«

In article <ka02dt$d80$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | > Interesting. I just tried loading a youtube video
> | > while pretending to be an iPad.
> |
> | How do you pretend to be an iPad?
>
> The userAgent string that tells a website what the OS
> and browser is. Most browsers provide the ability to
> override the userAgent, which is sometimes handy.
> By using a typical iPad userAgent I can get a website
> to respond as they would to an iPad.

changing the user agent is not necessarily what you need to do to get
non-flash.

most sites look to see if you can run flash at all, and if you can,
then it sends flash. the user agent doesn't matter.

if you can't run flash, then it sends non-flash content.

in other words, your attempt to fool it didn't work.

> | ...and then there is this to consider.
> | You do know that there is an app for that?
> | < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yout...544007664?mt=8 >
>
> You mean the iPad can't show youtube video until
> it has a special app?

of course it can, however a dedicated app can offer a much better user
experience than a browser.

> Perhaps some sort of QuickTime
> extension? Whatever it is, youtube is going to great
> lengths to hide their operation.

no they aren't.

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> There are people who display their photos on their websites as flash
> instead of jpeg, probably because this makes grabbing the images more
> complicated.

no it doesn't. if it can be displayed on a computer it can be saved.

worst case, take a screen shot.

Sorry, Out of order post. My usenet host limits the
number of Re's it will support in one subthread
-------------------------------------------------

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:081220121157576736%...
| In article <k9vm2e$vg4$>, Mayayana
| <> wrote:
|
| > | The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
| > | supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
| > | HTML5 elements to web pages right now,
| >
| > I was wondering about that. I see only Flash
| > code at YouTube.
|
| as i said you're doing something wrong.
|

No, silly. I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm just
visiting youtube using a browser on Windows. In
that scenario youtube sends a webpage that displays
the video as an FLV file, using Flash to handle the
streaming. That's what I was trying to explain. Flash
is still the standard, even though i may not be on
some (or all?) tablets.

| > Yet nospam claims he's getting
| > HTML 5 VIDEO tags.
|
| i claimed no such thing.
|
You said that websites are using HTML 5 and therefore
don't need Flash anymore. The HTML 5 method of show
video if the VIDEO tag, but I've yet to see that used. It's
true that sites are *technically* using HTML 5, but you
won't find much, if any, actual HTML 5 code in the pages.
It's not widely enough supported yet. The confusion comes
in because HTML 5 has been widely used as a valorizing
term for overused AJAX.

| i also said that the first iphone in 2007 played youtube and that
| worked because youtube sends an h.264 stream to ios devices, which is
| handled in hardware.
|
| > If that's true then maybe
| > they're serving a different page for Apple tablets.
|
| they serve non-flash to devices that do not have flash installed. it's
| that simple. it has nothing to do with apple.
|
| maybe something on your system is reporting you have flash, so it sends
| you flash.
|

Actually it does have something to do with Apple,
though I don't know what, specifically. A website
like youtube sends pages based on the browser and
OS. I don't have Flash, as I said in two earlier posts.
But they don't know that. They just see that I'm on a
Windows PC so they send their standard Flash-based
page, with the assumption that I either have Flash
or will install it to see the video. The webpage they send
is technically HTML 5, but that's neither here nor
there. There's little if any HTML 5-specific code in
it.

It may be that iPads use QuickTime or some such for
video. (It's not "handled in hardware". Some kind of
software has to decode the stream.) Any tablet not using
Flash has to make other arrangements. I don't know
anything about the details of that -- whether youtube
is sending Flash for computers and maybe QuickTime
for tablets, or whether perhaps the landscape is more
complex than that.

For myself, I don't use tablets and I use DownloadHelper
with script disabled to download youtube videos. Then I
play them in VLC Media Player. (And actually I don't even do
tha very often. I don't go online to watch TV or see video
of toilet-trained cats.) So I have no occasion to deal with
streaming media. It's blocked from all the sites
I visit because I disable script and don't have Flash installed.

I'm guessing that one probably can't even control cookie
settings or see the HTML source code on a tablet, but I've
never had occasion to explore that.

I'm certainly not surprised that major sites have arranged
to make sure that video works on tablets and phones. If
you're on a PC you might be writing letters or editing
photos. If you're on a tablet or phone you're almost certainly
in "consumer" mode. They want to cash in on that. But,
again, that has no bearing on how long Flash will last, and
it has no direct connection to so-called HTML 5.

| > In any
| > case, I can't see any of these sites (like network
| > news, ComedyCentral, YouTube, etc.) switching
| > to something like an HTML 5 VIDEO tag if they
| > can't hide the source URL of the video. They all go
| > to great lengths to prevent people getting a copy
| > of video because it would allow people to see less
| > ads and return to the site less often. Worse, perhaps,
| > for them is that people would understand that the
| > video is a file and not a broadcast.
|
| i don't know what you're doing but it's easy to get the source and the
| video file itself.

Without playing the video? I find that DownloadHelper
works on youtube, but not on Vimeo, ComedyCentral, or
anyplace else I've seen. (Even youtube apparently tries
to break downloadhelper periodically and it has to be
updated.) The source code of the pages at those sites does
not show the source URL of the video. Usually it shows
the path to an SWF file, which then handles the streaming.
On Vimeo the link is to a number that seems to link to
a back-end database. So they know what to stream to
the player, but they don't have to expose the path of the
actual file.
If you can tell me how to easily get the actual videos on
those sites, without streaming the video or enabling script,
then... well.... I'll try not to criticize your pronouncements
quite so much.

| > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
| > news:2012120810075443658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
| > | On 2012-12-08 08:48:08 -0800, "Mayayana" <>
said:
| >
| You must have missed me saying that I have no trouble viewing Youtube
| in Safari or Chrome on my iPad or iPhone, just below my question, "How
| do you pretend to be an iPad?".
|
| "I just use Safari and stuff loads just fine, but note the URL for this
video:
| < m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-feedu&v=hhPGCXXa1Mc >"
|

That doesn't work for me. On Windows the Real Time Protocol
rtsp:// is not recognized. I'm guessing that Safari has a QuickTime
plugin that handles it. (Another proprietary player the world
could do without.)

But I wasn't trying to see the video in posing as an iPad.
I was just curious to see how youtube would code the
video in the webpage, and whether they might use an
HTML 5 VIDEO tag with an exposed video URL.

| The Youtube App just gives the user a far cleaner interface than a
browser.

I see. A dedicated player program.

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> > I see only Flash
> > code at YouTube. Yet nospam claims he's getting
> > HTML 5 VIDEO tags.
>
> Some video sites serve .mp4 videos instead of flash if you access them
> with a mobile device, even if the mobile device supports flash.

more accurately, websites serve mp4 or h.264 if you access it from a
device that doesn't support flash. that's frequently mobile, but it can
also be a desktop system.

> By the way I don't use Apple devices for a number of reasons (they are
> more expensive,

not for same specs they aren't. if you match specs, prices are similar.
the only difference is apple doesn't bother with bottom tier products.

> you can't replace the battery,

yes you can, it just requires a screwdriver. big deal.

most people will replace the device well before the battery wears out
so it doesn't matter that you need a screwdriver.

meanwhile, the device is thinner, lighter, more reliable and has longer
battery life, something that the user benefits from every day.

> no USB port,

wrong. not only is there a usb port but it comes with a usb cable in
the box!

> no microSD
> slot).

a lot of products don't have micro sd slots, including the flagship
android phone, the galaxy nexus, and the nexus 7 tablet.

users don't want to deal with swapping cards, and for the devices that
do have microsd slots, most people put in one card and leave it there.
might as well just have the memory internal in the first place.

In article <ka04dr$pem$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | > | The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
> | > | supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
> | > | HTML5 elements to web pages right now,
> | >
> | > I was wondering about that. I see only Flash
> | > code at YouTube.
> |
> | as i said you're doing something wrong.
>
> No, silly. I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm just
> visiting youtube using a browser on Windows. In
> that scenario youtube sends a webpage that displays
> the video as an FLV file, using Flash to handle the
> streaming. That's what I was trying to explain. Flash
> is still the standard, even though i may not be on
> some (or all?) tablets.

you are trying to fool it into thinking it's an ipad to get a non-flash
stream and it failed, so yes you are doing something wrong.

you need to do more than spoof the user agent.

> | > Yet nospam claims he's getting
> | > HTML 5 VIDEO tags.
> |
> | i claimed no such thing.
> |
> You said that websites are using HTML 5 and therefore
> don't need Flash anymore. The HTML 5 method of show
> video if the VIDEO tag, but I've yet to see that used. It's
> true that sites are *technically* using HTML 5, but you
> won't find much, if any, actual HTML 5 code in the pages.
> It's not widely enough supported yet. The confusion comes
> in because HTML 5 has been widely used as a valorizing
> term for overused AJAX.

most websites support non-flash. they have to, if they want visitors.

the sites you checked probably defaulted to flash unless it knows you
really can't use flash, which as above, you haven't spoofed it
properly.

> | i also said that the first iphone in 2007 played youtube and that
> | worked because youtube sends an h.264 stream to ios devices, which is
> | handled in hardware.
> |
> | > If that's true then maybe
> | > they're serving a different page for Apple tablets.
> |
> | they serve non-flash to devices that do not have flash installed. it's
> | that simple. it has nothing to do with apple.
> |
> | maybe something on your system is reporting you have flash, so it sends
> | you flash.
>
> Actually it does have something to do with Apple,
> though I don't know what, specifically.

in other words, your desire to bash apple is overwhelming, even though
you can't figure out what it is they're doing wrong.

wow.

> A website
> like youtube sends pages based on the browser and
> OS. I don't have Flash, as I said in two earlier posts.
> But they don't know that. They just see that I'm on a
> Windows PC so they send their standard Flash-based
> page, with the assumption that I either have Flash
> or will install it to see the video. The webpage they send
> is technically HTML 5, but that's neither here nor
> there. There's little if any HTML 5-specific code in
> it.

that's where you are wrong. they can tell if you can use flash and if
you can, you get flash.

changing just the user agent is insufficient.

> It may be that iPads use QuickTime or some such for
> video. (It's not "handled in hardware". Some kind of
> software has to decode the stream.)

wrong. ios devices have hardware decoding for h.264, maybe other
formats too.

> Any tablet not using
> Flash has to make other arrangements.

no, the websites do, and most already have done so.

> I don't know
> anything about the details of that -- whether youtube
> is sending Flash for computers and maybe QuickTime
> for tablets, or whether perhaps the landscape is more
> complex than that.

if you don't know, then stop guessing.

> For myself, I don't use tablets and I use DownloadHelper
> with script disabled to download youtube videos. Then I
> play them in VLC Media Player. (And actually I don't even do
> tha very often. I don't go online to watch TV or see video
> of toilet-trained cats.) So I have no occasion to deal with
> streaming media. It's blocked from all the sites
> I visit because I disable script and don't have Flash installed.

you sure like making more work for yourself, and there's a *lot* more
than cat videos on youtube.

> I'm guessing that one probably can't even control cookie
> settings or see the HTML source code on a tablet, but I've
> never had occasion to explore that.

once again, you guess wrong.

you can control cookies, block ads, view html and even edit it on a
tablet.

you're talking out your ass about stuff you have *no* experience in.

> I'm certainly not surprised that major sites have arranged
> to make sure that video works on tablets and phones. If
> you're on a PC you might be writing letters or editing
> photos. If you're on a tablet or phone you're almost certainly
> in "consumer" mode.

wrong again.

although tablets are more tuned to consuming than creating (which is
not a bad thing), but there's nothing that prevents someone from
creating content. a lot of people create on tablets, including walt
mossberg, who writes for the wall street journal.

> They want to cash in on that. But,
> again, that has no bearing on how long Flash will last, and
> it has no direct connection to so-called HTML 5.

the reality is flash is on its way out.

> | > In any
> | > case, I can't see any of these sites (like network
> | > news, ComedyCentral, YouTube, etc.) switching
> | > to something like an HTML 5 VIDEO tag if they
> | > can't hide the source URL of the video. They all go
> | > to great lengths to prevent people getting a copy
> | > of video because it would allow people to see less
> | > ads and return to the site less often. Worse, perhaps,
> | > for them is that people would understand that the
> | > video is a file and not a broadcast.
> |
> | i don't know what you're doing but it's easy to get the source and the
> | video file itself.
>
> Without playing the video?

sure. there are a number of ways to download a video directly. some
apps take a youtube url and give you a video file in the format of your
choosing.

In article <ka0558$tnl$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | You must have missed me saying that I have no trouble viewing Youtube
> | in Safari or Chrome on my iPad or iPhone, just below my question, "How
> | do you pretend to be an iPad?".
> |
> | "I just use Safari and stuff loads just fine, but note the URL for this
> video:
> | < m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-feedu&v=hhPGCXXa1Mc >"
> |
>
> That doesn't work for me. On Windows the Real Time Protocol
> rtsp:// is not recognized. I'm guessing that Safari has a QuickTime
> plugin that handles it. (Another proprietary player the world
> could do without.)

guessing wrong once again.

also, quicktime is a technology, not a player, and a technology that's
fairly open. anyone can write codecs for it, but when have facts
mattered to you.

> But I wasn't trying to see the video in posing as an iPad.
> I was just curious to see how youtube would code the
> video in the webpage, and whether they might use an
> HTML 5 VIDEO tag with an exposed video URL.

you didn't spoof it properly, so your test failed.

> | The Youtube App just gives the user a far cleaner interface than a
> browser.
>
> I see. A dedicated player program.

there's nothing wrong with dedicated apps. your desktop computer is
full of them.

In article <2012120811564577923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > For myself, I don't use tablets
>
> Now that might explain something.

it explains everything. he's talking out his ass.

| > | "I just use Safari and stuff loads just fine, but note the URL for
this
| > video:
| > | < m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-feedu&v=hhPGCXXa1Mc >"
| > |
| >
| > That doesn't work for me.
|
| Of course not. That is a mobile device URL, I did say to note the
| difference. This will get you to the same Youtube video as in the
| "m.youtube.com" video above.
| < http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=hhPGCXXa1Mc >
|

I see. Sorry. But your link still sends me to a
page with Flash. I can use DownloadHelper to
get the video, but the URL path to the FLV file
is severly obfuscated. It's not in the page code.

| > On Windows the Real Time Protocol
| > rtsp:// is not recognized. I'm guessing that Safari has a QuickTime
| > plugin that handles it. (Another proprietary player the world
| > could do without.)
|
| Nope! it works just fine on Safari, Chrome and Opera with no plugins
added.
|

Yes, but it's probably using Apple's QuickTime.
Something has to play the videos. Even with
HTML 5 there has to be some kind of plugin
for the video to play. It's not a native browser
function. In other words, it's likely that Opera on
Windows uses Flash but that Opera on Mac may
use QuickTime or some other plugin. If you look
up rtsp protocol and look at the servers and clients
list you'll see what I mean. I would need to install
some kind of supported plugin for rtsp protocol to
even make any sense on Windows.

| > I'm guessing that one probably can't even control cookie
| > settings or see the HTML source code on a tablet, but I've
| > never had occasion to explore that.
|
| ...but you are not using a tablet, you are just pretending to be a tablet.
|

I'm not even pretending. But I'm curious. Can
you set cookie options, disable script, and
view source code of webpages in your tablet
browser?