Microsoft announces H.264 support for Google's Chrome

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    cmvsmcmvsm Posts: 204member
    Long article for such meaningless news....
  • Reply 22 of 73
    archosarchos Posts: 152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post


    I don't know if I see IE9 supporting WebM as a "hammer" coming down on Google. If anything its a win for Google because Microsoft isn't going to develop the plug-in for macs and I doubt Apple will either. Which makes it more likely that WebM will gain prevalence instead of less in my view.



    Are you saying WebM will be more attractive to publishers because it won't work on Macs?



    What about not working on any existing smartphones, will that be a good thing too? How about not working on iOS, how did that play out for Flash?
  • Reply 23 of 73
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    I agree with Microsoft on this completely. I think google made a wrong turn with dropping 264 and has wasted time and money on webm. Solid vide codecs take a lot of time and effort to develop. You can't just open source this and make sure it stays consists t and of high quality. We have a good way to play video that is supported by most devices and charges a reasonable royalty. I think it is a very good choice for the future.
  • Reply 24 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archos View Post


    Are you saying WebM will be more attractive to publishers because it won't work on Macs?



    What about not working on any existing smartphones, will that be a good thing too? How about not working on iOS, how did that play out for Flash?



    I think you misunderstood. WebM will work on Macs, because you can use Chrome on a mac, it will also undoubtedly be incorporated into Android and there for work on mobile. However Microsoft will not be making a H.264 plug-in for Chrome on Macs, meaning that if you want to use a codec that is supported in Chrome and IE on BOTH platforms you would use WebM. it will really come down to which browser is more popular in the long term and frankly I see Chromoe being far more popular than Safari, and since Firefox will also support webM



    http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2010/05...ideo-and-webm/



    That basically leaves Safari as the only major browser that doesn't support WebM. Developers will have to choose between which codec to support based on browser usage and Chrome is gaining ground:



    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp



    http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...wser_gain_race



    No doubt due to be pimped out on Googles home page which is one of the most popular urls in the world.



    So to me as a developer, implementing WebM which will support Chrome, Firefox and IE, instead h.264 which will support IE and Safari makes more sense.



    As for your Flash comment, not playing on IOS didn't really kill Flash at all despite the prognostication to the contrary.



    What remains to be seen here is how much traction Google can really gain, both with Android and Chrome. The true story for technology has and always will be user adoption. If everyone is using it competitors have no choice but adopt it. This is what Apple, Microsoft and Google are all betting on.
  • Reply 25 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kevt View Post


    Nice one, Balmer.



    This wasn't Balmer, as was noted several times in the article. This was one of the few people left with some forward thinking at MS.
  • Reply 26 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Actually, if you read the article you'd understand that Bing is improving by lifting Google's search results.



    Check it out - Google used a very clever honeypot solution to catch Bing on this. It's pretty funny, actually. A good read.



    Can you supply a link? Please.
  • Reply 27 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archos View Post


    You're thinking Flash, but Apple didn't block Flash in 2007; it simply didn't exist in mobile form capable of running any desktop Flash content until last year, three years after the iPhone was released.



    Adobe didn't make a stink during that time because it couldn't say Apple was the problem. It was only last year, when Adobe wanted to sell Flash as a tool for making iPad apps, that Apple said, "no, we have no use for supporting your platform on the iPad because it doesn't work well enough," that Adobe flipped out.



    Flash is not, like H.264, an open standard Apple can implement. It's also not a web standard. It's a defacto web plugin that everyone has been using because HTML itself lacked the ability to reference video. HTML5 solved that issue for iOS years ago, making Flash worthless to everyone apart from those invested in it.



    So no, not really similar at all. If Flash were an open standard working on the iPhone, and Apple yanked it to promote its own thing, then you might have a case. But you don't.



    Whoa!!! ...and here I thought you were a troll. Please accept my deepest apologies.
  • Reply 28 of 73
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    Apple needs to do the same for Chrome on Mac OS X. Chrome on Linux is left but with 1% share who cares.
  • Reply 29 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post


    Can you supply a link? Please.



    here's the link (in hopes this thread doesn't self-destruct into a Google Search vs. Bing discussion)

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/...le-search.html
  • Reply 30 of 73
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post


    Long article for such meaningless news....



    Three words of explanation: Daniel Eran Dilger. And including multiple charts and/or tables (especially Venn diagrams!) also appears part of his contract.



    And as I'm gathering, a real cheerleader, but also a really analytical cheerleader who does lots of homework, even if he tends to cherry pick his facts to generally make Apple look good or better or injured or vindicated or invincible, depending on the story. So somewhat a blowhard, but at times, one of the best synthesizers of tons of history and tech detail around.



    Ergo, like Beelezebub for earth, a necessary part of the Apple rumors site universe.



    My 2cents as critic.



    PS: As for meaningless, you won't think so if one day it's announced YouTube will play on Android, but not on iOS devices.... ...not that Google would go that far (tho', in some parallel universe they doubtless already have!). The big Sumo wrestlers pushing each other around here are playing for more than minor leverage in this game. And the results will matter.



    Quote:

    MacRulez

    Actually, if you read the article you'd understand that Bing is improving by lifting Google's search results.



    Check it out - Google used a very clever honeypot solution to catch Bing on this. It's pretty funny, actually. A good read.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post


    Can you supply a link? Please.



    Pretty please?
  • Reply 31 of 73
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 32 of 73
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    Apple needs to do the same for Chrome on Mac OS X. Chrome on Linux is left but with 1% share who cares.



    I thought it was amusing that people posting to the MS blog complained that it doesn't support Linux. Linux users generally try to get away from Microsoft software, why would they use an MS plug-in if one was made? Even as a rhetorical device, the complaint is silly.



    I expect there will be a solution for Linux users by Linux users. I'm just surprised that Microsoft made their own plug-in available sooner, of course with the respective OSs only.
  • Reply 33 of 73
    Now it looks like Microsoft is siding with Apple to stick it to Google.



    It's like how the US and Britain and France joined up with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany (I'd like my Godwin's Law prize, please). Apple, of course, is Team America (f***, yeah!), Microsoft is the USSR and that makes Google the Third Reich.



    This is such an extraordinary set of circumstances if you look at the history of Apple vs. Microsoft for the past 25 years or so, but if you look at recent events, it starts to make sense.



    Oh, well, this world has been fun, but next year I trust most of you are going to join me in Hell (bring Chap-Stick.)
  • Reply 34 of 73
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    I would say the best scenario is people drop support for Chrome altogether.
  • Reply 35 of 73
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post


    What remains to be seen here is how much traction Google can really gain, both with Android and Chrome. The true story for technology has and always will be user adoption. If everyone is using it competitors have no choice but adopt it. This is what Apple, Microsoft and Google are all betting on.



    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.
  • Reply 36 of 73
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    Now it looks like Microsoft is siding with Apple to stick it to Google.



    They've partnered before. Ever hear of TrueType fonts? They were created because Adobe (go figure!) was being stingy with its Postscript Type 1 font licensing.



    At the time Type 1 fonts ruled the DTP market. Didn't take long for it sink though.
  • Reply 37 of 73
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    What a slap in the face.



    Honestly, it is much easier for consumers if their video cam, computer, phone, web browsers all use the same video format. Consumers should not have to worry that there is even such a thing as multiple formats.



    With this in mind, all the big companies (not just computer companies, but Nokia, Sony etc too) got together and agreed upon one. And Intel, in their latest Sandy Bridge processors, even have hardware support for quickly resizing this format, to easily make small sizes for email attachment. And video card makers have support to enable very efficient playback. It is a miracle of agreement and co-operation that this ever happened at all, and yet Google wants to ruin it for everyone.
  • Reply 38 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    Apple needs to do the same for Chrome on Mac OS X. Chrome on Linux is left but with 1% share who cares.



    Apple doesn't need to care. Safari's deployment rate continues to steadily expand. Apple continues to expand HTML 5 with H.264 in all its devices which are selling nearly 250% greater than the rest of the industry.



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



    Apple has provided mountains of code for LLVM, Clang, Libc++, etc.
  • Reply 39 of 73
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Apple doesn't need to care. Safari's deployment rate continues to steadily expand. Apple continues to expand HTML 5 with H.264 in all its devices which are selling nearly 250% greater than the rest of the industry.



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



    Apple has provided mountains of code for LLVM, Clang, Libc++, etc.



    I hear that Safari does not perform well on Windows. It would be good to see Apple address that if it is true.
  • Reply 40 of 73
    tjwtjw Posts: 216member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.