HTML5 on consoles

[jeff_rigby]

There are 2 issues here. The UI + layout, and the streaming technology. Would be cool if the Hulu Plus app is written in HTML5 and is still well received. I remember people hated the original web-based PS Storefront.

The streaming tech is not specified in HTML5. NetFlix is probably using standard HTTP or RTSP based solutions, but I'm not sure.

If this is true, we should see http and https requests from the Hulu and NetFlux apps when we sniff the network.

Would that be unique to HTML5? EDIT: Missed what Patsu was saying; as a closed console https could be used to insure DRM into the PS3 and DRM in a closed console PS3 might not be needed.

Thanks, any confirmation one way or the other will be welcome.


None of these are definitive.

For yourself, download the free MLB and install. You will see the upgrade drop the application size to 7.6 megs. Run the application in demo mode and look at the features. What is the minimum size for a PS3 application (the wrapper size with includes.) Subtract that from the 7.6 megs for the MLB application. Is what you see possible with the size of the resulting application? Did javascript code download it'self to the PS3 HD?

To my mind javascript is the key, most of the features in HTML5 would not be used, Video codecs in HTML5 are already in the PS3. The size difference post 3.5 is probably javascript support being removed from the application because a javascript engine is in the PS3 probably a Google V8.

 

[patsu]

Would that be unique to HTML5?

Depends on what and how much content we can find in the requests and responses.

To my mind javascript is the key, most of the features in HTML5 would not be used, Video codecs in HTML5 are already in the PS3. The size difference post 3.5 is probably javascript support being removed from the application because a javascript engine is in the PS3 probably a Google V8.

I thought Google gave up porting V8 to non-Intel processors ? Their engineers said it's too much work to optimize for another CPU. If someone else has done it for Cell, I reckon Sony would make a lot of noise about it.

I have no idea why the apps become smaller.

 

[upnorthsox]

Depends on what and how much content we can find in the requests and responses.



I thought Google gave up porting V8 to non-Intel processors ? Their engineers said it's too much work to optimize for another CPU. If someone else has done it for Cell, I reckon Sony would make a lot of noise about it.

I have no idea why the apps become smaller.

Maybe the latest security issues have tightened their lip, there was talk before about a collaboration with Google on something though it was usually assumed to deal with Chrome.

 

[patsu]

They probably have multiple projects with Google (e.g., Google TV, YouTube API for PS3 games, etc.).

There was also a rumor about a meeting between the Mozilla team and the PS3 people. ^_^

 

[jeff_rigby]

Depends on what and how much content we can find in the requests and responses.



I thought Google gave up porting V8 to non-Intel processors ? Their engineers said it's too much work to optimize for another CPU. If someone else has done it for Cell, I reckon Sony would make a lot of noise about it.

Javascript perfomance is a bottleneck and an effort to provide the fastest Javascript engine worth the effort. WEBGL where javascript can directly call OpenGL ES video routines allows the PS3 to play WEB games almost as fast as native applications DEPENDING ON JAVASCRIPT performance. Perhaps they found a faster way rather than to have the V8 engine pre-compile javascript to native code. porting V8 to the CELL was going to be the hardest part of a WEBKIT port to the PS3. OpenGL calls don't need a rewrite, standard OS calls too.

 

[patsu]

My bad. They developed V8 for ARM later:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/

Naturally, no one heard of Cell V8 yet. Would be strange to hide it ! Would love it to be true.

 

[jeff_rigby]

My bad. They developed V8 for ARM later:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/

Naturally, no one heard of Cell V8 yet. Would be strange to hide it ! Would love it to be true.

There is nothing on this in any searchable web page. From a business standpoint it must be true. IF HULU wouldn't change their streaming protocol from HTML5 for Microsoft they sure didn't do it for Sony. The HTML5 stream is in a form that is usable/supported by the PS3 since day one and the only thing that would be significantly different about HTML5 support for the PS3 would be javascript and hooks supporting OpenGL video calls for Javascript.

So we CAN say that Firmware 3.5 contained a significant change to the PS3 firmware that allowed WEB applications to reduce in size from 12 - 7 megs each. HTML5 support (Javascript) in the PS3 would do this but we can't confirm.

More speculation/background:

The first PS3 firmware/OS was very crude with few WEB tools in firmware. The Netfront browser did/does not use the PS3 firmware for WEB tools /codecs/javascript and the PS3 OS can not use WEB tools included in Netfront. This results in duplication and a bloated inefficient PS3 firmware. So over the years WEB tools have been added to the PS3 to support WEB applications.

Not to be critical but these tools may not have been optimized or had the talent behind them that the group developing the open source WEBKIT and WEBGL has. With a port of a WEBGL WEBKIT browser to the PS3, WEB routines/codecs/javascript would be added to PS3 firmware and old maybe buggy or inefficient code would be replaced.

New WEBKIT (open source) browsers are designed to add tools to a platforms firmware. Older browsers did not do this, they wouldn't/couldn't because they were not open source. The browser was provided as one large compiled program, an index to routines in the browser was not provided and routines in the browser could not be used without the entire program being loaded into memory. WEBKIT browsers provide a KIT of commonly used web tools separated into useful routines. They become part of the PS3 firmware and can be used by any application.

This new WEBKIT code would not be used by the Netfront browser as it is a stand alone program running on it's own code and WEB tools. So we will not see any changes to how the the Netfront browser works with updated PS3 firmware.

What we may see are bugs disappearing, faster OS code, more efficient use of memory and smaller easier to write WEB applications. This will impact games in that a smaller set of routines rather than the entire Netfront browser may be used to support a web browser inside a game.

The negative impact would be Sony delaying web applications like cross-game-chat and others until after routines that would support it are in the PS3.

And we haven't even touched on Android and the open source library of tools it brings to the PS3. They too are designed like WEBKIT to provide a KIT of tools for the PS3 firmware. These can be used without Android as they are compiled into PS3 machine code and can be added to firmware and indexed.

All this is a massive job and no leaks.......beyond Summitt_sliders comments on the PSN PS3 forum. He heard Sony employees from another division of Sony comment on a timetable for Google-Android-Chrome coming to the PS3 and if HTML5 was in Firmware 3.5 his timetable is accurate to this point.

Of course HTML5 was absolutely needed for Netflix, HULU (Catchup TV announced by Sony almost a year ago), Quriocity, Bravia Internet and more that we don't know about. A new browser is not as much of a priority as the WEB tools it contains.

 

[patsu]

There is nothing on this in any searchable web page. From a business standpoint it must be true. IF HULU wouldn't change their streaming protocol from HTML5 for Microsoft they sure didn't do it for Sony. The HTML5 stream is in a form that is usable/supported by the PS3 since day one and the only thing that would be significantly different about HTML5 support for the PS3 would be javascript and hooks supporting OpenGL video calls for Javascript.

They don't really need to change much for PS3 because it can use whatever Blu-Ray players are using. Sony maintains the PS3 client. The streaming solution remains the same since they are standard H.264 streams (so called HTML5 streaming). If you read the OP article carefully, the trouble maker is MS's proprietary SmoothStream solution. It may need dedicated servers which Hulu will not cover.

The negative impact would be Sony delaying web applications like cross-game-chat and others until after routines that would support it are in the PS3.

Are you sure cross game chat is a web app ?

All this is a massive job and no leaks.......beyond Summitt_sliders comments on the PSN PS3 forum. He heard Sony employees from another division of Sony comment on a timetable for Google-Android-Chrome coming to the PS3 and if HTML5 was in Firmware 3.5 his timetable is accurate to this point.

Of course HTML5 was absolutely needed for Netflix, HULU (Catchup TV announced by Sony almost a year ago), Quriocity, Bravia Internet and more that we don't know about. A new browser is not as much of a priority as WEB tools.

Would be good if you could post the links to Summitt_sliders' posts.

You may need to define what HTML streaming mean first. Many devices (TV, Blu-Ray players, set top box) can stream from those service providers without a full fledge HTML5 renderer.

It is possible that the OP mixed up HTML5 layout/DOM with HTTP-based H.264 streaming.

 

[jeff_rigby]

They don't really need to change much for PS3 because it can use whatever Blu-Ray players are using. Sony maintains the PS3 client. The streaming solution remains the same since they are standard H.264 streams (so called HTML5 streaming). If you read the OP article carefully, the trouble maker is MS's proprietary SmoothStream solution. It may need dedicated servers which Hulu will not cover. That's part of what I am saying.

Are you sure cross game chat is a web app ? How would you define WEB support for multiple Audio streams. In the classic sense of an application from the XMB under video or audio NO.

Would be good if you could post the links to Summitt_sliders' posts. See below

You may need to define what HTML streaming mean first. Many devices (TV, Blu-Ray players, set top box) can stream from those service providers without a full fledge HTML5 renderer. Subtract from HTML5 all HTML4 features and that's my definition. It's not a layout engine and it's not a renderer. That leaves WEB codecs for video and audio, hooks for Javascript to manipulate the tagged video stream and more. The keys are dynamic updating and Javascript.

It is possible that the OP mixed up HTML5 layout/DOM with HTTP-based H.264 streaming.

Confusion yes. What HTML5 allows that is NEW is what we are talking about. It's not HTML layout/DOM but the features put into HTML5 that can be called by applications (not a browser with HTML layout/DOM) OUTSIDE a browser to do what we see in HULU, Netflix and MLB. Javascript is the KEY and the hooks in HTML5 provided for Javascript are NEW.

Summit_slider link:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/t5/...gle-TV-Same-With-The-PS3/td-p/45670881/page/2 Message 13

 

[patsu]

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

 

[upnorthsox]

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

I don't see anything in your links supporting your contention.

That said, it looks like Netfront just came out with a new browser version that has partial HTML5 and javascript support:

http://www.access-company.com/products/internet_appliances/netfrontinternet/internet_appliances.html

[New in NetFront Browser v4.1]

High Speed JavaScript Engine
[Supported Standards]
Compliant with the OMA Browsing 2.3 specification


[Markup]
cHTML, HTML 5 (Partial), HTML 4.01, XHTML1.1, XHTML Mobile Profile 1.2, WML 1.3, SMIL 2.1, RSS feed (RSS 0.9/0.91/0.92/1.0/2.0, Atom 0.3/1.0)
.
.
.
.

 

[jeff_rigby]

This is HTML5 video tag:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox
http://www.quackit.com/html_5/tags/html_video_tag.cfm

It can be implemented by HTML4 browsers with a common video plugin. The service provider won't know the difference unless they are also responsible for the client development. Many devices only have partial HTML5 support. So specifying HTML5 compatibility does not necessarily mean they don't need custom work for these devices.

For client development, they already support TVs, Blu-ray players, iOS devices, and PS3s. I believe all of them use similar streaming technologies (i.e., no proprietary codecs).

HTML5 client may require no additional cost to license. But developing a custom client may not be as expensive as maintaining a separate server farm. e.g., I am not sure if NetFlix's latest AppleTV UI is built on HTML5. It could be a native app (Need to chat up a few Apple friends).

Yes....this is why confirming WEBKIT (HTML5 and Javascript) will be difficult. It's possible to do this with custom code. It was done with custom code before 3.5. AFTER firmware 3.5 new versions of the applications shrink from 7-12 megs in size. WHY? What web tool(s) of 7 megs size could be in the custom application that is not needed after 3.5 or rather supplied by calls to PS3 firmware? Why did Netflix wait for 3.5 to release their application. Netflix director of WEB development specified HTML 5 and dynamic user interfaces.

We are back to the start of the discussion. Occam's razorr applies here. The simplest explanation is a new WEBKIT browser is being ported to the PS3 and is partially active.

The arguments I'm getting for the most part center around "it's Sony" IF I said Apple ported HTML5 to the iOS handhelds would I get the same arguments? GOOGLE is the difference, they want 38 million more users for their services and are providing Sony with code and probably programmers.

 

[patsu]

I don't see anything in your links supporting your contention.

I am just saying a HTML4 or HTML5 frontend should not be too different from each other *if* the requirements are just for video streaming with a simple UI. The HTML5 specs in those links are already implemented in HTML4 in the form of plugins today.

At this point, I think the iOS video clients are mostly native apps. They may use WebKit in the app, but I am not sure if they use it throughout. Will check with Apple developers. The Blu-ray players and TVs are either Java + simple HTML, or native apps.

That said, it looks like Netfront just came out with a new browser version that has partial HTML5 and javascript support:

http://www.access-company.com/products/internet_appliances/netfrontinternet/internet_appliances.html

Yap, it's under trial until November. We'll see if Sony release something by then. We posted the same link in a related thread.

EDIT:
jeff_rigby, it is said that NetFlix signed an exclusive deal with MS that expires near end of this year.

As for the shrink in HDD footprint for Hulu, I have no idea why. It is also possible that Sony improved the web browser enough (e.g., stablize the JavaScript) that they felt comfortable to use it. It may or may not be HTML5 though. The full HTML5 specs include local database support, sophisticated animations, etc (e.g., implement a Flash game). We have not seen any conclusive evidence of HTML5 on PS3 yet thoough.



I should be able to check out Hulu Plus from Home tonight. Couldn't do so yesterday because it was activated on my office PS3. Need to wait 24 hours to use it at home.

 

[upnorthsox]

I am just saying a HTML4 or HTML5 frontend should not be too different from each other *if* the requirements are just for video streaming with a simple UI. The HTML5 specs in those links are already implemented in HTML4 in the form of plugins today.

At this point, I think the iOS video clients are mostly native apps. They may use WebKit in the app, but I am not sure if they use it throughout. Will check with Apple developers. The Blu-ray players and TVs are either Java + simple HTML, or native apps.



Yap, it's under trial until November. We'll see if Sony release something by then. We posted the same link in a related thread.

EDIT:
jeff_rigby, it is said that NetFlix signed an exclusive deal with MS that expires near end of this year.

As for the shrink in HDD footprint for Hulu, I have no idea why. It is also possible that Sony improved the web browser enough (e.g., stablize the JavaScript) that they felt comfortable to use it. It may or may not be HTML5 though. The full HTML5 specs include local database support, sophisticated animations, etc (e.g., implement a Flash game). We have not seen any conclusive evidence of HTML5 on PS3 yet thoough.



I should be able to check out Hulu Plus from Home tonight. Couldn't do so yesterday because it was activated on my office PS3. Need to wait 24 hours to use it at home.

Hey, I defer to you on this as you're more up-to-date than me on this. I was just saying your links didn't provide any support.

As to Jeff_rigby's occam razor's contention, I'd say occam's razor would point to the Netfront upgrade and not a separate webkit. Personally I find this disappointing as I just don't like the look-n-feel of the Netfront browser and was hoping that Sony was using their current good position with the PSP EOLing, PS+, and 4 yrs of sub par performance from Netfront to introduce/switch to a new browser. At the very least put pressure on them to properly update the browser. It doesn't look like that's happening though.

 

[patsu]

Hey, I defer to you on this as you're more up-to-date than me on this. I was just saying your links didn't provide any support.

I implemented a video streaming web plugin before, complete with DOM event support. ^_^
HTML5 is powerful but at this stage, it is still possible to implement a simple web app using HTML4 + a standard video plugin.

See archie4os's post:

Well HTML5 just gives you the <video> tag now, however the bulk of the work is handled by javascript, CSS and the media playback abilities of the browser or OS. Personally I don't think it's all that big of a deal since both (PS3 and Xbox) are closed platforms anyways. However in the case of the PS3, anybody *can* target it since it does have a browser (of dubious qualities, but sites can be optimized for it) plus it does support Flash.

HTML5 will become a bigger deal with quick rollout and update of sophisticated content. For videos, the cheats happen inside the video streaming tech, not in HTML5. For simple animation and layout, JavaScript and CSS can be done in HTML4 also.

[size=-2]In general, HTML5 is more than <video> tag though.[/size]

 

[upnorthsox]

I implemented a video streaming web plugin before, complete with DOM event support. ^_^
HTML5 is powerful but at this stage, it is still possible to implement a simple web app using HTML4 + a standard video plugin.

See archie4os's post:



HTML5 will become a bigger deal with quick rollout and update of sophisticated content. For videos, the cheats happen inside the video streaming tech, not in HTML5. For simple animation and layout, JavaScript and CSS can be done in HTML4 also.

[size=-2]In general, HTML5 is more than <video> tag though.[/size]

Yep, was going to mention that archie4oz would be our best source on this subject. As he notes, it's the javascript that's doing the heavy lifting and if the new Netfront browser is 20x faster in this regard then that's a major improvement. I still don't like the look-n-feel though which has not improved one bit, it's still a mobile browser running on what is in essense a lite PC.

 

[patsu]

He's essentially saying there is no difference between HTML4 and 5 other than the video tag (for streaming apps). As long as there is a robust JavaScript engine, it doesn't really matter if HTML5 is there for a simple app. It will be more apparent if the app requires a local SQL database (via JavaScript) for example.

The media playback capability of the device matters the most for a video streaming app. The media control interfaces are just simple buttons and layers. The DOM events can be passed in HTML4 plugins today.

The other important aspect would be media search. It should be a server feature unless they store the entire video library index locally.

They can do all of the client interaction in HTML4 or HTML5. It's not a big difference either way at the moment for a simple streaming app.

EDIT: Yeah, AppleTV's NetFlix app is native, not HTML5. Just like the iPhone and iPad ones (Meeting Apple dudes for lunch). IMHO, the video service providers may very well switch to HTML5 to build their apps, but there is no rush for them to do so if these apps have already been deployed. The real content is delivered by the video streaming tech. As long as MS uses the same streaming tech as the other companies, they should be fine.

OTOH, it would be cool if we have HTML5 web browser in XMB though. For general web surfing, HTML5 compliant layout will make a HUGE difference.

 

[jeff_rigby]

This needs to be deleted.

 

[patsu]

Wiring up video streams in HTML5 (video tag) or HTML4 (object tag) is similar in effort -- as long as the platform already has media playback capabilities.

I am not sure about mandating full HTML5 support in ESPN. They probably only use a subset. As I mentioned, many devices can only deliver a partial HTML5 experience. Besides Xbox 360, there are also other devices that they will need to support.

At the end of the day, it comes down to user experience and cost. If they have already achieved both using other (similar) technologies, the business people may not want to incur additional switching cost. If it's a new partner, then yes, they can work out a new arrangement. Standardizing on some level of HTML5 is a good idea.

The bulk of the cost is server maintenance. As long as the providers (e.g. ESPN3) don't have to foot additional cost here, I think the rest is negotiable. Afterall, the client development can be funded and maintained by someone else (e.g., MS).


For general Internet surfing where this is no clear lead or closed group negotiation, then HTML5 will bring tremendous value.

The Apple folks only told me about AppleTV. For NetFlix, we already know it works on simple HTML parser in the Blu-ray specs. So they should be receptive to this form of collaboration too.

 

[jeff_rigby]

He's essentially saying there is no difference between HTML4 and 5 other than the video tag (for streaming apps). As long as there is a robust JavaScript engine, it doesn't really matter if HTML5 is there for a simple app. It will be more apparent if the app requires a local SQL database (via JavaScript) for example.
.

And where is the Javascript engine? I do not believe you can use the Netfront Javascript outside the browser. It is my belief that the larger applications pre 3.5 firmware contained a javascript engine. After 3.5 it's in the PS3.