HTML5 Video in Safari on OS X Yosemite

http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/06/html5-video-in-safari-on-os-x-yosemite.html

by znep • 12 years ago

60 80 12 years ago

techblog.netflix.com

Zikes• 12 years ago

Still no options for Linux?

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

Can GNU/Linux use blackbox DRM?

sounds• 12 years ago

"Can"? Sure, there is no technical reason it can't be deployed.

"Should" or "would"? Not likely, because it will be easily circumvented. There are also more fundamental reasons why linux and DRM are at odds: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mo...

jkrems• 12 years ago

Why not? You any install closed-source software on Linux. Firefox will solve this by downloading the binary component for DRM on startup IIRC.

NickM• 12 years ago

It's been done before with e.g. Steam or Spotify. I would assume some company or organization would need to release a pre-compiled binary implementation, which could then be handled in much the same way that Flash is currently handled on Linux.

nuclear_eclipse• 12 years ago

Firefox will soon support EME, and, if I'm not mistaken, Chrome already does. Someone just needs to implement the CDM modules (DRM blobs) that support the types of encryption/decryption required by Netflix, and then it should "just work" in any browser that supports EME.

mrb• 12 years ago

(All?) recent Chromebook devices can stream Netflix videos. It has been possible for the last year or so: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...

Before someone says "Chrome OS is not Linux": well it is Linux-based, it runs the Linux kernel, and the Linux version of Chrome. I am not aware of any of our (Google's) internal plans, but I presume the intent is to eventually make all the HTML5 Premium Video Extensions functional on plain Chrome with no dependencies on bits of software currently in Chrome OS. This would make streaming possible on all Linux platforms, providing Netflix doesn't artificially restricts playback to only Chrome OS. (I am also not aware of any of Netflix's future plans).

wjoe2• 12 years ago

Right now the best option for Netflix on Linux is Pipelight - http://fds-team.de/cms/pipelight-installation.html

It runs Silverlight through Wine as a plugin in Firefox/Chrome on Linux. Works flawlessly for me even with HD video.

As for the future, I believe Chrome already supports the underlying technology, and Firefox confirmed they will be adding it in the future, so they will probably support Netflix's HTML5 DRM at some point. Although I'm not sure that it's any more of promising for Linux compatibility than existing propritary software - it will still need to be compiled specifically for each platform, and may even have some OS level requirements too (not sure on that, but the fact this is only working with Windows 8.1 and OS X 10.10 makes me think so). So Linux may still be left out and not be able to run certain DRM extensions.

hackerguy0217• 12 years ago

Hopefully this takes us one step closer to Netflix on Linux

valarauca14• 12 years ago

pipelight gets us there. We'll never a libre solution for netflix video on linux, because now its in the W3C standard.

Touche2• 12 years ago

One would assume they'll stop supporting the Silverlight version once all the major browser vendors support the DRM.

mccr8• 12 years ago

For those not hip to the lingo, "premium video" means DRM.

smackfu• 12 years ago

Apple is the master of branding.

(For any downvoters: this was meant as a compliment.)

epistasis• 12 years ago

Perhaps, but this language comes from Netflix, not Apple:

http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h...

atonse5• 12 years ago

Yea but honestly, this doesn't bother me.

I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer:

- I don't own the video, so there's no need to be able to do a backup to multiple places, or to have an un-encrypted copy.

- I get better battery life (although this isn't related to DRM, but if we wanted a native playback in the browser, we'd need this.

- Sounds like WebCrypto will probably do hardware-accelerated encryption/decryption (using AES-NI probably?), which is a win overall on the security side.

Cons:

- I don't get to rip the video anymore.

- I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)

- I can't look at the back and forth JS-based traffic on this netflix site

Where I get more mad is if I _purchased_ the movie, and it's encrypted and I can't do anything with it.

Rentals? Don't care.

brador• 12 years ago

Well, you can always "rip" the video. Worst case you use a screen recorder.

But, what does Netflix gain from using DRM?

watty• 12 years ago

I'm not sure where you're getting your "better battery life" from. DRM adds computational complexity, which directly decreases battery life.

phkahler• 12 years ago

Eventually you will not be able to _purchase_ a movie or a book. There will be commercial and non-commercial and then they'll start trying to outlaw non-commercial because it hurts the economy. Read "The Right to Read" by RMS.

AnthonyMouse6• 12 years ago

I can't think of a single way where this hurts the consumer

You already listed it, and without even thinking about it described why it's such a serious problem:

I can't just play the video on any device (although it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback)

Suppose that I want a device I can verify. The reasons for this have nothing to do with movies. I just want to know that the device I'm using for my business doesn't have a backdoor put there e.g. by the Chinese government or any other government or corporation when it was manufactured. I want to know nobody has access to my trade secrets, so I want to be able to verify the device myself, or be secure in the knowledge that someone I trust has verified it and that anyone can who wants to.

This should have nothing to do with movies. I don't care whether or not anybody else wants to watch Batman on their iPad, I just want to look at all the bits I paid for and be able to change them as I please.

But if somebody releases a device I can verify, that device would be incompatible with DRM, because DRM can't withstand transparency. And devices have network effects. Hence why "it's hard nowadays to find a device that doesn't have Netflix playback" -- because having Netflix creates more sales for a device than being approved by neckbeards, so the manufacturers all respond to the market. Anyone who tolerates DRM is making everyone less secure.

And it's even worse than that, because it's not just that you can't verify a device with DRM. You also can't make a device with DRM. If you don't know what's in the black box then you can't reproduce it. The only way a system gets DRM is if Netflix et al will do the work, which they don't do for anything without enough existing market share. And how is a system supposed to get any market share if it can't display any content? This is why Microsoft likes DRM. It destroys the ability of newcomers to enter the market. That's the real consumer harm. Can you imagine what the landscape would have looked like if Microsoft had "provided" DRM for images and web pages in the 90s? No Firefox and no iPhone.

mortenjorck• 12 years ago

Much as I would still have preferred EME be made a standard through a body other than the W3C, I'm still glad it's a standard and it will be nice to finally have a non-fan-revving Netflix experience on Macs.

cenhyperion• 12 years ago

I hate to see DRM in HTML, but I'd much rather have DRM HTML5 video from netflix than Silverlight or Flash.

For a company like Netflix it isn't non-DRM HTML5 vs DRM HTML5, it's DRM HTML5 or Flash/Silverlight/other proprietary plugin.

pmx• 12 years ago

I love how they spin DRM into the fancy sounding "Premium Video".

vitd• 12 years ago

Keep in mind that the choice you have with Netflix is not "DRM" or "No DRM". It's "Microsoft's old unsupported (or soon-to-be unsupported?) Silverlight" or "Something new that will be maintained going forward and doesn't rely on Microsoft to keep it alive."

Also, this is for rentals, not stuff you own, so for me, at least, it's not a big deal if there's DRM on it.

JonoW• 12 years ago

Does anyone know what DRM/CDM it uses? I assume FairPlay, but cant find any info about it at all

lylebarrere• 12 years ago

Is this the same DRM over HTML5 that was discussed a few months ago or is this another fragmented DRM?

morganw2• 12 years ago

The "same DRM" is inherently fragmented because of CDM plugins. But, yes, this is the W3C's EME.

Tiktaalik• 12 years ago

Now that Apple has implemented MSE does this mean that I'll have a significantly higher chance of HTML5 Youtube videos actually playing on Safari?

At the moment I get the "install flash" message on Youtube videos a disappointingly often amount of the time. Weirdly I've had the experience where embedded HTML5 Youtube videos will play, but they won't when I click through to watch the full-size video on Youtube.

maxmcd• 12 years ago

This has nothing to do with browser technology though correct? This is just individual sites not being more proactive about providing desktop fallbacks.

If you want a short term solution, I usually just swap to an iPad user agent string if I want to force html5 video.

rsynnott2• 12 years ago

Currently, Google just doesn't provide a HTML5 option for a lot of their video. They may be more willing to do so with MSE available, of course.

ashearer• 12 years ago

YouTube appears to require Flash when playing a video with ads from the YouTube site. Embeds of the same video show the HTML5 version ad-free.

Here's a tip I've found useful: if you run into the "Install Flash" message, you can usually edit the URL to play in HTML5 instead. Change "watch?v=" to "embed/" (and if there are other querystring arguments starting with an ampersand, just strip them off). There are a few YouTube gateway sites that do something similar, but I remember the 'embed' trick better.

stevoyoung• 12 years ago

I use the "click to flash" plugin on Safari to block flash. On YouTube, the html 5 video version loads 100% of the time for me. I also have no problem with playing them full screen.

Am I missing something or do I just not watch enough YouTube to come across the problem you are describing?

leorocky• 12 years ago

"which provides the content protection needed for premium video services like Netflix"

I don't think the qualifier "premium" and DRM are so tightly coupled as Netflix suggests. I could imagine a universe in which premium, that is high quality content, could exist without DRM. So it's not "needed" as such. Those are weasel words.

oddevan• 12 years ago

I can imagine it too, and I'm sure Netflix can as well. But nearly everyone making high quality/premium video TODAY requires DRM.

Edit: To clarify, if someone wants to make a service like Netflix and have it actually ship today (or any time in the near future), then yes, DRM is "needed."

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

So this is how freedom dies: with applause for +2h of battery life watching videos.

mikeryan2• 12 years ago

I know that EME is a sticky wicket for a lot of folks, but what freedom have you lost here? Netflix was already encumbered with DRM requirements from their license terms. They just chose to go with a more standards based and performant solution.

jfb• 12 years ago

I think you can see the argument that putting this into the standards is a different order of lossage than simply having various implementations.

esrauch2• 12 years ago

Not all internet users are Netflix subscribers. Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website.

The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.

pfranz• 12 years ago

I don't have an opinion strong enough to do something, but the problem for me is that if it's too easy it'll just get used by default. It's a feature I don't want.

I was traveling for work to another country. I went to launch Steam to play a local game and either because the network was misconfigured, Steam didn't like me being in another country, or something else I don't care about, I couldn't launch it to play my downloaded, single-player game. I live in a major US city with Internet from a major cable company. Hulu tells me I'm using a proxy and won't let let use the website anymore. When emailing support they offered no help. Back when iTunes had DRM I was at a wedding at a location without Internet. The bride/groom planned their own music but hadn't authenticated the computer with the playlist for the wedding. These are all companies with more "user-friendly" DRM than most.

I like downloading lectures and conference talks. I'm concerned if major video host, like YouTube, were to adopt this I won't be able to download these things and watch while commuting or traveling. It could just as easily happen if Netflix becomes the only host for public domain content or opens to user-submitted video.

wil421• 12 years ago

How is freedom dying? They are probably already using a DRM mechanism for other products (Apple TV, Playstation, Xbox, Samsun Smart TV, take your pick).

Is DRM in Safari on Yosemite really taking away a freedom?

rakoo2• 12 years ago

Because the once Netflix-specific DRM mechanism will become the common mechanism for every content producer/distributor, and will make it easy for them to lock content behind golden barriers.

chaz723• 12 years ago

As far as I can tell, as long as the DRM is in Flash or Silverlight then some people still hope that "getting rid of DRM" is a winnable fight.

I doubt that's true, myself. It'd be nice, but I don't see it happening.

My online video watching is primarily Netflix with a healthy dose of Hulu Plus, iTunes, and Youtube. Not much of it is available without DRM. That is not a technical choice. That is a commercial choice being made by the people who own the content. Since I'm not going to steal it from them, their choice matters more than mine.

So DRM stays. Might as well have it built-in, more efficient and more secure.

thrillgore• 12 years ago

I can CHOOSE to not use Silverlight or Flash. I know it seems like an RMS way of thinking, but with plugins I can choose not to use them.

Now, I have no choice. And the EME spec branches out beyond HTML5 Video. If additional working groups dictate it, soon you won't even be able to view page source or take content.

jbigelow76• 12 years ago

    >Now, I have no choice.

If you choose not to watch Netflix, with or without a plugin, isn't that making a choice as to whether to tolerate DRM'd content?

chaz723• 12 years ago

You are presumably already choosing not to use Netflix now. I'm not. I'm choosing to use Netflix now, and I want the more secure, more efficient built-in method.

That said, I would like a more secure, more efficient built-in method for any non-DRM video source that chooses to be distributed openly too!

evv• 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure you can disable the proprietary DRM blobs on your browser.

You will miss out on a lot of DRM'd content out there, but you can still choose.

HTML5 Video in Safari on OS X Yosemite

Related Stories