Hardware decoding makes h264 usable on low-power devices like phones which Google sees as the future of the internet.
This is true. But, if I had to choose between paying $20 extra for a better processor (that can play Theora) or $20 extra for a patent license (to legally play h.264), I would pick the former. At least I can use the better processor when I'm not watching video; the patent license only works for the 10 minutes a year I feel like looking at Youtube on my phone.
It's technically superior and also supported out of the box by 97% of new computers.
Nice statistic. What percentage of Internet users have "new computers", though? (I work at a company with 300,000 employees. We still use Windows XP; two versions behind the latest stable version of Windows!)
You are right that h.264 is technically superior to Theora. The Space Shuttle is technically superior to my bicycle, but due to cost concerns, I have to ride my bike to work rather than fly there on the space shuttle. Sometimes the best solution is not the one you can afford.
(I can't afford an h.264 license. Or rather, I won't afford it. I don't care that much about seeing a cat flushing a toilet on my phone.)
> Nice statistic. What percentage of Internet users have "new computers", though? (I work at a company with 300,000 employees. We still use Windows XP; two versions behind the latest stable version of Windows!)
The same h.264 files can be played with Flash, which is ubiquitous on "old" computers like you have at work. Everyone can watch now and when they upgrade they can watch without needing Flash. Ogg doubles storage requirements for the foreseeable future without any gain.
Part of the problem is that there's a cap on the fees. Google/Youtube and other large conglomerates are already paying that cap ($5 million per year is a figure I've seen thrown around) so they get a pricing advantage compared with smaller startups.
This makes sense for those collecting the fees because the big players could move the market by themselves if they switch so there's no use squeezing them for money, when you can use them to lure in large numbers of smaller players.
This is true. But, if I had to choose between paying $20 extra for a better processor (that can play Theora) or $20 extra for a patent license (to legally play h.264), I would pick the former. At least I can use the better processor when I'm not watching video; the patent license only works for the 10 minutes a year I feel like looking at Youtube on my phone.
It's technically superior and also supported out of the box by 97% of new computers.
Nice statistic. What percentage of Internet users have "new computers", though? (I work at a company with 300,000 employees. We still use Windows XP; two versions behind the latest stable version of Windows!)
You are right that h.264 is technically superior to Theora. The Space Shuttle is technically superior to my bicycle, but due to cost concerns, I have to ride my bike to work rather than fly there on the space shuttle. Sometimes the best solution is not the one you can afford.
(I can't afford an h.264 license. Or rather, I won't afford it. I don't care that much about seeing a cat flushing a toilet on my phone.)