HTML5

HTML5

Apple has pushed so hard to kill Adobe Flash Player in favor of open standards like HTML5. In an statement by issued by Apple, they state:

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

...

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too).

Remember this statement. Apple support HTML5 video in favor of Flash [or other proprietary plugins].

Imagine my suprise when I went to the Apple's website and tried to play the Apple video on the new iPad 3. Guess what? Yes, it's another plugin, although this one is made by Apple. The video plays with QuickTime!



Apple has been the loudest advocate against Adobe Flash in favor of HTML5. Apparently all the criticism that Apple made doesn't apply to Apple's plugin QuickTime player. If Apple has TRUELY embraced HTML5 has they claimed they have, why not use HTML5 video to play the iPad introduction video? Apple is a hypocrite, it says one thing and do another.



Taken from my blog post at http://my.opera.com/wikipedian/blog/2012/03/08/apple-y-u-no-adopt-html5-video

Now the question is do you or will you embrace HTML5? Also, what do you think of HTML5?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

It's the greatest invention

Greater than sliced bread?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Imagine my suprise when I went to the Apple's website and tried to play the Apple video on the new iPad 3>. Guess what?Yes, it's another plugin, although this one is made by Apple. The video plays with QuickTime!

At a glance that might just be a fallback for if your browser doesn't support Apple's preferred HTML5 video format H.264, but I don't have Quicktime and:

Get QuickTime.
Download QuickTime to view this video.
QuickTime is free for Mac + PC.

If my hypothesis were correct, I figure it'd also offer me a download of Safari.

I use Internet Explorer 9, which DOES support html5 video and audio and canvas and all the other html5 goodies.

One thing I hate about HTML5 is the fragmentation. Internet Explorer 9 and Safari supports only mp3 and h.264, regarding HTML5 audio and video, respectively. Firefox supports ogg and webm. Opera supports webm and ogg and mp3?. Google Chrome supports only Webm (they said they will drop support for h.264.) and mp3?.

Also, Frenzie you used Opera right and that supports at the very least HTML5 video.

Edit:
Looks like Google Chrome supports H.264 (.mp4), .ogg, and .webm (of course ).

Yes, I'm aware of all that. I'm just saying it's worse than I thought.

HTML5 is not widely adopted yet. HTML5 browsers are not widely adopted yet.

Although they're focussed on the new era, they still have to be compatible with the current era. What technology should they use on their site so that the majority of potential iPad-owners can see it?

Flash is more than just a video codec, which is where the overhead that Apple is concerned about comes in. All Apple devices that can browser the web have QuickTime compatibility, without the extra weight of Flash.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

HTML5 is not widely adopted yet. HTML5 browsers are not widely adopted yet.

Although they're focussed on the new era, they still have to be compatible with the current era. What technology should they use on their site so that the majority of potential iPad-owners can see it?

Flash is more than just a video codec, which is where the overhead that Apple is concerned about comes in. All Apple devices that can browser the web have QuickTime compatibility, without the extra weight of Flash.

HTML5 video is supported. By iPad and all "i" devices.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

HTML5 video is supported. By iPad and all I devices.

Yes. But not all potential iPad owners are already iPad owners. However, almost all of them have access to some form of QuickTime plugin.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

HTML5 video is supported. By iPad and all I devices.

Yes. But not all potential iPad owners are already iPad owners.

Huh? They could use HTML5 WITH QuickTime / Flash fall back so that browsers that support HTML5 will use the HTML5 video / audio while browsers that doesn't support HTML5 will fall back on the non-HTML5 content (QuickTime). Also, suppose that the customer is using from a library computer that doesn't allow installation of software and doesn't have QuickTime installed. The user won't be able to view the video. That's a lost for Apple. Almost all public computer come with Adobe Flash Player installed and any user can install Google Chrome WITHOUT admin permission (I'm on a public computer and using Chrome).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Although they're focussed on the new era, they still have to be compatible with the current era. What technology should they use on their site so that the majority of potential iPad-owners can see it?

Quite simple

<video blablabla>
fallback goes here, i.e. an OBJECT element just like now
</video>

Edit: as it turns out the code bbCode doesn't filter HTML comments.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Although they're focussed on the new era, they still have to be compatible with the current era. What technology should they use on their site so that the majority of potential iPad-owners can see it?

Quite simple

fallback goes here, i.e. an OBJECT element just like now

Edit: as it turns out the code bbCode doesn't filter HTML comments.

Yes, I know. That's not my point. The original argument was: why use Quicktime and not HTML5, if you're going to berate Flash? Yes, it should be HTML5 with Quicktime fallback. That's entirely correct, they have failed in their stated goal to support HTML5. But between Flash and Quicktime, QT is more inline with their aims.

My point was Apple is a hypocrite. They say one thing (Flash sucks. Kill plug ins/add ons, native play back within browser, HTML5, bla, bla, bla) but do something else entirely (using a plugin, QuickTime, to play their videos).

I don't expect Flash to go away just because Apple says so. Too many people use it, enough that it still makes sense for Adobe to keep updating it at any rate. Too many websites use it. If Apple doesn't want to support Flash, that's their business but it isn't going to go away just because they throw a fit.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

My point was Apple is a hypocrite. They say one thing (Flash sucks. Kill plug ins/add ons, native play back within browser, HTML5, bla, bla, bla) but do something else entirely (using a plugin, QuickTime, to play their videos).

Not according to what you've posted. They say that Flash is a poor choice for mobile devices (which I happen to agree with) and that HTML5 (and other open standards) will win the war.

There's nothing there that conflicts with them currently embedding video using a Quicktime plug-in. (Note that nothing in their statement targets plug-in architecture in general, only Flash specifically.) Yes, it would be ideal for them to use HTML5 and h264 or WebM or something, and it would prove their commitment to that future - but failing to do so is not hypocritical.

Apple's statement is about the standards they support in their device - the software that they make available to iPhone and iPad users - not about the software that other people use on their machines, which is what determines how they present their content.

Apple is pushing very hard on the font against Flash (and succeeded, since Flash for mobiles is practically dead and Adobe announced that they will stop producing new versions of flash for the mobile market).

They are also glorifying HTML5 against plugins. Why not show the commitment for open source by using HTML5 instead of the proprietary, closed source QuickTime?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

My point was Apple is a hypocrite. They say one thing (Flash sucks. Kill plug ins/add ons, native play back within browser, HTML5, bla, bla, bla) but do something else entirely (using a plugin, QuickTime, to play their videos).

Not according to what you've posted. They say that Flash is a poor choice for mobile devices (which I happen to agree with) and that HTML5 (and other open standards) will win the war.

There's nothing there that conflicts with them currently embedding video using a Quicktime plug-in. (Note that nothing in their statement targets plug-in architecture in general, only Flash specifically.) Yes, it would be ideal for them to use HTML5 and h264 or WebM or something, and it would prove their commitment to that future - but failing to do so is not hypocritical.

Apple's statement is about the standards they support in their device - the software that they make available to iPhone and iPad users - not about the software that other people use on their machines, which is what determines how they present their content.

If the make the video html5, it will be played back by the browser. Also, if the user does not have QuickTime, the website insists to get it installed by displaying a huge message that QuickTime is not installed.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

They are also glorifying HTML5 against plugins. Why not show the commitment for open source by using HTML5 instead of the proprietary, closed source QuickTime?

You mean, "as well as". HTML5 isn't solidly enough supported to be the sole choice. And where does it say anything against plugins?

You also have to remember that video is only a small part of the overlap between Flash and HTML5.

From their statement: "New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too).

wikipedian, we are in a transitions period in that HTML5 standards are still being worked on. While it would be good for Apple to drop Quicktime, HTML5 is just not ready yet to take over full time duty from the current media plug-ins. Also there are still many non-HTML5 browsers on the market, what are those users gonna do if they are only left with HTML5 media content?

Basically before we can see many/all of the current media plug-ins go away, HTML5 needs to be completed, adopted world-wide, and all users of old non-HTML5 browsers need to upgrade to HTML5-powered browsers.

Originally posted by Ngamer01:

Basically before we can see many/all of the current media plug-ins go away, HTML5 needs to be completed, adopted world-wide, and all users of old non-HTML5 browsers need to upgrade to HTML5-powered browsers.

+1

These things just don't happen overnight.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by Ngamer01:

Basically before we can see many/all of the current media plug-ins go away, HTML5 needs to be completed, adopted world-wide, and all users of old non-HTML5 browsers need to upgrade to HTML5-powered browsers.

+1

These things just don't happen overnight.

Well Apple could use HTML5 with QuickTime fall back (for older browsers). But all I am saying is that Apple is attacking plugins a lot but they are the one using a proprietary app (similiar to Flash).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Apple.....proprietary app

Lol, If you're thinking I'll disagree, I'ma disappoint ya.

Google/Android will prolly be your best bet for becoming reliant first. Flash isn't well suited for those mobile devices, that is very true. Apple is just Apple, I think they like losing out to a less proprietary device so they can bounce back with some innovation hype. It's kinda like setting the bar so you can jump over it, i guess.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Well Apple could use HTML5 with QuickTime fall back (for older browsers). But all I am saying is that Apple is attacking plugins a lot but they are the one using a proprietary app (similiar to Flash).

No, they're attacking Flash, not plug-ins. In their eyes, Flash is not well-suited to mobile devices, whereas Quicktime is.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Well Apple could use HTML5 with QuickTime fall back (for older browsers). But all I am saying is that Apple is attacking plugins a lot but they are the one using a proprietary app (similiar to Flash).

No, they're attacking Flash, not plug-ins. In their eyes, Flash is not well-suited to mobile devices, whereas Quicktime is.

Cause they made QuickTime

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Cause they made QuickTime

That's why I was very careful to add "in their eyes"!

It's HTML5 but only H.264. Works on IE, Chrome and Safari...

They both suck. They suck rocks. In fact, they suck large, mossy boulders. Either one criticising the other is hypocritical.
Flash has displayed itself as incompetent for production, but dominant in marketing. I loathe it. I spent the free month working with it and came to know, intimately, its putrid core.
Given the track record of changes to HTML, I hate HTML5 on sight. However, if it turns out to be good I will love it. Unlikely. Most likely, it will be despicable.

Once upon a time I liked QuickTime. Then they made a new version. A screwed up hateful one. That was around version 5. And every new version since I became aware of it has been just as evil. I was a Mac fan, briefly. But Mac demonstrated conclusively that it is just as nasty as Windows.

Deep breath, aefields! Remember your happy place!

gasp...
gasp...
right ...
think warm, fuzzy thoughts...
breathe

Problem with HTML5 is that videos cannot be in full screen (unless you run the browser in full screen). On the other hand, Flash can run in full screen.

The web has become a better place because Apple (and a number of other companies, Nokia springs to mind) has had minimal influence on it. Apple has done some nice feats of engineering, but as a company it is considerably worse than Microsoft.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with HTML5 is that videos cannot be in full screen (unless you run the browser in full screen). On the other hand, Flash can run in full screen.

I find a choice between playing around with zooming and full screen rather poor. Full window that can be expanded to full screen is much preferred. If there's any trouble with Opera's VIDEO implementation it's that it takes too much CPU.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with HTML5 is that videos cannot be in full screen (unless you run the browser in full screen). On the other hand, Flash can run in full screen.

There's a full screen spec in the workings. One of editor's is even from Opera:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

Firefox, Chrome and Safari can already:
http://caniuse.com/#search=fullscreen

It also works on iframes:
http://html5-demos.appspot.com/static/fullscreen.html

Originally posted by kapsi:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with HTML5 is that videos cannot be in full screen (unless you run the browser in full screen). On the other hand, Flash can run in full screen.

There's a full screen spec in the workings. One of editor's is even from Opera:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

Firefox, Chrome and Safari can already:
http://caniuse.com/#search=fullscreen

It also works on iframes:
http://html5-demos.appspot.com/static/fullscreen.html

But IE hasn't supported it yet...

Isn't the purpose of website designing for the compatibility so that the site works on all all browsers. At the very least design a website that is backward compatible with older browsers.

Enter HTML5 Please

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Isn't the purpose of website designing for the compatibility so that the site works on all all browsers. At the very least design a website that is backward compatible with older browsers.

I hardly think that having to perform two actions (press maximize, press F11) instead of just one (press fullscreen) counts as not being backwards compatible. If anything it sounds a lot like the very definition of progressive enhancement.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Isn't the purpose of website designing for the compatibility so that the site works on all all browsers. At the very least design a website that is backward compatible with older browsers.

I hardly think that having to perform two actions (press maximize, press F11) instead of just one (press fullscreen) counts as not being backwards compatible. If anything it sounds a lot like the very definition of progressive enhancement.

What I mean is that the webmaster should have a Flash fall back instead of using just HTML5 video. Some websites I tried ONLY work with Chrome :/ and not other browsers.

For example, with Puns, Puns, Puns of Cheezburger, I cannot upload a file. I had to open up Internet Explorer 9's developer console and play around with the different modes of Interne Explorer (IE8 mode, IE9 mode, IE9 compat mode, IE7 mode). After several minutes of playing around, I finally got the side to work with IE8 Quirks mode.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

What I mean is that the webmaster should have a Flash fall back instead of using just HTML5 video. Some websites I tried ONLY work with Chrome :/ and not other browsers.

You should be able to easily retrieve the URLs to toss them in e.g. MPlayer or VLC. Working or not working, it's better than Flash. But I might be atypical.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

For example, with Puns, Puns, Puns of Cheezburger, I cannot upload a file.

*patpat*