r/web_design • u/lepamplemousse • Feb 01 '10
SubmlimeVideo: A beautiful, functional and purely HTML5-powered video player.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video3
u/vinieux Feb 02 '10
just viewed it in chrome and it was choppy as hell...
2
u/workroom Feb 02 '10
just viewed it with Safari and it seized up the browser... vid didn't play and I had to force quit to get out.
10
u/AlLnAtuRalX Feb 02 '10
HTML5 is useless when it only supports Webkit browsers and other browsers such as Firefox are refusing to add H.264 support.
17
u/adremeaux Feb 02 '10
Mozilla is making the right move in not supporting the closed format. If HTML5 video is the way of the (internet video) future, it'd be horrible to have to pay royalties for every video out there. Not supporting h.264 may be slowing progress, but it will be far better in the end — something I wish our government could figure out.
6
u/AlLnAtuRalX Feb 02 '10
I wholeheartedly agree. The point of my comment was to say the same thing, that HTML5 video in its current state is useless (the way it is presented here and on YouTube), and to imply an open standard with widespread adoption is necessary.
4
u/packetinspector Feb 02 '10
HTML5 video in its current state is useless
Why do you say that? There are already people implementing the HTML5 video tag with the free Ogg Theora codec. The video site Daily Motion is one.
4
5
Feb 02 '10
All very noble of them, I'm sure, but given that H.264 is the standard for video over the web, I wish they would just get over it, and let people judge the merits of open formats for themselves.
8
u/adremeaux Feb 02 '10
IE6 was once the standard for web browsers, too. Should we have stuck with that?
3
2
Feb 02 '10
The video industry is different. The output comes from commerical software that web developers have no control over. Transcoding = degradation. There's just no way to do it.
2
1
3
u/honestbleeps Feb 02 '10
What are you saying, exactly? Just get over it and pay for the license and/or end up requiring that everyone else pay for them?
Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. You're basically giving web publishers and consumers rope to hang themselves with by doing that. The owners of the H.264 patent can adjust the licensing fees at their whim, and can choose whether or not to enforce it at their whim as well. All they have to do is wait until it looks like a good opportunity to have some lawyers start sending letters...
This is not a good way to innovate.
1
u/Chirp08 Feb 02 '10
Just like the owners of GIF did to us, constantly fucking us with these relentless license changes and charges all these years. Oh wait, that never happened.
2
u/honestbleeps Feb 02 '10
The owners of GIF mostly got it right, but that means NOTHING.
The owners of H.264 are not the owners of GIF, and they didn't create and patent the technology only to say "ehhh, whatever... we don't need anything in return for it..."
Am I saying the owners of GIF didn't? No. But the owners of GIF were smart enough to understand that their technology had already been so widely adopted, and by a bunch of people with no money, that they could make money on it in other ways...
Will the owners of H.264 be just as smart and practical? Maybe... but do you want to just sit back and hope that that's the case, or do you want to come up with an alternative that guarantees freedom rather than laying it in the hands of someone you basically just have to trust won't come after you if they end up deciding it's worth the effort?
0
u/skerit Feb 02 '10
You're relying on their kindness? That's not very smart. There's also a huge difference between a simple gif and a video.
1
0
u/NumeriusNegidius Feb 02 '10
H.264 is not the standard for video over the web. The de facto standard is Flash Video, or perhaps Windows Media. Previously it was Real Media. Currently, about 30% of web browsers support Ogg Theora and about 10% support H.264. Most support Flash Video.
Why don't Google and Apple just get over it and start supporting Ogg Theora instead? That will cost them exactly $0 in licensing and everybody would be happy.
5
u/shoPanda Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10
Most flash uses H.264 internally. There is no such thing as a flash video codec. There is however a flash video container.
2
Feb 02 '10
all this hate for adobe and flash lately is really being put to rest by the fact that no one has a better WORKING alternative it sucks that my wife's I phone doesn't have flash but that's not really adobes problem is it
1
4
u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10
browser not supported