Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

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

  • #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