4 ms·
I'm starting to think the real reason behind this is that google hasn't been able to flesh out any of it's flash-based advertising products for html5, and know
by morrow 16y ago
I'm starting to think the real reason behind this is that google hasn't been able to flesh out any of it's flash-based advertising products for html5, and know that it won't be easy to do so (people can hide ad divs or download the source videos trivially; no way for them to guarantee content protection to publishers). I think that they realize that the only way for them to stick with flash without being seen as behind the times or anti-"open" is for them to prolong the codec dispute by requiring flash for all of the h264 videos out there by removing native support. As a side effect, users of safari and IE who want to view youtube webm content will have to use a flash wrapper as well if I understand it correctly. This isn't to say that a long term goal of html5 video served via a patent-unencumbered coded isn't a motivation of theirs, I just think that the decision to remove native h264 right now is more of a way to keep flash a practical option than an ideological move.
- yesbabyyes 16y agoThis isn't to say that a long term goal of html5 video served via a patent-unencumbered coded isn't a motivation of theirs, I just think that the decision to remove native h264 right now is more of a way to keep flash a practical option than an ideological move. If they want to achieve that long term goal, isn't it obviously better to act sooner rather than later?
- morrow 16y agoI agree, but it depends on how much removing native support for h264 this soon advances the state of html5. We are still convincing content-publishers to adopt html5. Dropping support right now and forcing people who want to support html5 video to dual encode and wrap content in flash for the sake of compatibility might slow adoption more than waiting for more people to get on first, then pulling the plug.