Sure, you could "bundle Ogg Theora and H.264", but what's the benefit? It seems that there are three reasons against using Ogg Theora (see the email announcement at http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html): - no hardware video decoding support (cited by Apple) - "Ogg Theora's quality-per-bit is not yet suitable for the volume handled by YouTube" (cited by Google) - uncertainty over whether "submarine patents" will threaten Ogg (cited by Apple)
The last issue may or may not be real, since Apple has a vested interest in pushing iTunes and Quicktime. Anyway, if you encode your video to H.264, you can display it with Flash on all computers and "natively" on the iPhone and don't worry about these issues above. So again, what's the benefit to add Ogg Theora? Sure, you can get the immaterial benefit of "we push open source video", but I don't think the added expense will be worth it for many businesses. On Jul 4, 7:41 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Not entirely. > > if you offer just flash, you create some annoyances for your users: > > - It won't work on the iPhone (major reason) > - On non-windows machines, it'll light up one CPU core, which means > notebook mac and linux users will burn through the battery. > - There's no useful right click context menu (e.g. no 'mute' in > there. There is <video> tags. > > So, what I'm about to describe is not just 'to be more standards > compatible', which is good, because 'just being more standards > compatible' never made anybody do anything. > > Here's what you do: > > You encode your video BOTH to Ogg Theora AND h.264 via the MP4 > container at 640x480 without streaming (so that its iPhone > compatible), and then: > > follow the instructions athttp://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody > > This gets you a nice fallback, where the <video> tag is used offering > both ogg and h.264, which covers Safari, Firefox 3.5+, Opera10, and > Safari iPhone, as well as flash as a fallback, which covers older > versions and IE. It then falls back further, to a download link. > > As its all nicely bundled up, the effort to do this is minimal, and > hosting your own video has always been quite an endeavour (you need to > figure out how to encode and all that - that's why so many people just > embed a youtube video!), so I doubt the technical difficulty of doing > this is going to stop people from adding video tag powered videos to > their websites. > > On Jul 4, 4:20 pm, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > Some people thought that the upcoming HTLM 5 with standard audio and > > video tags would spell the end of Flash (and Silverlight and JavaFX). > > I never thought it would because these plug-ins offer much more than > > just video and audio. > > > However, it seems now that there will be no standard audio and video > > codecs in HTML 5, which means that unless a de-facto standard emerges > > somewhere down the line, Flash with H.264 video will continue to > > deliver video to the browser masses. For more details, > > see:http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-... > > > In somewhat related news, XHTML 2 seems to have been canceled, making > > HTML 5 the only new HTML version going > > forward:http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/03/1447237/XHTML-2-Cancelled > > > --- > > Karsten Silz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
