Requested feature overview description.
Nowadays to view webm videos on iPad u need to download it and open with another app. Sometimes it's a problem because the app I use for it cannot loop animation and there are a lot of short webm loop animations on this site. And on some sites it's possible for me to play webm videos just using my browser, without downloading, so I think it's possible for you to add this feature. (I use iPad/iPhone, I do not know about situation on android divices).

Why would it be useful?
It would be much simplier to browse site with mobile devices.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
webm player.

lightspectr said:
Requested feature overview description.

Nowadays to view webm videos on iPad u need to download it and open with another app. Sometimes it's a problem because the app I use for it cannot loop animation and there are a lot of short webm loop animations on this site. And on some sites it's possible for me to play webm videos just using my browser, without downloading, so I think it's possible for you to add this feature. (I use iPad/iPhone, I do not know about situation on android divices).

Why would it be useful?

It would be much simplier to browse site with mobile devices.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

Affected webm player.

Fixed that for ye.

From what I've heard, that's an iPad browser issue so I'm not sure if we can do anything about that. If we can, +1.

Unfortunately, as BlueDingo stated, this is an Apple mobile device problem. The browsers don't support playing webm, and it isn't reasonable to try and force them to support it. Since none of the major browsers on IOS use anything but the built in engine, you also don't have any good options to get around this, as the operating system doesn't support them.

KiraNoot said:
Unfortunately, as BlueDingo stated, this is an Apple mobile device problem. The browsers don't support playing webm, and it isn't reasonable to try and force them to support it. Since Apple also doesn't allow you to install alternate browser engines, you also don't have any good options to get around this, as the operating system doesn't support them.

But It can play webm. As I mention on other sites it's not a problem, it plays like other video. I know that it's immposibule to play flash files on apple divices, but it's not what I ask for. This problem with webm I have only on e621 and furaffinity

BlueDingo said:
Fixed that for ye.

From what I've heard, that's an iPad browser issue so I'm not sure if we can do anything about that. If we can, +1.

Thx for fixing my post)

lightspectr said:
But It can play webm. As I mention on other sites it's not a problem, it plays like other video. I know that it's immposibule to play flash files on apple divices, but it's not what I ask for. This problem with webm I have only on e621 and furaffinity

Furaffinity only supports Flash and GIF up to 10 MB.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:sites_and_sources#table

Flash is not supported either on iDevices nor android and the support on desktops will also end at the end of 2020, so that's one format that everyone is already trying to get rid of anyway.

HTML5 video supports WebM, MP4 and OGV files. Apple supports ONLY their own format, MP4. You can include multiple videoformats under same tag to counter this limitation, e.g. putting both WebM and MP4 file and browser then plays what it supports. Sites like imgur and gfycat do this. Problem with e621 is that there can only be one single file on post, so there can only be single file and right now the site only supports WebM. Also apple restricts all browsers to use same engine on iOS, so this cannot be countered by anything else than downloading the file to local memory and playing it back with video player.

Because of this I would really like to have examples of sites which do serve webm files which work on iDevices.

So if this does bother you, I would be in contact with apples support or change the manufacturer to something that does not do arbitary limitations to make user experience hell like this.

Mario69 said:
Furaffinity only supports Flash and GIF up to 10 MB.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/howto:sites_and_sources#table

Flash is not supported either on iDevices nor android and the support on desktops will also end at the end of 2020, so that's one format that everyone is already trying to get rid of anyway.

HTML5 video supports WebM, MP4 and OGV files. Apple supports ONLY their own format, MP4. You can include multiple videoformats under same tag to counter this limitation, e.g. putting both WebM and MP4 file and browser then plays what it supports. Sites like imgur and gfycat do this. Problem with e621 is that there can only be one single file on post, so there can only be single file and right now the site only supports WebM. Also apple restricts all browsers to use same engine on iOS, so this cannot be countered by anything else than downloading the file to local memory and playing it back with video player.

Because of this I would really like to have examples of sites which do serve webm files which work on iDevices.

So if this does bother you, I would be in contact with apples support or change the manufacturer to something that does not do arbitary limitations to make user experience hell like this.

Well, for example sites like furrynetwork and derpibooru.org. it's not like they are using special converter to MP4 for iDevices and have several files on one post, but maybe u are right. Idk how their sites are working

lightspectr said:
Well, for example sites like furrynetwork and derpibooru.org. it's not like they are using special converter to MP4 for iDevices and have several files on one post, but maybe u are right. Idk how their sites are working

Looking at derpiboorus source code, yes, they serve both WebM and MP4 file. They also seem to have original and two variations of downscaled videos, so they are hosting 6 video files per post.

As for FurryNetwork, they allow uploading both WebM and MP4. Because of that some content there should work and some will not.

Mario69 said:
Looking at derpiboorus source code, yes, they serve both WebM and MP4 file. They also seem to have original and downscaled videos, so they are hosting 4 video files per post.

As for FurryNetwork, they allow uploading both WebM and MP4. Because of that some content there should work and some will not.

Okay, thank you. Now I understand the problem. Any chances that on e621 would be possible to upload MP4 ?

lightspectr said:
Okay, thank you. Now I understand the problem. Any chances that on e621 would be possible to upload MP4 ?

Personally I would hope that people would stop buying apple products so we would not have this kind of problem.

That would also similarly fragment the content like on furrynetwork, leaving users like you wondering why half of the webm content works and why half does not.

I don't see it being completely impossible to simply generate MP4 file from uploaded WebM for iDevices. However we do not even have thumbnails working yet which has been requested for years now, so I can imagine that taking even more than that to implement. (I'm not saying this in sense that there's nothing happening here, the changelogs are massive so there's simply so much other more important stuff in a way it seems)

Mario69 said:
Personally I would hope that people would stop buying apple products so we would not have this kind of problem.

That would also similarly fragment the content like on furrynetwork, leaving users like you wondering why half of the webm content works and why half does not.

I don't see it being completely impossible to simply generate MP4 file from uploaded WebM for iDevices. However we do not even have thumbnails working yet which has been requested for years now, so I can imagine that taking even more than that to implement. (I'm not saying this in sense that there's nothing happening here, the changelogs are massive so there's simply so much other more important stuff in a way it seems)

Yeah, but I bought iPad for a reason, hearthstone is optimized better on iPad than on android. I understand that some desitions apple made are dumb and I think that iPad is the only Apple device worth buying. I am not apple funboy after all. Anyway I usually use my pc for internet browsing, so it's not like this webm problem is really big for me.

The most likely thing to happen here is apple, after screwing over its users for several years, finally caves and supports the standard format (webm + vp9 in this case). It wouldn't make sense to go backwards and switch to h.264 again, and from what I can see, not a whole lot of people are using h.265.

you know, if e621's source code was made available it would increase the likelihood of some genius hacker coming in and solving these petty problems.

speaking of Derpibooru's downscaling, it would be nice if there was a similar option for video files in the vein of YouTube's 144p option, so i wouldn't have to wait ten minutes for a video file to be playable on my third-world connection.

just buy an android, it's always a better choice than i-devices these days, seriously.

fewrahuxo said:
you know, if e621's source code was made available it would increase the likelihood of some genius hacker coming in and solving these petty problems.

speaking of Derpibooru's downscaling, it would be nice if there was a similar option for video files in the vein of YouTube's 144p option, so i wouldn't have to wait ten minutes for a video file to be playable on my third-world connection.

It'd also increase the frequency and strength of malicious attacks against e621.

Maybe you can use VLC to play them, IIRC some people used that to work around webm support.

Furrin_Gok said:
It'd also increase the frequency and strength of malicious attacks against e621.

lol no

Furrin_Gok said:
It'd also increase the frequency and strength of malicious attacks against e621.

the idea that because a program's source code is made public it is more likely to be exploited by attackers shows a fundamental misunderstanding of computer security.

in the first place, programs aren't protected because they're only distributed as binaries; they're protected because, given the limits of our current understanding of computer science, enough work has gone into them so that they are strong regardless of the knowledge of the source.

anybody who refuses to use the SSL encryption scheme protecting your connection to this website because it's a public utility is just plain natters. HTTPS is not "insecure" because everybody can analyze how it works. it is made secure because thousands of people - cryptographers, mathematicians, and programmers far, far smarter than either you or me - have looked over and audited it as part of their careers, and have declared it secure enough for the billions of connections it has to serve every day.

this is an example of Linus's law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". of course, Linus Torvalds is the creator of Linux, which is considered to be one of the most secure operating systems on the market today because, by making its source code available, hundreds of contributors and dozens of skilled maintainers (many of whom rely on Linux for the core of their business, such as the New York Stock Market, the International Space Station, and 99.5% of the world's supercomputers) have found errors within the Linux kernel, and have fixed them before anybody could exploit them.

is it possible for an attacker to find an exploit in open-source software? yes, but only if it is found before those hundreds of smart people find it, only if it can be exploited before the bug is disclosed, and only if it can used in a practical attack before it is fixed in the next patch - and with open-source software, patches come on a nightly basis.

private binaries, by contrast, have been proven time and time again to be fundamentally insecure because it is impossible to audit their code. remember when Flash had three zero-day vulnerabilities in a single week? remember when Petya brought the Ukrainian government to its knees just a few months ago? both of were made for the proprietary Windows operating system, which has time and time again been show to be an insecure platform on all fronts, whether it be from Microsoft itself interfering with your computer or from other parties.

it is a wonder why, if Linux's open-source model is so insecure, you do not hear about these world-busting viruses being distributed on Linux every other month? attackers have the capability to attack either closed-source software or open-source software, and yet time has shown it is always the closed-source software which falls first.

the goal of proprietary software is not to make their users happy or to provide the best experience. it is to create a business that makes them the maximum amount of money while pissing off the least amount of customers. free and open-source software is, by its nature, a democratic process aiming for creating the best software regardless of how many people use it.

few people get paid for volunteering their time and effort into this software, so every project becomes a meritocracy where the people in charge aren't the ones who are paid the most or have been enlisted into arbitrary positions by a company. it is the ones who have been there the longest and are the most skilled at what they do. because the people in charge of the software are, by definition, the ones most qualified to work on it, the security of open-source projects can only ever be higher than their commercial counterparts.

and this is not even getting into proprietary software such as Apple's products which make their money by harvesting user data and locking their customers into a walled garden where the only modifications they can make to their products are the ones that Apple approves - a practice which could only ever be supported under a closed-source model.

in sum, please do some research on fundamental security basics before you post. being ignorant is one thing; being ignorant and acting as an authority on a field you know nothing about is another thing entirely.