Open-source video on websites, finally?
 

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05...ource?from=rss

This page was especially interesting for me:

http://www.webmproject.org/users/

Does this mean we are closer to having YouTube, etc. without proprietary software?

It will be interesting to see how the h.264 owners respond to this. If Jobs is to believed, it will be another big payday for the lawyers. Still, if Google moves YouTube to open codecs, it may be able to knock h.264 for a loop.

I really hope it does!

I tried the WebM Firefox download, but it's 32-bit!

Is it possible to either find a 64 bit version of get the source?

Is this it? I can't tell for sure.

I don't understand whether you are posting a question or an answer.

http://nightly.mozilla.org/webm/

For me this was the icying on the cake:

It is finally released, and my fears of Google 'just sitting on VP8' has vanished.

I am very intrigued and curious as to what exactly Jobs & co. are gonna do about it as well. :D Google holds the patents for VP8 essentially. What are they going to do? Bring a patent lawsuit against Google? I really would like to see how fast that case is going to be thrown out. Google bought the rights to VP8 from On2, if Jobs & co. has a problem with that, maybe they can take it up with On2, which I'm sure they will just laugh at them and point them towards Google again, thus throwing Jobs & co. for a loop as well.

This is a major win for the OSS community, and Google for a change has done something right. There is absolutely nothing that the owners & those who prefer H.264 can really do, except (to put it rather crudely), bend over and just take it up the tailpipe like they deserve!

I was looking for the source code for FirefoxWebM, and I'm not sure if what I linked to is the right thing or not. The version numbers seem wonky to me.

If I understand Jobs threat right, he is claiming that VP8 actually infringes on h.264 patents. In fact he seems to claim that it is impossible to build any video codec that doesn't infringe on h.264 in some way. I suspect that masses of lawyers armed with enormous manure-flinging instruments will be arriving on the field of battle in short order.

Then why bring a lawsuit so late? Why didn't he & others like him not bring such a patent case when On2 still retained the rights to VP8? This is all rather suspect to me, and this just proves how two-faced Jobs is too. Claiming on one hand to be for open web standards, then essentially becoming a litigious backstabber. Its like he is Jekyll & Hyde!

It is clear then that he holds no real reverence for open standards, and only hides behind it when it serves him, then it can be discarded like a used handkerchief.

I really don't know why they waited, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the iPod/iPhone/iPad have something to do with it. Prior to that, Apple didn't seem to care what ran on its hardware, but ever since the iPod came out they've realized just how far they can go in controlling the entire "user experience". iTunes is a decent place to get music, but it is also a monumental control lever for Apple and the app store goes even further. Heck, Jobs is dictating what tools developers can use now! I suspect that an open video codec is at least perceived to threaten Jobs control over the iPhone and iPad.

Of course I never really understood Apple, so I'm probably wrong. Maybe it is just payback for Android.

Well if Jobs wants all out control of the ipad/iphone thats fine, I couldn't give two shits about it. I don't have either, and I have never bought nor will ever buy anything from Apple. I hope that developers realize that perhaps it is not really worth the hassle in developing for Apple anyways, then again if the price is high enough I am sure most of them will of course sell out to Apple.

If this is Jobs' way of trying to get back at Android, then once my contract with Verizon is up for renewal, I will be asking for the Droid. Thats one more Droid customer Jobs is going to have to deal with now.

Also this could be a coup for Droid anyways. Google did not impose any restrictions of what tool to use, at least not that I can find. So maybe if enough devs. jump ship to Droid because of Jobs' pigheadedness, it might give Jobs a nice kick in the bum as he so deserves anyways.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/27/n...ng-to-flash-t/

Another volley in the "Flash War".

See comments here as well, on the same topic:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...h-webm-809268/

Summary: Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Nokia, Opera Publicly Back Flash: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364267,00.asp