Google Adds Hardware Acceleration Support to WebM
Mass hypocricy
So Google is pulling H.426 and essentially HTML 5 because they are not "open"?
I think Google is confusing "open" with "free"
In certain instances you will have to pay royalties to the companies that hold patents for H.426 but their source codes are 100% open and able to be viewed/edited etc.
EVERY mobile device records video in H.426, EVERY bluray player uses H.426, TV broadcasting uses it and it is something you absolutely do not need a plugin for.
WebM, on the other hand, is 100% NOT OPEN SOURCE. It is a proprietary format that GOOGLE OWNS and has not opened up the source code for. It has a near zero percent market share and is supported by absolutely no hardware at the moment.
It makes no sense for Google to drop H.426...
(continues)
I think Google is confusing "open" with "free"
In certain instances you will have to pay royalties to the companies that hold patents for H.426 but their source codes are 100% open and able to be viewed/edited etc.
EVERY mobile device records video in H.426, EVERY bluray player uses H.426, TV broadcasting uses it and it is something you absolutely do not need a plugin for.
WebM, on the other hand, is 100% NOT OPEN SOURCE. It is a proprietary format that GOOGLE OWNS and has not opened up the source code for. It has a near zero percent market share and is supported by absolutely no hardware at the moment.
It makes no sense for Google to drop H.426...
(continues)
Google's not pulling html5. h.264 is NOT a standard yet. Heck h.264 isn't a standard for mobile video yet. What a DVD uses is pointless since you won't be playing a DVD with a browser.
You can also add h.264 support to a Chrome browser by downlo...
(continues)
You can also add h.264 support to a Chrome browser by downlo...
(continues)
I think you're over reacting.
You don't think the source is available?
http://www.webmproject.org/code/ »
Guess what that is.
Also H.264 requires royalties paid by device and browser vendors.
I can question the choice to exclude H.264 from th...
(continues)
You don't think the source is available?
http://www.webmproject.org/code/ »
Guess what that is.
Also H.264 requires royalties paid by device and browser vendors.
I can question the choice to exclude H.264 from th...
(continues)
Isn't this monopolizing?
Google only allowing for their products to work with their services?
Not really.
I mean, it's not smart, but it's also not a monopoly.
Now, if Google had the only browser on the market THAT would make it a monopoly.
But you can't really be accused of anti-competitive measures for selling a product that only...
(continues)
I mean, it's not smart, but it's also not a monopoly.
Now, if Google had the only browser on the market THAT would make it a monopoly.
But you can't really be accused of anti-competitive measures for selling a product that only...
(continues)
GettingSleepy said:
Google only allowing for their products to work with their services?
WebM is a format Google championed. Youtube HTML5 videos are WebM.
