This line here creeps me out ->
"The market share of browsers that support H.264 exceeds WebM capable browsers"
Google's online advertising monopoly is working on overdrive to ensure that won't happen.
Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
81–90 of 128 posts
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#82Earlier 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. A baseless assertion. It’s far more likely that most sites will continue using H.264, wrapping it in Flash for desktop users, and then sending it naked to mobile devices including iOS and most other video-capable phones. Economically, what is the incentive to do otherwise, as a publisher? How in the world do you figure otherwise? And can you please…
I'm pretty sure when most people hear "open specification," they'll think it means "open for anyone to read and implement" or something along those lines, not "owned by a consortium of corporations rather than a single corporation." I know that's what people mean when they say H.264 is open, but "owned by a consortium" is not the usual connotation of "open."
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very true. But by shipping WebM, MS would be vulnerable not to the patent holders coming out of the blue on H.264, but also ALL the mpeg-la companies AND patent holders coming out of the blue. It would greatly increase their risk. I think they have reached a good compromise by developing support for IE9 to pickup WebM codecs installed by the user and playing HTML5 video through it.
The WebM patent grant contains insurance against this. If any "new" patent holder sues anyone or makes available their patents for suing by other party, he will be excluded from the (VP8) patent grant. Any CE or IT company will think twice, whether it is worth it. Can you imagine Samsung or LG suing someone over VP8 and in return losing access to VP8 content on Youtube? What it will do to their CE business?
Fascinating. I did not know this. Sounds like a clever, or at least smart, legal move!
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. Even if they say the sky is blue? I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video. They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions i…
I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
You could say the same for any tribe, I think. I like Google but I doubt that they are making decisions for the greater good intentionally, or all the time. I do think that Google, like Apple, try to swing their business model towards a better design or better implementation. In a lot of those cases, the better implementation or design is open source or built for the greater good.
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. Even if they say the sky is blue? I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video. They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions i…
I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time.
And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a controversial claim that H.264 requires a patent license? Is it a controversial claim that MPEG-LA has only offered a limited-time indemnity, and that only for a subset of uses? This is all verifiable and documented.
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not care about WebM or H.264 since I dislike both, my comment will concern the license and the situation. WebM have a Apache style license, you can grab the source, fork it and develop your codec, and you're not even obligated to open a repository including your changes, they can remain closed. Google will not stop you from doing so and guarantees that he will not sue you asking for royalties, since a license li…
Actually, recoiledsnake's scenario has already happened. The VP8 "spec" isn't a spec at all, it's just copy pasted C code. Unfortunately, they also chose to reuse the same code for the encoder and the decoder. This means bugs in either one can propagate into both. There was already one of these bugs found, fixed, and had a patch applied to the source tree. Google came in and reverted that patch because too much video…
It was a 'bug fix' that caused a major regression. What would you have them do?
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time. And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a contr…
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD. Now it's FUD that you may subscribe to, but it's FUD nevertheless.
I love this line, "where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist"
Have you never bought a DVD player in fear of MPEG-LA might do? Do you own no computers with no licensed technology? I shiver in my boots every morning for fear over this.
Gimme a break. I love how the Google/Mozilla tribe have become the world's best FUD slingers. Everything now is about this horrible tragedy that can happen at any moment.
If that's your choice fine. Stick with Chrome and stay away from H264 streams. Like I said to RBanffy, a fragmented web won't keep me up at night either.
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time. And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a contr…
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD. Now it's FUD that you may subscribe to, but it's FUD nevertheless. I love this line, "where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist" Have you never bought a DVD player in fear of MPEG-LA might do? Do you own no computers with no licensed technology? I shiver in my boots every morning for fear over this. Gimme a break. I love how the Google/Mozilla tribe have become the world's be…
I don't shy away from buying DVD players. The companies that make them are the ones on the hook there. But I certainly wouldn't want to build one.
Again: We have no guarantees from the MPEG-LA that they won't turn around tomorrow and demand outrageous royalties from anyone using H.264 videos. We also know that they are able to do so. The only reason it isn't so today is by their good grace. That is real uncertainty, and it seems like a valid cause for worry (Google would have been better off if they'd treated Java so cautiously). Am I mistaken somewhere, and this situation is actually not plausible? I'm not personally involved with either camp — they just seem to have the facts on their side, while all any pro-H.264 folk ever respond with is ad hominem and dismissals.
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 nec…
There is no Chrome for smartphones, and so far no one has said anything about dropping H.264 on Android (although you can see it happening as soon as WebM extensions for ARM start being more popular). (edited: typo)
You are correct, but why would you imagine Google would treat Android differently? Even though they haven't announced any changes specific to Android, I expect Google's left and right hands to work together... eventually.
Re: Google's dropping H.264 in Chrome is not a step backward for openness.
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD. Now it's FUD that you may subscribe to, but it's FUD nevertheless. I love this line, "where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist" Have you never bought a DVD player in fear of MPEG-LA might do? Do you own no computers with no licensed technology? I shiver in my boots every morning for fear over this. Gimme a break. I love how the Google/Mozilla tribe have become the world's be…
I don't shy away from buying DVD players. The companies that make them are the ones on the hook there. But I certainly wouldn't want to build one. Again: We have no guarantees from the MPEG-LA that they won't turn around tomorrow and demand outrageous royalties from anyone using H.264 videos. We also know that they are able to do so. The only reason it isn't so today is by their good grace. That is real uncertainty,…
We have no guarantees from the MPEG-LA that they won't turn around tomorrow and demand outrageous royalties from anyone using H.264 videos.
Yes, we do know that, for the same reason that they don't start charging end users of DVD players. They have legally binding agreement.
For free video, H264 is permanantly free. They can not turn around and change this.
For non-free video, they have established pricing that is locked-in until 2016. And then you're saying, but then they'll screw me, right? Wrong, MPEG-LA states in their contract: "For the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal."
So enough with the FUD please. H264, amongst licensed technologies, is probably one of the clearest there is and with the least minefields.