Over the weekend I read another few dozen articles on the whole Apple and Adobe debate and probably read through a thousand comments. Some of the posts I read were really good, but far too many people are comparing codecs (H.264, VP8), platforms (Flash) and languages (HTML5) as if they are all the same thing.

There are lots of posts talking about open standards and making statements on how H.264 is going to kill off Flash. The problem with these statements is that H.264 is a video codec. That's it. It's not a platform of any kind like Flash is. H.264 video has to be played back in a wrapper or by a web browser. The Flash player supports playback of H.264 as long as it has the proper wrapper, which most people either don't know, or simply aren't mentioning. H.264 is not going to put Flash out of business because it can't. It's not a substitute for Flash and is not a platform like Flash. The Flash video platform includes an entire ecosystem for video that includes a player, server and technology for things like content protection (DRM).

If we want to debate the relevance of H.264 to Adobe, then the debate should only be about what H.264 is, a codec. The codec discussion involves H.264, VP6, VP8 and Ogg Theora, the four main video codecs that exist today. Based on what we have seen from content owners over the past eighteen months, there is no question that H.264 is getting a lot of traction and content owners are moving away from VP6 in favor of H.264. That's been clear for some time, which is why Adobe's player has supported the playback of H.264 encoded video since August of 2007.

Another misconception about H.264 is that it does everything all the older codecs do, yet that's not true. Because Flash and Silverlight are platforms and not a codec, their ecosystems include the ability to do things like protect content. Encoding content in H.264 doesn't provide content owners with the ability to take advantage of DRM and H.264 does not support the ability to do adaptive streaming like the Flash and Silverlight platforms provide.

While we're seeing a lot of traction with H.264, it's still not the one codec to rule the world. In fact, we will never have just one codec for a multitude of reasons. While H.264 is great for high-quality video, it's a poor choice for content that's encoded at a lower bitrate with the intention of reaching a wider audience. There is a lot of legacy content that's already been encoded in VP6 that content owners are not willing to re-encode into H.264.

I've seen some argue that these content owners should get with the times and just move to H.264, but not every content owner is targeting an audience capable of getting HD quality video. And while I read one article that said, "no one is really going to go digging very far back into your files if it’s more than six months old", for many content owners, that could not be further from the truth. I've seen a lot of people commenting that content owners should always use the best and most "open" video technology on the market, but with that argument, then these same customers should also drop support for H.264 in three weeks when Google makes VP8 available. Let's be realistic.

The real topic to discuss is what will happen when Google open sources VP8 and then tries to challenge the H.264 codec. While VP8 was never made public when it was under the domain of On2, if the claims that On2 made are accurate, VP8 produces better video quality than H.264 "with data savings of more than 40%". If that is the case, it's going to be very interesting to watch the battle between H.264, which Microsoft and Apple are promoting versus VP8, which Google will be promoting. But all of this debate about codecs really has nothing to do with Adobe. Adobe does not have a codec at stake. Personally, I think Adobe should have purchased On2 back in 2008 when On2 was really struggling and their stock was at a five year low. Doing so would of given Adobe control of VP8 instead of Google, but Adobe chose not to get into the codec business.

So the real debate with H.264 has nothing to do with Flash, but rather with the browsers that support and play back video. Microsoft has said they will only support H.264 in IE9, but we have to remember that IE6 still has close to 10% market share and the browser is nine years old. Looking at my own traffic stats for my blog, nearly 15% of my traffic each month comes from viewers using IE6. Like it or not, that's reality. So the idea that H.264 video playback in a browser that supports HTML5 is somehow going to work for all viewers overnight is simply not the case. How many Internet viewers will have an HTML5 compatible browser in the next two years? Not as many as some seem to think.

In addition, many of the companies that make the browsers do not agree on which video codec should be supported within the HTML5 framework. There is no standard video codec that has been agreed upon when it comes to playing video back in a HTML5 supported browser.

Of course, consumers don't care about any of this. They simply want video to work, for the quality to be good and for things to be simple. But that's not the way the online video industry has ever worked. With all the back room fighting that's taking place between Apple, Adobe and soon to be Google, it appears evident that the real battle amongst these companies is only just starting.

With all the recent talk of H.264 video, I thought I'd let people know that at the Streaming Media East show on Monday May 10th, we have a three hour workshop entitled "Encoding H.264 Video for Streaming and Progressive Download". Led by Jan Ozer, this seminar focuses on producing H.264 video for streaming or progressive download.

It will start with a deep look at key H.264 encoding parameters like B-frames, profiles, and levels, and how to customize encoding parameters for distributing via QuickTime and Flash. After detailing how to operate the H.264-related encoding parameters in tools from Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Sorenson, and Telestream, it will then provide a brief overview of the respective quality output of these tools. You'll learn how your encoding tool compares in terms of quality and configurability, as well as how to configure your encoding tool for maximum H.264 quality. 

You can still register to attend this seminar and using the promo the code of DRF1 will let you attend both a morning and afternoon workshop for only $245.

It's been just over three years since I started this blog and frankly, I never thought it would take on the life that it has. While I'm not the greatest writer when it comes to sentence structure and as readers have rightly pointed out, I could desperately use an editor, I'm just a one-man operation. Even as a part-time gig, the success of the blog comes from loyal readers, other bloggers who link to me and many sponsors who have supported my efforts with the blog.

I'd like to take a moment to thank my current long-time sponsors of the blog including EdgeCast, Internap, Limelight Networks, Microsoft, Sorenson Media and Twistage as well as previous sponsors including Ignite Technologies, Kontiki, Level 3, Skytide, Tremor Media, China Cache and Akamai.

And as some readers may have noticed over the past few days, a bunch of new sponsor banners have appeared on the website with more on the way. I'd like to thank and welcome my newest sponsors to the blog including 3Crowd Technologies, Brightcove, CDNetworks, Encoding.com, KIT Digital, Panvidea, and Adobe.

I've had a lot of fun over the past three years, have written 1065 posts and received over 5,000 comments. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the conversations taking place on the blog and I look forward to continuing to hopefully write about topics that are of interest to readers and the industry.

Also, just a reminder that while I know it's not the norm for most bloggers to do, anyone can call me at anytime if they have a question. My cell phone is listed at the top of my blog and I answer all calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I don't know everything about this industry and I may not always be able to answer your question, but I'll try to help you find someone who can. Most call me crazy for doing this, taking calls at all hours of the night, from all over the world, but I think it's the least I can do for all of the loyal readers and companies for the support they have given me. Thank you.

A few weeks back I mentioned that three CDNs would soon announce new funding deals and on April 13th, San Mateo based 3Crowd Technologies was the first to announce an investment of $6.62M by Canaan Partners and Storm Ventures.

The startup, co-founded by Barrett Lyon, who also co-founded BitGravity, is offering their first product they call CrowdDirector. The idea is to give content owners greater control over content delivery and other cloud services. Their system essentially acts as a virtual load balancer, providing load balancing capabilities across multiple CDNs, web servers, origins and elastic clouds. It's an interesting idea and one that clearly relies on content owners having a multi-vendor strategy, which many large companies have.

I haven't been able to see it yet in person, but on Monday May 10th, Barrett will demo the solution at the Content Delivery Summit in NYC. It's not too late to register and you can attend the CDN Summit for only $395 using the discount code of DRF1.

I don't know what it is about Apple, but anytime a blogger writes anything negative about Apple, or does not agree with what Apple says, many readers bring their emotions into the conversation. What is it about Apple that drives so many people to lose their minds? The moment someone does not agree with something Apple is doing and blogs about it, many readers treat it as if you just said insulted their mom.

Because of the anonymity that the web offers, many times, you really don't know the reason behind someone's comments. Maybe they have stock in Apple, maybe they work for the company or maybe their business relies on Apple's content ecosystem. While it's really hard to know, one thing is clear. Many people can't have a real discussion about Apple, and the facts and points at hand, without getting emotional.

In my post from earlier today entitled "Steve Jobs Blogs On Why He Hates Flash, But Can't Get His Facts Straight", of the 150+ comments on three different blogs about my post (one, two, three) you can't find anyone who's arguing against my counter-point to Jobs when he said, "iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video." If you don't go to sites that have video, then you are minority of all web users today. The vast majority of web users all visit sites each day and consume video on a daily basis. So why is no one arguing with me that about that? Why is no one arguing with me that some major websites like Hulu.com, NFL.com, Amazon.com, Zappos.com and others don't have videos that work on the iPad? The simple reason is because you can't argue with facts. Now of course that does not stop some people and one person commented that unless the info I am presenting comes from a "third party", then we should believe Apple.

How sad. If you take an iPad, or go to the Apple store and use one and type in NFL.com, you will see there right there on the home page the phrase, "To see this content please go to Adobe.com to download the latest version of the Flash Player." Do you really need a third party company to tell this you? Do you not trust your own eyes?

While many want to think I'm crazy to disagree with Apple, clearly I am not the only one who thinks this way and if after reading these posts below, if others still want to call all of us crazy for disagreeing with Apple, then I consider myself to be in good company:

• Jobs on Flash: Hypocrisy So Thick You Could Cut it with a Knife
• Steve Jobs doesn't like Adobe Flash
• Steve Jobs on Flash: Correcting the Lies
• First Draft of Steve Job’s Open Letter to Adobe
• Steve Jobs Speaks Up On Flash
• Steve Jobs thoughts on not supporting flash – they just aren’t justification!

I also find it absolutely hilarious that so many people commenting don't even own an iPad and have never used one because if they did, they would see that videos on my blog are in H.264, and NOT Flash. Yet, many are quick to leave comments saying my blog is outdated or built using a proprietary video platform. 

I get the sense that many want to dry and drown out anyone that does not agree with Apple by inundating them with so many comments, name calling and personal attacks that the blogger will just give up. Sorry to tell some of you this, but that won't make me stop and it won't drive me away. If anything, it will only make me blog about it more.

Note: If all you want to do is curse me out, any posts with curse words will be removed. I don't allow that language on my blog.

Added 4/30: Since I published this, I have gotten more than one email sent to me threatening me with bodily harm for writing this post. In fact, quite a few. So if you are reading my post, or any other post on this topic and then feel the need to want to hurt someone, I would suggest you stay calm, relax and then go about the rest of your day. This topic is not worth anyone getting that upset over it.

—-

Clearly Apple must be feeling some pressure from the large group of consumers who are tired of not being able to get Flash content, specifically video, on Apple’s iPad and iPhones because Steve Jobs just posted an article on Apple’s website entitled “Thoughts On Flash”.

Steve starts off by saying that, “Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven“, which is correct, but of course Steve says that, “in reality it is based on technology issues“. While Steve spends some time to talk about what an “open” environment really means, and rants about how Flash is not open, he also then says that “the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary“. So on one hand he calls Flash out for not being open, then rightly states that neither is Apple when it comes to their OS, but also then says that in fact, Apple is the one that has an open system, not Adobe. Make up your mind Steve, do you think Apple is open or closed? The reality is both companies have proprietary systems.

Of all the things that Steve says in his article, he’s flat out wrong when it comes to his description of the “full web” experience and he should be ashamed to try to think he can fool us. Steve says that, “Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.” Steve also says that, “iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.”

This comment by Steve is simply a lie, which is not my opinion, but a fact. Anyone who uses an iPad can’t get video from the websites of NFL.com, MLB.com, Petfinder.org, Amazon.com and many other really popular websites. So to say that users aren’t missing much video and that almost all of this video is also available in H.264, is wrong and you can’t argue with it. I guess Steve does not feel that the NFL and MLB sports leagues command that big of an audience. Use an iPad, go to those sites and see all the video you can’t get. Does Steve think we don’t notice that? Of course, he also goes on to list all of the websites that have video that works on the iPad, but as I pointed out weeks ago, many of those sites only have a limited amount of their video that works. Is that his idea of a “full web” experience, seeing only a portion of the content on a website?

Steve ends his post by saying that, “Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice.” Well I hate to tell you this Steve, but it’s still the PC era. For all the growth of the mobile space in the U.S., how much of that content consumed on a mobile device is video? Very little. No one is getting rid of their PCs because they have a mobile device, the PC is not going anywhere and the volume of content that is delivered to PCs will always surpass what will be delivered to mobile. Apple’s iPhone and iPad’s are not going to replace the PC experience, ever.

If Apple does not want to support Flash, that’s their right. But for
Steve to think we’re all dumb and that he can tell us something works,
when we clearly see it doesn’t, that’s simply an insult to consumers.
And for him to say that this is not about business, but rather a
technology issue, his actions prove otherwise.

Apple knows that a lot of the ads on the web are delivered in Flash.
So Apple clearly wants to divert some of those dollars over to Apple by
having a platform that forces you to take webpages and convert them into
micro apps making it impossible for the content creator to load any
kind of ads. Then you launch your own proprietary mobile ad platform
iAds and you make money by taking a small percentage of every ad
impression on your closed platform. Steve needs to stop trying to make this into
a “technology” issue when this is all about money. If you came out and
said you’re not supporting Flash because you can make more money without
it, fine by me, I won’t argue with that. But to try and disguise it as something else, that only
makes Apple look bad, not Adobe.

News organizations want the additional ad revenue from video but often find they can't create high enough quality to keep advertisers happy, and outlets including the Washington Post, Newsweek and others have been forced to cut back on their staff of video journalists. So how does a news organization create a niche and build an audience with limited resources?

At the Streaming Media East show, May 11th and 12th, we've got a great session entitled "Web Video Journalism: Future Or Fantasy?". Hear directly from some of these news organizations on how they're using video now and what the business for video journalism looks like in the future.

• Moderator: Craig Duff, Multimedia Editor, TIME
• Bill McCandless, GM, Executive Editor of Multimedia, TheStreet.com
• Richard Tanner, Senior Producer, Video, New York Times
• Bill Smee, Executive Producer, Slate V
• Adam Najberg, Senior Editor, Video, The Wall Street Journal

It's not too late to get a pass to the show and readers of my blog can register using my own personal discount code of DRF1, which gets you $200 off the ticket price.