

Hulu: HTML5 Isn’t Ready for Prime Time - whyleym
http://newteevee.com/2010/05/13/hulu-html5-isnt-ready-for-prime-time/

======
JunkDNA
Well, the lack of support for DRM is always going to be an issue as long as
content producers insist on having DRM. I know we've all been 'round this tree
before, but I continue to be genuinely perplexed that they still insist on
DRM. Network TV is broadcast over the air unencrypted to begin with. Why is
the internet so special that all that same exact content has to be locked
down? It's like a bank building a safe with several feet of reinforced
concrete on the top, bottom, and sides, but putting a plywood door on the
front.

~~~
andreyf
_Network TV is broadcast over the air unencrypted to begin with. Why is the
internet so special that all that same exact content has to be locked down?_

Because the devices that generally connect to the internet are good at storing
and re-transmitting content, whereas TV's aren't.

~~~
w1ntermute
Not like it stops a select few individuals from recording OTA content and
making it available online anyway. All it takes is one source to make the
video available, so DRM really is pointless.

~~~
someone_here
DRM in a browser doesn't stop a select few individuals from screen capturing
content either. Hulu is only looking at stopping the majority so that they can
secure their licensing rights.

~~~
KirinDave
Don't you mean, "The fiction that they maintain so that they can secure
broadcasting rights?"

------
j_baker
The blog post itself seems to have been pulled, but here's a cached version:
[http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http%3a%2f%2fblog.hulu.com%...](http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http%3a%2f%2fblog.hulu.com%2f2010%2f05%2f13%2fpardon-
the-dust%2f&d=491976131405&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3441454b,2f202d1c)

------
lenni
I read it as "HTML's <video> doesn't have DRM". However, his concern about
streaming and buffering capabilities seem valid. I'm assuming this will be
improved as time moves on.

------
raganwald
Bruce Schneier's expression _Security Theatre_ really describes video DRM.
It's to provide the _illusion_ of control, to reassure content intermediaries
that their business model is safe regardless of whether it is or isn't.

------
weixiyen
Basically, as of today, HTML5 video isn't ready. We all knew that.

The guy goes on to say that technology moves at a fast pace and they haven't
ruled out HTML5.

Google's rumored VP8 release at I/O will help catapult it into prime time.

DRM is pointless imo, the sooner the networks realize that, the better.

~~~
not_an_alien
_Basically, as of today, HTML5 video isn't ready. We all knew that._

Tell that to the people that think HTML5 is 100% supported, that technologies
like Flash aren't needed, and that Youtube has actually moved to HTML5.

------
jcapote
Rather, Hulu isn't ready for HTML5.

~~~
abstractbill
Hulu's video player is rock-solid. If they say HTML5 isn't good enough, I am
inclined to take what they say seriously.

~~~
roc
The thing to note is _why_ they say it isn't good enough.

The argument essentially boils down to: the studios and the advertisers are
their customers: the studios don't like the lack of perceived control over the
data stream and the advertisers don't like the loss of finer-grained reporting
on data-stream consumption.

~~~
potatolicious
And those are important why's.

The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet.

I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-
side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and
very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is
in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.

~~~
weixiyen
I personally disagree. None of those why's are all that important except for
the buffering because the end user is in fact the only term in the equation
that matters.

Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know
the eyeballs are there.

Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site
at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is
interested in profits).

These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need.

The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and
buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their
business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors.
But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM,
your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by
other means, so what's the point?

------
Groxx
I would think they'd be best-off with writing their own software as a
plugin... though granted, that's more work than coding it once for Flash. It's
one of the things which Flash is really quite nicely suited for.

But if they're interested in offering higher quality w/ lower bandwidth and
lower CPU usage on more machines, Flash is _definitely_ not the way to go if
you're making a custom DRM. Video decoding isn't exactly its strong point.

------
adamhowell
Is there a way yet to lock down the source file with HTML5 video in the same
way that, say, Typekit locks down font files?

~~~
halo
I certainly hope not.

~~~
adamhowell
Right, I'm not saying there should be or that I want there to be, but a) this
entire post can be translated as "We're not using HTML5 because there's no
DRM" and b) even though it's not a business I'd want to be in, certainly seems
to be a market opportunity for it

------
kilps
My first thought on reading the title was that they don't want the content
accessible from the iPad so that they could charge for an app.

The other reasons discussed make sense (merits aside), but I still wonder.

------
CoryMathews
Its about time a major video provider stands up for the current limitations of
HTML5. I'm glad to see them do this and I would love to hear some BS response
from jobs on why they are wrong.

