h.264 is very efficient with network bandwidth. if a large organization like Hulu or CNN tried to implement theora they would spend more in network expenses than they save in licensing costs. this is the reason why google never implemented theora
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Announces 'WebM' Open-Source Video Format, Plans for Android Television Integration
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
h.264 is very efficient with network bandwidth. if a large organization like Hulu or CNN tried to implement theora they would spend more in network expenses than they save in licensing costs. this is the reason why google never implemented theora
Flash didnt use to use h.264. Then this thing called the iPhone came along then all of a sudden all video was h.264.
Yes, you can argue Google was planning an h.264 conversion before the iPhone, but the point is only in recent years has Flash supported h.264
You are right about that.
Many people here forget for the most part companies are not ran by geeks, but are ran by suits with MBAs. Many people making the final decision on which codec to go with will have no idea exactly how it works, and some may not even understand what a codec is. They'll get a high level overview from some geeks who understand it, then they'll get an overview on how each one changes the bottom line from the bean counters and decide. In today's world money speaks volumes.
BUt flash was the default container used by most websites. The industry is moving away form the flash container "Standard" in favor of the HTML5 video tag and some video format (h.264, OGG, WebM).
You should get out sometimes. May broaden your horizons.
Nothing to do with the iPhone, but due to the fact that H.264 has gained wide hardware support in recent years, as well as being adopted by DVB, BluRay, satellite TV, and of course pirates.
This is excellent news. I'm no Google advocate, but their input in this area is important for lots of reasons. Android is really picking up steam now. I doubt if jobs is losing any sleep over it as he's happy to keep the idevices on a higher plane (with correspondingly premium prices), but Google could do a Microsoft here and be ubiquitous in the remainder of the future device marketplace (say 90% or so?).
Maybe one day we could even see Apple allowing a V8 plugin into the iPhone OS? That satisfies those who hate Adobe/Flash, and those who just want to get the full web experience on an Apple device. Everyone's a winner
.
Maybe one day we could even see Apple allowing a V8 plugin into the iPhone OS? That satisfies those who hate Adobe/Flash, and those who just want to get the full web experience on an Apple device. Everyone's a winner
.Yeah, well..., except that Flash is on every computer in every part of the world, and this year on most popular mobiles, except for the iPhone and the iPad.
So, if you want to reach a really broad audience, you wrap your video in Flash. Capish?
Not for long. It seems Adobe is accepting HTML5.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20005351-264.html?tag=mncol;txt
...
Maybe one day we could even see Apple allowing a V8 plugin into the iPhone OS? That satisfies those who hate Adobe/Flash, and those who just want to get the full web experience on an Apple device. Everyone's a winner
Nope, because Flash is used for a lot more than video on the web.
Without Flash and Java, the iPhone and the iPad are significantly limited as web browsing devices. Period.
Is Microsoft really on board?
Doesn't sound like they're 100% on board according to the blog. They're basically saying the user has to install the codec themselves, i.e. they're not distributing WebM/VP8 support in IE9.
Direct link to the Windows Blog: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/.../another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
Big news IMHO.
Doesn't sound like they're 100% on board according to the blog. They're basically saying the user has to install the codec themselves, i.e. they're not distributing WebM/VP8 support in IE9.
Flash is not "on most popular mobiles, except for the iPhone and the iPad" this year.
There is no reason not to do both, as long as the video is encoded in H.264. The additional work to add the option to serve the video to iPhone OS devices using an HTML5 video tag is trivial.
BS.
VP8 is for practical purposes as good as H.264, and it's open. OPEN! It will get better, too, because it's open.
Ironically, as a good fanboy, you probably applauded Apple's taking the web a decade back for their iPad users, by banning Flash and Java from their iPlatform.
Yes, thank you. VP8 is not theora. It's comparable to h264, so much so, from what I've read today, that they are most likely going to be sued by MPEG LA. I think regardless MPEG LA would sue to try to squash the competition through lawsuits. But that's just my not-so inner pessimist.
Chase R said:
Way to paraphrase a blogger! Here, let me try paraphrasing gizmodo:
Yep. h264 guys don't like it, I'm not surprised. And we'll see MPEG LA start doing what it always does: sue the crap out of people. We'll see if Google stands behind it or lets users fend for themselves.
True, Flash is a lot more than video - but I thought we were just talking about codecs here, and more specifically in relation to my previous comment - codecs used on "idevices". Adobe could easily incorporate V8 into Flash if they wish of course.
Personally I don't see Flash disappearing any day now due to desktop dominance, but Google are one of a few companies in a position to offer an alternative with V8, and other surrounding technologies that they are developing. They control a significant chunk of video content and dominate the ad space. If Android gains ubiquity they are in a strong position to push their own standards on these devices.
I posed this question earlier, but didn't get an answer. Isn't the spec final? The spec itself will not improve because it's open. It's Google's implementation of the spec that is open source.
If I am misunderstanding, I am open to better information.
Flash player isn't part of IE by default, as the user has to install the application. My guess is it'll work exactly how it works today when a user in IE tries to view a page that has flash but doesn't have flash player installed. It gets installed without the user having to do much of anything.
If youtube uses HTML5/WebM by default, then IE9 will have the WebM codec installed on the vast majority of its browsers in no time. If any ad company replaces flash with WebM then almost all IE9 users will get a dialog to install WebM within moments of first using the web. Also to make things easier OEMs might include WebM in their machines. I know Dell already comes with Google desktop and Google toolbar, which I have to remove on every PC we order before I set up the PC for the user.
He is wrong. It is not the strongest protection Google could offer. Google could indemnify the users from any patent lawsuits, saying that Google would ultimately be responsible for defending and paying for any lawsuits. It did not, so you are on your own.
I doubt Hulu or any "broadcaster" will use any format that does not offer a good DRM scheme. Therefore, "free" does not mean anything to them. What makes you think VP8 will be any more relevant to the market than FLAC or Theora?
Reading that agreement it could be interpreted as being only free as long as you're using Google software/hardware.. so Apple/MS/RIM etc would all face licence fees.
Lastly, no standard is really open. Google will just use it's position manipulate the standards body. If they want it completely open - give the standard to the american standards institute rather than continuing to maintain it.
Lastly, no standard is really open. Google will just use it's position manipulate the standards body. If they want it completely open - give the standard to the american standards institute rather than continuing to maintain it.
No, it is a final spec. No more improvements. Encoders and decoders may get faster, but that is it. (He is not the only one who says VP8 is not as good as H.264, so you might want to pay attention.)
Besides, you have no protections against patent lawsuits. Feel free to scream "It is open!" to the judge if you get sued, but I doubt it will get you anywhere.
H.264 is not open. What gave you that idea?
Edit: It's not as open as one thinks. This is why Firefox never adopted it.
w00master