Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 358 posts

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#111

Post by mbrubeck »

pospischil wrote: post #66
StavrosK wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't Apple just include WebM support? It's an open codec...

From the bits and pieces that I have read, there are some very real patent questions still looming. Jason Garett-Glaser put together a great comparison of h.264 vs VP8/WebM. Check it out here: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 His summary: the spec is really terrible, the performance leaves a lot to be desired (though, there is a lot of room for optimization), and it 'copies too much from H.264 for comfort'.

This comment in response to that post makes an interesting point; the most similar bits are likely the most carefully vetted, and may be written deliberately to avoid patent infringement. Patents on standards can be very narrow; as long they cover exactly what's in the spec, then any implementer of the standard still has to pay up:

"Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn’t necessarily something at all.

As we’ve pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn’t harm the patent’s ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour.

D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn’t an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I’d expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there."

more at http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t...

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#113

Post by __david__ »

eli wrote: post #34
app wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For full compatibility, yes, but realistically there was no reason to use to WebM. With h.264 you cover the following: 1) All browsers with Flash players 2) Any "web connected" set top device/TV 3) About 50% of HTML5 video compatible browsers With this move by Google #3 falls to 25% or less. And they're looking to add WebM support to #2. At some point consumer demands you support both because their shiny new Macbook…

Still not quite sure I see the big deal. Firefox has something like twice the browser share of Chrome. If you were OK sticking Firefox users with Flash video, I don't see how that's hugely different from sticking Firefox AND Chrome users with Flash video. If you want to support all modern browsers, you used to have to do two encodings. After this announcement, you will still have to do two encodings.

Given that flash is reportedly going to support WebM, you may not have to do 2 encodings in the near future.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#114

Post by chrischen »

marbletiles wrote: post #25

Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.

Yea, if WebM is free people will. If both are available then WebM is probably superior from a content producer's perspective.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#115

Post by linuxhansl »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #89

So H.264 isn't "open web" ... but Flash is? Google has such an arbitrary definition of open.

There is a very clear distinction between an closed standard and a closed implementation.

H.264 is patent encumbered and controlled by an organization that only temporarily does not charge for its use. It will never be open. And btw. Apple is on the H.264 consortium and will profit handily once prices will be charged for H.264.

Flash is an open standard with only one implementation (unless you count gnash and swfdec, etc).

I can't wait for Flash to go away too, but this is certainly the lesser evil.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#116

Post by yanw »

marbletiles wrote: post #25

Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.

Not necessarily, and not in the long run.

These changes will occur in the next couple months

By then flash will gain WebM playback support. This move is a good one and it does make sense, I don't think there is room for compromise in regards to the open internet and non-proprietary standards.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#117

Post by simonsquiff »

soofaloofa wrote: post #47
bphogan wrote: post #17

The choice has been made by many places to simply use h264 video via the HTML5 tag to hit the iPhone/iPad and then fallback to a Flash video player which can easily play the h264 source video. Content producers would rather encode videos once, which is why they moved to FLV in the first place. There's no incentive to use anything else here. This hurts users. I am all for standards, but not for hurting users. And like…

You can equally argue that Apple's stance on video and on Flash is hurting users.

Apple didn't previously have Flash support in iOS and then remove it... taking something working out for ideological reasons is much worse than never adding something in for ideological reasons in my book.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#118

Post by makeramen »

The biggest H264 supporter is Apple, and it kind of worked because Apple has leverage in the iPhone arena. I don't think Google has quite the same leverage in the browser arena. If this happened at the WebKit level, then maybe. But not at the Chrome level.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#119

Post by jerhinesmith »

lincolnq wrote: post #40
jerhinesmith wrote: post #12

One of the biggest criticisms against Microsoft over the years is that they suffer from Not-Invented-Here syndrome. Is it just me, or does Google seem to be increasingly heading down this path? Granted, Google tends to go down the open-source route, where Microsoft has tended not to, but I'm not sure that excuse holds up well over the long-term. Either way, I'm genuinely curious if anyone else feels this.

Yes, Google has an enormous reputation for NIH. Great technology companies often do.

Great technology companies often do.

If that's true, at what point does that trait change from an advantage to a liability? Is it purely about openness? Or is it more subjective (e.g. I don't like Silverlight, so Microsoft should support standards vs. websockets sound awesome, and I'm glad Google is innovating)?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#120

Post by app »

eli wrote: post #34
app wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For full compatibility, yes, but realistically there was no reason to use to WebM. With h.264 you cover the following: 1) All browsers with Flash players 2) Any "web connected" set top device/TV 3) About 50% of HTML5 video compatible browsers With this move by Google #3 falls to 25% or less. And they're looking to add WebM support to #2. At some point consumer demands you support both because their shiny new Macbook…

Still not quite sure I see the big deal. Firefox has something like twice the browser share of Chrome. If you were OK sticking Firefox users with Flash video, I don't see how that's hugely different from sticking Firefox AND Chrome users with Flash video. If you want to support all modern browsers, you used to have to do two encodings. After this announcement, you will still have to do two encodings.

That's true, my only point is that it's a trend in the wrong direction: after Google makes this change there will be people will be using Flash for playback than there were before.
Post reply on HN