Slashdot Mirror
80% of Daily YouTube Videos Now In WebM
An anonymous reader writes "OSNews has an update on the WebM project from a presentation given by Google's John Luther and Matt Frost at the Streaming Media West conference. OSNews writes, 'Earlier this year, Google finally did what many of us hoped it would do: release the VP8 codec as open source. It became part of the WebM project, which combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container. The product manager for the WebM project, John Luther, gave an update on the status of the project (PDF) — and it's doing great.'"
flash with H.264 has not been working great. It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer, and it don't work on mobile phones.
H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
WebM is free.
It's also a good potential "unifying format" for web video codec-wise the same way Flash has been player-wise because we're still in the same codec hell as far as HTML5 video is concerned due to Mozilla foundation's refusal to use H.264.
H.264 licensing fees look reasonable though if products or services are sold at profit. Not sure how it goes though for free software or products that make marginal profits.
http://www.object404.com
"combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container"
Yeah, I ordered that in a bar once and got really wasted.
Wrong, 80% of videos are available as WebM. Most of the html5 beta videos are served as h264, because very few people have WebM support.
The question is do any go the other way?
My bet is the VP8 folks must have some from older versions that MPEG-LA infringes on.
If you have opted in to use Html5 and website you visit uses iframe to embed YouTube videos you'll see the video without flashplugin. The codec used depends on the browser you are using: Firefox and Opera will play the WebM version, Safari and IE9 will use h.264. I'm not sure what codec Chrome will prefer, but most likely WebM.
hermafrodite
noun
a person or animal having both male and female sex organs, plus giant frizzy hair
With Chrome 7.0.517.44 (latest at the time of writing), I get WebM. Looks pretty good at 720p!
Just another proletarian malcontent.
Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.
Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.
Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.
Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.
As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.
Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.
DRM. Flash is great for DRM. Don't forget that little 'feature'.
Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.
Hasn't stopped anybody I work with yet...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Safari supports H.264 and yet it's free.
But it isn't FREE!
And Mozilla isn't just about making a browser, its about making the web better.
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
Back in actual, as opposed to perceived, reality On2 has been avoiding patent problems for well over a decade. This was made by a company that did nothing but video codecs, if they didn't know what they were doing in regards to patents, they wouldn't have survived.
Here's a better and less ranty writeup if you want to look into the arguments: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.
But it's significantly worse on Mac, and always has been. For Linux it's even worse, there Flash is almost unusable.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Apparently you don't understand that there are/were already 10x as many iPhones on the market before Android started to take off, but also that iPhones sold more units than Android last quarter. So I wouldn't say google is *owning*. They are far far behind, and they are falling even further behind. That said, #2 in smart phones is still a nice place to be.
Android was outselling iPhone worldwide last quarter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8125725/Google-Android-becomes-second-most-popular-smartphone-operating-system.html From the article: