Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:33 UTC
Google I didn't plan on this, but there's really nothing I can do. Unless you want me to write about the upcoming ten billionth download from the iOS App Store, you'll have to settle for this. On the Chromium blog, Google has clarified its decision to drop H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, and in it, Google basically repeats the things that those concerned about the future of video on the web have been saying for a long time now: H.264 on the web kills innovation.
Thread beginning with comment 458044
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

If you think that Apple not supporting Flash is so wrong how can you possible think Google's move is right?


I couldn't give a toss about Apple supporting Flash, or not supporting Flash. Whatever.

Where Apple went hooribly wrong is not supporting open standard royalty-free codecs such as WebM (Theora too would have been nice, but not as important).

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by flanque on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:50 in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Normally I find myself not agreeing with you but on this one I do. The web needs to be open and free.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by robco on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:53 in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
robco Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm not sure why Apple is getting dragged into this. So far the only mention is Steve Jobs expressing concern about potential patent issues. Actually, Apple has stood up to MPEG on behalf of users (the delay of QT 6 a few years back). They have no problem paying the license fee.

So far WebM is full of promise, but is it ready for prime time? What is Google's time frame for switching over? So far we've hard of hardware acceleration, but it hasn't shipped yet. Until that happens, Apple won't touch it.

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free? If I want to open a retail store, I have to pay for the inventory to stock the store. Even if I make everything myself, I have to pay for the materials to make my wares. If I'm starting a video website, why should I expect everything to cost nothing?

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away. If WebM takes off, Apple will probably support it. It's not as if they don't ship with support for other FOSS software. But in the here and now, does it really make sense for Apple to jump on board this very minute without knowing if it will be a viable alternative to H.264? Why spend the time and money if it's just going to flop?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:36 in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not sure why Apple is getting dragged into this. So far the only mention is Steve Jobs expressing concern about potential patent issues. Actually, Apple has stood up to MPEG on behalf of users (the delay of QT 6 a few years back). They have no problem paying the license fee.

So far WebM is full of promise, but is it ready for prime time? What is Google's time frame for switching over? So far we've hard of hardware acceleration, but it hasn't shipped yet. Until that happens, Apple won't touch it.

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free? If I want to open a retail store, I have to pay for the inventory to stock the store. Even if I make everything myself, I have to pay for the materials to make my wares. If I'm starting a video website, why should I expect everything to cost nothing?

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away. If WebM takes off, Apple will probably support it. It's not as if they don't ship with support for other FOSS software. But in the here and now, does it really make sense for Apple to jump on board this very minute without knowing if it will be a viable alternative to H.264? Why spend the time and money if it's just going to flop?


Firefox4, Opera and Chrome already support WebM. Google have already converted over 80% of YouTube videos to WebM. WebM is cost-free to everybody for providing video on the web. For a software vendor like Mozilla, supporting WebM and not H.264 is a cost saving of $5 million per year, and it is also the only way Mozilla can ship a capability for playing video embedded within their open source applications.

Hardware acceleration for WebM decoding has indeed started to ship recently.

http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/12/chips-delivers-vp8-hd-video-har...

http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-...

WebM is supported in more browsers (Opera, Firefox4 and Chrome) out of the box than h.264.

Although they haven't announced it yet, no doubt Google are planning for YouTube to switch over to WebM only after a transition period.

WebM isn't going to flop.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by Rehdon on Sat 15th Jan 2011 08:54 in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free?

Not "everything": the technologies that are the foundation for a free Web/Internet. H.264 is by definition unsuitable because it's not royalty free: what if you had to pay to load every HTML page? That's exactly what might happen in 2015, as the masters of H.264 might ask money both for encoding and decoding of video streams.

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away.

If the new technology is fundamental for the inner working and evolution of a free Web/Internet, they're surely right to do so, and I'll join the choir.

Rehdon

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:35 in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free?

<capitalist>
We don't. Just "some people" are complaining, that Google is cutting some of their development costs. You know, HTML5 video tag has no DRM and probably less than 5% reach. They are, if nothing else, cutting costs.

Edited 2011-01-16 22:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2