REALTIME IT NEWS
REALTIME IT NEWS
Newsletters Select newsletters below and click the button to sign up!
Internetnews BloggersRecent Entries
Archives
Monthly ArchivesSearch The Blog
« Will Twitter end today with the Twitpocalypse? |
Sean Michael Kerner Blog
| Report: Most users can't spot a phishing site »
Should Google embrace Ogg for HTML5 and YouTube? From the 'free video' files:
HTML 5 is coming and it could change the face of video enabling browser to directly include video with the new <video> tag. Apple's Safari 4, Opera 10, Google Chrome and Firefox 3.5 all have some form of HTML5 video support but what about the big video sites? What about Google's YouTube? It turns out that Google is testing HTML 5 video now on YouTube -- if you've got an HTML 5 ready browser you can check out their demo at:http://www.youtube.com/html5). The issue with HTML 5 video though is which codec will be used for the video. This is a topic, I've blogged on before -- just last week I had a post where Mozilla's Director of Firefox Mike Beltzner called on all browser vendors to embrace the open Ogg video format. Another Mozilla staffer - this time VP of Engineering, Mike Shaver is now turning up the heat on Google is a public mailing list tirade against Google and their use on YouTube of the H.274 codec (which is patent encumbered) instead of using Ogg. "I do not like the situation on the web today, where to use all the content you need to have a license to Flash," Shaver wroter. "And I'm saddened that Google is choosing to use its considerable leverage -- especially in the web video space, where they could be a king-maker if ever there was one -- to create a _future_ in which one needs an H.264 patent license to view much of the video content on the web. Firefox won't likely have native H.264 support, since we simply can't operate under those patent restrictions."This is a serious debate and one that could ultimately mean that the <video> tag in HTML5 does - or doesn't get widely used. In my opinion - it's great to have the tag, but if there is no general agreement on underlying video codec - at least as a choice - then <video> just won't not a viable option for the majority of web developers. That's where Flash video - with all of its associated patent and licensing issues - has worked well and will continue to work well for years to come. Flash is pervasive and it has completely abstracted the underlying video codec agrument. If you have Flash then YouTube or any other site delivering video by way of Flash simply works. The added compexity that HTML5 (at this early point) brings to the discussion with codec issues is one that no doubt will scare away a few (non-early adopter) web developers. 0 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Should Google embrace Ogg for HTML5 and YouTube?. TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/8257 2 CommentsLeave a comment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
Advertise | Newsletters | Shopping | E-mail Offers | Freelance Jobs 
Digg
Del.icio.us
furl
StumbleUpon
BlinkList
Newsvine
Magnolia
Facebook
Tailrank
Slashdot
Technorati
Google
Bookmarks
Yahoo
Favorites
Windows
Live
Ask
The philosophy and certainly the price behind Theora is a great one, and the quality isn't terribly shabby (in Youtube terms). But H.264 isn't going anywhere any time soon, and the sooner Mozilla realizes that and licenses a decoder the better. Think of Youtube's contractual agreements to provide H.264 videos to hardware manufacturers such as Apple/iPhone and Tivo that have chips for decoding the format. No such hardware acceleration exists for Theora that I'm aware of.
Also consider the fact that with Theora, in order to meet the needs of all browsers (read: IE and iPhone), a developer still has to have the file encoded in both formats, eating up valuable space. But if everyone would standardize now behind H.264, the VERY SAME H.264 file could be played in a tag, OR loaded into a Flash player to display on legacy browsers.
Consider the ubiquity of H.264: Hardware acceleration on video cards. iPhone. Bluray. Google Chrome. Apple Safari. DivX 7. Windows 7. Mac OS X. Quicktime X. It’s practically the house built upon the foundation of H.264. Even the White House uses H.264 video.
We're not living in the world of 10 years ago where there was no dominant video player and content was spread out across Quicktime, Windows Media, and Real Player formats. H.264 already IS everywhere.
>the sooner Mozilla realizes that and licenses a decoder the better
You seem to forgetting the fact that Firefox is an opensource product.
Firefox gives it's users the right the source, the right to change the source and the right to distribute the source.
No liscence of H264 are going to give us, will allow that.
So, it's not an option. It's not even remotely possible. How could you possible think that?
Not even to mention that fact that the whole ideology behind Firefox is an OPEN internet.
We've finally reached the point where using the internet doesn't require payments to Microsoft.
Now you want to introduce payments to the H624 mob. If that would be the only possible reality, Firefox would not liscence the codec. They would stop the whole project and admit defeat.