Please point me to the page detailing this "fact".
You said that they "converted" all HD YouTube videos to HD WebM. That would be a huge task with very little benefit other than to demonstrate the VP8 WebM codec. I don't see the reason for this.
There is a big difference between YouTube HD and BluRay HD. That is where the difference is, not the HD branding. That is just marketing. YouTube HD is still within the space that we are currently calling web video.
Explain to me why developers would be interested in this if apple or Microsoft won't bundle. Qiuicktime and media player and flash is already solving the problem. As to HD issue I assume writer knows what he is talking about. Sounds like the technology is not suited to large formats.
I wonder why that would be? Perhaps it will support HD soon. If YouTube is using it now you have to think that is coming. HTML5 doesn't do full screen yet last time I checked but I bet it will soon. These things usually develop over time, and these days ever shorter times.
The author demonstrably does not know what he's talking about, as it's live now and it looks great. The builds are available, download them and try it. Stop taking this propaganda for truth. Try it out.
And no, QT, MP, and Flash solve the problem of putting video online. But the video exists inside a container and can't be properly interacting with the web document. Plugins are a workaround, HTML5 video is a true solution.
Developers are interested in VP8/WebM it because the encoders and decoders are and will continue to be free and the quality is very good. Developers are interested in HTML5 Video because it lets you do a ton of cool things (interact with the page's DOM, use Javascript, CSS, etc).
I'm building an HTML5 video portal right now at work.
No, WebM is not AS good as h264 in terms of quality but it's about 95% of the way there. And yes, the royalty uncertainty with h264 as of Jan 1st, 2016 makes a lot of people nervous. My employer is using h264 right now but out of necessity -- they are nervous about it as we're becoming a vendor for video which can get very expensive very quickly. If the royalties go away in 2016, we'll have a massive back catalog of h264 that'll cost us a fortune in annual fees. WebM is looking very, very good to them right now. There's a reason why everyone's jumping all over it unless they're already H264 licensees (Apple, MS).
I fail to see why any non-Linux programmer would care. We don't need to worry about it on other platforms and h264 is much more flexible and better then VP8 in every way except for licensing on non-commercial platforms. I can see how it may appeal to some Open Source programmers, but not the majority.
If encoding royalties are a concern in 2016, it is not that big a deal to re-encode media. Your going to do that every five years anyway to keep up with the latest codec. I'm sure in 2016 we will be ready to move on to a new codec as long as Moore's Law is in effect. The right thing to do now is support all major codec. So if you are a web developer, you should be targeting h264, VP8, and flash. You also need to target different bit rates for each format to play over everything from 3G to fibre. It is the same as the need to support every variant of HTML since IE7.
Those Microsoft and Apple licensees (and all the 3rd party software on those platforms that get a free ticket) account for the vast majority by the way.
I fail to see why any non-Linux programmer would care. We don't need to worry about it on other platforms and h264 is much more flexible and better then VP8 in every way except for licensing on non-commercial platforms. I can see how it may appeal to some Open Source programmers, but not the majority.
I'm not a Linux programmer. I care... Companies care. They may have to pay millions of dollars to get what is a marginal and frankly, not noticable difference in quality.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content.
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
How is h264 more flexible, by the way? That's an interesting statement to make.
BTW: Windows 7 has h264 licenses. Windows XP and Vista do not. That is the majority of the PC market without h264 licenses.
Quote:
If encoding royalties are a concern in 2016, it is not that big a deal to re-encode media.
It is if you have a massive amount of videos and you don't have Google's resources.
Quote:
I'm sure in 2016 we will be ready to move on to a new codec as long as Moore's Law is in effect.
I'm not sure why you think a law about transistor density impacts the development pace of highly mathematical, highly complex algorithms.
Quote:
Those Microsoft and Apple licensees (and all the 3rd party software on those platforms) account for the vast majority by the way.
I don't know if you understand this so I'll make the distinction -- NO 3rd party software has a license unless they buy it themselves when they run on Windows 7 or OS X. OS X and Windows 7's h264 decoders (Windows Media Foundation in Windows, QTCore in OS X) have the license. Apps that happen to use those decoding engines/libraries would be licensed, because those apps aren't decoding -- the OS is. But for implementations like Firefox and Chrome, their video player code is not the system code. It's part of the app. They would need to individually license it or re architect their browser to expose it to OS-level dependencies, which is not ideal.
I don't get the problem with Mozilla supporting HTML5 video though.
I don't recall the actual H.264 license fee structure, but I do remember feeling it was very reasonable. For example, it's free for small distributions of less than 100,000 copies IIRC. Even at Mozilla's distribution level, the price per copy seemed like it would be doable with donations.
I don't recall the actual H.264 license fee structure, but I do remember feeling it was very reasonable. For example, it's free for small distributions of less than 100,000 copies IIRC. Even at Mozilla's distribution level, the price per copy seemed like it would be doable with donations.
Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.
You like to throw out the specter of 2016. So much will change between now and 2016 its completely impossible to predict what the environment will be at that time. Or what the MPEG-LA will do.
Its a bit premature to say everyone is jumping all over WebM. Google has trotted out the usual suspects that are always brought out when some big new initiative is being made. Most of the time nothing comes of it.
Primarily the biggest challenge for WebM is the iPhone OS and Mobile Safari. The most used platform and mobile browser for delivering mobile media. It already has a big head start with H.264. There are many excellent apps and web sites that make exclusive use of H.264, there is little reason or incentive for those developers to also deliver WebM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
And yes, the royalty uncertainty with h264 as of Jan 1st, 2016 makes a lot of people nervous. My employer is using h264 right now but out of necessity -- they are nervous about it as we're becoming a vendor for video which can get very expensive very quickly. If the royalties arrive in 2016, we'll have a massive back catalog of h264 that'll cost us a fortune in annual fees. WebM is looking very, very good to them right now. There's a reason why everyone's jumping all over it unless they're already H264 licensees (Apple, MS).
The author demonstrably does not know what he's talking about, as it's live now and it looks great. The builds are available, download them and try it. Stop taking this propaganda for truth. Try it out.
Probably more of an issue of lack of clarity. The writer sounds to me that he has some good knowledge on this.
Apple and microsoft are the only big players in pc os so they own the issue. I don't see the advantage of the codec on those operating systems. The question is which codecs they bundle and developers should support those along with flash. I don't want users in my website to download a codec when I can already give them a QuickTime or mp or flash solution. Maybe this is more of a linux thing.
I'm not a Linux programmer. I care... Companies care. They may have to pay millions of dollars to get what is a marginal and frankly, not noticable difference in quality.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content. The software you have now will continue to work after 2016 by the way. I don't think that they have the power to restrict playback. The vote is 2016 is the ability for the end user to encode to h264 without a license.
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
How is h264 more flexible, by the way? That's an interesting statement to make.
BTW: Windows 7 has h264 licenses. Windows XP and Vista do not. That is the majority of the PC market without h264 licenses.
It is if you have a massive amount of videos and you don't have Google's resources.
I'm not sure why you think a law about transistor density impacts the development pace of highly mathematical, highly complex algorithms.
I don't know if you understand this so I'll make the distinction -- NO 3rd party software has a license unless they buy it themselves when they run on Windows 7 or OS X. OS X and Windows 7's h264 decoders (Windows Media Foundation in Windows, QTCore in OS X) have the license. Apps that happen to use those decoding engines/libraries would be licensed, because those apps aren't decoding -- the OS is. But for implementations like Firefox and Chrome, their video player code is not the system code. It's part of the app. They would need to individually license it or re architect their browser to expose it to OS-level dependencies, which is not ideal.
Intel's codec wasn't run by a standards group. History doesn't always play out the same way. There are bigger things at stake here in 2016 because Apple and Microsoft have a stake in this.
h264 has more profiles so it is more flexible. VP8 may eventually, but it will be years away.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm all about having a competing standard, I'm just in favor of h264 as the dominate codec.
You like to throw out the specter of 2016. So much will change between now and 2016 its completely impossible to predict what the environment will be at that time. Or what the MPEG-LA will do.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
Quote:
Its a bit premature to say everyone is jumping all over WebM. Google has trotted out the usual suspects that are always brought out when some big new initiative is being made. Most of the time nothing comes of it.
Every major mobile ASIC/SoC vendor is going to support hardware acceleration by the end of the year. BY FAR the largest video site online is supporting it all-out (yeah, Google owns them). Chrome, Firefox, and Opera will support them very shortly while MS will permit users to install the codec to play them in IE9. The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Quote:
Primarily the biggest challenge for WebM is the iPhone OS and Mobile Safari. The most used platform and mobile browser for delivering mobile media. It already has a big head start with H.264. There are many excellent apps and web sites that make exclusive use of H.264, there is little reason or incentive for those developers to also deliver WebM.
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content.
This COULD happen that does not mean it WILL happen. Its very unlikely that the MPEG-LA will suddenly charge everyone in this fashion. They would kill the codec.
Quote:
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
You poorly chose a codec that wasn't widely supported, that was the reason it stopped being used. You cannot take that example and widely apply it to any codec.
Mozilla supports Ogg Theora AND WebM. The others are blatantly patent encumbered, and Mozilla is philosophically (and financially) opposed to it. Mozilla is all about the open web, and you can't have an open web with strings (and patents) attached.
True. But the possibility of VP8 having patent problems is very high as has been pointed out by a number of authors. Google is making statements about this that simply aren't true. It's hard to believe that they aren't aware of that.
Ogg Theora is well known as a bad codec. You wouldn't want to use it instead of H.264, or even VP8, which is better, but not as good as H.264.
This is one article by Daniel that I completely agree with, and that doesn't always happen.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
I think there is more uncertainty surrounding VP8 then h264 right now. Maybe there will be less in a couple years as VP8 matures, gets supported, and patent related issues get resolved. Besides, this isn't about one codec must rule them all. One thing is clear, you will need to support h264 as an option going forward if you want IE and Safari users to visit your site. So essentially it isn't your decision to make. If Mozilla doesn't support h264, then you don't get to vote by supporting the under dog either. Everyone will need to support both codecs in that case. The only vote you really have is for Ogg Theora because its marketshare is minimal.
As an app developer, I vote for h264 because it is already hardware accelerated and stable. I do have a vote because I don't need to support web browsers.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
You are making it a lot more dramatic than the reality. Nothing is absolutely certain. But its highly unlikely the MPEG-LA would literally charge everyone to use H.264.
Quote:
Every major mobile ASIC/SoC vendor is going to support hardware acceleration by the end of the year. BY FAR the largest video site online is supporting it all-out (yeah, Google owns them). Chrome, Firefox, and Opera will support them very shortly while MS will permit users to install the codec to play them in IE9. The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Mobile devices are growing far faster than desktp/laptop PC's. Mobile devices will become the primary way most people access the internet. IE and Firefox have little to no presence on the mobile web. Safari has roughly 60% market share.
Quote:
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
Android as an OS will easily outsell the iPhone. That does not necessarily mean its web usage will equal the iPhone OS.
The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
Are you saying apple is so insignificant that we should not worry about safari video playback compatibility on apple desktops and mobile devices?
They don't really have to. The browser could hand the media off to media player built into the browser. It could allow Quicktime or WMP to handle the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.
That analogy would only work if Republicans only had authority over Republicans and Democrats only had authority over Democrats. (That might actually be an improvement though.)
This common reference to Ipod -I phone - I pad is getting grammatically boring:
I hereby proclaim the fore mentioned products should be know as the I P 3 group ( or the IP Cubed group) or product group or product line.
This should allow us to speed up all conversation and reference to this operating system / product family, while allow all of us to have some jargon that satisfies our need for an "insider catch phrase" that only we understand. Sort of like a gang sign for the rest of us, without having to be beat in or beat out.
Whud da ya say?
Great! Let's begin with those horribly over-used terms like "meme" and "paradigm" that no one seems able to use correctly. Then let's go back to "dimensions" instead of "form factor" (what other factors are involved?) and financial analysts' use of "guidance" instead of "forecast."
And last, but certainly not least, let's consign "ecosystem" to the landfill when used to describe a particular product or designer's sphere of influence.
Comments
Please point me to the page detailing this "fact".
You said that they "converted" all HD YouTube videos to HD WebM. That would be a huge task with very little benefit other than to demonstrate the VP8 WebM codec. I don't see the reason for this.
There is a big difference between YouTube HD and BluRay HD. That is where the difference is, not the HD branding. That is just marketing. YouTube HD is still within the space that we are currently calling web video.
Explain to me why developers would be interested in this if apple or Microsoft won't bundle. Qiuicktime and media player and flash is already solving the problem. As to HD issue I assume writer knows what he is talking about. Sounds like the technology is not suited to large formats.
I wonder why that would be? Perhaps it will support HD soon. If YouTube is using it now you have to think that is coming. HTML5 doesn't do full screen yet last time I checked but I bet it will soon. These things usually develop over time, and these days ever shorter times.
The author demonstrably does not know what he's talking about, as it's live now and it looks great. The builds are available, download them and try it. Stop taking this propaganda for truth. Try it out.
And no, QT, MP, and Flash solve the problem of putting video online. But the video exists inside a container and can't be properly interacting with the web document. Plugins are a workaround, HTML5 video is a true solution.
Developers are interested in VP8/WebM it because the encoders and decoders are and will continue to be free and the quality is very good. Developers are interested in HTML5 Video because it lets you do a ton of cool things (interact with the page's DOM, use Javascript, CSS, etc).
I'm building an HTML5 video portal right now at work.
No, WebM is not AS good as h264 in terms of quality but it's about 95% of the way there. And yes, the royalty uncertainty with h264 as of Jan 1st, 2016 makes a lot of people nervous. My employer is using h264 right now but out of necessity -- they are nervous about it as we're becoming a vendor for video which can get very expensive very quickly. If the royalties go away in 2016, we'll have a massive back catalog of h264 that'll cost us a fortune in annual fees. WebM is looking very, very good to them right now. There's a reason why everyone's jumping all over it unless they're already H264 licensees (Apple, MS).
I fail to see why any non-Linux programmer would care. We don't need to worry about it on other platforms and h264 is much more flexible and better then VP8 in every way except for licensing on non-commercial platforms. I can see how it may appeal to some Open Source programmers, but not the majority.
If encoding royalties are a concern in 2016, it is not that big a deal to re-encode media. Your going to do that every five years anyway to keep up with the latest codec. I'm sure in 2016 we will be ready to move on to a new codec as long as Moore's Law is in effect. The right thing to do now is support all major codec. So if you are a web developer, you should be targeting h264, VP8, and flash. You also need to target different bit rates for each format to play over everything from 3G to fibre. It is the same as the need to support every variant of HTML since IE7.
Those Microsoft and Apple licensees (and all the 3rd party software on those platforms that get a free ticket) account for the vast majority by the way.
Why not just buy out MPEG LA, release H.264 for widespread use and be done with it?
I don't think you can buy out a standard body.
Which is why it's important to have these kind of technology controlled by a standard body.
I fail to see why any non-Linux programmer would care. We don't need to worry about it on other platforms and h264 is much more flexible and better then VP8 in every way except for licensing on non-commercial platforms. I can see how it may appeal to some Open Source programmers, but not the majority.
I'm not a Linux programmer. I care... Companies care. They may have to pay millions of dollars to get what is a marginal and frankly, not noticable difference in quality.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content.
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
How is h264 more flexible, by the way? That's an interesting statement to make.
BTW: Windows 7 has h264 licenses. Windows XP and Vista do not. That is the majority of the PC market without h264 licenses.
If encoding royalties are a concern in 2016, it is not that big a deal to re-encode media.
It is if you have a massive amount of videos and you don't have Google's resources.
I'm sure in 2016 we will be ready to move on to a new codec as long as Moore's Law is in effect.
I'm not sure why you think a law about transistor density impacts the development pace of highly mathematical, highly complex algorithms.
Those Microsoft and Apple licensees (and all the 3rd party software on those platforms) account for the vast majority by the way.
I don't know if you understand this so I'll make the distinction -- NO 3rd party software has a license unless they buy it themselves when they run on Windows 7 or OS X. OS X and Windows 7's h264 decoders (Windows Media Foundation in Windows, QTCore in OS X) have the license. Apps that happen to use those decoding engines/libraries would be licensed, because those apps aren't decoding -- the OS is. But for implementations like Firefox and Chrome, their video player code is not the system code. It's part of the app. They would need to individually license it or re architect their browser to expose it to OS-level dependencies, which is not ideal.
I don't get the problem with Mozilla supporting HTML5 video though.
I don't recall the actual H.264 license fee structure, but I do remember feeling it was very reasonable. For example, it's free for small distributions of less than 100,000 copies IIRC. Even at Mozilla's distribution level, the price per copy seemed like it would be doable with donations.
I don't recall the actual H.264 license fee structure, but I do remember feeling it was very reasonable. For example, it's free for small distributions of less than 100,000 copies IIRC. Even at Mozilla's distribution level, the price per copy seemed like it would be doable with donations.
Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.
http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mo...t_License_h264
Its a bit premature to say everyone is jumping all over WebM. Google has trotted out the usual suspects that are always brought out when some big new initiative is being made. Most of the time nothing comes of it.
Primarily the biggest challenge for WebM is the iPhone OS and Mobile Safari. The most used platform and mobile browser for delivering mobile media. It already has a big head start with H.264. There are many excellent apps and web sites that make exclusive use of H.264, there is little reason or incentive for those developers to also deliver WebM.
And yes, the royalty uncertainty with h264 as of Jan 1st, 2016 makes a lot of people nervous. My employer is using h264 right now but out of necessity -- they are nervous about it as we're becoming a vendor for video which can get very expensive very quickly. If the royalties arrive in 2016, we'll have a massive back catalog of h264 that'll cost us a fortune in annual fees. WebM is looking very, very good to them right now. There's a reason why everyone's jumping all over it unless they're already H264 licensees (Apple, MS).
The author demonstrably does not know what he's talking about, as it's live now and it looks great. The builds are available, download them and try it. Stop taking this propaganda for truth. Try it out.
Probably more of an issue of lack of clarity. The writer sounds to me that he has some good knowledge on this.
Apple and microsoft are the only big players in pc os so they own the issue. I don't see the advantage of the codec on those operating systems. The question is which codecs they bundle and developers should support those along with flash. I don't want users in my website to download a codec when I can already give them a QuickTime or mp or flash solution. Maybe this is more of a linux thing.
I'm not a Linux programmer. I care... Companies care. They may have to pay millions of dollars to get what is a marginal and frankly, not noticable difference in quality.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content. The software you have now will continue to work after 2016 by the way. I don't think that they have the power to restrict playback. The vote is 2016 is the ability for the end user to encode to h264 without a license.
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
How is h264 more flexible, by the way? That's an interesting statement to make.
BTW: Windows 7 has h264 licenses. Windows XP and Vista do not. That is the majority of the PC market without h264 licenses.
It is if you have a massive amount of videos and you don't have Google's resources.
I'm not sure why you think a law about transistor density impacts the development pace of highly mathematical, highly complex algorithms.
I don't know if you understand this so I'll make the distinction -- NO 3rd party software has a license unless they buy it themselves when they run on Windows 7 or OS X. OS X and Windows 7's h264 decoders (Windows Media Foundation in Windows, QTCore in OS X) have the license. Apps that happen to use those decoding engines/libraries would be licensed, because those apps aren't decoding -- the OS is. But for implementations like Firefox and Chrome, their video player code is not the system code. It's part of the app. They would need to individually license it or re architect their browser to expose it to OS-level dependencies, which is not ideal.
Intel's codec wasn't run by a standards group. History doesn't always play out the same way. There are bigger things at stake here in 2016 because Apple and Microsoft have a stake in this.
h264 has more profiles so it is more flexible. VP8 may eventually, but it will be years away.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm all about having a competing standard, I'm just in favor of h264 as the dominate codec.
You like to throw out the specter of 2016. So much will change between now and 2016 its completely impossible to predict what the environment will be at that time. Or what the MPEG-LA will do.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
Its a bit premature to say everyone is jumping all over WebM. Google has trotted out the usual suspects that are always brought out when some big new initiative is being made. Most of the time nothing comes of it.
Every major mobile ASIC/SoC vendor is going to support hardware acceleration by the end of the year. BY FAR the largest video site online is supporting it all-out (yeah, Google owns them). Chrome, Firefox, and Opera will support them very shortly while MS will permit users to install the codec to play them in IE9. The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Primarily the biggest challenge for WebM is the iPhone OS and Mobile Safari. The most used platform and mobile browser for delivering mobile media. It already has a big head start with H.264. There are many excellent apps and web sites that make exclusive use of H.264, there is little reason or incentive for those developers to also deliver WebM.
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
It bothers me greatly to have content locked up in a format where, conceivably 10 years down the road someone tells you that you need to pay to see it. That's not right. It's your content.
This COULD happen that does not mean it WILL happen. Its very unlikely that the MPEG-LA will suddenly charge everyone in this fashion. They would kill the codec.
I got burned in many years past by Intel's Indeo codec...I had a ton of videos in it and suddenly the codec went kaput. Was a nightmare getting those videos to play again. Ever since then I've been wary about codecs that could lock you out of your content either by being unavailable, or commercial.
You poorly chose a codec that wasn't widely supported, that was the reason it stopped being used. You cannot take that example and widely apply it to any codec.
Mozilla supports Ogg Theora AND WebM.
True. But the possibility of VP8 having patent problems is very high as has been pointed out by a number of authors. Google is making statements about this that simply aren't true. It's hard to believe that they aren't aware of that.
Ogg Theora is well known as a bad codec. You wouldn't want to use it instead of H.264, or even VP8, which is better, but not as good as H.264.
This is one article by Daniel that I completely agree with, and that doesn't always happen.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
I think there is more uncertainty surrounding VP8 then h264 right now. Maybe there will be less in a couple years as VP8 matures, gets supported, and patent related issues get resolved. Besides, this isn't about one codec must rule them all. One thing is clear, you will need to support h264 as an option going forward if you want IE and Safari users to visit your site. So essentially it isn't your decision to make. If Mozilla doesn't support h264, then you don't get to vote by supporting the under dog either. Everyone will need to support both codecs in that case. The only vote you really have is for Ogg Theora because its marketshare is minimal.
As an app developer, I vote for h264 because it is already hardware accelerated and stable. I do have a vote because I don't need to support web browsers.
That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?
You are making it a lot more dramatic than the reality. Nothing is absolutely certain. But its highly unlikely the MPEG-LA would literally charge everyone to use H.264.
Every major mobile ASIC/SoC vendor is going to support hardware acceleration by the end of the year. BY FAR the largest video site online is supporting it all-out (yeah, Google owns them). Chrome, Firefox, and Opera will support them very shortly while MS will permit users to install the codec to play them in IE9. The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Mobile devices are growing far faster than desktp/laptop PC's. Mobile devices will become the primary way most people access the internet. IE and Firefox have little to no presence on the mobile web. Safari has roughly 60% market share.
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
Android as an OS will easily outsell the iPhone. That does not necessarily mean its web usage will equal the iPhone OS.
The only browser that won't be able to play WebM is Safari, with its paltry ~4.5% marketshare. Firefox is the only browser that can't play h264, but that's a 25% marketshare.
Considering the latest growth numbers (Android passing iPhoneOS in USA and on pace to pass worldwide this year), I don't think it's that big of a concern.
Are you saying apple is so insignificant that we should not worry about safari video playback compatibility on apple desktops and mobile devices?
Its Apples way or no way!!!!!!!!
Apple is doing same what republican's are doing.
Saying 'No'.
Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.
Its Republicans way or no way!
Its Apples way or no way!!!!!!!!
Apple is doing same what republican's are doing.
Saying 'No'.
That analogy would only work if Republicans only had authority over Republicans and Democrats only had authority over Democrats. (That might actually be an improvement though.)
This common reference to Ipod -I phone - I pad is getting grammatically boring:
I hereby proclaim the fore mentioned products should be know as the I P 3 group ( or the IP Cubed group) or product group or product line.
This should allow us to speed up all conversation and reference to this operating system / product family, while allow all of us to have some jargon that satisfies our need for an "insider catch phrase" that only we understand. Sort of like a gang sign for the rest of us, without having to be beat in or beat out.
Whud da ya say?
Great! Let's begin with those horribly over-used terms like "meme" and "paradigm" that no one seems able to use correctly. Then let's go back to "dimensions" instead of "form factor" (what other factors are involved?) and financial analysts' use of "guidance" instead of "forecast."
And last, but certainly not least, let's consign "ecosystem" to the landfill when used to describe a particular product or designer's sphere of influence.
So, IP3 it is! Let's get on the bandwagon.