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.
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.
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.
The solution to that is for Apple to get off it's rear and improve Safari especially on Windows. Safari has improved a bit but still lags in comparison to the other browsers on Windows.
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.
Woderful! Ironic that it is MSFT that comes with the heavy hammer on Google's head.
What hammer? All this is, is a plugin. Like Flash. It won't add h264 support to html5 video in Chrome. So it's basically like the useless Firefox plugin they also made.
Also, remember that people are extremely slow when it comes to upgrading to the latest version of IE, so h264 is in big trouble on the desktop, and will be available only to a minority. So the graphics on page 2 of the article here on AI is misleading at best (only IE9 supports html5 video, so the total IE market share is irrelevant).
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.
No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.
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.
Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.
Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.
I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.
I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.
I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.
Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic, even though I agree, it is also pathetic. At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product. You'll find, in any situation, if someone likes something they are more willing to ignore or forgive flaws/weaknesses. This goes for gadgets, objects, and people.
Going out of ones way to repeatedly post on a fansite of a product/company they have no affinity for would constitute as more pathetic than the above, in the eyes of rational people. Personally, I'd never buy a car from chevrolet, but the day I start visiting chevrolet fansites and trolling the company is the day I kill myself, particularly since I've never been forced to purchase any chevrolet vehicle, nor does the company adversely affect my life in any way.
Also, using language such as 'church of jobs' and 'biased tech media' doesn't lend to one's objectivity in the slightest.
I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.
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.
Not saying it's going to happen but this could be an issue if YouTube remains dominant.
i thought that most of the youtube vids are in h264 - for compatibility with iOS devices
No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.
No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.
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.
Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic
I disagree. It's more pathetic.
Quote:
At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product.
What's pathetic is to think that you can't enjoy a product, and still criticize the company behind that product. Enjoying a product from a company doesn't mean you have to blindly accept anything the company does. That's just pathetic.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
The solution to that is for Apple to get off it's rear and improve Safari especially on Windows. Safari has improved a bit but still lags in comparison to the other browsers on Windows.
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.
and you are anti-apple.com
Apple doesn't need to do the same for Chrome. Apple has provided mountains of code in WebKit for Chrome.
In that case, doesn't H.264 just work in the Mac version of Chrome?
If google really want to win this war they could just remove h.264 from youtube...
And prevent access to the 12 videos that are h.264 enabled?
And prevent access to the 12 videos that are h.264 enabled?
i thought that most of the youtube vids are in h264 - for compatibility with iOS devices
Wow...If My 90s self was here he'd slap me across the face and throw a slush-puppy in my hair.
Boy the times, they are a-chang'in.
...Go Microsoft!
Wow...If My 90s self was here he'd slap me across the face and throw a slush-puppy in my hair.
You mean the 80's....
Woderful! Ironic that it is MSFT that comes with the heavy hammer on Google's head.
What hammer? All this is, is a plugin. Like Flash. It won't add h264 support to html5 video in Chrome. So it's basically like the useless Firefox plugin they also made.
Also, remember that people are extremely slow when it comes to upgrading to the latest version of IE, so h264 is in big trouble on the desktop, and will be available only to a minority. So the graphics on page 2 of the article here on AI is misleading at best (only IE9 supports html5 video, so the total IE market share is irrelevant).
You mean the 80's....
That would be quite difficult, I'm 19 years old.
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.
No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.
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.
Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.
Such hatred for Apple, yet you've spent time typing 174 posts on a message board for a site called AppleInsider. I'm not sure I can think of anything more pathetic.
I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.
No, it wouldn't happen because such a move by Google would likely lead to the DOJ and congressional investigations that Google certainly does not want to contend with.
I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.
I can. Someone blindly defending Apple no matter what.
Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic, even though I agree, it is also pathetic. At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product. You'll find, in any situation, if someone likes something they are more willing to ignore or forgive flaws/weaknesses. This goes for gadgets, objects, and people.
Going out of ones way to repeatedly post on a fansite of a product/company they have no affinity for would constitute as more pathetic than the above, in the eyes of rational people. Personally, I'd never buy a car from chevrolet, but the day I start visiting chevrolet fansites and trolling the company is the day I kill myself, particularly since I've never been forced to purchase any chevrolet vehicle, nor does the company adversely affect my life in any way.
Also, using language such as 'church of jobs' and 'biased tech media' doesn't lend to one's objectivity in the slightest.
I doubt there would be a valid case there. Everyone is free to add WebM support.
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.
Not saying it's going to happen but this could be an issue if YouTube remains dominant.
i thought that most of the youtube vids are in h264 - for compatibility with iOS devices
No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.
No only a fraction of them are, however it's done in a clever way so that's it mainly repetition of content that's removed. Good way to test is do I search on your phone and computer and compare the results.
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.
Let me think... no, I'm pretty sure that still qualifies as less pathetic
I disagree. It's more pathetic.
At least, in that case, the person assumedly enjoys and derives pleasure from the product.
What's pathetic is to think that you can't enjoy a product, and still criticize the company behind that product. Enjoying a product from a company doesn't mean you have to blindly accept anything the company does. That's just pathetic.