4 ms·

>You're right that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard. It is, however, much less of one than it was three years ago, and that's pretty much entirely due t

>You're right that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard. It is, however, much less of one than it was three years ago, and that's pretty much entirely due to one factor: iOS doesn't support it. The HTML <video> element has traction entirely due to the fact that it's the only way to play video from a web page on an iOS device. You don't have a choice between <video> or Flash: It's <video> or nothing. So is this debate about what's best for the future of open standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS? >short term >myopic S: (adj) short, shortsighted, unforesightful, myopic (lacking foresight or scope) "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=myopic http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=myopic Sounds like exactly what I meant. It's focusing on short term consequences at the expense of long-term benefit. As I said, dropping H.264 may result in the already entrenched Flash being used more in the near-term; in the long term it could help HTML5 <video> see better overall adoption.

GHFigs 16y ago
help HTML5 <video> see better overall adoption Who says it needs help?
rimantas 16y ago
> So is this debate about what's best for the future of open > standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS? Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of <video> How's that better for the open standards? The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users.
- commandar 16y ago
  >Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of <video> How's that better for the open standards? 20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using <video> entirely. How in the world is that possibly good for web standards? >The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users. That majority of the market has the entrenched Flash until HTML5 <video> gets sorted out as a standard everyone can use.
  - evgen 16y ago
    20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using <video> entirely. 20% and dropping... Should we also stop the <video> train in its tracks because IE6 does not support it?
    - sid0 16y ago
      Dropping?
      - evgen 16y ago
        All lists for browser share that I have seen show FF as having either plateaued or started to drop by small percentages. If you add mobile browsers into the mix then even the plateau becomes a small drop.
        sid0 16y ago
        And you really think that going to continue once Firefox 4 and Firefox for Android are released? Firefox is going to be relevant for a long while, so comparing it to IE6 is pretty disingenuous.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
neild 16y ago
So is this debate about what's best for the future of open standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS? Neither. The debate is about what's best for the web, period. Some people consider open standards to be a priori superior. Others (like Gruber) do not. (I'm taking your usage of "open standard" to include freedom from patent encumbrance.) Your last statement is a critical point in this debate: You assert that Chrome dropping H.264 support "could help HTML5 <video> see better adoption." This is not an uncontroversial statement, to put it mildly. I frankly don't see how this move will aid adoption of the <video> element. Yesterday, sites could encode to H.264 and provide a <video> element to some browsers and a Flash container to others. Today, the same is true. Yesterday, sites could encode to both H.264 and WebM. Today, the same is true. The only thing that has changed is that the number of browsers that require a Flash wrapper to play H.264 content has increased. Sites will potentially use the <video> element over a Flash container for several reasons: * If they cannot use Flash. This is the case on iOS devices. iOS has done more to drive adoption of <video> than any other factor to date. * For political reasons. Dropping H.264 support from Chrome will not change this; a site that avoids Flash because it is not free was presumably already encoding to WebM. * Because the <video> element provides a better end-user experience. For sites where this third case applies, dropping H.264 support may result in increased usage of WebM. However, note that this is not the same as increasing adoption of the <video> element--dropping H.264 may influence the codec choices of sites that have already chosen <video> over Flash, but it has no influence on sites that are willing to use Flash. I would be interested to hear your arguments on how dropping H.264 could increase usage of the <video> element in the long term. I just don't see a case for it. I do see a case that dropping H.264 might increase adoption of WebM. I am, however, dubious. So long as H.264 in a Flash wrapper is a viable fallback, I don't see any site choosing to encode to WebM as a result of this change. (Sites may choose to encode to WebM for other reasons--preference for freer standards or freedom from licensing fees--but in these cases, they would encode to WebM even if H.264 was available in Chrome.) So, to summarize: You are trying to frame the debate in terms of freedom alone. It is entirely valid to prefer freer technologies and to make decisions based on freedom. This is not, however, the only possible debate, and it is not the debate John Gruber is engaging in. To accuse him of hypocrisy in supporting H.264 but not Flash is to misunderstand his argument.
- 16y ago

GHFigs 16y ago

help HTML5 <video> see better overall adoption Who says it needs help?

rimantas 16y ago

> So is this debate about what's best for the future of open > standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS? Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of <video> How's that better for the open standards? The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users.

commandar 16y ago
>Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of <video> How's that better for the open standards? 20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using <video> entirely. How in the world is that possibly good for web standards? >The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users. That majority of the market has the entrenched Flash until HTML5 <video> gets sorted out as a standard everyone can use.
- evgen 16y ago
  20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using <video> entirely. 20% and dropping... Should we also stop the <video> train in its tracks because IE6 does not support it?
  - sid0 16y ago
    Dropping?
    - evgen 16y ago
      All lists for browser share that I have seen show FF as having either plateaued or started to drop by small percentages. If you add mobile browsers into the mix then even the plateau becomes a small drop.
      - sid0 16y ago
        And you really think that going to continue once Firefox 4 and Firefox for Android are released? Firefox is going to be relevant for a long while, so comparing it to IE6 is pretty disingenuous.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

neild 16y ago

So is this debate about what's best for the future of open standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS? Neither. The debate is about what's best for the web, period. Some people consider open standards to be a priori superior. Others (like Gruber) do not. (I'm taking your usage of "open standard" to include freedom from patent encumbrance.) Your last statement is a critical point in this debate: You assert that Chrome dropping H.264 support "could help HTML5 <video> see better adoption." This is not an uncontroversial statement, to put it mildly. I frankly don't see how this move will aid adoption of the <video> element. Yesterday, sites could encode to H.264 and provide a <video> element to some browsers and a Flash container to others. Today, the same is true. Yesterday, sites could encode to both H.264 and WebM. Today, the same is true. The only thing that has changed is that the number of browsers that require a Flash wrapper to play H.264 content has increased. Sites will potentially use the <video> element over a Flash container for several reasons: * If they cannot use Flash. This is the case on iOS devices. iOS has done more to drive adoption of <video> than any other factor to date. * For political reasons. Dropping H.264 support from Chrome will not change this; a site that avoids Flash because it is not free was presumably already encoding to WebM. * Because the <video> element provides a better end-user experience. For sites where this third case applies, dropping H.264 support may result in increased usage of WebM. However, note that this is not the same as increasing adoption of the <video> element--dropping H.264 may influence the codec choices of sites that have already chosen <video> over Flash, but it has no influence on sites that are willing to use Flash. I would be interested to hear your arguments on how dropping H.264 could increase usage of the <video> element in the long term. I just don't see a case for it. I do see a case that dropping H.264 might increase adoption of WebM. I am, however, dubious. So long as H.264 in a Flash wrapper is a viable fallback, I don't see any site choosing to encode to WebM as a result of this change. (Sites may choose to encode to WebM for other reasons--preference for freer standards or freedom from licensing fees--but in these cases, they would encode to WebM even if H.264 was available in Chrome.) So, to summarize: You are trying to frame the debate in terms of freedom alone. It is entirely valid to prefer freer technologies and to make decisions based on freedom. This is not, however, the only possible debate, and it is not the debate John Gruber is engaging in. To accuse him of hypocrisy in supporting H.264 but not Flash is to misunderstand his argument.

16y ago