H.264 is not open source in the least bit, and is only freely given away to end users but Google (and Apple) are eating costs to provide it to us for free. Still, history has taught us that what might be given away for free today wont be tomorrow, have we not learned anything from the issues with MP3 and GIF?
No one said H.264 is open-source but the FUD you are trying to spread has already been addressed above:
Google can easily squash H.264, especially being the towering streaming giant by owning Youtube and do encoding solely in WebM. While Apple has done admirably pushing HTML5 via H.264, Apple does not have the power to do anything about this. WebM will be supported by IE9, Chrome, Firefox, AND Opera, about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
Hope Google has it's lawyers and lobbyists ready if they decide to try that.
It is only partially free, to end users like i said. Things that encode/decode are completely screwed, and is why Mozilla still will not support it. H.264 benefits NO ONE. Sorry but its trash and the only reason people on here remotely give a damn is because its the main one Apple supports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
Hope Google has it's lawyers and lobbyists ready if they decide to try that.
If Google's claim that they are choosing to only support OPEN standards for videos, there is literally nothing MPEG-LA can do, other than A) make it open source or file patent claims against WebM to try and take it down.
I personally dont care about h.264, i use Chromium and that wont be changing at all. I would much rather see a completely open standard that anyone can take advantage of than something with "strings attached".
So Google is now both evil and stupid. I can see where they are coming from regarding the patents issue and open software but it is so widely used everywhere in hardware decoders and the Sandy Bridge AVC encoders that it's irresponsible to cut support in a browser with over 10% marketshare in order to have it their own way.
I wonder which browser will absorb that 10% again. I suspect Firefox but it's a shame to see Safari so far behind. I think it's due to the quality of the Windows version of Safari. It was not a pleasant experience when I used it.
Safari is complete crap compared Firefox and chrome. This will have effect on market share. You think tgr average internet user takes any interest in codecs? For them chrome is already a ejn because you don't have to install flash. Besides, most video websites still use flash on the desktop and a lot - including YouTube - support both webm and h.264.
Google are right to do this. I can't a law suit winning against an open standard. If it does they will switch to ogg theora. Flash is still included for user benefit and the fact it is movigng towards webm now. Strange how this horrendously biased article does not mention that yet others I have read on this topic make it perfectly clear.
Google's embrace of a vendor-specific and only-really-supported-on-Windows Flash for video is a curious decision IF they are as principle-driven as they claim to be. IF.
I don't use Chrome but I had it on my system. I just uninstalled it with AppCleaner just to make sure it was all gone for good. Probably an over the top reaction, but I just don't like google right now.
As with most things that defy reason, there's got to be more to this. Both Google's explanation and timing don't pass the smell test. There's something here we don't know yet.
since most ads are flash based i see why they kept that...but what about apple? how does apple want ads delivered? would a move to webm try to put a stomp down on apple's ad goals? (if they have any)
Are you really doing being so stupid, so hypocritical, so Microsoftian?
Do you want an army of people to start working against you rather than for you? ...
Well, they think if they just chant, "It's open, it's open, it's open, ..." people's eyes will glaze over and think it's great. That seems to be the case with the open source zealots who have invaded these forums lately. (Hopefully, they aren't representative, otherwise, the entire concept of open source is doomed if most of them are really so easily duped.)
Google has announced the intention to remove support for H.264 video playback from its Crome browser to "enable open innovation," yet still apparently plans to promote Adobe Flash.
One big difference though is that Flash is a registered industry standard that is royalty free while H.264 is not. Adobe make money off the tools not the format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
More likely however, it means users will simply adopt browsers that support common standards and that growth of Chrome will peak alongside the now stagnant share of Firefox.
What Internet Explorer! If Chrome doesn't have it and nor does Firefox, that just leaves IE as lets face it, nobody uses Safari on the Mac and nobody is ever going to. Apple made sure of that when they made repeated awful releases that's just put off anyone that tried it to ever try it in the future.
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.
Well, they think if they just chant, "It's open, it's open, it's open, ..." people's eyes will glaze over and think it's great. That seems to be the case with the open source zealots who have invaded these forums lately. (Hopefully, they aren't representative, otherwise, the entire concept of open source is doomed if most of them are really so easily duped.)
Most people are really, really stupid, in general. So yea, I can see that.
The FUD around WebM is completely ridiculous. WebM is NOT "open", it's based on technologies that DO have patents. Of course, google doesn't want you to know that fact. All the patent holders need to do is flip a switch and WebM is suddenly patent-encumbered just as badly as H.264.
The only argument left is pure quality of the codec, of which WebM is completely inferior to H.264, AND there is way more H.264 video out there due to apple's push for HTML5.
Which brings us back to the main point: Google did this to try to trump apple. And it won't work, people are completely pissed off and threatening to uninstall chrome? just look at the google message boards.
The FUD around WebM is completely ridiculous. WebM is NOT "open", it's based on technologies that DO have patents. Of course, google doesn't want you to know that fact. All the patent holders need to do is flip a switch and WebM is suddenly patent-encumbered just as badly as H.264.
The only argument left is pure quality of the codec, of which WebM is completely inferior to H.264, AND there is way more H.264 video out there due to apple's push for HTML5.
Which brings us back to the main point: Google did this to try to trump apple. And it won't work, people are completely pissed off and threatening to uninstall chrome? just look at the google message boards.
Stallman usually is very knowledgeable about these things and he supports webm. i don't think he would do so if what you say is true.
Stallman usually is very knowledgeable about these things and he supports webm. i don't think he would do so if what you say is true.
Stallman wears a very large set of ideological blinders. I would hardly take his opinion on the issue as authoritative. WebM will almost certainly turn out to be patent encumbered in a number of ways, and people will waste piles of money implementing it and then defending themselves in court. Google doesn't care because it's not important to them; all they care about is disrupting the industry with the hope that when the dust settles they will end up on top. This has nothing to do with Google's "devotion to open source" (one word: Flash) and everything to do with Google's willingness to play the open source communities to its advantage while engaged in a scorched earth campaign to control media on the Internet. That very simply is the bottom line here.
It is only partially free, to end users like i said. Things that encode/decode are completely screwed, and is why Mozilla still will not support it.
Where do you get this idea? I don't see MPEG LA breaking down the doors at Videolan, Handbrake, MPlayer, ffmpeg, Movist, etc.
Quote:
H.264 benefits NO ONE. Sorry but its trash and the only reason people on here remotely give a damn is because its the main one Apple supports.
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.
Comments
H.264 is not open source in the least bit, and is only freely given away to end users but Google (and Apple) are eating costs to provide it to us for free. Still, history has taught us that what might be given away for free today wont be tomorrow, have we not learned anything from the issues with MP3 and GIF?
No one said H.264 is open-source but the FUD you are trying to spread has already been addressed above:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=108
Google can easily squash H.264, especially being the towering streaming giant by owning Youtube and do encoding solely in WebM. While Apple has done admirably pushing HTML5 via H.264, Apple does not have the power to do anything about this. WebM will be supported by IE9, Chrome, Firefox, AND Opera, about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
Hope Google has it's lawyers and lobbyists ready if they decide to try that.
No one said H.264 is open-source but the FUD you are trying to spread has already been addressed above:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=108
It is only partially free, to end users like i said. Things that encode/decode are completely screwed, and is why Mozilla still will not support it. H.264 benefits NO ONE. Sorry but its trash and the only reason people on here remotely give a damn is because its the main one Apple supports.
Hope Google has it's lawyers and lobbyists ready if they decide to try that.
If Google's claim that they are choosing to only support OPEN standards for videos, there is literally nothing MPEG-LA can do, other than A) make it open source or
I personally dont care about h.264, i use Chromium and that wont be changing at all. I would much rather see a completely open standard that anyone can take advantage of than something with "strings attached".
So Google is now both evil and stupid. I can see where they are coming from regarding the patents issue and open software but it is so widely used everywhere in hardware decoders and the Sandy Bridge AVC encoders that it's irresponsible to cut support in a browser with over 10% marketshare in order to have it their own way.
I wonder which browser will absorb that 10% again. I suspect Firefox but it's a shame to see Safari so far behind. I think it's due to the quality of the Windows version of Safari. It was not a pleasant experience when I used it.
Safari is complete crap compared Firefox and chrome. This will have effect on market share. You think tgr average internet user takes any interest in codecs? For them chrome is already a ejn because you don't have to install flash. Besides, most video websites still use flash on the desktop and a lot - including YouTube - support both webm and h.264.
Google are right to do this. I can't a law suit winning against an open standard. If it does they will switch to ogg theora. Flash is still included for user benefit and the fact it is movigng towards webm now. Strange how this horrendously biased article does not mention that yet others I have read on this topic make it perfectly clear.
The vast majority of consumers want something that just works and works well.
That rules out Flash.
I would much rather see a completely open standard that anyone can take advantage of than something with "strings attached".
Good luck with that. If you ever find software without strings attached it's only because you haven't looked hard enough for the strings.
Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.
Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.
Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
People still go to homestarrunner? Sheesh... that was a funny site about... oh... 10 years ago.
LOL.
[five character limit]
LOLOL!
Google's embrace of a vendor-specific and only-really-supported-on-Windows Flash for video is a curious decision IF they are as principle-driven as they claim to be. IF.
They're starting to act more like Microsoft: NIH.
Do you want an army of people to start working against you rather than for you?
If not I strongly suggest an open letter a la Steve Jobs' on Flash, to explain yourselves.
Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
yeah we call them ads.
As with most things that defy reason, there's got to be more to this. Both Google's explanation and timing don't pass the smell test. There's something here we don't know yet.
since most ads are flash based i see why they kept that...but what about apple? how does apple want ads delivered? would a move to webm try to put a stomp down on apple's ad goals? (if they have any)
?
Are you really doing being so stupid, so hypocritical, so Microsoftian?
Do you want an army of people to start working against you rather than for you? ...
Well, they think if they just chant, "It's open, it's open, it's open, ..." people's eyes will glaze over and think it's great. That seems to be the case with the open source zealots who have invaded these forums lately. (Hopefully, they aren't representative, otherwise, the entire concept of open source is doomed if most of them are really so easily duped.)
Google has announced the intention to remove support for H.264 video playback from its Crome browser to "enable open innovation," yet still apparently plans to promote Adobe Flash.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
One big difference though is that Flash is a registered industry standard that is royalty free while H.264 is not. Adobe make money off the tools not the format.
More likely however, it means users will simply adopt browsers that support common standards and that growth of Chrome will peak alongside the now stagnant share of Firefox.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
What Internet Explorer! If Chrome doesn't have it and nor does Firefox, that just leaves IE as lets face it, nobody uses Safari on the Mac and nobody is ever going to. Apple made sure of that when they made repeated awful releases that's just put off anyone that tried it to ever try it in the future.
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.
Google: Posturing first, customers last, if ever .
fixed that for you
Well, they think if they just chant, "It's open, it's open, it's open, ..." people's eyes will glaze over and think it's great. That seems to be the case with the open source zealots who have invaded these forums lately. (Hopefully, they aren't representative, otherwise, the entire concept of open source is doomed if most of them are really so easily duped.)
Most people are really, really stupid, in general. So yea, I can see that.
The only argument left is pure quality of the codec, of which WebM is completely inferior to H.264, AND there is way more H.264 video out there due to apple's push for HTML5.
Which brings us back to the main point: Google did this to try to trump apple. And it won't work, people are completely pissed off and threatening to uninstall chrome? just look at the google message boards.
The FUD around WebM is completely ridiculous. WebM is NOT "open", it's based on technologies that DO have patents. Of course, google doesn't want you to know that fact. All the patent holders need to do is flip a switch and WebM is suddenly patent-encumbered just as badly as H.264.
The only argument left is pure quality of the codec, of which WebM is completely inferior to H.264, AND there is way more H.264 video out there due to apple's push for HTML5.
Which brings us back to the main point: Google did this to try to trump apple. And it won't work, people are completely pissed off and threatening to uninstall chrome? just look at the google message boards.
Stallman usually is very knowledgeable about these things and he supports webm. i don't think he would do so if what you say is true.
Stallman usually is very knowledgeable about these things and he supports webm. i don't think he would do so if what you say is true.
Stallman wears a very large set of ideological blinders. I would hardly take his opinion on the issue as authoritative. WebM will almost certainly turn out to be patent encumbered in a number of ways, and people will waste piles of money implementing it and then defending themselves in court. Google doesn't care because it's not important to them; all they care about is disrupting the industry with the hope that when the dust settles they will end up on top. This has nothing to do with Google's "devotion to open source" (one word: Flash) and everything to do with Google's willingness to play the open source communities to its advantage while engaged in a scorched earth campaign to control media on the Internet. That very simply is the bottom line here.
It is only partially free, to end users like i said. Things that encode/decode are completely screwed, and is why Mozilla still will not support it.
Where do you get this idea? I don't see MPEG LA breaking down the doors at Videolan, Handbrake, MPlayer, ffmpeg, Movist, etc.
H.264 benefits NO ONE. Sorry but its trash and the only reason people on here remotely give a damn is because its the main one Apple supports.
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.