Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#131

Post by sid0 » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:02 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #123

sid0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call this being "fully behind HTML5"? http://grab.by/grabs/0b694089e83975c385627b134ee8ece7.png Even Microsoft's better than this. edit: could whoever downvoted me explain why he did so?

That's not inconsistent with being "fully behind HTML5". That page is meant to show off how Safari handles various HTML5 features. If you view it in a different browser, it is not showing you how Safari handles those features. Hence, it makes perfect sense for it to try to limit itself to people using Safari.

That page is meant to show off how Safari handles various HTML5 features.

Isn't the point of HTML that all browsers handle it similarly? If that link is restricted to one browser, it isn't better than all the "Designed for IE6" sites you used to see in the early '00s, and absolutely no evidence of Apple being "fully behind HTML5".

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#132

Post by bradleyland » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:03 PM UTC

bphogan wrote: post #44

jdub wrote: post #16

Fantastic. Much as I enjoyed Burn All GIFs back in the day, I don't think Burn All H.264s sounds nearly as catchy or fun. Glad Google is doing the Right Thing on this front -- however convenient or entrenched they might be, hairy patented messes like H.264 have no place on an open web.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why they're ok with bundling the Flash player with Chrome, but not carrying an h264 decoder.

The alternate explanation is that Google simply wants a win for "openness" wherever they can get it, and they recognize that they can't win the war in a single battle.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#133

Post by jarek » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:04 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #79

buster wrote: post #38

People should really blame MS and Apple for only supporting their own video codec here. I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to support open and patent unencumbered video formats. Can someone just look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video and really tell me that this mess isn't the fault of MS and Apple in the first place? Ogg is ready to play a big role and WebM is…

> People should really blame MS and Apple for only supporting their own video codec here. H.264 is not Apple's codec, nor is it Microsoft's. Both of them have to license it, just like any random company off the street would. Apple does own one or two of the several hundred patents involved, so might get a very slight discount on their license. > I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to s…

> WebM is probably patent encumbered.

Classic FUD.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#134

Post by tzs » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:04 PM UTC

minalecs wrote: post #90

tzs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People should really blame MS and Apple for only supporting their own video codec here. H.264 is not Apple's codec, nor is it Microsoft's. Both of them have to license it, just like any random company off the street would. Apple does own one or two of the several hundred patents involved, so might get a very slight discount on their license. > I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to s…

edit [removed no citation available]

Cite?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#135

Post by jarek » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

dev_jim wrote: post #41

buro9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An open solution isn't the best interest of the users? Surely this is just like Apple not supporting Flash in the hope that people go create HTML5 stuff which is open. Both companies have taken strategic and gutsy moves that will temporarily inconvenience users in the hope that long-term it pays of to both the companies and the users.

> An open solution isn't the best interest of the users? An ubiquitous solution is in the best interests of users. My parents could care less about whether the video is encoded in H.264 or Ogg. They just want it to work on their iPad. > Surely this is just like Apple not supporting Flash in the hope that people go create HTML5 stuff which is open. It's not the same at all. Google, through YouTube and Chrome, helped m…

> My parents could care less about whether the video is encoded in H.264 or Ogg. They just want it to work on their iPad.

Shame their iPad doesn't support Flash then...

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#136

Post by timc3 » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

Must be part of the long game by Google. Stop supporting h.264 and push their own format in their browser, which also means ChromeOS and GoogleTV.

The format will need hardware because it is so difficult to decode with software.

Google gets hardware support on their laptops and mobile devices, changes YouTube to be WebM only, forcing Apple/Windows/Nokia/SonyEricsson to need hardware to decode.

Consumer loses out (the video quality of this, and the image quality of their image format is not exactly what should be expected to be released in a new format for 2011).

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#137

Post by drivebyacct2 » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:10 PM UTC

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…

Except that the same exact thing can be done with WebM. Native support in Chrome, Firefox and Opera. Flash fallback in IE. Ding.

The only legitimate concern with this is hardware decoding, largely in mobile devices.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#138

Post by mbrubeck » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:10 PM UTC

pohl wrote: post #127

mbrubeck wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who works for a browser vendor: There's a big difference between dropping support for entrenched technologies, and choosing which emerging technologies to support. Certain formats and practices are already part of the web, for better or worse, and it's not fully within the browser vendors' power to change that. If any browser dropped Flash support, it would break thousands of popular web sites, an…

While H.264 may not be entrenched, it certainly is established and far, far from being emerging.

That's true, which is why I referred specifically to H.264 in the element (which is the only case affected by this change). There are mature implementations, but as a part of the web platform it is still in very early stages.

While H.264 is already deployed widely thanks to iOS, it's generally with a fallback for the majority of users whose browsers don't support it. Removing it from Chrome will not break the web for users, in the way it would if they removed Flash or GIF or JavaScript semicolon insertion, or any other of the many web technologies we'd like to retroactively wish away.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#139

Post by OpieCunningham » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:12 PM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #115

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,…

H.264 is patent encumbered and controlled by an organization that only temporarily does not charge for its use.

What has been the result of H.264 being patent encumbered? Practically: nothing. So though it's true that it is, it has essentially caused no loss.

What has been the result of SWF being open? Practically: nothing. Adobe's closed implementation remains the standard implementation. So though it's true that SWF is open, it is essentially closed.

H.264 ... will never be open.

Patents expire.

Apple is on the H.264 consortium and will profit handily once prices will be charged for H.264.

Not relevant, though I'd point out that Apple has very few patents that comprise H.264 in comparison to the entirety of the pool. The probability that they make or will make any significant money is extraordinarily low.

Fundamentally however, my original post that you replied to is specific to Google's patently arbitrary definition of "open". Google doesn't build an open implementation of SWF into their browser, they build in Adobe's Flash player. Even if they did, it goes to my above point re: SWF is effectively Adobe Flash. Google is not anywhere close to open, no matter how often they repeat the mantra.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#140

Post by buster » Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #129

minalecs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit [removed no citation available]

Got a source for that? Nada @ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/bo...

You mean http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx ? That's the list of companies that license the codec to others and of course they get money for that. You do see Apple and Microsoft on the list, do you? What you don't see is Google, Mozilla, Opera and every other competitor..