Continue reading here

Not sure on this one. It could either really push the web to more open formats, or it could damage Chrome's popularity, especially around non-techy types.

The latter I suspect.
People just want their browser to "work".

Funny they're axing the non-proprietary, standards-based H264 codec on grounds of 'openness' but keeping Chrome's built-in Flash video player. Could it be that Google don't have a direct competitor to Flash, they have a site that brings in a lot of ad revenue based entirely on Flash and the whole 'openness' thing is utter bullox? Oh, you know, I think it might. Not that a lot of Flash video will play anyway because inside the FLV 'container' it's encoded in H264 anyway.

Jon

Open source, royalty-free codecs FTMFW.

The problem is, h.264 is already a standard. Most video cameras nowadays record directly in h.264...

Add to that, that h.264 and Google's own codec are lossy, that means users of Chrome will get an inferior version of the video... It also means a lot more work for website operators, to include multiple versions of the film.

There is also some... debate as to the actual legal status of WebM. MPEG-LA claim that WebM infringes on several of their patents that were implemented in H.264. If they are right, Google have OS'ed things they had no right to and in theory they would have to withdraw WebM, take the source code down and attempt to redress the damage i.e. effectively stop other people from using it afterwards.

The idea that H.264 has all these legal tangles while WebM floats free as a butterfly is utterly spurious (and, frankly, an invention of some of the more vociferous OS activists). Anything that involves a corporate entity at any point is going to have legal hassles at some point or other.


Also there is a massive population of devices out there that have built in H264 hardware decoding and pretty much none that have hardware WebM decoding. I doubt it'll be popular if using it takes us back to the days of smartphones with a five hour battery life.

Jon

An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google.

And they say Americans don't understand irony.

This happens anyway - with OGG Vorbis being the codec of choice for Firefox for the moment - it seems that WebM may be the codec of choice for those at a later date. The whole <video> tag is a freaking mess. One codec should be all that is necessary. I’m quite happy for it to be h.264 because I feel it gives a better picture. However,m if it was just OGG or just WebM, we’d at least only have to work to one codec.

Anyway, it’s just as likely that non h.264 browsers will just use a Flash wrapper to play the h.264 content anyway, propping up Flash in all its heavenly glory.

http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/pract ... idealistic

I don't think Flash needs propping up TBH - it's installed on about 97% of machines anyway*.

*according to Steam.