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 457998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

[q
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Look up the patent policy at w3.org.
[/q]
irrelevant. It can exist on the web and be closed, otherwise flash would be incompatible. I don't like flash but it is part of the web.


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.

Ok WebM as a container is sponsored by Google, but WebM uses the VP8 codec, that was developed by On2 which Google purchased the company. So it is more then a sponsor they owned it and then released it to be open. I could care less if Google is a large content provider, that is why I didn't comment on that. I was referring to OTHER companies, not Google.


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

Oh, I see. Again most people don't know the web is supposed to be OPEN. It is not completely open as long as there are closed parts of it. And that was my point, who cares as long is the consumer gets a good experience.

You obviously don't get what I am saying and I am too tired to try to explain so I am done with this.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...I am done with this.

Thank GOD...

Reply Parent Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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

irrelevant. It can exist on the web and be closed, otherwise flash would be incompatible. I don't like flash but it is part of the web.
"
I never said it can't exist. I said it's incompatible with an open web.

Ok WebM as a container is sponsored by Google, but WebM uses the VP8 codec, that was developed by On2 which Google purchased the company.

VP8 was released as part of WebM.

Oh, I see. Again most people don't know the web is supposed to be OPEN. It is not completely open as long as there are closed parts of it. And that was my point, who cares as long is the consumer gets a good experience.

The point is that the fundamental building blocks need to be open.

Reply Parent Score: 1