data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27094/27094855e3665f4986a5ae6f3b50a0b436ad3854" alt="Google Chrome"
It has also been suggested that this move will help Google save more money by not encoding and storing YouTube videos in this H.264 format. However, this is not really the case, as the H.264 is only format that is allowed on Apple devices like the iPad and iPhone. If YouTube should become incompatible with any of these devices, then it would probably be replaced by other competitors that are more flexible. Also, H.264 is a superior format in terms of user experiences as well as technically. There are fewer hitchers, less blockiness and lower CPU utilization.
However, Google has been said to take a stand in favor of open technologies on paper, when in fact they are not really in favor of it. WebM is not an open technology in the strictest sense because it uses patents that are own by the MPEG-LA group and its members. However, the patent holders are ignoring this for the time because it is not a big issue. This tactic has been used many times.
Another thing is if Google is seriously promoting Open technologies, they why is it being so cozy with Flash and Adobe? Is it probably because Apple does not support Flash? In this way, Google can use Flash to foil Apple’s plans, since Android supports Flash but iOS doesn’t. Clearly, this is not about saving money or supporting codecs – it as all about battling it out with Apple.
Comments