Microsoft announces H.264 support for Google's Chrome

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


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



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



    Quote:

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



    Not as long as they are using an open and freely available technology.
  • Reply 62 of 73
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


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





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



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



    As an example, Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior even though they gave IE away for free. They were using an existing monopoly to extend influence and control in another area. It didn't matter that IE was free.
  • Reply 63 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


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



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



    what do you mean try again. I was only commenting on what had be encoded for an iPhone, which isn't everything.
  • Reply 64 of 73
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post


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



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



    Microsoft has released free H.264 plug-ins for both Firefox and Chrome on Windows. It allows the playing of H.264 through the <video> tag, so there really isn't any reason for anyone to stop supporting H.264 and switch to WebM. So all you're left with is Chrome and Firefox on the Mac. Who knows maybe Apple will step up and release plug-ins as well?
  • Reply 65 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


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



    You aren't making sense here. H.264 is H.264. They just get encoded in two resolutions, one smaller which is also used for mobile and one larger, advertised as HD.
  • Reply 66 of 73
    insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


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



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



    It is you who don't understand. IE was never free. You paid for it when you paid for Windows. But that's besides the point. The point is that WebM is a free and open format.
  • Reply 67 of 73
    insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


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



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



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



    Yes there is. Actually native video.
  • Reply 68 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


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





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





    Yes there is. Actually native video.



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



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





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



    So your statements shows again an utter lack of technical viability to go with your incessant overly philosophical open-whinghing.
  • Reply 69 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


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



    He's just here for his weekly H.264-bashing session.
  • Reply 70 of 73
    insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


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



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



    Quote:

    WTF are you calling native video?



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



    Quote:

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



    Says the guy who can't tell the difference between a standard and source code.
  • Reply 71 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


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





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





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



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



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



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



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



    Yes I'm looking straight at you insike, many on this board have attempted to show you the errors of your logic. You don't seen to be disposed to take any of it to heart. Your position is broken, your opinion built on that position is irrelevant to the business of actually building the web and the evolving HTML5 standard.
  • Reply 72 of 73
    insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


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



    Correct.



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



    No. WebM is an open format.



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



    Your ignorance is truly astounding.
  • Reply 73 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    stuff..



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





    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

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



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



    Quote:

    Your ignorance is truly astounding.



    Well, I have to give you points for belated persistence in both the necro action and the willingness to bend fact and logic so far as to be able to actually type that last sentence. I bet you even believe it. Go ahead and kid yourself, you are being well manipulated.
Sign In or Register to comment.