Right now, the only way to watch Netflix in 4K on a desktop or laptop is through Windows. The good news is you can run Windows on your Mac through Bootcamp or virtual machine software like Parallels or VMWare Fusion. The current version of Google Chrome is running Netflix just fine on my mac. (mid 2010 mini, 10.13.6 High Sierra) That's the only work around I know for older macs, according to Netflix newer macs will show video in html5.
![]()
It's already in Chrome on Linux, if it's on a chromebook device 'certified' by Google ( as far as I know this is just a 'yes, it's a chromebook' and not 'yes, this is user X that google knows about' I.E. Pretty sure the 'guest' account should work1). That means it is on the OSS Intel drivers. I have no idea why the 'certification' is even necessary, my chromebook is in developer mode ( meaning I have root level access, and can build / install binaries of pretty much anything I want ) and Netflix still r. It's horrid to install. These days you have to use a custom compiled version from wine with pipelight. Enable 32bit support.
Install agent-changer for your browser because netflix will refuse to play when seeing you're on linux. It's idiotic. I've already paid for netflix I'm not the guy who is going to rip the streams. I would have used the pirate bay for that and just get the avi or iso. All in all the install works fine, did it yesterday again on arch, but so many steps and the end result is netflix easi.
It's the combination of that and the simple fact that when I have allready paid you, I am not going to pirate it. I just bought the right to see it. I gave you money for it, while I could have just downloaded it instead. The combination of first letting me pay, do extra stuff I wouldn't need to do for a torrent etc etc.
They got me to pay for a lesser experience. The reason I am still paying is because I find the price very reasonable for what they offer (I do use hola though to also access US-version and U. Are you talking about pipelight (which runs silverlight in wine and pipes it to your native browser) or running the entire browser in wine? Pipelight uses the silverlight plugin which Netflix currently only keeps working for the Mac users (at least, until now apparently.), so if Mac users switch to HTML5 who knows how long that will keep working. Running the entire browser under wine has always been even more difficult, usually resorting to using the silverlight plugin inside wine as well (see paragraph 2).
All those TVs and set top boxes are running Linux under Android, and Netflix is already supported on Android. 'Most' run that way, but not all. For example, Seagate FreeAgent Theater (and Theater+) both run linux, no andriod, and support netflix and hulu plus. The playstation also supports netflix and does not run windows, mac, nor andriod. My only point is that netflix has supported playback on niche platforms for a long long time without silverlight, html5, or encrypted media extensions. Any lack of support on any platform is completely by choice.
There's lots of other options these days, both from the. No because even if you pretend to be a Mac, your browser would fall on its ass as soon as the HTML video object encountered encrypted content and had no idea what to do with it. Your browser would have to have a video tag which could handle encrypted content and call out to the JS to supply it with a decryption key in order to play it. That presumably means Firefox or Chrome on Linux would have to ship as a binary blob containing code from one or more DRM vendors that the was linked into the multimedia fra. I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole 'watch video in your web browser' scenario.
Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos. They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to view videos on Mac, Windows 7, or Linux. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway.
I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole 'watch video in your web browser' scenario. It's all about locked-down company computers, kiosks, borrowed laptops, etc., where people can't install software. It's crazy as hell, but it has been a driving force in getting crazy crap rebuilt to run inside a web browser, no matter how HORRENDOUS the experience. In fact HuluDesktop is GREAT for media PCs operated by remote control, while navigating their website via remote would be a tedious nightmare. I really don't see why they just don't abandon the whole 'watch video in your web browser' scenario. Since Netflix only supports paying customers, it isn't really much to expect that people will download an app/application to play the videos.
They already have apps for Android, iOS, Windows, XBox 360/One, Playstation 3/4, Wii (U), a bunch of apps integrated into various smart TVs. There's probably a few that I'm missing here. I don't know why they just wouldn't require that you install an application to vie. If the Linux client was a pre-compiled binary, it could probably be made reasonably secure against people trying to copy content. At least as secure as a DVD or BluRay anyway. I'd say, you just answered your own question: If a Linux binary could be made 'at least as secure as a DVD or BluRay,' then Big Media would instantly label it as a non-starter, because optical media is not even remotely secure at this point; all you need to do is pop open makemkv.com, and those movies will come off of the disk in an unencrypted format in short order, ready to be converted by handbrake.fr for whatever purpose you might find appealing, from PSP to piracy.
Which, I think, is actually the entire point. Except in the case of Netflix, they really aren't multi-platform.
You have to install plugins such as Silverlight anyway, so why not just skip Silverlight and install the Netflix client? If it was truly a multi-platform solution that worked on any standards compliant browser, I would give them a little leeway.
If it just ran under Flash, I could understand, as just about everybody already has that installed, and it works on most major platforms. But I've known very few people who had Silverlight installed. Nothing will be compromised, because the distributions for people who care about FreedomLibre(tm) or whatever we're calling it this week will offer builds without the feature, perhaps exclusively. True, but that is not the point being presented there. The concern is if it is appropriate for an organization whose w3.org is to make the benefits of the social value of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical locat. Not only that, but it literally takes like 20-30 minutes total + crouton and you can have a full OS running alongside ChromeOS.
You can then switch between the two OS's with a really simple key combo. I'm on a HP Chromebook right now, I spend most of the time in ChromeOS unless I need a dedicated IRC client or Zotero for a reference manager when I don't have WIFI ( otherwise I use Chrome Remote Desktop to my much higher horsepower Lenovo laptop with Word ETC), or playing the odd foreign film with subtitles. From the looks of this, the technical version of what this means is that Netflix has been working closely with Apple to bring MPEG-DASH Media Stream Extensions to Safari (they're already present in Chrome and IE11), and that MSE will be in the Yosemite release of Safari. This is good news for MPEG-DASH adoption. Hopefully we'll also start seeing hardware H.265/HEVC support in new silicon soon which will really open up the door for 4K (and significantly reducing current bandwidth usage for 2K/HD) Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as 'HTML5 Video'. There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they 'support HTML5 streaming', they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist.
There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming). Silverlight is HTTP-based, but not supported directly in the browser (Microsoft missed a golden opportunity with IE10+ to do that), and Adobe also has an HTTP transport called HDS, but it's not useful outside of Flash. Once you've figured that much out, then you have to figure out what codecs your browser supports. If you're trying to stream live to Firefox, your options are pretty much Flash or nothing, since it supports neither HLS, DASH, or H.264, although MSE is being developed into the Firefox code, it's not ready yet - And if you're running Android, all bets are off depending on Google's whims for that particular version's stock browser. When Android 4.1 came out they took HLS support OUT of the Android browser and at the same time got rid of Flash support, which means that in-browser streaming on Android became limited to the ancient RTSP protocol (HLS is still supported in the OS media player, and can also be accessed via API). Chrome for Android sort of supports MSE for DASH, but not yet.
Google isn't part of DASH-IF, so they're not exactly anxious to support it on Android. Contrary to widely held popular belief (especially among marketing types), there's not such thing as 'HTML5 Video'. There's a Video tag in HTML5 that allows you to embed a video player in a web page, but there's no standard as to what that actually means. When someone says they 'support HTML5 streaming', they're spewing you a line of BS, because it doesn't exist.
There are currently at least 5 different ways to send video to an HTML5-compliant browser: Apple HLS (supported by Safari, some WebKit browsers), MPEG-DASH (Supported by IE11 and very recent versions of Chrome), RTMP (Supported by Flash), RTSP (Supported by all kinds of things, but no adaptive streaming), and progressive download (Supported by just about anything, but can't do live streaming). RTMP is stackoverflow.com. There is no native browser support for RTMP. The IETF has recognized this codec and even protocol mess, and they try to make a mandatory to implement codec for WebRTC. However, they are not webrtchacks.com successful. WebRTC can be added to your list instead. It also allows unidirectional video, but is stackoverflow.com (yet).
Correct, in order to use RTMP, you must use Flash (as I mentioned in the original post - HTML5 doesn't preclude using a Flash object). There are players such as JWPlayer that do an excellent job of using HTML5 media objects if supported and falling back to Flash if they're not, in order to provide a seamless experience to the end user (but Android is still a mess). DASH is going a long way towards fixing the mess, but it's still very early in that lifecycle.
One of the really neat things about it is that the. DASH industry Forum (along with Adobe and Netflix and a few others) yes.this makes sense.DASH is a proprietary media strategy DASH is like the W3C in relation to HTML5 they are against HTML5 b/c it is not 'proprietary' this supports my argument I read this as Netflix having been locked-in via contract as a DASH member to use fellow member M$'s silverlight for streaming Netflix probably wanted to switch to HTML5 a long time ago but was bound by some ridiculous contract (or a bad interpretation of one). It looks to me like the EME would basically be a DLL on Windows, and I don't see why you can't rename the DLL to something else, and drop in a shim DLL that Firefox loads. The shim DLL then loads the real EME DLL, and just proxies all the API calls back and forth.
Encrypted data goes into the shim, to the EME, decrypted video comes back. The shim would then be free to copy and redirect the decrypted video elsewhere. I doubt Firefox or the real EME would even know that it was happening.
If the EME is renderin. A year or so ago I complained about Netflix using silverlight. I said that it was a stupid choice and that Silverlight was a Microsoft also-ran.
A few people replied that they knew programmers at Netflix and that they were very smart and knew far more than some simpleton like me. But the proof will be in the pudding. I suspect that with silverlight gone that people like me will finally be able to watch Netflix on their macs as I was 100% opposed to installing anything microsoft based on my machines, and ab.
![]()
Hopefully, nothing will keep people interested in developing for Silverlight, given that Silverlight is dead. This isn't the beginning of the end - the beginning of the end was when Microsoft announced that Silverlight 5, released three years ago, was going to be the last version of Silverlight released.
I'm not saying 'Silverlight is dead' as hyperbole - it's officially a discontinued product. References: microsoft.com microsoft.com It will continue to be supported by Microsoft until 2021, but nothing new's happening with it.
Comments are closed.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |