Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM - Page 6

Good points. Except one project, TCPMP, an excellent OSS media player for devices back in the stone age (aka palm and WM), they received a cease and desist order for having the aac decoding library (and I believe later the avc library). They were not making any money off of it either.

People like Mozilla who receive 50 million dollars a year from Google probably won't slip past MPEG's radar.

And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?

Google was the owner of record when they gave the code away otherwise they could not open source the code. The problem arises if they gave away something which was not theirs to give: both Google and WebM users could be liable.

what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, or, Stallman saying 'yes it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.

Its unreal. I can't believe that google is doing this. I think that the industry should sue google to prevent them from doing this? IS that possible though? I mean for the mere fact that All future android phones will not support h.264 is reason enough...This should be reason enough to have a court prevent this... I firmly believe this is stictly a power play by google. (maybe the have an axe to grind with Apple?)

LIke some poster above this may give Adobe much better leverage at staying the defacto standard of the web... What a great shame google.

So I supposedly berated you, but now you say I didn't, but that you took the term freetard personally when I never even used it in relation to you. I used it before you ever joined the thread, so any personal level insult is purely of your own construction.

Do you even remember what you have been posting the past several hours? You are so all over the place and cavalier with your accusations and subsequent no-but modifications I see no credibility left. You are posting merely like a randomly activated loose cannon.

I completely get what you are trying to say about Stallman, he is convinced Google is dealing fairly with WebM. OK, fine. But he is completely ignoring the fact that Google has been unofficially accused of infringing on H.264 patents. What Stallman thinks of Google's intentions just became immaterial with that revelation.

Go ahead and blindly believe Stallman, you have very plainly said you think that is the proper choice. And I'll very plainly say I see Stallman as being willfully negligent in his blind endorsement and is just speaking based on some extremely narrow viewpoint that ignores the rest of the patent holding world, but espouses his very extreme free philosophy.

I think that would be considered a good thing!

I don't have a problem with it. In fact I think it was a good thing. Clearly the intelligent comments were quoted becouse with this move google has show their true colors.

He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.

Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.

Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.

Look, if you want to know, if 2-3 people in a row post new lows of ignorance, I get WTF?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - AE

All in violation, you should probably slip the boys at MPEG-LA a memo to enforce their patents.


Bzzt. Wrong. H.264 is widely used because its the format youtube initially adopted for HTML5 and for Blu-Ray playback. The difference in quality is negligible at best, and this has been proven by people who actually know wtf they are talking about. Hardware acceleration is coming for WebM so your point is effectively moot. Apple devices will simply have to embrace it or be dead in the water, because you better damn well believe H.264 will be gone in the coming months as well when Google decides to take it off Youtube.

The only person who has failed is you, congratulations

Did I ever say anything of the sort? I am well aware that many products use patents from all over the place, there is simply no way to get around it. Now regarding Google, they just so happen to OWN THEIR OWN CODEC, something they bought and will utilize. Why the hell would a company like Google pay someone else for something they ALREADY OWN? Doesnt make any sense does it? Especially if they plan on expanding Youtube significantly like i think they will.


Firefox controls a big share of internet usage. It might seem like Mozilla is being an ass but they dont want to pony up the money when others are doing the same thing for free. Mozilla could easily make a plugin and support all 3, but somehow if it were that easy it would have been done already and it wouldn't be in discussion.

H.264 is far beyond just HTML5. Companies with money invested in hardware or software would lose little if any money at all. Hardware and Software wise, H.264 is nothing more than another codec to support. We would expect those companies to still support H.264 just like we would expect them to support any other format. But remember, those people are in the business for mass profit, be it hardware or software or both. Mozilla IS NOT.

And regardless of what side of the fence we sit on, Firefox and Chrome control roughly 45% of the web who will support it, and that number is not slowing at all. From a content provider, thats a pretty damn good split. That means serving content in WebM and H.264 if i want to go the HTML5 route, or Flash, the universal player. Funny enough is that Flash is going to support WebM just like H.264, so H.264 is losing its edge fast.

But i havent forgotten, Microsoft will have WebM support in IE9 and they are the roughly 45% and bleeding web browser. 90%....sounds like a pretty good damn number to know which HTML5 format to back. The only thing Apple needs to do is play ball with WebM, they dont have to give up H.264 for iTunes media if they dont want (im sure they will soon though)


And these are companies out to make a profit, Mozilla is not one of those companies (even though they do GET money from donations, do you spend it on devs or a codec?). Also, everyone of the companies you just listed sells hardware, and H.264 WAS the best out back then when they unleashed everything you just listed. WebM is now just as good, but it doesnt mean they are going to jump ship to this new platform. WebM

WebM has come a long way, from what ive read the newer builds of WebM have even lower CPU usage than that of H.264 (up to half in some cases) with hardware acceleration on Core 2 Duos and Atoms, which is great for mobile devices. Great playback, quality that looks damn near the same without being as resource intensive is win win in my book. Unfortunately there isnt much shown for the Mac side of things, where H.264 still reigned king.

[
I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better. But if you still want hardware manufacturers, AMD, Nvidia, ARM, Intel, TI, Broadcom, and Qualcomm are backing WebM with hardware, so i'd say thats quite a lot of support.

Anyways, i could care less about royalties but for a company like Google, getting rid of it now is in their best interest while its still relatively small. If they have to buy licenses for Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and possibly Youtube if they go paid services it would hit them with reoccuring yearly costs, as well as having wasted on On2 for VP8. Even still, Google just backing one format for say Youtube means they can save millions on server costs. That alone may be worth the switch to Google if they step into the streaming movie/television business soon like Hulu and Netflix.

And to your last point, there are only 3 things. I decided not to get a new mac and got a nice Acer laptop for 399 that i put Arch Linux on, i use VLC on both my PC and Mini cause obviously Linux doesnt have much for media playback and Quicktime sucks so damn bad and it should be criminal that they charge for 7 Pro. I use GIMP to edit photos since im not going to break the bank to get Photoshop, last is OpenOffice which i use on both, cause MS Office is way overpriced and Microsoft has a lot of my money already from owning an Xbox 360 and all the crap i got for it.

I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.

I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.

well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.

http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_...C-Test-results

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx

Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.

If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.

'significantly' how exacting. the numbers don't show that it is 'significantly' and the images are 'slightly' poorer in some cases. i can use inexact terms too ya know.

and webm is active isn't it? i bet it gets better. in any case you just stick with safari and enjoy. i will 'suffer' with other and see what plays out.

This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?

PM me and I'll give you my actual location. You can then attempt to punch me in the face big guy.

I love how some folks are internet tough guys. Welcome to my ignore list...damn it's getting large.

He doesn't actually believe in IP so his supporting WebM as being free of patent encumbrance is meaningless (he basically uses copyright law in a cynical way to enforce his brand of "freedom").

He also knows, like everyone else, that only Google or the poor schmuck at the end of the infringement chain is likely to get hammered. So it means nothing to him since he's no real big fan of Google either. He tolerates and perhaps fears Google.

They have pledged to indemify Android.

It's more like a punch to get your brain working again.

Notice how you didn't include in your reply just how wrong you were and how stupid you sounded for saying what you did...wait you aren't even the person who said it, wtf?

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...ook-68594.aspx

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-W...t-164124.shtml

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

That last link put it as straight and non-biased as it will be. WebM is right up there with x264, i believe my exact wording in my previous post was "just as good". In some areas its bests it, and in others it loses.

Why dont you read up and educate yourself instead of going by comparisons that are almost an entire year old? In the second link, he shows CPU performance, where the old VP8 is hogging resources and pretty shitty overall. He later then uses a newer build of VP8 (unknown if its the latest Aylesbury or not) and the performance stomps out H.264 by using half the resources.

Performance improvements werent tested on OS X and is showing only the PC side of things, which i mentioned in the post you dismissed. Im not immune to the facts, VP8 is still even with Aylesbury much slower on the encoding, and VP8 hasn't been browser optimized yet meaning if i loaded a 720p video on youtube RIGHT NOW, my laptop isn't going to be thanking me for it.

I assume that the new Chrome that will be pushed out once here in a couple of months will in fact have those browser optimizations, and a better build of VP8 seeing as the next release named 'Bali" is scheduled for Q1 2011, giving people the time they need to get their shit together.

As a free codec for videos, there is nothing wrong with WebM and its only going to get better and its getting backed from the hardware industry. Comparable quality with less resources? What is the problem here again?

I know AI has an extreme hatred for everything Google, but there is no delusion. WebM is not as shitty as AI makes it out to be simply because Apple isnt currently backing it.


In those images, the only clear loser is the one of pizza dough and the skateboarder. All the others are near indistinguishable unless you crank up the zoom factor to inspect it.

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

VP8 is comparable in all test other than the clean animation.

You guys need to get better monitors, or your eyes checked. Particularly, in the riverbed images, as I noted, the VP8 image is noticeably blurry compared to the H.264, without zooming it at all. But, I suppose you can continue to pretend the VP8 images are just as good, except, of course, for the fact that they aren't.

The irony of it all:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MP...rtphone_Makers

Some other good points made at that site:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10...ing_H_264_WebM

just shut up dude. the guy posted more than enough data to show how close the 2 are and you just act like it doesn't exist.
again, just stop talking. it's a waste of digital space.

Nope, sorry i viewed not only my laptop last night, but on my Mini hooked up to my 50" 1080p Samsung in 1080i. Differences were minuscule other than the ones that i mentioned where you can you tell its inferior.

Seriously, the only way you can tell is by zooming in or sticking your face 3 inches from the monitor.

Also, way to completely ignore my second link. It shows even when zoomed in its still comparable.

Well, it must be your eyes, then, because they aren't comparable at all. Don't worry, though, your optometrist can fix you up.

I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?

i wonder why these apple boys are such retards?

Just because someone may not like certain parts of apple doesn't make them a google fanboy.

This error of logic happens so many times, DED notably.

Of course, you can also go back to my original post and see why he deserved the beating he got. Or you can ignore it and enjoy your bliss.

Is it because we haven't gotten our Google implants yet?

Sorry, but my vision is great. Im not the one sitting with the blinders on immune to the facts.

Its ok, just say you dont like it because its a Google product. Its not going to hurt my feelings one bit, i've already dispelled the notion that H.264 is leaps and bounds better with facts and visual evidence. I've also shown where it clearly is lacking and where it needs improvement. Improvement that its getting with support from many major players in the industry.

here is another one you can look at should you choose to stay in denial about H.264 being vastly superior.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/confer...0-H264-VP8.pdf

clear cut from an unbiased source.

With support coming to mobile devices, hardware devices, and 90% of the web being able to view WebM, H.264 days are numbered as the leading HTML5 codec. Seeing as how HTML5 is still in its infancy, that gives everyone time to migrate and get hardware support before HTML5 is the standard.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment of your visual acuity. In all of those shots, where they actually bothered to use the same image (and it's a bit odd that in many cases they did not), the H.264 image is clearly better.

I think your "dispelling" of notions has already been dispelled in this thread, and all you have to offer is fancy and dreams, not facts and evidence. We heard all your arguments before regarding Theora vs. H.264, and they were just as fictitious then as they are now.

So, the bottom line is that WebM is technically inferior, a mess of a "spec" (if it can even be called that), a legal minefield for anyone adopting it, and nothing more than a patently hypocritical Google ploy to sow chaos.

deleted

you have dispelled absolutely nothing. you have provided nothing other than 'my eyes work better than your eyes' rubbish. just own up that you have nothing valid to say and are a sad little individual that just thinks it has to get the last word in no matter how wrongheaded that word is.
caio,

Googletards..

As for me, I deleted Picasa from the one machine it was loaded on and I've started using other search engines.

Time to become Google-free!

My god man, he took SCREENSHOTS!!!!!!!!!!! In the test you love! And then he resized them!!!! And then PNG'd them!!!! So he based his test not on the quality of the images, but on the quality of lossily converted lower than native resolution external pics which were subject to some unknown Photoshop size transform!!

Holy Fried Monkey Testicles Batman!!! Can an image quality test get any more broken that that? No! Broke is broke!

The site didn't say these things of course, but if you actually click on the images and compare them it is obvious they are not screenshots as they shift all over the place. And that they are PNG's but which is evident in the URL when you click on the images to look for yourself. And the image itself reports it was modified in Photoshop.

The test was was not only so worthless as to be laughable, it was disingenuous as when he said the gremlin was sharper, that was only because the artifacts surrounding him got so bad it overly sharpened the outer black outline.

You obviously have a lot to learn in how to asses source material. And maybe you need some glasses too.

I'll lay my 20/12 MILSPEC yearly verified Aviators eyeballs against the sloppy sensors you seem to have any day.

And if you were actually trying to say the opposite of how I read what you posted, then you impeach your source yourself! Nice self-constructed no-way-out trap there Bubba!

You are really special, and I'm sure you know that. You have absolutely no concept of how ignorant you have proven yourself to be via your posts which are ALWAYS full of factual slip-ups, sloppy logic and your absolutely perfect choices for source material.

You make my task of exposing your arguments as mere sham crapola unbelievable easy. You may not want to admit that, but everyone but your sock-puppetrs knows it and has for awhile.

Please make another demonstration that can so simply be decimated.