AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM - Page 9

post #321 of 335
1/14/11 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.

Replace your last sentence with something along the lines of the below. Declare yourself a Winnah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Because they have seen the light of the currently completely uncontrolled use of Flash cookies. Those are wide open to really evil uses with absolutely no adequate oversight. Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.

Google wants the Flash wrapper, they don't give a crap about the codec. It's just indirection that will potentially trap a whole bunch of other folks that just follow the codec and get burned should MPEG-LA change from FUD to fight.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #322 of 335
1/14/11 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.

I think this is a little paranoid. Flash ads run inside of another Flash container that only provides one parent function call to the loaded swf. The ad running inside does not have the ability to set a Flash cookie because in order to do so it would have to reference a _parent.function. So unless the host page is in league with each and every advertiser automatically having their ad populated into the container, Flash cookies shouldn't be of any concern. Furthermore, you may need to study up on the sandbox that Flash cookies are restricted by.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #323 of 335
1/14/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Yes, it was nicely played and shows just how poorly though-out every one of screamingfist's arguments are. The amusing part is he still doesn't understand how completely he destroys his own arguments. He probably still won't and he'll just get more frustrated and do an even better job now.

(whispering to you) we get it, your desperate for attention and question your own worth. but never forget you are good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like you.
Reply
Reply
post #324 of 335
1/14/11 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think this is a little paranoid. Flash ads run inside of another Flash container that only provides one parent function call to the loaded swf. The ad running inside does not have the ability to set a Flash cookie because in order to do so it would have to reference a _parent.function. So unless the host page is in league with each and every advertiser automatically having their ad populated into the container, Flash cookies shouldn't be of any concern. Furthermore, you may need to study up on the sandbox that Flash cookies are restricted by.

There have already been flash apps in the wild which have the cookie behavior I wrote about and they did unscrupulous things with privacy related information and tracking. The ability to coordinate with a website displaying ads is merely a business negotiation with a trivial post-contract technical implementation.

It's not everywhere by any means. it's actually quite inconsequential at the moment as far as deployment. But the potential for explosive growth is quite real and it is the type of thing a leading ad supplier would find extremely attractive.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #325 of 335
1/14/11 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

(whispering to you) we get it, your desperate for attention and question your own worth. but never forget you are good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like you.

Why thank you! You honor me with your slander!

I notice the content of your fight is gone, is that a capitulation finally?

You have nothing left to say that hasn't been said and refuted already?
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #326 of 335
1/14/11 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

There have already been flash apps in the wild which have the cookie behavior I wrote about and they did unscrupulous things with privacy related information and tracking. The ability to coordinate with a website displaying ads is merely a business negotiation with a trivial post-contract technical implementation.

Sure but I was responding exclusively to your assertion that Advertisers would be doing this. That is the part I disagree with. If a site that you visit is even in the legitimate advertising distribution network, automatically precludes them from engaging in that type of deceitful behavior.

Being someone who is involved in those types of business arrangements, I know that if a site and advertiser were to try to arrange some sort of collusion to exploit visitors, it would leak out immediately by way of the other parties involved such as brokers, artists, programmers, accountants, the works. It just doesn't happen.

And if it did happen, it would be because you were on a site that you shouldn't be on in the first place and there are probably much greater risks than being tracked by an advertiser associated with such a site.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #327 of 335
1/14/11 at 5:41pm
I'm still not convinced this will necessarily be good for Google but I think the next logical step is a new and open format for images that is far superior to .png, .jpg, .gif. Open only makes sense to me if it's as good or better...
Reply
Reply
post #328 of 335
1/14/11 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sure but I was responding exclusively to your assertion that Advertisers would be doing this. That is the part I disagree with. If a site that you visit is even in the legitimate advertising distribution network, automatically precludes them from engaging in that type of deceitful behavior.

Being someone who is involved in those types of business arrangements, I know that if a site and advertiser were to try to arrange some sort of collusion to exploit visitors, it would leak out immediately by way of the other parties involved such as brokers, artists, programmers, accountants, the works. It just doesn't happen.

And if it did happen, it would be because you were on a site that you shouldn't be on in the first place and there are probably much greater risks than being tracked by an advertiser associated with such a site.

It doesn't have to be malware, just a very significant step towards Minority Report style targeted advertising. And it doesn't take much to move from there to evil although still not malware uses.

I don't doubt for a red second that an advertising network would not turn down an opportunity to "more effectively target their advertisements" should the opportunity present itself. And it has, it's just who justifies to themselves it isn't sleazy, it's service, that will jump on it.

I'm sure there is no connection between the recent illumination of the true Flash cookie capability that an outfit like DoubleClick could take advantage of, and that suddenly Flash gets a MAJOR nod by a browser-maker / YouTube / DoubleClick owner. None at all. cough cough.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #329 of 335
1/14/11 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Why thank you! You honor me with your slander!

I notice the content of your fight is gone, is that a capitulation finally?

You have nothing left to say that hasn't been said and refuted already?

i see no reason to continue with this particular 'religious' debate! like all religious debates you can't convince either side of anything and both leave feeling like they are correct. and so it is here; you have refuted nothing as far as i am concerned. i am just as convinced that i am correct as you are convinced you are correct.
Reply
Reply
post #330 of 335
1/14/11 at 9:21pm
You all should read this. Google is releasing plug-ins for Safari and IE... Google won this battle hands down! I am fully applauding this move.

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/mor...deo-codec.html
Reply
Reply
post #331 of 335
1/15/11 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.

I think you would be surprised how vanishingly small those revenues are after being divided amongst the MPEG-LA members. Then, don't forget to subtract the amount that Apple pays to MPEG-LA for their use of these codecs. I think you will find that Apple's (or any groups' involvement with MPEG-LA does little more than lower the royalties they pay to MPEG-LA by some pittance.
Reply
Reply
post #332 of 335
1/15/11 at 9:07pm
Apple owns 4 patents in 1 country. MSFT owns like 116 patents in a number of countries but they said IE9 would support WebM when released. Also Google is trying out a new open image format called WebP. Now if only the video tag had a way to specify whether or not something streams or not would be a great thing to move HTML 5 forward. People should be able to control the video content they produce.
Reply
Reply
post #333 of 335
1/16/11 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I think you would be surprised how vanishingly small those revenues are after being divided amongst the MPEG-LA members. Then, don't forget to subtract the amount that Apple pays to MPEG-LA for their use of these codecs. I think you will find that Apple's (or any groups' involvement with MPEG-LA does little more than lower the royalties they pay to MPEG-LA by some pittance.

yes i found where MS is supposedly the largest single patent holder in MPEG-LA but pays twice what it gets in royalties in fees.

so what it comes down to is ms and apple just being 'sensible' and avoiding webm or is it just more old school boys joining together to fight the common enemy? having read about the history of mpeg group and the way they do business i really do hope webm breaks their back. may be a pipe dream....
Reply
Reply
post #334 of 335
1/16/11 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

so what it comes down to is ms and apple just being 'sensible' and avoiding webm or is it just more old school boys joining together to fight the common enemy? having read about the history of mpeg group and the way they do business i really do hope webm breaks their back. may be a pipe dream....

I suspect that Apple, MS and others are simply choosing a well-known standard with good capabilities and well-understood business practices. I think it should be that MPEG-LA history which should worry any WebM supporter - the chances are very high that WebM is infringing some of MPEG-LA's patents.

To be honest, this whole thing strikes me as a likely back room deal between Google and Adobe (who will likely add WebM support to Flash). Google is probably safe right now as long as they don't drop H.264 from their YouTube. If they do, I think you are likely to see both DOJ and congressional investigations. Not everyone sees Google as doing no evil.
Reply
Reply
post #335 of 335
1/16/11 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I suspect that Apple, MS and others are simply choosing a well-known standard with good capabilities and well-understood business practices. I think it should be that MPEG-LA history which should worry any WebM supporter - the chances are very high that WebM is infringing some of MPEG-LA's patents.

To be honest, this whole thing strikes me as a likely back room deal between Google and Adobe (who will likely add WebM support to Flash). Google is probably safe right now as long as they don't drop H.264 from their YouTube. If they do, I think you are likely to see both DOJ and congressional investigations. Not everyone sees Google as doing no evil.

Adobe has been very happy to work with Google to beat up on Apple regarding Flash. I wonder if they realize that Google will happily kill Flash next, once they can get away with it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM