or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble - Page 2

post #41 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The research and development that went into H.264 wasn't free.

I don't think anybody is against paying for past and present r&d costs. Bu if that is all we had to cover I wonder what the true licensing fees would be. The wider the implementation the lower the cost, under that scenario.
post #42 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

I would think Microsoft would push Silverlight first which is why they haven't really supported HTML5 in IE8. I'm guessing that their second choice when all else fails would be h.264 since they already have a license for it and use it on the XBOX and Zune.

I guess it's too much to ask Microsoft to focus their Silverlight promotion on Rich Internet Applications where it actually makes sense given better OS integration/consistency and leave something as basic as video playback to the pure browser. I wonder if Microsoft were to say H.264 is their second choice after Silverlight, would that be an important piece of support for H.264 over Theora.
post #43 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by oomu View Post

but it is a ugly patent covered stuff. and license price are very very expensive and refuse distribution of binary opensource reimplementation in software

Its a misnomer to paint patents as bad with a wide brush. Being able to patent your work so that someone cannot steal and profit from your talent and efforts, is good. Like anything patents can be abused.

Quote:
the license is HUGE corporate profit of course, and it's nice, I mean, corporate profit paid me (and I give gifts thanks to that), it also allow university to participate in development

I meant the MPEG group is not a corporation, but they do have to pay the patent holders for their property.

Quote:
we need open standard nice and free and efficient to finally solve the whole video mess on the Web. You should Love the Web, not the license body. You should love the Web, not the codec You should love the Web, not simply Apple.

I'm not one for dogma. The entire internet is not and has never been completely free. In one way or another innovation costs money. Apple, Microsoft, and Google have all created their own browsers as a front end to pushing their profitable products. Admittedly Firefox is the only organization that is not using the browser to add value to a for profit product. At the same time developing Firefox costs money and someone has to pay the bills.
post #44 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

I guess it's too much to ask Microsoft to focus their Silverlight promotion on Rich Internet Applications where it actually makes sense given better OS integration/consistency and leave something as basic as video playback to the pure browser. I wonder if Microsoft were to say H.264 is their second choice after Silverlight, would that be an important piece of support for H.264 over Theora.

Yes it would be too much to ask of Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft has any real role in it because they've given the finger to web standards in IE8. They've been making standards without Microsoft up to this point so it shouldn't change anything in this case.
post #45 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead View Post

By all means, run it yourself. Greg listed his methodology!

I don't think that's necessary. Their are several sources that say OGG is not as good as H.264. Versus the one positive mention of OGG quality is from the organization that creates it.


Quote:
You might be surprised.

I would be. Currently H.264 is being adopted in high end HD camera systems, video data recording systems, and quickly becoming a popular post production codec in HD editing. I cannot see hardware manufacturers suddenly paying much attention to OGG Theora.


Quote:
Doesn't matter what the money goes to - it matters that you have to pay to implement it. That just won't fly on the open web.

H.264 is a case where we've had to pay to have a superior product. Even at Mozilla the bills have to be paid somehow. This is truly a case where there is ample competition among video codecs and H.264 has been proven the best.
post #46 of 138
I'm not arguing that H.264 licensing is perfect. I've read articles where there seemed to be valid complaints about the licensing and made a good argument for its reform.

What I am arguing against the sense that everything needs to be given away for free. In a capitalistic system innovation cannot thrive if their is no profit motivation. I know we don't like this fact, but that's the way it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I don't think anybody is against paying for past and present r&d costs. Bu if that is all we had to cover I wonder what the true licensing fees would be. The wider the implementation the lower the cost, under that scenario.
post #47 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I don't think that's necessary. Their are several sources that say OGG is not as good as H.264. Versus the one positive mention of OGG quality is from the organization that creates it.

That analysis - which shows screenshots, btw! - says roughly "H.264, as implemented by YouTube, is better than Theora, but not by much, and it probably doesn't make a difference to the average user."
post #48 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Yes it would be too much to ask of Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft has any real role in it because they've given the finger to web standards in IE8. They've been making standards without Microsoft up to this point so it shouldn't change anything in this case.

Well in Microsoft's defense I can see why they appear to be slow to incorporate internet standards. For something like HTML5 which is still in development, Microsoft hasn't didn't implement support in IE8 so they get dinged for that. But if they had started incorporating features that are in the current draft but don't make it to the final standard, then everyone will be in an uproar that Microsoft's implementation is no longer compliant and they are pushing their own agenda. In this case, the slow moving approach may make sense for something as entrenched as IE. IE8 may not be at the cutting edge, but it does now meet internet standards that have actually been finalized as seen by it's passing the Acid2 test and reportedly having better CSS2.1 compliance than Firefox when IE8 was first released.

I wonder if there is really no reasonable alternative other than Theora and H.264. For example, H.263 is pretty old so perhaps the licensing fees are more reasonable. Standard YouTube videos already use H.263 so Google wouldn't have any bandwidth complaints and H.263 isn't that CPU intensive so even if dedicated hardware acceleration chips for H.263 aren't popular it's not the end of the world for Apple.

Or what about Xvid which I thought is free software? I believe it has a license that enforces derivative works also being free, but if I'm not mistaken it follows the MPEG4 Part 2 standard close enough that other MPEG4 Part 2 codecs can decode it's video, allowing browsers with more restrictive licenses to be compatible as well by implementing other variations of the MPEG4 Part 2 standard. Existing hardware accelerators for H.264 generally also accelerate MPEG4 Part 2 formats like Xvid and Divx so it's a viable format for mobile devices. I believe the existing hardware in iPhones and iPod Touches already can accelerate something like Xvid or Divx if Apple decided to enable support.

Admittedly, neither H.263 or XVid has the quality or efficiency of H.264 or perhaps even Theora, but they should both be acceptable as the base video standard of the internet. HD video is still viewed as an option on websites so websites requiring separate H.264 or Theora requirements for their HD streams is reasonable without having them mandated in HTML5.
post #49 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead View Post

Mozilla is not a "business like any other." Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization whose only purpose is to advance the open web. If users can't use their data however they want because of licensing problems, then it's not really an Open web, now is it?

Please explain to me, as Joe Web User how the licensing problems affect me at all? Apple has already paid for me to encode/decode h.264 and included that functionality to me for free with OS X / Quicktime?

If Mozilla has enough cash to fund their Theora trojan horse to usurp the already de-facto video standard they should have enough money to fork over to pay licensing fees for h.264 also.
post #50 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Well in Microsoft's defense I can see why they appear to be slow to incorporate internet standards. For something like HTML5 which is still in development, Microsoft hasn't didn't implement support in IE8 so they get dinged for that. But if they had started incorporating features that are in the current draft but don't make it to the final standard, then everyone will be in an uproar that Microsoft's implementation is no longer compliant and they are pushing their own agenda. In this case, the slow moving approach may make sense for something as entrenched as IE. IE8 may not be at the cutting edge, but it does now meet internet standards that have actually been finalized as seen by it's passing the Acid2 test and reportedly having better CSS2.1 compliance than Firefox when IE8 was first released.

I wonder if there is really no reasonable alternative other than Theora and H.264. For example, H.263 is pretty old so perhaps the licensing fees are more reasonable. Standard YouTube videos already use H.263 so Google wouldn't have any bandwidth complaints and H.263 isn't that CPU intensive so even if dedicated hardware acceleration chips for H.263 aren't popular it's not the end of the world for Apple.

Or what about Xvid which I thought is free software? I believe it has a license that enforces derivative works also being free, but if I'm not mistaken it follows the MPEG4 Part 2 standard close enough that other MPEG4 Part 2 codecs can decode it's video, allowing browsers with more restrictive licenses to be compatible as well by implementing other variations of the MPEG4 Part 2 standard. Existing hardware accelerators for H.264 generally also accelerate MPEG4 Part 2 formats like Xvid and Divx so it's a viable format for mobile devices. I believe the existing hardware in iPhones and iPod Touches already can accelerate something like Xvid or Divx if Apple decided to enable support.

Admittedly, neither H.263 or XVid has the quality or efficiency of H.264 or perhaps even Theora, but they should both be acceptable as the base video standard of the internet. HD video is still viewed as an option on websites so websites requiring separate H.264 or Theora requirements for their HD streams is reasonable without having them mandated in HTML5.

I've got to disagree with you on Microsoft there though I do see your point. This browser was just recently released and scores a 20/100 on the Acid 3 test. It takes them years to come out with a new version of IE so I wouldn't expect the to support HTML for another 4 years when IE9 is released (maybe). For the last 25 years Microsoft main intention has been to control the web. Silverlight is just the latest invention. They'll have to eventually one day support it, but in the meantime they'll push Silverlight until it fails and slow down the progression of the web.
post #51 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruda View Post

This article is very similar to http://www.osnews.com/story/21767/Br..._HTML_5_Codecs, which precedes this one by 3 or 4 days. Are these the pundits you are referring to? Was this article cited (and I missed it)? I know this isn't the Wall Street Journal or anything, but perhaps a direct citation to this previous article is necessary. Did you read this article Prince? Please correct me and accept my apologies if I am wrong.

There is really no similarity in this article and what I wrote. The OS News piece you cited was the same old regurgitation of bits everyone else has been repeating, with a lot of inaccuracies and somewhat sloppy generalizations. What, apart from using many of the same proper nouns, do you see as similarities between the two? And for the record, I don't often read OS News and didn't see that article before writing this one. I did read the Ars article, which similarly voices the "free codec is good, international standards body specifications are evil" thing everyone has been repeating.

The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter. Once Chrome starts gaining traction, do you really think Google will see any need to dump $50 million on the remains of Netscape's ashes? And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?
post #52 of 138
"Please explain to me, as Joe Web User how the licensing problems affect me at all? Apple has already paid for me to encode/decode h.264 and included that functionality to me for free with OS X / Quicktime?"

Every user has to pay to distribute MP4 even on the internet even if they make no money, are non-profit, or are only using it for personal use no matter how little they use it. It is *not* a small fee. It costs a minimum of $2,500 starting in 2011, even just for one video.
post #53 of 138
"The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter. Once Chrome starts gaining traction, do you really think Google will see any need to dump $50 million on the remains of Netscape's ashes? And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?"

What people don't realize is that all those codecs that have patents like them like MP4 have to be paid for and people can get sued for not paying for them. You have to pay to play or to create audio or video with patents on them, unless they are given away royalty free. Apple already pays for Quicktime users, so Apple users don't have the same problem. There is a company that has negotiated a way to pay for the codecs in open source versions of those codecs, I think called fluendo, but many Linux users don't know about them and think they can use the codecs legally for free. The cost for encoding and decoding part is not very expensive, but it has to be paid and it is incompatible with the open source licenses.

And Mozilla cannot include any patented software in Firefox even if all their users are given royalty free use. It has to be royalty free for everyone in every situation or else it goes against the license they offer it under.
post #54 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by beg View Post

If Mozilla has enough cash to fund their Theora trojan horse to usurp the already de-facto video standard they should have enough money to fork over to pay licensing fees for h.264 also.

Don't be ridiculous. Xiph.org is a non-profit organization. Their codec is royalty-free. What you're witnessing right now is big fat corporations vs folks with open ideas. Apple is no better than Adobe or Microsoft here. It hurts to acknowledge that for Apple fans like us, but it's the sad reality.
post #55 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

The entire objective of video in HTML5 is to avoid the use of plug-ins to play video.

Well that's the heart of the matter isn't it? one can quibble with that statement - who says so, that is "the entire objective"? but in the end, politically, the multiple plug-in approach is the only possible outcome, because everyone that is pushing a particular format - Flash, Silverlight, H264, etc. - for their own business strategy has to fight to the death to protect theirs from obsolescence in MTML 5. this includes Mozilla wanting to avoid license fees.

sorry guys, it's not about what is "right," it is about what is politically inevitable - a compromise.

hopefully Apple can use its iTunes/iPhone platform muscle to marginalize Flash - serves them right - and Silverlight - to stop MS once again from trying to take over the media world. whereas the open source alternatives need to get their technical act together to catch up with what H264 can do today. that is the curse of open source in general - if none of the big guys adopts it and pushes its technical development cohesively (like Apple is doing with web kit), it just drifts and falls behind. that's inevitable too.
post #56 of 138
Apple and Mozilla are both businesses and both benefit from keeping the web as open as possible. They agree on the end, but not on the means to get there.

Insisting that either of the tries to close the web is really running errands for Microsoft and Adobe. The Proprietary Gang benefits from this little conflict of codecs, and I assume that they try to fuel it as best they can.

And this article was simply a great read, thanks AI. But even as an Apple enthusiast, I didn't like the cheerleading tone of some parts.
post #57 of 138
Its not as nefarious as you make it sound.

The MPEG organization is a group of talented engineers who developed a superior project and want to be paid for their efforts. While Xiph is a group of talented engineers who don't require payment for their efforts. I don't think either approach is inherently right or wrong.

Although Xiph has the more altruistic motivation their product still has to compete in the market. If they can create a great product for no profit, then that's great. But I don't think they should automatically win just because they are doing it for no profit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by warpdag View Post

Don't be ridiculous. Xiph.org is a non-profit organization. Their codec is royalty-free. What you're witnessing right now is big fat corporations vs folks with open ideas. Apple is no better than Adobe or Microsoft here. It hurts to acknowledge that for Apple fans like us, but it's the sad reality.
post #58 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Until somebody promises to indemnify open source browsers from lawsuits from any H.264 patent holders, no open source browser will implement <video> with H.264. This means that users of open source browsers, including the vast majority of Linux users (100% of them until Google Chrome is released for Linux) will be unable to view any site that uses H.264 for <video>.

This is not acceptable. The web is supposed to be open and accessible to all. I know that the only ways to view video on the web are through proprietary plugins (Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX), but Flash is available for Linux. Safari probably never will be, and Chrome isn't yet.

Read this and I think you will understand.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...one-lock_N.htm

AT&T & Apple own and have the right to everything on your iPhone, even after the 2 year contract is over.

Two options Jailbreak your phone or continue your current plan.

I see it as a lose, lose. I don't want to jailbreak my phone and if you own the phone it should be yours to do what you want with it on ANY carrier if they accept the SIM Card (which with Apple would be T-Mobile as the story suggests).
post #59 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead View Post

Some comments:
.... Finally, there is nothing implicit in Theora that make it hard to accelerate with hardware - it's just that it hasn't been done yet due to a lack of users. Mozilla's inclusion of Theora in Firefox 3.5 is one of the things that should help to change that.

(Disclaimer: I am both a Mozilla employee and a Firefox developer.)

Let me inject some reality into your fantasy world. Low-cost/thin laptops, netbooks, UMPC, MIDs, and smartphones don't have the processing power to decode high quality and especially HD video. Even if they did, software decoding is very inefficient and uses too much power.
Because of this, all of these mobile device platforms have hardware decoding logic built in to their chipsets or system-on-a-chip. These hardware decoders are fixed in function, with the vast majority of them supporting MPEG4/H264 and WMV/VC-1, and many supporting MPEG-2. NONE of them support Theora and they cannot be simply modified via software to do so.

Likewise, all of the major ARM system-on-a-chip manufacturers create the architecture and components for future chips years in advance, and none of them support Theora. They are not going to go modify their next-generation components just to support an odd-ball video codec. And even if future powerful netbooks/MIDs/PMPs/Smartphones using high powered ARM and Intel Atom processors can get a decent framerate with high-bitrate/HD theora video, they will be wasting a ton of power pegging the CPU and the rest of the system will be unresponsive.

Considering one of the major reasons for creating HTML5 video was to remove the requirement of the Flash player for online video ---- which most mobile devices either can't run because of processor limitations or unsupported platforms -- It is simply ridiculous to suggest using Theora which completely negates that advantage.

In summary, if Theora gets adopted as the standard, native HTML 5 video becomes COMPLETELY WORTHLESS to the tens of millions of mobile devices out there.
post #60 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince View Post

The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter.

Seeing how Firefox has greater than 20% browser share, I find it difficult to justify saying 20% of internet users and their preferences don't matter.

I'm still curious as to the licensing situation for Xvid. It has as good, if not better hardware support than H.264, seeing that most DVD players can play it, it's supposedly free, offers decent quality and compression and is widely used and known. Seems like the best compromise.
post #61 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


Considering one of the major reasons for creating HTML5 video was to remove the requirement of the Flash player for online video ---- which most mobile devices either can't run because of processor limitations or unsupported platforms -- It is simply ridiculous to suggest using Theora which completely negates that advantage.

In summary, if Theora gets adopted as the standard, native HTML 5 video becomes COMPLETELY WORTHLESS to the tens of millions of mobile devices out there.

If you own an iPhone (I have 2, not the 3GS). You will never get FLASH.
It takes gaming revenue away from Apple.
If you own an iPhone. You will never get any Video that is FREE.
It takes Movie & TV revenue away from Apple.

Both are Free if you really have the Internet in Your Pocket as the original iPhone was advertised.

But after 2 years they aren't...

Go Figure...

Edit. For those that say both drain the battery then why did Apple offer Both Video & Video editing on the phone (4years late) and still not offer true Multi-Tasking?

I'd pick Multi-Tasking over Video given the iPhone interface but that's me. I play Golf and want GPS without my battery or phone burning their contents (1 post from a French site doesn't mean everything is all right).

And for those that don't believe it's true. Try playing golf and using GPS full time for 1, 4 hour round. The original 3G is dead at about the 12th hole and that is with turning off the phone, waiting a minute to get my yardage. My 3G could burn and egg. Yes, it was in Vegas but if the App can't handle the heat or the 3G at the same time then there is a problem with the phone or App. It's ViewTi Golf (it was out well before 3.0 came out). The best golf GPS in the app store. I doubt it's the App. I could finish a full round before 3.0.

First Bug I've had and a Big One for me.

Fully charged phone in the read just after the turn. Wrong...
post #62 of 138
What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?

But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post


AT&T & Apple own and have the right to everything on your iPhone, even after the 2 year contract is over.
post #63 of 138
This issue seems to be a rather mute point. Either we support a current standard that already has support in many areas (including hardware and software) and we pay the current licensing fees (many of us already do) or we jump back in time and support an outdated standard with little support (except for the idealists) and pretend that the world is perfect and everything is magically free. I'm glad it's being debated but the choice is pretty clear once you weigh all of the points within the issue fairly. As others have pointed out, the only winners in this charade are the ones who hold the most stringent and vigorously defended patents. h264 isn't perfect but it's allot better than any iteration of Windows Media and certainly better than Flash.

Good article even if it is a bit "slanted". On that note. Those that are looking for a point of view that isn't slanted are kidding themselves and making any debate pointless. That's why it's a Point of View. Perspective is everything and to say that an argument for or against isn't slanted is misleading. There is no way of removing the observer from the observation.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #64 of 138
Firefox has 20% market share in desktops. The fastest growth is in mobile devices where Firefox has next to no market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Seeing how Firefox has greater than 20% browser share, I find it difficult to justify saying 20% of internet users and their preferences don't matter.
post #65 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcloki View Post

So what this really is is a shakedown by companies looking to reduce the royalty rates they need to pay to implement a technology. By bringing about this PR tempest in a teapot they look to use the court of public opinion to drive a better bargain. Nice.

Spot on!
post #66 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post

If you own an iPhone (I have 2, not the 3GS). You will never get FLASH.

No because an OS X machine using Core 2 Duo, Flash can use up to 90% of the CPU, that is horribly inefficient.

Quote:
It takes gaming revenue away from Apple.

Apple doesn't make games.


Quote:
If you own an iPhone. You will never get any Video that is FREE. It takes Movie & TV revenue away from Apple.

What about those free podcasts in iTunes. What about the fact that you can sync any video you want from iTunes, whether you paid for it or not. What about Youtube, or Joost, or TV.com, or Dailymotion, or any of the hundreds of sources of video streaming from the web.


Quote:
Edit. For those that say both drain the battery then why did Apple offer Both Video & Video editing on the phone (4years late) and still not offer true Multi-Tasking?

Because video recording isn't an excessive drain on the battery like multi-tasking.
post #67 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpdag View Post

Don't be ridiculous. Xiph.org is a non-profit organization. Their codec is royalty-free. What you're witnessing right now is big fat corporations vs folks with open ideas. Apple is no better than Adobe or Microsoft here. It hurts to acknowledge that for Apple fans like us, but it's the sad reality.

It's not an open idea. It's an implementation that is royalty free that mimics/copies H.264 as much as possible.
post #68 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Firefox has 20% market share in desktops. The fastest growth is in mobile devices where Firefox has next to no market share.

Correct.
post #69 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?

But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.

Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.
post #70 of 138
I read this to say, video on Youtube looks like crap, OGG doesn't make much difference in this sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead View Post

That analysis - which shows screenshots, btw! - says roughly "H.264, as implemented by YouTube, is better than Theora, but not by much, and it probably doesn't make a difference to the average user."
post #71 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?

But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.

AT&T and Apple don't unlock your phone for you after you paid for the phone and the privelage of owning the phone for 2 years.

Reverse the content. You pay for a lease on a car for 2 years (Pay it out and own it).
The car dealer says you have to get Gas at their dealership. Regardless where you happen to be in the world.

That is why Both AT&T & Apple are being investigated for what they offer (OR IN THIS CASE DON'T OFFER FOR A PHONE YOU OWN!)

Finally the rest of the country and government are getting involved with this.

YOU OWN THE PHONE, IT IS YOU PHONE. HOW SIMPLE CAN I MAKE IT.
post #72 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.


I am neither but it does show your ignorance to the bigger picture. I am just an iPhone user that this article has verified that Apple and AT&T wants us locked into their CASH COW with their standars.

Does anyone really remember anyone that has used QuickTime to watch a Video on the web?
CNN, no. Hulu, no. CNBC, no. ABC, NBC, CBS, Sci Fi. no. Fox, No.,

All shows are available in Flash the next day after airing for Free! Yes it is Flash. Add ESPN, NASCAR, GOLF Channel for a few other not popular (...) for an example.

All Flash, all video and all FREE. That means you don't get it on the iPhone.

Why upgrade to the 3GS when the 3G does everything but Vidow (4 years old)?
post #73 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by oomu View Post


I want a Free to implement, to use , to create and to read and efficient format to publish video on the web

for ALL KIND OF DEVICES !

it's ALL system or NONE.

I just care about EASINESS, Simplicity and STANDARD ! you know ! the fight you did to make possible to use a MACINTOSH !

Now I want the same fight to use firefox, fennec, opera, webkit or whatever to read standard video on Linux, Mac and crazy tiny watches !

Etc, etc, etc. Post was too long for my purposes - sorry for the editing. Just wanted to highlight the theme. While I understand this perspective there are other "systems" to be considered. The web may, in fact, be the ideal environment for pure socialism, which I have no problem with. However, socialism has not been known historically to provide great encouragement for innovation. Part of the reason for the success of companies such as Apple and Microsoft is the rewards of capitalism, of profit. Without rambling too much on this philosophical path, there has to be some consideration for profit or a majority of people lose motivation. It's not a right/wrong or good/bad situation, just the reality of human existence. The idea of a completely open web may be admirable and ideal, but it is also completely ignorant of the human condition and idealistic. This is not to say that such an endeavor should be discouraged, but to ignore other forces that do have positive outcomes with the bad is not an open approach and will fail in the end. I'd be the first in line at the garden of eden, but for now I don't mind if I have to pay for admission.

Just some thoughts. Great article, very informative feedback in the comments. All-in-all, an outstanding conversation.
post #74 of 138
"specifications like HTML 5 are not intended to enforce political views but rather to foster interoperability."

Sorry, like it or not, but interoperability is a "political view." And the fact that McLean describes Ogg Theora as an "obsolete codec" says this is more about politics than anything else for him.

It's people like McLean we need less of. If it was people like McLean that invented the internet it wouldn't be the internet.
post #75 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo View Post

It's a really tough decision. H.264 may be technically superior, but it has such nasty licensing arrangement. I'd like not to have to pay someone to look at my own videos...

Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.
post #76 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.

Not true, in 2011 the end user will have to pay $2,500 even to put one video online even for personal or non-profit use. You are mixing up the MP4 audio with MP4 video. MP4 audio only requires encoder and decoder payments. The video component requires fees for broadcast as well.
post #77 of 138
Here is where I got the $2,500 statistic. I see *now* that they have extended the free period to 2013.

This is from the MPEG LA MP4 visual licensing presentation

"Where remuneration is from other sources
Free Television (not Title-by-Title, Subscription or Free Internet Broadcast) - one-time fee of $2,500 per transmission encoder
Free Internet Broadcast (not Title-by-Title or Subscription) no royalty during the current term (through 2013; not greater than Free Television thereafter)"

What people need to understand is that the idea that people have to pay to use a file format is not a standard industry practice. It doesn't cost people anything to use HTML, PHP, Javascript, PDFs, Flash, etc.

But when there are patents involved that are not given away royalty free, whenever there is no more competition, they can raise the rates to anything they want. We already have free proprietary video on the web. Do we really want to go even more backwards and start using proprietary video that costs money just to distribute?

Many groups on the Internet that want to use video are not large corporations and cannot get the good volume deals than the big guys can get. You think it is bad that we don't have better video on the Internet, but think about what will happen if the only free alternative is MPEG-1 or AVI? Do we want to have the Internet even slower for those who cannot afford it? What will happen in the future - will Microsoft start charging for using their file formats in addition to the money paid for Microsoft Office?
post #78 of 138
Firefox supports GIF and JPEG formats for <img> tags, right ? Both of those formats are patented, yet they somehow were able to overcome philosophical differences and support those formats.

Mozilla should pull their head out of their Open Source arses and support h.264 - the industry standard. Simple as that.

Same goes for Opera.
post #79 of 138
It's too late to start arguing over this. h.264 is THE standard. DVD, BluRay, HD Video, YouTube, All mobile devices, all hardware (YOU own) supports h.264 (to some extent be that the container or the codec etc) if you want to go and buy a new housefull of electronics (computers, DVD players, mobile phones etc or just convert EVERY internet file you download to the h.264 codec go with OGG) Personally I would say go with the h.264 codec, as I dont want to shell out on a new mobile phone, graphics card, and other hardware that supports the ogg codec.
post #80 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

There's no official codec for graphics; web developers can use JPEG, GIF, PNG, or any other format. If users can't see the image, they might need to load a helper plugin. There is no problem related to lacking an official graphics format.

Are you freaking kidding me? IE6's poor support for PNG alpha-transparencies is a huge pain in the @ss. Why should a user have to load a plugin just to view basic images on a web page?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble