|
|
|
|
|
|
by rchaud
1667 days ago
|
|
|
So we shouldn't have had Youtube, Vimeo etc. until W3C got around to making <video> part of the official spec in 2010? The web is great because people kept pushing its limits and weren't arbitrarily held back by bureaucrats. Even though Apple and Google have spent untold billions to push the "there's an app for that" line of thinking, the web has survived. |
|
|
1. Youtube is just a generic video hoster, of which many came before, during, and will come after. As for the whole "pretend Youtube is a thing" thing, I can't remember one actual good video from a "content creator" ever. It's all circle jerking and quick videos on a topic based on least effort.
2. <video> tag has never had a single good implementation. They are all bugged and 100x slower/clunkier than using the built in menu on a CRT TV from the early 90s.
3. Yes, the web would be better if it was just static content. Even without <video> tag. The primary use of a <video> tag is clickbait (actually, almost nobody uses a <video> tag because they don't want to host video, and instead use a youtube embed, so <video> is not even used in practice). For anything else, like movies, porn, etc, it's 1000x more convenient to just download the video and watch it offline in a real video player like MPV. Web browsers still cannot even turn off that stupid "you are now in full screen" banner at the top of the screen, which fortifies my point that <video> is not good for what it is intended for: short one-off clips scattered throughout web pages.
4. The whole idea that it's hard to have a video tag is a product of licesnsing braindamage and the clusterfuck of video encoding standards.
5. The web is not great, and I try to avoid it as much as possible. Using a god damn terminal emulator (the most braindamaged obsolete shit in the world) is 1000x more pleasant than using a web browser.