Then move on to content providers: the first one, YouTube, supports both the H.264 WebM. Beyond that, we must also look to find videos in WebM. And for good reason: this waltz codec has a cost, not just storage, but also encoding.
Content providers are primarily looking for the highest common denominator between all browsers and all platforms. For now, the duo Flash and H.264 that wins, because the plug-in Adobe can play H.264 video in browsers that do not have this feature. Similarly, IOS, Flash private, can play videos in H.264 format, like most mobile platforms.
Take the case of Daily motion, which hosts some 16 million videos, the 3G format (240p), SD (380p), HQ (480p) and HD (720p). To fully support the WebM, should convert each video to each of these resolutions, to ultimately do not get absolutely any benefit from the perspective of the host: support for WebM would not increase the scope of the site. Besides Daily motion receives many videos already encoded in H.264 with regard to the quantity of material to support this format natively, and encoders WebM are two to three times slower than their counterparts in H.264. Recognizing further that the MPEG-LA has decided to permanently abandon his royalties on the free dissemination of content in H.264, WebM does not even compensating on that plane.
Adobe has already announced plans to add support of WebM in Flash, and Google also speaks of a plug-in to read the WebM (probably as a codec for QuickTime and Windows Media rather than a plug-ins for each browser, read WebM: freedom, politics and ... installing plug-ins). It nonetheless remains that IOS cannot read the WebM. Site publishers who wish to remain accessible on the Apple devices will be well advised to keep H.264, which will remain readable in Firefox, Chrome and Opera through Flash.
And that's where Google's announcement demonstrates its adverse effects, far from encouraging the abandonment of Flash, it only strengthens his position. Some observers have also not failed to raise an inconsistency in the attitude of Google, if it abandons the H.264 for philosophical questions relating to proprietary code, what does the code of Flash within the one Chrome? And what about other Google products that retain their support H.264? Olivier Poitrey, technical director of Daily motion, does not mince words: "Google wants us to believe that his only interest is to advance open source, but keeping the support of this proprietary format in YouTube, Google Android and TV it demonstrates the hypocrisy of his actions. "
Also remains the thorny question of hardware acceleration, which is crucial for mobile devices, and so far the exclusive domain of H.264. Certainly, the support of WebM in hardware has been promised, but what about the current generations of hardware, and various contractual commitments with its partners YouTube?
