Less than 1% of Websites Fully HTML5 Compatible
- 3-7-2011
Pretty catchy headline, eh? Well, I wrote it because I’m tired of seeing headlines like this one in CNET - “Mefeedia: HTML5-compatible video is on the rise.” Kind of makes you think that websites are adapting HTML5 en mass, doesn’t it? Well, the reality is, they’re not.
The second paragraph of the CNET article states:
A whopping 63 percent of all videos on the Web are now HTML5-compatible, compared to only 10 percent just a year ago, according to video-sharing site Mefeedia. Instead of relying solely on Flash to display their videos, many more Web sites are adopting video formats that can run directly in HTML5-compatible browsers.
Sounds pretty newsworthy, no? The next graph tells the tale.
The majority of the sites uncovered by Mefeedia are using H.264, the most common video format since it's also compatible for playback using Flash. Google's VP8, or WebM, video codec is second on the popularity charts, followed by Ogg, aka Ogg Theora.
Actually, Mefeedia states that the "vast majority" of videos were in H.264 format, but let's not be picky. Unstated, but undoubtedly true, is that the majority of those H.264 videos were encoded for playback in Flash. What the Mefeedia article does say is "H.264 is still the most common format, as it is compatible for playback in Flash as well as the browser natively."
Either way, the authors of both the Mefeedia and CNET articles are selling the fiction that H.264 support equals HTML5 compatibility. That’s like arguing that if you speak English, you can chat with everyone in Canada, an assertion that many folks living in Montreal and Quebec would vehemently disagree with.
Why is that? Because there is no single compression technology (or codec) that all HTML5 compatible browsers play. By way of background, HTML5 compatible browsers don’t use plug-ins like Flash or QuickTime to play video, they have their own native codec support, which means that the browser vendor has to build playback support for that codec in their browser. There are three primary HTML5 compatible codecs, H.264, Ogg Theora and Google’s WebM, and for various reasons, no single codec is supported by all relevant browsers.
Let’s discuss this with some March 7, 2011 browser share numbers from NetMarketShare for perspective.
The three versions of Internet Explorer, comprising 54.33%, won’t play videos via the HTML5 video tag, H.264 or otherwise.
Firefox dominates the rest of the top ten, and has the largest share of HTML5 compatible browsers (54%), but neither version 3.6 or 3.5 play H.264 video via the HTML5 tag, and it’s likely that no version of Firefox ever will. Instead, Firefox versions 3.5 and 3.6 play Ogg Theora, with version 4.0, currently in beta, also playing Google’s new WebM video format. So if you buy CNET’s and Mefeedia’s “logic,” you can make your site HTML5 compatible by using a format that won’t play on 54% of the current installed base of HTML5-compatible browsers.
______________________________________________________________________________
CNET and Mefeedia are pointing to videos encoded into
H.264 format for playback in Flash,
and calling that newsworthy proof of HTML5's acceptance.
That's a bunch of crap in any language.
______________________________________________________________________________
To complete the picture, while Chrome 8 and 9 (totalling 10.3%) do include H.264 playback via the HTML5 video tag, Google recently announced that future versions of Chrome will not, so that number will decline over time. Instead, Google will support only Ogg and WebM.
Safari versions 4 and 5, totaling about 5% share, do play H.264 video via the HTML5 video tag, and future versions of Safari will as well, though Safari doesn’t support Ogg Theora and won’t support WebM.
Otherwise, Microsoft has shipped Internet Explorer 9, which is H.264 compatible, but does not include native support for WebM. Instead, according to a Microsoft blog, “We will provide support for IE9 users who install third-party WebM video support on Windows and they will be able to play WebM video in IE9.” That’s nice, but it still means that large percentages of IE9 users won’t be able to play WebM.
In the meantime, MPEG-LA, who administers the patent rights to H.264, has issued a call for patents essential to WebM, which could lead to royalties for anyone using WebM. In a bizarre twist, on March 4, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department is investigating MPEG-LA to determine whether it’s “unfairly trying to smother a free rival technology for delivering online video that is backed by Google Inc.”
The facts are these. HTML5 video support is confusing mess. What we do know, however is that to be fully HTML5 compatible, and support all current HTML5 compatible browsers, your site would have to include video encoded in three codecs, Ogg, H.264 and WebM. Citing video encoded in any one of these formats - particularly H.264 - as proof that HTML5 is gaining ground is a complete fiction.
Why the headline for this article? Recently, I toured over 100 high profile broadcast and corporate sites, testing to see which, if any, were fully HTML5 compatible, and could play video in all HTML5 compatible browsers without a plug-in. The only one I found was Wikipedia.org. The vast majority of sites -- particularly broadcast sites - used Flash as their primary interface, with notable exceptions of Microsoft and Apple on the corporate side. Visit Microsoft without Silverlight installed, or Apple without QuickTime installed, and you couldn’t play any of the videos on the site, even from an HTML5-compatible browser that supported H.264.
The reality is that plug-ins like Flash, Silverlight and QuickTime are not going away anytime soon, and that complete support for HTML5 among high profile commercial broadcast and corporate sites has little perceptible momentum. CNET and Mefeedia are pointing to videos encoded into H.264 format for playback in Flash, and calling that newsworthy proof of HTML5's acceptance. That's a bunch of crap in any language.
If Mefeedia really wanted to portray the reality of HTML5 acceptance, they would disclose the percentage of Ogg Theora and WebM encoded video in their findings, including how much of the WebM was produced by Google property YouTube, who can hardly be called a neutral indicator. I'm guessing that CNET wouldn't find those results quite so newsworthy.
"Safari versions 4 and 5, totaling about 5% share, do play H.264 video via the HTML5 video tag, and future versions of Safari will as well, though Safari doesn’t support Ogg Theora and won't support WebM."
Safari supports anything Quicktime supports. It plays back both Ogg Theora and WebM if the Quicktime components are installed.
"Otherwise, Microsoft has shipped Internet Explorer 9, which is H.264 compatible, but does not include native support for WebM. Instead, according to a Microsoft blog, 'We will provide support for IE9 users who install third-party WebM video support on Windows and they will be able to play WebM video in IE9.' That’s nice, but it still means that large percentages of IE9 users won’t be able to play WebM."
This is like saying users won't be able to play Flash content because the plugin doesn't come with the browser. You can bet Google will push the WebM media foundation component as much as possible and will likely include it with their desktop software such as Google Earth so it gets installed by default.
So you need the QuickTime plug-in to play Ogg Theora and WebM? I thought the whole point of HTML5 was no plug-ins.
>>This is like saying users won't be able to play Flash content because the plugin doesn't come with the browser.
No it's not. Flash is at 96% plus penetration, and does a lot more than play a video codec that nobody wants. WebM is at zero. I don't have Google earth installed on any of my computers anywhere, so that's not persuasive.
Talk to me when WebM is at 95% plus, or when a major broadcast network drops Flash support for WebM and HTML5.
Jan
"So you need the QuickTime plug-in to play Ogg Theora and WebM? I thought the whole point of HTML5 was no plug-ins."
You do if you choose to use Safari or IE9. You could also choose to use Firefox, Opera, and Chrome and then have no need for plugins. It's interesting how choice works, isn't it.
"No it's not. Flash is at 96% plus penetration, and does a lot more than play a video codec that nobody wants. WebM is at zero."
So your contention is that Flash was never at zero percent penetration? You also seem to be conveniently forgetting all the other capability that HTML5 brings with it. Honestly, Jan. This is getting a bit silly.
Jim:
It is getting silly. As a publisher, I can do triple the encoding to be fully HTML5 compatible, and as a viewer, I can keep different browsers around to watch videos on different sites that don't fully support HTML5. Or, I can just support Flash or load the Flash plug-in.
And I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of being the first to adapt a new technology. Why would I rush to publish my videos in a format that very few people can actually watch, especially if it involves additional work, and I have to keep supporting the older technology.
And you're forgetting all the things that HTML5 video can't do. Adaptive streaming, live, digital rights management, multicasting, peer-to-peer, GPU accelerated playback. That's why no major site is using it.
And hey - I wrote the article to make the point that an increase in H.264 usage doesn't show increased HTML5 adaption. You argue with that as well? Or, are there any high profile broadcast or corporate sites that you can point to that are fully HTML5 compatible? I don't want to rehash old HTML5 arguments, been there, done that. Maybe you can point to some truly commercial sites that are using WebM now?
Jan
"And you're forgetting all the things that HTML5 video can't do. Adaptive streaming, live, digital rights management, multicasting, peer-to-peer, GPU accelerated playback."
Well, we can eliminate half of that list immeidately. Firefox 4, for example, uses the GPU for colourspace conversion of HTML5 video:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/12/gpuaccelerated.html
I noticed in your other story that Firefox users are reporting low CPU usage for WebM playback. They were using old hardware too. Your system's results seem to be a lot different from theirs.
These guys are quite happily doing live WebM streaming with adaptive bitrate control. Maybe you should interview them:
http://demo.anevia.com:8080/ott/webm.php
Meanwhile VP8 continues to get faster and improve quality:
http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/vp8-codec-sdk-bali-released.html
"That's why no major site is using it."
You mean besides YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, Viddler, etc?
You show me a server-based adaptive technology that says Demo and doesn't work on Safari or IE9 (or the other 54% of browsers that aren't currently HTML5 compatible). Oh, I'm so convinced. Maybe let me know when a commercial site actually uses it?
And you point to UGC sites, not broadcast or corporate or any real commercial site (and please, stop bringing up YouTube). They all still use Flash, too - why is that? Show me a network, B2C or B2B site selling real products, not technology.
And yeah, it's time to redo the performance stats on a broader basis. Agreed there, probably in the next couple of months. if you have any thoughts on the best way to test, let me know.
Otherwise, we just disagree. I told you why I wrote the article, and it wasn't to rehash these arguments.
Best.
Jan
Ha. I'll take that as a concession that in fact WebM playback performance is good and live streaming is possible, despite your earlier claims (or at least implications). This is the way I find most of these arguments go. The goal posts keep shifting. But whatever, it doesn't matter. Usage of open media keeps growing and Firefox 4 final will be released soon. Have you seen Mozilla's Firefox demo site? It's a nice example of the capability that Firefox 4 brings with tight integration of SVG, video, audio and WebGL with page:
https://demos.mozilla.org/en-US/
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/F...
You're confusing a technology demonstration with a shippable, usable product (and that's what HTML5/Ogg/WebM proponents always do). Sure, live streaming is possible, why wouldn't it be? But that's a long way from being proven and adapted. You have one browser in Beta with CPU acceleration and now HTML5 is as good as Flash. Spare me.
Now you want me to look at a Firefox demo page? I keep pointing to real world usage, large scale events, mass market adaption, what real companies are using to make money and stay in business, pursue their corporate goals, and everything you point to has DEMO stamped on it or is used by a UGC site.
@Jan: "OK, so one browser that's not shipping does partial GPU acceleration, as compared to Flash on every supported graphics chip."
For what it's worth Chrome 10 also has GPU acceleration of HTML5 video. Firefox 4 is no longer in beta and has a release candidate out. The release candidate will be what's shipped as Firefox 4 final if there are no signficant problems found with it (or at least that's how their release process has worked in the past).
Good news on Chrome - it's been a mixed performer for video. Be nice when FF gets finished and replaces 3.6, seems like they've been in beta for a long time.
Thanks for your post.
Jan
Hrm, let's see. To quote: "And you're forgetting all the things that HTML5 video can't do. Adaptive streaming, live," But now: "Sure, live streaming is possible, why wouldn't it be?"
That's the fastest capituation I've seen in a while but I'm so glad we agree.
"Now you want me to look at a Firefox demo page?"
Oh no! A page demonstrating the available features! Horrors! I hope you're writing Adobe lots of emails telling them they're wrong to have demo pages up for Flash. I linked to the page because it's a convenient and compact showcase of things that are available. A lot of these things are in use in the real world. Quite a few games are using HTML5 features. I suppose if I linked to you http://www.warimals.com/ your complaint would be that you have to log in to see it in action. Look here's another one http://websnooker.com/ . A number of SDKs are available now for web based games development. Here's a video demo of rocketpack's SDK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPVhPGOLe7c
It talks about their plugin free approach. You can even watch it on YouTube with no plugins. I did.
Hey Jim:
It's been fun, but it's getting repetitive. This post (relating to Ogg, but still applicable) makes all the points that I want to make.
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/og...
Thanks for coming by and posting. I'm done with this particular thread.
Jan
Jan,
I really liked your post. It did a great job of cutting through the hype and misleading data about the (real life) HTML5 adoption to date. Now if someone could just do the same for the iPad. Apple makes some wonderful devices, but all the hype I read about the iPad makes me wonder sometimes whether there is anyone left using an old fashioned computer.
Jim:
Thanks for your note and compliment.
Apple is great at working up the hype machine. I have an iPad, and it's great for media playback and games (mostly for the kiddies), but there's no way in the world I would ever, ever, ever, ever, leave a notebook home for the iPad. I even prefer my netbook with the tiny keyboard over the ipad if I have real work to do.
Thanks again.
Jan