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

241–250 of 358 posts

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#241

Post by tpope »

kenjackson wrote: post #165
Charuru wrote: post #95

Next move, suddenly youtube stops encoding in h.264 and youtube won't be able to be played on the iPad. And Android tablets look a LOT better.

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).

There's lots of ways YouTube could marginalize H.264 without turning it into a full fledged game of chicken. They could make HD content exclusively WebM but still serve H.264 SD. They could prioritize WebM encoding so that there would be a delay before H.264 content was available (imagine getting told "this video is not yet available on your device" once every 6 months or so). They could make the most popular stuff in both formats but only offer WebM for stuff at the end of the long tail. They could offer a more favorable cut of ad revenue to content providers who opt out of H.264 (ostensibly because it saved on licensing fees).

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#242

Post by spoondan »

I like Gruber, but he's almost insufferable on issues like these. These questions are "simple" in the least flattering sense. Let's dispatch them:

If H.264 support is being removed to “enable open innovation”, will Flash Player support be dropped as well? If not, why?

The premise is that openness is all or nothing. But Google can support Flash and work towards openness, just as Apple can prefer open web standards in lieu of Flash while supporting proprietary systems. There's no hypocrisy or conflict.

Android currently supports H.264. Will this support be removed from Android?

Maybe in the future. WebM support is new in Android, hardware decoders are really just coming to market, and there are enough existing and in-production phones that rely on H.264. The constraints placed on Google by the handful of Chrome users leveraging H.264 HTML5 video is completely unlike the realities of dealing in the handset market.

YouTube uses H.264 to encode video. Presumably, YouTube will be re-encoding its entire library using WebM. When this happens, will YouTube’s support for H.264 be dropped, to “enable open innovation”?

YouTube continues to support other proprietary formats. As with Sorenson, they're not going to drop H.264 until they don't care about the market share of H.264-only devices. In the meantime, they will try to drive people towards WebM in support of "open innovation". This is not inconsistent or even new.

Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM?

It should be obvious that Google's hope is anyone using HTML5 video will eventually move to WebM exclusively.

If not, how will Chrome users watch this content other than by resorting to Flash Player’s support for H.264 playback?

Content producers won't care if Chrome users end up in Flash, since the content's still available and very few non-mobile users are getting HTML5 video anyway. Flash is still the norm outside of mobile devices.

Who is happy about this?

Were people ecstatic that Chrome supported H.264? Most people simply don't care about this kind of stuff and for good reason.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#243

Post by mpyne »

rabidsnail wrote: post #224
vetinari wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

They are not general-purpose, but that doesn't mean they're not easily re-programmable either. Consider the example of GPUs.

I want to say some SNES games used a DSP chip, there are several known to emulator authors, including two versions that used the exact same hardware with different microcode (and therefore different abilities). So it's been done before at least.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#244

Post by bl4k »

danh wrote: post #82
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.

Maybe that is somehow what Google wants? It has cozied up to Adobe to the point of including flash in Chrome itself. And YouTube apparently can't be bothered to make html5 video work reliably. I can't think of why anyone would want to promote flash, though.

I have been without flash for almost a year now and I can't remember the last time I had a problem playing a video on YouTube.

It has happen possibly twice.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#245

Post by gloob »

ubernostrum wrote: post #192
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the number one reason there isn't a codec specified in HTML5 is because Apple blocked it.

Bullshit. Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of any of the allegedly-unencumbered codecs. Meanwhile, multiple people objected on the grounds that mandating a current (or, really, several-years-old now since that's what…

Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of any of the allegedly-unencumbered codecs.

Now it's my turn to call bullshit. "We don't really know the patent situations of $x" could be used as an argument against ANY piece of software or standard $x. Unless there is real evidence for such concerns, it's FUD.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#246

Post by KeithMajhor »

lukeschlather wrote: post #204
WiseWeasel wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're dreaming if you think Apple is going to add WebM hardware decoding support to iPhones. That would basically mean that all previously sold iPhones would be marginalized, it would increase the hardware costs and space/power requirements, and there is no market advantage to supporting the WebM format as there's no WebM-exclusive content.

Android is already marginalizing old iPhones (and to some extent Apple's business model is built around marginalizing old iPhones.) Also, Google controls YouTube. So H.264 YouTube could see a sunset at some point, which would be a BFD.

That's a really interesting point. All at once you helped me understand the giant chess game we're watching.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#247

Post by ubernostrum »

gloob wrote: post #245
ubernostrum wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of any of the allegedly-unencumbered codecs. Meanwhile, multiple people objected on the grounds that mandating a current (or, really, several-years-old now since that's what…

Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of any of the allegedly-unencumbered codecs. Now it's my turn to call bullshit. "We don't really know the patent situations of $x" could be used as an argument against ANY piece of sof…

There ain't no such thing as a free codec. At least, not as long as software patents exist.

Does Google want a Free, interoperable web? Then they should take the money they'd spend re-encoding all of YouTube into VP8 and instead spend it on lobbying to eliminate software patents. Then they could just use whatever's the best option from a technical perspective and we could stop having codec shitstorms every six months.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#248

Post by sbollepalli »

Go easy on me, this is my first comment on HN.

I see couple of other things, apart from free and royalty side of arguments. My story goes like this:

when Apple released iOS device in 2007, H264 was the better choice for mobiles with hardware decoders. Google converted Youtube videos to H264 to support iOS devices. Rest of the world followed. Both Apple and Google wins and they are happy to promote H264 for the wider adoption.

Then after three years, a different competitive landscape, with Android popularity even without H264 hardware decoders advantage, at the same time Apple support to H264 but not to flash, gives big strategic advantage to Goolge to move world away from H264 to its own alternative (openness helps the cause). Win to Google, Lose to Apple.

Its not important anymore which desktop browser support what. We can work with multiple browsers on our desktops/laptops. Its all about to whose advantage it plays out in mobile devices space.

That is why we will see lot of FUD in future in this space while Google and Apple fight for their interests in name of openness.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#249

Post by redler »

blocke wrote: post #239
redler wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only beat an opponent if you're playing the same game.

Really? "Disruptive Technology" don't happen? Google drove the cost of smartphone OSes down to as near to zero as patent law will allow. I'd say that is a game changer. How much does WebM cost?

The issue is not whether it's a game changer. Apple's game is to build devices, software, and a highly consistent and polished user experience, irresistable to buyers and app developers, all in an effort to capture maximum profit share. Google's game is to build a similar OS that is irresistible to device makers, all in an effort to maximize market share and the advertising revenues boiling off the free app ecosystem.

With Apple, the product is the device and you are the buyer. With Google, the product is you and the advertiser is the buyer. They are each winning their respective games. Superficially they are competitors, but if there is a winner, then there's a loser. How can you look at either company and consider it the loser?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#250

Post by KeithMajhor »

bphogan wrote: post #60
soofaloofa wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple's stance on Flash does hurt users. But its stance on vodeo? Hardly. They chose an established, proven format that has hardware decoding capabilities. That means they could include it cheaply, and in a way that doesn't drain battery like a software decoder would.

Apple's stance on Flash hurts users _now_. But, I still envy my future self living in a world where Flash is dead. The same can be said about Google hurting users _now_. Pushing content producers towards an open and maintainable format has obvious long term advantages.
Post reply on HN