Austin, if you're going to accuse people of not accepting overwhelming facts then please don't commit the same fallacy.

TechCrunch has run multiple articles on this subject and concluded that h264 accounts for roughly 66% of the video on the web. That's a hell of a lot. So, when you say the Touch devices don't get most of the video, you would be wrong.

Plus, if you're going to accuse people of assuming out comes how bout not assuming WebM is going to be standard.

Also, there is no fight between h264 and HTML5, which you posted here:
Those are not mutually exclusive things. HTML5 can support h264, just like HTML4 has. So there isn't something over something else, especially when they're not of the same class.

No, you are confusing h.264 encoded and h.264 ipad accessible... MAJOR difference.
Just because a video is h.264 encoded DOES NOT mean it can be accessed by an ipad... now, if it is h.264 encoded AND the site has implemented html5 .. then yes... YouTube started down this path but has switched gears to webM... so currently, SOME video on youtube are supported but that number will onyl DECREASE as time goes on.

Yes HTML5 could support both h.264 and WebM... but that is not likely to happen.. the industry wants to settle on a SINGLE standard... currently there is NO standard for html5 video... PERIOD. The big boys are pushing for WebM and will probably get it.

Maybe it isn't a question of accepting facts... maybe it's that you guys just don't understand them. :D

Now that is funny.

I agree... but isn't it the same to argue that the ipad will get all the video content eventually.... when FEW sites have adopted html5 or made apps to deliver it?

If we are doing NO conjecture then the ipad is pretty useless based on what it does RIGHT NOW. (at least to me it is, if it works for you so be it)

When it opens the app from the browser it is much LESS annoying but still annoying ... and I had to go install the damn thing which is annoying.

As I said, if YOU want to jump thru Apple's hoops.. go for it. I'd rather have a device that works FOR me.

Watch the Google I/O keynotes... pretty clear how silly they made Apple look.

Again, this simply isn't true but keep touting it. And they haven't switched gears. They still support both.

I'm not sure the industry wants a single standard. I do think they want standards. That is, they want browsers to support standard codecs. It doesn't necessarily mean one.

Yes it is true. You clearly don't understand the technology here.

Lets look at just one site, Hulu... their video is h.264 encoded... all of it. How much is available on an ipad... yep .. NONE OF IT. As stated, just because it's h.264 does NOT mean it is available through html5.

Now on to YouTube, yes they support both.. kind of... they DID support h.264 and all the old videos in that format will probably remain for now... but all NEW video at 720p or higher will be WebM

And no, everyone wants ONE standard for video, it's cheaper and easier to only have to encode a file ONCE. Since Opera, Mozilla and others won't support h.264 but everyone (except Safari) WILL support WebM... WebM will likely replace h.264 almost completely with 24 months. (so says the CEO of BrightCove)

I'm well aware that some H264 is covered in flash. But that defeats your next point: h264 is already a pseudo-standard. The differences right now are in how to distribute it. Many want flash wrapped h264, which the iPad doesn't accept. However, that same h264 file can be undressed of the skankiness that is flash and served to everyone - including Apple devices.

Those sites COULD serve h.264 via HTML5... but they don't and now it looks like they never will... why invest in and chase a dying codec?. And NO h.264 is not a de facto standard (it was headed that way, I will admit)... the open source community resisted it and looks to have won this battle (with Google's considerable help). The state of web video will remain a fragmented mess for the next year or two while WebM takes hold...

Fact: The industry is moving towards WebM because it performs as well, has a smaller footprint and is FREE. All the major mobile hardware manufacturers are on board and even Intel has said they are willing to optimize for it as it becomes popular. It's popularity is assured by the fact that YouTube is migrating to it.

Thats not jumping through a hoop. Its touching a ****ing screen that takes pretty much 0 effort.

We just got a dozen or so of these for where I work, to test them out.

Exactly as I thought they were. Glorified ebook reader and digital picture frame. iBooks is a joke compared to the Kindle app.

The only thing this has going for it is that it's in color, otherwise, its a total PoS, and completely worthless.

And yes, we got the 3G version too.

its not really a pain, the app takes what 10 seconds to load up. I know what you are saying, but again, to me, its not a big deal at all.

I use my touch for music and podcasts. damn thing is to damned small really to use to browse the internet.

I am sure eventually they will get some kind of video thing going on. Apple sooner or later will realize this. they kind of have to imo. IF they dont oh well, i still am listening to my music on their product.

I remember when i was a kid and i used to always have my walk man with me. had to have extra tapes, and an extra set of batteries as well, when they first came out the damned walkmans were so ****ing big. lol

If it is an app that launches from the browser it isn't that big of a deal.. except that you had to jump thru the hoop of finding and installing the app for that particular site... where as I can install Flash once and never look back.

Apple dropped the ball with Flash and they'll soon discover that.

I hate Flash's buggy, resource hog nature as much as anyone... but the fact is, people USE Flash. The web is full of useful flash apps and video... As I said before, if it's a performance issue, hell, let's all use Lynx.. it's way faster than Safari and doesn't bog you down with all those pesky picture files!

I can see why a Touch wouldn't need Flash .. my main beef is that on a TABLET, it's kinda necessary.

Dying codec aside, we're at the same point we've been over. HTML4 can serve h264 video. H.264 is not an HTML5 only deal. So your point is moot, but I don't expect you to get that on the eighth time around.


I frankly don't care if WebM takes hold. I'm sure Apple will support it because it's performance will be fine whereas flash is not.

But jiminy you say people have a hard on for Apple whereas you have a hard-on for anything open source, even if it was just announced and has almost zero market share. (Politically, it's like the stance that the free market will fix everything.)

Which is mostly a moot point because Apple will most likely support WebM. They aren't against open web technologies. They're against CLOSED web technologies. Also, that's a different stance that being a CLOSED business model.

:rolleyes:


For what? Online games? Sure. Video? It's a draw, whether you like it or not.

I still don't see the huge draw for flash.