Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 16:50 UTC
Internet & Networking Microsoft did two things today. First, it released an H.264 plugin for HTML5 video for Google's Chrome web browser which makes use of Media Foundation. The usefulness of this plugin is limited, however, since it's only for Windows 7 users. Much more interesting is that Microsoft has opened the door to out-of-the-box WebM/VP8 support in Internet Explorer 9.
Thread beginning with comment 460869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Fri 4th Feb 2011 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus
Member since:
2010-05-19

What are you trying to say?
So there many users of a legacy OS.
So many of them aren't using a good browser.

AND?

Do you have a point?

Edited 2011-02-04 03:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Fri 4th Feb 2011 05:28 in reply to "RE[8]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What are you trying to say? So there many users of a legacy OS. So many of them aren't using a good browser. AND? Do you have a point?


Absolutely there is a point.

If you have a website, and you wish to put a video on it, you have to ask yourself "what is the best method for reaching the most users"?

At the moment, the answer is "Flash, with video encoded in H.264". This will cost you however, because you have to pay royalties for sending out video encoded in H.264.

There is at the moment a big push on to move to HTML5, and get rid of the requirement for a Flash plugin for browser clients. If YouTube switch over to HTML5, this will start to happen in a big way. The answer to your question could change ... Flash may soon become no longer the best way to deliver video.

If that happens and users start dropping Flash support in their web browsers, what would be the best way to deliver your video to the most users then?

Given the large number of users still running XP, the answer to this question would then become "HTML5/WebM". This has a bonus advantage to you because you no longer need to pay royalties for your videos sent over the web.

This is the point.

Edited 2011-02-04 05:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Fri 4th Feb 2011 05:36 in reply to "RE[9]: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...Perhaps SAYING that would have helped, because nothing in your original post(s) indicated anything of that nature.

Not even close.

Troll.

Go away.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Happy as Enduser
by brichpmr on Fri 4th Feb 2011 10:42 in reply to "RE[9]: Happy as Enduser "
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

XP will only decrease over time, so it is not a valid reason to push a video format going forward. You have to face the reality that H.264 is already a defacto standard for quality video in just about every arena (web and non-web).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Happy as Enduser
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Feb 2011 14:12 in reply to "RE[9]: Happy as Enduser "
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Stop pretending that there are a huge number of users who care about HTML5 video support.

Those who don't have a browser that is capable of playing WebM (IE7/8), will mostly likely have their content served to them in Flash instead.

It is a few lines of Javascript to detect whether a browser can do html 5 video.

Stop making up problems that won't actually exist.

Reply Parent Score: 2