← Back to context

Comment by Aurornis

8 hours ago

> It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

The video experience for typical video files is great these days compared to the past. I think you may be viewing the past through rose colored glasses. For years it was a pain to deal with video because you had to navigate third party players (remember Real Player?), Flash plugins, and sketchy codec pack installs from adware infested download sites. If you were tech support for friends and family during that era, it was common to have to remove adware, spyware, and other unwanted programs after someone went down the rabbit home of trying to install software to watch some video they found.

The modern situation where your OS comes with software to play common files or you can install VLC and play anything is infinitely better than the past experience with local video.

Local video could be a nightmare in 90s. I remember those days. I remember when it was revolutionary that the Microsoft Media Player came out, and you could use one player for several formats, rather than each video format requiring its own (often buggy) player. Getting the right codecs was still a chore, though.

MS Media Player eventually fell behind the curve, but eventually we got VLC and things got great.

  • > MS Media Player eventually fell behind the curve, but eventually we got VLC and things got great.

    And in-between those we had Media Player Classic together with the Combined Community Codec Pack, and once you had MPC + CCCP installed, you could finally view those glorious aXXo-branded 700MB files found on a random DC++ hub.

I'm absolutely not viewing the past through rose colored glasses. RealPlayer was a dumpster fire, but that came later.

I could hold shift and drag on the timeline to select, copy, then paste it into a document or another video. I can't do that with VLC today. Apple removed the feature in later releases too.

  • What you’re describing with QuickTime was a proprietary nightmare that didn’t even work correctly across Apple products, let alone Microsoft or Linux.

    Today with modern tools like VLC or MPV and ffmpeg nearly anything can be viewed, streamed, or locally saved by your average user with basic Google search skills.

    And the number of free and paid video editing tools as far beyond what we ever had in the past.

    Then there’s the vast improvement in codecs. It’s quite insane that we can have a feature length - 4k video with 8 channel audio in a 3GiB file.

    The only problem about the modern world is streaming companies who purposely degrade the experience for money. And the solution is simply to fly the pirate flag high.

    • > What you’re describing with QuickTime was a proprietary nightmare that didn’t even work correctly across Apple products, let alone Microsoft or Linux.

      This is such a deep misunderstanding of QuickTime that it's hard to know where to begin. QuickTime supported standards whenever possible, but you must know that QuickTime pioneered digital video and audio before open media standards were ubiquitous, and was in fact the blueprint (sometimes literally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format) for today's standards. As a top-level history lesson, do yourself a favor and ask your favorite LLM, "What technology standards did QuickTime use and inspire?"

      1 reply →

    • One issue GP may be referring to is the bifurcation of video viewing tools and video editing tools. There are excellent video editing tools: on the desktop from paid ones like Premiere to free (as in beer) ones like DaVinci Resolve, not to mention mobile apps behind the TikTok culture. There are also excellent and built-in video players in every browser and every OS.

      But in the modern age viewing and editing a video are seen as two entirely separate tasks. You simply do not expect the video player that comes with the OS to cut, copy, and paste videos, even though cut, copy, and paste are basic OS-level features. This is very much different from the experience of almost all other kinds of files. You use Microsoft word to view and edit your word processing documents. Or if you aren’t fancy you use notepad to view and edit your plain text documents. These text documents easily allow cut, copy, and paste.

      3 replies →

  • You're not viewing the past with rose colored glasses. You're just viewing the past. We had simpler codecs with simpler computational complexities. Holding Shift and selecting a chunk of a video to copy was simple because videos were mostly a succession of independently compressed frames. Nowadays, we have forward- and backward- dependant frames, scene detection, and lots of other very advanced compression techniques.

    There are whole projects striving to provide a reliable way to just cut videos without having to recode [1] and after years the results are mixed and only working for very specific codecs; no wonder Apple decided that doing the same, to their quality standards of the time, was not worth the effort or a secondary feature that was not in scope.

    [1]: https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut

    • > Holding Shift and selecting a chunk of a video to copy was simple because videos were mostly a succession of independently compressed frames.

      That was never true. QuickTime 1.0 famously included the Apple Video ("Road Pizza") codec, which had to do temporal compression in order to support video delivery at usable file sizes.

      > There are whole projects striving to provide a reliable way to just cut videos without having to recode…

      Again, even QuickTime 1.0 did this perfectly.

      3 replies →

    • Cinepak was one such codec and that could be arbitrarily seeked and copied just fine, even in the early 90s, if the player was competently implemented. It's just a matter of computing from the nearest keyframe.

      What really happened was that the feature was first paywalled as QuickTime Pro, then removed altogether, in typical enshittification fashion. It had nothing to do with the technical limitations of any of the codecs.

  • > RealPlayer was a dumpster fire

    And actually malware IMO. IIRC many of its installs were through tricks: silent installations with other software, drive-by downloads, etc. And once in, by fair means or fowl, it took over every video playing avenue whether you wanted it to or not, and it itself included other malware like Comet Cursor.

> For years it was a pain to deal with video because you had to navigate third party players (remember Real Player?), Flash plugins, and sketchy codec pack installs from adware infested download sites.

How is this any worse than what YouTube does now? Real Player and flash never made you watch ads.

  • It seems you may be misremembering. From Wikipedia [1]:

    > Past versions of RealPlayer have been criticized for containing adware and spyware such as Comet Cursor. ... PC World magazine named RealPlayer (1999 Version) as number 2 in its 2006 list "The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time", writing that RealPlayer "had a disturbing way of making itself a little too much at home on your PC--installing itself as the default media player, taking liberties with your Windows Registry, popping up annoying 'messages' that were really just advertisements, and so on."

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealPlayer

    • Ah, I was not a windows user at the time.

      Regardless, from what I remember it was never as annoying as being screamed at to buy a minivan.

Real player was one of the first real video players, it wasn't a pain, it was a genuine addon.

Flash, also almost came built into every browser.

By the time both had gone away, HTML video built in was here. Of course, there were players like jwPlayer what played video fine.

Today, most browsers have most codecs.