HTML5 or Flash?

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

In your opinion, what should be the interactive media standard for the next generation of the web?

Adobe Flash
14
12%
Microsoft Silverlight
6
5%
Oracle Java/JavaFX
3
3%
WHATWG's HTML5
76
64%
GET INTERACTIVE MEDIA OFF THE WEB!
14
12%
Other (Please tell us!)
5
4%
 
Total votes: 118

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby HermanBlount » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:26 pm UTC

styrofoam wrote: Just encode it in 2 formats


You've saved yourself 10 minutes of web coding in exchange for doubling your video encode time. Thankfully, the computer can handle the encoding calculations while you aren't around, but it's still a big waste of time. There is more to encoding video than simply supplying the source video and hitting the "encode" button.
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

User avatar
J the Ninja
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 pm UTC
Location: Portland, USA
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby J the Ninja » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:11 pm UTC

HermanBlount wrote:
styrofoam wrote: Just encode it in 2 formats


You've saved yourself 10 minutes of web coding in exchange for doubling your video encode time. Thankfully, the computer can handle the encoding calculations while you aren't around, but it's still a big waste of time. There is more to encoding video than simply supplying the source video and hitting the "encode" button.


That's why we have encoding presets....and compression programs that can run scripts when the job is done. Set both presets, make any quick settings tweaks, add a script if you want one that posts the video or FTPs it to the client or something, then launch the job and go home/make dinner.
Shishichi wrote:Applies a sexward force to counter the sexpression effect that Forward Advection can apply to fluid density, particularly along sextainer boundaries. In this way, the sextribute attempts to conserve the overall fluid volume ensuring no density loss.
(he/him/his)

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby headprogrammingczar » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:17 am UTC

Or Apple can get off its extremely profitable high horse, step off the pedestal, and come back down to the ground floor of the ivory tower, where one standard works on every browser.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:08 am UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:Or Apple can get off its extremely profitable high horse, step off the pedestal, and come back down to the ground floor of the ivory tower, where one standard works on every browser.

That's what I'm hoping for. If Apple added WebM to QuickTime, or allowed Flash on the iDevices, we've got 1 format to rule them all once again (WebM).
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
J the Ninja
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 pm UTC
Location: Portland, USA
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby J the Ninja » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Desktop Quicktime has codec plugins, no need for Apple on that one. Supposedly, work is already underway in Google's Volcano Fortress. As for iOS*, Apple adding native WebM support is FAR more likely than Flash. The main benefit of WebM in Flash is that you don't need to encode separate video streams for your Flash and HTML players. You can just put one stream in two different containers. H.264 can already do this, so WebM being able to do it as well is important for feature parity.



*As of Monday (June 7th), the mobile derivative of Mac OS X formerly known as "iPhone OS" is now "iOS"
Shishichi wrote:Applies a sexward force to counter the sexpression effect that Forward Advection can apply to fluid density, particularly along sextainer boundaries. In this way, the sextribute attempts to conserve the overall fluid volume ensuring no density loss.
(he/him/his)

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

J the Ninja wrote:Desktop Quicktime has codec plugins, no need for Apple on that one

Yes there is. Nobody's going to install extra software just to view your page, they'll just complain and walk away.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

0rm
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:30 pm UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby 0rm » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:54 pm UTC

The best alternative to flash I can think of is some sort of open keyframed vector format for HTML5's canvas to be used with JavaScript.
They say it's unhackable; I think it can be hacked.
They say it's fast; I think it could be faster.
They say it's the best; I think it can be done better.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:52 am UTC

styrofoam wrote:
J the Ninja wrote:Desktop Quicktime has codec plugins, no need for Apple on that one

Yes there is. Nobody's going to install extra software just to view your page, they'll just complain and walk away.

Websites should have "Can't see <whatever>? Click here to complain to <software vendor here>" buttons instead of "Can't see <whatever>? Click here to install <Flash/junk plug-in/turn on JavaScript>"
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Websites should have "Can't see <whatever>? Click here to complain to <software vendor here>" buttons instead of "Can't see <whatever>? Click here to install <Flash/junk plug-in/turn on JavaScript>"

How would you implement a "turn on JavaScript" buton?!

More importantly, do you honestly think anybody will bother to complain to their vendor? After all, every other page works. (most people's computers come with Flash)
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Xanthir » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:06 pm UTC

styrofoam wrote:
J the Ninja wrote:Desktop Quicktime has codec plugins, no need for Apple on that one

Yes there is. Nobody's going to install extra software just to view your page, they'll just complain and walk away.

To be fair, yes they will, once Youtube starts saying "Hey, install this for SHINY HTML5 VIDEO!!!!1!!" to Safari users (and, presumably, IE9 users).

Then we can all piggyback on that and just use WebM for video.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:43 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:To be fair, yes they will, once Youtube starts saying "Hey, install this for SHINY HTML5 VIDEO!!!!1!!" to Safari users (and, presumably, IE9 users).

Then we can all piggyback on that and just use WebM for video.

But Google will never do it. They will lose some users, and they're not willing to "take the bullet." (okay, maybe the YouTube coders are willing, but I feel perfectly comfortable assuming their shareholders won't let them)
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Xanthir » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:38 pm UTC

styrofoam wrote:
Xanthir wrote:To be fair, yes they will, once Youtube starts saying "Hey, install this for SHINY HTML5 VIDEO!!!!1!!" to Safari users (and, presumably, IE9 users).

Then we can all piggyback on that and just use WebM for video.

But Google will never do it. They will lose some users, and they're not willing to "take the bullet." (okay, maybe the YouTube coders are willing, but I feel perfectly comfortable assuming their shareholders won't let them)


We already show just such a message on the *homepage* for IE users. I don't think we'd have a problem doing it for Youtube. We wouldn't *require* it, but having a little message promising a better experience if you do so seems very possible. Let them download it, then do a detection and auto-update their preference to kick them over to <video> rather than Flash after they install. Considering Youtube is one of the top 10 visited sites on the whole internet, this would do wonders for spreading the WebM codec around.

Disclaimer: I have no particular insider knowledge of what Google would do.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:33 pm UTC

Of course, recommending they change browser is very different from displaying a "download the WebM codec to view the video".
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Xanthir » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:30 pm UTC

styrofoam wrote:Of course, recommending they change browser is very different from displaying a "download the WebM codec to view the video".

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, since clearly changing browsers is a hugely larger action than installing a codec. I'll assume you're not, for the sake of conversation.

Are you trying to imply that installing a codec is more difficult than installing a browser? This is probably true by default, but we could easily create an executable giving you a simple click-to-install experience for the codec.

Plus, I've been suggesting this whole time a subtle-ish message off to the side, while the Flash video still plays, not a "This video is failing for reasons you can't possibly understand, click here for magic that will make it work again." message.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:
styrofoam wrote:Of course, recommending they change browser is very different from displaying a "download the WebM codec to view the video".
since clearly changing browsers is a hugely larger action than installing a codec. I'll assume you're not

Note the bolding.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Xanthir » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Um, yes. I saw that word previously. Are you trying to imply that I'm suggesting that Youtube would *require* people to install the WebM codec to watch videos? Because I've said at least twice now that that's not what I'm suggesting.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby styrofoam » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:To be fair, yes they will, once Youtube starts saying "Hey, install this for SHINY HTML5 VIDEO!!!!1!!" to Safari users (and, presumably, IE9 users).


If I had realized you were suggesting a recommendation, instead of a requirement.... *facepalm*
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

tuseroni
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:41 pm UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby tuseroni » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:34 am UTC

html5 all the way. i love it. so many things im waiting for in firefox ( i was going to switch and do my html5 coding in chrome but their debugger sucks compared to firebug...also they dont have a files api yet) like the notifications api, websockets, localstore database, css transitions, etc.

firefox has great html5 support (ie has abysmal support...no surprise) but there are still some things to go...
Image

User avatar
RahulKolasseri
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:19 pm UTC
Location: Singapore

Html5

Postby RahulKolasseri » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:59 am UTC

So, there's been lots of debate lately over the whole flash thing, and why everyone should use html5 instead of flash, ect. But a lot of Flash out there in the web (Flash games, animations, ads, ect) are much easier to make in Flash than in html5, because the Flash Ide is super easy to use. So if everyone wants these to become html5 stuff, why not just make an application that makes html5 content just as easy to create as Flash?
Xeio wrote:Small amounts of cancer are definately worth the awesome.

archeleus
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:49 pm UTC
Location: Valenvaryon
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby archeleus » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:41 am UTC

Not relevant maybe but

I hate Flash

Can't browse the web without NoScript these days.
I write a blog rant here.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:14 am UTC

RahulKolasseri wrote:So if everyone wants these to become html5 stuff, why not just make an application that makes html5 content just as easy to create as Flash?

we already have such an application, except it's even easier than flash. it's called "vi".

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:17 pm UTC

Adobe/Macromedia put millions? billions? of dollars and countless hours of man-hours into the flash suite, you can't just create something to rival it in every feature instantly. Such tools will come about in their own accord, if html5/canvas ever gets popular enough. I'm sure there was a time when flash was hard to make.

As for its use I don't mind flash games, maybe even video players, but flash should never be used for navigation (same for javascript, or be usable without). I'm sure, that if flash really is doomed, then such tools will come to light. Maybe such tools will be by companies that decide to add a new feature outside specs, then browsers slowly start to adopt it and things go down-hill from there.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby Xanthir » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:04 am UTC

RahulKolasseri wrote: So if everyone wants these to become html5 stuff, why not just make an application that makes html5 content just as easy to create as Flash?

Because it's hard.

That said, Adobe's doing precisely that.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
RahulKolasseri
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:19 pm UTC
Location: Singapore

Re: Html5

Postby RahulKolasseri » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:23 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:Because it's hard.

That said, Adobe's doing precisely that.


Wow, I didn't realize that adobe's working on it till you told me, thanks! Its seems cool that adobe, of all companies, is doing it, and I hope the demo that adobe showed is more than just a PR stunt.
Xeio wrote:Small amounts of cancer are definately worth the awesome.

User avatar
Red Rule
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:24 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby Red Rule » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:51 pm UTC

Well, don't think they're just doing it out of goodwill,
they're probably feeling threatend by HMTL5 (to some degree) and if they manage to convert the flash suite to a html5 suite they'll have a lot less to worry about.
If they manage to be the first to release a good suite for HTML5 (and given their resources and experience the odds are in their favor) they'll probably be able to maintain their monopoly in commercial interactive-website-design-software.
"I gotta have a little bit of Orange juice
I gotta have.. my.. Orange juice!
I gotta have.. my.. Orange juice!
Juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice
"

~Richard Feynman

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby Xanthir » Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:19 am UTC

Well, yeah. Adobe is an authoring tools company. They happen to be associated with Flash, but they develop it only so that they can sell more Flash authoring tools.

In the end, though, they don't really care what technology is being sent over the wire, so long as their tools are used to author it. Creating HTML5 authoring tools is perfectly in line with their core business, and a sound investment given current technology trends.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:46 am UTC

Xanthir wrote:In the end, though, they don't really care what technology is being sent over the wire, so long as their tools are used to author it. Creating HTML5 authoring tools is perfectly in line with their core business, and a sound investment given current technology trends.

The problem is that if they want all the business, they may try to introduce a new feature (like a local program to 'enhance' html5, some obscure javascript library). Sure, the chance of this is low as html5 is a defined standard, but you never know what could happen.

User avatar
b.i.o
Green is the loneliest number
Posts: 2519
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Hong Kong

Re: Html5

Postby b.i.o » Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:51 am UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:The problem is that if they want all the business, they may try to introduce a new feature (like a local program to 'enhance' html5, some obscure javascript library). Sure, the chance of this is low as html5 is a defined standard, but you never know what could happen.

Huh?

You seem to be suggesting that Adobe would require some kind of plugin to view their generated HTML5 content. However, that doesn't make any sense given the context in which Flash is (slowly) dying. A huge part of the reason that there's been such a push lately for HTML5 elements and APIs to replace Flash is that Flash isn't and will never be supported on iOS devices. Apple isn't going to support some other plugin that adds proprietary Adobe features to HTML5 either for the same reasons.

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:28 am UTC

b.i.o wrote:Huh?

You seem to be suggesting that Adobe would require some kind of plugin to view their generated HTML5 content. However, that doesn't make any sense given the context in which Flash is (slowly) dying. A huge part of the reason that there's been such a push lately for HTML5 elements and APIs to replace Flash is that Flash isn't and will never be supported on iOS devices. Apple isn't going to support some other plugin that adds proprietary Adobe features to HTML5 either for the same reasons.

I was just suggesting that adobe may try to change the market in their favor, not that they would actually be successful.

Nec
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:14 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby Nec » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:05 am UTC

I dont think Flash will ever die. Its a good way to deliver content like videos and such.

On the other hand, HTML 5 kind of rocks. The one problem is that Canvas is a pain. We are starting to adopt it at work and thankfully, I havent had to work with it much. But as long as you know some Javascript, you are all set to learn how to use Canvas.

User avatar
b.i.o
Green is the loneliest number
Posts: 2519
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Hong Kong

Re: Html5

Postby b.i.o » Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:10 am UTC

Nec wrote:I dont think Flash will ever die. Its a good way to deliver content like videos and such.

Not if you want people on mobile devices to see the videos.

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:28 am UTC

Nec wrote:I dont think Flash will ever die. Its a good way to deliver content like videos and such.

By 'easy' you mean that it is what is currently used, therefore supported the most. Using flash for videos is rather hard, especially if you want to make a decent player (seen all those horrible players?). What if a good, solid video player was provided for you and all you had to do was give the location of the video file. This is what I call 'easy', and this is exactly what html5 video does. The only problem is there is no standardized format...

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:50 am UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:The only problem is there is no standardized format...

yeah, it's too bad things like webm, h.264, and theora aren't standardized...

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:16 am UTC

hotaru wrote:
keeperofdakeys wrote:The only problem is there is no standardized format...

yeah, it's too bad things like webm, h.264, and theora aren't standardized...

By standardized, I am referring to the W3C standardizing a single format. Hopefully when everything plays out, we will end up with a format that everyone is willing and able to use. We may end up with browser-sniffing in the end, which might be the only way.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:59 am UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:By standardized, I am referring to the W3C standardizing a single format. Hopefully when everything plays out, we will end up with a format that everyone is willing and able to use. We may end up with browser-sniffing in the end, which might be the only way.

there's no need for browser sniffing. this should work just fine:

Code: Select all

<video controls>
  <source src='video.mp4' type='video/mp4; codecs="avc1.64001E, mp4a.40.2"'>
  <source src='video.webm' type='video/webm'>
  <source src='video.ogv' type='video/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis"'>
  <source src='video.3gp' type='video/3gpp; codecs="mp4v.20.8, samr"'>
</video>

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:11 am UTC

hotaru wrote:
keeperofdakeys wrote:By standardized, I am referring to the W3C standardizing a single format. Hopefully when everything plays out, we will end up with a format that everyone is willing and able to use. We may end up with browser-sniffing in the end, which might be the only way.

there's no need for browser sniffing. this should work just fine:

Code: Select all

<video controls>
  <source src='video.mp4' type='video/mp4; codecs="avc1.64001E, mp4a.40.2"'>
  <source src='video.webm' type='video/webm'>
  <source src='video.ogv' type='video/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis"'>
  <source src='video.3gp' type='video/3gpp; codecs="mp4v.20.8, samr"'>
</video>

Awesome, didn't know you could do this.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Html5

Postby Thesh » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:21 am UTC

I would still be significantly happier if I could just do this:

Code: Select all

<video src="video.mkv" type="video/mkv; codec='some completely open video codec with a well written spec, good quality, and no possible licensing issues, that all major browsers have built in support for'" />


Otherwise, you are going to have to keep encoding your video in multiple formats and no one is really going to want to do that.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:24 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I would still be significantly happier if I could just do this:

Code: Select all

<video src="video.mkv" type="video/mkv; codec='some completely open video codec with a well written spec, good quality, and no possible licensing issues, that all major browsers have built in support for'" />

that's what webm is supposed to be. and it works on all the major browsers except safari. internet explorer needs to have the directshow filter for it installed, but that's not nearly as bad as requiring people to install java or flash.
or you could just use h.264 and tell the "software patent" trolls to bugger off. they know that if they really push the issue, the supreme court will invalidate all their precious "patents".

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:42 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:...or you could just use h.264 and tell the "software patent" trolls to bugger off. they know that if they really push the issue, the supreme court will invalidate all their precious "patents".

H.264 DOES have real patents, and is owned by a real group (Moving Picture Experts Group) who WILL sue if it is misused; if firefox did use h264 then there is a very good chance something would happen. The situation around Theora is closer to what you say, with unknown 'submarine' patents that people may bring-up without notice; of course for maximum affect, they will wait till someone like Microsoft or Apple use Theora. There is still a chance WebM has some of these submarine patents as well.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Html5

Postby Thesh » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:02 pm UTC

There has been talk about patent pools going after both Theora and WebM.

http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/steve- ... heora.html
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2010 ... -for-long/

Whether or not they can win against them is another question.

If you listen to the MPEG LA, open video codecs that don't infringe on patents don't exist:

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ ... leID=65782

In addition, no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too. MPEG LA would consider offering on additional licenses that would make these rights conveniently available to the market under a single license as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders.


I don't know if this is true, or just them trying to get people to adopt H.264.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests