musings from here to there
Browsers
Google and h.264. Hypocrisy? Hardly.
0For all of the people out there claiming that Google just wanted to make a “big announcement” on “Verizon iPhone day,” it sure has created quite the buzz. I sincerely doubt that was their mission, but if somehow it was, I’d say they succeeded. Big time.
But for all of the absurd tech pundits who seem to think that removal of h.264 is a bad thing, you’d think the world was coming to an end. But this really is a good thing! Especially for consumers!!
I mean, look at the facts…
- h.264
- Almost half (like 47%) of PC browsers in use on the web don’t support h.264. (Firefox, Chrome, Opera…the former two which are still climbing the market share charts)
- The two browsers that do support h.264 are IE 9 and Safari. IE 9 isn’t even really showing up on the usage charts at this point, and Safari barely holds 5% market share–doesn’t seem to be going much of anywhere.
- The MPEG LA strictly controls h.264 licensing. It’s currently able to be used “royalty free” to end users, but that clause doesn’t apply if the content encoded in h.264 is produced commercially. Encoders and decoders (hardware and software alike) are required to pay patent licensing fees. (One reason BluRay movies cost so much more than traditional DVDs)
- h.264 is a well supported codec among consumer electronic devices, and is a “standard” in terms of wide digital media and film studio use. Beyond the ITU group though (which really isn’t a standards body), the codec is not truly a standard–especially in the realm of the web, where there is no native support except via a Flash layer.
- h.264 is not an open standard or an open source project. In any way. Whatsoever. Period. Anyone declaring otherwise is either mistaken or lying.
- webm
- All of the aforementioned browsers (excepting Safari, of course) will fully support the webm codec.
- webm is an open source project, completely unencumbered by license fees
- It is fully supported by Google and too many other hardware and software manufacturers to list.
- While not a true web standard (yet), it is in line with the w3c’s philosophy and is backed by every major open-source browser vendor.
- It easily matches h.264 in both quality, speed, and efficiency (i.e. neither codec is superior to the other).
As I stated before, the above list is not my personal opinion, it is supportable fact.
Anyway, Google moving away from h.264 is great news for those of us who want an open, unbiased, unencumbered, and generally “free” web! Naturally, the people who support h.264 as a web standard are probably fans of communism and socialism too–just sayin’. It’s not that I’m against the format, just the philosophy behind it. If h.264 could shake the shackles of the MPEG LA and be completely open sourced, I wouldn’t have a problem supporting it whatsoever. But corporations are greedy, so I don’t see this happening anytime soon.
What about Flash, though? I’ve seen many articles and tweets criticizing Google for being huge hypocrites for not removing Flash support from Chrome as well. Unfortunately, most of these folks are mindless drones who have listened to the lies told to them by those with agendas…like, oh…a certain CEO of a major Fruit company. The fact is (and I’ve definitely addressed this in previous posts) that Flash is a web standard, is open-source, and isn’t a video codec. It’s a rich media file format that just so happens to support video in addition to a ton of other stuff. The part of Flash that isn’t open source, is Adobe’s content creation and playback tools. There’s not much stopping any other developer from writing their own open source Flash production tools. I suspect that they’d just have trouble selling it against Adobe’s gold standard products. Google is not being hypocritical at all! Especially since Flash will support webm as well as a plethora of other formats.
Here’s the thing about Flash. The main reason most content publishers are still using it (other than its ubiquity) is the fact that it supports content protection (read: DRM). I’m not a fan of DRM by any means whatsoever. In fact, that was my main complaint with the whole iTunes model earlier this decade. But DRM aside, if Google quit supporting Flash on Chrome, they’d be significantly limiting users’ web experience. There’s not much by way of native h.264 video on the web, so this point is moot. Examine Mozilla’s stand on the issue as well and a similar pattern emerges. They won’t support the majorly encumbered h.264, yet they built better support and security for Flash directly into the browser.
Bottom line: I won’t be supporting h.264 or any browser that does include native support. webm will become the dominant web video standard over the next decade and any who do not provide support for it in their hardware or software will be left in the 2000s. Face it: an open web is better for everyone.
Adobe Flash: A Second Look
0638 days
I wrote an article a few months ago regarding the future of Adobe’s Flash vs. HTML5. Certainly a global comparison of the two is a flawed approach since there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. The side that boycotts HTML5 in favor of Flash is wrong 100%, but then again, so is the group that would have everyone believe that HTML5 is the next generation replacement for Flash and that Adobe’s Flash platform is basically dead. (Yes, CEOs of popular companies can be wrong too!)
The past couple weeks have been big news for Adobe since they just released the final version of Flash 10.1 for Android–more or less the first full version of Flash for mobile devices. (Yes, I realize there’s stuff out there for Symbian users as well.) This release has prompted another slew of news about the platform’s performance on Android 2.2 based devices, and unfortunately, it has received some scathing reviews. Part of this is due to some pretty unrealistic expectations that Flash on mobile devices would provide a comparable experience to Flash on a desktop. Adobe didn’t promise that–they promised a cross-platform framework that could be used to write code once and publish it anywhere. We’re not totally there yet since not all mobile platforms support it, but we’re getting there. This is the first real push by Adobe into the space, and my theory is that they spent a great deal of time making sure Flash Mobile was written well enough to quickly and easily move it to other platforms. That much remains to be seen.
But, this brings me to a bigger debate going on among the web developers, designers, and content creators of the world. Should all video be moving toward HTML5 implementations or would it be better to stick with the tried-and-true Flash-based video mechanisms? Not long ago, I would’ve said that pushing toward HTML5 native video players would be the best idea across the board, but I’ve recently reconsidered that stance.
I definitely think that HTML5 is a good start to a future where interactive content is available without the need for 3rd party plugins, but even if the drafted standard gets ratified in the near future (which is still highly doubtful), I’m not convinced that going Flash-less is the right move!
There’s a lot built into Flash that HTML5 cannot (currently) match. For instance, Flash is capable of adjusting the bitrate of a streaming video on the fly whereas HTML5 is not. This means that you can watch a video at a resolution of 720p on your laptop or desktop, then switch to your mobile phone and continue watching the same video at a lower resolution like 480p. This is very much necessary for a variety of reasons: 3G networks are slower and possess a higher latency than wired broadband connections, not all mobile devices are capable of processing the amount of data required to render a 720p video, much of the higher-bitrate benefit would be lost regardless, and the less data used over the wireless spectrum, the better. (An important consideration for bandwidth-capped AT&T customers, for sure!!)
Also, current HTML5 video implementations don’t present the same player flexibility that Flash does; in other words: less-intuitive play controls, and no video-overlays such as comments and ads (yay!?). HTML5 video can have issues at full-screen, fail to scale properly at various resolutions, and provides direct access to the video source. A major reason many content providers will outright refuse to use HTML5 video is due to the lack of content protection (TV networks) as well as many of the other aforementioned reasons (Hulu). While I’m certainly not a proponent of any DRM implementation (video, audio, or otherwise), many corporations aren’t similarly minded. They’ll choose Flash over HTML5 simply because Flash helps protect the content from would-be pirates and downloaders. The open-source community has been trying to explain this to the media conglomerates for years, but with little result. Sigh.
Even Apple (Adobe’s biggest opponent) unofficially recognizes this! Why else would all of their videos, trailers, and movies continue to stream in the (extremely proprietary) QuickTime format rather than straight HTML5 H.264-encoded video?! And while we’re on the topic of Apple, let me just once and for all settle something else: Steve Jobs’ comparison of Flash to the floppy disk is inherently flawed for the obvious reason that software is freely, easily, and transparently upgradeable, whereas hardware just isn’t. On the other hand, in the interest of fairness, Microsoft still pushes most of its video using Silverlight, which is a nice experience, but is no more or less a good idea than is QuickTime.
All-in-all, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be pushing toward a more open web, but as politically-mired as HTML5 has become, I’m not sure, in this specific instance, if that’s truly the way to go.
Your thoughts are–as always–quite welcome in the comments!
The Best Antivirus Protection: Common Sense
3959 days
It’s been said that a little common sense goes a long way. I’d tend to agree, especially where your computer is concerned.
For years, most Windows-based computers have shipped with some sort of antivirus software preloaded–usually a 60 day trial of Norton or some other name-brand application. Some users will take the software as-is and either let their protection expire or pony up the $30-$40 for a full license after the trial period. Other users, perhaps those more experienced, will remove the preloaded antivirus and install their own favorite app. Various products include: McAffee, Kaspersky, Vipre, NOD32, AVG, and so on. Microsoft even has it’s own free security suite called Security Essentials. But the fact of the matter is: you may not even need antivirus!
Before you fall over in shock and disbelief, let me clarify that statement. A good antivirus suite is almost always better than none at all, but there are so many poor performers out there that you should make sure you use a product that won’t noticeably degrade your computer’s performance or take up valuable resources. Two I recommend checking out are Sunbelt’s Vipre and ESET’s NOD32. If you have a limited budget for malware protection, try AVG’s latest offering.
Back on topic, your best defense against the bad guys is a little common sense–whenever you’re using your computer. Follow these guidelines, and most likely, you can kiss that security suite goodbye for good!
- Surf with a purpose: If you’re on the Internet just to mess around or pass the time, you’re probably not helping matters in the least. While watching videos on YouTube is innocuous enough, searching for “funny videos” on Google and clicking a random result could be disastrous. Many humor-related sites are loaded with spyware and adware just waiting to install themselves on an unsuspecting victim’s computer. Usually some sort of user-interaction is required for the install to complete, but not in all cases. While this is just one example of such a possibility, there are many other categories of sites known for their less-than-benevolent actions. Only visit sites you know and trust.
- Secure your browser: If you’re still using Internet Explorer 6 or 7, Firefox 3.0, Safari 3, or Chrome 1, your first task should be to upgrade your browser. Using a browser with known security flaws or outdated code can be one of the biggest security risks to your system. Whichever browser you choose, visit its vendor website for more information. For any browser, it’s smart to disable Java support since malware often uses Java to begin its installation. If you’re using Mozilla’s Firefox, install Adblock Plus to hide and disable nearly 100% of the advertisements you’d normally see.
- Use caution with email, Facebook, and Twitter: Attacks based on a concept dubbed “social engineering” are becoming far more common. Emails, Facebook messages, Twitter updates, Instant Messages, and just about any other form of online communication may promise lucrative returns if you’ll just click a link, provide some personal information, or allow an application to access your profile. Be extremely wary of these types of messages. They’re almost always 100% fake and generally come prepared to hack your account, give someone remote control of your computer, or even steal your identity! Just delete or close the message and move on.
- Avoid the suspicious: Ultimately, avoiding, or at least thoroughly researching anything suspicious looking will save you time, money, and big headaches down the road. Your motto should be: “If in doubt, don’t.” You’ll thank yourself later. Also, be a good web citizen by reporting spam to your ISP and letting social networks know when you spot suspicious activity on their site. You just might prevent someone else from triggering a disaster!
Finally, if you’re a Mac user, don’t assume you’re immune from attack. Any predator capable of hacking a Windows-based PC can do the same to an Apple OS X-based machine. The idea that you are invulnerable is a myth. Also, take the same level of care while social networking. Web Applications like Facebook don’t depend on your operating system and an attack is easy to stumble into on any platform.
Note: I am an expert in the computing industry and have been working sans antivirus protection for over 4 years without incident. Your computing safety is always your responsibility. Whether or not you run antivirus or antimalware software is your decision, but before attempting to do without, ensure you fully understand the risks and ramifications of doing so. I am not responsible for any damage you incur after reading this article. Proceed at your own risk!
Why we need multiple web browsers
0Ask any ten different people what their favorite browser is and it’s possible you might possibly end up with ten completely different opinions. That’s because these days browsers are a dime a dozen and it’s mostly up to the consumer which browser he or she uses. Major players in today’s market include Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, and Opera. With the exception of Internet Explorer, all of these browsers are more or less available for any OS you use. But which one is the right browser? Which is the best? That question has become the object of many a debate and a post like this can’t settle it once and for all–especially with the daily changing face of technology. But although some web developers (designers especially) would like to have only one global browser (or at least force all browsers to use the same rendering engine), there is actually good reason in having a diverse market.
The hating of Internet Explorer
There’s no question that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer remains the dominant browser on the market at this time. Between the number of users surfing with version 6, 7, or 8, well over 50% of the world is still IE-centric. Yet you’ll find developers, designers, and consumers have developed the widespread opinion that Internet Explorer is bad. Period. This, simply, is not true.
Back when Internet Explorer 6 was released with Windows XP in 2001, it really began to change the face of the Internet itself. We started to see a lot more plugins being written to make websites more “dynamic.” Broadband connections were seriously beginning to take off and the phenomenon we now know as Google was setting the stage to become one of the Internet’s dominating forces. IE6 was compliant with HTML4 web standards, made possible the widespread use of CSS, and was fast and light. As an integral part of the Windows operating system, it took full advantage of certain performance enhancements. IE6, as much as it is despised now for it’s lack of HTML standards support, is really partially responsible for getting us where we are today. Versions 7 and 8 may have been Microsoft’s catch-up game, but as far as standards-compliant browsers go, things have come a long way since 2001.
Enter Firefox
The next major market player was officially introduced in 2005 by Mozilla, creator of Firefox’s ancestors Mozilla Suite and Netscape. Version 1.0 was slow to catch on outside the developer community, but many saw it as a good future competitor to Microsoft’s browser market domination. Firefox re-defined the way we use the Internet by successfully introducing tabbed-browsing for the first time. Some would correctly argue that Opera was the first to implement this feature, but Opera’s failure to capture significant market-share makes Firefox tabbed-browsing’s rightful ancestor. Version 2.0 saw a small spike in usage and by the time version 3.0 arrived in mid-2008, Firefox had gained significant hold on over 30% of Internet users. Firefox uses the Gecko rendering engine and has been influential in setting the bar for browsers being standards compliant.
Webkit: Safari and Chrome
Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome are even more recent additions to the browser community. Together they have further upped the ante for browser competition. Until Safari 3.0 was released, the browser was pretty unsuccessful. All but the most loyal Mac users immediately downloaded Firefox upon getting a new computer. Version 3.0 was the first truly successful implementation of Safari as a mainstream browser and version 4.0 may receive relatively equal use to Firefox on the OS X platform. As a competitor to other browsers on the Microsoft Windows platform, Safari has largely failed to capture any sort of audience.
The other Webkit-equipped browser is Google Chrome. It’s announcement was a surprise to many and it’s subsequent popularity has been an even greater shock. (I’m actually using Chrome to write this post). It remains to be seen if the trend will continue, especially as Google prepares to release their own Chrome-based operating system. Safari and Chrome contain very similar feature sets.
The Webkit and Mozilla Gecko 1.9 rendering engines are two of the first to officially support a preliminary implementation of CSS3 attributes. While Microsoft has been playing catch-up, Apple, Google, and Mozilla have been pushing the envelope by rewriting their Javascript engines, introducing new browser features, and preparing to support future Internet standards. In fact, Firefox 3.5 is the first browser to support HTML 5. It includes powerful new architecture to support native HTML 5 video and local persistent storage for web applications.
We can see from the history of these various browsers that innovation drives the web. The W3C will often ratify new standards based on implementations completed by browser vendors–especially if a feature is supported across multiple browsers. We can only hope that the market-share will continue to even out as it has done up to this point. With each manufacturer seeking to bring new features to market before its competitors, we will continue to use innovative technologies in our daily online routines.
Everyone wants a world record!
0It’s an inherant part of our humanity–the desire to out do or out perform “the other guy.” Everyone generally wants to be the best at something or the most reknowned, the best looking, etc, etc. Well, it would appear that the Mozilla Project is no exception to the rule. They’re the maker of one of the world’s greatest web browsers ever. Perhaps you’ve heard of it–it’s called Mozilla Firefox.
In late 2002, Mozilla began developing a new web browser originally named “Phoenix.” Due to trademark issues with another corporation, Mozilla changed the browser’s name to “Firebird,” and then again a year later due to another trademarking issue to it’s current name: “Firefox” or Fx. While it may have taken the browser some time to catch on, there’s no disputing the fact that today it is wildly popular with all flavors of people including consumers. (see Wikipedia for more information) It’s currently at version 2.0, but all that is about to change…
Firefox 3 is the next generation in browser technology. More advanced than Internet Explorer 8, Safari 3, and Opera 9.5, Fx 3 aims to be the best thing that ever happened to the Internet community. For the technically inclined, it has been proven in tests to be fully Acid2 compliant, render pages faster than any competitor (including Javascript and other ‘extra’ elements), and be incredibly effecient both in CPU and memory usage. In a nutshell, Firefox 3 is leaner, meaner, and more powerful than ever and you will definitely notice!
Hopefully I haven’t completed bored you to death with that aplethora of information, but I felt I needed to give some acclaim to the browser’s history before getting to the real point of this entry. It’s called Firefox 3 Download Day 2008 and the goal is to set a world record (determined by the Guiness Book of World Records) of the number of unique downloads of a single piece of software in a 24-hour period.
Simply stated: Mozilla wants EVERYONE to download Firefox 3 within the first 24 hours of its release.
A good idea? I think so! As a user of Firefox 3 (codename: Grand Paradiso) since Beta 1, I can assure you that by the time it is officially released, it will be rock solid–guaranteed. Current in Release Candidate 1 stage, the software is pretty much ready for release to manufacturing (RTM), so I’m expecting the official release date to be announced any day now. I’ll update you when that date is announced.
So, please make a mental note that you want to be part of this effort, and go ahead and pledge your support for Firefox 3 by selecting the link below!!
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/worldrecord – Pledge Now!