or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft announces H.264 support for Google's Chrome
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft announces H.264 support for Google's Chrome - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Can Google block the plug-in from being installed? In the name of openness, of course.

No they won't do that, only apple could stoop that low.

Why is APPLE INSIDER reporting this story? It is not apple related, perhaps they should re brand their website as anti-google.com.

If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube, single handedly neutering the competition. Of course that wouldnt happen, only a company like apple would go that far because they would have the church of jobs and half the biased tech media backing then all the way.
post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

They won't gain any traction. Why would content providers / web developers use WebM for Google's platforms when Flash is readily available and can serve up the H.264 video they already have? They're not going to switch to WebM simply because Google supports it through the <video> tag. It's completely ridiculous to think that.

Scenarios that will ultimately result from this...

1. If a web developer wants to do the least amount of work to make the biggest impact, they'll simply deliver H.264 video using Flash.

2. If a web developer is willing to do a tiny bit of work to make a bigger impact; deliver H.264 video using Flash and the <video> tag. One falls back on the other if not available.


#1 leaves out almost all mobile users. Yes Android 2.2 & 2.3 support Flash, but only about half of the Android installed user base is using either of those, and a chunk of those devices may not have the hardware to support smooth playback.

#2 covers just about everything, including most mobile users.

Absolutely spot on. I agree with with you completely. However, I think there is another scenario you are forgetting. Outside of major content providers and web developers there is a smaller group web content creators, such as bloggers and wysiwyg developers that will never go beyond the simplicity of just the <video> tag. These are the people who will really end up using whichever codec has the most support and if Google, IE and Firefox support webM on both mac and pc they will choose that, vs not having support for Firefox or Chrome on mac because they chose h.264.
post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post

Absolutely spot on. I agree with with you completely. However, I think there is another scenario you are forgetting. Outside of major content providers and web developers there is a smaller group web content creators, such as bloggers and wysiwyg developers that will never go beyond the simplicity of just the <video> tag. These are the people who will really end up using whichever codec has the most support and if Google, IE and Firefox support webM on both mac and pc they will choose that, vs not having support for Firefox or Chrome on mac because they chose h.264.

The solution to that is for Apple to get off it's rear and improve Safari especially on Windows. Safari has improved a bit but still lags in comparison to the other browsers on Windows.
post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

No they won't do that, only apple could stoop that low.

Why is APPLE INSIDER reporting this story? It is not apple related, perhaps they should re brand their website as anti-google.com.

If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube, single handedly neutering the competition. Of course that wouldnt happen, only a company like apple would go that far because they would have the church of jobs and half the biased tech media backing then all the way.

and you are anti-apple.com
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple doesn't need to do the same for Chrome. Apple has provided mountains of code in WebKit for Chrome.

In that case, doesn't H.264 just work in the Mac version of Chrome?
post #46 of 74
f u c k gooooooogle
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube...

And prevent access to the 12 videos that are h.264 enabled?
post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

And prevent access to the 12 videos that are h.264 enabled?

i thought that most of the youtube vids are in h264 - for compatibility with iOS devices
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
Water cooled QuadCore 16GB 2 x 240GB SSD HackBox | 13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB
Reply
post #49 of 74
...Go Microsoft!

Wow...If My 90s self was here he'd slap me across the face and throw a slush-puppy in my hair.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #50 of 74
Microsoft is my hero?

Boy the times, they are a-chang'in.
post #51 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

...Go Microsoft!

Wow...If My 90s self was here he'd slap me across the face and throw a slush-puppy in my hair.

You mean the 80's....
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Woderful! Ironic that it is MSFT that comes with the heavy hammer on Google's head.

What hammer? All this is, is a plugin. Like Flash. It won't add h264 support to html5 video in Chrome. So it's basically like the useless Firefox plugin they also made.

Also, remember that people are extremely slow when it comes to upgrading to the latest version of IE, so h264 is in big trouble on the desktop, and will be available only to a minority. So the graphics on page 2 of the article here on AI is misleading at best (only IE9 supports html5 video, so the total IE market share is irrelevant).
post #53 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

You mean the 80's....

That would be quite difficult, I'm 19 years old.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #54 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube, single handedly neutering the competition. Of course that wouldnt happen, only a company like apple would go that far because they would have the church of jobs and half the biased tech media backing then all the way.

No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

No they won't do that, only apple could stoop that low.

Why is APPLE INSIDER reporting this story? It is not apple related, perhaps they should re brand their website as anti-google.com.

If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube, single handedly neutering the competition. Of course that wouldnt happen, only a company like apple would go that far because they would have the church of jobs and half the biased tech media backing then all the way.

Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.

I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.

I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.
post #57 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.

Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic, even though I agree, it is also pathetic. At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product. You'll find, in any situation, if someone likes something they are more willing to ignore or forgive flaws/weaknesses. This goes for gadgets, objects, and people.

Going out of ones way to repeatedly post on a fansite of a product/company they have no affinity for would constitute as more pathetic than the above, in the eyes of rational people. Personally, I'd never buy a car from chevrolet, but the day I start visiting chevrolet fansites and trolling the company is the day I kill myself, particularly since I've never been forced to purchase any chevrolet vehicle, nor does the company adversely affect my life in any way.

Also, using language such as 'church of jobs' and 'biased tech media' doesn't lend to one's objectivity in the slightest.
post #58 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.

That's not the issue. YouTube, as the dominant online video provider, may be considered to have a monopoly. Making all their content WebM (a format they control) only might well be considered anti-competitive - using an existing monopoly to extend your power in a related area.

Not saying it's going to happen but this could be an issue if YouTube remains dominant.
post #59 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx View Post

i thought that most of the youtube vids are in h264 - for compatibility with iOS devices

No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.
post #60 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.

No, almost all of them are. I only get Youtube in H.264 after signing up for the beta. And I have click-to flash installed so it would be very obvious if there was a non-H.264 video. I have NEVER come across one.

The beta doesn't restrict the search either, it just serves up the H.246 versions, not the Flash versions. Try again.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic

I disagree. It's more pathetic.

Quote:
At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product.

What's pathetic is to think that you can't enjoy a product, and still criticize the company behind that product. Enjoying a product from a company doesn't mean you have to blindly accept anything the company does. That's just pathetic.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

That's not the issue. YouTube, as the dominant online video provider, may be considered to have a monopoly. Making all their content WebM (a format they control) only might well be considered anti-competitive - using an existing monopoly to extend your power in a related area.

There's nothing anti-competitive about it because anyone can freely add WebM support. In fact, everyone has a free license to do whatever they want to with WebM. The W3C could say "screw Google", and turn WebM into a standard if they wanted to.

Quote:
Not saying it's going to happen but this could be an issue if YouTube remains dominant.

Not as long as they are using an open and freely available technology.
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

There's nothing anti-competitive about it because anyone can freely add WebM support. In fact, everyone has a free license to do whatever they want to with WebM. The W3C could say "screw Google", and turn WebM into a standard if they wanted to.


Not as long as they are using an open and freely available technology.

You clearly do not understand the issues regarding being anti-competitive.

As an example, Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior even though they gave IE away for free. They were using an existing monopoly to extend influence and control in another area. It didn't matter that IE was free.
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

No, almost all of them are. I only get Youtube in H.264 after signing up for the beta. And I have click-to flash installed so it would be very obvious if there was a non-H.264 video. I have NEVER come across one.

The beta doesn't restrict the search either, it just serves up the H.246 versions, not the Flash versions. Try again.

what do you mean try again. I was only commenting on what had be encoded for an iPhone, which isn't everything.
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post

Absolutely spot on. I agree with with you completely. However, I think there is another scenario you are forgetting. Outside of major content providers and web developers there is a smaller group web content creators, such as bloggers and wysiwyg developers that will never go beyond the simplicity of just the <video> tag. These are the people who will really end up using whichever codec has the most support and if Google, IE and Firefox support webM on both mac and pc they will choose that, vs not having support for Firefox or Chrome on mac because they chose h.264.

Why wouldn't they just choose H.264? It's both a standard on the web and on consumer devices. It's supported through hardware acceleration. And, it's royalty free as long as you're not charging people to view the content.

Microsoft has released free H.264 plug-ins for both Firefox and Chrome on Windows. It allows the playing of H.264 through the <video> tag, so there really isn't any reason for anyone to stop supporting H.264 and switch to WebM. So all you're left with is Chrome and Firefox on the Mac. Who knows maybe Apple will step up and release plug-ins as well?
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

what do you mean try again. I was only commenting on what had be encoded for an iPhone, which isn't everything.

You aren't making sense here. H.264 is H.264. They just get encoded in two resolutions, one smaller which is also used for mobile and one larger, advertised as HD.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You clearly do not understand the issues regarding being anti-competitive.

As an example, Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior even though they gave IE away for free. They were using an existing monopoly to extend influence and control in another area. It didn't matter that IE was free.

It is you who don't understand. IE was never free. You paid for it when you paid for Windows. But that's besides the point. The point is that WebM is a free and open format.
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Why wouldn't they just choose H.264? It's both a standard on the web and on consumer devices.

H264 is not a standard for the web. H264 is closed, and therefore incompatible with an open web.

Quote:
Microsoft has released free H.264 plug-ins for both Firefox and Chrome on Windows. It allows the playing of H.264 through the <video> tag

Wrong. It "rewrites" the video tag back to the old object/embed tag, removing any benefits one might have from native video.

Quote:
so there really isn't any reason for anyone to stop supporting H.264 and switch to WebM

Yes there is. Actually native video.
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

H264 is not a standard for the web. H264 is closed, and therefore incompatible with an open web.


Wrong. It "rewrites" the video tag back to the old object/embed tag, removing any benefits one might have from native video.


Yes there is. Actually native video.

Again with the false statements. The web is built on open standards, many of which have multiple closed proprietary implementations. This IS how the web was envisioned to be built. it has to be that way or businesses wouldn't push the envelopes in hopes of making money. Vint Cerf has said so repeatedly over the past several years, explicitly making the case that businesses and business cases are vital to the internet infrastructure development.

Don'cha think you might need to listen to the Father of the Internet?


Now onto "native video". WTF are you calling native video? That's a made-up term that doesn't exist because all video is encoded before transmission. All codec software that's out there today runs natively on the hardware, it's not run on some higher level of abstraction like in a JVM.

So your statements shows again an utter lack of technical viability to go with your incessant overly philosophical open-whinghing.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

So your statements shows again an utter lack of technical viability to go with your incessant overly philosophical open-whinghing.

He's just here for his weekly H.264-bashing session.
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

The web is built on open standards, many of which have multiple closed proprietary implementations. This IS how the web was envisioned to be built.

What on earth are you talking about? I don't give a crap whether implementations are open or closed. This is about open standards, not source code access.

Quote:
WTF are you calling native video?

Video support built into the browser itself, through the HTML5 video element.

Quote:
So your statements shows again an utter lack of technical viability to go with your incessant overly philosophical open-whinghing.

Says the guy who can't tell the difference between a standard and source code.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

What on earth are you talking about? I don't give a crap whether implementations are open or closed. This is about open standards, not source code access.


Video support built into the browser itself, through the HTML5 video element.


Says the guy who can't tell the difference between a standard and source code.

Are you on a take a break and then try to re-raise a dead issue schedule? There is no open standard for video codecs. Anywhere. Period. Yes I'm looking square at your potential response of WebM as an open standard. It's not. It's a closed something proposed as a free from Google imposed royalties implementation.

WebM is not a standard as it hasn't gone through any of the major standardization bodies and been ratified. It's just one codec among many, competing for acceptance. Competition by unilateral Google browser legislation is as likely to work as the Secretary of Defense's memo legislating Ada for all DoD software projects. I suggest you pay attention to history.

The only standard of any importance in the discussion is the HTML standard. The in-work HTML5 open standard does not specify a video codec. It only specifies a VIDEO tag and the ways that tag implementation must be handled at an interface level by a browser. It is explicitly written so that many potential codecs can work with it, just like many graphics formats work with the IMG tag. Hmmmmm, open standards are nice and flexible, aren't they!

An overzealous person that is supporting making the VIDEO tag portion of the HTML5 standard into a single standard-enforced implementation is showing themselves as completely misunderstanding the principles of open standards and the philosophy of the web.

Yes I'm looking straight at you insike, many on this board have attempted to show you the errors of your logic. You don't seen to be disposed to take any of it to heart. Your position is broken, your opinion built on that position is irrelevant to the business of actually building the web and the evolving HTML5 standard.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

There is no open standard for video codecs. Anywhere. Period.

Correct.

Quote:
Yes I'm looking square at your potential response of WebM as an open standard. It's not.

Correct. WebM is not a standard. However, it is open.

Quote:
It's a closed something proposed as a free from Google imposed royalties implementation.

No. WebM is an open format.

Quote:
Competition by unilateral Google browser legislation is as likely to work as the Secretary of Defense's memo legislating Ada for all DoD software projects. I suggest you pay attention to history.

What are you talking about? Google, Firefox and Opera all support WebM exclusively. That's basically 90% of the HTML5 video-supporting browser market. And for IE9, it's easy to install WebM as a Windows coded, and the browser will automatically support it too.

Quote:
The only standard of any importance in the discussion is the HTML standard. The in-work HTML5 open standard does not specify a video codec. It only specifies a VIDEO tag and the ways that tag implementation must be handled at an interface level by a browser. It is explicitly written so that many potential codecs can work with it, just like many graphics formats work with the IMG tag. Hmmmmm, open standards are nice and flexible, aren't they!

Actually, the working group and the W3C wanted to specify a baseline codec, but Apple decided to be bastards about it. They threatened to sabotage the whole thing.

Quote:
An overzealous person that is supporting making the VIDEO tag portion of the HTML5 standard into a single standard-enforced implementation is showing themselves as completely misunderstanding the principles of open standards and the philosophy of the web.

What are you whining about? This is about defining a standard baseline codec. Nothing would prevent you from supporting other codecs if you wanted to do that.

Quote:
Yes I'm looking straight at you insike, many on this board have attempted to show you the errors of your logic. You don't seen to be disposed to take any of it to heart. Your position is broken, your opinion built on that position is irrelevant to the business of actually building the web and the evolving HTML5 standard.

Your ignorance is truly astounding.
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

stuff..

Wow, necroing a thread over a moth old. How charming.


Quote:
Actually, the working group and the W3C wanted to specify a baseline codec, but Apple decided to be bastards about it. They threatened to sabotage the whole thing.

Were you in the room and on the lists? I know someone who was. The group that pushed a single video codec hardest was told they were not pushing something in keeping with the basic W3C philosophy. They kept pushing and eventually got very offended that a perceived ally of Apple reminded some folks what the rules and W3C guidelines really are. A topic that resonated with a majority once they thought about it. Then there was the pissing over Apple not blindly signing over royalty free usage their video related patents, something that was never an issue in the first place but was served up as part of the "Great Drama!"

Quote:
What are you whining about? This is about defining a standard baseline codec. Nothing would prevent you from supporting other codecs if you wanted to do that.

I'm not whinging [note the correct spelling ]. I just feel it is necessary to set the record straight. It is a travesty that you actually think a single codec a standard makes. That's exactly bass-akwards with great precision.

Quote:
Your ignorance is truly astounding.

Well, I have to give you points for belated persistence in both the necro action and the willingness to bend fact and logic so far as to be able to actually type that last sentence. I bet you even believe it. Go ahead and kid yourself, you are being well manipulated.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft announces H.264 support for Google's Chrome