alt Hacker NewsI've never used video.js, and the site/advertising seems to be fairly oriented towards people who have used it or are familiar with it.
I had one question I couldn't answer reading the site: what makes this different from the native html video element?
AFAICT just the transport controls?
Replies
it just doesn’t work in every environment. every browser version has it’s own issues and edge cases. If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it.
P.S i built movie streaming and tv broadcasting player for country of Georgia and supported environments from 2009 LG Smart TVs to modern browsers.
Most browsers don't support HLS or DASH.
(And why does that matter? Dynamic bitrate adjustment. The chunks are slightly easier to cache as well.)
Fair point, we could answer that more directly on the site. Besides the comparison were there other things that make it seem oriented to people already familiar with it?
Generally, the video tag is great and has come a very long way from when Video.js was first created. If the way you think about video is basically an image with a play button, then the video tag works well. If at some point you need Video.js, it'll become obvious pretty quick. Notable differences include:
* Consistent, stylable controls across browsers (browsers each change their native controls over time)
* Advanced features like analytics, ABR, ads, DRM, 360 video (not all of those are in the new version yet)
* Configurable features (with browsers UIs you mostly get what you get)
* A common API to many streaming formats (mp4/mp3, HLS, DASH) and services (Youtube, Vimeo, Wistia)
Of course many of those things are doable with the video tag itself, because (aside from the iframe players) video.js uses the video tag under the hood. But to add those features you're going to end up building something like video.js.