Yes iPhone can do HTML5, but how many people use it?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Google Opens Up VP8, Launches New Container Format
Collapse
X
-
One other nice little read.
Earlier this week, Steve Jobs kicked the debate about the need for Flash into high gear, especially for Web video. As he explained, Apple products like the iPhone and iPad don't support Flash because although 75 percent of video on the Web is in Flash " almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads." The next day, Microsoft weighed in, saying that Internet Explorer 9 would only support the H.264 codec for HTML video. So how much video exactly is available in H.264? I asked Encoding.com, which has encoded 5 million videos over the past year for a variety of Websites and customers including MTV Networks, WebMD, Brightcove, Nokia, MySpace, and Red Bull. President Jeff Malkin sent me the chart above, which he believes is representative of the Web in general, including mobile. As the chart shows, in the past four quarters, the H.264 format went from 31 percent of all videos to 66 percent, and is now the largest format by far.
Comment
-
Deanjo, those numbers can perfectly be interpreted so that they support the viability of WebM. According to the paper, the mobile traffic amounts to just 3% of the total, although it's rapidly increasing--it can only increase, can't it? From the other link we learn that VoIP takes a good share of the total traffic, and a lot of the mobile one. It is also mentioned that youtube makes up for 10% of the global traffic and streaming in general represents a third on the mobile. So, let's see what happens with two of the biggest players...Skype--explicitly mentioned in that article--uses VP7 and apparently they'll adopt WebM; youtube is already transcoding shit to this format. If anything, I see good prospects for this codec.
Where are you trying to get to? Are you denying that VP8 will be able to outperform H264 baseline in the near future and hence become the codec for web content delivery? Do those mobile users (all the 3% of them) require the highest performing codec at its highest profile to watch crap on their phones?
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostSo support in 1% of user space is a testament of success?
Originally posted by deanjo View PostThat's a BIG if there. If it was as easy as you perceive it Google or On2 probably would have had already done it before it was even released publicly.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostYou better believe they do play a major role.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostNobody knows yet, that's the thing. With h264 having over 1000 patents on it alone (that's not including patents from previous codec patents) and patent law being as gray as it is with the similarities between it and h264 there is a strong chance that it does infringe on some patents. They probably would have been safer off looking at a wavelet based codec implementation where there is enough differential and prior art that a strong defense could be made.
Originally posted by deanjo View Post
Originally posted by deanjo View Post
Comment
-
deanjo's just getting more and more ridiculous as this thread continues.
mobile devices are suddenly the most important factor for youtube, and flash support only counts for 1% support? someone should tell Google, because they clearly think otherwise.
Oh, but some geek living in his parent's basement will no doubt start up a competitor to youtube that everyone will flock to because it uses the vastly superior h264 codec.
And how stupid is google? They've had > 6 months to go over the codec line by line and figure out if each and every one of those well-known mpeg-la patents apply, and their lawyers are just clearly incompetent because they got it all wrong. Or maybe they didn't even bother, huh? That obviously wouldn't have been a priority to complete.
Maybe they will find a patent it infringe on, but I would be absolutely shocked if it was one of the already known patents the mpeg-la is sitting on and requiring for h264. Those would be the first one's that Google would check.
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View Postdeanjo's just getting more and more ridiculous as this thread continues.
mobile devices are suddenly the most important factor for youtube, and flash support only counts for 1% support? someone should tell Google, because they clearly think otherwise.
Oh, but some geek living in his parent's basement will no doubt start up a competitor to youtube that everyone will flock to because it uses the vastly superior h264 codec.
And how stupid is google? They've had > 6 months to go over the codec line by line and figure out if each and every one of those well-known mpeg-la patents apply, and their lawyers are just clearly incompetent because they got it all wrong. Or maybe they didn't even bother, huh? That obviously wouldn't have been a priority to complete.
Maybe they will find a patent it infringe on, but I would be absolutely shocked if it was one of the already known patents the mpeg-la is sitting on and requiring for h264. Those would be the first one's that Google would check.
Comment
Comment