Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief
WOW... just wow. You are so out of your element Donnie...
#1 I was being sarcastic, I never "saw your point" because you never made a valid one... HTML4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO PERIOD. FLASH or QT or WHATEVER can serve video... so Jobs and his deuchey minions can WANT AND WISH AND HOPE for the iPad to be able to watch web video all they want... but it won't make it happen because the iPad doesn't support the necessary plugins... and HTML5 is NOT ****ING HERE YET.
I have not been defending Flash, I have been attacking a lack of Flash support as a good idea by Apple... BIG DIFFERENCE.
And don't comment on VP8.. what the **** is YT support? YouTube? You do realize Google owns YouTube and can convert the entire library over to VP8 in a matter of days, right?
Ok, I'm done, this has gotten silly, you clearly don't have a clue and at this point you are arguing based on the reality you WANT to exist not the observable one we actually are stuck with.
|
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-2...8TechCrunch%29
Quote:
Earlier this week, Steve Jobs kicked the debate about the need for Flash into high gear, especially for Web video. As he explained, Apple products like the iPhone and iPad don’t support Flash because although 75 percent of video on the Web is in Flash ” almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.” The next day, Microsoft weighed in, saying that Internet Explorer 9 would only support the H.264 codec for HTML video.
So how much video exactly is available in H.264? I asked Encoding.com, which has encoded 5 million videos over the past year for a variety of Websites and customers including MTV Networks, WebMD, Brightcove, Nokia, MySpace, and Red Bull. President Jeff Malkin sent me the chart above, which he believes is representative of the Web in general, including mobile. As the chart shows, in the past four quarters, the H.264 format went from 31 percent of all videos to 66 percent, and is now the largest format by far. Meanwhile, Flash is represented by Flash VP6 and FLV, which combined represent only 26 percent of all videos. That is down from a combined total of 69 percent four quarters ago. So the native Flash codecs and H.264 have completely flipped in terms of market share (Flash also supports H.264, however, but you don’t need a Flash player to watch H.264 videos)
Another data point that Steve Jobs mentions: All YouTube videos are available in H.264, which alone represents 40 percent of all videos on the Web. So these numbers from Encoding don’t seem so crazy.
All of these codecs and formats can seem like gobbledy gook. Malkin offers the following to explain the differences:
The formats can be confusing between containers and codecs. FLV is the Flash container with the old H.263 codec. Flash VP6 is the Flash container with the VP6 codec. H.264 is a codec that is utilized in a number of different containers (.FLV, .MP4, .MOV) and on Apple mobile devices and when deployed by browsers for HTML5. Microsoft just announced that IE will use H.264 as the default codec for HTML5. And, Google will be soon offering the VP8 codec as open source which will add another formidable flag in the format wars.
|
They make my exact argument and not only that but don't dispute the numbers you dispute with Jobs. I'm not saying TC is the end all be all, far from it, but I do know what I'm talking about - technicalities aside, which you've proven more knowledgeable on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodDraw
You guys are on fringe land. I get where both sides are coming from, but both your arguments are meaningless to end consumers.
|
Actually, I'm essentially making the consumers' argument. From a practical standpoint, they aren't missing much video purchasing an Apple device RIGHT NOW.
Quote:
|
Unless Google can make a hardware move that counters Apple on the smartphone and tablet market, they'll have to capitulate. They can play hardball, but google survives off of advertising, not people downloading Chrome.
|
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think they can make Android a viable product. The main problem with it is fragmentation which I've mentioned in here or in another thread.
Yes, they won't make any money off Chrome but they do make boatloads off ads and they can make money off their OS if they play their cards right.
Having said that, if they took the vertical approach Apple has with the key difference being "open" on the app/software front, they'd have a considerable product. But google, thus far, hasn't been interested in that. They've outsourced the hardware building - HTC, for example.
Quote:
**** Apple, and everything they've done with the iPad. I think it's a shit product, as far as anything I'd buy. But they've made a huge success out of the iPhone OS product. So more power to them.
Google, it's your turn.
|
What would have made the iPad better in your opinion?
As I've said numerous times, I don't think the current iteration is something that's for me. I just wonder what you wanted more of/less of, etc.