4 ms·

If the H.264 video tag wants to win over Flash, they'll either need a huge market share or budget (which they don't have) or technological superiority over Flas

by halo 17y ago

If the H.264 video tag wants to win over Flash, they'll either need a huge market share or budget (which they don't have) or technological superiority over Flash (I don't think this is the case either). They're also fighting against Mozilla, who don't want H.264 to succeed.

wmf 17y ago
Chrome supports H.264 <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Chrome supports Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share. Chromium supports only Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and growing market share. Google is in the process of paying $100 million for On2, a company whose business model was building video codecs that didn't infringe on anyone elses patents, and the original source for VP3 which was the basis for Theora.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Almost nobody builds Chromium without trivially linking in ffmpeg. In the real world, Chromium supports every damn codec and container format. All of them. Safari has identical support with Perian installed, and Opera does too with gst-ffmpeg. The official Chrome supports Theora, Vorbis, H.264, AAC, MP3, and WAV in all reasonable container formats. Mozilla only supports Theora and Vorbis in ogm containers, plus WAV/RIFF for <audio>.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      Good luck with redistributing that ffmmpeg-linked build of Chromium. Or do you think that end-users are going to compile their browser?
      - blasdel 17y ago
        Chromium always links with ffmpeg to support video, the question is whether you disable patented codecs in a fit of spite. Ubuntu distributes both those options: https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/1464626 https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/14... There's some preemptive wankery in labeling the useful version of the ffmpeg plugin package as 'nonfree' despite the fact that Ubuntu's normal ffmpeg package in multiverse ships with all the Decoders enabled (though there's a separate 'nonfree' ffmpeg with all the Encoders enabled)

by halo 17y ago

wmf 17y ago

Chrome supports H.264 <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Chrome supports Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share. Chromium supports only Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and growing market share. Google is in the process of paying $100 million for On2, a company whose business model was building video codecs that didn't infringe on anyone elses patents, and the original source for VP3 which was the basis for Theora.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Almost nobody builds Chromium without trivially linking in ffmpeg. In the real world, Chromium supports every damn codec and container format. All of them. Safari has identical support with Perian installed, and Opera does too with gst-ffmpeg. The official Chrome supports Theora, Vorbis, H.264, AAC, MP3, and WAV in all reasonable container formats. Mozilla only supports Theora and Vorbis in ogm containers, plus WAV/RIFF for <audio>.
  - vetinari 17y ago
    Good luck with redistributing that ffmmpeg-linked build of Chromium. Or do you think that end-users are going to compile their browser?
    - blasdel 17y ago
      Chromium always links with ffmpeg to support video, the question is whether you disable patented codecs in a fit of spite. Ubuntu distributes both those options: https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/1464626 https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/14... There's some preemptive wankery in labeling the useful version of the ffmpeg plugin package as 'nonfree' despite the fact that Ubuntu's normal ffmpeg package in multiverse ships with all the Decoders enabled (though there's a separate 'nonfree' ffmpeg with all the Encoders enabled)