google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

[RealNC]

how cares? all statistic shows internet kills the TV over a long therm of period.

Yes, and IPTV is also MPEG based, in case you didn't know.

i talk about the future and you talk about the past

Yes, IPTV, which is MPEG based.

[Qaridarium]

Yes, and IPTV is also MPEG based, in case you didn't know.

Yes, IPTV, which is MPEG based.

and you really really think this is a fakt for all time?

i don't think so.

[deanjo]

and you really really think this is a fakt for all time?

i don't think so.

The content creators (I'm talking about the movie and tv studios) want DRM so good luck with changing their minds.

[evolution]

Not just the content creators, but also IPTV providers which want a high performance codec with very few visual quality losses...

ATM, VP8 doesn't have hardware decoders that support it, so, without using a high-end CPU (for instance, if I play a WebM/VP8 full HD video (1080p) on Youtube, my core2duo CPU goes to above 50% (which is about 100% CPU in a single-threaded app) and videos stutter quite a lot) you're out of luck...

Furthermore, its quality is no better than H264 baseline, whereas in IPTV video we prefer to use H264 because of its portability and hardware compatibility.

Its not a duplication of resources this google's decision, its what we can call hipocrisy, by allowing third-party plugins to live more time and giving us more bugs and security exploits... :bad:

Cheers

[RealNC]

and you really really think this is a fakt for all time?

i don't think so.

Oh yes, I do think so. Because millions and millions of people have MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 decoders embedded in their TVs. Also, the companies themselves invest in MPEG and work closely with them. If you think corporate will suggest switching to WebM or Theora for broadcasting and IPTV then, well, maybe those alien spaceships reported by that Russian paper are coming to Earth after all :P

[pingufunkybeat]

The content creators (I'm talking about the movie and tv studios)

But they are not the content creators.

They fund the content creators and own the distribution rights. They don't actually create anything, just like music studios don't.

But you're right, you won't change their mind, just like you won't change the organized crime's position on protection money.

[deanjo]

maybe those alien spaceships reported by that Russian paper are coming to Earth after all :P

Bad comparison, that actually does have a chance of coming true.

[evolution]

But they are not the content creators.

They fund the content creators and own the distribution rights. They don't actually create anything, just like music studios don't.

But you're right, you won't change their mind, just like you won't change the organized crime's position on protection money.

I agree with the way H264 codec is inmplemented.

If you're a SINGLE HOME USER, you can use the H264 codec FREE-OF-CHARGE to encode your OWN videos, but, IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, like Google, you have to PAY royalities in the future, so, that is most probably the main reason why Google is dropping H264 support from Chrome (I don't know it, I'm not a Chromium/Chrome developer)... (The other one is hipocrisy... )

Cheers

[LinuxID10T]

Oh no!

Now that Chrome has been my browser of choice because of full HTML5 support on Linux, they're doing like Mozilla and entering into the "hacker culture" of using only FOSS software...

Now, there's a question that will need to be answered in the near future: And what about HTML5 support on Youtube? Are they also going to convert their HTML5 "H264 baseline" videos into WebM format? If so, I'll accept the changes and I think is a great step from a major internet company to implement open solutions. Else, I think this will be a serious regression for some Chrome users (like me), and I'll consider to stop using Chrome (I think programs also need to be functional, not just comply to philosophies).

Cheers

You know Google OWNS Youtube... I am sure they have it under control. xD

[BlackStar]

Oh no!

Now that Chrome has been my browser of choice because of full HTML5 support on Linux, they're doing like Mozilla and entering into the "hacker culture" of using only FOSS software...

Now, there's a question that will need to be answered in the near future: And what about HTML5 support on Youtube? Are they also going to convert their HTML5 "H264 baseline" videos into WebM format? If so, I'll accept the changes and I think is a great step from a major internet company to implement open solutions. Else, I think this will be a serious regression for some Chrome users (like me), and I'll consider to stop using Chrome (I think programs also need to be functional, not just comply to philosophies).

Cheers

Last time I checked, Google claimed that 80% of YouTube videos had already been converted to WebM.

Besides, you are using flash (aren't you?) and flash still supports H.264. This battle isn't about current events - it's about the future viability of the open web. The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties, hence H.264 is completely unsuitable.