Frontpage
Forums
Tutorials
Members
Calendar
Subscription
Donate
Links
Contact 
Help
Latest Software News
Latest Hardware News
Latest Mobile
Latest Security News
Latest Forum Posts
Latest News Comments
-
Firefox 8 released, finally...
By MohdNishat, Yesterday, 02:45 PM
-
Google Chrome vs. IE10 on W...
By MohdNishat, Yesterday, 02:42 PM
-
Microsoft rebrands itself
By j7n, Apr 30 2013 05:00 AM
-
Microsoft rebrands itself
By j7n, Apr 30 2013 05:00 AM
-
Google releases Metro-style...
By gelapir, Apr 29 2013 04:59 AM
MSFN Statistics
Recommended Sites
In HTML5 war, Microsoft guy slams "President of the United States of Google"
Microsoft and Google are fighting yet another public relations battle, this time over the HTML5 video standards to be used in the next generation of Web browsers. While Google is usually the company known for humorous pranks, it's a Microsoft employee who demonstrated his sharp wit in a blog post that compares Google's backing of the WebM video format to the invention of a brand new language.Tim Sneath, the head of "Windows and web evangelism for Microsoft," according to his Twitter profile, wrote a blog post on MSDN.com titled "An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google."
The post spoofs Google's decision to remove H.264 support from Chrome in favor of the WebM video codec, which was announced by Chromium project manager Mike Jazayeri on Tuesday.
Sneath essentially rewrites the Google blog post, replacing "WebM" with "The Esperanto language," which he says "was invented last century as a politically neutral language that would foster peace and international understanding.
"Esperanto, by the way, is an "international auxiliary language" designed to aid communication between people who speak different native languages. It's also a pretty cool song by The Eagles. (No wait, that's Desperado).
Full story: NetworkWorld
3 Comments
Page 1 of 1
Thauzar
13 January 2011 - 12:05 PM
Haha nice joke though. I understand why Google might want to push WebM as a free standard, and how it could be beneficial to everyone, it's dropping H.264 that I dont get. I mean, I'm all for a free standard if it's a good one, and if it's a really got one it will take over the market just because it's so good and free. But I'm also for interoperability, and that means also having to support other formats that Google may not like, not because they are not good but in this case because they are not "open".
CoffeeFiend
13 January 2011 - 01:13 PM
Adding WebM isn't bad, but removing H.264?
H.264 was going to have the best support: it would work natively on all portable devices (hardware accelerated, without draining the batteries super-fast, unlike WebM), it would have worked natively and GPU-accelerated on IE and Chrome before this, and it would also have worked on Firefox with Microsoft's H.264 plugin. That's like 90% of the browser market there, and for the rest, there's always H.264-played-by-flash (also GPU accelerated). For the handful of people left, then sure, use WebM or whatever else.
Not only we lose hardware acceleration out of it and battery life, but having the same quality of video using WebM will use more bandwidth (many of us have usage caps, and it would also take longer to buffer on slower connections). Or then again you can have something with the same bitrate but lower quality which also sucks.
I'd rather stick with H.264 played via Flash or Silverlight than use WebM personally.
H.264 was going to have the best support: it would work natively on all portable devices (hardware accelerated, without draining the batteries super-fast, unlike WebM), it would have worked natively and GPU-accelerated on IE and Chrome before this, and it would also have worked on Firefox with Microsoft's H.264 plugin. That's like 90% of the browser market there, and for the rest, there's always H.264-played-by-flash (also GPU accelerated). For the handful of people left, then sure, use WebM or whatever else.
Not only we lose hardware acceleration out of it and battery life, but having the same quality of video using WebM will use more bandwidth (many of us have usage caps, and it would also take longer to buffer on slower connections). Or then again you can have something with the same bitrate but lower quality which also sucks.
I'd rather stick with H.264 played via Flash or Silverlight than use WebM personally.
Steven W
16 January 2011 - 07:10 PM
Microsoft should not support WebM and prove to them that resistance is futile.
Page 1 of 1