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 458104
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Reasonable overview
by molnarcs on Sat 15th Jan 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

Your rants are completely insane. How on Earth will Google shut out Apple with a COMPLETELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT (no license fees, no royalties, free source code)codec?

WebM was announced with a promise of support from most major hardware vendors. Opera, a tiny Norwegian company has been supporting it for a while, as does Mozilla Firefox. Your entire argument is based on some ridiculous preconception that APPLE cannot support WebM. They can. They could. They could have supported it YESTERDAY. They can support it tomorrow. They can provide support for all existing iDevices in a simple update.

No one is holding a gun at APPLE's head preventing them to support WebM. Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it, and yet, you are ranting against Google (and indirectly Firefox, Opera, and any FLOSS project that actually cannot support h.264 for licensing reasons). What the f--k is wrong with you?

And lastly, you have it completely backwards with Adobe Flash. We'll need flash precisely because H.264 cannot be shipped built in in many browsers. We need flash (well, content providers to be accurate) for its DRM. The latter problem could only be solved if another container system came along that supported DRM. The former could ONLY BE SOLVED IF A FREE VIDEO FORMAT became the standard.

Anyway, APPLE is not magically prevented from supporting WebM, so your entire line of argument that this is an insidious move against Apple is stupid. If Apple were to suffer in any measurable way from WebM becoming widespread, they could simply CHOOSE to support it any time they wanted.

Edited 2011-01-15 09:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:39 in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Your rants are completely insane. How on Earth will Google shut out Apple with a COMPLETELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT (no license fees, no royalties, free source code)codec?

WebM was announced with a promise of support from most major hardware vendors. Opera, a tiny Norwegian company has been supporting it for a while, as does Mozilla Firefox. Your entire argument is based on some ridiculous preconception that APPLE cannot support WebM. They can. They could. They could have supported it YESTERDAY. They can support it tomorrow. They can provide support for all existing iDevices in a simple update.

No one is holding a gun at APPLE's head preventing them to support WebM. Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it, and yet, you are ranting against Google (and indirectly Firefox, Opera, and any FLOSS project that actually cannot support h.264 for licensing reasons). What the f--k is wrong with you?

And lastly, you have it completely backwards with Adobe Flash. We'll need flash precisely because H.264 cannot be shipped built in in many browsers. We need flash (well, content providers to be accurate) for its DRM. The latter problem could only be solved if another container system came along that supported DRM. The former could ONLY BE SOLVED IF A FREE VIDEO FORMAT became the standard.

Anyway, APPLE is not magically prevented from supporting WebM, so your entire line of argument that this is an insidious move against Apple is stupid. If Apple were to suffer in any measurable way from WebM becoming widespread, they could simply CHOOSE to support it any time they wanted.


This post was so spot on the money it was worth repeating in its entirity, and so I have.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by asdf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:50 in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

Heh, I was about to write the same thing. For existing devices, software update can provide somewhat less efficient but still working support. There's no difference between the apple devices and whatever else which exists today including androids. For future devices, apple can just add the dang support like everyone else.

It's not like the transition is gonna happen tomorrow. It's going to be staggered over several years and devices which don't have hardware support today doesn't matter all that much in the longer perspective.

There is no reason to allow apple and its weird subset of userbase to hold back progress of everyone else.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by Headrush on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:43 in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it

These are the kinds of statements people take and run with it.

WebM wasn't an option at the initial iDevice startup and even now hardware support is just appearing. So it wasn't really a choice not to use it or support it. per sa.

There is also nothing stoping Apple from supporting this in the future, and Flash as well. At the current time both WebM and Flash weren't suitable for the battery lasting devices Apple was selling.

The iPad especially is a content consuming device and if/when there is a mass conversion to WebM with no h.264 fallback you'll see iOS devices change.

Reply Parent Score: 2