I don't like this idea that if Google develops this Swiffy then everyone can go on using Flash CSx to create dynamic web content and then just port it to HTML5. Whose interests are served by that? The developers' and Adobe's, not the user. If Google want the good guy image so badly they should push HTML5 standards as the primary development environment, not the second-class one.
Whatever you think of Flash, HTML5 is just so much nicer for the end user. It doesn't burn up a Mac, it doesn't require software from one company and one company only, it doesn't require a plug-in at all. Stop pandering to Adobe and pumping steroids into the dying donkey. Let Flash die. Companies don't use Flash because it does wonderful things that can't be done any other way, they use it because it's easy. Make HTML5 easy.
There are exceptions and things on the internet that are really great that use Flash because for so long it was the only way to get really good results from vector graphics but the vast majority of Flash is advertising. Install Click2Flash and watch the adverts disappear, it's far more widespread than you think! I see a lot of photography websites done in Flash because they want slick presentation not 1990s markup, but HTML5 could meet these needs if the development tools were developed properly (see 'Hype' on the MAS for a good nascent example).
If Swiffy can bring the good Flash content to HTML5 then that's great, but it's a two-edged sword. Yes it lets iOS see this content, but it also takes the pressure of a plugin that we should all want dead.
Off-Topic but in line with the forum...:
Is whether or not something is free the only thing that matters? H.264 works, it gives beautiful results and it's widely supported and hardware-accelerated. It is a sensibly, professionally-developed standard. If people who go to work every day to develop a great piece of technology have to take a pay check home to feed their kids, that's ok in my world.
I loathe this 'free is everything' mentality and this ridiculous notion that if you make something 'open' you are the good guy fighting the Sherif of Nottingham. I get really fed up of new-age hippies who naïvely think the software needs of a 21st century world can be met by students in their bedrooms or 45-year-old men living with their mothers.
I'd infinitely rather the successor to H.264 be developed by experts being paid what experts cost. The internet doesn't exist outside of the realities that have governed the talent market for thousands of years. Talented people who have put themselves through college want to be paid commensurately and that's just life.
Google isn't developing WebM for the good of humanity. It's doing it to avoid paying fees to anyone and if AI are to be believed the codec is littered with other companies' proprietary code anyway and will probably incur a lawsuit or ten.
I just don't trust Google. Apple have their faults, but there's just something sinister about Google that doesn't sit well with me. I don't want the internet controlled by this company.
"The result is that anyone creating rich or interactive ads..."
Great. The best thing about not having flash is I don't have to see so many crappy ads. Now I'm gonna get more ads while still missing out on the few flash sites that actually do something worthwhile.
"The result is that anyone creating rich or interactive ads..."
Great. The best thing about not having flash is I don't have to see so many crappy ads. Now I'm gonna get more ads while still missing out on the few flash sites that actually do something worthwhile.
Go get ghostery. It doesn't just block Flash ads, it blocks them all. It analyses the scripts that almost all ads have especially if they are from an ad distributor and it kills the script. You won't even see a gray box.
I don't like this idea that if Google develops this Swiffy then everyone can go on using Flash CSx to create dynamic web content and then just port it to HTML5. Whose interests are served by that? The developers' and Adobe's, not the user. If Google want the good guy image so badly they should push HTML5 standards as the primary development environment, not the second-class one.
The only thing Google is interested in pushing is their ads, in front of as many eyeballs as possible, that is their core business and they aggressively defend it.
All the "open" marketing bullsh*t is just frills to dress up their real agenda.
MP4 is free to license for use in web browsers, for the time being.
Sure it's free for those who make browsers.
But if you want to share your work which was encoded with h.264 on a subscription-based site or for a fee...
Quote:
...you have two options: a one-time payment of $2,500 ?per AVC transmission encoder? or an annual fee starting at ?$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households, $5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households, and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.?
To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (?AVC VIDEO?) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
Go get ghostery. It doesn't just block Flash ads, it blocks them all. It analyses the scripts that almost all ads have especially if they are from an ad distributor and it kills the script. You won't even see a gray box.
I like GlimmerBlocker. Seems to do the trick on a Mac. So much so that whenever I use another PC or Mac and I see ads, I am taken aback for a while.
Instead of converting ads they should have made a tool to convert flash web sites to html5.
I tried it with a Flash web site, it only converted the first screen, and stripped out the audio. It's a good first step. Why other companies are not working on this I have no idea. Anyone that can do a good Flash to HTML5 site converter is going to cash in big time. Yes Google wants to do it for their ads and what not but I think they've got other bigger fish to fry.
Expired Hope you saved the HTML file! Could you host it somewhere for us to check out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Previews expire after 15 minutes? Pathetic, Clippy. I mean, Swiffy.
Now now, you've been quite the active poster, don't let us think any less of you. Google gives you the HTML to save within 15 minutes to keep forever... !
As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.
It's only free to license under very specific guidelines, EG if you intend the content to be free. This means it's NOT free if you intend on making a profit with it, and more than likely you'd have to pay if you wanted to make ads using it. This makes it pointless for a good chunk of professional content.
H.264 is technically superior to WebM, largely thanks to hardware acceleration as well as years of development and refining in the open market, but it is also an expensive format.
It's open and free (for now) for anyone to license, use and implement, but it is still completely controlled and owned by Google who retain the rights to all implementations.
And it isn't part of the HTML5 standard so you need a plugin to play it.
At Google, we don't believe in standards. Who wants to use open, free software that we didn't make?
MP4 might be a "standard" but it is a LICENSED standard.
You pay money for your Device, or OS upgrade to "license" editing of MP4 files.
Google, had to go out of their way to create a video "standard" that is free of MP4 proprietary code -- which kind of hampers their own Video "standard" they are trying to create.
I agree that it isn't all that "standard" yet -- but it is a "free" standard whereas MP4 is NOT in any regard "free" or open.
It's only free to license under very specific guidelines, EG if you intend the content to be free. This means it's NOT free if you intend on making a profit with it, and more than likely you'd have to pay if you wanted to make ads using it. This makes it pointless for a good chunk of professional content.
H.264 is technically superior to WebM, largely thanks to hardware acceleration as well as years of development and refining in the open market, but it is also an expensive format.
>> I'm just going to say; what you said is CORRECT and some of the other comments here are mis-informed to say the least.
Because of all the IP involved in video codecs, WebM also had to recreate a lot of algorithms that are not ideal but different enough so that it could be un-hindered from MP4 patents.
>> Not that I think that Google is always doing the right thing -- they are merely "good competition" for Apple and the MP4 consortium -- and I don't see a down-side to them pushing another standard, not when they are finding ways to make it "fairly easy" to include WebM inside of an HTML5 formatted page.
It's not like you are suddenly throwing in a Flash file on a web page here. From the Users perspective, they might download a 1000k file once in a while and be able to see MP4 or WebM video and never have to care which format a file is in.
Microsoft's "optimizations" to web standards, were far more of a pain-in-the-butt for web developers than Google has been. In fact, Google's open-source projects to embed Flash Files or add alternative Javascript IDEs has made things a LOT EASIER for web developers.
>> Of course, it goes without saying, that Google gets a benefit out of this. And that it makes sense that THEY control WebM since they invested so much in it. However, if I'm putting out a video in MP4 or WebM format -- I don't really have to care about MUCH, other than what I'm paying (if anything) to provide my content to the audience, and whether I have a good workflow to do so.
Right now, MP4 wins out, because it's more ubiquitous on real-time streaming software and devices. For anything that doesn't involve making money -- MP4 still wins. But if you are making money, and don't have deep pockets for licensing and don't need all the real-time hardware, then WebM I think wins.
Comments
Here is mine
Here come the HTML5 banner ads!
Here is mine
Well, if I ever need to X-ray my teeth I'll know who to come to.
BSD License, it's not propietary
Hello - you are all confused and perpetuating an incorrect correction. It's
PROPRIETARY
Here come the HTML5 banner ads!
Previews expire after 15 minutes? Pathetic, Clippy. I mean, Swiffy.
Propietary?
WebM is a 100% proprietary format controlled by Google. Just like Flash is 100% controlled by Adobe.
Don't confuse with Open.
I don't like this idea that if Google develops this Swiffy then everyone can go on using Flash CSx to create dynamic web content and then just port it to HTML5. Whose interests are served by that? The developers' and Adobe's, not the user. If Google want the good guy image so badly they should push HTML5 standards as the primary development environment, not the second-class one.
Whatever you think of Flash, HTML5 is just so much nicer for the end user. It doesn't burn up a Mac, it doesn't require software from one company and one company only, it doesn't require a plug-in at all. Stop pandering to Adobe and pumping steroids into the dying donkey. Let Flash die. Companies don't use Flash because it does wonderful things that can't be done any other way, they use it because it's easy. Make HTML5 easy.
There are exceptions and things on the internet that are really great that use Flash because for so long it was the only way to get really good results from vector graphics but the vast majority of Flash is advertising. Install Click2Flash and watch the adverts disappear, it's far more widespread than you think! I see a lot of photography websites done in Flash because they want slick presentation not 1990s markup, but HTML5 could meet these needs if the development tools were developed properly (see 'Hype' on the MAS for a good nascent example).
If Swiffy can bring the good Flash content to HTML5 then that's great, but it's a two-edged sword. Yes it lets iOS see this content, but it also takes the pressure of a plugin that we should all want dead.
Off-Topic but in line with the forum...:
Is whether or not something is free the only thing that matters? H.264 works, it gives beautiful results and it's widely supported and hardware-accelerated. It is a sensibly, professionally-developed standard. If people who go to work every day to develop a great piece of technology have to take a pay check home to feed their kids, that's ok in my world.
I loathe this 'free is everything' mentality and this ridiculous notion that if you make something 'open' you are the good guy fighting the Sherif of Nottingham. I get really fed up of new-age hippies who naïvely think the software needs of a 21st century world can be met by students in their bedrooms or 45-year-old men living with their mothers.
I'd infinitely rather the successor to H.264 be developed by experts being paid what experts cost. The internet doesn't exist outside of the realities that have governed the talent market for thousands of years. Talented people who have put themselves through college want to be paid commensurately and that's just life.
Google isn't developing WebM for the good of humanity. It's doing it to avoid paying fees to anyone and if AI are to be believed the codec is littered with other companies' proprietary code anyway and will probably incur a lawsuit or ten.
I just don't trust Google. Apple have their faults, but there's just something sinister about Google that doesn't sit well with me. I don't want the internet controlled by this company.
Great. The best thing about not having flash is I don't have to see so many crappy ads. Now I'm gonna get more ads while still missing out on the few flash sites that actually do something worthwhile.
"The result is that anyone creating rich or interactive ads..."
Great. The best thing about not having flash is I don't have to see so many crappy ads. Now I'm gonna get more ads while still missing out on the few flash sites that actually do something worthwhile.
Go get ghostery. It doesn't just block Flash ads, it blocks them all. It analyses the scripts that almost all ads have especially if they are from an ad distributor and it kills the script. You won't even see a gray box.
On Topic:
I don't like this idea that if Google develops this Swiffy then everyone can go on using Flash CSx to create dynamic web content and then just port it to HTML5. Whose interests are served by that? The developers' and Adobe's, not the user. If Google want the good guy image so badly they should push HTML5 standards as the primary development environment, not the second-class one.
The only thing Google is interested in pushing is their ads, in front of as many eyeballs as possible, that is their core business and they aggressively defend it.
All the "open" marketing bullsh*t is just frills to dress up their real agenda.
MP4 is free to license for use in web browsers, for the time being.
Sure it's free for those who make browsers.
But if you want to share your work which was encoded with h.264 on a subscription-based site or for a fee...
...you have two options: a one-time payment of $2,500 ?per AVC transmission encoder? or an annual fee starting at ?$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households, $5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households, and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.?
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.c...d-to-know.html
More info:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...Agreement.aspx
This is why the EULA for Final Cut Pro includes:
To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (?AVC VIDEO?) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/...hat-with-h264/
Tell Apple, MS or the same Google that H.264 is free to license.
H.264 is royalty-free for all free content. Licensees have to pay royalties if they use H.264 to host paid content.
I uploaded a Flash mini-site I developed in conjunction with a designer.
Result:
438KB Flash file became 1.4MB HTML file
Visual:
Only the first screen of the multi-screen Flash animation is shown. No clicks to other screens work.
Speed:
Extremely slow.
Errors:
Blend modes are not supported. (1 occurrences)
Only strokes with normal scaling are supported. (1 occurrences)
The global ActionScript property _global is not supported. (16 occurrences)
The ActionScript class Sound is not supported. (3 occurrences)
An unsupported ActionScript instruction was encountered. (60 occurrences)
The #initclip pragma is not supported. (16 occurrences)
Filters are not supported. (23 occurrences)
Advanced text rendering using continuous stroke modulation is not supported. (66 occurrences)
Go get ghostery. It doesn't just block Flash ads, it blocks them all. It analyses the scripts that almost all ads have especially if they are from an ad distributor and it kills the script. You won't even see a gray box.
I like GlimmerBlocker. Seems to do the trick on a Mac. So much so that whenever I use another PC or Mac and I see ads, I am taken aback for a while.
Instead of converting ads they should have made a tool to convert flash web sites to html5.
I tried it with a Flash web site, it only converted the first screen, and stripped out the audio. It's a good first step. Why other companies are not working on this I have no idea. Anyone that can do a good Flash to HTML5 site converter is going to cash in big time. Yes Google wants to do it for their ads and what not but I think they've got other bigger fish to fry.
Here come the HTML5 banner ads!
Here is mine
Expired
Previews expire after 15 minutes? Pathetic, Clippy. I mean, Swiffy.
Now now, you've been quite the active poster, don't let us think any less of you. Google gives you the HTML to save within 15 minutes to keep forever... !
As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.
It's only free to license under very specific guidelines, EG if you intend the content to be free. This means it's NOT free if you intend on making a profit with it, and more than likely you'd have to pay if you wanted to make ads using it. This makes it pointless for a good chunk of professional content.
H.264 is technically superior to WebM, largely thanks to hardware acceleration as well as years of development and refining in the open market, but it is also an expensive format.
Hello - you are all confused and perpetuating an incorrect correction. It's
PROPRIETARY
And it's proprietary because ...
And it's proprietary because ...
Google completely controls the code and all aspects of its development.
That's the definition of proprietary software. Even Lion knows that.
It sure is.
It's open and free (for now) for anyone to license, use and implement, but it is still completely controlled and owned by Google who retain the rights to all implementations.
And it isn't part of the HTML5 standard so you need a plugin to play it.
At Google, we don't believe in standards. Who wants to use open, free software that we didn't make?
MP4 might be a "standard" but it is a LICENSED standard.
You pay money for your Device, or OS upgrade to "license" editing of MP4 files.
Google, had to go out of their way to create a video "standard" that is free of MP4 proprietary code -- which kind of hampers their own Video "standard" they are trying to create.
I agree that it isn't all that "standard" yet -- but it is a "free" standard whereas MP4 is NOT in any regard "free" or open.
It's only free to license under very specific guidelines, EG if you intend the content to be free. This means it's NOT free if you intend on making a profit with it, and more than likely you'd have to pay if you wanted to make ads using it. This makes it pointless for a good chunk of professional content.
H.264 is technically superior to WebM, largely thanks to hardware acceleration as well as years of development and refining in the open market, but it is also an expensive format.
>> I'm just going to say; what you said is CORRECT and some of the other comments here are mis-informed to say the least.
Because of all the IP involved in video codecs, WebM also had to recreate a lot of algorithms that are not ideal but different enough so that it could be un-hindered from MP4 patents.
>> Not that I think that Google is always doing the right thing -- they are merely "good competition" for Apple and the MP4 consortium -- and I don't see a down-side to them pushing another standard, not when they are finding ways to make it "fairly easy" to include WebM inside of an HTML5 formatted page.
It's not like you are suddenly throwing in a Flash file on a web page here. From the Users perspective, they might download a 1000k file once in a while and be able to see MP4 or WebM video and never have to care which format a file is in.
Microsoft's "optimizations" to web standards, were far more of a pain-in-the-butt for web developers than Google has been. In fact, Google's open-source projects to embed Flash Files or add alternative Javascript IDEs has made things a LOT EASIER for web developers.
>> Of course, it goes without saying, that Google gets a benefit out of this. And that it makes sense that THEY control WebM since they invested so much in it. However, if I'm putting out a video in MP4 or WebM format -- I don't really have to care about MUCH, other than what I'm paying (if anything) to provide my content to the audience, and whether I have a good workflow to do so.
Right now, MP4 wins out, because it's more ubiquitous on real-time streaming software and devices. For anything that doesn't involve making money -- MP4 still wins. But if you are making money, and don't have deep pockets for licensing and don't need all the real-time hardware, then WebM I think wins.