misread this

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

misread this

Postby evasive » Thu May 06, 2010 2:09 am

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/05 ... d_preview/

I thought they withdrew the second beta due to bugs. talk about an expectation pattern.

anyway, if they insist on going H264 only that may be the final demise of IE especially seeing the marketshare drop quite rapidly after the obligatory choice-screen...
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 37389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby fussnfeathers » Thu May 06, 2010 4:32 am

And that would be worse than Apple steadfastly, and even obnoxiously, rejecting current standards such as Flash on products available right now? Or Amazon using only AZW, along with their copy prootection, so even though you can now get Kindle for PC, if you want to read that book in bed, you've got to buy a $300 piece of hardware?

If anything, IE going with h.264 may wind up being a blessing, since that's what the majority of HD streams are natively recorded in. It's tiresome for even me, having to install a half-dozen codecs just to play the same number of videos. Going with a single standard could ironically be the best thing since sliced bread. It'll be a pain in the butt for older stuff, but it wasn't all that long ago that I had to add $30 to my cable bill just to watch the same TV I've been watching for years, only because somebody else decided analog signals were no good anymore. We'll see. I totally agree, market share has dropped since the choice was given, but I think this move, along with either more standard codecs implemented later, or the availability of third-party plugins, might actually do some good.
Faster than the speed of snot

Two wrongs don't make it right, but I sleep pretty good at night
fussnfeathers
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Right behind you

Postby evasive » Thu May 06, 2010 4:46 am

I have nothing against a standard. i do have problems with a paid standard and no alternatives to choose from.

So, if i decide i want to use a different (free) codec, I'd be more than happy to switch browsers and get one that actually supports it.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 37389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby fussnfeathers » Thu May 06, 2010 10:04 am

You may have to. The fact is, though, that h.264 has been a standard for nearly 7 years, and more and more digital video content is using it, including iTunes. Flash supports it, and YouTube uses it for its HD broadcasts, most high end cell phones like Android devices, and even my Palm Pre, natively support it (in fact, that's one of my little gripes, WebOS doesn't support AVI, only h.264/MPEG-4, and the derivatives), the iPhone uses it, our friends over in the UK use it for their digital TV services, Norway is all h.264, blah blah blah. It's become the international standard. Even here in the US, DirectTV and the like use h.264, and most of the current IPTV services use it. It's not really a question of the end user paying for it, as it is a licensing fee for the content provider, which already has to be paid for other codecs as well. If anything, using another codec would be a pain in the butt, h.264 is so widespread now. The other standard-def codecs are all but dead now, and TBH, the only things I have that need MP2 or whatnot I have players for. For the average joe watching House rebroadcasts on the network site, h.264 is exactly what they need, so if it's integrated into the browser...........

Also bear in mind that somwhere north of 65% of all video on the web is h.264 now, compared to maybe 30% a year or so ago. DVD's are native h.264 (in an MP4 container), so people with media servers use it without even knowing, sometimes. Using h.264 will allow YouTube and the like to broadcast the video without an add-on, embedded player.......I could go on with that. It's rather like MP3 was, and that's a paid codec as well. Didn't stop it from outracing everybody else, and becoming the standard for digital music delivery. Even Apple has to support it, as much as that must kill them. It's just pretty much been proven that it's the best delivery method for digital video, and if you do want to go HTML5, you do have to support it.

I just wonder how much of that has to do with Apple's recent tirade against other standards and formats. Even MS is smart enough to know that the majority of digital media is still produced on Apple products, so its entirely possible that rejecting h.264 as the embedded standard would kill them even faster.

I should point out that Microsoft themselves don't own a whole lot in the way of h.264. 25 other companies also own the patents, and just Sharp and Samsung combined own nearly double what MS does (Samsung owns 57 patents, MS owns 65), and costwise.......you and I aren't going to see much more than a penny a year charged. And that's if the companies paying for licensing charge you the whole thing. If I remember the math, a comany paying the highest royalty fee will be paying about 2 cents per month per subscriber. This isn't a back-breaker, here. If you wanted to use it for, say, a computer tech site, or I wanted to broadcast guitar or drum lessons, as long as we stayed under 100,000 subscribers to the sites, we wouldn't have to pay a cent. Royalty fees don't start until you pass the 100,000 mark. That cost is set until 2015, so it's not going to change for five years. It's renewed every five years, and I seriously doubt the cost will change much then.
Faster than the speed of snot

Two wrongs don't make it right, but I sleep pretty good at night
fussnfeathers
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Right behind you

Postby thomas_w_bowman » Tue May 11, 2010 7:48 am

"I want to avoid making a commitment on certain terms," he told us. "The key is, right now we have zero consensus,"


The key is avoiding TRYING to get a consensus and rather simply 'bulldozing' whatever M$ wants to make it a 'standard' (again).

But if M$ really wants to push this, will EU see it as Anti-Trust issue ?

Yeah - it's not a 'back-breaker' and it works, but this will cause websites to rapidly become incompatible with other browsers (and M$ might like that, don't you think ?).

The question is - what will this cost Opera, Firefox, and other browsers (which have installed base of over 100,000) ?
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258
thomas_w_bowman
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN


Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lindex [Bot] and 0 guests