SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Chrome drops H.264

  1. #1
    i want cake and cookies Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,996
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Chrome drops H.264

    Chrome is removing support for H.264 codecs, to make Chrome codecs match those of the Chromium project.

    http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/htm...in-chrome.html

  2. #2
    SitePoint Evangelist mrwooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    518
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not sure if this is a good move... will it drive people back towards flash?

  3. #3
    Barefoot on the Moon! silver trophy
    Force Flow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northeastern USA
    Posts
    3,654
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwooster View Post
    Not sure if this is a good move... will it drive people back towards flash?
    Back? I never moved away from it. HTML5 <video> support is still spotty. Plus, re-encoding everything would be a huge task. Plus, not all browsers on the market support a common codec, so you will need more than one copy of videos just to play in all browsers.

    Current:
    IE8: no suppport
    Safari 3.1+: h.264
    Firefox 3.5+: Theora
    Chrome: Theora (since version 3), WebM (since version 6), (h.264 will be dropped)
    Opera 10.6+: Theora (since 10.5), WebM (since 10.6)

    Future:
    Firefox 4 beta: Theora, WebM
    IE9 beta: h.264

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Table
    Visit The Blog | Follow On Twitter
    301tool 1.1.5 - URL redirector & shortener (PHP/MySQL)
    Can be hosted on and utilize your own domain

  4. #4
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy
    wwb_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    10,424
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the better headline is "Google fractures <video> tag and flogs WebM which is full of Google IP by dropping H.264 which is full of everyone else's IP support in Chrome."

    More I think about it, the translation is perhaps "Youtube has everything streaming in WebM now so we can quit playing well with H.264 while not breaking the biggest video property on the web."

    Oh, and if I were MPEG LA, I would be building a chrome and firefox H.264 plugin today.

  5. #5
    i want cake and cookies Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,996
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Anne van Kesteren argues that this is a good thing:
    http://annevankesteren.nl/2011/01/why-webm

    (or, Why WebM is Good)

  6. #6
    Barefoot on the Moon! silver trophy
    Force Flow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northeastern USA
    Posts
    3,654
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    A follow-up post addressing concerns about the removal of h.264:

    http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/mor...deo-codec.html
    Visit The Blog | Follow On Twitter
    301tool 1.1.5 - URL redirector & shortener (PHP/MySQL)
    Can be hosted on and utilize your own domain

  7. #7
    SitePoint Enthusiast Ijj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hadn't been paying that much attention to the video formats struggle in the past, but after thinking about it a lot now, I'm absolutely convinced that the survival and success of html5 video depends on the success of WebM. There needs to be an open/royalty-free video format.

    This is a good move by google. Microsoft and Apple are being stubborn and childish if they still refuse to add support for WebM. Google has the upperhand here: they own youtube.

  8. #8
    Twitter: @TimIgoe silver trophy
    TimIgoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blackpool, UK
    Posts
    1,023
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I've not been paying too much attention to the video formats, however having a h.264 codec would have been useful (having already got video in that format for a flash player).

    As has already been stated, different browsers supporting different formats is always a bad thing and it would be good to be able to get away from the requirement of Flash to play videos, but duplicating the encoding... urgh!

  9. #9
    Barefoot on the Moon! silver trophy
    Force Flow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northeastern USA
    Posts
    3,654
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TimIgoe View Post
    I've not been paying too much attention to the video formats, however having a h.264 codec would have been useful (having already got video in that format for a flash player).
    Useful yes, but with the MPEG-LA licensing arrangements, it won't be free to encode and publish in the near future. That's part of the whole issue here.
    Visit The Blog | Follow On Twitter
    301tool 1.1.5 - URL redirector & shortener (PHP/MySQL)
    Can be hosted on and utilize your own domain

  10. #10
    SitePoint Zealot mcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Caldwell, NJ
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ...there will not be agreement to make it the baseline in the HTML video standard due to its licensing requirements. To use and distribute H.264, browser and OS vendors, hardware manufacturers, and publishers who charge for content must pay significant royalties—with no guarantee the fees won’t increase in the future. To companies like Google, the license fees may not be material, but to the next great video startup and those in emerging markets these fees stifle innovation.
    That says it all. It sucks that such a widely adopted standard needs to be dropped, but I understand and agree with the thinking behind the decision.

  11. #11
    ¬.¬ shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    8,990
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwb_99 View Post
    Oh, and if I were MPEG LA, I would be building a chrome and firefox H.264 plugin today.
    Microsoft did, however. http://www.interoperabilitybridges.c...for-wmp-plugin That will allow you to play h.264 videos from Firefox. But seriously, h.264 already won. It can pretty much be played everywhere! Almost all the smart phones have built in hardware support for h.264. And almost every new computer has hardware support as well.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  12. #12
    ¬.¬ shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    8,990
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ha, now Microsoft released an extension for Chrome so it can play h.264 as well.
    http://www.interoperabilitybridges.c...ion-for-chrome

    Well both Firefox and Chrome get license free implementations of h.264. Lucky them.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •