Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
So from a web developer perceptive, if you are going to need to support two formats anyway, it seems logical that it should be Flash and h.264. If you want to support FF as a an open source gesture, then make the extra effort and export as Ogg too. I fail to see why I would want to support webM/V8. If Chrome retains Flash support, webM will never take off.
Seriously? It is one thing to not support Flash for technical reasons. It is an entirely different thing to remove support for H.264 to force people to use your video codec. If this is how Google is going to "compete" then they are officially evil. Good thing I don't need Chrome. Going in the trash can right now.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
And what happens when WebM is found to be infringing patents? And sorry, IP rights will not suddenly vanish. You sound like someone who has never created anything of value.
Speaking of browsers? Anyone notice that Safari is a terrible memory hog?
It seems to be bad at releasing memory properly - which Firefox & Camino do fine. But Safari just grows and grows. As I am a pretty aggressive user - opening windows and multiple tabs frequently - it really has a negative affect. I just see the stats build up, and if I close a window very little is returned to free. I have to quit every day or two or the system comes to its knees.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
You're deluded.
The studios own the movies. Not Google, thankfully.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Time to switch brands of tinfoil for your hat. Your current brand is obviously not up to snuff.
I am the webmaster for 2 sites, and after all the time I spent getting audio, and video on the website, I am disappointed in Googles decision and I am not changing a damn thing! Google can suck it! They are being hardheaded, stupid, and ignorant, and I'll just drop support for Chrome from my websites!
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
As nice as this would be, there are certain things which are too complicated for the open source userbase, and thus far, video codecs is one of them. I'm not going to rehash too much about WebM because the information is available for anyone who wants to research it on the internet, but it is a good example of this problem. And it is anything but unencumbered... if it becomes the standard, or looks like it will become the standard, we're probably going to see that put to the test...
And it just isn't up to snuff...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rec9140
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
Drop h.264 when there is a suitable replacement...
Right now we could use some degree of consistency or reliability on the internet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rec9140
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
It is not really anti-competitive as long as they make their own content (e.g., YouTube) also available in H.264 and Flash. I doubt they will do this as it would probably instigate investigations into their business practices.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
I agree with you on this. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys about the whole open source debate. All I want is something that works and works reliably, and if someone makes a few dollars at it, that's fine by me.
On thing that Flash really had going for it is that it became a de facto standard. Sure it might have some problems with it, but at least you knew where you were with it.
Now we have to have open source (apparently) and it's becoming a fragmented mess. The open source community fail to recognize that it's only really the technical community that is bothered about this. The vast majority of consumers want something that just works and works well.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
Comments
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
I never thought I'd say this, but hooray for Microsoft!
So true.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
So from a web developer perceptive, if you are going to need to support two formats anyway, it seems logical that it should be Flash and h.264. If you want to support FF as a an open source gesture, then make the extra effort and export as Ogg too. I fail to see why I would want to support webM/V8. If Chrome retains Flash support, webM will never take off.
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
And what happens when WebM is found to be infringing patents? And sorry, IP rights will not suddenly vanish. You sound like someone who has never created anything of value.
It seems to be bad at releasing memory properly - which Firefox & Camino do fine. But Safari just grows and grows. As I am a pretty aggressive user - opening windows and multiple tabs frequently - it really has a negative affect. I just see the stats build up, and if I close a window very little is returned to free. I have to quit every day or two or the system comes to its knees.
The Mail program is not much better.
Anyone else notice this?
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
You're deluded.
The studios own the movies. Not Google, thankfully.
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Time to switch brands of tinfoil for your hat. Your current brand is obviously not up to snuff.
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
Time to switch brands of tinfoil for your hat. Your current brand is obviously not up to snuff.
Now that's the funniest comment of the year so far! Made me laugh out loud!
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
As nice as this would be, there are certain things which are too complicated for the open source userbase, and thus far, video codecs is one of them. I'm not going to rehash too much about WebM because the information is available for anyone who wants to research it on the internet, but it is a good example of this problem. And it is anything but unencumbered... if it becomes the standard, or looks like it will become the standard, we're probably going to see that put to the test...
And it just isn't up to snuff...
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
Drop h.264 when there is a suitable replacement...
Right now we could use some degree of consistency or reliability on the internet...
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
More open source politics.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
It is not really anti-competitive as long as they make their own content (e.g., YouTube) also available in H.264 and Flash. I doubt they will do this as it would probably instigate investigations into their business practices.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
I agree with you on this. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys about the whole open source debate. All I want is something that works and works reliably, and if someone makes a few dollars at it, that's fine by me.
On thing that Flash really had going for it is that it became a de facto standard. Sure it might have some problems with it, but at least you knew where you were with it.
Now we have to have open source (apparently) and it's becoming a fragmented mess. The open source community fail to recognize that it's only really the technical community that is bothered about this. The vast majority of consumers want something that just works and works well.
People have to be able to make money off their software. Google just wants to force people into using their crappy webM so they can track what I'm watching on the internet so they can make a buck and not other softare developers and it's no one's business but my own and who I'm paying for the content. I think anti trust should look into this matter. It's an anti competitive move on Google's part.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
You mean like the way they gave IE away for free was not deemed anti-competitive?