What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
225 Comments
- mvent2, on 07/06/2009, -0/+102Chrome only ships h.264 in the final binary, the Chromium source code doesn't have it. Also, Mozilla doesn't want an internet where you have to pay thousands of dollars to stream video after 2010.
- FapCommander, on 07/06/2009, -14/+108***** Apple I'm with Mozilla on this one
- LaughingMan11, on 07/06/2009, -1/+94Apple and Nokia are pushing H.264 for the very simple reason that these two handset manufacturers have actual products on the market with dedicated H.264 decoding hardware. This hardware out of the box won't help accelerate Ogg Theora. What this will mean is significantly worse battery life on many mobile devices when playing back Theora since a software decode will be the only choice.
Mozilla doesn't make devices and don't have to worry about the availability or unavailability of Theora hardware decoders. Apple and Nokia are working from their experience in the embedded marketplace. - colincornaby, on 07/06/2009, -2/+85Moral of the story: Mozilla and Apple/Google are fighting each other, but Microsoft is still the big bad guy.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+64Honestly, I just wish everyone would agree (beside Adobe of course) so we could get video out of Flash. There's no reason that Hulu should use 90% of a Core2Duo's processor in fullscreen 480 resolution and not even touch the GPU. I can run a 720p video on a PC built 4 years ago perfectly as long as it isn't streaming in Flash. It's ***** retarded.
- s73v3r, on 07/06/2009, -0/+53The current language in the licensing agreement for h.264 states that internet streams will be treated just like over the air broadcasts. Different rates are charged in different countries. So if you have a site that streams video all over the world, you would have to pay rates for every country that you would be streaming too.
The MPEG LA group has said that this language is not final, and they are still looking into the matter (as per the article), but if not changed, it would cost a butt ton of money to stream worldwide. - yabos, on 07/06/2009, -2/+47No you can not patch the hardware. There are specifically designed hardware decoders for H.264 and they can't be modified by software to magically decode Ogg.
- sirbeta, on 07/06/2009, -3/+48Clearly the solution is to make the official video codec uncompressed AVI.
- darkmyst, on 07/06/2009, -2/+41I'm with you on this one. Those who don't like Ogg Theora can continue to use Flash for video for all I care. It's not like the HTML5 spec is going to force anyone to stop using Flash. I would think it'd be preferable for all involved to agree on the spec and implement it that way then the stalemate alternative.
- dagamer34, on 07/06/2009, -3/+40It's not about competition, it's about standards, and it's always best to have only ONE.
- Abatrour, on 07/06/2009, -6/+39Ogg Vorbis rocks! Theora on the other hand isn't as good as h.264 quality wise but at the same time they don't have the money to throw at development.
As a Windows/Linux user, I have to go with Ogg because it is FREE, and Theora will get better with age. - evil-doer, on 07/06/2009, -0/+30it depends on the hardware. if its a gpu then yes a driver update can probably do that. but if its a dedicated chip then no.
- LANjackal, on 07/06/2009, -4/+32What I don't understand from the article is: if Chrome is supposedly a FLOSS project and can ship with h.264 support, why can't Fx? Is it because of the difference in software licensing? As the article points out, MS won't be supporting HTML 5 for obvious reasons (Silverlight, for one). Sad situation.
- Zain123, on 07/06/2009, -1/+27No, they didn't forget. "Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora."
- eihwaz, on 07/06/2009, -2/+25W3C is not a dictatorship. HTML new standards are discussed with all major members to get the best possible option. The problem here is that we don't have a clear "best option".
I would gladly keep the ogg format, but most hardware and software nowadays is getting optimized for h.264 so… that is probably the way we'll go. Almost every mobile phone in the last 2-3 years can play h.264; ogg has still a long way to go to get to the point h.264 already is today. - nextekcarl, on 07/06/2009, -1/+24@s73v3r, wow, that is a deal killer for me, thanks for the heads up.
- phogasmic, on 07/06/2009, -2/+23MSFT is the bad guy because they haven't even bothered to join the fight.
- jhaile, on 07/06/2009, -6/+27I wish Apple, Mozilla, and Google could get on the same page - that would put quite a few resources fighting for the same web standards, which is what we need today to combat the evil Microsoft Internet Explorer. Microsoft isn't even planning on supporting the HTML 5 video tag? Are they crazy? Haven't they learned anything in the past few years of losing market share?
- motang, on 07/06/2009, -7/+26Actually they forgot to mention Opera is siding with Mozilla.
- overnine9k, on 07/06/2009, -10/+29Can you imagine the outrage if MS chose to support H264 instead of Ogg? Apple just gets a free pass on everything.
- BoomShake007, on 07/06/2009, -4/+22Building a standard around something with patents and licensing fees as opposed to free and open source is asinine.
Ogg Theora, the only clear choice. - Gyga, on 07/06/2009, -1/+19@RobotBuddha
google is with apple in this one (sorta)
so it is Mozilla/Opera vs. Google/Apple vs. Microsoft("we'll get around to HTML5 in a couple years") - digitalpencil, on 07/06/2009, -4/+21i think all parties have a say actually.. (well, maybe not MS)
Given there is no hardware decoding for Theora (afaik), software decode will greatly diminish the battery-life of mobile devices, OpenCL has opened doors for reduced decode times utilising mobile GPUs, we can't simply avoid this as an issue just because Mozilla and Opera don't want to afford the licensing costs..
Unfortunately, I see no speedy resolution to this issue. - CalcProgrammer1, on 07/06/2009, -1/+18I have to agree. h.264 is a terrible standard because in order to be standards-compliant you would have to license it. Standards should never include licenses, this creates a HUGE problem for small open-source projects that can't afford the ridiculous licensing fees. If we want to keep the Internet open and not have to pay for browsers, Theora is the only choice we have. Plus it isn't a half bad codec and with standardization it will get much better.
- Jektal, on 07/06/2009, -2/+18You mean like not supporting .png? Oh wait...
- NeoTechni, on 07/06/2009, -2/+18"The dominant video solution today is Flash, a proprietary technology that is controlled by a single vendor and doesn't perform well on Linux or Mac OS X."
Or Windows - munikho, on 07/06/2009, -5/+21did you continue reading and read the response to that statement?
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/compa ... - gsnedders, on 07/06/2009, -1/+17No, the article is wrong. Microsoft haven't said they aren't planning on implementing it (but they haven't said anything about IE9 at all, neither in terms of what it will support nor what it won't).
- s73v3r, on 07/06/2009, -3/+18H.264 currently might be more efficient, however it costs money to license, and is definitely not free to distribute. Ogg Theora, however, is not patent encumbered, is open source, and free to distribute and implement. It would seem that if the goal is to make a widely adopted standard, these factors should weigh heavily into that decision.
- ranold, on 07/06/2009, -14/+29Screw Apple and Microsoft
- jannefoo, on 07/06/2009, -2/+16What, LOLCats in MY Ars Techinca? It's more likely than you think.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 07/06/2009, -1/+15I'd much rather see Theora implemented into hardware systems than the Internet decide on a standard tied to copyright and licensing issues. Licensing is the death of the software world, it destroys the idea of freedom and ties everything to money and finance when instead we should be improving technology for the good of technology itself. Theora is a newer codec but it is 100% open source. If the rest of HTML is open why now include a licensed codec? That will hurt Mozilla and all other open-source browsers tremendously as MS and Apple throw down their money to reclaim the browser market, shifting the whole progress in reverse. Bad idea. If Theora becomes the standard then people will implement it into hardware decoders, but if H.264 becomes standard then open-source browsers may die off or be forced into incompatibility.
- holzp, on 07/06/2009, -0/+14Remember, Google has two dogs in this fight. Chrome on the user end and YouTube on the provider end.
- s73v3r, on 07/06/2009, -0/+13Mozilla is currently doing that, funding the Xiph.org efforts to improve Ogg Theora.
- FapCommander, on 07/06/2009, -1/+14why not make theora hardware decoders for the next gen of mobile devices?
- s73v3r, on 07/06/2009, -1/+14Well, they've joined the fight for Web Video, they just don't really care about HTML video. They'd prefer Silverlight to take over.
- InvaderDem, on 07/06/2009, -1/+14Integrated Video right into a browser sounds great - no need for a Flash plugin, but what a pain in the ass this is, just because people refuse to agree on a simple format. Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally browsers adapt to W3C's new coding standards, right? If that's the case, can't they just say " We're going with Ogg. Adapt to it, or let your browser suffer?"
- venom8599, on 07/06/2009, -5/+17No, they'd rather try to use their larger market share to push Silverlight instead of diluting their efforts with HTML 5 video support.
- Jektal, on 07/06/2009, -2/+14Mozilla and Opera are strongly allied with Ogg Theora. Apple staunchly supports H.264, and has a weak ally in Google, who is unwilling to outright oppose Ogg Theora. Microsoft is lost in the woods.
I think the key is Google. Yes, they'll support both formats in Chrome, but that really isn't very important (just as Opera really isn't all that important). What's important from Google is who they support on YouTube, as any browser will need to support that codec.
Given recent browser statistics, my bet is that Google will switch camps to Ogg Theora (but still support H264 playback in Chrome, just in case), and put pressure on Microsoft by switching YouTube over to Ogg Theora as soon as Apple caves to the Theora crowd. Why will Google switch camps? Because Firefox is finally on the verge of edging out Internet Explorer in widespread use. And even though Google has Chrome to support, their main concern is still getting rid of IE, and Mozilla is currently the strongest enemy of their enemy. Lastly though, even though I think Google will quickly switch to primarily supporting Ogg, they'll try to keep YouTube Flash-based until Apple is swayed to Theora, as Safari is also on their side against IE (and having Firefox/Safari/Opera as alternatives hurts Chrome less than just Firefox/Opera), but ultimately their focus on bringing down IE will supercede any loyalty to their current Apple alliance on H264. - s73v3r, on 07/06/2009, -2/+13Because you still have the current generation of devices to worry about.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+12WTF. That would be like not supporting image tags.
- gsnedders, on 07/06/2009, -0/+11No, Microsoft (despite what that article says) hasn't said it won't implement the video element. They also haven't said they will implement it… but they haven't said anything about IE9 anyway.
- Morac, on 07/06/2009, -0/+11But that would require encoding all video in two or more different formats, requiring at least double the storage.
Kind of like how anyone who had png images on their site, had to include gif images as well until IE finally supported png. - superkendall, on 07/06/2009, -6/+17Here's a practical way to use the video tag today, while providing an h.264 and ogg version - the code picks which one will work:
http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody - captainchris, on 07/06/2009, -0/+10i just want video tags so we can get away from our dependence on flash video which is slow and awful
- FapCommander, on 07/06/2009, -7/+17Read the whole article damn it, yes H.264 is more efficient, but theora is getting better and isn't that far behind
- caitycat, on 07/06/2009, -0/+9I think this is backwards thinking...ddoption of Ogg as a standard will provide incentive for future mobile device manufacturers to all support it in hardware. Apple and Google are not support H.264 out of experience so much as to protect their self-interests. Nothing wrong with that from a business standpoint, but I think the average person, and the web as a whole, is much better off with an open video standard.
- ArchangelZLT, on 07/06/2009, -2/+11But who is to decide this one? Remember, we don't want another GIF.
- BahamutSalad, on 07/06/2009, -0/+9Before you digg this guy down, open up a 720p video through a video website using flash, and check your CPU usage.
Now open up a ogg/h264 video in say, media player classic or something, and check it again. - Krissam, on 07/06/2009, -1/+10We all know that the power lies with google, they own youtube, which gives them the option to switch youtube to whatever they choose and the rest will have to follow, because youtube gets the kids.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 227 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is