Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit [removed no citation available]
Cite?
Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
141–150 of 358 posts
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#142Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#143Bye bye, Google Chrome. This is me deleting you from my Mac.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#144Google'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.
Which sucks for HTML5 video. Without Chrome, only about 5% of web users actually support HTML5 playback using h.264. Chart: http://videojs.com/2011/01/google-is-dropping-h-264-from-chr... Two things could end the format war. 1. Apple adopts WebM (which requires WebM hardware for iOS devices) 2. MPEG LA removes all royalties from h.264
Or another way to view it is that 30% support html5 video with WebM
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#145Has everyone so quickly forgotten that Flash will soon support WebM playback? It's a significant point in the discussion. With any flash capable browser having WebM support, along with native support in Firefox, Chrome, Opera... it seems there is some sense in this move. It does seem a bold strategy, I would have probably waited at least a bit longer. Edit: Oh, "These changes will occur in the next couple months"
And in ten years, the performance might even be acceptable.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once Adobe adds WebM support in Flash, it might happen the other way around.
There's a massive volume of h.264 out there that isn't going to get converted just to satisfy some dogmatic commitment to 'openness'.
They won't change it for openness reasons, but they will change it if 80% of their visitors support WebM and not h264. It happened before. How longer were people forced to design web pages for ie6 due to its market share.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#147The choice has been made by many places to simply use h264 video via the HTML5 tag to hit the iPhone/iPad and then fallback to a Flash video player which can easily play the h264 source video. Content producers would rather encode videos once, which is why they moved to FLV in the first place. There's no incentive to use anything else here. This hurts users. I am all for standards, but not for hurting users. And like…
You rarely gain much unless you let yourself hurt a bit first and reap the benefits later.
Mind you, that could also be a line coming from one trying to screw you.
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#148Has everyone so quickly forgotten that Flash will soon support WebM playback? It's a significant point in the discussion. With any flash capable browser having WebM support, along with native support in Firefox, Chrome, Opera... it seems there is some sense in this move. It does seem a bold strategy, I would have probably waited at least a bit longer. Edit: Oh, "These changes will occur in the next couple months"
And in ten years, the performance might even be acceptable.
Performance of what? I'm not defending Flash's performance, but WebM is fine, completely acceptable. With hardware decoding continuing to advance in Flash, I guess I don't see what your complaint is. If it's native in most browsers, fallback in IE (they aren't going to care anyway) and potentially native even in IE on supported hardware...
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got a source for that? Nada @ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/bo...
So, buster, using your logic, if Pepsi uses an ad agency that Coke doesn't use, then Pepsi on that ad agency's board?
According to my logic i can tell if a company is giving the right to license its product to others, that this company will most likely get money for it.
Do you really think Mircrosoft is like "oh, well. MPEG-LA, we hand over the rights for our patens to you. Do as you wish with those patents and also please give the license fees to the other companies. But please don't give us money!"? ;)
You do know that the MPEG-LAs purpose is to collect the rights to those patents from those companies (the licensors) and collects money from the licensees, redistributing it to the licensors. Now Apple and MS are on the list of licensors. And they don't get money, you say? And never will? sure... :)
Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is fully behind HTML5 - http://www.apple.com/html5/
Yet the number one reason there isn't a codec specified in HTML5 is because Apple blocked it.
Google were also opposed to a format in the spec, they claimed ogg theora was too large in file size. Why do you think they bought On2 and released WebM in the first place? There already was a free video code theora before.