Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:15 UTC
Internet & Networking Now that Internet Explorer 9 has been let out its cage, we all know a great deal more about Microsoft's position towards the video codec situation with the HTML5 video tag. Microsoft has chosen for H264, a codec it already includes in Windows by default anyway. This means that apart from Firefox and Opera, every other major browser will support H264. Some are seeing this as a reason for Mozilla to give in to their ideals and include support for H264 as well - I say: Mozilla, stick to your ideals. The last people you should be listening to in matters like this are web developers.
Thread beginning with comment 414207
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hmm
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:37 UTC
yoshi314@gmail.com
Member since:
2009-12-14

there is no pragmatism in forcing mozilla to go for h264. that's just a peer-pressure lockin attempt.

i suspect mpeg-la royalty hunt will effectively prevent h264 from being the major player in html5 video contest.

ok, now i'm getting a bit confused, so let's try to make it clear :

how will it affect people who make their own h264 videos and publish them online? does it mean you have to have a
- os with h264 licence
- video editor with h264 licence (to encode)
- video website with h264 licence (to host)
- browser with h264 licence (to watch)

to fully comply with the h264 licensing rules? or maybe will also need a personal h264 license too?

what about sites that would transcode the video into another format? will they have to pay as well?

Reply Score: 7

RE: hmm
by lemur2 on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:47 in reply to "hmm"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

there is no pragmatism in forcing mozilla to go for h264. that's just a peer-pressure lockin attempt.

i suspect mpeg-la royalty hunt will effectively prevent h264 from being the major player in html5 video contest.

ok, now i'm getting a bit confused, so let's try to make it clear :

how will it affect people who make their own h264 videos and publish them online? does it mean you have to have a
- os with h264 licence
- video editor with h264 licence (to encode)
- video website with h264 licence (to host)
- browser with h264 licence (to watch)

to fully comply with the h264 licensing rules? or maybe will also need a personal h264 license too?

what about sites that would transcode the video into another format? will they have to pay as well?


You will have to have a license everywhere (although there is a short moratorium on this requirement for web client, because MPEG LA realise they haven't cornered that market just yet).

It will be just about the only thing on the planet where the costs of its initial production have been recouped years ago, yet every must pay and pay and pay again for using it.

No wonder the MPEG LA members are pushing h264 so hard, and disseminating FUD like crazy against Theora.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: hmm
by bhtooefr on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:51 in reply to "hmm"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Here's the thing.

Right now, H.264 is being used anyway, by Flash.

So, here's the options:

Keep using H.264 Flash and support everyone with one method - no effort required for this
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and H.264 Flash for Firefox and Opera - very little effort required here
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and if you use Firefox or Opera, tough luck - this will kill Firefox and Opera if someone like YouTube does this, and again, very little efford required here
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and Theora <video> for Firefox and Opera - this will (approximately) double the storage requirements for video hosts, driving costs up significantly
Use Theora <video> for Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and drop support for Safari and IE9 - not actually an option, because they still need to keep H.264 videos around for mobile devices that can't grok Theora

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: hmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:54 in reply to "RE: hmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We know the options. Everybody does. That's not what this is about.

This is about what option is the best IN THE LONG RUN. We KNOW the cop-out method that is good for TODAY, but what about TOMORROW?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: hmm
by fkooman on Fri 19th Mar 2010 15:52 in reply to "RE: hmm"
fkooman Member since:
2008-05-06

One can also use Cortado Java applet for playing Theora video on other browsers. This is what Wikipedia plans to do. Of course it still doesn't cover mobile devices...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hmm
by baryluk on Fri 19th Mar 2010 17:16 in reply to "RE: hmm"
baryluk Member since:
2010-01-02

Here's the thing.

Right now, H.264 is being used anyway, by Flash.

So, here's the options:

Keep using H.264 Flash and support everyone with one method - no effort required for this
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and H.264 Flash for Firefox and Opera - very little effort required here
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and if you use Firefox or Opera, tough luck - this will kill Firefox and Opera if someone like YouTube does this, and again, very little efford required here
Use H.264 <video> for Chrome, Safari, and IE9, and Theora <video> for Firefox and Opera - this will (approximately) double the storage requirements for video hosts, driving costs up significantly
Use Theora <video> for Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and drop support for Safari and IE9 - not actually an option, because they still need to keep H.264 videos around for mobile devices that can't grok Theora

NO, NO, NO.

Use <video> for ALL browsers, even this which doesn't support given codec or video tag at all! Then inside of video tag insert FLASH player for ALL browsers!

It is simpler, and it is actually much more robust, in case of browser changes, some less known browsers, updates, changes in the supported codecs, and is just RIGHT THING TO DO.

Reply Parent Score: 1