Now Chrome disables Quicktime plugin by default(code.google.com)
code.google.com
Now Chrome disables Quicktime plugin by default
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78768
140 comments
QT on Windows is horrible, but disabling it outright and requiring users to start Chrome with a custom commandline, without warning and after an automatic (and hidden) update? Let's just say it did not go down well at work, where we use Chrome and QT for inhouse enterprise applications. I understand the need to push the envelope on web standards and that needs to happen at a rapid pace, but at least give us enterprise developers a chance to override it. Enterprises do not develop software at breakneck speed Google, it's just not worth it.
It handles QuickTime and Java the same way it handles Popups. It puts a yellow bar at the top asking for permission to "Run this time" or "Always run on this site".
Hit the "Always run on this site" button on Apple.com and your internal sites.
It's now "ask for permission to run" instead of "always run". It's in the same boat as intranet sites needing popup permissions.
Hit the "Always run on this site" button on Apple.com and your internal sites.
It's now "ask for permission to run" instead of "always run". It's in the same boat as intranet sites needing popup permissions.
"Enterprises do not develop software at breakneck speed Google, it's just not worth it."
so why are you running the dev channel? :)
so why are you running the dev channel? :)
Chrome clearly isn't made for the enterprise. IE has historically been a poor browser, but it gives sys admins quite a bit of control over how and when updates are applied.
Official Google Enterprise Blog: "Chrome is Ready For Business"
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/12/chrome-is-ready...
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/12/chrome-is-ready...
I think the myth isn't that Chrome and Firefox don't offer enough control, but that such control is actually necessary. I suspect it is possible to build enterprisey systems that are robust enough to handle automatic browser updates.
OT, but
> ... bazaar buffering behavior ...
should read "... bizarre buffering behavior ...". Bazaar is a word with a Persian etymology that refers to a market.
> ... bazaar buffering behavior ...
should read "... bizarre buffering behavior ...". Bazaar is a word with a Persian etymology that refers to a market.
Agreed. I think its something more than having an abysmal product like Quicktime. I like VLC a lot. But, I hate how its plugin takes over firefox if I allow it to. Most of these media player plugins for web browsers are extremely annoying.
It's OK because proprietary plugins like QuickTime are a threat to the open web, and should be eliminated according to Steve Jobs (who I always turn to for moral guidance on the use of open vs. proprietary systems): "... we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
He's definitely correct in this. Good thing Chrome also disables Flash by default.
Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git, Google has really hooked me up with the mad openness.
edit: Really, though, this is a bullshit argument that's been cooked up. These are two companies trying to preserve their ability to make money. That's it. The thing I admire about Apple, though, is that they're not making any bones about it. They go with what works better for them, and, as they see it, what works better for users. No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations.
I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists.
Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git, Google has really hooked me up with the mad openness.
edit: Really, though, this is a bullshit argument that's been cooked up. These are two companies trying to preserve their ability to make money. That's it. The thing I admire about Apple, though, is that they're not making any bones about it. They go with what works better for them, and, as they see it, what works better for users. No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations.
I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists.
I'll give you pre-edit, but Apple does plenty of phony altruism and silly holy wars cloaked to hide their true profit based intentions. How we all agree that every company works in their self interest and tries to spin it as best they can for the public's interest?
Or this will just quickly devolve into point scoring nit picking.
Or this will just quickly devolve into point scoring nit picking.
HN needs collapsable threads. I toyed with a greasemonkey script that would do this but the somewhat "super pragmatic" layout makes it less than simple.
Bookmarklet: https://github.com/niyazpk/Collapsible-comments-for-Hacker-N...
and Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjh...
(I've only tested the Chrome extension, but it's based on the bookmarklet so that one should work to.)
(I've only tested the Chrome extension, but it's based on the bookmarklet so that one should work to.)
Ahaaa, bookmarklet works great. Thanks!
just looked at the source. man that really is bad. I dunno why you would use tables when divs are actually the right paradigm for a layout like this.
I once saw pg comment that it was the simplest solution that worked. Granted, pg's primary role is not as a web developer, hence his simplest solution is not what mine would be.
But QuickTime doesn't work better for users. The technology is dated and does nothing that HTML5 doesn't do better. In fact, Flash is actually far better for consumers than QuickTime; at least it's updated regularly, unlike QT.
This cuts both ways. Why doesn't Apple discontinue and disable the QuickTime plugin, if they really have the users' interests at heart?
This cuts both ways. Why doesn't Apple discontinue and disable the QuickTime plugin, if they really have the users' interests at heart?
Actually, it's quite possible that much of what we think of as Quicktime will go away in OSX 10.7.
Apple has tried modernizing Quicktime with something called QTKit/Quicktime X. iOS did away with this altogether and instead uses something called AVFoundation. OSX 10.7 includes an OSX version of AVFoundation.
It's not 100% clear to me what the relationship between the two on OSX will be, but I'm guessing that Apple has given up on modernizing Quicktime and is just replacing it with AVFoundation.
This can't really come quickly enough. If Windows users are tired of Quicktime, well... it behaves a lot better on OSX if you're an end-user, but programming for Quicktime is a pain. In particular, programming codec plug-ins is horrible. The basic Quicktime architecture still deals with FSSpecs, memory handles, the old Component Manager, and API artifacts relating to the old code fragment manager from the pre-OSX days. Quicktime is probably the one big chunk of code in OSX that still dates from pre-OSX days and hasn't been re-implemented in terms of something more modern like Core Foundation.
Apple has tried modernizing Quicktime with something called QTKit/Quicktime X. iOS did away with this altogether and instead uses something called AVFoundation. OSX 10.7 includes an OSX version of AVFoundation.
It's not 100% clear to me what the relationship between the two on OSX will be, but I'm guessing that Apple has given up on modernizing Quicktime and is just replacing it with AVFoundation.
This can't really come quickly enough. If Windows users are tired of Quicktime, well... it behaves a lot better on OSX if you're an end-user, but programming for Quicktime is a pain. In particular, programming codec plug-ins is horrible. The basic Quicktime architecture still deals with FSSpecs, memory handles, the old Component Manager, and API artifacts relating to the old code fragment manager from the pre-OSX days. Quicktime is probably the one big chunk of code in OSX that still dates from pre-OSX days and hasn't been re-implemented in terms of something more modern like Core Foundation.
What does HTML5 have anything to do with it? Many times you get linked straight to a movie file and the browser is expected to either play the file or download it (based on mime-types).
If they are disabling the Quicktime plugin on OS X, then at least just download the movie file even if the mime type is "video/quicktime".
The error screen they are showing now is scary enough that most people will abort out of it.
If they are disabling the Quicktime plugin on OS X, then at least just download the movie file even if the mime type is "video/quicktime".
The error screen they are showing now is scary enough that most people will abort out of it.
And not to mention the annoying way the updater tries to sneak in Safari and other Apple software. http://i.imgur.com/oq0i2.png
It was far worse earlier http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05df...
Just as a thought exercise: Can't Apple be sued for monopoly abuse? They have a monopoly on portable music players, for which you need iTunes to load music on, and then they default to installing Safari trying to leverage their monopoly in music players to win over the browser market.
It was far worse earlier http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05df...
Just as a thought exercise: Can't Apple be sued for monopoly abuse? They have a monopoly on portable music players, for which you need iTunes to load music on, and then they default to installing Safari trying to leverage their monopoly in music players to win over the browser market.
I'm sorry, how do they have a monopoly on portable music players? They have a very popular player, of which they are the sole manufacturer, and require you to use their software.
The free market has plenty of alternatives, though not as good if you ask me, if you do not like their solution you are free to purchase another. There's nothing monopolistic about having a hugely successful product.
The free market has plenty of alternatives, though not as good if you ask me, if you do not like their solution you are free to purchase another. There's nothing monopolistic about having a hugely successful product.
I don't think "monopoly" requires 100% market share. Apple has over 75% market share, which may be enough to qualify.
You're allowed to have a monopoly, you're not allowed to abuse it. If Apple ordered mp3hardware stores to stop selling other brands or Apple would raise it prizes, that would be abuse.
(a) The GP of my comment asserted that automatically installing Safari when you install iTunes was monopoly abuse. I think they at least have a point.
(b) Apple has about 2/3 of the paid music download market and 3/4 of the MP3 player market. They block other MP3 players from talking to iTunes, and other desktop software from talking to the iPod. I think that's probably abuse: they're using iTunes's dominant market position to protect the iPod's dominant market position, and vice versa.
(b) Apple has about 2/3 of the paid music download market and 3/4 of the MP3 player market. They block other MP3 players from talking to iTunes, and other desktop software from talking to the iPod. I think that's probably abuse: they're using iTunes's dominant market position to protect the iPod's dominant market position, and vice versa.
Which is what Intel did to AMD.
If that's the only metric, then why was Microsoft censured for bundling IE with Windows?
They leveraged one monopoly to create another instead of trying to promote IE on its merits, and implemented IE with insider knowledge of how Windows works, and did various other things like coercing OEMs. Those are the things that got them in trouble, not simply having the OS monopoly.
That's technically not the reason why they were "censured", although what you describe was seen as part of abusing their monopoly.
Like the commenter above said, there is nothing illegal with being a monopoly.
Like the commenter above said, there is nothing illegal with being a monopoly.
Portable music players isn't such a meaningful category when you consider most mobile phones can also play music; plus just other music listening devices in general.
>There's nothing monopolistic about having a hugely successful product.
What is a monopoly then?
What is a monopoly then?
It may vary from nation to nation, but under US law the relevant act here is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which deals with single-firm anti-competitive behavior.
We'd have to wade through a lot of case-law here, but if you'll permit me the ability to speak without excessive sourcing (most of this can be found supported and sourced on Wiki)...
The courts have made a distinction between an innocent and a coercive monopoly. Where innocent monopolies, as you may argue but I disagree, are what Apple has in the music player space. These are not illegal. It would need to be shown that Apple has conspired in some way to grow and maintain their market position in a way to be detrimental to consumers and other producers.
Now on to whether it is a monopoly or not. This page can be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_versus_compet...
Right now another consumer electronics company could: a) produce a new unit with a high quality software, b) sell it at a competitive price point to Apple, c) create a product very similar to the iPod itself, d) there already exist many other competitors. To me these factors suggest Apple does not have a monopoly but a very successful product.
And I'd submit as noted above, even if you found Apple to have a monopoly, I do not believe it would qualify as coercive under US law.
As noted in this thread, market share is not so much the issue, as barrier to entry.
We'd have to wade through a lot of case-law here, but if you'll permit me the ability to speak without excessive sourcing (most of this can be found supported and sourced on Wiki)...
The courts have made a distinction between an innocent and a coercive monopoly. Where innocent monopolies, as you may argue but I disagree, are what Apple has in the music player space. These are not illegal. It would need to be shown that Apple has conspired in some way to grow and maintain their market position in a way to be detrimental to consumers and other producers.
Now on to whether it is a monopoly or not. This page can be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_versus_compet...
Right now another consumer electronics company could: a) produce a new unit with a high quality software, b) sell it at a competitive price point to Apple, c) create a product very similar to the iPod itself, d) there already exist many other competitors. To me these factors suggest Apple does not have a monopoly but a very successful product.
And I'd submit as noted above, even if you found Apple to have a monopoly, I do not believe it would qualify as coercive under US law.
As noted in this thread, market share is not so much the issue, as barrier to entry.
(note: I have no opinion on whether iPod is or isn't a monopoly)
A monopoly requires that a company uses it's position of dominance to put up barriers to entry for competition.
A monopoly requires that a company uses it's position of dominance to put up barriers to entry for competition.
I checked Apple Software Update on this computer and they are all unchecked by default.
I think Apple's anti-Flash position was justified using some pretty "sanctimonious proclamations", though, wasn't it?
I went back and read it.
My dictionary defines sanctimonious as "making a show of being morally superior to other people."
All I saw from Apple in that essay was boiled down as:
This shit works better than this other shit, and as a result, it is our preference. And we think it'll be better for users, too. We control all aspects of our products' user experience, so this position will be reflected there.
I'd like you to contrast that with
"If Google didn’t act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice. That’s a future we don’t want. [...] If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android. "
My dictionary defines sanctimonious as "making a show of being morally superior to other people."
All I saw from Apple in that essay was boiled down as:
This shit works better than this other shit, and as a result, it is our preference. And we think it'll be better for users, too. We control all aspects of our products' user experience, so this position will be reflected there.
I'd like you to contrast that with
"If Google didn’t act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice. That’s a future we don’t want. [...] If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android. "
If I boiled down Google's statement: If we didn't do shit, one company could run shit. We think that is bad and we believe that you agree.
And if I were to quote Steve directly: "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. [...] We cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms [...] Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications."
It cuts both ways.
And if I were to quote Steve directly: "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. [...] We cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms [...] Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications."
It cuts both ways.
I'm afraid, Kyle, it's not even remotely the same.
The paragraph you quoted is 100% self-interest, not morality. No loaded words making value judgments about others ("draconian").
Their concern is that they will lose control of their platform to a party that doesn't care about its future. Apple has already been down that road with Adobe on the Mac and they're making clear it sucks for their goals. Making the best apps the world has ever seen isn't idealism – it's a bunch of cash in Apple's pocket. This strikes me as pragmatic, not moralizing. They're worried for themselves, not for you or me, except inasmuch as we might be users who will cease giving them money if they ship crap.
That's just not the same as FUDding about "one man" and all this, I'm sorry.
The paragraph you quoted is 100% self-interest, not morality. No loaded words making value judgments about others ("draconian").
Their concern is that they will lose control of their platform to a party that doesn't care about its future. Apple has already been down that road with Adobe on the Mac and they're making clear it sucks for their goals. Making the best apps the world has ever seen isn't idealism – it's a bunch of cash in Apple's pocket. This strikes me as pragmatic, not moralizing. They're worried for themselves, not for you or me, except inasmuch as we might be users who will cease giving them money if they ship crap.
That's just not the same as FUDding about "one man" and all this, I'm sorry.
> Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git...
I guess you were being sarcastic, but did you know that the Honeycomb source was released by ASUS a few days ago? See:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releas...
I guess you were being sarcastic, but did you know that the Honeycomb source was released by ASUS a few days ago? See:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releas...
And most of that source was already available direct from Google git anyway.
But to be clear it's Asus fulfilling their GPL requirements for Linux, not the Google originated Android stuff.
But to be clear it's Asus fulfilling their GPL requirements for Linux, not the Google originated Android stuff.
That's just the kernel source, which has been available for quite a while. It's the userspace code that people are clamoring for.
> I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists.
You must love the startup scene then...
You must love the startup scene then...
No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations.
I'm really torn trying to figure out which parts of your post is sarcasm. Because if you're really claiming that Apple hasn't pursued almost every initiative with "sanctimonious proclamations", you must not be paying attention. Gruber echos the Apple talk points, and they all revolve around "just trying to do right by the customer" (instead of "just trying to ensure massive profit margins aided by complete control and industry domination).
I'm really torn trying to figure out which parts of your post is sarcasm. Because if you're really claiming that Apple hasn't pursued almost every initiative with "sanctimonious proclamations", you must not be paying attention. Gruber echos the Apple talk points, and they all revolve around "just trying to do right by the customer" (instead of "just trying to ensure massive profit margins aided by complete control and industry domination).
You suggest a dichotomy that doesn't exist.
Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company.
The problem is that many of Apple's transparent positions aren't held on their merit, but instead are shrouded behind layers of sanctimonious bullshit. See the anti-Flash screeds as an example of this. That you would claim that insult about Google, in this case, is quite laughable.
Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company.
The problem is that many of Apple's transparent positions aren't held on their merit, but instead are shrouded behind layers of sanctimonious bullshit. See the anti-Flash screeds as an example of this. That you would claim that insult about Google, in this case, is quite laughable.
Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
The difference is that Apple's customers are for the most part individual consumers, while Microsoft's are hardware OEMs and Google's are advertising partners. Thus, the interests of Apple's customers align much more with public interest than those of Microsoft or Google.
> Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company.
I wish I could agree with you. In fact, for many companies, the customer is the last consideration. Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition through ethically dubious tactics, definitely not creating value for users.
"Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
I wish I could agree with you. In fact, for many companies, the customer is the last consideration. Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition through ethically dubious tactics, definitely not creating value for users.
"Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
But MS would argue, as Apple does, that they did this in the interest of the customer. Frankly, some of the things they were accused of, such as bundling IE, were absurd. Sure MS should have been more open about the fact that it really wasn't necessary, but bundling a browser is a requirement for a modern OS -- even as of 1998.
In any case, these are all religious as this point, and me proving your God is wrong is something one can't easily win.
In any case, these are all religious as this point, and me proving your God is wrong is something one can't easily win.
Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition, definitely not creating value for users.
Microsoft and Apple both engage in identical behaviors. Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. Forcing IE while prohibiting competitive browser installations, for instance, simplified and created a cleaner, more user-accessible platform that would just work, blah blah blah. Same sort of nonsense you hear today.
That you would link to the anti-trust decree is bizarre. Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Do you think Apple's actions are so different, or is Apple simply not in control as much market as Microsoft (yet). Then again, they've already drawn anti-trust attention, so ten years from now some booster of the then-big-dog will point back at the DOJ-vs-Apple lawsuit as proof of....something.
Microsoft and Apple both engage in identical behaviors. Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. Forcing IE while prohibiting competitive browser installations, for instance, simplified and created a cleaner, more user-accessible platform that would just work, blah blah blah. Same sort of nonsense you hear today.
That you would link to the anti-trust decree is bizarre. Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Do you think Apple's actions are so different, or is Apple simply not in control as much market as Microsoft (yet). Then again, they've already drawn anti-trust attention, so ten years from now some booster of the then-big-dog will point back at the DOJ-vs-Apple lawsuit as proof of....something.
> Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that?
Kinda.
> Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities.
I think the big difference here is that Apple is actually right. Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy.
There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market of rich people with fancy phones versus 96% of the market of everyone who needed a computer to get anything useful done. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did.
Kinda.
> Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities.
I think the big difference here is that Apple is actually right. Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy.
There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market of rich people with fancy phones versus 96% of the market of everyone who needed a computer to get anything useful done. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did.
Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy.
Silverlight on mobile though has been pretty excellent. Curious if Apple would allow Silverlight on their platform? Probably not.
Silverlight on mobile though has been pretty excellent. Curious if Apple would allow Silverlight on their platform? Probably not.
>I think the big difference here is that Apple is actually right. Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy.
What about HTML5 and Apple's promises? It's been a while since Jobs wrote that and still Apple's HTML5 implementation is not up to par. http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/
On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin.
>There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market versus 96% of the market. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did
What about tablets where Apple is deemed to have 94% of the market?
What about HTML5 and Apple's promises? It's been a while since Jobs wrote that and still Apple's HTML5 implementation is not up to par. http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/
On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin.
>There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market versus 96% of the market. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did
What about tablets where Apple is deemed to have 94% of the market?
> On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin.
I think minds smarter than I have put this particular notion to bed.
> Apple can't turn on the ability to do executable, dynamically written to memory pages just for their library: they'd have to turn it on for the entire process, at which point you could also do crazy things like download native code and execute it, bypassing the entire concept of their "codesign" mechanism.
Says saurik, of Cydia fame, in that and other comments. It's a security concern for Apple, not necessarily a strategic one.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338
Apple controls the tablet market only because they invented it as it currently exists a year ago. That's not really a useful comparison to the 90's, as desktop computers as a category had existed for a couple of decades. Moreover, tablets aren't currently essential to doing work, so the true power Apple has over others is negligible.
I think minds smarter than I have put this particular notion to bed.
> Apple can't turn on the ability to do executable, dynamically written to memory pages just for their library: they'd have to turn it on for the entire process, at which point you could also do crazy things like download native code and execute it, bypassing the entire concept of their "codesign" mechanism.
Says saurik, of Cydia fame, in that and other comments. It's a security concern for Apple, not necessarily a strategic one.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338
Apple controls the tablet market only because they invented it as it currently exists a year ago. That's not really a useful comparison to the 90's, as desktop computers as a category had existed for a couple of decades. Moreover, tablets aren't currently essential to doing work, so the true power Apple has over others is negligible.
>It's a security concern for Apple, not necessarily a strategic one.
You want me to believe that the engineering might of Apple haven't figured out the security for apps to make use of the new JS engine without getting full privileges? I think it's just not a priority for Apple.
You want me to believe that the engineering might of Apple haven't figured out the security for apps to make use of the new JS engine without getting full privileges? I think it's just not a priority for Apple.
In addition to the comments re: Microsoft below, it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer. Their loyalties are thus divided, and hence the shilly-shallying around with sort of but not quite banning link farms.
it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer.
There aren't many exceptions to this. It is certainly true of Apple, where you are a consumer of their platform, and a conduit of their payment system, as much as you're a consumer of a specific product.
There's a reason Apple locks down their platform, and it isn't because they're looking out for your financial or competitive choice interests.
That you bought an iPhone is simply the first step, and that consumer-capture will be exploited for years. Apple wants to be your conduit of music and movies, applications, information and subscriptions, etc. They have no interest in selling you a device just to bid you adieu.
There aren't many exceptions to this. It is certainly true of Apple, where you are a consumer of their platform, and a conduit of their payment system, as much as you're a consumer of a specific product.
There's a reason Apple locks down their platform, and it isn't because they're looking out for your financial or competitive choice interests.
That you bought an iPhone is simply the first step, and that consumer-capture will be exploited for years. Apple wants to be your conduit of music and movies, applications, information and subscriptions, etc. They have no interest in selling you a device just to bid you adieu.
> Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
It's good to know you can just fall back on calling people fanboys if you don't agree with their opinions.
It's good to know you can just fall back on calling people fanboys if you don't agree with their opinions.
>Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
What's right for the consumer about the compulsory 30% cut of iOS subscriptions for things like Readability, Kindle and Netflix? The uniform 43% increase for ALL customers while lining Apple's pockets for contributing basically nothing (unlike apps where they atleast provide hosting).
Edit: I am sure Android is bad for Apple's customers, no wonder they don't want it to be seen. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp
What's right for the consumer about the compulsory 30% cut of iOS subscriptions for things like Readability, Kindle and Netflix? The uniform 43% increase for ALL customers while lining Apple's pockets for contributing basically nothing (unlike apps where they atleast provide hosting).
Edit: I am sure Android is bad for Apple's customers, no wonder they don't want it to be seen. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp
As a pro-Apple, so-so-Google kind of guy, I have no problems with disabling the QuickTime plugin by default, since it won't affect most users and quite a bit of malware exploits bugs in QuickTime (generally the QuickTime/Java interface). But Flash is worse in every respect, and Google isn't disabling Flash.
If you had to pick between QuickTime and Flash for playing H264 (given that Google has pulled native support for H264) I'd pick QuickTime since it doesn't allow the website designer to festoon the video with ads, links, stupid overlays, and random UI decisions, but better yet would be if Google supported H264 directly and fixed the ugly and buggy <video> tag support.
If you had to pick between QuickTime and Flash for playing H264 (given that Google has pulled native support for H264) I'd pick QuickTime since it doesn't allow the website designer to festoon the video with ads, links, stupid overlays, and random UI decisions, but better yet would be if Google supported H264 directly and fixed the ugly and buggy <video> tag support.
Quicktime just had horrible (breaking, crippling) support for Windows. Have things changed significantly in the last 2 years?
Yeah, not like the famously open Adobe Flash.
You mean this one?
http://techcrunch.com/2008/04/30/adobes-open-screen-project-...
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/f4v.html
http://techcrunch.com/2008/04/30/adobes-open-screen-project-...
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/f4v.html
Open Screen is a trojan horse to make Flash the standard development API for TV sets (leaving everyone dependent on Adobe's professional tools to create the content for these devices).
SWF and F4V container formats are indeed published freely, however the Flash runtime itself is still proprietary, and thus incompatible with an open web.
SWF and F4V container formats are indeed published freely, however the Flash runtime itself is still proprietary, and thus incompatible with an open web.
There's lots of non-Adobe tools for developing in Flash.
I use http://fdt.powerflasher.com/ now and before that http://flashdevelop.org/
I use http://fdt.powerflasher.com/ now and before that http://flashdevelop.org/
Good luck competing with a company that controls the underlying frameworks you're building your development environment for. There will never be a truly viable alternative to Flash Builder from Adobe as long as they control the runtime. Depending on third party IDEs for a proprietary API is shaky ground to build a business on.
Have you used the IDEs he mentioned? They are both quite good and definitely viable alternatives to Adobe's products.
I have not, but my concern would be becoming dependent on a third party Flash development tool for my workflow, and then being left behind as Adobe adds new features to the runtime unsupported by the IDE I'm using, or worse, that they find a way to break content created with the competing IDE. I don't think such a possibility would be all that unexpected, given Adobe's competitive nature and refusal to cede control of the runtime.
The Flex SDK which the 3rd party IDEs and Adobe's own Flash Builder* IDE use is actually open source too.
* formerly Flex Builder, renamed to avoid confusion with the SDK
* formerly Flex Builder, renamed to avoid confusion with the SDK
Disagree. FDT is in fact a much better solution than Flash CS and Flex Builder.
[deleted]
I like the Open Screen project and I agree that SWF is a minimally open standard, but to say that Flash is open, enough to code a competitive Flash player, is misleading.
There's enough behavior that a practical Flash player needs to implement that isn't in the Open Screen spec (error handling in particular) that creating your own Flash player for general content on the web produced by Adobe Flash, and not just carefully-vetted SWF's, is hard.
But at least Adobe stopped threatening legal action against anyone who implemented their own Flash player.
Edit: Open Page? Open Screen. Oops...
There's enough behavior that a practical Flash player needs to implement that isn't in the Open Screen spec (error handling in particular) that creating your own Flash player for general content on the web produced by Adobe Flash, and not just carefully-vetted SWF's, is hard.
But at least Adobe stopped threatening legal action against anyone who implemented their own Flash player.
Edit: Open Page? Open Screen. Oops...
bogomips(1)
(Bit of context: the Quicktime plugin now has to be enabled on every site you want to use it with; there's no global way around it. Comes in wake of Google's dumping of h.264, which Quicktime handles natively).
The ratio between legitimate uses of the quicktime plugin that aren't otherwise covered by chrome, and attempts to exploit the cavalcade of bugs that are regularly developed for it must be quite low indeed. I have no problem believing this is due to security concerns, and I applaud them for making the move. Blindly running plugins that have a history like QT is very poor behavior. Hopefully they will be flagging oracle java for similar treatment soon.
To be clear, you simply have to manually enable QT for a domain you want it to run. All plugins should be set to run this way - "do you trust this domain?". It would cut down on 90% of drive by exploitations where the user never even sees the malicious iframe and has no idea that they visited the domain hosting the exploit code.
To be clear, you simply have to manually enable QT for a domain you want it to run. All plugins should be set to run this way - "do you trust this domain?". It would cut down on 90% of drive by exploitations where the user never even sees the malicious iframe and has no idea that they visited the domain hosting the exploit code.
Wait, is this true for OS X as well? I could understand this for Windows, but Quicktime on OS X is great (especially with Perian...)
Hopefully this isn't true for the OS X version of Chrome. Otherwise, I'll be switching back to Safari...
Hopefully this isn't true for the OS X version of Chrome. Otherwise, I'll be switching back to Safari...
It is true for OS X, in the latest dev builds, at least.
(I first got bugged by it clicking on the Pow video link at http://pow.cx/ -- when a Mac browser won't play a straight .mov file for political reasons it could be time to change.)
(I first got bugged by it clicking on the Pow video link at http://pow.cx/ -- when a Mac browser won't play a straight .mov file for political reasons it could be time to change.)
Surely you're not implying that Google is pushing out Quicktime because they don't want h264 support provided by 3rd parties.
That's ridiculous, especially since all versions of Chrome shipping still have h264 support. That would be a bit horse before the carriage.
That's ridiculous, especially since all versions of Chrome shipping still have h264 support. That would be a bit horse before the carriage.
> That would be a bit horse before the carriage.
So, the way it's supposed to be?
So, the way it's supposed to be?
What all versions of Chrome? Chrome auto-updates so the vast majority if not all of them are on the latest version (or newer beta versions) which is Chrome 10. And Chrome 10 doesn't have h.264 support built-in anymore.
This pretty much means I am going to have to delete Chrome from all the machines and either use IE / Safari, put Safari on the Windows boxes, or go with Firefox (and hope they don't pull the same stunt). H.264 is used for teaching material and I would like to use one browser on both platforms. No, I will not login to every new account and setup specific sites to set as "safe".
[deleted]
that isn't correct. try out e.g.
http://msnvidweb.vo.msecnd.net/o3/IE9%20Demo/ToyStory_HTML5....
works fine in chrome, won't load in firefox. as expected.
works fine in chrome, won't load in firefox. as expected.
Surely you can understand why I would disagree. Aside from my mis-speaking, thanks a bunch guys for all the downvotes. I definitely deserved it for that awful, terrible post. Really appreciate it.
http://i.min.us/imDSpu.png
Note, the screenshot is Chrome 12 playing h264 video on Vimeo. I've done nothing to cause this to work.
Oh, yes, it's -3, please continue piling on the downvotes without bothering to verify the information you're voting based on. Pile it on, what a terrible comment for me to have made. To imply that we shouldn't errantly speculate? To suggest that it's irrational to assume they're riping it out because of h264 seeing as Chrome 12 plays it just fine for me? Good work guys.
http://i.min.us/imDSpu.png
Note, the screenshot is Chrome 12 playing h264 video on Vimeo. I've done nothing to cause this to work.
Oh, yes, it's -3, please continue piling on the downvotes without bothering to verify the information you're voting based on. Pile it on, what a terrible comment for me to have made. To imply that we shouldn't errantly speculate? To suggest that it's irrational to assume they're riping it out because of h264 seeing as Chrome 12 plays it just fine for me? Good work guys.
Around the time this was posted to HN, Stuart Morgan of Google and the Chromium project added a comment to the bug report that "this is a security feature that is applied to certain specific plugins even when they are up to date."
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78768#c1
[speculation]
Maybe it's to do with this, patched in a new OS X release only a couple of weeks ago?
"An integer overflow existed in QuickTime's handling of movie files. Viewing a maliciously crafted movie file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. "
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=10770
[/speculation]
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78768#c1
[speculation]
Maybe it's to do with this, patched in a new OS X release only a couple of weeks ago?
"An integer overflow existed in QuickTime's handling of movie files. Viewing a maliciously crafted movie file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. "
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=10770
[/speculation]
Maybe it's just me, but how can you embrace Flash but not Quicktime without looking like a hypocrite?
http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/brag-sheet
Presumably flash is sandboxed within chrome, so it isn't susceptible to the same attack vectors as unsandboxed plugins.
This presumably alleviates a lot of the security concerns for that plugin, since it now has the same protection to exploitation as the rest of chrome, and security vulnerabilities might be able to be patched through chrome's auto-update(?)
This presumably alleviates a lot of the security concerns for that plugin, since it now has the same protection to exploitation as the rest of chrome, and security vulnerabilities might be able to be patched through chrome's auto-update(?)
QuickTime is much more closely tied with the OS than flash is and probably nigh impossible to sandbox and ensure it's on the latest version
On OSX, I can accept this argument, because Quicktime is the primary codec... repository(for lack of a better word) for basically everything on the OS.
However, I don't think it's the case for Windows or Linux. On those systems, it should just be another codec/browser plugin. Playing Quicktime videos should be the same as any other codec, so I don't really understand why it's not possible to sandbox it like Flash.
However, I don't think it's the case for Windows or Linux. On those systems, it should just be another codec/browser plugin. Playing Quicktime videos should be the same as any other codec, so I don't really understand why it's not possible to sandbox it like Flash.
I think that's a valid point, but I'd like to introduce a few reasons why google may see them differently. Adobe has developed a sandbox for flash, adobe has been working with google to leverage the chrome sandbox (at least in windows), and adobe has given google access to early builds and authorization to distribute them and keep them up to date, so that google can know that if they're running flash it's not an out of date version. In several cases google has been shipping flash security updates to all chrome users before adobe actually pushed to their installed base (which only checks for updates once a week and needs the user to approve them). In comparison, quicktime security features and update practices are considerably worse off.
I think the word that java is also disabled in the nightlies in the same fashion should suggest that this isn't some partisan x264 or open web fight. It's security.
I think the word that java is also disabled in the nightlies in the same fashion should suggest that this isn't some partisan x264 or open web fight. It's security.
Adobe did the work to enable sandboxing Flash. Apple hasn't done the work (yet?) to enable sandboxing Quicktime. That's all it is.
? Not a fan of Flash, but video-playback is a very, very small part of the Flash platform (and even then it's often producer-friendly in the form of supporting extensive DRM for the illusion of content control), while it is virtually all of QuickTime. QuickTime is completely obsolete. Flash is just mostly obsolete.
I'm confused. Are you saying video playback is obsolete, or was there some new video playback library with similar breadth to QuickTime that I didn't know about which as rendered it obsolete?
QuickTime is terribly obsolete, joining the ranks of products like RealPlayer. It has no reason to exist in the modern platform.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/guided-tours/
On h264/Ogg/webM capable browsers, I'm told to download and install QuickTime. If we want to talk about hypocrisy, it starts there.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/guided-tours/
On h264/Ogg/webM capable browsers, I'm told to download and install QuickTime. If we want to talk about hypocrisy, it starts there.
RealPlayer was a program and browser plugin focused around one proprietary format. QuickTime is an A/V library supporting a wide array of codecs — it's the standard way to play video on the Mac. If it's obsolete, then what is the replacement?
HTML5 video, I think. Even Apple is no longer promoting the QuickTime plug-in.
That isn't an alternative; it's an orthogonal technology. Saying the video tag renders QuickTime obsolete is like saying the img tag renders libpng and libjpeg obsolete. HTML5 video is a standard for specifying video files to play — it doesn't actually provide video playback. QuickTime and its codecs are still used to actually decode and play the videos (again, I'm talking about the Mac here).
That is why I said the plug-in. I know that Safari themselves uses QuickTime to play HTML5 video.
You are not making any sense. You say that Quicktime is outdated technology and has to be banished, yet you are okay with browsers using it to display HTML5 video?
How does that work? On Mac OS X to do anything with video you use QuickTime. QuickTime isn't just the front end software. It provides an API that can be used to create all kinds of software, not only that it allows other codecs to easily be installed (see Perian for Mac OS X).
How does that work? On Mac OS X to do anything with video you use QuickTime. QuickTime isn't just the front end software. It provides an API that can be used to create all kinds of software, not only that it allows other codecs to easily be installed (see Perian for Mac OS X).
Sorry, misread the OP.
Wait. Why is the user losing the most in such political desicisons?
I can't believe that. I love the Chrome browser but that's to much. I mean come on QuickTime (on the Mac) is the least painful player.
In addition I have to say that I'm a MacBook Air user that means when I play flash content in the chrome browser my fan is freaking out. With QuickTime this doesnt happen and guess what I like more? Yes, playing videos without freaking out fans.
In addition I have to say that I'm a MacBook Air user that means when I play flash content in the chrome browser my fan is freaking out. With QuickTime this doesnt happen and guess what I like more? Yes, playing videos without freaking out fans.
They also disable Java by default in the nighties. Lifesaver.
This. So incredibly this.
I love this damn feature and now that it's here I'm going to be impatient with any browser that doesn't. I can now feel safe leaving Java turned on.
I love this damn feature and now that it's here I'm going to be impatient with any browser that doesn't. I can now feel safe leaving Java turned on.
The only issue with it so far and I haven't submitted a bug report yet is that it slides the entire page down without turning on the scroll. So pages like gmail end up losing the chat and tasks.
Though QuickTime is only an abstraction of OS provided codecs on Macs, this move once again brings up the question in me:
Is there any valid technical reason for browsers to handle media files in any way other than wrapping OS provided codecs?
Is there any valid technical reason for browsers to handle media files in any way other than wrapping OS provided codecs?
So that your browser vendor can force their philosophical decisions about file formats on their users. That's basically it.
Security is supposedly an issue, but "clicking on a video file in your browser to play it" is no easier than clicking "open file" in a download prompt -- if there's a vulnerability in your media player, attackers don't need <video> to get to it.
Security is supposedly an issue, but "clicking on a video file in your browser to play it" is no easier than clicking "open file" in a download prompt -- if there's a vulnerability in your media player, attackers don't need <video> to get to it.
I think you may be slightly biased here :). A security exploit that requires clicking is a lot less serious than one that happens without user intervention. Since <video> and <object>/<embed> can play automatically, it makes sense to limit the tags' exposure to unknown code from the operating system's installed codecs.
[deleted]
Are you sure every codec on your system is kept up to date against the latest exploits? Every single one?
Which is updated more often... Your browser or your codecs?
Browsers are taking over certain functions because the OS side (both OS X and Windows) are a mess. I imagine it makes browsers easier to test too not having even more dependencies over the quirks of whatever dot release of the OS you are running.
Which is updated more often... Your browser or your codecs?
Browsers are taking over certain functions because the OS side (both OS X and Windows) are a mess. I imagine it makes browsers easier to test too not having even more dependencies over the quirks of whatever dot release of the OS you are running.
Better yet, why do my codecs have access to anything on my computer other than their input stream and output stream. They probably want to run on their own core anyway, isolate them and forget about them.
(Ok, I'll give you an H.264 or MPEG-2 being tied into my video hardware for great performance and low power consumption, but the rest of them…)
(Ok, I'll give you an H.264 or MPEG-2 being tied into my video hardware for great performance and low power consumption, but the rest of them…)
I'm going to only cover the desktop/laptop space. This approach actually makes a lot of sense in the smartphone/tablet market, especially with all the multi-core chips coming out.
It's true that the bare minimum that a codec needs to do is take an input bytestream and output it to the various output(video and audio) bytestreams. So, for a hardware accelerated video, this is pretty simple-all you need to do is pipe your input stream to the hardware, and that will handle all the magic of getting it directly out to the screens and speakers. However, for non-native hardware accelerated codecs(i.e. not H.264 or MPEG-2), this process involves a lot more hardware and software to actually get something to the screen.
The non-native hardware accelerated codecs need access to(at a bare minimum) the sound and video system APIs. Unless the codec developers are certifiably insane, the codec will be using DirectX(for Windows) or OpenGL(for everything else) to handle the actual writing to the screen, especially if you want to use the video hardware for faster decoding. While it's possible for browsers to wrap those API calls, it just makes a lot more effort on all developers involved, and doesn't really get you much security at the expense of both complexity and performance. So it makes sense for any codec to have access to the lower level APIs for displaying things to the screen.
Sandboxing the process should be possible for the file inputs, but I'm not sure if it's really possible for file outputs in the cases where the codec is using a system-level API.
EDIT: After reading what I wrote, this is a good argument for the browsers themselves wrapping the codecs and placing them into a sandbox. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because of the legal minefield that almost all have right now...
It's true that the bare minimum that a codec needs to do is take an input bytestream and output it to the various output(video and audio) bytestreams. So, for a hardware accelerated video, this is pretty simple-all you need to do is pipe your input stream to the hardware, and that will handle all the magic of getting it directly out to the screens and speakers. However, for non-native hardware accelerated codecs(i.e. not H.264 or MPEG-2), this process involves a lot more hardware and software to actually get something to the screen.
The non-native hardware accelerated codecs need access to(at a bare minimum) the sound and video system APIs. Unless the codec developers are certifiably insane, the codec will be using DirectX(for Windows) or OpenGL(for everything else) to handle the actual writing to the screen, especially if you want to use the video hardware for faster decoding. While it's possible for browsers to wrap those API calls, it just makes a lot more effort on all developers involved, and doesn't really get you much security at the expense of both complexity and performance. So it makes sense for any codec to have access to the lower level APIs for displaying things to the screen.
Sandboxing the process should be possible for the file inputs, but I'm not sure if it's really possible for file outputs in the cases where the codec is using a system-level API.
EDIT: After reading what I wrote, this is a good argument for the browsers themselves wrapping the codecs and placing them into a sandbox. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because of the legal minefield that almost all have right now...
Actually, the codecs themselves usually aren't responsible for displaying to the screen via DirectX, OpenGL, etc. In the case of <video>, the browser needs to be able to mix the video into the web page, which means the browser needs the video data in its own memory, or as a pixmap/texture in video card memory.
But, most codecs are going to be written in C and assembly language for speed, which brings the potential for buffer overflows and other low-level exploits. Plus, that video data does eventually make it to the kernel and then the video hardware (often via a separate overlay interface like DirectShow, Xv, or VDPAU, though that is probably not the case with web browsers), so a vulnerability at any point along the chain is a serious issue.
But, most codecs are going to be written in C and assembly language for speed, which brings the potential for buffer overflows and other low-level exploits. Plus, that video data does eventually make it to the kernel and then the video hardware (often via a separate overlay interface like DirectShow, Xv, or VDPAU, though that is probably not the case with web browsers), so a vulnerability at any point along the chain is a serious issue.
So they don't have to deal with inconsistent behaviors on different platforms. You can pretty much mess up your os installation anyway you would like, but bundling ffmpeg, libtheora or libvpx and you no longer need to worry about different platforms or configs
That converts a trivially solved technical problem into an insoluble political problem.
Unless you want hardware acceleration...
What precludes bundled libraries from having support for hardware acceleration? Firefox 4 accelerates full-screen WebM videos on Windows and Mac, for instance.
You need platform-specific APIs to give you direct access to the relevant hardware, which you then need to be able to use efficiently.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
You need platform-specific APIs to give you direct access to the relevant hardware, which you then need to be able to use efficiently.
Yes, and Firefox already has platform-specific Direct3D and OpenGL backends. Remember that a browser today needs to be able to accelerate not just video but all content and compositing, so they already have to put in that investment. The investment in video is just an additional delta.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
Hm. "I'd rather see applications just feed the HTML to the OS to render using the best means available, even if it means support for new HTML features is a bit slow. (Although a engine-level plugin architecture like ActiveX or NPAPI can get you some sort of rendering for new or obscure features.)" How is your assertion materially different?
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
- See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... for some problems with using OS codecs, some of which apply to Quicktime too.
- You're ignoring the fact that browser makers may think supporting H.264 is against the principles of the web and will damage it.
Yes, and Firefox already has platform-specific Direct3D and OpenGL backends. Remember that a browser today needs to be able to accelerate not just video but all content and compositing, so they already have to put in that investment. The investment in video is just an additional delta.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
Hm. "I'd rather see applications just feed the HTML to the OS to render using the best means available, even if it means support for new HTML features is a bit slow. (Although a engine-level plugin architecture like ActiveX or NPAPI can get you some sort of rendering for new or obscure features.)" How is your assertion materially different?
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
- See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... for some problems with using OS codecs, some of which apply to Quicktime too.
- You're ignoring the fact that browser makers may think supporting H.264 is against the principles of the web and will damage it.
HTML is a web technology, but video codecs are needed by a wider range of applications, including playing optical media, games, and presentation software.
The non-political arguments the mozillazine article makes against using the OS's media frameworks can be solved by using ffmpeg/etc. as fallbacks, except for the one about having to support multiple rendering paths (and even that could be solved by just packaging ffmpeg in the OS-supported codec format).
If a web browser maker wants to make it hard to use H.264 even when the user already has a fully-licensed decoder as part of their operating system, then they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
If I want my browser to supplant my operating system, I'll use ChromeOS. Otherwise, I want my browser to play nice and not bring along political baggage.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers. I want my browser to include a kick-ass [X]HTML+CSS+JS engine, and delegate the rest to the operating system like any sane application.
The non-political arguments the mozillazine article makes against using the OS's media frameworks can be solved by using ffmpeg/etc. as fallbacks, except for the one about having to support multiple rendering paths (and even that could be solved by just packaging ffmpeg in the OS-supported codec format).
If a web browser maker wants to make it hard to use H.264 even when the user already has a fully-licensed decoder as part of their operating system, then they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
If I want my browser to supplant my operating system, I'll use ChromeOS. Otherwise, I want my browser to play nice and not bring along political baggage.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers. I want my browser to include a kick-ass [X]HTML+CSS+JS engine, and delegate the rest to the operating system like any sane application.
ffmpeg is patent encumbered. If "just ship ffmpeg" were an option, then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
That doesn't really matter. There's basically no usability difference between:
"You need to install plugin X to view this video."
"You need to install QuickTime Component X to view this video."
"You need to install third-party Firefox codec X to view this video."
Except that the third piece of software likely won't exist, and Mozilla might not even let it exist.
If browser vendors make it hard to install and use a codec for patent-encumbered formats like H.264, that will only prolong the use of even worse plugins like Flash for the purpose of playing H.264 videos.
"You need to install plugin X to view this video."
"You need to install QuickTime Component X to view this video."
"You need to install third-party Firefox codec X to view this video."
Except that the third piece of software likely won't exist, and Mozilla might not even let it exist.
If browser vendors make it hard to install and use a codec for patent-encumbered formats like H.264, that will only prolong the use of even worse plugins like Flash for the purpose of playing H.264 videos.
HTML is a web technology, but video codecs are needed by a wider range of applications, including playing optical media, games, and presentation software.
But inside the browser it's a web technology. That's the whole point of the video tag.
When a browser's raison d'être is "political" as you put it, then of course any such decision is going to have a moral component. It isn't just about short-term support -- it's about a long-term vision for what the web should be like, and more importantly shouldn't be like. H.264 isn't compatible with that vision.
they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
But those goals are the users' long-term needs. The minor loss if people can't play H.264 video right now is offset by the much greater victory if the web stays free and open.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers.
Stop making ridiculous blanket statements. This is much more nuanced than that, and involves balancing the costs of including custom code with its benefits.
But inside the browser it's a web technology. That's the whole point of the video tag.
When a browser's raison d'être is "political" as you put it, then of course any such decision is going to have a moral component. It isn't just about short-term support -- it's about a long-term vision for what the web should be like, and more importantly shouldn't be like. H.264 isn't compatible with that vision.
they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
But those goals are the users' long-term needs. The minor loss if people can't play H.264 video right now is offset by the much greater victory if the web stays free and open.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers.
Stop making ridiculous blanket statements. This is much more nuanced than that, and involves balancing the costs of including custom code with its benefits.
Is there any valid technical reason for browsers to handle media files in any way other than wrapping OS provided codecs?
See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh.... The philosophical reasons are even more important though.
See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh.... The philosophical reasons are even more important though.
Apple's gift to mankind was to ban(ish) Flash.
Facebook's was to ban(ish) QuickTime.
QuickTime feels like something that should have gone the way of the dodos, back when RealPlayer disappeared into obscurity.
After RealPlayer, QuickTime became the worst software experience on Windows. (iTunes comes in right after.)
Facebook's was to ban(ish) QuickTime.
QuickTime feels like something that should have gone the way of the dodos, back when RealPlayer disappeared into obscurity.
After RealPlayer, QuickTime became the worst software experience on Windows. (iTunes comes in right after.)
[deleted]
How did Facebook banish QuickTime?
Chrome is currently the crashiest app on Lion seed builds (yes, even more than browsers that have more users on Mac). Maybe it should disable itself?
HTML5 video won't work in Safari for Windows unless you also have Quicktime installed.
What is more desperately needed thanks to the Flash 0-day exploits flying around is for MS to add something similar to Office. I'm sure most people don't embed Flash in Office documents.
[deleted]
The Quicktime plugin on Windows is HORRID. It is a prime example of how to make a user experience complete shit. And to be honest I'd prefer the Mac version not pull it in automatically either. Weither it's the crashing, slow startup times, bazaar buffering behavior or taking over way too many MIME types I hate it.
I strongly prefer that Chrome asked my permission before executing either the Quicktime or Java plugins just like it prompts for popups. All are annoying, buggy, laggy and crashy.
Both Quicktime and Java were manually disabled globally on every browser I use and now I can feel safe leaving them on. This change makes my web browsing experience SAFER and less frustrating.
Of course my dream is never to have to touch QuickTime or that horrid Apple Update garbage on Windows ever again. I'm not buying a Mac for home because Apple can't be trusted around VisualStudio.
Flash gets the pass because Adobe lets Google worry about making sure updates are available on day 1. Odds of Google and Apple working together on Quicktime... Haha... haha... ha.