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

91–100 of 128 posts

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

#91

Post by mikeryan »

chc wrote: post #82
alanh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

I'm pretty sure when most people hear "open specification," they'll think it means "open for anyone to read and implement

The shouldn't, thats not what it means. An open specification means that anyone can contribute to the authoring of the specification it has no bearing on licensing terms. Which is the OP's point "open" means a lot of different things.

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

#92

Post by Lazlo_Nibble »

jawee wrote: post #54
cletus wrote: post #34

This is a weak article. > It's called bait and switch. Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering. > But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6. Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard . > This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin, This is splitting hairs and a straw man. The user does not care or typically doesn't differentiate between somethin…

> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6. Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard. Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The key was de facto.. Internet Explorer 6, at the peak of its dominance, became the standard that many web developers developed for. Even though it wasn't a standard, when it had over 90% of the market, it was often the only browser that…

Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video.

The word "standard" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

(I wish standards were free -- I've always wanted my very own copy of IEC 60908.)

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

#93

Post by DrHankPym »

MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #89
eordano wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because Android is open and developed with the cellular carriers and manufacturers. If they want to add a H.264 chip, why would Google stop them?

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

#94

Post by rbanffy »

kenjackson wrote: post #75
rbanffy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a fragmented standard or no standard at all is usually better than having a very bad one. People can always encode to multiple file types if they want to serve the increasingly large audience that doesn't support h.264. And, BTW, Android phones just passed their iOS competitors, so, it doesn't matter how popular they will be, Android devices will be more popular. If Google decides they won't support h.264, it…

I agree with your thesis. I just disagree that H264 is a worse standard than WebM. On marketshare, while Android just passed up iPhone, something happened this past Tuesday which will probably tighten up the race a fair bit more. On top of that, the report counted iPhone subscriptions. Not iPad or iPod Touch devices. I've heard estimates that iPod Touch + iPad sales == iPhone sales. And iPad2 is likely hitting the ma…

> I just disagree that H264 is a worse standard than WebM.

Both WebM and h.264 are imperfect solutions for the same problem. WebM has a image quality issue h.264 has not, but this can be corrected, as WebM can be improved over time. The problem h.264 has - being encumbered by patents you can borrow for free only for a limited time - will not be corrected. If we decide to store all our video in h.264 we risk being unable to play it a couple years from now without paying the MPEG-LA for its licenses.

> iPod Touch + iPad sales == iPhone sales.

All it shows is that it may take more time for Android-based devices to surpass iOS's individual market share. Still, the world is not going to be an iOS monoculture. While we can't say Blu Ray is a huge success, the lack of Blu Ray drives on Apple computers cannot be credited. We consistently over-estimate Apple's influence.

> In anycase the road we're going down is a fragmented one.

I am happy for that. Diversity and competition are the twin tools of evolution. I like fast evolution.

> Maybe people will get it right for HTML6

I don't think the lack of a specification for video codec is such a bad thing for HTML5. Like I said before, the worst that can happen is HTTP header-based media retrieval of multiple encoded files. Where I work, we routinely batch-encode our video content for just about anything between classic iPods and 1080i h.264 (yes) video. Encoding for WebM will not be a heavy burden. If a pocket device asks for a URL, it gets the pocket version. If, a couple years from now, a huge 4K 3D TV asks for the same URL, it will get 4K-sized video. I think I won't have to change a single line of code...

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

#95

Post by brisance »

What about video support for existing Android devices? AFAIK WebM is only available for Gingerbread, which means the large majority of Android devices would have to fall back on Flash for Android. And that's not fully-baked yet.

I can't see why this won't be turned into a lawsuit w.r.t. intentional degradation of performance/battery life.

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

#96

Post by danudey »

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…

> But WebM could be ours instead of theirs, no?

No. WebM could be Google's instead of MPEG-LA's. WebM is a Google project, Google-owned and Google-managed. Much like Android, it is open source so that anyone can see the code and make their own changes, but again, like Android, it is not a community effort. There's a chance that your changes, if useful, will make it back in, but in the end WebM, like Android, is controlled not by the community, but by a corporation.

Essentially the comparison being made is between open source and open standards. The WebM implementation is open-source, but it is not an open standard. There are also open-source implementations of H.264 (e.g. x264), but H.264 is also an ISO/ITU standard which anyone can read and implement. WebM, however, is royalty-free, whereas H.264 is not.

WebM has two of the three (open source, royalty free). H.264 also has two of the three (open source, open standard). If Google submits WebM to a standards body for approval, it will have all three.

Until Google does submit it as a standard, it's still Google's format, not ours, they're just letting us use it for free. Down the road they can always change the format, the container, add new features (like some kind of inline advertisement), and anyone who's invested in implementing this format will have to scramble to add the new functionality or be left behind.

Will they? Who knows, but the price you pay for implementing WebM right now is uncertainty. With H.264, you know exactly where you stand, and the licensing terms are specific, and corporations like that about it.

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

#97

Post by Locke1689 »

true_religion wrote: post #86
Locke1689 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Write a spec, not a "bitstream guide," so that this problem doesn't happen in the first place? Or at least admit that your spec is not finalized and is, in reality, a piece of crap that needs wide peer review first.

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

#98

Post by OpieCunningham »

rbanffy wrote: post #94
kenjackson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your thesis. I just disagree that H264 is a worse standard than WebM. On marketshare, while Android just passed up iPhone, something happened this past Tuesday which will probably tighten up the race a fair bit more. On top of that, the report counted iPhone subscriptions. Not iPad or iPod Touch devices. I've heard estimates that iPod Touch + iPad sales == iPhone sales. And iPad2 is likely hitting the ma…

> I just disagree that H264 is a worse standard than WebM. Both WebM and h.264 are imperfect solutions for the same problem. WebM has a image quality issue h.264 has not, but this can be corrected, as WebM can be improved over time. The problem h.264 has - being encumbered by patents you can borrow for free only for a limited time - will not be corrected. If we decide to store all our video in h.264 we risk being una…

Both WebM and h.264 are imperfect solutions for the same problem.

WebM has a image quality issue h.264 has not, but this can be corrected, as WebM can be improved over time.

Certainly it can be improved over time, but the degree of improvement will be limited to features not covered by the hundreds of video-centric patents that comprise H.264 (assuming WebM isn't already violating any of those patents). Additionally, H.264 encoding technology can be improved over time. You'd be hard pressed to make any technical analysis that demonstrates WebM could ever improve enough to exceed H.264 and it's encoding improvements. The probable reality is that H.264 will always have a not insignificant quality lead over WebM.

The problem h.264 has - being encumbered by patents you can borrow for free only for a limited time - will not be corrected. If we decide to store all our video in h.264 we risk being unable to play it a couple years from now without paying the MPEG-LA for its licenses.

That's not an accurate summation of the H.264 license. H.264 delivered for free on the web will always remain free. H.264 delivered at cost to the viewer is currently free. For more details on the cost H.264 licensing, refer to this: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/by-dropping-h264-is-google-av...

So perhaps neither WebM nor H.264 are perfect ... but using the two points made to highlight the imperfections of each shows that perhaps H.264 isn't as imperfect as some would make it seem.

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

#99

Post by OpieCunningham »

haberman wrote: post #21
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.

> 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 th…

In the 90s

It was also around that time that all the geeks hated Flash. How quickly we forget.

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

#100

Post by alanfalcon »

jammur wrote: post #72
jokermatt999 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the licensing terms are fixed at a maximum 10% rise per five-year renewal. Given the lifespan of patents, that's a low ceiling. This is the first I've heard of this. Since one of the main concerns I've heard is that MPEG-LA could raise fees to unacceptable levels, do you mind providing a source for this? I'm still less comfortable with H264 being the standard rather than WebM, but this makes me less worried. (A…

He's probably referring to the last paragraph of this: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

Considering how the large corporations easily reach the annual cap (currently $6.5 Million per year until at least 2015), the footnote that the 10% maximum increase in royalties does not apply to the cap is a bit disconcerting.
Post reply on HN