11 ms·
The choice has been made by many places to simply use h264 video via the HTML5 tag to hit the iPhone/iPad and then fallback to a Flash video player which can ea
by bphogan 16y ago
The choice has been made by many places to simply use h264 video via the HTML5 tag to hit the iPhone/iPad and then fallback to a Flash video player which can easily play the h264 source video. Content producers would rather encode videos once, which is why they moved to FLV in the first place. There's no incentive to use anything else here.
This hurts users. I am all for standards, but not for hurting users. And like it or not, content producers are using H264 because the devices people like to use can play that video back.
- StavrosK 16y agoWhy doesn't Apple just include WebM support? It's an open codec...
- redthrowaway 16y agoSince when has Apple supported open standards simply because it makes sense to do so? Apple almost invariably chooses closed over open.
- rradu 16y agoApple is fully behind HTML5 - http://www.apple.com/html5/ http://www.apple.com/html5/
- jarek 16y agoYes, in spirit too: "This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes." Come see web standards! Using a specific browser.
- joubert 16y agoHum, because they're showing the latest HTML features that Safari supports? Not all browsers support the same range of features for a particular HTML standard.
- jarek 16y agoAny organization which denies access to its HTML5 pages to browsers that support them is not fully behind the spirit of HTML. The reason is clear and understandable — marketing their browser — but so are the implications.
- jarek 16y agoA couple of days later, I found this: How much HTML5 is there in Apple's HTML5 demos? http://blog.marcoos.com/2010/06/09/is-html5-by-apple-really-html5/ http://blog.marcoos.com/2010/06/09/is-html5-by-apple-really-...
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoYet the number one reason there isn't a codec specified in HTML5 is because Apple blocked it.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoAlso, Apple used to be fully behind royalty-free standards for the web: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1488 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment... Apple believes that it is essential to continued interoperability and development of the Web that fundamental W3C standards be available on a royalty-free basis. In line with the W3C's mission to "lead the Web to its full potential," Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutable commitment to royalty-free licensing for fundamental Web standards. Apple offers this statement in support of its position. It's powerful and persuasive stuff, worth reading in full. They only removed this statement from their website about 6 months ago.
- extension 16y agoHave they said or done something that conflicts with this statement?
- mbrubeck 16y agoTheir implementations of the HTML5 <video> and <audio> draft standards work only with royalty-encumbered codecs. (The licensing is currently royalty-free for publishers and end users, but not for device manufacturers or browser vendors.)
- extension 16y agoHave they ever proposed that those codecs be part of the standard?
- rmc 16y agoGoogle were also opposed to a format in the spec, they claimed ogg theora was too large in file size. Why do you think they bought On2 and released WebM in the first place? There already was a free video code theora before.
- sid0 16y agoYou call this being "fully behind HTML5"? http://grab.by/grabs/0b694089e83975c385627b134ee8ece7.png http://grab.by/grabs/0b694089e83975c385627b134ee8ece7.png Even Microsoft's better than this. edit: could whoever downvoted me explain why he did so?
- tzs 16y agoThat's not inconsistent with being "fully behind HTML5". That page is meant to show off how Safari handles various HTML5 features. If you view it in a different browser, it is not showing you how Safari handles those features. Hence, it makes perfect sense for it to try to limit itself to people using Safari.
- sid0 16y agoThat page is meant to show off how Safari handles various HTML5 features. Isn't the point of HTML that all browsers handle it similarly? If that link is restricted to one browser, it isn't better than all the "Designed for IE6" sites you used to see in the early '00s, and absolutely no evidence of Apple being "fully behind HTML5".
- tzs 16y agoHTML5 is not a standard. It does not yet behave the same in all browsers that implement it. Different browsers implement different subsets of it. The site you cite is meant specifically to show how Apple is doing with their HTML5 implementation. There is simply no point in viewing it in another browser. Viewing it in, say, Firefox would tell you nothing at all about how well Apple has implemented HTML5 in Safari. This is completely different from the "Designed for IE6" sites. Those sites were generally presenting information that was useful to people regardless of which browser they were using.
- sid0 16y agoHTML5 is not a standard. It does not yet behave the same in all browsers that implement it. Different browsers implement different subsets of it. And yet they're converging to implementing all of it. The site you cite is meant specifically to show how Apple is doing with their HTML5 implementation. Then it's a Safari demo, not an HTML5 demo. The Microsoft demos use HTML5 and yet work just fine in other browsers. Those sites were generally presenting information that was useful to people regardless of which browser they were using. How is seeing HTML5 working in Firefox or Chrome not useful to people?
- hexley 16y agoComment of the year right here, folks. +4 already too. Thank heavens its a throwaway, how embarrassing.
- andybak 16y agoIt's not exactly insightful but it does have some merit. Apple's approach is an odd mix of open and closed. You could describe it as 'strategically open'... (of course - this applies to Google too to a slightly lesser degree). No company supports open-source if it directly conflicts with their perceived interests. Some companies just take a wider view than others.
- hexley 16y agoI'd like to see a compiled list of open technologies Apple has chosen vs closed. "invariably closed" my arse.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoI love to hate on Apple's decisions, but this is just ludicrous.
- jbrennan 16y agoMy guess is patents. And they already have great H264 implementations. And hardware support. What would be the benefit, to them or their users, if they used WebM?
- pohl 16y agoThat would imply decoding in software. H.264 is currently decoded in hardware on those devices.
- alanh 16y agoKeep in mind Apple devices have HARDWARE h.264 decoders. It may not be as simple as you think.
- StavrosK 16y agoHmm true. I wonder how different the hardware decoding is...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- forgottenpaswrd 16y agoBecause Apple uses h.264 in all their hardware. They have implementations on firmware so they could accelerate video on their iPhones, iPads, iPods, even making specific hardware for it. This makes this videos to perform great on their hardware, fast and taking less resources(more battery),it lets them make things like editing video in real time on your phone, but only works for one codec. If they use software codecs, all their competitive advantages are lost on mobile.
- app 16y agoMainly this: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/ http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-...
- pospischil 16y agoFrom the bits and pieces that I have read, there are some very real patent questions still looming. Jason Garett-Glaser put together a great comparison of h.264 vs VP8/WebM. Check it out here: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 His summary: the spec is really terrible, the performance leaves a lot to be desired (though, there is a lot of room for optimization), and it 'copies too much from H.264 for comfort'.
- mbrubeck 16y agoThis comment in response to that post makes an interesting point; the most similar bits are likely the most carefully vetted, and may be written deliberately to avoid patent infringement. Patents on standards can be very narrow; as long they cover exactly what's in the spec, then any implementer of the standard still has to pay up: "Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn’t necessarily something at all. As we’ve pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn’t harm the patent’s ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour. D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn’t an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I’d expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there." more at http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-to-open-video/#comment-5882 http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t...
- andybak 16y agoSorry for the downvote but that was a very early analysis and the story has progressed a bit since. There's room for a more nuanced evaluation of WebM which I'd like to hear.
- CountSessine 16y agoHow do you know whether anything at all has advanced? One of the most knowledgeable authorities on video compression has called into question VP8's patent situation. Why is there any need at all to imagine a false opposite? Other than optimism? The whole VP8/webm situation reminds me of when Microsoft tried to do the right thing and open-license VC1, but got clobbered by patent holders and had to reverse themselves.
- soofaloofa 16y agoYou can equally argue that Apple's stance on video and on Flash is hurting users.
- bphogan 16y agoApple's stance on Flash does hurt users. But its stance on vodeo? Hardly. They chose an established, proven format that has hardware decoding capabilities. That means they could include it cheaply, and in a way that doesn't drain battery like a software decoder would.
- KeithMajhor 16y agoApple's stance on Flash hurts users _now_. But, I still envy my future self living in a world where Flash is dead. The same can be said about Google hurting users _now_. Pushing content producers towards an open and maintainable format has obvious long term advantages.
- nkassis 16y agoThat's exactly my view, both moves are good to me. HTML5 video is still young and barely used currently, it's the time to try to shape how it will be used. If you wait 5 years, h264 will be impossible to displace and everyone will have to get software with a license, hurting all of us even more.
- bphogan 16y agoBut again, H264 is not HTML5 video... H264 is a video codec that just happens to be used with the video tag on Mobile Safari and IE9. It's also how a majority of YouTube's videos are encoded currently, as well as many many other video uplod sites. It's also the codec used on the Xbox360, the PSP, the PS3, and other pes of consumer electronics. It turns out that to reach the largest audience of consumer electronic devices and computer, H264 happens to be the best choice. Video production workflows let content producers save as h264 videos. The adult industry is using h264 videos on their web sites to serve their content to portable "more personal" devices. I'd say h264 is pretty entrenched now.
- yason 16y agoYou rarely gain much unless you let yourself hurt a bit first and reap the benefits later.
- foljs 16y agoMind you, that could also be a line coming from one trying to screw you.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoExcept that the same exact thing can be done with WebM. Native support in Chrome, Firefox and Opera. Flash fallback in IE. Ding. The only legitimate concern with this is hardware decoding, largely in mobile devices.
- slimier 16y agoHowever, the devices with the most users which don't have flash (read: iOS), can play h264, not WebM. That would make it likely to be more often h264 with flash fallback.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago"The only legitimate concern with this is hardware decoding, largely in mobile devices." iOS can implement WebM, no problemo. The problem is, it will be pretty crummy.