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 11

post #401 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

How does one ignite a hailstorm?

use methane ice.
post #402 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woei View Post

As a programmer by profession, I wholeheartedly agree.

Then you really should be very very skeptical of any move supported by RMS and the FSF.
post #403 of 481
If Adobe was smart, they would be working on a separate plugin that only does video, nothing more. It would require a new download, but with their ubiquitous market presence that shouldn't be hard to accomplish. They would bundle it along with the regular Flash update.

What they need to do is create the lightest weight wrapper for video possible, one that is able to access hardware acceleration for h.264 and can run on mobile devices without draining the battery. It of course would still not be as efficient as native compiled in code but in light of the impending battles among the other big players, Adobe could very easily take over the video market, again, as if they don't already own it.

They simply inherit the market due to the greediness and stubbornness of the the other competitors. Not saying that is a good thing, just that it is a possible scenario.

As far as the iOS is concerned I wouldn't mind seeing it on the home screen replacing the YouTube app. It could search YouTube and other video distribution sites as well.

We need some standardization in video delivery. I don't care where it comes from as long as it puts an end to this stupid video controversy that has been raging on for more than a decade.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #404 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Then you really should be very very skeptical of any move supported by RMS and the FSF.

Politicians often manipulate special interest groups using emotional issues.

The single issue FOSS people are exactly the same. They will support something that has the words 'free' and 'open' attached to it, regardless of whether reality bears out that description out or not, and despite the fact that by doing so they essentially abandon all other principles that they purportedly hold.
post #405 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

The only content supplier that really matters here is youtube due to its monopoly on web video. It makes no difference if browsers support it or not.

It's just odd for Google to make these moves against Apple.

By pushing Android they created iAds and the addition of Bing as a search provider on the iPhone.

By pushing WebM on Chrome the only likely outcome will be a better Safari to attempt to crush Chrome on Windows as opposed to its current somewhat neglected state.

If they force WebM on YouTube...well...ask MySpace on how quickly the landscape can change. Vimeo seems like a reasonable alternative if iOS gets locked out of YouTube content.

The thing is that what Google does really well is very interesting to advertisers but not necessarily all that important to users. Where I host or watch video isn't all that important to me. I do not care if the hosting site is supported by hardware sales or adwords as long as it is fast, it works easily and well and has a lot of content I care about.
post #406 of 481
deleted
post #407 of 481
In the end, Google is just a evil corporate bitch.

Here take it, its free!
Come to the bright side , we've got cookies!
Don't be evil!
post #408 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.

Thanks for the reasonable post. At least one of you has something new to say rather than endlessly chasing everyone around in circles.

Given the available choices for a royalty-free codec/wrapper - Theora and WebM - I'm glad it looks like people are moving to WebM because at least it's better than Theora. However, being better than Theora doesn't stop it being much worse than H.264 for a variety of reasons, chiefly:
  • hardware support
  • efficiency (i.e. video quality at a given bitrate)
  • encoding tools

You may contend that hardware support for WebM is "coming", but a move to WebM now immediately obsolesces all mobile handsets currently in use and I find that deeply wasteful. And even when we do get hardware support, that's not going to be able to do anything about WebM's poor video quality.

I think what you've missed is the thing we find most abhorrent about Google's move is not the support of WebM, but the simultaneous removal of H.264. You also seem to not appreciate that Opera's and Mozilla's reasons for not including support for H.264 are blindly ideological and have nothing to do with finances despite what they may say. It is well within the realms of technical feasibility for Opera and Mozilla to support H.264 delivered via HTML5 without either entity having to pay licensing fees: for OS X and Windows they can use those OS's built-in support, for Linux they can require the user download and compile a suitable open-source implementation of which there are many (they could easily provide applications to automate this download and compile process, but when has compilation ever been a barrier to a Linux user?).

It has been shown through many different posts in this thread that there is absolutely zero benefit to the end user if web video moves to WebM. A move to WebM gives you poorer battery life, inability to play back high-res video on mobile devices (due to limited CPU power), worse quality video and it doesn't save you a dime. In terms of hardware and software licensing costs, once the costs have been spread over all the devices a given manufacturer sells, the attributable cost of licensing on each individual product sold is negligible. In other words, if the manufacturer didn't have to pay any licensing fees, your product wouldn't be any cheaper. In terms of licensing for the delivery of content, the MPEG-LA as already stated that, in perpetuity, if a content provider wishes to provide their content with no charge to the end user, the content provider need not pay any licensing fees. Fees are only due if the content provider wishes to charge anyway, and again once you spread the cost over all users it becomes negligibly small from the perspective of said end users. So a royalty-free codec would not save you anything here either.

So, where exactly is the benefit of going WebM instead of H.264? Given that it is currently technically inferior to H.264 and offers no benefit to the end user, it seems to me a massive waste of human effort to go around developing hardware encode/decode solutions and trying to improve the software solutions. I'd rather that effort were expended trying to further improve implementations of H.264.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #409 of 481
deleted
post #410 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

You bring up some interesting points. This makes more sense, I suppose.
So the technology stack for content (and ad) delivery really doesn't matter to advertisers insofar as they aren't directly consuming the content. They benefit when the content reaches the masses and it results in sales. So I guess Google is an advertising company with it's own technology stack? It doesn't produce technology "for end users". It creates that technology for its advertising customers. Well then. All the more reason for consumers to favor companies that produce technology for them.

And privacy? How much did it cost to have some spy on what you like. This would mean that companies could make more money on their products just bu buying information about how you behave and what your preferences are. And then we have the much worse abuses. The time to pay to google hasnt come yet but I for one have changed all my 7 machines to yahoo searches for now. I Suggest you do the math for your self.

Why cant we get a deasent search engine thats simple and doesnt screw up the results. Oh right that WAS google back in the days

What about google then? Everybody is having its sights on all the other players while google is the good samaritan by GIVING AWAY software??? Is this just me or is this not the classic way google is playing to get the wooden horse inside your computer so they can make even more money on your privacy. What I think is even more disturbing is that the internet doesnt seem to have any laws that govern companies in general. Google is much less disturbed by local laws than other companies that produce hardware/software. Google is to much in the woodworks for my likes. And I will use my power to use as little of googles products as possible. I have no problem in paying for my use, but a lot of people seem to disagree on this. For many everything should be FREE as in beer: music, games and films. Google fills this woid of not wanting to pay for the dinner but remember that there is no free dinner. The taxman WILL collect, trust me on this. Googles next step will be to better its profiling of a specific user. Who knows what they allready do to those whom use ther search, mobile, browser etc. All we have is a "promise" that they wont b evil". Why am not so assured??? Oh they are a BUSINESS that wants to make MORE money than before and they do this by selling infromation to advertisers (yea about you).

Why dont people like OS folks talk about search privacy concerns, sold advertisements that your not searching. The truth is being sold to the highest bidder and the loser is allways the small guy (whos information is being sold).
post #411 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's just odd for Google to make these moves against Apple.

By pushing Android they created iAds and the addition of Bing as a search provider on the iPhone.

...

If they force WebM on YouTube...well...ask MySpace on how quickly the landscape can change. Vimeo seems like a reasonable alternative if iOS gets locked out of YouTube content.

While Google has already pushed their deal too far, I really doubt Google is willing to go that far. Right now, they probably nicked a toe, YouTube in WebM only would be shooting their foot clean off.

I would really love it if Apple would plug Vimeo, though it's not really necessary to have an app. The Vimeo site works very well with Safari iOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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.

I think that's the core problem. Neither side is conceding there are meanings to "open" other than the one they've chosen, each organization has chosen to frame it in a definition that works for them. It's like that prank where one person asks another if their refrigerator is running, running doesn't always mean movement. But Apple did something about something that is less open than h.264 - Flash. Google still gives it a relatively free pass, which is a lot more closed than h.264, at least without spinning the argument into a rope and a noose for oneself.
post #412 of 481
I hate Vimeo because they use IP checking to block non-US IPs from accessing a large number of their hosted videos. YouTube does not.
post #413 of 481
Quote:
Everything the Republican party stands for is diametrically opposed to Christianity

wow. that's a bit overstated, don't you think?
post #414 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottschor View Post

wow. that's a bit overstated, don't you think?

Not at all.
post #415 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottschor View Post

wow. that's a bit overstated, don't you think?

post #416 of 481
After reading about all this Google controversy on my sites, the thing driven home to me is what you post below. So I finally decided to pay Apple for Mobile Me and get rid of my Gmail accounts, all of them. I had Google Apps for my website mail too (the were the mailserver for my domain email, now it is back in GoDaddy's hands) I agree with what people have said, I would rather knowingly pay for services than to be broadsided with hidden costs and surprises later.

And Mobile Me is actually quite good. Easy to use, no ads, and the file sharing with my iDisk is practically worth the price of admission alone. I was using Godaddy for large file sharing between myself and clients, but it wasn't easy to use and still was expensive for large enough space to be worth anything. I also like all of the syncing with my computers and iPod (and soon iPad). So I am actually quite happy I switched!

I am testing out other search engines. I like Startpage. I got Glim for Safari so now I have lots of choices.

So, yeah, what someone else said about Google shooting themselves in the foot. Piss people off enough and they go some where else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

And privacy? How much did it cost to have some spy on what you like. This would mean that companies could make more money on their products just bu buying information about how you behave and what your preferences are. And then we have the much worse abuses. The time to pay to google hasnt come yet but I for one have changed all my 7 machines to yahoo searches for now. I Suggest you do the math for your self.

Why cant we get a deasent search engine thats simple and doesnt screw up the results. Oh right that WAS google back in the days

What about google then? Everybody is having its sights on all the other players while google is the good samaritan by GIVING AWAY software??? Is this just me or is this not the classic way google is playing to get the wooden horse inside your computer so they can make even more money on your privacy. What I think is even more disturbing is that the internet doesnt seem to have any laws that govern companies in general. Google is much less disturbed by local laws than other companies that produce hardware/software. Google is to much in the woodworks for my likes. And I will use my power to use as little of googles products as possible. I have no problem in paying for my use, but a lot of people seem to disagree on this. For many everything should be FREE as in beer: music, games and films. Google fills this woid of not wanting to pay for the dinner but remember that there is no free dinner. The taxman WILL collect, trust me on this. Googles next step will be to better its profiling of a specific user. Who knows what they allready do to those whom use ther search, mobile, browser etc. All we have is a "promise" that they wont b evil". Why am not so assured??? Oh they are a BUSINESS that wants to make MORE money than before and they do this by selling infromation to advertisers (yea about you).

Why dont people like OS folks talk about search privacy concerns, sold advertisements that your not searching. The truth is being sold to the highest bidder and the loser is allways the small guy (whos information is being sold).
post #417 of 481
I should have nipped the part of the post about religion & politics sooner, they're both off topic and they're the kind of things that tend to derail a discussion.
post #418 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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

This has got nothing to do with open standards.

Quote:
The problem is that the word "open" is inherently ambiguous.

Not in this case. The definition of an open web standard is extremely clear.

Quote:
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?

If h264 wins, the implication is that a closed standard becomes a central part of the web, and that is a huge step back.
post #419 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

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).

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

This was exactly what the W3C wanted to do, but Nokia and Apple refused.
post #420 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Who is going to install WebM as a system codec? Seriously?

Simple. YouTube could just go "here, click this link and answer yes to the questions".
post #421 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.

You can't even be bothered to read the W3C patent policy, so clearly you don't give a crap.

Quote:
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard.

It is a cartel, and h264 is not an open standard..

Quote:
An open standard that is available for anyone to license

Which means that it isn't open. Did you read the patent policy yet?

Quote:
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web

Your paranoid delusions are quite irrelevant. It is based on your anti-Google fanboyism.

Quote:
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google.

Are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Apple?

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

Paranoid delusions are fun, aren't they?
post #422 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

You Apple sheeple crack me up. How dare you insert fact into this discussion.

"Facts", like paranoid delusions? Nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

URL to a legal judgment demonstrating patent infringement?

You are asking for something of substance? In this forum?
post #423 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's just odd for Google to make these moves against Apple.

Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?

Quote:
By pushing WebM on Chrome the only likely outcome will be a better Safari to attempt to crush Chrome on Windows as opposed to its current somewhat neglected state.

Yeah, right

Quote:
If they force WebM on YouTube...well...ask MySpace on how quickly the landscape can change. Vimeo seems like a reasonable alternative if iOS gets locked out of YouTube content.

iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
post #424 of 481
Well, it looks like insike's shift has started again. He hasn't said anything new, or actually responded to anything in a meaningful way, so there's no point in following his mistaken arguments around the circle again. I don't think his employers are getting their money's worth.
post #425 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?

I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off. Google didn't and instead went after a key piece of Apple's video strategy.

You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.

Quote:
Yeah, right

Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive. There was no real need to until now although I do like that they added extensions without that need anyway.

Quote:
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately

1.69% worldwide web usage and growing. That's higher than Linux and takes the #3 spot behind Windows and OSX. That's actual marketshare. Mindshare is even huger. Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.
post #426 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Which means that it isn't open.

No, it means it isn't free. Free doesn't mean open and open doesn't mean free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

If h264 wins, the implication is that a closed standard becomes a central part of the web, and that is a huge step back.

No, it means a not-free, but open (and as in anyone is free to create an implementation of it; there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and H.264 decoder. The encoder in particular, x264, is one of the best H.264 encoders that you can get) standard becomes a central part of video on the web. You have not once attempted to explain how or why this is bad. On the other hand I have detailed exactly why a win for WebM presents absolutely zero benefits for any end-user of the web and in fact results in plenty of significant drawbacks. I have also suggested that it is a waste of human effort to work on WebM when vastly superior solutions to the problem of video delivery over the web already exist.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #427 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?


Yeah, right


iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately

Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage. I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware. Google uses software to sell your information to big businesses. Apple uses software to sell you their hardware.

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.
post #428 of 481
an interesting read ... on topic ...

http://antimatter15.com/wp/2011/01/t...-vp8-vs-h-264/
post #429 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.

They would not need to discontinue H.264 support; they could let the improved technology standon its own.
post #430 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, it looks like insike's shift has started again. He hasn't said anything new, or actually responded to anything in a meaningful way, so there's no point in following his mistaken arguments around the circle again. I don't think his employers are getting their money's worth.

And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.

Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
post #431 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off.

What utter nonsense. Do you really think a company like Apple would be so retarded as to pull a stunt like that? When Apple does iAds it's because there's money to be made. That's the reason behind business decisions.

Quote:
You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.

You are joking, right? Mobile ads are expected to be huge in the future. Why would Google, an online ad monopoly, not want to make money from ads on mobile phones?

Quote:
Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive.

The engine is the least important part there. It isn't the engine that makes Safari less than competitive on Windows.

Quote:
1.69% worldwide web usage and growing.

But then there's Android...

I can see why Apple fanboys are worried. But it's just business. Businesses want to make money. There's money in mobile advertising, and Apple does mobile phones, while Google does advertising. Of course they are going to start crossing the river to make more money.

Quote:
Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.

Android.
post #432 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage.

But any video over mobile networks is going to, well, not be very pleasant due to bandwidth caps.

Quote:
I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware.

Google's business is advertising. Apple is also moving heavily into advertising. But I guess it's only bad when Google does it

Quote:
I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files.

You're in luck. WebM is run as an open-source project, and anyone can use it for anything. Heck, the W3C could fork it and make it part of HTML5. They would have an irrevocable license.

Quote:
You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill

That's rich coming from a paranoid Apple fan.
post #433 of 481
insike, it's not about being paranoid. Concerns about Google aside, the issue is that WebM is a lousy codec that may already infringe patents and will certainly infringe patents as it is improved. You all want a big superb open web standard, come up with a decent non-patent-infringing codec. Till, then...
post #434 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.

Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.

And here he is again, right on schedule.

Just for the record, WebM can never become a W3C standard either since it will be a patent encumbered nightmare for anyone who attempts to use it. You and your employer cannot escape this fact. You can spew bullshit until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
post #435 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.

Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.

Have you ever read the W3C patent policy?> here it is: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. Section 5 is the get down to business section and specifically item 3 allow patent grants to be made only with respect to the specific W3C technology implementation.

Since the August shift in MPEG-LA H.264 licensing terms it is fully compatible with the spirit and intent of item 3. Section 4 also lists a whole bunch of reasons W3C considers valid for members to exclude inclusion of their patents. The late take on patent inclusion and indemnification on all sides of the issue is just plain irrelevant given the actual requirements and exclusion mechanisms for patent inclusion to participate in W3C Working Groups. Meaning the continuing reluctance of Mozilla and Google to accept H.264 is not grounded on a hard web standards problem, but on other political and business interests.

Remember the Mozilla Corporation gets the vast majority of its funding directly from Google via straight grants and in search revenue sharing, and that funding further gets passed along to support the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. I see reasons to suspect any policy independence of Google and Mozilla. here is nothing wrong or immoral about that, it is a valid business relationship. But we all have to respect that close business relationship and its directly trackable funding stream before we make judgements about whether Mozilla is making a pure philosophical pronouncement against H.264 or if they are keeping their sugar-daddy partner happy.

Now can H.264 ever become web standard? It cant! Neither can WebM! That is a misapplication of the role of W3C altogether. A single implementation of one method to comply with a standard (actually a W3C Recommendation) tag is never considered a standard. Officially, W3C Recommendations require implementation and interoperability, that requires more than one implementation that adheres to the Recommendation(standard)! W3C is happiest when one of those implementations is open source, but that is not required.

So lets stop trying to stand behind the shield of W3C when you so thoroughly show you don't understand what you are either reading or making up. You could start here if you want to really learn what the W3C Recommendation process is. There's a lot more too if you want to get involved, you can.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #436 of 481
This is such a load of crap. Google does not need to pay any licences for the h.264 decoder in Chrome. It is not a commercial product therefore it gets a free licence. What google does have to pay for however, is encoding all the youtube commercials with h.264 with. And since google's business model revolves around selling advertisement this presents a bit of a problem. I bet Google though, well why should we have to pay a licence for using the technology if we use our own codecs. Only that kind of logic does not fly in America or pretty much anywhere else where you have patent laws.

I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!
post #437 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg0def View Post

This is such a load of crap. Google does not need to pay any licences for the h.264 decoder in Chrome. It is not a commercial product therefore it gets a free licence. What google does have to pay for however, is encoding all the youtube commercials with h.264 with. And since google's business model revolves around selling advertisement this presents a bit of a problem. I bet Google though, well why should we have to pay a licence for using the technology if we use our own codecs. Only that kind of logic does not fly in America or pretty much anywhere else where you have patent laws.

I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!

People should know that WebM actually performs worse than flash. Just want to point that out.
post #438 of 481
Please forgive me if this link has been posted previously:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/c...e_skin;content

Last word? \
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 #439 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

insike, it's not about being paranoid. Concerns about Google aside, the issue is that WebM is a lousy codec that may already infringe patents and will certainly infringe patents as it is improved.

Yes, it is indeed about being paranoid. All of this is because Google is a huge threat to Apple, and hardcore Apple fanboys refuse to let it go. Thus, FUD.

WebM is not a lousy codec at all. By making such obviously false statements, you are showing just how desperate you are.

On2's business was based around avoiding patents, and patenting their own technologies. It's more likely that h264 infringes on On2 patents than the other way around, since On2 did a lot of research to avoid patent infringement, whereas the MPEG-LA simply threw everything into a common patent pool and hoped for the best.

Quote:
You all want a big superb open web standard, come up with a decent non-patent-infringing codec. Till, then...

FUD from desperate Apple fanboys is quite common these days.

And the bottom line: H264 can never be part of any open web standard.
post #440 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Just for the record, WebM can never become a W3C standard either since it will be a patent encumbered nightmare for anyone who attempts to use it.

On the contrary. On2's business relied on avoiding infringement, and the W3C process will weed out any potential issues.
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