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 anyone wanting to use HTML5 for video. Unless Mozilla change their mind.
Interesting to see what Microsoft will do about video codecs in IE9. Have they said? I haven't seen. If they do allow ogg/vp8 to be used with the video tag, will it just be the 5% Safari users and iPad/ iPhone users who'll be left out? That'd be pretty decisive and easy to prioritize for producers. And if they fail to support it, and just support h.264 & their own codecs, it'll be just the 30+% Firefox & Opera users who are in the minority, tipping the balance the other way - but not decisively, just annoyingly? Given Microsoft's record of driving web professionals mad with their browsers, you have to worry that sanity will not prevail here. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 14 Apr 2010, at 22:43, elbowsofdeath wrote: > 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 ability to play it and the > number of browsers that can play it directly. Couple this with the > large quantity of video already in h.264 format and you have a > situation where sites can start offering their videos to some > browsers without using flash without too much effort at all. This at > least gives html5 video tag some chance to be used for real, > regardless of what happens over a longer period of time with other > formats like VP8. > > Apple are clearly promoting html5 in quite an aggressive way as a > major part of their war with flash on iphones and ipads, and have > apparently been trying to convince various large websites to make > versions of the site that dont use flash for video, with mixed > results so far. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "elbowsofdeath" <st...@...> > wrote: > > > > > It really will be interesting to see what happens with browsers, > Google will certainly make Chrome attractive by presumably > supporting all 3 of the formats we are talking about, some others > may follow suite as a result, or if h.264 dominates html5 video on > the web then Firefox may end up having to do a workaround to provide > support too, such as relying on the OS or a plugin to do the job. > > > > Flash is a big winner so long as there is html5 video codec mess > in the browser arena. This is another reason I dont want the battle > to be too complex & prolonged. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
