Chrome dropping h.264 support
- Started
- Last post
- 42 Responses
- animatedgif0
Thanks for nothing Google. We still have to support H.264 because most mobile devices capable of playing online video have hardware acceleration for that codec.
Yet another crappy land grab attempt.
- hans_glib0
it'd be nice if google could manage to get chrome to display the animated gif thread without locking up...
- abettertomorrow0
It did take too long...but not that long once they got their shit together.
And ironically, much of that was thanks to Google's support.
- Boz0
nobody said things will never change.. they will.. certainly Flash will not be used for some of the things you can easily do with JS or Jquery and HTML5 that's naturally.. it took them long enough (what about 12 years to get to where Flash was 10 years ago)...
But as these things change.. Flash is evolving too.. there's a reason why Adobe has had a record profit ending 2010.. Adobe is shifting to producing tools Flash people use all the time.. so eventually there might not even be a Flash Player runtime but we will still be using Flash and AIR and build applications on mobile devices and so on..
And btw.. Apple's dominance and trend setting is done for. Every single device being released is supporting Flash and there is AIR support for it too to build apps.. It's still a bit rough but this year everything will snap in nicely..
- abettertomorrow0
Yes...we've heard the same story for a year Boz. Flash is teh awesome. Flash will never die:)
We'll see how it all shakes out. All I can say is, a year ago someone on her started a thread called "the death of Flash" and people mostly thought the idea was crazy. Just a year later, you have all major browsers supporting HTML5, iPad is a huge market totally free of Flash, WebGL is coming along quite nicely, and I can watch all of YouTube in HTML5 if I want. So it may be premature to say things will never change:)
The reality is the near future will be multi format no matter what. Flash will not die off instantly. But neither will the adoption of the HTML5 video tag be killed off by any little move affecting only Chrome browsers. As IE9 becomes mainstream, more and more people will be using progressive enhancement techniques to serve HTML5 to some audiences, and Flash to others.
- Boz0
@abettertomorrow
not at all buddy.. not at all.. I do like WebM.. Flash will be just ok btw.. Adobe is doing better then ever and Flash is a lot more then video.. so that's not really a concern.. plus every smart developer and designer even knows that AIR will be the future of development for mobile devices.. being the main app platform for Blackberry and having some terrific Android support but also iOS and soon Windows Phone 7.. millions of Flash developers will have plenty of work for mobile platforms. So there's no worry there at all..
Btw.. Flash will utterly destroy everything on the web for games when Molehill arrives and next 10.2 Flash Player and when new StageVideo API is officially out in AIR as well that is using complete super high performance device GPU acceleration to play video. CPU utilization is at zero.. there will be nothing out there like that.
Flash will be full GPU accelerated.. So Flash isn't going anywhere.. we have years and years and years to wait until we get some libraries and engines and (if we get) WebGL full support and overall quality as Flash.
I care about WebM because video should be universal.. for simple stuff you can use video tag and we know what the codec is and it's free and if you need to make a simple web site you can indeed avoid using Flash for that stuff.. it simplifies development process..
WebM and video tag in HTML5 might not ever provide the depth and the ability that Flash can give you if you need to make a full blown player with tons of interactive stuff in it and multiple bitrate detection and alpha channels and all kinds of stuff.. so in my eyes HTML5 video is not really even a competition to Flash in that regard..
This is why I want WebM to succeed.. it's just a smart thing to do and we don't have to pay anyone anything (not creators nor users).
- And no pay means creation doesnt get stifled so much.deathboy
- abettertomorrow0
Also consider this, if licensing of h.264 ever becomes onerous to the point where it kills innovation or becomes a cost to small business...well, we can switch!
There will be nothing forcing us to stay with h.264 any more than there is now.
- abettertomorrow0
But read the patent holders of h.264. Actual list here:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/progr…
The idea that this is all a scheme by Apple who are going to reap billions is pretty silly really.
- i cant figure out that kind of stuff. but i figur eif there was no money why'd they go through the troubledeathboy
- Can't figure it out? Its a list of patents bro.abettertomorrow
- 70 pages worth, of which Apple barely makes up 1/4 of one page.abettertomorrow
- And the reason they support it currently is because its simply the defacto standard used by the entire movie and entertainment industryabettertomorrow
- entertainment industryabettertomorrow
- deathboy0
licensing terms of h.264... make smy head hurt tryign to reead it
- abettertomorrow0
I do agree Boz that theoretically something like WebM is better than h.264. I guess many of us were trying to be practical here though. Even with this announcement, I don't see a WebM taking off necessarily.
The thing with h.264 is that while they left the door open for fees, I don't see it as much of a threat for the average web user or developer. Is MPEG-LA gonna be like the IRS running around extracting fees from your grandma? No. It IS a threat for huge sites like YouTube that serve millions of videos a day, so I can understand their concern. But let's separate out Google's interest from our own.
And let's also be honest, you don't really care about WebM, do you? The only reason this is an issue you favor is because it slightly complicates HTML5 video being adopted and extends Flash's lifespan a little longer.
- deathboy0
i thought the thing was apple wanted to destroy the flash video standard by pushing html5 video tags, so people would switch to h.264 and he could charge browser comapnies or people huge licensing fees. where the other video formats have no licensing fees.... or at least thats what i remember about the whole argument back then. ....
- this is probably one of the reasons yeah.. the other one is that FLash and build apps that are at Obj-C level and they knew it was only a matter of time before Flash player would be fully GPU accelerated on mobile devices. This kills the whole concept of app store.Boz
- knew it was only a matter of time before Flash player would be fully GPU accelerated on mobile devices. This kills the whole concept of app store.Boz
- the whole concept of app store.Boz
- oh yea forgot abut that with mobile shit. but the licensing is the "open format" theyre tlakign botu right?deathboy
- Only trouble with this is that Apple doesn't own much of h.264 patent pool at allabettertomorrow
- liek distributors cant be charged for showing flash based content and such...deathboy
- Microsoft is by far the dominant patent holder.abettertomorrow
- So the theory is on kind of shaky ground I'd say.abettertomorrow
- Boz0
not really.. you only need a good video program that will also export to FLV which there are a lot of out there..
To play you have to use some options out there true.. like this: http://flowplayer.org/download/i…
but the advantage is again that your video will play everywhere..
Plus. you don't really need to export to FLV.. FLV is not the only format Flash supports.. it supports MOV, MP4, F4V, M4V.. as long they are encoded with h.264, or Sorenson or VP6 or VP8 it will play it..
Flash PLayer becomes your bridge to no headaches and certainty that everyone on any browser will be able to see it.
- Flowplayer is yet another piece of proprietary tech...which doesn't allow me to customize the appearanceabettertomorrow
- The best answer is the simple, obvious one, which is just to be able to play video in a webpage directly.abettertomorrow
- and how would you customize your video player in video tag? You get what the browser offers you.. btw there are players for Flash out there you can just copy and paste code for embed..from your server.. I mean very small issue to get video on every browser.Boz
- in Flash out there you can just copy and paste code for embed..from your server.. I mean very small issue to get video on every browser. I don't see what's the problem?Boz
- video on every browser. I don't see what's the problem?Boz
- You aren't aware that video can be easily customized in HTML5? In terms of appearance and functionalityabettertomorrow
- abettertomorrow0
With Flash I need:
A video program (most people have these)
A converter
A way to play the FLV file (Flash movie)With HTML5 I need:
A video program
- But oh yeah sorry, Flash makes the video "good stuff":)abettertomorrow
- Hombre_Lobo0
^you don't need adobe software to make flash videos.
There are free converters.- Oops this thread moves fast.Hombre_Lobo
- True, but to add the much vaunted interactivity you certainly do.abettertomorrow
- Or perhaps I can slot it into some free Flash video player...but again, to edit anything, I need Flash!:)abettertomorrow
- With HTML5, the buttons and controls are just good old HTML/CSSabettertomorrow
- The functionality is only limited by what you can code in JSabettertomorrow
- ESKEMA0
I understand Google's position in this case and I would back it up, but how do I export a WebM file from Premiere, After Effects, Final Cut like today? How are we on hardware accelerated devices supporting WebM? If these questions above would be resolved, then fine, great, let's move on. But I don't see them resolved in a 2 months window.
- it will happen.. we just got WebM dude.. and people are already embedding it.. it took h.264 a few years.. webM will probably take lot less time to spread around.Boz
- will probably take lot less time to spread around.Boz
- "It will happen" is not a good answer when you announce a cease of support.ESKEMA
- That I agree with.. but last time I checked Chrome doesn't run on your Blu-ray player.. so no problem yet right?Boz
- we have WebM since a year ago, meanwhile, I still can't export it from professional software.ESKEMA
- Boz0
^ because it's Apple's fault for that hike to begin with.. simple as that..
but let me address your comment:
"HTML5 video is a superior choice because it removes the need for an intermediary...which has become second nature for people as it stands but actually makes very little sense."
True, however it created a cluster-fuck of argument and divide what codecs are supported universally and what will work.. this is the EXACT same problem we had decade or more ago. Not much has changed except we have now an official tag for it instead of (object/embed) thing traditionally used for video.
The intermediary software allows faster adaptation and better unification.. for example.. Flash is a container that allows you to run Sorenson, VP6, VP8, h264 videos across any platform through an embed tag. It's cross platform (sure it might have had some performance issues on certain platforms but it still ran) and Flash Player itself is a great thing because it allows you to protect content as well and have better control over it as well as add interactive layers on top of it not to mention import video with alpha channels and so much more.. Something you simply can't do in HTML5/JS as easily or at all.
You pay software to Adobe because you want to make some good stuff.. and the tools are great.. just like you have to pay for professional tools for H.264 encoding.. I don't' really how there's any difference? Actually there is.. once you create content with Flash and you export to SWF you don't have to pay any additional license.. with h.264 you do if you use it for commercial purposes. Plus, just as with h.264 having an open alternative x.264, Flash is an open specification and you can make software that exports to SWF. There are plenty of it out there.
HTML5 video will not put content creation into the hands of regular people.. I don't know what you are talking about.. HTML5 video just gives a more convenient way to embed a video.. content creation has nothing to do with it. You still need to pay for software to make that video for the most part.
And if you are so much about putting the content creation control into people's hands.. don't you think having WebM out there is actually even better considering it bears absolutely no licensing/royalties baggage?
- Interactive layers are possible...why wouldn't they be?abettertomorrow
- The HTML5 video tag is really just the equivalent of the FLV player component is Flash, rather than the entire SWF.abettertomorrow
- abettertomorrow0
Nothing against you guys, but you are always going to try to tie everything back to Flash and Apple.
I can see you guys 10 years from now when Flash is long since dead and gone still talking about it:)
HTML5 video is a superior choice because it removes the need for an intermediary...which has become second nature for people as it stands but actually makes very little sense.
Why do I need expensive Adobe software simply to encode and post video on the web? Why are most people reliant on YouTube embeds to post video at all? HTML5 video will put content creation in the hands of regular people, something a lot of you seem to be straight up missing in this whole conversation...
- Boz0
well in the end it will be like this:
"Fuck.. why do we mess around with HTML5 video and all this codec nonsense and have to write 5 fallbacks, when we can just use FLash again and have the video run on all browser.. bam problem solved"
People will remember why Flash became a dominant force in internet video int he first place.. and considering that Apple is the only one not supporting Flash, I can see them again backtracking and allowing Flash on their device, closing the circle on their douchebaggery on this topic.
- Hombre_Lobo0
Nice post boz!
While I do think it's completely fair for google to pull this one, following apples dirty tactics style, I would rather they support all codecs.
I don't think any company could compare to the monumental douchebaggery of apple not supporting flash solely for their own gain at the sacrifice of good content (not just porn!) and not delivering the full Internet experience.
I actually think apples flash gayness falls into the same category of net neutrality - being told what we can / can't view.
I also find it strange that more designers aren't outraged by apple. At one point they made computers primarily for the design industry, for people creating web content, now they are putting those people out of jobs (flash devs) and telling you how to create content for your industry.
GOOD OLD RANT.
- abettertomorrow0
They will be posting the source code for the Google search engine
...any...day...now... :)