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

Microsoft backs H.264.

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#21

Post by alanthonyc »

cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

H.264 patents are a red herring because WebM is not known to be patent free either. The assumption is that patent holders are waiting for WebM to gain traction before springing the lawsuits.

The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#22

Post by robin_reala »

pedanticfreak wrote: post #15

Until the W3C officially adopts a royalty free codec as part of the HTML standard, Google and Mozilla should assume HTML video is dead. They might as well make the tag inoperable by default. Just parse it and ignore it. Of course, Google owns VP8. So they are pushing it so it might become a defacto standard that later gets officially adopted. Despite meeting the requirements to be part of the HTML spec, without the o…

The W3C (via the WHAT WG) did have a royalty free codec as part of the spec in Ogg Theora. It was removed because it became clear that key players (specifically Nokia and Apple) were refusing to implement it, spec or no. A spec that doesn’t match what people are willing to implement isn’t a very good spec.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#23

Post by pedanticfreak »

eli wrote: post #16
pedanticfreak wrote: post #15

Until the W3C officially adopts a royalty free codec as part of the HTML standard, Google and Mozilla should assume HTML video is dead. They might as well make the tag inoperable by default. Just parse it and ignore it. Of course, Google owns VP8. So they are pushing it so it might become a defacto standard that later gets officially adopted. Despite meeting the requirements to be part of the HTML spec, without the o…

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what difference does it make what's in the spec? People will pick the browser that plays the videos they want to see over the one that follows the spec every time.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52401.h...

South Korea built vast infrastructure around IE6 and ActiveX. Just a year ago a full 60% of Korean traffic still came from IE6. Why? Because they relied heavily on features that were not in the spec that Microsoft deprecated and nobody else can or will implement.

An extreme example. But it highlights the importance of sticking to specs that can be freely implemented by anyone. Five years from now when MPEGLA decides to throw down the crap hammer do you want to have to keep around old Safari binaries just for sites that migrated to h264 while the rest of the web moved on?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#24

Post by aw3c2 »

DrJokepu wrote: post #9
cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

We had that situation back in the early days of modern mainstream internet. Remember Real Player? WMV embedding? It was not fun.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#25

Post by theBobMcCormick »

alanthonyc wrote: post #21
cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

H.264 patents are a red herring because WebM is not known to be patent free either. The assumption is that patent holders are waiting for WebM to gain traction before springing the lawsuits. The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

Is there any non trivial piece of software that's known to be patent free? Isn't it probable, even likely, that there are additional patent holders who'll come after H.264 implementations eventually?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#26

Post by pacifika »

vampirical wrote: post #18

Let me consult my list of companies which make money from being MPEG LA licensors: Apple Cisco Daewoo Dolby Fuijitsu HP Hitachi Philips LG Microsoft Mitsubishi NTT Panasonic Samsung Sharp Siemens Sony Ericsson Toshiba Reference: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx I am SHOCKED to hear that Microsoft would like to continue receiving royalties from all those H.264 license fees and doesn't give…

"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-h...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#27

Post by griftah »

akmiller wrote: post #17

Of course Microsoft and Apple support H.264. They both stand to benefit: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

Of course Firefox and Opera support WebM. Revenues of Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software depend on Google.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#28

Post by DeusExMachina »

griftah wrote: post #13
cgranade wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?

Android supports H.264.

I genuinely wonder if it will in the future. Does not the same reasons for pulling H264 from Chrome hold for the Android browser too?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#29

Post by petsos »

pedanticfreak wrote: post #23
eli wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what difference does it make what's in the spec? People will pick the browser that plays the videos they want to see over the one that follows the spec every time.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52401.h... South Korea built vast infrastructure around IE6 and ActiveX. Just a year ago a full 60% of Korean traffic still came from IE6. Why? Because they relied heavily on features that were not in the spec that Microsoft deprecated and nobody else can or will implement. An extreme example. But it highlights the importance of sticking to specs that can be freely…

I don't think it is the same thing. Unlike ActiveX, video can be re-encoded (fairly easily I guess if you are going to use 2016 technology).

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#30

Post by itg »

vampirical wrote: post #18

Let me consult my list of companies which make money from being MPEG LA licensors: Apple Cisco Daewoo Dolby Fuijitsu HP Hitachi Philips LG Microsoft Mitsubishi NTT Panasonic Samsung Sharp Siemens Sony Ericsson Toshiba Reference: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx I am SHOCKED to hear that Microsoft would like to continue receiving royalties from all those H.264 license fees and doesn't give…

Let me consult my list of companies which would benefit from WebM: Google

Don't pretend for one second this is actually about "open standards".

Post reply on HN