Support NeoGAF

[SnakeXs]

So if I go straight to youtubes html5 site, I should be able to play those videos on my iPhone?

Yep. I'd suggest the App, still, since the HTML5 beta includes far fewer videos, but you can indeed. Click the Youtube/video icon, and it'll pop up the player.

 

[Vennt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC--NX8252c

Ahh, thats not only not available on the iPhone app, it's not available on any mobile device, full stop, and is down the the uploader/account owner not setting his "Syndication - Yes, make this video available on mobile phones and TV" setting correctly on the upload settings page.

I've uploaded a ton of videos to Youtube, All of them have appeared in the iPhone app (and available on other mobile devices), but there is usually a delay of up to 6 hours before the mobile version is available. So whilst there are videos that are not available to mobile devices at all, it's not an iPhone app problem, but a user error problem by the uploader that affects all mobile devices.

 

[lunarworks]

Yup and anyone who agrees should start using the You Tube HTML5 beta. The resources used goes down DRAMATICALLY when you use HTML5 versus Flash.

I'd love to use the YouTube HTML 5 beta, but in this case Firefox is being the odd man out.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

I had read something that part of the real reason Apple doesn't want Flash is due to content. Apple doesn't want you to be able to watch Hulu, etc... on your phone or iPod Touch because then you would be less likely to buy content from the iTunes store.

I don't know how true that may be or if it's just a conspiracy theory but considering how Apple seems to be I wouldn't put it past them.

"A NEW CHALLENGER HAS APPEARED!"

 

[SnakeXs]

"A NEW CHALLENGER HAS APPEARED!"

:lol

 

[D4Danger]

:lol

you two should get a room.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

you two should get a room.

Bitter mj stole from your 30secs or uninformed glory eh? Sorry kid, doesn't last forever. :/

 

[Gio_CoD]

Ahh, thats not only not available on the iPhone app, it's not available on any mobile device, full stop, and is down the the uploader/account owner not setting his "Syndication - Yes, make this video available on mobile phones and TV" setting correctly on the upload settings page.

I've uploaded a ton of videos to Youtube, All of them have appeared in the iPhone app (and available on other mobile devices), but there is usually a delay of up to 6 hours before the mobile version is available. So whilst there are videos that are not available to mobile devices at all, it's not an iPhone app problem, but a user error problem by the uploader that affects all mobile devices.

Ah, I didn't realize that's how it worked. I don't upload many videos to youtube.

 

[giga]

I think your computer is broken. It doesn't take 95% of my processor to view a flash video. Watching HD does strain i

Do you have a mac? This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-YAQ1wfNqc&feature=sub

480P

720P

On a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo.

 

[Vennt]

The topic here is the iPad, keep it on that, and off other posters and your opinions of them, or I'll bash heads together.

 

[D4Danger]

edit: nevermind.

 

[Vyer]

Yep. I'd suggest the App, still, since the HTML5 beta includes far fewer videos, but you can indeed. Click the Youtube/video icon, and it'll pop up the player.

Interesting. I google searched in mobile safari for YouTube HTML5 and went to the link. It redirected me to the mobile site, but I have no idea if it's still the beta HTML5 links. Everything is playing fine, though.

 

[Gio_CoD]

Do you have a mac? This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-YAQ1wfNqc&feature=sub

480P

720P

On a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo.

No Mac. This is a Windows 7 machine on a single core Athlon 4000.

480p

720p

EDIT

These numbers were jumping around a bit to be fair. I saw 480p go as high as 48% and as low as 16%. The 720 number was the highest I saw, but I also saw it drop into the 40% range on occasion. It seems to depend on how much action is in the video. That's probably stupid to say, but it seemed more shit going on meant more processor usage.

 

[Particle Physicist]

No Mac. This is a Windows 7 machine on a single core Athlon 4000.

[]http://i48.tinypic.com/kece42.jpg[/IMG]
480p

[]http://i46.tinypic.com/1694v0o.jpg[/IMG]
720p

EDIT

These numbers were jumping around a bit to be fair. I saw 480p go as high as 48% and as low as 16%. The 720 number was the highest I saw, but I also saw it drop into the 40% range on occasion. It seems to depend on how much action is in the video. That's probably stupid to say, but it seemed more shit going on meant more processor usage.

That is the point. Flash is horribly inefficient on the OS X platform.

 

[Shawn128]

Which costs money, and I've read is a buggy, awful mess. :/

As a user of the Giant Bomb app I will have to disagree. It costs $2 (likely just to cover development costs) and I have run into no problems running it. It may not be as pretty or functional as some may like, but it works and the content far outweighs any issues it may have.

 

[giga]

No Mac. This is a Windows 7 machine on a single core Athlon 4000.

[MG]http://i48.tinypic.com/kece42.jpg[/IMG]
480p

[MG]http://i46.tinypic.com/1694v0o.jpg[/IMG]
720p

And thus you realize the source of frustration that non-Windows users have had with Flash Player. The dismal performance and instability is a huge cause of the rallying behind HTML 5.

When a single core Athlon outperforms a Core 2 Duo. Depressing.

 

[Gio_CoD]

That is the point. Flash is horribly inefficient on the OS X platform.

Surely that can be fixed? I mean, I see people playing Crysis on VMs inside of OSX, so surely they can make Flash work more efficiently?

 

[tokkun]

Yep. The same Flash vid takes 95% CPU compared with 10% CPU under HTML5. Also, I can view HD content with Quicktime HD (thanks to ClickToFlash), and it takes about 80% CPU. That's compared with Flash where I get maybe 1 frame per 3 seconds.

This may likely be related to the fact that most of the MP4 video kernels are accelerated on the GPU, whereas Flash is being executed only on the CPU. If you remember when h.264 was first starting to be used, it was extremely CPU intensive. The good news is that Flash 10.1 beta has introduced GPU acceleration. You can see a comparison of the CPU utilization here:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/adobes-flash-player-10-1-beta-gpu-acceleration-tested-document/

 

[numble]

Surely that can be fixed? I mean, I see people playing Crysis on VMs inside of OSX, so surely they can make Flash work more efficiently?

That's up to Adobe.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Surely that can be fixed? I mean, I see people playing Crysis on VMs inside of OSX, so surely they can make Flash work more efficiently?

Flash is horribly bloated... and, well.. tell that to Adobe.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Surely that can be fixed? I mean, I see people playing Crysis on VMs inside of OSX, so surely they can make Flash work more efficiently?

Crysis VMs inside of OSX? Are you sure? Most VMs don't support 3d acceleration so you can't play most games. It can be but if adobe hasn't done it by now for OS X after all these years are you really going to hold your breath? That's part of the problem is that it's horribly designed for OS X and since iPad is using OS X it would be horribly inefficient on that too. If Adobe is so concerned, why don't they improve it for OS X and therefore remove all doubt of it totally messing up like Apple is saying?

 

[Vennt]

The arguments about processor occupancy with Flash are a bit pointless, it's designed specifically to be platform independent, therefore everything has to be done in software on the host CPU, with no use whatsoever of any hardware acceleration of any kind, video, sound or otherwise so of course it is going to see high CPU use, that is part of it's fundamental design.

It does lead to it being a bit of a CPU hog, but that's a known quantity that is considered an issue that is outweighed by the benefit of it's platform independance.

 

[scorcho]

That is the point. Flash is horribly inefficient on the OS X platform.

Flash needs Apple's cooperation to make HD videos hardware accelerated on the Mac.

 

[SnakeXs]

Here's a Vimeo example:

Vimeo HTML5 video:
(1 process, as it's all run inside of Safari)

Same video, Flash version:
(2 processes, since Flash and other plugins are segregated from Safari)

And the HTML5 one performs better. No jitters at all, and seeks instantly, and no starting load spinny icon.

 

[giga]

This may likely be related to the fact that most of the MP4 video kernels are accelerated on the GPU, whereas Flash is being executed only on the CPU. If you remember when h.264 was first starting to be used, it was extremely CPU intensive. The good news is that Flash 10.1 beta has introduced GPU acceleration. You can see a comparison of the CPU utilization here:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/adobes-flash-player-10-1-beta-gpu-acceleration-tested-document/

Nah, even 80% CPU seems too high for it to be QT X accelerated. (I get around 10-15% on my MBP) 10.6 only supports hardware acceleration on the 9400M, so I'm guessing his computer has some other GPU: http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

The arguments about processor occupancy with Flash are a bit pointless, it's designed specifically to be platform independent, therefore everything has to be done in software on the host CPU, with no use whatsoever of any hardware acceleration of any kind, video, sound or otherwise so of course it is going to see high CPU use, that is part of it's fundamental design.

It does lead to it being a bit of a CPU hog, but that's a known quantity that is considered an issue that is outweighed by the benefit of it's platform independance.

So are you saying that because adobe is independent it has to do more work so by default it has to be a higher usage % or am I miss understanding you?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Flash needs Apple's cooperation to make HD videos hardware accelerated on the Mac.

Even before HD, Flash has been horrible on OS X. They have yet to make it efficient for normal videos.

 

[Reginald P. Linux]

Isn't a major reason why Flash performance on the Mac is so terrible because OS X doesn't allow developers to use graphics hardware for video acceleration? I read something about that a few months ago when the Flash 10 beta was released.

It just seems to me that Apple, if they wanted to (huge caveat), could help Adobe make Flash viable on the Mac. How did this mess get started?

 

[scorcho]

Here's a Vimeo example:

Vimeo HTML5 video:
(1 process, as it's all run inside of Safari)

Same video, Flash version:
(2 processes, since Flash and other plugins are segregated from Safari)

And the HTML5 one performs better. No jitters at all, and seeks instantly, and no starting load spinny icon.

because Apple's utilizing quicktime (which is hardware accelerated) for video playback. flash video can be just as fast when given that type of low-level access, which is seen on Windows machines.

 

[scorcho]

Even before HD, Flash has been horrible on OS X. They have yet to make it efficient for normal videos.

uses more resources, but that's common in a large number of cross-platform applications. iTunes on Windows is a steaming pile of shit when compared to the native Mac version.

 

[Teddman]

I had read something that part of the real reason Apple doesn't want Flash is due to content. Apple doesn't want you to be able to watch Hulu, etc... on your phone or iPod Touch because then you would be less likely to buy content from the iTunes store.

I don't know how true that may be or if it's just a conspiracy theory but considering how Apple seems to be I wouldn't put it past them.

Basically this is true. They don't want game developers circumventing the App Store, and they don't want a free and easy method of watching movies and TV shows on the iPad that doesn't involve iTunes. In addition, iPad owners watching Hulu and Netflix all day over 3G would hammer AT&T's data throughput rate and bring the network to its knees.

That $30 all-you-can-eat 3G deal with AT&T would not exist if Flash was enabled.

Remember how Apple was said to be shopping a "best of TV" package to various TV networks, in which they'd give access to 4-6 of their best shows in return for a $30/month subscription? The networks haven't signed on yet, but how successful do you think that program would be if iPad owners could already get much of that content for free over Hulu?

One more time, NO FLASH IS ABOUT MONEY.

 

[giga]

because Apple's utilizing quicktime (which is hardware accelerated) for video playback. flash video can be just as fast when given that type of low-level access, which is seen on Windows machines.

Again, that's assuming they have a 9400M. That's the only way Apple is using hardware acceleration. Even without hardware acceleration in QT 7, it's still more efficient than Flash.

 

[Khanage]

Utility Ambiguity - Office of Frank Chimero

This is such a great article... Really sums up what a lot of the naysayers are missing.

Initially, it’s hard for a consumer’s mind to understand the value of a platform. But, it’s easy for the maker to perceive that value. In fact, the platform’s worth depends on it. It some how seems right that the early value of a platform is completely dependent on the imagination.

 

[Schlep]

Do you have a mac? This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-YAQ1wfNqc&feature=sub

On a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo.

ClickToFlash is your friend.

Note: if you're also using Glimmer Blocker, you need to add under Network->Advanced->Proxies->Bypas proxy settings...

*.youtube.com, *.youtube-nocookie.com

Some weird bug when the two are used together that results in downloading video.mp4 randomly.

 

[Vennt]

So are you saying that because adobe is independent it has to do more work so by default it has to be a higher usage % or am I miss understanding you?

You're misunderstanding me, I'm saying that because it has to do everything in software on the machines CPU, and use little to none of the extra hardware a PC has, just the CPU mainly, you're going to see high CPU utilization. So arguing that it's a CPU hog is a bit short-sighted, it's meant to be a CPU hog for some of the heavyweight Flash uses, that's a design decision.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Isn't a major reason why Flash performance on the Mac is so terrible because OS X doesn't allow developers to use graphics hardware for video acceleration? I read something about that a few months ago when the Flash 10 beta was released.

It just seems to me that Apple, if they wanted to (huge caveat), could help Adobe make Flash viable on the Mac. How did this mess get started?

That is the latest excuse... but like i mentioned above. gpu acceleration has not always been available on the windows version. so if flash is platform independent, why does it run so crappy on OS X compared to Windows, even when the windows machine has worse hardware?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

You're misunderstanding me, I'm saying that because it has to do everything in software on the machines CPU, and use little to none of the extra hardware a PC has, just the CPU mainly, you're going to see high CPU utilization. So arguing that it's a CPU hog is a bit short-sighted, it's meant to be a CPU hog for some of the heavyweight Flash uses, that's a design decision.

Ah, ok. Is there a reason why they don't the hardware acceleration or whatever on OS X like windows to make it better? Is it because of fears of security exploits or? I'm assuming that's the extra hardware you're talking about?

 

[scorcho]

You're misunderstanding me, I'm saying that because it has to do everything in software on the machines CPU, and use little to none of the extra hardware a PC has, just the CPU mainly, you're going to see high CPU utilization. So arguing that it's a CPU hog is a bit short-sighted, it's meant to be a CPU hog for some of the heavyweight Flash uses, that's a design decision.

actually, this is a great point. other Adobe cross-platform software that I've used (Lightroom, After Effects, Photoshop, etc.) run just as good, if not better, on Mac than on Windows. blaming lazy or inept programming doesn't seem to apply all that much here.

 

[SnakeXs]

because Apple's utilizing quicktime (which is hardware accelerated) for video playback. flash video can be just as fast when given that type of low-level access, which is seen on Windows machines.

As proven above, Flash is still a far more intensive solution even on Windows.

And Apple definitely allows developers to use GPUs, but like many Apple things they have something you need to work with to do so. It's called OpenCL. It's an option, and just because it's not Adobe's way doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Apple has options for GPU acceleration, they're just not going to let any developer get hardware access because they ask nicely.

 

[scorcho]

and OpenCL is a crapshoot that only works reliably fast on nvidia hardware, and only then for SL users.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Basically this is true. They don't want game developers circumventing the App Store, and they don't want a free and easy method of watching movies and TV shows on the iPad that doesn't involve iTunes. In addition, iPad owners watching Hulu and Netflix all day over 3G would hammer AT&T's data throughput rate and bring the network to its knees.

That $30 all-you-can-eat 3G deal with AT&T would not exist if Flash was enabled.

Remember how Apple was said to be shopping a "best of TV" package to various TV networks, in which they'd give access to 4-6 of their best shows in return for a $30/month subscription? The networks haven't signed on yet, but how successful do you think that program would be if iPad owners could already get much of that content for free over Hulu?

One more time, NO FLASH IS ABOUT MONEY.

Oh Lord, get out of here with that conspiracy mess. When Hulu actually tries to make an app and gets rejected, let us know. Until then, you're just asking why tower 3 fell down.

Money would also make sense in a world where there aren't thousands of free games on the App Store that all cost Apple money to distribute.

 

[scorcho]

actually it's a great point. Lala submitted a full-featured music buying/streaming app to the store and did it get released? nope. Apple bought them out instead.

those bastards.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Rhapsody and Spotify have apps.

 

[Technosteve]

The arguments about processor occupancy with Flash are a bit pointless, it's designed specifically to be platform independent, therefore everything has to be done in software on the host CPU, with no use whatsoever of any hardware acceleration of any kind, video, sound or otherwise so of course it is going to see high CPU use, that is part of it's fundamental design.

It does lead to it being a bit of a CPU hog, but that's a known quantity that is considered an issue that is outweighed by the benefit of it's platform independance.

So is java, do you see people using java as a video player? Being OS agnostic is fine and dandy but performance has gotten worse and worse year after year with flash not better. It got to a point were specialized hardware is needed to run on low powered machines. At that point adobe should just make a version of flash like google with chrome os.

 

[scorcho]

Rhapsody and Spotify have apps.

i need to use snark tags in posts.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Maybe it's because I'm still on tiger, but youtube HTML 5 uses more CPU for me than flash video. :lol

 

[SuperPac]

Basically this is true. They don't want game developers circumventing the App Store, and they don't want a free and easy method of watching movies and TV shows on the iPad that doesn't involve iTunes. In addition, iPad owners watching Hulu and Netflix all day over 3G would hammer AT&T's data throughput rate and bring the network to its knees.

Here's something else to consider in this equation. TV networks generally have different deals set up for their content on mobile devices. If you could watch flash video via Safari on the iPhone/iPad, that's basically taking a huge cut of what would normally fall under a mobile deal, AND it's making any content-over-web deal worth much more (more than they might be getting paid now without iPad/iPhone factored in).

If Apple were to allow Flash on the iPhone/iPad I think you'd see Hulu and the TV networks' sites disallowing those devices VERY quickly, just like Hulu is blocked on the PS3.

 

[mrklaw]

Rhapsody and Spotify have apps.

but then spotify is an app on PC anyway right?

And its a shame that you can't listen to spotify in the background while doing something else, not even offline playlists.

 

[deadhorse32]

Formerly, the specification recommended ('should') support for Theora video and Vorbis audio encapsulated in Ogg containers. This requirement was specified to allow the easier distribution of rich media over the internet by using an open standard. However, the decision to require this specific codec led to opposition by Apple Inc., the developer of the Safari browser, citing uncertainty about potential patents and lack of hardware support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_Ogg_formats_in_HTML5

After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately,
on the situation regarding codecs for <video> and <audio> in HTML5, I have
reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that
all vendors are willing to implement and ship.

I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which
codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter
undefined, as has in the past been done with other features like <img> and
image formats, <embed> and plugin APIs, or Web fonts and font formats.

The current situation is as follows:

Apple refuses to implement Ogg Theora in Quicktime by default (as used
by Safari), citing lack of hardware support and an uncertain patent
landscape.

Google has implemented H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome, but cannot
provide the H.264 codec license to third-party distributors of
Chromium, and have indicated a belief that Ogg Theora's quality-per-bit
is not yet suitable for the volume handled by YouTube.

Opera refuses to implement H.264, citing the obscene cost of the
relevant patent licenses.

Mozilla refuses to implement H.264, as they would not be able to obtain
a license that covers their downstream distributors.

Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support <video> at all.

(Sorry if I've mischaracterised any positions above; the positions are
relatively subtle and so it's likely that I have oversimplified matters.)

I considered requiring Ogg Theora support in the spec, since we do have
three implementations that are willing to implement it, but it wouldn't
help get us true interoperabiliy, since the people who are willing to
implement it are willing to do so regardless of the spec, and the people
who aren't are not going to be swayed by what the spec says.

Going forward, I see several (not mutually exclusive) possibilities, all
of which will take several years:

1. Ogg Theora encoders continue to improve. Off-the-shelf hardware Ogg
Theora decoder chips become available. Google ships support for the
codec for long enough without getting sued that Apple's concern
regarding submarine patents is reduced. => Theora becomes the de facto
codec for the Web.

2. The remaining H.264 baseline patents owned by companies who are not
willing to license them royalty-free expire, leading to H.264 support
being available without license fees. => H.264 becomes the de facto
codec for the Web.

When either of these happen, I will reconsider updating HTML5 accodingly.

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

So Apple is stubborn and want to use H264 at all cost. The last alternative is for Google to open a codec for free (They bought On2 like 6 months). But Apple could still veto it, leaving the video tag in shamble.

 

[José Mourinho]

Wow I'm late to this. I Stopped liking Apple when my 4th gen iPod shit itself after the 3rd replacement. To me Apple has always come across as a fashion accessory 1st and a computer 2nd since anybody I know who owns or wants one has no real need for it. This iPad is nothing more than an iGimmick imo.