Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    The content creators (I'm talking about the movie and tv studios)
    But they are not the content creators.

    They fund the content creators and own the distribution rights. They don't actually create anything, just like music studios don't.

    But you're right, you won't change their mind, just like you won't change the organized crime's position on protection money.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      maybe those alien spaceships reported by that Russian paper are coming to Earth after all :P
      Bad comparison, that actually does have a chance of coming true.

      Comment


      • #18
        Don't make me laugh

        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        But they are not the content creators.

        They fund the content creators and own the distribution rights. They don't actually create anything, just like music studios don't.

        But you're right, you won't change their mind, just like you won't change the organized crime's position on protection money.
        I agree with the way H264 codec is inmplemented.

        If you're a SINGLE HOME USER, you can use the H264 codec FREE-OF-CHARGE to encode your OWN videos, but, IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, like Google, you have to PAY royalities in the future, so, that is most probably the main reason why Google is dropping H264 support from Chrome (I don't know it, I'm not a Chromium/Chrome developer)... (The other one is hipocrisy... )

        Cheers

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by evolution View Post
          Oh no!

          Now that Chrome has been my browser of choice because of full HTML5 support on Linux, they're doing like Mozilla and entering into the "hacker culture" of using only FOSS software...

          Now, there's a question that will need to be answered in the near future: And what about HTML5 support on Youtube? Are they also going to convert their HTML5 "H264 baseline" videos into WebM format? If so, I'll accept the changes and I think is a great step from a major internet company to implement open solutions. Else, I think this will be a serious regression for some Chrome users (like me), and I'll consider to stop using Chrome (I think programs also need to be functional, not just comply to philosophies).

          Cheers
          You know Google OWNS Youtube... I am sure they have it under control. xD

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by evolution View Post
            Oh no!

            Now that Chrome has been my browser of choice because of full HTML5 support on Linux, they're doing like Mozilla and entering into the "hacker culture" of using only FOSS software...

            Now, there's a question that will need to be answered in the near future: And what about HTML5 support on Youtube? Are they also going to convert their HTML5 "H264 baseline" videos into WebM format? If so, I'll accept the changes and I think is a great step from a major internet company to implement open solutions. Else, I think this will be a serious regression for some Chrome users (like me), and I'll consider to stop using Chrome (I think programs also need to be functional, not just comply to philosophies).

            Cheers
            Last time I checked, Google claimed that 80% of YouTube videos had already been converted to WebM.

            Besides, you are using flash (aren't you?) and flash still supports H.264. This battle isn't about current events - it's about the future viability of the open web. The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties, hence H.264 is completely unsuitable.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
              Last time I checked, Google claimed that 80% of YouTube videos had already been converted to WebM.

              Besides, you are using flash (aren't you?) and flash still supports H.264. This battle isn't about current events - it's about the future viability of the open web. The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties, hence H.264 is completely unsuitable.
              Yes, I use Adobe Flash, not because I like it, but because Youtube still forces me to use it. (most sites I visit don't need flash for other things than displaying ads, which I block with Adblock, OC) Try for instance, play any music video from VEVO or other content provider... Or even simpler, try to play any content from (most) youtube "channels". Are they converted to WebM? I don't think so!

              Now another question for you, what do you prefer, to use a plug-in to view your web videos or having that support directly in your browser as a standard? (The answer is quite simple, I think)

              Furthermore, Flash has only acceleration with a "semi-proprietary" video implementation (VDPAU), which only works for a limited group of users (nVidia proprietary driver users).

              Personally, what Google wants to do with Chrome is not a very good decision, because it will make some "semi-useless" plugins (Flash) live longer...

              Cheers

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties
                Like JPEG?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by evolution View Post
                  I agree with the way H264 codec is inmplemented.
                  That means that you support software patents.

                  I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    That means that you support software patents.

                    I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.
                    So, why does ffmpeg have a h264 decoder and distributes it under GPL?

                    Cheers

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by evolution View Post


                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
                      That means that you support software patents.

                      I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.

                      So, why does ffmpeg have a h264 decoder and distributes it under GPL?

                      Cheers
                      That's absolutely irrelevant.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        p.s.: If you want to know more (and you trust Wikipedia) about the H264 / MPEG-4 Part 10 specification, click here.
                        Maybe you'll learn some interesting things...

                        Cheers

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Why don't you brief it for us? Throwing a link with a lot of them words without providing a clue about what your point is doesn't make things very easy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Yes, I use Adobe Flash, not because I like it, but because Youtube still forces me to use it. (most sites I visit don't need flash for other things than displaying ads, which I block with Adblock, OC) Try for instance, play any music video from VEVO or other content provider... Or even simpler, try to play any content from (most) youtube "channels". Are they converted to WebM? I don't think so!
                            The rest will be converted in due time. These videos aren't available as HTML5 H.264, either, they require flash anyway.

                            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            Like JPEG?
                            1. All known JPEG patents expired on 2006
                            2. All previous patent claims have been invalidated
                            3. All current patent claims are likely to be invalidated (check wikipedia for the details)
                            4. W3C helps in investigating and invalidating these patent claims

                            So, no, the H.264 situation is completely different to JPEG. Read this for more details on W3C's patent policy: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                              1. All known JPEG patents expired on 2006
                              Yeah, W3C didn't have an IMG tag before 2006...

                              H.264 patents will expire too. Will you in a few years come back here and say "H.264 patents expired" like you just did with JPEG? No, don't think so. JPEG was just as petent encumbered back them as H.264 is now. So clearly "The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties" is not true.

                              And don't forget GIF too...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                Yeah, W3C didn't have an IMG tag before 2006...

                                H.264 patents will expire too. Will you in a few years come back here and say "H.264 patents expired"
                                Some of these patents will not expire before 2028, that's more than a few years, and leaves ample time for the patent holders to milk these patents.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X