As a developer of online applications for video related businesses, I have had a lot to say about the future of Flash and Video. The recent development for YouTube export and how it does it, is an interesting one and I would like to make some follow up comments from my previous post on this found here.
Let me explain the new feature of iMovie that makes it an interesting development.
From within iMovie, you can export directly to YouTube. This is done by entering all your selections as if doing it directly on YouTube, but it then simply shows up in your account. iMovie compresses it directly into the new H.264 supported format YouTube has adopted for AppleTV for example, and then convert this into the FlashVideo used on the website.
There appears to be a global shift to H.264 for all content on YouTube in the future. This would then lead you to ask. When is YouTube going to completely shift away from FLASH? It is well documented that Apple and Google are doing deals on a regular basis.
Could this be a lead up to a re-release of Quicktime for online video use? Apple has ignored Quicktime over the last number of years. Now, if any, is the time to launch into the this area, on the back of iTunes marketing and branding.
This sounds like a long shot, and Apple does not have anything like Flash to replace it. However, does it need it? Quicktime does support embedding flash into the streams, and other methods for implementing controls. All that is really needed is the implementation of a small AUTO-DOWNLOAD browser plugin that only needs to support H.264/AAC codecs, plus an unknown visual control implementation.
This could let iTunes have a degree of expansion outside of the iTunes player. Plus make Apple the world leader in online video all round.
Adobe, could really drop the ball here. They can simply drop H.264/AAC into FlashPlayer10. Talk of going to a new version of On2 VP7 is what is whispered on the blogs, however, as previously mentioned, I feel this is a big mistake. If Adobe plan to support any new Codecs, it should be SMPTE ratified one.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Philip Hodgetts // Aug 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Will YouTube convert to H.264 MPEG-4 (NOT QT ever). No. Will the deal with Google for H.264 versions for iPhone and AppleTV continue? Yes.
Apple have completely abandoned .mov for online delivery, about 5 years ago. They decided to adobe ISO MPEG-4 (which in turn is based on the QT container, IP that Apple donated to MPEG LA), making QT Player the most common MPEG-4 player. (.mov is used in production for sure). Apple hasn’t ignored QT at all. They simply decided, around 2000/2001 to keep QT development for production purposes (building on it greatly in the Final Cut Studio, for example) and use an ISO standard for distribution, using industry standard codecs with their own implementation of an H.264 encoder.
Google/YouTube cannot convert YouTube video to MPEG-4 for general use because it basically sucks to embed QT/MPEG-4 compared with the ease of embedding Flash. Converting to MPEG-4 delivery would completely kill YouTube dead within a week.
Now, whether or not Adobe will adopt H.264 for Flash is a more interesting questions, particularly since On2 are now supporting H.264 encoding by the Flix encoding tools (as of about 2 weeks ago).
Philip
2 jamieg // Aug 20, 2007 at 10:26 am
Philip,
I agree with what you say, however, the situation you describe is exactly why this could be a opportunity for Apple.
If apple released a H.264/AAC auto download browser object. Ie like Flash, but specifically for WebVideos and as easy to implement as Flash. It would not be inconceivable for them to make this a new viewing option for YouTubers.
I for one would switch straight away as the higher quality result.
This, however, is a long shot in many ways as Apple do not have any technology on the radar that makes the on screen controls as configurable or adaptable as Flash. But then again, is that needed.
YouTube does use flash, however, the site is built in a way that other technologies could be dropped in without much fuss.
In terms of calling it QT, well, it probably will have very little common code apart from codec modules, but is likely to carry some kind of cross marketing slant leverage the QT brand. Ie like QucktimeWebPlugin.
I see this as a BRANDING opportunity for Apple more then anything. As Dolby is synonymous with any DVD player or Amplifier, Apple would want to be that logo that has support from the online community and of which people trust and click on simply as it has a logo they know and trust.
And of course, it would most likely grow the iTunes market even more. iTunes player is really the GATE to the Apple kingdom. All products they are selling for domestic use lunch from iTunes Player. iPod, iPhone, legal media purchase. The more people using iTunes the better it is for Apple.
At the end of the day, that is what its really all about.
James
Leave a Comment