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.
Thread beginning with comment 458100
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by robco on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:51 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:11 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 Parent Score: 1