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.
Thread beginning with comment 457713
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: My own opinion
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Jan 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My own opinion"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

I explained this in my previous message. Third party support can't happen for webm, for example, taking the ffmpeg code and writing a codec wrapper around it to work with various editors. The reason is because most of these editors support either AVI or MOV as supported third party containers, and all other codecs that use different containers are not loaded. To add different containers the company that makes the editors itself must add support for it. And that just won't happen, apart for Adobe.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: My own opinion
by robux4 on Thu 13th Jan 2011 23:09 in reply to "RE[6]: My own opinion"
robux4 Member since:
2011-01-13

And that WON'T happen because what? It is NOT a technical reason. It cannot be financial, because that would be a one time operation and a market advantage over the competition. So it's actually a competitive race to be the first to support WebM which will be ubiquitous because that's the only fit for the web. And we all know more and more video usage is moving to the web.

So if all these companies put the brakes on this potential competitive edge, they are simply stupid. Like all big companies missing a shit in technology.

Disclaimer: I'm the creator of Matroska so obviously biased. But I already know by experience that a newcomer can win. Why all the HD files on the web are in .mkv ? Because sutpid MOV could not store AC-3 or DTS alongside H.264. And the tiny HW manufacturer took this opportunity to sell more hardware. Then the big guns realised there is a market. And now at CES there was hardly any TV without native .mkv support.

If the big video editors don't feel the gap, the user demand, someone else will. Sooner or later they will have to follow.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[8]: My own opinion
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Jan 2011 23:24 in reply to "RE[7]: My own opinion"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

You are the author of matroska. And what does that tell you about webm (which is based on matroska)? Your own format is poorly supported by these same video editors mentioned earlier, and you still have faith for webm support by these editors? How many beatings do you have to take until you get it, that either you make the specific codec work yourself and offer it to these companies for free, before you realize that releasing a generic format, or generic implementation is not enough?

Your very own format and experience is a perfect example why webm won't succeed. I'm surprised that you still believe in success after .mkv hasn't managed to get very far itself in terms of editor support. Why would .webm go?

The problem is technical, because as I explained 3 times now, it requires the companies themselves to add .webm container support. And they won't do it, apart from Adobe. The problem becomes technical because third parties can't do it, the editors won't accept their DirectX or Quicktime plugins under the .webm moniker. So that part, IS technical.

And it is financial too. Sony does not have resources to put an engineer to work on webm for example. I know this.

Edited 2011-01-13 23:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: My own opinion
by phoenix on Fri 14th Jan 2011 00:16 in reply to "RE[7]: My own opinion"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And the smaller editors already have support for WebM/VP8, which will put pressure on the larger companies to add support.

Kdenlive got support in May 2010:
http://www.kdenlive.org/forum/webm

OpenShot got support in Sept 2010:
http://www.openshotvideo.com/2010/09/export-html5-webm-video-format...

GStreamer supports WebM so editors like PiTiVi support it.

VLC supports WebM in their player, so it should be supported in their editor.

Sure, maybe none of the big, fancy, corporate, commercial video editors support WebM yet. But that doesn't mean they'll never support it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: My own opinion
by michi on Fri 14th Jan 2011 12:02 in reply to "RE[6]: My own opinion"
michi Member since:
2006-02-04

To add different containers the company that makes the editors itself must add support for it. And that just won't happen, apart for Adobe.


If Google switches YouTube to use WebM exclusively, a sizable fraction of all videos available on the web will use WebM. If this happens, nobody will be able to ignore WebM without losing a lot of market share.

Reply Parent Score: 1