WebM vs H264?

[dolphin842]

While the os might I could easily see the browser in android going nope and refusing to support h.264 which would put android pushing webM for what webM is made for. Video on the web.

Until there is hardware-decoding of webM in phones, any smartphone maker that doesn't want to get abysmal battery life will demand h264 support from their OS vendor. If Android drops support for it, I'm sure Windows Phone 7 will happily step into that vacuum.

 

[jaw04005]

You don't know how Windows works obviously. System codecs are not Internet Explorer plugins. We can't discuss this if you don't know the difference.

System codecs are used by all Windows applications. Think of something like installing DivX support or a codec pack like CCCP. These are not Internet Explorer plugins.

Microsoft has basically said they will support any system codec installed for their <video> tag which means Internet Explorer will not require special plug-ins.

I don't need to reply to the rest of your post since you obviously don't understand this distinction on how Windows works.

It's still using IE's plug-in architecture. IE 9 will support plug-ins from a variety of places (for once) including traditional browser plug-ins (like Flash), Windows Media Foundation plug-ins (like the latest DivX Plus codecs) and probably even old Direct Show filters (like the old DivX and Xvid codecs).

They're all still plug-ins!

From Microsoft:

Supported Media Formats in Media Foundation

"This topic lists the media formats that Microsoft Media Foundation supports natively. Third parties can support additional formats by writing custom plug-ins."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd757927(v=vs.85).aspx

Do you see WebM listed? No. Google is going to have to write a custom plug-in for WMF.

Google has ALREADY ANNOUNCED they are doing a plug-ins for Safari and Internet Explorer. But I'm sure you'll argue with Google's Chrome Blog too, right?

"Clarified that the Safari and IE9 plug-ins to be released by the WebM Project Team enable WebM playback via the HTML standard <video> tag canPlayType interface and not an alternate non-standard method."

http://blog.chromium.org/

I don't need to reply to the rest of your post since you obviously don't understand this distinction on how Windows works.

Maybe you should learn how Windows works.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It's still using IE's plug-in architecture. IE 9 will support plug-ins from a variety of places (for once) including traditional browser plug-ins (like Flash), Windows Media Foundation plug-ins (like the latest DivX Plus codecs) and probably even old Direct Show filters (like the old DivX and Xvid codecs).

They're all still plug-ins!

From Microsoft:

Supported Media Formats in Media Foundation

"This topic lists the media formats that Microsoft Media Foundation supports natively. Third parties can support additional formats by writing custom plug-ins."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd757927(v=vs.85).aspx

Do you see WebM listed? No. Google is going to have to write a custom plug-in for WMF.

Google has ALREADY ANNOUNCED they are doing a plug-ins for Safari and Internet Explorer. But I'm sure you'll argue with Google's Chrome Blog too, right?

"Clarified that the Safari and IE9 plug-ins to be released by the WebM Project Team enable WebM playback via the HTML standard <video> tag canPlayType interface and not an alternate non-standard method."

http://blog.chromium.org/



Maybe you should learn how Windows works.

and you are twisting words. By the logic you are using then IE9 supporting h.264 is a plug in because guess what it is going to go back to the system codec were h.264 is stored. No way MS is not going to do that method because it would be a lot of extra work for no gain.

You can make a plug in like Flash or you can install another codec like WebM. Both are true if you want to support a very custom set up.

IE9 is going to support WebM because most computer will have that codec installed on their system. All google is going to do for IE9 is make a package to add the codec. Now a plug in will be needed for IE8 and down which also Google could easily of done.

I would not be surprised if MS is basically routing IE9 stuff threw part of the WMP package.

 

[displaced]

Until there is hardware-decoding of webM in phones, any smartphone maker that doesn't want to get abysmal battery life will demand h264 support from their OS vendor.

Absolutely.

In all honesty, I don't have an allegiance to either codec. Neither do I particularly trust either Google or the MPEG-LA. But my concerns are:

• Hardware acceleration and low power consumption are absolutely vital. If a movie in one codec consumes 10% of my device's battery, but the other consumes 60%, I want the former.
  
• Is there competition on the encoder front? A standard is one thing, but I want competition in the implementation to ensure better performance. x264 exists for h264 (legality questions remain). But will WebM get enough traction for people to put in the effort to compete on encoder performance?
  
• WebM is only truly worry-free if its backers put their money where their mouths are and indemnify all users against patent attacks. I doubt anyone here is truly qualified to establish whether or not WebM infringes any MPEG-LA patents, but if its backers are as confident as they seem, the least they can do is protect their users. Google has not done this.

It seems that neither codec is guaranteed to be acceptable. h264 is free for internet use at least until 2016 when the licence is next reviewed. Providers and users are beholden to MPEG-LA's decision at that point.

WebM is purportedly open and free. It is... until we find out otherwise. And if we do find out otherwise, none of its backers are willing to take the hit for their 'open and free' product turning out to be neither.

I suppose the root cause of all this is simple. Advanced, modern, high-quality but versatile video and audio codecs are really difficult to create. It takes years of time, money, man-power and cross-company co-operation to make it happen. And the very smart people who design these things and their companies want some money back for their efforts. Reasonable, but at-odds with 'free'.