No mention of VP8 but interesting..
Microsoft fires back at critics of its HTML5 strategy
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=2095
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com -
A fair point is made in the comments in that article, that it isn't
worth the patent trolls time and money unless someone deep-pocketed
like Apple gets involved, but then they coud well come out of the
woodwork.
Another comment does, however, note his use of the passive tense to
describe this
In all Job's attacks on Flash, he didn't really talk about the
technical limitations of Flash video for animation/interactivity/media
synchronization - which is telling, since Apple systematically ignored
Quicktime development interactive Quicktime for years - and have
basically just
Jobs cant really say much about VP8 until oogle make an official announcement
about it can he? When that time comes, I predict the main argument will be
along the lines of lack of VP8 hardware decoding.
As for Quicktime,if we care about open standards then thank god Quicktime
multimedia
There is no future-proof perfect answer at this stage.
VP8 may be the longterm answer but even if its a roaring success it will take
years to reach the promised land.
Like it or not, H264 is the answer for at least the next few years, if not
longer. With one H.264 file you can cater for most
Looks like things may be about to turn uglier on this front:
http://blogs.fsfe.org/hugo/2010/04/open-letter-to-steve-jobs/
Jobs has apparently replied:
'From: Steve Jobs
To: Hugo Roy
Subject: Re:Open letter to Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash
Date 30/04/2010 15:21:17
All video codecs are covered
Isn't this where we started on this thread?
j
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote:
Looks like things may be about to turn uglier on this front:
http://blogs.fsfe.org/hugo/2010/04/open-letter-to-steve-jobs/
Jobs has apparently replied:
'From: Steve Jobs
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
Isn't this where we started on this thread?
j
Yes.
- verdi
--
Training for a triathlon and raising money for The Leukemia Lymphoma Society.
http://training.michaelverdi.com
Im confused, this subject isnt where the thread started at all, it started with
the rumours about Google opening up VP8. Most of the talk about downsides of
theora has been to do with quality, hardware decoding, quantity of videos
already in H.264. The potential for patent problems with theora
What he was referring to was that a day (and 11 emails ago), Joly
noted a quote from the same story you just brought up and we all just
had a discussion about it.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
I also noted Jobs recent statement that Theora is not free of
On 2 May 2010, at 14:28, elbowsofdeath wrote:
Jobs cant really say much about VP8 until oogle make an official
announcement about it can he?
Fair enough, I guess, though it seems a pretty open secret. And
they've bought it, right? So it's not irrelevant, and the possibility
should
Ahh right. The difference is that in his original statement Jobs was only
making a point about potential theora patent woes, which quite rightly could be
dismissed as FUD. But in Jobs later email reply to the open letter, he actually
states that there is actually something going on with this,
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote:
Fair enough, I guess, though it seems a pretty open secret. And
they've bought it, right? So it's not irrelevant, and the possibility
should deserve some recognition in a full honest discussion?
Yeah but I certainly
By the time h.264 patents are an issue again, there will be another codec
that trounces everything we're talking about, and it may or may not be open
source. Five years is a very very very long time in this field. We may not
even be using web browsers as we know them today, or HTML at all by then,
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote:
Thanks for the info Michael, good to hear that Firefox are joining the
hardware accelerated fun.
Some recent developments...
Jobs has been justifying Apple's flash stance, Adobe have fired back,
both have some valid points
I currently display in flash at 1mpbs 15fps, and then give additional
d/l options ogv + iPod (h264), and a link to YouTube. I also throw in
stills and mp3 and agg for those with low bandwidth.
See: http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=777
I think one is pretty much covered there..
Encoding ogv with the
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
I also noted Jobs recent statement that Theora is not free of
potential encumbrance.
I wouldn't put much stock in that FUD. Also, all of these arguments
don't (and can't really) take into account VP8 that Google is
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi mich...@... wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Joly MacFie j...@... wrote:
I also noted Jobs recent statement that Theora is not free of
potential encumbrance.
the same comments were give about vorbis, where are the court
Thanks for the info Michael, good to hear that Firefox are joining the hardware
accelerated fun.
Some recent developments...
Jobs has been justifying Apple's flash stance, Adobe have fired back, both have
some valid points but are deliberately avoiding other truths.
OS X 10.6.3 allows third
Mozilla reckon that Firefox handles 30% of worldwide web access. And
you can bet it's an even higher percentage of people who watch online
video. Even after IE9 with HTML5 becomes widely used in a few years,
that 30% lack of support for h.264 (or more by then) will be a big
issue for
Microsoft are desperately trying to stop driving web professionals users mad
with their browsers.
In the IE9 Platform Preview demo keynotes stuff they did a month ago, they
showed youtube with html5 video working on IE9. They did not mention h.264 by
name in the demo, but it clearly was.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote:
Their other main focus beyond supporting standards was on
hardware-accelerating lots of stuff, be it svg or css3 or video.
BTW, that kind of stuff is coming to Firefox too. One of the things
I've learned since going to
Yeah one of the reasons I always throw my hat in with h.264 in these
discussions is because of the practical reasons why h.264 is easier for almost
everyone, at least until such a time as h.264 licensing actually sucks rather
than just theoretically sucks.
Im still glad Google appear to be
I do not recognise the sides in the battle quite like you have stated them.
Whilst its true that Apple were the first to really start pushing h.264, and
are the most likely not to allow other formats on their mobile devices, many
other important players in this game support h.264. Microsoft
Forgot to say that its also possible that VP8 support could be added to Flash
if it starts to take off, which would be a workaround for some browsers that
may not support it directly.
Whatever happens, h.264 remains the best option for maximum browser
compatibility for a while, due to flashs
Yes I think there are quite a few potential gains along the lines you indicate.
As for h.264 charging issues, I only expect them to attempt to charge people
who have the ability, incentive revenues to pay. I suppose it could happen,
but its more likely that those higher up the chain, eg
I would not be surprised if H.264 evolves as a *more* open codec and royalty
free in 5 or 6 years when licensing terms are due to be re-evaluated again.
think of the landscape in 2016.
google has pushed this. its probably googles best and most admirable
contribution to the open web.
also, its
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan sullele...@... wrote:
Also, regarding Ogg Theora It is totally adequate for casual web video
consumption. no doubt about it.
Not sure about on mobile devices so much... some issues there. But video
quality is good enough for typical
28 matches
Mail list logo
