Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81

Thread: google is killing MPEG LA by droping h264:

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    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.
    Yes, I use Adobe Flash, not because I like it, but because Youtube still forces me to use it. (most sites I visit don't need flash for other things than displaying ads, which I block with Adblock, OC) Try for instance, play any music video from VEVO or other content provider... Or even simpler, try to play any content from (most) youtube "channels". Are they converted to WebM? I don't think so!

    Now another question for you, what do you prefer, to use a plug-in to view your web videos or having that support directly in your browser as a standard? (The answer is quite simple, I think)

    Furthermore, Flash has only acceleration with a "semi-proprietary" video implementation (VDPAU), which only works for a limited group of users (nVidia proprietary driver users).

    Personally, what Google wants to do with Chrome is not a very good decision, because it will make some "semi-useless" plugins (Flash) live longer...

    Cheers

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties
    Like JPEG?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    I agree with the way H264 codec is inmplemented.
    That means that you support software patents.

    I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    That means that you support software patents.

    I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.
    So, why does ffmpeg have a h264 decoder and distributes it under GPL?

    Cheers

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
    That means that you support software patents.

    I don't. Patents should not apply to algorithms, mathematics and formulas. Period.

    So, why does ffmpeg have a h264 decoder and distributes it under GPL?

    Cheers
    That's absolutely irrelevant.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    p.s.: If you want to know more (and you trust Wikipedia) about the H264 / MPEG-4 Part 10 specification, click here.
    Maybe you'll learn some interesting things...

    Cheers

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Why don't you brief it for us? Throwing a link with a lot of them words without providing a clue about what your point is doesn't make things very easy.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Yes, I use Adobe Flash, not because I like it, but because Youtube still forces me to use it. (most sites I visit don't need flash for other things than displaying ads, which I block with Adblock, OC) Try for instance, play any music video from VEVO or other content provider... Or even simpler, try to play any content from (most) youtube "channels". Are they converted to WebM? I don't think so!
    The rest will be converted in due time. These videos aren't available as HTML5 H.264, either, they require flash anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Like JPEG?
    1. All known JPEG patents expired on 2006
    2. All previous patent claims have been invalidated
    3. All current patent claims are likely to be invalidated (check wikipedia for the details)
    4. W3C helps in investigating and invalidating these patent claims

    So, no, the H.264 situation is completely different to JPEG. Read this for more details on W3C's patent policy: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    1. All known JPEG patents expired on 2006
    Yeah, W3C didn't have an IMG tag before 2006...

    H.264 patents will expire too. Will you in a few years come back here and say "H.264 patents expired" like you just did with JPEG? No, don't think so. JPEG was just as petent encumbered back them as H.264 is now. So clearly "The W3C does not accept web standards that require loyalties" is not true.

    And don't forget GIF too...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Yeah, W3C didn't have an IMG tag before 2006...

    H.264 patents will expire too. Will you in a few years come back here and say "H.264 patents expired"
    Some of these patents will not expire before 2028, that's more than a few years, and leaves ample time for the patent holders to milk these patents.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •