91–100 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well they are nothing alike. Flash player is a free but proprietary implementation of an swf player. H264 is a licensed and patented codec specification.
Of course, Flash isn't patented at all. And H264 codecs always costs money. I didn't know Google fanboyism existed.
> I didn't know Google fanboyism existed.
Ad hominem is still as bad as it ever was
Fantastic. Much as I enjoyed Burn All GIFs back in the day, I don't think Burn All H.264s sounds nearly as catchy or fun. Glad Google is doing the Right Thing on this front -- however convenient or entrenched they might be, hairy patented messes like H.264 have no place on an open web.
I'm just having a hard time understanding why they're ok with bundling the Flash player with Chrome, but not carrying an h264 decoder.
Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.
Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…
You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders.
And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…
> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).
Well i mentionned it. I'm at least partially intellectually honest :)
> Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9)
That's totally true, but from experience and statistical evidence, i think firefox users are more inclined to upgrade their browser than IE user are.
> There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders.
I don't think that's true
And Android tablets look a LOT better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"de facto standard" is a meaningless, self-contradictory phrase that really boils down to saying "But this is the way we've always done it!" Standards are not de facto. Standards are things created by standards bodies. The word has an actual meaning. Trying to twist it to mean "the way we do stuff now" (as your argument for h.264 does) or "the way I want to do stuff" (as many arguments for HTML5 (which doesn't have a…
"Standard" has more than one meaning. In the phrase "de facto standard" I think the meaning is more in the direction of "something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison." Or to put it another way, standards bodies do not, as you seem to be implying, have a monopoly on the word "standard".
h.264: IE, Safari
WebM: Chrome, Firefox 4
Streaming video with Flash: all of the above
In which case the most standardy standard is "h.264 over Flash", with native h.264 and native WebM tied for second place.
Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.
Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…
Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.
Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…
Thats going to take a while - the lead time on new DSP families isn't quick.
And how long before their are optimized open source libraries like ffmpeg and x264?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…
> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).
The very article states that there are hardware WebM decoders, not only that but Google is licensing the technology for free as in zero dollars:
http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the number one reason there isn't a codec specified in HTML5 is because Apple blocked it.
Also, Apple used to be fully behind royalty-free standards for the web: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment... Apple believes that it is essential to continued interoperability and development of the Web that fundamental W3C standards be available on a royalty-free basis. In line with the W3C's mission to "lead the Web to its full potential," Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutab…