Game Developers etc xD. So, by broadcasting fee... So say a program is released by Adobe using H.264, they'd pay a charge but those using the program wouldn't?
When you say "program" I assume you mean a TV show of some sort not software. Right?
Adobe would not use h.264 to produce a video online they would use Flash. Adobe has nothing to do with h.264. H.264 is encoded by using quicktime, apple.
The price of the h.264 licence is built in to the software price you buy.
If HTML5 becomes standard, then H.264 codec becomes a product that sites will need to pay to offer it to thier users. EXAMPLE Youtube. YouTube will offset the cost to it's uploaders.
I hear you Fibr3Optix but I can't see youtube ever becoming a pay to upload site, people would simply migrate away to Vimeo or another free alternative
That's the point. if HTML5 becomes the standard Vimeo would need to use OGG or h.264 because HTML5 does away with plug-ins. H.264 is clearly better quality.
hello man, playing guitar is cool
isabelvalent 3 months ago
Serious fav!
mrfoxtalbot 1 year ago
for what browser sould I learn the new HTML5 "standard"?
degoban 1 year ago
h.264 . has a big gotcha moment in 2016
uaboob 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here are the facts about the h.264 codec, end users don't pay for it, neither video uploaders nor viewers
Free internet video (like youtube) pay barely anything for it
Browser vendors on the other hand do pay for it which is why Mozilla wont play ball
The patent is held by a group of companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft.
I was shocked to find this out too, please read the full article as there seems to be a lot of confusion over the matter
tulesblog(dot)(com)/h264-license-explained
tuleo554 2 years ago
Facts about HTML5 (h.264 is not a codec it's a standard. For argument sake lets call it codec)
HTML5 uses OGG and h.264 codecs for video. It uses less CPU cycles than flash.
HTML5 is being developed by Google and Apple. Explains why Jobs wants flash out.
H.264 is proprietary , which means its owned by someone. Flash is also owned by Adobe... BUT
The difference is. If H.264 replaces Flash as the standard. People who make videos, will have to pay a broadcasting fee to use it.
Fibr3Optix 2 years ago
That's ridiculous. Pay to use a video you've made!
NotJoshButJosh 2 years ago
Yes and that explains why Google is pushing HTML5 as well. This way they can monetize YouTube finally.
Fibr3Optix 2 years ago
If H.264 does replace Flash and a broadcasting fee is charged, it's not going to be good on the developer side of things...
NotJoshButJosh 2 years ago
Well H.264 is for video. In terms of games and software that doesn't change for developers.
Fibr3Optix 2 years ago
Game Developers etc xD. So, by broadcasting fee... So say a program is released by Adobe using H.264, they'd pay a charge but those using the program wouldn't?
NotJoshButJosh 2 years ago
When you say "program" I assume you mean a TV show of some sort not software. Right?
Adobe would not use h.264 to produce a video online they would use Flash. Adobe has nothing to do with h.264. H.264 is encoded by using quicktime, apple.
The price of the h.264 licence is built in to the software price you buy.
If HTML5 becomes standard, then H.264 codec becomes a product that sites will need to pay to offer it to thier users. EXAMPLE Youtube. YouTube will offset the cost to it's uploaders.
Fibr3Optix 2 years ago
I meant software.
I see, thanks for clearing it up.
NotJoshButJosh 2 years ago
I hear you Fibr3Optix but I can't see youtube ever becoming a pay to upload site, people would simply migrate away to Vimeo or another free alternative
in any case we will always have Theora
tuleo554 2 years ago
That's the point. if HTML5 becomes the standard Vimeo would need to use OGG or h.264 because HTML5 does away with plug-ins. H.264 is clearly better quality.
Fibr3Optix 2 years ago
Comment removed
tuleo554 2 years ago
Great ukulele!
mauricejason 2 years ago