Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Media Graphics The Internet Entertainment Technology

Vimeo Also Introduces HTML5 Video Player 369

bonch writes "Following in YouTube's footsteps, Vimeo has now introduced its own beta HTML5 video player, and like YouTube, it uses H.264 and requires Safari, Chrome, or ChromeFrame. The new player doesn't suffer the rebuffering problems of the Flash version when clicking around in the video's timeline, and it also loads faster. HTML5 could finally be gaining some real momentum."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vimeo Also Introduces HTML5 Video Player

Comments Filter:
  • Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Friday January 22, 2010 @01:51AM (#30856716) Homepage Journal

    Now if only FireFox will get support.

    • Now if only FireFox will get support.

      I think you mean

      Now if only FireFox will add support.

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by javilon ( 99157 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:56AM (#30856994) Homepage

        This will of course benefit ChromeOS and will force Microsoft into implementing html5 and H264 negating its strategy of killing adobe and becoming king of the online video.

        But there is a bad smell about this. Google could achieve this as well by adding Theora to the supported codecs. Google is putting Firefox in a position where it is either encumbered with patents therefore losing the status of "pure" open source project, or looking bad in the feature front. I don't like this.

        • Re:Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by smash ( 1351 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:23AM (#30857130) Homepage Journal
          Or firefox could have.... a plugin architecture for whatever codec the user likes, preventing us from being stuck with some shitty 2010 codec technology 5 years from now.
        • Re:Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by master5o1 ( 1068594 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @04:34AM (#30857384) Homepage

          How does using HTML5 + H.264 negate their attempt to draw people away from Flash for video? It just doesn't aide their Silverlight efforts.

          • The 2 are linked (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @09:10AM (#30858496) Homepage

            Because HTML5 + VIDEO tag draws people away *from Flash* and *into an open standard* that can be found everywhere.
            What Microsoft would have liked would be, drawing people away from Flash and *into one of their own proprietary* technology, marketed as much better.

            The core strategy of Microsoft is not just killing random IT companies for the fun of it (although it's not always obvious), but killing other companies in order to get bigger themselves in the process.

            Silverlight is their optimal solution to lock more customer in Microsoft solutions.
            HTML5 is their nightmare.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Because HTML5 + VIDEO tag draws people away *from Flash* and *into an open standard* that can be found everywhere.

              H264 is not an open standard. The video tag is just another lock-in, masquerading as an easy to use core feature.

              It's all moot anyway. Without agreement on a codec, the video tag is dead in the water anyway. Lack of a common standard means that the video tag essentially equates to what we already have; the ability to "embed" video which may or may not play in the users browser. Google and Apple

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by moosesocks ( 264553 )

          Google just purchased on2, who own the IP rights to a number of rather good codecs, including a few that they claim to be as good as, if not better than H.264.

          Theora, on the other hand, isn't a particularly good codec.

          IMO, the best thing for google to do would be to release on2's codecs under a permissive license, and make them the exclusive means by which HD content is delivered via YouTube. This should ensure a rather speedy adoption among all of the major browsers.

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Informative)

        by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:30AM (#30857158)

        Now if only FireFox will get support.

        I think you mean

        Now if only FireFox will add support.

        Now, if only the stupid h264 codec would be freed !

    • Re:Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Winckle ( 870180 ) <mark@@@winckle...co...uk> on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:12AM (#30856808) Homepage

      This is a big thing for me. I don't give a damn about their ideology or their patent concerns, if youtube choose h264 then h264 has won this mini format war, and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.

      If they don't, i'll end up on chrome for windows, and I already use Safari on mac because their mac UI team are atrocious.

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Korin43 ( 881732 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:17AM (#30856826) Homepage
        Honestly, as much as I'd like to stop using Flash immediately, I'd rather have Mozilla try to stick this out. Somewhere around a third of all people on the internet use Firefox (and I assume a higher number of Youtube users). If Mozilla can push Google to support Theora it will be worth the wait.
        • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by smash ( 1351 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:24AM (#30856866) Homepage Journal
          Everybody transcoding their videos = not going to happen.

          If firefox do not support H.264, they're going to become irrelevant as far as video goes.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Korin43 ( 881732 )
            Using Theora for new videos doesn't seem like such a big deal though. The article says that Vimeo's new HTML5 stuff doesn't work on 35% of their videos. I assume that has something to do with the encoding. The problem is that if we just accept the formats that require thousands of dollars for licensing, we'll never get to use free ones. Unless they're forced to (by a company like Google), Microsoft and Apple will never support a free format, because they can easily afford the licensing fees and they know th
            • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by smash ( 1351 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:49AM (#30856962) Homepage Journal
              Google has no incentive to go theora either, as it means transcoding all their stuff - and they clearly already have a h.264 license anyway.

              The authoring tools for .ogg are not there either.

              So really, open source people can whine all they want, it will make no difference - Firefox can buy a license, or they can become irrelevant. Or maybe start their own video hosting to compete, but my bet is that will be more expensive than a h.264 license.

              Or hell, they can just use whatever codecs are available on the host platform.... and get back to what they should be worried about - writing a web browser, rather than getting involved in a codec war they have no chance winning

              • by dracvl ( 541254 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:59AM (#30857278) Homepage

                Google recently acquired On2, makers of the Ogg Theora (aka VP-3) codec which was released into the public domain and then taken over by xiph.org.

                On2 have codecs VP-7 and VP-8 which have equivalent (if not better) quality than h.264.

                It would not be surprising if Google made those codecs available, since they aren't patent-encumbered, and Google is heavily invested in HTML5 --and likes open standards.

                This would be the ideal outcome. h.264 is a really bad option.

            • Re:Excellent. (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Endymion ( 12816 ) <slashdot.orgNO@SPAMthoughtnoise.net> on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:57AM (#30856998) Homepage Journal

              Google (or any similar company) has no business reason to use Theora.

              If they do nothing, they still support Firefox, though flash. So why spend even a small amount of time/money to re-encode video?

        • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:29AM (#30857154)
          Also, Ogg Theora is just less good than h264 on several levels. For one thing, there are hardware decoders for h264, but more importantly for me, h264 just indisputably looks better. Seriously, in this grudge match of Firefox v. Google (and now others), Firefox is on the losing side. I hope the developers realize this soon. Maybe Google is not intervening because they're happy to let people say "fuck it, I guess I'll try it with Chrome" - as I'm about to.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
            It's not quite so clear cut. H.264 is better than Theora, but VC-2 (which is patent-free, based on the BBC's Dirac) is competitive with, and in a lot of cases better than, H.264. Importantly, the BBC is working with hardware manufacturers to get it accelerated (there was also a Google SoC project last year to implement it in GLSL so you can run it on a GPU). VC-2 looks like, in a couple of years, it will be the ideal format for web video. Using Theora now sets a precedent that royalty free implementatio
        • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CowboyBob500 ( 580695 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @05:01AM (#30857478) Homepage
          And a majority of that third live outside the jurisdiction of the US patent system so the license issue becomes moot. Personally I'd rather the rest of the world stick 2 fingers up at the US system and continue to use browsers that support H.264 and don't pay any patent licenses to anyone.

          For example, why not make a US and non-US version of Firefox with the non-US version having H.264 support. US people will still manage to get the working version and Firefox will still have the required support.
      • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Philip_the_physicist ( 1536015 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:52AM (#30856980)

        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540 [mozilla.org]
        They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag, and that will provide support for h264. From skimming the comments, it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5, which is yet to be updated for 3.6.

      • Re:Excellent. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:19AM (#30857092) Homepage Journal

        and firefox better swallow their pride and licence it.

        Why should they license it when an embeddable player is available on every OS with noticeable marketshare?

        They just need to enable the HTML5 video tag to use that. Oddly enough I couldn't find this bug at BMO with a quick search.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by BZ ( 40346 )

          > Why should they license it when an embeddable player is available on every OS with
          > noticeable marketshare?

          Because those players tend to be security hellholes. Passing unsanitized data to them is a good way to get exploited...

      • by amorsen ( 7485 )

        Firefox can't realistically license H.264. We're talking a license for unlimited copies with the right to do pretty much anything you want with the copies, including turning them into video editing software. It would be the last license sold, because everyone else can just piggy back on it.

      • FireFox can't license it because the GPL explicitly forbids it. The legality of GPL'd software using propreitary codecs is ambiguous, a situation which Mozilla wishes to avoid.

        I wish Youtube would support Theora, but OTOH I realize that most people just want to give the codec a boost. If Youtube want to use a patent-encumbered viideo format, that's their right to do so. The move away from flash certainly makes the platform more open and less dependent on proprietary technology. But they must also realize th

      • And neither to the majority of Internet users around the world as there is no license required outside of America (and possibly Japan). OSS supporters need to focus on the fact that it is the US patent system that is broken here, not the codec.
    • by Jessta ( 666101 )

      Putting your hand up to pay for the licensing of H.264?
      At least with flash adobe was nice enough to make a linux version at no cost.

  • Adobe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @01:57AM (#30856734) Journal

    I shed not a tear for you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrNaz ( 730548 ) *

      Don't. IE will not support HTML5 for many years, if history is anything to go by, making Flash at least a fallback requirement for any remotely popular video site for the forseable future.

      • Re:Adobe... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Toonol ( 1057698 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:25AM (#30856874)
        And you can't write videogames in HTML5. Flash will be around for a while.

        The real problem with Flash, stupid menu widgets, irritating ads, and non-html website frontpages, won't disappear until sites can recreate equally annoying equivalents via some other method.
  • That's the sound of you getting passed by.

    I'm a total GNU fanboy most days, and generally agree with the moral move they are trying to make with OOG formats, but in this case it is a losing strategy. H264 video has gotten a momentum that is hard to break, similar to how MP3 got a momentum in the past. It has nothing to do with technical features, morals, licensing, or other commonly-argued things. Instead, it's about a critical-mass of popularity. H264 video the new pop thing, even in cases where people don't even know terms like "H264".

    By not finding a way to make video work properly, Firefox is saying they want to be left behind. No, I highly doubt people like google or others will re-encode video into Theora. They will make the business decision that not only is it a lot of work, it's not necessary as firefox is supported with Flash.

    If the Firefox people want to make a good moral stand with this issue, they should pull something similar to the crypto situation and make an "international" version. That version could serve as an embarrassment to the restrictive patent system, and a useful political talking point. At a minimum, though, they should simply remove all codec processing form the project, leaving that particular can of worms to an external project (gstreamer? embed mplayer/vlc/other? some new project created specifically for this purpose?).

    I love firefox. I really do. So please don't choose to be non-player in the video arena!

    • by arose ( 644256 )
      Easy to speak when it's not your ass on the line for patent infringement.
      • Mozilla's ass wouldn't be on the line if they would just pay for the necessary licenses from MPEG LA like everybody else.

        Otherwise, Firefox will become the browser for those who just really like Flash.
        • by Endymion ( 12816 )

          It is likely not legal for them to pay for a license directly. Such a license would likely require them to not release the patented code openly, like they are required to do for the GPL.

          Such a license would also not pass to others, so Ubuntu/etc would not be able to distribute the licensed firefox.

          • by BZ ( 40346 )

            > Such a license would likely require them to not release the patented code openly

            That's actually not a problem as long as you avoid GPLv3 (and I'm fairly certain that it's not a problem with MPL in particular). But IANAL, etc.

            > Such a license would also not pass to others, so Ubuntu/etc would not be able to
            > distribute the licensed firefox.

            This, on the other hand, is a much bigger concern.

            • by arose ( 644256 )
              GPLv2 is a problem as well if it ever comes down to it, see section 7.
              • You guys are forgetting that Mozilla owns the copyright to the code, and none of the 3rd-party code [mozilla.org] they use is GPL. As owner, they are the licensor, and the licensor is not bound to the same conditions as the licensees. Ultimately, they will have to include h.264 support in their official binaries just like Google has done with Chrome. The rights won't extend to those who build custom binaries like Ubuntu, but that's what the distinction between free and non-free is for.
                • by micheas ( 231635 )
                  Mozilla does not own all the code in Firefox, otherwise their would not have been such a todo about getting all the developers to allow the triple licensing.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by smash ( 1351 )
            How about a plug-in architecture? That way we aren't stuck with shitty 2010 video formats in the www of 2015, either.
          • Naw, there's obviously a way to get it done, and it's not that difficult either. It's not really an issue that's very different from distributions allowing users to install "non-free" packages.

            Google licenses h.264 for use in Chrome. Obviously that doesn't extend to Chromium, but it doesn't really need to. It's clear that if you want h.264 support, you'll need to run the Google binary since they've paid the royalties. There's no reason Mozilla couldn't license h.264 for their officials builds. Ubunt
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by eihab ( 823648 ) *

              it's the likes of YouTube and other online content providers that really have the last word, and they have chosen h.264

              YouTube is not the only video site in town [dailymotion.com]. DailyMotion went with Theora and others may follow that example.

              The web is supposed to be open, if we kowtow to patent encumbered formats just because Google says so, then I'm afraid the last 10 years we have spent trying to get up from under Microsoft and the browser wars would have been a complete waste.

              We're basically going to head back to "This site is best viewed by X or Y", only with different values for X and Y.

              The reason a "plug-in" solution is redundant s

          • Yeah, that's interesting and awful. And to make the licensed portion into some sort of a binary-only library that plugs into Firefox would defeat the big advantage of HTML5, which is that it doesn't need extra plugins.

            So isn't there a way in which Firefox could call the relevant codec installed on the computer through the HTML5 "video" tag and use that codec to play back the video? I mean, every Windows machine already has its own h246 decoder. Since we already own that decoder license thanks to Microsoft,

            • Another question I have is about whether Chromium also can't play h264.

              Google only licensed h.264 for Chrome. I believe you can get Chromium to play h.264 by making it use a version of ffmpeg with that codec built-in, but that's certainly not something Google distributes.

      • This is why I suggest they either:
          1) Make it a non-USA release, similar to PGP/PGPi in the past. This would be if they wanted to take a stand, and make lots of activist-style press releases on the subject. It would also probably be more effective than trying to talk everybody into using Theora.
          2) Externalize the issue, by using an external program instead. That way they aren't decoding any video, and are totally safe from patent issues.

        Option #2 is recommended, as a pragmatic decision.

        • by arose ( 644256 )

          Make it a non-USA release, similar to PGP/PGPi in the past.

          Not with being incorporated in the US. They'd have to at least double overhead to set up a separate company/organization to distribute this version, since explicitly doing it under the US entity would be considered exporting a product, and letting the community do it would cut of the revenue from Google and confuse less tech savvy users.

          Option #2 is recommended, as a pragmatic decision.

          I elaborated on this above.

          Basically I consider that the pragmat

      • by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:19AM (#30857096)
        here's the thing - something that's genuinely new and required real effort like H264 to develop, patenting it is a valid use for the patent system. and if you look at the licensing terms for h264 is insanely fair and cheap - your looking at only $100,000 for a service with 1,000,000 subscribers, and thats only if your a commercial entity. i dare say if your running a website that has a subscription of over a million people you can afford $100,000 for the core technology that under pins your operation. if you can't, Your Doing It Wrong.
        • patenting how to manipulate bits is not ok

          the free exchange of ideas is the only thing underpinning any sense of philosophical integrity in modern liberal democracy. besides, you basically lie when you say its expensive to develop this stuff. a university professional could do this, and by publishing it, for free (in an ideal world) he cements his academic credentials, which is the only reward anyone deserves for the advancement of ideas

          capitalizing on those ideas is a secondary game that does not overlap,

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by javilon ( 99157 )

      Mozilla should just link to the distribution's provided ffmpeg and just let you decide what codecs you compile in. That would mean that at least in FOSS operating systems the problem is sorted.

      That would also mean less code to manintain, and to give an advantage to FOSS operating systems.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jvillain ( 546827 )

      It has every thing to do with licensing. It is unreasonable to expect a nonprofit group to fork out millions of dollars to give you a free product. If you want to start paying for FireFox maybe they can do some thing for you.

      Audio and video are the only arrows left in the quiver of the proprietary companies. I think once companies start to realize that it is safe to do HTML5 you will see companies that say screw it we don't feel like paying these fat fees any more when we can use some thing free instead. U

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Endymion ( 12816 )

        It's unreasonable to expect pop culture to shift because it's choice is inconvenient.

        Trying to change perceptions like that didn't work with Vorbis-vs-MP3, and it won't work here either.

        • by arose ( 644256 )

          It worked with PNG, even if it took a while. And it worked with Vorbis to a limited extent (there is another option when you need it, there is reasonable hardware support and the lives of game and other developers have been made easier), but that battle wasn't about the web before HTML5 and Firefox 3.5.

          Yes, it's a slow process, but with h.264 there is are 15 years or so where it can make a difference, this was not the case with PNG as the patent covering GIF creation expired or MP3, which had a bigger head

          • by Endymion ( 12816 )

            Sure, in 15 year or whatever, it'll be trivial. Most software will be able to implement all of this with minimal hastle.

            But in the mean time, the war against other things like Flash, Silverlight, IE, and open-web-standards in general will be lost.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )

            PNG was easy. Want alpha channels? Use PNG. Want better compression? Use PNG. Want more than 256 colours? Use PNG. Oh, and by the way, it's royalty free so you won't get hit by those fees that everyone's starting to have to pay for producing or reading GIFs.

            Theora is hard. Want good quality? Use H.264. Want multiple implementations optimised for different profiles? Use H.264. Want hardware accelerated playback on mobile devices? Use H.264. Oh, and there's a small license fee that you'll hav

    • by Rocketship Underpant ( 804162 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:54AM (#30857252)

      I agree 100%. Mathematical algorithm patents are not recognized in most countries outside the US, so make an international Firefox version that only visitors who claim to be outside the US can download.

      • That doesn't stop the licensing authorities collecting fees and suing left right and center. Almost the entire industrialized world upholds codec patents and indeed many of the patent holders are European companies.

    • by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @04:41AM (#30857408) Homepage

      The problem with H.264 is both its patent status and the licensing cost. The patent means that it can't legally be used in software licensed under the GPL/LGPL 3.0 in countries like the US. So, Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.

      But the other problem is the licensing fee. Firefox ships so many software units that it will hit the enterprise cap for H.264 licensing every year. In 2006, that cap was $3,500,000. In 2007 it went up to $4,250,000. In 2009 it went up to $5,000,000. In 2011, it is going to go up again. So Mozilla will have to pay out $5,000,000 (and climbing) per year, just to support this one video codec in a product that they give away for free. Their revenue in their last fiscal year was $78.6 million.

      Is it really worth it to spend 6% of your total yearly revenue on the licensing fee for one video codec?

      Apple doesn't care, since they already hit the yearly cap anyway (see: iPod/iTunes) so it's free for them to include it in Safari. I'm not sure if Google does (can't think which apps it would be), but they have the money to do it either way. Opera and Mozilla don't currently have this expense... and they can't afford it. Nor can any other upstart browser since once they hit 200k 'units' per year, they have to start paying $0.20 per download.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shish ( 588640 )

        Mozilla would have to add a closed-source component to Firefox for it to be able to work.

        Or they could hook into each OS's native codec libraries -- IIRC windows 7 supports h264 out of the box, and most linux distros have a gstreamer-x264 or whatever package easily available ("easy" as in "will prompt to be installed the first time it's required", in ubuntu's case at least)

  • by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @02:10AM (#30856796)

    It seems that both Youtube and Vimeo have both chosen to use their own custom controls, and disable the default controls native to the user's browser.

    That wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that full screen mode can currently only be entered using those default controls (making full screen mode available via a scripting api is considered a security risk, and thus discouraged by the HTML5 spec). So they're sacrificing that functionality at the alter of branding.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by phizi0n ( 1237812 )

      I'm going to have to put the blame on the browsers for not implementing a "double click the video to go fullscreen" behavior or some sort of key binding. Sites shouldn't have to refrain from branding just to allow the user to go fullscreen, the browser should always provide a method for the user to do it.

    • by Endymion ( 12816 )

      One nice thing about HTML5 over flash: it's much easier to fix such things in greasmonkey or similar tools.

    • Don't know about Vimeo but YouTube [youtube.com], at least, lists full screen mode as one of the "restrictions" they are currently working on fixing. Hopefully it comes out of beta faster than the typical Google project.
  • Maybe it's time Youtube is boycotted and everyone switches over to Daily Motion, which has been supporting Theora for several months already:
    http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/ [dailymotion.com]

    Boycott probably not going to happen though :(

    • by LoverOfJoy ( 820058 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:20AM (#30857106) Homepage
      I love the FAQ on that page you linked to:

      But wait - the video quality is lower and sound is sometimes crackly...

      That's normal...for now.

      • Yeah, WTF? This is a big fumble by Google. Here I was, tempted to give Chrome another shot just to see this work - as it's one of the very rare things that my beloved Firefox can't do. And when I go through the bother I find what? An experience worse than Flash?

        If Google knew this, shouldn't they have waited with the feature? Will there be another announcement that says: "HTML5 Youtube - now far less crappy than before? Download Chrome to see it!" And seriously, who will?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 )
      lol. i'd never heard of daily motion before, so it's chances of rolling youtube are slim to none, especially based on the back of h264 vs theora.
  • H.264 (Score:5, Informative)

    by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @03:55AM (#30857260)

    Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.

    Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way. If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE. It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.

    • How do you respond to those who say that the Mozilla Foundation should pay for the h.264 license?
      After all, Google and Apple are obviously paying for the license to distribute Safari and Chrome with h.264 for free, should be easy enough for Mozilla Foundation to do that too, right? Who really cares that Google and Apple are subsidizing the license fee from their main business models while Mozilla is a non-profit organization formed to provide support and leadership to open source projects that is financed o

  • I just tried browsing the full site on iPhone and switched to HTML5 mode. Doesn't seem to work, just displays a crossed over play-icon.

  • kaiser soze (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoFoQ ( 584566 ) on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:15AM (#30858288)

    hmm...I'm testing out this vimeo html5 player and I'm looking at the source...I see calls using mootools 1.11 to a mootools class named "Kaiser Soze".....gotta love programmers with a sense of humor.

The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system.