Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Internet & Networking Ever since it became clear that Google was not going to push WebM as hard as they should have, the day would come that Mozilla would be forced to abandon its ideals because the large technology companies don't care about an open, unencumbered web. No decision has been made just yet, but Mozilla is taking its first strides to adding support for the native H.264 codecs installed on users' mobile systems. See it as a thank you to Mozilla for all they've done for the web.
Thread beginning with comment 510596
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:58 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

Hopefully they make a least one public attempt to get Google to commit on a specific date for dropping H.264 support in Chrome. I they don't hear an answer or don't like the answer they should just push ahead with this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by judgen on Thu 15th Mar 2012 09:03 in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

I agree with you, but i hope that that horrendouse x264 would be killed off soon for a less CPU/GPU intense standard. Damn, even an dual core atom can not watch even 480p mp4's in that format, and the powerbooks at 1.67ghz can neither. Bad sign of things coming... btw a 1080p xvid runs fine on both machines and filesize is no longer a matter as disk are dirt cheap, why insist on smaller filesizes when space and internet speeds is less of an problem?

Edit, also x264 is not and probably will not be supported in the near future (or ever due to licensing fees) on home theater systems, and even if they were so far none of them have to cpu power to play them well,

Edited 2012-03-15 09:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

One of the selling point of H.264 (sorry for being a pointdexter but x264 is the free H.264 codec/tool done by the VLC lads) compared to VP8 is that basically everything has hardware acceleration for H.264. If you don't, it could be extravagant settings that aren't h/w supported. Eg the iPhone only deals with baseline H.264.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by phoenix on Thu 15th Mar 2012 15:40 in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I agree with you, but i hope that that horrendouse x264 would be killed off soon for a less CPU/GPU intense standard. Damn, even an dual core atom can not watch even 480p mp4's in that format, and the powerbooks at 1.67ghz can neither. Bad sign of things coming... btw a 1080p xvid runs fine on both machines and filesize is no longer a matter as disk are dirt cheap, why insist on smaller filesizes when space and internet speeds is less of an problem?


It depends on the GPU a lot more than the CPU. H.264 really needs hardware decode functions.

My lowly HTPC (AMD Athlon64 1.something GHz, 1.5 GB RAM, Radeon AIW 9800) can play SD x264 videos without issues. Haven't tried 720p x264 videos as we don't have an HDTV of any kind.

You'd think that Intel would have some kind of hardware decode support for H.264 in their IGPs by now.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by ViktorRabe on Fri 16th Mar 2012 20:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
ViktorRabe Member since:
2011-12-30

I agree with you, but i hope that that horrendouse x264 would be killed off soon for a less CPU/GPU intense standard.


You do know, of course, that every damned H.264 encoder has many, many options that allow one to produce videos which can or can not be computing-intensive.

Damn, even an dual core atom can not watch even 480p mp4's in that format,


That's pure bull, and you know it.

btw a 1080p xvid runs fine on both machines and filesize is no longer a matter as disk are dirt cheap, why insist on smaller filesizes when space and internet speeds is less of an problem?


Are you frakkin' kidding me!? The eye-cancer-inducing XviD at 1080p? You have to be a masochist to watch XviD-encoded 1080p.

And your logic has gone bye-bye by this point. It's totally in reverse, actually. Because disk space is cheap we should accept a vastly inferior codec? What the hell are you smoking? As novel as the concept may be to you: smaller file size actually often enough means better quality. Why do you think x264 has introduced 10-bit encoding? Because it improves the quality. And said quality improvement -- meaning better compressibility -- brings down the file size.

Edit, also x264 is not and probably will not be supported in the near future (or ever due to licensing fees) on home theater systems, and even if they were so far none of them have to cpu power to play them well,


What the HELL are you talking about? First, x264 is an ENCODER, not a CODEC. Second, H.264 IS SUPPORTED. Every damned multimedia playback device -- like the Western Digital TV Live -- can play back H.264. Open Source be thanked.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by zima on Sun 18th Mar 2012 14:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

i hope that that horrendouse x264 would be killed off soon for a less CPU/GPU intense standard. Damn, even an dual core atom can not watch even 480p mp4's in that format, and the powerbooks at 1.67ghz can neither. Bad sign of things coming...

Either you're doing something very wrong, or you're making things up.

480p H264 file on a decade-old Athlon XP 1.46 GHz that I keep around ...hovers close to 50% CPU usage in software decoding via SMPlayer, with 2-3 year old build of MPlayer underneath - so while quite efficient, not even exactly the fastest decoder around.
When checking out, half a decade ago, the presumably then fastest software decoder (CoreAVC), this machine could actually borderline play 720p (some not really, some it managed but with 90+ % CPU usage - differences probably from various H264 profiles)

Then there's single core Atom netbook of my buddy, able to play 480p H264 similarly fine.

btw a 1080p xvid runs fine on both machines and filesize is no longer a matter as disk are dirt cheap, why insist on smaller filesizes when space and internet speeds is less of an problem?

Space and bandwidths matter more with push for ~mobile (plus your view about internet speeds might very well be a very Swedish perspective)

Edit, also x264 is not and probably will not be supported in the near future (or ever due to licensing fees) on home theater systems, and even if they were so far none of them have to cpu power to play them well,

What? Virtually every current home theater supports H264: every Bluray player does - and those are virtually all current home theater systems that matter (but it's not like DIY HTPCs have any issues with H264). And "DVD formatted like & using codecs of Bluray" discs (aka: AVCHD or AVCREC) give very nice results on those.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by fithisux on Fri 16th Mar 2012 11:00 in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

Google should give up H264. Moreover if HW is vp8 friendly we will also see more open drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 2