21–30 of 358 posts
What the hell? It's sad that Google's corporate strategy is starting to override what's in the best interests of it's users. Web video is finally, after so many years, actually encoded in H.264. Who besides YouTube uses WebM or Ogg? I'll be going back to Safari if this happens.
A big step backwards for HTML5 video adoption and premature IMO. Other than Android there isn't an existing consumer device out there that plays WebM that I know of. Certainly there is no hardware decoding. Now content creators who host their own video will have to double storage costs or be relegated to Flash and the smallest of the big browsers.
Wouldn't you already need to encode everything twice due to Firefox's lack of H.264 support?
What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash.
Lose all round, then.
What the hell? It's sad that Google's corporate strategy is starting to override what's in the best interests of it's users. Web video is finally, after so many years, actually encoded in H.264. Who besides YouTube uses WebM or Ogg? I'll be going back to Safari if this happens.
Also, keep in mind that use of the HTML5 tag is quite limited at the moment. The impact is quite minimal.
If Google didn't make a move like this, WebM might not take off the way it needs to to challenge the closed alternatives.
This is not an issue. We currently face the same inefficiency of having to encode videos in multiple codecs today. Want your vid on iOS? H.264. Want your vid on other platforms? Pretty open. What's the issue? Just some inefficiency. It means that all videos have to be encoded in a few formats in the backend and a browser detector to tell our server which video to play. As long as the end user isn't harmed I don't see…
There's a big difference between an additional CSS stylesheet and encoding and storing every single video on your site twice.
> We currently face the same inefficiency of having to encode videos in multiple codecs today. Want your vid on iOS? H.264. Want your vid on other platforms?
Most companies do not encode their videos with multiple codecs. They encode with H.264 and the video will work with an HTML5 player in IE9/Chrome/Safari on the desktop and Safari/Android on mobile. Fallback to Flash is available for older browsers and Firefox. Companies will continue to use this scheme, it just means that Chrome users will now be stuck with a crappy bug-ridden flash player as opposed to a native player.
Sure this hurts users in the short term, but a single standard format has not been settled on, this could be much more disruptive if google had of left it in