Obviously he's written an article on how to get to Hulu content. Then updated the title to say it doesn't work anymore, with a couple of sentences apologising but then leaving the rest of the article intact. It kind of reads like it's possible.
The comments below tell a bit more - basically Hulu keeps blocking the site, and users keep successfully circumventing it until it's blocked again.
You are wrong on every count. HTML5 isn't going to support a particular video codec. How or why you got this idea that it should or would is beyond me.
Safari, Chrome, the iPhone, iPad, Android all support H.264 video along with others. ARM, Intel, AMD, ATI and Nvidia are all supporting H.264 in HW. MS, Apple and Google are all supporting H.264 in their browsers and OSes. Firefox and Opera with their browsers can't stand up to that.
H.264 is HW accelerated, unlike VP8 and Theora. It's the best option for high quality with a low cost to local resources.
If you think not being free means it's not open then you need to look up these definitions.
Google may be able to push VP8 as an H.264 competitor, but it years away from being a true contender.
WHATWG wants to insure that there is at least one video codec that will be supported by all browsers. The three desirable quality of this codec is that is should be efficient, support hardware acceleration like you said, but most importantly be royalty free. This simply isn't possible for H.264. HTML 5 is an open standard and should not be restricted by licensing. This is what WHATWG has said they want to avoid.
Intel has also said it is working on hardware acceleration for VP8. VP8 can allow for hardware acceleration later. H.264 will always be restricted by licensing. Like I said if Apple was really serious about supporting open standards they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. As it stands right now, it looks like they have no interest in open standards, but want to preserve H.264's dominance.
For HTML 5 video to become popular, it needs a format that all browsers support. Right now it seems like its Microsoft and Apple are supporting H.264, and Google, Mozilla, and Opera supporting VP8 in future releases. Mozilla Firefox seems committed to not support H.264.
They don't actually have to use HTML5, for the iPad they only have to use an H.264 video without a Flash wrapper. Which most video streaming uses anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by manfrommars
How painful could it be to convert videos to HTML5?
They don't have to use DRM to stream to the iPad. There is no way to save with video stream on the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
If I'm not mistaken, HTML5 doesn't support DRM which is why the CBS and ABC TV show "wrappers" for the iPad are an App and not an actual webpage you can go to.
Steve Jobs doesn't control HTML5 or H.264 either. But that is what he prefers web developers to use.
Apple is part of a group called MPEG-LA, which charges royalties for use of the H.264 video codec. They profit from the use of H.264, along with other companies like Microsoft.
[blah blah blah] For HTML 5 video to become popular, it needs a format that all browsers support. Right now it seems like its Microsoft and Apple are supporting H.264, and Google, Mozilla, and Opera supporting VP8 in future releases. Mozilla Firefox seems committed to not support H.264.
1) Google is supporting H.264 heavily as well as all the other big players you fail to mention from HW to OS to browsers.
2) HTML5 is already widely popular and growing.
3) HTML5 is open and free and can will be supported by all browsers. It's codec independent so your assertion that HTML5 needs to tell the world that it should only support specific codecs is absurd.
Big mistake. Flash is still a CPU hog, even with hardware acceleration (am running flash 10.1 geforce 8400GS and still get like 70% processor load). h.264 without flash wrapper uses only 37%.
HTML 5 is the future, and if these companies don't invest now, they will pay a lot more in the future.
1) Google is supporting H.264 heavily as well as all the other big players you fail to mention from HW to OS to browsers.
2) HTML5 is already widely popular and growing.
3) HTML5 is open and free and can will be supported by all browsers. It's codec independent so your assertion that HTML5 needs to tell the world that it should only support specific codecs is absurd.
HTML 5 wants to specify a codec that all browsers will support. The codec confusion right now is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. H.264 cannot be this codec as its not royalty free. That doesn't mean browsers can't use H.264 and other codecs too. But right now Mozilla refuses to support H.264 out of principle you can read about it here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
My point is that the only reason companies aren't pushing HTML 5 content is because half the browsers support one codec, while half the internet supports another. Having once codec supported by all browsers will increase HTML 5's adobtion. An open source codec like VP8 or OGG makes sense for an open standard.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. Google is also shifting from supporting H.264 to VP8.
They don't have to use DRM to stream to the iPad. There is no way to save with video stream on the iPad.
That's the point I was making. They don't need to use DRM because there's no way to save the video content on the iPad when using a "wrapper" -- in this case, a specific ABC or CBS app. If they made it an HTML5 webpage, it would be accessible not only on the iPad, but also on desktops/notebooks where the original video content could be easily ripped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You can see NBC content on the iPhone from NBC's website. They are perfectly capable of delivering H.264 without Flash.
You can only watch extremely low resolution clips of shows -- stuff they don't give a crap about with regards to DRM -- you don't have access to high def full episodes or movies for that matter.
Apple's negotiations with certain big media firms to support modern, iPad-compatible web standards for video distribution have reportedly run into resistance due to the expense and effort involved in converting their vast multimedia libraries from Adobe's Flash.
HTML 5 wants to specify a codec that all browsers will support. The codec confusion right now is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. H.264 cannot be this codec as its not royalty free. That doesn't mean browsers can't use H.264. But right now Mozilla refuses to support H.264 out of principle you can read about it here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
My point is that the only reason companies aren't pushing HTML 5 content is because half the browsers support one codec, while half the internet supports another. Having once codec supported by all browsers will increase HTML 5's adobtion. An open source codec like VP8 or OGG makes sense for an open standard.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption.
1) Give us a link stating MPEG-LA stating that they want to specify what codecs are allowed and which ones aren't. Just a single link.
2) Companies are using HTML5 and they are using H.264. Even Adobe supports H.264 in Flash.
3) Your comment about "HTML5 content" makes no sense. HTML5 is not the content. No, having all browsers support a codec will not increase HTML5 support. These are separate issues.
4) VP8 and Theora have nothing on H.264 in terms of quality and adoption.
5) Apple never dropped Flash, it's shipped with every Mac and the iPhone OS never came with Flash because Adobe has never had a mobile version of Flash to ship.
6) H.264 is NOT the video codec for HTML5. It's the best video codec for the web, right now and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future as Theora is shit and VP8 is years from even being a viable option.
7) You have the biggest companies in the world supporting H.264, including Google and Adobe, yet you think that Mozilla and Opera will keep H.264 from being adopted? Good luck with that theory.
8) You think Apple is the sole user and proprietor of H.264 and HTML5 yet it's part been apart of every modern smartphone, is part of every modern web browser and is growing very day. You can keep ignoring the facts. I hope you learn one day but you keep referring to a container as a codec so I don't think that is likely.
WHATWG wants to insure that there is at least one video codec that will be supported by all browsers. The three desirable quality of this codec is that is should be efficient, support hardware acceleration like you said, but most importantly be royalty free.
From what I've read, the VP8 codec has many of the same patent encumbrances as h.264. So it may not end up being royalty free.
Comments
This is why I don't watch NBC anymore! This just enforces my conviction that that company is a dinosaur and will die slowly on the vine.
Man... but no Battlestar/Caprica? No Stargate?
:-/
Keep on scratching your head, buddy. The headline on that link was: UPDATE: HULU IS NOW PREVENTING ANDROID DEVICES FROM ACCESSING CONTENT
Read the article. Duh.
Read the article. Duh.
I bit. It's not very clear is it.
Obviously he's written an article on how to get to Hulu content. Then updated the title to say it doesn't work anymore, with a couple of sentences apologising but then leaving the rest of the article intact. It kind of reads like it's possible.
The comments below tell a bit more - basically Hulu keeps blocking the site, and users keep successfully circumventing it until it's blocked again.
Hope that's clear
Man... but no Battlestar/Caprica? No Stargate?
:-/
Nope. This modern day rewrite of old media is sicking! Can't these media writers come up with original ideas?
You are wrong on every count. HTML5 isn't going to support a particular video codec. How or why you got this idea that it should or would is beyond me.
Safari, Chrome, the iPhone, iPad, Android all support H.264 video along with others. ARM, Intel, AMD, ATI and Nvidia are all supporting H.264 in HW. MS, Apple and Google are all supporting H.264 in their browsers and OSes. Firefox and Opera with their browsers can't stand up to that.
H.264 is HW accelerated, unlike VP8 and Theora. It's the best option for high quality with a low cost to local resources.
If you think not being free means it's not open then you need to look up these definitions.
Google may be able to push VP8 as an H.264 competitor, but it years away from being a true contender.
WHATWG wants to insure that there is at least one video codec that will be supported by all browsers. The three desirable quality of this codec is that is should be efficient, support hardware acceleration like you said, but most importantly be royalty free. This simply isn't possible for H.264. HTML 5 is an open standard and should not be restricted by licensing. This is what WHATWG has said they want to avoid.
Intel has also said it is working on hardware acceleration for VP8. VP8 can allow for hardware acceleration later. H.264 will always be restricted by licensing. Like I said if Apple was really serious about supporting open standards they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. As it stands right now, it looks like they have no interest in open standards, but want to preserve H.264's dominance.
For HTML 5 video to become popular, it needs a format that all browsers support. Right now it seems like its Microsoft and Apple are supporting H.264, and Google, Mozilla, and Opera supporting VP8 in future releases. Mozilla Firefox seems committed to not support H.264.
How painful could it be to convert videos to HTML5?
Just curious. What format is/are used in the existing iTunes database of movies, tv programs and other videos?
H.264 in a Quicktime wrapper.
It does cost a lot of money, and many new programmer/developers with the correct expertise and experience to hire.
The cost is negligible for Time Warner and NBC/Universal
If I'm not mistaken, HTML5 doesn't support DRM which is why the CBS and ABC TV show "wrappers" for the iPad are an App and not an actual webpage you can go to.
Or maybe I'm wrong here?
You can watch NBC content with a Nexus One running Android 2.2 on Hulu. Same goes for any Android 2.2 device.
Steve Jobs hates Flash because he knows that he doesn't have control over it.
Why should anyone decide to follow Steve's lead when the whole point of his silly argument is that he wants to dominate his users and developers?
I work for Time Warner Cable, the company is extremely dinosaur like, the way they do business, its a wonder how they even survive sometimes.
Steve Jobs doesn't control HTML5 or H.264 either. But that is what he prefers web developers to use.
Apple is part of a group called MPEG-LA, which charges royalties for use of the H.264 video codec. They profit from the use of H.264, along with other companies like Microsoft.
[blah blah blah] For HTML 5 video to become popular, it needs a format that all browsers support. Right now it seems like its Microsoft and Apple are supporting H.264, and Google, Mozilla, and Opera supporting VP8 in future releases. Mozilla Firefox seems committed to not support H.264.
1) Google is supporting H.264 heavily as well as all the other big players you fail to mention from HW to OS to browsers.
2) HTML5 is already widely popular and growing.
3) HTML5 is open and free and can will be supported by all browsers. It's codec independent so your assertion that HTML5 needs to tell the world that it should only support specific codecs is absurd.
HTML 5 is the future, and if these companies don't invest now, they will pay a lot more in the future.
1) Google is supporting H.264 heavily as well as all the other big players you fail to mention from HW to OS to browsers.
2) HTML5 is already widely popular and growing.
3) HTML5 is open and free and can will be supported by all browsers. It's codec independent so your assertion that HTML5 needs to tell the world that it should only support specific codecs is absurd.
HTML 5 wants to specify a codec that all browsers will support. The codec confusion right now is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. H.264 cannot be this codec as its not royalty free. That doesn't mean browsers can't use H.264 and other codecs too. But right now Mozilla refuses to support H.264 out of principle you can read about it here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
My point is that the only reason companies aren't pushing HTML 5 content is because half the browsers support one codec, while half the internet supports another. Having once codec supported by all browsers will increase HTML 5's adobtion. An open source codec like VP8 or OGG makes sense for an open standard.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. Google is also shifting from supporting H.264 to VP8.
They don't have to use DRM to stream to the iPad. There is no way to save with video stream on the iPad.
That's the point I was making. They don't need to use DRM because there's no way to save the video content on the iPad when using a "wrapper" -- in this case, a specific ABC or CBS app. If they made it an HTML5 webpage, it would be accessible not only on the iPad, but also on desktops/notebooks where the original video content could be easily ripped.
You can see NBC content on the iPhone from NBC's website. They are perfectly capable of delivering H.264 without Flash.
You can only watch extremely low resolution clips of shows -- stuff they don't give a crap about with regards to DRM -- you don't have access to high def full episodes or movies for that matter.
Apple's negotiations with certain big media firms to support modern, iPad-compatible web standards for video distribution have reportedly run into resistance due to the expense and effort involved in converting their vast multimedia libraries from Adobe's Flash.
Of course .... dinosaurs hate to change.
HTML 5 wants to specify a codec that all browsers will support. The codec confusion right now is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. H.264 cannot be this codec as its not royalty free. That doesn't mean browsers can't use H.264. But right now Mozilla refuses to support H.264 out of principle you can read about it here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
My point is that the only reason companies aren't pushing HTML 5 content is because half the browsers support one codec, while half the internet supports another. Having once codec supported by all browsers will increase HTML 5's adobtion. An open source codec like VP8 or OGG makes sense for an open standard.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption.
1) Give us a link stating MPEG-LA stating that they want to specify what codecs are allowed and which ones aren't. Just a single link.
2) Companies are using HTML5 and they are using H.264. Even Adobe supports H.264 in Flash.
3) Your comment about "HTML5 content" makes no sense. HTML5 is not the content. No, having all browsers support a codec will not increase HTML5 support. These are separate issues.
4) VP8 and Theora have nothing on H.264 in terms of quality and adoption.
5) Apple never dropped Flash, it's shipped with every Mac and the iPhone OS never came with Flash because Adobe has never had a mobile version of Flash to ship.
6) H.264 is NOT the video codec for HTML5. It's the best video codec for the web, right now and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future as Theora is shit and VP8 is years from even being a viable option.
7) You have the biggest companies in the world supporting H.264, including Google and Adobe, yet you think that Mozilla and Opera will keep H.264 from being adopted?
8) You think Apple is the sole user and proprietor of H.264 and HTML5 yet it's part been apart of every modern smartphone, is part of every modern web browser and is growing very day. You can keep ignoring the facts. I hope you learn one day but you keep referring to a container as a codec so I don't think that is likely.
WHATWG wants to insure that there is at least one video codec that will be supported by all browsers. The three desirable quality of this codec is that is should be efficient, support hardware acceleration like you said, but most importantly be royalty free.
From what I've read, the VP8 codec has many of the same patent encumbrances as h.264. So it may not end up being royalty free.