Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 18:34 UTC
Apple Well, this is interesting. Apple has released iOS 6 beta 4, and it removes one of the staples of iOS, included since its very first release with the first iPhone: beta 4 does not include the YouTube application. YouTube is owned by Google, so that could be an explanation. However, unless Google has its own iOS YouTube application ready, iOS 6 could lead to a lot of unhappy iPhone and iPad users. The large websites with sources inside Apple are probably hard at work trying to find out what's going on here - could just be a bug, or maybe a way to gauge public response by causing news sites and blogs to post about it. Huh. Update: thank god for sites with clout: The Verge confirms that Google is working on a stand-alone iOS YouTube application. Good news for users, since the stock one wasn't particularly good to begin with.
Thread beginning with comment 529967
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by d3vi1 on Mon 6th Aug 2012 21:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
d3vi1
Member since:
2006-01-28

Without going into the whole H.264 is evil debate, why would they do that?
It's still the best codec out there. It's supported on all devices using hardware acceleration which for mobile devices is the only reasonable way to go.
Furthermore most content is available in H.264. TV is H.264 in HD and in some countries also for SD.
Digital downloads (legal or pirated) are mostly in H.264 (except for a few that use VC1).
Blu-Ray is wither H.264 or VC1. Based on industry trends, instead of dropping H.264 they should also be adding VC1.
WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. Unless you convince the broadcast industry to also switch to it. Even Mozilla came to their senses and decided to add H.264 support in Firefox. Licensing is not an issue anymore as on OS X you've had support for a long time, Windows supports it natively since Vista and for Linux you have codecs from fluendo.
Somehow, I'm pretty sure that the silicon that comes with most computers of the past 5 years already includes a license for H.264, just like most consumer operating systems.
If you are a WebM fan that wants to live H.264 free, it's your choice, but please don't push it on the rest of us. Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there. Yes, for MPEG5, we should ask for an open codec, but the current standard across all industries is MPEG4. And MPEG4 is everywhere. Even my webcam supports hardware encoding of H.264 just like Intel's newest chips.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 6th Aug 2012 21:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors).

In regards to why Google would need to do the switch. It's needed in order to advance the shift to open codecs. The industry is still dragging in closed codecs era even on the Web. Google is one of the major pushers for shift to open codecs (at least they claimed to be), and they released VP8 as open for that reason. They even promised to drop H.264 from Chrome to advance that cause - but they didn't keep their word so far.

Doing that in Youtube would have a broader impact, and will give a kick to Apple, who is slowing the industry by pushing H.264 on the Web. If Apple is trying to bite Google by limiting access to Youtube on iOS, it's even more appropriate for Google to make a move in the right direction.

Edited 2012-08-06 21:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Tue 7th Aug 2012 05:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Without going into comparative review of merits of VP8 vs H.264 - let's agree they are on par quality wise (or at least close enough to be competitors).

Nobody should agree to that but we can't really discuss why without getting into all the comparatives you want to avoid. Which, by the way, is taking a lot of effort for me to resist doing right now.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by l3v1 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 06:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

It's still the best codec out there [...] WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. [...] Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there.


Uhmm, yeah, so it's a standard thus it's the best? Or it's the best so it's a standard? Is webm a "concept"? Choosing webm makes one ignorant? Betteridge would say no to all that, and rightfully so ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2