5 ms·

That doesn't explain how dropping support for H.264 drives adoption of <video>, however. Why would someone choose to use the <video> element because Chrome dro

by neild 16y ago

That doesn't explain how dropping support for H.264 drives adoption of <video>, however. Why would someone choose to use the <video> element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? What would aid adoption of <video> is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. That requires that browsers add codec support, however, not remove it--either Firefox and Opera would need to add H.264 support (unlikely), or the various platforms that don't support WebM would need to add it (impossible in some cases, since the hardware support isn't there).

commandar 16y ago
>Why would someone choose to use the <video> element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in <video> might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. >What would aid adoption of <video> is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. There is a chance for this to eventually happen with WebM. It was never going to happen on any timescale with H.264. My point is simply playing on probabilities. > (impossible in some cases, since the hardware support isn't there). People keep harping on this, and while it may be unfortunate that some devices get left behind, as I've posted elsewhere in the thread, mobile currently only represents 3% of web traffic. The mobile web is still very much in its infancy and there's still plenty of time for things to change, even fundamentally in some places.
- neild 16y ago
  Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in <video> might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. I feel like we're talking in circles here. How does dropping support for H.264 make WebM support in other browsers more likely to become ubiquitous? How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?
  - commandar 16y ago
    H.264 for <video> guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous <video> format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video. WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and, honestly, I don't think that's too much of a stretch), that's around 90% of the market signed up. If that happens, your only holdout is Apple, and I think even Apple is going to have a hard time stonewalling the change given the way they've spent the last year preaching the wonders of the open web. So, basically, what I'm getting at is that with WebM, there's at least a chance everyone could end up settling on a ubiquitous codec. With H.264, we already know it would never happen. An unknown probability greater than zero is a better prospect than a p=0, in my book. >How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so? Fragmentation. <video> isn't a useful standard unless you know it's going to work. Some browsers supporting one codec and others another makes that impossible.
    - neild 16y ago
      But, again, everything you say hinges on browsers (namely, IE and Safari) adding support for WebM, not Chrome dropping support for H.264. If everyone supports WebM, then WebM wrapped in a <video> element is a viable choice. Not everyone supports WebM at the moment. How does Chrome dropping support for H.264 bring us closer to everyone supporting WebM? Support for the two codecs isn't mutually exclusive. Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM.
      - commandar 16y ago
        > Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM. They've made it very clear the intention is to add it. I've said it's not happening overnight, and I really don't understand this attitude that if it hasn't happened instantly then everything is worse.
    - neild 16y ago

by neild 16y ago

commandar 16y ago

>Why would someone choose to use the <video> element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in <video> might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. >What would aid adoption of <video> is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. There is a chance for this to eventually happen with WebM. It was never going to happen on any timescale with H.264. My point is simply playing on probabilities. > (impossible in some cases, since the hardware support isn't there). People keep harping on this, and while it may be unfortunate that some devices get left behind, as I've posted elsewhere in the thread, mobile currently only represents 3% of web traffic. The mobile web is still very much in its infancy and there's still plenty of time for things to change, even fundamentally in some places.

neild 16y ago
Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in <video> might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. I feel like we're talking in circles here. How does dropping support for H.264 make WebM support in other browsers more likely to become ubiquitous? How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?
- commandar 16y ago
  H.264 for <video> guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous <video> format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video. WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and, honestly, I don't think that's too much of a stretch), that's around 90% of the market signed up. If that happens, your only holdout is Apple, and I think even Apple is going to have a hard time stonewalling the change given the way they've spent the last year preaching the wonders of the open web. So, basically, what I'm getting at is that with WebM, there's at least a chance everyone could end up settling on a ubiquitous codec. With H.264, we already know it would never happen. An unknown probability greater than zero is a better prospect than a p=0, in my book. >How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so? Fragmentation. <video> isn't a useful standard unless you know it's going to work. Some browsers supporting one codec and others another makes that impossible.
  - neild 16y ago
    But, again, everything you say hinges on browsers (namely, IE and Safari) adding support for WebM, not Chrome dropping support for H.264. If everyone supports WebM, then WebM wrapped in a <video> element is a viable choice. Not everyone supports WebM at the moment. How does Chrome dropping support for H.264 bring us closer to everyone supporting WebM? Support for the two codecs isn't mutually exclusive. Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM.
    - commandar 16y ago
      > Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM. They've made it very clear the intention is to add it. I've said it's not happening overnight, and I really don't understand this attitude that if it hasn't happened instantly then everything is worse.
  - neild 16y ago