Google? A lot of companies are being affected by the MPEG-LA's patent trolling. You may know about a company called "Mozilla"? How is it evil to investigate illegal practices anyway?
H264 is not a web standard. It is a patent-encumbered video standard. Web standards cannot be patent-encumbered, by definition. Read the W3C patent policy.
H264 is incompatible with an open web. IE6 was a major component of the web, but that didn't make it compatible with an open web. Like H264, IE6 closed the web.
And this is not about open-source. It's about open standards.
LOL. Android is beating the iPhone worldwide. Verizon is not helping the iPhone in the US. And who gives a crap what iPhone owners are "more likely to buy"? This is about the number of sold phones.
Yes, it is indeed a true statement. Web standards need to be royalty-free. Read the W3C patent policy. When are you going to continue spreading your misinformation? Who's paying you?
While I agree with your general point, iOS passed the "100 million devices" mark last June. So I doubt that Windows is a few orders of magnitude larger.
Windows is so much bigger than iOS that it's laughable. Total mobile traffic on the web is something like 3-5%.
iOS devices are a tiny part of the overall market (if you include PCs), and Android is eating it for lunch. And guess what, this is about web video, not video on devices.
WebM is a big deal because it's better suited for the web due to licensing issues.
Too bad its untrue. There's no requirement that HTML5 codecs have to be royalty free. (At least not that I'm aware.)
Yes there is. The W3C patent policy is very clear on this.
As for H.264 it's already in use in billions of device from things as small as iPods, to home Televisions, to giant Movie and TV studios. It has become the defacto standard just like VHS, DVD, and Bluray.
Are VHS, DVD and BR used on the web? Didn't think so. This is about the web. H264 could be used on the Moon for all I care. The Moon is not the web.
The geek is so obsessed with the web that he forgets that there are other markets, very big markets, very rich markets, for data compressed digital video.
Yes, different markets. Not web markets. The TV market has all sorts of proprietary crap. Does that mean it should take over from the web? Of course not.
This is about video on the web. The web is supposed to be free and open. It doesn't matter if other markets use closed technologies. This is about the web.
If you search for the actual source instead of the silly, unsourced article at ConceivablyTech, you'll notice that it talks about Chromium OS, not Chromium (Chrome). So ignore the sensationalism by CT, and go to the actual source.
Your extreme dishonesty continues. Is HTML patent-encumbered? What about CSS? No? Notice how open web standards aren't? And your comparisons are completely idiotic, but perfectly in line with the rest of your extremely dishonest lies.
H264 is a closed standard for video compression. As such, it is not suitable for the web, because the web requires open, royalty-free standards. That H264 is dominant on offline devices doesn't mean that it is suitable for the web. Also, IE9 does not support WebM, at least by default.
Bottom line: H264 is incompatible with an open web.
I know I have caught you lying about this before, so why are you still making claims you know are false? H264 does have patent issues, namely that open web standards cannot be patent-encumbered. The web is built on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
Chrome doesn't support Flash. It bundles the Flash plugin. The reason they did that is because it allows Chrome to support videos while the web is transitioning to native video.
Thanking Microsoft for fighting for a closed web? Nice one.
Google are not being hypocritical. They are just picking their fights. Native video on the web is the real fight now.
Slashdot Mirror
Google? A lot of companies are being affected by the MPEG-LA's patent trolling. You may know about a company called "Mozilla"? How is it evil to investigate illegal practices anyway?
I thought RC was when the product is supposed to be ready for shipping, unless someone finds a really nasty bug that blocks the release...
I thought experiments were carried out during the alpha phase, and the beta phase was only supposed to be used to fix bugs...
H264 is incompatible with an open web. IE6 was a major component of the web, but that didn't make it compatible with an open web. Like H264, IE6 closed the web.
And this is not about open-source. It's about open standards.
LOL. Android is beating the iPhone worldwide. Verizon is not helping the iPhone in the US. And who gives a crap what iPhone owners are "more likely to buy"? This is about the number of sold phones.
Exactly. Open web standards must be royalty-free.
You wrote this:
No, I don't merely disagree with you. I am actively disgusted by your constant lies.
Yes, it is indeed a true statement. Web standards need to be royalty-free. Read the W3C patent policy. When are you going to continue spreading your misinformation? Who's paying you?
It's too bad that Android is slaughtering the iPhone. Android tablets are coming now as well. Apple TV was a disaster. The PS3 is owned by the Wii.
Windows is so much bigger than iOS that it's laughable. Total mobile traffic on the web is something like 3-5%.
iOS devices are a tiny part of the overall market (if you include PCs), and Android is eating it for lunch. And guess what, this is about web video, not video on devices.
WebM is a big deal because it's better suited for the web due to licensing issues.
Yes there is. The W3C patent policy is very clear on this.
Are VHS, DVD and BR used on the web? Didn't think so. This is about the web. H264 could be used on the Moon for all I care. The Moon is not the web.
This is wrong. Also, people don't really care about image quality.
And Android is beating the crap out of it. iOS will never be the dominant smartphone OS. Android will.
Uh, HTML5 is old? Are you crazy? Video on the web in general is growing massively. It is not about mobile, for the most part.
Yes, different markets. Not web markets. The TV market has all sorts of proprietary crap. Does that mean it should take over from the web? Of course not.
This is about video on the web. The web is supposed to be free and open. It doesn't matter if other markets use closed technologies. This is about the web.
If you search for the actual source instead of the silly, unsourced article at ConceivablyTech, you'll notice that it talks about Chromium OS, not Chromium (Chrome). So ignore the sensationalism by CT, and go to the actual source.
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-patent-risk/
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality-patents/
Yawn. More FUD from the MPEG-LA cartel. They really should stop it. If they had something, they would have used it a long time ago.
Your extreme dishonesty continues. Is HTML patent-encumbered? What about CSS? No? Notice how open web standards aren't? And your comparisons are completely idiotic, but perfectly in line with the rest of your extremely dishonest lies.
Bottom line: H264 is incompatible with an open web.
I know I have caught you lying about this before, so why are you still making claims you know are false? H264 does have patent issues, namely that open web standards cannot be patent-encumbered. The web is built on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
Your "analysis" fails miserably.
What formats might that be?
Thanking Microsoft for fighting for a closed web? Nice one. Google are not being hypocritical. They are just picking their fights. Native video on the web is the real fight now.