1) Give us a link stating MPEG-LA stating that they want to specify what codecs are allowed and which ones aren't. Just a single link.
2) Companies are using HTML5 and they are using H.264. Even Adobe supports H.264 in Flash.
3) Your comment about "HTML5 content" makes no sense. HTML5 is not the content. No, having all browsers support a codec will not increase HTML5 support. These are separate issues.
4) VP8 and Theora have nothing on H.264 in terms of quality and adoption.
5) Apple never dropped Flash, it's shipped with every Mac and the iPhone OS never came with Flash because Adobe has never had a mobile version of Flash to ship.
6) H.264 is NOT the video codec for HTML5. It's the best video codec for the web, right now and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future as Theora is shit and VP8 is years from even being a viable option.
7) You have the biggest companies in the world supporting H.264, including Google and Adobe, yet you think that Mozilla and Opera will keep H.264 from being adopted? Good luck with that theory.
8) You think Apple is the sole user and proprietor of H.264 and HTML5 yet it's part been apart of every modern smartphone, is part of every modern web browser and is growing very day. You can keep ignoring the facts. I hope you learn one day but you keep referring to a container as a codec so I don't think that is likely.
1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."
Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.
WHATWG Doesn't want to pick only one codec. They just want one to be support on all browsers, but browsers are free to support anything else. And its more of a recommendation than something they plan to enforce.
1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."
From your very link:
Ian Hickson mentions that for video codecs to be included as requirement in HTML5 specification, the following needs to happen:
— Ogg Theora improves the quality-per-bit and video quality for HD, vendors will make Ogg Theora decoder chips available to the public, and major browsers will include Ogg Theora without getting sued.
— H.264 patents expire, which will no longer require license fees for H.264 support.
I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.
Quote:
Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.
That has not been your point. if that was your point you would have mentioned that Google bought VP8 as an eventual contender to H.264 so that it would have a fallback option in a few years or MPEG-LA would be forced to make H.264 free for all browsers.
As we have been stating ad nauseum VP8 and Theora are no where close to being ready for the majority of the web. They have zero HW acceleration which is needed for mobile systems for playing video without stuttering and for saving battery life. They are not good quality compared to H.264 and they are not well designed at the moment. Does VP8 have potential in Google's pocket? Of course, that's why they bought it, but it's far from replacing H.264, if that is even possible. There are even issues with Theora and VP8 actually being "free". Saying it's free and actually being free are very different things and even if Google says it will cover all legal expenditures that doesn't mean that Opera and Mozilla will not be affected.
If I'm not mistaken, HTML5 doesn't support DRM which is why the CBS and ABC TV show "wrappers" for the iPad are an App and not an actual webpage you can go to.
Or maybe I'm wrong here?
You are right. They would need to write an app to do DRM. Technically that is all Flash is though. A wrapper over H.264 video to do DRM. In this case they would need an Objective-C wrapper for the H.264 video instead.
I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.
Thats not wait I'm saying, Apple and Microsoft are pushing H.264 by not supporting OGG or VP8, in addition to their H.264. (Both Apple and Microsoft are part of MPEG-LA which owns H.264 patents).
Motzilla cannot support H.264 because of licensing issues, Opera cannot support H.264 because they can't afford it.
Quote:
Ian Hickson mentions that for video codecs to be included as requirement in HTML5 specification, the following needs to happen:
— Ogg Theora improves the quality-per-bit and video quality for HD, vendors will make Ogg Theora decoder chips available to the public, and major browsers will include Ogg Theora without getting sued.
— H.264 patents expire, which will no longer require license fees for H.264 support.
This was before VP8 was released as open source. VP8 is very close to H.264 in quality, and Intel is currently working on getting hardware acceleration support for it. H.264 has already been dominate for years so it does have a head start.
At the end of the day HTML 5 is supposed to be and open standard. The whole point of the video tag is to get video content out of an external flash player, and make it available to any browser to use. H.264 defeats this purpose as small developers simply cannot afford to support it. And by not supporting H.264 your browser is locked out of all HTML 5 H.264 video.
At this point only Safari, Chrome, and soon Microsoft have the money/ability to support H.264. Chrome however supports OGG and soon VP8. Safari and I.E. will only support H.264. That means if a video uses an OGG or VP8 codec, it can't be viewed on I.E. or Safari, a huge portion of the market. Apple and Microsoft are already starting to monopolize HTML 5 video. And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues. If Apple wants to encourage HTML 5 adoption, they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. Microsoft too, although I doubt they care. It seems they both are committed to continue to collect royalties off H.264 video.
And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues.
This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:
Be honest with yourself, demos have already shown that flash mobile commands your hardware resources quickly while sucking up battery. For android or iPhone if it used flash, neither owner would find these problems acceptable for daily usage.
This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!
Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....
Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. Google is also shifting from supporting H.264 to VP8.
Strawman. Apple has said no such thing, and they even said that they pay way more to the MPEG LA for royalties than they get back for their patents. There are literally hundreds of companies behind the tech behind H.264, so clearly while ideally there would be an efficient codec for video that is also hardware accelerated and not subject to patent trolls and is royalty free, there isn't. There's a reason why H.264 is used so widely... it's the best codec for the job. VP8 is very likely to get some patent suits against it, so even Google isn't supporting it like you said. They just simply published the spec in hopes of someone else taking the time to improve it. Anyway, VP8 is not a contender in the codec battles... it's likely that the codec quality is actually quite bad compared to H.264, since On2 is notorious for preaching how great its codecs are when in reality they aren't that good. After that, the patent trolls will come after people, because VP8 simply copies H.264 in many parts. And then, after that, you still have to have manufacturers produce hardware decoders for hardware acceleration. So, really there isn't a viable alternative now to H.264 as you would like to suggest. And Apple is doing what everyone else is doing, supporting H.264 because its the best option available. If WebM proved to have hardware support, have a reasonable defense against patent trolls, and is comparable in quality or better than H.264, it would be a no-brainer for Apple to include it on their products. As it is now, though, H.264 is the only option.
Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....
Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.
:SIGH: it's so annoying when someone responds without actually reading your post.
Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it. OGG THeora was built to fail as they had to use less efficient algorithms to maneuver around patents. VP8 may not be as good as a codec as H.264 but can be improved. Intel is also developing hardware acceleration for WebM, at least for TVs.
Currently I.E. does not support any HTML 5 video, which is probably why these media companies have not embraced HTML 5. Their content is already in H.264, but in flash, however if Apple and Microsoft supported VP8, they'd at least have an option to make their content available on all browsers by using VP8, not just the big three.
But since Apple and Microsoft do not support VP8, and since smaller companies cannot afford H.264 licensing, companies would have to release media on both H.264 and VP8 to make it available to everyone. What will happen is these companies will not deem it worth it to support VP8, and small browser developers are locked out of content. Then both Safari, I.E., and Chrome enjoy a monopoly as H.264 is not available to other browsers (Flash currently prevents this). At least chrome will support all three codecs.
Apple has 1 patent with the MPEG-LA. And Apple does pay royalties to use H.264 like every other licensee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone
Apple is part of a group called MPEG-LA, which charges royalties for use of the H.264 video codec. They profit from the use of H.264, along with other companies like Microsoft.
My point is there is no technical reason why they cannot provide H.264 content without Flash. Their willingness to do so is a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
You can only watch extremely low resolution clips of shows -- stuff they don't give a crap about with regards to DRM -- you don't have access to high def full episodes or movies for that matter.
Once again American corporate media giants learn nothing from the past. They are betting that visionaries like Dell, etc., will bail them out by creating iPad killers using cheap or free knock off OS'es. They still haven't gotten it have they. The Windows business model dies hard.
Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it. OGG THeora was built to fail as they had to use less efficient algorithms to maneuver around patents. VP8 may not be as good as a codec as H.264 but can be improved. Intel is also developing hardware acceleration for WebM, at least for TVs. ...
The browser wars are over, and there are 4 browsers that matter, Chrome, Firefox, IE and Safari. Opera is irrelevant. All of the 4 significant browser vendors can afford H.264 licensing. All of the mobile device manufacturers can afford it. Ogg and VP8 are technically inferior, lack hardware acceleration, and will be found to be patent encumbered, and won't turn out to be viable options. (The only reason Google bought and are promoting VP8 is to create confusion and disruption, a state they see as beneficial to them.) H.264 is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable alternative.
Would I prefer a completely patent free, open source video codec? Yes, I would, but it's not happening anytime soon, and maybe never will, given the state of patents in this field. If Mozilla doesn't face up to reality soon, they will find that they got played big time by Google, and they will become irrelevant, with Chrome inheriting their market share.
You can rant and rave about, "It must be free!" but you are tilting at windmills, the state of video is what it is and wishes aren't going to make it otherwise.
EDIT: Does anyone really take it as truth that VP8 is not patent encumbered because Google said it isn't? This is a company with so little concept of the idea that intellectual property can belong to anyone but them, that you could almost say they have corporate borderline personality disorder. Google's claims about VP8 being free of patent liability have about as much credibility as their Claims that their Books program didn't violate copyright law.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll. But these are important points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone
Apple does, so does anyone who uses H.264. A lot of people use it. Apple does make money of the industry wide use of H.264.
Microsoft has nearly 40 patents in the MPEG-LA, and here is what they say about revenue.
Hachamovitch was quick to defuse allegations that Microsoft as a member of the MPEG-LA H.264 group was profiting from steering users to the video format. The company receives "less than half" the money in royalties than it puts in to get the rights for device users", he said.
Comments
1) Give us a link stating MPEG-LA stating that they want to specify what codecs are allowed and which ones aren't. Just a single link.
2) Companies are using HTML5 and they are using H.264. Even Adobe supports H.264 in Flash.
3) Your comment about "HTML5 content" makes no sense. HTML5 is not the content. No, having all browsers support a codec will not increase HTML5 support. These are separate issues.
4) VP8 and Theora have nothing on H.264 in terms of quality and adoption.
5) Apple never dropped Flash, it's shipped with every Mac and the iPhone OS never came with Flash because Adobe has never had a mobile version of Flash to ship.
6) H.264 is NOT the video codec for HTML5. It's the best video codec for the web, right now and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future as Theora is shit and VP8 is years from even being a viable option.
7) You have the biggest companies in the world supporting H.264, including Google and Adobe, yet you think that Mozilla and Opera will keep H.264 from being adopted?
8) You think Apple is the sole user and proprietor of H.264 and HTML5 yet it's part been apart of every modern smartphone, is part of every modern web browser and is growing very day. You can keep ignoring the facts. I hope you learn one day but you keep referring to a container as a codec so I don't think that is likely.
1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
http://www.vedetta.com/whatwg-drops-...-specification
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."
Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.
According to this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
To use H.264, it cost $5million a year.
WHATWG Doesn't want to pick only one codec. They just want one to be support on all browsers, but browsers are free to support anything else. And its more of a recommendation than something they plan to enforce.
1) MPEG-LA owns H.264 patents, the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group and the W3C HTML working group are working on HTML 5. Closest I can give you:
http://www.vedetta.com/whatwg-drops-...-specification
Read Opera cannot support H.264 "due to the obscene cost of the patent licenses."
Motzilla can't support H.264 "because they can not obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors."
From your very link:I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.
Thats really my whole point. H.264 licensing is a mess. If it becomes the dominate video codec, HTML 5 video become monopolized by big players like Apple and Microsoft. Apple should support VP8 or OGG to back up their claims of support open standards. Both VP8 and OGG are open source. Therefor are free from licensing issues.
That has not been your point. if that was your point you would have mentioned that Google bought VP8 as an eventual contender to H.264 so that it would have a fallback option in a few years or MPEG-LA would be forced to make H.264 free for all browsers.
According to this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_downfall.php
H.264 cost $5million a year.
How about a viable link next time:As we have been stating ad nauseum VP8 and Theora are no where close to being ready for the majority of the web. They have zero HW acceleration which is needed for mobile systems for playing video without stuttering and for saving battery life. They are not good quality compared to H.264 and they are not well designed at the moment. Does VP8 have potential in Google's pocket? Of course, that's why they bought it, but it's far from replacing H.264, if that is even possible. There are even issues with Theora and VP8 actually being "free". Saying it's free and actually being free are very different things and even if Google says it will cover all legal expenditures that doesn't mean that Opera and Mozilla will not be affected.
If I'm not mistaken, HTML5 doesn't support DRM which is why the CBS and ABC TV show "wrappers" for the iPad are an App and not an actual webpage you can go to.
Or maybe I'm wrong here?
You are right. They would need to write an app to do DRM. Technically that is all Flash is though. A wrapper over H.264 video to do DRM. In this case they would need an Objective-C wrapper for the H.264 video instead.
I have no idea what makes you think that HTML5 has been trying to force H.264 support and deny any and all Theora support when it's codec independent.
Thats not wait I'm saying, Apple and Microsoft are pushing H.264 by not supporting OGG or VP8, in addition to their H.264. (Both Apple and Microsoft are part of MPEG-LA which owns H.264 patents).
Motzilla cannot support H.264 because of licensing issues, Opera cannot support H.264 because they can't afford it.
Ian Hickson mentions that for video codecs to be included as requirement in HTML5 specification, the following needs to happen:
— Ogg Theora improves the quality-per-bit and video quality for HD, vendors will make Ogg Theora decoder chips available to the public, and major browsers will include Ogg Theora without getting sued.
— H.264 patents expire, which will no longer require license fees for H.264 support.
This was before VP8 was released as open source. VP8 is very close to H.264 in quality, and Intel is currently working on getting hardware acceleration support for it. H.264 has already been dominate for years so it does have a head start.
At the end of the day HTML 5 is supposed to be and open standard. The whole point of the video tag is to get video content out of an external flash player, and make it available to any browser to use. H.264 defeats this purpose as small developers simply cannot afford to support it. And by not supporting H.264 your browser is locked out of all HTML 5 H.264 video.
At this point only Safari, Chrome, and soon Microsoft have the money/ability to support H.264. Chrome however supports OGG and soon VP8. Safari and I.E. will only support H.264. That means if a video uses an OGG or VP8 codec, it can't be viewed on I.E. or Safari, a huge portion of the market. Apple and Microsoft are already starting to monopolize HTML 5 video. And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues. If Apple wants to encourage HTML 5 adoption, they would support VP8 in addition to H.264. Microsoft too, although I doubt they care. It seems they both are committed to continue to collect royalties off H.264 video.
And I think thats why I think a lot of media companies are holding out on adopting HMTL 5, because of the codec issues.
This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!
**Scratches head**
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:
http://www.absolutelyandroid.com/gui...oid-2-2-froyo/
Be honest with yourself, demos have already shown that flash mobile commands your hardware resources quickly while sucking up battery. For android or iPhone if it used flash, neither owner would find these problems acceptable for daily usage.
This is just an example of how poorly you understand anything here. Media companies have long sense embraced H.264. Look at Blu-ray. Look at Netflix. Look at YouTube. Look at Hulu. Look at all the modern video being pushed through Flash or Silverlight. This is not some Apple conspiracy and it's independent of HTML5. This shouldn't be that hard!
Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....
Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.
See Apple has monetary interest in H.264, them and Adobe profited off H.264 and Flash's dominance. Now Adobe's Flash to mobile apps development tools threated the App Store exclusivity. So Apple dropped flash support and wants to promote H.d64 as "the" video codec for HTML 5. It would be a shame if small developers faced the same problems with licensing on HTML 5 and H.264, that they do with Flash and H.264. This is why Open Source advocators like Motzilla refuse to support H.264. Apple claims to support open standards, they should follow suit. Apple and Microsoft pushing of H.264 is only limiting HTML 5's adoption. Google is also shifting from supporting H.264 to VP8.
Strawman. Apple has said no such thing, and they even said that they pay way more to the MPEG LA for royalties than they get back for their patents. There are literally hundreds of companies behind the tech behind H.264, so clearly while ideally there would be an efficient codec for video that is also hardware accelerated and not subject to patent trolls and is royalty free, there isn't. There's a reason why H.264 is used so widely... it's the best codec for the job. VP8 is very likely to get some patent suits against it, so even Google isn't supporting it like you said. They just simply published the spec in hopes of someone else taking the time to improve it. Anyway, VP8 is not a contender in the codec battles... it's likely that the codec quality is actually quite bad compared to H.264, since On2 is notorious for preaching how great its codecs are when in reality they aren't that good. After that, the patent trolls will come after people, because VP8 simply copies H.264 in many parts. And then, after that, you still have to have manufacturers produce hardware decoders for hardware acceleration. So, really there isn't a viable alternative now to H.264 as you would like to suggest. And Apple is doing what everyone else is doing, supporting H.264 because its the best option available. If WebM proved to have hardware support, have a reasonable defense against patent trolls, and is comparable in quality or better than H.264, it would be a no-brainer for Apple to include it on their products. As it is now, though, H.264 is the only option.
Yes, and H.264 shouldn't be associated with HTML 5. HTML 5 is an open standard. H.264 is a licensing mess. Plus again... if a company offered H.264 HTML 5 video content right now, only Safari and Chrome users could read it. Its not worth it. The sooner a codec is support on all platforms the sooner these companies adopt HTML 5. And hopefully, as I explained, its not H.264. H.264 does not equal HTML 5....
Apple can only help the adoption of HTML 5 by supporting more video codecs, VP8 and OGG.
:SIGH: it's so annoying when someone responds without actually reading your post.
Currently I.E. does not support any HTML 5 video, which is probably why these media companies have not embraced HTML 5. Their content is already in H.264, but in flash, however if Apple and Microsoft supported VP8, they'd at least have an option to make their content available on all browsers by using VP8, not just the big three.
But since Apple and Microsoft do not support VP8, and since smaller companies cannot afford H.264 licensing, companies would have to release media on both H.264 and VP8 to make it available to everyone. What will happen is these companies will not deem it worth it to support VP8, and small browser developers are locked out of content. Then both Safari, I.E., and Chrome enjoy a monopoly as H.264 is not available to other browsers (Flash currently prevents this). At least chrome will support all three codecs.
Apple is part of a group called MPEG-LA, which charges royalties for use of the H.264 video codec. They profit from the use of H.264, along with other companies like Microsoft.
You can only watch extremely low resolution clips of shows -- stuff they don't give a crap about with regards to DRM -- you don't have access to high def full episodes or movies for that matter.
This is why I don't watch NBC anymore! This just enforces my conviction that that company is a dinosaur and will die slowly on the vine.
Maybe they can't commit due to the ongoing sale to "Kabletown" (Comcast).
Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it.
The largest video distributors on the web have embraced H.264. These media companies have not embraced it because they want to snub Apple.
Currently I.E. does not support any HTML 5 video, which is probably why these media companies have not embraced HTML 5.
Apple has 1 patent with the MPEG-LA. And Apple does pay royalties to use H.264 like every other licensee.
Apple does, so does anyone who uses H.264. A lot of people use it. Apple does make money of the industry wide use of H.264.
The largest video distributors on the web have embraced H.264. These media companies have not embraced it because they want to snub Apple.
Probably has more to do with I.E. not yet supporting any HTML 5 video.
Ok... but H.264 can never be supported on every browser, because smaller companies can't afford it. OGG THeora was built to fail as they had to use less efficient algorithms to maneuver around patents. VP8 may not be as good as a codec as H.264 but can be improved. Intel is also developing hardware acceleration for WebM, at least for TVs. ...
The browser wars are over, and there are 4 browsers that matter, Chrome, Firefox, IE and Safari. Opera is irrelevant. All of the 4 significant browser vendors can afford H.264 licensing. All of the mobile device manufacturers can afford it. Ogg and VP8 are technically inferior, lack hardware acceleration, and will be found to be patent encumbered, and won't turn out to be viable options. (The only reason Google bought and are promoting VP8 is to create confusion and disruption, a state they see as beneficial to them.) H.264 is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable alternative.
Would I prefer a completely patent free, open source video codec? Yes, I would, but it's not happening anytime soon, and maybe never will, given the state of patents in this field. If Mozilla doesn't face up to reality soon, they will find that they got played big time by Google, and they will become irrelevant, with Chrome inheriting their market share.
You can rant and rave about, "It must be free!" but you are tilting at windmills, the state of video is what it is and wishes aren't going to make it otherwise.
EDIT: Does anyone really take it as truth that VP8 is not patent encumbered because Google said it isn't? This is a company with so little concept of the idea that intellectual property can belong to anyone but them, that you could almost say they have corporate borderline personality disorder. Google's claims about VP8 being free of patent liability have about as much credibility as their Claims that their Books program didn't violate copyright law.
Hulu prevents all mobile phones from accessing it. It's not that the phones can't run hulu site, it's just that hulu is blocking it.
But just a quick search, and you can find a workaround for that too.
Sounds like a great user experience
Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).
It has been mentioned before, Flash 9.4 does run on the Nokia N900
Apple does, so does anyone who uses H.264. A lot of people use it. Apple does make money of the industry wide use of H.264.
Microsoft has nearly 40 patents in the MPEG-LA, and here is what they say about revenue.
Hachamovitch was quick to defuse allegations that Microsoft as a member of the MPEG-LA H.264 group was profiting from steering users to the video format. The company receives "less than half" the money in royalties than it puts in to get the rights for device users", he said.
Microsoft: H.264 in HTML5 about support, not cash
Probably has more to do with I.E. not yet supporting any HTML 5 video.
Support for the iPad has nothing to do with I.E.