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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by kenjackson »

vetinari wrote: post #130
kenjackson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFACT there is no clause in the Windows license that MS could invoke that would prevent you from entering a complete industry. Google's position is literally... screw with us, and if WebM catches on, you can't do video on the internet.

And that's why nobody sane will try to screw with them. Nobody wants to lose the ability to do video on the internet during next 20 (plus/minus) years.

And that doesn't bother you? They're basically saying, "We may have stolen your technology... oh well, it's ours now. We run the internet."

I guess as long as Google is pushing the technology that "you" like they can do no evil.

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

#132

Post by commandar »

neild wrote: post #126
commandar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 f…

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? Neither. The debate is about what's best for the web, period. Some people consider open standards to be a priori superior. Others (like Gruber) do not. (I'm taking your usage of "open standard" to include freedom from patent encumbrance.) Your last statement is a critical point in this debate: You asse…

>I would be interested to hear your arguments on how dropping H.264 could increase usage of the element in the long term. I just don't see a case for it.

It's very simple - a significant share of the browser market was never going to support with H.264. In which case you end up with a fragmented market and everybody's using wrappers like Flash anyhow.

Of the available formats, WebM is the one most likely to eventually get everyone on the same page. Without that, never really becomes a standard.

It's been posted elsewhere in the thread several times, but if you have a few minutes, this is probably the single best article I've seen on the whole mess:

http://antimatter15.com/wp/2011/01/the-ambiguity-of-open-and...

If MS jumps on board, which wouldn't shock me at all, you've got 90% of the browser market signed on.

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

#133

Post by marckremers »

But isn't it too late? http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/ This is from May last year, I bet it's even higher now. Say by some miracle that webm takes over, even though it's free, it's a Google run project, and we now that Apple chooses stability over availability (i.e. their rejection of Flash)

From my experience building a HTML5 video playback portfolio for a client, playing high quality webm/ogg is just not doable yet, even via Amazons CDN.

And what i don't get, on a very basic level, are these companies that own these file formats really ever going to cash in on all those files out there? I mean GIF, JPG, PNG are all patented formats, and they are everywhere.

Why doesn't Google announce for example that they will also stop supporting JPG/PNG/GI in favor of their open source WebP format? If they were really drawing bold lines they should be honest about it.

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

#134

Post by neild »

commandar wrote: post #132
neild wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Neither. The debate is about what's best for the web, period. Some people consider open standards to be a priori superior. Others (like Gruber) do not. (I'm taking your usage of "open standard" to include freedom from patent encumbrance.) Your last statement is a critical point in this debate: You asse…

>I would be interested to hear your arguments on how dropping H.264 could increase usage of the element in the long term. I just don't see a case for it. It's very simple - a significant share of the browser market was never going to support with H.264. In which case you end up with a fragmented market and everybody's using wrappers like Flash anyhow. Of the available formats, WebM is the one most likely to eventuall…

That doesn't explain how dropping support for H.264 drives adoption of , however. Why would someone choose to use the element because Chrome dropped support for H.264?

What would aid adoption of is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. That requires that browsers add codec support, however, not remove it--either Firefox and Opera would need to add H.264 support (unlikely), or the various platforms that don't support WebM would need to add it (impossible in some cases, since the hardware support isn't there).

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

#135

Post by vetinari »

kenjackson wrote: post #131
vetinari wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's why nobody sane will try to screw with them. Nobody wants to lose the ability to do video on the internet during next 20 (plus/minus) years.

And that doesn't bother you? They're basically saying, "We may have stolen your technology... oh well, it's ours now. We run the internet." I guess as long as Google is pushing the technology that "you" like they can do no evil.

That "We may have stolen your technology" is pushing it.

Google did due diligence before buying On2 with VP8. They did patent search. If anyone appears now with some patent claim against VP8, suing left and right users of VP8, it does not show good faith on their part.

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

#136

Post by commandar »

neild wrote: post #134
commandar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would be interested to hear your arguments on how dropping H.264 could increase usage of the element in the long term. I just don't see a case for it. It's very simple - a significant share of the browser market was never going to support with H.264. In which case you end up with a fragmented market and everybody's using wrappers like Flash anyhow. Of the available formats, WebM is the one most likely to eventuall…

That doesn't explain how dropping support for H.264 drives adoption of , however. Why would someone choose to use the element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? What would aid adoption of is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. That requires that browsers add codec support, however, not remove it--either Firefox and Opera would need to add H.264 support (unlikely), or the various platforms…

>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 with H.264. My point is simply playing on probabilities.

> (impossible in some cases, since the hardware support isn't there).

People keep harping on this, and while it may be unfortunate that some devices get left behind, as I've posted elsewhere in the thread, mobile currently only represents 3% of web traffic. The mobile web is still very much in its infancy and there's still plenty of time for things to change, even fundamentally in some places.

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

#137

Post by evgen »

commandar wrote: post #112
rimantas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of How's that better for the open standards? The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users.

>Dropping support for h.264 means slower adoption of How's that better for the open standards? 20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using entirely. How in the world is that possibly good for web standards? >The most infuriating part of this is, that FSF and Google are so busy with their own agenda, that they forget users. That majority of the market has t…

20% of the browser market was never going to adopt H.264. That's a fifth of the market cut out from using entirely.

20% and dropping... Should we also stop the train in its tracks because IE6 does not support it?

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

#138

Post by neild »

commandar wrote: post #136
neild wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain how dropping support for H.264 drives adoption of , however. Why would someone choose to use the element because Chrome dropped support for H.264? What would aid adoption of is if there was a single codec that all browsers supported. That requires that browsers add codec support, however, not remove it--either Firefox and Opera would need to add H.264 support (unlikely), or the various platforms…

>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?

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

#139

Post by Locke1689 »

vetinari wrote: post #129
Locke1689 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Who told you that? H.264 baseline is definitely superior to VP8. The 8x8 transform block basically ensures that.

The x264 developer often cited by H.264 proponents. He wrote, that VP8 is slightly better than H.264 baseline.

Jason GG? Yes. He did. When he agreed with me. He even confirmed my suspicion about 8x8[1].

[1] http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

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

#140

Post by GHFigs »

spiffworks wrote: post #113
GHFigs wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, anywa…

The whole point of moving things to the browser was to remove any lockin advantages a specific platform might have. That is the reason Flash gets so much hate from anybody who doesn't use Windows. Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher. And lest we forget, its far harder to switch operating systems than it is to switch browsers. If you don't like Chrome, Firef…

Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher.

Not true. e.g.: http://xiph.org/dshow/ http://xiph.org/quicktime/

Why am I not free to do this with h.264 in "open" browsers?

Post reply on HN