Are you another fucking stupid apple idiot? I swear! I already posted this, so here it is again for you, since you can't be assed to read: Google paid $106 million for On2 who developed VP8, aka webm. They also created VP3, and they had their patents on it, and decided to free them to the open domain by giving it to Xiph.
If they want to give their property away, why do you fucking care?
Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.
And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?
so will this mpeg-la go after anyone implementing this technology? or do they think they will target google specifically?
google doesn't claim they 'own' webm. they are merely a 'sponser'.
Google was the owner of record when they gave the code away otherwise they could not open source the code. The problem arises if they gave away something which was not theirs to give: both Google and WebM users could be liable.
I didn't berate you. I said posted that Stallman doesn't know whether WebM violates any H.264 patents or not. You got all riled up over me countering your opinion of some other human being that could not possibly have perfect knowledge and consider that is berating you? It wasn't then but this is now: Get. A. Clue!
what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, or, Stallman saying 'yes it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.
If competition is like the 100m sprint, this is like a contender trying to trip another contender and everyone ends up doing 100m in 5 minutes instead of 10 seconds.
Google has not been very successful at producing new services (most initiatives failed, I read a list a few months back). Google Search and Android (which does not make them money directly and which they bought) are exceptions. Now, failing at innovation, they turn to trying to trip the competition.
What kind of people are running Google? It feels like a company that has lost its soul and is being run by bean counters instead of innovators (like Apple in the 90's)..
Its unreal. I can't believe that google is doing this. I think that the industry should sue google to prevent them from doing this? IS that possible though? I mean for the mere fact that All future android phones will not support h.264 is reason enough...This should be reason enough to have a court prevent this... I firmly believe this is stictly a power play by google. (maybe the have an axe to grind with Apple?)
LIke some poster above this may give Adobe much better leverage at staying the defacto standard of the web... What a great shame google.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, osaying 'yr, Stallman es it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.
So I supposedly berated you, but now you say I didn't, but that you took the term freetard personally when I never even used it in relation to you. I used it before you ever joined the thread, so any personal level insult is purely of your own construction.
Do you even remember what you have been posting the past several hours? You are so all over the place and cavalier with your accusations and subsequent no-but modifications I see no credibility left. You are posting merely like a randomly activated loose cannon.
I completely get what you are trying to say about Stallman, he is convinced Google is dealing fairly with WebM. OK, fine. But he is completely ignoring the fact that Google has been unofficially accused of infringing on H.264 patents. What Stallman thinks of Google's intentions just became immaterial with that revelation.
Go ahead and blindly believe Stallman, you have very plainly said you think that is the proper choice. And I'll very plainly say I see Stallman as being willfully negligent in his blind endorsement and is just speaking based on some extremely narrow viewpoint that ignores the rest of the patent holding world, but espouses his very extreme free philosophy.
This is stupid. I love using Chrome, and I don't want to switch. I'm going to be bummed if I have to because of this.
But, why did this article quote user comments? If they were critics that'd be one thing, but for every intelligent comment on a blog there could be just as many idiotic and uninformed comments.
I don't have a problem with it. In fact I think it was a good thing. Clearly the intelligent comments were quoted becouse with this move google has show their true colors.
And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?
He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.
Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.
He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.
Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.
Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.
Where do you get this idea? I don't see MPEG LA breaking down the doors at Videolan, Handbrake, MPlayer, ffmpeg, Movist, etc.
All in violation, you should probably slip the boys at MPEG-LA a memo to enforce their patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Wrong again. Most of us like H.264 because it's widely used, has a range of encoders and players, gives high quality at decent bitrates and has hardware acceleration not only on some portable devices like the iPhone and iPad, but also on many modern video cards.
Offhand, I'd say your user name is right on target.
Bzzt. Wrong. H.264 is widely used because its the format youtube initially adopted for HTML5 and for Blu-Ray playback. The difference in quality is negligible at best, and this has been proven by people who actually know wtf they are talking about. Hardware acceleration is coming for WebM so your point is effectively moot. Apple devices will simply have to embrace it or be dead in the water, because you better damn well believe H.264 will be gone in the coming months as well when Google decides to take it off Youtube.
The only person who has failed is you, congratulations
First of all: writing, using and distributing a decoder or encoder for H264 is free for non-profit use, and even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the money you make off H264 video's before you have to start paying. As so many before me already mentioned, MPEG-LA has stated this will remain this way until the patents expired, which makes a lot of sense because they wouldn't benefit at all if everyone abandoned H264 because MPEG-LA acted like codec-nazi's: in the end, non-profit users are not what MPEG-LA hopes to get their revenue from to recuperate their investments in creating H264.
Second: in what way is it a bad thing that commercial entities making money off H264 encoders or decoders have to pay a trivial part of their profits to the inventors of the standard, and how is this different from *any other* piece of technology licensed to third parties? Do you think USB should be replaced because every cable vendor using the USB logo on their cable needs to pay licensing fees? Do you know how many patented and licensed technlogies are used in modern operating systems? Almost every bit of software down to the fonts and the way they are rendered has been licensed and paid for one way or another. Did you know there are companies who even *gasp* pay people to write software for them, so they can sell it or use it to support their own products?! It's what they call 'the economy' or 'creating value in exchange for money'. If you hate that idea so much, you should move to North Korea.
Did I ever say anything of the sort? I am well aware that many products use patents from all over the place, there is simply no way to get around it. Now regarding Google, they just so happen to OWN THEIR OWN CODEC, something they bought and will utilize. Why the hell would a company like Google pay someone else for something they ALREADY OWN? Doesnt make any sense does it? Especially if they plan on expanding Youtube significantly like i think they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
Third: on the topic of Mozilla: it's a shame the people in charge at Mozilla are too dickheaded to just announce they will not support H264 natively because of patent issues (that part they already have covered), but that instead they will write a plugin that hooks into the OS codecs (which already have been licensed and paid for by the OS vendor). Problem solved, everyone happy. The only reason they haven't done this *yet*, is because they are still quietly hoping that somehow the whole world will agree and ditch H264 for something else and that HTML5 will list a different codec as the one and only one for <video> tags. This simply won't happen because companies already invested billions in hardware and software supporting H264, and none of them have anything to gain throwing that out because someone else likes their stuff to be 'open' or 'free'. The sunken costs of licensing H264 are huge, almost everyone and their mother already supports H264 and paid for it. Mozilla's hard-headedness doesn't make sense and it's a purely ideological stance they are taking.
Firefox controls a big share of internet usage. It might seem like Mozilla is being an ass but they dont want to pony up the money when others are doing the same thing for free. Mozilla could easily make a plugin and support all 3, but somehow if it were that easy it would have been done already and it wouldn't be in discussion.
H.264 is far beyond just HTML5. Companies with money invested in hardware or software would lose little if any money at all. Hardware and Software wise, H.264 is nothing more than another codec to support. We would expect those companies to still support H.264 just like we would expect them to support any other format. But remember, those people are in the business for mass profit, be it hardware or software or both. Mozilla IS NOT.
And regardless of what side of the fence we sit on, Firefox and Chrome control roughly 45% of the web who will support it, and that number is not slowing at all. From a content provider, thats a pretty damn good split. That means serving content in WebM and H.264 if i want to go the HTML5 route, or Flash, the universal player. Funny enough is that Flash is going to support WebM just like H.264, so H.264 is losing its edge fast.
But i havent forgotten, Microsoft will have WebM support in IE9 and they are the roughly 45% and bleeding web browser. 90%....sounds like a pretty good damn number to know which HTML5 format to back. The only thing Apple needs to do is play ball with WebM, they dont have to give up H.264 for iTunes media if they dont want (im sure they will soon though)
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
Last but not least: I understand that it's easy to pull out the fanboy argument on a forum dedicated to Apple, but let me remind you that Microsoft is also putting full-force support behind H264, just like Sony (with Blu-Ray), just like all those companies that were behind HD-DVD, just like Adobe (Flash has H264 built in), just like Nvidia and AMD (their cards decode H264 natively), and so on, and so forth. There's a much simpler explanation why H264 is so widely used: it's simply the best codec available, and the companies using it do not mind paying royalties to use it, because they make a lot of money using it in their products. Again, the market has already spoken on this issue, and it chose H264, in spite of the royalties involved.
And these are companies out to make a profit, Mozilla is not one of those companies (even though they do GET money from donations, do you spend it on devs or a codec?). Also, everyone of the companies you just listed sells hardware, and H.264 WAS the best out back then when they unleashed everything you just listed. WebM is now just as good, but it doesnt mean they are going to jump ship to this new platform. WebM
WebM has come a long way, from what ive read the newer builds of WebM have even lower CPU usage than that of H.264 (up to half in some cases) with hardware acceleration on Core 2 Duos and Atoms, which is great for mobile devices. Great playback, quality that looks damn near the same without being as resource intensive is win win in my book. Unfortunately there isnt much shown for the Mac side of things, where H.264 still reigned king.
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but if you ask me, your opinion on this issue is foolish. You're basically saying you want to settle for a lower quality video codec, for which no professional tooling is available at all, which is almost totally unsupported by any hardware on the market, and which is likely just as patent encumbered as H264, because you 'like the idea that it is free and open'. Meanwhile the only sensible argument against the alternative codec that you can come up with is that other people (companies making profit from products using H264) have to pay royalties for using something they didn't invent themselves.
I really wonder what other products and services you refuse to buy or use in daily life because you don't agree on the distribution of the profits between all the companies in the production chain.
I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better. But if you still want hardware manufacturers, AMD, Nvidia, ARM, Intel, TI, Broadcom, and Qualcomm are backing WebM with hardware, so i'd say thats quite a lot of support.
Anyways, i could care less about royalties but for a company like Google, getting rid of it now is in their best interest while its still relatively small. If they have to buy licenses for Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and possibly Youtube if they go paid services it would hit them with reoccuring yearly costs, as well as having wasted on On2 for VP8. Even still, Google just backing one format for say Youtube means they can save millions on server costs. That alone may be worth the switch to Google if they step into the streaming movie/television business soon like Hulu and Netflix.
And to your last point, there are only 3 things. I decided not to get a new mac and got a nice Acer laptop for 399 that i put Arch Linux on, i use VLC on both my PC and Mini cause obviously Linux doesnt have much for media playback and Quicktime sucks so damn bad and it should be criminal that they charge for 7 Pro. I use GIMP to edit photos since im not going to break the bank to get Photoshop, last is OpenOffice which i use on both, cause MS Office is way overpriced and Microsoft has a lot of my money already from owning an Xbox 360 and all the crap i got for it.
I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better.
I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.
I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.
I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.
I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.
well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.
well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.
Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.
If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.
Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.
If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.
'significantly' how exacting. the numbers don't show that it is 'significantly' and the images are 'slightly' poorer in some cases. i can use inexact terms too ya know.
and webm is active isn't it? i bet it gets better. in any case you just stick with safari and enjoy. i will 'suffer' with other and see what plays out.
but it's telling they aren't willing to indemnify against damages for use of WebM, if they are supposedly so sure that it's not infringing any patents.
This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
He doesn't actually believe in IP so his supporting WebM as being free of patent encumbrance is meaningless (he basically uses copyright law in a cynical way to enforce his brand of "freedom").
He also knows, like everyone else, that only Google or the poor schmuck at the end of the infringement chain is likely to get hammered. So it means nothing to him since he's no real big fan of Google either. He tolerates and perhaps fears Google.
Comments
Are you another fucking stupid apple idiot? I swear! I already posted this, so here it is again for you, since you can't be assed to read: Google paid $106 million for On2 who developed VP8, aka webm. They also created VP3, and they had their patents on it, and decided to free them to the open domain by giving it to Xiph.
If they want to give their property away, why do you fucking care?
Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.
And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?
so will this mpeg-la go after anyone implementing this technology? or do they think they will target google specifically?
google doesn't claim they 'own' webm. they are merely a 'sponser'.
Google was the owner of record when they gave the code away otherwise they could not open source the code. The problem arises if they gave away something which was not theirs to give: both Google and WebM users could be liable.
I didn't berate you. I said posted that Stallman doesn't know whether WebM violates any H.264 patents or not. You got all riled up over me countering your opinion of some other human being that could not possibly have perfect knowledge and consider that is berating you? It wasn't then but this is now: Get. A. Clue!
what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, or, Stallman saying 'yes it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.
If competition is like the 100m sprint, this is like a contender trying to trip another contender and everyone ends up doing 100m in 5 minutes instead of 10 seconds.
Google has not been very successful at producing new services (most initiatives failed, I read a list a few months back). Google Search and Android (which does not make them money directly and which they bought) are exceptions. Now, failing at innovation, they turn to trying to trip the competition.
What kind of people are running Google? It feels like a company that has lost its soul and is being run by bean counters instead of innovators (like Apple in the 90's)..
Its unreal. I can't believe that google is doing this. I think that the industry should sue google to prevent them from doing this? IS that possible though? I mean for the mere fact that All future android phones will not support h.264 is reason enough...This should be reason enough to have a court prevent this... I firmly believe this is stictly a power play by google. (maybe the have an axe to grind with Apple?)
LIke some poster above this may give Adobe much better leverage at staying the defacto standard of the web... What a great shame google.
what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, osaying 'yr, Stallman es it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.
So I supposedly berated you, but now you say I didn't, but that you took the term freetard personally when I never even used it in relation to you. I used it before you ever joined the thread, so any personal level insult is purely of your own construction.
Do you even remember what you have been posting the past several hours? You are so all over the place and cavalier with your accusations and subsequent no-but modifications I see no credibility left. You are posting merely like a randomly activated loose cannon.
I completely get what you are trying to say about Stallman, he is convinced Google is dealing fairly with WebM. OK, fine. But he is completely ignoring the fact that Google has been unofficially accused of infringing on H.264 patents. What Stallman thinks of Google's intentions just became immaterial with that revelation.
Go ahead and blindly believe Stallman, you have very plainly said you think that is the proper choice. And I'll very plainly say I see Stallman as being willfully negligent in his blind endorsement and is just speaking based on some extremely narrow viewpoint that ignores the rest of the patent holding world, but espouses his very extreme free philosophy.
Personally I don't know if I even have been watching H.264 videos or not. The only thing I do ever notice is when my phone cant play a flash video.
I think that would be considered a good thing!
This is stupid. I love using Chrome, and I don't want to switch. I'm going to be bummed if I have to because of this.
But, why did this article quote user comments? If they were critics that'd be one thing, but for every intelligent comment on a blog there could be just as many idiotic and uninformed comments.
I don't have a problem with it. In fact I think it was a good thing. Clearly the intelligent comments were quoted becouse with this move google has show their true colors.
And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?
He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.
Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.
He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.
Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.
Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.
Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.
Look, if you want to know, if 2-3 people in a row post new lows of ignorance, I get WTF?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - AE
Where do you get this idea? I don't see MPEG LA breaking down the doors at Videolan, Handbrake, MPlayer, ffmpeg, Movist, etc.
All in violation, you should probably slip the boys at MPEG-LA a memo to enforce their patents.
Wrong again. Most of us like H.264 because it's widely used, has a range of encoders and players, gives high quality at decent bitrates and has hardware acceleration not only on some portable devices like the iPhone and iPad, but also on many modern video cards.
Offhand, I'd say your user name is right on target.
Bzzt. Wrong. H.264 is widely used because its the format youtube initially adopted for HTML5 and for Blu-Ray playback. The difference in quality is negligible at best, and this has been proven by people who actually know wtf they are talking about. Hardware acceleration is coming for WebM so your point is effectively moot. Apple devices will simply have to embrace it or be dead in the water, because you better damn well believe H.264 will be gone in the coming months as well when Google decides to take it off Youtube.
The only person who has failed is you, congratulations
First of all: writing, using and distributing a decoder or encoder for H264 is free for non-profit use, and even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the money you make off H264 video's before you have to start paying. As so many before me already mentioned, MPEG-LA has stated this will remain this way until the patents expired, which makes a lot of sense because they wouldn't benefit at all if everyone abandoned H264 because MPEG-LA acted like codec-nazi's: in the end, non-profit users are not what MPEG-LA hopes to get their revenue from to recuperate their investments in creating H264.
Second: in what way is it a bad thing that commercial entities making money off H264 encoders or decoders have to pay a trivial part of their profits to the inventors of the standard, and how is this different from *any other* piece of technology licensed to third parties? Do you think USB should be replaced because every cable vendor using the USB logo on their cable needs to pay licensing fees? Do you know how many patented and licensed technlogies are used in modern operating systems? Almost every bit of software down to the fonts and the way they are rendered has been licensed and paid for one way or another. Did you know there are companies who even *gasp* pay people to write software for them, so they can sell it or use it to support their own products?! It's what they call 'the economy' or 'creating value in exchange for money'. If you hate that idea so much, you should move to North Korea.
Did I ever say anything of the sort? I am well aware that many products use patents from all over the place, there is simply no way to get around it. Now regarding Google, they just so happen to OWN THEIR OWN CODEC, something they bought and will utilize. Why the hell would a company like Google pay someone else for something they ALREADY OWN? Doesnt make any sense does it? Especially if they plan on expanding Youtube significantly like i think they will.
Third: on the topic of Mozilla: it's a shame the people in charge at Mozilla are too dickheaded to just announce they will not support H264 natively because of patent issues (that part they already have covered), but that instead they will write a plugin that hooks into the OS codecs (which already have been licensed and paid for by the OS vendor). Problem solved, everyone happy. The only reason they haven't done this *yet*, is because they are still quietly hoping that somehow the whole world will agree and ditch H264 for something else and that HTML5 will list a different codec as the one and only one for <video> tags. This simply won't happen because companies already invested billions in hardware and software supporting H264, and none of them have anything to gain throwing that out because someone else likes their stuff to be 'open' or 'free'. The sunken costs of licensing H264 are huge, almost everyone and their mother already supports H264 and paid for it. Mozilla's hard-headedness doesn't make sense and it's a purely ideological stance they are taking.
Firefox controls a big share of internet usage. It might seem like Mozilla is being an ass but they dont want to pony up the money when others are doing the same thing for free. Mozilla could easily make a plugin and support all 3, but somehow if it were that easy it would have been done already and it wouldn't be in discussion.
H.264 is far beyond just HTML5. Companies with money invested in hardware or software would lose little if any money at all. Hardware and Software wise, H.264 is nothing more than another codec to support. We would expect those companies to still support H.264 just like we would expect them to support any other format. But remember, those people are in the business for mass profit, be it hardware or software or both. Mozilla IS NOT.
And regardless of what side of the fence we sit on, Firefox and Chrome control roughly 45% of the web who will support it, and that number is not slowing at all. From a content provider, thats a pretty damn good split. That means serving content in WebM and H.264 if i want to go the HTML5 route, or Flash, the universal player. Funny enough is that Flash is going to support WebM just like H.264, so H.264 is losing its edge fast.
But i havent forgotten, Microsoft will have WebM support in IE9 and they are the roughly 45% and bleeding web browser. 90%....sounds like a pretty good damn number to know which HTML5 format to back. The only thing Apple needs to do is play ball with WebM, they dont have to give up H.264 for iTunes media if they dont want (im sure they will soon though)
Last but not least: I understand that it's easy to pull out the fanboy argument on a forum dedicated to Apple, but let me remind you that Microsoft is also putting full-force support behind H264, just like Sony (with Blu-Ray), just like all those companies that were behind HD-DVD, just like Adobe (Flash has H264 built in), just like Nvidia and AMD (their cards decode H264 natively), and so on, and so forth. There's a much simpler explanation why H264 is so widely used: it's simply the best codec available, and the companies using it do not mind paying royalties to use it, because they make a lot of money using it in their products. Again, the market has already spoken on this issue, and it chose H264, in spite of the royalties involved.
And these are companies out to make a profit, Mozilla is not one of those companies (even though they do GET money from donations, do you spend it on devs or a codec?). Also, everyone of the companies you just listed sells hardware, and H.264 WAS the best out back then when they unleashed everything you just listed. WebM is now just as good, but it doesnt mean they are going to jump ship to this new platform. WebM
WebM has come a long way, from what ive read the newer builds of WebM have even lower CPU usage than that of H.264 (up to half in some cases) with hardware acceleration on Core 2 Duos and Atoms, which is great for mobile devices. Great playback, quality that looks damn near the same without being as resource intensive is win win in my book. Unfortunately there isnt much shown for the Mac side of things, where H.264 still reigned king.
[
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but if you ask me, your opinion on this issue is foolish. You're basically saying you want to settle for a lower quality video codec, for which no professional tooling is available at all, which is almost totally unsupported by any hardware on the market, and which is likely just as patent encumbered as H264, because you 'like the idea that it is free and open'. Meanwhile the only sensible argument against the alternative codec that you can come up with is that other people (companies making profit from products using H264) have to pay royalties for using something they didn't invent themselves.
I really wonder what other products and services you refuse to buy or use in daily life because you don't agree on the distribution of the profits between all the companies in the production chain.
I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better. But if you still want hardware manufacturers, AMD, Nvidia, ARM, Intel, TI, Broadcom, and Qualcomm are backing WebM with hardware, so i'd say thats quite a lot of support.
Anyways, i could care less about royalties but for a company like Google, getting rid of it now is in their best interest while its still relatively small. If they have to buy licenses for Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and possibly Youtube if they go paid services it would hit them with reoccuring yearly costs, as well as having wasted on On2 for VP8. Even still, Google just backing one format for say Youtube means they can save millions on server costs. That alone may be worth the switch to Google if they step into the streaming movie/television business soon like Hulu and Netflix.
And to your last point, there are only 3 things. I decided not to get a new mac and got a nice Acer laptop for 399 that i put Arch Linux on, i use VLC on both my PC and Mini cause obviously Linux doesnt have much for media playback and Quicktime sucks so damn bad and it should be criminal that they charge for 7 Pro. I use GIMP to edit photos since im not going to break the bank to get Photoshop, last is OpenOffice which i use on both, cause MS Office is way overpriced and Microsoft has a lot of my money already from owning an Xbox 360 and all the crap i got for it.
I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better.
I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.
I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.
I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.
I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.
well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.
http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_...C-Test-results
http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx
well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.
http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_...C-Test-results
http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx
Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.
If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.
Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.
If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.
'significantly' how exacting. the numbers don't show that it is 'significantly' and the images are 'slightly' poorer in some cases. i can use inexact terms too ya know.
and webm is active isn't it? i bet it gets better. in any case you just stick with safari and enjoy. i will 'suffer' with other and see what plays out.
but it's telling they aren't willing to indemnify against damages for use of WebM, if they are supposedly so sure that it's not infringing any patents.
This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?
Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.
PM me and I'll give you my actual location. You can then attempt to punch me in the face big guy.
I love how some folks are internet tough guys. Welcome to my ignore list...damn it's getting large.
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
He doesn't actually believe in IP so his supporting WebM as being free of patent encumbrance is meaningless (he basically uses copyright law in a cynical way to enforce his brand of "freedom").
He also knows, like everyone else, that only Google or the poor schmuck at the end of the infringement chain is likely to get hammered. So it means nothing to him since he's no real big fan of Google either. He tolerates and perhaps fears Google.
This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?
They have pledged to indemify Android.