Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Apr 2011 09:20 UTC
Google The revolution has begun! Web video will be freed from the shackles of the MPEG-LA and the dreaded claws of patents and incomprehensible licenses! Sorry, I got a little carried away there. Anywho, YouTube has announced all new videos uploaded to the site will be transcoded into WebM, and that the most important part of the site's catalogue is already available in WebM.
Thread beginning with comment 470649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by liber
by liber on Wed 20th Apr 2011 09:41 UTC
liber
Member since:
2008-10-26

I have been using the html5 version of youtube for a while now, and I must say, i can't really notice any difference, except for less CPU usage.

For youtube videos no one will notice a difference anyway, and webm is from an ideology standpoint the better choice.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by liber
by Adurbe on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:24 in reply to "Comment by liber"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

people will notice when they can no longer play the vids. This is particularly true on 'alternative' OS where the browsers might not be updated to support the new format.

Ok, I know its a small minority, but its annoying none the less.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by liber
by lemur2 on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by liber"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

people will notice when they can no longer play the vids. This is particularly true on 'alternative' OS where the browsers might not be updated to support the new format.

Ok, I know its a small minority, but its annoying none the less.


When YouTube first began, people would visit the site for the first time and many would see no videos. The site would explain that they needed a plug-in for their browser, and it gave a link to Adobe's Flash Player.

When YouTube moves to WebM, people using Firefox 4, Opera, Chrome or Chromium (on any OS) will have no such a problem. People who are using IE9 or Safari ... would see a message that they needed a codec for their system, and they would be given a link to Google's codec download site.

The preliminary version of which is here:
http://www.webmproject.org/code/#webm-repositories

Where is there a problem?

Edited 2011-04-20 10:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by liber
by Spiron on Wed 20th Apr 2011 11:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by liber"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

I would like to know what you classify as 'alternate'. Linux, BSD and most Unix variations can get the up-to-date browsers easily. Those of you using Haiku, i think there are updated browsers available, but not being a haiku user i am not quite sure. Any other 'alternate' OS's will either have a compiled version OR you OS is soo old that you really should upgrade or atleast have one under a virtual machine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by liber
by Laurence on Wed 20th Apr 2011 12:08 in reply to "RE: Comment by liber"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

people will notice when they can no longer play the vids. This is particularly true on 'alternative' OS where the browsers might not be updated to support the new format.

Ok, I know its a small minority, but its annoying none the less.

As opposed to those alternative OSs with full Flash support?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by liber
by bert64 on Wed 20th Apr 2011 12:13 in reply to "RE: Comment by liber"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

People on such alternative platforms almost certainly don't have flash and might not have an h.264 decoder, and even if they do its probably not correctly licensed...
At least with WebM, it becomes relatively easy to bring support for it to these alternative platforms, and you can bet that such support will be rapidly ported to any platform still seeing active development.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by liber
by twitterfire on Thu 21st Apr 2011 14:19 in reply to "Comment by liber"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I have been using the html5 version of youtube for a while now, and I must say, i can't really notice any difference, except for less CPU usage.


There is some difference: Flash is hardware accelerated while Webm is not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by liber
by baryluk on Thu 21st Apr 2011 14:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by liber"
baryluk Member since:
2010-01-02

Really?. What is hardware accelerated in flash? video decompression pipeline, scalling? On which operating systems and what hardware?

It is strange, but on my machine webm works much better, so i can watch now HD content, or other much more smoother (fullframerate instead of the slideshow and killing whole computer), and better integrated in to the webpage (including resizing, scrolling issues in flash, keyboard and mouse hijacking by flash).

Reply Parent Score: 2