Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Jan 2011 17:44 UTC
Internet & Networking With yesterday's news that Google will be dropping H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, the internet was split in half. One one side, there's people who applaud the move, who are happy that Google is pushing an open, royalty-free and unencumbered video codec (irrespective of Google's motivation). On the other side, there are the H.264 supporters, who believe that H.264 is the one and only choice for HTML5 video. One of the most vocal and public figures in the latter group is John Gruber. Following his five questions for Google, here are ten questions for Gruber about WebM, H.264, and standards on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 457960
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
PresentIt
Member since:
2010-02-10

Hey I am all for open standards but you H.264 is a standard in the video world and to remove it from the browser is just plain dumb

H264 is a closed standard. That makes it incompatible with the web.

To make content makers encode the same video with multiple codecs is also dumb. Think about all the waste of storage, time and bandwidth. That's what Google proposes though.

They already are! They are offering videos in several bitrates and resolutions. They might as well do it in an open format.

And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest video content owners, through YouTube.

Sorry but it does not seem reasonable to the content providers just because Google has a bug up its butt.

What utter nonsense. Google is a content provider too!

Reply Parent Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


H264 is a closed standard. That makes it incompatible with the web.

Did I say that it was an OPEN standard? No I said it was a standard and it is. Just because a standard is closed does not mean it is incompatible with the web, THAT is nonsense.


They already are! They are offering videos in several bitrates and resolutions. They might as well do it in an open format.

No, you seem to have trouble reading. The article said encoding (codecs) not bitrates and resolutions. [/q]


And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest video content owners, through YouTube.

And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest privacy offenders too and has their hand in everything related to the web. They have too much power, IMHO.


What utter nonsense. Google is a content provider too!

Thank You. Is it nonsense to Netflix, Vimeo and the others, not to mention the MAJORITY of consumers who do not give a crap if a standard is open or closed only that one day they are going to get a message that they can't play the content because of Google playing internet lord. Consumer confusion is always good, isn't it and no big deal either huh?

Just my Opinion, and you obviously don't agree with it and thats up to you.

Edited 2011-01-14 20:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Just because a standard is closed does not mean it is incompatible with the web, THAT is nonsense.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. Look up the patent policy at w3.org.

No, you seem to have trouble reading. The article said encoding (codecs) not bitrates and resolutions.

The point is that they are already re-encoding videos, so they can just switch to re-encoding to webm instead.

And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest privacy offenders too and has their hand in everything related to the web. They have too much power, IMHO.

Good thing webm is a separate project that's only sponsored by Google, then. Also, you didn't even address the fact that Google is a major content provider when it comes to video.

not to mention the MAJORITY of consumers who do not give a crap if a standard is open or closed

How on earth is that relevant? The requirement for an open web doesn't disappear just because most people don't know or care.

Reply Parent Score: 2