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 470745
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What Youtube SHOULD do!!
by graig on Thu 21st Apr 2011 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What Youtube SHOULD do!!"
graig
Member since:
2010-09-18

"Shoving off h.264 isn't that far away.

Remember how Adobe announced long, long ago that they'd support WebM in Flash? If they'd finally make true on that promise, YouTube could very well just switch off h.264 support without affecting it's user-base.

...save for most current-gen mobile phones and tablets which can't view WebM videos either because their manufacturer is stubborn and no one can do the job for them (iOS and WP7 devices) or because devices do not get updated to the latest firmware (Android devices without Flash)

So a few more years to wait...
"

it's not because the manufacturer is stubborn. last i checked they don't even make a hardware decoder for webm. which is why google shouldn't force webm down everyones throats. it's not like webm isn't covered by patents. as long as youtube keeps supporting h.264 while we have phones and devices that can decode it, then i'm ok with this.

i personally think they should just use h.264 for everything. 1. patents don't last forever. 2. h.264 has broad hardware support. from blueray players, to tablets and android phones, iphone, car stereos. 3. i know some people are like, but firefox wont include h.264. well then that's what plugins are for.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

i personally think they should just use h.264 for everything. 1. patents don't last forever. 2. h.264 has broad hardware support. from blueray players, to tablets and android phones, iphone, car stereos. 3. i know some people are like, but firefox wont include h.264. well then that's what plugins are for.


I personally think people should use WebM for the web (which BTW has nothing to do with blueray players or car stereos).

Patents will last longer than h264 does.

There is better support (without plugins) in browsers for WebM than h264.

Not only Firefox won't include h264, neither will Opera or Chrome.

There is a WebM Media Foundation codec available from Google so that if this codec is installed then even IE9 can support WebM without a plugin.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/application-development/2011/03/16/goog...

They're coming.

It's not like webm isn't covered by patents


Which patents are those, and more importantly, are they held by anyone other than Google? Without specific patents, its a bit-o-FUD.

patents don't last forever.


If I can use a patent, without paying a license fee I have no problem with it. But If I do have to pay, then well the amount of time the patent lasts very much does matter. Its like saying you pay taxes only while you're alive.

I'm willing to bet that there will be broad hardware support for WebM before there the patents will expire on h264.

Edited 2011-04-21 21:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4