No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.

> We applaud Google for this change; it's a positive step for free software

Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer.

> Most of it is delivered with Flash, which is proprietary, nonstandard software.

Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. With no native support for H.264 in Firefox or (soon) Chrome, bizarrely the most Flash-unencumbered browsers are Safari and Internet Explorer.

Consider that for a moment: Internet Explorer.

> Free software alternatives like GNU Gnash are available, but the user experience isn't always as seamless as it ought to be.

This is a key point but not in the way the author intended and it's worth parsing this statement. The FSF is driven by philosophy here but most users aren't. If you want to attract a plurality of users a necessary precondition is to have the experience be as good if not better than what you're contesting.

There is a cost to switching: finding new tools, learning a new process and so on. Users need a reason to switch and ephemeral arguments about "openness" of video on the Web just don't cut it for the majority, at least not while such a choice comes with a subpar experience.

> In order to make sure the Web stays free for everyone, we need a free codec to prevail as the de facto standard with HTML5.

Like most future specters I believe this one is overblown too. Everyone points to the GIF fiasco. The net result? PNG was born. If the screws are ever put to us on H.264, you'll see exactly the same thing, only quicker. Computing power being what it is today, the effort of re-encoding every video that exists on the Web is actually not that hard of a problem, and is certainly in the realm of what Google can do today, let alone 5-10 years from now.

> WebM can be that codec: Google provides a patent license with the standard that is compatible with free software licenses

But it should be noted, there is no indemnity against H.264 patent infringement. I'm not saying WebM violates H.264 patents. The reverse may even be true (or both). But the point is that it is a risk.

> We can only be free if we reject data formats that are restricted by patents.

The elephant in the room here is that the fundamental problem is software patents. They need to be completely abolished.

> But the issue's not settled yet.

No but it's a bit like iPad vs the rest of the tablets. The issue isn't settled yet, but the iPad has a whopping lead and the smart money is on it for some time to come. H.264, like it or not, is more mature and has more hardware and software support than WebM, which is far less mature.

It's Adobe Flash, not Google Flash. It was Google implementing H.264 in the browser. You can still add a plugin to support H.264 in Chrome if you wish, just like you can remove the Flash plugin from Chrome. Essentially, the Google/H.264/Flash argument isn't logical. Essentially, it's like complaining that Apple doesn't ship Flash on iOS devices. It's a bad argument. Just because some ordinarily smart people are making the argument doesn't make it a good one. I cannot stress how bad of an argument it is.

> The practical result of playing H.264 to Chrome users via Flash instead of through a native open source implementation (Chromium) is surely a net negative for free standards supporters?

It's the status quo, but with a brighter outlook then before.

They simply sound so naive when they say "Today, we're also urging Web site operators to distribute videos in the WebM format, and abandon H.264". What they should be saying is "Prepare your web sites to transition to WebM".

"This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations."

And that is what it is all about. H.264 imposes end-user licenses and if it gets entrenched, freely redistributable browsers would lose. The argument against dropping H.264 is basically "why switch formats when what we have works?". H.264 does not work for free software. It's as simple as that. If HTML5 video suffers in the short term, that's the price we'll pay - at least that's the FSF's position.

>Everyone points to the GIF fiasco. The net result? PNG was born. If the screws are ever put to us on H.264, you'll see exactly the same thing, only quicker.

Why wait until a fiasco?

> Computing power being what it is today, the effort of re-encoding every video that exists on the Web is actually not that hard of a problem, and is certainly in the realm of what Google can do today, let alone 5-10 years from now.

Seriously, you're arguing against yourself here. Besides, what of the omnipresent 'hardware decoders' we keep hearing about?