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 470670
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What Youtube SHOULD do!!
by Spiron on Wed 20th Apr 2011 11:10 UTC 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

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

That depends. I tried to upgrade to Firefox 4.0 a week or two ago but ended up switching back to 3.6 after spending two hours tracking down an addon-related bug and discovering that, on a fresh profile, it was triggered by a very specific mix of over a dozen different addons I wasn't willing to give up.

I kept records, so if they don't release a 4.0.1 that fixes it, maybe I'll try to muddle my way through gdb to figure out what causes it one my exams are over.

Of course, I also have a copy of Chromium I can always fire up if need be.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

I think this has more to do with the fact that the html5 standard ISNT FINISHED and every different engine has its own way of displaying certain tags and no engine supports exactly the same tags as every other engine. Thus when designing a page that is intended to be used by people using all sorts of browsers devs build the site in html4 to make sure that everyone gets the same experience. Thats not to say that there aren't devs who didn't build because of your reason, it just unlikely that that was the main reason

Reply Parent Score: 1