OSNews

Because better quality would take longer to load. G4tv.com's Flash videos are very good quality, but they take way too long to load on a 768kbps DSL connection.

People like YouTube since it loads relatively fast and there's just so many videos uploaded.

so in the end its a known brand, and one get a kind of mental inertia or "black hole"?

because youtube says you need to use this codec, its clear its not good for the future requirements, as can be seen by apple contracting them to re-encode all that youtube content to the AVC codec for their new venture.

if youtube allowed bog standard AVC CIF/pip/sd main profile encoding then people would use that instead,
as AVC gives a far better quality for a far smaller filesize, and thats got to be a good thing to save bandwidth for everyone, with the added bonus its better than your old good enough, and sets a new better 'good enough for TODAY and the future.

youtube dont allow AVC/H.264 on their site (yet?) perhaps in time they will.

dont equate AVC/H.264 to only HD 720 and 1080I/P content, its not.

infact its very good for your average 500mbit/s SD content, and even lower, make your encoed/trancode an even smaller screen size and you can lower your bitrates and still end up with a FAR better filesize to quality ratio than any of the other codecs today and that includes DivX.

the one time your old-hat DivX is good for you is for play back video on the old 500mhz laptops you might have around doing nothing useful today, AVC and the coreAVC codec is all you need for anything faster if your justencoding to CIF/PIP type screensizes and most SD content.

dont just sit there, go get a copy of the x264 if your on windows take any mpeg2 DVB-t/-s TV capture you might have laying around and encode it to SD or below size and at a bitrate of 500kbit/s to se for yourself.

Edited 2007-12-17 09:30