Tweet
Wikipedia will soon allow video uploads, editing very soon, as it seeks to expand the primarily text driven resource into the next level.
However, it has chosen Ogg Theora as the codec of choice, something that weighs into the debate over HTML 5's audio/video codec support.
HTML 5 was originally set to include a list of supported video and audio codecs, but the organising body, W3, has since scraped a decision to choose an official codec due to pressure from browser makers and other IT companies, including Apple and Microsoft. Some want Ogg Theora. Some want H.264. Ogg is open source, and so it is the obvious choice if one does not want to be left with hefty licensing fees. Most browser makers, including Google, have chosen Ogg Theora as the codec to support (although Google Chrome also supports H.264 natively). H.264 on the other hand is the industry's choice used by Blu-ray, iPods, PSP, PS3, Xbox 360, YouTube ... basically every commercial video service or product you can imagine. But it's not free. Apple prefers H.264 since it has invested heavily into supporting this format in QuickTime (QuickTime does not support Ogg Theora). Microsoft remains silent, although it has recently added H.264 support to its Silverlight platform. Hardware wise, H.264 is supported widely, while Ogg Theora's support if severely lacking - this might be enough to make H.264 the winner, as mobile hardware support is very important these days for the future of the Internet.
From Wikipedia's perspective, Ogg Theora is the obvious choice, since the Wikipedia Foundation isn't a commercial entity and it all fits in with their image of offering free, open resources. But Google has already commented, in relation to the implemetation of Ogg Theora on Google Chrome, that quality wise, Ogg still needs more development.
So there is a sort of video format war developing, the winner gets to choose which video format the future of the Internet will deploy as standard.
More:
However, it has chosen Ogg Theora as the codec of choice, something that weighs into the debate over HTML 5's audio/video codec support.
HTML 5 was originally set to include a list of supported video and audio codecs, but the organising body, W3, has since scraped a decision to choose an official codec due to pressure from browser makers and other IT companies, including Apple and Microsoft. Some want Ogg Theora. Some want H.264. Ogg is open source, and so it is the obvious choice if one does not want to be left with hefty licensing fees. Most browser makers, including Google, have chosen Ogg Theora as the codec to support (although Google Chrome also supports H.264 natively). H.264 on the other hand is the industry's choice used by Blu-ray, iPods, PSP, PS3, Xbox 360, YouTube ... basically every commercial video service or product you can imagine. But it's not free. Apple prefers H.264 since it has invested heavily into supporting this format in QuickTime (QuickTime does not support Ogg Theora). Microsoft remains silent, although it has recently added H.264 support to its Silverlight platform. Hardware wise, H.264 is supported widely, while Ogg Theora's support if severely lacking - this might be enough to make H.264 the winner, as mobile hardware support is very important these days for the future of the Internet.
From Wikipedia's perspective, Ogg Theora is the obvious choice, since the Wikipedia Foundation isn't a commercial entity and it all fits in with their image of offering free, open resources. But Google has already commented, in relation to the implemetation of Ogg Theora on Google Chrome, that quality wise, Ogg still needs more development.
So there is a sort of video format war developing, the winner gets to choose which video format the future of the Internet will deploy as standard.
More:
Comment