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 457184
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Consistency bypass
by manjabes on Wed 12th Jan 2011 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Consistency bypass"
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

I WAS going to enjoy the show without participating, until this...

People use Flash. No one uses or needs h.264. It's as simple as that.


I use h264, and, seeing that my camera produces videos in exactly that format, I need h264.
So there!
As simple as that, indeed.

Now, on a more serious note, this is just hilarious. All those people getting twisted about how HTML5 video would not need that ugly icky dastardly Flash plug-in to be played, so that we could "get rid of Flash once and for all" should be awfully worried about now.

Because, the way things appear to be going, after all the bickering has ended, we still have Flash for playing videos on the web (because that's got a near 100% install base) and some looney tunes that fight amongst themselves which codec should be THE Ultimate Killer of Flash while at the same time trying to convince the outside world to drop Flash and start using "web video" with x codecs fragmented over an indeterminate installbase. Riiiight...

Edited 2011-01-12 10:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Consistency bypass
by WereCatf on Wed 12th Jan 2011 10:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Consistency bypass"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Because, the way things appear to be going, after all the bickering has ended, we still have Flash for playing videos on the web (because that's got a near 100% install base) and some looney tunes that fight amongst themselves which codec should be THE Ultimate Killer of Flash while at the same time trying to convince the outside world to drop Flash and start using "web video" with x codecs fragmented over an indeterminate installbase. Riiiight...

Well, with WebM the situation is actually a lot better than it is now with H.264+Flash: almost all the major browsers support WebM, even IE after you install the WebM codec yourself. That leaves only Safari out of the equation and means that everyone else can drop Flash for web video. And as we know Apple doesn't like Flash they don't have much choice other than to start supporting WebM themselves too and then it'll be supported by all major browsers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Consistency bypass
by segedunum on Wed 12th Jan 2011 13:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Consistency bypass"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I use h264, and, seeing that my camera produces videos in exactly that format, I need h264. So there! As simple as that, indeed.

Good for you. Unfortunately, h.264 has no critical mass of usage on the web, which is what that was about.

It's funny seeing all of these clueless idiots wading into this saying that they use h.264 for this and that. As Google rolls out WebM support for Google, and you get devices that can use WebM and upload straight to sites like YouTube natively with no conversion, your h.264 devices are going to get ever more marginalised.

...and some looney tunes that fight amongst themselves which codec should be THE Ultimate Killer of Flash while at the same time trying to convince the outside world to drop Flash and start using "web video" with x codecs fragmented over an indeterminate installbase. Riiiight...

Blame the h.264 loonies. They created a format that not everyone could use and so was never likely to have enough of an installed base. Flash? It's a necessary evil for now, and for backwards compatibility. That's all. Flash is also used for other things besides video.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Consistency bypass
by apoclypse on Wed 12th Jan 2011 14:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Consistency bypass"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Unfortunately, h.264 has no critical mass of usage on the web, which is what that was about.


Again this is not true. 60%-70% of online video (Netflix, youtube, VImeo, etc) use h.264. People are confusing the container with the codec. While most video is delivered via flash or silverlight, it is usually encoded with H.264 and delivered within a flash container. Especially HD flash streams. This is one of the main reason why H.264 is even being used with html5. If you already have your video in h.264 format inside a flash container then you can serve the exact same video inside of an mp4 container without having to re-eoncode anything. That's one of the main reasons why its being used heavily on the web now. Content producers use equipment and software that natively supports the format and it takes very little effort on their part to use the same encoded video and repurpose for the web. Its as simple as that.

All of this WebM is open jargon is not going to change the content industries mind. You are still going to see Netflix video encoded in h.264/vp-1. You are still going to see anything above 480p encoded with h.264 period. If we are talking about small youtube like clips then yeah WebM would work nicely. HOwever most video that users actually want to get to is already behind a proprietary wall (Flash, silverlight). Google dropping h.264 changes nothing. All it really does is make it harder for content producers. Some/most won't even bother, they will just go back to flash which they were already using as a failover anyway.

IMO, this is Google propping up Flash to protect their ad dollars. Even if they were to remove Flash from Chrome (which I highly doubt) content producers will fall back to the tried and true "this page requires the flash plugin please download from Adobe's website".

Thom, as usual, is off his rocker. He eschews practicality for idealism. Great you have your open video standard, but it will become the standard that no one uses (like ogg/vorbis), they will most likely stick with Flash, and that is five steps backwards imo. The point of an open video format for the web, at least to me, is to be able to view video regardless off what you use. I want to be able to watch the same video on my phone and on my computer without requiring a plugin. That reality is here now with h.264.

Reply Parent Score: 2