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 457718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: My own opinion
by M.Onty on Thu 13th Jan 2011 23:09 UTC in reply to "My own opinion"
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

So, in my own opinion, Google is right to push WebM over the less open h.264 (you might remember my article about the crazy h.264 license found on ALL video h.264 cameras).

However, I believe that Google with fail with WebM. And while they're failing, the web becomes fragmented.


That top statement seems to have been lost in the (above) increasingly shrill arguments. So, to address that, I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Why are Google right to push a format you believe is doomed to failure?

2) By failure, do you mean a failure to completely replace h.264, or that is will be a flash in the pan format, soon abandoned?

3) Do you regard a fragmented web (with regards to video) to be worse than a web unified under h.264?

Expanding on the last question, it is my opinion that even if WebM cannot replace h.264 and that the best it can do is muddy the waters, it is better this than the wrong kind of unity.

Gratuitously pompous quote coming up ...

"Free men pull in all directions."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: My own opinion
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Jan 2011 23:18 in reply to "RE: My own opinion"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>1) Why are Google right to push a format you believe is doomed to failure?

The act itself is right, it's just the wrong timing, and the wrong codec. But I agree that we need something that's not h264.

>2) By failure, do you mean a failure to completely replace h.264, or that is will be a flash in the pan format, soon abandoned?

I believe it to be a format that won't take over the web, or anything else, because h.264 has better support for ALL sides of the coin. You want TV? check. you want cameras? check. You want online video? check.

>3) Do you regard a fragmented web (with regards to video) to be worse than a web unified under h.264?

Yes. As bad the situation around h.264 patents is, I still prefer to have a unified format that works perfectly well, rather than have fragmentation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: My own opinion
by M.Onty on Fri 14th Jan 2011 01:04 in reply to "RE[2]: My own opinion"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

As bad the situation around h.264 patents is, I still prefer to have a unified format that works perfectly well, rather than have fragmentation.


That's an interesting point of principle, but one which I (and apparently Galvanash; see his mod-up-able thrupence worth here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?457703) would have to disagree with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: My own opinion
by Vanders on Fri 14th Jan 2011 10:36 in reply to "RE[2]: My own opinion"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

As bad the situation around h.264 patents is, I still prefer to have a unified format that works perfectly well, rather than have fragmentation.


Except h.264 doesn't work perfectly well, for the very fundamental reason that you yourself state. The licensing and patent situation for h.264 is diametrically opposed to the W3C's own policy and to the entire concept of an Open web.

Reply Parent Score: 3