Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Google Chrome + open-source video codec? [ was Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube and HTML5

Expand Messages
  • Jay dedman
    ... Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This is possible
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 1, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that
      > mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it's built into the
      > browser).

      Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the
      browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This
      is possible because Firefox doesnt have to pay a patent fee for the
      codec.

      Google could do the same if they chose to opne siurce the newest
      codecs (like VP7) made by On2.

      > What about all the videos encoded in h.264 (& other formats)..are we
      > back to the codec/player wars? Educate me here. We have QT (which
      > could play .mov, .mp4, .avi) & WMP (which could play .wmv, .avi, etc),
      > which was an Apple VS Microsoft battle. Is Google jumping in, with an
      > open-source solution: Chrome + On2?

      Yes. But Google could make a big charge here since it controls Youtube
      which is often seen as the default "video on the web" platform.

      Jay



      --
      http://ryanishungry.com
      http://jaydedman.com
      http://twitter.com/jaydedman
      917 371 6790
    • elbowsofdeath
      The mp4 battle wasnt exactly Apple vs Microsoft, although that was probably the most visible front. h264 .mp4 won on most fronts, I think it might even be
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 1, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The mp4 battle wasnt exactly Apple vs Microsoft, although that was probably the most visible front. h264 .mp4 won on most fronts, I think it might even be included in Windows 7, need to check.

        The next phase of the battle has a lot to do with how the h264 battle was won in the browser - flash. One thing that may unite all the other corporations is a desire to do away with reliance on flash. But this could end up being a very long struggle, the chance to do it quickly has already been lost, the need for browsers to support a specific format for html5 video having been removed from the spec.

        It will take quite a dramatic worsening of h264 licensing terms & costs to turn the tide against h264 in my opinion. Maybe if google made some codecs available to everyone who makes web browsers, something will happen eventually, but so much hardware now supports h264 that it would still be an uphill struggle.

        Whatever Google do with youtube, they are unlikely to drop support for things like h264 in a hurry, so unless they are able to make the user experience radically better using a different format, I dont think it will help that much, but who knows.

        Plus we are now in an era where lots of people are building up sizeable content libraries in formats such as h264, and thats bound to slow the pace of change. I am not sad about this state of affairs, I droned on here for years with hope that h264 would make the landscape cleaner and end the format nightmares, and whilst things arent perfect, they are so much better now than in 2005.

        Cheers

        Steve Elbows

        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
        >
        > > If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that
        > > mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it's built into the
        > > browser).
        >
        > Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the
        > browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This
        > is possible because Firefox doesnt have to pay a patent fee for the
        > codec.
        >
        > Google could do the same if they chose to opne siurce the newest
        > codecs (like VP7) made by On2.
        >
        > > What about all the videos encoded in h.264 (& other formats)..are we
        > > back to the codec/player wars? Educate me here. We have QT (which
        > > could play .mov, .mp4, .avi) & WMP (which could play .wmv, .avi, etc),
        > > which was an Apple VS Microsoft battle. Is Google jumping in, with an
        > > open-source solution: Chrome + On2?
        >
        > Yes. But Google could make a big charge here since it controls Youtube
        > which is often seen as the default "video on the web" platform.
        >
        > Jay
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > http://ryanishungry.com
        > http://jaydedman.com
        > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
        > 917 371 6790
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.