The PS3 browser and net capabilities : Is PS3 getting Android/WebKit support?

[jeff_rigby]

Interesting article and an almost coherent Google translation. It certainly answers some of my ??? and when you think about the limited ram (esp. at the beginning) on top of the Cell implementation (though a browser should be able to run by itself on the PPU) you can understand why they went with a (mostly) homegrown browser. At this point though, one would think that pride might be holding them back from dumping it and going with something else. Other thoughts:

Since it is homegrown there's no reason to dump it now, they could offer a new browser as a PS+ upgrade and keep the other as the default and allow it to deprecate over the rest of the console life.

With the limited memory in mind, jeff_rigby may be right in that if they wanted to make available the gddr3 ram you would want that handled by the rsx, so using ogl make alot of sense.

It may have been the translation, but they seemed to indicate that the psp browser is homegrown (ish) too.

Steam uses webkit also, along with Google chrome, and of course with its origins in MAC OSX (on a PPC), as they may not have to ditch all their underlying work done on the current browser, there's alot of synergy moving in that direction.

One of the interesting things to consider is what the @#$% happened with 3.5? It was certainly shaping up to be a major release, but when they had to delay alot of it why even release? The answer could be that thye were still able to put out the underlying structure of a new platform and thus still meet commitments to Steam, Hulu, ESPN et al. It sucks if they're going to come out with the rest of the update in a month or so, but cross game chat would sooth thing over...................for a week..........maybe..............

My guess; they want to release features timed to advertising. We still have Qriocity coming which needs Ultraviolet DRM and Ultraviolet has Applications (probably Javascript). Further I suspect that Qriocity will use HTML5 (where possible) for streaming.

Was that PS3 browser article accurate, did I read correctly that it said the browser used 120 meg. That's huge by Google Chrome standards.

 

[upnorthsox]

My guess; they want to release features timed to advertising. We still have Qriocity coming which needs Ultraviolet DRM and Ultraviolet has Applications (probably Javascript). Further I suspect that Qriocity will use HTML5 (where possible) for streaming.

Was that PS3 browser article accurate, did I read correctly that it said the browser used 120 meg. That's huge by Google Chrome standards.

I think that included the XMB, and that was 2 1/2 yrs ago too. It could/should be much less now.

 

[patsu]

My guess; they want to release features timed to advertising.

What advertising ? ^_^
Have they started a new campaign in addition to the Playstation Move ones ?

We still have Qriocity coming which needs Ultraviolet DRM and Ultraviolet has Applications (probably Javascript). Further I suspect that Qriocity will use HTML5 (where possible) for streaming.

I remember Sony's Google TV is launching on October 12. They also have a Google TV settop box + Blu-ray player combo in the wings. It would be a good opportunity to reveal Qriocity there and then (if they are close to releasing it).

One of the interesting things to consider is what the @#$% happened with 3.5? It was certainly shaping up to be a major release, but when they had to delay alot of it why even release? The answer could be that thye were still able to put out the underlying structure of a new platform and thus still meet commitments to Steam, Hulu, ESPN et al. It sucks if they're going to come out with the rest of the update in a month or so, but cross game chat would sooth thing over...................for a week..........maybe..............

Was 3.5 supposed to be a big release ? I can't remember after so many firmware updates. ^_^

 

[tirminyl]

Was 3.5 supposed to be a big release ? I can't remember after so many firmware updates. ^_^

Not that I can remember. People were speculating Netflix XMB, and big browser upgrade. To their defense, the PSBlog has mentioned an upgrade to the browser (could be minor), coming and Netflix XMB is coming but will likely be an app. Otherwise, rumors

 

[jeff_rigby]

What advertising ? ^_^
Have they started a new campaign in addition to the Playstation Move ones ?



I remember Sony's Google TV is launching on October 12. They also have a Google TV settop box + Blu-ray player combo in the wings. It would be a good opportunity to reveal Qriocity there and then (if they are close to releasing it). Agreed




Was 3.5 supposed to be a big release ? I can't remember after so many firmware updates. ^_^

We are going into the biggest selling season and NEW features (upgrades) and products are planned for release in October with advertising and in stores by October 15th. This always happens.

Big news we've heard so far: nothing for the public, but trade magazines have announced features that allow enlightened speculation.

Possibles:
PS3 firmware 3.5 provides the tools for HTML5 streaming and Ultraviolet applications (Javascript)
October release has more HTML5 and Ultraviolet, Apps decrease in size 5 meg (except for MLB)

Bravia Internet Video released
Gracenote
More professional Multi-media application for all platforms (GUESS)
Ultraviolet Applications for Sale

Quriocity released ties into ultraviolet for non-Sony users
Google TV
Google TV blu-ray

New media and hardware platforms from SONY have Ultraviolet label. Sony advertising what that means, (BIG news as this means streaming to all HTML5 platforms) buy a blu-ray disk with the ultraviolet label, register it and Sony will stream the movie via (HTML5) to your platform as long as it's certified ultraviolet and all HTML5 platforms can be certified except APPLE who has not signed on with Ultraviolet. I expect native apps for some Sony hardware that can't support HTML5 (Javascript).

Sony web sites are redesigned (Announced by Jeff Rubenstein) (my guess, to support the platform that connects, supported by a new browser (Chrome on all platforms).

Advertising: Sony announces HULU, Netflix, MLB, Qurocity, Gracenote, Multi-media- Home theatre application for all platforms, SONY TV ($199.00) box more powerful than Apple TV box, and new hardware/platforms and how they interact with existing Sony products (Apple will be doing this also.) Cameras, walkman, readers, PSP2, CELLPSP, tablet.

One of my "Business" reasons for believing Sony is porting a new WEBGL webkit to the PS3 is Ultraviolet Universal DRM and their plans to support it with Qriocity. Ultraviolet requires HTML5 and I do not believe that Sony will want their flagship PS3 to be the only Sony product without an Ultraviolet label. Sony is the driving force behind Ultraviolet and has planned for this for over a year. The Qriocity database we can sign into has a listing of our hardware and media purchases which the Ultraviolet "rights" locker will need to certify media and hardware.

So for Ultraviolet we need Javascript and a minimum set of HTML5 features and I believe those are done and in the PS3 now. ACCESS and Ultraviolet code may not be in the PS3 yet but before Qriocity is released it will be.

Multiple divisions inside SONY are counting on HTML5 in the PS3, a new (completed) browser will only impact the PS3. Summit_slider's post commenting on what he heard from Sony employees in another division (Film) confirmed late September for a "Lite" version and I expect the HTML5 support for MEDIA was what was meant.

 

[jeff_rigby]

That's been there before. I think it was added some time earlier this year. Another bad habit PC's have has made it into the console.

It's not a browser report feature, it's a PS3 report for any crash and it was in an update earlier this year.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Big news we've heard so far: nothing for the public, but trade magazines have announced features that allow enlightened speculation.

Possibles:
PS3 firmware 3.5 provides the tools for HTML5 streaming and Ultraviolet applications (Javascript)
October release has more HTML5 and Ultraviolet, Apps decrease in size 5 meg (except for MLB)

Ultraviolet Applications for Sale

I can't find any information on Ultraviolet Applications. Did I misunderstand an article or is the following true?

Ultraviolet applications are supposed to be platform independent and will work on all Ultraviolet labeled platforms.

 

[patsu]

From what I read, Ultraviolet is a DRM platform. It will work on participating devices but it does not guarantee "Write Once Run Everywhere" portability. Each device can have its own implementations. Where did you get that Ultraviolet clients must support HTML5 ?

Also your timeline in http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1478126&postcount=65 is probably too aggressive.
I think Sony mentioned that Qriocity for non-Sony devices will only be available in 2011. As far as I know, they have only announced the rollout of Quriocity for Sony devices by end of the year. I could be wrong though. At *best*, I expect it to arrive on PS3 and may be Sony's Google TV this fall.

 

[jeff_rigby]

From what I read, Ultraviolet is a DRM platform. It will work on participating devices but it does not guarantee "Write Once Run Everywhere" portability. Each device can have its own implementations.

Also your timeline in http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1478126&postcount=65 is probably too aggressive.
I think Sony mentioned that Qriocity for non-Sony devices will only be available in 2011. As far as I know, they have only announced the rollout of Quriocity by end of the year. I could be wrong though. At *best*, I expect it to arrive on PS3 and may be Sony's Google TV this fall.

You are correct, SONY because of the Sony Quriocity database can implement Ultraviolet now, others quarter 1 2011. Sony can use that it's first to their advantage in advertising.

"Where did you get that Ultraviolet clients must support HTML5 ?" I didn't say that, I said all HTML5 platforms can support Ultraviolet except Apple who hasn't signed on with Ultraviolet. Other less powerful hardware can implement native applications. Also supposition; 1) It requires the use of a NEWER compliant DRM like Access or Playready normally found in a browser plugin and 2) Ultraviolet applications compatible with each other, Javascript outside of browser a feature normally only in new WEBKIT browsers 3) Mentioned are cellphones and HTML5 via WEBGL is the most efficient (battery power) 4) needed before companies would sign on with ultraviolet was a open source codec that all could use without fear of being sued, HTML5 provides that.

Standards must be in place before a UNIVERSAL DRM video and audio streaming service can be implemented.

Some of the more subtle issues with Ultraviolet"

1) the hardware must be registered and must support DRM
2) some mechanism must be in place to prevent/detect pirate software
3) It must be transparent to the user and easy to use
4) either a player needs to be provided or other software must have access to the media. This creates issues with DRM.

 

[patsu]

Does HTML5 provide an open source video codec ?
I thought they are split between H.264 (which companies need to pay MPEG-LA for using), and Ogg Theora.

The commercial video providers should be using H.264, so it's not a problem for them. However, as far as I know, video codec is not part of the HTML5 spec.

Back to your original question… no, I don't think Ultra Violet promises "write once run everywhere". I also don't think all HTML5 platforms will automatically support Ultra Violet. In the first place, support for HTML5 can be partial.

 

[dobwal]

Does HTML5 provide an open source video codec ?
I thought they are split between H.264 (which companies need to pay MPEG-LA for using), and Ogg Theora.

The commercial video providers should be using H.264, so it's not a problem for them. However, as far as I know, video codec is not part of the HTML5 spec.

Back to your original question… no, I don't think Ultra Violet promises "write once run everywhere". I also don't think all HTML5 platforms will automatically support Ultra Violet. In the first place, support for HTML5 can be partial.

I thought H.264 is royalty free unless you charge for content using it.

 

[patsu]

I think the parties are still fighting it out:
http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/m...dec-will-be-free-for-html5-streaming-forever/

 

[jeff_rigby]

Does HTML5 provide an open source video codec ?
I thought they are split between H.264 (which companies need to pay MPEG-LA for using), and Ogg Theora.

The commercial video providers should be using H.264, so it's not a problem for them. However, as far as I know, video codec is not part of the HTML5 spec.

Back to your original question… no, I don't think Ultra Violet promises "write once run everywhere". I also don't think all HTML5 platforms will automatically support Ultra Violet. In the first place, support for HTML5 can be partial.

RE: HTML5 H.264

Google is open source providing WebM and H.264 with Android and with Chrome. MPEG-LA is an issue that recently cropped up and may be why Canada has Netflix first. IF MPEG-LA issues are insurmountable we might see Ogg or WebM become the standard but Hardware provided codecs in the Intel supplied Google TV processors can't change to another codec nor can most WEB enabled blu-ray players. H.264 is a standard and for video streaming THE current standard. HTML5 spec does not specify a standard but there is one nevertheless. The WebM codec was designed to run on low performance CPU platforms without needing hardware support for the codec. So the Google TV Intel processor can switch to the WebM codec if needed.

RE: HTML5 (javascript) needed for Ultraviolet

To insure DRM of streamed media, the player needs to be a part of the package. Ultraviolet apps could be the player software and they are all platform independent in that "certified ultraviolet apps will work on all hardware platforms". For multiple reasons this needs to be HTML5 javascript. I.E. with the hooks to call media routines

And of course I am guessing this based on quotes of features in news articles. Ultraviolet universal DRM is a new standard and statements like I quote above meant to comfort/reassure the consumer. You and I know that many platforms will not be able to support an ultraviolet app and will need custom native code players, there goes the comfortable reassurances to the public. So on the outside of the box an Ultraviolet label may not be affixed but in big bold letters "Works with the new Ultraviolet standard". More confusion for the public.

RE: HTML5 & Ultraviolet Universal DRM

Netflix requires the use of a DRM. The video stream is encrypted so it does not resemble H.264 until being processed by the DRM in the Player. The DRM on the player must have a standard for communication with the server. Again, this is easier if supporting HTML5 in the server. Ultraviolet may be used to provide a universal DRM for Netflix and HULU which may not use the same DRM in their server. One of the features of Ultraviolet is the ability to pair with other compliant DRM software using the tools of one like Access to provide DRM for the other .

Netflix director of WEB engineering quote; " One of these is HTML5, which is raising the bar for cross browser support for advanced user interface features, and is now supported by a large and rapidly growing percentage of the visitors to netflix.com. In addition many TV based devices now embed webkit, which is the HTML5 compatible technology that underpins the Safari and Chrome browsers,”. In an update he says;" user interfaces. He says that because HTML5 video doesn’t have a viable DRM solution, they can’t use it yet." So HTML5 for user interfaces (Javascript) but not HTML5 video.

 

[patsu]

From Sony's perspective, they probably are not swayed by the H.264 license for their devices. They have already invested so much in H.264 content creation and distribution.

I don't get that UltraViolet must use Javascript. It's probably common to use HTML5 Javascript to create the app in the future, but it'd be strange to be restricted by it. If companies want to, they should be able to use a different platform. iOS may use Objective C, Blu-Ray may use Java/BD-Live. Standardizing on HTML5 is likely a sensible solutions to simplify deployment and development for the service providers. The UltraViolet specs may be broader. Qriocity may adopt HTML5 for the common case, and then "whatever works" for other non-HTML5 hardware. I don't have insider info.

 

[jeff_rigby]

From Sony's perspective, they probably are not swayed by the H.264 license for their devices. They have already invested so much in H.264 content creation and distribution.

I don't get that UltraViolet must use Javascript. It's probably common to use HTML5 Javascript to create the app in the future, but it'd be strange to be restricted by it. If companies want to, they should be able to use a different platform. iOS may use Objective C, Blu-Ray may use Java/BD-Live. Standardizing on HTML5 is likely a sensible solutions to simplify deployment and development for the service providers. The UltraViolet specs may be broader. Qriocity may adopt HTML5 for the common case, and then "whatever works" for other non-HTML5 hardware. I don't have insider info.

Tail waging the dog.

Perhaps we are thinking backwards. A WEBKIT browser is such an important part of any NEW WEB connected device that the hardware is chosen so that an easier port of a open source webkit like Google's is possible. And this explains Intel supporting Google, Intel providing code for Sony and others. With existing hardware drivers a port of a WEBKIT browser is a 4 hour job (article). For Sony, Intel or other hardware providers will do the heavy lifting in porting WEBKIT (HTML5). This then only leaves older hardware like the PS3 that needs support.

AGAIN, webkit browsers provide WEB tools that can be used by other applications. For the PS3 applications like those you mentioned. From a business standpoint, it's a no brainer....Sony must be porting a webkit browser to the PS3.

 

[jeff_rigby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)

Steam includes a Webkit based browser which can be accessed ingame.

The CEO of Steam gave a speech at E3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Newell

In 2007, Newell openly expressed his displeasure over developing his software for gaming consoles, particularly the PlayStation 3. In regard to the system, Newell was once quoted as claiming that developing processes for the console in general was "a waste of everybody's time"[4] and "a disaster on many levels ... I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a do over. Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'.

"[5] Nevertheless, at E3 in 2010, Newell appeared on stage at Sony's keynote; while acknowledging his past outspoken comments on console development, he discussed the open nature of Sony's PlayStation 3 platform, and announced Portal 2 for the console, remarking that with Steamworks support it would be the best version for any console.[6]

Why the change in attitude?

"with Steamworks support it would be the best version for any console.[6]" Better than Xbox? Why?

My guess, Sony is porting a WebGL WebKit browser to the PS3. Newell was informed and with those Web tools in the PS3; Steam, a cloud based game service, becomes easily possible on the PS3.

Web tools are multiple routines included in a WebKit that may be called from firmware by other applications. The entire WebKit browser looks like it uses 32 megs of memory but each of the multiple routines that make up the kit of Web tools is much smaller. The V8 javascript engine appears to be about 8 megs, and that may be the largest single callable routine in a WebKit. The kit of tools usable by other applications is what makes a WebKit browser so attractive to Sony and others. It is a necessity for a Web enabled hardware platform!

Thanks to upnorthsox for reminding me about "Steam"

 

[Rolf N]

<...>

Why the change in attitude?

My guess, Sony is porting a WEBGL WEBKIT browser to the PS3. Newell was informed and with those WEB tools in the PS3; STEAM, a cloud based game service, becomes easily possible on the PS3.

I wouln't attribute this to the browser, not as the single factor and maybe not at all. What does Steam even use the browser for? I thought all of its base functionality was built on direct network access and native UI code. The browser just plugs in as a bonus, for instances when users want to look at actual web resources.

The change surely came about because at some point he recognized the size of the market he kept ignoring. As an aside, further down the list, the network structure must have seemed appealing in a relative sense -- certainly not more appealing than on the PC.

 

[jeff_rigby]

I wouln't attribute this to the browser, not as the single factor and maybe not at all. What does Steam even use the browser for? I thought all of its base functionality was built on direct network access and native UI code. The browser just plugs in as a bonus, for instances when users want to look at actual web resources.

The change surely came about because at some point he recognized the size of the market he kept ignoring. As an aside, further down the list, the network structure must have seemed appealing in a relative sense -- certainly not more appealing than on the PC.

The nature of Newell's statement leaves much to be desired in that he does not elaborate on why and just states; "Open". I would guess that he was told to not reveal Sony plans. So we get a vague reference and we have to guess at meanings. I can't imagine a more open system than one that not only allows access to the web but provides the tools too.

WebKit PS3 routines are native PS3 routines, they allow for an easy implementation of Steam on the PS3. Without a port of WebKit tools to the PS3, Steam might be impractical or Newell might feel that it would lack the "attractive" features he feels necessary for Steam.

Your second argument that the size of the PS3 market changed his mind, the Xbox quote negates as the Xbox market is larger and the comment about the Xbox was not necessary and generally stupid in a business sense. I expect it reflected his frustration over the closed nature of the Xbox network even though the Xbox is easier to develop for as PC and Xbox share many common traits.

Closed nature as in "no web tools, no WebKit" and no open access to the Web. Correct me if I am wrong but MS won't allow a Web Browser inside a game on the Xbox. If this is true, might Newell be frustrated with Microsoft's attitude. I expect the work to include a Web browser in game reflects Newell's opinion as to it's need/functionality.

This is a guess on my part and the timing plays a part in this. When would Sony have approached Newell and informed him of a WebKit port? When would he have decided to port Portal 2 to the PS3?

Why was Newell a speaker at E3? Sony is also porting games to the PC, will have a MAG game that allows PS3 and PC users to play against each other, is implementing cloud computing and I believe will be involved in WEBGL games and cross platform language games. Was Newell who started cloud computing the reason, was this a subtle message?

Steam is Newell's baby and it's a Cloud Computing application. Sony professed interest in Cloud computing over a year ago. Google's WebKit solved many problems for Sony caused by 1) lack of memory in the PS3 and Web access, 2) Tools for Web access 3) cross platform languages 4) applications and sharing IP 5) third party applications

Mod edit: Unless a word is an acronym, there's no need to capitalise the whole thing.

Note to Moderator; Of course I will bow to "standards on the forum". My opinion is that the typical skim reader will miss important points without the tools provided to Bold, Color, Italic, underline, capitalize, etc. I assume because they are part of your forum, to be used but you are correct, they can be used to excess.

Note to poster : Anyone skim reading isn't part of the discussion so you don't need to communicate with them. Anyone who's actually discussing is going to read it all!

 

[Rolf N]

WebKit PS3 routines are native PS3 routines, they allow for an easy implementation of Steam on the PS3. Without a port of WebKit tools to the PS3, Steam would be an impractical task.

Why? What parts of Steam rely on a web browser?
Steam is built on top of IP networking, and that is crucial to all its functionality. Web browser are not enablers for IP networking, they are a use of IP networking just like Steam itself. Browsers render HTML documents. The machinations to transfer those documents (and arbitrary other data) are not provided by the browser. So again: which parts of Steam hinge upon rendering HTML documents?

Prettier, unified stat presentation and built-in forum access are cool value-adds if available, but the core of the platform can be ported without any of that.

And btw, Webkit is open source software written in a fairly portable C++. It isn't native to any one platform. Valve or any other third party could have adapted it themselves if it really was that crucial.

Your second argument that the size of the PS3 market changed his mind, the Xbox quote negates as the Xbox market is larger.

Non sequitur. Second place can be significant, and it is significant in this case. Something like 60:40 even in the US, and much closer WW. Expanding your audience by half or more with an engine port that can be amortized across multiple games is a good business decision, second place or not.

Look at Valve's newly introduced support for Mac OS. That is by far a slimmer slice they are adding, but they did it anyway. This effort, too, is justified by the expansion of their audience.

Closed nature as in "no web tools, no WebKit" and no open access to the Web.

Or closed nature as in "no sending arbitrary IP packets around the world", certainly not for Silver members. But that is how Steam distributes games and enables community features. Displaying HTML? Sure, that's nice to have too.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Why? What parts of Steam rely on a web browser?
Steam is built on top of IP networking, and that is crucial to all its functionality. Web browser are not enablers for IP networking, they are a use of IP networking just like Steam itself. Browsers render HTML documents. The machinations to transfer those documents (and arbitrary other data) are not provided by the browser. So again: which parts of Steam hinge upon rendering HTML documents?

Prettier, unified stat presentation and built-in forum access are cool value-adds if available, but the core of the platform can be ported without any of that.

And btw, Webkit is open source software written in a fairly portable C++. It isn't native to any one platform. Valve or any other third party could have adapted it themselves if it really was that crucial.
Non sequitur. Second place can be significant, and it is significant in this case. Something like 60:40 even in the US, and much closer WW. Expanding your audience by half or more with an engine port that can be amortized across multiple games is a good business decision, second place or not.

Look at Valve's newly introduced support for Mac OS. That is by far a slimmer slice they are adding, but they did it anyway. This effort, too, is justified by the expansion of their audience.

Or closed nature as in "no sending arbitrary IP packets around the world", certainly not for Silver members. But that is how Steam distributes games and enables community features. Displaying HTML? Sure, that's nice to have too.

My understanding of a WEB-KIT is that it provides a Kit of web tools not limited to the HTML markup language.

PS3 Webkit routines are PS3 native (machine language) routines. They will become a part of the PS3 firmware.

I edited my post to make my point clearer. The vague nature of "open" makes for a legitimate-honest difference of opinion. As with all things Sony, it's hard to pin down what's happening.

Mac OS or iOS have Webkit ports and are a much smaller but growing platform. Perhaps the ease in porting due to "standards" like a WebGL in Apple platforms is attractive. The PS3 will also be an OpenGL platform that could/will support a WebGL webkit.