Mozilla and Opera announced support on launch day with both posting demo versions within the next couple of days. If Google talked to them what reason could they have had to not talk to Apple and Microsoft?
Apple and Microsoft are not supporting WebM for their own reasons, not because they weren’t given the opportunity.
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.
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?
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.
> 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!?
12 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 31.7 ms ] thread●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
●------ http://u.ly/73I ------●
Apple and Microsoft are not supporting WebM for their own reasons, not because they weren’t given the opportunity.
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.
H264 encode gives you native Safari / IE / iOS / Android, Flash for Firefox / Opera / Chrome.
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?
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!?
1.5fps is not an alternative.
Nice hack, though.
So don’t expect his frame rate of 1.5Hz (!) to improve much.
This is not a real alternative, even if you just consider how much of your users’ batteries this “technique” would burn away.