Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:33 UTC
Google I didn't plan on this, but there's really nothing I can do. Unless you want me to write about the upcoming ten billionth download from the iOS App Store, you'll have to settle for this. On the Chromium blog, Google has clarified its decision to drop H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, and in it, Google basically repeats the things that those concerned about the future of video on the web have been saying for a long time now: H.264 on the web kills innovation.
Order by: Score:
v The new Microsoft
by Tony Swash on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:49 UTC
RE: The new Microsoft
by Shannara on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:50 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

"non compliant" with .... what, exactly?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: The new Microsoft
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: The new Microsoft"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

With our new Applesoft overlords.

Reply Score: 7

RE: The new Microsoft
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

because it cannot compete against iOS in an open market.


Right. That's probably why Android is more popular than iOS in the US, and why in Europe - despite multiple carriers carrying the iPhone - Android is growing just as fast as in the US (with a slight delay of six months due to the later availability of Android devices in Europe).

What perplexes me is just how so many so called techies cannot see what is going on and what fools they are being taken for.


RT @cjno: And why is ditching h264 making "lifes miserable for users and developers" when apple was applauded for excluding flash?

https://twitter.com/fearphage/status/26045820415512577#

Reply Score: 10

v RE[2]: The new Microsoft
by merlin747 on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE: The new Microsoft"
RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We'll see how well Android stacks up now that the iPhone is available on Verizon in the US. Certainly you realize that many people wanted to get a smartphone but disliked AT&T's service? I can name some people who made that choice (Android on Verizon) because they refused to move to another carrier. We'll see where the data is at for iPhone vs. Android in the coming months.


A boost in sales for the iPhone, but Android will still be on top.

Regarding making life miserable, I can't imagine that you, who purports to love "open" items actually can entertain the idea of more Flash?


Where did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth. All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in many Apple fanatics about Apple blocking Flash vs. Google blocking H.264.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by kinabalu on Sat 15th Jan 2011 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
kinabalu Member since:
2011-01-15

Support for encoding H.264 is baked into a lot of hardware, so the impact on battery and cpu for mobile devices is lessened. When you throw Flash on a mobile device, battery is impacted more negatively than playing H.264 video.

One thing that Google isn't mentioning... is WebM not patent encumbered? I've heard reports that if WebM should take off, the MPEG LA folks will probably just sue for this or that algorithm and we'll have basically the same problem.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I've heard reports that if WebM should take off, the MPEG LA folks will probably just sue for this or that algorithm and we'll have basically the same problem.

Sounds like an anti‐trust issue to me, what with MPEG‐LA threatening likely competitors to license their products, using their monopoly to exclude others, etc.
Lot’s of people calling Google the new Microsoft; I think they’re looking at the wrong party.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by vodoomoth on Tue 18th Jan 2011 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


One thing that Google isn't mentioning... is WebM not patent encumbered? I've heard reports that if WebM should take off, the MPEG LA folks will probably just sue for this or that algorithm and we'll have basically the same problem.

So what? The world should steer clear of WebM because the MPEG-LA **might** launch one or several lawsuits we don't even know for sure they have grounds for and they'll win, despite Google having refuted that possibility by saying patent infringements have been researched and none was found?
Gosh! What a picture-perfect example of FUD!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

One thing that Google isn't mentioning... is WebM not patent encumbered? I've heard reports that if WebM should take off, the MPEG LA folks will probably just sue for this or that algorithm and we'll have basically the same problem.


I stole the following (paraphrased) from comments posted at Ars Technica:

Perhaps it is best to explain a bit how video compression works. It started with colour television, trying to fit a colour picture into the same bandwidth already used by black-and-white:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television
"After considerable research, the NTSC introduced a system that encoded the color information separately from the brightness, and greatly reduced the resolution of the color information in order to conserve bandwidth. The brightness image remained compatible with existing B&W television sets, at slightly reduced resolution, while color televisions could decode the extra information in the signal and produce a limited-color display. The higher resolution B&W and lower resolution color images combine in the eye to produce a seemingly high resolution color image. The NTSC standard represents a major technical achievement.

Although introduced in the U.S. in the 1950s"


Basically, the human eye has great resolution when it comes to brightness, but nowhere near that same resolution when it comes to colour information. So video compression exploits this characteristic, by transformation from a RGB bitmap for each frame into Y'UV, where Y' is the luma (or brightness, or black-and-white image if you prefer), and U and V are colour information signals, or chroma. Digital video commonly uses YCbCr, but the principle is the same.

Anyway, read up about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YUV

Basically, there wasn't a lot of "spare" bandwidth that could be used when colour television was first introduced. What was needed was a decent quality black-and-white signal (luma), and in addition some extra "colour" signal (chroma) that could be added to prduce a 3-colour RGB signal at the receiver. The chroma signal could afford to be a lot lower fidelity than the black-and-white luma signal and one could still get away with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barn-yuv.png
You can see that there is a lot less detail (or resolution, or information if you like) in the U and V parts than there is in the Y.
Same applies for YCbCr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barns_grand_tetons_YCbCr_separati...

This whole effect, invented perhaps 60 years ago, is the basis of video compression. This basic operation is not patentable. Prior art. So ANY video compression codec can work with these same basic principles.

Now WebM is a simpler format with lower computational complexity than H.264. WebM is very slow to encode, bust fast to decode. WebM losses can primarily be noticed as blur in areas of fast motion. H.264 is always sharp even in areas of fast motion, but it exhibits "artefacts" that aren't actually present in the picture.

Given the characteristics of WebM which is slow to encode and areas of high motion are blurred, it appears that chroma data is averaged over time to reduce the amount of chroma data to encode. Given the characteristics of H264 which is faster to encode but with artifacts produced rather than blur, it seems that chroma data is pixelated (averaged over spatial area) to reduce the amount of chroma data to encode. If true, this is a fundamentally different approach between the codecs (apart from the basic conversion and back RGB <-> YUV, which is almost-60-year-old non-patentable technology).

If this is actually what is going on, then H.264 and WebM (beyond the RGB <-> YUV transformation) use fundamentally different methods from each other in order to achieve video compression. If this is so, then they do not infringe upon each other's patents.

Edited 2011-01-18 12:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by Neolander on Sat 15th Jan 2011 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Regarding making life miserable, I can't imagine that you, who purports to love "open" items actually can entertain the idea of more Flash? It's a tremendously closed platform (find me a compliant player outside of Adobe... you can't because of their licensing).

Sadly, Adobe opened up a big part of the SWF spec some times ago. Examples of third-party implementations include Gnash (Compatible up to SWF9) and swfdec.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by Oliver on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

The specs of Adobe aren't of any help. Furthermore swfdec is dead, Gnash has almost no manpower.There is another: Lightspark. But all of those are far from complete.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/swfdec/2008-May/001459.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by someone_asdf1 on Mon 17th Jan 2011 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
someone_asdf1 Member since:
2011-01-17

Urm, so how are people failing to effectively make another browser (one that uses ActionScript) a problem with being open specs (patent-encumbered or not)?

There's a reason why there's only 5 major HTML browsers engines, and not 50+. It's freaking difficult and resource intensive. Adding licensing costs would just make it completely untenable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The new Microsoft
by avgalen on Sat 15th Jan 2011 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE: The new Microsoft"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Google is being applauded and criticized for dropping h264
Apple is being applauded and criticized for dropping flash

I am on the side of choice, so I want Google to keep h264 and apple to support flash. If these technologies are bad, users or developers will choose not to use them. If they are good, they will be used. How is supporting more technologies and offering choice a bad thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The new Microsoft
by Headrush on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: The new Microsoft"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

[Right. That's probably why Android is more popular than iOS in the US, and why in Europe - despite multiple carriers carrying the iPhone

Not sure I would say popular is the right word, but outselling is true. We also know this has a lot to do with having many more Android models to choose from and having a much larger price range of products to choose from also.

What I want to know is if current h.264 decoding hardware can be adapted to use with WebM codecs or will this essentially obsolete several products I currently own?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

What I want to know is if current h.264 decoding hardware can be adapted to use with WebM codecs or will this essentially obsolete several products I currently own?

It really depends on the DSP in question. Some of them can be extended to also support WebM, some of them can't. Can't really say anything more about it as it really is dependant on the hardware in question.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The new Microsoft
by puelocesar on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:57 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

Wow, it's a big conspiracy to destroy the iPhone!! You guys are really creative.. Voted your comment up as "funny", because it was obviously a joke right?

Reply Score: 10

RE: The new Microsoft
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

"Now introducing... The iTinfoil hat. A magical revolutionary device. And shiny! Hoooo, so shiny..."

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: The new Microsoft
by Tony Swash on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE: The new Microsoft"
RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you think that Apple not supporting Flash is so wrong how can you possible think Google's move is right?


Because Google is promoting an open, free, and non-patent-encumbered standard. Google cannot profit from this move.

Apple is replacing Flash with a closed, non-free, patent-encumbered standard.

Seems pretty clear to me why the latter is wrong, but the former is not. Then again - I'm not a raving Apple fanatic.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by _txf_ on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Apple is replacing Flash with a closed, non-free, patent-encumbered standard.


Of which they get a part of the License fees too...

Whereas google doesn't get a penny from WebM, nor can they restrict what people do with it. I completely fail to see how they can profit monetarily from this.

Edited 2011-01-14 23:46 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by flanque on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I think anyone with a touch of reality agrees that the web should be an open and free platform. We saw the crap that went down in the past and it just doesn't work to do otherwise.

Google is in it for the money no doubt and in order to get to that point they realise that WebM is the best way to go.

Putting monopolies and conspiracy theories to the side, this is a positive move for us, the end users as well as the smaller players.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by mrhasbean on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Because Google is promoting an open, free, and non-patent-encumbered standard. Google cannot profit from this move.


Thom if you honestly believe this then you are more blind than I ever imagined. This move is PURELY about profit and using a monopoly position in one market to gain total domination in another. Are you actually trying to tell us you can't see that?

Here's a hint. If (when maybe?) WebM becomes the standard because the almighty champion of all that is free and open (supposedly) deems it so, irrespective of what happens, Apple - Google's biggest competitor in the mobile space - loses massively. Even if... no ESPECIALLY if, Apple choose to suppose WebM. You and others talk about Apple's supporter's being blind yet discount the reality that you are totally blinded by Google playing you all by dropping that "open" word within the context that fit's your definition.

"Google can't profit from this move." At least I started the day with a laugh, for that I thank you...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by Radio on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

How can you have a monopoly with a piece of technology whose rights you gave to all? Including any and all competitor present and future?

Can you please stop the stupid? It hurts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by smashIt on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

This move is PURELY about profit and using a monopoly position in one market to gain total domination in another.


that may be totaly true, but for an open web webm is the only option we have right now

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Profit, as in, make money off this move.

Apple - Google's biggest competitor in the mobile space - loses massively.


If that happens, Apple loses because of its own boneheaded stupidity. They are free to add WebM support to iOS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by No it isnt on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yes, or perhaps your love for Apple completely blinds you … Did you have a point? What's Apple doing again? Oh, they try to destroy free standards by locking out Theora et al from iOS.

You've got it completely wrong: Apple is Microsoft and Google is Apple.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Because, you idiot, if somebody decides to make a better browser, or a new video service, in the wonderful h.264-is-a-standard world, he would have to pay 6.5 million $. In WebM world, 0$.

Now, let's make you feel the heat: if you want to keep defending h264 as the standard to go, pay 6.5 million $ or shut up.

Edited 2011-01-14 23:40 UTC

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by Tony Swash on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by galvanash on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Why doesn't Google just agree to pay the H264 fees of any browser developer who becomes so popular that it incurs fees. There won't be that many and its chump change to Google. That would keep the web more open than what it has just done.


Why limit it to browsers? I say let them pay for anyone implementing any encoder or decoder. After all, since h.264 should be the standard for the web why should anyone have to pay for it - its the "standard" right? And Google is all about promoting an open and free internet, they should pay for it shouldn't they?

Yeah Google!! They will bankroll h.264 into contention as a legitimate W3C standard.

[Back to reality]... Do you realize how f*cking stupid that line of reasoning is? How about letting the people that actually own the h.264 patent pool actually do that by removing the royalties...

What, that idea too crazy for you?

This has nothing to do with any principles, it's just Google manipulating the market because it's afraid it can't compete. Google feels vulnerable because its a one trick pony, it only has one significant source of revenue which is desktop search. Google makes peanuts in comparison from the mobile space and it very afraid that the success of others will marginalise it. So this is an attack on its competitors. That's OK, that's business - but please for christ sake don't try to dress it up as some principled or noble act.


I'm done with you, you can't teach stupid. Have a drink of koolaid on me ;)

Edited 2011-01-15 00:43 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by _txf_ on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I would say drop it as he is just trolling. The things he says are simply too ridiculous to be taken seriously...

Edited 2011-01-15 00:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Because, you idiot, if somebody decides to make a better browser, or a new video service, in the wonderful h.264-is-a-standard world, he would have to pay 6.5 million $. In WebM world, 0$.

Now, let's make you feel the heat: if you want to keep defending h264 as the standard to go, pay 6.5 million $ or shut up.


Do you really think that's why Google did it? To help new browser to the market? Why doesn't Google just agree to pay the H264 fees of any browser developer who becomes so popular that it incurs fees. There won't be that many and its chump change to Google. That would keep the web more open than what it has just done.
"

H264 encoding license Google already has. Google already has a license paid to put H264 in there browsers or any other product they want.

Removing it from browser makes Chrome development simpler. Not having to maintain two different branches. Ie Chrome with H264 and Chromium without H264. To play H264 in Chromium you need to use flash anyhow so trap for website developers.

Really Chrome removing H264 makes web development for Chromium/Chrome based browsers simpler. Also brings Chrome into alignment with Firefox.

Web developers should be thanking google for simplifying. Now IE can support webm by third party codec. 1 format that all html5 browser can support is now here.

Really Google is not a one trick pony. Google is one of the largest Advertising providers on the internet. So even if you don't go to google in a lot of cases google still makes money.

Important thing here. For google to make money for lots of its money streams people have to be able to get onto the internet. So desktop OS free google will make the money back from.

Its not like android app store does not make money for google.

Lets do the list
Safari on iPhone and iPad webm not supported.
Safari OSX support by thrid party.
IE webm support by third party.
Chrome/chromuim webm supported.
Firefox webm supported
Opera webm supported.

So nice everything part iphone and ipad supported. What is Android going head to head with. Google change youtube to webm only locking out iphone and ipad devices. More market for Android.

Google has many good reasons todo exactly what it is doing. Not having to pay for H264 from each Android maker also keeps Android as cheep OS. Letting adobe flash provide it Android makers don't have to pay.

Mobile space is a fight for the cheepest.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by viator on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
viator Member since:
2005-10-11

IOS devices could/would be compatible maybe if/when vlc supports webm but they removed vlc from app store go figure!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by TheGZeus on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Holy punctionationless, Batman!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Why doesn't Google just agree to pay the H264 fees of any browser developer

Why don't the companies in the patent pool grant a perpetual and non-exclusive license to all non hardware encoding/decoding and transmission. Why Google has to pay up?
BTW: They are already paying the full price.

READ THE DAMN W3C.org patent policy!!!

I much prefer people who try to make sense of things for themselves (even if they make mistakes in doing so) than people who are ignorant and unwilling to use their sense of reason.


What market!?!?!?!? The not yet standardised HTML5 video tag? Or are you not aware that youtube.com is the video site on the net. And still I can safely bet that 90% over the browser videos are watched through Flash.

And Flash is not going to go away. Why not? DRM, layers on video and much more... The things that HTML5 video tag is not supposed to address.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The new Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The new Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you think that Apple not supporting Flash is so wrong how can you possible think Google's move is right?


I couldn't give a toss about Apple supporting Flash, or not supporting Flash. Whatever.

Where Apple went hooribly wrong is not supporting open standard royalty-free codecs such as WebM (Theora too would have been nice, but not as important).

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by flanque on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Normally I find myself not agreeing with you but on this one I do. The web needs to be open and free.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The new Microsoft
by robco on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The new Microsoft"
robco Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm not sure why Apple is getting dragged into this. So far the only mention is Steve Jobs expressing concern about potential patent issues. Actually, Apple has stood up to MPEG on behalf of users (the delay of QT 6 a few years back). They have no problem paying the license fee.

So far WebM is full of promise, but is it ready for prime time? What is Google's time frame for switching over? So far we've hard of hardware acceleration, but it hasn't shipped yet. Until that happens, Apple won't touch it.

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free? If I want to open a retail store, I have to pay for the inventory to stock the store. Even if I make everything myself, I have to pay for the materials to make my wares. If I'm starting a video website, why should I expect everything to cost nothing?

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away. If WebM takes off, Apple will probably support it. It's not as if they don't ship with support for other FOSS software. But in the here and now, does it really make sense for Apple to jump on board this very minute without knowing if it will be a viable alternative to H.264? Why spend the time and money if it's just going to flop?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not sure why Apple is getting dragged into this. So far the only mention is Steve Jobs expressing concern about potential patent issues. Actually, Apple has stood up to MPEG on behalf of users (the delay of QT 6 a few years back). They have no problem paying the license fee.

So far WebM is full of promise, but is it ready for prime time? What is Google's time frame for switching over? So far we've hard of hardware acceleration, but it hasn't shipped yet. Until that happens, Apple won't touch it.

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free? If I want to open a retail store, I have to pay for the inventory to stock the store. Even if I make everything myself, I have to pay for the materials to make my wares. If I'm starting a video website, why should I expect everything to cost nothing?

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away. If WebM takes off, Apple will probably support it. It's not as if they don't ship with support for other FOSS software. But in the here and now, does it really make sense for Apple to jump on board this very minute without knowing if it will be a viable alternative to H.264? Why spend the time and money if it's just going to flop?


Firefox4, Opera and Chrome already support WebM. Google have already converted over 80% of YouTube videos to WebM. WebM is cost-free to everybody for providing video on the web. For a software vendor like Mozilla, supporting WebM and not H.264 is a cost saving of $5 million per year, and it is also the only way Mozilla can ship a capability for playing video embedded within their open source applications.

Hardware acceleration for WebM decoding has indeed started to ship recently.

http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/12/chips-delivers-vp8-hd-video-har...

http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-...

WebM is supported in more browsers (Opera, Firefox4 and Chrome) out of the box than h.264.

Although they haven't announced it yet, no doubt Google are planning for YouTube to switch over to WebM only after a transition period.

WebM isn't going to flop.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

First of all, Mozilla could pay for it. But they don't want to, they are all about no compromises the open web and they want to make sure the open source project stays open and can be easily applied/adapted for other projects.

Second, Google will not switch Youtube over to WebM, they will just change their design to use the video-tag with 2 codecs and failover to flash.

Atleast at first. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by woegjiub on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

How rich, exactly do you think Mozilla is?
5M is a lot of money for a company that gets most of its revenue from having google as the default search provider.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all, Mozilla could pay for it. But they don't want to, they are all about no compromises the open web and they want to make sure the open source project stays open and can be easily applied/adapted for other projects.

Mozilla can’t pay for it, because they cannot licence the codec to all users of their source code.
I’ve seen this comment repeated a bit recently, it’s clear you and many don’t understand how ‘paying for it’ works.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by robco on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
robco Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm not questioning the switchover, only Google hasn't really done it very elegantly. To bring Apple back into this, when they announced the change to Intel processors, they did it at WWDC, they had several sessions on moving over, there was a developer build and boxes available, XCode was ready to go. Seven months later when the first Intel Macs shipped, quite a bit of software was ready on Day 1 or shortly thereafter (with a few notable exceptions).

Google hasn't given a time frame. They haven't made easily installable tools (for ordinary users, not linux nerds) for Mac and Windows to let people encode their home movies into WebM. Or commercial content developers for that matter. Hardware acceleration is just now coming out and isn't out for most major platforms.

Rather than a coordinated release with a clear timeline and making good tools readily available, they've given a nebulous timeline, few tools and without hardware acceleration. They could have addressed many of the concerns raised by this change beforehand. Google does some brilliant software engineering, but their "soft skills" are sorely lacking. I'm not saying WebM is a bad thing or bad technology, but they could have done more to make this a smooth, successful transition.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by Rehdon on Sat 15th Jan 2011 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free?

Not "everything": the technologies that are the foundation for a free Web/Internet. H.264 is by definition unsuitable because it's not royalty free: what if you had to pay to load every HTML page? That's exactly what might happen in 2015, as the masters of H.264 might ask money both for encoding and decoding of video streams.

It seems every time a new technology comes out, especially an open one, techies scream if Apple and MS don't support it right away.

If the new technology is fundamental for the inner working and evolution of a free Web/Internet, they're surely right to do so, and I'll join the choir.

Rehdon

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by robco on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
robco Member since:
2006-07-16

Not "everything": the technologies that are the foundation for a free Web/Internet. H.264 is by definition unsuitable because it's not royalty free: what if you had to pay to load every HTML page? That's exactly what might happen in 2015, as the masters of H.264 might ask money both for encoding and decoding of video streams.
That's a lot of maybe, might and what if. WRT Apple, they stood up to MPEG when they tried that before and Apple very publicly called them out on it. Back in the day, if you wanted a web browser, you paid for it. Who would charge for a browser? A little company called Netscape.

Undoubtedly this will somehow translate into big money for Google. I can guarantee they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. But other people need to eat too.

If the new technology is fundamental for the inner working and evolution of a free Web/Internet, they're surely right to do so, and I'll join the choir.
This is delivering video to end users, not the inner workings of the web. You can publish all the images and text you want and not pay a dime.

But the proverbial ink is barely dry on the Google press release. Google refuses to indemnify against patent challenges. If you decide to use this technology and are sued, you'll get no help from Google. You only have their opinion (hardly subjective) that WebM doesn't violate any patents. Some may be willing to take that risk, others won't. Why is it reasonable to assume that Apple and MS will suddenly drop everything and commit resources to supporting a new, unproven technology when hardware support is just now beginning to materialize? We may very well see versions of iMovie and FCS that support WebM encoding and a future version of Safari may support decoding. But that's not going to happen tomorrow or next month and it's not reasonable to expect that it would. We also won't hear about it until it happens.

It's going to take time for other companies to figure out how this impacts them, their product development and release cycles and business plans. You can't expect any business to suddenly revamp their scheduling, planning and production to accommodate the latest next best thing. This is why it's not helpful that Google hasn't really given a time frame for implementing this change. They could have done, and still could do, much more to ensure a timely and smooth transition. Not the least of which would be ponying up and offering to cover any potential legal issues, ensuring decoders are available on all consumer platforms (not just their own) and working with other companies to ensure that happens, and making good encoding software readily available to content producers before they flip the switch.

You can't run a business, any business, where you have to change everything because another company, no matter how large and popular they are, got a bug up their ass about some new thing. I'm not saying WebM is a bad idea and that it shouldn't get support, only that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to just jump on the bandwagon immediately. This isn't going to happen overnight.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30


"If the new technology is fundamental for the inner working and evolution of a free Web/Internet, they're surely right to do so, and I'll join the choir.
This is delivering video to end users, not the inner workings of the web. You can publish all the images and text you want and not pay a dime.

But the proverbial ink is barely dry on the Google press release. Google refuses to indemnify against patent challenges. If you decide to use this technology and are sued, you'll get no help from Google. You only have their opinion (hardly subjective) that WebM doesn't violate any patents. Some may be willing to take that risk, others won't. Why is it reasonable to assume that Apple and MS will suddenly drop everything and commit resources to supporting a new, unproven technology when hardware support is just now beginning to materialize? We may very well see versions of iMovie and FCS that support WebM encoding and a future version of Safari may support decoding. But that's not going to happen tomorrow or next month and it's not reasonable to expect that it would. We also won't hear about it until it happens.
"

Funny enough Google does not have to indemnify against patent challenges. Since there is already a way got get this. Different of open source and closed source.

One under closed source lets say I am using a dll provided by a third party with a statement that all IP related is provided. That third party dll contains patent infringement and it was provided to me in good faith that it did not. I am not liable the maker of the dll is. Of course I can buck pass and keep on shipping using the tech until is proved infringing.

Now under open source. If I take the BSD code block from google and build it into my program as is. Same thing applies as above. Any issue of patent I just send them back to google with they wrote it.

http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ This here give you the right to presume Good Faith that it is not infringing and to refer the case back to the person who provide the promise.

If you write your own implementation then you are screwed and google current patent coverage does not cover you.

"indemnify against patent challenges" is only required in 2 case. 1 you don't have good faith. 2 you want to write you own.

Also its wise of google not to indemnify against patent challenges because it limits how many times someone can bring up the same case. Since every time it has to come down to company vs google case not comapny vs 1 of google many suppliers.

Yes double jeopardy works the way google has done it.

Where double jeopardy does not work the other way.

So each case over a patent issue can only be done once other than the 1 time in court the attacked makers will have todo saying I did not do it google did. Please see Google.

PS very much like the SCO case of asking for payments. I used AT&T source code with license for that see AT&T

Edited 2011-01-15 12:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The new Microsoft
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The new Microsoft"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Putting on my evil capitalist hat, why should we have the expectation that everything should be free?

<capitalist>
We don't. Just "some people" are complaining, that Google is cutting some of their development costs. You know, HTML5 video tag has no DRM and probably less than 5% reach. They are, if nothing else, cutting costs.

Edited 2011-01-16 22:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: The new Microsoft
by galvanash on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Google want to prop up Flash in order to attack iOS because it cannot compete against iOS in an open market. The more Flash there is the weaker iOS will become - or at least that's what Google hopes.


You sir are certifiably f*ckin insane. There is not an ounce logic in your entire post.

I HATE Flash... It makes me feel dirty all over just to have to use it for video delivery. There are thousands of developers that feel exactly the same way. There are also thousands of developers that desperately want browsers to support a royalty free open format for use by the video tag - one that allows us to actually progress the standard, not just sit on the sidelines while the big media companies play footsie with each other. There is a HIGH degree of overlap between the two groups - actually it is probably close to 100%. You think we would be back this if it was about propping up Adobe????

Google's involvement with Adobe is simple. They get Adobe to support WebM and Adobe gets a default install with Chrome and support in Android. That has NOTHING to do with hurting iOS - it is about having a fallback delivery mechanism for WebM on the other major browsers (without which it will die on the vine).

Yes, it is a quid pro quo with Adobe, but the purpose for doing it has nothing to do with iOS. Hell, you people stuck with Apple/iOS on the brain really need to be hit with a clue-by-four - Google really doesn't need to to much of anything special to gain mind share over iOS in the long haul - they are already doing that.

Edited 2011-01-14 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: The new Microsoft
by Shkaba on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:54 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

There is only reply fit for this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

Reply Score: 3

RE: The new Microsoft
by Googol on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:27 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Google cannot compete with iOS? That may be your opinion, but here is the fact: There are ALREDAY more Androis out there than iOS, so what exactly do you mean then..?

Reply Score: 4

RE: The new Microsoft
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:09 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Translation: you're paranoid that Google might start acting like Apple already does.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The new Microsoft
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "The new Microsoft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'll try my hand on deconstructing your comment, too:

This move is just a very large company with a single source of income

Let's see.. Google sells Android, they sell Google AdWords, they sell all kinds of interesting marketing data, they also sell place on Youtube for advertisers to use, and they're also planning to become an ISP of their own so that too could become a veritable source of income in the future.

A single source of income, eh?

Google want to prop up Flash in order to attack iOS because it cannot compete against iOS in an open market. The more Flash there is the weaker iOS will become - or at least that's what Google hopes.

Instead of blaming Google, why not blame the source of all this? You know, it IS Apple after all who decided that they don't want open codecs on their iOS devices. If they did implement them then there would be no need for Flash to play content encoded with such.

And that's where your argument falls literally apart: Apple can just implement support for WebM and POOF, iOS devices are back on track again and Google has gained nothing.

I thought then Google would lose and I think Google will lose now.

Living in the Apple reality distortion field does kind of have such effect and I do feel sorry for you. Unfortunately, reality doesn't come out like that at all. For example here in Finland any and all carriers are free to sell both iPhone and Android phones, yet Android phones are selling way more than iPhones.

Just an example would be Elisa's announcement at http://www.tietoviikko.fi/kaikki_uutiset/article523396.ece (in Finnish): in August their most sold smartphone was Samsung Galaxy S.

Even though iPhone 4 was the most sold phone of the whole last year, Android is also well in the top and thus in no danger of "losing" at all. Unless, of course, you live in the Apple reality distortion field.

What perplexes me is just how so many so called techies cannot see what is going on and what fools they are being taken for.

I cannot say anything for others but I can only apologize, I do not have the mental capacity to enter such distortion fields.

Reply Score: 4

Slight correction
by darknexus on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:50 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Netflix uses Silverlight, not Flash, and it used a windows media player plugin before that. It doesn't change your arguments (which I agree with 100%) but thought I should correct it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Slight correction
by viator on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:47 UTC in reply to "Slight correction"
viator Member since:
2005-10-11

It uses silverlight on windows desktops and mac desktops.
What does it use on dvd blueray players, settop boxes like roku,ios devices etc?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Slight correction
by galvanash on Tue 18th Jan 2011 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Slight correction"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

What does it use on dvd blueray players, settop boxes like roku,ios devices etc?


The encryption technology is called PlayReady and as Microsoft product.

http://www.microsoft.com/PlayReady/Overview.mspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayReady

While Silverlight has PlayReady support more or less built in, on other platforms (like IOS, DVD Players and TVs, etc.) it has to be incorporated directly into the client application using the platforms native interfaces (assuming Silverlight is not an option).

Netflix also has some legacy DRM schemes that predate PlayReady - some of these have been retired and others are still active. I don't know the details though.

All in all, Netflix has some serious development sprawl going on, I bet they have spent a ton of money on development over the last few years...

Edited 2011-01-18 03:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Netflix and Hulu
by Eugenia on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:53 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

You're actually wrong about their popularity. Netflix is super-popular in the US and Canada, and it in fact accounts for a lot of the prime-time traffic. Some analysts said, up to 20% of overall peak traffic. This is huge: http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-bandwidth-hogs/

Hulu is a bit less popular, since it's TV-only, but it's still the main legal way to get TV on the net.

Both companies have expanded to Canada, and most of us who follow them, know that Europe is their next target. For Netflix, maybe even within 2011. Within a few years, both companies could dictate which codec should be used. You should not take them out of the equation.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Netflix and Hulu
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:55 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Hulu"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not talking about traffic, Eugenia. I'm talking about *users*. 340 million people can use Netflix/Hulu (US+Canada). 6.5 billion cannot.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu
by Eugenia on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Netflix and Hulu"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yeah, well, you think the world as equal, but it's not. US, Canada, Europe matters more than what format an African country might want to use. So if Netflix spills on the European countries that "matter", it's nothing that China or Africa can do about it. It's sad of course, but that's how things work.

It's the same with IM networks and networking sites. Brazil and some Asian countries love Orkut, but overall Orkut doesn't matter since every one else hates it. Some IM services only work in certain countries too, but since US/CA/EU doesn't care about them, they're not popular either. So the sheer amount of users doesn't always matter.

Edited 2011-01-14 23:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Europe is more fragmented than Android. Hulu's or Netflix's expansion here will be very slow.

And they will use flash for a very long time because of DRMs.

So both are irrelevant.

Edited 2011-01-14 23:06 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

So if Netflix spills on the European countries that "matter"

Well, when and if it does, I rather hope with our higher Firefox and Chrome install base, they would consider WebM as a viable method for streaming.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Netflix and Hulu
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"So if Netflix spills on the European countries that "matter"

Well, when and if it does, I rather hope with our higher Firefox and Chrome install base, they would consider WebM as a viable method for streaming.
"

Number 1 at this stage Hulu and Netflix don't work on the ipad. Due to ipad not providing DRM they need.

I don't know why in hell people bring up Hulu and Netflix as important to w3c standards. They don't use HTML5 since it don't provide DRM. End of topic.

Since they want DRM you can basically forget it on a lot of devices.

So it really does not matter what Netflix or Hulu encodes in. As long as there system for DRM support it. Really I would prefer that contained in the flash plugin.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu
by puelocesar on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Netflix and Hulu"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

That's something that greatly bothers me on the tech world. It's too dominated by people from USA, and north americans tend to think they are the only people on the world..

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu
by ecruz on Tue 18th Jan 2011 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Netflix and Hulu"
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

That is a moot point because only US and Canadians can use Netflix. So, the 6.6 billion you talk about are not important in this argument. You cannot declare an Amazonian anti-Christian, if they never heard of Christ. That is what you are doing with your argument.
Once people in other parts of the world have access to Netflix, believe me, they will vote with their Dollars not with your passion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu
by TheGZeus on Tue 18th Jan 2011 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

As has already been stated, this is a moot point.

Netflix will not use html5, as it requires DRM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Netflix and Hulu
by oiaohm on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

As has already been stated, this is a moot point.

Netflix will not use html5, as it requires DRM.


Thinking about it I have worked out the game. It is not a good game.

Directshow and Quicktime codecs are both platform particular. People are fighting saying since OS X and MS browsers support these they are more open.

This is partly true. They are more open to allowing items like Netflix to ship OS dependent codecs to access there website. Effectively allowing Apple and MS to have unfair advantage. Explains why they are doing the stuff this way. But its also stupid. Since it allows Apple to have video sites unique to them and MS to have video sites unique to them. So massive infighting following.

Really there is a need for a platform independent solution to all these codec problems. http://www.khronos.org/openmax/ Is most likely the closest to meet this.

Notice something worthless Apple and Microsoft browser don't support this either. Instead support there own platform locked solutions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Netflix and Hulu
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Netflix and Hulu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As has already been stated, this is a moot point. Netflix will not use html5, as it requires DRM.


http://www.streamingmedia.com/conferences/west2010/presentations/SM...

Page 11:
Content protection
- DRM in HTML5
- DRM support for WebM/VP8 possible at codec, wrapper, or HW level

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Netflix and Hulu
by oiaohm on Wed 19th Jan 2011 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Netflix and Hulu"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

But the point for H264 was still moot. WebM is looking to include in protocol DRM. H264 lacks this.

Hardware DRM is compatible with Linux and other OSs.

Yes the requirements of Netflix and Hulu will be better served by WebM.

Remember WebM is a container of many formats. So is being designed as a complete solution.

H264 vs VP8 is one thing.

No where in the MS or Apple H264 plan for HTML5 have they provided a DRM plan. So there plan is useless to address the needs of the market.

Yes to do solid almost unbreakable DRM will require hardware decoders with embedded DRM. So rendering all the existing H264 hardware worthless.

Moot is arguing that H264 has some advantage other than existing volume.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Netflix and Hulu
by TheGZeus on Wed 19th Jan 2011 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Netflix and Hulu"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

ok, I can't be arsed to download that. Could you at least say wtf it _is?_

Is it a _proposal_, a _requirement_, a discussion on _prevention_? What??

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix and Hulu
by segedunum on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:28 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Hulu"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You're actually wrong about their popularity. Netflix is super-popular in the US and Canada, and it in fact accounts for a lot of the prime-time traffic. Some analysts said, up to 20% of overall peak traffic.

I've heard that figure before and it's grossly misleading. The fact is that the number of users accessing videos on there in the grand scheme of video usage on the internet is miniscule.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix and Hulu
by viator on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:48 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Hulu"
viator Member since:
2005-10-11

Good isea im going to start a petition for google to buy netflix! lol

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Netflix and Hulu
by TheGZeus on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Netflix and Hulu"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

This is the _worst_ trolling I've ever seen.

It's obvious, hard to read, nonsensical...

Give up, you're not good at this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix and Hulu
by cheemosabe on Sun 16th Jan 2011 18:48 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Hulu"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

Within a few years, both companies could dictate which codec should be used.


I imagine Netflix and Hulu will be relevant at the point in time when they will be able to consider switching their delivery platform to HTML5 video. That would necessitate the availability of an (open? is that even possible) DRM solution included in HTML5. Am I wrong to assume that separating the DRM system from the video playback part isn't really possible (for instance making just the DRM part an external plugin)?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Netflix and Hulu
by someone_asdf1 on Mon 17th Jan 2011 04:32 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Hulu"
someone_asdf1 Member since:
2011-01-17

From the article: "Secondly, and more importantly, these services rely on DRM, and as such, will continue to use Flash/Silverlight anyway."

So it doesn't really make a difference to them what the standard <video> tag uses anyway. You should take them out of the equation, especially Netflix which has the owner in bed with MicroSoft (he's on M$s board of directors). NF will push silverlight until the cows come home.

Nice try, but thanks for playing. =)

(Or if you didn't know, <video> will *NOT* support any form of DRM)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by galvanash
by galvanash on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:59 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

This validates much of what many on this site have been saying for a long time. There is nothing really new here, but it is nice that they put it all together into a nice document thereby making their intentions clear.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:06 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Them: "First person to fork Chromium and enable h.264 videos again wins."

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"

Or, to put it simply:

<video src="video.webm" /> Cost = $0.

<video src="video.mp4" /> Cost = Up to $6.5M/annum + encoding licence, each browser has decoder cost

So who’s up for starting a brand new innovative video service where each view costs you before you’ve even secured funding or a stable business model?

To say it once more:

When you say, "Apple's iDevices are great for the open web," I hear, "I'm not paying my H.264 license fees. Mark Pilgrim


Would Gruber be such an advocate if the MPEG-LA demanded he pay up?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Kroc
by westlake on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"


$6.5 million is the Enterprise Cap on H.264.

It is what Mitsubishi pays.

Panasonic. Philips. Samsung. Toshiba.

MPEG LA is a consortium of the global giants in video R&D and manufacturing.

Supporting H.264 streaming in every Internet enabled device they manufacture would cost them nothing more than what they are already paying.

H.264 is broadcast, cable and satellite and distribution. Theatrical production. Home Video. Video Conferencing.

CCTV.

Medical. Industrial. Military applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by MacMan on Sat 15th Jan 2011 04:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

Them: "First person to fork Chromium and enable h.264 videos again wins."

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"

<video src="video.mp4" /> Cost = Up to $6.5M/annum + encoding licence, each browser has decoder cost


ORLY? So you write a plugin for Chrome that uses the BUILT IN decoder in Windows/OSX that MS/Apple ALREADY PAID FOR, and you owe 6.5m ???

Wake up, H.264 is already supported in Windows/OSX, built in APIs to decode H.264, its all there just have to use it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Them: "First person to fork Chromium and enable h.264 videos again wins."

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"

<video src="video.mp4" /> Cost = Up to $6.5M/annum + encoding licence, each browser has decoder cost


ORLY? So you write a plugin for Chrome that uses the BUILT IN decoder in Windows/OSX that MS/Apple ALREADY PAID FOR, and you owe 6.5m ???

Wake up, H.264 is already supported in Windows/OSX, built in APIs to decode H.264, its all there just have to use it.
"

You cannot write and distribute a multi-platform browser that way (i.e. by having it call Windows-only APIs). Chrome/Chromium is a multi-platform browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by MacMan on Sat 15th Jan 2011 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19


You cannot write and distribute a multi-platform browser that way (i.e. by having it call Windows-only APIs). Chrome/Chromium is a multi-platform browser.


So Chrome is written is what Java? in that it has nothing platform specific?

Clue time needed, Chrome call Windows specific functions on Windows, Mac specific functions on Mac, and Linux specific functions on Linux, the backends are all different.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
You cannot write and distribute a multi-platform browser that way (i.e. by having it call Windows-only APIs). Chrome/Chromium is a multi-platform browser.


So Chrome is written is what Java? in that it has nothing platform specific?

Clue time needed, Chrome call Windows specific functions on Windows, Mac specific functions on Mac, and Linux specific functions on Linux, the backends are all different.
"

This has nothing to do with it. Windows has a multimedia system which includes H264 decoding out of the box, because Microsoft has paid for a license. Some other operating systems are open source (Linux, BSD, Haiku ... lots of them), and because they are open source MPEG LA will not allow a H264 codec to be shipped. Therefore, a number of operating systems are guaranteed to NOT have a h264 codec installed.

Therefore, if you are writing a cross-platform browser. you cannot just expect the OS to support any given codec ... you have to build the codec right in to the browser code itself.

The original point stands.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by saynte on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

Therefore, if you are writing a cross-platform browser. you cannot just expect the OS to support any given codec ... you have to build the codec right in to the browser code itself.


No, you really do not have to. One could easily disable certain video functionality on Linux if the appropriate library isn't installed to handle it. Then this puts the onus on the user to get the library. There is no technical limitation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

" Therefore, if you are writing a cross-platform browser. you cannot just expect the OS to support any given codec ... you have to build the codec right in to the browser code itself.


No, you really do not have to. One could easily disable certain video functionality on Linux if the appropriate library isn't installed to handle it. Then this puts the onus on the user to get the library. There is no technical limitation.
"

What we are after here is a video format we can depend on being there. Not something that disappears just because someone did not install the right part.

So Not acceptable solution for a standard. Standard basically means it has to work. To be a fully deploy-able standard it has to have fairly simple licensing. Costless.

This battle is pure about acceptable standards. H264 no matter how you try to get around problem is not acceptable. Decoding it is only part of the battle.

Video cards can do hardware decoding of H264 but most lack hardware encoding. As well having a card that can hardware encode or decode does not give you a magical right to be receiving or sending H264 content.

Receiving and sending H264 is another section of H264 licensing.

Lets just say H264 licensing is too darn complex to use it.

MS plugin into firefox to support H264 MS could be charged a extra fee for it. Since they don't have a license covering firefox receiving H264 files.

Wake up and smell the I am stuffed state. Either start bashing the doors down for sane Licensing on H264 or come to my point of excepting that is not usable and we have to move on.

Google move is bashing on the door for sane licensing on H264.

The best thing we have to move onto at moment is WebM.

Really why does H264 have to triple dip. Once for encoding. Once for transmission and Once for playback.

Lets say H264 was decide they would only tax encoding. Ok not ideal for a standard codec but at least everyone would be able to implement support.

Until H264 licensing changes it not something worth talking about. If support get removed from a browser good thing because its not a item we can use in future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by saynte on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I was merely pointing out that if desired, a browser could support h264 when possible. It is a limitation of functionality to do otherwise.

Although there is certainly a non-technical argument to be made for removing h264, and I can appreciate that point to be sure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Therefore, if you are writing a cross-platform browser. you cannot just expect the OS to support any given codec ... you have to build the codec right in to the browser code itself.


No, you really do not have to. One could easily disable certain video functionality on Linux if the appropriate library isn't installed to handle it. Then this puts the onus on the user to get the library. There is no technical limitation.
"

Why should the onus be on the user to get a library, just in order to support MPEG LA greeed, when a perfectly royalty-free, zero-charge, licensed-for-everybody alternative is available? This alternative codec perfectly meets the requirements of the W3C policy for web standards, such as HTML5, which policy requires that technologies are royalty-free.

Just simply build that suitable open codec into the browser clients (all of them) and everybody is happy. Apple and Microsoft can also build the same perfectly suitable codec right in to their browsers as well, or include the open, suitable code in the OS multimedia. MS and Apple are perfectly at liberty to do either approach. Zero cost is involved.

This is perfectly fair. No browser is required to disable any functionality simply based on the OS which the user is running. Everybody is treated fairly.

Edited 2011-01-15 13:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by saynte on Sat 15th Jan 2011 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

You present a false dichotomy. You can have both WebM and h264. The situation is not "All users must acquire a h264 library", but rather "IF a user wishes to view h264 content, they must acquire the library", which was pre-existing situation anyway.

The question from the user should be: I have a license to play h264, why can't I use it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]Them: "First person to fork Chromium and enable h.264 videos again wins."

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"

<video src="video.mp4" /> Cost = Up to $6.5M/annum + encoding licence, each browser has decoder cost


ORLY? So you write a plugin for Chrome that uses the BUILT IN decoder in Windows/OSX that MS/Apple ALREADY PAID FOR, and you owe 6.5m ???

Wake up, H.264 is already supported in Windows/OSX, built in APIs to decode H.264, its all there just have to use it.
"

You cannot write and distribute a multi-platform browser that way (i.e. by having it call Windows-only APIs). Chrome/Chromium is a multi-platform browser. [/q]

Missed it H.264 has a licenses to encoded as well a decode. Yes two different licenses. Then there is a license to distribute. 3 different licenses.

Poor home user. They might have a program that can encode H264 but since they have not paid for a license to distribute H264 they could be sued for using it.

Yes a video editor cannot by a distribute license for everyone using it.

We need WebM or the market is simply split rich and poor. In a place where poor legally can not distribute anything. Is this what we want of the internet. You have to have money to place a video on your website?

I truly do back what google has done it is simply the right thing todo. Give people an fair option to use.

Adobe is also backing WebM with flash. So they only parties holding out are Microsoft and Apple. Please explain yourself. Don't you want your users having the legal right to place videos on there websites?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sat 15th Jan 2011 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yeah, let's tie the web to Windows again! That worked out really well last time.

If we were in the situation we are now with H.264 back in 2003, then Firefox would not have been feasible.

It's thanks to a web that isn't tied to proprietary standards that smartphones took off, otherwise we would all still be stuck with IE6 on Windows Mobile.

Stop defending something that you yourself are not willing to pay. If you wanted to put a video on your website and you had to pay every time someone viewed it, would you choose that over something that was equally as good, but free? You'd have to be off your rocker to think that a better choice for everybody who wants to participate on the web.

Expecting big companies to pay these costs for us is to expect them to also innovate new markets for us. Not. Going. To. Happen. "No more innovation, just upgrades"

Edited 2011-01-15 09:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by pgeorgi on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

ORLY? So you write a plugin for Chrome that uses the BUILT IN decoder in Windows/OSX that MS/Apple ALREADY PAID FOR, and you owe 6.5m ???

Wake up, H.264 is already supported in Windows/OSX, built in APIs to decode H.264, its all there just have to use it.

There's some fine print about what exactly you're allowed to do with the codec licenses paid for with your windows license.
Part of the license is the obligation to only use it on media that was encoded by a licensed encoder.

So if you provide h.264 video tag support based on that codec (with the enduser license as given above), and MPEG-LA can show a video on the web that was encoded with x264, you (or the users of your h.264 video tag support based on microsoft's code) gotta pay.

Microsoft probably has extended terms, so their products (eg. IE9) are covered for h.264 whatever its origin - with exactly the same codec code.

Patent licenses can be that nasty.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Wake up, H.264 is already supported in Windows/OSX, built in APIs to decode H.264, its all there just have to use it.

OSNews might have informed you about other great products such as variants of Linux™, BeOS™ OS/2™ etc etc /s
None of these legally have H.264 native OS support.
Hook into what?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Them: "First person to fork Chromium and enable h.264 videos again wins."

Me: "Wins what? A $6.5M bill?"

Yeah, or host the code from a country that does not have software patents. And write a note, stating that that software is not to be used/distributed in US/ wherever...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:12 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Now there is another way to resolve the problem: make h.264 open. Royalty-free, public domain, whatever. After all, it is so great!

What is it? You won't? Too bad.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Radio
by RichterKuato on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Yeah, I mean with all this squirting about how bad Google decision is. MPEG-LA and it's members still haven't made H.264 perpetually royalty-free now have they? It takes at least two to Fandango.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by elsewhere on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Yeah, I mean with all this squirting about how bad Google decision is. MPEG-LA and it's members still haven't made H.264 perpetually royalty-free now have they? It takes at least two to Fandango.


This. MPEG-LA updates the royalty licensing in 2015.

Decoder licensing is only one aspect of the problem. The bigger elephant is the potential for MPEG-LA to start charging a fee for *any* streamed content over the internet, not just commercial. If H.264 becomes too entrenched, and it is already getting there, there's no reason why they wouldn't. They've made it clear that they intend to maximize every possible revenue stream for the patents they manage.

If people think Google is muddying the waters now, imagine the situation in 4 years when H.264 is firmly entrenched the only web video standard, and MPEG-LA starts ratcheting up the royalty rates and charging fees for what is currently free. The whole reason they waived the fee originally was to encourage adoption, and the 5-year reprieve in 2010 could very well have been due to the speculation (at the time) with Google's ON2 acquisition.

I don't see why Google's move is such an issue. It's not as if H.264 is going to disappear. It's already everywhere. This just ensures it isn't the only viable option for the web.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by lisooner on Sun 16th Jan 2011 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
lisooner Member since:
2011-01-16

Does MPEG-LA have a track record of "ratcheting up" licensing fees? Is that what you get with your $29 DVD player or $100 H.264/AVC camera? Stop being chicken little!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Does MPEG-LA have a track record of "ratcheting up" licensing fees? Is that what you get with your $29 DVD player or $100 H.264/AVC camera? Stop being chicken little!

Oh, Sorry! You didn't know? That hardware encoder in that $100 H.264/AVC camera is to be used for strictly personal and non-commercial purposes only. Read the damn manual more closely...

Reply Score: 3

Reasonable overview
by Tony Swash on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:38 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

This article offers I think a reasonable overview why Google's move is bad.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/14/google-h264-flash/

This why this is such a step backwards:

"Love it or hate it, Apple’s devices, and particularly their mobile devices, are way too popular to ignore. And if Apple isn’t going to support WebM, we’re either going to have a world were everyone is doing double the work (H.264 and WebM encoding, not to mention hardware support) or where they just do the H.264 support and let Flash be used to play those files on Google devices/Firefox/Opera.

I just don’t see how WebM could ever win this stand-off. And without Google, H.264 can’t either. And so HTML5 video goes nowhere. And we’re stuck with Flash."

"Originally, Google laid out this move as part of their goal “to enable open innovation”. Today, all they’ve done is clarified that when they say “open innovation” they don’t mean across the board. For example, they’re apparently cool with things like Flash being both ubiquitous and proprietary. And they apparently don’t even mean “open innovation” within HTML, because they haven’t pulled support for MP3 or AAC. So they just mean “open innovation” in HTML5 video. So it’s about being “open” in a close-minded way."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reasonable overview
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:42 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Love it or hate it, Apple’s devices, and particularly their mobile devices, are way too popular to ignore.


Less than 1% of web users (iOS). About 6% of web users (Mac OS X).

Edited 2011-01-14 23:43 UTC

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by tyrione on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
RE[3]: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Sat 15th Jan 2011 04:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

December 2010 is old???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Total mobile browser share ranges from 3.45% to 6.4% depending on who you ask from the 3 sources reporting here... iOS represents at best 25% of that number. So it is somewhere in the range of 0.86% to 1.6% (and I am giving them 25%, which is likely on the high side)...

You have better numbers? Put up or shut up.

Edited 2011-01-15 04:41 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Reasonable overview
by Radio on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:43 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

"Love it or hate it, Apple’s devices, and particularly their mobile devices, are way too popular to ignore.

And flash isn't "too popular to ignore"?

Use you bain, for christ's sake!

Edited 2011-01-14 23:45 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And flash isn't "too popular to ignore"?

Use you bain, for christ's sake!


Well, see... MBA came without Flash. iPad has no flash. iPhone has no flash. So he thinks there is no such thing.
The fact that Flash is on over 90% of all desktops is worthless information for him...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reasonable overview
by Shkaba on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:00 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Flash can be what ever it wants to be, because flash is not an integral part of the browser. IT IS A PLUGIN. What we are talking about is establishing in A STANDARD what decoder is to be used for the video tag. h.264 is fundamentally flawed for such use (unless you support tiered internet that is)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Sat 15th Jan 2011 00:05 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Love it or hate it, Apple’s devices, and particularly their mobile devices, are way too popular to ignore.


Really? Look, I have an iPad... I even like it. I have some other Apple hardware too and I do a bit of iOS development. Call me weird, but for whatever reason I have so far proven immune to Steve's "Reality Distortion Field"...

iOS is a drop in the bucket as far as the web goes as a whole - it might represent 1% of all clients. It is by no reasonable definition "too popular to ignore".

Regardless, no one says you have to ignore it - if you want to push video to iOS use h.264. Everyone keeps talking about how oh so horrible having to manage 2 formats is - that is bullshit.

As it stands now - if you want to actually stream video to iOS over 3G the only endorsed method on iOS is to use HTTP Live Streaming... Guess what? That requires using MPEG-TS transport streams for the container format. Not MP4, yet another format. There are lots of other examples of stuff like this - what about baseline vs main profile for h.264? You have to take that into account as well if you target non-streaming devices primarily with your encodes.

The point is anyone doing commercial video streaming is already re-encoding the content. If the content comes from 3rd parties doing that is basically required. You don't have to ignore iOS - you just have to encode twice if you want the widest coverage. Get over it. Or you can just do h.264 and ignore WebM - no one is going to arrest you or anything.

All Google has done here is shock people back to reality. It seems that everyone had fallen into a comfortable delusion thinking that h.264 was the "standard" for the web...

IT NEVER WAS

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by brichpmr on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

Take a look at the content at this linked site in Berlin. I doubt they will be chomping at the bit to replace their high quality H.264 content with WebM any time soon. And, there are millions of devices worldwide (outside of the web) that are already H.264 savvy.

http://www.digitalconcerthall.com/

Like it or not, the H.264 train left the station a long time ago; and by comparison, WebM is a solution to a non-existant problem, IMHO.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Sun 16th Jan 2011 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Take a look at the content at this linked site in Berlin. I doubt they will be chomping at the bit to replace their high quality H.264 content with WebM any time soon.


First, from a simple practical point of view, they don't need to. Google removing h.264 from chrome would not affect a chrome user's ability to view that content were it offered using the <video> tag, it would simply fall back to Flash and most users wouldn't even notice the difference.

Which brings us to point two: That site doesn't even USE the video tag!!!. They serve all video using Flash...

That is what is so infuriating about debating this issue - those against this are starting from Google=BAD and just making up bullshit arguments to support their prejudiced viewpoint.

The H.264 train left the station a long time ago; and by comparison, WebM is a solution to a non-existant problem, IMHO.


WebM will allow an open source developer to implement a browser or other software which incorporates a video encoder/decoder which will be inter operable with the HTML5 <video> tag - without having to worry about royalty payments. It is a solution to a VERY serious problem - if you can't see what is plainly obvious and right in front of your face I don't know what else to tell you.

Here is a simple list of problems with h.264 that WebM solves in one way or another:

1. Firefox will not and can not EVER include h.264 - they have made that quite plain. That is a browser that represents an absolutely huge number of users...

2. Anyone wanting to write a browser in the future that incorporates the video tag will be expected to support h.264 if it becomes the defacto standard. If they do not wish to pay royalties they simply CAN'T implement one. That eliminates non-commercial browsers, which is ironic because the web was BUILT upon non-commercial browsers...

3. Software like Handbrake, VLC, Memcoder, FFMpeg, etc. ALL of these use unlicensed h.264 encoders. MPEG-LA could try to shut any or all of these down any time they felt like it. The fact that they don't and they let it slide doesn't change the fact that if you want to do things without violating US patent laws you can't use h.264 in open source software.

4. Sites that charge subscriptions to access their content, even if it is very small amounts or micro-payments, are technically required to pay royalties for h.264 if they offer ANY content using it.

5. There is simply no guarantee that MPEG-LA will keep non-commercial h.264 content royalty free. Sites that use it on a large scale (like youtube, vimeo, etc.) are at the mercy of MPEG-LA hitting them with unpredictably large royalty fees in the future.

Think about it....

Edited 2011-01-16 07:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Reasonable overview
by brichpmr on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Reasonable overview"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"Take a look at the content at this linked site in Berlin. I doubt they will be chomping at the bit to replace their high quality H.264 content with WebM any time soon.


First, from a simple practical point of view, they don't need to. Google removing h.264 from chrome would not affect a chrome user's ability to view that content were it offered using the tag, it would simply fall back to Flash and most users wouldn't even notice the difference.

Which brings us to point two: That site doesn't even USE the video tag!!!. They serve all video using Flash...

That is what is so infuriating about debating this issue - those against this are starting from Google=BAD and just making up bullshit arguments to support their prejudiced viewpoint.

The H.264 train left the station a long time ago; and by comparison, WebM is a solution to a non-existant problem, IMHO.


WebM will allow an open source developer to implement a browser or other software which incorporates a video encoder/decoder which will be inter operable with the HTML5 tag - without having to worry about royalty payments. It is a solution to a VERY serious problem - if you can't see what is plainly obvious and right in front of your face I don't know what else to tell you.

Here is a simple list of problems with h.264 that WebM solves in one way or another:

1. Firefox will not and can not EVER include h.264 - they have made that quite plain. That is a browser that represents an absolutely huge number of users...

2. Anyone wanting to write a browser in the future that incorporates the video tag will be expected to support h.264 if it becomes the defacto standard. If they do not wish to pay royalties they simply CAN'T implement one. That eliminates non-commercial browsers, which is ironic because the web was BUILT upon non-commercial browsers...

3. Software like Handbrake, VLC, Memcoder, FFMpeg, etc. ALL of these use unlicensed h.264 encoders. MPEG-LA could try to shut any or all of these down any time they felt like it. The fact that they don't and they let it slide doesn't change the fact that if you want to do things without violating US patent laws you can't use h.264 in open source software.

4. Sites that charge subscriptions to access their content, even if it is very small amounts or micro-payments, are technically required to pay royalties for h.264 if they offer ANY content using it.

5. There is simply no guarantee that MPEG-LA will keep non-commercial h.264 content royalty free. Sites that use it on a large scale (like youtube, vimeo, etc.) are at the mercy of MPEG-LA hitting them with unpredictably large royalty fees in the future.

Think about it....
"

There is no guarantee that WebM won't be subjected to the patent test down the road.

That site uses Flash only because of DRM considerations for their video content, but the video is H.264 at 1280x720 in an MP4 container with 320 kbs AAC audio. They also plan to offer streaming soon to iPhones and iPads, which would eliminate Flash from that picture.

There is no way that they would voluntarily replace this high quality content with WebM. They are a prime example of a content provider beaming to the entire world, and they are using the best tools to accomplish this. Millions of us users aren't looking to relinquish the long-existing quality of H.264 video codecs unless you (or anyone) can provide a compelling proof that WebM is equal to or better than H.264 in terms of quality....haven't seen it from any source yet. Arguably (in the real world) H.264 is the defacto standard already.

Edited 2011-01-16 12:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Sun 16th Jan 2011 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

There is no guarantee that WebM won't be subjected to the patent test down the road.


Ditto. h.264... Can you guys all let this one go? The patent issue and who is violating what or whatever will either never come up or it will get settled in court. Either way it is not worth discussing at this point.

There is no way that they would voluntarily replace this high quality content with WebM.[q/]

Ok... So what?

[q]They are a prime example of a content provider beaming to the entire world, and they are using the best tools to accomplish this. Millions of us users aren't looking to relinquish the long-existing quality of H.264 video codecs unless you (or anyone) can provide a compelling proof that WebM is equal to or better than H.264 in terms of quality....haven't seen it from any source yet. Arguably (in the real world) H.264 is the defacto standard already.


If DRM is important to you, you HAVE to use Flash or Silverlight and currently could not switch to WebM even if you wanted to. If you already use h.264 and you use Flash do deliver it... there is no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 and use the video tag with Flash fallback, there is STILL no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 exclusively with the video tag, you still don't need to switch to WebM, you just won't get Chrome users (just like you don't get Firefox users already).

See the pattern here...

In fact, if you consider Flash as a fallback delivery mechanism acceptable (you pretty much have to if you are serving h.264 content and want to support Firefox) - there is no reason to EVER switch to WebM.

Why are you arguing again?

ps. You did not address a single one of my previous points concerning the problems WebM solves.... How about we discuss REAL issues instead of non-issues?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Reasonable overview
by brichpmr on Mon 17th Jan 2011 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Reasonable overview"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"There is no guarantee that WebM won't be subjected to the patent test down the road.


Ditto. h.264... Can you guys all let this one go? The patent issue and who is violating what or whatever will either never come up or it will get settled in court. Either way it is not worth discussing at this point.

There is no way that they would voluntarily replace this high quality content with WebM.[q/]

Ok... So what?

[q]They are a prime example of a content provider beaming to the entire world, and they are using the best tools to accomplish this. Millions of us users aren't looking to relinquish the long-existing quality of H.264 video codecs unless you (or anyone) can provide a compelling proof that WebM is equal to or better than H.264 in terms of quality....haven't seen it from any source yet. Arguably (in the real world) H.264 is the defacto standard already.


If DRM is important to you, you HAVE to use Flash or Silverlight and currently could not switch to WebM even if you wanted to. If you already use h.264 and you use Flash do deliver it... there is no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 and use the video tag with Flash fallback, there is STILL no reason you would need to switch to WebM. If you use h.264 exclusively with the video tag, you still don't need to switch to WebM, you just won't get Chrome users (just like you don't get Firefox users already).

See the pattern here...

In fact, if you consider Flash as a fallback delivery mechanism acceptable (you pretty much have to if you are serving h.264 content and want to support Firefox) - there is no reason to EVER switch to WebM.

Why are you arguing again?

ps. You did not address a single one of my previous points concerning the problems WebM solves.... How about we discuss REAL issues instead of non-issues?
"

WebM, arguably, doesn't solve anything....just another solution to a non-existant problem, imho.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Reasonable overview
by galvanash on Mon 17th Jan 2011 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Reasonable overview"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

WebM, arguably, doesn't solve anything....just another solution to a non-existant problem, imho.


And I thought you were actually trying to engage in a debate over the issue... If you are content with sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA then I am fine with ignoring you.

Let me know if you change your mind.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Reasonable overview
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Reasonable overview"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That site uses Flash only because of DRM considerations for their video content,

And they will not switch to HTML5 video, due to technical limitations(or lack of them to be precise).
This is not a discussion beyond HTML5 video tag. If someone has a collection encoded in H.264, nothing changes.

They also plan to offer streaming soon to iPhones and iPads, which would eliminate Flash from that picture.

And I bet, they are not going to use HTML5 features for that purpose. They will do it though an app. Getting to the same point again - Flash stays on the main site, Chrome users use it, IE9 users use it, Firefox users use it. iOS users have to get an app...

Literally where removing H.264 support from Chrome impacts that site, I fail to see...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Reasonable overview
by flanque on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:52 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

One of them will blink, eventually.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reasonable overview
by molnarcs on Sat 15th Jan 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "Reasonable overview"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Your rants are completely insane. How on Earth will Google shut out Apple with a COMPLETELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT (no license fees, no royalties, free source code)codec?

WebM was announced with a promise of support from most major hardware vendors. Opera, a tiny Norwegian company has been supporting it for a while, as does Mozilla Firefox. Your entire argument is based on some ridiculous preconception that APPLE cannot support WebM. They can. They could. They could have supported it YESTERDAY. They can support it tomorrow. They can provide support for all existing iDevices in a simple update.

No one is holding a gun at APPLE's head preventing them to support WebM. Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it, and yet, you are ranting against Google (and indirectly Firefox, Opera, and any FLOSS project that actually cannot support h.264 for licensing reasons). What the f--k is wrong with you?

And lastly, you have it completely backwards with Adobe Flash. We'll need flash precisely because H.264 cannot be shipped built in in many browsers. We need flash (well, content providers to be accurate) for its DRM. The latter problem could only be solved if another container system came along that supported DRM. The former could ONLY BE SOLVED IF A FREE VIDEO FORMAT became the standard.

Anyway, APPLE is not magically prevented from supporting WebM, so your entire line of argument that this is an insidious move against Apple is stupid. If Apple were to suffer in any measurable way from WebM becoming widespread, they could simply CHOOSE to support it any time they wanted.

Edited 2011-01-15 09:42 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Your rants are completely insane. How on Earth will Google shut out Apple with a COMPLETELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT (no license fees, no royalties, free source code)codec?

WebM was announced with a promise of support from most major hardware vendors. Opera, a tiny Norwegian company has been supporting it for a while, as does Mozilla Firefox. Your entire argument is based on some ridiculous preconception that APPLE cannot support WebM. They can. They could. They could have supported it YESTERDAY. They can support it tomorrow. They can provide support for all existing iDevices in a simple update.

No one is holding a gun at APPLE's head preventing them to support WebM. Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it, and yet, you are ranting against Google (and indirectly Firefox, Opera, and any FLOSS project that actually cannot support h.264 for licensing reasons). What the f--k is wrong with you?

And lastly, you have it completely backwards with Adobe Flash. We'll need flash precisely because H.264 cannot be shipped built in in many browsers. We need flash (well, content providers to be accurate) for its DRM. The latter problem could only be solved if another container system came along that supported DRM. The former could ONLY BE SOLVED IF A FREE VIDEO FORMAT became the standard.

Anyway, APPLE is not magically prevented from supporting WebM, so your entire line of argument that this is an insidious move against Apple is stupid. If Apple were to suffer in any measurable way from WebM becoming widespread, they could simply CHOOSE to support it any time they wanted.


This post was so spot on the money it was worth repeating in its entirity, and so I have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by asdf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

Heh, I was about to write the same thing. For existing devices, software update can provide somewhat less efficient but still working support. There's no difference between the apple devices and whatever else which exists today including androids. For future devices, apple can just add the dang support like everyone else.

It's not like the transition is gonna happen tomorrow. It's going to be staggered over several years and devices which don't have hardware support today doesn't matter all that much in the longer perspective.

There is no reason to allow apple and its weird subset of userbase to hold back progress of everyone else.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Reasonable overview
by Headrush on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Reasonable overview"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Apple MADE A CHOICE not to support it

These are the kinds of statements people take and run with it.

WebM wasn't an option at the initial iDevice startup and even now hardware support is just appearing. So it wasn't really a choice not to use it or support it. per sa.

There is also nothing stoping Apple from supporting this in the future, and Flash as well. At the current time both WebM and Flash weren't suitable for the battery lasting devices Apple was selling.

The iPad especially is a content consuming device and if/when there is a mass conversion to WebM with no h.264 fallback you'll see iOS devices change.

Reply Score: 2

Expect MS to keep on Screaming
by oiaohm on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:41 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

Its the WebM patent grant. If MS implements it they cannot attack it with patents.

The restrictive bit from MS is not what you call a good argument.

Also items like netflix are not even worth talking about in Google eyes. It don't work on Android. That now is over 50 percent of all smart phone sales. More people have phones than computers.

With the dock-able ideas people will dock there phone and have a rough form of a desktop. So reducing desktop ownership requirement. Yes the market is swinging in the smart phone direction. Google has timed this move perfectly.

Flash wrapper idea. Nice but not everything has flash.

You also have to remember the Flash wrapper idea works in reverse here as well since Flash will be adding webm.

So for the migration to webm Flash will be the filler.

At least by google move H264 might be released under a useful license.

Reply Score: 1

RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Its the WebM patent grant. If MS implements it they cannot attack it with patents.


Actually, the great bit about that is that they cannot ever attack it if they at some point wish to use it in one of their products. A slight distinction but important none the less.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Expect MS to keep on Screaming
by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:59 UTC in reply to "Expect MS to keep on Screaming"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"More people have phones than computers"

But how many have internet on their phone ?:

Total 6.3% of the visitors of Wikipedia in Dec. 2010:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-12/SquidRepor...

Reply Score: 5

kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

I like watching famous tech guys start feuds because it reminds me there’s no profit in starting feuds. I’d rather do shit that people like.
-Wil Shipley. Delicious Monster, Founder OmniGroup.

I was tempted to equate this to the web really being an OS it's own right, and that this entire issue could be mapped 1:1 as 2 ISV's complaining that one NIC or video card is better, 'not' on technical merit but on what the driver seems like...but 'what-had-happened-wuz' then I saw that this knowingly ignores 10 billion apps from the store.

Let The Market Decide

Reply Score: 1

Pragmatists
by ARUmar on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:26 UTC
ARUmar
Member since:
2009-10-08

Will continue to say the move by google will effectively sink the html5 standard , as predicted so may months ago even before the code for webM went open .Its important not to lose sight of the essentials .HTML5 as envisioned gives EVERYONE a level playing field to compete , any inclusion of a royalty,patent encumbered codec makes it a bigboys club where only those with the deep pockets can play: the indie developers and prodecers get shut out.IMHO , better have it out now and know where we stand in regards to MPEG-LA and their cash cow rather than wait several more years until its everywhere and no competition can make a dent.The pragmatists will always argue that itll be a hassle to get the whole thing over to WebM , but if the same pragmatists had their way we'd still be using pulse dialing for our phones.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pragmatists
by someone_asdf1 on Mon 17th Jan 2011 04:51 UTC in reply to "Pragmatists"
someone_asdf1 Member since:
2011-01-17

Err, the HTML5 video spec was initially going to use OGG/Theora -- both open spec and royalty free.

Guess who put a stop to that nonsense?

/sigh

Google's not the only one that has never / no longer supported 264. Firefox and Opera have about a 40%/10% (respectively) browser share, and it never did. Chrome's sitting at about 15%, so it's literally a drop in the bucket. If anything, it's saving it because there is now a majority who will support a single codec(be it OGG or WebM, I don't think they really care):
Previous: FF/Op: 50%, IE/Saf/Chr = 50%
Now: FF/Op/Chr (WebM): 40+10+15 = 65%, IE/Saf (264) = 35%.


P.S. I'm just going to ignore your tone/pulse analogy as it makes no sense.

Reply Score: 3

Plug-ins
by RichterKuato on Sat 15th Jan 2011 01:58 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

Well, Google's blog says that they'll come out with plug-ins for Internet Explorer and Safari for WebM.

I figured Chrome Frame would do this. But since there's not NAPAPI version of Chrome Frame (is that even possible?) they have to make a specific plugin.

Interesting move on their part. I bet Google didn't think this move of their would get this much debate and attention. Especially since this has been Mozilla (who has more market share) and Opera's position for a while now.

Edit:
It looks like the plugin is really just an installer for codecs into DirectShow and Quicktime according to techcrunch's update:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/14/webm-plugins/

Edited 2011-01-15 02:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

There's one claim I've seen over and over again that bothers me: that Google controls the direction of video on the internet, by virtue of owning youTube. The argument seems to be that, because youTube is the most popular/populous online video site, everyone will follow their lead & support whatever video format they choose. I, however, don't believe this is borne out by either by the past or extrapolation of the current situation into the future.

Looking back, has anything done by youtube ever controlled the direction of video technology on the web? I'd say "no". For the past decade at least, I'd say that Microsoft and Apple, succeeded by Macromedia cum Adobe have called most (if not all) of the shots, with Google/youTube following the most convenient path available to them.

Looking forward, I think there's a presumption that the removal of H264 support from Chrome will inevitably (if not immediately) lead to Google dropping H264 support/files as well. While that might give Android a strategic advantage by cutting off iOS users from youTube, I expect Google sees that benefit as being greatly outweighed by the harm of cutting off all iOS users. And if nothing else, it would be the cutting off their nose to spite their face - if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of current Android handsets support H264 but not WebM.

If anything, at this point I'd say that Apple probably has more power to call the shots than anyone else - like it or not (I certainly don't) - by virtue of the iOS userbase. Other content producers/distributors are no more likely to cut off iOS users than Google is; f Apple refuses to support WebM on iOS, then for the foreseeable future, the choices will probably look like this

1) Use only Flash for video - support nearly everyone except iOS users.

2) Use only WebM (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - see above.

3) Use only H264 (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - support nearly everyone.

Even if Google are able to get EVERYONE else to adopt/support WebM, most content producers/distributors will look at that list and choose option 3 without hesitation (especially since it's what most of them are already doing). Again, that's unless/until iOS supports WebM, assuming that the iOS userbase/marketshare holds remains a desirable audience, and assuming Adobe does get around to releasing a Flash player with WebM support.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30


1) Use only Flash for video - support nearly everyone except iOS users.

2) Use only WebM (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - see above.

3) Use only H264 (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - support nearly everyone.

Fail on 3. ChromeOS has only what Chrome provides no Flash.

Google has timed this perfectly. WebM on desktops really does not need flash as fallback. Install codecs on Windows and OSX for WebM and the browsers pick up support.

MS also forced H264 support into Firefox. Chrome undid what MS did of making H264 everywhere.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"
1) Use only Flash for video - support nearly everyone except iOS users.

2) Use only WebM (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - see above.

3) Use only H264 (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - support nearly everyone.

Fail on 3.
"

OK, well I'm sure you go on to qualify that...

ChromeOS has only what Chrome provides no Flash.


Eh? How is that even relevant, let alone an explanation of "Fail on 3"?

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]
1) Use only Flash for video - support nearly everyone except iOS users.

2) Use only WebM (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - see above.

3) Use only H264 (with Flash for desktops/as fallback) - support nearly everyone.

Fail on 3.
"

OK, well I'm sure you go on to qualify that...

ChromeOS has only what Chrome provides no Flash.


Eh? How is that even relevant, let alone an explanation of "Fail on 3"? [/q]

For the simple reason if you are encoding stuff it better be good for the next 3 years. You don't want to be caught on the hop.

Google has given fair warning what is going to happen, H264 is going to disappear from chrome. Since the default browser source code base in Android and Chrome OS are based directly off that. H264 is going to disappear from there as well.

ChromeOS on the other hand does not allow plugin at all. This is based on secuirty reasons. So putting H264 back there will be impossible.

At this stage encoding in both H264 and WebM will cover who ever wins.

Mind you really it does not matter. Most of the ones using H264 want DRM as well that cannot be granted by a browser standard at this stage.(And most likely Never)

WebM for all non DRM protected media sounds good to me. WebM if Apple and MS will remove there block to it would provide a base format everywhere.

H264 becomes only for paid for media. This is more than perfect thinking you have to pay a fee to produce H264.

There is another reason why open source needs something like WebM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightworks Good movie editor is coming to open source and people will need to be able to produce trailers to distribute.

The notice about H264 being removed from chrome is google being nice and giving prior notice of action.

Yes fail on 3.

You have to get use to the idea defacto standard mean nothing. H264 is a defacto standard so at some point it had to be replaced with a real standard that covers all uses rich or poor equally.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"[q]ChromeOS has only what Chrome provides no Flash.

Eh? How is that even relevant, let alone an explanation of "Fail on 3"?
"

For the simple reason if you are encoding stuff it better be good for the next 3 years. You don't want to be caught on the hop. [/q]

I think you're crediting commercial content producers/distributors with WAY more foresight than they've ever demonstrated in reality.

Google has given fair warning what is going to happen, H264 is going to disappear from chrome. Since the default browser source code base in Android and Chrome OS are based directly off that. H264 is going to disappear from there as well.


Does ChromeOS have a significant userbase yet? Does it even ship on any hardware yet? If not, it's going to be a while before ChromeOS even registers on anyone's radar, let alone plays any real role in determining web video technology. It's also by no means certain that ChromeOS will take the world by storm.

As for Android, it's still going to be able to view H264 unless all Flash support is removed as well; and handsets with older/current version of Android (with H264 support still included in the browser) aren't going to disappear overnight.

At this stage encoding in both H264 and WebM will cover who ever wins.


That doesn't mean it will actually happen, though, except with the largest players (youtube, blip, vimeo, etc). Most others will pick the solution that supports the greatest number of viewers while requiring the least amount of effort. You probably view that as laziness, but most businesses view it as common sense (maximizing revenues while minimizing expenditures).

The main goal of my original post was to describe the realities of the current situation, and how I think that those realities will effect the future. But both of your replies focus instead on how things ought to be... so I can only conclude that you misinterpreted my post as some sort of endorsement of the status quo (it wasn't), or you believe that saying "yes, but things ought to be this way instead" somehow invalidates reality.

Reply Score: 2

dtahiti Member since:
2011-01-13

Google has given fair warning what is going to happen, H264 is going to disappear from chrome. Since the default browser source code base in Android and Chrome OS are based directly off that. H264 is going to disappear from there as well.

Really ? So Android users : you will have as choice : html5 + webm (if lucky to get a firmware upgrade) or html5 + crappy Flash (if lucky to have Flash invluded). Good luck !

As for Android, it's still going to be able to view H264 unless all Flash support is removed as well; and handsets with older/current version of Android (with H264 support still included in the browser) aren't going to disappear overnight.

Android supports WebM today ? Really ? All i can find on Goole search is an intent to support it starting 3.0 ! Go check out : http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

At this stage encoding in both H264 and WebM will cover who ever wins.


That doesn't mean it will actually happen, though, except with the largest players (youtube, blip, vimeo, etc). Most others will pick the solution that supports the greatest number of viewers while requiring the least amount of effort. You probably view that as laziness, but most businesses view it as common sense (maximizing revenues while minimizing expenditures).

The main goal of my original post was to describe the realities of the current situation, and how I think that those realities will effect the future. But both of your replies focus instead on how things ought to be... so I can only conclude that you misinterpreted my post as some sort of endorsement of the status quo (it wasn't), or you believe that saying "yes, but things ought to be this way instead" somehow invalidates reality. [/q]

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Android supports WebM today ? Really ?


Added in 2.3.

Reply Score: 1

dtahiti Member since:
2011-01-13

It's just vaporware right now as today even Google can't provide you WebM support today on its own Android platform.

History tells you very few existing Android smartphones will be able to read WebM content (even if the hardware is compatible or not), because so few will actually get an updated firmware. Those handset manufacturers (and carriers) wants you to buy a new phone, rather than giving you a free updated firmware.

Read this : http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/01/data-shows-what-manufact....

Dropping h.264 will tell you if you care about your existing users or not. That's one thing I don't have to worry with Apple iOS : they constantly provide you the latest updated firmware on their devices (only the 1st gen iPhone got left out of iOS 4).

Reply Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Google has given fair warning what is going to happen, H264 is going to disappear from chrome. Since the default browser source code base in Android and Chrome OS are based directly off that. H264 is going to disappear from there as well.

Really ? So Android users : you will have as choice : html5 + webm (if lucky to get a firmware upgrade) or html5 + crappy Flash (if lucky to have Flash invluded). Good luck !

As for Android, it's still going to be able to view H264 unless all Flash support is removed as well; and handsets with older/current version of Android (with H264 support still included in the browser) aren't going to disappear overnight.

Android supports WebM today ? Really ? All i can find on Goole search is an intent to support it starting 3.0 ! Go check out : http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html
"
Again the notice we have just seen is prior notice of action. Google is not spring this on us by surprise. They are warning us of the change.

Android version 3.0 is correct that is where WebM comes in on mobile due to hardware acceleration for WebM existing. Lot of devices its just updating the firmware of the accelerator. Lot of H264 accelerators turn out not to be hardwired so are convertible to WebM accelerators. Problem is lot of them only supports 1 codec at a time right down to needing to restart the complete device to change codec.

Also Android is not like most phones. Turns out that 80 percent + of android devices stay up with the current version at the 6 months after release.

So yes vaporization of support can happen quite quickly with Android. I know a year does not sound quick. Until for companies with large video stores like youtube it will take 2 to 3 years to trans-code.

Without access to hardware acceleration Flash playing back H264 eats battery alive out of Mobile devices. Flash is practical work around on a desktop machine. Not viable on a mobile.

Yes if makers pull the hardware accelerator for H264 and places a webm accelerator H264 will be dead on those devices. In the cut throat market of Android pulling H264 removes a cost from production. Also allows smaller players who in china were just cloning other companies products to release products with 1 less license to deal with.

Simple fact hardware makers are paying for H264 as well. Everyone is paying at every level for H264 and that is it problem.

Beaware the hardware designs google has for WebM acceleration are under the same license as WebM. Cost nothing for a hardware maker to include WebM.


"At this stage encoding in both H264 and WebM will cover who ever wins.


That doesn't mean it will actually happen, though, except with the largest players (youtube, blip, vimeo, etc). Most others will pick the solution that supports the greatest number of viewers while requiring the least amount of effort. You probably view that as laziness, but most businesses view it as common sense (maximizing revenues while minimizing expenditures).
" [/q]

My Focus is on what the prior notice is tell us. What exist now is not the issue to anyone with large stores of Media. It where it will be in 2 to 3 years. Future safe is critical here. Due to how time costly trans-coding is. If you get caught on the hop you are toast.

So to maintain access to the most numbers of viewers large media storage cannot look at current and say ok that is what everyone is using. They have to ask the question what will the be using. Encoding for H264 and WebM avoids being caught on hop. Either path the hardware makers go in mobile you will be fine.

Current situation tells at a lot. History of android devices updating is something key you skipped over. Ie by the time chrome removes H264 update to android 3.0 appears clock starts ticking from that point. Problem here 6 months is not enough time for blip of vimeo to trans-code there video stock pile.

WebM is cheep for everyone other than those with huge sections of content to trans-code.

Money talks this is going to be the problem.

I am not talking the way things ought be. I am talking what the prior notice is telling us.

I am not invalidating reality. I am seeing the reality of the current mess. History of android devices upgrading is a critical one you missed. Also the fact that video playback cannot be done on mobile devices without hardware acceleration of some form.

Mobile is not desktop.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Google has given fair warning what is going to happen, H264 is going to disappear from chrome. Since the default browser source code base in Android and Chrome OS are based directly off that. H264 is going to disappear from there as well.

Really ? So Android users : you will have as choice : html5 + webm (if lucky to get a firmware upgrade) or html5 + crappy Flash (if lucky to have Flash invluded). Good luck !
"

I'm not sure why that's posted in a reply to my post, that text is from the post I was replying to.

"As for Android, it's still going to be able to view H264 unless all Flash support is removed as well; and handsets with older/current version of Android (with H264 support still included in the browser) aren't going to disappear overnight.

Android supports WebM today ? Really ? All i can find on Goole search is an intent to support it starting 3.0 ! Go check out : http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html
"

Quoi? WebM isn't even mentioned in the sentence you're replying to, I can't imagine how you interpreted it as a specific claim regarding Android's WebM support.

You've essentially restated my point (that Google is unlikely to immediately drop H264 support across the board because it would put current Android devices at a disadvantage); what I don't understand is why it's presented as a rebuttal.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Android supports WebM today ? Really ? All i can find on Goole search is an intent to support it starting 3.0 ! Go check out : http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html


From the same website you linked:
http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.3-highlights.html
New Platform Technologies
Media Framework
New media framework fully replaces OpenCore, maintaining all previous codec/container support for encoding and decoding.
Integrated support for the VP8 open video compression format and the WebM open container format
Adds AAC encoding and AMR wideband encoding


Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) supports WebM today.

Reply Score: 2

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I agree completely with your post, just wanted to add something else...

While that might give Android a strategic advantage by cutting off iOS users from youTube

It seems to me, that somehow iOS's lack of support for other formats is regarded as a law of physics. I just wanted to say that this is a DECISION made by people, or perhaps just one person: Steve Jobs. It's not an immutable law like gravity. Apple could choose to support any format any time they want to. They don't want to do it, that's all, and yet, people rant against Google (and indirectly, Firefox and Opera, who actually made the same choice) - and not Apple.

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Shooting the messenger is a time-honored tradition.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree completely with your post, just wanted to add something else...
"While that might give Android a strategic advantage by cutting off iOS users from youTube

It seems to me, that somehow iOS's lack of support for other formats is regarded as a law of physics. I just wanted to say that this is a DECISION made by people, or perhaps just one person: Steve Jobs. It's not an immutable law like gravity. Apple could choose to support any format any time they want to. They don't want to do it, that's all, and yet, people rant against Google (and indirectly, Firefox and Opera, who actually made the same choice) - and not Apple.
"

Agreed, the factors that "prevent" Apple from supporting WebM have way more to do with politics/the politics of business than technology. Apple is in a unique position with iOS, though, because the app store model ensures that WebM support will never make it into iOS unless Apple allows it. In other words, it's unique by being the only platform where end users can't add WebM support themselves (not without jailbreaking, at least).

Reply Score: 3

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

end users can't add WebM support themselves (not without jailbreaking, at least).


It would be fun to see a WebM implementation on a jailbroken iPhone to see how difficult and usable it would be *hint hint*

I mean, if youtube were to switch to WebM-only, and the only way to watch it on iOS would be to jailbreak... You can imagine the rest of the sh*tstorm, sorry, scenario.

Edited 2011-01-15 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

robco Member since:
2006-07-16

How is Apple supposed to add support to iOS with no hardware acceleration and still maintain decent battery life? It's also ironic that due to it's "open" nature, Google couldn't pull support for H.264 from Android even if they wanted to. Oh, they could remove it from the Nexus S, but each handset manufacturer or carrier could choose to license it and include it on their phones. As for politics keeping it away from Apple, why wouldn't Apple want to make a royalty-free codec available to it's App Store developers? The impatience is astounding. Everyone must support this right f*@$ing now (even though it's still half-baked and not quite ready)!.

Reply Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

They re-program the DSP, which should be simple, if they weren't so stupid as to hard-wire it to only decode a limited number of formats, and not ever be capable of improvement.

Reply Score: 3

Hypocrisy
by MacMan on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:31 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

I suppose Chrome supporting that proprietary, closed source pile of shit Flash is "open" hugh?

The only winner in this webm spat is Adobe. No content provider is going to bother encoding their content in BOTH H.264 AND webm, so they'll just settle for Flash, and you know what, every one loses except Adobe.

I would not be surprised if MS or someone else releases an H.264 plugin for Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hypocrisy
by asdf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC in reply to "Hypocrisy"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

I don't really understand this line of thinking. It's like asserting unless something is perfect it's useless to be better. I really cannot fathom what reasonable thought process can reach such conclusion. I mean, we're not talking about religions and theology and virgin Mary or whoever. It's about technological evolution.

Attack on hypocrisy is warranted if self-righteousness gained by hypocrisy is actively exploited but I don't really see that at this point. Exploitation of self-righteousness is much more prevalent on apple's arguments these days.

That said, no matter what, what's better is better and perfection is enemy of good. Don't let puristic ideas reject something better.

Reply Score: 1

WebM open but not standard
by FellowConspirator on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:35 UTC
FellowConspirator
Member since:
2007-12-13

What Google REALLY needs to do is write it up and form a consortium around it and turn it over to ITU as a standard. WebM suffers form the fact that we techie-folk think it's a great idea, but industry and government already have a published standard that works for them. WebM is great, but it essentially has the backing of a single player that is on the outside of the industry. Youtube and Google are huge, but still comparatively small compared to the media companies and the vendors that support them.

Keep in mind that for those people, the cost of sticking with h.264 is MUCH lower than moving to WebM. The royalty fees for h.264 are a pittance (it's currently royalty free, but even when you did pay royalties).

Reply Score: 1

RE: WebM open but not standard
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:42 UTC in reply to "WebM open but not standard"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What Google REALLY needs to do is write it up and form a consortium around it and turn it over to ITU as a standard. WebM suffers form the fact that we techie-folk think it's a great idea, but industry and government already have a published standard that works for them. WebM is great, but it essentially has the backing of a single player that is on the outside of the industry. Youtube and Google are huge, but still comparatively small compared to the media companies and the vendors that support them.

Keep in mind that for those people, the cost of sticking with h.264 is MUCH lower than moving to WebM. The royalty fees for h.264 are a pittance (it's currently royalty free, but even when you did pay royalties).


In this context, a "standard" is simply a method for systems of different origins to inter-operate. Since WebM is a method that enables web sites and client browsers to inetroperate to present video, it is indeed a standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_%28software%29
A software standard is a standard, protocol, or other common format of a document, file, or data transfer accepted and used by one or more software developers while working on one or more than one software programs. Software standards enable interoperability between different programs created by different developers.


What you perhaps actually mean is that WebM is a standard that is not yet endorsed by any official independent standards body.

Well, if Apple had strenuously objected, perhaps by now WebM would be a standard endorsed by W3C.

Edited 2011-01-15 02:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: WebM open but not standard
by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE: WebM open but not standard"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Standards body are pretty much irrelevant for this discussion, the world is much more pragmatic and technology driven. For example I don't think any government is or will be spending money on video.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: WebM open but not standard
by Headrush on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE: WebM open but not standard"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

What you perhaps actually mean is that WebM is a standard that is not yet endorsed by any official independent standards body.

Well, if Apple had strenuously objected, perhaps by now WebM would be a standard endorsed by W3C.

I'd expect you as a business owner with your entire product line already invested in h.264 would probably do the same.
(Let's not forget WebM wasn't an option originally)

Reply Score: 2

RE: WebM open but not standard
by JAlexoid on Sun 16th Jan 2011 23:18 UTC in reply to "WebM open but not standard"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Why only ITU? Why not ISO, IEEE and all others?

Reply Score: 2

This is frustrating
by atsureki on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:56 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

h.264 has been a ready, working, and exemplary product for years now. The companies that never had any trouble paying the licensing fees - Apple, Microsoft, and Google - have already taken and run with it, creating the first working HTML5 video implementations. The organizations that don't make money - Mozilla and Opera - went to Xiph for a mediocre alternative whose only qualification was being free. Now WebM comes out of nowhere, not as bad as Theora but not as good as h.264, and the copyleftists here cry hypocrisy that Apple and Microsoft don't hop to and support it. Can you really be wondering why they don't care? Why huge, profitable companies that plan out their actions years in advance haven't fallen in line behind a complete neophyte that fell out of the clear blue sky?

The top post's outright conspiracy theory may go a step too far, but his facts are dead accurate. Google has a massive conflict of interests here. They own the new codec, and now they're pushing it on everyone via the world's largest video site, which they own, and the third most popular browser, which they also own. Just wait for them to pull the bait and switch on the most popular smartphone OS as well. Those behind Google on this decision can pretend to be principled, but it's entirely the opposite. This is a case of saying that the ends justify the means. The conclusion I'm seeing is that it's not evil to use monopoly powers to corrupt an entire market as long as the product being sabotaged is more expensive than the one being foisted.

h.264 is ineligible for W3C standardization. That battle is already lost. If Google wants WebM to be the future of the Web, the right way is to get the W3C to support it, and then Microsoft and Apple will have to follow as well. Redacting features in one of their properties to sell changes in the others is unethical to the industry and unkind to the user. Until W3C makes a decision that sticks, Flash is all that remains on the desktop, and I'll have to watch all my videos through Flash blobs that I can't hear over my laptop's exhaust fans.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is frustrating
by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:11 UTC in reply to "This is frustrating"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Until W3C makes a decision that sticks"

The decision has already been made. Nothing is in the documents about codecs. Just like the img-tag.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is frustrating
by galvanash on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:47 UTC in reply to "This is frustrating"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The conclusion I'm seeing is that it's not evil to use monopoly powers to corrupt an entire market as long as the product being sabotaged is more expensive than the one being foisted.


What monopoly power? Chrome has what like 10%-15% marketshare? How is that a monopoly? If you mean youtube, they are still serving up h.264 last I checked, and there have been no announcements of any plans to change that.

Im sorry but I do not see Google doing any evil here, they are applying some leverage no doubt, but it more like a soft nudge than anything else. Everyone is blowing this way out of proportion...

Also, as the other reply says - the W3C decision on this matters was already made long ago. It is a dead issue, the official standard will never mandate a codec. Therefore, the only way a defacto standard can arise is through market forces.

Edited 2011-01-15 03:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Really you don't get it.
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:52 UTC in reply to "This is frustrating"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

h.264 has been a ready, working, and exemplary product for years now. The companies that never had any trouble paying the licensing fees - Apple, Microsoft, and Google - have already taken and run with it, creating the first working HTML5 video implementations. The organizations that don't make money - Mozilla and Opera - went to Xiph for a mediocre alternative whose only qualification was being free. Now WebM comes out of nowhere, not as bad as Theora but not as good as h.264, and the copyleftists here cry hypocrisy that Apple and Microsoft don't hop to and support it. Can you really be wondering why they don't care? Why huge, profitable companies that plan out their actions years in advance haven't fallen in line behind a complete neophyte that fell out of the clear blue sky?

Ok Ogg also not support by Windows out box either.
Not like Firefox location was not know that they could not go H264. Rich vs Poor. We are rich we can afford to have H264 but we want no compatibility with the poor.

Now the market also has not had competition for years for the lowest price products. H264 is the sign of the pressure problem to come on MS and others.

The top post's outright conspiracy theory may go a step too far, but his facts are dead accurate. Google has a massive conflict of interests here. They own the new codec, and now they're pushing it on everyone via the world's largest video site, which they own, and the third most popular browser, which they also own. Just wait for them to pull the bait and switch on the most popular smartphone OS as well. Those behind Google on this decision can pretend to be principled, but it's entirely the opposite. This is a case of saying that the ends justify the means. The conclusion I'm seeing is that it's not evil to use monopoly powers to corrupt an entire market as long as the product being sabotaged is more expensive than the one being foisted.

h.264 is ineligible for W3C standardization. That battle is already lost. If Google wants WebM to be the future of the Web, the right way is to get the W3C to support it


Please go read W3C charter. To get WebM into the standard Google has to win common support. Same reason H264 cannot make it. Firefox and others were not supporting it. The rules don't say how. But you have to have common support for the most dominate browsers to win.

To try to get to standard point with H264 MS pushed a plugin into firefox on Windows. Chrome move has undo this. So putting H264 back to where it started from. MS and Apple have not given up on getting H264 as a web standard.

This is war. MS shot first. Google returned fire with WebM that can pass all the requirements Firefox and open source engines.

It will be a public duel out.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Really you don't get it.
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 04:08 UTC in reply to "Really you don't get it."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

MS and Apple have not given up on getting H264 as a web standard.


It doesn't matter what MS and Apple are aiming for ... H264 cannot be a web standard within HTML5 because it is not royalty-free. Period.

Why is this simple fact apparently so hard for people to understand?

BTW, what is so difficult about MS and Apple simply implementing WebM?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Really you don't get it.
by avgalen on Sat 15th Jan 2011 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Really you don't get it."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

There is nothing really difficult about it and I am pretty sure it will actually happen.

But what is so difficult about Google Chrome actually continuing to support H.264? Since when is removing choice a good thing?

It is funny that Google is basically saying "H.264 is bad because it stops innovation from new startups". What is stopping new startups from using WebM or Theora or anything else? I agree that it is a good thing to have WebM and to have it supported. I disagree that H.264 should be removed.

And having Google involved with Android (big webcapable OS), Youtube (big video site) and Chrome (big browser) and WebM (big video codec for the future) first adding support for 1 codec and then removing support for another DOES make me think they are using their influence and this should be carefully watched

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Really you don't get it.
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Really you don't get it."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

There is nothing really difficult about it and I am pretty sure it will actually happen.

But what is so difficult about Google Chrome actually continuing to support H.264? Since when is removing choice a good thing?

It is funny that Google is basically saying "H.264 is bad because it stops innovation from new startups". What is stopping new startups from using WebM or Theora or anything else? I agree that it is a good thing to have WebM and to have it supported. I disagree that H.264 should be removed.


For the simple fact Start-ups cannot use WebM effectively because Microsoft and Apple will not provide it out box at this time.

Only way Google can force there hand it do the reverse.

Yes MS and Apple are guilt here first. Can you play Ogg or WebM in there browsers by default answer no.

Does googles actions stop people with stock piles of H264 getting there content out. At this stage no forces them to use flash instead.

Google wants people to be able to provide content to Youtube legally. WebM works for that H264 does not.

Google wants people to be able to make there own movies and legally ship them. H264 is not suitable.

Google is not removing Ogg support from chrome.

Basically where has been you outcry against MS and Apple for being exclusive pricks and not supporting open formats

Yes Apple and MS are both removing open formats by refusing to ship with them in the first place. Until there is equal out cry about MS and Apple lack of Ogg and WebM support no one really has the right to pick on Google for doing what they have done.

The important thing is free speech. Very much charging for the defacto standard video codec is very much lets block free speech. Its like charging per word you write and give to someone else the distribution license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Really you don't get it.
by MysterMask on Sat 15th Jan 2011 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Really you don't get it."
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Basically where has been you outcry against MS and Apple for being exclusive pricks and not supporting open formats

Yes Apple and MS are both removing open formats by refusing to ship with them in the first place.


*argh*
Such logic makes me cry.

Please. Anyone can introduce a new (not independently standardized) open format. By your logic, everybody not supporting that format is automatically guilty and must be bad.
Let's say I introduce "MyCoolOpenFormat". Oh, Google has no support for it! Google MUST be bad. I already thought so, but now I know for sure!

We got the message that you don't like Apple / MS. You don't need to twist logic for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Really you don't get it.
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Really you don't get it."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Basically where has been you outcry against MS and Apple for being exclusive pricks and not supporting open formats

Yes Apple and MS are both removing open formats by refusing to ship with them in the first place.


*argh*
Such logic makes me cry.

Please. Anyone can introduce a new (not independently standardized) open format. By your logic, everybody not supporting that format is automatically guilty and must be bad.
Let's say I introduce "MyCoolOpenFormat". Oh, Google has no support for it! Google MUST be bad. I already thought so, but now I know for sure!

We got the message that you don't like Apple / MS. You don't need to twist logic for that.
"

The simple point here. Both ogg and webm are on the W3C list of possible standard future codecs for HTML5. H264 is not on that list since it got voted completely down and MS and Apple and others are trying to steam roll.

This is a simple case of not being My Cool Format Issue. This is a simple case of being pricks and trying to break the path. If H264 can be embed that deep as defacto. Lot of companies hope it that deep it cannot be dug out and will have to be accepted.

Yes they are being exclusive pricks.

That you have terabytes of H264 does not count either.
Neither is if hardware encoding/decoding exists how.
Neither is what devices support it now.

Since this is about what is standard acceptable. H264 is not standard acceptable. So why in hell can any browser render it since its failed the standard process. So meaning it cannot be part of HTML long term.

Now of H264 wants to change its licensing to be Html standard acceptable come forward.

This is the point we are at. Apple and MS both have to back down from where they are. Start working on standard video formats we can go forward with.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Really you don't get it.
by avgalen on Sun 16th Jan 2011 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Really you don't get it."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Google payed the H.264 license, so people can upload their video to youtube and have it provided in H.264 without any license trouble. Don't provide misinformation.

MS and Apple support H.264 because it has been used for a while and is the defacto standard and THAT is what is really important on the web, not W3C standards. W3C is always adapting to what the web does and what browsers support, not the other way around. Techniques that we love now (like XMLHTTPRequest/Ajax) were in use long before getting standardised. W3C is simply too slow to keep up with the fast developing web. HTML5 isn't even a standard and browsers are already supporting huge parts of it and are already going beyond the standard in some aspects. If browsers support H.264 for video and contentproviders supply video's for it, it really doesn't matter if it is on the W3C list.

Microsoft (don't know about Apple) don't support WebM yet because it is NEW. I expect it to be supported by Windows 8 for sure and actually already by IE9 final as well.

Is WebM already supported by "Linux" or Android? and is it already supported by the current version of Firefox (not the non-final version 4). I don't know as I don't use Linux, Android or Firefox but I don't think it is. Please correct me if I am wrong, I want to know

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is frustrating
by asdf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:09 UTC in reply to "This is frustrating"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

h.264 has been a ready, working, and exemplary product for years now. The companies that never had any trouble paying the licensing fees - Apple, Microsoft, and Google


And Mozilla and Opera? Oops.

Sure, the big ones don't have any problem with it. The same goes for monopoly. What's so bad about it? The existing big guys never have any problem with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: This is frustrating
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:36 UTC in reply to "This is frustrating"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple, Microsoft, and Google - have already taken and run with it, creating the first working HTML5 video implementations. The organizations that don't make money - Mozilla and Opera - went to Xiph for a mediocre alternative whose only qualification was being free.

Opera came up with the idea for <video>.
Opera & Mozilla worked on the idea at WHATWG and picked a codec.
Both of them had betas with implementations of video years ago, and demo pages to show it working.

Apple came along later and pushed h264 into it.
Chrome is based upon that work and more.
Microsoft has barely just got IE9 to support it.

Maybe you want to rethink what you said: ‘Apple, Microsoft, and Google … creating the first working HTML5 video implementations.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: This is frustrating
by Radio on Sat 15th Jan 2011 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE: This is frustrating"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Exactly. Apple highjacked the "video" tag to sidestep Flash with its own proprietary format.

Who is abusing his power, already?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: This is frustrating
by atsureki on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE: This is frustrating"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

This is news to me, and interesting. But in my defense, "implementation" is specifically distinct from "demo." All I really meant is that YouTube was actually up and working with h.264 for a while. Then it became harder and harder to find any HTML5 content on it... and now we see why. Well, it's not the only reason why - it also has to do with Google partnering with "Official" content sources on music videos and the like, who insist on Flash exclusivity because it's two steps more difficult to download the raw video that way.

What do we learn from all this? Google is not beyond reproach. They pick and choose their battles, and they have a flimsy and poorly-defined loyalty to the notion of openness. The sad truth is that they love Flash video. It makes it dead easy to put ads all over the bandwidth-sucking content they're serving up. So why does everyone jump to their defense? I imagine it has something to do with the massive amounts of Free as in Beer. (It's the new Kool-Aid.)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by UZ64
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:19 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"We genuinely believe that core web technologies need to be open and community developed to enable the same great innovation that has brought the web to where it is today," Google's Mike Jazayeri states

And I genuinely agree with this. So, Google--why not reverse your decision to include the Flash plugin by default with every installation of Chrome? Make it optional but easily installable to those who want it while providing an automatic way for it to be updated with (or by) the browser, but don't force us to have it installed with the browser.

Edited 2011-01-15 16:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by UZ64
by Radio on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by UZ64"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Chrome is a commercial product. If you browse with chrome, it means you agreed to use (by default, which can be changed or hacked, but let's stick to the defaults): Google search, Google DNS, Chrome App store, Google cloud sync of your settings, etc. And flash.

What you are looking for already exists, it is called Chromium and, look, it's provided by Google! A perfectly workable, capable, efficient, fast, well-laid browser, compatible with the same extentions. Because yeah, Google has still a little "technology makes you free" ethos Apple lost long ago with the departure of Wozniak.

Do your research, next time.

And try to type about:plugins in chrome.

Edited 2011-01-15 18:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by UZ64
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 16th Jan 2011 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by UZ64"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Chrome is a commercial product. If you browse with chrome, it means you agreed to use (by default, which can be changed or hacked, but let's stick to the defaults): Google search, Google DNS, Chrome App store, Google cloud sync of your settings, etc. And flash.

What do all these Google services have in common with a buggy, security-monstrosity, CPU-guzzling, unstable, third-party Web browser plugin? Especially when it goes against what Google claims to be for (openness)?

What you are looking for already exists, it is called Chromium and, look, it's provided by Google! A perfectly workable, capable, efficient, fast, well-laid browser, compatible with the same extentions.

Last I checked, Chrome is the official "Google-blessed" browser. Chromium was from the beginning meant to be the open-source development project for testing and adding new features, which would later be officially released in Google's officially-supported browser... when they're ready.

Reply Score: 2

dtahiti
Member since:
2011-01-13

So iOS users are insignificant ? So are Android users ? Go check this out : http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

Do you really think Google is serious about dropping h264 for Youtube ? If so, Android users, you better get rid of your smartphone soon..

Oh you think WebM will be supported in Android 2.3 or Honeycomb (3.0) and Google drops h.264 all together ? you'll better prey Android manufacturers update your existing phone to that. They dragged their feet doing so, if not at all. Sorry, I forgot, there's only 2 phones you canbe sure it will be updated : Nexus One and Nexus S (that's just how large the open Android platform gives you as good choice..)

Reply Score: 1

dtahiti Member since:
2011-01-13

I was wrong : even Android 2.3 doesn't support WebM.

People thinks iOS (and Android) insignificant but they forget most of those poeple access to a website content from a native app, not from the web browser. And those native apps are not neccessarily running Google Analytics library (as replacement of the GA javascript executed) to count the visits.

Reply Score: 0

oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

Few people was thinking android 2.3 current supports webm. Google reported that android 2.3 devices will support webm. Will and devices are two key words. I understand some people getting confused.

Android 2.4 is basically a update to 2.3. Due to this being a fairly minor update it is possible that it might appear pushed out by app store to all existing 2.3 phones so avoiding the maker delay issue. Also the spec requirements have not changed for the phone.

Most of it alterations don't apply to core. Release of Android 3.0 and 2.4(2.3 update) Are reported at this stage to basically come in 1 hit.

Its one of the big issues here. The support is going to appear a lot faster than a lot people are thinking.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Icaria
by Icaria on Sun 16th Jan 2011 10:54 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

"if H.264 had been a browser requirement in 2003-2004, Firefox could not have happened. We're thinking about the next Firefox."


That sums up this entire argument beautifully, actually. All the people rallying against Google don't seem to realise that Google has the most to lose by supporting open standards, as they don't favour the incumbents like Google.

Reply Score: 1

FlorianMueller
Member since:
2010-10-07

The latest definition of "open specifications" by the European Commission appeared in the European Interoperability Framework v2, published in December, and does not make royalty-free a requirement anymore. Instead, both royalty-free and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) royalties are accepted for open standards, provided that the terms and conditions are FOSS-compatible ( http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/european-interoperability-f... ).

Reply Score: 2

OS News has gone downhill
by melgross on Mon 17th Jan 2011 03:42 UTC
melgross
Member since:
2005-08-12

Mostly due to articles like this that are full of crap.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OS News has gone downhill
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "OS News has gone downhill"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Mostly due to articles like this that are full of crap.


Well-argumented post, bravo. This is the kind of commenting we need on OSNews - this kind of argumentation would make Cicero proud. I award you with 2011's Comment Of The Year Award.

Now please leave.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OS News has gone downhill
by puelocesar on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:10 UTC in reply to "OS News has gone downhill"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30
NTSC vs. PAL
by ecruz on Tue 18th Jan 2011 16:42 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

I know must of you guys are too young and have not read enough to understand how things end up mediocre because hastiness or passion.
In the 1950's we had a chance in the US of having a great color TV system, but opted for the easy way out to allow B/W TV compatibility (ie. Microsoft Windows backward compatibility), and a native American TV signal, and the NTSC system was born.
In Europe they decided to get a better definition signal and even though it took them a little longer to get it right, they have been enjoying HD type picture on regular TV for decades. When we here in the US had to go through the whole digital thing conversion box and now HD to get to have a picture definition that Europeans have enjoyed through the PAL system for years.
You decide what is better, competition or not? If open source wants choice, then root for choice, not against it. You guys need to get on one side, not continually be crossing the bridge back and forth as things develop.
It all seems to me very hypocritical of the open source world.

Reply Score: 1