3 ms·

With this as an alternative on platforms that don't support webM, wouldn't you get more native support for a video encoded in webM using flash as an alternative

With this as an alternative on platforms that don't support webM, wouldn't you get more native support for a video encoded in webM using flash as an alternative than you do currently from h.264? With firefox overtaking on browser usage in the EU, I think it's at least true there. Here's hoping this helps to open up video even further.

robin_reala 16y ago
WebM encode gives you native Firefox / Opera / Chrome / newer Android, Flash for Safari / IE and nothing for iOS. H264 encode gives you native Safari / IE / iOS / Android, Flash for Firefox / Opera / Chrome.
- etherealG 16y ago
  the fact that you can hit iOS as a user means I guess H264 would be probably the better option for now, but it does come with a possible price tag in the future of whatever the legal bills may come to :) also, H264 isn't native in IE at all on release versions either, and things may change drastically before release, so I wouldn't bother including speculation on prerelease versions. That means with ID moving over into the flash for both, you're left with native on Firefox / Opera / Chrome / newer Android vs. native on Safari / iOS / Android. I guess if your target is mobile then pick the closed format, and if it's deskop go open rather? Or perhaps if your target is more likely to be using Mac than PC, then go with H264, or webM if it's PC?
  - robin_reala 16y ago
    Best option is dual-encode. Native in Firefox / Chrome / Opera / Safari / newest IE / Android / iOS, Flash in older IE. Costs-wise it goes up again in terms of disc space and encode time, but both are cheap unless you’re playing with the big boys.
    - etherealG 16y ago
      Good point. I'd probably stick to doing both as well for now.
  - alanh 16y ago
    > price tag in the future of whatever the legal bills may come to Oh great, FUD. If you are doing free video, you don’t have to pay anything. If you are selling premium content, then sure you might have to pay license fees (~10¢/user/year, and that will never go up by more than 5% every five or ten years), but why would you expect a lawsuit!?
    - etherealG 16y ago
      actually, the free for non commercial only applies up to 2015 I think it is? after that, your already encoded video could cost you.
metageek 16y ago
>With this as an alternative on platforms that don't support webM 1.5fps is not an alternative. Nice hack, though.

robin_reala 16y ago

WebM encode gives you native Firefox / Opera / Chrome / newer Android, Flash for Safari / IE and nothing for iOS. H264 encode gives you native Safari / IE / iOS / Android, Flash for Firefox / Opera / Chrome.

etherealG 16y ago
the fact that you can hit iOS as a user means I guess H264 would be probably the better option for now, but it does come with a possible price tag in the future of whatever the legal bills may come to :) also, H264 isn't native in IE at all on release versions either, and things may change drastically before release, so I wouldn't bother including speculation on prerelease versions. That means with ID moving over into the flash for both, you're left with native on Firefox / Opera / Chrome / newer Android vs. native on Safari / iOS / Android. I guess if your target is mobile then pick the closed format, and if it's deskop go open rather? Or perhaps if your target is more likely to be using Mac than PC, then go with H264, or webM if it's PC?
- robin_reala 16y ago
  Best option is dual-encode. Native in Firefox / Chrome / Opera / Safari / newest IE / Android / iOS, Flash in older IE. Costs-wise it goes up again in terms of disc space and encode time, but both are cheap unless you’re playing with the big boys.
  - etherealG 16y ago
    Good point. I'd probably stick to doing both as well for now.
- alanh 16y ago
  > price tag in the future of whatever the legal bills may come to Oh great, FUD. If you are doing free video, you don’t have to pay anything. If you are selling premium content, then sure you might have to pay license fees (~10¢/user/year, and that will never go up by more than 5% every five or ten years), but why would you expect a lawsuit!?
  - etherealG 16y ago
    actually, the free for non commercial only applies up to 2015 I think it is? after that, your already encoded video could cost you.

metageek 16y ago

>With this as an alternative on platforms that don't support webM 1.5fps is not an alternative. Nice hack, though.