html5 big brawl ahead?definitly!

drbaltazar · May 2010

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdabfy_html5-ogg-theora-vs-h-264-why-shoul_tech

heres whats going on !if you thot html5 was not gona be similar to what we lived in the past

exemple:beta vs vhs!you might want to view this video !the stakes are insanelly high for us gamer since we supply a lot of video online and we will probably some of the first to massivly use one form or the other!

lttexxan · May 2010

Possibly my favorite post to ever respond to ......to say...what the phuck are you ranting about?....and why do we give a phuck?

drbaltazar · May 2010

http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/video/xdalmv_review-of-bob-evans-biscuit-stuffer_shortfilms

here is an exemple (as you can see on that site user have already begun to heavilly use firefox version of html5 even tho its still not activated in firefox latest version!i guess some went in the about:config and activated it lol!

yep i love this techno and as you can see quality isnt an issue!(you might have to remove flash to make sure it is firefox playing the video.

Tardcore · May 2010

Originally posted by drbaltazar
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdabfy_html5-ogg-theora-vs-h-264-why-shoul_tech

heres whats going on !if you thot html5 was not gona be similar to what we lived in the past

exemple:beta vs vhs!you might want to view this video !the stakes are insanelly high for us gamer since we supply a lot of video online and we will probably some of the first to massivly use one form or the other!

If it means that arrogant companies like Adobe get kicked to the curb I'm all for this.

lttexxan · May 2010

Originally posted by lttexxan
Possibly my favorite post to ever respond to ......to say...what the phuck are you ranting about?....and why do we give a phuck?

Ok....only simple PHD education here.....what the phuck are you talking about?

drbaltazar · May 2010

Originally posted by Tardcore

Originally posted by drbaltazar

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdabfy_html5-ogg-theora-vs-h-264-why-shoul_tech

heres whats going on !if you thot html5 was not gona be similar to what we lived in the past

exemple:beta vs vhs!you might want to view this video !the stakes are insanelly high for us gamer since we supply a lot of video online and we will probably some of the first to massivly use one form or the other!

If it means that arrogant companies like Adobe get kicked to the curb I'm all for this.

yep this aimed direct at consumer that like to post tube for free and want it to stay free.so adobe,microsoft,google,apple, probably other are the direct competition of this techno .did i mention mozilla firefox include this solution free!just need to activate it in the about:config thing and you are set to stream on the site i linked a little bit up!

Death1942 · May 2010

Originally posted by lttexxan

Originally posted by lttexxan

Originally posted by lttexxan

Possibly my favorite post to ever respond to ......to say...what the phuck are you ranting about?....and why do we give a phuck?

Ok....only simple PHD education here.....what the phuck are you talking about?

Just playing with my pecker here.....wish I knew what the phuck these seudo intellectuals are going on about.

from what i can gather he is speaking about html5, some new form of the html language. How this differs from previous versions i honestly do not know (or care) but he seems to think it will drastically change...something...for someone...it gets a bit fuzzy after his first three words.

drbaltazar · May 2010

if you are using flash to view or supply tube ,then imagine mozilla firefox having their own version free for anybody already in they own browser no more flash no more h264 no more danger of having to pay for it in the futur(apple,google,microsoft)

just free video .dont know about you but me i like free video(mozilla html5)

Cleffy · May 2010

I think alot of browser developers are making a mistake. They have to offer all the HTML5 features Internet Explorer has. Internet Explorer is the market leader and they will most likely be used as the benchmark for comparing features. Websites will be designed around what Internet Explorer does. As it is right now Microsoft is being smart and setting the bar high. Its hard for other browsers to match their features which will increase Internet Explorer's market share in the short term. They are also being smart in adopting every standard W3C is planning to make for HTML5. This offers oppurtunities for plugin companies.

A plugin company only has to market themselves to W3C in order to become standard on most web standards. This is what Adobe and Microsoft are doing. When it comes down to video compression, I think Microsoft is taking the cake here. If you ever compressed video, Microsofts tools for compression are simple to use and can extremely compress a video with little loss. I was able to take a 150MB Quicktime video and compress it to under 1MB with Microsofts compression.

Zen_Blade · May 2010

HTML5 is coming to all browsers, there is no doubt about that. It will be a new web standard and all browsers will support it. Here's the rub though...

The video codec used to view video in the HTML5 "standard" was not conclusively decided upon and thus they left it open to 2 options. H.264 and OGG. Why is that a big deal? Well they both offer good video compression and quality, and you can argue which is better or worse for various reasons, but the real issue is that there is one MAJOR difference between them.

Cost.

H.264 is a licensed codec and thus an end user (the product or service provider that decodes said video using this codec) has to pay a license fee to the body that developed the H.264 codec. So what you ask? Well when it comes to a browser building in native support for HTML5 using the H.264 codec that maker of said browser is the one that has to pay fees for every copy they distribute. For a company like Microsoft or Google, that will not be a big deal, and they may even stand to gain from it (Youtube owned by Google for example). But think about a company like Opera or Mozilla who don't make tons of money off their browsers. They will now be saddled with the burder of cost for a licensed codec in their product. So they are going the way of open source (OGG) which they have been founded upon since they began.

Personally I hope this whole thing gets resolved quickly and doesn't hurt any major players, because choice is always good. I think it was stupid for a standard to be developed (HTML5) that did not standardize within itself, the video encoder it would use. Perhaps there will be something worked out to get around the browser makers shouldering the cost of these licensing fees and it will become a moot point, but for now it's a major issue that will slow the adoption of HTML5 or cause some browser companies to be hurt by it and that's a shame frankly.

herbstwerk · May 2010

Originally posted by Cleffy
They have to offer all the HTML5 features Internet Explorer has. Internet Explorer is the market leader and they will most likely be used as the benchmark for comparing features. Websites will be designed around what Internet Explorer does. As it is right now Microsoft is being smart and setting the bar high. Its hard for other browsers to match their features which will increase Internet Explorer's market share in the short term. They are also being smart in adopting every standard W3C is planning to make for HTML5.

so how is it that my IE8 hangs on the ACID3 test at 20/100 while FF3.6.3 does 94/100 and opera 10.10 100/100?

i know that ACID3 checks for a lot more than just HTML and when it comes to it only 4.0 transitional but how can you call them leading if they can't get a remotely good score in a commonly used test?

btw. i guess it's not too hard to get the market leader position for a browser if you also produce the probably primarly sold and used OS (at least for the webbrowsing enduser at home) around and bundle your browser into it for over 10 years...

Cleffy · May 2010

I didn't say they were the best browser. I said they are the standard. Right now IE9 is poised as the most feature rich in HTML5 functionality then any other browser. So the standard is going to be higher then what most browsers have mustered. Its going to be catchup work after HTML5 W3C standards have been finalized for the majority of browsers as a result.

drbaltazar · May 2010

Originally posted by bruuss
HTML5 is coming to all browsers, there is no doubt about that. It will be a new web standard and all browsers will support it. Here's the rub though...

The video codec used to view video in the HTML5 "standard" was not conclusively decided upon and thus they left it open to 2 options. H.264 and OGG. Why is that a big deal? Well they both offer good video compression and quality, and you can argue which is better or worse for various reasons, but the real issue is that there is one MAJOR difference between them.

Cost.

H.264 is a licensed codec and thus an end user (the product or service provider that decodes said video using this codec) has to pay a license fee to the body that developed the H.264 codec. So what you ask? Well when it comes to a browser building in native support for HTML5 using the H.264 codec that maker of said browser is the one that has to pay fees for every copy they distribute. For a company like Microsoft or Google, that will not be a big deal, and they may even stand to gain from it (Youtube owned by Google for example). But think about a company like Opera or Mozilla who don't make tons of money off their browsers. They will now be saddled with the burder of cost for a licensed codec in their product. So they are going the way of open source (OGG) which they have been founded upon since they began.

Personally I hope this whole thing gets resolved quickly and doesn't hurt any major players, because choice is always good. I think it was stupid for a standard to be developed (HTML5) that did not standardize within itself, the video encoder it would use. Perhaps there will be something worked out to get around the browser makers shouldering the cost of these licensing fees and it will become a moot point, but for now it's a major issue that will slow the adoption of HTML5 or cause some browser companies to be hurt by it and that's a shame frankly.

only one is the winner in all this silly thing!apple!the one having the h264|html5 ownership.thats for the side of apple,ms,google and that gang.yes they promised to not charge anything in the near futur(2014 or so)after that!

it will be like itune.a per video charge instead of a per song charge!

dailymotion has been using mozilla firefox solution(ogg)witch is an open source solution that is free.

it already replace flash and the h264|html5 format licenced by apple!

drbaltazar · May 2010

Originally posted by Cleffy
I didn't say they were the best browser. I said they are the standard. Right now IE9 is poised as the most feature rich in HTML5 functionality then any other browser. So the standard is going to be higher then what most browsers have mustered. Its going to be catchup work after HTML5 W3C standards have been finalized for the majority of browsers as a result.

nha it just look that way !the fastest browser is google!but since all the test are biased its almost impossible to know the winner.

but when you use the browser in real world site all the browser are so similar that it doesnt mather in the end

me i like the fact that mozilla is not invasive,google is as invasive as explorer so if i have to have 2 invasive browser i ll keep explorer for the invasive site and mozilla for the non intrusive side.

basicly i do what almost everybody does!as for html5 in firefox dont sweat it i tested a version that had all the gizmo needed like full screen and all the other toy last month it is ready its been in testing for a month or so was thinking they would release at 3.6.4 but i guess they are in bug correcting mode for now.but what i tested worked flawlesly!i dont think firefox will be removed from its position anytime soon ,its not perfect but it has everything client demand in a browser ,only one of the other can boast as mutch ,and its opera!

Zen_Blade · May 2010

Apple doesn't own the H.264 codec license, but they are part of the MPEG LA group, which has a lot of other partners. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

They all still pay license fees to the MPEG LA, but since they are partners of it, they get a small cut back, but ultimately they pay more out than they receive.

drbaltazar · May 2010

mm!didnt apple invent h264!what happened ?this is weird or did they invent mp4!doesnt mather will still cost customer in the long run!mm always believe h264 was the child of apple!proably didnt want to be sued for a bar on t or a dot on the i.ty for the info by the way!

FreddyNoNose · May 2010

Originally posted by herbstwerk

Originally posted by Cleffy
They have to offer all the HTML5 features Internet Explorer has. Internet Explorer is the market leader and they will most likely be used as the benchmark for comparing features. Websites will be designed around what Internet Explorer does. As it is right now Microsoft is being smart and setting the bar high. Its hard for other browsers to match their features which will increase Internet Explorer's market share in the short term. They are also being smart in adopting every standard W3C is planning to make for HTML5.

so how is it that my IE8 hangs on the ACID3 test at 20/100 while FF3.6.3 does 94/100 and opera 10.10 100/100?

i know that ACID3 checks for a lot more than just HTML and when it comes to it only 4.0 transitional but how can you call them leading if they can't get a remotely good score in a commonly used test?

btw. i guess it's not too hard to get the market leader position for a browser if you also produce the probably primarly sold and used OS (at least for the webbrowsing enduser at home) around and bundle your browser into it for over 10 years...

Criticism

The current iteration of the test has been criticized for being a cherry-picked collection of features that are rarely used, as well as those that are still in a W3C working draft. Eric Meyer, a notable web standards advocate writes that “The real point here is that the Acid3 test isn’t a broad-spectrum standards-support test. It’s a showpiece, and something of a Potemkin village at that. Which is a shame, because what’s really needed right now is exhaustive test suites for specifications– XHTML, CSS, DOM, SVG” ^[37].

herbstwerk · May 2010

Originally posted by FreddyNoNose

Originally posted by herbstwerk

so how is it that my IE8 hangs on the ACID3 test at 20/100 while FF3.6.3 does 94/100 and opera 10.10 100/100?

i know that ACID3 checks for a lot more than just HTML and when it comes to it only 4.0 transitional but how can you call them leading if they can't get a remotely good score in a commonly used test?

btw. i guess it's not too hard to get the market leader position for a browser if you also produce the probably primarly sold and used OS (at least for the webbrowsing enduser at home) around and bundle your browser into it for over 10 years...

Criticism

The current iteration of the test has been criticized for being a cherry-picked collection of features that are rarely used, as well as those that are still in a W3C working draft. Eric Meyer, a notable web standards advocate writes that “The real point here is that the Acid3 test isn’t a broad-spectrum standards-support test. It’s a showpiece, and something of a Potemkin village at that. Which is a shame, because what’s really needed right now is exhaustive test suites for specifications– XHTML, CSS, DOM, SVG” ^[37].

i know what wikipedia says about ACID3, i also never said that it's nessesary to get 100 points on it to make a good browser... but cherry-picked functions or not doesn't change anything about IE8 only getting 1/5th of the possible result.

but there are other tests and benchmarks as well... throw IE8 against FF3.6.3 on a JS benchmark like Sunspider.


** TOTAL **:           4.06x as fast     4727.6ms +/- 6.5%   1164.0ms +/- 9.9%

first result is IE. that's a lot of difference if you ask me. sure... most the time you won't
notice it in day to day usage but still; why are microsoft, being a multi billion dollar
company that has been around for decades, not able to work on stuff like that and look like they
prefer it to get beaten by the competition that is, in some cases, quite new to the browser market?

drbaltazar · May 2010

if you find an unbiased reliable test sent me a tel because so far i checked and they are all biased in one way or another.

microsoft test differently does it mean its unbiased !(probably not)like me in peacekeeper the thing say google beta 5 score 8100 while firefox only scre 3524 but if i use opera test suite then it get funny because on the streaming test video and stuff

firefox is quicker!so in the end you can make number say pretty mutch what you want.i test oncew a month with google (i dont bother with explorer since there is lot of feature they dont suppport(like canvas)but in the end i mainly use firefox

oh i will jump once a month on google to translate stuff from asia but on average firefox is just a better medium for what i do

i wish explorer was better i wouldnt have to have google lying around but in the end 90 % of my time is in firefox about 9 % in google and about 1% in explorer(i hate bing)

drbaltazar · May 2010

Originally posted by Cleffy
I think alot of browser developers are making a mistake. They have to offer all the HTML5 features Internet Explorer has. Internet Explorer is the market leader and they will most likely be used as the benchmark for comparing features. Websites will be designed around what Internet Explorer does. As it is right now Microsoft is being smart and setting the bar high. Its hard for other browsers to match their features which will increase Internet Explorer's market share in the short term. They are also being smart in adopting every standard W3C is planning to make for HTML5. This offers oppurtunities for plugin companies.

A plugin company only has to market themselves to W3C in order to become standard on most web standards. This is what Adobe and Microsoft are doing. When it comes down to video compression, I think Microsoft is taking the cake here. If you ever compressed video, Microsofts tools for compression are simple to use and can extremely compress a video with little loss. I was able to take a 150MB Quicktime video and compress it to under 1MB with Microsofts compression.

can i ear a bit about what explorer offer right now as html5 goes?i i remember correctly nothing they only have plan for the futur blablabla.firefox ?yep just go in about:config and activate it and you are ready to view video without flash on the site i provided.

its nice to have plan and do publicity for the futur but i would rather support firefox that have the solution working right now

by the time microsoft version is out firefox will have moved to other feature.sorry to say explorer always has been like that(playing catchup)

Howdy, Stranger!

html5 big brawl ahead?definitly!

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

html5 big brawl ahead?definitly!

Comments