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

221–230 of 358 posts

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#221

Post by jarek »

neworbit wrote: post #211
kenjackson wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If YouTube goes exclusively to WebM/Flash, who wins that game of chicken? Apple or Google? I actually think Apple wins it as someone creates iTube. People will switch browsers. They won't give up their iPad (at least not until there are some better Android browsers on the market).

"Someone" is probably Apple, with their huge new data centers et al

If it's half as successful as Ping and half as reliable as MobileMe, Google might have a problem on their hands. (Not.)

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#222

Post by rabidsnail »

trotsky wrote: post #201
rabidsnail wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licensing isn't the (only) issue for asics. Hardware decoders are only reasonably priced if they're being produced at scale. If I'm a device manufacturer and I have a choice between getting h.264 for free because it's on the SoC I'm using and paying multiple dollars (!) for a WebM decoder, not to mention wasting valuable board space and paying for it to be soldered on, which do you think I'll choose?

Someone else's SOC?

Yes. The only smartphone makers that I can think of that design their own chips are Apple and Samsung.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#223

Post by jarek »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #139
linuxhansl wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 SW…

> What has been the result of H.264 being patent encumbered? Practically: nothing.

Shipping a browser with H.264 support is difficult for newcomers or niche players. In other industries, this is called anti-competitiveness.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#224

Post by rabidsnail »

vetinari wrote: post #212
rabidsnail wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licensing isn't the (only) issue for asics. Hardware decoders are only reasonably priced if they're being produced at scale. If I'm a device manufacturer and I have a choice between getting h.264 for free because it's on the SoC I'm using and paying multiple dollars (!) for a WebM decoder, not to mention wasting valuable board space and paying for it to be soldered on, which do you think I'll choose?

1) You aren't going to get H.264 decoder for free. There will be always at least license fees to MPEG-LA. 2) Current hardware video decoders are DSPs. You are not going to "waste valuable board space". It is a program in ROM, it is easy to change H.264 to VP8, you will probably even save some space.

1) Those license fees approach zero as you produce more units.

2) If I'm not mistaken they're not general purpose computers. If they were what would be the point? Why not use a math coprocessor?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#225

Post by jdub »

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.

I suspect they're okay with it because their thinking is a lot more nuanced than what hollow logical extremes allow. :-)

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#226

Post by trotsky »

rabidsnail wrote: post #222
trotsky wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone else's SOC?

Yes. The only smartphone makers that I can think of that design their own chips are Apple and Samsung.

To clarify, I meant choose option C) a SOC that supported my requirements.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#227

Post by TechNewb »

timc3 wrote: post #136

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…

Or people just stop using Youtube, and use Blip, Dailymotion, and any other 'modern' forward thinking video services instead.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#228

Post by apedley »

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.

Completely agree bonaldi. What a stupid move by Google. In order to promote their own technology they are setting back HTML5 video another year or 2 so they can fluff around and whine about which video codec is better.

I could understand other companies not implementing WebM because it was a new codec developed by Google with no existing community or anything around it.

But such a widely used codec (all my videos are H.264), I don't understand.

Can't they just all support each others codec's, get this stupid war over with and start a large scale push of HTML5.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#229

Post by davidedicillo »

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #86
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.

Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…

> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264

And of coure it's only a coincidence that most of those are the ones competing with a Google product.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#230

Post by recoiledsnake »

yanw wrote: post #116
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.

And I thought people were happy for HTML5 video because it eliminated the need for Flash. We've turned a full circle.
Post reply on HN