Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Hints At Support For Free/Open Formats With HTML5
shadowmage13 writes "After the recent post about YouTube, so many votes were put in for HTML5 using Free and Open formats that Google has already cleared them all out (to make space for others) and issued an official response (requires Google login): 'We've heard a lot of feedback around supporting HTML5 and are working hard to meet your request, so stay tuned. We'll be following up when we have more information. We're answering this idea now because there are so many similar HTML5 ideas and we want to give other ideas a chance to be seen.' Now all the top ideas are concerning copyright and DMCA abuse."
What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?
Youtube is pretty much the only reason I need Flash. If it was possible to watch Youtube videos without plugins it would be great. No more choppiness or Flash using 100% CPU. Playing some videos from internet shouldn't be rocket surgery so this is really about time. Flash seems almost purposefully bad on Linux.
Plus releasing On2 tech as a standard without legal encumbrances, for everyone to take & implement freely, and opening its adoption as the HTML5 video?
That would be interesting...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Faster at all 3 if we use h264 because:
Hardware h264 encoders exist, and I bet google would use them – it would cut their power use massively
Hardware h264 decoders are common on just about all graphics cards
h264 can compress a video much more for a given quality than the current flash video they use
Not faster at all if we use ogg theora because:
Hardware Ogg encoders don't exist
Hardware Ogg decoders don't exist
Ogg barely uses less bandwidth than flash video for a given bandwidth
H264 is an open standard
A standard that requires shelling out $$ for a license to use it isn't 'open', not by most people's definition of 'open'.
en/decoders might be covered by patents.
There should be no 'might' in that sentence. Patents on h264 is the reason for MPEG-LA's very existence. They hold more patents on it than you can shake a stick at.
That mountain of patents and the control it gives its owners is *precisely* the problem with h264.
What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?
How about "I know a lot of people who, to put it mildly, aren't a fan of video games. Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned?"
Background: Vimeo bans use of its service for commercial purposes; this rules out any video uploaded by the video game's publisher. Vimeo also rejects videos uploaded by anyone other than the author; this rules out videos of game play uploaded by anyone other than the video game's publisher because they're "derivative works".
Problem is, whether we like it or not, h264/mp4 is the standard, because every dvd player, blu ray player, laptop and toaster oven already support it. The same reason Mp3 became the standard portable audio format, not because it's free, or better or gives blow jobs but because everything and everybody already supported it.
No amount of bitching and whining on slashdot or the w3c mailing list will change the reality of the remainder of the planet. It's the way it is and at the end of the day it's a video codec, not genocide, so there's really no harm in accepting it and getting on with supporting it ourselves.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.