> And as for the open video alliance video you posted recently - more fine & lofty words but there is more vagueness and blending of all the different sorts of 'open' into one thing in order to demonstrate why open is important, but its a bit misleading really, because the theora stuff has nothing to do with the copyright & other open issues they mention. And the case that we should use open standards to avoid costly barriers to entry would carry more weight with me if it bore much relation to the reality right now, eg if there were many >video hardware & software tools that actually used the open standards well, and no cheap h264 tools, but thats not actually the >case.
Chris Blizzard was clear that Ogg/Theora is not the holy grail: http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-h-264-what-history-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/ Many of you might notice that I havent talked much about Theora or Vorbis. > In fact some of you might read this post as me throwing them under the bus. > That couldnt be further from the truth. What Ive really been talking about > is one part of a larger ecosystem. What the web is really asking for is a > codec that is implemented everywhere, that competes well on quality and > doesnt come with GIF-like surprises. Theora and Vorbis fit every part of > this bill. You can actually use them on all of the desktop browsers, either > via native support or via a Java plugin that actually works pretty well. > But given the situation with (possible) submarine patents (in .ogv) it would > actually be a good idea for us to have more than one royalty-free codec > available for browser vendors, site owners and content publishers. That way > if one of them turns out to have issues, you just turn one of them off and > continue to use the other one Thats why I think that if Google did offer a > new codec that it would make a wonderful addition to the list of codecs we > could use on the web. And if they want to use it on Youtube and other Google > sites, thats great. But its good to have other options in the wings. > There is certainly a lot of lofty philosophical talk happening right now around "Open Video". Even that term is being inserted into relevant conversations so people start relaizing that there is a different being Open and Closed video. Its a slow education process. Ultimately most things start with philosophy and, if based in logic, move to reality. Its still pretty amazing to me that Ogg/Theora is even in play. There are literally just a couple dudes who work kind-of fulltime on the codec. Compare that to the x-number of fulltime employees working on Flash and H264 stuff. As all these recent articles point out, everyone is waiting on Google to make the big play. Will they stick with H264/Flash and pay whatever license fees will be required to run Youtube and their emerging mobile phones? Or was their purchase of On2 (makers of .ogv) show they feel web video is a vital part of the web and refuse to give up that control to Adobe or the MPLA. We will see Steve! Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
