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

261–270 of 358 posts

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#261

Post by sid0 »

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…

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.

Depends on how you look at "best interests". Another way to look at it is that it's in your parents' best interest to see for themselves what a closed platform entails, and to think twice before investing in one in the future.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#262

Post by slimier »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #137
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.

However, the devices with the most users which don't have flash (read: iOS), can play h264, not WebM. That would make it likely to be more often h264 with flash fallback.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#263

Post by danudey »

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 problem is that content providers have yet another option to choose from, but so far one that is supported by almost no one. Firefox will support WebM, and so will Chrome, so to reach those browsers you either need WebM, or Flash.

Flash also supports h.264 video, as do most mobile devices (Android, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Windows Phone 7, Zune even) and game consoles (XBox, PS3, and afaik the Wii). In fact from what I can tell, the only platform that doesn't support H.264 is Firefox without Flash. Compare that to the massive amount of existing platforms and devices which don't support WebM (and have no hardware WebM decoding), and it seems like moving to WebM makes much less business sense.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#264

Post by cdeutsch »

yuhong wrote: post #215
cdeutsch wrote: post #158

As a person who encodes video for the web for a living I can tell you we won't be switching to WebM because of iOS and other hardware devices that have hardware based decoding. H.264 is the closest thing to a ubiquitous codec there is and assuming Chrome correctly updates the "canPlayType" javascript function I won't even have to update our players to provide Chrome users with the crappy Flash player. As a Chrome use…

Why can't you do two formats?

Cost/benefit. We outsource encoding to Zencoder which costs $.02 to $.05 per minute. Then there is also the price of disk space and the amount of time it takes for the video(s) to be available. Maybe one day the cost/benefit will change.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#265

Post by danudey »

rmc wrote: post #144
Heff wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which sucks for HTML5 video. Without Chrome, only about 5% of web users actually support HTML5 playback using h.264. Chart: http://videojs.com/2011/01/google-is-dropping-h-264-from-chr... Two things could end the format war. 1. Apple adopts WebM (which requires WebM hardware for iOS devices) 2. MPEG LA removes all royalties from h.264

Or another way to view it is that 30% support html5 video with WebM

Or another way to view it is that if you factor in Flash support for H.264, the only clients that can't view H.264 content are Firefox, Opera, and IE 8-or-earlier installs without Flash installed.

I'm not sure what percentage of the market that is, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty small.

In comparison, all mobile devices, game consoles, and Blu-Ray players support H.264, as do all Flash installations (including the one bundled with Chrome that users can't remove), and all installations of Safari and IE9 (when it arrives).

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#266

Post by danudey »

blocke wrote: post #232
OpieCunningham wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to add these caveats in as well: Once Apple supports WebM. Once chipset manufacturers produce WebM optimized hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers purchase and integrate those WebM hardware decoders. Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers develop or license software players that support WebM encoded video and file format. Could happen the other way around. But it ain't likely.

Yeah. There is no way Google of all people could launch a Cell Phone OS based on a Java variant and beat Apple by the end of 2010. Stupidest idea ever. I'm still laughing.

This seems like kind of an odd comment. How did Android 'beat' Apple? What's the game they're playing? Google is displaying a lot of ads (their goal). Apple is making a shitload of money (their goal). How did Apple 'lose' or Android 'win'?

Also, not to nitpick, but 'Java variant' seems inaccurate. Code is written in actual Java (not a variant, as far as I'm aware), and compiled to bytecode to run on the Dalvik VM (not a JVM variant).

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#267

Post by drivebyacct2 »

slimier wrote: post #262
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

However, the devices with the most users which don't have flash (read: iOS), can play h264, not WebM. That would make it likely to be more often h264 with flash fallback.

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

iOS can implement WebM, no problemo. The problem is, it will be pretty crummy.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#268

Post by mryall »

I actually see lack of H.264 support as more of a blow for those desktop browsers than anything else. With both Firefox and Chrome on the desktop refusing to support the video codec preferred by most (non-PC) device vendors, and both mobile browsing and video usage on the web dramatically increasing, I can't see this having any long-term effect other than marginalizing these browsers for the majority of users. Users who just want to visit a video site and have it work equally well on any device they happen to be using.

H.264 is royalty-free for at least the next 5 years, has widespread hardware encoding and decoding support and its patents will eventually expire. Removal of this codec from Chrome just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sure all those people who have recently switched to Chrome won't find it too hard to switch away if the "more open" video support starting burning through their laptop battery three times as fast.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#269

Post by redler »

blocke wrote: post #254
redler wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They can both be winners and losers depending on what game they choose to play. Being disruptive is about pissing on the rules for the original game. Actually the more I think about it the more non-sensical your original statement and this conversation becomes. ;)

Putting aside the metaphors, Google's growth is not coming at the expense of Apple's profits. Nor are Apple's seemingly perpetual revenue and profit gains coming at Google's expense. They are attacking different problems from very different angles.

With only three or four percent of the market, Apple swallows up more profit share than the largest three phone makers combined (in the neighborhood of 40 percent). That's an astounding number, and it doesn't even include non-phone devices. At the same time, Android had tremendous growth in 2010, inevitably passing Apple in unit sales rate. It's a bit glib to simply say Google therefore beats Apple in 2010. There is nuance, and either company can be painted in the foreground.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#270

Post by cookiecaper »

mbrubeck wrote: post #253
ubernostrum wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"There ain't no such thing as a free codec." This is what groups like the MPEG-LA want us to think, but I'm not so sure. The Ogg Vorbis codec used for WebM audio has been in use for a decade, and has shipped in dozens of software and hardware products, some from large companies with big pockets. MPEG-LA made the same vague threats about patent pools against Vorbis, but they never followed through. Xiph.org conducted…

Not that I disagree, but a "patent search" early in the process for Vorbis is not that comforting. Vorbis has been around for a while now and new patents are awarded that all the time that are used against prior art. Unless Google/On2 has an inside man at the patent office raising Vorbis as prior art, it's likely that someone could craft a patent specifically intended to target Vorbis, get it approved, and then sue lots of people. Trolls take this approach fairly often.
Post reply on HN