Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness. • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#11

Post by tomlin » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

DjDarkman wrote: post #6

mikeryan wrote: post #2

This is a pretty poor rebuttal to what was actually a fairly well written (like it's opinion or not) article by Ars. Ars fairly clearly delineated the difference between "open standards" and "open/free to use" and this one mixes them up continuously This statement "Indeed, most sites offer different bandwidth options and video sizes. They are already converting the video!" shows a pretty clear lack of understanding o…

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other. I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

Those who seem to be opposed to Google's decision are often in the Apple camp (disclosure: I am in the Apple camp) but are also the same people who wish Flash to die because of it's closed/proprietary nature.

So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years? Which camp will be trying to push it out the door because of licensing issues? There will be licensing and royalty issues. MPEG LA is a business at heart. Google is as well, certainly. But WebM could be ours instead of theirs, no?

I think what people miss about WebM is that it isn't perfect - and no one is saying it is. It's not fully developed, but shouldn't we participate in fully developing WebM under an open source/royalty-free vision?

Can't we all just get along?

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#12

Post by Pewpewarrows » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

redial wrote: post #9

DjDarkman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other. I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. Never mind that almost everyone agrees that it is the better codec.

You can't have a monopoly on a product like WebM that's now open sourced.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#13

Post by Timmy_C » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:39 PM UTC

I like his point that the core of the debate should really be about choice. But then he lost me when he characterized the MPEG-LA as a ruthless cartel.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#14

Post by MiguelHudnandez » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:45 PM UTC

grayrest wrote: post #5

All the outcry over this I've read is basically a complaint that you can't ship one codec for HTML5 video, which you've never been able to do. That's what the whole argument over the video tag has always been about. The only difference this makes is that this cements the split instead of everybody expecting Firefox and Opera to give up and adopt H.264. If you were willing to ship just H.264 and flash fallback for Fir…

On desktops, falling back to flash for H.264 decoding is a pretty good strategy.

On mobiles, though, Google's change has a bigger effect. Flash is abysmal (if existent) on Android devices--and now there is no clear solution that doesn't involve serving multiple encodings.

Before this change, you could be comfortable that your H.264 HTML5 video would play on the majority of smartphones; the flash fallback was only necessary for desktop browsers.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#15

Post by k33l0r » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:46 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

>I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned. They refuse to support WebM, after all. Err, Microsoft has already declared that WebM will be supported if a compatible plugin codec is installed on the machine. They just don't want patent trolls (successfully) suing them for shipping hundreds of WebM decoders. After all, Google is no…

It's worth pointing out that MPEG-LA also doesn't offer patent indemnification on H.264 or any of its other formats.

I can't find where I originally read this, but EETimes mentions it at the end of this article: http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4012977/MPEG-licensing-b...

"Also, MPEG LA does not offer any indemnification guaranteeing that its patents do not infringe someone else's patent rights."

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#16

Post by pohl » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

tomlin wrote: post #11

DjDarkman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other. I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

Those who seem to be opposed to Google's decision are often in the Apple camp (disclosure: I am in the Apple camp) but are also the same people who wish Flash to die because of it's closed/proprietary nature. So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years? Which camp will be trying to push it out the door because of licensing issues? There will be licensing and roya…

So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years?

You mean imagine when we're 2 or 3 years from the last of the H.264 patents expiring? At that time I would expect it to only be ditched for something that offers substantially better quality/bitrate.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#17

Post by spiffworks » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

redial wrote: post #9

DjDarkman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other. I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. Never mind that almost everyone agrees that it is the better codec.

What does owning a video codec even mean if you make it royalty-free? Is there a concern that if webm becomes widely used Google will use its control of the code to harm competitors? In that case, you should know that the webm project is in fact run as a separate project from Google[1].

[1]http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#18

Post by recoiledsnake » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:51 PM UTC

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #12

redial wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. Never mind that almost everyone agrees that it is the better codec.

You can't have a monopoly on a product like WebM that's now open sourced.

In real life you easily can, because of incompatibilities with the existing software. Eg. Chrome and Android are technically open-source but their direction and development are completely governed by Google.

If you make changes and are unable to convince Google to incorporate them, the video generated by your software will be incompatible with all the millions of WebM decoders out there.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#19

Post by redial » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:51 PM UTC

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #12

redial wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. Never mind that almost everyone agrees that it is the better codec.

You can't have a monopoly on a product like WebM that's now open sourced.

Like GCC or WebKit or Java? Being open source does not mean nobody owns it.

Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.

#20

Post by Pewpewarrows » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 5:52 PM UTC

eddanger wrote: post #10

DjDarkman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other. I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

Why not drop Flash too?

You clearly haven't read the article. Flash is a sandboxed plugin running alongside the browser. It's not the internals of a new and heatedly debated HTML tag, which ultimately has to be an open standard and format, and supported until HTML6 comes around in another decade. Choosing to drop experimental support for a closed, proprietary, and royalty-encumbered codec in a tag's specification that hasn't even been finalized by the W3C yet isn't even in the same universe as dropping support for an external plugin.