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

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#31

Post by ianhawes »

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #25
alanthonyc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Possible, but not probable. H.264 has been researched extensively prior to it being broadly used. Compare that with WebM, which was not vetted in the same way H.264 was.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#32

Post by eli »

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…

That sounds like an argument for free and open formats in general more than an argument for strict obedience to the W3C, but I see your point.

At the time those Korean sites were built, I'm guessing there was no spec nor open alternative to do what they were trying to do.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#33

Post by haberman »

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.

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

You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#34

Post by imajes »

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 the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video.

It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open source' identity and needs to keep it going, whilst Google has a significantly vested interest with YouTube.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#35

Post by jokermatt999 »

itg wrote: post #30
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".

Actually, Mozilla and Opera would also benefit from not having to license H264. Other than the lack of license fees, how would Google benefit?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#36

Post by po »

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.

Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%:

The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal.

(PDF link:) http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#37

Post by tomlin »

> At first, they touted the maneuver as being all about supporting “open” formats. But if that’s the case, why not pull support for the Flash plug-in baked into every version of Chrome currently?

This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear.

1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash.

2) Are we really going to pull the "all or nothing" argument with a bunch of programmers and developers who, maybe more than anyone, are constantly driven by the force known as evolution? Just because they haven't removed Flash today doesn't mean they won't in the future. The probability of Google dumping Flash in the next 5 years is likely, perhaps not high. Furthermore, YouTube's HTML5 implementation doesn't exactly come across as fear for HTML5 video.

WebM needed to be here 5 years ago. H.264 should have been dumped before it got traction. Better late than never, no? Or in this case, off course - but constantly correcting.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#38

Post by ZeroGravitas »

po wrote: post #36
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.

Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%: The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may…

They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#39

Post by kenjackson »

haberman wrote: post #33
alanthonyc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.

I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of).

Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago.

You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly decade old open standard technology that has openly solicited and worked to get all potential patent holders in the pool OR a technology closed and proprietary until last year. You really call even money on that?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#40

Post by beej71 »

imajes wrote: post #34
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 the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video. It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open sou…

I can't afford to make a popular browser, though. Sure I can fork one in a second, but if people started using it a lot, I'd be screwed.

Only make a popular browser if you're rich enough to support H.264, I think is the lesson.

Post reply on HN