Adobe working to sabotage HTML5

1457910

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 181
    freenyfreeny Posts: 128member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    so they're morally wrong but we shouldn't denounce them? What? Why don't I understand? Oh! Because that doesn't make sense.



    Dont hate the player, hate the game
  • Reply 122 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    How can Hulu use HTML5 and protect the content?



    One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.



    Here is more detailed info from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/li...MediaGuide.pdf (PDF)





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post


    I found this thread very interesting, since the people who were supporting FLash in previous discussion threads have not shown their 'faces' and keeping very quite.



    I think most posters here support Flash, just not Flash as the ideal for mobile devices or video streaming. It still does things that Canvas won't be able to do for a very long time, if ever, with the same ease of development.
  • Reply 123 of 181
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.



    "14. Does the Apple implementation of HTTP Live Streaming support DRM?

    No. However, media can be encrypted and key access can be limited using HTTPS authentication."



    This method doesn't answer my question, when you enter your credentials you're accesing and unencripted content and you can save it.
  • Reply 124 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    "14. Does the Apple implementation of HTTP Live Streaming support DRM?

    No. However, media can be encrypted and key access can be limited using HTTPS authentication."



    This method doesn't answer my question, when you enter your credentials you're accesing and unencripted content and you can save it.



    How can you quote the FAQ that specifically say it can be encrypted and authenticated but then state that it's "unencripted content"?



    This is for an open standard, so what DRM scheme would they use? How would they maintain it? Why would they want DRM at all when it's only being stored in RAM? Again, files can be encrypted and/or authenticated, if the sender so desires.
  • Reply 125 of 181
    On Safari, you can install "ClicktoFlash".



    On Firefox, use "Flashblock".



    After installing these utilities, my computer runs much more smoothly. I no longer hear my CPU fan whirring up for no particular reason. And I no longer experience random browser crashes. When I need to view a flash video, I have the choice of clicking on the Flash frame to start the Flash video. Also, YouTube is testing an HTML5 system so you can play videos without Flash, though it doesn't yet support fullscreen viewing.



    Flash is an inefficient and buggy abomination of the web. If enough of us band together to block it, we can relegate it to the trash bin of history, along with RealPlayer/Realmedia. Once companies start to realize that their advertisements written in Flash are being blocked, they will switch to HTML5.
  • Reply 126 of 181
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    How can you quote the FAQ that specifically say it can be encrypted and authenticated but then state that it's "unencripted content"?



    Ejem, I've said "once you have entered your credentials you have an unencripted stream"



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    This is for an open standard, so what DRM scheme would they use? How would they maintain it? Why would they want DRM at all when it's only being stored in RAM? Again, files can be encrypted and/or authenticated, if the sender so desires.



    Tell this to Hulu, Disney et al and why they're using Flash and not HTML5 video tag.
  • Reply 127 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.



    Here is more detailed info from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/li...MediaGuide.pdf (PDF)



    HTTP Live Streaming may support encryption and authentication, but that's not really what hulu needs. What hulu needs is DRM, and that's something HTTP Live Streaming as an open standard can't support for a fundamental reason. DRM is security through obscurity, and for it to work a proprietary, closed client is absolutely required in order to hide the decryption key from the user. In order for HTTP Live Streaming to openly support all clients, there's no way to implement DRM as the client will know where the decryption key is. So HTTP Live Streaming doesn't really offer much over RTP/RTSP. Using HTTP over TCP rather than UDP is nice for getting through firewalls, but there's significant overhead and extra bandwidth with this approach compared to using UDP.
  • Reply 128 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    Ejem, I've said "once you have entered your credentials you have an unencripted stream"



    Entering your credentials is the secure authentication. I have absolutely no idea why you think the encryption would automatically fall off when they specifically state "media can be encrypted", not "your login can be encrypted". These are two distinct actions that can be used together or separately to streaming media securely.



    Quote:

    Tell this to Hulu, Disney et al and why they're using Flash and not HTML5 video tag.



    Go to Disney's site using an iPhone, which supports these technologies. Disney made an iPhone optimized site a long time ago. Hulu is rumoured to be working on it and they'd be foolish not to with the smartphone market growing so rapidly and Flash still not being a good option for these slow devices, even after Flash 10.1 is finished.
  • Reply 129 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    How can you quote the FAQ that specifically say it can be encrypted and authenticated but then state that it's "unencripted content"?



    This is for an open standard, so what DRM scheme would they use? How would they maintain it? Why would they want DRM at all when it's only being stored in RAM? Again, files can be encrypted and/or authenticated, if the sender so desires.



    Who says the content is only going to be stored in RAM? If the stream is unencrypted or if I have the decryption key, I can do whatever I want with the stream, including saving it.
  • Reply 130 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Entering your credentials is the secure authentication. I have absolutely no idea why you think the encryption would automatically fall off when they specifically state "media can be encrypted", not "your login can be encrypted". These are two distinct actions that can be used together or separately to streaming media securely.



    You do realize that eventually, the encrypted stream has to be decrypted in order for you to, um, watch it, right? That's the difference between DRM and regular encryption. DRM tries to hide the decryption key and limit where the decrypted stream goes, in order to prevent you from accessing the decrypted stream directly. With an open standard, even if the stream is encrypted, the user can just grab the decryption key once authenticated and do whatever he/she wants with the stream.
  • Reply 131 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    Participating in an open standards body is supposed to be about advancing the standard not self-interest. I know that is had for a corporation but this is so blatant.



    If they don't like it, resign and fix Flash.



    What an open standards body is supposed to do and what actually happens in real life are two different thing. Open standards commonly get held up by competing corporate agendas. They usually work best when there is clear leadership. Take Open CL for example.



    On the other hand you have OpenGL where its behind since nobody can agree on anything or 802.11n where the board moved so slowly that devices were in widespread use years before the standard was ratified.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tsad23 View Post


    Flash is on life support and the lack of support in Windows mobile 7 is just another nail in the coffin for the bloated garbage that is flash.



    Remove the flash plugin and observe how many times you get a plugin dialog box. Flash may suck, but its very much alive and well. You don't notice how widespread it actually is and how many websites plain do not work at all until you don't have. Its far from ideal, but its the current reality of things.



    Quote:

    Actually, I am stunned that even msft was smart enough to get off of the sinking ship that is flash.



    http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/06/r...wc-launch-zun/



    Microsoft has its own proprietary flash competitor in silverlight.
  • Reply 132 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    You do realize that eventually, the encrypted stream has to be decrypted in order for you to, um, watch it, right? That's the difference between DRM and regular encryption. DRM tries to hide the decryption key and limit where the decrypted stream goes, in order to prevent you from accessing the decrypted stream directly. With an open standard, even if the stream is encrypted, the user can just grab the decryption key once authenticated and do whatever he/she wants with the stream.



    Do you realize that DRM has to be unlocked and the content sent unencrypted, too. Do you also realize that there is nothing stopping Hulu from making an app that allows for DRM to be appended to each file that is then unlocked for each user based on account credentials. I have absolutely no idea why people think Flash is a secure safe haven for content and anything Apple does is a travesty. The content owners will have control, just like they do now.
  • Reply 133 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Do you realize that DRM has to be unlocked and the content sent unencrypted, too. Do you also realize that there is nothing stopping Hulu from making an app that allows for DRM to be appended to each file that is then unlocked for each user based on account credentials. I have absolutely no idea why people think Flash is a secure safe haven for content and anything Apple does is a travesty. The content owners will have control, just like they do now.



    You don't know how DRM works. The only way you can have DRM is by having a closed source client to playback the media. The closed client is supposed to contain the decrypted content so the user can't access it in ways not specified by the content owner. The client has to be closed because it needs to hide its decryption mechanism from the user. Open standards just can't do this. In order to allow any client to use the platform they specify openly how to decrypt the stream, so anyone can just decrypt it and do anything with the decrypted media. This is why Flash can offer DRM and RTP/RTSP and HTTP Live Streaming can't. Flash allows content creators to use a closed client to playback the stream and limit the playback to within just that client by using a hidden decryption mechanism. Until someone cracks open the closed client's decryption mechanism, there's no way to get the decrypted stream out of the client.
  • Reply 134 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    You don't know how DRM works. The only way you can have DRM is by having a closed source client to playback the media. The closed client is supposed to contain the decrypted content so the user can't access it in ways not specified by the content owner. The client has to be closed because it needs to hide its decryption mechanism from the user. Open standards just can't do this. In order to allow any client to use the platform they specify openly how to decrypt the stream, so anyone can just decrypt it and do anything with the decrypted media. This is why Flash can offer DRM and RTP/RTSP and HTTP Live Streaming can't. Flash allows content creators to use a closed client to playback the stream and limit the playback to within just that client by using a hidden decryption mechanism. Until someone cracks open the closed client's decryption mechanism, there's no way to get the decrypted stream out of the client.



    What part of this is so hard to understand? HTTP Live Streaming allows for encryption and authentication. This is a lighter, more versatile option than Flash. It's already being used and it does absolutely nothing to prevent DRM from being used by any and all content providers that choose to use it.



    Whether you want to believe it or not, this is the beginning of the end for Flash as the de facto for streaming video.
  • Reply 135 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    What part of this is so hard to understand? HTTP Live Streaming allows for encryption and authentication. This is a lighter, more versatile option than Flash. It's already being used and it does absolutely nothing to prevent DRM from being used by any and all content providers that choose to use it.



    Whether you want to believe it or not, this is the beginning of the end for Flash as the de facto for streaming video.



    What's so hard to understand about You Can't Add DRM to HTTP Live Streaming? I mean, you could modify the protocol to only stream to a specified, closed-source client. But then it would no longer be HTTP Live Streaming. It would just be another proprietary protocol.
  • Reply 136 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    What's so hard to understand about You Can't Add DRM to HTTP Live Streaming? I mean, you could modify the protocol to only stream to a specified, closed-source client. But then it would no longer be HTTP Live Streaming. It would just be another proprietary protocol.



    Jesus Fucking Christ! As I stated earlier, adding DRM to an open standard is pointless. I never said you could add DRM to HTTP Live Streaming, I said the content could be sent with DRM and unlocked on the user's end. I even used Hulu making an app that would allow for this process in the exact same way I can use 128-bit AES encryption to buy iTunes Store content that is packaged and sent to me with DRM. Stop confusing the protocols and what they are designed to do!



    Flash for streaming has reached it's peak, it's all downhill from here on out.
  • Reply 137 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Jesus Fucking Christ! As I stated earlier, adding DRM to an open standard is pointless. I never said you could add DRM to HTTP Live Streaming, I said the content could be sent with DRM and unlocked on the user's end. I even used Hulu making an app that would allow for this process in the exact same way I can use 128-bit AES encryption to buy iTunes Store content that is packaged and sent to me with DRM. Stop confusing the protocols and what they are designed to do!



    Flash for streaming has reached it's peak, it's all downhill from here on out.



    This makes no sense either. If Hulu feels the need to keep using DRM and puts out a proprietary client for that purpose, why would they then support HTTP Live Streaming, which doesn't protect their content in the way they want to (I'm not saying I support the use of DRM, this is just to illustrate the point)? Logically, if they choose to keep using DRM with a proprietary client of their own, then they wouldn't at the same time allow that content to be accessed without DRM. But then why would they make the proprietary client? They could then just keep using Flash and achieve the same effect.
  • Reply 138 of 181
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    This makes no sense either. If Hulu feels the need to keep using DRM and puts out a proprietary client for that purpose, why would they then support HTTP Live Streaming, which doesn't protect their content in the way they want to (I'm not saying I support the use of DRM, this is just to illustrate the point)? Logically, if they choose to keep using DRM with a proprietary client of their own, then they wouldn't at the same time allow that content to be accessed without DRM. But then why would they make the proprietary client? They could then just keep using Flash and achieve the same effect.



    1) They likely aren't going to use an app specifically for DRM when there are web-based options available to them.



    2) Read up on HTTP Live Streaming. It's designed to be light and versatile, which Flash is not.



    3) This is the future so hating on it for besting Flash isn't going to do you any good.
  • Reply 139 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) They likely aren't going to use an app specifically for DRM when there are web-based options available to them.



    2) Read up on HTTP Live Streaming. It's designed to be light and versatile, which Flash is not.



    3) This is the future so hating on it for besting Flash isn't going to do you any good.



    Hating it? Quite to the contrary I would like to see this happen. I'm merely disputing your claim that HTTP Live Streaming offers the kind of content protection that Hulu currently gets with Flash. Of course I would prefer that Hulu doesn't use that kind of DRM at all. But I'm just arguing the facts here: HTTP Live Streaming doesn't support DRM and Hulu won't use it if they want to keep using DRM. I'm aware of what HTTP Live Streaming does. I'm not a big fan, I would rather see RTP/RTSP being used because streaming stuff over HTTP/TCP is silly. But I must admit that practically, using HTTP does have the benefits of bypassing stupid firewall rules in place.
  • Reply 140 of 181
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post


    Forget about us web designers, what about our clients who spent thousands on all Flash sites cause we told them it was the shit. Now it is shit.



    Ed



    so true. but they will live; they bought so much other useless crap from us, like seo.



    anyhow, this thread is an amazing read for the stupidity of most apple ass kissing fanboys around. like adobe = flash; or open standards blah-blah whatever... meanwhile they support the company that has the most closed platform (app store) that will be extended to every software on the OSX and apple computers sooner or later. now that will be be open heaven.
Sign In or Register to comment.