or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins - Page 10

post #361 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Welcome to my ignore list.

why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....
post #362 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guglielmo Altavilla View Post

The wikipedia article is clear: there are very different meanings about what is and what is not an "open standard".
Both W3C and ISO define standards.
Standard may be patent-encumbered (as MP3, AAC, GIF) or royalty free (as PNG).

W3C: standard must be royalty-free
ISO: standard may be royalty-encumbered

I never mind h264 was a royalty-free standard.

But h264 is an ISO standard as a matter of facts.

WebM, on the contrary, is royalty-free but is not a standard (e.g. his improvements rely on Google alone, etc.)

So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
Google hasn't submitted WebM to W3C. And if MPEG-LA sues Google or whoever else on WebM, WebM becomes royalty-encumbered and therefore not W3C compliant.

Google can change WebM specifications at any time for whatever reason or no reason at all; no other can do that. Google and only google owns IP of contributors and may distribute it. This is not openness, is just royalty-free.

But they only decide what is WebM, and how to improve it.
Apple tomorrow may use webm container to encode with a better codec than VP8? No.
Who say this? W3C? No.
Google said.
Not WebM project, Google.

Good distillation of the facts.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #363 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....

I suppose one could also say
Quote:
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about how you think others think about each other. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said this to you....
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #364 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....

Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.

It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
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
post #365 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.

It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.

well said.
post #366 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsydaus View Post

Man, I am so over this whole open-source bull$#it floating around at the moment ...

At the end of the day, the main beneficiaries of open-source are academics ... and armchair coders looking to steel other people's work

many of us are beneficiaries of open source

- Chrome and Safari web browsers
- several applications on Mac OS X like Dashboard and Mail
- parts of the core of Mac OS X use FreeBSD and NetBSD
post #367 of 481
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.

Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.

Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.

WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.

You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?

WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.

Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.

At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.

NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
post #368 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is the future, if Google get their way, people.

The post you referenced was number 65 - sad that the angst perpetuated through another 300 posts when this could have been the final word. Of course, it was posted on AI and so had little hope of closing the thread.

I added 10 names to my ignore list just through the agency of this thread alone.

(Hopefully, some of those are ignoring me too!)
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #369 of 481
On page 2 this was funny... but 10 pages of flaming? Seriously?

Assuming Google don't stop supporting H.264 on YouTube... can anyone explain to me how this affects Apple users and how we get to 10 pages of flames?

Websites started supporting H.264 video in HTML5 for iOS devices. They aren't going to remove this functionality just because Chrome doesn't support it anymore.

It seems to me the most likely scenario is that websites will support H.264 native for browsers that don't/can't have Flash installed and H.264 wrapped in Flash for those that do. The web/streaming server could even make this decision independently, or it could be wrapped in a self-contained script, so the implementation is transparent to the web developer.



This is all based on Google's continued support of H.264 on YouTube.
post #370 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is the future, if Google get their way, people.

Patent infringement and blatant copying aside, I actually don't have a problem with Google profiting from their products.

I don't see advertising as an any more or less legitimate way of monetizing a product or service than an upfront payment or pay-gate. They are just two sides of the same coin.

Believe it or not there was actually an idea floating around among a number of people that getting rid of Flash would somehow get rid of advertising... like wrapping H.264 inside <video> instead of <object> would magically make it free to produce and distribute.


If Google want to have no upfront fee for products and services and monetize with advertising then good on them.

It's then up to the users to decide if they want to buy in to that pay structure.
post #371 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.

The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.

The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.


Yes. This is exaclty my thoughts on the "Open" crowd that Google loves to play to. It seems to be their biggest supporter, and the their biggest leg to stand on...
post #372 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is the future, if Google get their way, people.

You have hit the nail on the head. Tht is exactly what Google will do to your great and "open" Web-M...You will thanks to Googles "free" and "Open" way, will get to see adds on top of the video you watch...you don't think Google is really doing this gfor the good of users do you...???
post #373 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.

Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.

Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.

WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.

You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?

WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.

Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.

At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.

NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!

This is what I truly believe.
post #374 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Your post brings up a thought.

What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.

Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.

Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?

Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!

I really wish Apple would do this? How could Google not accept it? It would be a laugh in the face of Google's double-talk. Which it does best obviously...

I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...
post #375 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.

Someone keeps ignoring the W3C's patent policy. I wonder why.

Quote:
Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.

Yes, the desire for an open web is a delusional, misguided desire for ideological purity. Evil open web purists!
post #376 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?

What about it? WebM is an open-source project. Google has given away all IP rights to it.
post #377 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard.

False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong.

Quote:
This is pretty much the commonly accepted definition for probably longer than you have been alive.

This is a false claim, and you know it.
post #378 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash?

Because there are no royalties.

Quote:
More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?

WebM doesn't give Google control over anything. They gave it away, remember.

Quote:
Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?

Says the rabid Apple fanboy? Hilarious.

Quote:
You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.

It is you who are repeating falsehoods. H264 is closed, and WebM is open.
post #379 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

As I understand it, MPEG-LA includes all parties holding all relevant patents. Indemnify against themselves? Hmmm...

Wow, so the patent holder is indemnified against his own patents! AMAZING!

Quote:
If they can give it away, potentially luring theirs friends into patent problems, well, then they should indemnify. Referring to open-source does not make it legally ok to infringe on patents.

The MPEG-LA does not indemnify. Your hypocrisy is really getting old.
post #380 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

It was merely explaining why WebM is a proprietary rather than open standard.

WebM is not a standard. And it is not proprietary.

Quote:
Google is the proprietor.

No, the WebM project is.
post #381 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

I don't think it will slow H.264 at all, I think it will simply drive more people away from Chrome & towards IE & Safari, or in the least towards quicktime or Window Media Player (assuming Microsoft builds support for H.264 into WMP).

Why would it drive people away from Chrome? Chrome will still be able to play almost any videon the web since it still supports Flash.

Quote:
A lot of people were absolutely convinced that HD-DVD would win out over Blu-ray because it was cheaper but in the end technical superiority won out.

BR didn't win because of technical superiority. In fact, technical superiority has proven to be irrelevant in the market (VHS vs. BetaMax, CD vs. SACD, Wii vs. PS3, etc.). BR won for other reasons, such as Sony putting massive resources into promoting it, including through its movie studio and game console. No one else had that kind of muscle, and since the market doesn't really care about HD, BR won (although DVDs still win over BR).
post #382 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Certain posters here, defending Google's actions, appear to have a seriously mistaken notion of what both 'open standard' and the 'open web' actually mean. In neither case is free a necessary or sufficient condition for openness.

Wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.

Quote:
'Open' in both cases means not controlled by a single company or cartel of companies.

So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.

Quote:
H.264 meets this criteria of openness and freedom. It is an official public standard, arrived at by consensus, freely available to anyone to license (and largely royalty free).

It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
post #383 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guglielmo Altavilla View Post

Both W3C and ISO define standards.

And what is relevant on the web? Well, gee, that's the W3C, and not ISO!

Quote:
So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.

You do realize that the W3C defines open web standards, right? You know, things like HTML and CSS... You have failed miserably by ignoring the facts that are there, right in front of you.
post #384 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Really? Which ones? What formats? Because at the moment H.264 and Flash pretty much cover it.

You probably don't know about YouTube, then. You must have missed how they have multiple videos to cater to different resolutions and bandwidths.

Quote:
Somehow you can simultaneously make this argument (as Google does) while pretending that the huge H.264 presence, not just on the web but in devices, formats and hardware acceleration just doesn't matter.

This is about video on the web. For video on the web, Flash is the way to go today.
post #385 of 481
Time for the freetard punks to learn the meaning of TANSTAFL.

I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.

It's not so simple with Google though. They don't charge me any money and just give me stuff. Sounds great, except that instead of taking a bit of my money they take a bit of my soul and sell it to somebody else to make their money. Remember, the devil will always get his pound of flesh.

NOBODY really works for free. The only question is whether you're open about your prices like Apple or if you stick it to the unwitting masses with hidden costs like Google.
post #386 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post

I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...

Entering a project with incredibly high operationg costs and no hope of generating revenue is rarely a good idea! Apple would still need to either deliver ads or put content behind a paywall.

Which, if this whole thing is just about YouTube, offers yet another solution. Google could have a standard YouTube with Flash as an ad supported service and then offer a "premium" paid-for version that supports HTML5/H.264.

Apple could then pay Google for each iOS device with YouTube access, or Apple could offer YouTube as a paid application in the App Store.

Sure it would be hard to manage but it would be possible.
post #387 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

You probably don't know about YouTube, then. You must have missed how they have multiple videos to cater to different resolutions and bandwidths.


This is about video on the web. For video on the web, Flash is the way to go today.

No it isn't. Flash plays like crap over my Internet connection, but H.264 videos work just fine. Flash can't die soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
post #388 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavers View Post

Firefox does not hold 30% share, nor has it ever. About a year ago, at its height, Firefox had somewhere between 25% and 26%; it has not hit 25% since.

This shows Firefox above 30%:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...912-201012-bar

Nearly 40% in Europe for Firefox:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...912-201012-bar

Quote:
Internet Explorer still holds around 70%. Webkit, holds much closer to 100% (mobile Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer each have under 1%) while mobile Safari is hovering in the upper 70s to 80s.

Actually, Opera is the dominant browser for mobile phones, with around 1/4:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...912-201012-bar

Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.

You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.

So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.

Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.
post #389 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Good distillation of the facts.

Except his "facts" are factually wrong.
post #390 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by X38 View Post

Time for the freetard punks to learn the meaning of TANSTAFL.

So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?

Quote:
I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.

Actually, Apple is getting heavily into ads. So I guess that means bye bye Apple for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by X38 View Post

No it isn't. Flash plays like crap over my Internet connection, but H.264 videos work just fine. Flash can't die soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...
post #391 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement.

False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong. This is a false claim, and you know it.

You can go to an open air cinema, but you still have to buy a ticket before you go it!

The problem is that the word "open" is inherently ambiguous. Open standard, open web standard, open source... there are so many conflicting and contextual definitions of the word "open" that it's pointless arguing about a specific meaning.

It's like two people arguing if birds fly high in the sky or not. Since "high" is contextual and relative no solution can be reached by arguing its meaning. One person might have a definition from the Aviation Society and the other might have a different definition from the Skyscraper Builders Guide... it's irrelevant. The argument needs to be redefined to address the actual question.

The question here is what are the implications to the to the end users of the web of each competing codec becoming standard, and of Google's decision to support WebM?

The definition of "open" is insignificant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...

I've run a bunch of tests with Flash and the results are inconsistent. It can literally be the best or worst performer depending on your hardware and OS. It seems to be about whether hardware acceleration is supported or not.
post #392 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Except his "facts" are factually wrong.

Keep telling yourself that.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #393 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?

No. I think this would be plain wrong.

A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).

This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).

Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.

Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.

And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.

Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.
post #394 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.

Regardless, there is absolutely NO WAY that they could easily improve WebM without accidentally polluting it with the H.264 "way of doing things".
post #395 of 481
Hopefully, Google will be as successful with this as they were with Wave and Buzz.
post #396 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

I'll stick to a more credible website like MacRumors.

Promises, promises. If only you would keep your word!
post #397 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

This shows Firefox above 30%:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...912-201012-bar

Nearly 40% in Europe for Firefox:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...912-201012-bar


Actually, Opera is the dominant browser for mobile phones, with around 1/4:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...912-201012-bar

Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.

You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.

So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.

Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.

Who is going to install WebM as a system codec? Seriously? If it's not pre-installed on the machine already no end user accept for a geek is going to install that.
post #398 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

No. I think this would be plain wrong.

A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).

This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).

Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.

Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.

And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.

Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.

The problem is WebM is technically inferior. I think the open source committee should've improved WebM so that it was technically superior to h.264 first. Then it would be an easier sell.
post #399 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.

MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.

...

It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.

I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."

So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.

Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.

You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
post #400 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.



MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.



I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."

So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.

Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.

You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.

You Apple sheeple crack me up. How dare you insert fact into this discussion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins