Google To Push WebM With IE9, Safari Plugins

surveyork writes with this "new chapter in the browser wars: 'Google in a defense of its decision to pull H.264 from Chrome's HTML5 revealed that it will put out WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Expecting no official support from Apple or Microsoft, Google plans to develop extensions that would load its self-owned video codec. No timetable was given.' So Google gets started with their plan for world-wide WebM domination. They'll provide WebM plugins for the browsers of the H.264-only league, so in practice, all major browsers will have WebM support — one way or the other. Machiavellian move?"

Comments

Re:Yes, Machiavellien, quite

[commodore64_love]

So let's see: WebM is the container.
--- VP8 is the video
--- Vorbis is the audio

Google also has a WebP standard based on VP8, to replace GIFs/JPEGs - wonder why they're not pushing that too? Ya know: Remove image support from their Chrome. (shrug)

MPEG4/h264 vs. VP8 comparison (h264 slightly better - specially on low bitrate connections):
    - http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/vp8_vs_h264.html
HE-AACplus vs. Vorbis (HE-AAC wins):
    - http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-48-1/results.htm
JPEG vs. WebP (WebP wins):
    - http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/real-world-analysis-of-googles-webp-versus-jpg/

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[MrL0G1C]

What, like this:

mp3 is not free..
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html

h.264 is not free:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html

mpeg2 is not free:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Agreement.aspx

(how do I make a proper link here - without the whole url showing up?)

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[obarthelemy]

if what you're saying is true, why didn't they just make it open, maybe with a foundation in charge of certifying different implementations ?

what do you mean by "pissing in their pool" ? do you mean competing ? is that a bed thing now ? or illegal ?

my take is the patent holder are out to make money. they can't really make it off of the consumer, client side, so they're reluctantly making it free as in beer, in order to safeguard their business-side revenue. and they may change their mind at any later date about the special terms under which x.264 is for now allowed to be used to for free in certain specific cases.

you're wrong to think that h.264 comes for free. your devices' manufacturers have had to pay royalties, which are reflected in the price you paid for the devices.