Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Google dropping h.264 support from Chrome
IrrationalPie:
--- Quote from: est on 15 Jan 2011, 03:51 ---Also, with this move Google is basically telling Chrome users and I guess the general web at large that their end-user experience is not as important to them than getting one over on Apple in the mobile space.
--- End quote ---
That depends on how you see it. While the end user doesn't see the cost due to royalty fees, it does cost money for the providers to actually use the codec.
This cost is of course going to be passed to the user via ads, promotions, or subscription fees.
I really doubt Apple influenced their decision as much as the cost-savings that the new codec is providing them due to YouTube.
You're right that Web-M doesn't compare to H.264, but at the rate of processor advances combined with the CPU/GPU integration that has just started, the general consumer won't notice a difference.
est:
You're not actually reading my posts, are you.
IrrationalPie:
Why would you think that?
I've read them, and I disagree that the decision has anything to do with Apple as a deciding factor.
The Apple has cited the main reason for not supporting Flash as it not being 'open'. Web-M is open. They'll have a tougher time explaining to their consumers why content isn't available.
The HTML5 video tag standard isn't even finalized. Why should the video tag be backed behind a technology that's not open? It doesn't make sense. Opera, Chrome, and Firefox have announced full support / native integration of Web-M. H.264 isn't supported natively by Firefox. There was going to be a split in backing even before Web-M came on the scene anyways. It's not like Web-M is the instigator that is intent on destroying the <video> tag. If Web-M wasn't announced, I believe the same conflict would be occurring with Ogg Theora in Web-M's place.
Alex C:
I have a tough time buying into the cost saving thing in the short run without having some numbers in front of me. For one thing, h.264 has some advantages in terms of plain ol' compression and I can't imagine that not being quite a big advantage with a traffic monster like youtube. Second, I get the impression that a lot of the cost savings in regards to youtube would depend on them switching to a model where they don't bother encoding in other formats at all, something that observers don't seem to think is likely given how much it'd fuck over mobile devices. And if they did do that then well...
Anyway, I could be totally wrong since I don't follow this stuff closely at all, but it does kinda give the impression that google realized they're in a better situation to weather a setback than anyone else. In other words, this seems like a step backwards that relatively speaking, puts them ahead.
est:
Yeah, I can agree with that, Alex. They have a good position with Chrome still being seen as a niche product, as well a a strong platform (Youtube) with which to push their alternative offering.
Also, what do you mean by "open", IrrationalPie? As I stated in a post above, WebM is entirely proprietary code. The only thing "open" about it is its licensing, and it may not stay that way due to the patents it almost surely violates. Google is saying "hey trust us, this thing that we are using is totally great and it'll always be free", but is refusing to give any kind of fiscal assurances on that, and so far has only opened up part of the code for scrutiny.
On the other side, h.264 source code is freely available. If you compile your own codec from the source it is free to use, and if you are not charging anything to look at your site then serving videos encoded using it is also entirely free:
--- Quote from: Ars Technica ---MPEG-LA's license terms for H.264 set out a range of fee schedules depending on the exact nature of the H.264 implementation. Importantly to web users, video that is distributed over the web and which is, importantly, not behind any kind of a paywall, is royalty-free. This means that uploading a video to a site such as YouTube and then rebroadcasting that video to all and sundry is free
--- End quote ---
Google do not have to pay anything for the Youtube videos encoded in h.264, so that reasoning is entirely fallacious. What they would have to pay for though, is the codec in Chrome, which they are apparently now too cheap to cough up for.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version