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

No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 168 posts

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#11

Post by rimantas »

spiffworks wrote: post #10
cletus wrote: post #4

A few points: > 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) Ch…

You missed the most critical point, which is "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 swit…

Let's not forget that PNG is superior format compared to GIF. Also, let's not forget, that browsers were not dropping support for GIF's meanwhile adopting PNG. Sure, issue with GIF helped PNG, but I'd say it was destined to "win" anyway.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#12

Post by spiffworks »

rimantas wrote: post #11
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the most critical point, which is "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 swit…

Let's not forget that PNG is superior format compared to GIF. Also, let's not forget, that browsers were not dropping support for GIF's meanwhile adopting PNG. Sure, issue with GIF helped PNG, but I'd say it was destined to "win" anyway.

H.264 is probably superior to webm. I don't understand video codecs, but it's the consensus opinion among people who know this stuff. However, I fail to see how its relevant in any way. The tegra2 can already decode 1080p vp8 in hardware, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't notice the difference between a 720p video in webm and another in H.264 in terms of performance on your x86 cpu. The inefficiency, if any, would be negligible.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#13

Post by nikster »

pacifika wrote: post #3

This article would be correct if Google dropped flash together with H.264. 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? After all it's "proprietary, nonstandard software."

I don't buy the argument that it strengthens Flash. Flash and H.264 are both 90% YouTube, e.g. Google.

Google can, therefore, flip a switch and turn everything to WebM. They just need broad support in place first.

If Google says they will switch YouTube to WebM gradually, then all the browsers and devices will need to support it. End of story.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#14

Post by masklinn »

jasonlotito wrote: post #7
cletus wrote: post #4

A few points: > 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) Ch…

> Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer. Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. Prior to Google's choice, Firefox (with rather significant browser usage stats) wasn't supporting H.264 either, which kept Flash on the web. Also, people keep referring to IE, but it still needs Flash. Sure, IE9 is coming, but we'll see what the adoption rates will be li…

> Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM.

When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet.

Microsoft might be a different issue, but Apple has now shipped almost 150M devices with hardware h.264 support and no webm support at all.

> You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it.

GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or, if you want to reach for it, WebM is actually more at risk of a GIF-type scenario than h.264)

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#16

Post by drdaeman »

xutopia wrote: post #8

I always saw this as a problem with the FSF. They are urging web site operators to use WebM right away when there isn't even support for them. 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".

"Prepare" is way too lax. Many will treat it like stick-it note "oh, I have to make sure someday, shall the transition come, my code won't require major rewrites". Like "preparation" for IPv6 support frequently ends with adding more bits to DB fields and adding several stub functions.

Unless you actually get your hands dirty and start doing something, not just preparing, there won't be any significant results.

Sure, FSF is quite radical with "and abandon H.264" part, but "distribute videos in the WebM format" part is perfectly fine.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#17

Post by patrickaljord »

spiffworks wrote: post #12
rimantas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that PNG is superior format compared to GIF. Also, let's not forget, that browsers were not dropping support for GIF's meanwhile adopting PNG. Sure, issue with GIF helped PNG, but I'd say it was destined to "win" anyway.

H.264 is probably superior to webm. I don't understand video codecs, but it's the consensus opinion among people who know this stuff. However, I fail to see how its relevant in any way. The tegra2 can already decode 1080p vp8 in hardware, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't notice the difference between a 720p video in webm and another in H.264 in terms of performance on your x86 cpu. The inefficiency, if any, would be…

H.264 baseline codec is similar to vp8, not superior. And baseline is what is used on mobile and all hardware encoders, so the highest versions of H.264 don't even matter.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#18

Post by commandar »

I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash.

The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn't going away any time soon. HTML5 isn't anywhere close to completely replacing Flash even if it were to disappear in a puff of logic right this moment.

HTML5 is in its infancy, and isn't being perpetuated by sheer momentum like Flash. Further, H.264 was a complete non-starter for Mozilla, and Firefox holds nearly 20% of the market. Using H.264 for HTML5 would have guaranteed market segmentation and hurt the chances of a truly open future.

This argument about dropping H.264 propagating Flash in the short term is just insanity to me. Flash is already here for the short term. We need to focus on our long-term options for moving to something more open, and the whining about this decision strikes me as totally myopic at best and blind fanboyism at worst.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#19

Post by zacharypinter »

xutopia wrote: post #8

I always saw this as a problem with the FSF. They are urging web site operators to use WebM right away when there isn't even support for them. 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".

Let's not quibble over minor semantics.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#20

Post by drdaeman »

rimantas wrote: post #9
bryanlarsen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this position. Dropping H.264 is aligned with the FSF's goals, so of course they should support it. To me, Google's move is an indication that Google will eventually drop and/or downgrade Flash support. You encourage institutions to do the right thing by applauding when they do the right thing. Not by saying "you suck because you didn't take it far enough". You say "Good move doing X. And when you…

I fail to see how this move is good for end users.

By any chance, did you read the actual article?
Post reply on HN