231–240 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WebM is probably patent encumbered. Classic FUD.
Read [this]( http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 ). VP8 is basically a slightly worse version of baseline H.264.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once Adobe adds WebM support in Flash, it might happen the other way around.
You'll have to add these caveats in as well: Once Apple supports WebM. Once chipset manufacturers produce WebM optimized hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers purchase and integrate those WebM hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers develop or license software players that support WebM encoded video and file format. Could happen the other way around. But it ain't likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, when Mozilla drew their ideological line in the sand and said they'd refuse to allow Firefox to use OS codecs, Microsoft responded by releasing a Firefox extension that delegates H264 playback from HTML5 video elements to Windows Media Player. Perhaps they'll end up doing the same for Chrome?
That would fix Windows, but for my personal use I care more about Mac and Linux
People should really blame MS and Apple for only supporting their own video codec here. I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to support open and patent unencumbered video formats. Can someone just look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video and really tell me that this mess isn't the fault of MS and Apple in the first place? Ogg is ready to play a big role and WebM is…
Secondly, Apple "picked" H.264 as a format nearly four years ago when they built the original iPhone with hardware decoding, before WebM existed and likely before some of the code for WebM was written.
Third, whatwg tried to pick one single codec in 2009. Again, this was well before WebM existed in its current state. Back then, the two options were:
1) Ogg Theora
2) H.264
Read Ian Hickson's summary of the different browser vendors' positions from 2009: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...
As you'll note, it boiled down to "we're okay with H.264 because we can afford it and want to support something now" vs. "it's too expensive and we'll wait." Microsoft was late to the game or apathetic.
WebM was released by Google 7 months ago. Think about that! You expect a company like Apple whose business lies primarily in mobile devices that are capable of hardware decoding H.264 video to suddenly pivot and widely implement a codec released by a company that is increasingly competing with its core business and that has an unclear patent future and inferior technology.
A table of the current state of implemented tech features is not the same as knowing the history behind these decisions.
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Other video services begrudgingly make the leap and start encoding their video in WebM format to support a growing number of users. Or they just support those users instead by serving them Flash - which they have to do anyhow to support IE6/7/8 and Firefox 1/2/3, avoiding the hastle and cost of more video encoding and storage. And none of the rest then happens.
* Widespread WebM support in web browsers (Flash is a good vehicle for this)
* WebM exclusivity (or at least preference) on Android handsets
I'm not sure how they'd execute the latter. The handset manufacturers pick the chipsets and build the drivers, so it's not clear to me how that part plays out.
Like I said, it's a stretch, but given that Google seems to want to go head-to-head with Apple, it's plausible, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll have to add these caveats in as well: Once Apple supports WebM. Once chipset manufacturers produce WebM optimized hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers purchase and integrate those WebM hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers develop or license software players that support WebM encoded video and file format. Could happen the other way around. But it ain't likely.
Yeah. There is no way Google of all people could launch a Cell Phone OS based on a Java variant and beat Apple by the end of 2010. Stupidest idea ever. I'm still laughing.
There are no real hardware/product reasons for websites to support webm right now.
h264 on the other hand gets the benefit of working with all the iphone and more recently apple tv. Promised new update this year will even allow HTML5 video to be streamed to apple TV directly from the browser of iphones, ipads, and i imagine safari. This is one of these technologies that will really increase the use of h264.
I run the larges cycling site and we handle 100s of niche video uploads per day so I follow this closely, and as much as I'd like to jump on webm, I'm going to definitely hold of. Currently we convert videos to 3 formats to try handle all cases, and having to now multiply that by 2 with another codec is a lot of extra resources.
2.5 mbit h264 web HD/appletv h264 1 mbit h264 for web SD/iphone 300 kbit mobile
- webm makes no sense in the short term. - you need apple support to make webm happen faster
Think about all the extra resources, time, effort that you are asking from companies in the world to support the 2 formats. If you want to be efficient with society, keep the support of h264 while webm development happens, transition once all the big players support the new format. Alternatively take all the money/time/efforts and get apple to transition. If apple does not jump on the wagon, it's going to be years and years of wasted resources in society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. There is no way Google of all people could launch a Cell Phone OS based on a Java variant and beat Apple by the end of 2010. Stupidest idea ever. I'm still laughing.
You can only beat an opponent if you're playing the same game.
Google drove the cost of smartphone OSes down to as near to zero as patent law will allow.
I'd say that is a game changer.
How much does WebM cost?