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

141–150 of 168 posts

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

#141

Post by commandar »

neild wrote: post #138
commandar wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would someone choose to use the element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. >What would aid adoption of is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. There is a chance for this to eventually happen with WebM. It was never going to happen on any timescale…

Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. I feel like we're talking in circles here. How does dropping support for H.264 make WebM support in other browsers more likely to become ubiquitous? How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?

H.264 for guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video.

WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and, honestly, I don't think that's too much of a stretch), that's around 90% of the market signed up.

If that happens, your only holdout is Apple, and I think even Apple is going to have a hard time stonewalling the change given the way they've spent the last year preaching the wonders of the open web.

So, basically, what I'm getting at is that with WebM, there's at least a chance everyone could end up settling on a ubiquitous codec. With H.264, we already know it would never happen. An unknown probability greater than zero is a better prospect than a p=0, in my book.

>How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?

Fragmentation. isn't a useful standard unless you know it's going to work. Some browsers supporting one codec and others another makes that impossible.

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

#142

Post by billmcneale »

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…

Actually, Gruber hates Flash because Apple hates Flash. He had no problem with Flash until Apple decided to ban it from its ecosystem. Gruber's love for all things Apple is consistent and well documented.

The bottom line is that while a subpar technology, Flash is really not that crappy. It delivers rich content without any glitches to millions of desktops every day and while its implementation on phones is still not great, there is no technical reason why it won't improve to the same level we see on the desktops.

Here is why Flash is not going anywhere: the anger against it is not strong enough nor shared by enough users. Most web surfers are pretty happy about it, and as long as that doesn't change, Flash won't die.

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

#143

Post by neild »

commandar wrote: post #141
neild wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. I feel like we're talking in circles here. How does dropping support for H.264 make WebM support in other browsers more likely to become ubiquitous? How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?

H.264 for guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video. WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and,…

But, again, everything you say hinges on browsers (namely, IE and Safari) adding support for WebM, not Chrome dropping support for H.264.

If everyone supports WebM, then WebM wrapped in a element is a viable choice.

Not everyone supports WebM at the moment.

How does Chrome dropping support for H.264 bring us closer to everyone supporting WebM? Support for the two codecs isn't mutually exclusive. Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM.

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

#144

Post by fczuardi »

marbletiles wrote: post #70
ijuhyftgreduy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google switches youtube to WebM and people will want WebM in their browser, they may even be prepared to switch to chrome if it's the only thing that can view WebM easily. When Google decides to take the internet TV business away from people like Netflix - remember they are an advertising company - they want their own codec to avoid any arguments.

Yes, YouTube would have to switch to WebM -- ie no support for serving any other codec -- for that to be true. Which is effectively turning off YouTube for every browser and device on the web today. Are they going to do that? No chance. Some day, maybe, but they're not going to lead the way. And while YouTube is still additionally serving h.264, there's still no pressure for everybody else to change.

There is a strategy in the middle however for google/youtube to make people want to migrate to browsers and devices that supports webm/vp8: all they have to do is to continue serving both webm and h264 versions, but make the h264 version a worst experience.

For example: make all h264 encoded clips on youtube become grayscale while mantainig the vp8 ones high quality and in color. People would not be prevented from watching youtube on iDevices, but watching it on those devices would be like watching an old black and white tv :)

And when people start flooding apple feedback and support channels with "why my youtube lost its colors on my ipad?" questions, then maybe Apple can add vp8 support on iOS.

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

#145

Post by commandar »

neild wrote: post #143
commandar wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H.264 for guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video. WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and,…

But, again, everything you say hinges on browsers (namely, IE and Safari) adding support for WebM, not Chrome dropping support for H.264. If everyone supports WebM, then WebM wrapped in a element is a viable choice. Not everyone supports WebM at the moment. How does Chrome dropping support for H.264 bring us closer to everyone supporting WebM? Support for the two codecs isn't mutually exclusive. Google is no more on…

> Google is no more on board with WebM today than they were yesterday--they've removed support for H.264, not added it for WebM.

They've made it very clear the intention is to add it. I've said it's not happening overnight, and I really don't understand this attitude that if it hasn't happened instantly then everything is worse.

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

#146

Post by neild »

commandar wrote: post #141
neild wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because given a sufficient timescale, WebM support in might become ubiquitous. I've made it very clear I'm talking long-term, not tomorrow. I feel like we're talking in circles here. How does dropping support for H.264 make WebM support in other browsers more likely to become ubiquitous? How would retaining H.264 support make WebM support in other browsers less likely to be so?

H.264 for guaranteed that there would never be a single, ubiquitous format. The end result is that the best case you could hope for is some combination of H.264 and Flash wrapped video. WebM doesn't have the same problems that were keeping that last 20% from adopting H.264. With Google, Mozilla, and Opera, you've got about 30% of the market on board with WebM already. If Microsoft can be convinced to adopt WebM (and,…

I'm replying here, since the threading has gone deep enough on your last response that I can't reply to it. Normally, I'd give up at this point, but I finally see where the misunderstanding is so I'd like to make one last comment. You said:

They've made it very clear the intention is to add [WebM]. I've said it's not happening overnight, and I really don't understand this attitude that if it hasn't happened instantly then everything is worse.

Chrome supports WebM right now.

Support for WebM and H.264 is not mutually exclusive. You can support one, you can support the other, or you can support both. That's what Chrome has done up until now: Support both. You could use either one, and it would play them back perfectly well.

Chrome is not adding support for WebM. They aren't adding support for it, because they already support it and have done so for as long as it existed.

Switching to a world in which everyone supports WebM in tags does not require that a single browser drop support for any format--not H.264, not Theora, not anything.

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

#147

Post by nikster »

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'…

Everyone is debating here as if Google's decision to promote WebM was static. That's not the case. This is step 1 in a process that could rid the world of Flash.

We need: 1 - Google to publicly put out a strong message (has already happened) 2 - iOS to support WebM (yet to happen) 3 - IE, and others to support WebM. MS has pledged support in IE 9; Safari will follow iOS. Firefox will. 4 - YouTube to gradually switch content from Flash to WebM. Maybe HD content is only going to be available in WebM for starters. Google can do a gradual switch over a course of 5 years or something.

So: Yey, Google! Even big evil companies can get it right sometimes.

Note also that Google, as the owner of YouTube, can kind of strong-arm everyone into supporting WebM. And by everyone I mean Apple which has a traditionally high resistance to any technology it doesn't control (or at least has a say in).

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

#148

Post by nitrogen »

GHFigs wrote: post #53
spiffworks wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, here is how I define minimal software freedom - I give you a piece of software, along with source code, you are free to use it in anyway you please, or make your modifications and distribute it to as many people as you like. With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. > This ambiguity is more pronounced when you use words like "open" because it means different things to different people. I…

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.

Using operating system facilities to support video codecs, font rendering, image decoding, etc. is an unnecessary security risk. Independent browser vendors don't want to be blamed for someone else's bad code.

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

#149

Post by ezalor »

vetinari wrote: post #128
GHFigs wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The browsers that do support it run on the platform by the same vendor. I don't understand the significance. The same APIs are accessible to any other browser. If someone has evidence that Mozilla, et al. have been technically locked out of using the media APIs on Windows or Mac OS X, I'd be interested in the details, and if someone has evidence that they've been locked out of using the media APIs on Linux, I'll eat…

It is not only about APIs, but also about control. Microsoft can always rely, that IE9 will supports whatever formats they want it to support. They know, that it will play H.264, because they ship H.264 with Vista and 7 and IE9 supports only Vista and 7. Apple can also always rely, that Safari will display formats they want it to display. They know, that Safari will play H.264, because Quicktime ships with H.264 and…

The handling of a is outsourced to the OS.

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

#150

Post by tesseract »

billmcneale wrote: post #142
neild wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, Gruber hates Flash because Apple hates Flash. He had no problem with Flash until Apple decided to ban it from its ecosystem. Gruber's love for all things Apple is consistent and well documented. The bottom line is that while a subpar technology, Flash is really not that crappy. It delivers rich content without any glitches to millions of desktops every day and while its implementation on phones is still not…

I'm guessing your experience with Flash on the desktop is on Windows? I've never had significant problems with it there. On the other hand, my experience is that on a Mac (or worse, Linux), Flash is slow, crash-prone, a major CPU and RAM hog, tends to steal keyboard and/or mouse focus in weird ways when you least expect it, and just generally does not provide a very nice user experience.

This has nothing to do with Apple "crippling" Flash or anything like that either; if anything, Adobe has been improving the Mac version of Flash since before Apple started publicly ragging on it. They've still got quite a ways to go though.

Post reply on HN