maddis
Member
Does this mean that there is no need for certain codecs such as flash and .mov ?
Firefox 3.5 Supporting Open Video Formats
- Thread starter maddis
- Start date
Does this mean that there is no need for certain codecs such as flash and .mov ?
michaeljustman
Member
I thought Adobe/Apple/etc got pissy that they tried to include Ogg as a part of the specification?
femngi
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2009
- Messages
- 78
It was apple, they're blocking W3C from making OGG the standard by refusing to support it on bullshit licensing grounds and want to force everyone to be locked into the H.264 codec. Since Firefox, Opera and Chrome all support OGG, IE supports nothing and no-one uses Safari I doubt it really matters.michaeljustman said:
I am ecstatic about the <video> tag as I have a personal deep seated hatred of Flash in all it's forms.
Last edited by a moderator:
michaeljustman
Member
femngi said:
I understand why they wouldn't want an open format to be stardard, but what justification could they give... aren't standards that the W3C make supposed to be open and therefore using an open container format would make sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
dflemstr
It's a ball.
File size, they say. And they have a point.michaeljustman said:
Anyways, I don't think that it'll be necessary for the W3C guys to enforce a codec; they did the same thing when the <img> tag was introduced, and it worked out all right.
Because who would today put a BNMG file in an <img> tag if no browsers support the format? Same thing for H.264.
Also, if the Apple guys want to use H.264 as the video format, this means that they'll need to integrate it into Safari → WebKit, which is based on KDE → KHTML and therefore GNU GPL licensed, and thus they'll need to make their codec open-source too to be able to include it. Either that, or they might also provide a plugin for all browsers à la Flash, but who would honestly use it then? Consequently, I think that OGG Theora has won already.
Last edited by a moderator:
mindlord
Notices Two Things
You would think. But it wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last time that a proprietary format gained standardization over something more open. You really don't have to look much farther than .GIF to see how hard it is to move from a old proprietary standard to something more open like .PNG. There's no money is open standards, so they only get the voice of the community at large. Closed standards get well paid lawyers.
another problem with h264 is that next year when they renew the licence there are plans to include a licence cost on makeing movies available on the net. That would mean that youtube couldn't use it and any one having videos on their site has to pay
dflemstr
It's a ball.
Way to fail, Apple, way to fail...Bagera said:
I don't understand why they suggest the use of h.264 when they at the same time do something like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
mindlord
Notices Two Things
They have hundreds of starving shareholders to feed.
femngi
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2009
- Messages
- 78
File size is an issue but it's not the reason Apple gave for not wanting to support it. They say that since the Xiph.Org Foundation maintains OGG they could potentially start charging browsers to use it if it became the standard. All this is pure bullshit and everyone knows it, "Both software libraries are free software, released under the new BSD license." the real irony is Apple offers h.264 as an alternative.
kaprikawn
Very Active Member
I think how the video tag fares will be greatly influenced by one factor...what Youtube does.
Youtube is a massive website for non-techies, I think it will set the template that other websites will follow. It is a one-website standards setting machine in this area.
If it were owned by anyone else I think it'd stay with flv and maintain the status quo. But being owned by Google I think there's hope. Google have a vested interest in kicking IE in the nuts, they may convert to using the video tag just to push Chrome. If Google have the balls to effectively break Youtube for IE users it will either force M$ to support the video tag more quickly than they might have otherwise done so or force users onto alternative browsers. Either is a win in my opinion, the former means that flv is no longer the standard, the latter means that IEs market share falls. Either is progress.
Basically if Youtube drops flash then other websites will follow in my opinion. I know just before the video tag was introduced Google showcased a Youtube that used the video tag, I just hope this makes it out of the proof-of-concept stage and becomes reality.
Youtube is a massive website for non-techies, I think it will set the template that other websites will follow. It is a one-website standards setting machine in this area.
If it were owned by anyone else I think it'd stay with flv and maintain the status quo. But being owned by Google I think there's hope. Google have a vested interest in kicking IE in the nuts, they may convert to using the video tag just to push Chrome. If Google have the balls to effectively break Youtube for IE users it will either force M$ to support the video tag more quickly than they might have otherwise done so or force users onto alternative browsers. Either is a win in my opinion, the former means that flv is no longer the standard, the latter means that IEs market share falls. Either is progress.
Basically if Youtube drops flash then other websites will follow in my opinion. I know just before the video tag was introduced Google showcased a Youtube that used the video tag, I just hope this makes it out of the proof-of-concept stage and becomes reality.
dflemstr
It's a ball.
Vorporeal
Yes, no, I, this is.
dflemstr said:
That wasn't Google being against OGG. That was the guy heading the HTML5 development, who happens to work for Google, saying that they decided to not go with OGG as a standard, and just have there be no standard.
Last edited by a moderator:
dflemstr
It's a ball.
I beg to differ.Vorporeal said:
Last edited by a moderator:
maddis
Member
Jourdy288 said:
I am sure you all know Firefox will be used on the pandora for web browsing so i started the thread to find out how this would (if any) benefit us all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vorporeal
Yes, no, I, this is.
dflemstr said:
Ah - missed the link to his email. Was just reading the directly linked article, which loosely implied otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
