Google shows once more that they are visionary company with long-term outlook and an outlook on business that allows them to invest in things that benefit everybody and not just them.
Video on the web is popular hence it's important. It's also the only part of the web where the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological excellence but by a patent grab.
It's a huge disaster waiting to happen. It has happened in the past (see gif patent and the money grab that ensued). It's naive to think that mpeg la consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting to enforce their licensing. And when they do, that will be bad for everyone creating and publishing video on the web. Web video on the web is currently living on a good will of commercial entity who might just think of it as freemium model: make them dependent on your product until they can't use an alternative and then make them pay.
Google (along with Mozilla) should be commended for spending millions of dollars to decrease the probability of such a disaster happening. Even if WebM doesn't surpass h264 it might just be enough insurance to make mpeg la not start a money grab in fear of loosing completely to WebM.
We need a free standard for video on the web, just like we have them for everything else, and Google is spending considerable resources to make it happen.
As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. His pro-Apple and anti-Google biases are bigger than iceberg that sank titanic.
More important question is: when will Apple and Microsoft start helping us avoid future video disaster on the web?
And where is Gruber asking "who is happy about this" when Apple continuously censors App Store and refuses to allow developer publish apps that users want to use? When Apple is more interested in their petty vendetta against Adobe than in what they users want. Etc. If you want to ask tough questions, then ask them, just not selectively.
As a person who deals in video on the web, they want to instantly double my cost to encode video by fragmenting the near ubiquity H.264 currently offers.
As an iOS device and xBox owner they want to obsolete my hardware.
As a Chrome user, they want to force me to use the crappy Flash player to view H.264 content.
I don't understand why they can't promote and improve WebM and maintain H.264 compatibility. Which browsers stopped rendering GIFs when it became an issue?
I realize Gruber is very pro-Apple, but this article makes no mention of them. In fact, it seems this article is solely in terms of Google (and just slightly Adobe, and a few content providers).
Imagine, if you will, this was written by someone who wasn't pro-Apple. Does it not all ring entirely just as true?
It's also the only part of the web where the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity
Flash is still used for video more than H.264 both for historical reasons and because it has some (albeit rudimentary) content protection. Goolge is supporting/promoting Flash in Chrome. Ostensibly for security reasons, but it is not an easy move to explain.
Google is dropping H.264 in their browser for strategic reasons.
> And where is Gruber asking "who is happy about this" when Apple continuously censors App Store and refuses to allow developer publish apps that users want to use?
Gruber has consistently been highly critical about Apple's App Store policies:
...to name just a few. I don't know how you could read his work and not realize that. And I really get sick of people making these sort of snide and outright false comments about Gruber.
> [...] the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological excellence but by a patent grab.
Who?
> It's naive to think that mpeg la consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting to enforce their licensing.
The main point of Grubers' criticism is that Google is being hypocritical by dropping H.264, but still keeping Flash.
If Google would really be visionaries with such great long-term outlooks, then why would they allow Flash, which is owned by a single company which has shown time and again that they can not handle that product responsibly?
Granted, Google is currently making every effort to sandbox the Flash player as tightly as possible. But they are still shipping Chrome with it.
sounds like you think WebM is not patent encumbered. that's actually an open question. the only thing Google has done is sent users back into Adobe's arms for h.264 playback.
tldr: The simple answer to John's questions is that sometimes, when you act in the real world, in order to achieve things you have to make compromises and cannot be ideologically pure.
In more detail:
1. Because, like it or not, Flash is an established part of the web at present and it would be unacceptably frustrating for users if numerous websites stopped working. This would be the result because these sites often do not have a fallback option for users who are not using Flash. On the other hand, sites which only serve h.264 content with no fallback option are rare (non-existent?).
2. I, too, am interested in the answer to this question but not because I'm trying to prove that Google isn't ideologically pure.
3. I don't see how it wouldn't be better for open innovation if YouTube served video in an open format. Perhaps what John is really getting at is what does YouTube intend to do for platforms that will not support Flash or WebM?
4. Why isn't it valid to have Flash as a fallback option? This is only invalid if you work from the assumption that Flash is unacceptable (either because of performance or for ideological reasons). Utilising a ubiquitous closed technology while you help establish a new open technology is not an ideologically pure strategy but it may be one that will work.
5. People who are concerned about video codecs being controlled by for-profit corporations are happy about this but I don't think that's most people. I also don't think those same most people care.
I think John's frustration is really with Google wanting to make decisions on the basis of ideology (open is good/don't be evil) only when it is in Google's financial interest to do so (John has given examples in the past that open doesn't seem so good when it comes to Google's proprietary search algorithm). I think this is a fair frustration to have but it doesn't mean that everything that Google does is irrevocably tainted and can never be good. Establishing an open standard for video on the web is a good thing long-term. The way they are going about it isn't as pure as one might hope but sometimes this is how things work in the real world (see Obama and tax cuts/repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell).
Establishing an open standard for video on the web is a good thing long-term.
Why is that a good thing? It's not a bad thing, but is it worth a lot of churn? Virtually none of the media formats in wide use today are open, yet it hasn't really been a problem, from Flash to MP3 to MPEG-2 to even WMA/WMV. The ability for users to transcode is virtually limitless. I don't have a single media file that I can't get to any other format.
I don't think this is about the long-term good of the web. I think it's about the long-term good for Google.
Re #3: Performance is reason enough. The fact that a dual-core MacBook Pro can't even play back a 360p Flash video without dropping frames is completely unacceptable.
Ok here, are some answers, off the top of my head. They are not Google's answers, but what I imagine Google would say if they felt like being honest.
1. No Flash wont be dropped. Why must we be forced to the extreme absolutist position in one direction or another? We try to do what is right, but we are also practical, and will not attempt things that will cause too much trouble for their benefit. It is always easier to affect the path of technology in its infancy than after it has been established. Flash is established; we will not try to fight it and will let it die a natural death. HTML 5 video is in its infancy and we will try our best to guide it in the right direction.
2. We will probably leave that up to the manufacturers. However, once the WebM hardware accelerators start shipping, we expect h.264 support to drop because no manufacturer likes to pay per phone licensing fees.
3. Youtube will still retain h.264 support to allow compatibility with iOS devices, until iOS devices start supporting WebM.
4. They will have some time to think about it. First we are not dropping h.264 support immediately. Even after we drop support, they can still use flash to support their h.264 video (as most of them already do) so they do not lose anything. But we are making it clear that we are throwing our weight behind WebM, and they will eventually figure out that they are paying h.264 license fees for no good reason.
5. We are. Lots of people on the web are. Many people that have to write checks to MPEG-LA are. Many people that are thinking of doing a video startup but are worried about the licensing costs are.
I'm surprised Gruber didn't also pose a question about the murky patent landscape re: WebM. If Google decides to throw their full weight behind WebM, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some legal action on the part of MPEG-LA.
That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).
Addendum: whereby I mean to say that there are undoubtedly numerous users who have been "harmed" (whether they know it or not) by the lack of Flash on iOS devices (e.g., because they could not view a given website on their device), even if the removal of Flash will be good for the web in the long term.
> That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).
The "Who is happy" test for Flash passes, though. I, for one, have desperately yearned for the death of Flash for years before Apple partisans took up the mantle. Why? I was partly responsible for maintenance and analytics of a terrible flash website that, superficially, looked kind of neat. All you have to do is have this trash plugged into something mission critical to start wishing for its demise.
And I'm not alone. Flash is a crappy, frustratingly ubiquitous technology whose marginalization is a godsend for anyone who cares about a usable web. Anyone who has ever tried to use a restaurant website is happy about the end of flash.
> it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some legal action on the part of MPEG-LA
It would be pretty unlikely actually. MPEG-LA has been threatening about Vorbis for the last 11 years and nothing has happened so far, same thing with theora. The last thing MPGEG-LA want is to reveal what patents exactly are being used by WebM (if any), they'd rather spread FUD and make companies pay for licenses out of fear like they always have as the patent troll that they are. I (and probably Google too) would actually love for them to start suing so we can finally debunk those patents, which is why they probably won't.
* Apple has a very well documented case that Flash contributes to significant instability on their platform, hence they didn't want it on iOS
* Flash was/is a significant consumer of CPU cycles, resulting in reduced battery life, which didn't allow them to meet performance targets
Regardless of your position on Flash as a proprietary piece of software, its presence would have had a very real impact on the performance and reliability of Apple's product at launch. That's not to say there wasn't an ideological component, because Steve Jobs himself included one in his anti-Flash rant, but I find it a little easier to excuse apple for leaving Flash out in the cold on iOS than I do Google shutting the door on H.264.
Most people install flash anyway, regardless of whether or not it's preinstalled. Ideally, everyone could just kill flash and that would be awesome, but a huge amount of content is already made in flash and there are a few areas where standards are not implemented consistently or at all (eg. the Device API for accessing webcams and microphones, though a version of Android does support that and the ConnectionPeer interface for peer-to-peer connections). Flash isn't used exclusively for video.
When it's 2028 and all the h.264 patents finally expire, it would be great if Google were to add h.264 back to the chrome browser, but of course, the browser landscape would probably be so vastly different that it would be hardly relevant.
YouTube is reencoding the videos in WebM. But it's doubtful that the h.264 videos will be removed because of Apple's stubbornness in only supporting a single format (However, I'm quite sure Safari plays whatever videos are supported by the pluggable QuickTime engine, so once someone makes a QT plugin that adds WebM, it'll play in Safari. The same way IE9 implements video codecs).
Gruber only lists 4 or so companies that use H.264 with <video>. There probably aren't too many more that exclusively use h.264 with <video>. Certainly far less than the number of people who use flash video.
Once you get past the PR and spin I think this is just another strategic move in the battle between these corporate giants. Remember that Google re-encoded all of Youtube to mp4 so that it could be shown on the iPhone, they were partners, but then Jobs got mad and started a war by suing HTC over Android. I believe Apple was dumb in starting this war because they have a lot more to lose than Google, if the iProducts lose Google's YouTube/Maps/Gmail/Search/Voice/Goggles, etc it would put them at a big disadvantage. Consumers will be collateral damage as this battle continues to escalate.
> will Flash Player support be dropped as well? If not, why?
Flash has no easy replacement available yet. We will see with HTML5 and beyond. Realistically it will take a few more years.
> Android currently supports H.264. Will this support be removed from Android? If not, why not?
My guess is that future Nexus phones will have hardware WebM decoding included. I don't know if Google will remove H.264 anytime soon though.
> YouTube uses H.264 to encode video. Presumably, YouTube will be re-encoding its entire library using WebM. When this happens, will YouTube’s support for H.264 be dropped, to “enable open innovation”? If not, why not?
It will be dropped. Why not?
> Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM?
Sure. They all have enough money for a few gigs per movie, the distribution system would stay the same. Btw. Netflix uses Silverlight and adding WebM decoding to Silverlight should be rather easy.
> Who is happy about this?
Given the counter-scenario and a few years: everyone!
I take it you are a Flash supporter? Because Flash plays H.264, and Google ships Chrome with Flash. So Google Chrome has not lost the ability to play H.264, it just does so through Flash now. If Google were to stop shipping Chrome with Flash that would be saying something.
> In addition to supporting H.264, Chrome currently bundles an embedded version of Adobe’s closed source and proprietary Flash Player plugin.
For one, I am a little tired of the hyperbole surrounding Flash. Yes, it isn't quiet open source, but it's not quiet "closed source", either. Since I can download an open source Flex SDK and compile without the need of any Adobe tools. I can't fork the player API, but this rant seems like sensationalism. Secondly, Flash player handles much more than just video. I'm not saying it is used in the best way, but it definitely caters beyond video render. Removing H.264 doesn't have the same impact as removing an embedded Flash player.
Apple fought a bitter, public battle with the MPEG-LA over MPEG 4 part 2 video and the crazy licence fees they were planning to charge for it (and AAC) a good few years back. They refused to release Quicktime 6 until the licence fee structure was changed to allow more cost free usage. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because uneconomical fees could (and did) open the door to competitors like VP6 which, via Flash, become the dominant web format for a while. Could have been pre-Daring Fireball though. (edit: I checked, the argument was summer 2002, DF started that fall).
A question missed is the following; The dropping of H.264 seems more motivated by their acquisition of On2 and their VP8 codec than it does about the licensing terms of H.264. Who within Google pushed for this, and to what extent was the need to show a realization from On2's acquisition a factor?
1. No, Flash isn't just about video playback, the technology is used in a variety of ways on a variety of sites and it's not analogouse to a video codec.
2 - 4. Transitioning the web to WebM encoded video is the ultimate goal but that will have to happen gradually.
[+] [-] kjksf|15 years ago|reply
Video on the web is popular hence it's important. It's also the only part of the web where the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological excellence but by a patent grab.
It's a huge disaster waiting to happen. It has happened in the past (see gif patent and the money grab that ensued). It's naive to think that mpeg la consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting to enforce their licensing. And when they do, that will be bad for everyone creating and publishing video on the web. Web video on the web is currently living on a good will of commercial entity who might just think of it as freemium model: make them dependent on your product until they can't use an alternative and then make them pay.
Google (along with Mozilla) should be commended for spending millions of dollars to decrease the probability of such a disaster happening. Even if WebM doesn't surpass h264 it might just be enough insurance to make mpeg la not start a money grab in fear of loosing completely to WebM.
We need a free standard for video on the web, just like we have them for everything else, and Google is spending considerable resources to make it happen.
As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. His pro-Apple and anti-Google biases are bigger than iceberg that sank titanic.
More important question is: when will Apple and Microsoft start helping us avoid future video disaster on the web?
And where is Gruber asking "who is happy about this" when Apple continuously censors App Store and refuses to allow developer publish apps that users want to use? When Apple is more interested in their petty vendetta against Adobe than in what they users want. Etc. If you want to ask tough questions, then ask them, just not selectively.
[+] [-] cdeutsch|15 years ago|reply
As a person who deals in video on the web, they want to instantly double my cost to encode video by fragmenting the near ubiquity H.264 currently offers.
As an iOS device and xBox owner they want to obsolete my hardware.
As a Chrome user, they want to force me to use the crappy Flash player to view H.264 content.
I don't understand why they can't promote and improve WebM and maintain H.264 compatibility. Which browsers stopped rendering GIFs when it became an issue?
[+] [-] DavidSJ|15 years ago|reply
Why do you need credibility to ask questions?
[+] [-] jbrennan|15 years ago|reply
Imagine, if you will, this was written by someone who wasn't pro-Apple. Does it not all ring entirely just as true?
[+] [-] naner|15 years ago|reply
Flash is still used for video more than H.264 both for historical reasons and because it has some (albeit rudimentary) content protection. Goolge is supporting/promoting Flash in Chrome. Ostensibly for security reasons, but it is not an easy move to explain.
Google is dropping H.264 in their browser for strategic reasons.
[+] [-] isleyaardvark|15 years ago|reply
Gruber has consistently been highly critical about Apple's App Store policies:
http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/scratch
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/16/app-store-reject...
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/09/29/isinglepayer
...to name just a few. I don't know how you could read his work and not realize that. And I really get sick of people making these sort of snide and outright false comments about Gruber.
[+] [-] ot|15 years ago|reply
Who?
> It's naive to think that mpeg la consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting to enforce their licensing.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensi...):
[+] [-] jvdh|15 years ago|reply
If Google would really be visionaries with such great long-term outlooks, then why would they allow Flash, which is owned by a single company which has shown time and again that they can not handle that product responsibly?
Granted, Google is currently making every effort to sandbox the Flash player as tightly as possible. But they are still shipping Chrome with it.
[+] [-] svlla|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrmont|15 years ago|reply
In more detail:
1. Because, like it or not, Flash is an established part of the web at present and it would be unacceptably frustrating for users if numerous websites stopped working. This would be the result because these sites often do not have a fallback option for users who are not using Flash. On the other hand, sites which only serve h.264 content with no fallback option are rare (non-existent?).
2. I, too, am interested in the answer to this question but not because I'm trying to prove that Google isn't ideologically pure.
3. I don't see how it wouldn't be better for open innovation if YouTube served video in an open format. Perhaps what John is really getting at is what does YouTube intend to do for platforms that will not support Flash or WebM?
4. Why isn't it valid to have Flash as a fallback option? This is only invalid if you work from the assumption that Flash is unacceptable (either because of performance or for ideological reasons). Utilising a ubiquitous closed technology while you help establish a new open technology is not an ideologically pure strategy but it may be one that will work.
5. People who are concerned about video codecs being controlled by for-profit corporations are happy about this but I don't think that's most people. I also don't think those same most people care.
I think John's frustration is really with Google wanting to make decisions on the basis of ideology (open is good/don't be evil) only when it is in Google's financial interest to do so (John has given examples in the past that open doesn't seem so good when it comes to Google's proprietary search algorithm). I think this is a fair frustration to have but it doesn't mean that everything that Google does is irrevocably tainted and can never be good. Establishing an open standard for video on the web is a good thing long-term. The way they are going about it isn't as pure as one might hope but sometimes this is how things work in the real world (see Obama and tax cuts/repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell).
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
Why is that a good thing? It's not a bad thing, but is it worth a lot of churn? Virtually none of the media formats in wide use today are open, yet it hasn't really been a problem, from Flash to MP3 to MPEG-2 to even WMA/WMV. The ability for users to transcode is virtually limitless. I don't have a single media file that I can't get to any other format.
I don't think this is about the long-term good of the web. I think it's about the long-term good for Google.
[+] [-] lukifer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|15 years ago|reply
1. No Flash wont be dropped. Why must we be forced to the extreme absolutist position in one direction or another? We try to do what is right, but we are also practical, and will not attempt things that will cause too much trouble for their benefit. It is always easier to affect the path of technology in its infancy than after it has been established. Flash is established; we will not try to fight it and will let it die a natural death. HTML 5 video is in its infancy and we will try our best to guide it in the right direction.
2. We will probably leave that up to the manufacturers. However, once the WebM hardware accelerators start shipping, we expect h.264 support to drop because no manufacturer likes to pay per phone licensing fees.
3. Youtube will still retain h.264 support to allow compatibility with iOS devices, until iOS devices start supporting WebM.
4. They will have some time to think about it. First we are not dropping h.264 support immediately. Even after we drop support, they can still use flash to support their h.264 video (as most of them already do) so they do not lose anything. But we are making it clear that we are throwing our weight behind WebM, and they will eventually figure out that they are paying h.264 license fees for no good reason.
5. We are. Lots of people on the web are. Many people that have to write checks to MPEG-LA are. Many people that are thinking of doing a video startup but are worried about the licensing costs are.
[+] [-] CyberMonk|15 years ago|reply
That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).
Addendum: whereby I mean to say that there are undoubtedly numerous users who have been "harmed" (whether they know it or not) by the lack of Flash on iOS devices (e.g., because they could not view a given website on their device), even if the removal of Flash will be good for the web in the long term.
[+] [-] danilocampos|15 years ago|reply
The "Who is happy" test for Flash passes, though. I, for one, have desperately yearned for the death of Flash for years before Apple partisans took up the mantle. Why? I was partly responsible for maintenance and analytics of a terrible flash website that, superficially, looked kind of neat. All you have to do is have this trash plugged into something mission critical to start wishing for its demise.
And I'm not alone. Flash is a crappy, frustratingly ubiquitous technology whose marginalization is a godsend for anyone who cares about a usable web. Anyone who has ever tried to use a restaurant website is happy about the end of flash.
[+] [-] patrickaljord|15 years ago|reply
It would be pretty unlikely actually. MPEG-LA has been threatening about Vorbis for the last 11 years and nothing has happened so far, same thing with theora. The last thing MPGEG-LA want is to reveal what patents exactly are being used by WebM (if any), they'd rather spread FUD and make companies pay for licenses out of fear like they always have as the patent troll that they are. I (and probably Google too) would actually love for them to start suing so we can finally debunk those patents, which is why they probably won't.
[+] [-] bradleyland|15 years ago|reply
* Apple has a very well documented case that Flash contributes to significant instability on their platform, hence they didn't want it on iOS
* Flash was/is a significant consumer of CPU cycles, resulting in reduced battery life, which didn't allow them to meet performance targets
Regardless of your position on Flash as a proprietary piece of software, its presence would have had a very real impact on the performance and reliability of Apple's product at launch. That's not to say there wasn't an ideological component, because Steve Jobs himself included one in his anti-Flash rant, but I find it a little easier to excuse apple for leaving Flash out in the cold on iOS than I do Google shutting the door on H.264.
[+] [-] antimatter15|15 years ago|reply
When it's 2028 and all the h.264 patents finally expire, it would be great if Google were to add h.264 back to the chrome browser, but of course, the browser landscape would probably be so vastly different that it would be hardly relevant.
YouTube is reencoding the videos in WebM. But it's doubtful that the h.264 videos will be removed because of Apple's stubbornness in only supporting a single format (However, I'm quite sure Safari plays whatever videos are supported by the pluggable QuickTime engine, so once someone makes a QT plugin that adds WebM, it'll play in Safari. The same way IE9 implements video codecs).
Gruber only lists 4 or so companies that use H.264 with <video>. There probably aren't too many more that exclusively use h.264 with <video>. Certainly far less than the number of people who use flash video.
[+] [-] guelo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metachris|15 years ago|reply
Flash has no easy replacement available yet. We will see with HTML5 and beyond. Realistically it will take a few more years.
> Android currently supports H.264. Will this support be removed from Android? If not, why not?
My guess is that future Nexus phones will have hardware WebM decoding included. I don't know if Google will remove H.264 anytime soon though.
> YouTube uses H.264 to encode video. Presumably, YouTube will be re-encoding its entire library using WebM. When this happens, will YouTube’s support for H.264 be dropped, to “enable open innovation”? If not, why not?
It will be dropped. Why not?
> Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM?
Sure. They all have enough money for a few gigs per movie, the distribution system would stay the same. Btw. Netflix uses Silverlight and adding WebM decoding to Silverlight should be rather easy.
> Who is happy about this?
Given the counter-scenario and a few years: everyone!
[+] [-] albertzeyer|15 years ago|reply
In the very long term: everybody.
[+] [-] svlla|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synxer|15 years ago|reply
> In addition to supporting H.264, Chrome currently bundles an embedded version of Adobe’s closed source and proprietary Flash Player plugin.
For one, I am a little tired of the hyperbole surrounding Flash. Yes, it isn't quiet open source, but it's not quiet "closed source", either. Since I can download an open source Flex SDK and compile without the need of any Adobe tools. I can't fork the player API, but this rant seems like sensationalism. Secondly, Flash player handles much more than just video. I'm not saying it is used in the best way, but it definitely caters beyond video render. Removing H.264 doesn't have the same impact as removing an embedded Flash player.
[+] [-] plinkplonk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosejn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retrogradeorbit|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yanw|15 years ago|reply
1. No, Flash isn't just about video playback, the technology is used in a variety of ways on a variety of sites and it's not analogouse to a video codec.
2 - 4. Transitioning the web to WebM encoded video is the ultimate goal but that will have to happen gradually.
5. Adobe, initially. FSF as well
[+] [-] svlla|15 years ago|reply
2-4. not going to happen since WebM is not as good as h.264 and probably still has patent problems (see: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377)
5. adobe only. this just forces people to to use flash.
[+] [-] thedeuce|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] snissn|15 years ago|reply