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 470664
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What Youtube SHOULD do!!
by lemur2 on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:25 UTC in reply to "What Youtube SHOULD do!!"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

What they should do is delete all the H.264 copies of the video's encoded and then put up a page explaining that IE/Safari/iOS doesn't support WebM and to switch over to a WebM compliant browser such as Chrome, FireFox or Opera. Thus when people find that youtube doesn't work in IE anymore and go looking for an answer they come across the prepared page and upgrade to a better and more compliant browser. This will also force those browsers to include support thus making them better for the general public.


IE9 users won't have a problem:

http://tools.google.com/dlpage/webmmf

It won't be long before Google releases this Media Foundation codec for Windows 7 and Vista, and also they are working on a similar installable codec for OSX, so Safari on Macs also won't have a problem.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: What Youtube SHOULD do!!
by Spiron on Wed 20th Apr 2011 11:10 in reply to "RE: What Youtube SHOULD do!!"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

IE9 is a half-way decent browser. I know that there are people on this site who will murder me for saying such but for the normal 90% of use cases, its fine. It may not support every html5 tag out there BUT how many site would a AVERAGE user visit that include heavy html5 usage. It's not the main concern, IE6-8 users are.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

IE9 is a half-way decent browser. I know that there are people on this site who will murder me for saying such but for the normal 90% of use cases, its fine. It may not support every html5 tag out there BUT how many site would a AVERAGE user visit that include heavy html5 usage. It's not the main concern, IE6-8 users are.


Agreed.

IE8 is currently sitting at about 30% of browsers in use.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201104-201104...

The next highest is Firefox 3.6 with about 20%, but Firefox 3.6 cannot do WebM. However, Firefox 4 is already starting to gain significant share, coming in at 7%. Because it is such a worthwhile upgrade, I would imagine that the majority of Firefox 3.6 users will switch over to Firefox 4 within the month. This would give Firefox 4 up to 25% share, which is 5% shy of IE8.

Firefox 4 (which can guess will reach 25% within a month or so) can do WebM. The next browser after that is Chrome 10, with 16%, then IE7, with 8.5%.

OK, so that brings non-HTML5 browsers IE7 and IE8 up to say 39%, and the highest two HTML5 browsers (within a month or so) up to 41%.

So, within a month or so, on current trends, 80% of browsers will be split between two versions of IE which cannot do HTML5 at all, and two browsers (Chrome 10 and Firefox 4) which can do HTML5/WebM (but not HTML5/h264).

The fortunate thing is that if IE7 or IE8 users do want to visit HTML5 websites, it is the easiest thing for them to simply install either Firefox 4 or Chrome 10, and hey presto they are good to go.

Edited 2011-04-20 11:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

how many site would a AVERAGE user visit that include heavy html5 usage. It's not the main concern, IE6-8 users are.


The reason there aren't more sites out there with heavy html5 usage is precisely because many of those average users have browsers which would be unable to render them. IE has been stifling web innovation for years, and continues to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 4