I wish I had time to show up at the rally with some MLK Jr quotes on signs...I think 'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.' would be perfect.
If you don't have time to do that, perhaps you maybe might have time to educate yourself as to how much we actually spend on defense vs. social uplift?
For one -- we spend more on Social Security alone than we do on the entire Department of Defense -- not counting other social uplift programs such as welfare, foreign aid, national parks, environmental services, or whatever.
I guess I'm not sure I understand what you're railing against. Which countries in particular are you saying are approaching spiritual death?
You sound angry and ignorant.
Nothing is impossible.
The bottom line is that the video tag is not yet mature enough to imitate (much less exceed) the current user experience provided through Flash, so YouTube is not planning on moving, because to do so would be to provide an inferior user experience to their customers.
Given how several other companies have been weighing in on this issue (Scribd and Apple being to notable examples), I appreciated hearing YouTube's take on it.
According to the article, AJAX overlays don't work properly / consistently in full-screen, which many people like to use.
Sorry for being unclear. "Links" in the sense of linkable hot-spots that creators of YouTube content can add to their videos to provide contextual hotlinks to other videos, websites, etc. Sortof like "super captions / tags". I was assuming you'd seen these on YouTube videos lately -- I think they added this feature some time last year or so -- at least that's when I noticed it starting to show up.
So when I said "captions", I didn't mean "closed captioning" (that was covered more by "subtitles"), so much as these dynamic captions that can be added by the authors after the video is uploaded.
"I'm not aware enough of any problem a flash container for video provides for translations. Really? Translations of what?"
(sidenote: I didn't say that Flash containers provided problems for translations -- not sure how you got that?)
What I mean by "translations" is either alternate audio tracks, or multiple subtitling options.
If one can (as you say) include these alternate audio or captioning tracks in the video file itself, it certainly presents an inferior solution to Flash, where such content can both be added after-the-fact, and displayed in full-screen.
Re: giving a skewed perspective, I'm happy to let the reader decide if you were conveniently neglecting to mention these extra features that YouTube provides to content creators that are hurt (in addition to ads).
Besides, you act like ads are a bad thing? TANSSAAFL, and I'm not sure I'm ready to pay money to subscribe to YouTube -- I think I'd prefer the ads. Minor note: when someone has music playing in the background of their YouTube video, I kindof like knowing the author and the title of the song being provided for me by YouTube -- that's a nice and unobtrusive popup that I appreciate, and is a heckuva lot more convenient than digging through the comments trying to find someone who happened to know what it was.
I guess all I'm saying is that your original post made it sound like all we had to lose by YouTube moving to the <video> tag was ads, ads, and more ads. While that's partly true, I think it's also important to remember that YouTube has a very good user experience, and a lot of the little niceties (such as the small handful that I mentioned) would also be lost -- in addition to the ads that support the site.
Now you're repeating yourself, and I point you back to u17's comment. The question of Flash plugins is a totally separate problem decoupled from H264. Free software implementations of the <video> tag will not be able to handle H264 either.
You're confusing the issue by mixing two separate problems.
Funny that you conveniently forgot to mention subtitles, translations, captions, and links.
Nono, don't change it. Your argument sounds better when you spin and skew. You report, we decide.
I read Steve Fulton's article that you linked. The gist is that nobody has yet written support libraries for Canvas-based game development.
On top of the fact that there aren't support libraries, it's also that the core API doesn't support basic functionality needed by game developers (such as playing two copies of the same sound simultaneously -- I.E. gunshots or explosions).
My cousin. He and others in his position have far more time than money, which is why they stick to Free or otherwise free tools. Imagine a high school student on summer break whose school isn't on the list of schools that get a discount on Flash CS5. These people are likely to be the people who write the support libraries that Canvas currently lacks.
Then he might be one of the people who is interested in the free and open-source compiler that Adobe released several years back. FlashDevelop is one of the best free tools for doing Flash development, though there are many many others.
I developed several games in Flash before I ever paid a single dime to Adobe -- using only free and open-source tools.
The guys over at 8BitRocket posted an evaluation of some of what it takes to write an equivalent game in AS3 and HTML5. You may find it informative.
Staunch anti-Flash posters will sing the praises of HTML5 for games.
I would guess that they haven't actually tried to program in both of them.
If you can find an actual game developer who prefers HTML5 over Flash (based on their development experiences), then by all means please post a link. While they might exist, I've not yet met one, and I see far more who have tried HTML5... but ultimately stuck with Flash.
This is not just about the H.264 decoder.
Yes, thanks, I'm aware. Darth asked why noone was addressing the hardware acceleration issue. I addressed it. Read the context -- I never said it was the only reason Flash sucks.
Apple says that Adobe is dog-lazy. All I'm saying is that Apple is dog-lazy too, and Steve's letter painted an inaccurate picture by only telling half of the story.
Hardware-accelerate h.264 wasn't and isn't the reason Flash sucks.
Darth Snowshoe said "what about the HW vs SW argument?" I answered his question, and never extended my reply to claim that hardware acceleration was the sole reason why Flash sucks. I merely said that this letter from Steve was less than up front about the reasons why nobody had hardware accelerated video before April of this year. While Adobe may be "lazy" in their own rights, Apple is "lazy" too. If Apple is getting blamed for Flash's crashes, then Adobe is getting blamed for Apple's lack of hardware acceleration. Tit for tat and all that, but Apple only told one side of this story in Steve's "letter". Apple has been dragging their feet on this for much of the last decade, and I think it's unfair for Adobe to have to take all the fall on this.
Silverlight plays h.264 video without this magical cure-all API...
It's hardly a magical cure-all. Both of my Macbook Pros are dual-core with 2 gigs of RAM running the latest Apple OS/X, but neither of them are supported by Apple's new hardware acceleration API because they're 2 years old, and not supported by Apple's API. That gives me warm fuzzies, lemme' tell ya'.
...at a fraction of the CPU usage of Flash player. In fact, Silverlight still bests the 10.1 beta (Flash uses the newly publicized API; Silverlight does not).
Citations please -- I'm not finding these benchmarks, and your statement smacks strongly of hyperbole.
Besides, Silverlight 4 does use hardware acceleration, and does use this new API, so I'm not sure where you're getting your (mis)information. You're obviously out of date, and I'm starting to distrust the authority of your words.
Two things. First, that blog entry doesn't have anything to do with the new h.264 API access.
Darth Snowshoe's post did, which is what I replied to. Did you read the quote block at the beginning of my post? It's called context.
Second, notice what's buried in that blog? That it took until 10.1 to rewrite Flash in Cocoa (thus opening up to them a whole world of APIs that Flash could have been using)--and it still falls back to Carbon in most usage scenarios.
Thanks -- Adobe is no saint. The main point of my post is that Apple needs its own fair share of the blame as to why there isn't good hardware accelerated video in Flash or Silverlight. Apple has been very lazy, and they're trying to paint themselves as free, open, fair-minded, and never lazy -- when the actual situation is a lot muddier than that. This is slanted Apple whitewashing propaganda, and as a Mac user, I find it distasteful. Don't get me wrong -- my wife and I have only owned Macs for several years now -- we love the operating system and the hardware. But intellectual integrity demands that I cannot accept Steve's letter as gospel truth -- there is quite a bit he has left out, and it's only half the picture.
You say h.264 acceleration was to blame.
No. If you read my post, you would see that I was addressing Darth's accusation that everyone was failing to address Flash's lack of hardware acceleration. I was merely trying to set the record straight that -- up until this month -- nobody did because there was no operating system support. That was the point of my post. You need to read the context of posts that you're replying to before you accuse them of saying things that they aren't.
How was Microsoft able to deliver a better product without whining? Why is Silverlight's performance, lacking any hardware acceleration, still better than the hardware-accelerated Flash beta?
Silverlight 4 does use hardware acceleration on OS/X. Regarding your accusation -- I'm not saying Silverlight's software renderer isn't better than Adobe's -- it very well may be. But I've not yet found any data to back up your claim that Silverlight's software renderer is superior to the Apple beta. So I'll end this post by reiterating my earlier .
Because I would like to have a more open web experience, that lets me view web content at my discretion.
I want an operating system that does what I tell it to do -- not a nanny that slaps me on the hand and refuses to do what I say because they somehow know better than me.
//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH