Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 20:31 UTC
Internet & Networking And the fallout from Google's decision to drop H.264 support from its Chrome web browser continues to fall. Opera's Haavard - speaking on his own behalf - slammed the article which appeared on Ars Technica earlier today, while Micrsoft's Tim Sneath likened Google's move to the president of the United States banning English in favour of Esperanto. Also within, a rant (there's no other word for it) about the disrespect displayed by H.264 proponents towards the very open source community that saved and invigorated the web.
Permalink for comment 457711
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: My own opinion
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Jan 2011 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My own opinion"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

>which is more like 720p or lower video at maybe 2-4Mbit or so. If that is the metric WebM is pretty damn close to on par with h.264.

No, it's not close to h.264. It's visibly worse. Also, you're forgetting how much slower it is to decode webm video. Which is as important as good quality is. If quality won't kill Webm, decoding times for users will. h.264 is already slow to decode and people complain all the time on Vimeo and youtube for HD videos!!! Webm is many, many times slower!

>The argument could be made that for a content producer webm is mostly irrelevant. It is a last leg delivery format. While I'm sure the tools will come they certainly are not here yet.

Content producers are not irrelevant at all to the whole deal. They're in fact a big part of the road to success for webm. WMV is a good format for example when trying to play it back on Windows Media Player, but since it's so slow to decode inside non-MS editors, and it doesn't stream as well as h.264, it never took off.

Edited 2011-01-13 23:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0