The difference with this change is that for 99% of end users, the change has no tangible benefits.
Previous codec transitions offered better quality, compression, etc. This one is almost entirely ideological, and it's being forced, rather than letting the internet decide which codec they prefer.
There's little reason they couldn't have left H.264 support in, aside from ideology. For example, Apple's preferred audio codec is AAC, but they don't prevent you from using MP3. (Of course, simply mentioning Apple is sure to open a can of worms.)
I care if it has hardware-based acceleration, because I don't do everything on a beefy desktop. H.264 is supported in hardware on billions of devices. WebM is supported on absolutely no devices.
I don't see how H.264 is actively restricting aspiring young producers.
Cameras can record in it. Inexpensive software, even software that comes bundled with a computer, can author in it. Various websites like YouTube and Vimeo can serve video in it for free. Yes, that's really onerous. The average person is not going to spend one extra cent on H.264.
By the time that you reach a level where you may possibly have to pay a license fee for it, you're going to have much bigger costs in the realm of bandwidth, productions costs, and such.
As for "end to end connectivity"... H.264 is great for that, because it's widely supported and you can use it every step along the way. WebM... not so much.
It's all ideology. Like Ogg Vorbis vs MP3. MP3 may be riddled with patents, but go say "Ogg Vorbis" to some random person on the street and they'll think you're an alien.
Innovation comes from what you do with it, not whether it passes some nerd kosher test.
This is what bugs me the most about Google abandoning H.264.
They're a bunch of ideological zealots saying "Screw your phone, screw your iPod, screw your video card, screw your laptop, screw your PS3, screw all your expensive hardware that supports H.264. We're switching to WebM. It offers no real-world benefits over H.264, but it's OPEN!"
At the risk of sounding like a bitter old man, that's a load of fucking hippie bullshit.
Google can feel good about themselves for being "open", and save a few cents in the process, but all my hardware, which did its job perfectly, now won't. (That, and we won't see hardware supporting WebM until somewhere in 2012.)
This is about openness and innovation. H.264 stifles innovation, while non-patented codecs allow greater innovation.
"Innovation." Yes. Because you can make better fucking videos with WebM, right?
How are you going to "innovate" with an open codec?
When it comes to the consumer, a codec is a codec. It all comes down to quality and performance, and since pretty much every bit of hardware out there directly supports H.264, giving it the performance edge by a mile, I'd say that codec provides the greatest benefit to the consumer.
I think Apple's antenna testing problems may be due to the fact that the iPhone 4 was always encased in a plastic disguise while outside the lab, so the tester's hand never actually came into contact with the antenna.
It didn't come out of its disguise until it was in mass production, and actual users couldn't wrap their hands around it, triggering the antenna problem, until it was available.
So, extreme secrecy is to blame for this. Maybe next time they'll find a way to test it naked outside the lab.:P
It may not blow up, but there will certainly be a benefit to it. Most people don't know where to find Mac apps, and brick and mortar stores don't stock many Mac apps. This store will help dispel the long-running myth that there's little software available for the Mac. (Once the store fills up properly in the next few weeks.)
I grew up in the '80s. The Beatles' music still spoke to me. That may not make much sense to you, but whatever.
But even more to the point, I'll use an example: I still go out dancing. Whenever the DJ puts on a Beatles tune, EVERYONE gets on the floor. I'm not just talking about 30-year-olds like myself, but 19-year-olds who were born a whole decade after John Lennon died.
So, The Beatles don't matter?
As for my Pixar comparison, 15 years removed from Toy Story 1, people new to it can still relate without much cultural confusion at all. In a pop culture-saturated, hyper-accelerated culture like ours, that's pretty impressive.
"They are interesting, but with the cultural reference points being half a century ago, they are kind of hard to relate to like the kids half a century related to them."
There aren't all that many cultural reference points in Beatles songs. The lyrics are pretty-much timeless. That's part of how they managed to stay so popular.
I don't think Jobs is dumb enough to buy Facebook.
Right now it's the darling of the social internet, but a few years ago that title belonged to MySpace. Remember MySpace?
These sites don't have a very long shelf life. They're popular for a few years, and then they die off when the next, newest popular social media site takes off.
"If Microsoft wrote iTunes people would point at it as a symbol of everything that is wrong with Microsoft." If Microsoft wrote iTunes, it would have a "ribbon" by now.
That's the same mentality as pawning the stuff in your house because your unemployment insurance is about to run out, rather than putting yourself to work and getting a job.
What happens when you run out of IP blocks to reclaim? (Please don't say NAT.)
Furthermore, one of them once got behind the fridge and chewed through its power cable. There was a loud bang, and a bright flash... and the rabbit was 100% fine. (Plus, it seemed rather unconcerned.)
I swear, those things are impervious to electricity.
I can't even count how many wires and cables I've had to patch-up due to my girlfriend's rabbits. They nearly ate through my MacBook Pro's power cable, which would cost more to replace than the two of them were to buy.
A few years back someone brought their computer over to my house for me to fix it. They had the usual excuse. "It's being slow". So I hook it up, and download the latest anti-malware stuff. (I was in a hurry, so I just plugged it into my router.)
About half an hour after doing that, I tried to access a website, and instead got a security notice from my ISP (a cable company) saying that my internet had been cut-off and asking me to call a number. I called them up, they told me that my connection was sending out an unusual amount of mail and that it had automatically been suspended. I told them what was up, and they agreed to release the suspension right away.
Know what? I was HAPPY that they did that. It means they're serious about proper network security. Not like the other big cable company around here (Rogers) that simply blocks all outgoing mail ports, making life difficult for everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference with this change is that for 99% of end users, the change has no tangible benefits.
Previous codec transitions offered better quality, compression, etc. This one is almost entirely ideological, and it's being forced, rather than letting the internet decide which codec they prefer.
There's little reason they couldn't have left H.264 support in, aside from ideology. For example, Apple's preferred audio codec is AAC, but they don't prevent you from using MP3. (Of course, simply mentioning Apple is sure to open a can of worms.)
I care if it has hardware-based acceleration, because I don't do everything on a beefy desktop. H.264 is supported in hardware on billions of devices. WebM is supported on absolutely no devices.
That's what all those old cyberpunk novels promised us. Big Japanese companies sending cybernetic ninjas to take-out rogue hackers.
Come on, Sony. Make it happen.
I don't see how H.264 is actively restricting aspiring young producers.
Cameras can record in it. Inexpensive software, even software that comes bundled with a computer, can author in it. Various websites like YouTube and Vimeo can serve video in it for free. Yes, that's really onerous. The average person is not going to spend one extra cent on H.264.
By the time that you reach a level where you may possibly have to pay a license fee for it, you're going to have much bigger costs in the realm of bandwidth, productions costs, and such.
As for "end to end connectivity"... H.264 is great for that, because it's widely supported and you can use it every step along the way. WebM... not so much.
It's all ideology. Like Ogg Vorbis vs MP3. MP3 may be riddled with patents, but go say "Ogg Vorbis" to some random person on the street and they'll think you're an alien.
Innovation comes from what you do with it, not whether it passes some nerd kosher test.
This is what bugs me the most about Google abandoning H.264.
They're a bunch of ideological zealots saying "Screw your phone, screw your iPod, screw your video card, screw your laptop, screw your PS3, screw all your expensive hardware that supports H.264. We're switching to WebM. It offers no real-world benefits over H.264, but it's OPEN!"
At the risk of sounding like a bitter old man, that's a load of fucking hippie bullshit.
Google can feel good about themselves for being "open", and save a few cents in the process, but all my hardware, which did its job perfectly, now won't. (That, and we won't see hardware supporting WebM until somewhere in 2012.)
This is about openness and innovation. H.264 stifles innovation, while non-patented codecs allow greater innovation.
"Innovation." Yes. Because you can make better fucking videos with WebM, right?
How are you going to "innovate" with an open codec?
When it comes to the consumer, a codec is a codec. It all comes down to quality and performance, and since pretty much every bit of hardware out there directly supports H.264, giving it the performance edge by a mile, I'd say that codec provides the greatest benefit to the consumer.
In the '20s and '30s they had dancing marathons, to see who could dance the longest.
Eating competitions have gone on for who knows how long.
Even the Inuit have a game where two men stand across from each other and take turns punching each other in the shoulder until one gives up.
Shit's been going on forever. The world hasn't ended yet.
I think Apple's antenna testing problems may be due to the fact that the iPhone 4 was always encased in a plastic disguise while outside the lab, so the tester's hand never actually came into contact with the antenna.
It didn't come out of its disguise until it was in mass production, and actual users couldn't wrap their hands around it, triggering the antenna problem, until it was available.
So, extreme secrecy is to blame for this. Maybe next time they'll find a way to test it naked outside the lab. :P
It may not blow up, but there will certainly be a benefit to it. Most people don't know where to find Mac apps, and brick and mortar stores don't stock many Mac apps. This store will help dispel the long-running myth that there's little software available for the Mac. (Once the store fills up properly in the next few weeks.)
What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?
So "do nothing", basically.
Hope you're happy with that box of useless power adaptors.
What if Skynet becomes self-aware and launches nukes?
"Tell that to my dad, my sister, and my wife."
Well then, that settles it! 2010 is finally the year of Linux on the desktop!
I grew up in the '80s. The Beatles' music still spoke to me. That may not make much sense to you, but whatever.
But even more to the point, I'll use an example: I still go out dancing. Whenever the DJ puts on a Beatles tune, EVERYONE gets on the floor. I'm not just talking about 30-year-olds like myself, but 19-year-olds who were born a whole decade after John Lennon died.
So, The Beatles don't matter?
As for my Pixar comparison, 15 years removed from Toy Story 1, people new to it can still relate without much cultural confusion at all. In a pop culture-saturated, hyper-accelerated culture like ours, that's pretty impressive.
"They are interesting, but with the cultural reference points being half a century ago, they are kind of hard to relate to like the kids half a century related to them."
There aren't all that many cultural reference points in Beatles songs. The lyrics are pretty-much timeless. That's part of how they managed to stay so popular.
It's sorta like Pixar.
Nah, this is a spaghetti-mess post-war neighbourhood.
I'm waiting for the first balloon-launched Hamsternaut. Complete with cute hamster spacesuit.
My street starts at 427.
I wish I knew why.
Steam caters to a specific market, though, so I think they'll be alright.
I don't think Jobs is dumb enough to buy Facebook.
Right now it's the darling of the social internet, but a few years ago that title belonged to MySpace. Remember MySpace?
These sites don't have a very long shelf life. They're popular for a few years, and then they die off when the next, newest popular social media site takes off.
"If Microsoft wrote iTunes people would point at it as a symbol of everything that is wrong with Microsoft."
If Microsoft wrote iTunes, it would have a "ribbon" by now.
That's the same mentality as pawning the stuff in your house because your unemployment insurance is about to run out, rather than putting yourself to work and getting a job.
What happens when you run out of IP blocks to reclaim? (Please don't say NAT.)
Furthermore, one of them once got behind the fridge and chewed through its power cable. There was a loud bang, and a bright flash... and the rabbit was 100% fine. (Plus, it seemed rather unconcerned.)
I swear, those things are impervious to electricity.
I can't even count how many wires and cables I've had to patch-up due to my girlfriend's rabbits. They nearly ate through my MacBook Pro's power cable, which would cost more to replace than the two of them were to buy.
A few years back someone brought their computer over to my house for me to fix it. They had the usual excuse. "It's being slow". So I hook it up, and download the latest anti-malware stuff. (I was in a hurry, so I just plugged it into my router.)
About half an hour after doing that, I tried to access a website, and instead got a security notice from my ISP (a cable company) saying that my internet had been cut-off and asking me to call a number. I called them up, they told me that my connection was sending out an unusual amount of mail and that it had automatically been suspended. I told them what was up, and they agreed to release the suspension right away.
Know what? I was HAPPY that they did that. It means they're serious about proper network security. Not like the other big cable company around here (Rogers) that simply blocks all outgoing mail ports, making life difficult for everybody.