| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| iOS 6 beta 4 removes YouTube application |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-06 18:34:14 |
| Well, this is interesting. Apple has released iOS 6 beta 4, and it removes one of the staples of iOS, included since its very first release with the first iPhone: beta 4 does not include the YouTube application. YouTube is owned by Google, so that could be an explanation. However, unless Google has its own iOS YouTube application ready, iOS 6 could lead to a lot of unhappy iPhone and iPad users. The large websites with sources inside Apple are probably hard at work trying to find out what's going on here - could just be a bug, or maybe a way to gauge public response by causing news sites and blogs to post about it. Huh. Update: thank god for sites with clout: The Verge confirms that Google is working on a stand-alone iOS YouTube application. Good news for users, since the stock one wasn't particularly good to begin with. |
|
| YouTube is HTML5 |
| By Macrat on 2012-08-06 19:16:44 |
|
An app isn't needed. YouTube supports HTML5. http://www.youtube.com/html5 |
 - Score: 7 |
| RE: YouTube is HTML5 |
| By FunkyELF on 2012-08-06 19:42:17 |
| lol... that's funny. |
| - Score: 6 |
| The app is not needed |
| By fx__ on 2012-08-06 20:01:48 |
|
I haven't used the Youtube application in ages since the webpage works much better! Still odd that it's being removed, maybe Apple is working on it's own Video-publishing site? Is it still possible to upload to Youtube directly from the camera-app? |
| - Score: 2 |
| Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-06 20:54:56 |
|
So can Google remove support for H.264 from Youtube now? iOS was the primary reason for keeping it, it seems. Google long ago promised to drop H.264 from Chrome. That never happened. Now should be the time. And dropping it from Youtube would be even a bolder move. Edited 2012-08-06 20:57 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by shmerl |
| By d3vi1 on 2012-08-06 21:34:38 |
|
Without going into the whole H.264 is evil debate, why would they do that? It's still the best codec out there. It's supported on all devices using hardware acceleration which for mobile devices is the only reasonable way to go. Furthermore most content is available in H.264. TV is H.264 in HD and in some countries also for SD. Digital downloads (legal or pirated) are mostly in H.264 (except for a few that use VC1). Blu-Ray is wither H.264 or VC1. Based on industry trends, instead of dropping H.264 they should also be adding VC1. WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. Unless you convince the broadcast industry to also switch to it. Even Mozilla came to their senses and decided to add H.264 support in Firefox. Licensing is not an issue anymore as on OS X you've had support for a long time, Windows supports it natively since Vista and for Linux you have codecs from fluendo. Somehow, I'm pretty sure that the silicon that comes with most computers of the past 5 years already includes a license for H.264, just like most consumer operating systems. If you are a WebM fan that wants to live H.264 free, it's your choice, but please don't push it on the rest of us. Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there. Yes, for MPEG5, we should ask for an open codec, but the current standard across all industries is MPEG4. And MPEG4 is everywhere. Even my webcam supports hardware encoding of H.264 just like Intel's newest chips. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-06 21:52:54 |
|
Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors). In regards to why Google would need to do the switch. It's needed in order to advance the shift to open codecs. The industry is still dragging in closed codecs era even on the Web. Google is one of the major pushers for shift to open codecs (at least they claimed to be), and they released VP8 as open for that reason. They even promised to drop H.264 from Chrome to advance that cause - but they didn't keep their word so far. Doing that in Youtube would have a broader impact, and will give a kick to Apple, who is slowing the industry by pushing H.264 on the Web. If Apple is trying to bite Google by limiting access to Youtube on iOS, it's even more appropriate for Google to make a move in the right direction. Edited 2012-08-06 21:55 UTC |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE: YouTube is HTML5 |
| By Mellin on 2012-08-06 23:18:32 |
|
only on videos without ads "Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)" Edited 2012-08-06 23:19 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[2]: YouTube is HTML5 |
| By Macrat on 2012-08-07 02:13:10 |
|
> only on videos without ads "Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)" Pretty funny statement considering that in other forums, lovers of the app say they use it to avoid the ads that appear in the mobile web site. :-) |
| - Score: 3 |
| There used to be an app for that |
| By frostbyte on 2012-08-07 04:29:58 |
|
I remember some 3+ years ago with a Nokia N900 in hand I was told left and right the phone/platform sucked because it lacked apps. Most of the time I thought the reason iPhone had the "there's an app for that" was because ultimately its browser sucked and couldn't handle Flash. Now that iOS has matured, it turns out many/most iOS users are watching YouTube via Safari, since the browser is better at it than the discrete app... That is all, back to my shack I go. Edited 2012-08-07 04:30 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[3]: Comment by shmerl |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-08-07 05:09:28 |
|
> Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors). Nobody should agree to that but we can't really discuss why without getting into all the comparatives you want to avoid. Which, by the way, is taking a lot of effort for me to resist doing right now. |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |