MSE support

[Supernova]

His point is that's the choice of google ; not a technical necessity on their side.

[Kocayine]

His point is that's the choice of google ; not a technical necessity on their side.

So what, we protest the choices of Google in our small time browser by refusing to adjust to their requirements, leaving us with broken-ass flash player and a 360p html5 player?

Stubbornness, woohoo!

[Supernova]

That's not why MSE isn't in PM atm...

[Sajadi]

that's the reason why a second browser is never a bad idea. Often you meet stuff which can only be solved if you use some other solution. That's the sad reality

Pale Moon stands for no discrimination no matter which kind of user you are and no matter which believe you carry with you and freedom and not being a Google slave, while Mozilla is all Google in the meantime. Freedom always carries with it some inconveniences, but luckily there are secondary solutions available which frees people from the force to use dictatorship products like Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Anyway as that thread has already given an explanation why MSE is not implemented is that it is just a big mess and not stable, but i am sure once all things are sorted out it will be considered to be implemented perhaps by Moonchild or not, depending on good reasons.

[Moonchild]

May I ask why exactly MSE needs to be absolutely polished before it can even be implemented (in the same way it's implemented in official Firefox)?

It's not complete. It's a partial implementation in Firefox. It's far from "polished" and far from "complete".
Firefox has implemented the bare minimum to "make the YouTube player work". The relevant bugzilla bug is even labeled as such. That's just creating bias, even aside from the fact that MSE is undesirable for Pale Moon. If a browser implements specific bare minimum work to cater to one specific site (which isn't guaranteed to work on any other site) then that is a strong bias for that particular site by the browser developers.

The reason you do not get 480p or 1080p HTML5 on YouTube is because Google refuses to serve these resolutions to HTML5 players unless you have MSE support in your browser. That is not a limitation of "not having MSE", it's a limitation imposed by Google since it refuses to give you those streams unless you have MSE.

Pale Moon is perfectly capable of playing WebM VP8 and VP9 videos in full HD. It's also perfectly capable of playing H.264 videos in full HD. Google simply doesn't let you watch those streams.

[Kocayine]

May I ask why exactly MSE needs to be absolutely polished before it can even be implemented (in the same way it's implemented in official Firefox)?

It's not complete. It's a partial implementation in Firefox. It's far from "polished" and far from "complete".
Firefox has implemented the bare minimum to "make the YouTube player work". The relevant bugzilla bug is even labeled as such. That's just creating bias, even aside from the fact that MSE is undesirable for Pale Moon. If a browser implements specific bare minimum work to cater to one specific site (which isn't guaranteed to work on any other site) then that is a strong bias for that particular site by the browser developers.

The reason you do not get 480p or 1080p HTML5 on YouTube is because Google refuses to serve these resolutions to HTML5 players unless you have MSE support in your browser. That is not a limitation of "not having MSE", it's a limitation imposed by Google since it refuses to give you those streams unless you have MSE.

Pale Moon is perfectly capable of playing WebM VP8 and VP9 videos in full HD. It's also perfectly capable of playing H.264 videos in full HD. Google simply doesn't let you watch those streams.

How about tricking YouTube into thinking that our browser is ready to use their services (which they supposedly are)

I'd just use flash but in pale moon that doesn't seem to be the greatest experience either.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Impossible. Without the technology it won't work.

it is like trying to trick someone you are riding a bike when you are obviously walking.

[Kocayine]

How so?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

How so?

Because the technology is NOT present. The technology is required to decode these streams because that is how Google has sabotaged them.

[Moonchild]

Maybe an easier and relevant analogy is trying to play an MKV file on a PS3. Even though the actual data in the file could potentially be decoded and played on the console (since they would be MP4 video/audio, for example), it can't play it because the console doesn't know how to handle the MKV container the streams are contained in. You cannot "trick" the console into understanding the container format.

Similarly, MSE video is sent to your browser through specific Javascript APIs (MSE is a method that allows Javascript to download media data, manipulate it, and then feed it to the video decoder/renderer). If the APIs aren't present, then the Javascript code can't feed the media data to the video renderer (because that requires the MSE API). Since Google only serves the relevant videos in "MSE container" formats (through Javascript and not as regular bitstreamed data directly), the media data can't be played since the browser doesn't have the tools to pass the data from the way it's served to the actual playback routines. i.e.: you could possibly "trick" the site into making it think you support MSE, but you would still not be able to play it in the browser unless MSE is actually supported.

[Sleeping]

Good explanation

But why did Google choose something so stupid? Wouldn't it be easier also for them to stream directly in html5?

[Jonguy30]

They could have chosen to stream html5 directly, but they chose not to. They prefer to lock users instead. Big corporations love closed formats and DRM.

[Sajadi]

Good explanation

But why did Google choose something so stupid? Wouldn't it be easier also for them to stream directly in html5?

Making it way harder for users of other browsers, there is the chance that these lose patience and moving on to Chrome. That is what Google is hoping for. Doing also everything possible that other browser developers discard their strength aka customization (both Opera and Firefox have thrown that away already).

Google is no company which loves fair play!

[dark_moon]

This is the best time for other video portals to make it better and support all browsers without DRM or something like that.
Anyone knows a good alternative for youtube?

[Jonguy30]

Sadly there are no others I know of. Most others place stupid restrictions on their services, be it what kind of videos are allowed (e.g Vimeo doesn't allow gaming content for example), or they restrict access and "encourage" you to buy a premium subscription. And other alternatives are simply bad. I wish there was an alternative, but it doesn't look like it.

[fillerup]

Vimeo is the best alternative choice out there, but sadly it's only utilized by bands and documentary film makers from what little i know. nothing comes even close to the amount of content YouTube has to offer. it's so entrenched as the de facto standard video sharing service that i cannot fathom anybody moving away from it unless a catastrophic collapse happens (it won't)

[Jonguy30]

Well, there was this whole automatic copyright claims debacle that hit multiple videos on a massive scale. But it seems to have settled. Too bad it didn't make people move away from youtube, or create another alternative.

[__NM64__]

Similarly, MSE video is sent to your browser through specific Javascript APIs (MSE is a method that allows Javascript to download media data, manipulate it, and then feed it to the video decoder/renderer). If the APIs aren't present, then the Javascript code can't feed the media data to the video renderer (because that requires the MSE API). Since Google only serves the relevant videos in "MSE container" formats (through Javascript and not as regular bitstreamed data directly), the media data can't be played since the browser doesn't have the tools to pass the data from the way it's served to the actual playback routines. i.e.: you could possibly "trick" the site into making it think you support MSE, but you would still not be able to play it in the browser unless MSE is actually supported.

Wait, then how the heck is something like CompleteYouTubeSaver, which is nothing more than a Pale Moon-compatible Firefox extension, able to access the MSE video streams?:
http://www.cys-audiovideodownloader.com/

Heck Pale Moon can in fact even play back those MSE video streams while they're still downloading (though only for WebM).


And FYI, FFMPEG is only required if you want the video and audio streams combined into a single file, which is actually not necessary for Matroska and therefore WebM playback (see: MPC-HC). However, there seems to currently be a bug in CYS where it only downloads the video stream (rather than both the video and audio stream into separate files) if FFMPEG is not present.

[Moonchild]

If CYS is able to access the video streams then that shows you even clearer that MSE is not required for these streams, since the data is not manipulated before it is fed to the video playback parts. So, YouTube MSE is an arbitrary "delivery vessel" method but just passes on the video and audio data unaltered. CYS can access the data if it monitors the connections initiated or even just analyzes the URLs present in the generated JS snippets for MSE delivery (the URLs will simply be present in the MSE player on YouTube, in the page source, in that case).

[__NM64__]

Well then i would imagine that someone could look into how CYS is doing it and make a new extension or userscript or something to access the VP9/WebM formats for direct playback in the YouTube player.

However, is Pale Moon even capable of playing back and syncronizing separated video and audio streams?