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 458480
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Reasonable overview
by brichpmr on Mon 17th Jan 2011 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Reasonable overview"
brichpmr
Member since:
2006-04-22

"There is no guarantee that WebM won't be subjected to the patent test down the road.


Ditto. h.264... Can you guys all let this one go? The patent issue and who is violating what or whatever will either never come up or it will get settled in court. Either way it is not worth discussing at this point.

There is no way that they would voluntarily replace this high quality content with WebM.[q/]

Ok... So what?

[q]They are a prime example of a content provider beaming to the entire world, and they are using the best tools to accomplish this. Millions of us users aren't looking to relinquish the long-existing quality of H.264 video codecs unless you (or anyone) can provide a compelling proof that WebM is equal to or better than H.264 in terms of quality....haven't seen it from any source yet. Arguably (in the real world) H.264 is the defacto standard already.


If DRM is important to you, you HAVE to use Flash or Silverlight and currently could not switch to WebM even if you wanted to. If you already use h.264 and you use Flash do deliver it... there is no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 and use the video tag with Flash fallback, there is STILL no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 exclusively with the video tag, you still don't need to switch to WebM, you just won't get Chrome users (just like you don't get Firefox users already).

See the pattern here...

In fact, if you consider Flash as a fallback delivery mechanism acceptable (you pretty much have to if you are serving h.264 content and want to support Firefox) - there is no reason to EVER switch to WebM.

Why are you arguing again?

ps. You did not address a single one of my previous points concerning the problems WebM solves.... How about we discuss REAL issues instead of non-issues?
"

WebM, arguably, doesn't solve anything....just another solution to a non-existant problem, imho.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Mon 17th Jan 2011 01:45 in reply to "RE[6]: Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

WebM, arguably, doesn't solve anything....just another solution to a non-existant problem, imho.


And I thought you were actually trying to engage in a debate over the issue... If you are content with sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA then I am fine with ignoring you.

Let me know if you change your mind.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Reasonable overview
by brichpmr on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Reasonable overview"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"WebM, arguably, doesn't solve anything....just another solution to a non-existant problem, imho.


And I thought you were actually trying to engage in a debate over the issue... If you are content with sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA then I am fine with ignoring you.

Let me know if you change your mind.
"
Whether one is using an Android device or an iPhone, I would assert that the best available video experience is due to the availability of hardware-accelerated H.264. Unless anyone can make a compelling argument for WebM as a replacement now.....not in some imaginary future...well....Hmmm..

Reply Parent Score: 1