Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Dec 2010 22:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Mozilla & Gecko clones Both Apple and Microsoft are betting on H264 for HTML5 video, while Firefox and Opera focus on WebM and Chrome does both. Microsoft, however, is kind of an oddball; they first stated they would limit HTML5 video support in Internet Explorer 9 to H264, excluding all other codecs, but later made an exception for WebM, as long as the user installs the WebM codec. Now there's a new move by Microsoft: a Firefox plugin that allows the browser to hook into Windows 7's native video framework to provide H264 support.
Thread beginning with comment 453747
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
writing on the wall
by TechGeek on Wed 15th Dec 2010 22:24 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I'd say the writing is on the wall. No one wants to deal with h264 or its problems. Google is a big supplier of content and they are pushing WebM. What content does Microsoft have to leverage? MSNBC? There is also the issue that flash isn't going away. Making h264 a third place loser. But thats just my opinion....

Reply Score: 2

RE: writing on the wall
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Dec 2010 23:06 in reply to "writing on the wall"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'd say the writing is on the wall. No one wants to deal with h264 or its problems. Google is a big supplier of content and they are pushing WebM. What content does Microsoft have to leverage? MSNBC? There is also the issue that flash isn't going away. Making h264 a third place loser. But thats just my opinion....


"Flash" is not an alternative to H.264, but rather an alternative to HTML5.

WebM is an alternative to H.264.

Right now Flash videos very often are encoded in H.264. Adobe have made a commitment to also allowing Flash videos to be encoded in WebM, but Adobe hasn't put that capability in their player as yet.

H.264 has wide support in hardware (graphics cards), but it is by no means universal.

WebM support in hardware chipsets is only just beginning to arrive.
http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/12/chips-delivers-vp8-hd-video-har...
http://www.design-reuse.com/news/24961/dual-hd-video-ip-core-vp8.ht...

For those graphics cards with a GPU, but no actual video decoder built in, it is possible still to implement video acceleration via the use of shaders. On Linux anyway, the Gallium3D drivers and state trackers to implement this is still in work. The following page shows that most GPUs in the ATI range do not have video decode hardware support (UVD), but that most GPUs apart from the two earliest will support video decode (when it is finished) using the 3D engine (shaders).
http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
(The orange cells with the text "WIP (gallium)" mean that this capability is still in work, the software for it within the Gallium3D driver is still being written).

Current hardware decoders built in to the GPUs typically would support only H.264. This article is about a plugin for Firefox on Windows that would let Firefox access such a decoder (on Windows only, only where it existed, which means only on recent graphics cards).

In order to support WebM video decode acceleration for most cards today it is necessary to program a state tracker which could use the shaders. This has to be part of the 3D graphics capability, which means on Windows it would have to go into directx.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Microsoft to support that.

Edited 2010-12-15 23:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: writing on the wall
by smashIt on Wed 15th Dec 2010 23:30 in reply to "RE: writing on the wall"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't hold your breath waiting for Microsoft to support that.


why should they?
there are enough codecs out there that use the media-framework in windows
if ms provides the plugin to connect ff to those codecs its a win-win situation

ms can brag that there is h264 support on win-ff, and ff can brag with all the other codecs besides h264 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: writing on the wall
by Lennie on Thu 16th Dec 2010 14:51 in reply to "RE: writing on the wall"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I would say, Flash is a fallback method for HTML5. Anything else can probably be ignored.

Hopefully they will start supporting WebM soon as they said they would.

OK, the iPhone (iPad ?) is a problem, it doesn't support anything else then H.264.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: writing on the wall
by FishB8 on Wed 15th Dec 2010 23:43 in reply to "writing on the wall"
FishB8 Member since:
2006-01-16

There is also the issue that flash isn't going away. Making h264 a third place loser. But thats just my opinion....



Your opinion is painfully misled and un-informed. What codec do you think is used for the video streams inside the majority of all those flash videos? (Hint: it's a third place looser)

Edited 2010-12-15 23:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: writing on the wall
by westlake on Thu 16th Dec 2010 06:55 in reply to "writing on the wall"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

I'd say the writing is on the wall. No one wants to deal with h264 or its problems.


H.264 is deeply entrenched in the world beyond the web. Home video. Professional production. Broadcast, cable and sattelite distribution. Industrial applications and video security.

The odds are damn near certain that the WebM video on YouTube is nothing but a transcode.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: writing on the wall
by lemur2 on Thu 16th Dec 2010 10:33 in reply to "RE: writing on the wall"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'd say the writing is on the wall. No one wants to deal with h264 or its problems.


H.264 is deeply entrenched in the world beyond the web. Home video. Professional production. Broadcast, cable and sattelite distribution. Industrial applications and video security.

The odds are damn near certain that the WebM video on YouTube is nothing but a transcode.


Which, of course, is the way that video for all new codecs is first produced.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: writing on the wall
by TechGeek on Fri 17th Dec 2010 15:30 in reply to "RE: writing on the wall"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I'd say the writing is on the wall. No one wants to deal with h264 or its problems.


H.264 is deeply entrenched in the world beyond the web. Home video. Professional production. Broadcast, cable and sattelite distribution. Industrial applications and video security.

The odds are damn near certain that the WebM video on YouTube is nothing but a transcode.



You are right. But all of those cases are instances where the cost of licensing can and will be passed on to the consumer. When you have a free industry, such as most web content and free software, licensing issues become very ugly.

Reply Parent Score: 6