80% of Daily YouTube Videos Now In WebM 163
An anonymous reader writes "OSNews has an update on the WebM project from a presentation given by Google's John Luther and Matt Frost at the Streaming Media West conference. OSNews writes, 'Earlier this year, Google finally did what many of us hoped it would do: release the VP8 codec as open source. It became part of the WebM project, which combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container. The product manager for the WebM project, John Luther, gave an update on the status of the project (PDF) — and it's doing great.'"
I ordered that in a bar once... (Score:3, Funny)
"combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container"
Yeah, I ordered that in a bar once and got really wasted.
I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (Score:2)
Actually, I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome or Chromium. Specifically, if I log in, I always get "An error occurred..." If I clear cache and cookies I can use Youtube. Everything works fine in Firefox, except apparently I just lost sound recently. I haven't checked cables though. It didn't work in chrome either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well your problem then, I use chrome on windows and linux and can watch youtube, even the html 5 stuff. Don't hate.
I forgot to mention that it works fine on Windows 7 but fails on Ubuntu Lucid and Maverick.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, whatever is going wrong, it doesn't go wrong in Firefox, where I have even more extensions than I had in Chrome.
I'm mostly interested in quality (Score:2, Insightful)
Have they managed to improve the quality of the VP8 codec? Last time I saw a comparison, VP8 was way behind H.264 [multimedia.cx].
And don't even give me that crap about "it's free, it doesn't have to be as good" or "it's only a web codec so who cares". If there's a number of big companies supporting the project and they plan on making WebM some kind of industry standard, anything less than state of the art is unacceptable. We'll be using this for years to come, so doing it right is in everyone's best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VP8 can improve over time, after adoption. H.264 can't be freed from the claws of MPEG-LA.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Who cares? It's free!
Quality (Score:2)
How does the sound and image quality of the WebM videos compare to the versions in other formats?
What the hell is a Matroshka container? (Score:2)
Re:WebM versus H.264 (Score:5, Insightful)
flash with H.264 has not been working great. It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer, and it don't work on mobile phones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For variable definitions of "works". Flash is not a great performer on low power hardware, especially on the battery.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For variable definitions of "works". Flash is not a great performer on low power hardware, especially on the battery.
While it doesn't change the existing speed/stability/security/battery-munching problems of most of the Flash content out there, the performance situation should be somewhat better for Flash content that uses h.264 on hardware with h.264 acceleration. (upgrade to current software, if possible, probably required)
The people that say Flash works fine and those that say it's awful can both be rig
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Linux? Flash on Linux sucks and this is entirely Adobe's fault.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a modern quad core machine, and fullscreen flash videos take up a whole core still with occasional stutter or tearing.
Also I have had the npviewer.bin process (flash) use up to 40% of my systems memory (6 gig total, so 2.4gig in use) that, is just crazy, there is no justification for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution is to just download the flv's automatically from firefox (things like DownloadHeler will do this) and then use mplayer or some other decent media player to play it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 64-bit works perfectly, looks fantastic, and plays all the media I want (including Flash) without shitting the bed like Ubuntu 64-bit does.
Does anything else besides flash bugger up for you? if so what. I find general media playback far better on linux than to windows. But flash is nasty.
I find most tiny distro installs like ubuntu severely wanting in many ways, but usually they are ok for people who just want to watch movies and use firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I've been plagued by issues. VLC's video tears all the time, alt-tabbing takes seconds, FireFox freezes for seconds (sometimes never recovering, requiring killing from the command line), the desktop environment is poorly-designed and sometimes incredibly unresponsive (menus don't appear immediately, requiring mouse-out before mousing over again before they will show). VLC plays everything I can throw at it, but then I'm used to that as I use it exclusively on Windows, but it just does so whi
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's important to mention that the so-called "Flash codec" that so many people are complaining about is nearly always On2's VP6, an ancestor of WebM.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There is no phone but iPhone and no god but Jobs! The luminous one has decreed no Flash and so there is no Flash on the one true mobile phone.
Re: (Score:2)
It hardly makes sense to attack Google for using this new system because the old system is popular on phones. Google is *owning* phones right now, and is on target to be behind the leading OS in the next year or so. (They're also going to be pushing their new Chromium OS pretty hard soon, so they'll have an interest there too). And Chrome isn't doing too badly at the mo either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently you don't understand that there are/were already 10x as many iPhones on the market before Android started to take off, but also that iPhones sold more units than Android last quarter. So I wouldn't say google is *owning*. They are far far behind, and they are falling even further behind. That said, #2 in smart phones is still a nice place to be.
Android was outselling iPhone worldwide last quarter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8125725/Google-Android-becomes-second-most-popular-smartphone-operating-system.html [telegraph.co.uk] From the article:
Re: (Score:2)
Your statistics imply that Apple is losing on some metric, and they are therefore invalid. Any facts contradicting the ultimate supremacy of Apple in all things are obviously and unquestionably flawed... the deranged lies of pathetic astroturfers.
Now if you would be so kind as to report to the nearest Apple Store and Re-Education Center, such unworthy ideas can be swiftly removed.
Re: (Score:2)
H.264 does work great under Flash -- it has for over 3 years now -- given the following. The developer isn't clueless and someone that thinks programing is drag and dropping components and timeline scripting. The video has to be encoded/sized properly, so that it supports GPU decoding and that its bit-rate also matches the target audience -- which is actually quite easy using Adobe's media encoder. And no, the same videos t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
flash with H.264 has not been working great.
Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic. That's because H.264 is fantastic. Flash is just a set players (just like VLC or QuickTime), which can suck or not depending on the specific player, just like with any media player.
It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer
How so? The only way it seems to be "hell to work with" is if you let ideology get in the way.
and it don't work on mobile phones.
The Flash H.264 players don't work on most phones (and the ones it does work on, tends to not work very well), but that's why they come with their own players. H.264 on iOS is the most seam
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic.
Bullshit [adobe.com] flash has severe overhead it can't get around by default. Playing videos in a regular program is far more efficient.
As for h264 itself, most of the animosity to it would be gone the moment software patents are deemed invalid in the US (that whole, you shouldn't be able to patent math business).
Re: (Score:2)
That has not been my experience. I work at a large-ish video sharing website, and I've not noticed the problems you are claiming. Maybe on Linux h.264 video doesn't work very well in Flash, but on Windows (even 64-bit) & OS X it's pretty much flawless. As for mobile phones without flash, simply offering up HTTP or RT(S)P links solves all those problems. The only reason to move to WebM is an ideological one, and comes at a distinct price - WebM is not as good as h.264 (quality/bitrate-wise), and is n
Re:WebM versus H.264 (Score:5, Insightful)
WebM is free.
It's also a good potential "unifying format" for web video codec-wise the same way Flash has been player-wise because we're still in the same codec hell as far as HTML5 video is concerned due to Mozilla foundation's refusal to use H.264.
H.264 licensing fees [zdnet.com] look reasonable though if products or services are sold at profit. Not sure how it goes though for free software or products that make marginal profits.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with H.264 isn't Mozilla. It's patents. The Mozilla guys are just being cautious (remember Unisys' GIF patent [wikipedia.org]?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with H.264 isn't Mozilla.
No, it's entirely Mozilla. They could support H.264 with absolutely no problem whatsoever, but they won't because they mistook the reason they are so popular in the first place. Firefox gained market share because it was better than IE, not because it was patent-free (I was going to write "Free Software", but it's actually not. Hence Iceweasel).
H.264 is superior to WebM and Theora. By not supporting the best solution, Mozilla is giving up the very thing that made them great. Isn't one of the ideas behind Op
Routing around government interference (Score:2)
Isn't one of the ideas behind Open Source is that it tends towards technical superiority?
Free software (sometimes called open source software) tends toward technical superiority in the absence of government interference. In its presence, on the other hand, free software routes around it even if the route is suboptimal.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it tends to be superior, except for when it isn't. "Government interference" is only one such cause for exception. I'm unaware of any government interference that explains X11.
Also, Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox, so it's not any government that is holding Firefox back, it's the ideology of those in charge of such decisions at Mozilla.
In fact, I'd wager ideology hinders Open Source more than any law does. On the other hand, ideology is one the greatest motive forces behind Open Source
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox
In order to qualify for an H.264 license, Mozilla would have to make its browser non-redistributable to third parties. For example, the EULA of Google Chrome states the following: "you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof".
Re: (Score:2)
In order to qualify for an H.264 license, Mozilla would have to make its browser non-redistributable to third parties.
First off, so what? They own the code, they can do that. So the idea that they can't include H.264 is complete bullshit. Also, Firefox isn't completely redistributable as it is. Google "iceweasel" for more info. They could easily make a non-free version that natively supports H.264 in addition to the mostly-free version they have now.
Second, they can support H.264 very easily. They can buy a license for it and distribute it as an add-on.
Third, they can use the codecs installed on people's computers. All Mac
Re: (Score:2)
They can buy a license for it and distribute it as an add-on.
End users wouldn't be able to redistribute the AVC add-on to one another.
Linux is just an apt-get (or similar) away from it
On Ubuntu, trying to install any package containing an AVC decoder using apt-get front-ends such as Synaptic or Ubuntu Software Center puts up a big scary warning about patents. Clicking OK is an infringement in those jurisdictions where AVC patents controlled by MPEG-LA are valid.
H.264 is freely available for older versions of Windows.
Apart from the AVC decoder embedded in Flash Player, which AVC decoder for Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter
Re: (Score:2)
End users wouldn't be able to redistribute the AVC add-on to one another.
Which is entirely orthogonal to whether or not Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox.
On Ubuntu, trying to install any package containing an AVC decoder using apt-get front-ends such as Synaptic or Ubuntu Software Center puts up a big scary warning about patents. Clicking OK is an infringement in those jurisdictions where AVC patents controlled by MPEG-LA are valid.
Then they can buy a fucking codec. A bunch of assholes who will only run free software should not be allowed to hold back the web.
Apart from the AVC decoder embedded in Flash Player, which AVC decoder for Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter is freely available from a U.S. source?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime
Mozilla doesn't consider it "making the web better" to encourage web developers to make pages that show I'm sorry, you need Frobozz Viewer 3.0 to view this file. It's only $19.99, please have your credit card ready. [fedoraproject.org]
Again, entirely orthogonal to whether or not they can support it. In fact, this is exactly what I've said multiple times. That Mozilla is doing this out of ideology and not due to technological or legal requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
And I could seed hundreds of illegal movies, just because I can do something doesn't make it legal (and distributing something that can decode it freely would be illegal).
The whole point of the mozilla project is to make an open source browser that is freely distributable. Saying 'oh they could if they went back on the projects goals, they just don't want to' is like saying ferrari could make an enzo with a bull bar. Sure they COULD, but it defeats the purpose and aims of the thing entirely (in ferrari's ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I moved from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, the UAC prompts were replaced by prompts telling me how evil certain bits of software are and how Ubuntu can't talk with them
When I moved from Windows to Ubuntu, the UAC prompts were replaced by gksudo prompts with the same purpose, and after a couple years in, the gksudo prompts were replaced by similar-looking PolicyKit prompts. Windows has its own dialog boxes about "how evil certain bits of software are" whenever a user tries to run downloaded software that is not published by a Authenticode certificate holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's extremely clear that I don't understand the web. In fact, I understand it so poorly that the H.264 codec that I suggest as being superior to WebM is not the most widely supported format on the Internet...
Oh wait, H.264 *is* more widely supported than WebM and Theora combined? Maybe I *do* understand things...
Makes me wonder, oh master of all things Internet, what open video format is the one that "drives the web forward"? Please enlighten me, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
WebM is free
It wasn't a deal breaker for Canonical and its OEM partners.
This is big-league ball:
There are about 30 H.264 licensors and 900 licensees. These include global giants in manufacturing:
Fujitsu. JVC. Mitsubishi. NTT. Panasonic. Philips. Samsung. Sony. Toshiba... Theatrical production. Home video. Broadcast, cable and satellite distribution. Mobile. Indu
Re: (Score:2)
Yet even big camera makers pass on a proper license with their products...
Re: (Score:2)
H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
Every single one of those groups can pay. As a web distribution format, H.264 is 100% free if you are non-commercial. If you are commercial, the licensing fees are low enough that you should have no problem recovering the costs. You might as well say something like, "having to pay to run a web site makes it a dealbreaker for ...".
As for hardware, the licensing fees must not be that much because pretty much every single video-playing device out there supports H.264.
WebM is free.
Is claimed to be free. The MPEG-LA seems to
MPEG-LA not willing to take one's money (Score:2)
open-source advocates [...] Every single one of those groups can pay.
From the GNU General Public License:
In other words, the GPL requires that the pa
Re: (Score:2)
open-source advocates [...] Every single one of those groups can pay.
From the GNU General Public
I was unaware that the GPL stated that "open-source advocates" can never buy non-free software!
Sarcasm aside, even if we narrow it down to open source developers, who use the GPLv3, and taken solely in the context of their specific GPLv3 projects, they can still support codecs like H.264, just not compiled directly into their program (and depending on how you want to look at it, either bundled with the binary and/or directly linked at compile time and then distributed). Firefox, for example (which is most d
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox, for example (which is most definitely *not* under the GPL, but let's pretend that it is for a moment)
But it is under a license allowing free redistribution of exact copies of Firefox Setup, and a version compiled from the same source tree with trademarks turned off is under the Mozilla tri-license, which includes the GPL.
could and can fully and legally support H.264 via a proprietary plug-in
Under MPEG-LA's license terms as I understand them, users would not be able to redistribute this plug-in to one another the same way they can currently redistribute Firefox Setup. They would have to obtain it directly from Mozilla, much as with Chrome. Mozilla is unwilling to do things tha
Re: (Score:2)
So what if users can't redistribute it? Quit acting like this is something that is being imposed on Mozilla. It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
They won't because they won't, not because they can't.
Changing the terms (Score:2)
It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
"[T]he terms under which they distribute Firefox" include permitting redistribution to any third party. So yes, adding an AVC decoder would involve "changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox". Mozilla chooses not to make this change because its leaders feel that this change would not make the web better. You're right that this is Mozilla's choice; feel free to buy an AVC license and distribute your customized iceweasel.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
"[T]he terms under which they distribute Firefox" include permitting redistribution to any third party. So yes, adding an AVC decoder would involve "changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox".
Reading comprehension fail on your part. I did not say "adding an AVC [or H.264] decoder". I said "supporting H.264. Why must you constantly lie about this? Firefox can support H.264 with nary a licensing change. WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264. Is Mozilla less technologically capable than Apple? (actually, the answer to that is yes, be even Mozilla has the ability to make an H.264 compatible version of Firefox)
How does WebKit support H.264? (Score:2)
WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264.
How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components? According to this page [webkit.org], it relies on QuickTime on Mac and Windows, and the Linux version relies on gstreamer [webkit.org]. Ubuntu does not ship the H.264 decoder for gstreamer in the default install, and it presents a scary legal notice (to the effect "if you live in the USA click Cancel") when installing it from the repository.
Re: (Score:2)
How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components?
It uses the system-provided decoder. Firefox does not do this. This is exactly my point.
WebKit-based browsers, like Safari, automatically get H.264 support if the system supports it, and 99+% of users have an operating system that either supports or can be made to easily support H.264.
Again, Firefox does not do this. It's not because it can't, it's not because it's open source, it's not because it would stop it from being redistributable. It's 100% because those in charge at Mozilla have explicitly decided
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read your link? You only have to pay for content if you are charging your subscribers, or have over 100,000 subscribers per year. If you have that many subscribers, either you can easily afford to pay for the license, or your business model sucks. If you release software that has an h.264 encoder, again, if you ship more than 100,000 units per year, you have to pay. Oh, and streaming video is entirely royalty-free until December 2015, regardless of the number of subscribers.
FUD is not cool.
Re:WebM versus H.264 (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is do any go the other way?
My bet is the VP8 folks must have some from older versions that MPEG-LA infringes on.
Re:WebM versus H.264 (Score:5, Informative)
Back in actual, as opposed to perceived, reality On2 has been avoiding patent problems for well over a decade. This was made by a company that did nothing but video codecs, if they didn't know what they were doing in regards to patents, they wouldn't have survived.
Here's a better and less ranty writeup if you want to look into the arguments: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420 [conecta.it]
Can't install WebM if you aren't root (Score:2)
It plays in IE9 and Safari if you install the codec on your system.
You can't install the Matroska, Vorbis, and VP8 components if you aren't root. You aren't root if you're using the PC in the break room. You aren't root if you're using a handheld media player. You aren't root if you're using a mobile phone (unless it's an N900 or an Android phone with CyanogenMod, but neither is mainstream in the United States).
Re: (Score:2)
Worry not. I've installed Firefox 4 for you on the PC in the break room.
My employer uses Chrome and Firefox, but some companies' IT departments won't be so cooperative. A lot of them are stuck on IE 6, which runs the intranet apps, and won't let anything else through the proxy.
Firefox 4 on your N900
A lot of Slashdot users praise this Nokia phone, but it's not available to try in major U.S. electronics chains. (Buying before trying in my experience usually leads to returning, and e-tailers charge shipping, return shipping, and a 15% restocking fee.) Nor is it available to use in areas where
Re:WebM versus H.264 (Score:5, Funny)
hermafrodite
noun
a person or animal having both male and female sex organs, plus giant frizzy hair
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
H.264 is the codec, flash is just the wrapper of choice these days. H.264 encoded video should be playable on any machine that can decode it and read the wrapper/container format. What makes H.264 so great is that I can encode the video once and place into whatever container I want and have it read on almost any device these days. It doesn't have to be flash, it could be MOV, M4V, MP4, whatever container. Flash is the current favourite because you can put DRM into the wrapper and make it a bit harder to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hundreds of millions of Asians would like to disagree with that characterization, you ignorant hick.
Lucky for you, they're Buddhists who honor the precept of doing no harm to others, or they'd probably kick your ass.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of Buddhists who seem to have forgotten that, just like a lot of Christians seem to have missed thou shalt not kill (it doesn't say murder in my bible ta very much). But yes the GP should stick to playing the banjo and screwing his relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the specific word can mean both "kill" and "murder", but only the "murder" interpretation avoids obvious contradictions with other passages in which individuals are specifically directed to kill others (e.g. to enforce the law itself, since many offenses require the death penalty).
Given two possible interpretations, one of which leads to a contradiction, the rule-of-thumb is always to pick the non-contradictory version. I'll leave the question of whether that is a reasonable interpretation of the or
The education about Buddhism you never asked for! (Score:2)
Reincarnation as you've described it—that one being lives a cycle of lives along a hierarchy of beings, some better positioned to achieve enlightenment—isn't necessarily Buddhist (though it may be found among some Buddhists, as that conception is found in Hinduism, from which Buddhism originally derived). The Buddhist concept of rebirth (which varies between traditions, and even between individuals) is a bit more subtle, suggesting that when a given consciousness passes from life to death, it wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think MPEG-LA, which includes such heavyweights as Apple, MSFT, and IIRC IBM, is just gonna sulk in the corner while you snatch marketshare away from them you got another thing coming.
What do you think MPEG-LA is? They aren't primarily a profit source for it's members. For them, it's a way to get a legal codec out there for everyone to use. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have patents licensed to MPEG-LA, and in return they get a codec they can license that would otherwise be far too legally impractical (the exact sort of problem both WebM and Theora face, actually).
I'm sure if WebM gets any real traction outside of Google properties then MPEG-LA will break out their mighty Troll God hammer and lay the lawsuits of doom upon thee.
Probably, but that first requires the improbable event of WebM gaining sufficient traction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and most of what you got two years ago was Flash, until Steve started his war on Flash.
Somebody's just trying to get the 'standard' fixed on a codec that you can write players for without paying through the nose for.
Re:"Available in WebM" (Score:5, Insightful)
Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.
Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.
Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.
Re:"Available in WebM" (Score:4, Insightful)
Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.
As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.
Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.
DRM. Flash is great for DRM. Don't forget that little 'feature'.
Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.
Hasn't stopped anybody I work with yet...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.
But it's significantly worse on Mac, and always has been. For Linux it's even worse, there Flash is almost unusable.
Re:"Available in WebM" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, this sort of informative post is the reason I still read slashdot comments.
Re:"Available in WebM" (Score:4, Informative)
With Chrome 7.0.517.44 (latest at the time of writing), I get WebM. Looks pretty good at 720p!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd personally be very surprised if Google was willing to pay the licensing fee to use h.264. Remember that h.264 isn't free for use, it's only free to stream the encoded files to somebody who then decodes them. Neither the party encoding nor the party decoding gets to do so for fre
Re: (Score:2)
Safari supports H.264 and yet it's free.
And if it supports H.264 by using the H.264 decoder of the OS, then Firefox can do it too.
This whole H.264 vs WebM mess is only harming the adoption of the HTML5 video tag, not to mention that Flash is currently used for playing... H.264 files.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Safari supports H.264 and yet it's free.
But it isn't FREE!
And Mozilla isn't just about making a browser, its about making the web better.
Re: (Score:2)
And Mozilla isn't just about making a browser, its about making the web better.
Ahh but if it is about strategic decisions to try to change the shape of the Web, maybe they need better strategists... since all they're doing right now is keeping Flash alive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fail. Chrome already supports h.264.
Copy paste from google owned youtube:
* Firefox 4 (WebM, Beta available here)
* Google Chrome (WebM and h.264)
* Opera 10.6+ (WebM, Available here)
* Apple Safari (h.264, version 4+)
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 (h.264, Beta available here)
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8 with Google Chrome Fram
Re: (Score:2)
Double fail even.
Not only can google's chrome browser decode h.264, but google's youtube site already has 100% of all their videos encoded to it as well. So in short, I can guarantee you that many free browswers already include it, and google has already paid the extremely small licensing fee. As has Microsoft and apple. The only significant hold out, Mozilla, and they are holding back progress on the web (as usual lately).
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that I keep finding videos on YouTube that won't work in HTML5. They display "You need to upgrade your Adobe Flash Player to watch this video". So even if it's true that all the videos are in H.264, YouTube's doing a really bad job at using them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should put the ads in a separate Flash and let the browser play the video file.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing. Oh wait, Microsoft already paid it for anyone running a Windows OS. Too bad, so sad... for you.
Re: (Score:2)
youtube.com/html5
That's the reason why I allow youtube to store cookies on my machine.
Re: (Score:2)
I get h264 content by doing that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the main problem (I believe) that webm has right now. The most popular browser "brand" (Mozilla Firefox) that will support it easily out of the virtual box has been mired in an ever-slower beta cycle for quite some time now, at least by internet standards, and will take probably another 3-6 months to finally hit release.
If Android "Gingerbread" really does have support for webm when it comes out, that will help. Until then, it seems only the about 5%-8% of the intern
Re:Not 80% of ALL youtube (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong, 80% of videos are available as WebM. Most of the html5 beta videos are served as h264, because very few people have WebM support.
Re: (Score:2)
youtube.com/html5
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I did that. I still get nothing but flash. Firefox 4.0b8 on debian.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all videos are available in non-Flash.
I'm in the HTML5 beta myself (for H.264, not WebM) and there's a LOT of videos that aren't available in HTML5.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
geeks like me who don't know everything
Hand in your geek card!
Re: (Score:2)
While I do agree with you because nerds news have lots of specialized fields, the WebM video CODEC has been the subject of at least half a dozen Slashdot articles and the topic itself is more than five months old.
I do agree that the summary should have at least included a link to WebM [wikipedia.org].