choice) will opt for Flash in almost every case. I like developing for Flash but as a user I prefer HTML (AJAX-less) sites by far. Hmm, lots to think about...
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So that's a resounding "dont know" then...[/citation]
Yeaaaaaaaaah, if you like. Sounds more to me that YOU don't know what you're asking about, since your initial gripe was "Maybe users would like to be informed if YouTube is no longer going to work if they pick one of them?" when that's not the case, all the popular browsers available on the ballot will work with Youtube, and you got all jilted over nothing, then started backpedaling when I pointed that out? You couldn't even understand when I answered you here:
Then again here:
So I answered you once, twice, thrice, and you still imagine I have no idea what you're talking about? Get real, chump.
Yeaaaaaaaaah, if you like. Sounds more to me that YOU don't know what you're asking about, since your initial gripe was "Maybe users would like to be informed if YouTube is no longer going to work if they pick one of them?" when that's not the case, all the popular browsers available on the ballot will work with Youtube, and you got all jilted over nothing, then started backpedaling when I pointed that out? You couldn't even understand when I answered you here:
The answer: yes. It works. Some of them even better than IE8, the default choice for Windows 7 in the US.
Then again here:
That is not what you asked, and I've got your quotes here to prove it. I told you why this isn't what you asked, but answered your new question anyway.
So I answered you once, twice, thrice, and you still imagine I have no idea what you're talking about? Get real, chump.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question ASUS Laptop Vivobook 17 Model X1704Za SO-DIMM RAM upgrade max size
- Started by zillah
- Replies: 7
-
Question Swaping two diffrent tv screens, is it possible?- Started by Nexmu
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter