Flash player too intensive? Simple, get rid of it..

[peestandingup]

and use the new HTML 5 open standard for video playback. DailyMotion just announced (http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/) they're doing the same thing with all their videos, even the HD ones. Youtube is also playing around (http://www.youtube.com/html5) with the idea.

Its no secret that we've all longed for a better user experience & for our videos to be taking less CPU resources so more people can view them. And Flash, well, kinda sucks in this regard because its a hog. Even more so on Macs & machines that run Linux (which is why videos still to this day play using Quicktime on a Mac instead of Flash).

Given all the limitations Smugmug currently struggles with regarding Flash, would you guys ever consider making this move to HTML 5 as well??

BTW, all the big name browsers are apparently gonna be supporting this standard. The new Firefox Beta & Safari Beta already do.

[nigelbb]

There is no saying that the video player built-in to HTML 5 will use any less CPU than the Flash player currently does. SmugMug video is encoded in H.264 MPEG4 & this format is a great combination of quality versus size but decoding it is CPU intensive but not terrible. Any modern PC (Mac, Windows or Linux) will easily play even the 7+Mbps 1920x1080 Full HD video on SmugMug. In my experience most of the problems encountered with video playback are due to a network connection that is not fast enough. The other major cause of problems on Windows is not having the latest & greatest version of Flash installed.

[SamirD]

I don't see a way around the cpu demands for video if it's squeezed through a small pipe.

I remember when 640x480 video required 3MB/sec to play full screen, but that was with a lot less cpu overhead. Now that the cpus are more powerful, more intensive codecs can be used and reduce the bandwidth requirements. If we go back to less intensive codecs, the bandwidth requirements will go up. :huh It's inversely proportional and unavoidable.

Video became standard on the web with flash. There is no other real video standard anymore. And while it is more cpu intensive than say, streaming a windows media file, it is what the user wants, and has revolutionized the entire Internet. I don't really see this changing until the next big breakthrough. And when that breakthrough comes, I bet it will demand even more resources. :dunno

[docwalker]

BIG +1 agreement on this:

In my experience most of the problems encountered with video playback are due to a network connection that is not fast enough. The other major cause of problems on Windows is not having the latest & greatest version of Flash installed.

Yes, we get blamed for a lot of video problems. But it all boils down to that above. We cannot control the visitors computer. We offer multiple sizes to allow them to choose a smaller playback size. As long as windows eats up as much resources as you give it, and people refuse to upgrade the hardware, it will continue. :cry

[peestandingup]

BIG +1 agreement on this:

In my experience most of the problems encountered with video playback are due to a network connection that is not fast enough. The other major cause of problems on Windows is not having the latest & greatest version of Flash installed.

Yes, we get blamed for a lot of video problems. But it all boils down to that above. We cannot control the visitors computer. We offer multiple sizes to allow them to choose a smaller playback size. As long as windows eats up as much resources as you give it, and people refuse to upgrade the hardware, it will continue. :cry
I wouldnt say it ALL boils down to that. Your coding guys there at HQ know as well as I do that Flash + H.264 is a MAJOR resource hog (just ask them why Macs still use Quicktime for playback on the site here & they'll tell you). Flash is super flaky on different platforms using different versions. And basically on any platform, Windows included, if you took that same H.264 file & played it back through a better optimized standalone player, it would use dramatically less CPU resources than if it was played back in the Flash player inside a browser. Thats a guarantee. And it would especially be apparent on non-Windows systems. A lot of times, it would be the difference of the video being watchable & the video being a jittery mess.

So, no. Network connection is just part of the problem. You could have the greatest internet connection known to man & that still wont give a lot of people usable video playback. The fact that Flash is a standard doesnt mean that it cant suck & that there arent better methods. Not saying using HTML is it, but still.

[docwalker]

So, the fact that thousands and thousands of visitors have no problem with Flash and only a rare few do means nothing? :dunno I am basing my statment on dealing those customers.

Every one of those types of problems (stutters, slow loading, pauses, etc. ) I have dealt with has been as a result of internet connection or hardware. But I can play that exact same video on my basic home cable internet connection, on a decent computer and it plays with no problems. Even using the resource hog called Windows in a VMware install on a Mac plays fine.

I go to my friends and families homes to use their computers and connections. Every time that a video has not played, I have been able to pull it up on my lappy using the same connection (wireless vs their wired). Examination of the hardware reveals that it is overtaxed even before the video was loaded. Usually there is tons of spyware, crapware, and other resource hogs running.

I am not saying you are wrong about Flash. But, what I am saying is that for most visitors, the problem starts long before Flash is even called. So, would a less resource intensive player help? Sure, some... but in most cases, I bet that it will not help.

[SamirD]

I wouldnt say it ALL boils down to that. Your coding guys there at HQ know as well as I do that Flash + H.264 is a MAJOR resource hog (just ask them why Macs still use Quicktime for playback on the site here & they'll tell you). Flash is super flaky on different platforms using different versions. And basically on any platform, Windows included, if you took that same H.264 file & played it back through a better optimized standalone player, it would use dramatically less CPU resources than if it was played back in the Flash player inside a browser. Thats a guarantee. And it would especially be apparent on non-Windows systems. A lot of times, it would be the difference of the video being watchable & the video being a jittery mess.There is also a practical side to all this. People WANT to just be able to play a video within a browser on the fly. Granted, it does take more resources, but this is the application people want.

People use the mouse to copy files around and it is usually much more efficient to just use the command line to run a copy command. But people want to use the mouse. This bloated-ness and inefficiency is a result of what the public demands. As a business, you have accomodate the public demands if it matters to your business. Smugmug is in that area of business. If HTML video makes the video experience better, I'm sure SM will adopt it once it fits the business model. Flash took a while to mature before SM adopted it even though the free sites like youtube were using it for years.

[nigelbb]

The resource requirements of Flash amount to nothing when for example in the UK the vast majority of broadband connections are 2Mbps or less. The 1280x720 HD videos on SmugMug are encoded at 3.2Mbps so are impossible to stream to most users in the UK.

[docwalker]

Nigel, please remember we do not "stream" the video in the classic sense. We send the video to cache on the computer and playback from the cache.

[nigelbb]

Nigel, please remember we do not "stream" the video in the classic sense. We send the video to cache on the computer and playback from the cache.I think that this is just semantics. We don't need to wait for the whole file to download before it starts playing it which I would describe as 'streaming'. If you can't download the file fast enough to keep up with the play head then it will judder, stutter & then pause. If your network connection maxes out at 2Mbps then cannot watch one of SmugMug's HD videos without it juddering, stuttering & pausing & finally waiting for the whole file to download.

[nigelbb]

The native video & audio playback in HTML 5 has been dropped so we will still require a Flash or some other sort of player. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/260059/html-5-ditches-native-video-support.html

[docwalker]

"There is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,"

And that my friends is why I always laugh when people ask us to support some obscure and very little used codec. You cannot even get the vendors to support their own stuff. Even the video editor makers will not support every format/codec. Tell these guys to quit coming up with new codecs that actually are worse than the ones we currently have.... :-)
it would be great to have a couple fully supported codecs. Licensing and ownership issues would never allow that to happen. :cry

[peestandingup]

Revisiting this old thread.

So Youtube is moving faster (http://mashable.com/2010/01/20/youtube-html5/) to move all its videos to HTML 5 & also Steve Jobs himself recently said that they're doing the same & will basically never use Flash in their mobile platforms (iPhone, iPad, etc) because it sucks so bad. See here (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/).

So, you guys felling a bit different now?? Not saying Google & Apple can predict the future, but still. Anyone wanna bet me that this will be a standard soon, Flash video will become a relic & it'll take Smugmug a couple years to catch up like they did with their Flash player (which still doesnt fully work properly across different platforms)?? And a better standard at that because it's browser-based & not some 3rd party plugin.

Im just saying, I hope you guys are at the very least knocking around the idea in your meetings.

[bwg]

Revisiting this old thread.

So Youtube is moving faster (http://mashable.com/2010/01/20/youtube-html5/) to move all its videos to HTML 5 & also Steve Jobs himself recently said that they're doing the same & will basically never use Flash in their mobile platforms (iPhone, iPad, etc) because it sucks so bad. See here (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/).

So, you guys felling a bit different now?? Not saying Google & Apple can predict the future, but still. Anyone wanna bet me that this will be a standard soon, Flash video will become a relic & it'll take Smugmug a couple years to catch up like they did with their Flash player (which still doesnt fully work properly across different platforms)?? And a better standard at that because it's browser-based & not some 3rd party plugin.

Im just saying, I hope you guys are at the very least knocking around the idea in your meetings.what is HTML 5?

[Shizam]

Anyone wanna bet me that this will be a standard soon...

Yes,
I'll take that bet. 6 beers says this within 1 year (soon) this won't be a standard across all 4 browsers, hell FF can't even agree that .h264 is the correct format so you can't view HTML5 video on youtube with it, only Chrome/Safari. And IE hasn't even bellied up to the cluster**** yet :) And where is Fullscreen?

(yes I ignored most of the troll-bait in that post)

Sam

[SamirD]

A new cross-platform industry standard video format isn't going to take shape overnight. We've just barely got to the point where flash has become a 'defacto' standard. And now the challenges of HD are fractioning that standard too.

I still remember the MPC standard, or Multimedia PC, that was supposed to bring media to the desktop in the mid-1990s. Here we are almost 15 years later with the idea now a reality, but it took that long. Even as recent as 8 years ago, there was still no defacto video standard on the Internet. Youtube and the technology revolution that came with Flash changed all that, but it was almost luck. Without yt, I don't think the standard would have caught on as fast as it did.

I don't doubt that someday there will be a real standard for video on the web, but I don't see it commercially deployed in the next 5 years. I think SM has more to develop with monetizing videos than the format of them.

[nigelbb]

SmugMug video isn't Flash it is H.264 MPEG4. In common with just about every other site on the Web that has video the actual video Player itself is Flash unless you are on a Mac in which case the QuickTime Player is used. If you browse a SmugMug with an iPhone then a special version of the site is viewed which uses the iPhone's QT Player.

Flash has faults in other areas but when it comes to playing video then Flash is the nearest thing we have to a universal standard that is installed on the overwhelming majority of PCs (Windows, Mac or Linux).

Both Apple & Adobe have promised that Flash will be available on the iPhone & by extension the new iPad as that uses the same operating system.

[Dan7312]

It's a proposed new recommendation for HTML from the WWW. Right now it exists only as some working drafts at the W3, here are a couple of them.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090825/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-html-design-principles-20071126/

A working draft is the first step in a long process. Even if it makes to the the final step, Recommendation, it's never clear how widely adopted it will be. The Working Group involved, that is the people writing this stuff, have a goal to get to Recommendation status by March of 2012, but that's only a goal. Things at W3 always take a long time, and sometimes never make to the end of the process.


what is HTML 5?

[peestandingup]

Did I say anything about adopting it overnight? I dont believe I did there, guys. If I thought Smugmug had those kinds of super powers, I'd ask them to wave their magical Smug-wand & pay off all my debts. Oh, and make me a grilled cheese while you're at it. :D

Yes, Smugmug videos are in H.264, but they playback in the Flash player (flash has been playing H.264 for a while now). And that player sucks. It sucks so bad that Mac & Linux users dont see the video in the fancy Flash player because its too intensive (still, years later), so they use their own native H.264 players (Quicktime on Mac, etc). So lets not act like its good, cause its not. And most of that is Adobe's fault. They're well known for their crappy inconsistent quality control across multiple platforms (which is what SJ was referring to).

I understand its the standard. I also understand you cant jump into anything without proper support across the board from all browsers. And yes, I even also understand that things need to be ironed out. So, we all could have saved some posts cause believe it or not, I'm fairly hip to all that there internet stuff.

All I'm saying is, at least be watching & seeing where this is all going & dont let it turn into something where Smugmug actually wises up years later after its adopted & then finally impliments a decent video player. Remember, you guys havent been using Flash/H.264 for that long at all & it was that god awful Mpeg1 player for the longest time well after the fact.

And with all the big support thrown its way, HTML 5 will probably be the next thing. So I dunno. At least make a sticky note. Can we get a sticky note?? ;)

[SamirD]

I'm all for doing things more efficiently, but this seems to be decreasing as technology increases. As they were teaching the programmers in college when I was in school, "don't worry about absolute efficency in code--the hardware guys will figure that out."

And now years later, I need a dual-core processor system with 1gb of RAM to run a browser and access web sites. Just a few years ago, this was possible with a P3 and 128mb of RAM. :scratch And as the demands from users increase, the pressure is on to "just make it work." And thus you have the way things work right now on the Internet.

There is a backlash to a lot of this bloatware, and it comes in forms of non-mainstream computing--linux, macs, etc. But these also have their issues with interactivity. To put it in laymans terms, what's the point in inventing the world's most efficient spoken language if you have no one to talk to.

SM is a business, and they are guided by a lot of the "just make it work" demands of users--within the parameters of what is profitable. That doesn't leave much room for the most efficent method, because a lot of time that's also the most expensive.

And unfortunately, the most efficient method usually doesn't win out. Lately, it's become the easiest method that wins--easiest to use, easiest to program, easiest to maintain, etc. Flash containers fall into this realm. If the new html standard falls into this realm, I'm sure we'll all see it too. If it's the most efficient, that's a bonus.

[colourbox]

Flash does suck on the Mac, but HTML5 is no panacea.
Giz Explains: Why HTML5 Isn't Going to Save the Internet (http://gizmodo.com/5461711/giz-explains-why-html5-isnt-going-to-save-the-internet)

[peestandingup]

Vimeo has announced (http://www.vimeo.com/blog:268) they are also moving to HTML5 video.

But yeah, all these big name video sites adopting it is probably nothing. :wink

[SoCalMtnBiker]

Title says it all.

Comments.
1. AFAIK Flash is not a standard, it is just commonly used.
2. I'm not sure I really understand this, but Flash gets a justified bad rap because many sites using Flash are slow and hard to navigate. It's not clear that playing video is its downfall.
3. Someone said that Apple and Adobe were going to have Flash on the iPhone. Where is the reference, because I thought it was clear that Apple is not going to support Flash on the iPad or iPhone?
4. The iPad is going to be a great photo viewer and any site that doesn't support it is going to lose ground eventually. There's a reason why many of the big players support the iPad (HTML 5).

[peestandingup]

Its not scientific, but I did a little testing to compare the computer resources of Flash vs HTML5 of the same exact video. I used Vimeo since they allow you to choose either one right now. This was done on a pretty speedy Mac Pro using Safari.

The Flash version ended up using around 25% more resources than the HTML5 version did, which for some people could mean the difference in a video playing smoothly & playing like a herky jerky mess.

See for yourself with the screen recording I made (http://www.krb.me/Photos/Misc-Hidden/My-Smug-Mug/5197653_SftED#832319934_c2EUw-A-LB) of my experience.

[Cook's Digital]

Evidently Apple's new iPad does not support Flash Player.... Now what?

[nigelbb]

Evidently Apple's new iPad does not support Flash Player.... Now what?I would guess that as with the iPhone when you view SmugMug galleries with an iPad then you will get delivered a special web site that uses the QuickTime Player of the iPhone/iPad for viewing video. Unfortunately this doesn't work if you embed a link to the video on your blog or some other website as that always uses the Flash Player.

[peestandingup]

I would guess that as with the iPhone when you view SmugMug galleries with an iPad then you will get delivered a special web site that uses the QuickTime Player of the iPhone/iPad for viewing video. Unfortunately this doesn't work if you embed a link to the video on your blog or some other website as that always uses the Flash Player.
I have an iPad. Smugmug's "iPhone version" it serves up doesn't look good on it at all. Plus, with the iPad's screen res being more like a normal laptop, there's really no need for showing a "dumbed down" version of people's sites.

iPad's kinda skewing the lines now, so IMO it would be in Smugmug's best interest just to make everything work the same across the board. Which would mean using HTML5 for things like the slideshow, videos, etc like so many others are doing. Because my full site looks gimped as hell on an iPad currently.

[nigelbb]

I have an iPad. Smugmug's "iPhone version" it serves up doesn't look good on it at all. Plus, with the iPad's screen res being more like a normal laptop, there's really no need for showing a "dumbed down" version of people's sites.

iPad's kinda skewing the lines now, so IMO it would be in Smugmug's best interest just to make everything work the same across the board. Which would mean using HTML5 for things like the slideshow, videos, etc like so many others are doing. Because my full site looks gimped as hell on an iPad currently.HTML5 is not supported by Internet Explorer so that rules out 55% of users. Firefox supports HTML5 but only with videos encoded with the open source Ogg Theora CODEC. Apple's Safari & Google's Chrome are the only browsers to properly support HTML5 with the superior H.264 MPEG4 CODEC (which is how SmugMug videos are encoded) so that is probably less than 15% of users although it does include all the iPhones.

BTW You can access the normal SmugMug gallery from your iPhone/iPad by clicking on Links>Non Mobile Homepage

[peestandingup]

HTML5 is not supported by Internet Explorer so that rules out 55% of users. Firefox supports HTML5 but only with videos encoded with the open source Ogg Theora CODEC. Apple's Safari & Google's Chrome are the only browsers to properly support HTML5 with the superior H.264 MPEG4 CODEC (which is how SmugMug videos are encoded) so that is probably less than 15% of users although it does include all the iPhones.
Granted, but I still think Smugmug could at least serve up an html5-optimized iPad-friendly site like so many others are doing these days (that means videos too). That was of course the intension with when they did the iPhone-optimized site, but thats ran its course now & doesnt really function well on bigger devices. So now, the regular site doesnt look or function well (with the whole Flash thing) & neither does the iPhone-enhanced site.

Point being, if someone with an iPad visits your Smugmug site, its not going to be a good experience with either of those.

[nigelbb]

Granted, but I still think Smugmug could at least serve up an html5-optimized iPad-friendly site like so many others are doing these days (that means videos too). That was of course the intension with when they did the iPhone-optimized site, but thats ran its course now & doesnt really function well on bigger devices. So now, the regular site doesnt look or function well (with the whole Flash thing) & neither does the iPhone-enhanced site.

Point being, if someone with an iPad visits your Smugmug site, its not going to be a good experience with either of those.I don't have an iPad but when I view my SmugMug page www.barkersvideo.com with Safari on the iPhone & choose Non-Mobile Homepage & look at the normal browser view then when I click on a video then it plays OK using the Quicktime player on the iPhone. That is when the SmugMug site realises that the video is to be viewed on an iPhone it does the right thing & uses the Quicktime Player rather than the Flash Player. When you view the SmugMug pages on a Mac you also view video with the QT Player rather than the Flash Player.

[lifeinfocus]

HTML5 is not supported by Internet Explorer so that rules out 55% of users. Firefox supports HTML5 but only with videos encoded with the open source Ogg Theora CODEC. Apple's Safari & Google's Chrome are the only browsers to properly support HTML5 with the superior H.264 MPEG4 CODEC (which is how SmugMug videos are encoded) so that is probably less than 15% of users although it does include all the iPhones.

BTW You can access the normal SmugMug gallery from your iPhone/iPad by clicking on Links>Non Mobile Homepage

MS announced recently that I.E. 9 will support H.264 as their HTML 5 support.

"Hachamovitch also reiterated that Internet Explorer 9 – the next Microsoft browser, expected to launch in 2011 – will continue to support Adobe Flash. But at some point, Microsoft had to decide what codecs to support for HTML5 video – and H.264 was it.

"The biggest obstacle to supporting more than H.264 today is the uncertainty," Hachamovitch wrote. "When there's industry consensus and confidence that the uncertainties are resolved, we'll be open to considering other codecs. Until then, we'll continue with our current plans to deliver great HTML5 video in IE9 with certainty for consumers and developers."

[Andy]

Point being, if someone with an iPad visits your Smugmug site, its not going to be a good experience with either of those.

We're actively discussing internally how we'll deal with HTML5, great discussion here, too. Thanks.

Movies play fine on iPad on your site.
http://img.skitch.com/20100505-dmxigegpbkr4p22cji82ec5y78.jpg

For now, I use Jfriend's hack #28 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=135068 to redirect folks on iPhone or iPad Safari to my /Galleries page. Try it on your iPhone or iPad: http://www.moonriverphotography.com

[doug b]

Definitely an interesting discussion to say the least. As Apple continues to push for more open standards where HTML 5 is concerned, I'm very sure that 'others' will follow their footsteps. I was a Windows user since its first days, and have also used Linux and am now using OS X. I can't say I always agree with Apple's tactics, but if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that Apple has a knack for either predicting or setting trends that shape the future in the computing/media world. (Floppy anyone ?)

I think this is no exception, and whether or not the world is ready, it's slowly becoming a reality, and one that Adobe is becoming quite loathsome of. And I don't think that pumping more money into a lesser technology (the version of Macromedia Flash that Adobe acquired and ruined) at this point, is good for anybody. Especially us, the end user.

Lastly, in terms of photo/video hosting sites, I'm of the personal opinion that the SM devs would be wise to adapt to HTML 5 standards, *were standards actually established*, as it would give them a huge leg up in their business. Even if the implementation is slow and gradual, it would really put forth a message that SM really is at least keeping up, if not ahead of the game. This is something that share holders and end users would find very attractive.

By the way, of course I have a vested interest in all of this. I just subscribed as a Pro member last night ! And to that end, on a related note.. I've often thought about getting an iPad to use as a portable portfolio, for those times when I'm at a gig, and a prospective client might be interested in my work. The iPad would be absolutely perfect for such a thing. And as more and more iPad's saturate the market, it's only natural that a SM user would want to have the same experience on it, as they would a laptop/desktop.

Doug

[peestandingup]

We're actively discussing internally how we'll deal with HTML5, great discussion here, too. Thanks.

Movies play fine on iPad on your site (http://img.skitch.com/20100505-dmxigegpbkr4p22cji82ec5y78.jpg).

For now, I use Jfriend's hack #28 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=135068 to redirect folks on iPhone or iPad Safari to my /Galleries page. Try it on your iPhone or iPad: http://www.moonriverphotography.com
I'm glad you guys are discussing it. So many other sites are quickly jumping onboard & doing things better with HTML5. I'd imagine that it shouldnt be too difficult to implement it at least for slideshows & videos here on the site.

Honestly, Im not bias towards either Flash or HTML5, but being a standard or not, clearly Flash has sucked for quite a while now. Your coding guys know this first hand I'm sure (as do Mac & Linux users).

Regarding Jfriend's hack, it wouldnt work for my site because of the way I've set it up. Where my "Galleries" page would have been, I've separated it into "Photos" & "Videos". Its been like this for some time just to make it easier for visitors, so they know what they're getting. Some people jumble photos & videos together, but I personally dont like doing that as I think it makes it much more difficult to track down specific videos since you're likely to have much more photos than videos inside an album.

You're right though. Technically, aside from the Flash slideshow, the full site is completely available on the iPad. Although I don't think its exactly an "optimized" experience (examples are below).

Although I do like what you guys have done with the iPad app you made. I think if maybe you could build something like that into the webpage itself (maybe coded in all HTML5) & have iPad visitors be redirected to it instead of the full site (sorta like what Google has done with Gmail's webpage on the iPad), then that would probably go over really well I would think. You would just have to build the shopping cart in it & that would be about it really. And keep a link on each page that users could click on that would take them to the "desktop" version of the page if they needed to for some reason.

http://www.krb.me/photos/878614640_qrgxs-O.png

http://www.krb.me/photos/878614626_VgR6m-O.png

http://www.krb.me/photos/878614608_oTCTA-O.png

http://www.krb.me/photos/878614537_Ee699-O.png

http://www.krb.me/photos/878614573_zt2CE-O.png

[Andy]

PSST: http://release-notes.blogs.smugmug.com/2010/07/01/hd-video-for-power-users-smugshot-updates-bug-fixes/