| |||||||||||||
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)Posted Jan 17, 2011 3:33 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by mosfet Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
> It will turn out like this:
Probably not. Consider the politics of it. Adobe knows Apple wants them dead. Microsoft wouldn't lose any sleep if Adobe died. Google won't have to lean very hard on Adobe to support WebM. Now project a few years into the future when HTML5 will come into its own anyway, not now.
It is now 2015. YouTube drops h.264 support, only storing one copy of everything, in WebM. Flash has been shipping both h.264 and WebM for years so the few people with pre HTML5 browsers are covered. Most hardware makers got the memo and started shipping WebM in 2011-2012 so most handheld hardware supports it with the possible exception of Apple. Examine the supported platform landscape. Microsoft either plays ball and ships WebM or YouTube offers them a free plugin on their first visit to YouTube. Meaning adoption near 100% Same for Safari on Mac users. Any current Android or Chrome OS device will support WebM. Firefox and Opera users are good to go. The only possible loser would be iOS if they dig in and refuse to add WebM hardware decoding.
At that point anyone wanting to post video online has two choices, WebM, which EVERY Internet user with the possible exception of a few Apple users can't watch or h.264 which no Firefox, Chrome or Opera user can view. If it can't watch YouTube it is dead so iOS will be forced to add WebM, the only question is whether Apple sees the way the wind is blowing in time to get hardware decoding into their products before the great flag day when YouTube drops h.264 and frees up half their storage space.
Remember, Apple only got away with banning Flash because Google helped/allowed Apple to implement a non-flash based YouTube viewer. And notice how after years of Apple's attempt to kill Flash it isn't showing any signs of dying. And Apple's market power is at it's zenith right now, as Android shipments ramp up their market share only goes down from here.
(Log in to post comments)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 12:00 UTC (Mon) by mosfet (guest, #45339) [Link]
There are more video portals out there than only Youtube. If Google decides to drop H.264 and cancel the contract with Apple (native iOS app), Apple will choose another platform. Frankly, I would welcome this decision. Youtube is a near monopoly, (real) competition is good for the market and everyone.
I still find it very unlikely that any non-Google Android implementor will ever choose to boycott H.264 (without pressure from Google), so Apples Youtube competitor will have a good chance.
Another point: Relative data in a growing market are misleading. Apple may not grow as fast as Android, but Apple grows in huge numbers absolute. Also "Android" is not a single vendor like Apple, but a platform. If you compare these numbers it's a bit like comparing the combined sales of automobiles from GM, Ford and Chrysler to Toyota.
Apple does not need to be the smartphone market leader to be a very successful driving force. It is good that with Google Android there is another force to compete against, but until now Google has not said a single word about removing H.264 from this platform. I suspect it's because they can't. It's open source. They are not the main implementors. Maybe Google can force them with a secret back room deal to drop H.264 (and call it "Open Alliance" or something). But without force: Fat chance.
And there is the tablet market, Google is not doing well there, I think there will not be a serious competitor until 2012 or 21013. When Google finally finishes Android 3 and the first tablets will appear, Apple already has the iPad 2 out. Google has a long way to catch up. Like any other competitor they will find it hard do deliver a *complete* and *consistent* system. Some parts are easy.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 20, 2011 20:11 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> There are more video portals out there than only Youtube. If Google
> decides to drop H.264 and cancel the contract with Apple (native iOS app), > Apple will choose another platform. Frankly, I would welcome this > decision. Youtube is a near monopoly, (real) competition is good for the > market and everyone.
Youtube is not a monopoly. There are a ton of streaming video sites out there. By some measures, Hulu is already doing better than Youtube.
> I still find it very unlikely that any non-Google Android implementor will
Implementors will be happy to support all the formats. The important question is which ones are going to get hardware acceleration. Google is probably hoping to make the answer "WebM" by leveraging their control of Youtube, Google video, Google Chrome, and Firefox.
As I understand it now, you currently can't watch YouTube on iOS through Safari. Instead, you have to use a separate app. If Google re-encodes with WebM, that situation can continue, except that the separate app can use (not-hardware-accelerated) WebM. Problem solved.
> Another point: Relative data in a growing market are misleading. Apple may
Yeah, it's like comparing Macs to PCs. We all know that the proprietary standards Apple designs, like NuBus, ADB, Apple Display Port, and so on always wipe out the standard PC designs like PCI, VGA, and DVI. Oh, wait.
To be fair, sometimes Apple leads the market in adopting a standard technology like USB. But from the beginning, USB was a joint effort between HP, Microsoft, Intel, and others.
> And there is the tablet market, Google is not doing well there, I think
The reality distortion field must have blocked out the news that this year at CES was the "year of the tablet" and Android was the star of the show. The first Android tablets will appear in about -1 years (i.e., the past).
There's an app for that Posted Jan 17, 2011 13:00 UTC (Mon) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
iOS does not have to be left out. If its browser does not support WebM, Google could simply create a "YouTube Viewer" application which includes optimized software decoding for WebM (possibly using an ARM-optimized version of the ffmpeg VP8 decoder, which is already faster than Google's own reference decoder).
Yes, it will use more battery, but it is a small price to pay (and most users will not notice unless they play a lot of videos).
There's an app for that Posted Jan 17, 2011 13:17 UTC (Mon) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link]
Was the ffmpeg decoder actually faster on ARM? I was under the impression that it was "faster" because they tweaked it for desktop chips whereas the original code was designed and coded to be fast on mobile ARM chips, specifically those with NEON SIMD (like every iPhone since the 3GS). I think I saw something claiming that ffmpeg code was faster than Google's code on ARM as long as you disabled the ARM specific assembly but that's a somewhat limited victory.
I'd be interested to know how fast a 3rd party WebM decode could go on an iPhone. From the example of Theora it sounds like it can depend on some very arcane details of how the hardware is set up. I guess we'll get some kind of numbers on that when Android 2.3 starts rolling out wider.
Well, you are missing some facts here... Posted Jan 18, 2011 0:47 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Google won't have to lean very hard on Adobe to support WebM. Well, if you recall what Adobe said back when WebM was first introduced... I don't know how exactly negotiations went, but Adobe already agreed to play mediator: Flash may play H.264 in a world where browsers don't support it in <video> tag (Firefox, Opera, now Chrome) - and it may play WebM in a world where browsers don't support WebM in a <video> tag (Safari, IE9). It makes it significantly more relevant short-term - and obviously Adobe likes it. Long-term is actually has no effect: "tough stance" against WebM will buy Adobe no friends and may make it less relevant in the future.
|
|||||||||||||