Storage might be cheap for you and me, but if Google requires a few pebibytes of storage, "only 1.5 times the storage" is going to be too costly just for Firefox and Opera users.
If you have 1$ and triple it, you get 3$. If Google needs 100MB to store the H.264, then needs 200MB to store the Theora file, then they would need to triple their storage capacity. To stream the 200MB Theora file would then require twice as much bandwidth as the 100MB H.264 file. What's so hard to understand about that?
As for your xiph.org link (oh yeah, no bias there I'm sure), he says himself "In order to avoid any possible bias in the selection of H.264 encoders and encoding options, and to maximize the relevance for this particular issue, I've used YouTube itself as the H.264 encoder. This is less than ideal because YouTube does not accept lossless input, but it does accept arbitrarily high bitrate inputs."
YouTube is probably tuned for fast encodes, not good ones. I can probably get better results than YouTube with the default settings in Handbrake.
I do agree that the licensing terms of H.264 look like a complete mess. But on the Theora side you have Firefox and Opera. On the H.264 side you have Google and Apple, not to mention that practically everything has support for hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding these days (even digital photo frames).
I didn't say that Theora needs triple storage capacity. I said that Google would need to triple their storage capacity, the first 100% being taken by H.264 files (obviously).
As for that page you linked to, look at the screenshots. There's nothing subjective about them, H.264 is the clear winner. If you can't see that then you need to calibrate your monitor. Same bandwidth = lower quality results using Theora.
Is anyone seriously thinking that Google will triple* its storage capacity just to have a Theora version for Firefox users and then waste twice* as much bandwidth for those same Firefox users?
* every time I hear about Theora people say it needs twice the bandwidth to achieve the same video quality as H.264
And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it. Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.
If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.
That's the most sane solution I've ever heard about this topic. Hardware already has H.264 decoding and it would make it necessary for software to actually use hardware-accelerated decoding.
Almost everything already supports H.264 and AAC, they're both excellent CODECs and the *only* problem people have with it is the damn patents.
Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC and then make them free to use/public domain.
Another solution would be to change the license requirements for software-only products (such as browsers), so that only hardware products require a license.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think Microsoft created the Xbox 360?
Just a small correction: it doesn't come with iWork. Each iWork app will be available separately for 9.99$USD each.
And that shrink's name is ZIP.
The problem with FrontPage wasn't the users, it was the code that it produced.
That's because non-native speakers can't string the words together, they have to cut them up individually. If that makes any sense.
Ok, but what about researchers?
Storage might be cheap for you and me, but if Google requires a few pebibytes of storage, "only 1.5 times the storage" is going to be too costly just for Firefox and Opera users.
If you have 1$ and triple it, you get 3$. If Google needs 100MB to store the H.264, then needs 200MB to store the Theora file, then they would need to triple their storage capacity. To stream the 200MB Theora file would then require twice as much bandwidth as the 100MB H.264 file. What's so hard to understand about that?
As for your xiph.org link (oh yeah, no bias there I'm sure), he says himself "In order to avoid any possible bias in the selection of H.264 encoders and encoding options, and to maximize the relevance for this particular issue, I've used YouTube itself as the H.264 encoder. This is less than ideal because YouTube does not accept lossless input, but it does accept arbitrarily high bitrate inputs."
YouTube is probably tuned for fast encodes, not good ones. I can probably get better results than YouTube with the default settings in Handbrake.
I do agree that the licensing terms of H.264 look like a complete mess. But on the Theora side you have Firefox and Opera. On the H.264 side you have Google and Apple, not to mention that practically everything has support for hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding these days (even digital photo frames).
I didn't say that Theora needs triple storage capacity. I said that Google would need to triple their storage capacity, the first 100% being taken by H.264 files (obviously).
As for that page you linked to, look at the screenshots. There's nothing subjective about them, H.264 is the clear winner. If you can't see that then you need to calibrate your monitor. Same bandwidth = lower quality results using Theora.
With all the cash they've got they can probably afford Frosted Flakes.
Is anyone seriously thinking that Google will triple* its storage capacity just to have a Theora version for Firefox users and then waste twice* as much bandwidth for those same Firefox users?
* every time I hear about Theora people say it needs twice the bandwidth to achieve the same video quality as H.264
And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it. Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.
If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.
Mozilla can't embed VLC?
If they say anything about generating heat with natural gas, get out of there quick.
Especially if you had a Roland MT-32/CM-32L/CM-64/LAPC-1.
Windows 98SE rules!
8.55$USD is expensive?
Much lower than the bandwidth from Canada, eh?
Intel's going to be pissed.
They got broadband connections in San D'oria? Damn you, Elvaans!
Signed, pissed off Bastokan.
Maybe NASA are testing cheaper ways to take off?
That's the most sane solution I've ever heard about this topic. Hardware already has H.264 decoding and it would make it necessary for software to actually use hardware-accelerated decoding.
Almost everything already supports H.264 and AAC, they're both excellent CODECs and the *only* problem people have with it is the damn patents.
Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC and then make them free to use/public domain.
Another solution would be to change the license requirements for software-only products (such as browsers), so that only hardware products require a license.
about dumb, obvious stuff. Let's talk about it.
In the meantime, Apple and RIM will probably just pay Kodak for the right to use the silly patents which shouldn't exist in the first place.
(Score: -1, Redundant/Woosh/We-understood-the-joke-thank-you-very-much)