Comments on: Apple iMovie exports direct to YouTube as H.264 and not FlashVideo. What does this mean for FlashPlayer? http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/08/19/apple-imovie-exports-direct-to-youtube-as-h264-and-not-flashvideo-what-does-this-mean-for-flashplayer/ JamieG looks deep into the ramifications of current trends in Technology and Media Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:56:21 +1000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: jamieg http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/08/19/apple-imovie-exports-direct-to-youtube-as-h264-and-not-flashvideo-what-does-this-mean-for-flashplayer/comment-page-1/#comment-483 jamieg Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:26:06 +0000 http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/08/19/apple-imovie-exports-direct-to-youtube-as-h264-and-not-flashvideo-what-does-this-mean-for-flashplayer/#comment-483 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 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

]]> By: Philip Hodgetts http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/08/19/apple-imovie-exports-direct-to-youtube-as-h264-and-not-flashvideo-what-does-this-mean-for-flashplayer/comment-page-1/#comment-479 Philip Hodgetts Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:31:55 +0000 http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/08/19/apple-imovie-exports-direct-to-youtube-as-h264-and-not-flashvideo-what-does-this-mean-for-flashplayer/#comment-479 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 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

]]>