ORBX.js: 1080p DRM-Free Video and Cloud Gaming Entirely In JavaScript 103
An anonymous reader writes "According to Brendan Eich, CTO of Mozilla and the creator of JavaScript, ORBX.js can decode 1080p HD video and support low latency remote graphics entirely in JavaScript, offering a pure JavaScript alternative to VP8/H.264 native code extensions for HTML5 video. Watermarking is used during encoding process for protected IP, rather than relying on local DRM in the browser. Mozilla is also working with OTOY, Autodesk and USC ICT to support emerging technologies through ORBX.js — including light field displays and VR headsets like the Oculus Rift."
Writes reader mikejuk: "The problem with all of this is that orbix.js is just a decoder and there is little information on the coder end of the deal. It could be that OTOY will profit big time from coding videos and watermarking them while serving virtual desktops from their GPU cloud. The decoder might be open source but the situation about the rest of the technology is unclear. In the meantime we have to trust that Mozilla, and Brendan Eich in particular, are not being sold a utopian view of a slightly dystopian future."
Enirely? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But in the ACTUAL context of this article, yes, it should clearly be "encoder".
No DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Watermarking, not DRM. This could be huge. OTOY’s GPU cloud approach enables individually watermarking every intra-frame, and according to some of its Hollywood supporters including Ari Emanuel, this may be enough to eliminate the need for DRM.
LOL.
"Hollywood Supporters". Those two words alone are enough to make this something to avoid.
Re:No DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why even bother using this type of stream as a source when a Blu-ray or even a DVD rip* would be easier, quicker, and of superior quality?
*I'd imagine that, even if the stream is 1080p, a DVD rip would be of superior quality due to the fact that the stream would be of limited bit-rate due to being streamed over the Internet. In addition to that, you be re-compressing an al
Re: (Score:1)
*I'd imagine that, even if the stream is 1080p, a DVD rip would be of superior quality due to the fact that the stream would be of limited bit-rate due to being streamed over the Internet. In addition to that, you be re-compressing an already compressed stream, resulting in further degradation.
It depends entirely on the quality of codec, how well encoder is doing his job & how much bandwidth they are actually allocating. I have seen 720p TV broadcasts being encoded even as 2Mbps h264 with very good results (which easily beats DVD). Of course when it's action heavy, you will need higher bitrate.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming media will still be available in those forms. If a way is found to individualize files and rape customers for personal information at the same time, I seriously doubt that type of media will be around for long.
Re: (Score:2)
If a way is found to individualize files and rape customers for personal information at the same time
Whew... I got scared by your first sentence. Never going to happen. We're safe from rape.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine that, even if the stream is 1080p, a DVD rip would be of superior quality due to the fact that the stream would be of limited bit-rate due to being streamed over the Internet.
Go to the pirate bay and look for the 720p web-rips of Netflix's "Hemlock Grove" - they are of significantly higher quality than even an original, maximum bitrate DVD could ever achieve. As bandwidth increases and codecs improve (h.265 was just finalized) picture quality is only going to improve from here.
Re: (Score:2)
*I'd imagine that, even if the stream is 1080p, a DVD rip would be of superior quality due to the fact that the stream would be of limited bit-rate due to being streamed over the Internet. In addition to that, you be re-compressing an already compressed stream, resulting in further degradation.
Not even close, as DVD is an MPEG2 480i encode. These days H.264 @ 9Mbps can get you a 1080p stream of about 80-90% of Blu-Ray quality.
Re: (Score:2)
that's peculiar.
I wonder if the OP meant encoder instead of coder.
Re: (Score:2)
If no one supports Hollywood there is no more budget for Hollywood movies.
And before anyone chimes in with the typical "good, they all suck anyway"... there has to be *something* redeeming about Hollywood content otherwise why the hell does anyone CARE if they use DRM or not!? If that's seriously your position you are no longer logically arguing consumer rights over DRM and are just being a spiteful hater with no real interest in the topic anyway.
Re:bloat (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop turning Firefox into a OS. I want my browser back.
Unless I'm missing something, there is no need for any additional code in Firefox or any other browser. Your browser just executes the ORBX.js javascript.
Re:bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are completely missing the point [wikipedia.org].
By now, the whole damn OS API is implemented in browsers. But slower. And shittier. And crippled.
s/browser/shell/g; s/tab bar/task bar/g; and you're done. In fact they already went that far, and called it ChromeOS [wikipedia.org]!
In fact they went even further: The browser is not the new OS, but the new machine [emscripten.org].
Don't believe they went too far? Then feast your eyes at THIS: http://jslinux.org/ [jslinux.org]
Yes, that's right! The actual Linux kernel... running on an actual virtual CPU... actually implemented in JavaScript inside your browser!
If you don't think this path is fucked-up, you're fucked-up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you are completely missing the point [wikipedia.org].
By now, the whole damn OS API is implemented in browsers. But slower. And shittier. And crippled.
s/browser/shell/g; s/tab bar/task bar/g; and you're done. In fact they already went that far, and called it ChromeOS [wikipedia.org]!
In fact they went even further: The browser is not the new OS, but the new machine [emscripten.org].
Don't believe they went too far? Then feast your eyes at THIS: http://jslinux.org/ [jslinux.org]
Yes, that's right! The actual Linux kernel... running on an actual virtual CPU... actually implemented in JavaScript inside your browser!
If you don't think this path is fucked-up, you're fucked-up.
Irrelevant examples are irrelevant.
You use your Web browser to go to a web page and there's a video. How do you play it? Your browser uses some sort of plugin. This is not an example of the "Inner Platform Effect" but simply the most efficient and straight forward way to do it. As for the other examples, yes they are stupid, but irrelevant. All browsers contain a Javascript interpreter and ORBX.js is just another Javascript file. In fact, this *reduces* browser bloat by eliminating the need for a vide
Re: (Score:2)
You use your Web browser to go to a web page and there's a video. How do you play it? Your browser uses some sort of plugin. This is not an example of the "Inner Platform Effect" but simply the most efficient and straight forward way to do it.
I am perfectly aware that for some people (most people?) playing the video embedded in the browser might be the most straightforward way of playing it. For some it might be somewhat challenging finding the "save as" option in the context menu, and deciding a path that later they have to find again, but...
Embedded video players are the worst video player ever. Ever. There, I said it.
I'm following a class in Coursera, and the first thing I do is save the videos as local files and play them with VLC. When I p
Re: (Score:2)
MOST EFFICIENT? Implementing the whole H.264 decoder in Javascript is going to make Flash video playback look like a perfect implementation in comparison CPU usage-wise.
The *most efficient* way to do it is to use hardware decoding from a GPU (or CPU like Intel Sandy Bridge, etc), which is what most modern computers have been capable of for years anyway. But even MMX/SSE SIMD optimizations (which I would assume are NOT going to be available to "pure" Javascript) would be several times more efficient than
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the inner platform effect is an anti-pattern, and browsers do represent an example of it to a large extent. But that's not actually a bad thing.
Browsers have become a major way to distribute/run applications and in many ways they are significantly better than other methods. Particularly, web apps are (for the most part) cross-platform, even to obscure platforms. Other pluses are that they are very easy to make accessible, easy for the end-user (or at least third-party extensions) to customize, easy to
Re: (Score:3)
Good points, but another key attribute of applications executed in the browser is security. The browser has a consistant security footprint that I trust a lot more than I trust new applications. I may visit hundreds of pages in a day from vendors I have never heard of before, but I'd never be comfortable installing hundreds of applications even if they were more efficient for the same tasks. Most of the time, I trust my browser not to do something bad to my computer regardless of the content and am placing
Re: (Score:2)
...another key attribute of applications executed in the browser is security. The browser has a consistant security footprint that I trust a lot more than I trust new applications.
I imagine that if we did statistics today on this, not only does much more malware exist in stuffs executed by the browser than from applications that they install, they are also much more likely to get malware from the browser vector than any other vector (because of compromised sites and random surfing).
Sure much of the malware payload isn't pure javascript, but many vulnerablities start there (e.g., xss, csrf, etc) and in the implementations of the "sandboxes" that browsers use to run the malware^H app
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't disagree that more malware exists in web content, but then I'm not suggesting the ecosystem is perfectly safe. The security difference between installing an independant application for each thing and running them all through a single application is significant.
Is IE10 safe? Is FF safe? Is Opera safe? Is Safari safe? Is Chrome safe? Is Flash safe? Is Silverlight safe? Is Java safe?
You can have a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the security models of each. You can say "No" to every
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not conflate this discussion with a digression into the merits and demerits of walled gardens.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why you'd want to avoid that, but a walled garden is really where you can't choose to install software outside the specific vendor and that's obviously not what I was talking about. Considering the positive and negative aspects of security for the system in TFA is relevant isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
The browser has a consistant security footprint that I trust a lot more than I trust new applications.
What do you mean by a 'consistent security footprint'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bloat (Score:2)
Haven't noticed it. I use hosts files constantly to test that a site works correctly on a name based virtual server before changing the DNS and it has always worked. Granted - i use FF on OSX and you are probably talking about Win.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't ignore it on Windows either. And I'd recommend testing your sites in Windows FF as well, they're not always quite the same.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't make the sites, i just set up servers for them
Re: (Score:3)
Yes 'just' execute ORBX.js. And if ORBX.js will work as well the the pdf.js Firefox has started to use instead of arcoread, I will soon have to use another browser to see content besides HTML more than half of the time.
Javascript is slow and insecure. There is a reason I use noscript. I don't want every application re-implemented in Javascript and the browser using it instead of native applications just because it is possible.
Re: (Score:1)
It was already bloated before it went the OS route.
Re: bloat (Score:1)
They INVENTED JavaScript and are single handedly responsible for us not being locked into MS's 'vision' of the net - without costing you a cent. Give them a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Netscape invented JavaScript. Mozilla got the code from Netscape (but did a more or less complete rewrite anyway because that code was too messy), but they are a different organization.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually Netscape invented JavaScript. Mozilla got the code from Netscape (but did a more or less complete rewrite anyway
Actually actually the JavaScript interpreter is one of the few components from Netscape that they didn't rewrite (although it has of course had plenty of development over the years since then).
Re: bloat (Score:5, Informative)
From wikipedia...
"Eich is best known for his work on Netscape and Mozilla. He started work at Netscape Communications Corporation in April 1995, working on JavaScript (originally called Mocha, then called LiveScript) for the Netscape Navigator web browser. He then helped found mozilla.org in early 1998, serving as chief architect."
Since Eich both invented the language and helped found Mozilla, it seems like a pretty fair statement to say they (the Firefox/Moziilla team led by Eich) invented javascript.
Also note that he actually INVENTED javascript. He didn't just write an implementation of it. He is the original creator of the language itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah? well he should be shot. :)
Re: (Score:2)
That I can't disagree with (well, not literally, of course :)
It's so ironic that Javascript and HTML/XML form not only the basis of the modern WWW but are GAINING in popularity for "desktop" applications, when they comprise some of the most ridiculous and/or inefficient code and data descriptions someone could come up with. And even more ironic when people use XML as a data format with Javascript, since most Javascript XML parsers are insanely horrible in terms of performance (hence JSON was born). Really
Re: (Score:2)
They INVENTED JavaScript and are single handedly responsible for us not being locked into MS's 'vision' of the net - without costing you a cent. Give them a break.
Except for the fact that every day I encounter websites that do not display properly and/or are non-functional in any browser other than Internet Explorer.. Despite the popularity of Firefox and Chrome, we are still very much locked into "Microsoft's vision of the net"
As for giving them a break, I don't think so. After using Firefox for several years, my wife, the typical clueless nontechnical user, switched to Internet Explorer. Partly because it "worked better" on the websites she visits most often an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bloat (Score:4, Insightful)
I left Firefox too for a long time too.
I am typing this on Firefox 17 ESR because I do not like change that often when it breaks things, but it is much better thant Firefox 4. Versions 4 through 8 were really terrible and I do not blame his wife for switching.
My exwife used IE 6 right until IE 7 came out. I loaded up Firefox 2 and she was shocked how much better it was. She is not a loyalist and thinks IE is crap. Point being is that browsers and things change. Some people use Firefox out of habbit like some IE users now and wont change. Some like me use the best tool.
2 years ago IE 9 was the best browser. Secure, supported decent HTML 5, quick etc. Then Chrome was the better one. Now I find Firefox improving as it is no longer a bloated pig that breaks ever release and is OK. Once someone leaves due to performance the image is tarnished just like yours is with IE. Very hard to get people to switch back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact that every day I encounter websites that do not display properly and/or are non-functional in any browser other than Internet Explorer.. Despite the popularity of Firefox and Chrome, we are still very much locked into "Microsoft's vision of the net"
I am a professional software developer for a fortune 500 company, all the the projects I've been on for the past 14 years have been web related in one way or another.
If you were any fuller of shit you would simply explode.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that every day I encounter websites that do not display properly and/or are non-functional in any browser other than Internet Explorer.. Despite the popularity of Firefox and Chrome, we are still very much locked into "Microsoft's vision of the net"
I am a professional software developer for a fortune 500 company, all the the projects I've been on for the past 14 years have been web related in one way or another.
If you were any fuller of shit you would simply explode.
I see . . . and so I am trapped in some sort of alternate universe and all those websites I have encountered which do not function properly in Firefox, but work just fine in Internet Explorer don't actually exist.
You sir, are the one who is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I see . . . and so I am trapped in some sort of alternate universe and all those websites I have encountered which do not function properly in Firefox, but work just fine in Internet Explorer don't actually exist.
GP's piss-poor arguing skills aside, I haven't seen a not-functional-in-Firefox website in years. What's the most egregious example you can provide?
Re: (Score:2)
I see . . . and so I am trapped in some sort of alternate universe and all those websites I have encountered which do not function properly in Firefox, but work just fine in Internet Explorer don't actually exist.
GP's piss-poor arguing skills aside, I haven't seen a not-functional-in-Firefox website in years. What's the most egregious example you can provide?
You won't get an answer, those the vast majority of websites actually work better with Chrome and Firefox then they do with IE. Unless of course they were meant to only work with IE, which means that they were not really meant for public use anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't looked at the others, but target.com seems fine at first glance on Safari 6.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a professional software developer for a fortune 500 company, all the the projects I've been on for the past 14 years have been web related in one way or another.
Good, then you'll be able to present a reasonable and well-put argument to refu--
If you were any fuller of shit you would simply explode.
Aw.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply wasn't worth the effort. There's just no point in arguing with someone who's making it all up.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost never use IE and I haven't found a site in years that required it to work well (barring some internal corporate crap).
I do agree that Firefox went through a rough spot by jumping into a rapid release cycle without preparing enough for the challenges that brings. However, they seem to have gotten things working pretty smoothly now. There are frequent updates, but I no longer see things breaking like I did when they first started it.
Re: (Score:2)
Check your timezone settings - you seem to have left them about ten years into the past.
Re: (Score:1)
Care to share the sites?
I remember those dark days but besides the British ministry of health and welfare that requires its applicants to use IE 6 I no of none and I mean none on the net. Work it is different as 85% of corps love crappy ancient software because they can standardize on it and never spend money to change something unless the accountants see a way it can boost the shareprice.
Even at my work my coworkers use IE 9 and it works with 90% of our portals. Chrome bitches about our portal system with
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that every day I encounter websites that do not display properly and/or are non-functional in any browser other than Internet Explorer.. Despite the popularity of Firefox and Chrome, we are still very much locked into "Microsoft's vision of the net"
Ok, that is just absurd. With the latest generation of browsers I almost never see any compatibility issues. I use Chrome and Safari for Microsoft Outlook Web Access and they work perfectly for me. So Microsoft is locking people in when their flagship web-based (and very complex) product works fine on all browsers?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cross platform OS, what's not to like. SQUEE at the first part of the summary, AWW at the second part. What a letdown.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is becoming the Emacs of web browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that good or bad?
Re: (Score:1)
Good. Unless you're a vi user.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
So, that means chrome is vim, and IE is notepad... sounds about right.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So soon Firefox will have everything, except a decent web browser?
Just install the Lynx Addon [mozilla.org]
Name conflict (Score:2)
Someone dropped the ball big time on the name. There is already a software company called ORBX...they make flight sim addons.
Standard 'pump and dump' con (Score:1)
Investors in high technology are almost always idiots with no education in the fundamentals. Rather than take an informed approach based on carefully gained knowledge, they try to 'smell' success and are very vulnerable to signs of enthusiasm from industry 'figures' like 'Eich'.
It is child's play to create video decoders that SEEM to work great on very carefully chosen video material. An analogue would be the early colour ink-jet printers that seemed to create excellent photos in the store, when the manufac
Watermarking is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Watermarking is worse than DRM. Another person has already spelled out how to defang it - compare multiple copies and fuzz the parts that are different.
But the huge downside for the vast majority of regular joes is that it makes all of the customers responsible for "protecting" the videos they watch. If anyone hacks them or snoops the download stream or even infiltrates the server transmitting the video and releases their copy into the wild, that innocent viewer is now implicitly responsible for that piracy. It becomes a guilty until proven innocent situation.
No way am I going to watch a streaming movie, much less pay for it, if it means I have to now worry about the ultra-litigious MAFIAA coming after me with multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuits because I didn't know my PC was infected with a virus designed to pilfer the videos I watch.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I will, however, admit that SOME implementations of water-marking are worse ins SEVERAL ways than SOME implementations of DRM.
Consider, however, that watermarking should not prevent someone 20-50 years from now from reading & displaying the file. In that sense it is much less bad, in almost all implementations. (The ones that aren't less bad in that way contain some other feature that would properly be called either encryption or DRM.)
Re: (Score:2)
As an example what I suggested would take an H.264 file that is already encoded and alter each macro block only slightly so that there would be a slight (not noticeable) phase shift in the chroma planes. It would be progressive towar
Finally (Score:2)
I'm glad to see someone taking this serious. This has many options including providing support for DRM for vendors who want to