Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
Download ZIP


Youtube player is not supported #187

yoshimo opened this Issue · 28 comments

I just tried to watch
the screen remains black and the Error Console simply prints

Zeitstempel: 25.03.2013 20:01:53
Fehler: TypeError: avm2.applicationDomain.getClass(...) is undefined
Quelldatei: resource://shumway/shumway.js
Zeile: 15956


YouTube is a complex Flash application. It will be a while until we support it.


It would be interesting to find out what it needs. At the moment I think it's stuck doing some XML.


Any chance this plugin could automatically fall-back to the flash plugin if it knows the content is not supported rather than displaying a black box and requiring a click to fallback?


I second the above.


With the most recent YT commits (good work guys) i found this:

[12:31:07.172] uncaught exception: TypeError: Error #1006: value is not a function.
[12:31:07.713] [ 0.446s] [yt.debug] init
[12:31:07.714] [ 0.447s] [yt.debug] yt.player: embed
[12:31:07.714] [ 0.447s] [yt.debug] yt.player: new PlayerReference


Thank you for all your work and for posting the update here.
I'm really looking forward to being able to watch videos on youtube using shumway.


After recent changes, we now get:

uncaught exception: TypeError: l16 is null

I guess the reason is missing function calls:

Really nothing we can do public$$setActiveColor
Really nothing we can do public$$resetClockHandler
Really nothing we can do public$$setActiveTheme


These are not really errors, just compiler warnings. A bit misleading, they just mean that the compiler was not able to optimize function calls to these functions.


Bumping this for a status update.


Among other things, but most importantly, this is blocked on getting the Media Source Extensions API implemented in Firefox.


Youtube have switched over to html-based players for all major platforms now. I'm sorry to say that, in light of that, this isn't much of a priority for the Shumway team for now. Closing this issue to reflect that reality.


Sorry, that wasn't very clear: Youtube is actively moving away from Flash-based players for all major platforms - for Firefox Nightly builds. Release builds don't have all the required capabilities, so it'll take a while longer there. Having said that, this particular video doesn't use the html-based player for me, too; no idea why.

The important part is that Youtube switching to html is the all-around better solution, and will almost completely certainly be finished in a shorter time frame than we could reasonably expect to have something truly useful with Shumway.


Every now and then I stumble upon extremely popular videos (namely those in VEVO* channels) that require Flash player on the desktop, but can be seen on any mobile browser. I agree with @svnpenn that having Shumway support YouTube would be a great enhancement.


Channels as VEVO channels won't be possible in Shumway until Firefox implements the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Precisely, the VEVO channel runs on Flash because many productors want DRM on their contents.

And then, when Firefox implement EME, Shumway won't be needed to play the VEVO channels.

In any case, I think it's important to implement support for this type of feature in order to allow using "'legacy' flash files" in the future, in the same way LibreOffice is adding support for legacy document formats.


@tschneidereit respectfully I think you overestimate Google’s ability to complete this task. They are WebM encoding all new videos yes, and are transcoding older videos in order of popularity.

Re-encoding in WebM isn't needed to play videos in the html-based player - it can play mp4 videos just fine, and the overwhelming majority of all Youtube videos are available in that format. Those remaining videos that are only available in Flash-only formats are hard to support for us anyway, precisely because the browser cannot play them.

However given the sheer volume of backlog, this could take years. I feel that lets wait until Google fixes it is a poor solution. If we are going to use that line of thinking, why dont we just scrap Shumway altogether and wait until Adobe fixes it?

I'm not sure where I wrote anything even close to what you seem to be responding to: we know for a fact that Youtube are actively moving to html-based players. That might not cover all videos right from the start, but it means that the substantial efforts we'd have to put into supporting Youtube don't compare well to the quickly diminishing returns. It's also very different from a generic "lets wait until Google fixes it". Had we been able to ship a production-quality version of Shumway that supported Youtube a year ago, we'd have done it. Part of why that wasn't possible was lack of support of some required features in Firefox itself - the very same features whose availability now allows Youtube to switch to the html-based player. I'd also be curious to learn just what kind of fix from Adobe we're supposed to wait for.

Regarding the remaining Flash-only channels, @castarco is exactly right: they (or most of them, anyway) require DRM and will only work once EME support lands in Firefox. That still won't mean that Shumway will be able to play those videos, then: the DRM used for the Flash player is different from EME, so we'd have to implement the Flash player's DRM system, too. That's not only nigh-impossible, it's also almost certainly illegal in quite a few countries. (And yes, DRM sucks in pretty much every possible way.)


@tschneidereit maybe I am misunderstanding. What is it that makes this not work without Flash?

Because this video will not play in Firefox on Windows.


the overwhelming majority of all Youtube videos are available in that format.

@tschneidereit do you have any data backing this up? My experience has been about 50%.

Hard, recent data? No. But very compelling older data and information supporting this claim:

  • Youtube started making all new videos available in H.264/mp4 shortly after the Flash player got support for that format in December 2007. Not only do the videos uploaded before that make up a tiny, tiny fraction of all Youtube videos (because the internet enjoyed sustained tremendous growth in the seven following years), Youtube also converted the vast majority of the catalog they already had.
  • When Youtube announced their first beta version of the html5-based player way back in January 2010, they didn't even mention the format of videos as a reason for them not being supported. The only reason they'd do that is that it wouldn't matter much in practice.
  • When Youtube announced support for webm, they stated that they had already converted the videos making up 99% of all views to webm. Assuming that all those were available in H.264 before that, that makes two html5-compatible formats available for those videos.

Based on these facts, either you're an extreme outlier in your selection of videos, or many more than 50% of them are in fact available in html5-compatible formats.


@tschneidereit maybe I am misunderstanding. What is it that makes this not work?

I don't know. My guess would be that it's the overlays used in the video, and that they haven't fully implemented support for those in the html5-based player yet. There really isn't a way for me to tell, though. Given that they made their intent to support all videos in html5 very clear, and that they cleared the most difficult hurdles on that way by now, I don't expect this roadblock to hold out for too long.


Do you see the problem here?

No. I have given plenty of explanation by now: investing many month of engineering time into something were we can be reasonably sure that it'll be completely obsolete soon just isn't something we can afford to do. We're a small team and have to choose our priorities carefully. This isn't one of them.


How can you be sure, when you have no idea what is causing the problem?

Because we know for a fact that they want to move away from requiring Flash for any videos, and that they have overcome the hard problems on that way.

Look, I appreciate that you really would like Youtube support in Shumway, but that won't change our priorities here. I haven't been able to convince you of our reasons for that, and that's unfortunate. I don't think arguing about it any longer will is a productive us of your or my time. If you have any substantial new information, such as hard proof of Youtube not moving away from Flash within the next year, please forward that to us, though.


No. You closed the issue, therefore the burden is on you to prove that YouTube is moving away from Flash within the next year.

I don't understand why that would be. You want me to do something, so convince me. Otherwise, I'll keep to the decision I made. Think about it - that's exactly what you, and everyone else, would do in this situation.


Oh, and obviously, we would immediately accept patches that brought us to a state where we supported Youtube in production quality (or something closer to that, at least). Given how much work that involves, it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone will produce those patches, though. Closing this issue is a reflection of that reality.


Recall your first comment

Youtube have switched over to html-based players for all major platforms now.

This was in fact your original reason for closing. The reality is that regardless of some HTML player, many videos still do not work without Flash. If you want to close this issue because it is too hard, then that is your business. But dont kid yourself or anyone else that YouTube is largely working without Flash, because it is largely not.




@tschneidereit Thank you very much for your clarifications and your work in the project, I didn't know the situation about EME in depth. Kudos!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.