There are, but they can only be distributed as source and this is only short term:)
Distributions don't work like Windows/OSX they have a free market. I use Ubuntu on most machines(no maintenace), and Gentoo on my main machine(I like cutting edge software), but lately I feel like a rolling Distro is what I really want. I'm excited at Unity/Gnome 3 but for one or the others failure might push me onto one. I am not tied to either Gentoo or Ubuntu
Lets be honest though WebM is under a BSD License with the patents wavered. It was in Firefox/Gsteamer/ffmpeg is a couple of weeks of the announcement. Where MP3/H.264 have to be downloaded under those restricted codecs. Why would they restrict it:)
And generally speaking Open Standards are even more important than Open Source. Especially in the long run.
I cannot agree more. The fact that. Opera/Firefox/Chrome cannot/will not implement H.264, but will implement WebM gives some indication of how Open H.264 however standard it is amongst Patent Holders of H.264.
This is about the html5 image tag. Your Video game console has enough grunt to display WebM in fact support for many codecs most famously DivX on the Xbox360 later than the PS3. I am surprised that the vastly more popular Wii can play H.264 though. I'm pretty sure none of these have dedicated hardware though:)
Key here is, HTML5 was supposed to at least partially break Adobe's stranglehold on the web by moving some content away from Flash. Google just killed any hope of that - They talk about supporting open codecs, but they still bundle Adobe Flash (which includes H.264 support) with Chrome?
Why does the solution have to the problem have to be H.264? Why can't it be WebM? Why did Google kill that hope. Apple hold patents/ Microsoft hold patents why can't they offer support to WebM? Why should the Restrictive License/Patent Encumbered Codec become the standard?
Flash has won the web because its crossplatform and codec agnostic. Why would settling on a now solution be better when better formats are available. WebM2 or H.264+. I Loath Flash, but if the alternative is the web locked into a legacy restrictive licensed/patent encumbered codec. I'll take it.
So basically everyone will be forced to upgrade their phones and computers because Google wants to force ANOTHER codec on the web?
Progress happens. Look at the specs for the new phones. Look at all the new versions of Android trotted out each week. Phones are what all this is about. The only people screaming about this are iDevice users with good reason. Jobs said this is the way this is going go...and well he turned out to be wrong.
Choice was used. Just Googles Firefox/Opera btw had NO choice. Google has the right to choose, between using the format they bought vs one with spiralling costs. The one that supports their business model not Apple/Microsofts.
100,000 videos on the internet is nothing. I had a quick look on youtube at numbers someone who talks about twilight, someone showing off their mindcraft world, some ginger haired kid talking about slavery.
However you put it this hurts Small companies who want small scale commercial projects selling cups, or small sponsorships for products who can with WebM compete freely.
Oddly those who are not hurt are the Mega-Corps Like Microsoft, and Apple.
I've reread my first statement it is perfect. as it states browsers not web sites. I use the connective "and" to describe the content available for them, which primarily is YouTube
Oddly I did not mention it did both video formats were available in YouTube, but going forward it will be in WebM in a video tag with a fallback to WebM in Flash which could be as soon as Feburary.
Thats wonderful news. So your saying that the code can be optimised, by hardware and software companies using different methods including patented ones.
Are you saying that if the FUD about WebM a format that predates H.264 really were to come into being it could be coded around;)
They have licensed it BSD, because thats how you get adoption of the format. Thats what they want. Thats the only way they can succeeded...are you really trying to imply that Google is going to sue anyone. I suspect that with H.264 highly restrictive license and multiple company involvement you are gonna see a lot of people sued.
Sorry that means *currenty* WebM to H.264 split of about 2:1 ratio, and the gap widening further for native support to 3:1 next month and the gap widening further.
I don't think I have made any other glaring errors. I left Opera out as it was complex enough as it was it needs a labelled graph.
It's not that small anymore, and Firefox doesn't support h.264 either. Between the two of them, they make up a very large segment. The basic problem you have is:
FF/Chrome - no h.264
IE/Safari - no WebM
This means you have a strict division of support, and in order to satisfy more than 50% of the market, you'd have to offer both formats. If this doesn't change, unfortunately the video tag will likely die.
Not true. Your trying to imply that their is a 50% split in the market rather than the the uptake over time of the video tag. Its more complicated for a start it doesn't cover Video Content on the net YouTube is going to support WebM lets face it and is the largest Video streaming company on the net.
Now for browsers *currently* the only browsers ignoring beta's that support the video tag are chrome and safari...giving only support for webm to chrome users leaving chrome+safari for h.264, and YouTube serving its videos in H.264 format.
Trouble is come Feburary *everything* changes Firefox+Chrome both coming out next month to the tune of half the market. IE9(the only version with the video tag, still has no official release date but may come as soon as next month, but has the worst adoption rates and has limited iself to 40% of the OS it will support, We can confidently say a Maximum 20%, although its more likely to be half that, unless Microsoft Push out a mandatory update which they are unlikely to do. Leaving WebM with a 3:1 support over H.264 although in reality its more you can gesstimate through adoption ratios.
Going forward XP machines will be replaced at about 20% a year. Chome at least in the short term will continue to rise depending on how this news affects it. Firefox will I grow on its new release...How much with chrome as a competitor is anyones guess. IE I suspect will lose more market simply because its trying to push XP users onto Windows 7 with its browser.
...But thats ignoring a major factor. On Vista+ Microsoft have provided a fallback for Firefox to H.264 through a plugin. IE9 will have a fallback in Windows 7 to WebM in IE9. Safari on OSX will have a fallback to WebM. Thats about 40% that have some support for both not native for the Video tag. XP users to get the Video Tag with have to use Firefox or Chrome...about half of the do. So 60% Have some Support for WebM. 20% can ONLY use the Video tag this way.
So If your talking about a split WebM will have a third larger support than H.264, and 3 times the size of native support.
So if Market share was the only indication WebM is a long way in the lead...and with YouTubes backing!?
Its interesting to see Internet Explorer on XP is holding back the Video tag:)
What the fuck are you smoking? New codecs do come along all the time, but industry standard ones do not. H.264 has been years in the making. It is used end-to-end in most TV broadcasts, across the internet, on phones, and pretty much anything that has digital video uses h.264, and does it in hardware. Small commercial projects serving video to under 100,000 subscribers don't have to pay a penny. I take it you have no fucking idea about the licensing costs of h.264. It's dirt cheap. The little guy doesn't have to pay royalties for h.264.
WebM comes with the backing of some awful big players on the Internet(Firefox/Opera...Google). From Next Month we are looking at 50% of browser support. Why can't TV broadcasts/phones not support WebM in hardware? They can and they are already releasing some. Most hardware supports upgrades unless they for business reasons choose not to. A small commercial project of several million is trivial to achieve on the internet. Its the internet...and its not just the internet it includes a whole host of small applications including proprietary ones that cannot use this. I know a little of the spiralling costs and know that half of all used internet browsers think it is too much, but your right about me not knowing the costs they get to change how much they charge again in 2015.:) Its disgusting.
As far as I am aware W3C the organisation that looks after web standards has given no codec the green light. I cannot think of a better way of showing a standard than a working implementation...Something OOXML that standard that got through by corruption and still has no working implementation. To be fair though the vast majority of browsers using the Video tag will be WebM which is next month. Which is what I would call a internet standard.
Google, Opera, Firefox religious zealots OMG when did this happen. I thought they made these choices for business reasons. Please tell me more about this religion is there handshakes involved. Tell me there is lots of SEX. To be honest those other companies that only allow H.264 format that they make money off the small hardware/software companies as a barrier of entry...are they zealots too!? Tell me more.
Now that Google has dropped h.264 support from Chrome, the new reality is that the <video> tag in HTML5 is dead, and pretty much all desktop video will be served in Flash players.
So it's good they are getting a head start on getting the VP8 codec tuned in Flash, although the practical reality is that for full support in all browsers all you'll have to do is encode in h.264 and call it a day; thus that's all most companies will ever do. You have to encode in h.264 to support video playback on iOS devices which is still a huge segment of the mobile market that uses the internet.
After all Adobe owns Flash, and they have no reason to remove h.264 support now that web designers are being forced to use of Flash players for desktop. So the new steady state for the system is h.264 in Flash players everywhere except for systems that can play h.264 directly.
Your very fortunate. Google still offer support for WebM through Chrome as do Firefox and Opera. Hopefully Microsoft and Apple can get behind this. They have already said its better to speak the same language...and both love openstandards. As you have already stated Safari;) and IE9(not XP Microsoft have not given them a choice for IE) have native OS fallbacks, Although as you can see those devices that give users the choice of Flash can get WebM in Flash as well.
Now that Google has dropped h.264 support from Chrome, the new reality is that the <video> tag in HTML5 is dead, and pretty much all desktop video will be served in Flash players.
Except that Chrome has rather small share of the browser market.
Chrome has about 10% of the Market though lets be honest its a 50% Split between companies(firefox opera are WebM) who support WebM vs H.264, and a massive majority if you only include those that are cutting edge browsers with supported platforms. With IE9 still with no release date and not working on XP. That and the fact the LARGEST video streaming site on the net Youtube will support it. Ignoring the fact that OS's can provide safe fallbacks. So no not really.
I prefer that as my video playback of choice. I don't want want the sub par solution.
And Google have chosen their video playback of choice, and said why. Personally I'm looking forward to all those small commercial Videos we can see on the net now they have a real choice. I'm looking forward to all the tools that are already appearing that are able to support WebM simply because the cost(nothing in every way) from Major browsers to small hardware & software companies. Thank goodness they are offered a real choice
I look forward to the improved WebM2.0 and WebM3.0 as work is undoubtedly containing in and outside goodle on this current gen codec we have already seen innovation in it being used for still images. I look forward to it being used in video chat/Game recording.
I look forward to new patent unencumbered Video and Audio Codecs appearing on the landscape and those being used as well.
New codecs happen all the time. If your current hardware cannot support it perhaps you bought the wrong hardware.
Its a shame that point-and-shoot camera's have had to adopt H.264 as the costs of using it for small commercial projects simply a restriction. Thank goodness their is a real alternative for the little guy.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple users are having fits over an MPEG2 or divx file then that is a failure of Apple, not a genuine technology issue.
I agree wholeheartedly which is why you can look forward to WebM on your iDevice :)
There are GPL H.264 encoders and decoders.
There are, but they can only be distributed as source and this is only short term :)
Distributions don't work like Windows/OSX they have a free market. I use Ubuntu on most machines(no maintenace), and Gentoo on my main machine(I like cutting edge software), but lately I feel like a rolling Distro is what I really want. I'm excited at Unity/Gnome 3 but for one or the others failure might push me onto one. I am not tied to either Gentoo or Ubuntu
Lets be honest though WebM is under a BSD License with the patents wavered. It was in Firefox/Gsteamer/ffmpeg is a couple of weeks of the announcement. Where MP3/H.264 have to be downloaded under those restricted codecs. Why would they restrict it :)
And generally speaking Open Standards are even more important than Open Source. Especially in the long run.
I cannot agree more. The fact that. Opera/Firefox/Chrome cannot/will not implement H.264, but will implement WebM gives some indication of how Open H.264 however standard it is amongst Patent Holders of H.264.
The patents will expire in 18years.
This is about the html5 image tag. Your Video game console has enough grunt to display WebM in fact support for many codecs most famously DivX on the Xbox360 later than the PS3. I am surprised that the vastly more popular Wii can play H.264 though. I'm pretty sure none of these have dedicated hardware though :)
Key here is, HTML5 was supposed to at least partially break Adobe's stranglehold on the web by moving some content away from Flash. Google just killed any hope of that - They talk about supporting open codecs, but they still bundle Adobe Flash (which includes H.264 support) with Chrome?
Why does the solution have to the problem have to be H.264? Why can't it be WebM? Why did Google kill that hope. Apple hold patents/ Microsoft hold patents why can't they offer support to WebM? Why should the Restrictive License/Patent Encumbered Codec become the standard?
Flash has won the web because its crossplatform and codec agnostic. Why would settling on a now solution be better when better formats are available. WebM2 or H.264+. I Loath Flash, but if the alternative is the web locked into a legacy restrictive licensed/patent encumbered codec. I'll take it.
So basically everyone will be forced to upgrade their phones and computers because Google wants to force ANOTHER codec on the web?
Progress happens. Look at the specs for the new phones. Look at all the new versions of Android trotted out each week. Phones are what all this is about. The only people screaming about this are iDevice users with good reason. Jobs said this is the way this is going go...and well he turned out to be wrong.
Choice was used. Just Googles Firefox/Opera btw had NO choice. Google has the right to choose, between using the format they bought vs one with spiralling costs. The one that supports their business model not Apple/Microsofts.
And yet device are starting to appear AMD, ARM, Nvidia, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments have vowed their support.
However you put it this hurts Small companies who want small scale commercial projects selling cups, or small sponsorships for products who can with WebM compete freely.
Oddly those who are not hurt are the Mega-Corps Like Microsoft, and Apple.
While I support the idea of WebM it will cause no end to problems if Apple, RIM, Nokia, and Palm/HP do not support it.
Hardware Companies AMD, ARM, Nvidia, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments have vowed support for WebM.
Oddly I did not mention it did both video formats were available in YouTube, but going forward it will be in WebM in a video tag with a fallback to WebM in Flash which could be as soon as Feburary.
Are you saying that if the FUD about WebM a format that predates H.264 really were to come into being it could be coded around ;)
They have licensed it BSD, because thats how you get adoption of the format. Thats what they want. Thats the only way they can succeeded...are you really trying to imply that Google is going to sue anyone. I suspect that with H.264 highly restrictive license and multiple company involvement you are gonna see a lot of people sued.
I don't think I have made any other glaring errors. I left Opera out as it was complex enough as it was it needs a labelled graph.
It's not that small anymore, and Firefox doesn't support h.264 either. Between the two of them, they make up a very large segment. The basic problem you have is: FF/Chrome - no h.264 IE/Safari - no WebM
This means you have a strict division of support, and in order to satisfy more than 50% of the market, you'd have to offer both formats. If this doesn't change, unfortunately the video tag will likely die.
Not true. Your trying to imply that their is a 50% split in the market rather than the the uptake over time of the video tag. Its more complicated for a start it doesn't cover Video Content on the net YouTube is going to support WebM lets face it and is the largest Video streaming company on the net.
Now for browsers *currently* the only browsers ignoring beta's that support the video tag are chrome and safari...giving only support for webm to chrome users leaving chrome+safari for h.264, and YouTube serving its videos in H.264 format.
Trouble is come Feburary *everything* changes Firefox+Chrome both coming out next month to the tune of half the market. IE9(the only version with the video tag, still has no official release date but may come as soon as next month, but has the worst adoption rates and has limited iself to 40% of the OS it will support, We can confidently say a Maximum 20%, although its more likely to be half that, unless Microsoft Push out a mandatory update which they are unlikely to do. Leaving WebM with a 3:1 support over H.264 although in reality its more you can gesstimate through adoption ratios.
Going forward XP machines will be replaced at about 20% a year. Chome at least in the short term will continue to rise depending on how this news affects it. Firefox will I grow on its new release...How much with chrome as a competitor is anyones guess. IE I suspect will lose more market simply because its trying to push XP users onto Windows 7 with its browser.
So If your talking about a split WebM will have a third larger support than H.264, and 3 times the size of native support.
So if Market share was the only indication WebM is a long way in the lead...and with YouTubes backing!?
Its interesting to see Internet Explorer on XP is holding back the Video tag :)
They aren't forbidding WebM. So, no, I don't have to tell you more, since you've already walked your own way to idiocy.
Then I look forward to Microsoft and Apple announcing there full backing of WebM using the Video tag rather than funny[sic] bolg posts or silence.
What the fuck are you smoking? New codecs do come along all the time, but industry standard ones do not. H.264 has been years in the making. It is used end-to-end in most TV broadcasts, across the internet, on phones, and pretty much anything that has digital video uses h.264, and does it in hardware. Small commercial projects serving video to under 100,000 subscribers don't have to pay a penny. I take it you have no fucking idea about the licensing costs of h.264. It's dirt cheap. The little guy doesn't have to pay royalties for h.264.
WebM comes with the backing of some awful big players on the Internet(Firefox/Opera...Google). From Next Month we are looking at 50% of browser support. Why can't TV broadcasts/phones not support WebM in hardware? They can and they are already releasing some. Most hardware supports upgrades unless they for business reasons choose not to. A small commercial project of several million is trivial to achieve on the internet. Its the internet...and its not just the internet it includes a whole host of small applications including proprietary ones that cannot use this. I know a little of the spiralling costs and know that half of all used internet browsers think it is too much, but your right about me not knowing the costs they get to change how much they charge again in 2015. :) Its disgusting.
As far as I am aware W3C the organisation that looks after web standards has given no codec the green light. I cannot think of a better way of showing a standard than a working implementation...Something OOXML that standard that got through by corruption and still has no working implementation. To be fair though the vast majority of browsers using the Video tag will be WebM which is next month. Which is what I would call a internet standard.
Google, Opera, Firefox religious zealots OMG when did this happen. I thought they made these choices for business reasons. Please tell me more about this religion is there handshakes involved. Tell me there is lots of SEX. To be honest those other companies that only allow H.264 format that they make money off the small hardware/software companies as a barrier of entry...are they zealots too!? Tell me more.
Now that Google has dropped h.264 support from Chrome, the new reality is that the <video> tag in HTML5 is dead, and pretty much all desktop video will be served in Flash players.
So it's good they are getting a head start on getting the VP8 codec tuned in Flash, although the practical reality is that for full support in all browsers all you'll have to do is encode in h.264 and call it a day; thus that's all most companies will ever do. You have to encode in h.264 to support video playback on iOS devices which is still a huge segment of the mobile market that uses the internet.
After all Adobe owns Flash, and they have no reason to remove h.264 support now that web designers are being forced to use of Flash players for desktop. So the new steady state for the system is h.264 in Flash players everywhere except for systems that can play h.264 directly.
Your very fortunate. Google still offer support for WebM through Chrome as do Firefox and Opera. Hopefully Microsoft and Apple can get behind this. They have already said its better to speak the same language...and both love openstandards. As you have already stated Safari ;) and IE9(not XP Microsoft have not given them a choice for IE) have native OS fallbacks, Although as you can see those devices that give users the choice of Flash can get WebM in Flash as well.
Now that Google has dropped h.264 support from Chrome, the new reality is that the <video> tag in HTML5 is dead, and pretty much all desktop video will be served in Flash players.
Except that Chrome has rather small share of the browser market.
Chrome has about 10% of the Market though lets be honest its a 50% Split between companies(firefox opera are WebM) who support WebM vs H.264, and a massive majority if you only include those that are cutting edge browsers with supported platforms. With IE9 still with no release date and not working on XP. That and the fact the LARGEST video streaming site on the net Youtube will support it. Ignoring the fact that OS's can provide safe fallbacks. So no not really.
I prefer that as my video playback of choice. I don't want want the sub par solution.
And Google have chosen their video playback of choice, and said why. Personally I'm looking forward to all those small commercial Videos we can see on the net now they have a real choice. I'm looking forward to all the tools that are already appearing that are able to support WebM simply because the cost(nothing in every way) from Major browsers to small hardware & software companies. Thank goodness they are offered a real choice
I look forward to the improved WebM2.0 and WebM3.0 as work is undoubtedly containing in and outside goodle on this current gen codec we have already seen innovation in it being used for still images. I look forward to it being used in video chat/Game recording.
I look forward to new patent unencumbered Video and Audio Codecs appearing on the landscape and those being used as well.
If you log a regression bug I will verify it!
I think they will do a quick check to see if Videos still work on youtube and mark it WONTFIX legacy formats not supported.
I've heard that h.264 support is broken in an upcoming release.
buy they have improved support for WebM :)
Its a shame that point-and-shoot camera's have had to adopt H.264 as the costs of using it for small commercial projects simply a restriction. Thank goodness their is a real alternative for the little guy.