Hulu: HTML5 Isn’t 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.

[ube]

I think that your analogy is almost on the mark but it needs one little tweak: "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 which looks like reinforced concrete."

The reason for this tweak is that content is king and the content providers know it. Hulu by itself without content is yet another website - just a shell (recall Hulu's tears when Comedy Central pulled its shows).

Hulu's goal is to make content providers feel that their content is secure. Only when they do this will they get the content and have more content providers sign on. Consequently, it is in their best interest to perform a song and dance routine on how securing content is their number 1 goal.

[lenni]

I guess the answer to this question is: Because they can. TV watchers would be furious if they had to buy a set top box to decrypt something that used to be unencrypted.

[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%...

[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.

[Qz]

Hulu is an established platform, HTML5 is an upcoming spec that doesn't do what Hulu would need it to do. As cute as your post sounds (and we all love a pithy inversion), it's just wrong.

[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.

[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.

[wmf]

Considering that TypeKit is just JS with some server-side stuff, there's not much that it could do; I'm sure you could craft some hack to do the same thing with <video>.

Edit: pquerna answered this better than I did: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1344880

[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.