No HTML5 Hulu Anytime Soon 202
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "The Hulu website briefly commented the other day about why they would not be implementing HTML5 video for their service: 'We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs. Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user.' They plan to release a dedicated application for the iPad and iPhone instead, likely a paid subscription service. Perhaps this is a good sign for Web-based television, as it will move more users away from the single, locked down channel from the networks and to more diverse options less interested in extracting subscription fees (like YouTube)."
Re:OK ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than retooling their website it is more logical to do what they are actually doing and code a standalone app that will probably get rejected from the app store.
Re:OK ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
At least they are honest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honesty in this case - admitting that "our customers" (plus their needs) and their users aren't the same thing...
Re:OK ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a surprise, I work with online video professionally and html5 is not yet a serious option.
RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and Flash are the only players that have the suite of features that are required to stream live and on-demand video properly.
I am looking forward to the day when html5 is ready but it looks like it is a long way off.
The "Flash is dead!" people have no idea what they're talking about.
I mean just look at the API for windows media player or realplayer and then go look at html5... they're not in the same league.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somebody call the whaaaambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you referring to Hulu or the HTML5 spec writers.
Re:OK ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably more along the lines that Hulu isn't interested in rushing out an HTML5 app that will cost X to develop while their current client works perfectly well for the majority of their customers.
This is probably true. It will be more cost effective in the short term, but you're missing the big motivation. Hulu does not want to provide open video. They want to provide subscription services, which they're moving to on the Web right now for a portion of content. They can make more money by only providing content to Apple devices that pay a subscription fee via an app, especially since those users won't be able to just use a Web browser for some content. Remember, Hulu is run by the networks.
Rather than retooling their website it is more logical to do what they are actually doing and code a standalone app that will probably get rejected from the app store.
Why would it get rejected from the app store? It will be trivial to provide the same content in different containers in a simple Web app using almost completely code provided in Apple's toolkits. Netflix has done it and they use Silverlight on the Web. Your assertion that it will probably be rejected is just your bias showing.
Its odd ABC did it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:At least they are honest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honesty in this case - admitting that "our customers" (plus their needs) and their users aren't the same thing...
Indeed. For any sort of no-cost-to-view "broadcaster" the actual customers are the advertisers. The correct use of the term "consumer" describes those who watch the programs for free in exchange for having to view advertisements. Customers as individual entities and small groups have barganing power while consumers only matter in very large numbers and thus the "broadcaster" relates to them in more of a "take it or leave it" fashion by comparison. Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
I have always regarded it as a form of Newspeak that a term indicative of diminished power and significance in the marketplace that comes from the jargon of one particular industry suddenly became applied to all customers in all economic transactions. One day about five to seven years ago it became in vogue to use "customer" and "consumer" interchangably as though they were the same thing. In conformance to the usual pattern, all the talking heads in the media suddenly adopted this usage and parroted each other as though they had always spoken this way. Always such Newspeak is in the form of using the degrading term to cover both cases and never in the form of using the elevating term to cover both cases.
Observe this pattern once and understand it and you will then see it everywhere.
Customers=advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK ... (Score:4, Insightful)
HTML5 could do the things they want, it would just not be very processor efficient
Hulu's new flash player that launched yesterday is also not processor efficient. Two days ago Hulu videos played at a reasonable frame rate on my old Mac laptop. Today it's impossible to watch. If it were in HTML5 it would run perfectly.
Re:DRM strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
No, HTML5 is too open for their Customers (IE, the big TV companies that they partner with, and the Advertisers that PAY THEM). we are viewers, a product that Hulu sells their customers, the advertisers. If their customers are not interested in HTML5 (or are very much against it) then they should do what their customers want.
Re:Somebody call the whaaaambulance (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that are doing more work (both upfront and in maintenance) in the form of a dedicated iPhone/iPad application. So I'm inclined to believe them.
Re:Serious ideological problem too (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is an unsolved problem. I tell my customers not to bother with it. Most take my advice.
There can be no solution to DRM. All you can do is spend piles of money to make it more difficult for people to save/copy things. Then you have to do it all over again a few years later because everyone has the cracking tools installed.
hulu has written an HTML5 mission statement (Score:5, Insightful)
The HTML5 spec authors would do well to read that hulu blog. If they really want HTML5 to win, they need to provide the support necessary so sites like hulu can do what they want to do.
Really hulu has made it very easy for them, giving them an explicit goal to shoot for.
Performance is another issue (Score:5, Insightful)
While people love to hate on Flash, it actually performs quite will for video on most systems. It can chat with the video card and use it to accelerate decoding. This is important for HD content because you start to discover that HD can hit even a modern dual core hard if there's no acceleration. Well Flash accelerates nicely on Windows, and is supposed to be getting the ability to do so on the Mac (not sure on the status, I don't have a Mac).
Now I'm sure HTML5 can have this done, but it has to be done in the browsers people use before it would be a real contender. Saying "Well it could in theory accelerate video," does you fuck-all good if the web browsers out there don't do it. The net effect would be people would find HTML5 video choppy and it would bog their system down whereas Flash wouldn't. They wouldn't care about the reasons, they'd just say "This sucks."
For that matter, all the dynamic HTML5 type stuff itself may need new browser architectures. An interesting test to look at it Microsoft's IE9 platform preview (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/). They've got a whole bunch of different demos of various types. Now the interesting thing is to look at them in Firefox, and in the IE9 preview. IE9 kills it speed wise, and function wise. Most things run twice as fast or more, and things like text scaling is smooth and fluid as you'd see in Flash, not jumpy.
So to truly have a good HTML5 experience, we may need a new generation of browser that makes good use of the video card to accelerate everything. As far as I know, there's nothing that does that right now, since IE9 is just a preview (and not really usable as a general web browser) and none of the rest are doing it. We may have to wait awhile before browsers can perform up to the level people would want with HTML5.
Re:At least they are honest... (Score:3, Insightful)
Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
That was true until the time of significant broadband penetration and the rise of peer-to-peer sharing. Even if the "pirates" are an insignificant percentage of "consumers", they are the wolves at the door that are a force to keep the bastards in check somewhat.
That is a really interesting statement because I have a reason to agree with it and I have a reason to disagree with it. I will withhold judgment as to which one is more valid.
You're absolutely right about the effect of piracy. It's a check against excessive industry control. It's a bit like civil disobedience, except of course that those who engaged in old-fashioned civil disobedience fully expected to do the time for the crime. Pirates, by contrast, tend to rely on the statistical unlikelihood of any one of them getting caught. Other than this level of commitment, the effect against a controlling force is the same. The industry knows, even it it doesn't want to admit it, that they more they piss off their customers the more piracy will happen.
My reason for disagreement may sound cynical. With apologies to Voltaire, if there were no pirates I wonder if it would be necessary for the copyright holders to create them. It would be hard to justify much recent copyright legislation and proposals if there were not the big scary phantom pirates behind every corner greedily disrupting those poor hardworking content creators who enjoy 100+ year monopolies on each work. Without the emotional knee-jerk of "PIRACY ZOMG!!" and the fuzzy accounting practices it excuses (every download = a lost sale? really?!) then they might be forced to resort to providing logical reasons for new legislation. I don't believe that would be nearly so effective at getting them what they want.
I really don't know which of those reasons is the stronger. The only thing I can safely say is that piracy is a double-edged sword.
Re:Summary says what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadcast TV is essentially dead, outside of local news and programming.
Largely true, but this does not lessen the power of four companies that control anywhere from 35-70% of TV viewership collectively. The big networks on Cable are also the big networks for Web viewing.
The description you're offering could be applied to any online business venture. Netflix is 'conspiring' to be the 'only' online movie rental outfit, too.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "conspiring" which you misuse, or the word "collusion" which I use. You don't conspire or collude with yourself. It's prefectly legal for Netflix to compete with Blockbuster in the market and attempt to gain control of the market. It's illegal for Netflix to collude with Blockbuster to jointly control the market for mail order DVD rentals and profit more than they would in a competitive market. The same goes for the RIAA which is a cartel convicted of jointly negotiating prices (also known as price fixing). The same laws apply to joint ventures of TV show producers like the big four collectively bargaining with advertisers for the Web.
Re:Customer Needs (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious why people keep repeating this, presenting it as some sort of insightful comment, and also implying that us viewers are somehow being wronged or tricked by it.
Internet TV is no different from regular TV in that there's really only two established ways to make money with it. Either you go the HBO route and make people subscribe in order to view content, or you show the content for free and try to convince people to pay you for advertisements.
There's nothing new about this, and there's nothing sneaky about it. TV has worked this way for decades, and while the internet has changed many things about the world, it's not going to change the fact that people aren't going to make shows unless they can get paid for it. And in order to get paid for it, someone is going to have to cough up money. Television will slowly continue to make the transition to internet based delivery, eventually we'll be able to watch any show whenever we want, eventually we'll be able to view it all on our little digital watches on the subway or whatever. But what will never change is the fact that someone's going to have to pay for it, and lots of people would rather have the advertisers do the paying.