[repelsteeltje]

> There is nothing wrong with using a TS stream for HLS that makes it inferior.

Not wrong, but a bit surprising. As you mention, transport streams are designed to operate over unreliable connections (like satellite or terrestrial transmission). Reliability is not an issue with with HTTP or TCP.

Other than being archaic, some disadvantages are that TS has somewhat more overhead than (f)MP4 and poor ergonomics for random access / on the fly repackaging caused by continuity counter, padding, PAT/PMT resubmission timing, PCR clock.

If it were up to me to design a streaming protocol like DASH, HLS, Flash, or SmoothStreaming I'd instantly choose mp4 (or plain elementary streams). I wouldn't even consider TS or PS unless some spec forced me to.

[dylan604]

>Reliability is not an issue with with HTTP or TCP.

We seem to be confusing what reliable means here. Yes, HTTP/TCP can reliably transmit data in the fact that if packets are missed they will be resent so that you can be assured that the data will eventually be delivered. However, that doesn't do well for real time streaming of data that is necessary to be received in order. That's why UDP was made.

>If it were up to me to design a streaming protocol like DASH, HLS, Flash, or SmoothStreaming I'd instantly choose mp4 (or plain elementary streams). I wouldn't even consider TS or PS unless some spec forced me to.

Well, it's a good thing we didn't have to wait for you to come around and design a streaming protocol and we've been able to use it for the past ~20 years with the technology that was available at the time. Perfect is the enemy of progress.

[repelsteeltje]

> However, that doesn't do well for real time streaming of data that is necessary to be received in order. That's why UDP was made.

Sure, but UDP was not part of the HLS draft https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8216

> Perfect is the enemy of progress.

Touché ;-)

What I meant to point out as odd about Roger Panthos and co.'s decision to build HLS on top of Transport Stream containers is that Apple had already laid the foundation for MP4 with QuickTime.

Since HTTP live streaming was never about anything but HTTP, container capabilities like auto-synchronization offered by mpeg2TS were moot. It would therefore seem logical for Apple to build HLS upon what they already had with QuickTime + iso2 fragments. That was more or less the route Adobe/Macromedia had taken with Flash streaming.

Yet, the choose mpeg2TS (initially only muxing AAC and h264). The reason, historically seems to have been driven primarily by the capabilities of the iphone hardware which supported this out of the box! Separate transport streams for audio and video, WebVTT, elementary stream audio were added much later, and fragmented MP4 was introduced only once HEVC was bolted on.

I'm all for favouring what exists over what's perfect; it's just odd that Apple choose to (initially, at least) regress to 90s technology while rest of world had already adopted superior container.