What is Reddit's opinion of JW Player?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

There is a video player called JWPlayer that was one of the first embeddable web players back in 2004 and is still massively successful today. But its name comes from the initials of one of its creators. Could that be what you're thinking of?

I went through many years of building custom video players -- first in Flash, and then in HTML/JS when that technology could handle it. The truth about video is that to do it right, it's not easy, and there are enough off-the-shelf solutions out there today that you shouldn't punish yourself by reinventing the wheel. Check out JW Player or similar companies that have sophisticated pre-built players, and video hosting/streaming services.

I still maintain one site that I built the full stack of for subscription access to educational lectures. I use JW Player to play back the videos, which are stored on Amazon Cloudfront. The videos are compressed using HLS, which allows for "adaptive bitrate" streaming -- meaning that if a user's connection speed gets better or worse, the video will dynamically switch to a higher or lower quality to compensate. To facilitate the switching, HLS streams are broken up into lots of small files of around 10 seconds each (which I think is what you are describing in another comment). This makes the videos a bit more difficult (but not impossible) to rip off. Cloudfront also offers some content protections that you can put in place to restrict access.

Ok that's enough brain dumping. I hope I at least gave you some relevant keywords you can google for more info. Good luck!

It's probably not fake JW Player (not YouTube) frequently has odd/mistyped resolutions.

https://www.jwplayer.com/html5-video-player/

Hell, even on their own website, for the video advertising their HTML5 video player, one of the resolution options is 406p.

> I just went back to the source and looked at JWPlayer's license [...]

JWPlayer is a dual license product - using CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US for non-commercial users, and a proprietary license for its commercial customers.

> Nowhere does it say anything about adult content [...]

JustForFans clearly can't use the former license (being a for-profit enterprise), so they have to use the proprietary licensing (https://www.jwplayer.com/legal/tos), which states:

> These Terms of Service are subject to termination by Company immediately [...] if [...] Publisher violates any term of these Terms of Service, including the provisions regarding Prohibited Content

  > Publisher is prohibited from posting, uploading, submitting Playing or otherwise Distributing Prohibited Content [...]

defining 'Prohibited Content' as:

> "Prohibited Content" means any Content that [...] is [...] pornographic [...] or is otherwise inappropriate as determined by the Company in its sole discretion

It's not. I just checked their current TOS and an older one on archive.org, they didn't. Granted, that one is only from last year, but it's as far back as the wayback machine went for that page.

> JustForFans should read the license agreement before starting to use this software.

Yes, But.

Remember the Free Software movement speaking about the 4 freedoms?

> * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). > * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). > * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I was originally surprised by the first one, because I always thought Freedom zero (use the software however you wish), always was a given, even for proprietary software. So yeah, it's surprising to me that there's a licence for a video player out there that spells out "don't play porn with it".

Now, a quick look at their website suggests that JWPlayer is more than a video player, but something closer to software as a service. And I would be much less surprised about a "don't play porn with our service" clause. Still, one more reason to stay away from services when they could just be software.

I use JW Player on a couple of sites. The player is all JavaScript and works great. They offer transcoding as well if you use their hosting, but that is not required.

In Firefox you can Shift+Right-Click to open the context menu. I do this whenever a website tries to take over the context menu.

I tested it with the jwplayer sample video here. Shift + 2finger click: https://www.jwplayer.com/html5-video-player/

You can also get to the element picker through the toolbar button. Then you don't need to right click at all.

Most JWPlayer videos I've encountered at least respond to the spacebar and pause.

Unfortunately I don't know if/how you can block jwplayer globally. But hopefully you can at least block it reliably on sites you visit regularly.

I don't suffer from migraines (that sucks, dude) and I'm not following your statements about "cursors". Can you explain this a bit more? I don't see anything flashing or blinking when a jwplayer video is playing.

Personally I would try to stay away from CDN's to avoid excessively high costs (but most of my work is only used by a handful of people so it's probably not the same use case) and stream to an unlisted YouTube video and customize the player so it doesn't look like a youtube video, while google does the heavy lifting.

However, I am also using different AWS services (unrelated to streaming) and they have all worked great for me, so maybe something like this would work? https://www.jwplayer.com/blog/delivering-hls-with-amazon-cloudfront/

​

The idea being that you create a S3 bucket for your playlist + chunks, point CloudFront to it and then have your player point to the cloudfront url and let amazon do the rest.

If the video uses rarely used parameters, or the parameter has been considered as obsolete or not supported (albeit better) by the HTML standard, then that is a problem.

The main problem is the flexibility of the HTML5 media (autio & video) support. The other problem is the fact that Flash and Java have been expelled from the web standard. So, we're stuck with HTML5 rules and its disabilities.

I kind of (highly) doubt it will help, but you might want to try using JwPlayer library to play the video. It's a JavaScript based video player framework, but in its core, it still relies on the HTML5's video element, because that's the only video player we have. While it may still support Flash based video player, only older browsers would still allow Flash. And chances that users still keep old browsers are quite low.

If applicable, try converting the video to other format such as Theora in OGG, or VP8/9 in WebM. Perhaps their video decoder have better support for exotic video parameters.

im sorry guy, well i I just woke up, and found this site, https://www.jwplayer.com/developers/web-player-demos/captions-styling/, i I might have said to use the wrong bit of stuff for the code?

jwplayer().setCaptions({ "back": true, "backgroundOpacity": "0", "edgeStyle": "dropshadow", "fontSize": 30, "fontOpacity": 100, "fontScale": 0.05, "windowOpacity": "1", "color": "#ffff00", "backgroundColor": "#000000" });

i I have no clue if that will work either, im I'm about to get stylish and try my hand at making a script for it though, ill send it to you when im I'm done.

Not quite dead yet - While HEVC has had patent issues, causing delays - it is in no way a failed format. Thing have gotten a hell of a lot better during the last 6 months.

Hardware support for codecs takes a long time to come to market. Hardware support for AV1 wont be coming until early 2020 at the earliest, many more products will be coming out with HEVC support in the mean time, even if everyone moves over to AV1 in the future.

Also worth noting that all of the above companies have backed both formats - and have already negotiated licensing for HEVC - so it's misleading to list them in support of just AV1. While most of them do have invested interests in AV1, being part of the alliance - it's likely they'll be supporting both formats for a long time, even after AV1 comes to market.

Though in saying this, I'd be willing to bet the CC3 does not support HEVC - with it having no 4k support, i don't Google would be licensing HEVC for the few people who use the format for 1080p and lower content.