Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

my.opera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 128 posts

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

#21

Post by haberman »

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.

> How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies.

It's amazing to me. In the 90s Microsoft's overt policy was "embrace, extend, extinguish," and it called the GPL a "cancer," the MPAA was launching war against DeCSS, and Amazon.com was flexing its one-click patent against competitors. Open source developers had no powerful allies.

Now you have a powerful company like Google that releases millions of lines of open source, sponsors college students to work on open source, fights for openness standards in wireless spectrum auctions, fights for open standards like HTML5, open sources its entire mobile operating system, and in its latest move, buys a video codec company for $106 million and promptly pledges all of the patents for use by anybody.

And yet some people would prefer the codec whose rights are effectively owned by a known patent troll (MPEG-LA) because "at least [it] is owned by a number of different companies."

It goes to show that you can never please everyone.

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

#22

Post by memetichazard »

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?

Can't drop something you didn't have in the first place.

As many have argued, it's disingenuous to treat Flash and the H.264 as being equal in this argument. One of these would be implemented into the browser rather than a plugin. One of these would incur a royalty cost. One of these has viable alternatives.

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

#23

Post by kenjackson »

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…

There will be licensing and royalty issues.

When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple.

What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them?

H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more.

To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD when MS does it. It's FUD when Google or the Google camp does it.

UPDATE: And I forgot a biggie, MPEG-2.

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

#24

Post by tomlin »

kenjackson wrote: post #23
tomlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD…

Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. It's a big difference. Flash, for one, is a plugin. It hitches a ride with the browser, it's not part of its standardized, internal workings.

Google probably will benefit financially from this change and the rhetoric from Google's camp probably is FUD. No different than what Apple is doing with it's proprietary App Store process or it's closed source OS or how Apple's camp (again, I'm apart of this camp) manages to stick-shift through an uncomfortable conversation about open source beyond WebKit.

The difference is that WebM might also help open source as well. Just because it benefits a corporation doesn't necessarily mean it's the devil.

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

#25

Post by andylei »

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?

sure. not sure how this is relevant tho. if dropping h.264 is a good thing, then Google should drop it. kind of irrelevant whether it also does or does not drop Flash.

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

#26

Post by pohl »

tomlin wrote: post #24
kenjackson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD…

Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. It's a big difference. Flash, for one, is a plugin. It hitches a ride with the browser, it's not part of its standardized, internal workings. Google probably will benefit financially from this change and the rhetoric from Google's camp probably is FUD. No different than what Apple is doing with it's proprietary App St…

Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards.

...which is puts them on equal footing with H.264 and WebM. The HTML5 video standard specification does not specify a codec, so no codec can be said to be "embedded within web browser standards" either.

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

#27

Post by Osiris »

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…

From what I understand, the main reason for Mozilla and Opera not wanting to include H.264 is that there would be licensing fees for including a decoder with the browser. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it could potentially cost both Mozilla and Opera a significant amount in licensing fees to include H.264 support.

Apple doesn't care because it's already a licensee, the same for Microsoft (including in Win7) and Google (encoding for YouTube).

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

#28

Post by GHFigs »

tomlin wrote: post #24
kenjackson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD…

Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. It's a big difference. Flash, for one, is a plugin. It hitches a ride with the browser, it's not part of its standardized, internal workings. Google probably will benefit financially from this change and the rhetoric from Google's camp probably is FUD. No different than what Apple is doing with it's proprietary App St…

These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards.

Neither are video codecs.

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

#29

Post by Entlin »

You know what we actually need? A h.264-buyout. Let's ask MPEG-LA how much they are planning to earn by the time their licence runs out (2024?). It will probably be ~200 Million or so. Then ask the whole internet to chip in.

Result: all the open source people are happy, and we all get to use the higher quality codec in any application we can imagine. And we also get to keep our devices with their battery efficient dedicated h.264-decompression chips.

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

#30

Post by daleharvey »

kenjackson wrote: post #23
tomlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD…

and none of those are required to produce or consume web based content.

I dont need to pay anyone in order to write text on the web, I dont need to pay anyone in order to share images that I have created, I dont understand why people think its ok that we should have to pay to share the videos we create

I know mpeg-la arent actually charging end users (yet), but that doesnt matter, someone has to pay

Post reply on HN