Comments on: Web video: Microsoft, Adobe or HTML 5?

By: chetmemaydi

chetmemaydi — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:50:54 +0000

Good day! I simply would like to give you a big thumbs up for the excellent information you have here on this post. I am returning to your site for more soon.

By: office 2010

office 2010 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:21:53 +0000

Used for Microsoft Office 2007 download knows that the software bulky, so you can take some of theintermediate target Green-free installation software, the easiest way is to direct Office 2007 download virtual system version. Microsoft Office 2010 download new interface simple and clean, but also to identify the whole orange. Microsoft Office 2010 will use the new Ribboninterface themes, due to the increasing functionality of the program, specifically for Office 2010 download Microsoft developed the interface.

By: Beat the Bookstore

Beat the Bookstore — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:02:26 +0000

Websites worth visiting……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]…

By: Cure Tinnitus

Cure Tinnitus — Sun, 15 May 2011 00:01:39 +0000

I receive a problem subscribing to your RSS Feed… It says feed is activated, nonetheless I never receive updates in my feed reader… Any Thoughts?

By: fajar

fajar — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 02:29:05 +0000

mantapsss

By: Crazy72

Crazy72 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:53:53 +0000

As sensors keep rolling out in their varied forms and under the power of varied service providers and system owners, there’s this ominous sense that someday soon, we may never be able to go offline again. ,

By: tom b

tom b — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:34:46 +0000

Flash DOES suck a ridiculous number of CPU cycles. Silverlight is a non-starter– most web content is created on Macs, and Silverlight–surprise, surprise– only has coding tools for Windows. AND you can never trust where MSFT might go “down the road”. HTML 5 wins by default.

By: Damien B

Damien B — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:57:37 +0000

@Shawn Medero
What I said is that the parts in common are more important than their differences. And frankly, the “video” and “audio” elements are really not the hardest part to implement (very far from that) once you have the foundation (which is the “object” element). After that “video” and “audio” are more a political question than a technical question.

By: notboss

notboss — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:25:10 +0000

“HTML 5 wins, since it has the cleanest semantics.”

I’ve never seen anything “win” because it has the cleanest semantics.

Fortunately, the evolution of the Web isn’t a winner-take-all sporting event where one team wins and the other loses during some sort of brief tournament. In that sense it is different from the operating system market of the 80s and 90s. The Web will evolve a little more quickly if Microsoft pitches in and supports HTML 5 in Internet Explorer and more slowly if they don’t. In the mean time Flash is how 80% of non-mobile video is delivered and that isn’t going to change very quickly.

On the other hand the smart phone market is just getting going and its too early to tell what will happen with video there.

By: Robert Folkerts

Robert Folkerts — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:31:14 +0000

If there is a tag in html 5, the browser can still implement this with any one of several players, even a Flash player. The video tag is declarative, not procedural. You could even ‘implement’ the video tag with a simple XSLT transform to map the to an tag. I assume that you could say the same about JavaFX, Ogg Vorbis, MPlayer or Microsoft Silverlight. It’s just a question of which implementation has the right CODEC for the video you are trying to view. If this can happen, HTML 5 wins, since it has the cleanest semantics.

By: notboss

notboss — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:56:55 +0000

The whole “standard” is better thing is a little strange here. HTML 4.0.1 includes the Object tag for embedding things like the Flash Player. So plugins are part of the Web. If there is a problem with Web video it isn’t Flash, or plugins in general, its the cost of licensing the best video codecs.

Flash and the upcoming release of Silverlight both support H.264 video as does Apple’s Safari and Quicktime. The Opera and Firefox’s video tag does not support H.264 because of the cost of licensing the codec. So for some time the video tag isn’t going to give anyone what they want: a simple and effective way to distribute video that almost everyone can see. We are years away from something like that.

In the mean time, if you want to provide video for the vast majority of users with desktop/laptop computers you use Flash and fall back to mp4 files for the iPod. In October, when Flash 10 for mobile ships, things will change again.

Of course your right about saying HTML 5 will win a larger portion of Web video. It’s about zero right now, so something will be better than nothing.

By: John Dowdell

John Dowdell — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:58:07 +0000

re: “Moving to Adobe, they have Flash, the multimedia platform they acquired with Macromedia. Their pitch is the same as Microsoft’s, just search and replace Silverlight with Adobe Air….”

Hi, you might want to look into things a little more deeply.

jd/adobe

By: Shawn Medero

Shawn Medero — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:04 +0000

(Failed to escape HTML in my comment…fun.)

But Chrome and Safari, while sharing WebKit, have two unique implementations of HTML 5’s element and APIs… so the implementations in that respect … and for the point of this article… are distinct.

By: Shawn Medero

Shawn Medero — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:59:10 +0000

@Damien B

But Chrome and Safari, while sharing WebKit, have two unique implementations of HTML 5′s element and APIs… so the implementations in that respect … and for the point of this article… are distinct.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:07:56 +0000

Totally disagree. Silverlight cannot be considered a contender until it has some market penetration (where’s the official stats? Flash is 99% everywhere) and can prove cross platform.

Flash has achieved market saturation, therefore why would developers not use flash to deliver video? All other phone providers have accepted Flash – including Google. Once Apple finally do what their customers are crying out for, include Flash on the iPhone, it will be game set and match to Adobe.

By: Damien B

Damien B — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:57:17 +0000

To be fair, I think you should have written explicitely that Safari and Chrome are, at the core, two brandings of Webkit, which is maintained under Apple’s direction and wallet. As it is written, the reader can have the impression that we have two real implementors of the future standard HTML 5, whereas we have in fact Google pushing its non-standard extensions (developped first as plugins for various browser, now primarly as Webkit modifications) into HTML 5, and Apple doing the same thing (Safari is not a “strictly standards compliant browser”, the “canvas” API was not on any standards track when it was introduced by Apple, it was a typical Navigator / IE move).