Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

Thread: google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

    http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/htm...in-chrome.html

    yayyyyyy YES YES YES YES Death to all MPEG LA members like APPLE-

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Thumbs down I don't like it mery much, unless...

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/htm...in-chrome.html

    yayyyyyy YES YES YES YES Death to all MPEG LA members like APPLE-
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    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
    I think this is the plan, namely moving things over. Else they wouldn't have done the purchase of On2 for VP8/WebM in the first place, only to FOSS pretty much all of it that mattered.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    I think programs also need to be functional, not just comply to philosophies.
    I think the "philosophy" involved here isn't about open-source, but is rather more like "we're not going to pay these license fees for the sake of a product that we give away for free, especially when doing so helps entrench the necessity for said license".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    I think the "philosophy" involved here isn't about open-source, but is rather more like "we're not going to pay these license fees for the sake of a product that we give away for free, especially when doing so helps entrench the necessity for said license".
    Not to mention that they already have a h264 solution with them pulling along flash. Why waste resources on a duplicated effort?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote 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
    they allready do have convert all videos into webm.
    all new videos are only webm

    i think they drop h264 support in 3-4 mondh..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote 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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote 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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    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
    opt into the html5 beta.

    google

    youtube html5

    that will remove the need for flash.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •