2 ms·
Well the whole royalty situation is making Flash video look really good. It solved similar issues when it launched to alleviate us of player hell in Windows Me
by drawkbox 17y ago
Well the whole royalty situation is making Flash video look really good. It solved similar issues when it launched to alleviate us of player hell in Windows Media Player, Real Player and Quicktime all breaking each other and fighting for file extensions. Flash has On2 and can play H.264. If Flash just could get hardware rendering support beyond full screen scaling, then they might have a fighting chance being that there is piles of money people will have to pay to make a content site. The window is closing on the video shakeup and it will cost alot to run one very soon.
- kevingadd 17y agoCouldn't MPEG LA easily amend the H264 licensing terms to make users of Flash liable for royalties? It doesn't seem to me like Flash lets you avoid anything with the exception of a decoder fee (since Adobe pays for that).
- drawkbox 17y agoFlash FLV is a wrapper for a variety of codecs that are mainly proprietary (and some standard like MPEG, H.264, H.263). On2 VP6 and Sorenson Video Codec to name a few (which Adobe pays for), but Adobe could be extremely ruthless and work in Theora/Ogg into their FLV wrapper as well without a huge standards battle. So in terms of agility to change to avoid excessive fees, Flash might actually be better situated. Really all Flash has to do is hardware accelerate their video (easier said than done - and not just for full screen) and it will alleviate the poor performance perception as it is all software decoding right now. Still though, content creators that don't want to pay fees should really pay attention to this situation. Video could get very expensive online shortly if we are all on the H.264 html5 <video> will save us bandwagon. It would really suck to have to go with proprietary video just to stay cheap.