Coffeehouse Thread

56 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Google Chrome: "I'm the Daddy!"

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Ian2

    Google drops H264 support: http://hnsl.mn/erHRkN

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    LOL @ Hanselman's URL shortener.

  • User profile image
    CKurt

    @Ian2: Great move for the IE9 team!

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Good work Google! H.264 was always a patent trap. It's nice to see one company has the balls to fight it.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    @CKurt: Not really. If we end up in a situation where IE9 is the only browser that requires the use of h.264, that's hardly a good thing.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @Sven Groot:

    Microsoft could always add WebM support to IE9.

    Really they can. I know they probably won't, but they can, and probably should.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    What is H264? And I thought it is open standard? No? I used to hear a lot of buzz around H264.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    USArcher

    Google have become idealogues with complete disregard of consumer adoption of H264.  Its like XPS vs PDF.  PDF is the defacto.  In any case, Google is showing its cracks.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , USArcher wrote

    Google have become idealogues with complete disregard of consumer adoption of H264.  Its like XPS vs PDF.  PDF is the defacto.  In any case, Google is showing its cracks.

     

    The thing is H.264 really doesn't have that much penatration on the web. Firefox and Opera don't support it, and all "stable" versions of IE don't support it either. I think that means H.264 has something like 6% of the browser market, while WebM has 35-36% at least. It's WebM that's the PDF and H.264 that's the XPS. Smiley

    That might change if IE9 is a great success, but I doubt it will have the same adoption IE8 had simply because IE9 doesn't support Windows XP and IE9 isn't bundled with any OS. Safari isn't growing very fast. So it looks like WebM pretty much won.

    Flash is also adding support for WebM, by the way. So there will always be Flash fallback on web browsers which don't support it.

     

  • User profile image
    intelman

    The thing is there already exists so many  devices that support h.264. Zune HD, and most notably the iPhone / iPod Touch have h.264 hardware accleration. Most modern video cards also support this acceleration.

    Moving to a more inefficient standard will suck. I am a fan of something that is high quality and works.

  • User profile image
    USArcher

    @Bass: I don't have a problem if they want to support another codec, but dropping support for H264 looks to be idealogical when there is no cost.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , USArcher wrote

    @Bass: I don't have a problem if they want to support another codec, but dropping support for H264 looks to be idealogical when there is no cost.


    What is wrong with being ideological? I believe that an open web is better for our future. If Google wants to align their corporate agenda with that - more power to them.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Bass, I agree. Now let's see if they are vaguely honest and re-encode all YouTube content.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Or the embedded flash plugin.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Lets hope non-Chrome browsers still support H264. I really don't want to re-encode my existing videos to some wacky stuff.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ian2

    @magicalclick:Maybe someone needs to diustribute some I heart H264 stickers ...

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

     Bass wrote

    The thing is H.264 really doesn't have that much penatration on the web.

     

     

    Afaik H.264 is supported in flash, although I don't know in what proportion that encoding is used.

     

    , Bass wrote

    Microsoft could always add WebM support to IE9.

    Really they can. I know they probably won't, but they can, and probably should.

    Not when it's shipped they won't, just because it's the way they operate. Microsoft adds new features only in major versions / service packs, and IE doesn't even receive service packs. It's all for a good reason though - they increase stability of their platform by not improving it as that would cause complex graphs of quirk propagation throughout various minor versions of browser thus making web developers' jobs easier by making them care for only one version of IE (they already have enough trouble dealing with browsers from other vendors).

    If we want IE9 to support WebM we should really try to press MS hard now as IE is probably in the last stages of development and we have only a short amount of time where a change could be made.

    On the other hand, WebM sucks technically, although I see the freedom argument it's far from a  guarantee that it doesn't become another java-oracle dabacle where a platform once hailed as a free alternative to a closed one overnight becomes non-free. If we keep H.264 in IE9 then at least sites can decide which video file they would send to a browser - they would have to encode it twice and use twice as much space on servers - but I really don't care for them, however I care for my battery life.   

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Afaik H.264 is supported in flash, although I don't know in what proportion that encoding is used.

    As Paolo implied, all of YouTube's videos are in h.264.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.