It can´t be all about freedom if they´re dropping Theora too. (related: how can Theora be so bad is Vorbis is so good?)
Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
121–130 of 358 posts
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still not quite sure I see the big deal. Firefox has something like twice the browser share of Chrome. If you were OK sticking Firefox users with Flash video, I don't see how that's hugely different from sticking Firefox AND Chrome users with Flash video. If you want to support all modern browsers, you used to have to do two encodings. After this announcement, you will still have to do two encodings.
Given that flash is reportedly going to support WebM, you may not have to do 2 encodings in the near future.
Don't forget hardware.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is fully behind HTML5 - http://www.apple.com/html5/
You call this being "fully behind HTML5"? http://grab.by/grabs/0b694089e83975c385627b134ee8ece7.png Even Microsoft's better than this. edit: could whoever downvoted me explain why he did so?
That's not inconsistent with being "fully behind HTML5". That page is meant to show off how Safari handles various HTML5 features. If you view it in a different browser, it is not showing you how Safari handles those features. Hence, it makes perfect sense for it to try to limit itself to people using Safari.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Flash is an established "standard", while the HTML5 tag is not.
Google are not removing video tag support, they are removing the h264 codec. h264 is pretty damn well established and is actually a standard without the quotation marks, and an open one at that.
The problem is a standard can be 'open' yet restricted, i.e. you have to pay to distribute software using it. Can't pay? Can't give people the program. The tricks that LAME uses to work around MP3 encoding patents aren't going to work for browsers.
Of course it will go away once the patents expire, just like with GIF, but calling it 'open' now is just marketing speak which doesn't come close to the actual nature and purpose of open-source software.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#125Google'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.
Content providers already have to support browsers that don't include h.264, and Chrome users are now in the same boat as Firefox users -- which content providers certainly won't ignore.
For sites which only produce h.264, Chrome includes Flash which can play h.264. And every video site is going to support a Flash playback path for older browsers.
The real impact here is pretty small, other than legitimizing a free and open codec. Chrome has just moved from one must-support category to another one. Most people will never notice the difference. How is that a loss?
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet they don't remove flash. Wouldn't that also be in the best long term interest for users?
One they can get away with because nobody cares. The other would kill the browser immediately.
The other would kill the browser immediately.
Firefox doesn't bundle Flash either, and that hasn't killed it.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#127I'm looking forward to Google remaining consistent with their words and removing Flash from Chrome in the near future. You know, for the good of the users.
Speaking as someone who works for a browser vendor: There's a big difference between dropping support for entrenched technologies, and choosing which emerging technologies to support. Certain formats and practices are already part of the web, for better or worse, and it's not fully within the browser vendors' power to change that. If any browser dropped Flash support, it would break thousands of popular web sites, an…
While H.264 may not be entrenched, it certainly is established and far, far from being emerging.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when has Apple supported open standards simply because it makes sense to do so? Apple almost invariably chooses closed over open.
Apple is fully behind HTML5 - http://www.apple.com/html5/
Yes, in spirit too:
"This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes."
Come see web standards! Using a specific browser.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People should really blame MS and Apple for only supporting their own video codec here. H.264 is not Apple's codec, nor is it Microsoft's. Both of them have to license it, just like any random company off the street would. Apple does own one or two of the several hundred patents involved, so might get a very slight discount on their license. > I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to s…
edit [removed no citation available]
Got a source for that?
Nada @ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/bo...
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#130Fantastic. 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.
Intentional fragmentation?
How's this for a play:
Initially, Google drops H.264 in favor of WebM in Chrome. YouTube begins serving WebM in an HTML5 wrapper to Chrome clients. Mozilla, in search of open codecs with wide support implements WebM in Firefox. Other video services begrudgingly make the leap and start encoding their video in WebM format to support a growing number of users.
Google extends an olive branch to Adobe in order to get WebM support in Flash, ensuring that desktop computer users on all platforms will be able to play back WebM content, hardware support or not.
This gives Google the coverage they need to start turning the screws. While the events outlined above are unfolding, handset manufacturers see the writing on the wall and start including WebM hardware support in Android handsets.
Apple, being fully involved with H.264, fights all of the above every step of the way. The stubborn company that they are, they will not adopt hardware WebM support in their devices in favor of uniform H.264 support across their product line. This will hurt battery life during video playback for non-Apple sourced video on iOS devices and will erode the Apple user base because of competitive disadvantage.
======
None of the above may be true, but it sure would make for a great "Pirates of Silicon Valley 2".