Showing posts with label video codec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video codec. Show all posts

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Google may delete the H.264 on YouTube

Now in only 32.89% of Internet users could continue to visit in the state, an unthinkable sacrifice. Even when Flash will integrate WebM will require that users update their version to be able to take advantage of: the current version of Flash does not pose this problem (Flash supports H.264 since version 9 was released in December 2007). Moreover, it is hard to imagine that Google has not contractually committed with partners like Apple to maintain compatibility with their devices.

The commitment of Google behind WebM at least has the merit of clarifying the situation regarding the giving of the codec on the field of patents: MPEG-LA has repeatedly stated that the free format violated certain of its patents, and that license was under development. The industry association cannot shake indefinitely without its threats would be implemented, and assuming that they are based, Google would be a prime target, except for example, at least for damages that it might represent. Adding however that nothing prevents the MPEG-LA to choose sparingly opponents court, especially since Google has made it clear she would not come to the aid of its partners.

In short, Google's decision is a stir of HTML5, which only give relevance to Flash, where Apple had done the opposite. And so exactly was the effect of strip searched? By restoring the importance of Flash, Google could very well work to the advantage of Android, which supports this format, unlike the IOS ... while going for the white knight of free formats.

But Google did not she simply followed the logic of ecosystem? Indeed, ownership of a video codec, it was destined to become a standard, not a major strategic issue, since interoperability is a crucial element specifically for industry standards. Exclusivity is the less put on a free. Google can certainly preside freely on the future of the codec and decide its future developments, but the side effects seem even more decisive than this one advantage, at least in the medium term.

These explanations do they justify the significant costs of investing behind Google WebM? He has still cost $ 100 million into the acquisition and conversion of over 120 million videos on YouTube will certainly be expensive that few others can afford. These figures are still to put into perspective: according to various estimates, the deficit would amount to YouTube about 500 million dollars just for 2009. A straw in comparison with 6.5 billion profits made last year by Google.