No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by kinetik » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:06 PM UTC

morganw wrote: post #64

spiffworks wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple could still choose to WebM support. In fact, Imagination Technologies, the people who make the GPUs for the iPhone(and the iPad as well, I think), have already announced full vp8 support in their next-gen hardware decoders, so it would be really easy for Apple to include webm support in the next iPhone or the one after that. And they're safe from any patent threats as well, since they're already MPEG-LA licen…

> it would be really easy for Apple to include webm support And Matroska support. Building container parsers that are resilient to fuzzing attacks is non-trivial. Can I assume you'd like trick play (ffw, rew, scrub), too?

Container parsing: it's not that hard. Besides which, they can use one of the freely licensed existing parsers to solve that problem.

Trick play is already implemented. If you have to do major rework of that area to support a new format, you're doing it wrong.

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

#92

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:16 PM UTC

commandar wrote: post #69

jasonlotito wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. IE9 is still in development. They can still choose to support WebM. Apple could still choose to WebM support. The point isn't that Apple and Microsoft can choose. Rather, you can't expect to ask Google to support H.264 and not ask Microsoft and Apple to support WebM. Apple and Microsoft don't want to support it. Fine. Google doesn't…

>IE9 is still in development. They can still choose to support WebM. I was talking with a friend yesterday and mentioned how hilarious it'd be if Microsoft decided to adopt WebM on WP7 and then attack Apple for being too closed. :)

I love the people shouting to the roof for standards support and how H.264 is a proper standard and how we should support it because it's being used everywhere.

I just can't help think of the OOXML debacle.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:19 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #17

spiffworks wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by ashearer » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #81

ashearer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphics chips with built-in WebM support are slated to ship this quarter. It's not hard to imagine that the 2012 iPhone hardware will get this ability for free, even if it's only a side effect of using the same graphics chips as Android devices. Then it's just up to Apple whether to turn it on. Google appears to be laying the groundwork it can now so that the answer is more likely to be yes. This will take a few yea…

You did not answer my question.

I hope I can be forgiven for interpreting what you said as a statement, instead of as a true how-to question. My statement in reply was that this will take a few years to play out.

Chrome's support doesn't make an immediate difference to you or to content publishers. Firefox doesn't support H.264 either and has larger market share. So rest assured that no soldering gun is suddenly needed, and you can continue to use H.264 on your iPhone 4.

Google's groundwork is supposed to come to fruition years from now, when you find an iPhone 5 or 6 already in your pocket.

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

#95

Post by GHFigs » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:32 PM UTC

spiffworks wrote: post #72

GHFigs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. The decision to only support bundled codecs and refuse to let the user use anything else was made by Mozilla, Google, and Opera. It is not a spec requirement or technical necessity. The idea that a browser would be forced to bundle h.264 is quite evidently mistaken, as the browsers that do support it don't bundle it.

If all browsers did that, web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates, not to mention losing any semblance of uniformity and all possible hope of changing the status quo in any meaningful way away from patent-encumbered codecs.

web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates

I'm not convinced that that is the case, but even if it were, the state of things with bundling codecs is being limited to what Google and Mozilla say is ok for them. You, the user, have no say in what you can view. This might be acceptable if you have supreme confidence in them (where is the next free codec going to come from, anyway?) but frankly I don't think they've earned it.

not to mention losing any semblance of uniformity

I find this extremely dubious. The incentive to publish in a format viewable by the widest audience applies regardless of what format that happens to be. Flash became ubiquitous for web video precisely because it was the most useful at achieving this aim, not because any browser decided to forbid other plug-ins. I see no reason to think that this incentive would dissolve if codec support was left open-ended.

changing the status quo in any meaningful way away from patent-encumbered codecs

This is is an ideological demand, not a spec requirement or a technical necessity. Which is my point: that is why these browser vendors are doing this. Not because they are forbidden from supporting h.264 (compare Epiphany) but because they're trying to push an ideology under which h.264 is heathen.

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

#96

Post by hakl » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

spiffworks wrote: post #56

9oliYQjP wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products. http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL…

No, clearly it's not Free as in FSF, but 'free as in beer' is the only thing that separates it from H.264, it's definitely the most accurate description I've seen yet.

It's compliant with FSF's definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and Debian's guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract).

Stallman himself agreed that it was a good thing for Xiph to relicense their libraries from the LGPL to a permissive free software license (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/00...):

In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."

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

#97

Post by technomancy » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #83

commandar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. This is short term thinking. Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway; why should we kneecap the future of HTML5 before it gets off the ground because it might temporarily extend the life of an already entrenched format? Because the way I see it, there's zero chance of replacing it when your alternative h…

> Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway I disagree completely. One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. Some consider this a problem. I consider it a feature . For me personally, very few times is this frustrating and most of those are when sites use Flash-wrapped video with no HTML5 fallback, which is still relatively common (but decreasingly so). I wish I could use Chro…

> One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash.

You know, they make real computers that don't support flash too.

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

#98

Post by commandar » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:39 PM UTC

loire280 wrote: post #79

commandar wrote: post #18

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'…

"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" Except Internet Explorer will continue to be the highest-marketshare browser for the foreseeable future, and IE9 won't ship with VP8 (though you can install a codec for it, I doubt regular people will). It does…

>Maybe Microsoft can be convinced to ship VP8/WebM in IE.

I certainly wouldn't discount it. MS made the H.264 decision well before Google announced WebM. It wouldn't shock me to see them cut a deal with Google if for no other reason than to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage.

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

#99

Post by commandar » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:43 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #83

commandar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. This is short term thinking. Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway; why should we kneecap the future of HTML5 before it gets off the ground because it might temporarily extend the life of an already entrenched format? Because the way I see it, there's zero chance of replacing it when your alternative h…

> Flash isn't going away in the short term anyway I disagree completely. One of the things I love about my iDevices is that they don't support Flash. Some consider this a problem. I consider it a feature . For me personally, very few times is this frustrating and most of those are when sites use Flash-wrapped video with no HTML5 fallback, which is still relatively common (but decreasingly so). I wish I could use Chro…

>I disagree completely.

Then, frankly, you're not paying close enough attention. Video is only one part of why Flash is popular. One area that HTML5 isn't even close to replacing Flash is in webgames, and a big reason for that is something fundamental to HTML5: HTML5 behavior is at the mercy of the rendering and JavaScript engine the browser running it. Flash is the same everywhere.

All these fancy HTML5 demos you see everywhere? They pretty much universally have "Runs Best on [Browser X]" somewhere on the page. We're partying like it's 1999 all over again.

Like it our not, Flash is going to be around in the near-term regardless.

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

#100

Post by commandar » Wed, Jan 19, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

neild wrote: post #76

commandar wrote: post #18

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'…

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. Your argument turns on Gruber hating Flash for being closed. He doesn't: He hate…

>You're right that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard. It is, however, much less of one than it was three years ago, and that's pretty much entirely due to one factor: iOS doesn't support it. The HTML element has traction entirely due to the fact that it's the only way to play video from a web page on an iOS device. You don't have a choice between or Flash: It's or nothing.

So is this debate about what's best for the future of open standards on the web, or is it about what's best for iOS?

>short term >myopic

S: (adj) short, shortsighted, unforesightful, myopic (lacking foresight or scope) "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=myopic

Sounds like exactly what I meant. It's focusing on short term consequences at the expense of long-term benefit.

As I said, dropping H.264 may result in the already entrenched Flash being used more in the near-term; in the long term it could help HTML5 see better overall adoption.