Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:21 UTC, submitted by Kroc
Google The WebM project - a VP8 video stream and a Vorbis audio stream wrapped in a Matroska container re-branded as a WebM container - launched by Google, openly supported by every major chip maker, is going to be the major codec for Google's Chrome web browser. Yes, Google is dropping H264 support from the Chrome web browser.
Thread beginning with comment 457075
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not that happy
by vaette on Tue 11th Jan 2011 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not that happy"
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

On top of that, even having an ad on your site makes your video non-free, so even a small site like OSNews technically still has to pay royalties if we were ever to publish a video in H264.

This is blatantly false (I would correctly label it FUD, but that term is much too overused), have a read of the terms yourself: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary....

"where an End User pays directly for video services, i.e., on a Title-by-Title or Subscription basis" remains covered whereas "where remuneration is from other sources" is the case (for "Internet Broadcast AVC") for which royalties are dropped. Find me a source that manages to interpret this as forbidding the use of ads.

If you want to shackle the web to yet another closed, patent-encumbered codec, then you are incredibly short-sighted - or very, very rich.

Who said anything about shackling anything? Already prior to this move WebM-supporting browsers outnumbered h264-supporting browsers. If anything it seems to me that this rhetoric is trying to shackle everyone to WebM, whether or not they have a use-case where h264 is preferable. Choice is good, MPEG LA has their cards on the table and it should be up to each content producer and each content consumer what codecs they prefer and not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Not that happy
by Fergy on Wed 12th Jan 2011 13:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Not that happy"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If anything it seems to me that this rhetoric is trying to shackle everyone to WebM, whether or not they have a use-case where h264 is preferable. Choice is good, MPEG LA has their cards on the table and it should be up to each content producer and each content consumer what codecs they prefer and not.

How can you be shackled to something that you are free to use? Webm has an uphill battle on its hands with H264 being everywhere. The pure web should remain patent free so that everybody can use it without any restrictions.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Not that happy
by MyNameIsNot4Letter on Fri 14th Jan 2011 13:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Not that happy"
MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

Choice is good, MPEG LA has their cards on the table and it should be up to each content producer and each content consumer what codecs they prefer and not.


Choice IS good! And Google is clearly choosing not H.264. In fact it seems Google wants the stay the hell away from it... i do too!

/Uni

Reply Parent Score: 1